Cardinal Pell, the most prominent Australian bishop of his generation, has died. He was a polarizing figure, and (like most prominent churchmen of his generation) entangled in sex abuse scandal accusations, but like the man to whom he was allied, Pope Benedict, not altogether easy to fit into a simple, neat ideological box. Pope Francis apparently thought he would be a key ally as well in cleaning up Vatican finances.
This is the Reuters obituary. I don't have time now to do a media roundup, but I am sure NCR, America and other Catholic publications will provide more detailed obits.
The generation of conservative senior clergy who seemed most prominent to me during the younger part of my adulthood - Cardinal Pell, Pope Benedict, Cardinal George - are dying. These three weren't simply culture warriors, they also strove to be thought leaders for a conservative brand of Catholicism. The ideological battles to which they tried to contribute a conservative theological foundation continue in the media and, perhaps, the parishes. But the church itself - both the institution and the wider Body of Christ - moves to newer generations, with new and different hopes and concerns. The Catholic church continues to renew itself.
I had heard that Pell was tasked with trying to straighten out the Vatican bank chaos, and this may have led up to the sexual abuse allegations (I would have to guess that not everyone wanted it straightened out). I read an account of where and when the abuse was supposed to have happened, and it didn't add up. Apparently others thought so too because he was eventually acquitted. That doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty of moving priests who were abusers around and covering for them, but that wasn't what the the accusation that he spent over a year in prison for was about.
ReplyDeleteI think the allegations are older than Pell's appointment as chief financial reformer of the Vatican (although I could be mistaken about that). My impression is that the relationship between the Catholic Church in Australia and wider Australian society would strike us Americans as different and strange.
DeleteNot ideologically aligned with superclerical Pell but I hate to see anyone falsely accused and imprisoned. Like spousal abuse and child molestation, a search for justice can become retooled as a weapon.
ReplyDeletePell, like George, Avery Dulles and Charles Chaput among other conservative cardinals and bishops, has written for First Things over the years. If you're interested, a collection of his writings is here
ReplyDeletehttps://www.firstthings.com/author/george-cardinal-pell
He seems to have written about a variety of topics which might be of interest to First Things readers (of which I was one at one time, now pretty long ago): conscience; relations between Christians and Muslims; secularism; Benedict XVI. He also seems to have contributed at least one article on his trials and imprisonment.
Any articles about the accusations about which there is little doubt? That he hid the crimes of priest/ jokesters and simply moved them around? Any Mea Culpas for that?
DeleteJim - The ideological battles to which they tried to contribute a conservative theological foundation continue in the media and, perhaps, the parishes. But the church itself - both the institution and the wider Body of Christ - moves to newer generations, with new and different hopes and concerns. The Catholic church continues to renew itself
ReplyDeleteI see little hope that the younger generations will renew the church. There are still a whole lot of JPII/Benedict bishops out there. And a whole lot of very conservative younger JPII/Benedict priests. From what I read most of the younger laity still in the pews are also the very conservative - women in veils and long skirts, flocking to Latin mass parishes etc. Even in mainstream parishes like my former parish, I see young women dressed like 1950s schoolmarms, veiled, and going to extreme public shows of piety, such as kneeling on both knees instead of genuflecting when exiting a pew, and then facing the altar again at the exit door and getting on both knees again. Or kneeling on both knees in front of every station of the cross. It’s almost creepy to watch. I spend very little time there - peaking in when I stop for water, and can’t help but wonder how common this is if I stumble on it frequently by chance in five minute stops at the church when I take my walks,
The oldest conservatives in the hierarchy like Benedict and Pell might be dying off, but it seems unlike that the bleeding out of younger progressive Catholics will stop, at least not in the US. . So many have already walked away. Given the conservative bias in the priests who will be around for another few decades, it’s very likely that nobody will be left in 20 years except for those wanting a return to the pre-Vatican II church. Everyone else will have given up by then.
I think the old lines of demarcation are fading. Those young people who are attracted to traditional piety: don't assume they are conservative in the ways that Reagan or Trump voters are conservative. These things change over time.
DeleteI’m not talking politics but conservative as far as the church goes. They imagine that everything was perfect before VII. Latin us somehow more holy than the vernacular. They are conservative in their beliefs - they sure aren’t going to be pushing for changes in the church’s homophobia, or it’s misogyny, or it’s clericalism. And I imagine most are also MAGA politically, at least according to what I read.
DeleteAnne, occasionally I see some performance piety like what you mention. But it isn't common, even in our red state neck of the woods. Most people who come to our parish church are just ordinary people. They probably are Republicans, because about 60% of Nebraskans are. But the young people including the women are casually dressed, don't wear anything on their heads, and I doubt if they know any Latin. Spanish maybe.
DeleteKatherine, I don’t witness daily parish life. I am an outside observer only. And we know from the funeral discussions that there seem to be regional differences. I live in a liberal community in a deep blue state. I don’t see who is there on Sundays, only those who are there in early afternoon on weekdays. So the pious conservatism I’ve observed recently probably reflects some self- selection. But I have been surprised to see these signs of 1950s piety. Performance piety. It’s new around here. But when I read the websites or bulletins of local parishes I also see sharp turns towards conservative Catholicism. The choices of Bible study materials, the emphasis on anti- abortion while ignoring completely the rest of the spectrum of pro- life activities, the dramatic fall in the numbers in the congregation - even before Covid - the young priests in their cassocks. The traditional charitable activities remain, but social justice activities are missing. Adult education is limited to very conservative programs like Alpha, and only traditional practices like adoration, benediction, the rosary, are offered - no Centering Prayer, Lectio, Divine Office etc. Which are all part of traditional Catholic practice - but ignored- why? A huge emphasis on confession. It’s the church of my 1950s childhood except for mass being in English. There are younger adults because the parishes I’ve looked at all have schools and the families around here can afford the tuitions. BTW, based on what I read in comments at America, it seems that few fans of the Latin mass actually know any Latin. I presume there has been a return of the bi-lingual missal of my childhood, or something similar - handouts or something. It even seems that most priests don’t actually know Latin these days. Maybe it’s becoming a requirement in seminaries again, along with instructions on how to properly wear the silly looking hat that some younger priests seem to like.
DeleteEvery poll, every study, even the Synod reports repeat the same themes - people are unhappy with three things primarily- homophobic treatment of gays, the teachings that demean women, relegating them to being second-class Catholics, ineligible for a sacrament because of their genes - helpers who are allowed by men to do certain things, but only those tasks the men decide they can do - and the clericalism, which essentially reduces all laity to the status of the women - support only. Hand over the money and we important, ontologically superior celibates will make all of the decisions. Even deacons’ wives are seen as helpers to the important person - they are asked to go through the diaconate training with their husbands, but are expected to stand aside, good supportive wives, and never allowed any official role. Yes, Jim’s wife is “ allowed” to give a homily once/ year by bending the rules, but basically her job is to support Jim, as yours is to support your husband. But you have a great mind, and it’s sad that your thoughts aren’t shared officially with your parish. I know you have no interest in giving homilies. Neither would I. But I also know from going to Episcopal churches that some women are good at giving homilies and they provide true complementarity by processing scripture through a feminine mind. The Catholic Church is operating with half a brain, and it hurts the people as well as the institution.
So a younger pastor struts into parishes like Jean’s, with his camp followers, changes everything to suit himself, and the people in the pews are simply expected to write that check every week and keep their opinions to themselves. From what I read, this seems to be happening everywhere. And this is why the younger adults, especially young women, are leaving instead of hanging around to “renew” the church - as Jim optimistically anticipates. Wishful thinking? Probably.
Hello - I don't see it as a negative if young women want to wear head coverings, or if young men want to wear suits and ties to mass. That may not be precisely the same spirituality as mine, but we're all part of the same Catholic faith, and it embraces many cultures and spiritual expressions.
DeleteIt is true that some parishes appear, on the whole, more conservative than others. Even our parish, which I don't think is very conservative, has a Eucharistic Adoration chapel, and the rosary is prayed daily. That is not because our pastor is fanatical about these sorts of things; nor is he looking to push some sort of "conservative" agenda. But there are parishioners who want these things, and he's willing to accommodate them. I think that's a good thing. If parishioners approached him and said, We'd like to spin up a Pax Christi chapter, he'd probably be supportive of that, too. But to the best of my knowledge, that hasn't happened in the 30+ years I've belonged to this parish. Apparently, people who belong to Pax Christi live elsewhere.
There are a few parishioners who genuflect before they receive communion; there are a few who want to receive on the tongue rather than in the hand (despite a couple of years of COVID-related measures). If we had a communion rail and offered communion at it, there probably would be people who would prefer to receive communion that way. Again - that is their spiritual "style".
Had Francis put his Latin Mass restrictions in place prior to the diocesan listening sessions for the synod, I think it's likely that the diocesan folks who compiled the diocesan feedback would have heard about it from those who are affected by it.
But in general - and getting back to my original point: because a young woman wears a veil in church, doesn't mean that she supports homophobia, or that she is perfectly happy with women's roles in the Catholic church. (Nor, for that matter, that she is against climate change-related reforms, nor that she is against diversity, inclusion and equity.) Young adults are different than our generation. Some of them may be more conservative than us in some ways, while simultaneously being as liberal, or more so, in other ways.
My wife didn't receive any formation to "support" me as a deacon. Both of us took marital vows to support one another in our marriage. You are correct that she received all the same diaconal formation as I did, and we shared many of the same spiritual experiences during formation. Today, she is as involved, or uninvolved, in parish ministry as she wishes to be. If she felt called to be a deacon, the status quo would be a source of pain for her. For better or worse, apparently she doesn't feel that call.
Jim, point well taken that we shouldn't jump to conclusions about people we don't know who have a different spiritual style. It is said that the church is a big tent, maybe we all need to exercise a little patience and tolerance.
DeleteJim, I get different spiritual styles. But many young, conservative pastors only encourage the traditional stuff. I disagree with you about the young trads who wear veils - at least based on what I read in articles about the research studies that have been done, and by their own comments, mostly at America, because everyone else has given them up, I would guess that around 90% of the self- described veil wearers are on board with RCC teachings on gays, women’s roles in the church, contraception - and trumpian politics. Conservative about church teachings and in politics both. As far as deacon wives training goes - I have a close friend who taught deacons to be for years. She said a man couldn’t become a deacon if his wife refused the training, because they want the wives on board - while denying them the opportunity to become deacons themselves. Denying that it’s really all about supporting the husband in his role as a deacon is disingenuous.
Delete"As far as deacon wives training goes - I have a close friend who taught deacons to be for years. She said a man couldn’t become a deacon if his wife refused the training, because they want the wives on board - while denying them the opportunity to become deacons themselves."
DeleteMy archdiocese was one of the earliest dioceses to spin up the permanent diaconate - back in the early 1970s. In those early years, the wives were not part of the formation (because nobody really knew any better). What they learned was that having the men go through this intensive spiritual formation without their wives could turn out to be bad for the marriages; the men could end up in a different place spiritually, while the wives had not experienced the same journey. So the wives now are invited to accompany their husbands on the formation journey. It really is (or should be) a form of the spirituality of accompaniment which Francis has promoted, but it was figured out long before Francis became pope.
I'd invite you to share this line of thought with your friend and see if it aligns with the experience in diaconate formation in her diocese.
Different dioceses have different requirements for diaconate formation. In Chicago, it's not mandatory that the wives participate, but it's strongly encouraged, for the reason I've given. But not every wife wishes to, and/or for some wives, it may not be possible logistically (e.g. because of a job, or perhaps because of childcare). In my class, there was one wife out of the 20 or so men who chose not to attend the classes and other formation activities.
FWIW: this is just my opinion: having not just my own wife, but all the wives, as part of the formation experience, was critical. We'd all be worse off without their participation, input, critiques, etc. There is a big difference between a group of men getting together, vs. a group of couples getting together.
"What they learned was that having the men go through this intensive spiritual formation without their wives could turn out to be bad for the marriages; the men could end up in a different place spiritually, while the wives had not experienced the same journey." Jim, that was also the case in our archdiocese. I am told that in the early days it definitely caused some problems when the wives were not included.
DeleteWhen we went through formation, starting in 1997, it was mandatory that the wives also attended the classes. I will be honest and say that the "mandatory" bit rubbed me the wrong way. Being required to do something is different than being invited.. However in the end I was glad I had taken part in the formation. It was interesting and I learned a lot, and it would have felt very strange for Kelly to be on a journey that I wasn't included in. Nowadays the wives are invited to attend but are no longer required. It is still the case that a wife's consent for the husband to start formation is required.
As far as my involvement in the church I do my own thing, as I always have. We all have different gifts and inclinations. For the sake of women who wish to become deacons, I hope that ministry is someday opened to them. But I personally do not have any desire to be a deacon.
And yet the wives are still just accessories, support for the man. It’s « critical » to have the women there. But their own gifts and talents are essentially tossed away once the man has been ordained. No matter how you look at it, it’s all about making sure the man gets through the program ok. It’s irrelevant that Katherine or Theresa or any other wife feels that she got something out of it - the only reason she is invited to participate in the formation is to support the man so that he doesn’t drop out.
DeleteMy friend is in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. She no longer teaches as she is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. She no longer drives because her family took away her license. Too dangerous for her to drive anymore. It breaks my heart, as she has been my closest friend, and my anam cara - my only real soul friend - all of my adult life, since we were college roommates.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend, Anne. Alzheimer's is a cruel disease. A true friend is rare enough at any stage of life.
DeleteAbout being an accessory, I have a choice about that. I don't feel that I am one. I was just helping my husband do something he felt called to do. I view it as similar to when I went back to school in the early '90s, and he assumed some extra duties with the kids' school and activity schedules, and things around the house so I had time to study.
DeleteKatherine, most of us try to support our spouses. But the reality isn’t changed - wives in diaconate programs are either required or invited to participate for only one reason - to keep the man in the formation program. If the presence of the family dog accomplished this then Lassie would be invited to attend all the classes and events. So while women have to spend enormous amounts of time to help ensure that the man stays the course, the women themselves are essentially tossed aside afterwards. Their value was simply making it more likely that the man would join the ranks of deacons. When you went back to school, I assume that your husband didn’t attend all of your classes with you. If he had, he would very likely have made being awarded the same degree a requirement for his participation. A totally reasonable expectation. But not in the RCC.
DeleteYou and Theresa and all of the other wives aren’t being invited for yourselves - your worth isn’t YOU, not is it your gifts. Your worth is found in what you do for your husband - for the man, for the support you provide that improves the odds that the man will successfully complete the program. . So even though you also put in the time and effort, you never get the degree. You are a woman, and the church says that even though you aren’t worthy of getting the degree, you should be there anyway as the support - to smooth the way. Men lead, women are supposed to follow. Men are the heads of the families, women must defer to them. Only men may be ordained, women should obey and pray - and support the men.
Katherine, I’ve never had another friend like her. She’s the only friend that is a true soul friend, a friend who has so much spiritual depth and insights that she was essentially also my confessor and spiritual director as well as my best friend. She could see into my soul, hear what my words didn’t say, pierce through every pretense to understand my truth better than I did. I am already grieving losing her.
DeleteJim There is a big difference between a group of men getting together, vs. a group of couples getting together.
DeleteWell, yes. Women do provide insights and understandings that men don’t grasp. You have finally identified one of the root problems for the severe dysfunction in the church - the all male clerical class. God made them male AND female in God’s image. God is spirit and encompasses both male and female. But the church muzzles the female. The church denies the divine feminine. As a result, the church’s teachings are distorted. Theology defined exclusively by men reflects only the masculine mind, masculine understanding, Homikies based on scripture do the same - they reflect only the masculine mind, understandings and experiences. Even worse with the priests because T least deacons have+wives and daughters to provide a little course correction - helpers for the men who often simply don’t “ get it”.
Still limited to support roles..
The male hierarchy retains the views of ancient patriarchal societies that women are inferior, the possessions of men who had the right to dictate every aspect of their lives. The improvement in this attitude has been minimal, with the forward movement glacial.
There is a big difference between a group of men getting together, vs. a group of couples getting together.
DeleteI agree. It is also true that there is a big difference between a group of women getting together and a group of couples getting together. My observation is that both men and women are better behaved when in mixed company. The conversation and behavior go downhill when it is either mostly men or mostly women.
I was once a member of a small professional group that met regularly, all PhDs and all the rest women. Often the women spent their time criticizing the dress and behavior of men and women who were not present. It revolted me as much as the locker-room talk among all male groups. As a male I have a lot of experience in dealing with things like male competition, but zero experience in dealing with a woman who just does not like the way someone smiles or talks. I guess women learn to deal with that in all women groups.
While all priests are men, I don’t think clericalism has much to do with being a male. When priests and bishops are alone, they talk disparagingly about laity (men as well as women), just as some Whites do when Blacks are not present, and some men and women do when the opposite sex are not present. Professors sometimes disparage students when they are not present; likewise, clinicians when clients are not present. Groups tend to denigrate outsiders when they are not present. It seems to be a part of group bonding particularly by insecure members and leaders.
In Catholic parishes “church ladies” are as much a problem as clericalism. In fact, they often feed on one another. Pastors hand over responsibility to loyal “church ladies” who can abuse and disrespect other people as much as they want as long as they don’t do anything that annoys Father.
I don't think much of "patriarchy" as an explanatory concept. Yes, the leaders of many human groups are males. But they lord it over males as well as females. They may try to keep males in line but letting them lord it over their wives and children. The basic problem remains one of status, i.e., lordship not gender. Allowing more women to lord it over their fellow human beings is not a solution.
So, Jack. Only men should be permitted to lord it over others?
DeleteYet you imply that because some women might want to lord over others as men do, they should be kept from positions in the church that enable this behavior. But it’s ok with you that men are not only allowed to be in these positions, there are frantic efforts going on to induce more men to become priests - even though there are many women who would be happy to fill the vacancies - with the bonus of providing a feminine perspective to balance the male perspective. Mars AND Venus. TRUE. complementarity.
DeleteThe ideal is that all would be servants. But as you well know, the servant leader model of priesthood in the RCC is not popular with younger priests. They embrace the authoritarian model preferred by JPII and Benedict. Definitely some women would also be authoritarian if they were priests. But they are denied any chance at all to be priests - servant leaders or authoritarian.
There is no balance in the RCC. You are a single man who has been attracted to the male dominated religion your entire life, and especially to male monastic life. Perhaps some reflection is called for before you decide that discrimination against women in churches is not a bad thing, not a sin. But it is a sin. It’s a slap in the face of God who encompasses male and female both. The evangelical, RC and Eastern Orthodox are the worst offenders in the christian world.
Clericalism in Catholicism is a sin not just against women but against men including myself. Most priests are just as threatened by my talents as they are with talented women. I am interested in a church where lay men and women get to use fully their talents without becoming members of the clerical caste.
DeleteMonastic life in its original form was not clerical. The desert solitaries and the early Benedictines discouraged clerics from joining them. In Benedict's rule it is clear that status is determined by date of entry into the monastery. Priests who entered could do only those things which the abbot authorized them to do.
It's also true that wives support their deacon husbands. I'm grateful for the support. I try to support my wife, too. To some extent, this is true about any marriage, whether or not the clerical state is involved. When my wife worked for a company which had a formal employee Christmas dinner in a hotel ballroom, I was expected to dress up and "accessorize" her among her co-workers and the bosses.
DeleteAnyone with a spouse who has a public life is, in some way, a supporting, "accessorizing" person. I don't claim it is good or bad. It's probably both. Some spouses probably relish it, some probably hate it. I think most find ways - hopefully healthy ways - of dealing with it.
Nor must it mean that the supporting spouse is subordinate in the marriage. Each spouse should support the other. She comes to my high school reunions, and I go to hers.
There is a difference between accompanying a spouse to a business social occasion and being required - or at last pressured - to go through a diaconate formation program.
DeleteAt business functions the men might be joined by their wives or the women by their husbands. Political spouses may be male or female. Women are not banned from being politicians, or CEOs, or PhDs, or physicians or lawyers or even truck drivers or firefighters. But they are banned from becoming deacons even though expected to go through an extensive formation program. Why? So that their husbands will complete it. They are being used. They may do it willingly to support their spouse, but they are still being used.
The asymmetry of the homily is a strong factor in creating clericalism in churches. It means that when we come to church on Sunday, the homilists are the only people we get to know, and they don’t get to know us.
DeleteI think priests and deacons should write their homilies by sitting down with a small group of say a dozen laypeople, asking them what they think about the readings, and what they think should be addressed in a homily. Ask laity to come prepared with some ideas and suggestions. Clerics should come prepared with some ideas and suggestions of their own to try out.
These groups need to be small so the homilist gets to know them over time. I say groups because if the homilist is going to preach every Sunday, they probably need at least two and possibly four groups. I would be very happy to sit down with a homily group once a month, maybe even twice a month but weekly would be too much, too much of my time and too deep an investment in the project. The practice of getting to have some input once or twice a month is challenging and interesting. Doing it each week would become a burden.
If a cleric had a homily each Sunday, and had four groups helping him, that would mean that about fifty people that he would be getting to know better, and each person would be getting to know about a dozen other people in the parish. A real good investment in community building and church involvement.
There would need to be provisions for membership much like those that I have experienced on pastoral council. The council had twelve members who have the possibility of two, two-year terms. So, each year some people are entering, some of leaving and some are being renewed if mutually desirable.
The larger the parish, the more priests and deacons, the more opportunities for community building both between clerics and laity and among laity.
Obvious such a system would call for advance planning. If a cleric had a group which met every other week, perhaps they could spend half the time working on a topic for four weeks from now, and half the time reconsidering the topic for two weeks from now. That way both the cleric and the laity could do a little homework between the two times the topic homily was considered.
Adding this. While the supportive spouse is not necessarily subordinate in the marriage, the church often teaches that they are. Male headship. JPII was big on the idea that males lead and women follow. Men are active and women are passive - receivers. And certainly as far as holy orders are concerned in the RCC, women are definitely subordinate to men. Jim, that’s simply undeniable reality. This isn’t about you going to your wife’s high school reunion. This is about the subordination of women in the Catholic Church! It’s incredible to me that you refuse to see it!
DeleteThe attitude toward women by the official Church makes me cringe. But I like Jack's viewpoint. Clericalism needs to go first or simultaneously before women get their full measure. How we get from here to there, I dunno. Women deacons could be a move in the right direction.
DeleteInteresting article about what appears to be more duplicity on the part of Pell. I am assuming that it’s true, but I’m guessing there will be a lot of blustering denials by some.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/catastrophe-cardinal-pells-secret-memo-blasts-francis
It seems to me that it is unlikely that Pell was guilty of sexual abuse of minors.
ReplyDeleteFrancis made a good political move when he appointed Pell as his financial czar to begin to bring order into Vatican financial accounting. Pell certainly had the Anglo-Saxon values about financial transactions which are sadly lacking throughout the third world were bribery is considered the normal way of doing business. Never shy about his opinions. Pell guaranteed a larger measure of transparency in Vatican finances.
Francis was not disappointed. Pell exposed the large amount of money that was not on the Vatican’s books. As the Peter’s Pence collection came into Rome, the money was deposited into banks. On the books where the money came from and where it went was documented. However, the substantial interest to this account was completely off the books controlled by the Vatican Secretary of State.
In my county money raised by the mental health levy goes into the county treasury. Its dispersal by the mental health board is public knowledge. However, the interest earned by those dollars does not go to the mental health board but to the county which uses it for whatever it wishes, e.g., police cruisers. So, what the Vatican Secretary of State doing was not that unusual, but it was unaccountable to the Pope or the public.
Pell fought to have those funds go through his department; he lost that fight to the Secretary of State. That was the beginning of the decline of Pell’s reform efforts. While the allegations of sexual abuse might have been independent of Pell’s activity in Rome, it seems to me that the prosecution of those allegations may have been backed by Pell’s financial opponents in Rome.
Pell was a major proponent of the recent translation of the Missal. Don’t know how much he got involved in the details, but its awkwardness seems appropriate to Pell’s character.
Francis is shrewd. I suspect when he appointed Pell, he knew that Pell would run into deep trouble from the Curia, and that Pell would only half succeed in the financial area but be distracted and wounded in his other conservative activities such as translation of Missals.
Early on the story was that Francis as a Jesuit would not be very interested in the liturgy wars. He was too preoccupied with climate change, world economic order, migration, and the peripheries. It is now clear that he had an agenda with regard to the liturgy. He overturned the Extraordinary Form and returned primary responsibility for liturgical translations to bishop’s conference. That will not help us in the short run, since few bishops are up to doing another translation.
While Pell likely felt he had the Pope’s ear when he was on Secretary over finances and a member of the Council of Nine, in recent years he has begun to be secretly critical of the Pope. What better way to regain some power and influence among the cardinal electors (even though he no longer is an elector).
Looks like his criticism will become part of a move upon the part of some cardinals and bishops to opening disagree with Pope Francis, and set the agenda for the next conclave, hoping to cripple Francis and force him to resign. The coming two, yearly sessions of the synod will likely be the battleground.
The deep intrigue and personal animosity of figures in that coming battle stands a good chance of harming the papacy as much as palace intrigues have harmed the British monarchy.
Within Catholicism we are seeing that each Pope (JP2, Benedict, Francis) all have their loyal media followers just as Trump has his loyal media followers and detractors. Followers and detractors if dead poples are likely to continue to polarize the church.
What the two sessions of the Synod needs to discover is a way to govern the church without descending into polarization. If they do so, perhaps the next conclave will elect a Pope who be willing not to be a media star, but rather served for an agreed upon term limit.
"Looks like his criticism will become part of a move upon the part of some cardinals and bishops to openly disagree with Pope Francis..." They've been openly disagreeing with him for years. I'm sure they would like to force him to resign, but I don't see it happening unless he wants to. The intrigue and personal animosity reflect worse on the perpetrators than they do on the papacy, it's a bad look now that it's out in plain view.
DeleteWhile it seems unlikely that Pell molested kids himself, there is apparently no doubt at all that he protected priests who molested kids. That was SOP in the church until the secular media broke open the story and some in the hierarchy - only a few unfortunately - were eventually pushed into coming clean. It’s possible that Benedict eventually really did repent for his decades long role in protecting the clerics. Maybe. Some of it after he became pope came across as acting for the cameras, complete with crocodile tears. But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. The palace intrigue scandals and corruption in the British monarchy have yet to result in any kind of reform, much less has it brought down the monarchy. It seems to be very much the same in the Vatican. The trads love thé pomp and circumstance of Catholic hierarchy and Rome, the gold and silk and lace frippery that is as far from representative of Jesus and his disciples as could be, and it is unlikely that any real change will ever take place, in spite of synods, in spite of Francis’s best efforts. So the most likely scenario over the next 50 years is continuing decline in the west, also in Latin America, increases in membership in Africa. But the $$ is in the western church, and as ordinary Catholics continue to walk away, the smaller church that Benedict predicted, eventually composed of mostly the trads, will probably come to pass. Smaller, but not purer.
DeleteBack to Pell. There is an interesting comment at the America abusers:
ReplyDelete'...However, he did not simply mishandle cases of sexual abuse; he was a real hard-hearted bastard to the victims. He testified to the good character of a known abuser. A Royal Commission investigated Pell:
“The finding is damaging to Cardinal Pell and provides further evidence of the blind spot Australia’s most senior Catholic had towards Ridsdale, a prolific child sex offender who Cardinal Pell shared a home with in the 1970s and accompanied to court in 1993 and offered to provide character evidence for."...'
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/cardinal-pell-white-martyr/
Back to the discussion of deacon formation and wives, I think it is important to make a couple of points that haven't been mentioned. One thing that is made clear to deacon candidates is that their marriage is their first vocation (if they are married). The diaconate comes second. Actually third if they are still working, which most of them would be; they still need to support their families. It is true that they want the guys to complete the formation program, if it is meant to be. Some of them discern out, and some reach a mutual decision with their teachers that the diaconate isn't a good fit. But the church does not want to cause problems in their primary vocation of marriage. And since I am a partner in that marriage I do appreciate that.
ReplyDelete"The real issue is how they look at wives - they don’t want the wives because they will go on to become deacons. They don’t value the women for themselves. "
DeleteYes, you've made that point a few times. Perhaps your close friend (about whose condition I'm sorry, btw) may see it the same way. I don't think it's true, though, or at least not entirely true. It may have been true initially. But even the bishops around here have figured out that the wives have gifts and abilities of their own, and the church is better off for the wives receiving the formation and developing their abilities. Even an old-school clerical traditionalist like Cardinal George learned that lesson through experience.
“The church is better off if the women participate”. Exactly. So they use the wives to further the goals of the institution. To get deacons. So tell me, what is the path for the women now that a few bishops have figured out that wives have their own gifts and abilities? (Whoopee do. in the 21st century - took a while) They shut women out of the obvious path, given that they went through the entire deacon formation program. They are banned from the diaconate. The bishops’ “ appréciation” doesn’t change the reality. .The women are there ONLY because their presence, their support of their husbands, facilitates a higher completion rate of men for the diaconate. I’ve said this every way I can think of. But you really don’t want to look at the reality. To accept the reality that women are treated as second class citizens of the church.
DeleteTo accept the reality that women are treated as second class citizens of the church.
DeleteThe reality is that all laity are second class citizens in all our churches. I am much more interested in doing things like the "homily preparation" process I just proposed above that would involve a lot of laity getting into the process of crafting homilies and building community than I am in recruiting more or even better people (men and/or women) to become priests and deacons. That continues to build on the model of the clerics being the church.
While the homily building process might help in recognizing the talents of some men and women, and the desirability of ordaining them, I would hope it would also recognize that there are a lot of good people out there who have the experience and talent to occasionally give a homily. In fact, from my experience in small faith sharing groups, I think that almost everyone has a good homily with them.
Some Protestant churches recognize this and allow people to "witness" I think we need a similar process in which we allow laity to witness either in some faith sharing as an introduction to the Mass or after communion.
I think my "homily building" proposal might allow that to happen naturally. A group member might introduce the Mass, one or two members might comment on the homily after a few minutes of silent reflection, and another two might do a little faith sharing about its practice in life right before the dismissal.
Bottom line I want to change how things are done, not just who gets to do them.
Actually in our parish laity (both men and women) do occasionally give "witness talks", either before Mass actually starts, or after Communion and before dismissal. Usually it's plugging something like a Christians Encounter Christ (CEC) weekend.
Delete" I’ve said this every way I can think of. But you really don’t want to look at the reality. To accept the reality that women are treated as second class citizens of the church."
DeleteI'd just ask you to consider that my wife, and Katherine, and many other women we each know, have lived the reality of being wives of deacons. I think what you're hearing from both of us is that the reality is more complex than you're claiming. You might want to give us a little credit for knowing what we're talking about.
From my experience, the lives of the wives of deacons are nothing like the lives of wives of pastors in other churches. Those lives usually get totally absorbed in support of their husbands.
DeleteIn the Orthodox Church she is generally considered the “mother” of the parish. In the modern parish that tends to be the administrative assistant/pastoral associate, coordinating all the activity of the parish. Betty, a convert, says similar things happened in Protestant churches. Talk about giving women all the unpleasant work but none of the titles and honors. And no pay! That sounds like real patriarchy.
We have three deacons in our parish. There was one deacon in the nearby parish that I frequented. I never met their wives. They are totally invisible in the parish, not involved in any of the parish activities. Maybe they do a lot of things at home with the family to support their husbands, but they are not doing anything directly for the parish.
I don’t think it is unfair for dioceses to ask wives to be involved in diaconal formation for the sake of their own marriages, the deacon's relationship to his day job, as well as to the parish.
That invitation seems to have evolved from the practical experience of what happened when they were not involved. It also seems to have evolved from a mandatory requirement to a “strongly encouraged” practice. Again, because a mandate probably does not work in some situations.
Ok - one last attempt to explain why one must differentiate between the personal willingness of women to be used by the church because they wish to support their husbands - a good personal motivation - and the church’s motives in inviting (or mandating) the wives participation in diaconate formation - to use them - to achieve their goal with men - an exploitative reason - a sin. It is using women as tools, to achieve the goal of having more deacons.
DeleteThe reason more deacons are needed is because there are too few men interested in the Catholic priesthood. The gap could be filled easily by opening the door to optional celibacy and women. But the church has twisted theologies when it comes to women, which is why the RCC not only refuses to allow women to be priests, they won’t even drop the ban on marriage for priests. It all started with Augustine’s explanations of Adam and Eve’s “sin”, ( Eve sinned and then convinced Adam because she was a sinful seductress and he was sexually attracted to her etc). Augustines distorted explanation ( probably arising from his guilt about his own lust for his mistress and mother of his son) was perpetuated by many others throughout the next 2000 years of christianity. So here we are. Women have to go through the diaconate formation program so that the church has more men to fill in for the lack of priests. The diaconate is now the main way the church has to dispense several sacraments, to visit the sick and the prisoner, to oversee baptisms and marriages, to fill in to give homilies etc. So the church focuses on encouraging men to become deacons ( plus deacons are usually cheap staff, most aren’t usually paid from what I hear). So the church uses the wives to get men in the diaconate. Many women are fine with going along with it, because they love their husbands, even though it is another example of how the church discriminates against women, treating them as second class Catholics. Or third, if all laity are second class.
I don’t argue with the choice the wives make if the desire to support their husband’s wishes outweighs putting up with the church’s demeaning treatment of them. But it does help perpetuate the church’s discrimination against women.
If I were in that position - having to choose between helping my husband in a spiritual goal or going along with the church’s demeaning and manipulative invitation to me to go through the program too - to improve the chances that my husband would complete it - I would, ( unsurprisingly) explain to my husband that since I think the church’s treatment of women is sinful, and I don’t wish to participate in their sins to towards women, I would not be able to do it. Instead, I would research options that we could do together - as equals - to both serve God and people, and deepen our own spiritual lives and propose that we do a different ministry. Perhaps we would both become Third Order Franciscans, or Benedictine Oblates. There are several possibilities. Ok, Jim. I’m done. I’ve run out of ways to explain it. Over to you.
Jack, our youngest son went to a small Episcopal day school that ended in third grade. His best friend from kindergarten on was the rector’s son. Because of this, I spent a lot of time with the rector’s wife and we became friends. She opened my eyes to the involuntary servitude expected of most rector’s wives. She didn’t go along though. She knew before she married what was expected as she was a priest’s daughter also. She negotiated the terms before the wedding! Political wives are often in the same position. Some refuse to go along. Melania did eventually and without grace, but apparently she got what she wanted- a renegotiation of the pre-nup with her husband. Some political wives are now refusing to devote themselves exclusively or even primarily to their husband’s career ambitions. Reasonable, but not all consuming support. Perhaps this is because many now have their own careers, and maybe because the ranks of male political spouses grew - with the men rarely playing the role of adoring spouse giving up his own life to support his wife’s goals - more wives had the courage to say No.
DeleteSorry about the italics. Jim, The next time I’m in LA I might ask my friend for her views on the church’s use of women for the purpose of ordains more men. Telephone conversations are now somewhat difficult but she still does reasonably well in face to face conversations. This was something she mentioned herself when I saw her at Thanksgiving. But her once extremely sharp mind is gone already.
DeleteOk, I need to clarify. Jim
DeleteI am not saying that you, Theresa and Katherine are participating in the sins committed by the institution. It would be a sin for ME because I believe that many church teachings about women are sinful. So if I cooperated with a program that discriminates against women I would be cooperating in the church’s sin. You do not because the full knowledge and intent are missing.
The church also sins by putting wives in an almost untenable position. They are asked to take part in a lengthy, time consuming and demanding program of deacon formation (even though because of the church’s big sin against women the church won’t allow them to become deacons) in order to improve the graduation rate of the men. So they ask women to choose between supporting their husbands and allowing themselves to be used for this purpose. If they would rather not, they would seem to be selfish in not supporting their husbands in the program.
You, Katherine and Theresa don’t see it this way. But once I started seeing the church’s treatment of women with my own eyes and brain, rather than the way I had been indoctrinated into my whole life, I couldn’t “unsee” it, as the saying goes.
I’m not judging you, I’m judging the institution. Yes - women can say they won’t participate but they have been put in a very difficult position by the institution. This makes it appear as if they have a free choice. But the choice isn’t so free if it means their husbands can’t pursue the diaconate and they are the reason.
As far as Augustine goes, his understanding of the Adam and Eve myth pins the blame for original sin on Eve, as she was the first to disobey the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil . The teaching shows how unimportant Woman was - except as the reason for Adam’s sin - because her sin didn’t result in the “damnation” of all descendants after that. It was Adam’s disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit that condemned humankind. A woman wasn’t important enough for her disobedience to result in such draconian consequences. Only the sin of a male could cause that.
"Yes - women can say they won’t participate but they have been put in a very difficult position by the institution. This makes it appear as if they have a free choice. But the choice isn’t so free if it means their husbands can’t pursue the diaconate and they are the reason."
DeleteRight - this is something that may vary from one diocese to another. In Chicago, the wife can elect not to go through the formation with her husband, while the husband is still free to go forward. As I mentioned, I had one classmate whose wife made this choice. I believe (and hope) that the archdiocese tries to help them understand that the decision isn't risk-free to their marriage.
More generally: if a wife doesn't want her and her husband to go forward (or her husband to go forward by himself) - then he can't do it. I've seen this a number of times, when we've invited couples in our parish to pursue the diaconate. In most cases, couples elect not to pursue it because they are still caring for children, believe (rightly) that takes precedence over the diaconate, and fear that pursuing the diaconate would compromise their duty to their children. In most cases I've seen, the husband shares the concerns, or in any case decides it's a battle he doesn't want to fight with his wife. I don't fault any couple who makes this decision (even though it means some talented men are deferring for years, and perhaps bypassing completely, the chance to pursue the diaconate).
Off the top of my head, I don't know of any cases where a couple looked at the diaconate, decided now wasn't the right time to pursue it, and then picked it up again 5-10-15 years later. I don't doubt there are such cases, but, as I am sure you can easily imagine, life changes over the course of a marriage and family. There was one couple who was Therese's and my age, with kids roughly the same age as ours, who was invited to pursue the diaconate at the same time we were. Therese and I decided to go forward; this other couple decided not to, out of concern for the impact it would have on their children. Fast-forward about 15 years. Their kids are now grown up (and possibly out of the house; I'm sure the kids are in their 20s now). We've had three different pastors in the interim. Our new pastor asked for possible candidates for the diaconate, and I suggested this couple. But now they're not interested in it. I am not sure why, but somehow, for whatever reason, their thinking on it has changed. The story of their life has taken them in a direction in which the diaconate doesn't figure in the script.
My husband started thinking about the diaconate in the '80s when we lived in Colorado and got to know some deacons and their families. But our boys were pretty young at the time and we agreed it would be better to wait. Then we lived 6 years in a town in the Lincoln diocese, where the diaconate was not an option, and they were very choosy even about who could be a lector or acolyte. They were instituted ministries similar to when they were minor orders. When we moved into the Omaha archdiocese, things worked out.
DeleteI've known several couples who expressed interest, even went through the interviews and were approved to enter the formation program. But when it came down to it, they didn't. I have to think the Holy Spirit is involved somehow in these things. These people always ended up serving their parish in other ways.
One thing I think they ought to change is that a single guy or a widower can't marry once he is ordained. And if his wife dies he can't remarry. There have been single guys drop out of formation because they met someone. And at least one sad instance where someone fast-forwarded a marriage prior to ordination and it didn't work out, and he dropped out of formation.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the risk to a marriage if a man does the formation course alone? I have a couple of ideas, but you are the expert.
DeleteI'm not the expert, but I don't think there is much risk of divorce if the man does formation alone. The early classes here (back in the late 70s or early 80s) were done alone. I don't know of any couples who broke up over it. What there is, is a large risk of resentment. I heard about plenty of that. It seems like they felt shut out. I think some of the guys over-committed to ministry to the extent the families felt neglected.I think most of them kind of came to terms about it, but it's never a good situation. To be avoided if possible.
DeleteI honestly don’t know what the time commitment is.Apparently a lot of hours for a couple of years. I can see that this could breed resentment, much as men spending every weekend on the golf course after working 50-60 hours causes resentment.
DeleteA friend of mine was widowed in his 50s. He was a very conventional ( my era) Catholic. He thought he might like to become a deacon since his youngest child was leaving for college. But he was also anxious to remarry. He really didn’t like living alone and not being part of a couple. So I told him that he had better find a new wife first (my friend who taught the deacon classes had told me that) because he wouldn’t be allowed to remarry if he was a deacon. He hadn’t known that. Even though he found wife #2 fairly quickly, about 6 months after his first wife died, he never did become a deacon. Perhaps the idea appealed because he was an old fashioned 50’s - early 60s Catholic but more likely because he was looking for a way to fill the empty hours after work.
The time commitment varies from location to location, and the programs have changed a lot. As far as church history goes, the reintroduction of the permanent diaconate is still relatively recent, and they're still feeling their way along. When we were in formation it was three years; classes were three Tuesday evening sessions a month and one all day Saturday. This was during the school year. Now I believe it's all done on weekends, and it's four years.
DeleteOne thing that has changed is that it's a lot more academically focused now and the candidates are strongly preferred to have a prior college degree. It was a lot more diverse when we were in, there was a guy with a PhD, and one who had only completed grade school in Mexico.
Another difference was that when we started out there were two formation programs, rural and urban. We were in the rural. Now it's all one program.
Delete"One thing that has changed is that it's a lot more academically focused now and the candidates are strongly preferred to have a prior college degree. "
DeleteYeah, I think that's becoming more common in other dioceses, too. I can see both sides of it. Some deacons have been known to say some pretty appalling things from the pulpit, so I can understand that programs would want men who have a track record of being educable and formable. But there are men who don't have college degrees who are educable and formable, and it would be a shame to pass them by because they didn't go to or finish college.
I also suspect that this policy leads to discrimination against candidates who are immigrants from Latin America.
Well, the church already discriminates against more than half of all Catholics.
DeleteJim, yes, you are right that it can lead to discrimination against immigrants. The man from I mentioned from Mexico has turned out to be a leader and role model in his largely Spanish-speaking parish in South Sioux City. Which is a Big meat-packing town. Without people like him and his wife the church is going to lose a lot of Latinos. I don't know that having a college degree is a big advantage there. One thing they work on a lot in formation is homiletics. That guy struggled at first, but ended up being a decent homilist. Before they would let him into formation he had to increase his English skills. At one time they experimented with having a separate Spanish language formation program, but that fell apart. I think the problem was finding instructors.
DeleteYes, Jack, all laity are second class. But some laity - the males - are not banned from holy orders. Women are, so they are maybe third class?
ReplyDeleteSome years back,,at my second RC parish, the pastor invited the parishioners to come to a meeting about homilies. All of the priests were there, including the part- time Sunday help. The purpose was for the laity to offer their ideas and critiques about the homilies. A couple of the priests were clearly unhappy about this. They were even more unhappy when the pastor passed out small notepads so that the parishioners could comment privately and anonymously in writing about the homilies of specific priests by name. Not to be read aloud, but privately by the priests sometime later.
ReplyDeleteThe priests were upset - at least the priests who were the worst homilists were, and only about 15 parishioners showed up. It seemed a failed experiment, but I gave the pastor credit for trying.