Criticisms of Clergy

[nannygirl]

I don’t think it’s any more sinful than criticizing your mother-in-law.JR

I spoke with my priest about this today and he said that it could indeed be a mortal sin to criticize a priest. In criticizing a priest to others it could unjustly harm the priest’s reputation and harm the church. I’m not talking about criticizing something as lame as the color of the priest’s car, but criticism that causes others to question a priest’s character could become slanderous which is very serious.

I am fortunate to be under the care and authority of a very fine priest who takes his vocation very seriously. It is painful for me to see him be criticized and ridiculed on a daily basis by a handful of laity who are angry because they aren’t in charge anymore. They have determined that they will make his life miserable so he will want to leave. (One of them actually told me that! They tried to get me on their side when I first started attending. I was shocked and avoid them at all costs.) I would think that actions like these could very well be a mortal sin.

 

[consumedconvert]

I spoke with my priest about this today and he said that it could indeed be a mortal sin to criticize a priest. In criticizing a priest to others it could unjustly harm the priest’s reputation and harm the church. I’m not talking about criticizing something as lame as the color of the priest’s car, but criticism that causes others to question a priest’s character could become slanderous which is very serious.

I am fortunate to be under the care and authority of a very fine priest who takes his vocation very seriously. It is painful for me to see him be criticized and ridiculed on a daily basis by a handful of laity who are angry because they aren’t in charge anymore. They have determined that they will make his life miserable so he will want to leave. (One of them actually told me that! They tried to get me on their side when I first started attending. I was shocked and avoid them at all costs.) I would think that actions like these could very well be a mortal sin.

Thank you for sharing what your priest said. I will always try to remember this. We should all pause before opening our mouths about the clergy.

 

[hawkeye]

Then you have let the priest bring you where you shouldn’t be, to despising him. Sounds like an issue for confession. I have my own similar struggles with a somewhat similar situation, though not with a priest. We are so frail, us human beings…

Your probably right, although I’m not the only one he bugs, listening to him criticizing JP2 on women priests was a bit hard to swallow. (at Mass may I add)

I now sadly avoid his company and stick to my own Parish, in a nutshell I’m hardly likely to give him a standing ovation for that, running down El Papa.

As one woman said to me “we need to pray for him” YES and we all could do with a few, including me.

 

[ethelzguy]

Thank you for sharing what your priest said. I will always try to remember this. We should all pause before opening our mouths about the clergy.

 

[Tsuwano]

You have several points that you have to review.

1. The clerical state is not subject to the authority of the laity, while the lay state is subject to the authority of the clergy. This is both Church law and tradition.
2. The clergy is not at the bottom rung. This may sound nice from a spritual standpoint, but it is incorrect from a sacramental point of view. Part of the role of the priesthood is to govern the Church.
3. You cannot call the cleric back to his vowed life, since the clerical state is just that, a sate within the Church. It is not a vowed life. Only Consecrated religious live a vowed life. Not all clerics are religious and not all religious are clerics. A cleric who is not a religious has made no vows and is bound by no specific way of life. A religious who lives a vowed life is not always a cleric.
4. The vowed life and the clerical state are theologically, canonically, and sacramentally different. A person can be both a cleric and a religious, but not always.
5. In either case, cleric or religious, they have proper superiors to which you must direct your concerns. If it’s the case of a secular cleric, his proper superior is the diocesan bishop. If it’s a religious cleric, his proper superior is the Superior of the House where he is assigned.

It is not the wish of the hierarchy to have lay people correcting clerics (deacons, priests or bishops) or correcting religious. You may write an appropriate letter and wait for a response.

In many instances, lay people who have taken it upon themselves to correct clerics, have been called on the carpet by either the bishop or the religious superior, because you are going over their heads.

Remember what happened when Mother Angelica made the statement about Cardinal Mahoney. The Cardinal complained to the Superior General of the Franciscan order. The Superior General was not concerned with whether Mother was right or wrong. He was concerned with the fact that a nun may never call a cleric into question in public. He ordered her to apologize and retract or to get off the air under holy obedience. If she did not obey the Superior General she would face excommunication. In this particular case there was something else involved. The rule that St. Francis wrote for the Friars and the Poor Clares does not allow them ever to call into question a cleric who is not under their jurisdiction. That authority is reserved only for Francis and he never used it, neither have his successors.

The Superior General could have ignored the Cardinal’s letter, because he has the same authority over his community that a bishop has over his diocese. But he chose not to use his right as a Major Superior and instead chose to adhere to tradition, that no one calls a cleric into question, except those who have authority over him.

This was also the case with Cardinal Law of Boston. The laity complained and wanted the Cardinal punished. Cardinal Ratzinger said, “absolutely not. The laity has no jurisdiction over a cleric.” Today, Cardinal Law is working in the Vatican and in good standing with Benedict XVI. The same thing happened with Fr. Hans Kung. Cardinal Ratzinger said that Fr. Kung could not teach Catholic theology, but that he could remain a priest and he could lead the commission on the establishment of a world ethic for ecumenism. In 2005 Benedict XVI invited Fr. Kung to spend time with him on vacation at Gondolfo and blessed his ministry on ecumenism, even though Kung still questions the dogma of infallibility. Benedict XVI said that they have academic differences between them, but that Kung is still a priest in good standing with the Church and can lead the world ethic project.

That was in 2005, right after Benedict became pope. I’m not sure if Kung is still alive or not, because he’s up there in years. I have not heard anything more about him.

JR

Allow me a response to the points you have said I should review from my most recent post.

1. While it is true that “the clerical state is not subject to the authority of the laity, while the lay state is subject to the authority of the clergy,” I would add that all of us are subject to the authority of the Gospel and, within the context of the Christian community, all of us have the responsibility to admonish each other when we fall into sin or stray from the Gospel. It is true that a lay person who admonishes a cleric has no authority behind him except the authority of the Bishop, if it should come to that, but this does not absolve him, or any Christian, from confronting the sinful person and calling him back to faithfulness. Mind you, I am not talking about church governance or opinions concerning the liturgy. These justly belong to the Bishop and his priestly representatives.
2. Perhaps my description of the clergy as holding “the lowest rung on the ladder” was poor, but my point was to stress the role of the priest as one of service to the people of God. You mention that part of the role of the priesthood is to govern the Church. I have no argument here, but this is precisely why I believe the priesthood is primarily one of service. Indeed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1994, states “That office … which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a service.” And again, “The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a “sacred power” which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all.”
   I would also add at this point that though it is true that part of the role of the priesthood is to govern the Church, there has always been allowance within the Church for the laity to join in leading the Christian community. And so, again in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we find "In the Church, “lay members of the Christian faithful can cooperate in the exercise of this power of governance in accord with the norm of law. And so the Church provides for their presence at particular councils, diocesan synods, pastoral councils; the exercise in solidum of the pastoral care of a parish, ecclesiastical tribunals, etc.”
3. Though it is true that not all priests take vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience within a religious community, it is also not true that priests do not take vows. In fact, all Christians take vows. They are our baptismal vows, and they do indeed bind us, including all clergy, to a specific way of life. These are the vows I allude to in my original post when I refer to a vowed life.
4. Yes, I’m fully aware of this.
5. I am also aware of this point, though I would like to add that it is not always an act of charity to immediately approach a bishop or religious superior when a lay person has a complaint against a priest. I would think it best to approach the individual first, and then if warranted, approach the proper religious authorities. Naturally, I would hope the concerns expressed would not be trivial in nature. I would also add that I do believe the presiding bishop has all authority over the clerics in his diocese and his decision regarding his priests is final, except of course where the inury causes blatant injury to the people under the care of that bishop. Then, as in the case of Cardinal Law in Boston, truth, justice, and the strength of righteous public opinion, may have the last word.

 

[consumedconvert]

Hmmmm, as to your point five, I believe it was actually the Pope who had the last word. If the public had the last word Cardinal Law certainly wouldn’t be in Rome today.

 

[ethelzguy]

Hmmmm, as to your point five, I believe it was actually the Pope who had the last word. If the public had the last word Cardinal Law certainly wouldn’t be in Rome today.

Several have posted quotes that state that the laity are duty-bound to report “abuses”.

I am curious. In what context are these comments made? Liturgical Abuse? or Pedophilia?

 

[Tsuwano]

Hmmmm, as to your point five, I believe it was actually the Pope who had the last word. If the public had the last word Cardinal Law certainly wouldn’t be in Rome today.

Yes, of course you are right. It is the Pope who has the last word. It’s interesting to wonder where exactly Cardinal Law would be if the people of Boston did indeed have the last word. I think it is also worth noting that Cardinal Law is not in Boston because lay people, in the final analysis, did indeed have something to say about the matter.

 

[aloysiusg]

While you can’t have the laity going around like a lynch mob, int he case of Carindal Law what he did (or didn’t do) helped set the Church and the priesthood so far back it is amazing that he got off as easy as he did. Why was someone who was so much more villain than victim in this scenario handled with such kid gloves? I know, I know - not the forum for it.

Certainly, if a priest is abusing the liturgy or teaching flasehoods or something grave, the laity need to speak up. But if a priest is implementing some policy that one doesn’t agree with, that’s when you either deal with it or move to another parish.

 

[Joannm]

Let’s break this down into two separate groups. There are many of us who teach theology and philsophy and we have seminarians, religious and lay people in our classes. This means that our classes have passed the scrutiny required so that the persons can attend. In other words, we can educate them. There nare many of us who are lay, religious and clerics. This kind of education refers to academic education. In other words, we provide the education that they need to get their degrees or get ordained.

There are also people who work under a bishop at the diocesan level and are in charge of specific departments. They are delegated by the bishop to run these departments or ministries. Any deacon, priest or religious involved in this ministry would come under their jurisdiction, but only in that area. For example, if a Sister is the Diocean Liturgical Director, it is her job to see to it that the liturgy of the diocese follows the rules of the diocese. When those rules are not followed, she can intervene. She intervenes, as a delegate of the Bishop. The Bishop is actually the person with the authority. The Bishop will usually write in your job description how far you can go and what has to come either to him or to his Vicar. This is a different kind of education. This is not academic. This is teaching priests and deacons how to celebrate the liturgy. However, this person cannot intervene in matters concerning marriages, for example. That would be someone else in the chancery.

If the priest is also a religious, then you have a compounded problem. If the diocese says they want the priest to walk on water during the mass and the religious superior says that he wants his priests to float above the water, then the bishop and the superior have to reach a meeting of the minds. The religious may never disregard their superior to follow the bishop. The superior is the equivalent of a bishop in all things, except that he cannot administer the same sacraments that a bishop can, but he has the same legal authority over his priests. This is what would be a conflict of interest between the religious community and the bishop.

Most bishops prefer to avoid those conflicts of interest and let the priests who are also religious follow the guidance of their superiors. This kind of situation rarely comes up. For the most part, religious superiors and bishops are on the same page.

Lay people or religious who work for the chancery only have as much authority over the clergy as the bishop is willing to delegate. Some bishops delegate more than others. They never have authority over the clergy who are religious, unless it has been agreed upon with the religious superior.

Most religious superiors will say to the diocese, “You can correct or priests in anything that has to do with parish life, but never in anything that is personal or that is related to institutions that are owned by the religious community and not by the diocese.”

For example, religious who run colleges and universities owned by religious orders, do not take their directives from the bishop. These institutions belong to the community. If you don’t like what you see at a mass at a Catholic university, you have to go to the superior of the house at that university. The bishop cannot intervene. The university is not part of the diocese, because the diocese doesn’t own it or finance it or pay the salaries to the religious who teach and say mass there. However, the bishop can complain to the superior and if he raises his voice loudly enough, he will be heard.

Does this help?

JR

Yes, that clears things up a bit. Thank you.

 

[JReducation]

Allow me a response to the points you have said I should review from my most recent post.

1. While it is true that “the clerical state is not subject to the authority of the laity, while the lay state is subject to the authority of the clergy,” I would add that all of us are subject to the authority of the Gospel and, within the context of the Christian community, all of us have the responsibility to admonish each other when we fall into sin or stray from the Gospel. It is true that a lay person who admonishes a cleric has no authority behind him except the authority of the Bishop, if it should come to that, but this does not absolve him, or any Christian, from confronting the sinful person and calling him back to faithfulness. Mind you, I am not talking about church governance or opinions concerning the liturgy. These justly belong to the Bishop and his priestly representatives.
2. Perhaps my description of the clergy as holding “the lowest rung on the ladder” was poor, but my point was to stress the role of the priest as one of service to the people of God. You mention that part of the role of the priesthood is to govern the Church. I have no argument here, but this is precisely why I believe the priesthood is primarily one of service. Indeed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1994, states “That office … which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a service.” And again, “The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a “sacred power” which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all.”
   I would also add at this point that though it is true that part of the role of the priesthood is to govern the Church, there has always been allowance within the Church for the laity to join in leading the Christian community. And so, again in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we find "In the Church, “lay members of the Christian faithful can cooperate in the exercise of this power of governance in accord with the norm of law. And so the Church provides for their presence at particular councils, diocesan synods, pastoral councils; the exercise in solidum of the pastoral care of a parish, ecclesiastical tribunals, etc.”
3. Though it is true that not all priests take vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience within a religious community, it is also not true that priests do not take vows. In fact, all Christians take vows. They are our baptismal vows, and they do indeed bind us, including all clergy, to a specific way of life. These are the vows I allude to in my original post when I refer to a vowed life.
4. Yes, I’m fully aware of this.
5. I am also aware of this point, though I would like to add that it is not always an act of charity to immediately approach a bishop or religious superior when a lay person has a complaint against a priest. I would think it best to approach the individual first, and then if warranted, approach the proper religious authorities. Naturally, I would hope the concerns expressed would not be trivial in nature. I would also add that I do believe the presiding bishop has all authority over the clerics in his diocese and his decision regarding his priests is final, except of course where the inury causes blatant injury to the people under the care of that bishop. Then, as in the case of Cardinal Law in Boston, truth, justice, and the strength of righteous public opinion, may have the last word.

This is much clearer than your original post. I can agree with everything you have said here. I would add only one clarification at the very end. The bishop has authority only over those deacons, priests and bishops who work for him. When a deacon or priest works under the authority of his religious superior, such as when he works in a ministry that belongs to his congregation and not the diocese, the bishop has no direct authority over the individual. However, institutions within a diocese must have the bishop’s permission to establish themselves there. Agreements and contracts are drawn up between the bishop and the major religious superior in which they establish the lines of demarcation. It’s different for every situation. Usually, the priest who is a religious and works within a ministry of his community answers only to the superior of that house. A priest who is a religious and works for the diocese, such as a parish, answers to the bishop only in parish related matters.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Yes, of course you are right. It is the Pope who has the last word. It’s interesting to wonder where exactly Cardinal Law would be if the people of Boston did indeed have the last word. I think it is also worth noting that Cardinal Law is not in Boston because lay people, in the final analysis, did indeed have something to say about the matter.

It is obvious that they needed a new face and a new approach and that’s why they assigned Cardinal Sean. Cardinal Sean has a reputation for being a very holy friar, very connected with people’s needs and feelings, and very orthodox without leaning to extremes of right or left. He’s a very balanced person.

I believe that being that he is a Capuchin-Franciscan Friar helped a great deal too. If you stop and think of it, he’s comes from a religious community that has never had such a scandal, to the best of my knowledge. They have a reputation for being very prayerful, austere, fraternal, simple, intellectual and generally well liked where ever they serve.

This was the perfect person to assign. Cardinal Law may have had his weaknesses, but he is a good man. I believe to this day that what he was afraid of was what turned out to be the inevitable. He tried to protect the Church from embarrassment.

For those who ask why he has been assigned a post in the Vatican, I would guess is tha the Vatican did see that he really did care about the situation, but handled it poorly, rather than being a bad person.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Didn’t Ex Corde Ecclesiae extend bishops’ authority over the university ministries?

Only over those ministries run by secular priests. It does not extend the bishop’s authority over a university owned and operated by an exempt religious community with their own funds and resources.

Not all religious communities are exempt. I’m sure there are more, but the ones that come to mind right now are: Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Augustinians, Carmelites, and Benedictines.

Their major superior has the same authority as a bishop, but does not have to be a bishop. In fact, bishops are rarely major superiors. Most religious who are consecrated bishops lose the right to hold office in their community, but they remain members of the community for life. I’m not sure if they retain the right to vote. Canon law is not clear on this. Maybe it’s up to each community.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

For those who ask why he has been assigned a post in the Vatican, I would guess is tha the Vatican did see that he really did care about the situation, but handled it poorly, rather than being a bad person.

JR

I think you are right on with this thought.

I think it’s important for us to refrain from judging a man’s heart or his intentions. He was in a very difficult and very stressful position. He did not handle it the way it should have been handled, but hindsight is 20/20. I’m sure there is not one person alive who does not regret at least one decision made after viewing it from the other side of having made it.

Grace is for everyone. Even if we can’t find our way to ‘feeling’ it as appropriate for another person. And in reality, everyday that person in need of grace is each one of us, when you think about it.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for the clarification and additional information.

I’d like to know more about the situation concerning the TORs and how it relates to the Franciscans in France.

Wouldn’t a lot of clerics argue that they do not appreciate you going “over their heads” by complaining to superiors without first talking to them about the matter of concern?

I hadn’t thought about this, but you do make sense. I think this would be the first step.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I spoke with my priest about this today and he said that it could indeed be a mortal sin to criticize a priest. In criticizing a priest to others it could unjustly harm the priest’s reputation and harm the church. I’m not talking about criticizing something as lame as the color of the priest’s car, but criticism that causes others to question a priest’s character could become slanderous which is very serious.

I am fortunate to be under the care and authority of a very fine priest who takes his vocation very seriously. It is painful for me to see him be criticized and ridiculed on a daily basis by a handful of laity who are angry because they aren’t in charge anymore. They have determined that they will make his life miserable so he will want to leave. (One of them actually told me that! They tried to get me on their side when I first started attending. I was shocked and avoid them at all costs.) I would think that actions like these could very well be a mortal sin.

This is another perspective, that I had not stopped to consider. If you are ruining someone’s reputation, even your mother-in-law, there is a moral dimension to this.

Being critical is one thing, ruining someone’s credibility is quite another thing all together.

I can complain because my priest’s sermons are boring. To say that he’s not orthodox borders on questioning his credibility.

I can see what your priest is saying and it makes sense to me.

JR

 

[chicago]

Only over those ministries run by secular priests. It does not extend the bishop’s authority over a university owned and operated by an exempt religious community with their own funds and resources.

Not all religious communities are exempt. I’m sure there are more, but the ones that come to mind right now are: Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Augustinians, Carmelites, and Benedictines.)

As I understood it, bishops have long had the authority over such secular institutions as Newman Centers. However, the student ministries at Catholic universities run by religious institutions have, indeed, traditionally been exempt from his oversight. (This, of course, protected them and enabled a lot of experimentation in recent decades as they could - and often did - use the excuse that “We aren’t subject to the bishop’s authority.”) However, I believed it to be the case that with Ex Corde Ecclesiae the bishops now have been given the extended responsibility and authority to oversee such ministries - at least in some limited (though still greater than before) fashion. The bishops’ influence does not entirely encompass such direct matters as, say, personnel appointments or day to day operations. But it does allow him greater oversight of even those student ministries operated by these independent institutions in so much as it pertains to their being exercised within his diocese. Essentially, I thought that such ministries now fell under his supervisory jurisdiction, though they are, obviously, run not by the bishop’s prerogative as a diocesan ministry, but rather still that of the religious community which operates the university.

(I suppose the question of who REALLY runs the university, if it is a private, secular board of trustees rather than the religious community, comes into the question, too. Though I don’t know that this would, ultimately, affect the bishop’s authority over the ministry as it functions within his diocese.)

 

[donmaximuso27]

In countless threads, I see various posts criticizing the Church and her clergymembers. The criticisms seem to come mostly from those who consider themselves “Traditional Catholics”.

What puzzles me, is that it is the “TCs” who claim we should more closely follow the Church, yet they are the ones more prone to the criticisms.

How do we explain this contradiction? Isn’t one of the basic tenets of Catholicism that we should be obedient?

Ok, let’s be obedient and look at what the Catechism teaches on the matter.

900 “Since, like all the faithful, lay Christians are entrusted by God with the apostolate by virtue of their Baptism and Confirmation, they have the right and duty, individually or grouped in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation may be known and accepted by all men throughout the earth. This duty is the more pressing when it is only through them that men can hear the Gospel and know Christ. Their activity in ecclesial communities is so necessary that, for the most part, the apostolate of the pastors cannot be fully effective without it.”

907 “In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.”

Whether you want to believe it or not, laity have an obligation to correct liturgical abuses, correct clergy and any other religious on heresy, and correct any heresy held by other lay people. This is not clericalization, its following our vocation in Christ’s Church. If you one day, or already have, allowed a religious or lay person teach heresy without rebuking him, then you have been disobedient to the Magisterium. Throughout your posts you are very optimistic about the clergy and give them the benefit of the doubt, as we all should. Yet, at the same time, don’t be naive in thinking that clergy are not indeed human and will not stray from the Church. Also, enough of the judgmental nonsense in accusing laity of self-clericalization. If you don’t have the courage to combat heresy then fine, but don’t allow your envy of others ability to do so drive you to judge them.

 

[JReducation]

As I understood it, bishops have long had the authority over such secular institutions as Newman Centers. However, the student ministries at Catholic universities run by religious institutions have, indeed, traditionally been exempt from his oversight. (This, of course, protected them and enabled a lot of experimentation in recent decades as they could - and often did - use the excuse that “We aren’t subject to the bishop’s authority.”) However, I believed it to be the case that with Ex Corde Ecclesiae the bishops now have been given the extended responsibility and authority to oversee such ministries - at least in some limited (though still greater than before) fashion. The bishops’ influence does not entirely encompass such direct matters as, say, personnel appointments or day to day operations. But it does allow him greater oversight of even those student ministries operated by these independent institutions in so much as it pertains to their being exercised within his diocese. Essentially, I thought that such ministries now fell under his supervisory jurisdiction, though they are, obviously, run not by the bishop’s prerogative as a diocesan ministry, but rather still that of the religious community which operates the university.

(I suppose the question of who REALLY runs the university, if it is a private, secular board of trustees rather than the religious community, comes into the question, too. Though I don’t know that this would, ultimately, affect the bishop’s authority over the ministry as it functions within his diocese.)

Most universities have a Board of Trustees, even Catholic University of America which is a Vatican owned school does. This is for legal reasons and tax rasons. This is to maintain the non-profit status, since they don’t have state oversight.

As to the ministries such as Newman centers, these are under the jurisdiction of the bishop. Some exempt religious communities do not have them on their campuses precisely to maintain an arms length between the community and the bishop. But as I said before, the university can only exist within a bishops jurisdiction after agreements between the bishop and the religious community. This is a new thing. Those univesities like Franciscan University, Georgetown, Loyola and many others that are older are not convered by these new rules, because the rules do not go backward. The are meant for universities that are starting after the decree. Even in those cases, the exempt ordes always have the power of the Sacred Congregation for Religious to appeal to for support and the bishops can appeal to the Congregation for Bishops, so nothing is really new. It boils down to two Ordinaries reaching some amicable agreements.

The religious can alway claim that the bishop is overstepping his bounds, because they have permission from the superior of the house at the university. That usually stops bishops dead on their tracks. Most bishops do not want to deal with the Sacred Congregation for Religious and much less with the Superiors General.

Here’s the other complication. This is hypothetical. Let’s say that the Bishop gets into an issue with the Order of St. Marlboro, an exempt religious orer that runs a university in his diocese. But the same bishop also has other religious running his parishes. If he treat the Monks of St. Marlboro badly, he runs the risk of losing credibility or trust with the other religious who run his parishes and whom he needs. This is why bishops tread gently when it comes to religious. Unless it’s something so outlandish and so scandalous or illegal that it can’t be ignored, the bishop usually writes a polite letter to the superior and the leaves it at that for the superior to deal with it.

There was a university where the non catholic students sued, because they wanted the crucifixes out of the classrooms. The religious had to face the law suit alone. The bishop said that this was not his school, though he sympathized with the religious who ran the university. This left a sour taste in the mouths of the religious who ran parishes in his diocese. The question was raised, why the bishop was quick to tell the university that they couldn’t have a gay-straight alliance group on campus for the sake of mutual support, but did not run to the courthouse to defend them against the law suit.

Many religious felt that the bishop could not be trusted to protect them, but only made his presence felt when there was soemthing that he didn’t like.

This is what I call a bad taste in people’s mouths.

That’s why most prudent bishops just stay out of these things.

One university refused to celebrate the TLM, the bishop was asked to intervene and he refused. He said that he would rather put a TLM mass in a parish 10 min away from the university than take on the superior of the house. This way the bishop is not committed to defending the university in other situations.

If you have the authority to make demands on a religious community, then you also have the responsibility to protect them when under fire.

My bishop always says this and he’s right.

JR

 

[Tsuwano]

It is obvious that they needed a new face and a new approach and that’s why they assigned Cardinal Sean. Cardinal Sean has a reputation for being a very holy friar, very connected with people’s needs and feelings, and very orthodox without leaning to extremes of right or left. He’s a very balanced person.

I believe that being that he is a Capuchin-Franciscan Friar helped a great deal too. If you stop and think of it, he’s comes from a religious community that has never had such a scandal, to the best of my knowledge. They have a reputation for being very prayerful, austere, fraternal, simple, intellectual and generally well liked where ever they serve.

This was the perfect person to assign. Cardinal Law may have had his weaknesses, but he is a good man. I believe to this day that what he was afraid of was what turned out to be the inevitable. He tried to protect the Church from embarrassment.

For those who ask why he has been assigned a post in the Vatican, I would guess is tha the Vatican did see that he really did care about the situation, but handled it poorly, rather than being a bad person.

JR

I agree with your opinion regarding Cardinal Law. I remember when he was the Bishop of Cape Giradeau, Mo., I believe, and he was a very positive influence in that diocese. I was very pleased when he was named the Cardinal of Boston and expected great things from him. When news of his handling of the sexual scandal in Boston came out, I felt very disappointed, not only because of the pain ignoring such abuse caused, but also because I believe Cardinal Law is a man of God who sincerely wishes to do right and serve the Church. It was extremely sad to see his career in Boston cut short in such a manner, and I do hope he can continue to serve the Church in his present position. I also admit to feeling great disappointment because I feel the bishop of a diocese is primarily a shepherd; a guide and guard for the people of God. In Cardinal Law’s case (and in several other cases across the nation) I felt betrayed, almost, as if the wolf had been given free reign among the flock with the shepherd’s cooperation. I guess there are many reasons for the Cardinal’s actions regarding the sexual abuse cases in Boston, including fear and confusion, but the damage was severe and there just wasn’t any way the Cardinal could stay in Boston. I pray for Cardinal Law, as well as the present Cardinal of Boston, and I continue to pray for the healing of those who fell victim to the clerical predators who abused them.