Posted on 06/18/2002 3:38:01 AM PDT by maryz
For some conservative Catholics, the defining moment in the bishops' Dallas conference came when Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb., proposed that the bishops commission a study of the role, if any, theological dissent and clerical homosexuality has played in bringing about this scandal.
There were solid, non-ideological reasons for doing this. Even the liberal lay theologian Scott Appleby had in his address to the bishops cited the unofficial American resistance to Humanae Vitae, the 1968 papal encyclical on sexual morality, as the starting point for a kind of double-mindedness about faith matters that led U.S. Catholics to grow comfortable with looking the other way. And considering the overwhelming number of homosexual priests involved in abusing minors, to say nothing of the extensive, sexually active and self-protective gay networks throughout the Church structure (the so-called "lavender mafia"), which even Church liberals like A. W. Richard Sipe concede instigate and conceal abusive sexual practices, it is irresponsible not to publicly consider the gay factor.
The bishops voted down the proposal. They'd rather not know, because knowing implies the moral obligation to act. This — along with the fact that the bishops would not so much as publicly talk about disciplining themselves for covering up clerical sex-abuse crimes, or offering their resignations to Rome — is a bad indication of what a majority of the bishops may mean by "reform."
Though the policy they adopted on Friday is clearly the strongest stand they've ever taken against priest sex abuse, and that there is a lot of good in it (even if it will probably be rejected by Rome), there is little reason to believe that it is much more than a quick-fix pseudo-solution, a bone tossed to quiet the baying pack of journalists and lay activists.
One is most impressed not by what they did, but by what they left undone. Aside from not addressing the root causes of the scandal, the bishops refused to accept personal accountability for their paramount role in the scandal. Not one resigned. Not one was asked to resign, at least publicly. Words of apology ring hollow when not followed by action. As C. S. Lewis said, "A long face is not a moral disinfectant."
They did not promise to come clean about how much of their money has been spent on scandal-related payments, or to establish a mechanism for financial transparency and accountability. They didn't commit themselves to whistleblower protection for priests and Church employees who wish to come forward with evidence of sex abuse, but who fear for their jobs. They didn't put teeth in the lay-oversight committees they planned to establish, to prevent them from being stacked with the bishops' cronies (as in Chicago), or left without authority (as in Baltimore). And they didn't promise to knock off the pit-bull legal tactics with victims and their families.
Burdened by the grim news from the conference, a crowd of conservative Catholics gathered in a school auditorium in a Dallas suburb Friday night for a conference postmortem report. Panel speakers were Bishop Bruskewitz, Catholic World Report editor Phil Lawler, Goodbye, Good Men author Michael S. Rose, Catholic columnist Russell Shaw, Women for Faith and Family director Helen Hull Hitchcock, and Leon Suprenant, president of Catholics United for the Faith, the orthodox lay organization that sponsored the event.
Lawler told the audience the American Church faced a "dual scandal": the sexual abuse of minors by a very small proportion of Catholic priests, and the cover-up of these crimes by a significant majority — two-thirds, if the Dallas Morning News is to be believed — of current bishops.
"The policy [the bishops adopted] protects us from the minority," Lawler said. "It gives us no protection from the majority."
Moreover, he added, responsibility for implementation of the new policy lies with the bishops, which invites tremendous skepticism. "Tell me when the bishops of the United States have implemented a policy to promote the Catholic faith in the United States," Lawler said, then listed several Vatican directives the bishops have ignored.
Bruskewitz left the conference as the champion of many orthodox Catholics. He told the audience that "this hapless bench of bishops" had failed to address the roots of the crisis, and now courage and fighting tenacity from the laity was required. The avuncular bishop, who is considered a right-wing fringe figure by most of his colleagues, cited the 14th-century St. Catherine of Siena, "an illiterate nun who is now a doctor of the Church," as a model.
"She was brave enough to tell the pope off when he needed telling off," said Bruskewitz. "She did her duty. We must too."
When an audience member asked Bruskewitz why Pope John Paul II has given the church in the U.S. so many lousy bishops, the bishop of Lincoln said he had no idea. Then he cited a letter that the medieval St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to a pope of his day, warning the pontiff that if he (the pope) was going to be sent to hell, it would be because he failed to get rid of bad bishops.
"I did pass that letter on to [the current pope]," Bruskewitz said, with a mischievous smile. He went on to praise the Holy Father for coming up with beautiful words and noble sentiments, but to fault him for failing to implement them through responsible governing of the Church.
The pope is going to be strongly criticized should Rome reject the American bishops' new policy, in whole or in part. But the Vatican may have no other choice. The bishops' document leaves unclear just what constitutes the kind of sexual abuse that will permanently strip a priest of his right to ministry, and there is a serious danger that an accused priest's due-process rights will be violated.
Which, again, is at the heart of the problem: the character of individual bishops. Even the most stringently codified procedures won't be enough to solve this problem absent the willingness of bishops to obey and enforce them. This, at bottom, is the reason to despair of this crisis ending anytime soon.
Can you teach an old bishop new tricks? Consider the reaction to what Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, a member of the bishops' newly created review board, had to say.
Speaking about the cover-ups and settlements, Keating told the Dallas Morning News, "The reality is that, in our faith, this is not only a mortal sin, but it's also a criminal act. If someone obscures, absolves, obstructs that criminal act, arguably they are obstructing justice or arguably they also are accessories to the crime. To suggest that someone like that would not get away with the criminal act but get away in the eyes of the church is simply inconceivable to me."
If you find the governor's observations unobjectionable, even rather anodyne, you may be unfit for the episcopate.
"I'm very sad and disappointed to hear what the governor is saying," Bishop Raphael Fliss of the Diocese of Superior, Wis. told the Dallas Morning News. "It's not what the lay people are called to do."
B-Chan tells us the discussion was videotaped, and copies are for sale from CUF.
B-Chan, I don't have time right now to track down the CUF website you linked to on another thread. Could you do the honors?
I'm blanking on what this phrase is originally from -- anyone remember?
"I did pass that letter on to [the current pope]," Bruskewitz said, with a mischievous smile. He went on to praise the Holy Father for coming up with beautiful words and noble sentiments, but to fault him for failing to implement them through responsible governing of the Church.
Where can I get an autographed Fabian Bruskewitz T-shirt?
So many bishops did the same thing by covering up and sending molesting priests on to other parishes without warning anyone.
Did they all do this on their own, or did they conspire? Did they have meetings or phone conversations to plot this strategy, or did they amazingly just happen to do the same immoral thing?
I think I told you that my parish priest called Bishop Bruskiewicz "medievel" and "oppressive" - but Bruskiewicz is the only one brave enough to speak his mind - I wish to God there were a few more like him.
Here is something else Rod Dreher wrote on the exact same subject:
GOOFUS, NOT GALLANT: [Rod Dreher] Isn't it, like, perfect that the American bishops put President Clinton's lawyer on their review board? How do you say in Latin, "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is"? I don't suppose they could have put BILL Bennett on the board, inasmuch as he's called for all the cover-up bishops to get the hell out of town. I've just come in from a very long postmortem panel discussion here in Dallas, at which Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Catholic World Report's Phil Lawler, Goodbye, Good Men author Michael S. Rose, Helen Hull Hitchcock and others spoke. Details to follow in Monday's NRO, but I gotta tell you, folks, the mood among orthodox RCs here is grim. This "hapless bench of bishops," as Bp. Bruskewitz called them tonight, couldn't even agree that the role of dissent and homosexuality in this catastrophe was worth studying. The conclusion is obvious: if reform is to come, it's not going to come from the bishops. Posted 1:52 AM | [Link]
If anyone would like to write to Bishop Bruskiewicz and thank him, here is the e-mail address for the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska.
diolincoln@inebraska.com
Sad to say, money talks.
I'm thinking 16th or 17th century for the original -- not Shakespeare (I checked my concordance).
I think this is WAY over my head!
Becky
Wouldn't it have been a coup if Mr. Dreher had the same courage he expects of others. William F. Buckley, who founded The National Review that Mr. Dreher writes for, was an early and famous dissenter from Humanae Vitae.
I like Mr. Dreher and his columns, but, is it reasonable to expect one Bishop to publicly criticse or correct another when a layman dosn't have the courage to criticse or correct another layman for opposing the very Encyclical in question?
Law, at least, sometimes sent offenders to other dioceses with warm letters of recommendation. (I believe that was what he intended to apologize to the other bishops for.)
It is always heart-warming to hear a Bishop criticise the Pope in public. I guess the Pope's actions (or inactions as some would have it) have no possible positive explanation. So, I guess he is headed for Hell.
Gee, he seemed like a such a nice man to me
Maybe if he'd criticized Buckley in 1968 (how old is Dreher, anyway?).
I think it would dilute the discussion of the current scandal to bring up Buckley's view of Humanae Vitae even more than it does to try to widen the discussion to married or female priests. And whatever Buckley said in 1968, he was not then and is not now a bishop, charged with the teaching office of the Church.
Buckley was quite influential and his magazine routinely attacked the Magisterium during Buckley's tenure there.
The National Review ought to own up to its part in the desuetude of Christian culture even as the New York Times ought to apologise for Walter Duranty.
I know Dreher isn't a Bishop. He is a journalist writing for a journal and he is called by our Catholic Church to bring Christ to the world through his profession. That is what we laity are supposed to do.
Shouldn't we require of ourselves what we demand of others?
Tonight's reading assignment is Humane Vitae, Paul VI's 1968 encyclical that spells out in no uncertain terms the Church's position on sexual matters. Download, print out, and mail to your bishop with a note that reads "Are your priests teaching this?"
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.