It is Holy Family Sunday. I had been offered a ‘help out’ for this morning (that is, to preside at a Mass in a parish where I am not assigned to ‘help out’ the parish priest), but I did not take it. At the time the offer came in, I was trying to keep my schedule as free as possible. But now, I realize that I did have something to say that would have been interesting, perhaps even helpful, to some folks. Instead of the help out at a parish, I said a few words at a small Mass for six people. It was not exactly a stirring liturgy for any of us. So what would I have said to a larger congregation (and said only part of in the Mass that I did say)?
It is fitting, of course, that we honor the Holy Family on the Sunday after Christmas. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are models for our lives. But we must be careful here. They are models because of how they dealt with the problems of being human. They are not models because they had no problems. Indeed, if they had no problems, it would not make sense for them to be models for us. The other night we heard about the search for housing, which yielded only a stable. We heard about smelly shepherds walking in unannounced at a family moment. We will hear in tomorrow’s Mass of the violence of a despot and their flight as refugees. If we have listened closely to today’s Mass texts, we have already prayed four times or so for “peace.” Well, you pray for peace only when there is no peace. And the Mass today makes reference many times to the need for peace. Indeed, the final blessing prayer rather annoyingly prays: “Lord, you care for your people even when they stray. Grant us a complete change of heart, so that we may follow you with greater fidelity.” One wonders about the family background of whoever inserted that in the American Sacramentary. There is no comparable text in the Missale Romanum, so it was added just for us Americans, who apparently need a complete change of heart!
If our image of the Holy Family is fixed in the sweetness of a Christmas card picture, we are not listening. In today’s Gospel about the ‘finding’ or Jesus in the Temple, Mary says: “Son, why have you done this to us?” I don’t think that there is a parent on earth who has not asked the same question of their son or daughter. “Why are you doing this to us?” Drinking, hanging with the wrong crowd, not cleaning your room, taking drugs, dating the wrong person, talking back, embarrassing us, not communicating ...... The list of failures of children is endless, and the list continues to grow as we grow.
The Holy Family is an example for us because they endured what we endure, they were tempted as we are tempted, and they survived. They managed, somehow, to keep it together, to bivouac in a stable, to escape Herod, to flee to Egypt, to return, to grow. And we can survive the difficulties of our lives.
Today, the ‘family is under attack’ we are told. And it is. It always has been. Even in American history, there have been times when the whole idea of family was attacked in one way or another. In slave times, families were divided and sold like so much cotton. In slave times and for long after, families were not legal families if they were divided by race. “The black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect,” said one 19th century Supreme Court decision - a decision written by the first Catholic justice of the court, by the way.
The Mormon controversies - before God changed his mind and told the Mormon prophet to get over those ideas of polygamy - brought a furious public response to the attack on the family that Mormons represented. Their towns were burned, and they escaped to Utah, only to find that that territory would not be admitted to the Union as a state unless polygamy was repudiated. So God conveniently acceded, and Utah became a state. There are ironies here that do not need to be stated.
Today’s second reading from Ephesians speaks of husbands loving their wives and wives being submissive to their husbands. (OK, so this is the “long reading” option, the short reading omits most of the offensive verses and is the one most often read in churches.) It also talks about not being too hard on the kids, but that the kids should obey. In deference to current understandings of families, the reading then stops after having covered husbands, wives and children. But Paul’s original goes on to talk about the 4th group in the household: the slaves, who are told to obey their masters. Ah, Biblical values! Impermeable, unchangeable Biblical values!
In the 20th century, the women’s sufferage movement was “an attack on the family.” After all, how could the family survive if women had the vote. They might not defer to their husbands if they had the legal right to not defer to them at the polling place, where they would be beyond his reach. Even after the 19th Amendment, the full legal independence of married women was a slow and gradual process, and at each step there were cries that these were attacks on the family: women working, pay equality, independent right to own and dispose of property. Various elements of the doctrine of femme couvert died a slow and lingering death.
In theology, the ideas of Sunday school are upended and subjected to careful dissection and analysis. Theology has been defined in the Catholic tradition as “faith seeking understanding.” As a practical matter, this means that we ask ourselves: “What do we mean when we say the things we’ve said since before we remember?” When we say “God,” or “Our Father,” what do we mean? And that becomes a very complicated question. When we say “true God and true man,” are we saying what is impossible? What is “church,” “inspiration,” “grace,” “sacrament,” “error,” “heresy,” “dogma,” “sin,” “salvation,” and a host of other terms? Theology teaches us, or should teach us, the limits of language, the limits of human thought, the humility that is necessary to admit we always know less than we think we know, and that we always know less than what we don’t know.
On this Holy Family Sunday, we gather during a curious time. Once again, we are told, that the family is under attack. Once again, we are told, the attack is political, as we were told that in earlier generations. I think all this is mistaken, for several reasons.
First, the family is under attack. But this is nothing new. The family is under attack by selfishness, by greed, by lust, by desire for power, by the desire for comfort at the expense of others. Each family is under attack by the unredeemed parts of each member of the family. The lack of charity, the desire to control, the rash judgments and jealousies, all these are attacking the family. And all these are the subject for the spiritual discernment and struggle for self mastery of each family member. That is the hard moral lesson, and the challenge. It is won or lost in the small acts of the household: to wash what you did not dirty, to pick up what you did not drop, to hold one’s tongue even when you are right, to compliment even the foolish choice of another. There are a hundred different ways each day that each of us can defend the family. We do so by living virtuously.
Second, the “family” is not simple. “Family” as an historical fact, as a sociological and anthropological reality, and as a subject for theological analysis is not univocal, simple, or obvious. One of the most striking aspects of the writing of those who would defend “the family” as an institution is the simplemindedness of their rhetoric and their theology. They accept too much as fact, they argue glibly, they do not examine their premises. They assert, rather than reason. They overstate their case; they do not exhibit any awareness of the complexity of life as it is lived, or of the complexity of the biblical and Christian tradition. They live on the level of slogans.
Of course, those who are arguing for fundamental changes in the legal definition of marriage are guilty of the same. So often their level of argument comes down to self-interest, or to a statement that this is right because they want it. These are not arguments. They also are sloganeering.
However, the religious examination of the issue from the point of view of those who are urging a re-thinking is, in fact, increasingly nuanced and careful. Whether this is being done within the Catholic tradition (as for example by John McNeil or James Alison) or the Anglican tradition( for example by Tobias Stanislas Haller) or in other Christian traditions, these thinkers are considering the question carefully, reverently, and seriously. There may be a bit of wishful thinking in their work. They tend to end up where they want to end up, and that is always cause for caution. But the very seriousness with which they grapple with the issue is leagues beyond those who simply shout out their opinions.
On this Holy Family Sunday, let us agree that nothing, especially our particular families and our consideration of family matters, is simple. Let us have the humility to examine our actions and attitudes and the charity to listen carefully to the the words of others. Let us treat well those we meet today, as we would wish to be treated. May we have the peacefulness in our hearts that would allow us to live in a stable, to flee persecutors, to entertain smelly visitors, to deal with our families, and even to listen to bishops and political pundits, all without undue distress.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
An archbishop who is mad as a hornet! At last!
What follows is taken in its entirety from yesterday's entry in the ever interesting and carefully researched Whispers in the Loggia blog. The contrast between the leadership shown in Ireland and the lack of testicular fortitude in America is breathtaking. For the original, see www.whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com
Jump or Get Pushed: After Murphy, Martin Declares War
During his year as coadjutor-archbishop of Dublin, it's been said that Diarmuid Martin had a difficult time finding a lunchmate. Waiting in the wings as Cardinal Desmond Connell's successor, the longtime Vatican official might've been a native son of the Irish capital, but the Curia he'd soon inherit made its message clear: he wasn't one of them.
Given what's transpired since last month's release of the Murphy Report -- namely, the archbishop's all-out denunciation of the chancery culture that facilitated the history of abuse and cover-up the state inquiry uncovered -- that divide, never completely out of view, has come center stage in a seismic way.
Five years into his mandate, the 66 year-old prelate still largely finds himself a lone rider in the inquest's wake, handling its fallout without the teams of lawyers and spinners who've come to embody ecclesial damage control elsewhere. Yet just a week after the Pope expressed his own "outrage, betrayal and shame" at a Vatican summit on the crisis, and hours after the primate's public warning that "responsibility must be taken by all" archdiocesan leaders who failed to act as the "protection principle" endured, Ireland's largest paper reports the aftermath's wildest turn of events to date -- either the four active prelates who helped oversee the Dublin church as it routinely shuffled accused clerics step forward with their resignations over Christmas... or Martin will grease the skids:
THE Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Diarmuid Martin will seek to have four bishops fired by the Vatican if they refuse to step down over the Murphy report into child sex abuse cases in Dublin....
Sources told the Irish Independent that if the bishops -- who say they did no wrong -- do not stand down voluntarily on the principle of collective responsibility, Archbishop Martin will petition the Congregation of Bishops in Rome to fire them.
Of the four current and former Dublin auxiliaries, while Bishop Jim Moriarity of Kildare and Leighlin, 73, is reportedly moving toward the plank, other prelates on the archbishop's "hit list" have challenged their placement on it; Bishop Martin Drennan of Galway -- who, it should be noted, was not named in the report -- protested that his "integrity is being called into question" and termed the move "a spiral of revenge," and longtime Dublin Auxiliary Bishop Eamonn Walsh viewed calls for his departure as an "injustice" unto himself, adding that the torrential media coverage in the report's wake had served to "turn up the pain" of abuse survivors who, he said, "do not know how to cope with all the publicity."
Meanwhile, having tussled with his successor in court over the release of documents to the inquiry, a former aide to Connell lambasted Martin for a "catastrophic" approach of "communicating with people who are [his] auxiliaries through" Irish state television.
In his 1 December appearance on RTE's Prime Time, the archbishop called for "answers that people can accept and believe" from those indicated in the report, adding that he was "not satisfied" with the responses given to that point and, indeed, going so far as to publicly name the prelates from whom he demanded sufficient explanations.
Along the way, Martin's push has received added, repeated heft from a high-profile church commentator with ties to Pope Benedict: a retired professor of moral theology at Ireland's national seminary, Fr Vincent Twomey -- a student of then-Fr Joseph Ratzinger at Regensburg -- likewise took to the media to back the resignation calls, warning that the embattled prelates' continuance in office was "causing great scandal" in itself.
"The longer they dig their heels in and refuse to resign, the greater damage they are doing to the church," Twomey said in a radio interview. "What was done to" the victims, he added, "is a crime that calls to God for vengeance."
Calling for an "honest investigation" of the Isle's Catholic culture -- which, he said, had produced a "sterile orthodoxy" at its highest levels -- Twomey likewise penned a lengthy op-ed for the Irish Times advocating "some other way of choosing suitable bishops, [one] which will involve some real participation by priests and laity."
After last week's first report-induced resignation -- Bishop Donal Murray's departure from the helm of the diocese of Limerick -- the Dublin prelate said in a statement that, amid the investigation's findings of "serious difficulties of structure and communication" which resulted in further abuse, "accountability must be assumed... and radical reform is required in the archdiocese, not just in the area of child protection."
"Priests and people of this diocese see that there can be no healing without radical change," Martin added. "Along with many others, I am committed to that change."
Lastly, though, yesterday saw a different outpouring of emotion as Kiltegan Fr Jeremiah Roche was remembered as a "mighty, mighty man" at his funeral.
The 68 year-old St Patrick Missionary had spent most of his four-decade priesthood ministering in Kenya, where he was murdered last week during a robbery of his home.
SVILUPPO: In yet another fresh development, it's emerged that the Irish government has ordered each of the country's 26 dioceses to hand over a list of every allegation they've received in the last five years before 8 January.
Termed a "dragnet," the "massive investigation" will be carried out by the state's Health Service Executive in conjunction with the church's National Board for Children.
While the Independent reported that the Dublin curia received 131 new claims of past misconduct even before the Murphy release, another 600 complaints are already under investigation by the authorities in the wake of May's Ryan Report, which detailed a staggering history of abuse in residential schools entrusted to religious orders.
SVILUPPO 2: As of early Wednesday morning, even more developments -- RTE reported that Moriarty (who, a fortnight ago, said he didn't feel "any grounds" to leave his post) was expected to announce his resignation in the afternoon, and Drennan told a local radio program that, given his "guilt by association" with his Dublin confreres, "if there is a mass resignation called for, yes, it could come to me resigning."
An unscientific poll on a Galway newspaper's website found that 72% of respondents sought the latter's departure.
Jump or Get Pushed: After Murphy, Martin Declares War
During his year as coadjutor-archbishop of Dublin, it's been said that Diarmuid Martin had a difficult time finding a lunchmate. Waiting in the wings as Cardinal Desmond Connell's successor, the longtime Vatican official might've been a native son of the Irish capital, but the Curia he'd soon inherit made its message clear: he wasn't one of them.
Given what's transpired since last month's release of the Murphy Report -- namely, the archbishop's all-out denunciation of the chancery culture that facilitated the history of abuse and cover-up the state inquiry uncovered -- that divide, never completely out of view, has come center stage in a seismic way.
Five years into his mandate, the 66 year-old prelate still largely finds himself a lone rider in the inquest's wake, handling its fallout without the teams of lawyers and spinners who've come to embody ecclesial damage control elsewhere. Yet just a week after the Pope expressed his own "outrage, betrayal and shame" at a Vatican summit on the crisis, and hours after the primate's public warning that "responsibility must be taken by all" archdiocesan leaders who failed to act as the "protection principle" endured, Ireland's largest paper reports the aftermath's wildest turn of events to date -- either the four active prelates who helped oversee the Dublin church as it routinely shuffled accused clerics step forward with their resignations over Christmas... or Martin will grease the skids:
THE Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Diarmuid Martin will seek to have four bishops fired by the Vatican if they refuse to step down over the Murphy report into child sex abuse cases in Dublin....
Sources told the Irish Independent that if the bishops -- who say they did no wrong -- do not stand down voluntarily on the principle of collective responsibility, Archbishop Martin will petition the Congregation of Bishops in Rome to fire them.
Of the four current and former Dublin auxiliaries, while Bishop Jim Moriarity of Kildare and Leighlin, 73, is reportedly moving toward the plank, other prelates on the archbishop's "hit list" have challenged their placement on it; Bishop Martin Drennan of Galway -- who, it should be noted, was not named in the report -- protested that his "integrity is being called into question" and termed the move "a spiral of revenge," and longtime Dublin Auxiliary Bishop Eamonn Walsh viewed calls for his departure as an "injustice" unto himself, adding that the torrential media coverage in the report's wake had served to "turn up the pain" of abuse survivors who, he said, "do not know how to cope with all the publicity."
Meanwhile, having tussled with his successor in court over the release of documents to the inquiry, a former aide to Connell lambasted Martin for a "catastrophic" approach of "communicating with people who are [his] auxiliaries through" Irish state television.
In his 1 December appearance on RTE's Prime Time, the archbishop called for "answers that people can accept and believe" from those indicated in the report, adding that he was "not satisfied" with the responses given to that point and, indeed, going so far as to publicly name the prelates from whom he demanded sufficient explanations.
Along the way, Martin's push has received added, repeated heft from a high-profile church commentator with ties to Pope Benedict: a retired professor of moral theology at Ireland's national seminary, Fr Vincent Twomey -- a student of then-Fr Joseph Ratzinger at Regensburg -- likewise took to the media to back the resignation calls, warning that the embattled prelates' continuance in office was "causing great scandal" in itself.
"The longer they dig their heels in and refuse to resign, the greater damage they are doing to the church," Twomey said in a radio interview. "What was done to" the victims, he added, "is a crime that calls to God for vengeance."
Calling for an "honest investigation" of the Isle's Catholic culture -- which, he said, had produced a "sterile orthodoxy" at its highest levels -- Twomey likewise penned a lengthy op-ed for the Irish Times advocating "some other way of choosing suitable bishops, [one] which will involve some real participation by priests and laity."
After last week's first report-induced resignation -- Bishop Donal Murray's departure from the helm of the diocese of Limerick -- the Dublin prelate said in a statement that, amid the investigation's findings of "serious difficulties of structure and communication" which resulted in further abuse, "accountability must be assumed... and radical reform is required in the archdiocese, not just in the area of child protection."
"Priests and people of this diocese see that there can be no healing without radical change," Martin added. "Along with many others, I am committed to that change."
Lastly, though, yesterday saw a different outpouring of emotion as Kiltegan Fr Jeremiah Roche was remembered as a "mighty, mighty man" at his funeral.
The 68 year-old St Patrick Missionary had spent most of his four-decade priesthood ministering in Kenya, where he was murdered last week during a robbery of his home.
SVILUPPO: In yet another fresh development, it's emerged that the Irish government has ordered each of the country's 26 dioceses to hand over a list of every allegation they've received in the last five years before 8 January.
Termed a "dragnet," the "massive investigation" will be carried out by the state's Health Service Executive in conjunction with the church's National Board for Children.
While the Independent reported that the Dublin curia received 131 new claims of past misconduct even before the Murphy release, another 600 complaints are already under investigation by the authorities in the wake of May's Ryan Report, which detailed a staggering history of abuse in residential schools entrusted to religious orders.
SVILUPPO 2: As of early Wednesday morning, even more developments -- RTE reported that Moriarty (who, a fortnight ago, said he didn't feel "any grounds" to leave his post) was expected to announce his resignation in the afternoon, and Drennan told a local radio program that, given his "guilt by association" with his Dublin confreres, "if there is a mass resignation called for, yes, it could come to me resigning."
An unscientific poll on a Galway newspaper's website found that 72% of respondents sought the latter's departure.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Sometimes good is the enemy of the perfect.
There is a saying that sometimes the good is the enemy of the perfect. But I think it is also true in reverse: sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. On the most prosaic level, for days I've put off responding to an interesting question raised by a commentator on this blog. I had been hoping that I'd have time and inspiration to write the perfect response, but frankly, that will never happen. So here is a merely good (I hope!) response. For perfection, we will have to wait for the second coming. This entry is long, and does not contain my final answer on this matter. But it does set the stage for an answer, which will, I hope, be forthcoming.
FDeF wrote, in response to my December 5 entry: "But how do you/we address the issue that was brought up in this discussion previously: the fact that some/many of the priests in question are doing exactly what is forbidden of those in the pews; people who if they are honest and open and attempting to live authentic lives, would be refused the sacraments. There is no justification for such duplicity in church teaching, so far as I can tell. I am not necessarily an advocate of "outing" but something's gotta give."
How should we address this? First, Jesus condemned hypocrisy in the most strong terms, and it is clear that hypocrisy is a great temptation to religious types, including priests. Jesus condemns those who lay heavy burdens on others and do not lift a finger to help. He condemns those who have lost perspective, and tithe on mint and dill and cumin, and neglect charity. Jesus makes it clear that the shepherds must care for the sheep and that bad shepherds do exist. Jesus makes it clear that those who cause scandal, especially to the most vulnerable ("the little ones") would be lucky if a millstone were tied to them and they would sink into the sea.
Second, there are different ways that priests and bishops and others may be "doing exactly what is forbidden" to those who are in the pews. All people are sinners, and all are in need of the grace of God. Some priests and bishops may "slip" and sin once. Other priests and bishops may be living a double life more or less consistently. And there are many points in between these extremes. The response to the former, as to all sinners, is to urge repentance and to say, with Jesus, "Go, now, and do not commit this sin any more." The response to those who are more habitual or compulsive in their sin or who do not consider the sin to be sinful, requires something more. This most likely will require an intervention or other means (such as in confession or spiritual direction) of raising the question of whether they are so attached to their sin that they cannot give it up, and must therefore recuse themselves from continuing in public ministry. If they cannot give up their sin, and will not recuse themselves from public ministry, then they must be removed from public ministry. I do not think that a single policy can be applied to every priest who sins, without doing an injustice to the sinner. On the other hand, public sin cannot be dealt with by a purely private means. Some guidelines are needed, so that bishops and religious superiors are acting consistently, firmly, and prudently, and are not simply acting ad hoc or on the basis of their own prejudices.
Third, one has to address the question of what happens when a priest or bishop simply does not believe that the Church teaching is correct on an issue. When this happens, usually the clergy just gets very silent. For example, a priest who does not believe that artificial contraception is gravely sinful is unlikely to preach about it or mention it voluntarily. He will have to decide how to address the issue when someone else raises it, for example, in confession. Will he repeat Church teaching that he doesn't believe? Some do. Will he create the impression that he believes whatever a penitent seems to believe? If they confess it as sinful he will go with that. If they say they don't believe it is sinful he will go with that. He's flexible. Or will he try to nuance the issue, split hairs, and find loopholes so that he can uphold the teaching but, in effect, find some reason why it doesn't apply fully in this case, and maybe not in any case. I've used the example of artificial contraception, but one can see this can apply to any moral issue: sex outside of marriage, homosexual acts, abortion, issues of economic justice, racism, whatever.
Finally, I have to conclude that one part of the problem of what to do with priests who are sexually active, or who engage in other behaviors which are sinful (e.g. stealing parish resources), is that alone of all the professions, the ministry has no self-policing powers. If a doctor violates the standard of care, there is a professional committee of other doctors that one can complain to, and they have real enforcement powers. Priests, deacons, and bishops have no such oversight committee, and have no professional standard of care that is objective and accepted. This is highlighted by the reactions of various church officials to reports of the sexual abuse of minors. Prior to the bishops' Dallas agreement several years ago, there simply was no standard to which one could point that a bishop or priest could use to decide what to do about reports of abuse and when to do it. The minimal, baseline standard was not a professional one, but was the criminal law. And even that was ignored in the mistaken belief that such laws somehow did not apply to the church. Now, thankfully, there are explicit policies in all dioceses and religious orders, that when a report is made, this and that is to be done. When a report is found to be credible, this or that is to be done. With such standards in place, bishops, religious superiors, priests and others can be held to account. And everyone knows what ought to be done and when it should be done when minors are involved. Even these policies, though, are not "professional," insofar as the profession of priesthood is not self-regulating. Instead, the bishops are doing the regulating. Now, that is not bad, but just who is regulating the regulators? Who is minding the bishops? Apparently, only each bishop is in charge of himself. And from the point of view of professional regulation, that is not good.
But the abuse of minors is but one way a priest or bishop may misbehave. Adult sexual activities do not have the same level of scrutiny and articulation of policy, nor does the use or misuse of money. Further, the whole area of pastoral practice seems almost beyond scrutiny. I heard recently of a pastor who felt obliged to tell his parochial vicar (Catholic talk for assistant priest) that he should not mention President Obama in the pulpit. The vicar had regularly taken positions on the president, mostly consigning him to hell for some violation of the vicar's sense of right and wrong. Now, I think in that case the pastor was correct. But what professional standard did he have on which to base his intervention? Really, only common sense. But what would have been the standard if the roles were reversed and it was the pastor who was blatantly political in the pulpit? And who would have enforced it? Ultimately, the bishop and diocesan officials would have intervened. But again, there was no clear professional standard.
Further, is there such a thing as pastoral malpractice? And if there is, what is it and how does one know if something is malpractice or not? There are no clear standards, except the base minimal standard of what can get a pastor arrested or sued. In not having standards, and leaving the issue of what is forbidden to the prosecutors and the courts, the Church is putting itself in a precarious position. It is basically ceding the field, and this will result in civil officials telling us what is or is not acceptable.
FDeF wrote, in response to my December 5 entry: "But how do you/we address the issue that was brought up in this discussion previously: the fact that some/many of the priests in question are doing exactly what is forbidden of those in the pews; people who if they are honest and open and attempting to live authentic lives, would be refused the sacraments. There is no justification for such duplicity in church teaching, so far as I can tell. I am not necessarily an advocate of "outing" but something's gotta give."
How should we address this? First, Jesus condemned hypocrisy in the most strong terms, and it is clear that hypocrisy is a great temptation to religious types, including priests. Jesus condemns those who lay heavy burdens on others and do not lift a finger to help. He condemns those who have lost perspective, and tithe on mint and dill and cumin, and neglect charity. Jesus makes it clear that the shepherds must care for the sheep and that bad shepherds do exist. Jesus makes it clear that those who cause scandal, especially to the most vulnerable ("the little ones") would be lucky if a millstone were tied to them and they would sink into the sea.
Second, there are different ways that priests and bishops and others may be "doing exactly what is forbidden" to those who are in the pews. All people are sinners, and all are in need of the grace of God. Some priests and bishops may "slip" and sin once. Other priests and bishops may be living a double life more or less consistently. And there are many points in between these extremes. The response to the former, as to all sinners, is to urge repentance and to say, with Jesus, "Go, now, and do not commit this sin any more." The response to those who are more habitual or compulsive in their sin or who do not consider the sin to be sinful, requires something more. This most likely will require an intervention or other means (such as in confession or spiritual direction) of raising the question of whether they are so attached to their sin that they cannot give it up, and must therefore recuse themselves from continuing in public ministry. If they cannot give up their sin, and will not recuse themselves from public ministry, then they must be removed from public ministry. I do not think that a single policy can be applied to every priest who sins, without doing an injustice to the sinner. On the other hand, public sin cannot be dealt with by a purely private means. Some guidelines are needed, so that bishops and religious superiors are acting consistently, firmly, and prudently, and are not simply acting ad hoc or on the basis of their own prejudices.
Third, one has to address the question of what happens when a priest or bishop simply does not believe that the Church teaching is correct on an issue. When this happens, usually the clergy just gets very silent. For example, a priest who does not believe that artificial contraception is gravely sinful is unlikely to preach about it or mention it voluntarily. He will have to decide how to address the issue when someone else raises it, for example, in confession. Will he repeat Church teaching that he doesn't believe? Some do. Will he create the impression that he believes whatever a penitent seems to believe? If they confess it as sinful he will go with that. If they say they don't believe it is sinful he will go with that. He's flexible. Or will he try to nuance the issue, split hairs, and find loopholes so that he can uphold the teaching but, in effect, find some reason why it doesn't apply fully in this case, and maybe not in any case. I've used the example of artificial contraception, but one can see this can apply to any moral issue: sex outside of marriage, homosexual acts, abortion, issues of economic justice, racism, whatever.
Finally, I have to conclude that one part of the problem of what to do with priests who are sexually active, or who engage in other behaviors which are sinful (e.g. stealing parish resources), is that alone of all the professions, the ministry has no self-policing powers. If a doctor violates the standard of care, there is a professional committee of other doctors that one can complain to, and they have real enforcement powers. Priests, deacons, and bishops have no such oversight committee, and have no professional standard of care that is objective and accepted. This is highlighted by the reactions of various church officials to reports of the sexual abuse of minors. Prior to the bishops' Dallas agreement several years ago, there simply was no standard to which one could point that a bishop or priest could use to decide what to do about reports of abuse and when to do it. The minimal, baseline standard was not a professional one, but was the criminal law. And even that was ignored in the mistaken belief that such laws somehow did not apply to the church. Now, thankfully, there are explicit policies in all dioceses and religious orders, that when a report is made, this and that is to be done. When a report is found to be credible, this or that is to be done. With such standards in place, bishops, religious superiors, priests and others can be held to account. And everyone knows what ought to be done and when it should be done when minors are involved. Even these policies, though, are not "professional," insofar as the profession of priesthood is not self-regulating. Instead, the bishops are doing the regulating. Now, that is not bad, but just who is regulating the regulators? Who is minding the bishops? Apparently, only each bishop is in charge of himself. And from the point of view of professional regulation, that is not good.
But the abuse of minors is but one way a priest or bishop may misbehave. Adult sexual activities do not have the same level of scrutiny and articulation of policy, nor does the use or misuse of money. Further, the whole area of pastoral practice seems almost beyond scrutiny. I heard recently of a pastor who felt obliged to tell his parochial vicar (Catholic talk for assistant priest) that he should not mention President Obama in the pulpit. The vicar had regularly taken positions on the president, mostly consigning him to hell for some violation of the vicar's sense of right and wrong. Now, I think in that case the pastor was correct. But what professional standard did he have on which to base his intervention? Really, only common sense. But what would have been the standard if the roles were reversed and it was the pastor who was blatantly political in the pulpit? And who would have enforced it? Ultimately, the bishop and diocesan officials would have intervened. But again, there was no clear professional standard.
Further, is there such a thing as pastoral malpractice? And if there is, what is it and how does one know if something is malpractice or not? There are no clear standards, except the base minimal standard of what can get a pastor arrested or sued. In not having standards, and leaving the issue of what is forbidden to the prosecutors and the courts, the Church is putting itself in a precarious position. It is basically ceding the field, and this will result in civil officials telling us what is or is not acceptable.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
On the outing of gay priests.
On the outing of gay priests: a comment left in the comment box of Fr. Geoff Farrow's blog:http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/
This is truly a vexing issue with many aspects. It is my personal experience that in religious orders the superiors know the orientation of most of the men in their province (regional division). There are some religious order priests whose orientation may not be known, of course, but generally, one cannot live and work with other priests for a lifetime without some idea of which "team" they are on. Whether they have kept their vows or not is a question that is more difficult to determine. I suspect that diocesan priests are in a similar situation, but perhaps for them the category of "unknown orientation" is larger, since they tend to work alone more often, and do not live in such close quarters. No bishop or religious superior who has a whit of sense doubts that at least 20% of his priests are homosexual. Most estimates are higher than 20%, and no bishop or provincial is unaware of this. Given this, just what does "outing" mean?
I offer the following possibilities, which are not meant to be exhaustive.
1. "Outing" may mean that the priest is sexually active now, or was so in the past and this becomes known. If this is known, he will most likely be removed from ministry, and will likely be effectively abandoned by the diocese or province. He will be blamed personally for his faults, all responsibility will be attributed to him, and the institution will not change. The pool of priests in ministry will become smaller, more closeted and more condemning of homosexuals.
2. "Outing" may mean to say publicly what the superiors and fellow priests already know or seriously suspect privately. This will force the hand of the superiors, and they are most likely to follow whatever course of action is recommended by Catholic laity who are particularly vocal. This won't be a majority vote by Catholic lay people. It will be a decision of the most vocal mob, and the mobs at the moment tend to be pretty right wing. This will likely result in the same effects as number 1, above.
3. "Outing" priests will embarrass the Church, of course, and this is always a worthy goal, in the eyes of some. But is that really a worthy goal? I, for one, do not think so.
Consider the discussion carefully, as lives are at stake. Not just the lives of priests, but also the lives of the people they would have assisted had they been able to continue in ministry: the funerals unprayed, the baptisms undone, the counseling not offered, the encouragement not given, the works of justice and charity that will not be done.
Ultimately, this is not a question of tactics or strategy. This is not an issue of how to change an institution. The institution needs to change. However, I do not think that it is in anyone's best interest to try to change the institution by mere political pressure, as if it were simply a political party or governmental entity, or corporation trying to make a profit.
We need moral conversion. We need to strengthen ourselves by prayer. We need to raise ourselves up, to understand that this seems to be a time of prophetic witness. We need a Gandhi. We need a Martin Luther King (or a Martin Luther, for that matter). We need to assert the moral high ground.
The problem of injustice within the Church is a problem that cannot, in the end, be resolved by lack of charity. Indeed, lack of charity cannot be a remedy for lack of charity. Simply getting back at those we find inadequately brave is not just, and is unlikely to be very successful. Lex talionis, - an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is not a remedy. It is merely a prescription for a blind and toothless world.
This is truly a vexing issue with many aspects. It is my personal experience that in religious orders the superiors know the orientation of most of the men in their province (regional division). There are some religious order priests whose orientation may not be known, of course, but generally, one cannot live and work with other priests for a lifetime without some idea of which "team" they are on. Whether they have kept their vows or not is a question that is more difficult to determine. I suspect that diocesan priests are in a similar situation, but perhaps for them the category of "unknown orientation" is larger, since they tend to work alone more often, and do not live in such close quarters. No bishop or religious superior who has a whit of sense doubts that at least 20% of his priests are homosexual. Most estimates are higher than 20%, and no bishop or provincial is unaware of this. Given this, just what does "outing" mean?
I offer the following possibilities, which are not meant to be exhaustive.
1. "Outing" may mean that the priest is sexually active now, or was so in the past and this becomes known. If this is known, he will most likely be removed from ministry, and will likely be effectively abandoned by the diocese or province. He will be blamed personally for his faults, all responsibility will be attributed to him, and the institution will not change. The pool of priests in ministry will become smaller, more closeted and more condemning of homosexuals.
2. "Outing" may mean to say publicly what the superiors and fellow priests already know or seriously suspect privately. This will force the hand of the superiors, and they are most likely to follow whatever course of action is recommended by Catholic laity who are particularly vocal. This won't be a majority vote by Catholic lay people. It will be a decision of the most vocal mob, and the mobs at the moment tend to be pretty right wing. This will likely result in the same effects as number 1, above.
3. "Outing" priests will embarrass the Church, of course, and this is always a worthy goal, in the eyes of some. But is that really a worthy goal? I, for one, do not think so.
Consider the discussion carefully, as lives are at stake. Not just the lives of priests, but also the lives of the people they would have assisted had they been able to continue in ministry: the funerals unprayed, the baptisms undone, the counseling not offered, the encouragement not given, the works of justice and charity that will not be done.
Ultimately, this is not a question of tactics or strategy. This is not an issue of how to change an institution. The institution needs to change. However, I do not think that it is in anyone's best interest to try to change the institution by mere political pressure, as if it were simply a political party or governmental entity, or corporation trying to make a profit.
We need moral conversion. We need to strengthen ourselves by prayer. We need to raise ourselves up, to understand that this seems to be a time of prophetic witness. We need a Gandhi. We need a Martin Luther King (or a Martin Luther, for that matter). We need to assert the moral high ground.
The problem of injustice within the Church is a problem that cannot, in the end, be resolved by lack of charity. Indeed, lack of charity cannot be a remedy for lack of charity. Simply getting back at those we find inadequately brave is not just, and is unlikely to be very successful. Lex talionis, - an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is not a remedy. It is merely a prescription for a blind and toothless world.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Found on Blue Truck, Red State..........
Russ, on Blue Truck, Red State found this clip somewhere, and posts it tonight with really cogent thoughts about the arc of change, and the degree that society has transformed itself, and is still transforming itself. Wednesday, the NY State Senate voted down a gay marriage bill. Russ points out that even when the news is not good for gay equality, there is much that has changed, and much to be thankful for. I point you to his most eloquent blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
