Poussin – The Death of Sapphira
Pope John Paul did not want criminal abuser priests reported to the police.
He will be canonized and 99.99% of the laity will applaud.
No one wants anyone to be accountable – for fear they THEY might be held accountable.
John Allen interviewed Cardinal George, who tip-toed around the delicate issue of whether bishops should ever be held accountable for their failures – basically, George thought, no.
George did admit that bishops had failed to punish abusive priests, and that they should use their authority of governance to act against such people.
Many of laity heartily disagree: Here are some of the reactions (and remember, George is speaking of the failure of bishops to punish priests who molested children):
I am concerned that Cardinal George is talking about governing – Jesus promised servants and persons who lead by example – the use of the term govern indicates that the bishops have forgotten that they are servants first – I also am not sure about the reluctance to punish – servants don’t punish – shepherds don’t punish they guide and they teach – rulers punish – Cardinal George nor any bishop is a ruler.
The Cardinal says that bishops need to “take possession of their vocation” by being “governors… who exercise the power to punish.”Spoken like the Grand Inquisitor. Christ exercised his power in the form of a servant. His authority was “self-emptying.”The faithful have already seen far too much of the “power to punich” emmanating from today’s bishops. This is not Vatican II thinking. It smacks of the trumphalism of another age.Sorry. But that’s not what people look for in their supposed shepherd.possession of their vocation,” not just as teachers and preachers, but as governors who exercise, however reluctantly, “the power to punish.”
Perhaps Cardinal George does not know that many Catholics are not interested in the hierarchy’s power to punish, simply b/c they do not recognize it. We are Catholics regardless of what bishops think or proclaim.
This would be a grave mistake. The truth is that bishops no longer effectively have that kind of power and Catholics no longer will accept the role of ‘child’ and cede the role of ‘parent’ to the bishop. Those days are behind us for good.
Is it revealing — or merely an accident — that nowhere in this article, which spends so much time looking at the role of the bishops, does the word “pastoral” appear? “Punish,” on the other hand, is right there.
Where does Cardinal George find a mandate for bishops to be “governors who exercise … the power to punish?” Certainly not in Christ’s command to His Apostles at the Last Supper: “I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do. … no slave is greater than his master nor any messenger greater than him who sent him.” (John 13:35-36). Nor is it in Paul’s description of what Christ did: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave coming in human likeness, and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.” (Phil.2:5-8).
The true definition of the bishop’s role in the Church is service and leadership (like the “good shepherd” who leads out his flock), a role certainly absent in many recent highly publicised statements and actions by bishops, not only in America. In spite of Cardinal George’s opinion to the contrary, most Catholics seek clear moral principles on which to base their decisions not moral micromanaging by the hierarchy.
The Church of Christ calls for pastoral leadership, not juridical and punitive authority.“The power to punish!” WHAT? Are we children? George may be the intellectual leader of the Bishops but he’s an idiot.
In the current climate, I’d be very cautious about touting the “power to punish.” Lay people can ignore bishops, celebrate the sacraments as they please, and there is no policing body available to enforce. Cardinal George would find episcopal credibility eroding even further. He shouldn’t dismiss the power to persuade very easily. It sure worked for Jesus.
So the good cardinal says that “bishops are more prepared to ‘take possession of their vocation’, not just as teachers and preachers, but as governors who exercise, however reluctantly, ‘the power to punish’.”Well, lordy-lordy, why am I not surprised by this guy’s remarks???Of course our “JPII” bishops are “more prepared” to “take possession [of] the power to punish”. They stand on their episcopal pedestals, by God, and we’re all gonna’ risk our eternal salvation if we tell these fellas they’re full of it!!!
One might point out the story of Annas and Sapphira in Acts, or Paul’s instruction to deliver a sinning brother over to Satan. Obviously punishment is to be used only in extreme cases, for the good of the sinner and the good of the Church – but the attitude that punishment is NEVER to be used, that bishops should only persuade and never punish, is what allowed sexual abuse to flourish in the Church.
Did you ever see this article by David Palm — Catholic Confusion at the Very Top.
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20040406.html
Pay particular attention to the section headed “Collegiality & Lack of Ecclesiastical Discipline”
Should bishops ever be held accountable for their failures? Not in the sense of punishment, rather in the goal of maintaining the care of the faithful.
Should bishops punish abusing priests? The goal of law is to protect the social order. If a priest “suffers” confinement or loss of active role it is not primarily to punish rather than to protect the faithful.
“The power to punish!” WHAT? Are we children? George may be the intellectual leader of the Bishops but he’s an idiot.
John Allen is absolutely correct and this reflects three problems in the Church:
1. The fundamental and pervasive sense of institutional superiority among prelates and priests.
2. The willingness to embrace all the privileges of “apostolic succession” w/o the attendant responsibilities (such as defending the faith and protecting the innocent).
3. The increasingly pervasive foolishness among Catholic leaders, which I believe reflects God’s judgment of a church that has effectively become apostate. If you don’t believe that, then read Isaiah 3: 4, 12 (concerning Judah) and Isaiah 19: 11-15 (concerning Egypt). In both cases, God proclaimed that He would allow the incompetent (“childish leaders” for Judah, “fools” for Egypt) as a sign of His judgment. If it was true then, why can’t it be true now?
Human beings, and especially Christians, are supposed to give their loyalty and obedience to God and his truth above all other things. If they put anything else in that position, they are guilty of idolatry.
Clericalism seeks at all costs to defend the power, reputation, and assets of the Church, and especially the perks and prerogatives of the clergy who run the Church; it does this even at the expense of Christ’s little ones, and despite Christ’s own explicit command that “it shall not be so among you.”
It is thus a form of idolatry–one might call it “ecclesiolatry”. And like any form of idolatry, it inevitably brings down upon itself the judgment of God, as St. Paul reminds us in the first chapter of Romans:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. … They became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools … Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.”
Is this not an uncannily accurate description of what we are seeing?
After re-reading the highlighted section of Allen’s column, I’d have to agree w/Leon’s remarks about Allen’s conclusions. For all the good that he does, Allen also represents a section of the Church that overdoses on compassion and mercy, while the traditionalists overdose on power, deference to superiors and the aggressive use of authority.
This fissure is perhaps the biggest problem in the Church today because there’s no balance between both extreme positions.
JPII’s “teaching” on capital punishment reflects Allen’s section because it ignores the grave evil murder inflicts on society and God’s severe condemnation of it.
Until the fissure is bridged, Catholicism will deteriorate into two diametrically opposed camps, each claiming divine authority and inspiration.
punishment is GOOD! Those bishops should be PUNISH 4 colaborating and hidden evidence.
I hear the other day the new archbishop of Santigo de Chile said that criminals should not be punish bur reform.
No wonder the church is in trouble.
What really makes George’s comments idiotic is the fact that God, as described in Scripture, actually did punish. If the Church is supposed to reflect God’s character, then it has the moral obligation to punish where appropriate…especially those engaged in physical, moral or financial corruption who are under the authority of bishops…or the Pope!
I don’t know if John Paul should be canonized. I believe that he was personally a holy man, striving to live a good life and someone who proclaimed Christ’s message. However, he failed miserably when it came to protecting children from predator priests. I think that is a major stain on whether he should be canonized.
George lives in his own world. I recently read his column in the Catholic New World in which he discussed conscience. He said that “judging an action to be good doesn’t make it good.” I agree. Applying that principle to the bishops’ role in the scandal, the bishops judged that protecting the “good name” of the church and predator priests was a good action, when, in fact, it was anything but good. In following their erroneous consciences, the bishops justified the cover-up, moving priests, not telling abused children and adults the truth, and showing absolutely no compassion for innocent children. George is a hypocrite: he tells the “faithful” that following an erroneous conscience is wrong, but doesn’t apply his analysis to an egregious lack of conscience on the part of the bishops.
Yes, bishops should be punished. They should resign, and like the priests, they should be put in jail. Someone who drives the getaway car is just as guilty as the person who robs a bank. The bishops drove the car!
I’m sorry, but the question being considered,” Should The Church Ever Punish?,” is not the right question. The question should be,” Should Members Of The Church, That Commit Crimes Be Punished By Civil Authorities?”
Raping, sodomizing, molesting children and protecting anyone that committs these acts are criminals period and should be arrested and tried by the courts.
Failure to hold these criminals responsible should also be considered a criminal action.