Pope Bendict XVI’s recent efforts to deal with the clergy sexual abuse problem are not only too feeble; they’re downright dangerous.
The National Catholic Reporter reported on Benedict’s sermon for his general audience on Sept 8 with this lead: “The problem of abuse by clergy is solved more by a spirit of penitence and conversion by its members than by a radical change of church structures, Pope Benedict XVI said.”
The Pope’s own words were: “a true renewal of the ecclesial community is not achieved so much with a change in the structures as much as with a sincere spirit of penitence.”
Your Holiness, that approach not only lets you and the bishops off the hook. It allows the conditions in which this problem bred to endure.
Maybe it’s because the Pope doesn’t like liberation theology that he won’t accept one of its central claims: sin may have its roots in the human heart, but it can take on an independent reality of its own in the structures of institutions and laws. To confront sin and evil, a change of heart is always necessary. But often it is not enough.
And that certainly pertains to the problem of priestly and episcopal pedophilia, and its cover up. The actual acts of sexual abuse of children may not be directly linked to obligatory celibacy. But it does have to do with the clerical ethos or culture that results from the all-male, all-celibate (supposedly), and all-powerful structures of authority in the Catholic Church.
Even more clearly, the sad cover-ups and the persistent refusal to admit complicity by most bishops (especially in the USA) have to do with the patriarchal structures that place absolute power of authority in the hands of one bishop in each diocese and in the hands of one bishop over all the Catholic Church.
Unless these structures are changed according to the spirit and I dare say mandates of the Second Vatican Council – which called for greater power sharing between bishops and pope, and between laity and clergy – there will be no “true renewal of the ecclesial community.”
Your Holiness, Please change your heart so that we can change our structures.
Well said, Paul. That last line really resonates and makes me wonder about the real possibility of change of top-down structures from the bottom-up, so to speak. I feel like there have to be viable forms of ecclesial resistance from the laity that will bring about these structural changes. The money argument alwyays seems logical – why are so many people still handing over their money in the collection plate? What about forms of non-violent resistance? Would these things make sense in the context of a Church crisis? Maybe the laity simply is not orgaized enough (or awakened in conscience enough) to try and hasten these changes through more direct action? What are your thoughts?
I also cringed when I read Benedict’s recent attempt to grasp the reality of what has happened. He and his compatriots sort of “get” that some bad ACTS took place and that there were cover ups. This narrow focus solely on “acts” allows them the leeway to beg off on the Big Picture stuff (structures, authority, etc). They refuse to step back and focus their feeble eyes on the broken RELATIONSHIPS that now litter the road, let alone how to fix them. When he pontificates it feels like the car is backing up for another shot at running us over again.
Robert, you’re right….the laity needs to organize from below. Very little will happen from the top down. Such lay organization can start in both small groups (base communities) and through movements like Voice of the Faithful…. In the meantime, I refuse to give any kind of financial support that goes directly to the Vatican or to the local diocese. Whatever money I would have given I offer to local groups like Catholics United against Poverty (in Cincinnati). Or here in New York: Picture the Homeless. — We need to support each other. Yesterday a student asked me why I stay a Catholic. My basic answer: “Because of other struggling Catholics.” You are one of them.
Chris, I loved the imagery in your last sentence! I’m tiring of trying to get out of the way of the backing-up car…. About time we deflate the tires….
Great blog Mr. Knitter.
My only contention with it, however, is that it’s not always clear to us with our limited perspective what institutions are actually evil. How can we distinguish between evil that comes from individuals and evil that is systemic for a particular institution? Is every organization that has malevolent individuals to be branded evil?
I’m not Catholic myself, but I have a good friend who is. His opinion was that the celibate priesthood itself wasn’t wrong. Rather, the problem is culture that leads Catholics towards priesthood when they find themselves lacking in natural tendencies towards sexuality or family life. Loners who don’t fit the mold take this as providence directing them towards the clergy. A loaded situation.
His idea was that Catholics need to radically change the view of celibate priesthood; perhaps to one of pragmatic autonomy rather than holy sanctification. That is, celibacy is a practical requirement of a priesthood who’s characteristic is total devotion to their congregation.
I agree with you, however, that further amends need to be made one way or another. Facing this crisis with a whimper will provoke a roar from the abused and critical.
I was a priest 25 years, and have been a family forensic psychologist for the past 20.I’m influenced by Zen friends and by Theravada periods in Thailand, but remain a total beginner. I blog daily about “Practical Buddhism” (www.practicalbuddhism.net), and have a more visual blog called “Living Small” (www.livingsmall.net).
I have two questions:
1) May I re-print this blog in my space (with proper attribution of course)? I’ve scheduled for a couple of days from now so I can pull it if you object.
2) Where were you when I was studying theology? I could have used a professor who thinks outside the doctrinal box.
David, Please go right ahead an reprint the blog. I’m honored.
Paul