An interesting opinion by Tom Roberts at NCRonline
The hierarchical culture, for better or worse — and regardless of how much input is permitted from laypeople — will in the end decide how synodality is integrated into the life of the church.
If that culture is not reformed at its core — and that means transformation of individuals — then little else matters. What can synodality mean when there's been such a deep, sacramental betrayal? How can it possibly work?
Excerpts
The bishops reluctantly acknowledged that they were in crisis. They established mechanisms for accountability. But I think it is not a stretch to say that almost all, if not all, of the institutional adjustments, new laws and grudging acknowledgements were not the result of transformation or sacramental imagination. They were the result, instead, of outside forces, primary among them an often-vilified press and legal procedures....
I also came to understand in those years that the abuse in the Catholic community was different, horrible as any abuse is, from abuse that occurred in other contexts....
The Catholic world has what [Richard]McBrien described as "a sacramental perspective" that "'sees' the divine in the human, the infinite in the finite, the spiritual in the material, the transcendent in the immanent, the eternal in the historical. For Catholicism, therefore, all reality is sacred."....
Catholics understand McBrien's point. In fact, the point was exaggerated in past decades. Regular churchgoers regarded the priest as something other, ontologically different, invested with mysterious powers and high standing.....
The abuse crisis itself has highlighted the deficiencies of such theology, but sacramentality has not evaporated from the Catholic community.
Catholics see things — the world, each other, the source and purpose of life — differently. Thus, it seems inescapable to conclude that abuse of children by priests has layered upon it additional dimensions not present in other circumstances. It is a violation of "sacred reality."
Faggioli and Zollner, a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, understand the profound effect the scandal has had on the church and the necessity to include it in all of the synodal discussions. The synodal process underway, they write, "cannot be understood outside of the epoch-changing abuse crisis in the Catholic Church." The drain of authority and credibility from the episcopacy and the drain of people from the pews is proof enough of that point.
...
Synodality is about “walking together.”
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that Catholics, not only the hierarchy and the clergy but also the people in the pews have not begun to walk with those who have been sexually abused.
By and large the only people who have walked with the sexually abused have been journalists and lawyers. I give great credit to the journalists like Jason Berry, whom I once had lunch with. He basically sees himself as doing his job as a journalist. He could not look the other way once he realized what was going on. Yes, both journalists and lawyers have made a living doing their jobs, but they have by and large not been handsomely rewarded and honored even by their peers (The Boston Globe may be an exception).
Voice of the Faithful was an organization founded by Catholic laity to deal with the sexual abuse crises. Its goals were supposed to be support for victims, then priests of integrity, and finally structural reform. Unfortunately, it backed off supporting victims who wanted statute of limitations reform. (That will bankrupt the Church!) It eventually joined the other liberal Catholic organizations whose primary goals are women priests and married priests. (If we had women priests and married priests, this would not have happened!) That ignores widespread sexual abuse, both of children and adults in our society.
As long as we see sexual abuse as someone else’s problem, the victim’s problem, or the abuser’s problem or the bishop’s problem we have failed to walk with the victims of sexual abuse. We will begin to walk with victims when we begin to recognize that there are many sexual abuse victims in our society and many sexual abuse perpetrators in our society. They may be someone whom we know.
We began to make progress with problems when we see them as our problems, not someone else’s problems. My mental health board has a great motto. You.Me.Us. There is no them! We have made a lot of progress about mental illness with that version of walking together. The board is now trying to make some progress about addiction. But for most people addiction is still about THEM. (Lock them up.) And we have not even begun to face the problem of sexual abuse in our society. (Just make it go away. Lock up the perpetrators! Fire the enablers!)
By the way I disagree about sacramentality as being a particularly Catholic thing. Victims in other churches also see their abusers as being representatives of God.
I like the "You.Me.Us. There is no them!" motto. That could apply to a lot of issues as well.
DeleteYes, I think "walking together" is prevalent in the thinking of a lot of organizations in various forms, and church leadership could learn a lot from laity who have been practicing "walking together" under various banners for a lot of our lives.
DeleteJack, given the author’s experience of the hierarchy, based on his decades of coverage and study, how do you think the efforts for synodality will actually turn out - not what you think SHOULD be the result - walking together as us - but what WILL happen, keeping this in mind? The Catholic hierarchy is not known for its willingness to listen to laity. They believe themselves to be superior beings who have no need to learn anything from the lower class of Catholics called the laity.
DeleteThe hierarchical culture, for better or worse — and regardless of how much input is permitted from laypeople — will in the end decide how synodality is integrated into the life of the church.
If that culture is not reformed at its core — and that means transformation of individuals — then little else matters. What can synodality mean when there's been such a deep, sacramental betrayal? How can it possibly work?
Jack, I belonged to Voice of the Faithful in its early days, even knowing that they were highly unlikely to achieve their goals of reform. I had desperately hoped though that it would spread throughout parishes and that the people in the pews would close their wallets until there were tangible reforms . Of course they didn’t. They coughed up the $$$ anyway.
DeleteThe main concern of the clerical class that comes through over and over again is their concern for $$. From bishops and cardinals who depend on the people in the pews to support their often luxurious lifestyles to pastors trying to figure out how to get enough $ to fix the church roof, their main concern about the nones and dones who have left is that means lower revenues. Their desire to reopen churches physically during Covid in spite of the risks, was their concern for the loss of the collection $. Their desire to push men into the diaconate - where most work without a salary or benefits - is that they are short priests and deacons are willing - and usually cheap - labor. Some parishes are apparently halting virtual masses because people don’t toss anything in the basket when they are home. I’m quite sure that one of Ganswain’s major motives in writing his book ( besides getting revenge on Francis) was to cash in as quickly as he could on his career with Ratzinger/Benedict. He was able to ride Benedict’s coattails and enjoy the same luxuries in his lifestyle that Benedict had. He’s 66 and needs to secure as much wealth with his book and interviews as he can, as quickly as possible, before Benedict’s memory fades.
As far as your disdain for liberal Catholic groups is concerned, some would suggest that if they were actually listened to in the Synods - instead of being told explicitly in some dioceses to keep their mouths shut about their concerns for the treatment of women - and LGBT etc) - then maybe one could take the synodality movement seriously. I know that you have great hopes for it - that it would emulate what you have seen in your work in the mental health field and achieve some positive results. It’s not likely to happen beyond mild changes in how music directors are hired or something ( let the congregation express their opinions) - some relatively trivial changes at the parish level - because results are exclusively in the hands of the hierarchy.
Yes - There is widespread sexual abuse of minors in our society - especially in schools, and (mostly) within families. There has been quite a lot of sexual abuse of teen and adult women (female victims primarily) in conservative Protestant churches. This was also suppressed, following the path that the RCC did. Right now the Southern Baptists are dealing with the fallout from an extensive report on this abuse that was published last year.They are the largest Protestant denomination so the turbulence is spreading within their local churches too.
However there have been lower rates of sexual abuse of minors by clergy in mainline Protestant churches than in the RCC world. Most cases that I have read about have involved lay ministers in those churches, very often the youth ministers.
I do believe that sexual abuse by married women is significantly lower than by men - married or celibate. Most minor victims outside the RCC are female, not make. However, I also believe that VOTF is right that having married men - fathers - in the priesthood would also reduce the instances of sexual abuse of minors, although perhaps the rate of abuse of women and girls might grow.
I stopped supporting VOTF years ago so really don’t know what their agenda has been. I’m sorry to learn that they no longer prioritize victim support.
I don't have any experience with VOTF. But do all of you really feel that the measures that have been taken for safe environments have had no effect? The numbers look to me to be way down. Seems like any cases, here at least, are being dealt with properly, and are being prevented, by people following and enforcing the training and rules. I'm not talking about adjudication of past cases from years ago, that is a separate subject. But preventing abuse going forward, it seems like the right things are being done.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, there are now controls and programs in place. The bishops mostly had to be pushed into it because of $$$ (lawsuits) and the secular media. The author is actually pointing out the mindset of the hierarchy - they didn’t take the lead in making the necessary changes but were pushed into it. At least one point that the author seems to be making is that this hierarchical mindset hasn’t really changed. The reforms you cite would not have happened without the Boston Globe exposing the crimes AND the coverups. The official policy was secrecy - it came down from Rome. Hide the crimes, buy the families’ silence, move the priest, protect the priests and the institution - NOT the victims.
DeleteI can’t help but wonder about the hundreds of priests laïcised by Rome under Benedict. Rome wanted them out by then - couldn’t just move them around anymore - but apparently did not instruct the bishops to inform the police about the alleged crimes. They can no longer just move priests around so they kick them out without taking any other steps to inform the people or the civil authorities that the men should be investigated. Still protecting the institution.
So - are men with this mindset going to pay attention to the voice of the laity in synods? If anyone thinks that, the famous bridge in Brooklyn still might be for sale at a bargain price.
Yes and no. Remember we have the training because the insurance companies forced us to have it.
DeleteWe recently had a case in which a young priest of the diocese was convicted of child pornography, then died of suicide in prison. He was found out by an alert parent of one of his victims who had a law enforcement friend who knew how to get the internet data to convict the guy.
As a seminarian this guy developed a "special ministry" to fellow seminarians who were "addicted" to internet pornography. He used the same rational to approach young men about their internet habits, then posed on the internet as an anonymous young woman who wanted nude photos from this guy. Really weird.
It is unbelievable that seminary authorities did not become suspicious. Their statement after investigation is that they could not find anything that they should have done differently. We now have police officers who give talks to school kids about the illegality of childhood pornography. Do they come to our seminaries? Maybe they should.
Seems like the synods really have another purpose. Of course
Deleteyou are right about the hierarchy being pushed into doing the right things. I don't know about all locations, but here everyone is a mandated reporter. The clergy, and everyone, have to inform law enforcement authorities about any allegations, credible or not. If they don't, its a crime. I don't know what else you do.
So, Katherine, what do you expect from the synods, given the mindset of the hierarchy - Their kicking and screaming response to the sex abuse scandal due to outside pressure and $ billions in settlements shows how they think. This isn’t about the current set of policies in place and their effectiveness. This is about the bishops likely ( minimal) response to issues raised in the synods, which most were against having at all, at least in the American church
DeleteWhat I expect from the synods is a very bumbling and fumbling attempt, at least in the short term, at walking together. Sometimes it will be more being dragged than walking for some people.
DeleteI don't know if you read Michael Sean Winters column today on NCR, on the subject of the posthumous publishing of a couple of pieces by Cardinal Pell, which are absolutely appalling:
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/pells-
posthumous-complaints-have-diminished-his-legacy
Looked at one way they confirm the worst suspicions about the hierarchy. But looked at another way they are a view into a problem which is going to be solved by attrition. None of these hard core, circle the wagons, culture warriors types have been made cardinals in the last 13 years, including some who felt entitled by the fact of being an archbishop of a city which previously had a cardinal. The turnover in hierarchy is slow but sure. They are no longer papal electors once they reach 80 years old. And the people of God will continue their bumbling, stumbling walk.
BTW, I think MSW had it nailed when he named the problem as the sin of pride.
DeleteCorrection, Francis has only been pope coming up on 10 years, not 13.
DeleteOne has to look at church reform from the victim's perspective. Using the sexual abuse scandal to promote a married priesthood and women priests just makes them victims again. I doubt many victims would say "well I guess it was all worth it now that we have married priests and women priests."
ReplyDeleteThis NCR piece is all focused upon the hierarchy. Nothing about victims. It does not propose that we should be inviting victims to our synodal meetings or give them seats on a diocesan pastoral council. It does not propose that we should do something about sexual abuse, both child and adult, in our society. It is just using the sexual abuse scandal to clobber the hierarchy into submission. I think that we laity should be able to stand on our own two feet, and not use the sexual abuse scandal as a means to get our way with the hierarchy.
Jack, you are missing the point. The author is drawing on his extensive years of experience studying the hierarchy’s response to the sex abuse scandal. He’s using it as an example of the general hierarchical unwillingness to actually treat laity as equal to themselves and listen to what they have to say. The example is sex abuse - the bishops absolutely did not want to listen to victims. They were for Ed into acting, as noted previously.
DeleteOpening the sacrament of holy orders to women and married men is simply the right thing to do. The moral thing to do. It isn’t predicated on the victims, and certainly isn’t to victimize them again. It has nothing to do with VOTF, or We are Church or any other progressive group of Catholics. But they also have a right to speak up and to be listened to. Otherwise all the talk about listening, dialoguing, accompanying, walking together is just performance BS.
Opening access to ALL seven sacraments to ALL Catholics is what these men SHOULD do. But it’s all about power and somewhat about their male egos. But it is a step that would make the entire church a healthier place by acknowledging and eliminating - and repenting - the sin of discrimination against women, and also acknowledging that other religious groups manage to survive with married clergy, including the Orthodox. Now the Orthodox require that bishops be single men. I was a bit amused when my Greek Orthodox friend told me that her pastor had long wanted to be a bishop, but he was married and ineligible. After his wife died, he almost had to suppress his clear desire for the consolation prize, but not for long - he got his wish and was made bishop. He died too, less than a year later.
Look past the example of the hierarchical response to the sexual abuse of the young (2/3 of whom were age 14 or younger) to the real issue raised in the article - you support synodality. Given how these men think, do you seriously expect any substantive changes?
Just out of curiosity, given your enthusiasm for the synods efforts, what of real substance do you hope will happen?
DeleteAnne, truthfully, I expect that catastrophic climate change will get much worse and that governments, businesses and the great bulk of the population won't make the real changes in the system and lifestyle that are necessary to halt it.
DeleteSimilarly, I think that our country will slide into some pseudo-Christian fascist state.
But I still try to support the opposites in both cases.
Will the synod be neutered by the hierarchy? Well, they did a job on Vatican II, I suppose, so.....
Anyway, Chris Hedges said, "You don't fight fascists because you think you're going to win. You fight fascists because they're fascists." Kinda my attitude.
And I repeatedly harp on the second class treatment of women in the RCC (50% of ALL Christians). I fight misogynists because they are misogynists. I don’t keep raising the issue because I think they will change anytime soon, but because the largest Christian church in the world, SHOULD lead by example. Sadly, the example that the RCC gives is immoral treatment of women because of the distorted theology that they refuse to “develop”. Instead of being a shining light leading christian thought, the RCC is mired in the mud of ancient misogyny - which also underlies its refusal to make celibacy optional. In the meantime, the church is hurt indirectly as well as directly. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming by outside forces into finally implementing some policies to protect the young from priest- molesters.
DeleteBut they desperately seek to stop the outflow of younger Catholics now because the money crisis keeps getting worse. Young women are leaving the RCC in record numbers, and this trend continues to accelerate. Most don’t return when they marry nor, of course, to baptize their children. The Uber conservative influences continue to advance, especially because most under 50 priests are JPII/Benedict types. At some point, if the trends continue, the few women left will all be veil-wearing, long dress wearing, trads. But - from the male clerics point of view at least they do have a lot more children than most young women these days. But probably not enough to refill the empty pews a couple of decades down the road. The American church’s main hope for the future is the Hispanic community.
In the meantime, I will continue to pray that the RCC may someday treat women as equal to men.
One social scientist claims that persons with mental illness are among the world’s poorest. Not just because many of them have to live on Social Security Disability, but because they have a poor psychological life since their thoughts and emotions are often dismissed by others, and they have a poor social life, often living in ghettoes, e.g., hospitals, prisons, or public housing for the mentally ill, or socialize only in programs for the mentally ill.
ReplyDeleteThey are my touchstone when thinking about other societal issues.
When I went to APA conventions, they were filled with presentations underlining discrimination against women, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays. Yet all these presenters were very wealthy psychologists in comparison to the mentally ill. I was often tempted to suggest they spend some time walking in the shoes of the mentally ill to get a better perspective on their victimhood.
I think mentally ill people understand that climate change affects all of us, rich and poor alike. However, I doubt many would find immigration such a pressing issue when we cannot take care of the mentally ill. Likewise given their limited opportunities, I doubt they would see the complaints of women, Blacks, Hispanics and gays to be that compelling. Similarly, the importance of married priests and women priests for the church. Sympathetic issues yes, but compelling issues not so much.
I do hope both individual and corporately that we will become Catholics who walk together with poor, those who are fighting climate change, immigrants, and people who feel left out in both church and society.
I think “walking together” has a better chance of succeeding as a personal spirituality that we practice everywhere, than a corporate culture for those involved in church governance. I think the the walking together that we do in our personal lives in and outside the church has a greater potential for changing the government of the church than changes in the government of the church will change the walking together we do in our personal lives.
IOW, the synods were actually a big waste of time. Walking together outside the church just underlines a reason so many don’t find church to be relevant to their own lives.
DeleteRegarding the training we all have to receive on recognizing the signs of sexual abuse and reporting it: David French wrote a column this week, not on that topic, but on a different type of adult education geared toward changing behavior: corporate diversity, equity and inclusiveness training. As some of you haven't been in the workplace for a while, I am not sure whether you're aware, but these courses are mandatory in many companies now. It is intended to raise awareness and spur behavioral change, especially among the white, male leadership of the company (among whose number, in a rather modest way, I am one for my employer) to accomplish some worthy goals: diversify the workforce; and make the workers more comfortable working in an increasingly diverse work environment.
ReplyDeleteFrench's point, which is rooted in academic studies of the efficacy of DEI training, is that it is not effective. It doesn't actually change behavior or attitudes. It may even spur a backlash in some instances. A corporate type might conclude that, if the goal is to actually change behavior, it's not money well-spent. (If a supplementary goal is to be able to show investors and activists that the company is trying hard to become more diverse, then maybe it's worth making the employees jump through the mandatory-training hoops for that reason.)
I mention all this because: if DEI training isn't actually effective, then how effective is the recognizing-signs-of-sexual-abuse training we've had to receive in the Catholic Church? I don't know the answer, but I hope some researchers are studying the question. The training has been in place for two decades now. French's view, which may or may not be right, is that it's hard to get adults to change their behavior; training just sort of bounces off them or washes over them.
Jim, I'm a skeptic about such training. I took yearly sexual harassment training in the government. The guys who went in as jerks came out as jerks. The sensible guys the same. It was and is a cash cow for contractors who run the courses and it gets the employer some legal immunity.
DeleteAs for child abuse detection, not a problem in an engineering facility. But I doubt if it is effective. The main source of improvement in any of these areas is cultural change and that we know these things happen. Even without training, people and those with authority knew what was happening and said nothing.
I feel that David French is wrong. Employers can't change inner attitudes, but they absolutely can change behavior. They have the leverage to do so. Where I worked, there were and are quite a few MAGA types, also quite a few Latinos and some Africans. And a lot of women. The work culture has changed from 1995 when I first started working there. Of course attitudes haven't changed for some people, and they may mutter under their breath. But has been borne in on everyone that you work nicely with others, or get written up. A couple of times of that and you're out. I don't know if the bosses have more enlightened attitudes, but they do have a product to get out the door.
DeleteI think the training makes a difference in church settings too, especially the rules about how people interact with minors, and how sexual allegations are handled. There's only been one instance that I know of in recent years. There was an allegation made by a mentality troubled young women that everyone was pretty sure wasn't credible. It got turned over to the cops in a New York minute, by the pastor.
I hate autocorrect. "mentality" should be mentally.
DeleteKatherine, I'm sure you're right that organizations have changed (improved) in some of these practices since we were younger. But how much of that is due to training, as opposed to other workplace factors you mention such as promulgation / enforcement of new rules. To offer another example of what you wrote about: I am pretty certain that sexual harassment isn't nearly as bad in the workplace now compared to when my career began in the early-mid 1980s. I can think of several appalling incidents from those days which wouldn't be countenanced today.
DeleteSome of the DEI training I've received encourages leaders to adopt practices such as respecting cultural differences, and encouraging persons from other cultures to contribute - and respecting their contributions, even if they don't conform to the dominant culture - in meetings and other group settings. That is something that I would think most of us could buy into, when we are sitting in the classroom (or, these days, sitting in the Zoom meeting, or watching the self-training module). It's just that, when we are back in our work environment, we fall right back into the old habits.
I don't know what synodality will accomplish. In a sense, I hope it doesn't "accomplish" anything in the short term, if "accomplishment" means "bring about reforms touted in NCR for decades." If the hierarchy can get into the habits of consulting and listening and contemplating and discussing, that seems a pretty good fruit of synodality to me.
ReplyDeleteJim, I agree that consulting, listening, contemplating, and discussing would be pretty good fruits of synodality. And not just the hierarchy with one another. The laity too.
DeleteYes, in the short term, synodality will result only in process gains, not much in substantial changes. The experience so far in synodality is that the meetings have been peaceful with people sharing their experiences and respecting that different people have different experiences. The meetings have likely been peaceful because both the traditionalists (except for a few Latin Mass enthusiasts) and liberals have boycotted them as worthless. Maybe that is just as well.
ReplyDeleteIn the wake of the B16 funeral, we are seeing a full-scale attempt by conservatives to challenge Francis including the discrediting the process of synodality. However, the process is not likely to be discredited because middle of the road people (bishops, priests and laity) seem to like it.
While there are majorities here in America for married priests and women deacons, I think neither are deal breakers for the middle of the road people in parishes. Some deacons may want to become married priests but most probably don’t. Some women pastoral associates may want to be ordained deacons but most probably don’t. Most people in the parish are likely to be accepting of both. The reality is that most people do not change greatly in their older years. But the reality is that we could transition without much trouble from parishes of married deacons and women pastoral associates to parishes of married priests and women deacons over a period of decades. The change would be slow and gradual at the parish level. Lots of opportunities to fine tune things.
But to do that the bishops have to agree. Right now, in the American hierarchy there are not the votes for either. But in other hierarchies around the world there may be votes to do either one or both. The bishops of the universal church will have to work out their differences.
We are going to have two years of world synods to see if there is a way to accommodate change at different rates in different parts of the world. I suspect in fact that nothing much will change, although the groundwork will be laid for future changes, e.g., that we are ready for married priests, but we are going to encourage celibacy; we are ready for women deacons but not women priests.
Bigger changes are more likely in the next pontificate if the cardinals elect someone more like Francis than Benedict or JP2. John23 said the pope has to be the pope of both the people who have their foot on the gas and those who have their foot on the break. After two popes with their feet on the breaks, we have had a pope who has his feet on the gas.
Will the next pope usher in a period of consolidation around synodal processes without much real change, or will the real changes begin to take place? Only time will tell.
For Francis to usher in such a large change in one decade sounds to me as going too fast, but we did do that in changing from the Latin Mass to vernacular. Maybe the Mass changes would have been done better if they had been done more slowly?
In the West the Church is going downhill pretty quickly in terms of numbers. We probably need the renewal that will come with married priests and women deacons sooner rather than later.
That renewal will probably be accompanied with the installation of a cadre of installed catechists, readers, and acolytes which Francis will be celebrating this Sunday in Rome. If our bishops were bright, they would begin to shape that future of our parishes by providing us with the selection and training of installed catechists, readers, and acolytes that will provide the next generation of married priests and women deacons.
Stanley, why limit women to the role of deacon?
DeleteAnne, I think you mean Jack? Although mixing me up with Jack is a compliment.
DeleteIs it too late for the Church to change? I presume that cradle Catholics like The Boy, who think that the rules about birth control, divorce, gay sex, women clergy, etc. have little to do with living a Christian life, would not suddenly come flocking back even if teaching changed tomorrow. They would likely say, that it's nice that the Church decided to wake up to "reality" at last, but that an institution that took 2000 years to do so has already lost credibility.
ReplyDeleteThe sad part for people who leave is that they lose connection with the saints, social justice teaching, vital messages about forgiveness and the dignity of humans, and a connection to community. They risk damnation by doing so.
The sad part for the Church, at least in the U.S., is that it loses people who are interested in more than correcting people's liturgical rubrics, liturgy, policing everybody's bedrooms and closets, and keeping nice white affluent Republicans calling the shots. They risk being called to account for the souls they let slip thru their fingers into Perdition by reason of their inflexibility.
Jean, you are a genuine "Francis Catholic" (even though you may not think you are Catholic :-))
DeleteBtw, I hope those who leave are not risking damnation.
Jean, why do you think that those who leave lose connection with the saints, messages about forgiveness etc? Few Catholics who leave miss messages about social justice because the deacons and priests are too scared of pushback to raise the issues. So they usually hear more about social justice from secular sources than from the typical RC parish.They do lose connection with an RC parish if that’s what you mean by community. But all of these things can be found outside the RCC. And I can’t help but wonder about your deep concerns about damnation. And why you think that Catholics who leave - - - who slipped through the fingers of the church - are headed for perdition.
DeleteIs that what RCIA drummed into you?
However, I agree that even if the church suddenly changed these teachings it is unlikely that the former Catholics would come back. However it might stop, or at least slow, the hemorrhaging.
I guess I sort of lean toward universalism, the belief that eventually all will be saved. But even if I didn't believe that, isn't the idea of damnation about final impenitence, the ultimate rejection of God?
DeleteIt seems to me that if someone is worried about the state of their immortal soul, that the conditions for final impenitence and rejection of God aren't there.
Katherine, I think much the same way. In fact, going back to what I was taught when young about mortal sin, I’m not convinced that it happens very often. It assumes that one really KNOWS God, and deliberately rejects God. I don’t think that anyone who REALLY knows God - assuming that God is as described and is LOVE - would reject God., The problem is that few people, even those who go to church, pray etc find it very hard to actually KNOW God. There is a lot of talk about having a personal relationship with God, at least God in the form of Jesus, but few seem to really achieve this. And those who claim to have such an experience are unable to describe it in understandable terms. It often comes across as a hope - wishful thinking rather than something real. It’s very tough to have a real relationship with a being whom one cannot see or hear, or be with physically- no matter how much they might want suçons relationship.
DeleteRCIA drummed very little into me but a lot of fussy ideas about Communion. And the fact that Catholics are grossly ignorant of what other Christians believe, think, and feel, though they are quite ready to feel superior to them. In fact, some of the self-proclaimed "authentic Catholics" feel superior to other Catholics.
DeletePeople may hear about dignity, forgiveness, and social justice in the secular world, but they will not hear about them as Jesus Christ lived them in a radical way without hedging and accommodating what is easy or comfy.
I think most of us deserve to be damned, and we all risk damnation in a thousand ways every day.
A Francis Catholic. How nice I can be dispatched in a little box with a label. Silly old woman.
Jean, so sorry, didn't mean to dismiss you with a label. FWIW, I meant it as a great compliment.
DeleteSorry, I forgot that folks here don't want to talk about Hell, and Anne asked me to desist some time ago. As one moves toward The Big Finale, what one has done to reject God and overlook opportunities to love one's neighbor becomes a frequent theme for rumination. I am an able critic of human behavior and my own especially. It is part of taking stock at the close of life. Possibly some good comes from it. I'll soon know!
DeleteThe very strange sacrament of Confession--say a decade for the souls in Purgatory, ALL BETTER!! assuming you were totally honest and specific and were TRULY sorry--offers little comfort to a rational person. Especially when the confessor of resort is a cassock-wearing Trumper half one's age whose hobby is souping up Trans Ams in the rectory garage. Possibly accompaniment is to be had with the charismatic Episcopal priest. But I doubt it.
But those ruminations do not belong on this thread or in this group, so apologies.
Jean, you have a perfect right to worry about hell and damnation. It’s drummed into most Christians from toddlerhood.
DeleteI am several years older than you, had cancer show up in the last year, was recently diagnosed with a chronic disease that often cuts a few years off the lifespan, and suffer other ailments of getting old. The grand finale is definitely visible on the horizon. I have a lot to repent for in my life and i spend a lot of time in ruminating about the past - the things i cannot change. I simply have to trust that God really does forgive. And TRY to live as Jesus taught for the time that remains, knowing that I will continue to slip up. My biggest sin right now is my inability to forgive my siblings who support trumpism - i can forgive them in my head - give them an excuse with my intellect - but my heart still hasn’t forgiven. And a trans- am, trump loving priest would obviously be of no help at all. So I talk with God about it.
I have no idea what happens after death. Is there continued life in some form? A soul that exists after death? Is there a heaven, or hell, or purgatory? Or reincarnation? Or just annihilation?
I don’t know and nobody else does either - nobody KNOWS - they HOPE that what Christianity teaches about a “heaven” is true, but don’t know. I HOPE that God is love and not the vengeful, gotcha judge I learned about as a young Catholic girl in the 1950s. I share in the hope of other Christians, even though my faith is weak.
But you didn’t grow up with the image of a gotcha God that I did - a God who is waiting for the screwups - to provide justification for eternal damnation.
Since you didn’t grow up with the image of God of most cradle Catholics I know who grew up in the 1950 s and earlier, I’m curious about the source of the concerns. Your RCIA experience sounds very 1950s, so I wondered if that is the source.
I’m sorry if I asked you to desist in sharing your concerns. I don’t remember doing that. So I ask your forgiveness if something I wrote came across that way.
Katherine, every night I have a mental image of that sand running out - I’m 75 now, and that image has haunted me for several years now. Discerning God’s purpose for me for the rest of my life also haunts me. Right now I feel that I have no purpose anymore, and I have to fight depression - not something that was ever a serious problem for me when I was younger. My hearing loss has closed off so many options. I guess I should look at doing a contemplative retreat too - after all, I am the one here who loves silence. ;)
DeleteI think most of us deserve to be damned, and we all risk damnation in a thousand ways every day.
DeleteAs you well know, Jean, this attitude was very common for many centuries among both saints and sinners. It was often seen as a good strategy for approaching life and death. Who am I to judge?
Of course, in contemporary society where most people think most people are going to heaven, you may find it difficult to find anyone to accompany you in your thinking.
As for confession, when I was in the hospital a few years back for a very high heart rate due to atrial fibrillation, the priest chaplain, whom I did not know, came by. He asked me if I wished to be anointed, I replied yes. Then as he began the rite (without any explanation) I recognized that he was using the old form of the rite that also involves absolution for one's sins (with no need for confession) and a full plenary indulgence (not only avoid hell but bypass purgatory!) Well, if you have that opportunity you may want to take it, as it was the common way of dying for many centuries for saints and sinners.
Now if the priest had not been in a hurry and had asked if I wanted to go to confession, I would probably have counter-suggested that we pray one of the Hours together.
Recently I have come across an interesting custom among the Orthodox. The Orthodox pray the whole Psalter beginning Good Friday eve through Holy Saturday Morning. They sometimes pray the whole Psalter for Orthodox (especially the clergy) when they die during the period between death and the funeral.
So, if you find it any consolation, I am willing to pray the psalter for you after your death; but it may take a week or a month. Merton, once he had taken up residence in the hermitage, adopted a continuous psalter practice to keep him company. You might consider doing the same, or maybe just do your own funeral psalter before death.
I hope I can make some use of whatever I have left. Haven't figured it out yet. And if I do, there's always the "Mice and men" thing.
DeleteM was planting a sapling in her front yard. A retired asian guy was walking his dog and said she wouldn't be alive to see the grown result so why do it. She was miffed, not for the reminder of mortality, but that he thought it would be a reason NOT to plant a tree.
Stanley, I think it's actually kind of encouraging to think of something that we planted or initiated coming to full growth or fruition after we are gone.
Delete"But you didn’t grow up with the image of a gotcha God that I did - a God who is waiting for the screwups - to provide justification for eternal damnation."
DeleteSo then what is my problem?
A) The Catholic Church is not the only guilt trip put there. I will spare you the old time Unitarian notion of perfectionism and judgment I was raised with.
B) Statistically speaking, I have hit the point where my oral chemo could stop working any day. It has already messed up my thyroid, which makes me irritable and nervous, and is not great for an already weak heart valve. There is no plan B when the chemo gives out. I have my earthly affairs in order. But I do feel time's a-wasting when it comes to preparing for the great Hereafter.
But my original comment was really directed more at what the Church and lapsed Catholics lose by losing each other, and not meant to focus on my personal problems.
Yes, Katherine. That's how M and I think about it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJean, I must admit that I know nothing about the Unitarians. I had the impression that they were a progressive bunch, not into hell and damnation. So maybe your childhood religion was worse than mine. In the meantime I will continue to pray that the chemo keeps working,
DeleteI don't know what Unitarians are now. But "progressive" does not = "guilt free." Jesus was just a prophet with tips for living, and God was remote but keeping score. Nobody was coming to save you in this life, and maybe not in the next. So if you weren't collecting for UNICEF or supporting the Freedom Riders or going to anti-war marches or freaking out about the Bomb or demonstrating for the ERA, you weren't earning your keep.
Delete"So if you weren't collecting for UNICEF or supporting the Freedom Riders or going to anti-war marches or freaking out about the Bomb or demonstrating for the ERA, you weren't earning your keep."
DeleteSounds like the progressive party at prayer. A counterpart to the conservative party at prayer.
Of course, Abe Lincoln said something like let us pray that we are on God's side rather than that God is on our side.
Interesting about the Unitarians. But they don’t accept trinitarian doctrine at all, right?
DeleteFormer RCs have plenty of options for church based- Jesus-focused churches that participate in the entire range of charitable and social justice activities - focused on Jesus’s teachings. One doesn’t have to sever the connection with Christianity just because one leaves the RCC. And based on my limited experiences, and extensive reading ( since I don’t hear well my face to face conversations are now mostly replaced by reading), I still think that some of the other denominations preach Catholic Social Justice teachings more often than the Catholics do themselves. But they don’t call them Catholic - just following the gospel.
I read the Foggioli and Zollner column which seems to have moved Roberts to write the column which is the subject of the original post. Foggioli and Zollner are here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/abuse-crisis-should-be-center-popes-ongoing-synodal-process
They assert that the only way to understand synodality is through the prism of the abuse crises, and that the Synod is about abuse, even when it isn't (or something like that). I struggled to wrap my brain around it. I find Roberts, whose take (as might be expected in NCR) is to see the church as a clerical/lay dichotomy, to be a bit more persuasive than Foggioli and Zollner, whose column strikes me as a list of unsupported assertions. (I don't doubt they could support them, if they were given sufficient column space.)
FWIW - I don't think the Synod will be "about" the sex-abuse crisis, or at least not primarily about it. I do think the abuse crisis will be one of many topics which will continue to be discussed. Even positioning the topic of abuse as just one item on a list apparently is enough to offend advocates for victims, but I am not sure how that can be helped. The church needs to examine itself, but it must also look outward. If we have to wait for inward perfection to be reached before looking outward, the outward look will never occur.
Jim, I agree with you that the synod is not just about abuse, and that there are many topics to be discussed.
DeleteActually, based on what I read about the synod, including Jack’s commentary, it never occurred to me that it was about the sex abuse crisis, except perhaps as one possible area for dialogue - the lingering distrust that exists because of the coverups and the lack of accountability, which continues.
DeleteFaggioli and Zollner should have written an article on clericalism as the central issue, with the sexual abuse history as an example. Their best sentence was:
ReplyDeleteAbuse of any type — sexual, spiritual, abuse of power and/or authority — blatantly contradicts the fundamental dignity of every human being.
The abuse by priests was able to take place largely because priests were and still are largely unaccountable to anyone. There are not within and outside of parishes many checks and balances to pastoral authority.
The cover by bishops was able to take place largely because bishops were and still are largely unaccountable to anyone.
We need processes and structures in the Church which bring forth transparency and accountability for everything.
When I joined Voice of the Faithful, at our first meeting I was asked what I wanted from VOTF. My answer was a place where Catholics could discuss anything within and outside the Church without chaperones.
I chose the last word deliberately because I was concerned not only about bishops, priests, and pastoral ministers who want to control the conversation, I was also concerned about organizations such as Future Church which want to talk about mainly their issues. (There was a contingent of them at that meeting).
I then said that I did not think that VOTF should vote on issues. (The Future Church contingent wanted us to endorse their agenda). Rather if a group of people came to a conclusion that they wanted to do something they should form an organization to do that.
I pointed out that Future Church was already doing things, and that people who wanted to do those things should join Future Church.
(We never took a vote. The Future Church people never came back. The local leadership of VOTF asked me to join their leadership group.)
I am interested in Commonweal Local Communities largely because I see them as an opportunity to discuss issues in Church and society without chaperones. I think that if we had Catholics doing a lot of this, there would be a lot more openness in the Church.
The Code of Canon Law says that we Catholics have the human right to form associations (though we may not claim the Catholic label without permission), to discuss issues among ourselves, and to petition our pastors about issues.
We need structures to implement all these rights. The fact that the processes around the synod had some of the flavor of the exercise of these rights says how much we have to go. Pastors do not have the privilege of letting us exercise our rights only when they please.
The basic structures of the church are full of clericalism, beginning with fact that Catholics are often hesitant to do anything without clerical blessing. That is why Francis says that the laity are co-responsible for clericalism.