Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 04/11/2010 5:39:31 AM PDT by marshmallow
| The following piece was written by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., founder and editor of Ignatius Press, in response to the breaking story about a 1985 letter written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to Bishop John S. Cummins of Oakland.
The so-called "stalled pedophile case", blame for which has been laid at the feet of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, had nothing to do with pedophilia and everything to do with strengthening marriage and the priesthood.
Here's what was happening in 1981 when Bishop Cummins of Oakland first wrote the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking that one of the priests from his diocese of Oakland, be dispensed from his promise of celibacy.
Well first, what was not happening. The letter came a week before Cardinal Ratzinger had even assumed his duties as Prefect of that congregation. This is a very important office of the Roman curia. It handles a variety of cases worldwide, mostly having to do with defending and promoting doctrinal integrity in the Church. There's a lot of work to do, and it takes time for someone to become fully engaged in its activities.
But much more pertinently here: By 1980 the effects of the sexual revolution on marriage and the priesthood had been devastating. In 1965 there had been 59 marriage annulments granted by Rome to American couples. By 2002, there were over 50,000 annulments per year in the U.S. alone. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of priests were asking for dispensation from their promise of celibacy in order to be able to marry.
The Catholic Church holds the marriage vows to be indissoluble. Even an annulment, contrary to a widespread misconception, does not dissolve those vows. It is a declaration that because of some impediment, there never was a valid marriage in the first place.
Priestly ordination is also "indissoluble", in the sense that a validly ordained priest never ceases to be a priest.
And here's the rub. It was literally scandalous in the Church that priests, who had been prepared for eight to ten years for their ordination (which would be permanent, irreversible) and their promise of celibacy (which also has the character of a solemn promise before God), were, in the 1970s, being so easily dispensed from their promise of celibacy.
Married Catholics said to themselves: If a priest, who is so well prepared for his commitment, can so easily be dispensed from it so that he can marry, why can't we be dispensed from our commitment so that we can remarry?
When John Paul II was elevated to the papacy in the Fall of 1978, he immediately changed the policy on priestly dispensations. I don't have the exact dates and numbers at hand, but I remember at the time that many of us were amazed that the hundreds of dispensations per year (and it may have been thousands) under John Paul II's predecessor, Paul VI, suddenly were reduced to almost zero. It was almost impossible to get a dispensation in 1980.
What was John Paul's intent? To restore the integrity of the priesthood and of marriage. These commitments are permanent. A priest may be removed from ministry, but he will not be given a dispensation to marry. Priests are to be made to take their commitments with utmost seriousness. They will be an example to married couples to take theirs seriously also. When a priest makes a promise of celibacy, it's forever; when a couple make vows of marriage, it's forever.
This is the decisive context of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to Bishop Cummins. It is not a smoking gun. It did not mean that Ratzinger was not taking the priest's sins seriously. (He called the accusations "very serious" [gravis momenti].) It meant that he, following the policy of John Paul II, was taking the priesthood and its commitments very seriously.
And again, this entire affair had nothing to do with preventing further abuse by this priest. That had already been done, or should have been done, by the local bishop.
A final, minor but significant point of translation. The translation being used by the media of an important part of Ratzinger's letter is: "your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible". This has been rightly interpreted by some to mean that Ratzinger was saying that the bishop should keep a watchful eye on the priest. The original Latin makes that even clearer: "paterna...cura sequi" which means "to follow with paternal care". We get the word "persecute" from the Latin "per-sequi". "Sequi" is much stronger then "provide".
There is a completely mistaken first premise underlying all this criticism.The premise is that "defrocking" has anything to do with protecting victims and preventing further abuse.
First, the media needs to know that according to Catholic teaching, Holy Orders is a sacrament which leaves an "indelible mark"; in layman's terms, once ordained a priest, a man is always a priest. The reason the word "dispensation" is used in the correspondence is that that is what happens technically: the priest is dispensed from his obligation of celibacy. In a sense, this works in the opposite direction from protection: a restraint is being removed.
Further, as if to prove this point, the priest in question continued to abuse children after he was "defrocked" and had married. QED.
Secondly, nothing at all prevents a bishop from: removing a priest from all ministry; removing his faculties; reporting him to civil authorities. There is no need even to inform Rome about this. The only way (until 2001 or in cases of abuse of Confession) that it need get to Rome is if the priest appeals the bishop's actions.
Thirdly, why was the CDF involved anyway? That was not the congregation that handles abuse cases, except where abuse of Confession has played a role. I believe the CDF was involved in cases of dispensation from celibacy. (Though you would think that should be under the Congregation for Priests.) But, again, dispensation has nothing to do with preventing further abuse. It may appease the sense of justice on the part of victims. But at the same time, It normally takes eight to ten years to become a priest. It's not a club one joins. It is a very serious thing to dispense a priest from celibacy, and there needs to be a careful process to protect innocent priests.
Fourthly, there are definitely cased of priests who have been falsely accused. Especially the American media ought to be sensitive to the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Civil law requires that to be done in a court of law. A bishop can, and in many cases, should take action against a priest before there is any canonical trial.
Finally, let's compare this to the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. Criminal trials can be expedited, but even then in all but the most grievous cases, a criminal defendant is a free man until convicted. In the case of priests, the "punishment" of removal from ministry can be applied immediately by a bishop even before there is any canonical trial, which is like a civil trial. How long do civil trials take in this country. I know of trials that have dragged out for more than seven years.
If Ratzinger took part in "stall[ing]" a "pedophile case", the worst one can say is that he wanted care taken in a canonical trial. And, let's not forget, this wasn't "punishment" at all from the priest's point of view. He had "asked" to be dispensed.
No one is interested in truth. They seem to just be interested in spouting their pre-formed opinions. sarc/off
Thanks for posting. Pray for our priests. Pray for our Bisops. Pray for our Pope.
ping
I know of one priest who was allowed to leave and get married. He was the priest at my best friends wedding, and now works construction in St. Louis.
He still is Catholic, as far as I know.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
“There is a completely mistaken first premise underlying all this criticism.The premise is that “defrocking” has anything to do with protecting victims and preventing further abuse.”
More accurately, the premise is that LACK OF “defrocking” sends the message that the behavior is consistent with the priesthood; else the person would no longer be a priest.
To claim that keeping a sex abuser as a priest- even when he wants to be removed- for the sake of upholding vows- which one can only assume were violated by his crimes- is the reddest of herrings.
I’m not on the ‘single out Ratzinger’ bandwagon. Indeed, I think the evidence more clearly shows a corporate culture of willful ignorance and reticence to address known problems. And from my point of view, the more Rome tries to dance around their complicity, the more it appears that the culture continues to this day.
The first step is for Rome to admit they have a problem that they can’t control. There are eleven others, including making amends to people that have been hurt by their actions/inactions.
Every time someone points an accusatory finger at the hierarchy of the church, it is not necessarily the hand of Satan. Most of the New Testament was written to correct error. If the church herself refuses to correct or accept such correction, she cannot complain if the job is performed by secular powers.
In short, quit equivocating, accept responsibility, correct the error and above all STOP WHINING!
Will Wallace
Source: John Jay Report.
Does that look like a problem that is "continuing" or "out of control"??
Those are the figures for the US, BTW.
So why try to condemn one particular religion based on your own prejudice of that religion, when the answers to the individual problem was the purview of the local bishop and not a papal issue at all (if you actually read the whole essay, you would have understood that.).
“Those are the figures for the US, BTW.”
Odd, I thought the idea of ‘catholic’ was ‘universal’. What’s that chart look like for Africa, Europe, Mexico, Central and South America, etc, etc, etc...
That America may be ahead of the curve doesn’t mean the curve no longer exists. That American jurisprudence might be more supportive of victims, doesn’t mean victims don’t exist in areas where culturally, legally and practically it is more difficult (in some cases impossible) for victims to come forward.
For this chart to be presented as evidence that the problem is solved reinforces the concerns of a ‘circle the wagons’ mentality that DOES “look like a problem that is ‘continuing’ or ‘out of control’”.
If the church has the US problem under control, while still trying to pretend it wasn’t as serious as it was, then she should refrain from self-congratulatory back slaps and get on with ferreting out the problem in the rest of the world.
I’ll agree with Catholics on one point; priestly celibacy isn’t the problem. It’s the vile perverse manner in which these criminals posing as priests violated their vows of celibacy that are the problem. And I for one cannot understand why, other than to protect financial assets, and perhaps a distorted if not criminal ‘good old boys’ network, the church would try to cover for these criminals unless they had some idea of how widespread the problem really is, and no stomach for the moral and fiscal responsibility they face worldwide.
Thanks for inadvertently making my point.
Will Wallace
in the tri state area, I live in over the past 10 years or so there have been multiple cases of Rabbis and Muslim clerics who were arrested and convicted of Pedophilia. No one tried to change the policy of these religion.
So why try to condemn one particular religion based on your own prejudice of that religion, when the answers to the individual problem was the purview of the local bishop and not a papal issue at all (if you actually read the whole essay, you would have understood that.).
first- I read the whole essay
second- what policy, other than harboring perverts am I suggesting be changed?
third- I’m not condemning a religion, just an apparent refusal to deal with a a nasty problem
fourth- i made no arguments concerning it being a papal issue- just the opposite- if you had read my entire reply you would have understood that.
fifth- I’ve never argued against priestly celibacy. my arguments are specifically against priests who REFUSE in a most perverse way to remain celibate and a hierarchy that seems to turn a blind eye to it
sixth- I’ve shown no prejudice against the catholic church in this argument-I’ve shown prejudice against perverts and those who harbor them- certainly it’s not your view that I’ve identified Rome with that definition- is it?
If priests were celibate, you wouldn’t be in the position of defending the indefensible now.
Will Wallace
If being anti-sex abuser makes me a de-facto anti-Catholic, then count me as both.
sounds like a contradiction to me???
anyway what should happen is that when these miscreants are caught they need stiff jail time where they will become brides to big guys name bubba....it is not a church issue after the fact but a criminal case (or should be)
You post is ridiculously way off.
“More accurately, the premise is that LACK OF “defrocking” sends the message that the behavior is consistent with the priesthood; else the person would no longer be a priest.”
There is no LACK of “defrocking. As far as I know all the episcopal requests for “defrocking” were granted. All of them. How is that a lack?
“And from my point of view, the more Rome tries to dance around their complicity, the more it appears that the culture continues to this day.”
Appearances do not always represent the truth - and in this case that is particularly true.
“The first step is for Rome to admit they have a problem that they can’t control. There are eleven others, including making amends to people that have been hurt by their actions/inactions.”
The twelve steps fo dealing with addiction have NOTHING to do with the Church’s handling of ephebophiles committing crimes against minors. Also, last time I checked, the Vatican is getting this problem under control - hence the changes in 2001 already.
“Every time someone points an accusatory finger at the hierarchy of the church, it is not necessarily the hand of Satan.”
It is when it is motivated by hatred, lies or just plain foolishness. When the press lies about a case - and apparently does so with knowledge of what they’re doing - I have a hard time thinking it isn’t Satan involved there somewhere.
“If the church herself refuses to correct or accept such correction, she cannot complain if the job is performed by secular powers.”
You think secular powers are trying to correct the Church? Youmust be joking. They’re trying to destroy the Church. Secular powers CANNOT correct a spiritual body. They don’t know how. They’re powers are often anathema (pun intended) to the rights and needs of the spiritual body.
“In short, quit equivocating, accept responsibility, correct the error and above all STOP WHINING!”
In short, we aren’t equivicating but telling the FULL truth, we accept responsibility but won’t accept it for things we didn’t do, the error was already corrected years ago and is ongoing and we aren’t whining. Only the liberals attacking the church - and their confederates here at FR and other places - are whining.
I said
I’ve shown no prejudice against the catholic church in this argument
and also
If being anti-sex abuser makes me a de-facto anti-Catholic, then count me as both.
You said, in response:
sounds like a contradiction to me???
anyway what should happen is that when these miscreants are caught they need stiff jail time where they will become brides to big guys name bubba....it is not a church issue after the fact but a criminal case (or should be)
Now, my response is:
The only way for those two statements to be contradictory would be IF being anti-sex abuser made me a de-fact anti-Catholic.
My guess is you would not agree that being anti-sex abuser would in fact make me such.
But- it’s your call. :)
I would disagree with you on one point. After the fact it is BOTH a church issue and a criminal one.
The original problem is that the church tended to treat it as solely or at least primarily as a church issue- which has caused much of the current tumult.
The church would be equally wrong to treat it as solely a criminal issue.
A criminal activity that occurs in the church is BOTH.
If the church had been as quick to see the perverse behavior of priests as an attack by Satan as they are to see the attacks by the press as one, I daresay the opportunity for the latter would have been greatly reduced.
The church’s first responsibility is to the sheep; not the shepherd’s guild.
Will Wallace
The fact that most impresses me is the collapse in the morale of the priests. They were deserting the army of Christ. No wonder that the common foot soldiers—the laity were often doing the same thing. One day someone will write a book that says plainly that Vatican II led to disaster in the Church. Like the Reformation, which aimed at cleansing the corruption of the Church, it ended in a victory for the devil.
In the context of the Sexual Revolution when sexuality morality was being redefined, so that white was declared black and vice versa, what makes you think that the civil authorities were interested in prosecution for behavior that was no longer thought to be bad? The American Church was taking its cues from society at large, trying to minimize its differences with Americans at large.
The rejection of Humanae Vitae was part of a wholesale rejection of traditional Catholicism. Its eucumenism was the embracing of an American protestantism that was quickly taking off its Christian clothing. To be sure, this was not all the Church. Many priests and many Catholic tried to be faithful, but the “progressives” were definitely taking the lead, causing such confusion that, truth be known, it was almost impossible to know what was
Catholic and what was not. Like Europe between 1520 and 1560, but with no “reformers” leading people into schism. It was as if in all the nations of Europe, the Reformation had taken the same path that it did in England. Under Paul VI, Rome seemed just to look on helplessly while riot reigned, the herd in stampede. Which is what the election of John Paul II was so significant. It had some of the same effect as the Council of Trent. Things began to turn around. Slowly the runnaway herd was turned, but not before many had gone over the cliff.
I find it ironic that the Leftist media that is attacking the Church for the results of the actions of gay priests (and the gay bishops who shielded them) against young boys are the very same people who are championing the forcing of the Boy Scouts to allow gay Scout leaders the same opportunity to indulge their perverted proclivities with other young boys.
You may not be singling out the Pope for criticism here but you are including him in your unjust, blanket condemnation of the Vatican’s alleged failure to handle the clerical sex abuse scandal. Apparently, you did not even read this article. As Father Fessio points out, the Vatican does not become involved in cases involving the discipline of any priest unless the priest himself appeals his case to Rome. Under canon law, it is the responsibility of the bishop of the diocese to handle the cases of priests who are accused of wrongdoing. If the priest disagrees with the decision of the bishop, he may appeal the bishop’s decision to Rome but Rome is not going to become involved unless he does.
Here is another little fact you may not be aware of. Most of the priests in the U.S. who were accused of abusing minors, were never tried under canon law because the bishops in the U.S. did not want Rome to become involved in these cases via the appeal process that is part of canon law. The bishops thought that they could better handle the crisis by sending accused priests off for treatment, reassigning them to other parishes after being “successfully” treated, and keeping the whole thing out of the press. If you want to blame anyone for this scandal blame the priests who were involved in the abuse and the bishops who covered up their crimes. Don’t blame the Vatican.
There isn't one that I'm aware of. That's because up until about 5 years ago, 80% of the reported cases in the entire world were in the US. (Once again, the US leads the world!! Hooray!!) Hence, the chart is not an attempt to hide anything. It's simply reflects the available data at that time. However, if a chart does become available, I'll be sure to ping you.
That America may be ahead of the curve doesn’t mean the curve no longer exists.
Who said the problem "no longer exists"?? In fact, I'd be very interested to see the reaction of the naysayers if the Church did report zero cases. Would the reaction be "that's wonderful", or would it be one of incredulity and disbelief due to the undoubted difficulty of eradicating this problem entirely?
That American jurisprudence might be more supportive of victims, doesn’t mean victims don’t exist in areas where culturally, legally and practically it is more difficult (in some cases impossible) for victims to come forward.
The chart has nothing to do with American jurisprudence. The vast majority of the cases occurred in the '60s, '70s and '80s, long before the sex scandals broke in this country. This coincides precisely with a period of great upheaval within the Church.
For this chart to be presented as evidence that the problem is solved reinforces the concerns of a ‘circle the wagons’ mentality that DOES “look like a problem that is ‘continuing’ or ‘out of control’”.
Never seen that chart before?? Did it surprise you? Hard data is a pain, aint it? Sorry about that.
Can you find nothing positive to say about it? Don't see any positive trends? Nothing to suggest that things are improving??
Figures. That tells me plenty about your faux "I'm just trying to be fair" facade.
However, let's just say for argument's sake that the graph is not "A" shaped. Let's say it's "U" shaped and is now rising logarithmically. If the graph which I showed above is evidence that the problem is "out of control", what would you have to say about a graph which was inverted? Hmmmmmmmm???
Anyway, FWIW, the chart is not being put forward as "evidence that the problem is solved". It shows the data for the US, where the majority of cases were/are located and it demonstrates two things.
1)There was a period when sexual abuse cases peaked and that period has now passed. Numbers have declined dramatically. Before the problem can be "solved" (whatever the criteria are for that), the number of cases first must decline, right? And the graph shows that.
2) Something is being done and the problem is far from "out of control". Figures released a couple of weeks ago again show that the numbers of cases are at the lowest level since data was made publicly available. Good news, right? No?
If the church has the US problem under control, while still trying to pretend it wasn’t as serious as it was, then she should refrain from self-congratulatory back slaps and get on with ferreting out the problem in the rest of the world.
Not sure what you mean by this.
Over the period covered by the graph (1950s-2000s), 4% of US priests were accused of sexual misconduct. That's serious, for sure. However, the number for the past decade would be well south of 1%, I believe. This is not a subject for celebration. One case is one too many. However, the point here is to show that the problem is being addressed.
Only someone who is incapable of reading a graph or who is in default attack mode would say otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.