Lots of opinions about episcopal leadership in the Roman Catholic Church – did you know that? Wow, some of the opinions are pretty sharp.
Even from bishops themselves. Over in Australia this week, retired bishop Geoffrey Robinson said that Cardinal George Pell is an “embarrassment” to “a lot of good Catholic people” and should no longer be the voice of Australian bishops in the wake of his comments about child sex abuse within the church. Restoring faith won’t be easy. The Catholic Church in Australia is in meltdown just now over you-know-what. Cardinal Pell is saying the requisite things about transparency and welcoming a government inquiry into the Church’s handling of…etc.etc. But also saying the Church has been unfairly targeted due to “anti-Catholic prejudice.”
Bishop Robinson has been outspoken about many things; for reasons of health he stepped down from office in 2004 eight years before the retirement age. Here in the US, Bishop Robinson has recently spoken at meetings of Voice of the Faithful (the lay group formed to “keep the faith, change the church” after the scandals broke out), and New Ways Ministry (the Catholic outreach to gays and lesbians from which the Vatican removed their leaders Sr. Jeannine Gramick and Fr. Robert and ordered them to cease speaking on the subject.) Not your typical Catholic bishop, Geoffrey Robinson.
Over at Religious News Service, Mark Silk weighs in on the US bishops’ meeting this week: “The Catholic bishops embarrassed themselves in Baltimore.” His issue is that the bishops did and said nothing about the presence among them of convicted Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City. And that their letter on the economy veered so sharply from the views of their 1986 letter – after sharp criticism it was voted down, leaving the bishops saying nothing about the economy. And that the bishops are moving forward with the canonization of Dorothy Day – while pretty much ignoring everything she had to say.
Over at The Dish, Andrew Sullivan takes up the HBO documentary “Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God.” (H/T Eric Bugyis at Commonweal.) The documentary is about the handling of you-know-what by the Church, especially by Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. Sullivan thinks it “will one day surely bring the whole house of cards down, so that the church can be rebuilt amid the ruins created by deeply sick and psychologically crippled men at its core.” Ouch. Sullivan talks about the implications for the hierarchy’s credibility: now there are “two Catholic churches in America: those few in the pews who still listen to the bishops and those who exist almost in a parallel church, focused on their own parish, their own priest, and their own faith, which remains, for many of us, undimmed.” Sullivan is in the latter category, as Bugyis seems to be also. Sullivan doesn’t mince words about the hierarchy: “This is where we are. It feels like the last days of the Soviet Union.”
I hear from so many Catholics these days so many comments like those of Robinson, Silk, and Sullivan, that I was heartened by the headline of David Gibson’s piece, also at Religious News Service: “Catholics like their bishops, love their nuns.” As Gibson reports, “24 percent of American Catholics say they “very satisfied” with the hierarchy and another 46 percent say they are “somewhat satisfied” for an overall 70 percent approval.” Not bad. But the bishops are running behind nuns, parish priests, and pope, in that order: nuns have 83% approval rating, parish priests 82%, and the pope 74%.
But. David – why did you do this to us? A “P.S.” to this report says, almost off-handedly, that the poll is from last summer. Last summer?? So much has happened since then! LCWR, Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, Girl Scouts, Sr. Margaret Farley, the HHS contraception mandate, the Fortnight for Freedom, same-sex marriage in the elections, Bishop Finn, and so forth. Maybe David is piquing our interest for a coming poll? It wouldn’t be like him to make the point cynically that high approval ratings for bishops are a thing of the past, so I’m not sure what he’s up to.
For my money, one of the most perceptive commentaries on the daunting challenges facing the Catholic bishops was penned by Fr. Thomas Reese SJ., “Is There a Political Plan B for the Bishops?” Do give it a serious read.
It’s a funny time we’re in. There seems to be lots of ferment around issues of authority, power structures, and credibility. Where’s it all going? Is the Holy Spirit up to something? What is it? I have no idea.
Let’s all pray for the bishops.
awr
#1 by John Swencki on November 17, 2012 - 9:35 am
Reply Quote
The Parson: by Geoffrey Chaucer
Report Comment
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/gchaucer/bl-gchau-can-parson.htm
#2 by Mary Wood on November 17, 2012 - 12:02 pm
Reply Quote
Bishops are hardly necessary these days when PPs may administer confirmation. A handful to ordain the sprinkling of ordinands would suffice. Administration could and should be the province of qualified layfolk. Teaching comes from the Vatican – or else. Not a few decisions come from the same quarter when an arrangement which someone finds unacceptable can be referred very quickly via the Nuncio and hey presto! the Bishop is sidelined.
I have personal experience of a diocesan priest who is directly disobeying a command of his Bishop and who has declared, in the presence of fellow priests, “The Bishop needs me more than I need the Bishop.” If required to make a move which does not please him, he will report the matter to “Rome,” confident that he will be supported from that quarter.
We must certainly pray for our Bishops, but do not expect fast results.
(I am not going to name the Bishop or the priest publicly, and I have not spoken in the parish to those who are unaware of the situation).
Report Comment
#3 by Karl Liam Saur on November 17, 2012 - 1:12 pm
Reply Quote
Most Catholics don’t think about the bishops. That’s a time-honored coping mechanism in the history of the church. American Catholics used to pay more attention because of the legal culture of the Anglosphere but are becoming more like Romans (of the non clerical kind) in this regard.
Report Comment
#4 by Clarence Goodwright on November 17, 2012 - 1:24 pm
Reply Quote
So true… I don’t know of any other bishops on record who would willingly break the seal of confession for any reason… even something as weighty as child abuse. The seal is of divine law, not ecclesiastical law… too bad he seems to not believe that, even going so far as to suggest that it could be changed, but “the chances of getting the Pope to say that priests could break the seal of confessional are, well, nil.” (Here’s the interview from UCANews).
You seem to have neglected that little tidbit, Fr. Anthony.
The more quickly +Robinson recants his position or is reprimanded for it, the better.
St. John Nepomucene, pray for us!
Report Comment
#5 by Matt Connolly on November 17, 2012 - 3:31 pm
Reply Quote
@Clarence Goodwright – comment #4:
Clarence, your comment perpetuates the head in the sand approach our Church has taken through the years. To quibble with Bishop Robinson over just how he breaks God’s law allows this unholy mess to continue. I’m reminded of Jesus’ attitude toward the washing of hands before eating, both a proper cleanliness and a lovely small Jewish ritual. Why was He so perturbed by it? Because it was used to exclude and control, not include and welcome.
Yes, these our leaders are at minimum an embarrassment. In its proper sense, I believe they are a scandal. But no, lets put Bishop Robinson back in his place, not making waves. Good little boys go to heaven, you know.
I admire the man’s courage, his faithful conviction. I’ll let him have a few errors as he feels his way around new and frightening territory. And if he recants, maybe like Peter Abelard late in his life, we’ll just have to forgive him for that too. That’s what Jesus does. But, please, stop pretending that God has these laws which hold us away from truth, from loving each other. I believe all the saints will pray with us on that.
Report Comment
#6 by Clarence Goodwright on November 17, 2012 - 4:26 pm
Reply Quote
@Matt Connolly :
Matt, this is far more serious than a mere “quibble with Bishop Robinson over just how he breaks God’s law.” The parallel that you cite with the ritual handwashing does not apply here as it might to other things that would be included in what canonists describe as “merely ecclesiastical law.”
To undermine the Seal of the Confessional is to undermine the entirety of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. If it were to become commonplace to permit breaking the Seal in the instance of one type of crime, what would prevent it from being used for another? What would prevent civil authorities from demanding the Seal be broken for another?
Who would want to make a confession of something that he knows could be used against him civilly? Nothing could be so excluding and so unloving as this — to deform the Sacrament of God’s Mercy in such a way that some find it impossible to bring themselves to receive it. (Remember that intentionally withholding a mortal sin while confessing renders the absolution invalid.) By your own reasoning that actions used to “exclude and control” should be avoided, it would seem we must protect the Seal.
Beyond this, if some confessors are willing to break the Seal, it might lead the civil authorities to attempt to force others to break the seal. This was the exact thing for which St. John Nepomucene was martyred — so no, neither he nor any of the other Saints would pray with us on such a notion as you suggest.
The notion that the seal can be broken is diabolical. I would go so far as to suggest this as evidence that the “spirit” that guides his motives is most certainly NOT the Holy Spirit.
If in fact the rest of the bishops are an “embarrassment” as he suggests, let that be addressed appropriately. That said, I cannot and will not give Bishop Robinson a pass on this.
If you truly admire the man, don’t laud him for something that endangers his soul, and could have repercussions that could endanger the souls of others.
Report Comment
#7 by Jack Rakosky on November 17, 2012 - 6:09 pm
Reply Quote
But. David – why did you do this to us? A “P.S.” to this report says, almost off-handedly, that the poll is from last summer
The Pew Poll of August 1, 2012 was covered in part by my post on nuns and Catholic pride
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/08/05/why-we-are-all-nuns-catholic-pride-universal-call-to-holiness/
Unfortunately most people, including RNS (the story was covered by Lauren Markoe, August 2, 2012) don’t understand Catholic Pride and therefore badly misinterpreted the findings of the Pew study.
A new poll shows that American Catholics tend to agree with their bishops’ concerns that religious liberties are at risk in the U.S. Nevertheless, Catholics seem to be warming to President Obama…
Many Catholics, including many liberal Catholics, have a deep pride in Catholic hospitals, educational and charitable institutions, and therefore were concerned when Obama wanted to construe the “religious” definition narrowly, as if they were not Catholic. Most people (including Catholics) understand these institutions are both public and Catholic funded and therefore both characteristics need to be taken into account. Most Catholics wanted everybody in these publicly funded institutions to get contraception under universal health care, but they also wanted these institutions to be able to assert their Catholic identity if they wished by not paying for contraception. Actually it had little to do with the bishops and their political campaign as was evident in Catholic support for Obama then and in the election.
Report Comment
#8 by Jack Rakosky on November 17, 2012 - 6:12 pm
Reply Quote
The misinterpretation of the religious liberty findings was helped by misinterpretation of another finding in the Pew report as reported by RNS
Seven in 10 Catholics say they are very (24 percent) or somewhat satisfied (46 percent) with the leadership of the American bishops in general, up from the 51 percent a decade ago who said they were either very or somewhat satisfied with their leadership.
This finding, which was widely misinterpreted as if the bishops had earned the respect of people after the sex abuse scandal, again shows a poor understanding of Catholic pride which is more about institutions than their leadership.
Normally Catholics express a lot of satisfaction with bishops, priests, and nuns because they are proud of their parishes, schools, and social service institutions. When the bishops really messed up in the sex abuse scandal their satisfaction ratings went down, but have come back up somewhat over time because they are not in the news as much as they were then. Catholics are just as satisfied with their priests as their nuns because we don’t have many recent priest sexual abusers appearing in the news. On the other hand bishops are doing a much better job of messing up on a regular basis on all sorts of things so they are not benefiting as much from our institutional pride.
Given the entrance of the bishops into politics this cycle one can be sure that Pew and other pollsters will be paying a lot more attention to the gap between the views of bishops and those of the laity, and the news media will be paying more attention to people like the Nuns on the Bus who may better represent the majority of Catholics.
Report Comment
#9 by John Swencki on November 17, 2012 - 7:24 pm
Reply Quote
@John Swencki – comment #1:
Report Comment
Chaucer’s “The Pouvre Parson” as found in the poetry section of the Liturgy of the Hours is the quote I intended to post. But thanks anyway, editor, for supplying a good link. —JS
#10 by Jordan Zarembo on November 17, 2012 - 7:25 pm
Reply Quote
@Mary Wood – comment #2:
Mary: Bishops are hardly necessary these days when PPs may administer confirmation. A handful to ordain the sprinkling of ordinands would suffice.
Pastor Rehwaldt should correct me, but I understand that in Scandinavia pastors have long confirmed children and adults. In this case, the large distances between bishoprics often made episcopal visits for confirmations difficult or impossible. Priests assumed the responsibility for confirmation out of need and practicality. The custom persists to this day.
As you, Karl, and Jack contend, the episcopacy has receded in importance vis a vis parish life. I would contend that today the distance between a bishop and his parishes is not one of geographical distance but rather a yawning gap between integrity and (often political) posturing. Fr. Thomas Reese’s article for Huffington Post, as cited by Fr. Ruff, succinctly describes this crisis of authority. Some bishops’ participation in criminal coverups of child abuse greatly underscores the moral bankruptcy of many prelates. Bishops speak, but rightly so few ears listen.
As a gay man, (no, not a person “suffering from deep-seated homosexual tendencies”, I can’t pronounce that phrase in one breath), I have developed sturdy calluses against episcopal homophobia. Rather, I struggle with the notion that participation in a parish assembly is an endorsement of the open prejudices of not a few prelates. Mary and Karl suggest that I shift my view away from episcopal authority towards the consciousness and welcome of the local parish community. Here marginalized persons seek not refuge but strength as equal brothers and sisters, despite the desire of some bishops to create pariah castes for their self-aggrandisement.
Report Comment
#11 by Karl Liam Saur on November 17, 2012 - 7:52 pm
Reply Quote
@Jordan Zarembo – comment #10:
Jordan,
As they say in some recovery circles, expectations are premeditated resentments. Hope is different from expectation in this regard, which is why it is a virtue and expectation is not, as resentment is not of God.
The Church is the Body but it is also a human family, with all the dysfunction of anything that is also human, so expectations are out of place while hope is the ticket.
Historically, bishops did not figure large in the day-to-day lives of Catholics unless they were serfs on episcopal tenancies…. The advent of mass media has allowed a shift in historical patterns, but we may be seeing a shift away from the salience of that and the return to a more traditional Catholic culture.
Report Comment
#12 by Robert Nugent, SDS on November 17, 2012 - 7:53 pm
Reply Quote
I suspect that Robinson did not step down because of his health!
Report Comment
It just might have had something to do with his outspoken opinions and perhaps he knew he would get the same thing as the bishop who was removed in Australia. I am glad you picked up the incongruity of the bishops not saying anything on the economy and its effect on the poor and wanting to canonize Dorthy Day who was only concerned about them and not about her status in the Church. She once said “Don’t trivilaize me” when someone spoke to her about being a saint! I am sure she will come back to haunt us if we canonize her!
#13 by Jordan Zarembo on November 17, 2012 - 8:21 pm
Reply Quote
@Karl Liam Saur – comment #11:
Thank you Karl for your thoughtful words.
Hope must triumph over expectation and resentment. And yet, expectation and resentment are often defense mechanisms. These defenses often hold one back from spiritual growth. I hold a very particular disdain (okay, vocal hatred) for closeted persons who persecute their own people, my people. And yet, I must share the eucharistic body and blood with my persecutors in the resolve to not only recognize but proclaim our common humanity. I must also not question why a person would choose to live in deceit rather than integrity. This is an expectation, and as you say “premeditated resentment”.
The resolve to absolutely recognize the humanity of a brother or a sister in Christ, and indeed a prelate, is an almost insurmountable task. Yet, it is the grace of the sacrament which is the very remedy for hatred.
Report Comment
#14 by Peter Rehwaldt on November 17, 2012 - 8:57 pm
Reply Quote
@Jordan Zarembo – comment #10:
Report Comment
Among Lutherans, confirmation by the local pastor/priest is the general practice not only in Scandinavia, but throughout the Lutheran church more generally, for precisely the reasons you describe. Often, such rites are held on Pentecost, which allows for multiple parishes to celebrate confirmation at the same time, rather than having to take turns according to the bishop’s schedule.
#15 by Peter Rehwaldt on November 17, 2012 - 9:52 pm
Reply Quote
Maybe it’s because I’m in Kansas City, or maybe it’s because I’ve been the person brought in to clean up the mess after a pastor was arrested for child abuse (and ultimately convicted), but how Bishop Finn continues to serve is beyond me.
As the USCCB discusses the fallout of the child abuse scandal, there he sits in their midst as a convicted criminal for failing to report the clear evidence of a priest’s collection of child pornography.
As the USCCB calls for faithfulness to the church’s teachings and demands accountability for any priest who strays from them, Bishop Finn remains apparently immune from accountability.
How, pray tell, do you think those who have been victimized by abusive priests view Finn? How do you think their family members view him? How do you think their friends view him? How do you think the parents of young children view him?
And then there are the local priests . . .
In an era when nuns are investigated and sanctioned by the Vatican for raising questions, what are the faithful to think of the Vatican’s silence over Finn’s conviction?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Report Comment
#16 by Bill deHaas on November 17, 2012 - 11:10 pm
Reply Quote
@Clarence Goodwright – comment #6:
Mr. Goodnight – before you over-react to what a news service *imagined* what Bishop Robinson said or did not say, you might want to read up on what this bishop/man accomplished for victims, the church, and for the people of Australia.
Start with this brief overview: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/01/bishop-calls-for-total-re-examination-of-catholic-faith-and-culture_n_1389394.html
Then, you might want to read his book: “Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus”. He led the Australian episcopal conference from the 1990s thru 2004 in developing, investigating, and implementing *Towards Healing*…the first episcopal conference in the world to get the Vatican to accept a national policy that changed the approach and interpretation of canon law around things such as reporting to civil authorities. To Fr. Nugent – your suspicions and opinion about his outspoken beliefs appears to be more a part of your overworked imagination. He clearly explains in his book, that after ten years of dealing with abuse, victims, Rome, and his episcopal peers, he could not continue in active duty with a clear conscience. Your dismissal is not far removed from just plain gossip.
Would suggest that his views about the sacrament of reconciliation are NOT simply that priests can or must break the seal of confession. His views about the sacrament are very nuanced and based upon hundreds of cases and clerical perpetrators who used and abused the sacrament. He understands the sacrament; that too often perpetrators were give *cheap grace or forgivenss* when, in fact, the confessor should have withheld absolution; should have demanded action and contrition (beyond casual and easy words and a dismissal); should have asked that the cleric before him, meet him privately afterwards, etc. There were other steps that a confessor could have taken without breaking the seal but, at the same time, looking out for victims, future victims, and the safety of the community.
The current Australian government intervention and appointment of a committee to investigate is no different than the experiences (and now five studies) done in Ireland. The news folks quickly and incorrectly jump on the seal of confession when, in fact, very little about these investigations have anything to do with *breaking the seal of confession*.
Your last paragraph – “If you truly admire the man, don’t laud him for something that endangers his soul, and could have repercussions that could endanger the souls of others.” – is really a stretch and reveals a hysteria that just isn’t there in his statements. Sorry, it is nothing like the St. John – you have been reading too much of Lori or George and their imagined opinions that religious liberty in the US is so threatened that it will be destroyed tomorrow or that the next bishop of Chicago will die in prison.
Report Comment
#17 by crystal watson on November 18, 2012 - 12:17 am
Reply Quote
I agree with #5 by Matt Connolly that the US bishops are a scandal. I don’t see how they expect to teach anybody anything given their own moral bankruptcy.
But I do admire Bishop Robinson. He has a good article on the abuse problem at ABC Religion & Ethics … http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/11/13/3632146.htm
Report Comment
#18 by claire bangasser on November 18, 2012 - 9:11 am
Reply Quote
You’re suggesting for us to pray for the bishops. Yes, I agree. I pray that some of them would go away… My challenge is that I cannot think of a ‘nice’ bishop. I am sure that there are some, out there. Maybe the nice ones remain silent… and that’s not so courageous.
Report Comment
I’m glad someone mentions the involvement of Cardinal Ratzinger in the cover-up of the pedophile priests. I thought I was the only one to remember.
#19 by Matthew Hazell on November 18, 2012 - 9:37 am
Reply Quote
@Bill deHaas – comment #16:
Re. “over-react[ing]“: this is a transcript from a report by ABC News (the relevant section is at about 2:45 on their audio player timer):
TIM PALMER: Let’s say these are serious allegations. What would be your next step if you can’t get that cooperation?
GEOFFREY ROBINSON: If the person won’t go that far then I would have to make a decision, and if I really thought that young people were at serious risk here then I would speak to the police.
TIM PALMER: You would break the seal of confession?
GEOFFREY ROBINSON: Well, you know, I’d have to weigh a lot of things up – did I know the name of the alleged offender? Did I know the name of the alleged victim? If I didn’t, if it’s simply someone who comes into confessional who’s not known to me, then obviously I can’t tell the police that.
I would be prepared to break the seal of confessional because you have to weigh up the greatest good, and here the greatest good is surely the protection of innocent people.
You may say that Bishop Robinson has accomplished a lot for the Church in Australia, and that may or may not be true. But the fact is that when he was asked by a reporter just the other day whether or not he would break the seal, he said that he would be prepared to. The answer any Catholic bishop (or priest) should give to that question is a very firm no, not “well, it depends” or “I would be prepared to” or any other variation on that theme.
Clarence is quite right to criticise the Bishop here, for in this instance the Bishop has utterly failed in his God-given mandate to teach and uphold the Catholic and apostolic faith. And if he really couldn’t “continue in active duty with a clear conscience”, then why is he still giving his ill-considered opinion to journalists and calling his brothers “embarrassments”? Is Bishop Robinson really that starved for attention?
Report Comment
#20 by Jordan Zarembo on November 18, 2012 - 9:44 am
Reply Quote
@claire bangasser – comment #18:
Claire: My challenge is that I cannot think of a ‘nice’ bishop. I am sure that there are some, out there. Maybe the nice ones remain silent… and that’s not so courageous.
I certainly share your sentiments. And yet, out of moral horror and turmoil good bishops arise to lead the flock towards the recognition of human dignity in others. Good Pope John’s greeting to visiting rabbis, “I am Joseph, your brother”, is, in my opinion, the epitome of an bishop’s willingness to listen. I am certain that Bl. John XXIII knew in his mind and felt in his heart that the raw depravity of the recent Shoah could not and should not be ameliorated by any words. I am also convinced that he knew the almost insurmountable interfaith dialogue must begin with his show of sincere vulnerability. Pope John’s recognition of the validity and heritage of the Old Testament through the family of Jacob at least demonstrated the willingness to humble his pride and that of a Church who at many turns violently rejected its Jewish roots and the Jewish people.
If only! If only the bishops of developing countries who have abetted crimes or who have tacitly acquiesced to crimes open their minds and hearts to dialogue in the manner of this good and humble pope.
Report Comment
#21 by Bill Logan on November 18, 2012 - 12:39 pm
Reply Quote
@Robert Nugent, SDS – comment #12:
Oh, Dorothy Day is already being trivialized by some! Here’s an excerpt from David Gibson’s report from the USCCB meeting on the push for canonization:
(emphasis added)
Report Comment
#22 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on November 18, 2012 - 12:57 pm
Reply Quote
@Clarence Goodwright – comment #6:
I share this concern, and (based only on news accounts, I grant) I don’t think Bp Robinson is correct on this one. I’m confident there will be a vigorous discussion and his words will be subject to the scrutiny they deserve.
I would ratchet down the language of God-given and divinely-instituted, though, and tone down the outrage. We all know from the history of sacraments that there is much evolution, that much was decided by the church, that Jesus Christ didn’t determine everything, the some things were clarified only much, much later than the first century. No one ever held yet in the first millennium, as far as I know, that the number of sacraments is seven – that was a 12th century development. That isn’t to say that developments after the 1st century might not be in accord with Christ’s will and inspired by the Spirit he promised to send. But our language should be a bit nuanced, and our tone humble, even within the most confident trust that the development was what Christ wanted.
awr
Report Comment
#23 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on November 18, 2012 - 12:58 pm
Reply Quote
@claire bangasser – comment #18:
EditMore Options
Oh, I can think of many nice bishops. It’s a rich mix.
I think, for example, of the two US bishops (both still in office) who reached out to me on their own initiative after my open letter to the US bishops. One wanted me to know that my gifts are valued in the Church; the other wanted me to hear from a bishop that the curia was heavy-handed and incompetent in their final editing of the Roman missal and my concerns were justified.
I regret that neither of them has said such things publicly. But they’re trapped within a system that makes honesty difficult. I think it’s more constructive to critique the system than to critique the individuals trapped in it who are good people and want to do the right thing. What would I do in their circumstances? I’m not sure I’d do any better.
awr
Report Comment
#24 by Thomas Dalby on November 18, 2012 - 1:52 pm
Reply Quote
Let’s be clear here: Bishop Robinson is talking about violating the seal of a victim’s confession and doing so after the victim has refused consent to discuss the matter with the police.
I know of victims of sexual crimes who have felt doubly violated by being made to go through the prosecution process: my view is that bishop Robinson is proposing something that could cause suffering to abuse victims who have not bought in to going through legal process.
Report Comment
#25 by Ralph Bremigan on November 18, 2012 - 1:54 pm
Reply Quote
My bishop visited my parish a few months ago. At the introduction to his homily, he remarked that in a sense, there would be two sermons happening at the time—one the actual content of the homily that followed, and the other, an inevitable “sermon on what bishops are like”—since the listeners, whose personal contact with bishops is infrequent, would be forming their ideas on “what a bishop is” from what he said and how he acted. He then expressed his frustration (annoyance?) with blogsite commentators who are too quick to talk about “the bishops” when the bishops are not all alike. So I agree, while acknowledging problems (perhaps severe) with “the system,” there are “nice” bishops…and more than nice: wise, mature, pastoral.
Report Comment
#26 by Clarence Goodwright on November 18, 2012 - 5:37 pm
Reply Quote
Bill deHaas – comment 16:
Bill,
As Matthew Hazell correctly pointed out, the situation was that Bishop Robinson himself said that he would be willing to break the seal of confession. It’s not nuanced, it’s very simple.
You are correct to say that there are other ways that child sexual abuse can be addressed without breaking the seal. But Bishop Robinson was not talking about these. He was talking about a direct violation of the seal, something that rightly carries a canonical penalty if it is committed.
The fact that he even suggests it possible — by himself or by others — tells me that he is either denying a key part of the Sacrament of Reconciliation or is somehow (despite his years and orders) completely ignorant of it. His recanting of the statement or a reprimand by the Holy See really are the only appropriate avenues.
You pooh-pooh the possibility that this could lead to persecution of Catholic priests if left unchecked — I don’t doubt for a moment that some governments would happily use an instance of a priest breaking the seal as a justification to bully other priests to do likewise.
This is the reason why some years ago, when a law enforcement agency in the Pacific Northwest used a tape recorder to secretly tape a priest hearing an inmate’s confession, that the Vatican denounced it in no uncertain terms. There cannot be a precedent that breaking the seal is somehow appropriate.
No amount of good that Bishop Robinson has done can justify giving him a pass on this. The matter is too grave.
Report Comment
#27 by Clarence Goodwright on November 18, 2012 - 6:04 pm
Reply Quote
@Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment 22:
Fr. Anthony,
When speaking of most things, I would say your more humble and nuanced approach would be appropriate. Like the other Sacraments, the Sacrament of Reconciliation has a history that includes developments. We know that the practice of the Sacrament has moved from public confession and penance to the private confession in the model that the Irish monks popularized in the Middle Ages.
However, the absolute inviolability of the Seal is something integral to the way that the Church’s current praxis of the Sacrament has evolved. The inviolability of the Seal ensures the possibility for an integral confession — and for the Church to permit the Seal to be violated in any way would be to allow the possibility for the Seal to be violated in every way. Penitents would no longer be able to ensure that the contents of their confessions could not be used against them, and would severely oppress their freedom to make an integral confession (i.e. the only sort of confession that is valid).
The circumstances under which Bishop Robinson suggests that it might be appropriate are irrelevant. The Church admits absolutely no exceptions on the matter (it is one of the very few places in Church Law that is so direct) — nuance has no place here.
If somehow the bishop was misquoted, he should say so and allow the error to be corrected. If he did in fact say what he said, the gravity of the matter demands not only appropriate scrutiny, but also outrage.
Report Comment
#28 by Bill deHaas on November 18, 2012 - 6:08 pm
Reply Quote
@Clarence Goodwright – comment #26:
Mr. Goodwright – you might want to carefully read Fr. Ruff’s post again and again.
First: per one commenter, the interviewer asked and Robinson responded:
“TIM PALMER: You would break the seal of confession?
GEOFFREY ROBINSON: Well, you know, I’d have to weigh a lot of things up – did I know the name of the alleged offender? Did I know the name of the alleged victim? If I didn’t, if it’s simply someone who comes into confessional who’s not known to me, then obviously I can’t tell the police that.
I would be prepared to break the seal of confessional because you have to weigh up the greatest good, and here the greatest good is surely the protection of innocent people.”
What we don’t know from this snippet of the interview are any of the earlier questions or responses or what followed this. It also assumes that this *printed* interview is correct (sorry, my experience of the media is that snippets can be quoted but taken out of context).
That being said and taking the commenter at face value:
- again, Bishop Robinson is responding as himself; not in the role of a bishop
- IMO, he is trying to add nuance to the questions and topic at hand
- his very words are…..*I would be prepared*…..sorry, but this can imply or be taken two ways….your interpretation is that he would violate the seal; my interpretation (based upon his books, writings, talks I have witnessed and studied, his ten+ years having to struggle with the Australian bishops, victims, state, Rome on policies and approaches) is that it would be a moment of serious and significant inner turmoil with his own conscience. And, would dare say, if he did make that choice; it would be because of what follows in the last question – that the good and safety of specific victims/children is a greater good than the *seal of confession*. (and I am assuming that he would exhaust every last effort to avoid this).
To equate Australian society with some *Pacific Northwest incident* is, again, to stretch; almost to hysteria e.g. * persecution of priests*.
You place the seal of confession at such a level that it becomes more important than love, truth, justice, etc. …*nuance has no place here*….actually, good confessors understand that nuance, experiencing the gray and the grace of God is only nuance – it is never black and white. The promise of God’s mercy and love is black and white – how we human beings live and experience that is always *contingent* and *gray* (less than perfect).
Finally, in reading the various church and media statements from Australia, this seal of confession issue is seen as a *red herring* – the event is a Royal Commission as a result of sexual abuse cover ups, secrecy, and lies. The cover ups, secrecy, and lies have nothing to do with the seal of confession – it does have lots to do with episcopal behavior that may be criminal.
Report Comment
Interesting that your focus appears to only be on the *seal* and not on the fact that bishops have allegedly committed acts as serious or more serious than breaking the seal of confession. Where is your sense of justice; your application of the same level of outrage towards those who have damaged or destroyed children, parishes, lives, etc.???
#29 by Todd Flowerday on November 18, 2012 - 7:30 pm
Reply Quote
There is a problem with the Sacrament of Penance. Serial offenders use it (some would say sacrilege) as a means of propping up their double lives. The simple (but not easy) solution is that a priest or bishop confessing sexual sins must be urged to an authentic confession, and avoid abuse of the sacrament.
The seal of confession should be inviolate. But practice must change, and “cheap grace” for ordained penitents must end.
I think the Holy Spirit is already speaking. We are being shown that so-called orthodox bishops are as sinful, incompetent, flawed, and antigospel as anyone else.
I’ve come full circle on wishing Bishop Finn and others would go away. I’m hopeful the serious deficiencies of the Kansas City bishop and others will hasten the restart of Church reform. And I also hope the laity and authentically faithful clergy take up the cause of evangelization on the local level–where it must work anyway.
Report Comment
#30 by Matthew Hazell on November 19, 2012 - 2:19 am
Reply Quote
@Bill deHaas – comment #28:
[M]y experience of the media is that snippets can be quoted but taken out of context
Hence why I provided the link to the audio interview on the ABC website in my previous comment. The whole written transcript has also been reproduced on several news websites; a cursory web search should turn those up with ease.
[H]e is trying to add nuance to the questions and topic at hand
I might suggest that, when asked whether or not one would break the seal of confession, nuance is distinctly unhelpful. As I said previously, for all Catholic bishops and priests, the unequivocal answer to this question is NO. No exceptions. No ifs or buts. Nuance not required.
[G]ood confessors understand that nuance, experiencing the gray and the grace of God is only nuance – it is never black and white.
Good confessors also understand the inviolability of the seal. Sorry, some things are black and white.
Finally, in reading the various church and media statements from Australia, this seal of confession issue is seen as a *red herring*
You realise there are several members of the Australian parliament who are lobbying to outlaw the seal of confession as a reaction to the issue of sexual abuse? And that the Prime Minister and Attorney General appear sympathetic to such a law? And that Australia is not the only Western nation where such lobbying is taking place? This issue of what Bishop Robinson is on record as saying is no “red herring”. As Clarence said in post #6: If it were to become commonplace to permit breaking the Seal in the instance of one type of crime, what would prevent it from being used for another? What would prevent civil authorities from demanding the Seal be broken for another? The answer is, of course, nothing.
Breaking the seal of confession would damage children, parishes and lives just as surely as the sex abuse crisis has. That it would do this in a different manner makes the issue no…
Report Comment
#31 by Fran Rossi Szpylczyn on November 19, 2012 - 7:16 am
Reply Quote
I am very late to this and I have to digest it all, but I will leave this comment, touching on two things.
1. I was in a snit about not being invited to the USCCB blogger meeting. Why I should be in a snit is a good question, since I am not a big time blogger, but nonetheless. I realize now that I am grateful to not have been invited, as I would not have even remotely fit in. Yet I wonder what the process was about inviting people. It did seem tied to some folks who were in Rome in May 2011. Who knows, but I do think that the USCCB hears what it wants to hear – and from whom it wants to hear.
2. Today I opened my local daily newspaper (I know, how quaint) to find this opinion essay about wage justice. It was written by my bishop, Howard J. Hubbard. I am most grateful to be in his flock. Fr. Ruff is correct I think, there are some good ones out there. They tend to draw less attention to themselves, which is a good thing in general.
Report Comment
#32 by Peter Rehwaldt on November 19, 2012 - 9:38 am
Reply Quote
@Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #23:
I’m pleased to hear that these two reached out to you, but dismayed at your description of them as “trapped within a system that makes honesty difficult.”
They’re bishops. They crafted the system. They publicly defend the system when questions are raised. They enforce and reinforce the system. It’s *their* system, subject only to the decisions and directions of the Holy Father.
To the extent that bishops are trapped, it is their own fears that trap them. How to free them from that fear is the challenge they face. Critiquing the system may help clarify their critique of it, but it will not do anything to address their fears about raising those critiques.
Again, see the silence of the USCCB, collectively and individually, around Bishop Finn and his conviction. It’s as if they said to one another “If we criticize him or attempt to hold him accountable, then someone might criticize us or hold us accountable.”
And so silence reigns, thanks to the power of fear.
As for your last question, I think your own actions have already demonstrated that you have done better. Indeed, I suspect that some of what possibly motivated these two bishops to reach out to you may have been a painful recognition that you did what they fear to do.
Report Comment
#33 by Bill deHaas on November 19, 2012 - 12:05 pm
Reply Quote
@Peter Rehwaldt – comment #32:
Pastor – thought you might find this link and article to be enlightening -
http://conciliaria.com/2012/11/crisis-and-criticism-in-the-church-historical-precedents-set-the-tone-for-the-major-task-of-todays-council/#more-2252
It suggests that we face the same challenges that Trent faced and to remain silent – well, as the saying goes, *all it takes for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing”
OR
“As a Church of men,” writes Hans Küng, “sinful men, the Church, though of divine foundation, needs criticizing; as the Church of God, she is more than any other institution, worth criticizing.”
Report Comment
#34 by Bill deHaas on November 19, 2012 - 1:24 pm
Reply Quote
@Matthew Hazell – comment #30:
For more context and background:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/11/13/3632146.htm
Report Comment
#35 by Mark Emery on November 19, 2012 - 9:29 pm
Reply Quote
Fr. Ruff: “Is the Holy Spirit up to something? What is is it?” (Opening post).
The Holy Spirit is utterly crushing the Church -all of us -bringing us to our knees in abject humility and repentance before the eyes of the whole world. Because we are ALL a brood of vipers. “Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees…”
Report Comment
#36 by Charles Culbreth on November 20, 2012 - 11:48 am
Reply Quote
From CRISIS article by Fr. George Rutler:
For the really good stuff in the middle go to:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/catholics-must-face-squarely-the-dire-threat-to-religious-liberty
Report Comment
#37 by Todd Flowerday on November 20, 2012 - 1:09 pm
Reply Quote
@Charles Culbreth – comment #36:
On the other hand, I have experienced amazing conversations in 21st century America outside of churches at coffeeshops, parks, and even at wedding receptions (where the trick is usually to arrive early and chat up the evangelical thing before the w-party’s arrival, before dinner, and before the cake-cutting). I had a good 2.5 hours before the DJ started things up last Saturday.
The threat to religious liberty is not the most critical problem the Church faces. I’ve known good people get stomped on in a pastor’s office, in a sacristy, and even embarrassed at Mass.
It’s easy for Fr Rutler and others to criticize the behavior of others, but I think the Church itself, in some quarters, has a ways to go to embrace Christian dialogue.
I agree that we shouldn’t roll over when we are trampled in the public sphere. But we shouldn’t take it sitting down when it comes from the institution either.
Report Comment
#38 by Jordan Zarembo on November 20, 2012 - 2:29 pm
Reply Quote
@Todd Flowerday – comment #37:
I agree that we shouldn’t roll over when we are trampled in the public sphere. But we shouldn’t take it sitting down when it comes from the institution either.
+1. In many respects the American Church has long desired to wear the accoutrements of Caesar, but not wear his face.
Report Comment
#39 by Simon Ho on November 20, 2012 - 10:57 pm
Reply Quote
“It’s a funny time we’re in. There seems to be lots of ferment around issues of authority, power structures, and credibility. Where’s it all going? Is the Holy Spirit up to something? What is it? I have no idea.”
It could also be Satan.
Report Comment
#40 by Lynn Thomas on November 21, 2012 - 9:43 am
Reply Quote
“What to think of the Catholic Bioshops?”
Not very much.
Collectively, that is. Individually there are no doubt some honest, dedicated men who actually see what’s in front of them and not what they wish it to be. A few can even hear from real people, not just carefully selected Roman parrots.
But we don’t have nearly enough of them, from what I can see. And this sheep no longer trusts that crowd of shepherds. It seems they’re hard to tell from the wolves, sometimes.
Report Comment
#41 by Bill deHaas on November 23, 2012 - 6:33 pm
Reply Quote
And now for the *rest of the story*
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=34262
Bishop Geoffrey Robinson responds: (esp. to Mrs. Goodwright, Hazell, and Dalby (who was incorrect in his comment))
“Concerning the confessional, the first point to make is that paedophile priests simply do not go to confession. Partly this is because of the distorted thinking that is commonly part of their offence, that they have convinced themselves that what they are doing is not wrong. Partly, it is due to a fear that any priest they approach would not give them an easy absolution, but instead be very demanding indeed in terms of a ‘purpose of amendment’.
If any ever did go to confession, they’d make sure it was in circumstances where they would not be recognised.
The priest hearing the confession would probably not know of the identity of the offender or of the victim, and so would have no specific crime to report. Furthermore, if a single priest broke the seal of confession and reported the matter to the police, that would be the last time any paedophile priest confessed to anything anywhere.
If such a priest came to me, I would be aware that I was dealing with the rare case of a paedophile priest who still had something left of his conscience, and I would try to use that opportunity.
I would remind him of the essential requirement of a ‘purpose of amendment’ or firm intention not to sin again, and that the very high rate of reoffending in this field was notorious. I would tell him that by means of mere words he was not able to give me any satisfactory guarantee that he would never offend again.
I would say that both he and I could have any confidence in his promise only if he took serious and concrete practical steps to ensure that he would not offend again.
If I thought the atmosphere would allow it, I might mention the police as a means of facing his responsibilities and putting the past behind him, but I’d be aware that this might send him running from the confessional. If that path were not open, I’d discuss other practical possibilities.
“In 52 years as a priest I have never had to face a conflict situation over the seal of the confessional and sexual abuse, and I don’t believe I ever shall.”
Report Comment