Another One Under The Bus

Archbishop John Myers has ended his public silence on the Michael Fugee affair. He makes reference to another job lost, this time in his chancery:

So, effective immediately, the vicar general, Monsignor John E. Doran, has resigned his post and will no longer hold a leadership position with the archdiocese. As a result of operational failures, both Monsignor Doran and I felt that the archdiocese would be best served by his stepping down as vicar general. This action clears the way for making more effective changes in our monitoring function. I am transferring that function to the Office of the Judicial Vicar of the Archdiocese.

This is the first time I’ve seen Msgr Doran’s name mentioned in any of the stories. It’s hard to know if the man was at fault in any of this. Did he give the inter-diocesan thumbs-up to the hospital and parish priests that had Michael Fugee on board as a minister? On the other hand, maybe leaving a chancery position is a reward for a diocese that can’t get its story straight.

Archbishop Myers prescribes more strictness, more reviewing, more advisers, more training, more reminders to pastors, more expansion of effort. But none of these were really the problem. The problem was that a man who admitted inappropriate sexual conduct was given a green light for ministry. And none of his superiors seemed to understand this is a problem.

Archbishop Myers seems to be dodging his critics. He’s certainly not addressing the big questions: Why did he approve Michael Fugee for ministry, appointing him as a hospital chaplaim? Why has the chancery’s story changed so much in response to public criticism? And given the words and spirit of the letter, why has he delegated this responsibility to others? He signed the Charter, did he not?

All presbyters, both diocesan and religious, participate in and exercise with the bishop the one priesthood of Christ and are thereby constituted prudent cooperators of the episcopal order. In the care of souls, however, the first place is held by diocesan priests who are incardinated or attached to a particular church, for they have fully dedicated themselves in the service of caring for a single portion of the Lord’s flock. In consequence, they form one presbytery and one family whose father is the bishop.

This is more than a nice metaphor from Vatican II’s Christus Dominus 28. A bishop, not his vicar general, and not his lawyers, are responsible for the formation of a family. A bishop, as father of that family, is responsible. It seems simple. Why is it so hard to get straight answers?

 

 

Two Demands

Catherine Deveney has a hard-hitting article on the Cardinal O’Brien scandal. And what’s not happening with a prince of the church, his confreres in the hierarchy, and any sense of heading to closure on the cult of secrecy.

What are those two demands? They are not the journalist’s. They seem to be the words given to us by the hierarchy:

• respect without scrutiny
• authority without accountability

From Professor Werner Jeanrond:

As a church, we have failed to come to terms with homosexuality. The highest clerical representative of the church is himself a victim of the system which didn’t allow him to own his homosexuality.

Let’s not go there. This isn’t about same-sex attraction as much as it’s about two other more critical things. First, the inability of a cardinal to keep the promises he made at the onset of his clerical career. And second, the abuse of his power to manipulate, bully, and dominate people–simply because he could.

Keith O’Brien is no victim.

O’Brien is a timebomb. Anyone who thinks this is only about his behaviour – or just the behaviour of Scottish clergy – is naive. It is about clergy worldwide. But the scandals behind at least one other Scottish bishop are legendary. Sexual “misconduct” is rife among the priesthood. Heavy drinking is common. Payoffs have been made to cover scandals. Serious abuse has been concealed. O’Brien knows where the bodies lie. And the hierarchy knows he knows.

Catholics need more from their clergy, top to bottom. Respect for the scrutiny of the laity, if not the wisdom and will to conduct scrutiny themselves. And accountability for the sins of the system.

 

Canterbury Cathedral

I was reading of the needful situation at Canterbury Cathedral. It’s not going to shut down, though. Spokesperson Christopher Robinson:

The Germans didn’t force us to close Canterbury Cathedral during the Second World War. So there’s no chance it will be closed to visitors because we need to carry out some urgent repairs.

From yesterday’s RNS piece:

In 2006, the cathedral launched a campaign to raise 50 million pounds ($76 million), which raised more than 15 million pounds ($23 million) by 2011, said Andrew Edwards, chief executive of the Canterbury Cathedral Trust.

Significant shortfall, that.

Mr Robinson suggested “a steady income of about 3 million pounds ($4.5 million) a year” would be needed, presumably to maintain the church, which doesn’t receive any support from the British government or from the Church of England.

Take it from a Catholic: don’t use the Albrecht-Tetzel plan.

 

Lincoln Still An Outlier

The 2012 annual report on the Charter is up at USCCB. Let’s consult a map:

The USCCB president:

I acknowledge with great appreciation all those who contributed time and effort to this significant achievement. At the same time, we also renew our steadfast resolution never to lessen our common commitment to protect children and young people entrusted to our pastoral care. We seek with equal determination to promote healing and reconciliation for those harmed in the past, and to assure that our audits continue to be credible and maintain accountability in our shared promise to protect and our pledge to heal.

I am happy to share this annual report with you …

Al Notzon, the chairperson of the National Review Board:

It is my understanding that all of the dioceses will be included in next year’s Audit.

That is interesting news. Apparently the new bishop in Lincoln has plans different from his predecessor.

Now, a red spot in the middle of American Catholicism might not mean much. It could be that this central bastion of “orthodoxy” has indeed found the inner purification needed to resist temptation to overpower children, teens, women, and men sexually and emotionally. It could be that Nebraska polices its own clergy and other leaders far more effectively than the whole 20th century bunch of bishops. It could be Cornhusker red bleeding through. Maybe Lincoln children are fine. Maybe.

On the other hand, orthodoxy didn’t have long and strong legs in Newark. Another Midwestern bishop, willing to go to jail for something he didn’t do, begged off the orange jumpsuit for something he did, signing away a bit of his episcopal authority in the process. One post-Charter predator evaded a pretty smart cardinal in another Midwestern diocese. Another skipped the country while his bishop took the weekend off to ponder what to do. And another prominent, and fortunately dead cardinal was thrown under the bus back East when a priest was sent to jail for misdeeds. By the lawyers his very own archdiocese had on the payroll.

Unfortunately for Nebraska parents, they can’t really be sure. A lying edifice wrapping itself in the mantle of innocence and the limit of episcopal power pretty much looks the same as a vigilant community in compliance. Except when the scandal breaks. Then you might find more money laid out for offenders than directly for victim therapy. And you might find a lot more money laid out for lawyers and settlements.

The timing of the Audit report–this could be unfortunate. Those nice preface letters were penned before the Newark chancery went into meltdown and still can’t get its story straight. Newark is in “compliance.” And yet its leadership blundered badly enough to send heads rolling and to call for an archbishop to step down. Archbishop Dolan “assures” us this and other “audits” are credible. He is “happy” to share them.

But the fact is that Catholics are less concerned about clergy these days than their bishops. What are they hiding? Why are they lying? And for those not caught in lies, is it because they are really being truthful with us? Or is it because we haven’t caught them yet?

 

What A Difference A Week Makes

What is the truth?

Regarding the legal and professional agreement of the service of Michael Fugee, the official position of the Archdiocese of Newark, as of 28 April 2013:

(Archdiocesan spokesperson Jim) Goodness denied the agreement had been breached, saying the archdiocese has interpreted the document to mean Fugee could work with minors as long as he is under the supervision of priests or lay ministers who have knowledge of his past and of the conditions in the agreement.

The quoted words of the spokesperson:

We believe that the archdiocese and Father Fugee have adhered to the stipulations in all of his activities, and will continue to do so.

Another direct quote:

To make the assumption that lay people in authority or priests who know and are friendly with Father Fugee would be less professional or diligent in terms of ensuring the safety of the children they serve seems like an outright attack on the integrity of these individuals.

And the result? Trenton bishop David O’Connell:

The work of the youth ministers at St Mary’s Parish in Colts Neck has been terminated and Father Ton Triggs has offered his resignation as pastor to me this morning in a meeting I had with him at the parish. I have accepted his resignation, effective immediately, and have given Tom a sabbatical.

The official statement of the Archdiocese of Newark, as of 3 May 2013:

Neither Archbishop Myers nor others in the leadership of the Archdiocese gave Fr. Fugee permission to work in any ministry other than those ministries that were physically located within the Archdiocesan Center.  He did not seek, nor would he have been granted, permission to engage in activities involving minors either through the Archdiocese or at any other diocese in the state.  He failed to follow established procedures and protocols in place among all of the dioceses in the state designed to prevent unauthorized ministries.

So which is it? Are chancery paper-pushers and muckety mucks scrambling to make sure they don’t follow three St Mary’s staff members down the drain?

Clearly, the supervision wasn’t so close or careful, as the Newark office has done a total one-eighty on this, leaving Bill Donohue twisting in the wind. Maybe they just didn’t know. Or maybe they underestimated the effects of a combination of investigative journalism and parental outrage.

I’ll tell you: I have enough parental issues with my former bishop and my daughter’s former favorite priest. I’ve seen the damage done to the teenager I love the most in the world. No parent wants to see their child go through that sort of disillusionment.

I thank God for a good Confirmation process in my parish, for the thoughtful programming, and the outstanding sponsor the young miss chose. We had a few obstacles to overcome just getting her on the first retreat. I certainly wasn’t in a position to insist she get confirmed. And my wife and I didn’t exactly see eye to eye on it, either.

You readers will pardon (I hope) my own struggle with these continuing issues with bishops. As long as this bone-headedness continues, I will continue to harp on them and their antigospel antics. These are good men, I am sure. Good men who, in the attempt to do good, have done grave harm to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the kerygmatic and sacramental ministries that power his Church.

Archbishop Myers needs to ‘fess up fully. Tell the whole truth. Be an example of contrition and personal honesty. Be a man about it. Resist every urge to blame someone else for these troubles. Realize that three people outside of his diocese have lost their jobs over this lapse in moral judgment. Check his own conscience about that, and the pay check he draws and the pension he will draw as a member of the clergy. Resign or not–I really don’t care. But it’s time to man up.

Tell us all the truth.

 

Consequences

The Fugee fallout in the Trenton diocese hits a parish. And I offer these illustrative points of comparison:

1. Two lay people who were friends of Michael Fugee and who engaged his participation on a youth retreat: fired.
2. Pastor who employed the two youth ministers: sabbatical. (see link above)
3. Bishop who let admitted sex offender loose without much apparent supervision: the Donohue Defense.
4. Cardinal who admitted his role in a scandal of sex and power: exiled.

Granted, not everything has shaken out to a final result. But if you’re keeping score, it’s an interesting card to consider.

On the lay employees’ part, a pretty bone-headed move to be allowing such a priest contact with teens. On the other hand, they didn’t seem to be any less guilty than Archbishop John Myers. So maybe I’ll change my tune regarding his resignation. To be fair, it would seem that the Newark archbishop should be defrocked and laicized. That would about even it up, possibly. And as far as the investment in his education, the Church can wash its hands and say we’ve gotten our money’s worth, eh?

Comments on this one?

 

More Myers and Fugee

Interesting developments in New Jersey. RNS recounts it as Fugee out, Myers still in.

The full piece is in NJ.com:

The Rev. Michael Fugee, who attended youth retreats and heard confessions from minors in defiance of a lifetime ban on such behavior, submitted his request to leave ministry this afternoon, said the spokesman, Jim Goodness. Myers promptly accepted the resignation, Goodness said.

Mr Goodness also conceded:

He engaged in activities that the archdiocese was not aware of and that were not approved by us, and we would never have approved them because they are all in conflict with the memorandum of understanding.

Bill Donohue might consider that “all” of Michael Fugee’s activities were “in conflict.” That’s all of them.

It’s not going to be enough for this priest’s resignation to satisfy. Archbishop Myers, regardless of how Mr Donohue spins the situation, failed in his moral duty to protect innocent persons from very real harm that a sex addict can deliver–a person who concedes one of the main features of an addict’s manifesto, “I am above the rules.”

Did the archdiocese and its bishop know? We don’t know that. If John Myers knew, he owes his flock and the rest of the Church a public confession and apology. Anything less will taint his ministry for a few more years. It will also heap a bit more suspicion on his brother bishops, as Michael Fugee’s antics have stained his diocese. There is no escape from this. None.

There is a reason why sex predators must be dealt with strongly. And I’m sure that from within the clerical subculture, it seems harsh.

Mark Crawford of SNAP:

Father Fugee should have been fired and removed from ministry by Archbishop Myers years ago, not simply allowed to resign today.

This is right. Michael Fugee, despite his past crimes and sins, showed a measure of self-sacrifice by giving up a ministry that I presume was meaningful to him.

More from Mr Crawford:

If the Archbishop went to such great lengths to protect Father Fugee, then it’s likely he may be protecting others. He has failed to be transparent, open and honest, and for that Archbishop Myers must step down.

The archbishop may well be gravely co-dependent. By this I mean he may possess a personality that aligns with addicts in his life–family, friends, clergy, whomever. His resistance is suspect. He may have been seriously groomed by his clergy, and he may well be unaware of it. Abusers will groom allies to help and support them in their efforts to prey on victims. This grooming is no less serious than the grooming of victims, and becomes part of the addict’s defense. Consider the way the story from the archdiocese has shifted over the past few days. On Monday, Michael Fugee was being properly supervised on those youth events. And now those same implied activities are “not approved.” This is part of the shifting ground of truth and lie that addicts and their co-dependents weave when they are confronted by the truth.

Must Archbishop Myers step down? He remains the best man to respond to that.

If he is a co-dependent or if he is at all unsure, one possible route would be to get into Al-Anon or CoDA and do two things. Acquaint himself with the world of addiction and how insidious its tentacles can be. Check his experience with people he can trust: other recovering individuals who have enabled the pathological behavior of addicts in their lives. Only the archbishop can settle that matter.

My own sense is that for the good of the Catholic Church in Newark, the best course may well be to step down. But if he’s got a better idea, let him go for it. I do know that continued silence and stonewalling is not going to help anyone. It certainly will not further the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the counties of Essex, Union, Hudson and Bergen.

 

Liberal? Looks Like Narcissism To Me

I saw this piece on Father Roberto Francisco Daniel (Padre Beto) posted at UCA News. The original is from Yahoo News.

This caught my attention:

In one of the recent videos he posted on YouTube.com and his own Website, the priest said a married person who chose to have an affair, heterosexual or otherwise, would not be unfaithful as long as that person’s spouse allowed it. “If someone is in an extramarital relationship and that relationship is accepted by the spouse, then faithfulness still exists there,” he said.

This doesn’t strike me as a liberal view, particularly. So I have an objection to the Yahoo headline. Frankly, there are a lot of human beings out there, including many conservatives, who yearn for freedom from duty and responsibility. And lots of conservative spouses who, for various unhealthy and codependent reasons, are willing to grant something I’m not sure is theirs to grant. Marriages aren’t just for the two individuals who splice together for the appearance of a couple. Duties and responsibilities are part of the big picture.

Padre Beto’s bishop (Caetano Ferrari)

… gave Daniel a letter asking him to take the videos offline and publicly retract his statements. In an interview posted on the diocese Web site shortly afterward, Ferrari called Daniel “brilliant,” but characterized him as a “rebel son” who “crosses the line.”

This isn’t brilliance. This is sham intellectualism masquerading with empty promises of freedom. It’s not necessarily liberal, either. See conservative luminaries such as Mark Sanford or Arnold Schwarzenegger or John Corapi for others who seem to think that rules are made for others, and not them.

Whether or not this dude deserves to be excommunicated for narcissism, I’m not sure. I don’t have much interest in the canonical details of the case. This celibate priest, like many of his brothers on Holy Orders, doesn’t seem to have any sort of bead on what marriage is. So he could just stay the hell away from stuff he doesn’t understand. Padre Beto’s statement doesn’t give confidence:

I feel honored to belong to the long list of people who have been murdered and burned alive for thinking and searching for knowledge.

Sheesh.

A few things.

He wasn’t murdered.

He wasn’t burned alive.

So he’s not on those lists.

But he is on the long list of people who think more highly of themselves than others. For his followers, this advice: watch this man carefully. Ask and test if he really has the authentic interests of others–especially the needy and the persecuted–ahead of his own.

Meanwhile, Padre Beto is just out of a job. And momentarily, hopefully, in the outer courtyard of the house of the Lord.

 

Two More Weeks

June 21st will be the start of another run on freedom. It will be the start of the Fortnight For Freedom, 2013 edition.

During the Fortnight, our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power—St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the First Martyrs of the Church of Rome, St. John Fisher, and St. Thomas More. Through prayer, study, and peaceful public action during the Fortnight for Freedom, we hope to remind ourselves and others all throughout the United States about the importance of preserving the fundamental right of religious freedom.

Religious freedom is indeed endangered in many places on the planet, though probably not the United States so much. The USCCB seems to believe that financial entitlements are part of a so-called freedom. I’m a skeptic on much, but not all of this. The institutional church itself has not had a lily white record on religious freedom. Women, including women religious, have been targets of bishops and clergy and even the laity who misunderstood or just simply opposed their service to the Church and the world.

I was heartened to learn that the “Nuns” are gassing up the “Bus” again. And this year, they’re inviting the bishops to hang with them, at least at the bus stops.

Many U.S. bishops also opposed Network’s lobbying on behalf of Obama’s health care reform plan, while others did not look kindly on Campbell’s social justice views and her activism during the presidential campaign.

But Campbell said Wednesday that she and the American bishops are on the same page on immigration reform, and she has invited them to join her group at stops along the way later this month and in June. “They don’t have to ride on the bus,” she said. “They can come stand with us at the events.”

I like that.

Starting June 21st, we’ll join in the chorus for both freedom and our sisters in faith. I’ll do another Two Weeks of Worthy Women, and I’d like to invite interested readers to write up some favorites from history. Last year, we walked with these worthies: Maude Petre, Teresa of Avila, Mary MacKillop, Marie-Anne Blondin, Thea Bowman, Jeanne d’Arc, Juana Inés de la Cruz, Hildegard of Bingen, Mother Théodore Guérin, Anne-Marie Javouhey, Louise (Mother St Andrew) Feltin, Gertrude of Helfta, Mary Ward, and Marguerite Porete. I’d like to go with fourteen different women. I’d like to find women who have experienced harassment from religious institutions, not necessarily Catholic. Nobody living. Guest writers welcome. And your suggestions to give us fourteen worthy reads starting fifty-one days from today.

 

Letter From Newtown

My archdiocese sent out a letter from Msgr Robert Weiss, the Catholic pastor of Newtown, Connecticut. I’m sure there are readers out there who assisted in some material or spiritual way in the aftermath of that horrific day. If so, this one’s for you:

On behalf of our community and parish, we extend our gratitude to each of you who remembered us in prayer following the events of December 14, 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

We quickly realized the universality of the Church by the outpouring of support and concern that was shown to us by so many in our faith communities. The cards and letters from staff and students in Catholic elementary schools, high schools, colleges and universities reminded us of the faith to which we are called to witness through the tradition of Catholic education.

No less important were the number of cards from parish religious education programs, especially the sacramental programs. We were also contacted by many Catholic organizations and groups on both the local and national levels. The list of parishes, Catholic based groups and dioceses who contacted us is an overwhelming one.

We are also very appreciative of the number of donations sent to us to assist our parish in our continuing ministry to the community, to help pay the expenses of the victims’ funerals, to support counseling programs, to provide direct aid to the families and so on. Your generosity reminded us that we are not alone during this very sad and challenging time.

We also want to thank our brother priests, deacons and religious sisters and brothers for their letters of support and encouragement. Spiritual bouquets, Mass cards, hours of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament and remembrances by many prayer groups have lifted our spirits knowing that our intentions are ever before the Lord. We also received a number of rosaries, prayer shawls, religious works of art, memorial vestments, reliquaries, books focusing on grief and healing, original and recorded religious CD’s and a variety of poems, spiritual reflections and meditations to help guide us in providing comfort and support.

While we tried to acknowledge every letter and gift sent to us, it became an overwhelming task, so please accept this letter as a thank you to every person who remembered us in prayer during the days immediately following the tragedy to these days of recovery and healing. We know that the road ahead of us will be a long one, but we are given great hope by the outpouring of generosity and love shown to us. We are truly blessed by your many acts of faith and kindness. Please know that you continue to be in our prayers of gratitude for the goodness you have demonstrated to us in so many ways.

God bless,

Monsignor Robert Weiss

Pastor, Saint Rose of Lima Parish
Newtown, Connecticut

 

Bishop Arthur O’Neill

I see one of my bishops has died.

My recollection of him was his endorsement and participation in the North American Forum’s 1989 Beginnings and Beyond Institute in the Rockford Diocese. He stood next to me in the choir. He was on the end of the bass section, and I at the end of the tenors. I didn’t realize he was my bishop until the end of choir practice. He was friendly during the pauses in the music, but diligent in being part of the music ministry.

He was also supportive of the implementation of the RCIA, evidenced by his attendance at this conference.

I nod with approval he was ordained to the episcopacy from among the clergy of his own diocese, a practice that should be returned to Roman Catholicism.

 

Magic Spell

The hand-wringing over Pope Francis and the (lack of) media criticism seems to be building. I find it all a number two attraction to the Catholic conservative spinning over other aspects of his ministry.

Sandro Magister headlines the phenomenon as a magic spell. After a first reference, he’s dismissed the attempts to tweet-abbreviate the man into something like FSJ. Mr Magister often chooses to wax poetic on “Pope Bergoglio.” Not even a PJMB. Certainly not a Pope Ratzinger.

Carl Olson wrings a little tighter:

Pope  Francis has repeatedly, in a very short period of time, made strong statements that would have likely been met with agitation, consternation, or outright indignation if uttered by his predecessor—especially if they had been uttered, say, in the spring and summer of 2005.

I wonder why that is.

I suspect that there are several reasons. First, people like Mother Teresa, despite having views unaligned with the cultural current like care for the needy rather than fleecing them, or saving children rather than aborting them, exude a certain quality about them that is perceived as saintly. Or people still want to believe there are saints. Sometimes, like Legionaires founder Maciel, they come with lots of money and even a pope can be duped.

Second, I think there are true hopes for reform. We had them before the conclave. And rather than watch institutional Catholicism continue to drive itself off a cliff, maybe some observers, even a few non-Catholic ones, would prefer to see the tables turned (so to speak). As for the corporate media, if we’re looking for a grizzly crash to sell product, maybe the prospect of eviscerating the Vatican Bank or a few more cardinals was in the air.

As for the Catholic media, I think there are many of them who stand with many of us. We look for a leader. Not a manager. I think about the pastors for whom I’ve worked. There have been two or three guys who were more aligned with me on liturgical reform, but their leadership was less than inspiring because I didn’t get a glimpse of a bigger picture. And there have been one or two guys who were definitely on the conservative end of things. But these men had a plan and a vision for parish life. I might not have agreed with it, or more likely quibbled over small details of it, but I was willing to work with it. Because of a quality called trust. And trust is deepened with a certain context. Even a context for which some of us don’t have a long history.

So I understand when Mr Olson, who I think favors something of a law-n-order church, has a problem when his hero is villified and someone else’s hero is given a pass:

Benedict, of course, was quite another matter, for he was already well known, having been in the Vatican for decades prior to his election and his many works available in English translations.

No other pope was as well known heading into his ministry than Pope Benedict.

The perception of Benedict as reactionary, old-fashioned, aloof, arrogant, and harsh was completely unfair, but it had been set in stone years prior, during his time as head of the CDF, a job that can only be viewed with suspicion and even hatred by those keen on undermining Church authority and doctrine.

Being CDF head is, by nature, a thankless job. Or it might be that the leader of such an office is indeed “reactionary, old-fashioned, aloof, arrogant, and harsh.” We could ask any number of theologians. We could even ask the ones who didn’t get to the CDF, but who seem to be misunderstood by today’s bench of bishops. People get mistreated, and there is the perception of mistreatment. It is a human indulgence that we want to see the tables turned on self-important leadership. It’s why moral conservatives are targets when their own moral failings undo them.

It’s also part of the truth of Luke 15. When the wayward, sinful son comes home, tail between legs, it is news that the young man wants to reform. Some Catholic conservatives are the incarnation of the elder brother on the porch, refusing to enter the house. Where is our reward, they ask, for being loyal and good all these years? Why does he get all the attention? And the fatted calf.

In almost hilarious fashion, nearly everything done by Benedict was immediately judged as guilty until proven innocent, yet with innocence not being an option for a substantial number of pundits and journalists, who were either petty, superficial, or clueless in their coverage of his pontificate. (And then there was Hans Küng, who doesn’t even have the excuse of being a journalist!)

Well, Hans Küng was one of B16′s first dinner guests. There’s something to be said for that.

It might be that Pope Francis will come up with a few theological and moral howlers in the months and years to come. But I think the Magisters and Olsons of the Catholic Press will still be frustrated. I think there are very good reasons for the frustration and why theirs will always be greater than mine.

First, I think the faith, and the Roman Catholic presentation of it, has no need of defense or apology. I think it must be presented honestly, joyfully, and with optimism. People are protected and defended. Faith is preached. My sense is that Pope Francis gets this essential point. And even non-believers can perceive the respect for the human person above repsect for, however worthy, an institutional thing.

Second, I think that most people are not looking for law-n-order. Except when a true and clear offender is on the docket. Catholics have been harried by any number of bishops appointed over the past thirty-five years who wrapped themselves in the mantle of virtue, but have turned out to be as flawed as anyone else. And sometimes criminally so. Were conservatives not looking for a pope to lay down the law? So are bishops appointed by Rome, not Rome’s responsibility? No lay person I know was consulted to form the terna for Kansas City.

Third, I think the key to not getting caught up in Big Church Politics is to keep it in perspective. As a baptized believer, I have life priorities. I try to pray every day. I have a spiritual director. I celebrate the sacraments of the Church. I try to get away for retreat when I need it. I have a lived grounding in the sacrament of Marriage, and so have duties and responsibilities for a wife and daughter. It’s very unlikely I will be investigated by the CDF, or appointed to some position as a lay consultant in the curia, or will be earning a pontifical degree in anything. My life of faith is little affected by what a pope, bishop, or curia thinks and does.

But I will admit I’ve enjoyed scanning the internet for the words of Pope Francis, before and after election. Putting a spring in my step is more a result of praying, or fostering relationships with my loved ones, or being in good physical health than it is with winning some victory over an ideological adversary, real or imagined. An occasional word from the pope can help. But if I don’t get it from him, I will likely turn to another person, probably a saint. And then it will still be on me to make something of the day. This is the day, after all, that God made for us.

 

Interdict?

So … when the Vatican says it won’t ordain any bishops for a country until an investigation is complete, is it something like an “episcopal interdict?” Cardinal Marc Ouellet, head of the Congregation for Bishops, has communicated his office will not fill three vacancies in Scotland dioceses. And despite Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s sensational resignation on conclave eve, the investigation continues. Cardinal Ouellet’s office “also wants evidence on the allegations of a ‘gay mafia’, sexual bullying and open sexual relationships in seminaries made in a recent book by a serving priest in Lanarkshire, Father Matthew Despard.”

This could get interesting.

I still think there should be a more explicit connection between the faith witness of an archdiocese or diocese and its status as a red hat see. A scandal-ridden bishop taints his diocese. There should not be red hats for Boston, Philadelphia, or Edinburgh. Or any other archdiocese touched by serious cover-up of criminal clergy. At least not for another round or two of appointments. Additionally, the premiere see of a region should shift to another city. Keep an archbishop  in Philadelphia, for example, by all means, because of its size and standing. But the metropolitan should be in Pittsburgh or Hartford of elsewhere.

Even if Pope Francis doesn’t take my suggestion and shake up the hierarchy, it does look good that Rome is getting serious about the cover-up of sex abuse. We’ll see how this plays out in places like Newark.

 

“Unblocked”

Interesting choice of words, for a mainstream Catholic outlet like CNS:

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family and the official promoter of the sainthood cause of the late Archbishop Oscar Romero of San Salvador, said the process to beatify and eventually canonize the slain Salvadoran archbishop has been unblocked.

Good.

My own archdiocese has its martyr, too: Father Ray Herman. Go here to learn about his heroic witness for the Gospel. He still inspires people today. He was at my parish sixty years ago as an Iowa State student.

 

More on LCWR/CDF

I was pondering another post on the LCWR-CDF dust-up. Honestly, I didn’t think there was anything more to say about it. It seems to be in the hands of the bishops and the sisters. I think the bishops are in trouble, in the sense that they have much more to lose in this tussle. The LCWR, as a particular entity may well dissolve. But there’s nothing to prevent American sisters from calling conferences, maintaining collaboration, and starting a different organization to accomplish the same ends. Women religious will still serve people in parishes, schools, hospitals, and all the other outposts they did yesterday and today.

Today’s NCRep editorial gives a good lead-in:

“A church that does not go out of itself, sooner or later, sickens from the stale air of closed rooms,” Pope Francis has written in a letter released Thursday to his fellow Argentine bishops. This is a similar message to the one he delivered to his fellow cardinals before the conclave, impressing them enough to elect him bishop of Rome

In his new note he went on to say in the process of “going out” the church always risks running into “accidents,” adding, “I prefer a thousand times over a church of accidents than a sick church.”

A church of accidents … a church willing to take risks on the edges … a church dedicated to service of the most needy … a church working on behalf of mercy, peace and justice…

This sounds a lot like the church U.S. Catholic sisters have been building in recent decades. Not only U.S. women religious, but also women religious around the world have been at this work. It is the women who have lived closest to the marginalized; it is the women who have worked on the “peripheries;” it is the women who have gone precisely where Francis is encouraging others to go.

I think this is right. Whatever Pope Francis intended with the encouragement of the CDF to move forward against the LCWR, it seems clear he’s describing the attitude and approach of American sisters. Does he know it? Doesn’t matter. And that’s suggesting that “accidents,” however we arrived at that interesting term, are something that needs correction. In the case of the LCWR, I’m not sure that’s always the case. Even giving the CDF the benefit of the doubt, it doesn’t look to me like the pope is on the same page as they. Pope Francis sounds willing to risk accidents if the main mission of the Gospel is accomplished.

Most every woman religious I know has her eyes on the target and heart deep into ministry. Are some of them ignorant, misinformed, blundering, flawed, sinful, or harboring heretical beliefs? Sure. But that point means nothing, because you can say the same thing about bishops, priests, lay people, this parish or that parish, this community or that, this committee or that, and it would still be right.

The investigation’s problem has come to a difficult spot for the institution.

The sisters could just walk away. And nobody could stop them.

Archbishop Sartain was either the willing volunteer or the sucker for this task. He would seem to have motivation for the project to arrive at a successful conclusion. If he pushes the sisters too hard, they will walk anbd he will have failed in his first big assignment as an archbishop.

As I understand it, the LCWR was established to facilitate communiation between sisters and with the institutional Church. Women religious don’t seem to think the church is listening. So they lose nothing by walking away. And there is nothing to prevent them from maintaining communication among whoever want to organize under a new umbrella.

I also think we’re seeing a new administration in Rome that is concerned about looking out, not looking in. Pope Francis can tell the parties, “Stop fighting. Settle this, and get on with your work.” And what do you think the parties would do?

One way or another, this standoff is history.