Pope Francis, Catholics, and Christians in the news worldwide
Excellent commentary on this from Fr. James Martin on the Facebook -
Dear friends: I have the greatest respect for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, especially as a theologian. However, I disagree with most of his analysis of the sex abuse crisis, which he addressed today in a letter released to Catholic News Agency and other media outlets. Blaming it on poor theology and the sexual mores of the 1960s dramatically misses the mark.
First, Pope Benedict casts the sexual abuse crisis primarily as a theological problem, blaming progressive theology after the Second Vatican Council, as if what was needed to combat abuse was an acceptance of the correct theology. Thus, it was largely a problem of orthodoxy. But that misses the mark. One of the worst offenders was Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, a priest who promoted through his religious order the most “orthodox” theology one could imagine. He was also a serial abuser and a rapist.
Second, Benedict casts abuse as essentially a problem of "morals." Now, pedophilia is obviously immoral, but it is also a disease. One reason it persisted for so long in the Catholic Church was because it seen as primarily a moral problem. Thus, after “Father” had recognized that he had done wrong, we could move on. But it is not simply immoral. It is, far more fundamentally, a serious illness, a profound psychological problem. Simply admitting one’s moral wrongdoing is insufficient.
Benedict’s suggestion that abuse was somehow acceptable by church leaders because of lax 1960s morals also strains credulity. It’s doubtful anyone "approved" of it morally. Rather, bishops responded to sex abuse in sinful and criminal ways: neglecting it, covering it up, moving around priests.
Also, the idea that the sexual mores of the 1960s were to blame (a common refrain in many of Pope Benedict’s earlier writings) neglects the fact that sex abuse happened in the church during the 1940s and 1950s, and far earlier. People had sex outside of marriage and molested children in the supposedly wholesome 40s and 50s; and many of the priests who abused did so decades before the late 60s, when presumably the cultural infection was peaking and were educated and formed as priests long before that.
Finally, it blames the sex abuse crisis largely on the culture, not the church. It focuses on the outside rather than the inside, failing to look at the deep structural flaws and sins within the church (specifically, a clericalism that privileged the word of the priest over the victim).
This was a disappointing analysis from a brilliant theologian. For a more thorough analysis, consult the John Jay Report, which still offers the most comprehensive examination of the root causes of the sex abuse crisis.
Link.
Analysis: How Benedict's essay supports Francis' call for 'zero tolerance'
Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI on June 28, 2017. Credit: Vatican Media. 
By Ed Condon
.- After the April 11 publication of a new essay by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, commentators are mostly discussing their perception of the politics surrounding the release, or Benedict’s assessment of the sexual revolution and its relationship to the crisis.
But lost in that discussion is the immediate practical application of the document, which articulates a theology of law that seems to support the 'zero tolerance’ approach to addressing sexual abusers in the Church, which Pope Francis has long endorsed, even while he has not yet arrived at a practical way of delivering it.
At the heart of his new argument, the former pontiff insists that the purpose of punishing the perpetrators of sexual abuse is the salvation of souls, which is the highest law of the Church.
Recalling that, in the 1980s, the crisis of abuse began to reach Rome after decades of building at the diocesan level, Benedict’s essay explained that there was in Rome a double failure of law and theology, which left both victims of abuse and the faith itself unprotected.
While the previous Code of Canon Law contained a long list of specific crimes a cleric could commit - including a litany of sexual delicts - “the deliberately loosely constructed criminal law of the new Code” of 1983 offered a much pared down set of penal norms, Benedict argued.
He added that in accord with a prevailing ecclesiology at the time there also emerged among many canonists and bishops a false dichotomy between justice and mercy, in which mercy was seen to pre-empt and exclude the former, rather than following and tempering it. Benedict highlighted the emergence of a kind of legal “guarantorism,” in which the rights of the accused seemed to be afforded the central concern of the canonical process, often at the expense of victims, restorative justice, and the public good.
Temporary suspensions and stints in therapy for abusive clerics were treated as adequate punishment, and local bishops were left with abusive priests they were expected to rehabilitate.
Under Pope St. John Paul II, reforms to the process began, starting with Rome’s decision to raise the canonical age of majority for these cases to 18, and to extend the canonical statute of limitations. The reforms under Pope St. John Paul II culminated in 2001, when Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela established new legal norms for the handling of “major crimes” against faith and morals in canon law.
Among the most crucial of St. John Paul’s reforms was, Benedict noted, the transfer of competence of sexual abuse cases from the Congregation for Clergy to the Congregation for the Doctrine if the Faith. This change was not, the pope emeritus explained, a merely bureaucratic move, but one rooted in a proper understanding of the nature and gravity of the crime of sexual abuse.
Benedict said the decision was a recognition that sexual abuse of minors is a crime against the immediate victim, and against the faith itself.
Certainly, the experience of recent decades appears to bear out the effect of the sexual abuse scandals on the faith all of Catholics, at least some of whom have lapsed in the practice of the faith following the sexual abuse crises.
This does not suggest that Benedict’s essay ignored concern for the right of defense. Instead, Benedict argued that “a properly formed canon law must contain a double guarantee — legal protection of the accused, legal protection of the good at stake.”
The idea that there is a legal necessity to defending the “good of the faith” in sex abuse cases will likely prove the most important contribution Benedict will makes to the ongoing progress of reform.
Benedict’s essay articulated its own version of “zero tolerance” in that framework, noting that “Jesus protects the deposit of the faith with an emphatic threat of punishment to those who do it harm.”
Presenting sexual abuse as a crime against the soul, not just the body, and recognizing that it can have cascading tiers of victims, refocuses the legal process through the lens of its most quoted maxim: “salus animarum suprema lex est.”
Benedict seems to argue that if the salvation of souls is the Church’s highest law, the protection of the faith should be understood as a legal good at least as important as protecting the rights of accused abusers.
From that vantage point, Benedict observed that there is much legal reform still to be done, and that Pope Francis is rightly carrying it forward.
Much of the ongoing discussion has centered around what other kinds of sexual misconduct, in addition to the abuse of children, should be canonically criminalized.
Some prominent bishops have insisted on distinguishing between the sexual abuse of minors and sexual misconduct between adults, arguing that potentially consensual sexual misconduct by clerics should not be accorded the status of a major crime. In light of Benedict’s essay, some are likely to see in that approach the juridic framework that Benedict described as guarantorism.
But other bishops, including Cardinal Séan O’Malley of Boston, have emphasized the importance of seeing sexual abuse of clerical power treated with the same gravity as abuse of a minor.
The pope seems to thinking along the same lines as O’Malley, demonstrated by his recent expansion of the definition of a “vulnerable adult” in the canonical norms of the Roman Curia and the Vatican City State.
Benedict’s theology of penal law, which holds at its center the crimes against the faith of the Church — and of the victims of abuse — offers a powerful rationale for Pope Francis’ action.
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea,” Benedict quotes from the gospel.
These little ones, the Pope emeritus wrote, are not only those who physically suffer abuse but also the “common believers who can be confounded in their faith,” be they children or adults.
‘It is important to see,” Benedict says, “that such misconduct by clerics ultimately damages the Faith.”
Set against this understanding of the depth of sexual abuse as a crime both physical and spiritual, Pope Francis’ ongoing efforts to articulate legally the policy of “zero tolerance” may find a renewed impetus.
Such a policy, Benedict has now argued, is essential to the salvation of souls.
Bannon tries to undercut the Pope in his attempts to unite Europe's nationalist and religious right:
Steve Bannon ‘told Italy’s populist leader: Pope Francis is the enemy’
Trump’s ex-strategist advised Matteo Salvini ‘to target pontiff’s stance on plight of refugees’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/13/steve-bannon-matteo-salvini-pope-francis-is-the-enemy
Jasmo said:
Bannon tries to undercut the Pope in his attempts to unite Europe's nationalist and religious right:
Steve Bannon ‘told Italy’s populist leader: Pope Francis is the enemy’
Trump’s ex-strategist advised Matteo Salvini ‘to target pontiff’s stance on plight of refugees’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/13/steve-bannon-matteo-salvini-pope-francis-is-the-enemy
Already mentioned in the Rose Garden thread; somewhat ignored.
Gosh, next time I will research other MOL discussion threads to cross reference and make sure something I'm thinking of posting in this one hasn't been mentioned somewhere else first. Sorry
joanne said:
Jasmo said:
Bannon tries to undercut the Pope in his attempts to unite Europe's nationalist and religious right:
Steve Bannon ‘told Italy’s populist leader: Pope Francis is the enemy’
Trump’s ex-strategist advised Matteo Salvini ‘to target pontiff’s stance on plight of refugees’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/13/steve-bannon-matteo-salvini-pope-francis-is-the-enemyAlready mentioned in the Rose Garden thread; somewhat ignored.
Actually, this goes back to something I was commenting on in another thread, the fact that Trump isn't just unChristian, he actively works against the teachings of Christ. Should we not, for the sake of accuracy, say that he is "anti-Christian"?
I think "non-Christian" is better unless you know of specific anti christian activities.
Jasmo said:
Gosh, next time I will research other MOL discussion threads to cross reference and make sure something I'm thinking of posting in this one hasn't been mentioned somewhere else first. Sorry
joanne said:
Jasmo said:
Bannon tries to undercut the Pope in his attempts to unite Europe's nationalist and religious right:
Steve Bannon ‘told Italy’s populist leader: Pope Francis is the enemy’
Trump’s ex-strategist advised Matteo Salvini ‘to target pontiff’s stance on plight of refugees’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/13/steve-bannon-matteo-salvini-pope-francis-is-the-enemy
Actually I was commenting more on the general lack of notice. I posted it in Rose Garden for its political significance as well as timeliness, rather than this thread which tends to veer more towards clerical abuse of their powers over parishioners.
But I suspect people will often pay more attention to a topic if it’s something they expect a particular poster to raise. If they’re already licked into a circle of thought/debate, nothing is going to disturb them.
This particular article worried me deeply: firstly that Bannon believes he has such world-shaping powers, and secondly, that even the position of Pope can be so blatantly reduced to that of a chess-piece (or Go-piece), to be moved about on a whim. It’s really treating the Church as no more than a vestigial and impotent version of the ancient Holy Roman Empire, irrelevant to modern life.
I’m disturbed that so few people seemed to have paid attention let alone spoken out in any way.
lord_pabulum said:
I think "non-Christian" is better unless you know of specific anti christian activities.
Taking from the poor and giving to the rich?
what in the world is going on Down Under?
This is the normal repercussions of not following court orders, in this case following 'gag' orders earlier by which there was to be court-ordered media silence yet thanks to these journos and publications, we all knew what was happening each day.
The Court was not amused and finally there's a big enough stage to force People Who Think They're Above The Law (because they own media empires, for example) to pay attention.
In the end, not much will happen, maybe some fines; maybe someone will be sacrificed with nominal jail time. You'll probably it's some online scribe or photographer almost no-one knows, and who might be compensated in other ways for the bother.
oh, and there's a federal election on, on 18 May, in which the current federal government just might lose its slender majority and Murdoch just might have to accept no-one really cares anymore what his media pundits tell us to think.
Klinker said:
lord_pabulum said:Taking from the poor and giving to the rich?
I think "non-Christian" is better unless you know of specific anti christian activities.
Why is that specifically 'anti-Christian' rather than non-Christian? Do all the other religions espouse Taking from the poor and giving to the rich?
No, I suppose he is also anti Buddhist as well. That said, his views line up very neatly is opposition to the teachings of Christ. Its almost as if he read the Bible and formulated a response to each verse. Of course, that could only have happened if he read.
I am guessing, though, that the number of Buddhists hypocritically supporting Trump is vanishingly small. Christianists......
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sevenwords0
The Church sexual abuse scandal and the Seven Last Words of Christ from the Cross...
mtierney said:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sevenwords0
The Church sexual abuse scandal and the Seven Last Words of Christ from the Cross...
A tidy and convenient message from the Rat Pope for Easter? You never disappoint us mt.
Interesting Nicholas Kristof interview with Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/opinion/sunday/christian-easter-serene-jones.html
finnegan said:
Interesting Nicholas Kristof interview with Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/opinion/sunday/christian-easter-serene-jones.html
I think that is a very interesting interview. To me, its sounds like she is trying very hard to imagine a Christian God for our times who is, by necessity, divorced from the God of the Bible. I am sympathetic to that desire although the inherent challenge may be intellectually insurmountable.
That said, I love the picture of the faculty that appears at the top of her page.
Faculty Union Theological Seminary
Those look like some people who might have a REALLY interesting conversation. Book by the cover, I know, but still....
finnegan said:
Interesting Nicholas Kristof interview with Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/opinion/sunday/christian-easter-serene-jones.html
Thanks. Interesting and enlightening.
Klinker said:
finnegan said:I think that is a very interesting interview. To me, its sounds like she is trying very hard to imagine a Christian God for our times who is, by necessity, divorced from the God of the Bible. I am sympathetic to that desire although the inherent challenge may be intellectually insurmountable.
Interesting Nicholas Kristof interview with Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/opinion/sunday/christian-easter-serene-jones.html
Klinker, I would say that Serene Jones is trying to maintain continuity with the community of Christians who understand themselves in relationship to the stories of God in the bible in a way that makes sense for today. Interestingly, this is precisely the reason Union Seminary parted ways with the Presbyterian Church in the late 19th century - over the issue of a historically informed approach to the scriptures. She is not rejecting biblical accounts, just literal interpretations of them, as many Christians have for over 100 years. Even the Catholic church teaches that the bible is not to be understood literally. Of course, she is being pilloried by conservatives all over the internet right now. Glad you found the interview interesting.
Christians targeted on Easter Sunday...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/world/asia/sri-lanka-bombings.html
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
The problems with that theory include (a) abuse of minors predates the 60's, and (b) there was abuse after that at the hands of priests whose formation took place before the 60's.
[Edited to add] As the article notes, there's push-back against Benedict's argument from theologians at Catholic universities.