Culture change in the Church

[lemonbeam]

**There has been much advice given to the Catholic Church in regard to the sexual abuse scandals. There are, though, only two real options. The Church can become more Catholic, or less Catholic.
**

Much commentary favours the latter approach. If the Catholic Church were to become less distinctively Catholic – begin to teach as false what she now teaches as true, modify her traditional practices, adopt democratic modes of governance – she would fix the problem. Though rarely put so bluntly, the advice to Catholics is to become more like Protestants.

The alternative is for the Church to become more fully who she already is – a preacher, a teacher, a mother, a mediator, a ruler. The sexual abuse scandals are a result of the Church’s infidelity to her own identity and mission. That demands the response of being more Catholic, not less.

Obviously that’s the case for the perpetrators of sexual abuse. Sin, especially such grievous sin and criminal activity, is a betrayal of the graces of baptism and ordination. The scandals, though, have been as much about a failure of governance and oversight; it’s from the Greek for overseer" that we get the word bishop".

In the 1960s, like much of society and after the Second Vatican Council, the Church simply abandoned her disciplinary life. Doctrinal dissent was not corrected, but often celebrated. Liturgical abuses, both minor and outrageously sacrilegious, were tolerated. Bishops simply stopped inquiring into priestly asceticism, prayer and holiness of life. Non-Catholics often have an image of the Catholic Church as a ruthlessly efficient organization with a chain of command that would make the armed forces jealous. The reality for most of the 1960s to 1980s was the opposite. A priest could preach heresy, profane the Holy Mass, destroy the piety of his people and face no consequences. The overseers decided to overlook everything. It is any surprise, then, that when accusations of criminal immorality emerged they too were dealt with inadequately, if at all?

Pope Benedict, in his bluntly-worded letter to Irish Catholics last week wrote that the bishops failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse." Too many bishops weren’t Catholic enough. They failed, for example, to follow the clear direction of the 1983 Code of Canon Law that a cleric who commits sexual sin with a minor is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants."

A culture of laxity had so infected bishops that their disciplinary muscles had severely atrophied. It was not as if they were vigilant rulers in all aspects, but perversely indulgent of sexual abuse. Indulgence was shown to abuses of all kinds. So latitudinarian had the clerical culture become that even modest attempts at doctrinal discipline were widely mocked – or do we forget that the progressive press, inside and outside the Church, calling Joseph Ratzinger God’s Rottweiler"?

The great task for the Holy See then has been to restore those disciplinary muscles. On doctrine, a universal catechism was issued in 1992 to make plain the orthodox teaching of the Church. In the liturgy, instruction after instruction has declared the age of endlessly inventive innovations to be over. The Holy See wrested control over translations of the Mass away from national bishops’ conferences, deeming a failure three decades of rhetorically insipid, theologically dubious and linguistically dishonest work.

On sexual abuse? In the late 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger launched a review of how such cases were being handled. In 2001, he and Pope John Paul II lost patience. That year – before, it should be noted, the explosion of the American scandals in 2002 – local bishops were told they no longer could handle the canonical aspects of such cases on their own authority. All cases of sex abuse had to be reported to Rome. The age of majority was raised from 16 to 18, the statute of limitations was extended and often lifted altogether, and speedier dismissals from the priesthood were authorized. If local bishops would not govern, then the Holy See would intervene directly.

Like doctrine and liturgy, the attempt was to effect a culture change – precisely because any existing rules are useless in a culture of laxity. It takes time to change a culture, but what does culture change in the Church look like?

Since 2001, Rome has dealt with some 3,000 cases stretching back a half century or more. Canadian bishops were ahead of the curve; since 1989 there have been strict protocols in place. The current one for the Archdiocese of Toronto requires reporting abuse to civil authorities within one hour. Just last week my superiors dispatched a letter to another diocese I intend to visit testifying to my probity – including criminal checks, sobriety and soundness of morals. That’s now routine.

On Tuesday, the American bishops released their annual national audit of all charges in the last year. It reports that there were 398 new allegations in the entire United States last year. Six of them were from current minors; the rest were older incidents only now being reported. Over 70% of alleged offenders are already deceased, suspended from ministry, or dismissed from the priesthood. In a Church of some 60 million Catholics, aggressive action has seen the problem reduced to six cases of alleged current abuse. That did not make the news.

The backlog from the sins, shame and secrecy of the past is still to be dealt with. It will take some time. The victims’ pain endures, the Church’s shame remains. The abdication of discipline in the Church has taken a terrible toll. Slowly though we are becoming more Catholic and restoring the years that the locust hath eaten.

Read more here: catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0330.htm

 

[Mrs_Sally]

excellent response. the abuse scandal is tragic and so evil. we should all fast and pray.

 

[manygift1spirit]

This viewpoint mirrors almost exactly what George Weigel (of Witness to Hope fame) said back in 2002 or so.

Matthew Kelly has pointed out that whenever a Catholic says the Church has to change, a proper reply is that they are the Church, and if one changes themselves for the better the Church will change for the better.

 

[puzzleannie]

There has been much advice given to the Catholic Church in regard to the sexual abuse scandals. There are, though, only two real options. The Church can become more Catholic, or less Catholic.

the Church is already fully completely Catholic, so she cannot become more Catholic. She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The real options are these: individual Catholics, lay, ordained, and religious can become more Catholic or less Catholic, embrace truth or the lie, choose the Light or the darkness, obey or dissent, be humble or proud.

 

[Soutane]

This viewpoint mirrors almost exactly what George Weigel (of Witness to Hope fame) said back in 2002 or so.

Matthew Kelly has pointed out that whenever a Catholic says the Church has to change, a proper reply is that they are the Church, and if one changes themselves for the better the Church will change for the better.

That is exactly what Father Croal,our wonderful Parish Priest says if we expect the Church and the World to change we must start with ourselves.But write our Shepherds and DEMAND change and ORTHODOXY.

 

[Ocarm]

There has been much advice given to the Catholic Church in regard to the sexual abuse scandals. There are, though, only two real options. The Church can become more Catholic, or less Catholic.

The article that you link to seems to suggest that because of a movement that resulted in new translations of the liturgy and liberal theology, the Church forgot how to apply its own rules (even though those rules were written in the midst of these processes, with the 1983 promulgation of the Code of Canon Law) and so failed to deal with sexual abusers, many or most of whom had in fact been active before the onset of these changes following the Second Vatican council.

This sounds like a desperate attempt to force guilt by association upon the Council or liberal Catholicism generally. The truth is that the church has never been good at addressing the moral (as opposed to doctrinal) failings of its clergy and religious. The idea that this only developed or became markedly worse in the last 50 years is not borne out by the facts of church history.

If that is unattractive to others, feel free to disagree; I would be very interested to hear about how sexual abuse cases were managed under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, or see figures that support the idea that prior to the mid-late 20th century, sexual improprieties amongst clergy were more vigorously dealt with than today or in the recent past. Without such figures, the article is pursuing an agenda of blame without any clear facts to support it, and using an ad hominem approach to attack perceived liberalism in the church over recent decades.

We have been badly let down by church leadership over the abuse scandals. Turning this terrible suffering - a Passion for our times - into another variation on the liberal vs. traditional attitudes debate within the church seems to me to be a sad and exploitative tactic which does nothing to help the victims of the abuse.

 

[Soutane]

the Church is already fully completely Catholic, so she cannot become more Catholic. She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The real options are these: individual Catholics, lay, ordained, and religious can become more Catholic or less Catholic, embrace truth or the lie, choose the Light or the darkness, obey or dissent, be humble or proud.

We are the Church .WE are the Body of Christ.The point that Lemonbeam was making is not dissimilar to yours.The Church is Divine.The congregants and the Leaders are not.And the Shepards MUST become more CATHOLIC,more ORTHODOX,and as Pope John paul the Great said,"Be unafraid"to be politically incorrect,shame Catholic politicians and Cultural Catholics and to figuratively string up these homosexual creeps who’ve hidden out in the Church and made it their own personal hunting ground.The problem is NOT the Divine Institution of the Church.the problem lies with some of the complicit morons who are subject to human failings and sin but who run it and are moral cowards and NO i’m NOT talking about BENEDICT,who has inherited one UNGODLY mess…

 

[Soutane]

The article that you link to seems to suggest that because of a movement that resulted in new translations of the liturgy and liberal theology, the Church forgot how to apply its own rules (even though those rules were written in the midst of these processes, with the 1983 promulgation of the Code of Canon Law) and so failed to deal with sexual abusers, many or most of whom had in fact been active before the onset of these changes following the Second Vatican council.

This sounds like a desperate attempt to force guilt by association upon the Council or liberal Catholicism generally. The truth is that the church has never been good at addressing the moral (as opposed to doctrinal) failings of its clergy and religious. The idea that this only developed or became markedly worse in the last 50 years is not borne out by the facts of church history.

If that is unattractive to others, feel free to disagree; I would be very interested to hear about how sexual abuse cases were managed under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, or see figures that support the idea that prior to the mid-late 20th century, sexual improprieties amongst clergy were more vigorously dealt with than today or in the recent past. Without such figures, the article is pursuing an agenda of blame without any clear facts to support it, and using an ad hominem approach to attack perceived liberalism in the church over recent decades.

We have been badly let down by church leadership over the abuse scandals. Turning this terrible suffering - a Passion for our times - into another variation on the liberal vs. traditional attitudes debate within the church seems to me to be a sad and exploitative tactic which does nothing to help the victims of the abuse.

Liberal Catholicism and the deliberate manipulations of the teachings of VaticanII by the liberal(let’s call a spade a spade)DISSIDENT elements are the root cause of this scandal and the general apostacy in the Church that has resulted in empty Churches,Liturgical,abuse,Cultural Catholicism,20% of Catholics who still believe in the True Presence and the total abandonment of the Sacrament of reconciliation of all but 3% of all of the 20% of Catholics who still attend mass.
This liberalism has resulted in so-called Catholic politicians such as,Mcguinty,Biden,Pelosi and Blair.There are not two camps within theChurch-one conservative and one liberal.There are ,orthodox devout Catholics obedient and submissive to the teaching authority of the Magesterium and heterodox dissident Catholics who want to change the Church into their own image.Dissidents who promote same-sex"so-called" marriage,abortion,contraception and the ordination of women priests.Rome has spoken.Now listen.The answer infallibly is NO.Married priests is a discipline not a doctrine and is neither conservative nor liberal.Liberal(read dissident)Catholics think they can nag the Church into capitulation.The Church hasn’t capitulated in 2000 years and isn’t about to now to a few disgruntled and disaffected Catholics who want to see the Holy Catholic Church in their bathroom mirror.

 

[chaunceygardner]

The article that you link to seems to suggest that because of a movement that resulted in new translations of the liturgy and liberal theology, the Church forgot how to apply its own rules (even though those rules were written in the midst of these processes, with the 1983 promulgation of the Code of Canon Law) and so failed to deal with sexual abusers, many or most of whom had in fact been active before the onset of these changes following the Second Vatican council.

Thank you for saying this and appearing as a voice of reason in the midst of finger-pointing and the assigning of blame to anyone and everyone but those to whom it belongs.

This sounds like a desperate attempt to force guilt by association upon the Council or liberal Catholicism generally. The truth is that the church has never been good at addressing the moral (as opposed to doctrinal) failings of its clergy and religious. The idea that this only developed or became markedly worse in the last 50 years is not borne out by the facts of church history.

Right again. The two studies done in Ireland, one of the abusive Priests, the other of Catholic run orphanages and children’s homes, show that the problems existed well before the 1960’s. One report notes the existence of rules prohibiting and punishing abusive and sexual behaviours with minors by clergy going back many, many years. The problem is the rules were never consistently applied, and the incidents were unreported to the heirarchy (and those that were reported were suppressed).

If that is unattractive to others, feel free to disagree; I would be very interested to hear about how sexual abuse cases were managed under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, or see figures that support the idea that prior to the mid-late 20th century, sexual improprieties amongst clergy were more vigorously dealt with than today or in the recent past. Without such figures, the article is pursuing an agenda of blame without any clear facts to support it, and using an ad hominem approach to attack perceived liberalism in the church over recent decades.

The Irish reports clearly state that neither the 1917 Canon nor the rules promulgated outside of the Canon were followed. And in this particular case, the Archdiocese of Dublin set up a procedure and personnel to deal with the issues, but then did not actually implement those plans for another decade. But it looked good on paper!

We have been badly let down by church leadership over the abuse scandals. Turning this terrible suffering - a Passion for our times - into another variation on the liberal vs. traditional attitudes debate within the church seems to me to be a sad and exploitative tactic which does nothing to help the victims of the abuse.

We worry so much about the Church, but forget that the Church includes the people who were the victims (and the later victims who shouldn’t have been victims if the Church had acted properly). The Catholic Church has victimized its very own! Yet we direct our anger at liberals, post Vatican II decisions, and the media. We point our fingers in every direction but the right one.

Why is that?

 

[Ocarm]

Liberal Catholicism and the deliberate manipulations of the teachings of VaticanII by the liberal(let’s call a spade a spade)DISSIDENT elements are the root cause of this scandal and the general apostacy in the Church that has resulted in empty Churches,Liturgical,abuse,Cultural Catholicism,20% of Catholics who still believe in the True Presence and the total abandonment of the Sacrament of reconciliation of all but 3% of all of the 20% of Catholics who still attend mass.
This liberalism has resulted in so-called Catholic politicians such as,Mcguinty,Biden,Pelosi and Blair.There are not two camps within theChurch-one conservative and one liberal.There are ,orthodox devout Catholics obedient and submissive to the teaching authority of the Magesterium and heterodox dissident Catholics who want to change the Church into their own image.Dissidents who promote same-sex"so-called" marriage,abortion,contraception and the ordination of women priests.Rome has spoken.Now listen.The answer infallibly is NO.Married priests is a discipline not a doctrine and is neither conservative nor liberal.Liberal(read dissident)Catholics think they can nag the Church into capitulation.The Church hasn’t capitulated in 2000 years and isn’t about to now to a few disgruntled and disaffected Catholics who want to see the Holy Catholic Church in their bathroom mirror.

What does all of the above have to do with the sexual abuse scandals, which was the matter being addressed here?

My point was that if the issues you are referencing are relevant to the scandals, some evidence (facts and figures) needs to be produced to support that link.

None of your comments establish a relationship between clerical abuses and their poor handling by the church, most especially not when much of the abuse occurred before the negative changes you say have occurred.

I repeat, hijacking the current crisis and making it into a liberals vs. traditionalists debate is sad and a disservice to the victims of the abuse.

 

[lemonbeam]

What does all of the above have to do with the sexual abuse scandals, which was the matter being addressed here?

My point was that if the issues you are referencing are relevant to the scandals, some evidence (facts and figures) needs to be produced to support that link.

None of your comments establish a relationship between clerical abuses and their poor handling by the church, most especially not when much of the abuse occurred before the negative changes you say have occurred.

I repeat, hijacking the current crisis and making it into a liberals vs. traditionalists debate is sad and a disservice to the victims of the abuse.

I’m not the person you are responding to, but what facts and figure are you referencing?

 

[wisdomseeker]

**There has been much advice given to the Catholic Church in regard to the sexual abuse scandals. There are, though, only two real options. The Church can become more Catholic, or less Catholic.
**

Read more here: catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0330.htm

after VII the priests were to have freedom to be creative in the Church and bishops were not to intervieing. the Church was supposed to be more like protestants congregations. that is why it is what it is. apparently it did not work. mixed faith is not a plan of God. but some Catholic men decided that is what they would do. that is why we are in the mess we are today.

Lord have Mercy on your faifhfull, increase them in numbers. judge the hearts of those are deceitefull.

 

[Soutane]

What does all of the above have to do with the sexual abuse scandals, which was the matter being addressed here?

My point was that if the issues you are referencing are relevant to the scandals, some evidence (facts and figures) needs to be produced to support that link.

None of your comments establish a relationship between clerical abuses and their poor handling by the church, most especially not when much of the abuse occurred before the negative changes you say have occurred.

I repeat, hijacking the current crisis and making it into a liberals vs. traditionalists debate is sad and a disservice to the victims of the abuse.

Re read my post s l o w l y.You were the one who brought up the contention between liberals and conservatives in response to lemonbeams post-That is exactly what you accused her of doing.I’m responding to your comment and it was not me but you who attempted the thtread highjacking.

YOUR WORDS NOT LEMONBEAMS NOR MINE:

“This sounds like a desperate attempt to force guilt by association upon the Council or liberal Catholicism generally. The truth is that the church has never been good at addressing the moral (as opposed to doctrinal) failings of its clergy and religious. The idea that this only developed or became markedly worse in the last 50 years is not borne out by the facts of church history.”

I hijacked nothing but you certainly have been hoist by your own petard.

 

[Soutane]

What does all of the above have to do with the sexual abuse scandals, which was the matter being addressed here?

I QUOTE:Liberal Catholicism and the deliberate manipulations of the teachings of VaticanII by the liberal(let’s call a spade a spade)DISSIDENT elements are the root cause of this scandal.

My point was that if the issues you are referencing are relevant to the scandals, some evidence (facts and figures) needs to be produced to support that link.
Lemonbeam has and can provide you with PLENTY of evidence supporting that contention.

Some of your comments establish a relationship between clerical abuses and their poor handling by the church, most especially not when much of the abuse occurred before the negative changes you say have occurred.

MOST OF THE ABUSE HAVE OCCURED SUBSEQUENT TO 1962 AND THE DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS OF THE TEACHINGS OF VATICANII BY UNDENIABLY LIBERAL ELEMENTS WITHIN THE CHURCH ARE OBVIOUSLY A CAUSITIVE FACTOR.

I repeat, hijacking the current crisis and making it into a liberals vs. traditionalists debate is sad and a disservice to the victims of the abuse.

Re read my post s l o w l y.You were the one who brought up the contention between liberals and conservatives in response to lemonbeams post-That is exactly what you accused her of doing.I’m responding to your comment and it was not me but you who attempted the thtread highjacking.

YOUR WORDS NOT LEMONBEAMS NOR MINE:

“This sounds like a desperate attempt to force guilt by association upon the Council or liberal Catholicism generally. The truth is that the church has never been good at addressing the moral (as opposed to doctrinal) failings of its clergy and religious. The idea that this only developed or became markedly worse in the last 50 years is not borne out by the facts of church history.”

I hijacked nothing but you certainly have been hoist by your own petard.

---

NON SERVIAM?QUIS UT DEUS!

 

[Ocarm]

I’m not the person you are responding to, but what facts and figure are you referencing?

I was asking for some facts and figures. My point was that assertions were made without any supporting evidence.

Best wishes.

 

[Soutane]

I was asking for some facts and figures. My point was that assertions were made without any supporting evidence.

Best wishes.

hOW ABOUT PLAIN COMMON SENSE?
Prior to the deceptive liberalizing of the Church in 1962.The people were orthodox,priests and nuns were holy,masses were packed and there was great reverence for the True Presence.Since Vii the Church is a hollowed shell of what she once was.All the sexual “ethics” and ethos of the radical '60’s crept in and the cancer of homosexual predatory behaviour metatasised with virulent rapidity.A cancer that we have to root out of the church by recognising and correcting the deliberate liberal skewing of the teachings of the infallible VII.Get my drift?Pope Paul Vi said the Smoke of Satan had entered the Church and gee,when was he Pope?
The lack of orthodoxy was a if not THE causitive factor in the mishandling of this Satanic scandal.

 

[Ocarm]

You were the one who brought up the contention between liberals and conservatives in response to lemonbeams post.

Yes, I did. It seemed to me to be clearly implicit within the article referenced. The fact that you picked up that particular ball and ran with it suggests I was right.

That is exactly what you accused her of doing.

I didn’t accuse her of anything. I critiqued the article that was referenced. I’m fully aware that she didn’t write it. The reason that Lemonbeam works so hard to source articles here on CAF is precisely so that we can discuss them.

I’m responding to your comment and it was not me but you who attempted the thtread highjacking.

My comment was that the debate over liberal vs. traditional Catholicism has nothing to do with church handling of the sexual abuse scandals. You responded with a list of examples of what you see as a lack of orthodoxy - in other words, with things that have nothing to do with church handling of the sexual abuse scandals.

I hijacked nothing but you certainly have been hoist by your own petard.

You used my comment that the article pushed the blame onto the liberal vs. traditionalist debate to embark upon a lengthy anti-liberal statement. That, I think, is where the hijacking took place. Up until then, the discussion had been as to whether the article presented a reasonable rationale for the mishandling of the crisis. You chose to bring in extraneous matters.

You are, it seems, assuming that I am defending liberalism or a lack of orthodoxy. In fact, I am suggesting that if either side of the liberal/traditionalist debate wishes to take the moral high ground and suggest that the other side is somehow responsible for the scandals afflicting the church, they are failing to address the nature of the problem, which is institutional rather than doctrinal.

 

[Soutane]

Please read my response which appears right above yours.

 

[Ocarm]

hOW ABOUT PLAIN COMMON SENSE?

Which would task one to ask why sexual abuse was occurring long before the introduction of the changes that you say are responsible for the sexual abuse.

This is a problem for all of us in the church. Not just a problem for those people whose theology or praxis is unattractive to us. To readdress the title of the thread, the culture of the church does indeed have to change. One of the changes needed is for the different constituencies within the church to stop blaming each other for the current scandals.

 

[Soutane]

“You used my comment that the article pushed the blame onto the liberal vs. traditionalist debate to embark upon a lengthy anti-liberal statement.”

I repeat that you brought it up in response to lemonbeams post.It intimated to me,or rather I interpreted that you supported the liberalizing of the Church through the incorrect and deceitful skewings of the teachings of vatican II.That is why I commented as i did.I fully believe that the FALSE liberalizing of the Church has created this stinking mess.I’m not referring to the genial and correct liberalising and properly interpreted changes thatVII brought forth sych as Ecumenism and masses in the vernacular but other more sinister twisting of VII such as individual concsience formation which resulted in relativism and cafeteria Catholicism,the almost univeral rejection of Humanae Vitae by Clergy and Laiety alike,the agitation for abortion,and normalization of homosexual sexual conduct and now the demand for so-called same-sex “marriage”.The predatory homosexual behaviour may not have had its germ in VaticanII but it certainly exploded after that.I am blaming not “liberals” but the deceitful and self serving skewing and interpretation of elements of Vatican II by Radical Liberalism.Which the Church has condemned in the past as Modernism…