It seems that all of the lessons of the last many years, including the most recent revelations, have done nothing to change the hierarchy's instinctive reaction to each new story - lie and hope to get away with it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/01/16/cardinal-wuerl-apologizes-priests-mccarrick-victim-says-he-forgot-he-knew-about-harassment-allegations/?utm_term=.617f5a2bc257&wpisrc=nl_faith&wpmm=1
So, from Acts of Faith - readers' ideas related to the appointment of a new bishop for Washington DC
Dear Acts of Faith readers,
While we wait to learn whom Pope Francis
will select as the next archbishop of Washington, to fill the troubled
shoes left vacant by departing Cardinal Donald Wuerl, I asked you for
your input. What would you like to tell the next archbishop? What
qualities does a leader need to take on this job? Here are a few
opinions, beginning with a Catholic priest and including readers from
many backgrounds:
-
“The next archbishop of D.C. should be a priest who has not been a bishop at all anywhere or anyone in a chancery position so that there can be no hint of scandal or past negligence or misdeeds. Someone who can start fresh. And the Vatican should remove the prospect of becoming a cardinal for this appointment. And the people of the archdiocese should have a prominent role in nominating qualified priests for consideration.” — the Rev. Alexander M. Santora, Hoboken, N.J.
-
“The answer is the same I want in any leader: honesty, integrity, and transparency. The problem is that I have so little trust in any Catholic leader that I’m not sure what it will take to restore it, if it can be restored. This has challenged my love of the church and my faith in God. More days than not, I see religion as bad for society, as it appears to cause great harm and discrimination.” — Roberta Proffitt Lavin, Knoxville, Tenn.
-
“Across the country the episcopate has been undermined by a shocking conflict of interest continually putting the diocesan organization ahead of the protection of the flock from predators, and in doing so flagrantly defying criminal laws. The episcopate is slowly destroying the church, betraying the faithful. What is needed to heal this betrayal is an institutional change. Secular ethics officers need to be made part of this hierarchy, directly reporting to the Vatican but also to local district attorneys. Until the church can demonstrate its fidelity to the civic rule of law, these overseers are necessary, in a similar fashion to the imposition of overseers in civil rights legislation.” — David Glidden, Riverside, Calif.
-
“I am a retired Methodist pastor (married with two grown children) who was surrounded by all the temptations of both McCarrick and Wuerl when they were parish priests, though never the power they felt being Roman Catholic and being hierarchy. So perhaps the new leader of Catholicism in Washington must be a lay person! And a married lay person . . . Maybe the responsibilities of leader of D.C.’s Catholics should be a job for an experienced administrator of large and complex organizations. I bet there are Catholic laity who can do a better administrative job than one trained to be clergy.” — the Rev. John F. Yeaman, Austin
-
“The next archbishop should be a woman . . . The notion that women can’t be priests is simply a piece of the construct intended to marginalize women’s power. This assists in confusing the laity so that they buy in to the construct, and reduces competition for leadership positions. That’s all this is about — obtaining and wielding power over others. The Catholic church has demonstrated that their current model produces leaders who are unfit to exercise leadership. Why anyone would stay in such an organization is baffling. I myself left the Catholic church 50 years ago at about age 20.” — Mary Coltrane, Seattle
-
“Introduce change into the church to allow priests to marry. Celibacy was never sanctioned nor established by Jesus, and should be abolished. He chose it for the three lonely years of His mission, during which time it would have been impossible and unlikely and difficult for Him to establish a home with a wife and children, but never something that all priests should follow . . . Bottom line, his (or her, if the next archbishop might be a female! something for the pope to consider) absolute honesty, transparency.” — Richard Fisher, Naples, Fla.
It has been suggested that this will be the most important appointment in the US that Francis will make, and it has been rumored that most bishops view it as an extremely tough assignment given the sexual abuse history, and the politics of DC.
ReplyDeleteIf Francis is concerned about the immediate future, I think he will move either Cupich or Tobin to DC. Cupich has already been tapped as one of the four leaders of the summit on sexual abuse. Tobin was made a Cardinal when he was in Indianapolis, then moved to Newark so why not to DC? Many thought Francis put him in Newark as a counterweight to Cardinal Dolan. He would have even more of a leadership position in DC. As a religious and curia official he has a lot of international experience.
If Francis is concerned about the long term future he may pick a relatively unknown such as Bishop Perez here in Cleveland. He is Hispanic, began as priest in the Philadelphia, than an auxiliary bishop somewhere up around New York, but has been here in Cleveland for only two years. He likely knows how to deal with mostly White power structures. I was impressed when he spoke at a local conference here. He handled the presence crisis very well but also challenged the parish focus as being run by parish loyalists and serving the needs of the most loyal parish members . Since the conference was run by pastoral staff and attended by the most loyal volunteers it was an interesting occasion of a bishop speaking truth to power, in this case the powerful parish establishments with their inward facing, self-referential focus. He began by saying that he had no grand plan for the diocese but expected to learn from everybody how to be a bishop for this time and place.
So a very good pastoral pick. With Gomez set to become the leader of the bishops’ conference and with an Apostolic Delegate who was in Mexico before here, the church political leadership in Washington would have a strong Latino face. The future of the American Church is Latino; it would be good that politicians and the national media get that message.
I don't like some of that advice. If the new arch were to be a woman, however designated, her term would be all about her. And stomping on Trump for six years may turn out to be the main business of the titular leader of Washington Catholics.
ReplyDeleteAs for a priest untainted by chancery experience, Washington is a political town; the best training for living there is the kissing up and kicking down chancery officials have to do. If you want to change that, remember that it takes a thief to catch a thief. What we are looking for, here, is an honest crook with media charisma.
So, Tom, am I reading your comment right?
DeleteIt seems that you believe that the next bishop of DC should NOT be pastoral, nor should he focus on being a spiritual leader. He should be a crafty politician with media charisma, whose main job is to lobby the pols on behalf of the RCC and its agenda to impose Catholic teachings on all in the name of "religious freedom".
Basically, that's why McCarrick and Wuerl were chosen.
Not sure another bishop whose priority is lobbying the politicians while lying to protect the institution is a good idea, at least if honesty and being Christ-like has any place at all in the hierarchy of the RCC.
Perhaps the hierarchy should simply openly admit to having no genuine religious or spiritual goals for the archdiocese, and that they really are looking for a solid company man who will work to promote the interests of the the world's largest multi-national organization - with things like honesty and integrity being of little importance. They just need to know how to play the game.
Perhaps they should be looking for a new top administrator for DC from within the ranks of the corporate world. So, the suggestion that a lay person should be appointed might make sense, and nobody would expect honesty and christian principles to be of much importance. A skilled administrator and lobbyist. There are a few former Trump Cabinet officials who might fill the bill.
"He should be a crafty politician with media charisma, whose main job is to lobby the pols on behalf of the RCC and its agenda to impose Catholic teachings on all in the name of "religious freedom". Basically, that's why McCarrick and Wuerl were chosen. "
DeleteI don't presume to speak for Tom. I would like to call out that, in my view - and, I fervently pray, in the view of a chastened and enlightened episcopate - a bishop who is seeking to "protect the institution" does so by also acting in the best interest of victims; and this is accomplished via openness, transparency, begging for forgiveness, and the offering of compensation, treatment and the possibility of reconciliation.
Granted, the program I'm describing would be a sea change in approach from the practices that have prevailed during our lifetimes. Even so, we may be starting to see signs of the necessary changes of heart and practice, such as the release by the Jesuits' US provinces of the names of priests from their provinces who have been credibly accused. Some dioceses have done similar things - Chicago among them.
I'm not sure what to make of the publishing of those suggestions by the Acts of Faith newsletter. I guess the most straightforward interpretation is that they were cherry-picked to stimulate discussion, click-throughs and subscriptions. I don't them serious suggestions. I am sure at least some of them represent the overall fed-up-ness on the part of the faithful about this situation.
If anyone was to ask me, I'd want someone who has the personal holiness of Mother Theresa, the leadership traits of Ara Parseghian, the political astuteness of Bill Clinton, the evangelizing knack of Billy Graham, and the media savvy of the Kardashians. You're probably thinking, "He just described Beyonce", but maybe there is a bishop or priest who has that total package and is just waiting for Rome to getting around to realizing it.
Dang, Jim, I thought you were describing Bing Crosby. Must be my age.
DeleteWhat Catholics usually think of, Anne, as "pastoral" or a "spiritual leader" would be eaten alive in your town. Goodness, look at how it chewed up and spit out Anthony Scaramucci. Tough neighborhood. I'd want someone who is willing to preach to the Gospel while knee-capping Sara Sanders. Is that too much to ask for?
"Wuerl also denied any knowledge of McCarrick's activities, which I found extremely hard to believe when he made the claim. I had heard about McCarrick's beach house and his fondness for seminarians and young priests while he was still in charge in DC. As it turns out, Wuerl did also - and wrote to the Papal Nuncio about it. Now he claims that he "forgot" he had heard about the abuse."
ReplyDeleteRight. An article about this also hit my inbox today. Headline: "Wuerl Misread the Crisis; Pope Francis Need Not". A snippet:
"Judging by his letter to the American bishops on retreat earlier this month, the pope is still operating on the premise that the crisis of credibility in the U.S. is the result of new revelations of (mostly) decades-old abuse, which have re-opened old wounds and made freshly painful the betrayals of the past. Adding to this pain, and hampering the Church’s pastoral response to it, is (in Francis’ view) the disjointed and fractious response of the American bishops – a problem aggravated by the inflammatory missives of Archbishop Viganò.
"There’s truth in all this, of course, but it’s also profoundly inadequate. The reopening of old wounds and the discovery of hidden crimes is painful, to be sure. But the outrage in the United States today cannot be understood apart from this elementary fact: Many of the faithful in the United States believe, with good reason, that they have been lied to by their shepherds. And many of the American faithful believe, with good reason, that they are still being lied to right now."
"https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/01/17/wuerl-misread-the-crisis-pope-francis-need-not/?utm_source=The+Catholic+Thing+Daily&utm_campaign=91993b3681-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_07_01_02_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_769a14e16a-91993b3681-244245277
He forgot? There's an old midwestern expression: bullspit makes the grass grow green.
ReplyDelete"I see seismographic change after change as Churches begin to understand that the authoritarian model of leadership cannot work. Since the time of Luther the Roman Church has attempted to preserve itself by becoming more authoritarian. Its unilateral excommunication of the Northern Bishops and Cardinals at the time of The Council of Trent has spilled into European wars, divisions of peoples and countries, and the loss of external Vatican power. It seemed to culminate in a very tumultuous Vatican I. Pius IX could not get the entire Council to agree on more authoritarianism, i.e., papal infallibility, so he sent many of the Council home only to reconvene it when some of the detractors of his authoritarianism had left. He then got the vote establishing the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. So the Church in the 1870's suddenly had an infallible Pope. This doctrine has been enforced by forcing people from the security of their retirement if they did not prostate themselves in front of an authoritarian Pope. It is no surprise that Vatican I occurred in a frightened Church right after the church lost so much temporal power with the fall of the Vatican States.
ReplyDeleteThe Church did come to its senses during Vatican II and attempted to correct some of these bad errors, but the power of the established inbred leadership was too much for the majority of the body to withstand. We as a Roman Catholic Church are now facing a wait until a more truthful and Christian structure can emerge. This tendency for authoritarian thinkers to want to be with each other is somewhat natural but my caution to them is that it will cause a lot of internal disagreement as to who knows THE truth, only to cause more schismatic movements.
The better answer will be an emergence of a more humble Church with a much more mellow, and hallow, leadership that understands the consequences of authoritarian thought and structure. This may take centuries and in the meantime, Catholics with integrity will not be able to agree with or support such false dogma as propagated by men who we cannot even depend on to protect our children. Until the leadership understands the necessity of using millstones on themselves, we will have only seismologic shakings with little if any progress. "
R. Dennis Porch, MD http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/crisis-anglicanism-revisited#comment-68173
Rocco Palmo tweets Wilton Gregory is a front runner to be the next Archbishop and that someone close to Wuerl has said that Wuerl does not want his successor to outshine him.
ReplyDeleteGregory is over 70, would reach retirement age in just a very few years ... in fact there was some kind of controversy in Atlanta in the last year or two over a retirement home for Gregory. It would be a surprising choice.
ReplyDeleteThe last person to set any criteria for the next archbishop of DC should be Donald Wuerl. I don't see any rehabilitation for his reputation.