1. Massimo Faggioli has a very good article up on the Commonweal site, entitled "Trent's Long Shadow / The Abuse Crisis and Seminaries, Dioceses and the Laity". What I appreciate about it is its "root cause analysis": it attempts to go deeper than some of the rather superficial diagnoses and solutions that are commonly proposed, e.g. that it's a problem of gay priests and that therefore the solution is to drum gay priests out of the rectory and gay candidates out of the seminaries. Faggioli brings a historical perspective that caused me to think anew about various aspects of the church that I normally take for granted or don't think about, such as "Why do we have parishes?" and "What was the laity's role in the church in past eras?" I emerged from his article with the conviction that a new ecumenical council is needed.
2. Rev. James Martin, SJ, on the America site: "The witch hunt for gay priests". Among the many infuriating aspects of the McCarrick scandal is that it has enabled those members of the conservative commentariat who have long held the erroneous conviction that the waves of sexual abuse crises in the church should be understood as crises of homosexual abuse by gay priests. Martin reviews some of this toxic commentary (some of which, unfortunately, is emanating from church officials), and then follows his now-customary practice of debunking it, calmly, precisely and faithfully. Fr. Martin, who I believe has suffered quite a bit for his courageous advocacy for gay Catholics, is a blessing to the church. I encourage all of us to pray for him and support his advocacy.
Thanks, Jim. Both of these are good articles. I wasn't aware of many of the things Massimo Fagioli mentions about the history of Trent, especially the part about the "laity" not meaning what it does today. One thing he didn't mention was that the reforms of Trent (with regard to seminary training) were attempting to deal with the problem of poorly educated clergy at that time. Of course now we have a different set of problems. I think you are right that we need another ecumenical council. But I'm not sure Pope Francis will be the one who is able to call it.
ReplyDeleteAbout Father Martin's article and his advocacy for gay Catholics, the amount of vitriol he has received is shocking. If I were the parent of a gay son or daughter I would be tempted to despair that there would ever be a safe place in the church for them.
One of my deacon friends just sent me this 2005 article from America:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.americamagazine.org/issue/534/article/11th-century-scandal
Here is a sample:
"Complaints from Damian about the church’s unwillingness to confront the sexual behavior of the clergy, however, met with inaction. In 1049 Damian wrote to Pope Leo IX (1048-54) about the cancer of sexual abuse that was spreading through the church: boys and adolescents were being forced and seduced into performing acts of sodomy by priests and bishops; there were problems with sexual harassment among higher clergy; and many members of the clergy were keeping concubines."
...
"Unfortunately, Pope Leo IX disagreed with Peter Damian’s analysis of the problem of clerical sexual abuse. He was willing to punish clerics who committed acts of anal intercourse with boys and adolescents, but he minimized the punishment of clerics who performed other sexual acts with children and adults of both sexes."
The Damien mentioned is Saint Peter Damian to you. His efforts to clean up the sex scandals of his day -- which smell like the sex scandals of our -- were not unalloyed successes. Nevertheless, as my correspondent wrote, "St. Damien pray for us."
Re Martin's piece, the same mail that brought St. Damien to me is an invitation urging me to watch a video on "Communists and Homosexual Infiltration and a Time of Purification." Oy, vey.
Back to Fr. Jim Martin. In an interpersonal discussion elsewhere about Vigano's diatribe, I mentioned (in a reply) that "of course, gay priests would be bank robbers." My correspondent, usually no dummy, wrote back (seriously) "Is that really true?"
ReplyDelete[No, you idiot, I was being sarcastic, just as I was when I wrote in the next graf that Vigano has failed to mention the guy with the black umbrella on the grassy knoll.]
But while we are on the subject, aren't racist priests more likely to offend against young children?
Locally here in the Scranton Diocese, Bishop Bambera has just stripped former Scranton Bishop Timlin of any ceremonial duties representing the diocese. Bishop Timlin was mentioned in the Shapiro report as being involved in coverup.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not mistaken, Timlin figured prominently in the tale of Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, about whom Grant Gallicho wrote in great detail on the old dotCommonweal site. No longer having available the reporting that was posted on that site on the sex abuse scandals is a loss. Bishop Nienstedt, who also figured in abuse stories posted on dotCommonweal, has come back to public notice as a result of Vigano's letter.
DeleteYes, Jim. You tickled my memory back with that. He was involved with that priest. BTW the Scranton Diocese has also cancelled dinners and other gatherings associated with the Bushop's Annual Appeal. A letter cited the crisis of the Shapiro report.
DeleteThis Crux article by John Allen is interesting. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that others outside our country don't necessarily view things in the same way.
ReplyDeleteWorth reading: "Viganò's latest statement part of concerted campaign to attack papacy," Sep 2, 2018, by Michael Sean Winters
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/vigan-s-latest-statement-part-concerted-campaign-attack-papacy
Thanks for that link, Gene. Sounds like Vigano's big "J'Accuse" moment is coming unraveled. But not before he has done the Church a lot of harm and pushed some people whose faith was on the edge right over the edge.
DeleteI said when it started that no good would come from getting into bed with people who think the Church is the red whore of Babylon and the pope is the Antichrist. You are dealing there with a world view that only occasionally touches down on reality. But, no. They were late-comers to being anti-abortion, and anti-abortion is "almost" pro-life, so we can trust them.
DeleteAnd then a saved but bigoted neo-ally with political ambitions helps a goosey bishop produce all this tsouris! As one of us predicted.
This pope-met-with-Davis storyline is a sideshow and a distraction. Whatever Vigano's motives in writing his testimony, the question he has raised is: did Benedict and Francis know about McCarrick, and if so what if anything did either one do about it. We're still waiting for someone, anyone at the Vatican to answer those questions. Our local suburban newspaper ran an article today whose premise was that not only is Francis not answering that question, neither is Benedict.
DeleteWinters' point that Francis has now punished McCarrick is sort of a deflection. Francis punished McCarrick when the NY Archdiocese brought him credible proof that McCarrick had abused a minor. But that particular instance of abuse was new news. What was allegedly not new news was that McCarrick had also abused non-minors over many years. Who was aware of that abuse in the Holy See, and what, if anything, was done about it? Kim Davis, about whom I had fervently hoped never to hear anything ever again, has exactly nothing to do with that question. I guess both Vigano and the Vatican think the Davis affair needs relitigating, but I'm playing solitaire over here until they finish arguing about that so they can get back to the question at hand.
Jim, neither Francis nor Benedict are answering the question, and of course neither is St. John Paul II. Not sure it really does any good if they did. Most of us have a pretty good idea that some secrets were kept in preceding decades. And centuries. "Paradigm shift" is an overused buzz phrase from a few years ago. But it describes what has happened in the church and also in society. The shift is understanding that individuals and victims matter at least as much as institutions. And that's a good thing. But maybe what matters more is "never again".
DeleteYes, certainly, secrets have been kept. If indeed they also are being kept in this case, I would urge Francis not to keep this one, in the spirit of standing with the victims.
DeleteFrancis set a valuable precedent with the Chilean controversy: he said, in effect, "I screwed up; I've learned a lesson." If this is another case where he screwed up and has learned a lesson, I believe it would only reinforce whatever good came out of the Chilean controversy by his saying those words again, about McCarrick. I fear that his staying silent arouses the suspicion that he didn't learn the lesson from the Chilean controversy.
This idea just occurred to me: maybe Francis is staying mum for now in order to spare Benedict a public raking over the coals; perhaps Francis will speak up when Benedict goes to heaven.
Jim, yes, that thought occurred to me as well. And what if secrets were kept by a canonized saint which shouldn't have been? It wouldn't be a problem to me if something like that came out. Plenty of mistakes were made by canonized saints. I only know of one Person who didn't make any. Well, I guess two people. But some people would have a coronary over it, I think.
DeleteBut I'd bet on Benedict being at the installation of Francis's successor. With the load off of him, Benedict could live as long as Barbarossa (whom, everyone knows, is sleeping in a mountain cave until Germany needs him again).
DeleteI should clarify when I said it "wouldn't be a problem to me" that I meant that I wasn't going to throw up my hands and leave the church over it. I would still be disappointed and sad, and would expect better.
DeleteAnd I am not so sure the pope/Davis meeting is a distraction. It tells you a lot about Vigano that he sprung his girlfriend on the pope at the last minute, late enough that the secretary of state he was supposed to check with had gone to bed, alas, and couldn't be checked with. And if Wuerl was telling the truth months ago, before Vigano became a world figure, Vigano is omitting something material, viz., that he had been warned by Americans that he was fronting for a bigoted Baptist with political ambitions (and four marriages).
DeleteTom, kind of like King Arthur with England?
DeleteI had read that Benedict may have some dementia issues now.
ReplyDeleteThis is a follow up to Tom Blackburn's comment yesterday at 2:35 PM. The author, NCR's Michael Sean Winters, is talking about how Vigano blindsided the pope on the Davis meeting:
"The proper name for this kind of thing is "sandbag." After many people spent months deciding every moment, every venue, every text, every encounter of the papal trip, at the end of a dinner (on the night before the meeting i.e. at the last possible minute). Viganò springs this idea on the pope: Let's have you meet with Davis. . .
..........................................................
"Notice anything strange about the account? Viganò speaks about this proposed meeting with three non-Americans: the Argentine pope, the Sardinian sostituto and the British foreign minister. Wouldn't it have been wise to check in with an American prelate? . . .
"Viganò did not mention it in this latest dossier of his, but the fact is that he had consulted with at least one U.S. prelate before the meeting with Davis took place, and he was urged not to do it. I did not know about the meeting until the story broke a few days after the pope had left the U.S. At that time, I spoke with Cardinal Donald Wuerl who, as Archbishop of Washington, had been intimately involved in the planning of every detail of the pope's time in the capital city. That conversation was on background but I have asked the cardinal's permission to put it on the record now given Viganò's latest statement, and he agreed to do so.
"Back in 2015, when this all transpired, Wuerl told me then that Viganò had asked him about the advisability of a meeting between the pope and Davis and Wuerl had advised against it. Viganò also told Wuerl that he had asked Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, then-president of the U.S. bishops' conference, and that he also had advised against it. . .
"Viganò writes, "What is certain is that the Pope knew very well who Davis was," but by his own account, the pope knew what Viganò himself explained about Davis. And what he explained was wrong. She was not "the first American citizen condemned and imprisoned for conscientious objection." And, what a coincidence that she was in Washington and Viganò knew where and how to track her down!
...................................................
"This latest self-revealing dossier comes at the same time that Viganò's magnum opus of last week is falling apart. Edward Pentin at the National Catholic Register, who played a key role in disseminating Viganò's original dossier, now appears to be realizing that perhaps he has been taken for a ride. Now Viganò admits his "memory isn't helping me know" as to whether his instructions were written or not. This from a man so precise? Now he says he doesn't know if the supposed strictures against McCarrick were communicated to Wuerl or not. Another source isn't sure if there was a decree or just a private suggestion that McCarrick keep a low profile.
....................................................
". . . We learned during Vatileaks [that Vigano] lied about needing to stay in Rome to care for his brother, except that his brother was not in Rome but in Chicago, was not ill but healthy, and had not spoken with his archbishop brother for years. This man whom his sister now calls a "farabutto" or "scoundrel."
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/vigan-s-latest-statement-part-concerted-campaign-attack-papacy
Winters has been stout in his defense of Francis. Stouter than I've been able to muster. I'm taking my archbishop's approach: let's let the questions raised by Vigano be vetted.
DeleteI am guessing that Winters is trusting his reporter's instinct here, perhaps bolstered by knowledge that isn't public, to take this stance. There are other reporters out there who aren't ready yet to do that, and some who think Vigano's main accusations are credible.
I hope Winters is right: I hope Vigano is lying like Pinocchio in this affair, because that would mean that Francis and Benedict weren't negligent, didn't cover up serious wrong-doing by a prominent cardinal. That would be a relief to me.
Commonweal editorial: "Vigano's 'Testimony' "
ReplyDeletehttps://www.commonwealmagazine.org/viganos-testimony
That's a pretty good Commonweal editorial. I agree with nearly all of it. The closing paragraph is especially strong.
DeleteHere is the one part that I think misses the bulls-eye:
"Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register reported that a source close to Benedict told him that “the instruction was essentially that McCarrick should keep a ‘low profile.’ There was ‘no formal decree, just a private request.’” In other words, there seem to have been no “sanctions” for Francis to lift. The only decisive actions taken against McCarrick by a pope have been those of Francis, who in July stripped him of his red hat and ordered him to a life of prayer and penance."
Sure - let's grant the author's contention here, that it seems that there were no formal sanctions for Francis to lift. But in my view, that is a comparatively minor point, and we shouldn't let it obscure the larger point.
The larger point is this: if we accept either version of that disputed point - the formal-sanctions version or the informal-admonishment version - either way, Benedict knew something about McCarrick. Why would Benedict impose formal sanctions or deliver an informal admonishment, unless Benedict had a reason to sanction or admonish McCarrick?
If we grant that Benedict knew something about McCarrick - presumably had been informed, either generally or in detail, about McCarrick's alleged track record of abuse - then the question we would wish to ask, I believe, is: did Benedict, in possession of this knowledge of McCarrick, act appropriately and proportionally to the gravity of the offenses? I would argue that Vigano's version - a formal if private sanctioning of McCarrick - is more exculpatory for Benedict than Pentin's revised version - an informal admonishment.
The question of whether and what Benedict knew is important in its own right, but probably not as interesting to us today as whether and what Francis knew. And this line of consideration doesn't shed any light on that question. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no light whatever has been shed on that question so far - just Vigano's unsupported claim that Francis lifted whatever discipline Benedict had imposed on McCarrick.
Sorry, should have brought my previous comment to its logical conclusion:
DeleteAs I noted in my previous comment, I don't believe any actual evidence has been produced yet to show that Francis knew anything about McCarrick's alleged track record of abuse. If Francis didn't know about McCarrick until the NY Archdiocese brought Francis a credible allegation earlier this year that McCarrick had abused a minor several decades ago, then Francis's good reputation is intact: he learned something damning about a cardinal, and acted quickly and decisively on the knowledge. In which case, the only remaining mystery, as the Commonweal editors call out, is: Why doesn't Francis defend himself?
On the other hand, if, as Vigano claims, Francis knew about McCarrick's track record already but didn't act until earlier this year, the interpretation becomes more complicated. There are several possibilities. One, the one which Vigano would like us to embrace, is that Francis simply failed: he knew, but didn't do anything. Francis's handling of the Chilean situation is viewed as supporting this interpretation.
Another possibility is that what Francis presumably would have known about McCarrick up until this year - the gay #MeToo abuse of vulnerable adults that seems to be the much greater part of McCarrick's track record - was viewed by Francis as not sufficiently serious to merit the same degree of sanctions as the abuse of minors. This might be possible if McCarrick's track record was presented to Francis as being instances of consensual relationships between adults. But this is all pure speculation; first it needs to be established that Francis knew anything about McCarrick before this year.