Catholic Sensibility

Cardinal Mahony gets fussed at for planning to vote. What about Cardinal Rigali? Hardly a fuss has been raised about his participation.

While I’m certainly sympathetic to the feelings and aims of child-protection and anti-mismanagement Catholics, I’m not sure much is served by these guys not serving in the conclave. From Cardinal Mahony’s blog:

That means never rationalizing what is happening in our lives, never protesting misunderstandings, and never getting angry because of false accusations.

There are wild, angry people out there making false accusations, certainly. The Catholic Right, especially, seems particularly giddy to throw one of their own under the bus and call for the garb of prison orange. But what about justified and proven assertions? What happens when another person, perhaps someone we don’t like or don’t trust, makes an accusation we know in our heart to be true?

I’ve always found it strange this recent bishop talk about going to jail for religious freedom. No bishop, however, has been willing to go to jail for mismanaging sexual predators in their clergy. The usual route is plea agreements, probation, and reduced charges. No human being is totally innocent. And some bishops often repeat the meme that we laity have lost some or all of our sense of sin. If we each are unwilling to listen to that accusation then bishops and laity have indeed entered into a dialogue of the deaf. The onus is on the bishops. They’re the ones responsible.

RNS linked Cardinal Peter Turkson’s CNN interview. He steered the conversation well from the political concerns of the day, and focused on the essential of the Gospel.

And this, at the 7:05 (question)/7:31 (answer) mark:

When Amanpour asked Turkson about the possibility of the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal spreading to Africa, he said it would unlikely be in the same proportion as it has in Europe.

“African traditional systems kind of protect or have protected its population against this tendency,” he said. “Because in several communities, in several cultures in Africa homosexuality or for that matter any affair between two sexes of the same kind are not countenanced in our society.”

A troubling answer. Cardinal Turkson misses on two points.

First, that sex abuse isn’t about same sex attraction as much as it about using sexuality to dominate, humiliate, and impose upon the innocent. There is probably nothing more intimate and personal than a person’s sexuality. Throwing out the gay thing is just a smokescreen.

Second, the scandal is less in the misconduct of clergy and much more in the mismanagement of predators. Could she have asked him about bishops who had mishandled wayward clergy? That would have been an interesting exchange to see.

He does concede the restoration of credibility is very needful. But he doesn’t address the problem of bishops.

I’ve seen commentary that Cardinal Turkson is too much in the news, and has campaigned his way out of consideration by his fellow cardinals. I think that if he were elected, he would need to listen to the facts and learn of the situation. Africa is not Eden. The powerful in Africa have certainly used sex to exert domination over the innocent, the weak, and the vulnerable. African bishops have not avoided their own sexual escapades.

I wish the interviewer had been more incisive and better researched on these points. At least Cardinal Turkson recognizes the credibility gap. That he doesn’t take it for granted suggests the higher-ups in Rome don’t count on it either. That can be a good thing.

If Cardinal Mahony had come out on his own blog about the smail’s pace of the curia in dealing with priest predators, it might have come across as somewhat self-serving. I’m inclined to think there’s blame to spread around, if not up, with this LA Times piece. One predator was yanked from his parish. But he appealed to Rome to prevent his defrocking. The Humiliated One wrote to Rome in ’93:

The case has been there for many, many months. The lengthy delay has created serious problems for my own credibility as a Diocesan Bishop.

No kidding.

The reporters:

(Confidential archdiocese records) suggest that Mahony at times had to press an unresponsive Vatican to get molesting priests out of the church.

Cardinal Mahony was unwilling to comment for this piece. Interesting. He’s been public with a lot of comments lately. A comment on the CDF and the Congregation for Clergy might be very illuminating at this point. Or maybe personally dangerous.

I wonder if there would be a thaw in that approach after the upcoming conclave. I can imagine an icy reception in Rome if he decided to spill beans like the ones he spit out at Archbishop Gomez a few weeks ago. If he’s going to post personal honesty pieces on his blog, I’d rather see some sense of honesty about the situation as it unfolded all those years ago. I’d like to think the man who harbored criminals from prosecution in the 80′s had learned something by the 90′s. If nothing else, a recognition that he and his brother bishops dislike having their credibility impaired by their being so slow on the uptake.

Cardinal Mahony, after this conclave, has nothing to lose. There will be no more cushy appointments for him. Clearly, he’s been led down a road he didn’t expect and wouldn’t have taken. What was the Petrine experience of John 21:18? Perhaps that is the path beyond the humiliation of abandoning the innocent.

Have mercy on me, O God, in your goodness
in the greatness of your compassion wipe out my offense.
*Thoroughly wash me from my guilt,
and of my sin cleanse me.
For I acknowledge my offense,
and my sin is before me always.

And so begins the most famous of the penitential psalms. According to biblical tradition David has committed adultery, conspiracy, and murder to gain for himself the beloved wife of one of his generals. The prophet Nathan knows his king has a back door through which he can bring the psalmist’s sense of justice to light. And he does so with devastating effect on the man’s conscience.

From the asterisk, verses 4-5 are given in the section of Prayers of the Penitent (RP 85-92). Verse 3 doesn’t subtract away from the confessional nature of this piece.

I’m used to the ICEL Psalter’s “Have mercy, tender God, forget that I defied you.” Direct and to the point. And what an acknowledgement for the penitent: we haven’t just offended God. (Who can be sure of God’s direct reaction to our major transgressions?) But we can say without hesitation that we have defied God. And that deeper admission carries a lot of weight.

Verse 5b strikes me, but not because I identify with it. In fact, more the opposite. My sin is before me always? Really? I think not so much. The whole point of sin is often our lack of recognition of it. Or our self-deception in shielding our consciences from it. The psalmist is engaged in wishful thinking. Or perhaps an attempt to wool-pull on God’s eyes. But God knows. And when we are deep in penitence, so do we.

I’d like to take several posts over the coming week to delve deeper into Psalm 51. It appears in the Lectionary frequently, even outside of Lent. It is a staple of Ash Wednesday. It is the most common text associated with the plainchant antiphon, “Parce Domine,” which itself is based on Joel 2:17. Always a fitting way to leap into Lent, and delve deeply into our experience of contrition and penance.

Quick answer: no.

Remember this pic of exultant sems in Rome?

The party was almost over the day after Habemus Papam. I suspect that nothing would have satisfied the Catholic Right, especially many of the folks who inhabited the internet that day. Everything seemed like a battle. When your ideology is pitched for battle, anything less than battle and anything less than winning comes up as a failure. and a loss. Joseph Bottum:

Benedict has not done well with (problems)—and perhaps mostly because he was never a good administrator. He was always a serious and absorbed theologian, and his advanced age is not the cause of his incapacity.

Misdiagnosis on the cover-up of bishops. Naturally:

Joseph Ratzinger knew the actual facts, and it took stunning Vatican incompetence to turn him—one of the heroes of that vile era, the man who publicly denounced “the filth” in the church—into a popular villain of reporting on the priest scandals.

Few people would see Pope Benedict as a hero. Others were more far-sighted and discerning. Many others correctly pointed out the problem was with bishops. And the legacy of the second half of the B16 pontificate is that people who want discussion will be targeted and pink-slipped. Convicted criminals will continue on. There may be other reasons why Bill Morris walked and Robert Finn stayed put. The institution can’t be seen to be making moves at the whim of the laity, or worse–the secular press. Newspapers calling for the resignation of a bishop are just about the equivalent of granting permanent tenure.

David Gibson from RNS:

So how is it that Catholic conservatives could go so quickly from ecstasy to agony? To a great degree, it is the way of the world, even in the church.

Partisans tend to graft their own agendas and aspirations onto their favored candidates, whether presidents or popes. Sacred conclaves are hotbeds of messianism every bit as much as today’s domestic electoral process, in part because the church is not immune from politics or polarization.

Disappointment was inevitable because the hopes of Benedict’s fans had blinded them to the parts of his writings (on charity and justice, for example) or his personality traits (such as his loyalty to friends, no matter how incompetent) that didn’t fit with their plans.

This is about right.

If Joseph Ratzinger couldn’t be the messiah, who then, in the college of cardinals will fit the bill. Unless individual Catholics on the ideological Right are willing to reorient themselves to Christ and the realm of the Spirit, they will continue a path of embitterment. Otherwise, we can point to their last happy day: 19 April 2005.

My reaction to that day: a shrug. I hope I haven’t fallen into another trap, a listless apathy that cares little for who sits in the Chair of Peter.

One of the short Scripture passages given in the Rite of Penance (81) is this powerful piece from Saint Paul’s introduction to his letter to the Colossians. Scripture geeks may notice that these three verses precede the christological hymn of 1:15-20.

Many biblical scholars see this passage as hymnic also. Is it a musical prelude and part of the larger piece? My main purpose with this post is not to belabor the literary/theological aspects, but mainly to give some food for spiritual thought. If verses 12 through 14 are a lyrical addition, that might inform our prayer. Would we be in the Augustinian territory of “praying twice,” by rendering our communication with God in song? If we are giving thanks, shall we not sing it? Verse 12 is quite an affirmation, for starters. God’s grace draws us into the family of holiness:

Let us give thanks to the Father,
who has made you fit to share
in the inheritance of the holy ones in light.

Saint Paul or the lyricist shifts from second person address to first person plural.

He delivered us from the power of darkness
and transferred us to the Kingdom of his beloved Son,
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Redemption and reconciliation is a gift from God to the community of believers.

When we approach the Lord, we achieve by grace a status in the light and love of God. Our “political” standing is shifted. From darkness into light. From bondage into freedom. From the kingdoms of the world into the Reign of God. The badge of our allegiance–our citizenship papers if you will–is the experience of redemption in Christ. I can imagine a band of believers being taken up, offering a parting “Nyah, nyah, nyah” to the shadows left behind.

I like the shorter Scriptures of the Reconciliation Lectionary. They are no less rich than the usual ten to fifteen verses we get in RP 101-201. One idea to focus. This short section from Colossians–very focused. Especially for this season of Lent.

Did the WaPo set up this mismatch? Not so much a mismatch, really, as the classic Catholic conversation across the divide: liberals and conservatives talking past each other.

Ashley McGuire zeroes in on the “fun stuff.”

James Salt offers a list of examples, nearly all of which center on the Church’s administrative disasters and PR slip-ups.

Let’s face it: there are Catholic politicos out there who want change on the basic level, including ordination. (Ordaining women is neither a matter of faith or morals, but it does highlight the fallibility of human metaphor to cover every contingency.) Ms McGuire:

What the church’s critics, especially those now giddily wondering if Pope Benedict’s successor will shake things up, just don’t seem to understand, is that church teachings on these issues are unchangeable.

The issues I’m much more concerned about are these:

• Administration on the level of bishops: how they treat and have treated sexual predators and how they deal with their own on mismanagement that directly impacts the effectiveness of the Gospel of Christ.
• The overreaching of a very non-biblical tradition: the curia.
• Financial mismanagement on parish and diocesan levels. Probably Rome too.
• The Keystone Theological Cops routine with investigations that can’t shoot straight.

I’m less interested in Ms McGuire’s “fun stuff.” I just want some real leadership on the serious matters that seem to have escaped the last two popes and their bureaucracy.

Next time the WaPo offers up a he-said/she-said, the least they could do is avoid an ideological mismatch.

From AsiaNews.it, news from outside of Asia–it’s more pope news. From Federico Lombardi, SJ:

The Constitution says that the Conclave begins between 15 and 20 days after the death of the pope, to give the Cardinals time to get to Rome, but in this case with the communication of his resignation and the start of Vacant see made in advance, if they are already here, there’s nobody to wait for.

Anybody for sealing up the bunch in the Sistine Chapel at 8:01 local time on the 28th? If they make quick work of the conclave, the cardinals will only miss a scrutiny or two. If the big red hat meet goes long, what do you think they will do for Holy Week? Allow the import of palms? Wash twelve pairs of feet, or everybody’s?

Why B16′s retirement home isn’t a big deal:

I believe that actually having Pope Benedict close by, spiritually, in prayer, will be a source of great enrichment, of communion for his successor, and for all of us. I believe fears of interference are irrelevant.

…

He is 86 years old and used to living in this kind of environment, to think about moving to a completely new environment would have required a manifestation of will, which obviously was not there. He will continue to be the place where he has served the Church. I find it absolutely normal and I think that an alternative was not even considered.

I’m not impressed with the pope’s parting shot at Vatican II. The press to blame? Really?

Our job in this ‘Year of Faith’ is to work so that the true council, with the strength of the Holy Spirit, is truly realized and that the church is truly renovated.

I believe the true council will eventually be truly realized. If that involves either 5 percent or 95 percent of the Holy Father’s expectations, then so be it. I’m thinking it’s more one digit, than two. Joseph Ratzinger is one man, with one man’s opinion. Vatican II is quite real, quite a break from the past. In that break, the Catholic Church is entirely at home within the traditions of Christian spirituality. Francis did not ease himself into divestiture of clothing or the embrace of lepers. Paul did not ease off the persecution of Christians by just sending them to jail instead of stoning them. Abram didn’t keep his home in Ur as a vacation residence. How many other examples from the Judeo-Christian tradition do we need?

God invites us to break from our former lives. Especially when those lives lead us in circles and don’t move us closer to Christ or with Christ. The principle may well apply to the universal community of the Church. Really: ever wonder why believers across the board today are so frustrated, especially on the Barque? I suspect the unrest is part of a greater sense of the people of God being thwarted in their journey to God. The Holy Father points fingers at the media. I wonder about our leadership. I think the pope, curia, and bishops honestly have their best interests and that of the Church at heart. No doubt many of them think these congruent.

I really hope the Holy Spirit moves well in the coming conclave. The Church needs a break. In more ways than one.

My second Solar System science fiction book in the past four months: Blue Remembered Earth by Alastair Reynolds. I first read two or three of his early novels about a decade ago. Last appearance on my bookshelf was about five years ago. The author seems to be flying in a more literary orbit these days. Blue Remembered Earth is more character-driven than I remember his other novels, which were more about science fiction ideas. Which isn’t to say this book doesn’t have ideas. It does–and very good ones.

The book bounces back between brother and sister Africans who live 150 years hence on an Earth where China, India, and Africa are the preeminent powers and North America gets one mention in the whole book. Or maybe two. They are members of a powerful and wealthy family that has made its fortune in space exploration. They are also the black sheep in that they care for elephants (brother Geoffrey) and art (sister Sunday) more than they follow the familyline pushing back the frontiers of space, and especially amassing more wealth, prestige, and power.

The action begins when the family matriarch dies. Geoffrey is bribed by his powerful smart-a** cousins to leave his elephant research and go to the moon. There, he finds a spacesuit glove in his grandmother’s safe deposit box. He visits his sister and from there each sets off on largely separate adventures to get to the bottom of some mysterious clues left by the deceased. The reader joins them for some exciting trespass into the Chinese-controlled area of the moon, the ocean floor off the coast of East Africa, Phobos (moon of Mars), the Martian surface, and eventually the Kuiper belt beyond Neptune.

It’s an interesting travelogue. Like the future solar system of Kim Stanley Robinson’s 2312, it seems to move ahead too fast in terms of technology. But like that book, it also paints an optimistic view of the future. Human beings are able to pull the planet back from the catastrophes of climate change, war, and self-destruction. And if the societies don’t seem to be “free” in the sense we know freedom, you don’t find many people living in the wreckage of the Worst Case Scenario. Maybe that’s good. Maybe not.

I wanted to like Blue Remembered Earth more than I did. At times, the characters seemed forced into moods, feelings, and even discoveries. A few surprise elements pop up–these are interesting. The surprise on Mars rescues Sunday, but doesn’t contribute to the big arc that aims the human race into the stars. And that development is telegraphed from the beginning of the novel–I just wondered how they were going to get to it.

The various adventures eventually get to Geoffrey, and by the three-quarter mark of the book, he’s a changed man. I’m still not sure why he did change, other than he was wowed more toward the end by his experiences than he was by flying to the moon and diving into the ocean depths.

The sister is interesting, but not really essential to the book. She seems like a drop-in woman character. The villains, including the cousins, seem cardboard to me. This novel could have been a one-man-show, with a good supporting cast.

Like I said: I wanted to like this book more than I did. There are two surprises at the end that wrap things up, plus a childhood experience remembered that ties up the emotional loose ends. I have a sense Mr Reynolds can write a better book. Clearly, he can handle the Big Ideas of good science fiction. I give him an A-plus for that. He can generate conflict for good characters. But this book could have been more tightly plotted. And if it had been, I think I would have really loved it.

Commonweal turns the page back eight years to five writers who presented their hopes and expectations of the papacy of Benedict XVI, just starting that Easter of 2005. What are their thoughts today, at the conclusion of this papacy? This piece from Richard Gaillardetz:

Benedict acknowledged the failings of priests and bishops regarding the sexual abuse scandal, but refused to discipline prelates who were most culpable. Few Catholics can make sense of the fact that Bishop William Morris of Tawoomba, Australia, was removed from office for calling for a prayerful reconsideration of church doctrine and discipline regarding candidates for the priesthood, while Bishop Robert Finn, convicted in a court of law for criminally neglecting to protect children by reporting a priest child abuser, remains in office without censure.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that what we have seen over this waning pontificate is a church more concerned with narrowly construed conceptions of orthodoxy and the avoidance of public scandal than a church humbly aware of its failings and its dependence on the redeeming grace of Christ.

Whatever his merits might be as a scholar of Scripture, Pope Benedict has tripped up in the realm of management. And that trip has an impact on the Gospel. Have no doubts about that.

The handling of the cases of Bishops Finn and Morris tell us: discussion and prayer on controversial issues is a pink slip offense. Conviction on a criminal charge that affects the safety of children in the Church’s care is not.

As a parent, I see this as a grave moral defect. It is, as some in the hierarchy often preach at the laity, a loss of a sense of sin. It certainly affects the places I look to for moral leadership in the Church. My wife, certainly. My peers who keep me honest in my day-to-day doings. The saints. The upper hierarchy and the pope? About as much as I look to the celebrity world of athletes, actors, and reality tv people.

For people who still do look to authority for guidance, I feel for you. We have a lot of other sources far more reliable. And if you’re looking for orthodoxy, I would cast serious doubts on the Roman bureaucracy. I certainly wouldn’t look higher than your local bishop, or in some cases, your parish pastor.

What hope do I have for the next pope? We need a pastor more than we need a theologian. We sure don’t need a curial bureaucrat, and maybe someone outside the College of Cardinals would be good. We need common sense applied to the moral and theological life of the Church–something to correct this serious listing to self-preservation and narcissism.

Universe Today has amazing video footage from many sources of the meteor’s encounter with Russia. This might convince a few doubters it’s a very good idea to track as much space stuff as we possibly can.

Archbishop Robert Carlson has decided to end the fight “to the Supreme Court” to regain control of the renegade St Stanislaus Parish in his see city. This lets stand last March’s ruling, blogged about here.

The tussle began years ago when Archbishop Raymond Burke exerted rightful episcopal authority over a parish that refused to budge. The community grew more obstinate as ecclesiastical and secular resources were put in play.

I confess that I don’t see the logic for the Church to pursue an ecclesiastical end in a secular court. They could have won this in court, but that wouldn’t likely lasso the believers back into the fold. The community would just find another place to celebrate Mass and stake their position outside the institutional Church.

St Stanislaus will now need to find a mission and focus other than fighting for its economic survival. That may be harder to do now that the archdiocese has dropped its gloves at ringside and gone home.

It’s one of the most cited “new” Scripture passages of the past generation, “Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.” The pro-life setting is a different context, somewhat, from the original. The lectionary gives a bit more. It also is in today’s Lectionary, the Thursday after Ash Wednesday:

Moses said to the people:
“Today I have set before you
life and prosperity, death and doom.
If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God,
which I enjoin on you today,
loving him, and walking in his ways,
and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees,
you will live and grow numerous,
and the LORD, your God,
will bless you in the land you are entering to occupy.
If, however, you turn away your hearts and will not listen,
but are led astray and adore and serve other gods,
I tell you now that you will certainly perish;
you will not have a long life
on the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and occupy.
I call heaven and earth today to witness against you:
I have set before you life and death,
the blessing and the curse.
Choose life, then,
that you and your descendants may live, by loving the LORD, your God,
heeding his voice, and holding fast to him.
For that will mean life for you,
a long life for you to live on the land that the LORD swore
he would give to your fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

Motivation is certainly key in the Christian life. Are we urged to avoid bad things, and live our lives in fear of trangressions? No doubt some people live that way. I can count myself as among them, especially when I was younger.

In sports, there is a principle of playing not to lose. Quite often, a team, with victory within reach, will change what has been a successful game plan in the closing seconds of a contest. And many sports fans can recount a time when their favorite team just collapsed, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

In my personal competing in games, especially chess, I can attest to the same mindset. It set me back as a chessplayer. I avoided delving into complications, for fear I would miss something. I liked the players who uncovered a small advantage and nursed it to a safe victory. I avoided early sacrifices and gambits, preferring to preserve a certain equilibrium and avoid the possibility of an early loss.

I had a fair amount of success in ten years of playing tournament chess. But I felt I left something behind, and I never achieved my goal of becoming a Master.

I think the spiritual life has similar pitfalls. I think I’ve been better off as a believer by trying to actively love God, walk the paths, keep God’s decrees, laws, and statutes–not from a sense of fear of consequences. But because I’ve known the fruits of a positive Christianity.

After seventeen years of marriage, I still befriend women. But there is no danger of getting into trouble. My wife and I enjoy an active and intentional marriage. And I make friends with people of the opposite sex, and I enjoy fruitful relationships in ministry and in other aspects of my life. Sure, it would be safe to avoid women totally, as some men, particularly celibates, do. But I feel no fear or worry.

Certainly, every person has to make judgments within her or his sphere of comfort and with self-knowledge. Sometimes avoidance is a necessary thing when we feel vulnerable.

But the sense I get from this reading is primarily that we choose life. We don’t choose not-death. There is a difference, and the difference is found partly in the quality of the life we will lead in walking with God. My sense is that we Christians shouldn’t play to avoid losing. Play to win. Live to the fullest. Expect God’s companionship to always provide the grace needed to be fruitful.

The Roman Missal, though giving us “purple” days, lists today as “Ash Wednesday” and the next three days simply as Thursday/Friday/Saturday after Ash Wednesday. Sunday is the first Sunday of Lent, and the weekdays are identified according to the Sunday they follow.

Technically speaking, we observe a prelude to forty days. Consider this: if you mess up your Lenten discipline before Sunday Mass, just consider it a practice time. Literally, a pre-season. Get up, dust yourself off (but keep the ashes), and start again.

The alternative opening prayer from MR2 says it well. We cannot expect to succeed on our own will. We beg grace.

Gracious and merciful God,
you look with love upon a sinful people
and desire only their return to you.

We beg of you the grace to live this holy season,
to persevere in prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.
By the discipline of Lent
purify our hearts of all pretension,
bring us back to you,
and make the whole Church ready
to celebrate the mysteries of Easter.

Grant this through Christ, our liberator from sin,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
holy and mighty God for ever and ever.

We beg grace of God. And Christ will liberate our hearts from the place where we pretend to be someone, something we are not.

Middle-Eastern tribal traditions get something of a pass in the Old Testament for patriarchs from Abraham to Solomon. Multiple wives, concubines, and the royal treatment do not exactly match up the Christian ideal of one man, one woman. Such were the expectations of the day, that aristocrats and the considerations of wealth and power overshadowed any sort of monogamous ideal. As I’ve read through Genesis in my daily lectio these past several months, I give thumbs down on Abraham’s attempt at an heir through Hagar. Or Jacob fathering children through concubines–for him, four was definitely not enough.

I suspect that society’s handling of child sexual abuse will continue to evolve, and we will see a future in which the 20th century will seem as quaint/weird/immoral as these aspects of Genesis strike us today. Part of that “qwi” will apply to the Church’s handling of predator clergy and the bishops who covered up their crimes. I suspect that in future generations, people will condemn bishops deep in the cover-up as Israelites might look at Ishmael and his pagan wives. As for leaders like Pope Benedict who were slow to react to the magnitude of scandal, it might be more like how we view a practice like polygamy today.

We don’t condemn Abraham, Jacob, and others for their multiple wives. But we don’t imitate them either.

As both CDF head and pope, Joseph Ratzinger won’t be condemned for not acting vigorously enough on sin within the ranks of priests and bishops. Is this right? I think so. According to the Church’s teaching on natural law, the behavior of Solomon, David, Jacob, and Abraham in taking multiple wives was sinful. Abraham was rightly worried that the promised nation of descendants would never happen. Now, we know God is powerful enough that he could raise a nation from the very grains of sand on the seashore. But our Father in faith saw the need to be proactive. Did first wives Sarah or Leah carry resentments and bitterness? If so, the male authors of the Bible do not reveal. Was their behavior wrong? We have to say it: most definitely.

Indeed, the bishops themselves are largely blind to the sinful aspects of cover-up, and how that has contributed to an erosion of the Gospel and a weakening of the voice of Christ among believers and others. And how it has damaged victims, survivors, and their allies. Like it or not, Pope Benedict has been no Tom Doyle, no SNAP, no VOTF on this.

In another hundred years, we will likely be honoring the legacy of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict in the positive accomplishments of his service to the Church. The slow pace of realizing the deep, deep sin of the bishops will have been realized. But I suspect that other heroes will be cited–not the pope embarrassed by Ireland, Belgium, Germany, Australia, the US, etc..

Is this right? I don’t know. Catholics would feel better about the papacy and the Church if it had been the pope leading the way, and not voices in the wilderness. But fallible human beings make flawed choices. Not everyone has the foresight for full clarity in this matter.