Posted on 04/18/2002 2:42:33 AM PDT by cathway
1. Catholics are hurting and bewildered due to the avalanche of sexual abuse cases which have surfaced over the past months. How do we account for such a crisis----doubtless complex---- and of such proportions?
The fundamental answer to the question is the perennial reality of original and actual sin. Clerical sex abuse is a grave sin and far and away the most publicized sin today, but it is part of the much larger reality of sin still at work in the world and in each one of us. Why this particular sin seems so ubiquitous today is indeed a complex matter, but at the risk of oversimplifying things, I'd point to three things:
(a) The media has more influence and power than in past generations. This isn't always or necessarily a bad thing, but couple the media's ability to shape public opinion with America's obsession with the scandalous and prurient, throwing in for good measure the fact that anti-Catholicism is one of the few prejudices that is still tolerated in many sectors of our society, and you have a recipe for a media feeding frenzy on this issue. The overall effect of the media's obsession with the issue (individual instances of inaccurate reporting or Catholic bashing aside) has been to make a bad situation appear much worse.
(b) Sexual immorality is a widespread problem across the board in our society, so much so that it's really hypocritical to single out Catholic clergy's sexual misconduct for seemingly special treatment. Unfortunately, in the Church's laudable efforts to engage the world her members at times have been too accommodating to the world, and so instead of being a countercultural sign the Church has bought into secular thinking (classroom sex education being one example), with unhappy results.
(c) Priestly selection and formation also plays a role, as set forth more at length in Michael Rose's new book Goodbye! Good Men. Since 85-90% of the allegations involve homosexual activity with teenage boys, I think it's entirely appropriate to call for the elimination of the pervasive "gay subculture" that exists at some seminaries and for a more stringent evaluation of seminary applicants.
None of these factors alone suffice as an explanation, and even collectively they don't fully explain the mysterium iniquitatis.
2. Is this, in your opinion, a distinctly post-conciliar, post sexual revolution, phenomenon or are we simply more aware of these problems due to the media today?
As noted above, both the sexual revolution and the media's treatment have played roles in this, and it's clear there are factors at work that are unique to the last 40 or so years. However, I wouldn't call it a post-conciliar phenomenon as such--not simply out of a desire to defend the authentic teachings of Vatican II, but also inasmuch as most of the reported cases happened 10-20 years ago involving priests who received much if not all of their formation prior to the Council. Also, it should be noted that the "new generation" of priests under the age of 40 on the whole seem to be rock solid devotees of Pope John Paul II and a real sign of hope amid the current troubles.
3. The Pope has called an extraordinary meeting of US Cardinals next week. According to the Vatican Information Service:
"A work meeting will take place in the Vatican on April 23 and 24 with participants including the cardinals of the United States of America and the prefects of the Congregations for Clergy, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re.
"The purpose of this meeting: an examination of the problems that have arisen in the Church in the United States following the scandals connected with pedophilia, and an indication of guidelines aimed at restoring security and serenity to families and confidence to the clergy and the faithful."
What do you reasonably expect will result from such a meeting?
I don't think the results will be particularly earth-shattering. I do think, however, that this will have both a symbolic and substantive value as the Church continues to deal with the emerging scandals--symbolic, in terms of the support and joint efforts of Church leaders, and substantive not only in terms of clarifying policy and directives when cases arise, but even more in terms of formulating a joint approach that communicates to the faithful the Church's maternal solicitude for all her children. I think this will entail an honest admission of failed responsibility in certain instances, requesting forgiveness where needed and a renewed love for and loyalty to the Church.
4. There has been a lot of talk about celibacy in the context of this crisis. Should the Church consider following our Eastern brothers and sisters (allowing the option of a secular married clergy, while reaffirming the celibacy choice ) in this respect, given the changing times and pressures on clergy today, or not? Please explain.
Absolutely not. I have seen nothing in the press or media to convince me that the current calls for optional celibacy are anything other than an attempt by some dissidents to use the present scandals as a platform for promoting their own agendas. In other words, there simply is not a reasonable basis for linking mandatory celibacy to the current sex abuse issues.
One frequently overlooked fact is that the number of seminarians worldwide is up 73% since 1978, the year John Paul II became Pope. Significantly, vocations tend to be up dramatically where the teachings and disciplines of the Church--including priestly celibacy--are enthusiastically and unambiguously promoted. The shortage tends to be most severe in areas where there is widespread dissent and in many cases a crisis of faith.
I think the "changing times" actually militate against changing the venerable tradition of priestly celibacy. It's plain that our culture does not suffer from sexual restraint, but rather a lack of such restraint. Rather than water down her teaching to accommodate a decadent culture, the Church must be a light to the world. She must labor to convert the world to Christ. Such conversion involves turning away from our sins--including sexual sins-- but also upholding an authentically Christian appreciation of sex, gender differences, marriage, and, yes, the value of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom (cf. Mt. 19:12).
5. What reforms----both theological at the academic level, if necessary, and practical---- do you think are needed in the American Church?
I'm neither a theologian nor an academic. Plus the question seems to be broader than simply addressing the sex abuse scandals. I think the solution (holiness) is as simple as the problem (sin). There is a Catechism quote (the Catechism, significantly enough, is here quoting from Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter on the lay apostolate Christifidelis Laici) that I think applies perfectly to this situation: "The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church's history" (no. 828). This call to holiness, this call to become saints, applies to all of us. And so daily prayer, the sacramental life, corporal and spiritual works of mercy, etc. must be the "first resort" of every would-be reformer, regardless of one's state in life.
Clearly we need Catholic theologians, Catholic journalists, catechists, etc. who faithfully present Church teaching. Even more profoundly, I think, all of us need to come to a deeper appreciation of the Church not simply as teacher, but also as mother--otherwise Catholics fall into the secular media's stance of treating the Church as mere human institution and not as the universal means of salvation and our spiritual "home."
6. Some so-called "progressive" Catholics seem to be trying their best to make hay of this situation in the direction of opening the discussion on matters such as womens ordination, reforms "from below," and the like. What do you make of this? How must it be countered?
This is true and sadly to be expected, as in the case of those whose agenda is a married priesthood.
Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) is publishing a position paper on this subject in about a week. Our relatively unique contribution, in my opinion, is our setting forth specific things lay people can do to actually build up the Church during this difficult period of her history. Certainly the pursuit of holiness and all that entails is primary. Another point that is especially pertinent here is the importance of effectively engaging others--be they the media, "progressive" Catholics, or non-believers who take what they hear about the Church on cable TV at face value. We need to be not only holy, but also informed. We need to be smarter and more convincing, not more fearful or compromising or inflammatory. In other words, we should strive within our own sphere of influence and activity to put attacks on the Church in their proper light--this is an important contemporary form of apologetics, of being prepared to make a defense, with gentleness and reverence, of the abiding hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15).
7. a) Should Cardinals who transferred sexual offenders from diocese to diocese resign in your opinion? b) Is there a danger that clamors for a bishop to resign furthers "democratic" models of the Church?
If the Holy See is aware of a situation and doesn't remove or call for the resignation of a bishop or cardinal, then I would see in that decision the Holy See's vote of confidence and would keep any contrary personal opinions private. Of course, the bishop or cardinal ultimately has to be the judge, in the absence of a mandate from the Vatican, of the "flight or fight" question, prudently taking into account the good of the particular Church entrusted to him. I think (b) isn't too far removed from a public lynching or at least a conviction without a trial--and certainly it furthers the "democratic" models to which you allude.
This is not at all to take lightly the gravity of the scandals and the need for restoring the trust of the faithful in their pastors, which the Holy See is trying to do. I can't explain, let alone defend, why a known child molester would be reassigned to parish work.
In some cases, typically with Vatican encouragement, resignation is, sadly, eminently appropriate. Every situation is different, but in general there are more constructive ways to address problems in the Church. The clamoring you describe, if we're not careful, can actually turn people against the Church and perhaps even embitter ourselves toward the Church. I think we should only say the things that will really help people grow in faith, hope, and charity (cf. Eph. 4:29). When charity obliges us to speak against a certain evil, we still need to do so in a godly way--all the more so when we're talking about our spiritual fathers, the bishops, who, despite any sins and failings, are "authentic teachers of the apostolic faith endowed with the authority of Christ" (Catechism, no. 888) and the "visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches" (Catechism, no. 886).
8. How long, in your opinion, will it take for the American Church to regain its moral authority given the best outcome of reforms resulting from next week's meeting between Cardinals and Pope?
Well, I think there are at least three types of moral authority we can talk about. As noted above, the Church as the Body of Christ has authority she can never lose, and her sacred pastors participate in that authority. Then there is the moral authority meaning the trust level many Catholics and society at large will place in the Church as a whole. I think it's going to take a lot of time for this type of moral authority to fully return regardless of what transpires in Rome next week. Then there is a middle type of moral authority possessed by individual bishops and pastors. I think this is where most Catholics experience the Church, and it's up to bishops and pastors through words and actions to restore the confidence of the faithful. Depending on the nature of the scandal in a particular diocese or parish, this may be more or less difficult, but in either case necessary.
In this regard, the widely published and circulated homily of Fr. Landry, a priest in the Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, is an excellent example of how a pastor can courageously and honestly address the issue. It remains to be seen what groundwork the Vatican meetings will lay for this gradual reestablishment of trust and "moral authority" which needs to take place.
9. Cardinal Law has revealed that in private meetings with the Holy Father it was decided he would stay, at least for the time being we might conjecture. What do you think the Vatican is trying to work out in all of this? What must the Vatican do?
Of course I wasn't privy to the deliberations. I would suspect that the Holy Father is trying to navigate a narrow course that respects the principle of subsidiarity, which if overdone would be an abdication of his responsibility, and his role as supreme vicar, which if wielded in a way that's perceived as heavy-handed or micromanaging would beat down the very bishops he is trying to build up. I would suspect that the Vatican's goal is to empower Card. Law to personally and effectively (to the extent possible) address the issue himself, rather than intervene more extensively and/or replace him, which could appear to be a capitulation to those who are lobbying for his removal--including quarters in the secular media that are unabashedly hostile to the Church--without solving the underlying problem.
Thank you.
Leon Suprenant is the president of Catholics United for the Faith www.cuf.org and Emmaus Road Publishing (www.emmausroad.org) , and the editor of Lay Witness, a magazine for lay Catholics (See above banner). He is also, with Scott Hahn, the general editor of the Catholic for a Reason series, coauthor of Faith Facts: Answers to Catholic Questions and editor of Servants of the Gospel , a collection of essays on the role of the bishop in the Church today. He received his law degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City and his master's degree in theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville. He also holds degrees in philosophy and English.
CUF staffs a toll-free Catholic helpline (1-800-MY-FAITH) that's available to answer questions on the Catholic faith between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday.
"Fight or flight" has already begun with Cardinal Law. He has chosen to fight, and it's ugly. While I don't want the public lynching Suprenant refers to, nor the democratization of the Church, I don't see how someone who has done what Cardinal Law has could possibly think anyone would think of him as being anything but worthless in his position.
This is not at all to take lightly the gravity of the scandals and the need for restoring the trust of the faithful in their pastors, which the Holy See is trying to do.
I can't see how restoration of the trust of the faithful in their pastors could happen with what some of them (including Law) have done. The ones who have lost the faithful's trust because they were guilty of specific acts should go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.