1968-2018: GAINS AND LOSSES

The Making of the Catholic Crisis

Three past events have contributed to the current crisis. Humanae vitae (1968) raised the question of loyal dissent. It was basically rejected as public dissent was made punishable by canonical sanctions. In short, obedience came to trump conscience. In the civil society the sexual exploitation of minors is a crime. Not so in the church: by canon law, a sexual offense committed by a cleric “with a minor below the age of sixteen, is to be punished with a just penalty... if the case warrants it.” (c 1395 #2) This is less than the penalty for priestly concubinage (c. 1395 #1). If obedience trumps conscience, it is not surprising that out of maybe 10,000 bishops over the last 40 or 50 years, not one was a whistle blower in the name of conscience.

The 1960s was the time of social activism which was fostered in the church by Medellín (1968) and liberation theology. The American bishops wrote eloquently about Economic Justice for All, but a few years before they had rejected the conclusions of the Detroit Call to Action Conference in which more than 100 bishops and 1,340 delegates had participated. In the future there would be no collective action without constant episcopal blessing. The fate of liberation theology was sealed by Cardinal Raztinger’s “Instructions on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation.” In short, social action for change is only acceptable under clerical leadership, and not without it. This attitude impedes structural change in times of crisis.

Finally, the Latin American bishops’ conclusions at the Aparecida conference, “Missionary discipleship” (2007), and Pope Francis' The Joy of the Gospel mark an invaluable turn to inner life. Both documents call for evangelization, but in both cases the evangelizers are private individuals: there is no appeal to lay organizations, priests, parishes, or other ecclesial entities to provide resources and personnel. Moreover, there is no call to action to change structures of injustice – except in words, saying No to an economy of exclusion, No to the idolatry of money, and No to inequality which spawns violence. In Gaudete et exsultate, holiness is conceived as an individual endeavor, without reference to traditional schools of holiness or existing ecclesial structures, and there is no mention of social concern for the poor, the migrants, and the refugees. This emphasis on private inner life is not conducive to institutional change in our times of crisis.

COMMENTS

[The current crisis]

I agree with the suggestion that Yes the increased focus on personal piety at the expense of attention to social justice coupled with the trumping of obedience over conscience has helped to create the current crisis. One is less likely to call out sexual abuse in such a world.In addition, I am wondering if the pervasiveness of priests sexually abusing people and bishops and other leaders covering up the abuse is in part a reaction to the decline of the authority and power of clergy that we have seen over the past fifty years. If a priest is sensing that he is losing his power and significance, he might seek to assert dominance over someone he perceives to be weaker and more vulnerable than himself. Moreover, if the church is already feeling beleaguered by the rise of secularism and the diminishment of church authority, then bishops might be even less inclined to expose this abuse going on among clergy.

I also wonder if we are seeing a form of toxic masculinity at work here. In a society in which men perceive themselves as losing power, they sometimes react by embracing perverse forms of power. We see this trend in the rise in shootings, for example, which are almost always carried out by men. Perhaps male priests abusing others is a symptom of the same disease.

Part of the solution, then, is to help men learn how to adapt to changing gender dynamics, including by helping men to redefine masculinity in more healthful ways. Focusing on Catholic Social Teaching can be one way that the Church can help men find more salutary ways to be men by highlighting, not dominance and conventional masculinity, but compassion, non-violence, and equality.

David VonSchlichten vonschlichten@setonhill.edu

CLERICAL SEX-ABUSE AND “BEING SET APART”

The crises faced by the Roman Catholic Church with regard to sex-abuse of minors cannot be looked at solely through the prism of a fiendish agenda of homosexual priests as Archbishop Carlo Mario Vigano wants us to do. In fact, the facts do not justify this bogus claim. Also, to focus solely on the last fifty years and think that these crises only began recently is to ignore the rich testament of history that speaks

therwise. Historical records have always pointed to clerics straying away from their commitment to either the celibate or chaste state. I want to believe that two major factors may have led us to where we are today and will continue to lead us to a state of gross paradoxes and contradictions unless we critically engage them. The first is the theology of the priesthood and by extension of the church in relation to the secular world. The second is a consequence of the first, one that continues to take different shape over secular and church history – church and state relations.

For centuries, the church has understood the clerical and religious state as one that sets the cleric or religious apart from others. Though this meant that one was held to higher standards and was expected to dedicate their life completely to the service of God via the ministries of the church, unfortunately, the flipside of such a language and vision is clericalism; which is a sense of entitlement and privilege at the expense of the entire people of God. The danger of clericalism is not simply the disregard of the legal and ecclesial rights of the laity, it also manifests itself in an unhealthy secrecy that has come to define how the ordained and professed religious see themselves and their dealings in relation to the laity of our church. In 2011, the archbishop of my home archdiocese, Archbishop Richard Burke, S.P.S of Benin City Archdiocese, was removed from his see by Rome for alleged sexual abuse of a minor. I happened to have been in Benin City, Nigeria that period. I know many of the priests of that archdiocese because it was where I began my formation for the priesthood as a minor seminarian in the 1980s. Throughout the archdiocese, the agreed upon lie that the ordained chose to tell the laity was that their archbishop was on sick leave. Even when a new archbishop was chosen and installed, the laity was still being lied to. I recall asking one of the priests why they have chosen to lie to the people, his response was telling; “we cannot scandalize the laity.” I want to believe that true scandal is in the cover-ups and intentional lies. A church that acknowledges its sinfulness will always receive forgiveness from the people of God. The laity knows that our priests and religious are humans with sinful tendencies as well as virtuous intentions. They are not children.

The second point has to do with how church-state relations have played out over the centuries. The sad consequence of the outcome of the struggle between church-state relations is that the church created walls of secrecy to defend itself from the prying eyes of the state. It is true that the state is not always perfect and has its own agenda. However, transparency is best achieved when one lets go of power and allows oneself to be accountable to others. Today, the church is calling for a process that will adjudicate cases of sex-abuse brought on bishops of the church. Everyone is asking Rome for an established process. That is good on surface value. I have a follow-up question, who will adjudicate a case brought on a pope accused of sex-abuse of minors? History has shown that some of our popes in the past were not men of virtue. Are we going to reinvent a new procedure for that?

During the recent meeting of the US bishops in Baltimore, Cardinal Dinardo informed the other bishops that their vote on the procedure for adjudicating a case of a bishop accused of sex-abuse had to be delayed based on the directives from Rome. This is problematic because Rome seems to be speaking from two sides of its mouth. On one hand, Rome has been encouraging bishops to follow the principle of subsidiarity in matters peculiar to their own context. For example, some countries have made more progress in dealing with sex abuse cases than others. The United States of America, Australia, and a few other countries have better policies than countries in Africa in dealing with sex abuse cases. Should the US and Australia wait until Africa catches up?

Finally, one thing is certain, sex-abuse investigations should be left to law enforcement agents and the laws of the land should prevail over canon law. The era of Christendom is over. Those abused have a right to justice and anything less should be rejected.

Simon Aihiokhai, aihiokhais@yahoo.co.uk

[Where is the public Catholic leadership?]

I am saddened by the silence of bishops with regard to the many serious issues which threaten the world. Abortion and the abuse crisis have occupied the Catholic spotlight with inordinate frequency. While I know killing babies is wrong and exploiting children is terrible, I know also that newborn babies cannot thrive without health care, good nutrition, and freedom from poverty. I know that war and unsafe conditions in many countries kill babies, too--not to mention their families. I know that abused children need counseling and support—which cost money.

My sense is that we have not exploited the incredible scriptural teaching on welcoming the alien, caring for the poor, and in general all social justice issues. Ever since and even before Humanae Vitae, the only issue we seem to find sexy—pardon the pun—are those that have to do with sex. Certainly many in the church have supported other causes, but there is little outcry from those from whom both church members and the greater world expect to hear. Bishops and sometimes homilists support candidates who would repeal Roe vs. Wade. Do they support with equal vigor those who want to remove assault weapons from America an decry those who want to "build a wall?" Do they call out those in power who do nothing to tamp down the racist, sexist, xenophobic rhetoric that grows like weeds in a fertile field? Somehow abortion is an issue that needs healthy moral decision-making and support for women who choose to bring babies to term much more than it needs a new law. As the president said during his campaign about not paying taxes, "I didn't do anything illegal." Legal does not convey a mantle of moral on evil actions.

I am, as we say, edified by activist persons from other faiths: Jews working hard day after day for candidates that embrace social justice; Protestant ministers whose churches have provided sanctuary for aliens, ordinary people who help recovering alcoholics and former convicted criminals who are trying to get a new foothold on life by providing job training and housing. I know also lat least one Catholic bishop, who denied an offer of financing a sanctuary for aliens in his city. His Catholic "flock" saw the need. He saw the pitfalls. This lack of action is balanced by the congregation of sisters who had helped young people register for Dacca (before it was under attack!). Lots of good work is happening, but . . . .

The Council produced many documents that have brought the church into the modern world. We are called to look at the signs of the times. We are called to form healthy consciences to make the world a better place. We are called to listen with respect to the insights of non-Christian religions. Where is the public Catholic leadership voice that supports all these good ideas?

Dee Christie, dlchristie@aol.com