Pope Benedict XVI's and Catholics' Long Lent
Revised 4/7/10
John L. Allen is such a good Catholic journalist that not even being employed by the heterodox-ax-grinding National Catholic Reporter can hold him back. NCR is no friend of the pope. Last week Allen wrote an article (1) that even orthodox Catholics are referring to in defending Pope Benedict. Allen clarifies three things about Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's role in the abuse scandals: 1) that Ratzinger was responsible for handling abuse cases for only the four years prior to his papacy, and that it was a real eye-opener for him 2) that the letter Ratzinger issued in 2001 speaking of secrecy was part of a Vatican recognition of the problem and did not order cases to be kept from civil authorities, 3) in re: only 20% of abuse cases were tried: the Vatican and U.S. Bishops worked out a compromise so that only cases where there was doubt would be tried, leaving those in which there was no question of abuse to swift dispensation of justice by the bishops.
This story has had such strong legs because there are people outside and inside the Catholic Church who want to nail Pope Benedict. There are editors of dying papers and evening news broadcasts that nobody watches trying to boost circulation and ratings by throwing out phrases such as "goes straight to top" and "He's really in trouble now!" or "He said nothing about pedophilia at the Easter Mass!"
Who exactly is B16 in trouble with? And what would it mean if he were "in trouble?" Would it mean that the Catholic church might not get something done in this century? The Italian communist paper calls the pope a liar! Might the board of directors fire him? Is there gonna be a recall election? I don't pay much attention to conspiracy theory, but there has been speculation that European political intrigue aimed against Catholic politicians has been a factor in these attacks.
Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (makes me think of Rowan Atkinson), who said that the scandal has destroyed the credibility of the church in Ireland, is head of one of those dying churches that doesn't understand that it's killing itself. He would love to pick up some of disaffected British-Isle Catholics, especially when some Anglicans are accepting B16's invitation to come over to Rome.
The pope is scheduled to visit the UK in September and among English and Irish Catholics, including their shepherds, he is already despised. Anyone who thinks that Ireland is a "Catholic" country confuses Catholic trappings with actual Catholicism and has probably never met any Irish Catholics. Ireland has not been a Catholic country for some time and indeed it truly can be called "mission territory."
If you don't think that anti-Catholic bigotry is still rampant in the U.S., just read the comments after any on-line story published about a Catholic matter. Jesus said the hatred would happen (John 15:18) just as he said that he came to bring division (Luke 12:51). Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. said that "anti-Catholicism is the deepest-held bias in the history of the American People." True, some colonials feared that Lafayette, coming as an ally to fight the British, was bringing with his army loads of priests to force conversion.
Benedict is never going to resign. As the world hates the church, it does not comprehend the church. It does not understand, for example, that priesthood is like marriage and motherhood. It is not a job. It is a state of life which God is involved in creating and which people cannot put asunder. You cannot unmake priests or popes, nor can you resign from being a pope anymore than you can resign from being a mother. Jesus did not say to the crowds, "You guys vote and elect twelve apostles for me." He picked them and started a hierarchy.
In choosing the first pope, Jesus predicted that he, Peter, would deny that Son of God three times after he was given the kingdom's keys. So right from the get-go, sinners have lead and followed in the Catholic church.
The world is the greedy, out-for-himself, manipulating politician who thinks that everybody else including the Catholic church, is a greedy, out-for-himself, manipulating politician. Everything done or said is done or said for some base political reason. Example: being "pro-life" really means being a Republican and that's all it means.
As always to my mind, the church-haters inside the church are much worse than extramural enemies. I find it laughable that Rembert Weakland, prelate of Kumbaya Catholics, a dissident, an openly gay bishop, an advocate of a sexually active priesthood, should be positioning himself (Now there's a politician!) as a frustrated champion of abuse victims. Homosexual priests not practicing celibacy were the principle perpetrators of abuse (2).
Weakland's game here is to attack hierarchy, particularly in faraway, resented Rome: See, I took Murphy's case to the hierarchy and the corrupt, nogoodnick hierarchy ignored it.
We should also not forget all the American nuns who are screaming like harpies because the Vatican is undertaking what turns out to be a rather mild and polite investigation of their orders. And it's happening for good reasons including the fact that some nuns have been signing over their order's assets to themselves.
Organized grievance such as SNAP is closely allied with "Catholics" who are also hostile to hierarchical organization, the celibate priesthood, and the rissorgiamento of tradition. I guess that such "Catholics" miss the news stories about the married ministers, rabbis, scoutmasters, public-school teachers and coaches who could get it any time but who prey on children anyway. I guess that when such "Catholics" think that democratic organization will solve a host of problems, they don't know about the very popular, charismatic priests whose parishioners stood by them even after there was evidence of their ephebophilia(3).
European lawyers are now rubbing their hands with glee. The legal industry is trying to grab wealth from the church with a gusto that makes Tudor-Dynasty looters look like pen-pilferers. Yes, victimizing children is a horrible act that should be punished with stiff criminal penalties. However it's time for Catholics to dig in and ask, "Does paying large cash settlements really heal the hurt?"
To help you answer the above question, I'm going to open a window into my personal life. Years ago a family told me that I was not good enough to date their daughter. This was not only hurtful, it was really insulting because I was their social equal at the very least. Now I am their social superior by many stories.
I brooded about this for a long time and it affected other things and relationships in my life. This is what the victims of sexual abuse claim. I am certain that what I experienced was no less damaging. But is there a court that would hear my case if I tried to sue? Is there an organization called Survivors Network for Guys Rejected By Families of Potomac Show Dogs? Why are there legal remedies and support for victims of other causes of emotional damage and none for me? Suits for damages aren't the answer to every problem.
Catholics who are feeling defensive in this time of trial should not. Thanks to God working through imperfect people such as JPII and B16, the Catholic church is having a positive impact on civilization--and even seeing a healthy gain of new converts and vocations--in spite of everything.
It was a long, cloudy, gray Lent. Let us pray and hope that this Easter is one of dazzling, sunny days.
(1) Keeping the record straight on Benedict
(2) http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse01.htm
(3) nealjconway.com uses the term ephebophilia rather than pedophilia. Pedophilia suggests that small children are mostly the victims. Ephebophilia is the proper term for attraction to teenage boys.
Copyright 2010 by Neal J. Conway
About this site and Neal J. Conway