On the crisis, does the pope have it
right?
Pope Benedict XVI’s blunt language on the sexual
abuse crisis in his annual address to the Roman
Curia this morning is generating headlines around
the world, especially the pontiff’s unflinching
insistence that the church must examine “what went
wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of
living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to
happen.”
What Benedict said about the importance of better
priestly formation, and the valuable role played by
those who work to help victims, also will likely
garner largely positive notice.
Yet there’s also an insider’s subtext to Benedict’s
reflections this morning, one which suggests that
while the pope may well “get it” in terms of the
magnitude of the crisis, both his diagnosis of what
went wrong and his implied cure remain open to
debate.
At heart of that subtext is a $5 word in Catholic
moral theology: “Proportionalism.”
As he has several times in the past, Benedict XVI
once again appeared to place at least some of the
blame for the crisis at the feet of
“proportionalism,” a moral theory which was in vogue
in the 1960s and 1970s. In a nutshell, it held that
acts are rarely good or evil in the abstract – their
morality depends upon the circumstances, and the
“proportion” of good versus evil the act is likely
to produce.
In effect, Benedict asserted that proportionalism
shaped a climate in which it was possible to justify
pedophilia and the sexual exploitation of minors,
even by priests.
As Benedict noted, “proportionalism” and its
variants were explicitly rejected by Pope John Paul
II in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor
(paragraphs 75-76), in which the late pope
insisted that Catholic moral tradition regards some
acts as “intrinsically evil,” which can never be
justified by a “proportionate reason.”
The danger of proportionalism has long figured
prominently among Benedict’s “talking points” on the
sex abuse crisis.
On his way to Australia in the summer of 2008, for
example, Benedict targeted the moral theory by name,
claiming that “with proportionalism, it was possible
to think for some subjects – one could also be
pedophilia – that in some proportion they could be a
good thing.”
This morning, Benedict XVI returned to the same
point, though without directly invoking the term.
Here’s what the pope said, in the English
translation of his address provided by the Vatican
Press Office:
In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as
something fully in conformity with man and even with
children. This, however, was part of a fundamental
perversion of the concept of ethos. It was
maintained – even within the realm of Catholic
theology – that there is no such thing as evil in
itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better
than’ and a ‘worse than’. Nothing is good or bad in
itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and
on the end in view. Anything can be good or also
bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances.
Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences,
and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects
of such theories are evident today. Against them,
Pope John Paul II, in his 1993 Encyclical Letter
Veritatis Splendor, indicated with prophetic force
in the great rational tradition of Christian ethos
the essential and permanent foundations of moral
action. Today, attention must be focused anew on
this text as a path in the formation of conscience.
It is our responsibility to make these criteria
audible and intelligible once more for people today
as paths of true humanity, in the context of our
paramount concern for mankind.
Since cure follows diagnosis, Benedict’s assessment
implies that eradicating the influence of
proportionalism, along with any moral theory which
denies the intrinsic evil of certain acts, should be a
core element of the church’s “exit strategy.”
That effort could have consequences which reach well
beyond the sex abuse crisis. For example, the questions
underlying the debate over proportionalism form a core
issue in the current stand-off in Phoenix between Bishop
Thomas J. Olmsted and Catholic Healthcare West, arising
from a case in which an “indirect abortion” was
performed in order save the life of a woman with
pulmonary hypertension. In effect, Olmsted is defending
the view that terminating a pregnancy is intrinsically
evil and can never be justified – a position which could
arguably be strengthened if opposing moral theories were
perceived to be responsible for the sexual abuse crisis.
The focus on proportionalism vis-à-vis the crisis has
undeniable plausibility. Many observers find it
difficult to believe that an “anything goes” sexual
ethic in the 1960s and 1970s didn’t play some role in
producing a statistical spike in abuse cases during that
period, which coincides with proportionalism’s appeal in
Catholic moral theology.
Among specialists, however, there are serious
reservations as to whether proportionalism really is to
blame.
First, moral theologians say that proportionalism
reached its high-water mark in the 1970s and has been in
retreat ever since. Focusing on it now, they say, risks
fighting yesterday’s battles.
Second, Redemptorist moral theologian Fr. Brian
Johnstone of the Catholic University of America said in
the wake of the pope’s 2008 remarks that he’s not aware
of any serious Catholic moralist who ever invoked the
theory to justify the sexual exploitation of minors.
Johnstone, an Australian who over the years has been
critical of proportionalism, said he’s “totally
unconvinced” of any connection between proportionalism
and the abuse crisis.
Third, statistical studies of the crisis may not support
a link to a defective moral theory.
Margaret Smith, data analyst for a John Jay study of the
“causes and context” of the sexual abuse crisis
commissioned by the U.S. bishops, likewise said in 2008
that research found incidents of sexual abuse as far
back as 1950, the very beginning of the time frame the
bishops asked them to consider (1950-2000). Those
earlier acts of abuse probably cannot be explained by
proportionalism.
Smith said there was a “dramatically lowered incidence”
of abuse among priests who graduated the seminary in the
1980s, some of whom were formed in the 70s when
proportionalism was still in vogue. As a result, Smith
said, if anything, proportionalism is “arguably
associated with a decrease rather than an increase” in
abuse.
Smith added that changing attitudes towards authority in
the '60s and '70s, as well as a growing individualism in
the broader culture, may well have played a role in the
crisis – and that, she said, was perhaps the point
Benedict “was reaching for” in 2008. Nonetheless, Smith
said, her hunch is that when all the data is in,
proportionalism will not loom large.
“This is behavior much more deeply embedded in the
personality of individuals than a particular theory of
moral action,” Smith said. “I think the analysis of
causes will have more to do with things like preparation
for living a life of celibate chastity, and how to
understand and deal with intimacy.”
Fourth, some critics say that a focus on proportionalism
ignores other factors which were arguably more central
to the crisis, such as a self-referential clerical
culture, the church’s drive to protect its institutional
self-interest, and a perception that while priests are
now subject to tough discipline, bishops too often
remain “above the law”.
Dominican Fr. Thomas Doyle, who has studied the crisis
extensively and who has long been a critic of the
church’s response, says the “core issue” is “the lack of
accountability of complicit bishops, and the lack of
penal measures against bishops who have themselves
sexually abused minors.”
All this suggests that while Benedict’s words this
morning will once again earn points for candor, debate
over how he understands the roots of the crisis – and
thus what to do about it – will likely continue.
As a footnote, one extremely prominent Catholic
theologian recently made a splash which, to some
observers, seemed to revive proportionalism, or at least
to call into question a form of Catholic moral theology
which leans too heavily on acts as opposed to
intentions.
Ironically enough, that theologian was Pope Benedict
XVI.
Famously, the pope said in his book-length interview
with German journalist Peter Seewald that although
condoms are not the right answer to AIDS, using a condom
could represent a “first step” towards moral
responsibility if the intention is to reduce the risk of
infection.
After those words created a global media sensation, some
observers concluded the pope had accepted condoms as a
“lesser evil” which could be justified by the
“proportionate reason” of saving lives – just the kind
of reasoning proportionalism advocates.
The Vatican and other Catholic commentators scrambled to
insist that Benedict was not “justifying” condom use,
but rather acknowledging that in some cases it might
mark positive movement in the direction of what the
Catholic church regards as ethical sexual behavior. In
other words, they argued, Benedict’s point had more to
do with spiritual maturation than moral theology.
In fairness, in chapter three of the same book, Benedict
XVI once again blamed moral theories in the 1970s, which
he said called objective good and evil into question,
for the sex abuse crisis. It should have been clear,
therefore, that the pope’s lines on condoms did not
augur any revival of proportionalism.
Debate over how to exegete the book, however, suggests
that not only are the causes of the abuse crisis still
open to debate, but so too is precisely how to weigh
acts and intentions in Catholic moral theory.
***
The pope calls for the church to reflect on what
led to abuse.
http://www.sify.com/news/pope-calls-for-church-to-reflect-on-what-led-to-abuse-news-international-kmvpEkdihfg.html&title=pope-calls-for-church-to-reflect-on-what-led-to-abuse
***
Catholics United takes on the Catholic League.
Did you know that Bill
Donohue, president of
the Catholic League,
pays himself $399,156 a
year to manufacture
controversies in your
name? Donohue is raking
it in while most
Americans suffer through
the worst recession in a
lifetime.
That’s why it’s so
disturbing that last
week, U.S. Catholic
Bishops president
Archbishop Timothy Dolan
endorsed Mr. Donohue -
one of the religious
right's most divisive
culture warriors.
Here's how the Catholic
League works: instead
of using his talents to
advocate for justice and
compassion, Bill Donohue
manufactures outrage,
which generates
controversy. He then
uses this controversy to
solicit donations. The
Catholic League is doing
so well that it exists
as a nonprofit in name
only: last year, in
addition to paying Bill
Donohue $400,000, the
organization pocketed
nearly a million dollars
after expenses. The
organization is sitting
on a mind-boggling $26 million in
total assets!
The fact that Donohue
uses the Catholic name
to advance his culture
war is problematic
enough. It’s even more
shocking that the newly
elected president of the
bishops' conference
would actually endorse
this type of behavior.
Will you join us in
emailing Archbishop
Dolan? Let’s remind him
that there are Catholics
and people of faith who
don’t want Bill Donohue
to be the public face of
U.S. Catholicism.
We understand that our
church is not a
democracy and we don’t
expect change to happen
overnight. But if enough
of us take a moment to
email the archbishop, we
will make him think
twice before endorsing
the next religious right
culture warrior.
***
George Weigel: Whitewashing history
by NCR's Jason Berry
George Weigel, Pope John Paul II biographer
and a leading conservative voice at the
Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy
Center, has recently become a critic of the
Legion of Christ, the scandal-racked
religious order, after years of supporting
it while dismissing complaints and charges
against its founder, Fr. Marcial Maciel
Degollado.
Among high-profile U.S. Catholic
conservatives who long defended Maciel while
denigrating his accusers, Weigel alone has
made a turnabout in urging Legion reforms.
However, he continues to go out of his way,
as he has for years, to excuse the late Pope
John Paul II from any culpability in the
Legion scandal. It was John Paul, more than
anyone else, who backed Maciel and the
Legion and elevated both in church status.
"I have been deeply impressed by the work of
the Legionaries of Christ in the United
States, in Mexico, and in Rome," Weigel
wrote on a Legion Web site in 2002. "If
Father Maciel and his charism as a founder
are to be judged by the fruits of his work,
those fruits are most impressive indeed."
Published accusations against Maciel first
surfaced in 1997. In a report coauthored by
this writer in Connecticut's Hartford
Courant, nine men, interviewed in the
United States and Mexico, charged that
Maciel had molested them in Spain and Italy
during the 1940s, '50s and '60s. Several
said Maciel told them he had permission from
Pope Pius XII to seek them out sexually for
relief of physical pain.
U.S. Catholic conservative voices, including
Catholic League president William Donohue
and political activist Deal Hudson, defended
Maciel at the time. Other conservatives had
offered their continued support for the
Legion founder. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus,
former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Mary
Ann Glendon, and CNN political analyst Bill
Bennett were among them. Glendon, now a
Harvard law professor, scoffed at "old
slanders" and in a letter dated May 23,
2002, called Maciel a man of "radiant
holiness."
Weigel's own endorsement came a month later.
Both of their statements followed the April
2002 meeting of the U.S. cardinals with John
Paul in Rome to discuss the abuse crisis.
With clergy sex abuse receiving more media
coverage, it was a period in which Legion
leaders wanted to shore up Maciel's
reputation amid heavy scrutiny.
The defense of Maciel by conservative
Catholics gave valuable cover to Maciel as
the Legion struck back against the men from
Mexico and Spain who had come forward to
relate that they had been sexually abused by
Maciel when they were teenage seminarians.
To say that Weigel, Glendon and Neuhaus —
who asserted Maciel's innocence as "a moral
certainty" — were duped is to overstate the
obvious. Clearly, they were influenced by
John Paul's own personal support for Maciel.
A larger question is why not one of those
supporters bothered to sit down with the men
who had accused Maciel, including Juan Vaca,
the first to come forward with charges in a
document he sent to Pope Paul VI in 1976, or
Fr. Felix Alarcón, or the other six
survivors, to hear what they had to say.
In 2006 Pope Benedict XVI banished Maciel
from active ministry.
One week after the Feb. 2, 2009, news that
Maciel had led a double life and had
fathered a daughter, and after several
priests quit the Legion, Weigel posed
questions about the Legion in an essay on
the First Things Web site,
published by the conservative Institute on
Religion and Public Life in Washington.
Many people with friends among "Legionary
priests have known for years [that] there is
great good here, as there is among the
faithful members of Regnum Christi," Weigel
wrote. "How shall that good be saved?" He
called for a "root-and-branch examination"
and "a brutally frank analysis of the
institutional culture" by the Vatican. "Can
the Legion be reformed from within, after
those complicit in the Maciel web of deceit
have been dismissed?"
Today Weigel is the leading conservative
voice urging Legion reform. Yet his demands
for Vatican probity are preceded by a
lengthy record of whitewashing John Paul's
failure in the abuse crisis. In two
biographies of the late pope, and in a 2002
book, The Courage to Be Catholic:
Crisis, Reform and the Future of the Church,
Weigel's treatment of the abuse crisis is
marred by his blindness to a host of early
reports and books on what sociologist Fr.
Andrew M. Greeley called, in 1992, "the
greatest scandal in the history of religion
in America." The first volume of Weigel's
papal biography, in 1999, completely avoids
the issue. When the Boston scandal in 2002
forced John Paul to deal with it, Weigel
flew to Rome as an ad hoc papal advisor.
Weigel is the rare writer not in the
Legion's employ to get an interview with
Maciel. After the 1997 Hartford Courant
report, Maciel shunned journalists, even
canceling a speech in Chicago for fear of
facing reporters. Weigel's 2010 book,
The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II
— the Victory of Freedom, the Last Years,
the Legacy, notes that he interviewed
Maciel on Feb. 19, 1998. Weigel does not
quote Maciel, nor explain what he asked or
what Maciel said, other than that John Paul
broke a "logjam in 1983" for the approval of
the Legion constitutions.
John Paul "may well have been ill served by
associates and subordinates who ought to
have been more alert to the implications of
[Maciel's] cult of personality," writes
Weigel. "The reasons that those associates
and subordinates were skeptical of the
charges will be investigated and debated for
years." This, from a writer who had 10
interviews with John Paul for the 1999 book
and better access to curial "associates"
than most journalists at the Vatican.
"Despite the negative implications of John
Paul's reputation that some of [his] critics
quickly drew," Weigel writes, "what was at
work in this scandalous affair was deception
in the service of the mysterium
iniquitatis" — the mystery of evil.
And so we are left to believe that one of
the great moral leaders of the last century
was deceived by the "mystery of evil." ...
The rest of the
article is available at the NCR Website.
***
One of the
finest gifts I
received during this holiday
season was this poem from
Bob, who is a true man of
faith.
the great miraculous
of the great miraculous
of being alive,
we forget much
we forget it is sacred
to love one another––
that to be is
to enjoy––
that love can set our
souls
on gentle fire––
that we can learn to
welcome
strangers & enemies as
friends & brothers
we forget that families
are holy––
that we are directly
related by
protoplasm to all that
lives––
that we are the animated
dust
of stars––
that we must care for
this
generous earth & waste
nothing
we forget how we were made
to see, taste, hear, smell,
touch &
comprehend the world as it
is––
that we are here to
experience
creation––
not to insulate and
isolate ourselves
from what sweetness
surrounds
us––
we talk too loud & listen
distractedly
ignoring the silence
that makes us
free
we forget that kindness is
our true
religion & set up altars to
worship
greed––
it is a sin to kill & a
sin to pay
others to destroy with
our wealth
& in our name––
in every second it is
possible to
open our hearts & share
we forget that we are
created out of
the wisdom of this world––
every cell of our body,
every
molecule we secrete &
the
energies we transform
into action
are in substantially
perfect
balance to serve us for
a lifetime if we tend
ourselves
well
we forget how we are
connected with
all that is––
that we cannot be
separated from
any part of this
universe in all
of time––
when we jump up & down
the earth moves & the
aether
responds––
when we stretch
outward
with our fingers, we
touch
the farthest stars
we forget that to think is
to create &
how our imaginations empower
us to
fly like angels––
we can dream & we can pray
for
peace without ceasing––
each of us is responsible
for
ourselves & for the
revelation of
heaven on earth, now &
forever
after
***
The debate
on the
proposed, new Sacramentary
continues.
For You
and Who
Else?
What
is
lost
in
the
new
Roman
Missal
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12641
***
David O'Reilly,
Philadephia Inquirer,
covers a dialogue on the
future of the church
conducted at
St. Joseph's University.
With American Roman
Catholics leaving their
church in record
numbers, it will be up
to laypeople - not just
bishops and priests - to
revitalize the faith, a
panel of speakers told
an overflow audience
Sunday at St. Joseph's
University.
"The church has acted
like a lazy monopoly,"
the Rev. Thomas Reese
told the crowd at
Mandeville Hall, and
noted that one in three
baptized Catholics now
leaves the church in
adulthood.
Reese, a senior fellow
at Woodstock Theological
Center at Georgetown
University and former
editor of the Jesuit
magazine America, was
one of three panelists
invited by the
university to discuss
"The Future of the
Church."
Its subtitle was
"Sources of Hope,"
however, and after
airing their grievances
with their church, the
three unabashedly
progressive speakers
pointed out ways they
believe the nation's
largest denomination can
remain attractive and
relevant.
"The Catholic Church is
confronting a real
crisis" of eroding
membership, Sister Carol
Jean Vale, president of
Chestnut Hill College
and moderator of the
two-hour program, said
in her opening remarks.
"How can we form
Catholics for the
future?" she asked.
Reese, a Jesuit priest
and a senior fellow at
Woodstock Center at
Georgetown University,
laid much of the blame
for the erosion of
Catholic identity on
what he described as a
"culture of clericalism"
in the church.
Too many priests and
bishops seem to believe
that "we know better"
than the laity "and we
don't need to listen to
them."
A prolific author and
former editor-in-chief
of the Jesuit magazine
America, Reese also
opined that "our
churches and our
liturgies are boring."
Seventy-one percent of
ex-Catholics who join a
Protestant or
Evangelical congregation
report that the Catholic
Church "wasn't meeting
my spiritual needs," he
said.
Parishes need to do a
better job of preaching,
offer better music, be
more welcoming, and
provide engaging
programs for children,
said Reese.
But the folk in the pews
cannot wait for the
pastor to create, or
authorize, every feature
of parish life, Reese
said.
"Want a youth group?
Start one!" he told the
crowd of 321. "Want a
book club? Do it! You
don't need the pope or a
bishop or a priest to be
Christian," he said.
"We're becoming a
do-it-yourself church."
Reese was followed by
Dolores R. Leckey,
another research fellow
at the Woodstock Center
and former adviser to
the United States
Conference of Catholic
Bishops, the national
organization of the
Catholic hierarchy for
articulating church
teaching.
"What reason do I
personally have for
hope?" she began?
The answer lay, she
said, in the reforms of
the Second Vatican
Council of 1962-1965,
which, she described as
a "monumental change in
consciousness" for Roman
Catholicism because it
"looked at who is the
church, not what."
The Second Vatican
Council was emphatic,
Leckey said, that "lay
life is a true
vocation."
She opined that "new
life has emerged" out of
the "earthquake" that
was the clergy sex abuse
crisis because some lay
Catholics are channeled
their frustration with
church leadership into a
recognition that they
must play a greater
role.
She was followed by the
Rev. Raymond Kemp, also
a senior fellow at
Georgetown's Woodstock
Center and a former
pastor in the
Archdiocese of
Washington.
Microphone in hand, Kemp
rose from the dais and
strolled down to the
floor of Woffington
auditorium.
"My spiritual director
and my shrink told me to
be optimistic," he said,
to laughter.
He would later echo
Leckey's observation
that the sex abuse
crisis had emboldened
some lay Catholics to
"build the church from
below."
But Kemp began by
emphasizing the need of
parishes to "find a kind
of hospitality" that
asks of each member
"what do you want to do
with the gospel?"
He cited Old St.
Patrick's church in
Chicago which, under
dynamic leadership, grew
from a handful of
parishioners 20 years
ago to more than 6,000,
with 120 "peer
ministries."
"You get a sense of a
parish that's doing
things and having fun
doing it," he said.
Kemp also said he
believed the way for the
Catholic Church to
attract and keep young
people is to appeal to
their idealism.
"The untold story in the
Catholic Church" is the
amount of social
services it provides at
home and abroad. "We
feed, house, clothe, and
resettle more people
than another
nongovernment agency in
this country," Kemp
said.
"Who's attracted to
this?" he asked. "Young
people" who "want to
realize what it means to
be Catholic by putting
their bodies" in service
to those in need.
"I pray," Kemp said,
"that we listen to young
people."
***
What an excellent, and
overdue, concept! Just ask them,
"Why?"
On Their Way
Out
What
exit
interviews
could
teach us
about
lapsed
Catholics
The following
article is available at
http://ncronline.org/news/uniqueness-jesus
The uniqueness of
Jesus
Facing doctrinal
questions, Peter
Phan speaks his mind
Fr. Peter C. Phan is
professor of
theology and the
inaugural holder of
the Ignacio
Ellacuría, S.J.
Chair of Catholic
Social Thought at
Georgetown
University.
As reported by
NCR in 2007,
Phan’s book Being
Religious
Interreligiously
(Orbis 2004) was
investigated by both
the Congregation of
the Doctrine of the
Faith and the
Committee on
Doctrine of the U.S.
Conference of
Catholic Bishops.
Subsequently, the
Committee on
Doctrine published a
series of
observations on
Phan’s book,
especially on his
views on Jesus, the
church and the
church’s mission.
Phan was then
notified that the
action of the
bishops' conference
did not necessarily
terminate the
doctrinal
congregation’s
investigation, which
might still be
ongoing. So far Phan
has not responded to
the concerns and
observations of
either the
Congregation of the
Doctrine of the
Faith and the U.S.
bishops' committee.
Phan informed NCR
that he is currently
working on a book in
which some of these
concerns and
observations are
taken into account
and hopes to have it
in print in 2011.
Recently
NCR
spoke to Phan about
some of the issues
raised by the
Vatican congregation
and the bishops'
committee. He
insisted however
that the following
statements do not
represent, in full
or in part, his
responses to the
questions and
concerns of church
authorities
regarding his book
but only to the
questions raised by
NCR.
NCR: The
official teaching of
the Roman Catholic
Church, for example,
the Declaration
Dominus Jesus of the
Congregation of the
Doctrine of the
Faith (2000),
strongly insists on
the uniqueness of
Jesus as the savior
of all humankind.
This uniqueness is
said to be rooted in
his being the Son of
God.
Phan:The four
gospels consistently
use the title “Son
of God” or “the Son”
to describe who
Jesus is. This
expression is used
in the Old Testament
to refer to angels,
the king, and the
people of
Israel as a whole.
The Synoptic Gospels
relates that Jesus
refers to himself as
the Son (Mark 13:32;
12:6 and Matthew
11:27/Luke 10:22).
It is also reported
that in his prayer
to God Jesus
addresses God as
“Abba” (my
Father). According
to the German
scholar Joachim
Jeremias, Jesus was
the first Jew to use
this term of
familiarity and
intimacy with which
children call their
fathers to address
God (Mark 14:36), in
contrast to the more
formal term Abbi
used in public
Jewish prayers. This
practice of Jesus
has subsequently
been invoked to
emphasize the
uniqueness of Jesus’
relationship to God,
exclusive to him and
not available to
anyone else, and
indicative of his
divine nature.
This argument for
the uniqueness of
Jesus’ filial
relation to God
based on his use of
“Abba” should not
however be
overplayed. That
Jesus’ relationship
to God and his
naming God as his
“Abba” is unique can
hardly be denied.
However, even
granted the truth of
Jeremias’s claim, it
does not follow that
no other Jew, before
Jesus and during his
lifetime, has never
used this familiar
term to address God
in his or her
private prayer. The
fact that Jesus is
recorded to
have used this term
in his prayer to God
does not by itself
eliminate the
possibility of
others having used
that term in their
private but unrecorded
prayers as well.
Indeed, given the
unavoidable practice
of applying to God
our common language
about human
realities, it is
quite likely that
words such as “Abba”
have been used by
Jews to refer to
God. Furthermore,
the occasion in
which Jesus is
reported to have
used this expression
is his private
prayer in the Garden
of Gethsemane which
no one witnessed,
and therefore Jesus’
use of “Abba” in
this instance is a
historical
reconstruction by
Mark or his
informers from
sources other than
personal knowledge
based on their
actual witness of
the event.
Furthermore, it is
to be noted that the
way each person
relates to and names
God is inescapably
“unique” and
“exclusive” to her
or him, even when
the same words are
used. God as
infinite and loving
Mystery cannot but
be experienced in
diverse and unique
ways by each
individual. In other
words, my way of
experiencing God is
just as “unique” and
“exclusive” as
Jesus’. The point
here is not to deny
the originality and
uniqueness of Jesus’
filial relationship
with God but to put
it within the
context of human
experiences of God
and to relate
(“relativize”) it to
this larger context.
In what does the
uniqueness of Jesus’
filial intimacy with
God consist?
According to the
gospels, the
intimacy of this
relationship lies in
Jesus’ total
obedience to God’s
will. Jesus is the
“Son of God” because
he obeyed his
Father’s will by
taking up the role
of the “Suffering
Servant.” As I
mentioned above, the
title “Son of God”
is given in the Old
Testament to angels
the king, and the
people of
Israel. In the case
of Jesus, this title
is connected with
his role as the
Suffering Servant to
carry out God’s plan
of establishing
God’s reign and to
save humanity. In
other words, Jesus’
divine sonship --
his filial
relationship to the
Father -- is defined
in terms of his
obedience to God and
his role as the
Suffering Servant,
and not in terms of
his eternal
pre-existence in God
as the Logos. This
point is made clear
especially in the
gospel of Mark,
though it is also
present in Matthew
and Luke.
It is only in the
Fourth Gospel that
Jesus’ divine
sonship is
explicitly made to
consist in his
eternal co-existence
with and generation
by the Father. Jesus
is said to be the only (monogenēs)
Son (Jn 1:14,18;
3:16) and to have
made a clear
distinction (Jn
20:17) between God
as his Father (“my
Father”) and God as
our Father (“your
Father”). ...
***
THE SWAG
Reflections
on an Ordination
Golden
Anniversary
by Eric Hodgens,
Melbourne
We are the
Gaudium et Spes
priests. We went
into the
seminary at the
highest rate in
living memory.
We were ordained
between 1955 and
1975 – in double
the numbers our
parishes
required. Most
of us were from
the Silent
Generation with
a few years of
Baby Boomers at
the end. We took
Vatican II to
heart. We
changed from
being priests
called and
consecrated by
God to being
presbyters
called and
ordained by the
Church – the
People of God.
Ecumenism became
a normal way of
thinking for us.
Prepared for the
challenge by
Cardijn’s
apostolate of
like to like, we
were successful
at educating a
newly vital and
active laity. We
worked with the
people rather
than for them.
We realised that
clericalism was
an evil, not a
good, and
discarded it
with its style
and culture. We
ran highly
successful and
active parishes.
Though ageing
now, many of us
are still on the
job. Our
presbyteral and
pastoral lives
have been a
source of that
unusual
experience –
joy.
But not without
grief. We have
experienced the
awakening 60s,
the exciting
70s, the
suspicious 80s,
the depressing
90s and the
imploding 00s.
During the 1980s
we became aware
that a lot was
going wrong.
Ordinations
suddenly dropped
after 1975. We
started to lose
parishioners –
first from Mass
then from
affiliation.
Both of these
changes had
mixed social
causes.
Worse!
Discordant
decisions were
coming down from
the pope.
Priestly
celibacy,
despite being
highly
contentious, was
reasserted by
Paul VI in 1967
without
discussion. In
1968 Humanae
Vitae was a
shocking
disappointment.
Most of us never
accepted it.
Paul VI began
appointing
bishops opposed
to the council’s
ethos. This was
most notable in
Holland which
had become a
trailblazer in
implementing the
council. Paul
killed that
initiative and
we are all the
worse off for
that. The whole
trend was
demoralizing.
Then came John
Paul II.
Charismatic in
front of the TV
camera;
brilliant at
languages; but –
out of touch in
scripture and
limited in
theology, a bad
listener and
rock solid is
his
self-assessment
as God’s chosen
man of destiny.
His whole life
had been spent
in the
persecuted
church of Poland
with its
fortress church
mentality frozen
in time.
The open
dialogue of the
Church with the
new ideas and
values arising
out of new
knowledge in
scriptural
criticism,
theology,
psychology,
sociology,
anthropology
stopped. New
scientific
discoveries in
genetics were
treated with
suspicion and
their
application
usually
condemned.
Sexual mores
were promoted to
the top shelf of
his panorama of
sin – a bit of
an obsession
with him.
Power corrupts.
The history of
the papacy shows
this
pre-eminently.
Unchecked
potentates
believe their
own propaganda.
Taken to the
extreme, they
claim
infallibility.
Pius IX bullied
Vatican I into
institutionalizing
such a claim.
Since then
creeping
infallibility
has resulted in
the pope and his
theologically
limited curia
stealing the
term
“magisterium”
from its real
owners – the
college of
professional
theologians. How
can you
conscientiously
give assent of
mind and heart
to policies
formed without
theological
debate,
consultation,
transparency or
accountability?
In contemporary
government and
business this
would be judged
unethical.
John Paul’s lust
for power showed
very early and
was taken to
monumental
proportions.
Accountable to
nobody, John
Paul moved
against any
opinion other
than his own and
removed many
exponents of
alternative
opinions from
teaching and
publishing. His
most powerful
enforcer was the
Ratzinger-led
Congregation for
the Doctrine of
the Faith (CDF).
Other Roman
dicasteries
joined the
campaign.
The CDF is the
current
euphemism for
the Inquisition.
True to its
mediaeval roots,
it assumes the
pope to be
entitled to
enforce his
views. It
conducts its
delations and
proceedings in
secret. In
today’s secular
world this is a
violation of
human rights.
Theological
censorship
justifies itself
as the quest for
the truth and
poses as truth’s
champion. In
fact it is the
enemy of the
discovery of
truth because
discussion is
forestalled. The
contemporary
secular world
understands this
and wisely
enshrines
freedom of
speech and
debate as a
central value.
The Church no
less than any
other enterprise
is at least the
poorer and at
worst prone to
error when it
rejects this
value.
All of us are
abused by this
process. The
priest at the
coal face is not
consulted, yet
is
contemptuously
expected to
defend policies
he and his
people do not
believe.
John Paul II
also enforced
much of his own
devotional life
on the church at
large. Despite
Vatican II he
effectively
stopped the
third rite of
Penance,
reversed a
burgeoning
dynamic theology
of Eucharist by
reverting to and
re-emphasising
devotion to the
static Real
Presence,
reinforced a
distorted
devotion to Mary
based on
fundamentalist
theology and
introduced
peculiar
devotions such
as Sr.
Faustina’s
Divine Mercy
Devotion which
undercuts Easter
– the climax of
our liturgical
year.
A more grievous
abuse of power
by John Paul II
was his
appointment of
bishops.
Appointees were
to be clerical,
compliant and in
total agreement
with his
personal
opinions. This
has emasculated
the leadership
of the Church.
The episcopal
ranks are now
low on
creativity,
leadership,
education and
even
intelligence.
Many are from
the ranks of
Opus Dei –
reactionary,
authoritarian
and decidedly
not creative.
Many, often at
the top of the
hierarchical
tree, are
embarrassingly
ignorant of any
recent learning
in scripture,
theology and
scientific
disciplines.
Many are classic
company boys.
Some of the more
intelligent and
better educated
seem to have
sold their souls
for advancement.
Can they really
believe the line
they channel?
Ecclesiastical
politics have
trumped
integrity. And
when these men
are appointed as
the leaders of
priests without
any consultation
they become a
standing act of
contempt.
Worse still,
this happened
over a period
when the
priesthood held
its biggest
proportion of
intelligent,
educated and
competent
leaders. It was
those very
qualities which
blackballed them
for appointment
under the
blinkered but
powerful regime.
Our best chance
has been missed.
Today the ranks
of the
priesthood are
depleted due to
low recruitment
over the last
forty years. The
pool from which
future bishops
must be chosen
is very shallow.
A newly critical
laity questions
policy but
receives no
answers. Why
can’t women be
leaders in the
Church? Why do
priests have to
be celibate?
What is wrong
with
contraception?
Why alienate
remarried
divorcees? Why
this salacious
preoccupation
with sexual
mores? Why are
scientific
advances always
suspected of
being bad? Why
can’t we
recognise the
reality of
homosexual
orientation –
and the social
consequences of
that
recognition?
Have we learnt
nothing from the
Galileo case –
or the treatment
of Teilhard de
Chardin? Can’t
we escape the
Syllabus of
Errors
mentality?
Benedict XVI has
continued the
reversal of
Vatican II. He
is imposing a
new English
translation of
the Sacramentary
on a resisting
English speaking
constituency.
This may very
well backfire
because many
priests are not
going to
implement it.
Benedict has
received back
bishops from the
schismatic
Society of St
Pius X. He has
encouraged the
Tridentine Mass
in Latin. He has
reintroduced
kneeling for
communion on the
tongue at his
public Masses –
all deliberate
key pointers to
regression from
the spirit of
Vatican II. To
the priests who
embraced Vatican
II they are
iconic insults.
Then he has the
nerve to decree
a Year for
Priests in 2009
with St John
Vianney as
patron. Like Fr.
Donald Cozzens,
many felt they
were being
played. The
celebration of
the importance
of priests in
the church is
belied by the
contempt with
which they are
treated. How can
Rome call
priests to
repentance when
it is so
recalcitrant; so
slow to admit
any failing of
its own? How can
they be serious
in stressing the
importance of
the priest as
confessor when
it is clear that
confession has
all but vanished
from the life of
the Church? How
can they urge
Holy Hours and
adoration of the
Blessed
Sacrament when
most priests
have moved on
from that static
theology of
Eucharist to a
dynamic one –
with Vatican II
leading the way?
How can they
urge priests to
more intense
prayer when they
show no evidence
of a change of
heart or
attitude – the
genuine
indicator that
prayer is
working?
We took as
normal the world
and the church
into which we
were ordained.
In reality, the
religious
affiliation of
the period was
abnormally high.
Mass and
sacramental
participation
and priestly
vocations were
at a high water
mark. The
reversal which
began in the
late 60s was
always going to
happen. But with
Vatican II we
had the tools to
handle the new
situation.
A
large group of
the priests were
ready to meet
the challenge.
They did not get
the chance. The
orders from
above were to
withdraw to the
fortress and
sing the old
song. Instead of
embracing the
new they lost
the opportunity
and left us high
and dry – and
disappointed.
In the western
world priests
still always
rate highly in
job satisfaction
surveys. They
generally enjoy
their job and do
it well. That is
because they are
happy in their
own patch. But
they feel
betrayed by the
pope and the
bishops. If you
ask them what
they think about
the powers up
top and where
the official
show is going
you get a very
different
answer.
_
|