Benedict blames Vatican II ??

[chaunceygardner]

I just read the Pope’s letter to the Church of Ireland. I also read the 30 page Executive Summary of the Irish Commission that investigated the conditions and abuses in Catholic run children’s institutions, which was published almost a year ago. Warning: One needs a strong stomach (and perhaps a shot of Irish Whiskey) to get through it.

There was one paragraph in Benedict’s letter that somewhat surprised and befuddled me. Here is what he says:

Significant too was the tendency during this period, also on the part of priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel. The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings.

To me it sounds like the Pope is blaming Vatican II, or at least how the documents were interpreted, as a major contributor to the problem! Perhaps I am misreading this. It doesn’t seem like VII should have had any affect on “penal approaches to canonically irregular situations.” Rather, I would have thought that the attitude of openness in VII would have encouraged priests, religious and even the laity to take more definitive action, both within the church and in the secular legal system.

And when one reads that evidence of sexual abuse and coverups go back to the 1930’s, with written reports of individual occurrences filed in Rome starting at least in the 1950’s, blaming it on the actions or non-actions of those responsible within the Church during the 1970’s and 1980’s, and basing it on following the spirit of VII, seems like quite a stretch. No one in a position of responsibility in the last 30-40 years seems to want to admit that the Church failed, totally and continuously; that their greatest concern was to protect the instititutional church, with little thought for the victims, whether past or future.

And then to try to place some of the fault on Vatican II. Wow!

At least Benedict got the part about “loss of respect for the church” right. And now through continuing obtuseness and denial they are only making it worse.

 

[whatevergirl]

*

I don’t know if he is blaming Vatican II, for the abuse, but maybe in the way the cases were handled? Is that how you read it? I am so rattled today, reading all of this…I have been Catholic all of my life, and this just deeply saddens and troubles me.

All our Pope should say is this…’‘We are beyond sorry, while words can never erase the pain caused, for the horrors that took place…we will do everything in our power to see to it, that those men who were responsible, are dealt with, and that we help all those who were victims. There is no excuse for this to have happened, let alone in the vast numbers it has happened in.’’

Barring that? It sounds like too much wordiness and borderline excuses for why it wasn’t dealt with properly. There will always be disturbed people who prey on children in our world, and I have prayed for the souls of those who have hurt kids, as well as those victims of the abuse. But…to know of these heinous situations, and transfer priests an unsuspecting parish where more children would be hurt, is where there are just no valid excuses. Barring, we didn’t want to cause a scandal, we didn’t want people to lose faith in the Church, there is nothing I want to hear anymore about this that would seem plausible. When pushed up against a wall, people do desperate things, and sometimes, bad things. We are a forgiving Church, but we need to be a responsible Church…and accept that yes, the clergy handled this badly for ‘‘xyz’’ reasons. And be real and truthful about it.

I think our Pope is a remarkably brilliant man, and I love him–but he needs to just be real, and succinct at this point. *

 

[Father_of_9]

I think what he is saying is that the 60’s, and Vatican II occurred during the 60’s, was a time when there was a tremendous amount of change in people’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviors, both inside and outside the church. Some things that were considered taboo in society were condoned, accepted or even promoted by individuals or groups. Just look at how the dominos have fallen - greater acceptance by many people of actions like artificial birth control; sexual promiscuity; divorce; abortion; homosexuality, etc.

 

[whatevergirl]

*Perhaps…it’s a stretch though. To say that a priest wouldn’t know that forcing another to have sex with him, underage or not…is wrong…is to me, really stretching it to liken that to people’s acceptance of say, casual sex outside of marriage with two consenting adults, which is what the 60’s embarked upon…and all the other moral problems that came from that, like you have listed. Considering that these priests destroyed the lives of many of their victims, they didn’t strike me as willing participants, and probably were crying and begging for these men not to hurt them…that is not remotely on the same plain as the culture shifting into a casual way of viewing sex, etc. Modern society (50 years later after the 60s) still locks up pedophiles and rapists, the last time I checked…but having sex outside of marriage, or being gay, are not crimes. It’s a little scary if that is the new slant on the scandals.

I don’t want to hear any more spins…just want to hear as succinctly as possibly put, that the Church is sorry these travesties went on for so long…and that there was no excuse. Seriously, barring that, I’m going to just plug my ears and sing la la la…I really can’t take another spin on why priests were transferred to unsuspecting parishes for decades to abuse more kids, when those that were above them, knew about their crimes. *

 

[chaunceygardner]

*

I don’t know if he is blaming Vatican II, for the abuse, but maybe in the way the cases were handled? Is that how you read it? I am so rattled today, reading all of this…I have been Catholic all of my life, and this just deeply saddens and troubles me.
*

Yes, that is what he seems to be saying, that the poor way it was handled could be partly blamed on Vatican II. Again, the fact that it was ongoing, with the coverups and failure to act appropriately starting well before VII, seems to argue differently.
Father of 9:

I think what he is saying is that the 60’s, and Vatican II occurred during the 60’s, was a time when there was a tremendous amount of change in people’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviors, both inside and outside the church. Some things that were considered taboo in society were condoned, accepted or even promoted by individuals or groups. Just look at how the dominos have fallen - greater acceptance by many people of actions like artificial birth control; sexual promiscuity; divorce; abortion; homosexuality, etc.

That could have possibly contributed to what some thought was permissable, but as ***Whatevergirl ***said, there is a big gap between making a personal, consensual decision and abusing young boys and girls under your care. It just seems that the Pope won’t come out and say that the people in charge (including him) failed badly. Not just those who were the abusers, but also those who allowed it to continue.

There are some good thoughts in his letter, but the focus is off. He should make a much tougher and more direct statement to all Catholics and everyone, everywhere, and be as penitent as he wants others to be. Even if he wasn’t directly involved in any of it, he still represents to the world the people and events that are bringing “loss of respect for the church”. He needs to take the difficult but necessary path of admitting the errors and asking all for forgiveness, while at the same time making it clear that nothing like it will be tolerated ever again.

 

[joandarc2008]

I think - and granted I am not the Pope or anywhere close - that what the Pope might be referring to is the fact that the Church maybe thought these men/Priests could be “healed.” At that time in history in the secular world from about 1939 on was the rise of AA and then groups such as NA and others. This self-help and recovery (yes behaivoral addictions are dealt with and often seen in the same light as substance addictions) craze was becoming the forefront. We were able to rehab people and make them better where before we couldn’t. Maybe the Church misread and thought it could be done - maybe they didn’t. We will never know.

However, we can also never know what God’s will is. Maybe one of those victims will become a great Priest or even Saint in his own right BECAUSE of the trials he had to go through to find his Faith. After all - God allowed Satan to torment Job. I am not by any means excusing any of it - I am just saying that there may be something somewhere that we do not yet understand about why it happenned that we can learn from - if maybe to prevent from happening again.

 

[Lujack]

Maybe this sounds harsh, but I think that the Church should confine the “whys” to their private, internal communication. The only thing that they should in their public statements should be to the effect of “We blew. We screwed up really badly. Please forgive us. This is what we’re doing to fix it.” That would be the fastest way to get people to trust the Church again, and the hierarchy owes that not only to the faithful, but most of all to priests who never did commit any of these heinous crimes and ought to be able to live their lives without worrying that somebody might accuse them, as well.

 

[whatevergirl]

Maybe this sounds harsh, but I think that the Church should confine the “whys” to their private, internal communication. The only thing that they should in their public statements should be to the effect of “We blew. We screwed up really badly. Please forgive us. This is what we’re doing to fix it.” That would be the fastest way to get people to trust the Church again, and the hierarchy owes that not only to the faithful, but most of all to priests who never did commit any of these heinous crimes and ought to be able to live their lives without worrying that somebody might accuse them, as well.

Amen to that.

 

[whatevergirl]

I think - and granted I am not the Pope or anywhere close - that what the Pope might be referring to is the fact that the Church maybe thought these men/Priests could be “healed.” At that time in history in the secular world from about 1939 on was the rise of AA and then groups such as NA and others. This self-help and recovery (yes behaivoral addictions are dealt with and often seen in the same light as substance addictions) craze was becoming the forefront. We were able to rehab people and make them better where before we couldn’t. Maybe the Church misread and thought it could be done - maybe they didn’t. We will never know.

However, we can also never know what God’s will is. Maybe one of those victims will become a great Priest or even Saint in his own right BECAUSE of the trials he had to go through to find his Faith. After all - God allowed Satan to torment Job. I am not by any means excusing any of it - I am just saying that there may be something somewhere that we do not yet understand about why it happenned that we can learn from - if maybe to prevent from happening again.

*Hi joan

Only thing I’d say to this…is I read an article about another case that happened in 1979. I’d post the link, but there are so many nasty comments about the Church after the article, it’s not worth it. But, suffice to say, there were priests who were sent to psychiatrists for evaluation after allegations came forth, and many doctors deemed these folks to be ‘‘untreatable’’ and ‘‘get them away from children.’’ And, many of these priests were transferred to other parishes. So, that is a truth. The truth sometimes is ugly, and fancying it up doesn’t change it…there were priests who molested kids, and nothing was done to protect them…and their superiors knew about it. The Church needs to own that, and stop with the scapegoating…because they obviously knew there was a problem if they tried to cover it up.

It goes without saying, this is a mess that will take years to dig out from…*

 

[Lutheranteach]

I think what he is saying is that the 60’s, and Vatican II occurred during the 60’s, was a time when there was a tremendous amount of change in people’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviors, both inside and outside the church. Some things that were considered taboo in society were condoned, accepted or even promoted by individuals or groups. Just look at how the dominos have fallen - greater acceptance by many people of actions like artificial birth control; sexual promiscuity; divorce; abortion; homosexuality, etc.

Sorry, I’m not buying what anyone is trying to sell here. No one, other than a very few sick fringe people, have ever condoned raping children, and making the jump from birth control, promiscuity, divorce, homosexuality and abortion to child abuse and or rape is asinine in my opinion.

 

[Lutheranteach]

*Hi joan

Only thing I’d say to this…is I read an article about another case that happened in 1979. I’d post the link, but there are so many nasty comments about the Church after the article, it’s not worth it. But, suffice to say, there were priests who were sent to psychiatrists for evaluation after allegations came forth, and many doctors deemed these folks to be ‘‘untreatable’’ and ‘‘get them away from children.’’ And, many of these priests were transferred to other parishes. So, that is a truth. The truth sometimes is ugly, and fancying it up doesn’t change it…there were priests who molested kids, and nothing was done to protect them…and their superiors knew about it. The Church needs to own that, and stop with the scapegoating…because they obviously knew there was a problem if they tried to cover it up.

It goes without saying, this is a mess that will take years to dig out from…*

Absolutely, and this is the very fact that is hurting them now. Own up to it. It will be ugly and hurt and take years to recover from. But scapegoating and coverups only increase the damage 10 fold. With every coverup that is discovered the church loses more and more of its moral standing, the one thing people look to it for more than anything else.

 

[joandarc2008]

You know - that is only one paragraph - and hey WG!!!

If you look at it from this perspective it does look like he is trying to do just what we are saying he should do. Look at this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=440735

 

[chaunceygardner]

Sorry, I’m not buying what anyone is trying to sell here. No one, other than a very few sick fringe people, have ever condoned raping children, and making the jump from birth control, promiscuity, divorce, homosexuality and abortion to child abuse and or rape is asinine in my opinion.

You are the third poster on this thread to say this or something similar. I would think and hope that most others would agree.

In discussing the need for a Church “mea culpa”, Lujack said this:

Lujack:

That would be the fastest way to get people to trust the Church again, and the hierarchy owes that not only to the faithful, but most of all to priests who never did commit any of these heinous crimes and ought to be able to live their lives without worrying that somebody might accuse them, as well.

You make a very good point. “Good” priests will be under suspicion unless and until the “bad” priests are removed and the leadership in the Church demonstrates that such abuse will never again be tolerated. There will be a stigma on all religious, and the Church will find it very difficult to regain the trust that it has squandered by sticking its collective head in the sand.

 

[whatevergirl]

Absolutely, and this is the very fact that is hurting them now. Own up to it. It will be ugly and hurt and take years to recover from. But scapegoating and coverups only increase the damage 10 fold. With every coverup that is discovered the church loses more and more of its moral standing, the one thing people look to it for more than anything else.

Yep…sad. The very things that the Church clergy feared happening then, is happening now. I do not want to hear anymore…’‘we didn’t know…’’ or ‘‘we didn’t know to what extent…’’ We are all sinners, but we need to repent. By not fully admitting where the fall down came in, how can there be repentance? And that is why the victims are not satisifed with the money, and the ‘‘apologies,’’ because the apologies are still a little on the safe side…and not gut wrenchingly authentic. Until these victims hear that, this rampage will continue…The Catholic Church was given to us by Christ, I as a Catholic believe this. I can separate that from what is happening with the human side of the Church. And we should, as Catholics. But, I don’t support every statement that comes out about the scandals, I’d like to see more blame put on the transferring of priests, how that should never have happened, and not blame Vatican II or the man on the moon for it.

 

[fish90]

After reading “The Ratzinger Report,” I understand that Pope Benedict would find fault with the interpretation of Vatican II.

 

[rep140]

The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings.

I like Benedict, but this linking of treatment of abusers to a Church council appears to me like shifting blame from the bishops who shipped these guys around. This does not address why the bishops put up with deviant behavior before V2.

Benedict’s actions while in the U.S. were far more forthright.

 

[wisdomseeker]

In my opinion teh Council came in a very bad time. if the world was going insane, the people needed the Church to stay stable to lead the people in the right direction. instead, people called a Council that brought even more confusion to confused people. that is what we have today. i hear priests blaming everything on the people.

i say, that all clergy needs to repent, stop asking for forgiveness and truly repent, dress in sacks and covered themselves with ashes and dust. but since they have become too proud i doubt this will ever happened.

bring back the True Worship to God.

 

[Bookcat]

The Pope Blame Vatican II?

NOT!

 

[GratefulDad]

In the US before Vatican II candidates were asked/screened regarding homosexuality/lesbianism…Check

After Vatican II the Church had a don’t ask, don’t tell, (suede) policy…Check

This was meant to bring the Church to a more open view of normal and updated society. And show the Church as accepting of people from all walks of life…Check

This is the policy that Pope Bendict put in place in 2005 for Religious candidates.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication.

"2. Homosexuality and the Ordained Ministry

From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies."

 

[Church_Militant]

…
There was one paragraph in Benedict’s letter that somewhat surprised and befuddled me. Here is what he says:

To me it sounds like the Pope is blaming Vatican II, or at least how the documents were interpreted, as a major contributor to the problem! Perhaps I am misreading this. It doesn’t seem like VII should have had any affect on “penal approaches to canonically irregular situations.” Rather, I would have thought that the attitude of openness in VII would have encouraged priests, religious and even the laity to take more definitive action, both within the church and in the secular legal system.

…

And then to try to place some of the fault on Vatican II. Wow!

At least Benedict got the part about “loss of respect for the church” right. And now through continuing obtuseness and denial they are only making it worse.

I disagree with you. If you look at what is going on all over the world in all manner of institutions, you see that the press has pretty well tried to make the Catholic Church the scapegoat for all this scandal.

Loos of respect…Frankly, I respect him more for the way he’s dealing with it all and it in no way affects my respect for and love for the Catholic Church.

I have however lost virtually all respect for …

• The yellow journalist press (TV, radio, print, and internet) all over the world.
• The Anti-Catholic bashers, regardless of who they are, who have jumped on this to vilify our most holy faith, while lacking the integrity to apply the same scrutiny to the n-C cases of same (which equal and are more current than those coming to light in our own communities) as well as and especially in the educational systems right here in the U.S.

His Holiness in no way blamed Vatican II. He does, and right so, point out that the misinterpretation (Read: “Spirit of Vatican II”) of that council was one of a series of factors that has allowed this and many other problems to come about.

I wouldn’t misinterpret what you have quoted above. What is said speaks for itself, no more and no less.