What's Next?

With each subsequent revelation of curial negligence in cases of clerical sexual abuse, and especially with allegations of calculated indifference to victims of abuse aimed at then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the calls for the resignation of Benedict XVI increase in number and in decibel. The Vatican and bishops throughout the world continue to vigorously defend the pope and excoriate the press for misrepresenting the crisis and attributing blame where it does not belong. Meanwhile, the pundits - journalistic, clerical, or otherwise - offer up celibacy, homosexuals in the priesthood, or clerical culture as underlying causes of the crisis; global warming has not yet been cited, but I am sure it is only a matter of time. My point is that, as in any crisis, few wise voices and words emerge until the crisis has passed and there has been time for reflection and study. I do not pretend to be one of those voices; there are others far wiser and more experienced and knowledgeable than I. I only offer a humble opinion - or two.

In the unlikely event that Benedict does "retire," who will replace him? Is there an eminence among the members of the College of Cardinals who would have the courage as pope to first acknowledge that the current crisis, tragic and painful as it has been for victims of sexual abuse and their families, is a symptom of a chronic illness rather than the illness itself? The disease from which the Church suffers is complicated and difficult to cure because it has afflicted her for a very long time and has spread throughout her body. What is this illness? It is the loss of humility and compassion in the leadership of the Church; it is the lust for power and the desire to exercise unquestioned authority over others; it is the failure to recognize and to accept the pastoral role of bishop to love and to nurture and to protect his flock.

After many years away from the Church, I was advised that the best way to fully become Catholic again was to receive the sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Communion. In my first confession after thirty-five years, the confessor told me that one of the keys to being Christian was to make a commitment to imitating Christ. What does imitating Christ mean? I do not think it means fostering a cult of royalty and a culture of exclusion. To imitate Christ does not mean that the Church needs a monarchical leader; it does not mean that the Church should exclude women from ministry; that it should marginalize priests who have married, those who have divorced and remarried, and unmarried couples who live together; or that it should refuse a place in Catholic school for children of lesbian (or gay) parents. These attitudes and actions are anathema to the teachings of the Jesus we see in the Bible.  I have failed again and again since that first confession to imitate Christ. I am not alone.

Is there a cardinal who would have the courage as pope to begin to cure this complicated disease? The humble John XXIII had such courage. His curial bureaucracy was aghast at his decision to call a council whose purpose was aggiornamento, an updating of the Church, a throwing open of the windows to let in fresh air (and to sweep away the dead air), and they did everything in their power to thwart that purpose and to guard the status quo. Yet this man, of humble peasant origin, held his ground and inspired bishops from around the world to begin to reform the Church.

While the crisis may eventually bring about the retirement or resignation of the current pope, the election of a new pontiff will be of no significance if the one elected is not a man of extraordinary vision and courage. He must have the strength, as did John XXIII, to take a stand against the prevailing forces in the Roman curia and to maintain that stand with a balance of authority and humility until others have been inspired by his vision and change is initiated. In the present hierarchically organized Church, only the pope can create the conditions that will bring about reform. We have seen time and again that courageous theologians, individual priests or bishops, and organized lay groups that call - usually respectfully and lovingly - for change have been shut down and marginalized.

Let us pray for a pope who truly understands the meaning of imitatio Christi.

A New Pope, A New Church

If it turns out that the Joseph Ratzinger indeed knew about and personally approved of the return of a sexually abusive priest to parochial service and as a result the pontiff is forced to abdicate, who will be his successor? One envisions the election of a new pope from the college of cardinals by the college of cardinals being immediately followed by questions from the press about the possibility of his involvement in cases of abuse cover-up. In fact, why would the press even wait that long? At the time of the election there will no doubt be a group of papabile, those cardinals considered among the most likely to be elected, and their careers will be scrutinized by hordes of investigative journalists from around the world. We can be certain that at least a couple of the frontrunners will be dead in the water before the second cloud of black smoke is emitted from the chimney on top of the Sistine Chapel. The papal election will become a farce and whoever emerges as the new Holy Father of the Catholic Church will have gone from “popable” to laughable.

The tragic story of sexual abuse and its cover-up by bishops and chancery officials, which is no longer simply an American story reflecting so-called American liberalism and secularism, has exposed to Catholics and non-Catholics all over the world the failure of the post-Vatican II restoration of a monarchical papacy, a blindly loyal episcopacy, and a complacent and obedient laity. The Church hierarchy—and the entire hierarchical system—has lost all the trust it needs to lead the faithful. It is time for the People of God to take responsibility for their Church and return it to its proper place as the loving, welcoming, child-protecting home of Christ.

If a new pope is elected from the ranks of the cardinals, or even if the cardinals are bypassed and a bishop is found who has not been tainted by cover-up or other misdeeds, the likelihood is very high that the hierarchical system and the clerical culture that allowed this tragedy to continue for so long will remain in place. John Paul II was pope for 26 years; his successor—and close friend and loyal supporter—Benedict XVI has been pope for five years. Nearly every bishop in the world has been appointed by these two; and nearly all of them will have sworn an oath of loyalty to the orthodoxy promoted by the restoration papacy. Even a bold and courageous bishop would have difficulty opposing his brother bishops.

I have a suggestion: Benedict should stay. He should humbly bow his head and apologize to all victims of the post-Vatican II Church, including children who were abused; women, who have been denied their rightful place in the Church, to its tragic detriment; gay and lesbian people, who have been marginalized by the Church; the large majority of priests, who have toiled faithfully in the vineyard but whose voices for truth have been silenced by the stifling pressure of doctrine. He should then call a new Vatican Council, one that has equal representation from the laity (men and women) and the clergy; clerical delegates would include ordinary parish priests, male and female members of religious orders, and theologians, as well as some bishops. At the council, the Roman curia would only be allowed an advisory role; it would have no voting rights. The agenda, from which no issue could be excluded, would also be determined by balanced representation. The pope would pledge publicly to abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the council’s decisions.

Or we could allow the present pope to resign and then insist that the college of cardinals as well as the entire episcopate be considered ineligible for election and instead elect a humble and holy priest as pope. In this case, I have a few recommendations. How about Jim Martin, the Jesuit from America Magazine? He seems to understand that the Church can peacefully and productively co-exist with modern secular culture. He recognizes that women and gay people have been wounded by their Church. Or we could elect Hans Küng, who after all was one of the chief architects of some of the most important documents to come out of Vatican II. There is also Richard Rohr, the Franciscan who believes in the emerging church, which loves the tradition but recognizes the need for reform.

Of course, none of this is going to happen. The point is, however, that we need a new Church, not just a new pope. We need people of courage and vision from both the laity and the clergy to share their vision of a reformed Church with the grassroots. Sure, the vast majority of the faithful may be as conservative as Benedict XVI and his curial comrades, but are we content to allow a majority that trusts a hierarchical system that enabled abusers of children, that discriminates against women and gay and lesbian people, that silences all dissenters to prevail?

It appears that the structure is beginning to crumble. It can be shored up for a while perhaps, but eventually it will fall. We should be concerned with how the Church will rebuild itself when that day comes.

Doublespeak Reflects Double Standard?

An item from the Catholic News Service recently appeared in my local diocesan newspaper, The B.C. Catholic. The article concerned remarks made by Benedict XVI to the bishops of England and Wales on the Equality Bill currently under debate in Parliament.

...the Pope said some legislation designed to guarantee equal opportunity for all people would impose "unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs."

Catholic bishops have said the bill means churches could be sued by anyone who was turned away as a candidate for the priesthood on grounds of gender or sexual lifestyle.

A recent vote in Britain's House of Lords, however, supported an amendment that protected the existing rights of churches to insist that clergy and  high-profile lay employees live in a manner consistent with Christian moral teaching.

The Lords are saying, in effect, that if a parish administrator or the chief financial officer of a diocese were a gay man or lesbian woman who during the time of his or her tenure openly entered into a same-sex relationship, that employee could be fired for failing to "live in a manner consistent with Christian moral teaching." So the Church insists on, and the Lords validate by their amendment, exemption from the law that protects LGBT people from employment discrimination.

The article goes on to say the following:

Pope Benedict urged the bishops to continue defending Church teaching in the public realm, adding that they have a right "to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society."

By being vocal participants in public discussion, the bishops are maintaining Britain's long-standing tradition of freedom of expression and are giving voice to the similar beliefs held by many people who are unable to express them, he said.

The pope adds the following:

To bring a coherent, convincing message to the people, the Church must ensure the Catholic community speaks with one voice, he added.

In a culture that encourages the expression of a wide variety of opinions, the Pope said, "it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate."

Right.

So the Church, represented by its bishops, has the "right to participate in national debate," and by doing so is upholding an admirable tradition of freedom of expression and giving the ordinary person a voice. Participating in a debate in order to express an opinion that is contrary to the legally established status quo, in this case, the full rights of LGBT people, and in order to actually gain exempt status to that law, could reasonably be called "dissent." In a pluralistic society, dissent is allowed; in fact, some might say it is welcomed as it gives everyone, including those who might not otherwise be heard, the chance to gain an understanding of all sides of an issue. Moreover, the dissenting voice of a powerful institution like the Catholic Church (as well as other churches and conservative organizations and individuals, I am sure) can bring tangible results, as we see here.

Yet in practically the same breath, the pope tells the bishops that dissent is not a "mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate." One only has to look at the history of the Church, and in particular the history of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, to know what kind of dissent is being referred to in this statement. It is the kind of faithful dissent within the Church expressed by moral theologian Father Charles Curran, who was banned from teaching in any Catholic university by the very cleric who is claiming the right for his bishops to dissent from the laws guaranteeing equal rights for all.

Reading an article such as this that in all seriousness reports such obvious and laughable doublespeak only reinforces my belief that the Church is not the papal monarchy or the curial bureaucracy; it is not even the bishops that have been chosen and appointed over the past thirty years more for their loyalty to Rome than for their holiness. The Church can only reside in the hearts of the people of God, people who recognize that the Jesus of the Gospels opened his own heart to everyone, that his teaching was love and that love is acceptance.

BTW, what exactly is "sexual lifestyle"?