Posted on 06/22/2002 11:02:42 AM PDT by Torie
'The Faith Will Survive' The institutional church, on the other hand, is in serious trouble. Here's why. by Joan Chittister
The question everywhere is the same these days: What, in the long run, will be the effect of the pedophilia scandal on the Catholic Church? Speculation ranges from predictions of total collapse to speculation about total reconfiguration. Given the long lessons of history, neither hypothesis is likely, perhaps, but we may have already been given a mirror into the future of change. Let me tell you what I've seen already.
It was 1996. I was in Dublin at the time writing a book. To do concentrated work I had gone away to live alone in a small townhouse on the canal. For a while, there were no distractions at all. But then the first pedophilia scandal erupted in Ireland. I found myself as immersed in the story as the rest of the country but, as an outside observer, more concerned about the overall effects of the situation than by the cast of characters. I began to understand that the Irish, too, were dealing with this situation differently than they had in the past.
The Irish had already dealt with the case of a bishop who had fathered a son years before, supported him financially all his life, but never acknowledged him. They had read themselves weary about the young pastor who dropped dead leaving a mistress housekeeper and their children who were now suing the diocese for his estate. They had watched the church battle the government over the legalization of contraception. The Irish, it seemed, were well battle-tested on sexual scandals.
Pedophilia, however, was a very different thing. Pedophilia galvanized the society in a way no clerical sexual issues had ever been able to do so in the past. Pedophile priests went on being priests, went from parish to parish, went on preying on children, went on reaping the harvest of status and privilege, trust and authority that priesthood had managed to garner over centuries, and not a word said about it by the hierarchy, not a single man defrocked. Indeed, pedophilia went beyond individual criminality to the heart of the system. At pedophilia, the Irish drew a line.
RTE, Radio Television Erin, the national broadcasting company of Ireland, launched a national survey to determine the emotional response of a people almost 98-percent Catholic to a scandal that darkened their most sacred institution. Question number one, the announcer said, asked, "Has this scandal affected your faith?" I remember groaning out loud in the chair. "97 percent," the reporter announced: "say no." I snapped to full attention. "Impossible!" I thought. "I can't believe it. How could this not affect the faith of a country so completely identified with it on every level?!" Question number two, the announcer went on, asked, "Has this scandal affected your relationship with the church?" "97 percent," the reporter announced, "say yes." My head began to reel.
Given such an overwhelmingly unanimous response, the reporter began to interview passers-by on the street to determine the reasons behind the answers. "Jesus and the sacraments mean everything to me. There's nothing wrong with them," Irish after Irish asserted. But, in response to question two, the effect of this latest of clergy sexual problems on their relationship to the church itself, one man put it bluntly for them all. "We mean," he said, "that they're not going to tell us again what's right and what's wrong anymore. From now on, we'll be figuring those things out for ourselves." I sat back and watched the world change in front of my eyes. I saw a whole people distinguish a spiritual tradition from the institution that was its storehouse. I saw the moral authority of that same institution brought to a tragic low.
Now, years later, church attendance is down in Ireland, the most religious, least secular, country in Western Europe. The government no longer looks for a nod from the church before introducing new legislation. Court cases on clerical abuse abound. Seminaries are closed. The voice of the church on social issues is every day less impacting.
TODAY THE CATHOLIC church in the United States, rocked by scandals of long-standing clerical pedophilia and its accompanying episcopal cover-ups, stands at the margins of a similar watershed. The question is whether or not a new set of rules about celibacy, another kind of process for dealing with complaints, a better way of communicating with victims, can possibly restore the trust in the church that every survey of American Catholics shows to have been eroded. The answer to that one, if the Irish situation is any kind of model for us at all, is that the question itself is worse than useless. The basic problem isn't how this particular and immediate issue was handled. It is why the problem could possibly be handled this way at all.
The question that must be asked is what in the clerical culture itself leads to this kind of debacle in the first place. Otherwise, whatever rules they apply to this problem won't mean a thing toward the resolution of the next one. And there will be a next one if the culture of the "Princes of the Church" (and everything that kind of systemic fealty implies) is permitted to continue in the modern world.
There are three dimensions of ecclesiastical medievalism that are still part and parcel of the church today. These were once effective and perhaps even necessary to the security of the state, but they're now long gone in the politics and processes of the rest of the world. The culture of silence, the culture of exclusion, and the culture of domination, all elements of a clerical world, lead to the very fiasco that brings good people—priests, bishops, and cardinals among them—to make choices geared more to saving the system than to saving the people. Though the church prides itself on the fact that it is not a democracy, it forgets at its peril that even monarchies are these days subject to both public scrutiny and legal accountability.
The culture of silence requires that the business and decisions, agendas and processes, struggles and conflicts of a closed system be hidden entirely from public view. The intention, some argue, is a good one: The people must be saved from scandal. Perhaps, but the scandal of silence can itself at times be far more damaging than the scandal of fallibility. The results can be disastrous. Silence is what enabled the system to move pedophile priests from place to place. Silence covers up. Silence hides problems in order to deny them. And it buys silence from others so that the rest of the society can never know that they are also in danger.
In the end silence makes it impossible for a system to face and acknowledge the problems that are destroying it—the difficulties of priesthood, the ruptures in theology from one era to the next, the discontent of the masses whose questions are ignored or dismissed or ridiculed or labeled heresy. It carries, in classic fashion, a fox under its toga that is eating it up from the inside out.
The culture of exclusion denies to a system the expertise it needs to resolve its difficulties. When a system defines itself outside of the rest of the human race, it reduces its resources at exactly the moments it may need them most. When the most-needed consultants are kept out of a conversation because a system has become a world unto itself, it can, at best, only hope to replicate its past self and old, tired ideas. With few new ideas coming into the system, with little in the way of fresh creativity to reenergize the system, with no inroads into other systems—all of which may be far more competent to deal with new questions than the system involved—the system dooms itself to stagnation. New questions go begging for new answers, become unappeasable in the face of old answers, and the system doesn't explode, it implodes.
The culture of domination runs the risk of both assuming a power it does not have and abusing the power it does have. It ties power up in a few people who use it to keep it. Since those who subscribe to a culture of domination live an insular existence in a society of self-defined elites, their power is seldom or ever tested.
A culture of domination puts drawbridges and moats around the minds of its own members. To think outside an acceptable orthodoxy disqualifies a person to contribute to it. The culture of domination creates the image of a special world with power so special it can never be questioned. It hoards one kind of power—appointed power—and so in the end diminishes the very power it seeks to protect by trying to exercise it in areas beyond either its experience or its competence. Failing to multiply power by sharing it openly with those who have earned another kind of power—achieved power—only threatens their own. As a result, those appointed to power are denied the support of those who have an even more convincing power of expertise or natural gift.
A culture of creeping infallibility, distributed in varying degrees throughout an infallible system that sees itself as the final, privileged word wherever it is and simply because it is, is almost bound to run roughshod over the powerlessness of others. Abuse of power becomes its mainstay, even at its healthiest levels. At its lowest levels—when it imposes itself on women, on children, on its heretics and outsiders in general—it flirts with the demonic. The power of the insights, experience, ideas, and persons of others are simply dismissed—for the image of the system, for the "integrity" of the system, for the power of a system whose effectiveness rests largely on power alone.
When the culture in question is the church, then the institution and the faith, the system and the gospel, the theology of the Holy Spirit and the theology of the priesthood, separate like oil and water. The Irish have already figured that out. The faith will survive. The system as it is will not. If not felled by this problem, it will surely be struck down by the next one that will undoubtedly be spawned out of the same mentality.
There is no doubt that unless this church addresses the questions behind the present issue—the questions of silence, exclusion, and domination—the long-term effect of this situation, itself only a terrible symptom of a far more sinister sickness, will be that members of the American church, like the Irish, will begin to make a distinction between the faith they hold and the authorities they follow. In that case, it is clear that it will be the authorities who stand to lose.
Joan Chittister, OSB, a Sojourners contributing editor, is executive director of Benetvision and the author most recently of Seeing With Our Souls: Monastic Wisdom for Every Day (Sheed and Ward, 2002).
Subscribe
Subscribe today and save $10 off the basic rate! Get SojoMail Enter your email address to get our free weekly email-zine:
Read other articles about: • Catholic Church • sexual abuse
Read other articles by: • Chittister, Joan
For questions and resources related to this article, check out Table Talk online, a free companion discussion guide to the magazine.
CTA Marks 25 Years Attaching Church
By Mary Ann Kreitzer
Call to Action [CTA] recently published a pamphlet celebrating "25 Years of Spirituality and Justice." It’s interesting reading and provides evidence of how we ended up in the mess we’re in. Sad to say, it wasn’t a Communist or Masonic plot against the Church. The de facto schism we’re living with today is the legacy of bishops and priests, religious, and Catholic laity who were determined to change the hierarchical structure of the Church into a more collaborative model with flexible doctrine illustrated by liberal Protestantism. And, listen up, YOU PAID FOR IT!
CTA grew out of a 1976 bicentennial conference in Detroit sponsored by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops [NCCB] under Cardinal John Deardon, entitled A Call to Action: Liberty and Justice for All. Oh yes, we owe Deardon a lot. He also established the He also established the Campaign for Human Development [CHD] under Msgr. Jack Egan (whose photo appears in CTA’s brochure) which has siphoned off God knows how many donations from the pew to advance the radical liberal agenda including abortion on demand. CHD was renamed a few years ago to Catholic Campaign for Human Development in an apparent effort to upgrade their reputation sullied by years of financing left-wing organizations. But it’s hard for the leopard to change its spots. In 1999 CCHD through the Diocese of Cleveland awarded a $30,000 grant to Organize! Ohio, one of whose founding members is Ohio’s NARAL [National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]. The grant "provides an avenue for local organizing groups to act on a statewide level on policy issues of common interest." Common interest? The Church and NARAL?
But I digress…Statistics from the 1976 Detroit meeting are an eye-opener. Most of the 1,351 delegates were appointed by their bishops (100 of whom attended); 64% were church employees. Among interest groups attending were Dignity which promotes sodomy and WOC [Women’s Ordination Conference] one of the loopiest feminist claques. Final resolutions from the conference attacked Catholic doctrine and tradition. They endorsed women’s ordination, married clergy, "rights of conscience" on birth control, "reconsideration" of Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI’s encyclical upholding the integrity of marital relations), local election of pastors and bishops, and other radical positions. It was Martin Luther all over again, and most of those nailing theses to the door were ON CHURCH PAYROLLS.
Interestingly, this Catholic event took place in the same timeframe as state meetings preparing for the national conference for International Women’s Year under Jimmy Carter. Those too were taken over by radical feminists. At the Virginia meeting in Richmond which I attended, lesbians were prominent among the delegates and a coven of witches manned a table in the exhibit hall. I missed the Detroit shindig, but I imagine it was hard to tell the difference.
According to statistics from recent CTA conferences 25-30% attending are Church employees (5% clergy and 20% religious — i.e. feminist nuns), 90% are regular churchgoers, and 70% volunteer in their parishes. Membership in CTA has increased from 8,173 in 1993 to 22,272 in 2000. (This statistic may be inflated by people like me who get on their list, but in no way support their agenda.) CTA claims 44 regional affiliates in 33 states including two in Virginia, one based in Arlington and one in the Shenandoah Valley. They also network with dozens of dissent groups that form their COR caucus [Catholic Organizations for Renewal] which meets three times a year with CTA staff support. It includes WOC, Catholics Speak Out, CORPUS (resigned priests many of whom left to get married), CFFC [Catholics for a Free Choice], Dignity, Federation of Christian Ministries whose president is our own fake nun, Sr. Bridget Mary Meehan, and others — all radical.
These dissenters have an inordinate impact for several reasons. 1.) They are often heavily funded by anti-Catholic foundations (e.g. CFFC’s primary support) which use them as front groups to attack the church. 2.) The liberal media love them! See who gets trecked out when the Pope comes to this country or the media is seeking a spokesman about issues in the Church. It is almost always a dissenter. In 1994 following the John Paul II’s declaration that women could not be ordained, Mike Wallace brought 60 Minutes to
CTA’s national convention. Thirty million homes heard Sr. Joan Chittister berate the Church. She was still at it this April when she keynoted for the NCEA [National Catholic Education Association] convention. Which leads to point three. 3.) They are given legitimacy by the establishment. When dissenters and their groups speak under Catholic auspices they tear down the faith, confuse the laity, and undermine trust. It was not encouraging to see those who teach our children give Chittister a standing ovation following her screed against "patriarchy" and dogma.
So what’s a real Catholic to do? Pray and fight, put on the armour of God and hold our ground. Which is why Les Femmes will oppose every dissenter who attempts to steal the faith in our diocese. Vatican II really did empower the laity. Those who distort that to mean female ordination or wrecking our churches or indoctrinating our children in contraception and sodomy will have to walk over the dead bodies of real Catholic parents and grandparents to implement their wicked agenda. Let’s pray that they’ll have to walk first over the bodies of our good shepherds.
Source:Les Femmes Newsletter, Summer 2001 issue
Heretic Joanie is awfully silent about homosexuality and homosexuals committing crimes.
I'd bet there are lots and lots of American Catholics saying this now; many have already said it.
Sr. Joan IS a leftist, but much in this article is right on. The "creeping infallibility" is especially apt, given that the doctrine itself was so narrowly defined. Now, we have arguments on FR among Catholics about whether the ordination of women, contraception, and even capital punishment are infallible teaching (none of them have ever been defined as such). And infallibility has only been exercised twice since 1870, and both were definitions of Marian doctrine.
If the truth be told, most Catholics don't spend one minute outside of an hour and a half on Sunday morning thinking about the hierarchy, the Pope, or even their own parish priests. The influence of the institutional Church is not very strong to begin with; where it goes from here is anybody's guess.
It's interesting to see that the same dissadents who are destroying the priesthood continue to blame the problems of the church on those of use who still are Christians.
And, of course, if you look closely, the broad gives a Marxist analysis on the problems. Those of us up on the culture wars notice the Marxist class struggle arguments in her essay, not to mention the pseudo talk of "democracy", which means "let us dissadents who have infiltrated the bureaucracy of the church to change it now take over. The next step, of course, is Wiccan ceremonies, openly gay priests, and lesbians becoming bishops, like in the PC liberal churches.
With broads like her, no wonder many Catholic christians have joined bible churches in despair.
Very interesting.
I've seen it in my parish. The ones who would have us change every teaching to suit what they want to believe are the first ones on the band wagon.
Seriously,Sinkspur,why do you remain in the Church?My perception of you and those of like mind is that you seek to destroy the one visible bastion of permanence and consistency on earth.Why?
I remain in the Church because I love Jesus Christ, and He guaranteed He would be with His Church, imperfect as it is.
Why is it that you hard-liners are so anxious to kick people out of the Church? Unless the Church conforms to your "let's go back to the '50's" vision, you think those who discuss alternatives are trying to destroy the Church.
If you don't get that the clericalism, secrecy, and arrogance of power of the hierarchy are responsible for wrecking their credibility, then you haven't been paying attention.
The hierarchical heroes of the left,who they have followed,or pushed, are/were Weakland,Mahoney,Pilarchzyk,Rodimer,Gumbleton,Lynch,Ziemann,Kelly and "Brother Joseph Bernardin".Law,Egan,Pilla,Sheehan,Keeler,O'Brien,Moreno, and scads of others are certainly infected,but are they the primary site of the cancer?Many of the bishops who covered and were complicit may have been duped by the "enemy",who as I said in the beginning have used all of the tools of the organization you both aptly describe as the reason for the crisis.
So yes,I agree that the crisis was in a large part caused by those characteristics: ;however,I believe that the persons using them to effect their agenda were not the Bishops' in union with the Holy Father and the Magisterium but instead those who cloaked in secrecy,tried to steal the Church Christ established and convert it to a new church and a new christ,which turns out to be each of them with their creeping infallibility.
Archbishop Michael Sheehan is NOT part of the cancer. When he went to Santa Fe in 1993 after the resignation of Robert Sanchez for affairs with women, he booted 12 priests out of the diocese who were guilty of sexual abuse of children. He has not had ONE SINGLE incident in his archdiocese since 1994.
Roman Catholic Faithful has had an "ongoing investigation" into Sheehan on its website, but it's been there for over a year, and, apparently, they're not getting very much. Sheehan was sponsored by Bernardin, but he's gone his own way since becoming a bishop. His one big mistake was in admitting Rudy Kos to Holy Trinity Seminary in Dallas in 1977, and he fully confesses that it is the single largest mistake of his priesthood.
Michael Sheehan (whom I know and talked to last Christmas when he was in Dallas) is a very good man.
On the other hand,I am a firm believer in man's ability to repent and "sin no more",and often depressed since it seems to happen infrequently.So I am really happy to hear about Archbishop Sheehan's removal of unfit priests when he replaced Sanchez and am more than pleased to move him to the side of the better Bishops.Thanks again for the info.
Why do you take criticism to such extremes? I probably meet your definition of "hard-liner" if a "hard-liner" is a Catholic who follows Rome. I wish everyone were a member of the Catholic Church because She lays out the fullest way towards Jesus Christ and Salvation.
I don't want to go back to the 50s, but I would like a return to orthodoxy. I am a Catholic because I believe what Rome teaches is Truth - I don't see the shades of grey that you do. The AmChurch has tried the "new and improved" and "alternative" versions of Catholicism, and I look around and see the empty pews for all of the pains the AmChurch has taken since the early 70s. I see @35% of Catholics believe in the real presense, I see confession sparsely attended, I see the joke most CCD programs are (and the resulting distain for them the children have), I see the lost sense of reverence for Mass, and I could go on and on, but I will spare you. :-)
I just do not understand people saying they want to keep the faith, but change the Church. Why try to change the Church? You would be as the same as what you dislike - forcing your own truth on others. I'll go with what the Magisterium teaches over the "alternatives" of the AmChurch.
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.