Abuse scandal underlines Vatican tension with U.S.

Newark Star Ledger ^ | April 28, 2002 | David Gibson

[Incorrigible]

VATICAN CITY -- The closely watched meeting that took place here last week between Vatican officials and America's ranking Catholic churchmen was widely viewed as an extraordinary reaction to an immediate crisis: namely, the ongoing revelations of sexual abuse by many U.S. priests.

[Incorrigible]

Dave Gibson, the author of this article, is very anti-conservative Christian.  His articles are usually well researched but the libs always get the upper hand in the end.

In this case, his depiction of the various statements from the Vatican over the past 200 years (I added the links in the article) is something of an oversimplification.

I don't know anything about Sister Mary Ann Walsh.  At first I thought he was quoting one of those mouthy nuns always complaining about the lack of ordination of women.

I also recently heard that the age of consent in Mexico is 12.  If this is the case, many of these man-boy affairs would not have the same legal repercussions in the US.

I could probably use a good book on the history of the Catholic Church in America.  Something similar to "The Compact History of the Catholic Church" but more focused on America.

[Incorrigible]

[Incorrigible]

[ex-snook]

"The principal reason for that is because the Roman Catholic Church is first and foremost a hierarchy, and when all of the U.S. bishops gather in Dallas in June, any national policy that they adopt to address the abuse problem will then have to be approved by Rome. "

So why should the American Church have different standards from the rest of the Church? To be ONE CHURCH, the standards should come from Rome not Dallas.

I think the Pope made a mistake in calling just American Cardinals to set new policies. The Pope should have called the American Cardinals to tell them what the policies are and they should follow them or resign. I can't believe this is new ground not already proscribed.

Permitting the Church in America to set its own direction seems to continue the basis for the present widespread dissent. I don't see hierarchy here, maybe someone does.

[Mike Fieschko]

I could probably use a good book on the history of the Catholic Church in America.

There are probably others, but the one I know of is by Thomas T. McAvoy, C.S.C. He wrote about the Church all through the United States, as well as local histories. Fr McAvoy taught history at Notre Dame for many years, and died around 1969, I believe. A History Of The Catholic Church In The United States was the title.

His treatment of the Americanist controversy is criticized by more recent studies.

[gcruse]

Even last week many Vatican officials could not comprehend
the concept of liability,

     Accountability sucks...

 and they were scathing in their judgments
of American bishops who have made large payouts to victims.

    ...infallibility corrupts.

[sinkspur]

I think the Pope made a mistake in calling just American Cardinals to set new policies. The Pope should have called the American Cardinals to tell them what the policies are and they should follow them or resign. I can't believe this is new ground not already proscribed.

The Pope, wisely, will let Americans set the policy for sexual abuse in America.

It was clear from the Pope's first speech on the subject that he is not in favor of zero tolerance; he spoke of forgiveness and discretion. He did not speak of pederasty as a crime until after the cardinals convinced him of it.

John Paul II would much rather deal with this problem internally and, if it were left up to him, that is exactly what would happen. The last thing he would do is bring in law enforcement.

I daresay the American Church follows Church laws more obediently than the Italian Church does.

[Cicero]

There really is no inherent conflict between being American and being Catholic. As you say, this whole business is something cooked up by disloyal Catholics and their contacts in the media who are vainly hoping to change the Church to suit their agendas.

In particular, they would like to say that the Church should be more "democratic" or should "change with the times." But no solid Protestant would agree to that any more than a solid Catholic would.

The Church must be whatever Jesus Christ calls on it to be, not what some liberal supporter of abortion, perversion, or the like wants it to be, or even what some majority vote wants it to be.

Americans are free to join or leave any church they choose, but they are not free to demand that faithful Christians must approve of abortion, or cloning, or euthanasia, or whatever the latest atrocity is on their agenda. It's not a matter of authoritarianism versus democratic freedom. If you are really a believer, it's a question of whether you choose to obey or disobey God.

[nmh]

Catholicism isn't Christian so natrually they would condemn a Judeo-Christian rooted nation. This is nothing new. Okay, those who hate non-Catholics, and prefer Chrisianity, flame away. Some of you out excell at this. I'll turn the other cheek as instructed by the Bible.

[gcruse]

 Okay, those who hate non-Catholics, and prefer Chrisianity, flame away.

I can't quite make sense of this.  Is it what you meant to say?

[browardchad]

Americans are free to join or leave any church they choose, but they are not free to demand that faithful Christians must approve of abortion, or cloning, or euthanasia, or whatever the latest atrocity is on their agenda. It's not a matter of authoritarianism versus democratic freedom. If you are really a believer, it's a question of whether you choose to obey or disobey God.

Well said. To read this article, you would think that to be Catholic, you must disobey the laws of the U.S. Of course, if you consider "tolerance" for abortion, cloning or euthanasia, and open acceptance of homosexuality as an "alternate lifestyle" to be the law of the land, you might think otherwise -- as far too many American Catholic clergy obviously do.

[Torie]

While none would admit it, do you ever get the impression that at bottom the Pope and some others think that all sex outside of marriage is equally bad, and draw no distinction between the various variations?

[Snuffington]

In this case, his depiction of the various statements from the Vatican over the past 200 years (I added the links in the article) is something of an oversimplification.

Worse than that, his depictions range from the paranoid, (e.g. depicting the Church's defense against modernism as an attack on America), to the heretical (e.g. depicting the teaching authority of the Church as something to be swept away by the progress of history - interestingly, a Modernist notion), to the self contradictory ( e.g. condemning the Church when it allows the bishops authority and latitude to deal with the sex scandal and condemning just as strongly when it steps in).

Really, this entire article comes across to me as the thinly veiled effort of a Modernist to associate his favorite heresy with American patriotism.

Modernism is not and never has been Vatican code for "America" as the author alleges. Even a cursory reading of the papal encyclicals on the topic coupled with the slightest understanding of European history makes that obvious.

Assuming Mr. Gibson is not a stupid man, the next most logical conclusion is that his false assertions on this topic have a propagandist motive. Since they not only cast the Vatican in a bad light, but also cast Modernism in a good light, the most reasonable conclusion is that Mr. Gibson is himself a Modernist.

[BunnySlippers]

Good article. Thanks for posting.

[LadyDoc]

While none would admit it, do you ever get the impression that at bottom the Pope and some others think that all sex outside of marriage is equally bad, and draw no distinction between the various variations?

This is anti Catholic bigotry. No one who knows anything about the Catholic church thinks this. Or are you living in an area without any Catholics nearby (outside of Saudi Arabia and Kabul, there are Catholics everywhere, and if you bothered to look, most of them have happy marriages and lots of kids. Hard to do this without Sex).

For your penance, read two Andrew Greeley novels and say three hail mary's.

[Torie]

Your post doesn't make a lot of sense (particuarly the bit about Catholics and happy marriages with kids, which seems rather not the point). In any event, a polite no, with perhaps some detail would have been more helpful. As it is, your post doesn't help me at all.

[ex-snook]

"I daresay the American Church follows Church laws more obediently than the Italian Church does. "

Then I sure hope the next Pope is not Italian or there won't be any Church doctrine left. Then again, I don't know how doctrine stands today. Someone just out of RCIA asked me for a book that sets out simply what Catholics believe (obviously not covered in the RCIA classes). The only book I could find what something like - 'what Catholics believe for dummies' or something like that. Sad.

[Incorrigible]

I'll turn the other cheek as instructed by the Bible.

Soooo your attitude while posting this reply was Christ-like, not at all like the "kicking while down" sneer that it seemed.

[LadyDoc]

I wasn't trying to be helpful. I was trying to be sarcastic.

Catholics consider sex as wonderful and sacred, but insist that it has to do with families and marriage. They do not consider it evil.

Priests do not marry in the Roman Catholic cnurch (although they DO marry in the Eastern Catholic churches) not because sex is evil, but because they find love at a higher level, and (to use Freudian terminology) they sublimate their sexual impulses into service for their neighbor and into their prayer life.

Andrew Greeley's novels make this point over and over again, and although he is looked upon as being far out by many pious Catholics, nevertheless, he is merely popularizing Catholic philosophical ideas of sexuality, including recent teaching by John Paul II about this subject (phenomenology, I believe is this Pope's philosophical field).

[Torie]

Oh I thought Catholic teaching was that sex outside of marriage was a sin (I used the word the more generic word bad), not merely that sex inside marriage is better. Apparently not.