Posted on 04/25/2002 3:48:29 PM PDT by choirboy
{The following analysis is provided by Phil Lawler, editor of the monthly magazine Catholic World Report and the online service Catholic World News (cwnews.com). Permission is granted in advance for reproduction and/or redistribution of this piece, as long as this paragraph is included.}
Secular news outlets can be forgiven for missing the most important aspect of this week's meeting between US cardinals and Vatican officials.
But will the US bishops themselves catch the message?
Pope John Paul II summoned the American cardinals to Rome to discuss two scandals. One scandal involved the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests. The other involved the abdication of responsibility by Catholic bishops.
Only a tiny minority of American priests have been guilty of molesting children. But the majority of bishops bear the blame for the corruption of the American hierarchy. And it was that corruption which allowed pedophile priests to flourish.
* * * * * * *
News coverage of the "Vatican summit" has been dominated by questions about the new policies and procedures that the US bishops will adopt to discipline and remove pedophile priests. But policies alone will not solve the problem. Procedures and guidelines are tools; they are useful only if the people in authority -- the bishops -- are prepared to use them properly.
The discussion of different policy options ("zero tolerance," "one strike and you're out," etc.) is a distraction. The key question is whether the bishops will enforce their policies. Existing guidelines would have been adequate, if bishops had shown the will to exercise true moral leadership.
The confidence of the American laity has been shattered, with the realization that their bishops have often served the interests of their offices rather than those of their people and of the faith. That confidence cannot be restored by "procedures" and "guidelines."
The Catholic faithful are looking for clear indications that their bishops are ready to acknowledge their failures, take up the responsibilities that they have neglected, and root out the corruption within their own ranks.
* * * * * * *
To understand what happened in Rome this week, begin by comparing the statements made by American bishops before the meeting with those made afterward.
Less than two weeks ago, in a press briefing in Rome, Bishop Wilton Gregory (the president of the US bishops' conference) told reporters that Pope John Paul II wanted the American bishops to solve the sex-abuse scandal by themselves. Within 36 hours, CWNews.com broke the story that the Holy Father had summoned the US cardinals to Rome.
Had the Pope suddenly changed his mind? No. Bishop Gregory was doing a bit of "spin control," trying to emphasize the Pope's confidence in the American hierarchy. But the Pope's action -- an unprecedented summons to Rome -- showed that there was a definite limit to his confidence in the US bishops.
Still, in the days leading up to the "Vatican summit," Bishop Gregory and other American prelates told reporters that the main purpose of this extraordinary meeting would be to brief the Pope on their activities. Some prelates, speaking more expansively, suggested that the American delegation might call for an end to priestly celibacy. One cardinal, who spoke to the Los Angeles Times anonymously that the US cardinals would make a forceful argument for the removal of Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law.
As soon as the meetings opened in Rome, all such discussion ceased. Issues such a priestly celibacy were not on the agenda, the cardinals now told reporters. Cardinal Roger Mahony -- widely believed to be the "anonymous" prelate who spoke to the Los Angeles Times -- informed the media that there was no discussion of Cardinal Law's status. The American bishops no longer made any effort to suggest that they were in Rome to give the Pope the benefit of their opinion.
Clearly, something had happened at the Vatican. The American bishops realized that they had been summoned to account for themselves. The focus of the meeting was not on Catholic teachings, but on the moral leadership of the American hierarchy.
* * * * * * *
In his Tuesday-morning address, Pope John Paul made the message plain:
"It must be absolutely clear to the Catholic faithful, and to the wider community, that bishops and superiors are concerned, above all else, with the spiritual good of souls. People need to know that there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young. They must know that bishops and priests are totally committed to the fullness of Catholic truth on matters of sexual morality, a truth as essential to the renewal of the priesthood and the episcopate as it is to the renewal of marriage and family life." (emphasis added)
The Pope was not looking for a "zero-tolerance" policy. He was asking for clear moral leadership from the American bishops.
The same note was sounded in the final statement issued at the conclusion of the Vatican summit:
"Given the doctrinal issues underlying the deplorable behavior in question, certain lines of response have been proposed:
"a) the pastors of the Church need clearly to promote the correct moral teaching of the Church and publicly to reprimand individuals who spread dissent and groups which advance ambiguous approaches to pastoral care."
"b) a new and serious apostolic visitation of seminaries and other institutes of formation must be made without delay, with particular emphasis on the need for fidelity to the Church's teaching, especially in the area of morality, and the need for a deeper study of the criteria of suitability of candidates to the priesthood."
(An "apostolic visitation" is, essentially, an investigation. So the Vatican -- with the acquiescence of the US prelates -- was indicating that the situation in American seminaries is had enough to warrant an in-depth investigation.)
Thus the Vatican meeting concluded with a call for more forthright moral teaching, more vigilant enforcement of Church discipline, and more careful oversight of Catholic seminaries. By implication, the final statement points to a failure of leadership among the US bishops, who hold the responsibility in all these areas.
The success or failure of the Vatican summit will hinge on the bishops' willingness to seize their moral authority now, and exercise the pastoral leadership that they have avoided for much too long.
Guidelines might be useful. Procedures might help. But the real question is whether the American bishops will do their duty.
--
Philip F. Lawler
Editor, Catholic World Report
You are absolutely correct.
I was under the impression that "Archbishop" was simply a bishop who was in charge of a single diocese that was particularly large -- that is, the "arch" was no indication of a further reach of authority than any other bishop. Was I incorrect?
An archbishop or metropolitan, in the present sense of the term, is a bishop who governs a diocese strictly his own, while he presides at the same time over the bishops of a well-defined district composed of simple dioceses but not of provinces. Hence none of these subordinate bishops rule over others. These bishops are called the suffragans or comprovincials. The archbishop's own diocese is the archdiocese. The several dioceses of the district form the archiepiscopal, or metropolitan, province.Cardinals, when they have a diocese, generally have an archdiocese.. . .
Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the archbishop is twofold, episcopal and archiepiscopal. The first extends to his own diocese exclusively and comprises the rights and powers of the fullest government of the diocese, clergy and laity, spiritual and temporal, except as restricted by Church law. Unless such restriction be clearly stated in law, the presumption is in favour of the episcopal authority. The contrary holds in regard to the archiepiscopal authority. It extends to the province and the suffragan bishops only in as far as it is explicitly stated in the law. Where the law is silent, the presumption is against the archbishop. Be it remembered, however, that rightfully established and approved custom obtains the force of law. Archiepiscopal jurisdiction, being permanently attached to the office as such, is ordinary jurisdiction, not merely delegated or vicarious. It reaches immediately the suffragan bishops, and mediately the faithful of their dioceses.
patent
That would be so if he had not expressly used the term "pedophile priests" twice in his analysis. Denial is what has led to this leadership crisis, and denial, through use of euphimistic terms by Catholic writers, further promotes the hypocrisy.
I need to write a letter to Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He is the primary authority within the CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH.
According to a Vatican web page the CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH has responsibility for overseeing "....«the duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.»
The congregation is now headed by Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. It has a secretary, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., an under-secretary, P. Joseph Augustine Di Noia, O.P., and a staff of 31...."
By chance, do you know of a street address where Cardinal Ratzinger receives his mail?
I will express my bewilderment at the total failure of this commission to correct the sin plaguing American seminaries, and ask him to detail what action the commission is taking to halt the influx of seminarians who do not accept the Bible's instruction against sodomy.
This recent "summit" in Rome did nothing to confront America's expanding spiritual crisis, or the incredible financial damage sodimite priests have inflicted with the overt protection and encouragement of their superiors.
Evil is as evil does.
It is also my intent to ask Cardinal Ratzinger to have his commission review the kind of instruction provided seminarians in America, as well as the membership of seminary applicant review panels. Common knowledge suggest the genesis for the unforgivable evil within the Church has its roots here.
Jesus drove out the money changers for desecrating the House of His Father. The presence today of this disgusting evil within His Father's House demands a replication of His outrage.
Man, you really got my hopes up!
patent
So what's the plan?
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
The Apostolic Palace
La Santa Sede
00120 Vatican City
ITALY
Europe
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.