The Pope's Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland

[silentstar]

The hierarchy, including Pope Benedict XVI, has either failed to comprehend the magnitude of this catastrophe, or, has resolved to hunker down, weather the storm, and hope that with some rather mild assurances to the laity, the matter will gradually fade away. The latter seems more likely. A thorough purging of the miscreants who were in positions of authority to prevent widespread sexual abuse, but failed to do so, would decimate the ranks of church officialdom. Instead the device of moving offenders around continues. For example, Cardinal Law is now serving as head of St. Mary Major in Rome. All of this is old news for us in the United States; it is not old news in Europe where the issue is heating up.

I doubt if many will leave the Church. Historically, regardless of the sinfulness of the hierarchy, the faithful have remained. Alexander VI is a classic example of a dissolute Pope, yet in 1500 faithful by the thousands pilgrimaged to Rome.

Most Catholics I know feel connection with their local Church and priest - not with the universal church. Their participation is often highly social rather than religious.

I think these comments make a lot of sense. This captures a great deal of my so-called devout Catholic family of origin’s actions. They claim to be devout but it is really more a matter of going through the motions and volunteering some, even though my mother works in the parish. What is missing is a sense of spirituality. For example, private devotion in our home, other than saying a few prayers at dinner esp. during Advent and Lent, was almost unheard of.

Despite the fact that my parents sent me to many years of Catholic school, in many ways I knew little about the Church’s history and traditions. I am 41 and grew up in the 70s. I had to learn a lot of stuff on my own.

That is a good point, that many people’s participation is more social than religious. Even people who consider themselves very devout. The other thing is that beyond very simple publications, like the Catholic Digest, there was virtually no theological reading or discussion in my home growing up.

This to me isn’t so much about questioning the Church but more a matter of keeping one’s religious life on a surface level and not thinking too hard about it. What is interesting is that people can devote their lives to the Church and still do this. It really never made much sense to me.

 

[NPC]

Monsignor Dooley says he would NOT report a paedophile and he has no moral obligation to do so.
bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode…ow_17_03_2010/

This in an interview with Monsignor Dooley on the Stephen Nolan show. It gets most interesting about 35 minutes in.

The monsignor has several scenarios put to him, and in all he states clearly and continuously he would NOT report a priest who admits he’s a paedophile, whether he admited to it inside or outside the confessional, even if said priest is currently actively abusing children.
No comment needed.

I believe comment is needed on this point. Monsignor Dooley was extremely irresponsible to have made the remarks that he did. However, Fr Dooley is not speaking for the Universal Church. He was admonished for his remarks by his bishop, Archbishop Dermot Clifford. The following is the statement from Dr Clifford:

The views expressed in the media in recent days by Mgr Maurice Dooley, a priest of Archdiocese of Cashel & Emly, with regard to the reporting of safeguarding concerns to the appropriate State authorities are his own personal views. As his bishop and on behalf of the Archdiocese of Cashel and Emly, I want to state that all concerns that come to light are reported fully and without delay to the State authorities. I want to give that assurance to all who may have heard Monsignor Dooley’s remarks. Such views do not represent the policy or the practice of the Catholic Church in Ireland today concerning the reporting of allegations of abuse to the civil authorities, North and South. The policy and practice of this diocese, and every diocese, is to report all allegations to the statutory authorities. As a consequence, I have spoken to Monsignor Dooley today and he assures me that he will not be speaking again in this controversy. I regret the distress, anger, and confusion that Mgr Dooley’s remarks have caused in recent days to all concerned.

Archbishop Dermot Clifford is Archbishop of Cashel & Emly and Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Cloyne

- Press release issued on the website of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland

People were rightly outraged by Monsignor Dooley’s remarks; however, there are dissenting priests everywhere, but ones personal views do not alter the policies or teachings of the Church. Our bishops are very clear on this issue - the civil authorities are to be informed if there is any complaint made: Canon law has its place, as the Church has a right to carry out its own investigations, but Civil law must also play a part. The Pope has said as much in his letter too.

 

[NPC]

I think these comments make a lot of sense. This captures a great deal of my so-called devout Catholic family of origin’s actions. They claim to be devout but it is really more a matter of going through the motions and volunteering some, even though my mother works in the parish. What is missing is a sense of spirituality. For example, private devotion in our home, other than saying a few prayers at dinner esp. during Advent and Lent, was almost unheard of.

Despite the fact that my parents sent me to many years of Catholic school, in many ways I knew little about the Church’s history and traditions. I am 41 and grew up in the 70s. I had to learn a lot of stuff on my own.

That is a good point, that many people’s participation is more social than religious. Even people who consider themselves very devout. The other thing is that beyond very simple publications, like the Catholic Digest, there was virtually no theological reading or discussion in my home growing up.

This to me isn’t so much about questioning the Church but more a matter of keeping one’s religious life on a surface level and not thinking too hard about it. What is interesting is that people can devote their lives to the Church and still do this. It really never made much sense to me.

I think that a great part of the problem was that people only knew what they had to know in order to be a good Catholic. This was certainly a feature of 1950’s Ireland - people knew that they ought to keep Sundays and holy days of obligation, to confess their sins regularly, to take part in certain devotions. However, the problem (as I see it) was that for most if you asked a question like “why do Catholics confess their sins to a priest” the answer would be “because the Church says that’s what we are to do”. In fact one sees such replies frequently here on CAF - in a sense the answer is correct, but it is also insulting because it suggests that our beliefs and practices are just concocted in the Vatican and that Scripture and Tradition have nothing to do with what the Church teaches. Of course we know the opposite is true - one can find out precisely where and why Catholic practices developed. But I think that the sheer submissiveness to the Church in Ireland meant that people knew what they had to know, did what they had to do, but probably didn’t devote much time to get into a deep spirituality…it meant that a lot of people just saw the Church as a set of rules, a force trying to control their lives. Whereas now, the situation as I see it is much more positive: Catholics are putting more effort into finding out about the faith - like many people here, I would not have learnt as much about the faith if I had not gone looking for the information which is out there. My personal view is that, despite the terrible situation the Irish Church finds itself in at the moment, the body of Catholics is far healthier than it has been over the past century - granted we rarely see churches full to capacity, but I think it’s better that those who are going to church go out of love for Christ and not just “because the Church says so”.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

People were rightly outraged by Monsignor Dooley’s remarks; however, there are dissenting priests everywhere, but ones personal views do not alter the policies or teachings of the Church.

The problem with this is, all the policies and teachings and procedures in the world are just words on paper unless and until people implement them.

Despite absolutely everything that has been said and done, despite all the fine rhetoric and apologies the fact is there are priests and senior clerics like Monsignor Dooley that still put the church above and beyond everyone and everything.

They will do anything, anything, not to give scandal to a fellow religious or the church.

The question is how many more like the Monsignor are there in the ranks of the religious.

And while there is even one, how can people believe things have really, actually changed?

 

[irishpatrick]

Well they are going after the largest denomination, the Catholic Church!. If the Orthodox Church was the largest denomination then they would go after them. Simple!.

There is a reason the RCC is the largest and it has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with truth.

 

[didymus]

I’ve just heard some of the Irish victims on the news, they’re saying it’s not enough. What do they want the Priests, Pope etc. to do I wonder?

Well, I don’t know if the Pope can fire bishops (I suspect not) but if Cardinal Brady and the other senior bishops in Ireland cared about the Church they would retire to monasteries.

The problem won’t be solved until there is new leadership in the Irish Church, as much as possible untainted by the current scandal.

 

[OriginalJS]

I think that a great part of the problem was that people only knew what they had to know in order to be a good Catholic. This was certainly a feature of 1950’s Ireland - people knew that they ought to keep Sundays and holy days of obligation, to confess their sins regularly, to take part in certain devotions.

I don’t know about Ireland, but this was true in Middle West United States in the 50’s. I was there. It seems like it took Vatican II to start moving toward educating the laity. There’s still a ways to go. Based on my experience, I would wager that if you ask ten Catholics about the significance of the Council of Trent not more than three could give you a rational answer.

 

[NPC]

I don’t know about Ireland, but this was true in Middle West United States in the 50’s. I was there. It seems like it took Vatican II to start moving toward educating the laity. There’s still a ways to go. Based on my experience, I would wager that if you ask ten Catholics about the significance of the Council of Trent not more than three could give you a rational answer.

I know it was my parents experience when they were growing up in the 50’s and 60’s. However, for myself, born in the 80’s, I know that that “because the Church says so” attitude is largely gone, but I’m not quite sure about moves to educate the laity. Because I have an interest in my faith, and I want to develop it, I have found out most of what I know by myself - and that’s after having gone to Catholic schools for 13 years. I think the scandals (which first broke here around 1994) have put a halt on any efforts to educate the laity in the faith. Priests are so reluctant to give out the full truths of the Catholic faith, lest they offend someone. The clergy here have lost their voice, feeling that they can’t go about talking about moral issues because some people go around with the attitude of “who is he to go about lecturing us after what his lot have done”. I think in terms of attempting to educate the faithful at the present time, the clergy are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I happen to think that strong preaching & hiding none of the Church’s teachings are a central way in which the clergy can gain credibility - I think people have had enough of wishy-washy sermons…

Hopefully the Pope’s letter can play a part in renewing the morale of the clergy & help them to find their voices again. I am certainly encouraged by his mention of looking anew at the conciliar documents, and his proposed mission for bishops, priests and religious will hopefully provide a much needed boost for us all.

 

[lemonbeam]

Well, I don’t know if the Pope can fire bishops (I suspect not) but if Cardinal Brady and the other senior bishops in Ireland cared about the Church they would retire to monasteries.

The problem won’t be solved until there is new leadership in the Irish Church, as much as possible untainted by the current scandal.

Exactly, anyone that was involved in this cover up needs to resign! It’s the right and decent thing to do!

 

[silentstar]

I know it was my parents experience when they were growing up in the 50’s and 60’s. However, for myself, born in the 80’s, I know that that “because the Church says so” attitude is largely gone, but I’m not quite sure about moves to educate the laity. Because I have an interest in my faith, and I want to develop it, I have found out most of what I know by myself - and that’s after having gone to Catholic schools for 13 years. I think the scandals (which first broke here around 1994) have put a halt on any efforts to educate the laity in the faith. Priests are so reluctant to give out the full truths of the Catholic faith, lest they offend someone. The clergy here have lost their voice, feeling that they can’t go about talking about moral issues because some people go around with the attitude of “who is he to go about lecturing us after what his lot have done”. I think in terms of attempting to educate the faithful at the present time, the clergy are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I happen to think that strong preaching & hiding none of the Church’s teachings are a central way in which the clergy can gain credibility - I think people have had enough of wishy-washy sermons…

Hopefully the Pope’s letter can play a part in renewing the morale of the clergy & help them to find their voices again. I am certainly encouraged by his mention of looking anew at the conciliar documents, and his proposed mission for bishops, priests and religious will hopefully provide a much needed boost for us all.

One thing that baffles me is that I heard almost nothing about the works of art, music, etc. that the Church commissioned/inspired over the centuries, until I got into a Catholic college and learned a little bit, and then learned some on my own.

Even the Pope’s letter addressed spiritual devotion on the part of Irish Catholics of past times, that Ireland had made many contributions to the Church. But there is also a history of art/music/prayers/illuminated manuscripts, etc. and I was not taught about any of it.

I’m not sure this is a post Vatican II thing as much as an attitude about focusing on the present and not teaching history. but what would be wrong about preaching sermons on the book of Kells and what that accomplished in terms of helping to express spiritual beliefs and preserve literacy? or preaching about requiem masses and why requiems (by Mozart, Faure, etc.) were composed? I could not understand the tendency to overlook this stuff.

 

[Agripa]

I’ve never heard of a sex abuse case in the African Catholic Church, ever.

Celibacy is not the problem. If you think there is, why is there no evidence to support the claim that celibacy and peodphilia are linked? I posted an article on the Catholic forum the other day, an interview with a Psychologist on celibacy and Priests etc. He said himself, there is no link.

I do not think celibacy per se is the cause. Its far more complex. In my opinion, in setting up and maintaining a legalistic structure that enforces celibacy, the RCC is only adhering to a 12th Century edict that drew on older historical institutions as described below. It was not a “legal” requirement of Church leadership before that time.

But in accepting and enforcing this legalism, the RCC creates an insular leadership structure of men who do not choose to be with women. To reject women at such a fundamental level is profound and gives rise to how the Church sees women and how it deals with children.

Further, while many who come into “the cloth”, are virginal and celibate, perhaps the majority of them are spiritually and mentally strong enough to avoid any sexual activity over a life time. I greatly doubt this, but will give a benefit of the doubt. But some who come into that life are drawn to it because they simply cannot function with women and bring with them the emotional baggage that drove them from forming a family.

The greatest risk in leading a celebate life, particulaly men whose natural, God given hormonal levels drive them to copulate, is that they do not share in the absolute greatest human achivement which is forming family and generating offspring. In not sharing in this very real and human event, these men can never really develop a necessary respect towards women and they do not emotionally empathize with nurturing and protecting children. (They may do so on some abstract level, but not a deeper, biological level.) Couple this with the natural sex drive of a man, add to it an institution closely associated with the education of children, and BAMMO, a recipe for abuse.

No one denies married men abuse kids, non clerical men abuse kids, etc. Such incicents occur randomly and with reletive predictability in a given population.

But the simple fact remains that the RC Church fosters a huge grouping of single, unmarried men as its leadership, its a petri dish for abberant behavior and in turn, that grouping poses the largest organized threat of pedophilia the world has ever known.

Moreover, the Church draws on a long, ancient history of all-male groupings where homosexuality and pedophilia were always a by-product. Roman gladiator legions, certain military traditions (Spartans) and certain teaching traditions of both Greek and Roman that fostered all male groupings and adult male and adolescent male parings.

The Church needs to seriously look at the history and roots of its celibacy restrictions. It needs to decide for itself and its members if celibacy - in light of both history and a modern understanding of the human psyche - is a worthy tradition or a harmful one.

 

[Agripa]

Religion isn’t going away.

No, but Catholicism is certainly fading.

 

[Agripa]

I would have preferred something like:

“We were wrong.”

“These are the people responsible”

“This is what we are doing to these people”

“These are the steps we are taking to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

“As Pope, I am personally responsible for what happened, this is my failure as a leader, I am stepping down so that another more competent person can take over the papacy and see this Church through the twenty first century.”

something like that…you know…an actually letter of accountability instead of a cop-out followed by what basically amounts to “pretend this didn’t happen and move on”…

Excellent and to the point!

 

[NPC]

No, but Catholicism is certainly fading.

The statistics don’t agree with you there. Worldwide the number of conversions to the Catholic faith and the number of ordinations to the priesthood continues to rise year after year.

 

[Agripa]

He only became Pope in 2005, when all (or nearly all) of these things had stopped.

It may well turn out that while the current Pope was an archbishop in Germany, he assisted, whether by action or inaction, with the hiding and shuffeling of pedophile priests. If this is proven, then the Pope will have to account civily for his actions or inactions.

 

[Agripa]

Secular people in schools or wherever don’t abuse children or try to cover it up?

As I have stated elsewhere in this thread - people in general will abuse children - they are found in most population groups.

Seperately from that, any institution is prone to cover up all sorts of crimes by its members - police departments, public schools, military units, you name it, cover ups are always an insidious problem for any society.

But for Catholics, given the deep love - or at least the deep respect and spiritual connection the RC Church has in their lives from the youngest of ages, such abuse by spiritual leaders is doubly profound and vile.

This scourge will continue to decimate the RC Chruch until the Church does more than issue “churchy-talk” letters.

 

[NPC]

I’m not sure this is a post Vatican II thing as much as an attitude about focusing on the present and not teaching history. but what would be wrong about preaching sermons on the book of Kells and what that accomplished in terms of helping to express spiritual beliefs and preserve literacy? or preaching about requiem masses and why requiems (by Mozart, Faure, etc.) were composed? I could not understand the tendency to overlook this stuff.

The following is from the Code of Canon Law & it outlines what our priests should be preaching on:

Can. 767 §1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.

Can. 768 §1. Those who proclaim the divine word are to propose first of all to the Christian faithful those things which one must believe and do for the glory of God and the salvation of humanity.

§2. They are also to impart to the faithful the doctrine which the magisterium of the Church sets forth concerning the dignity and freedom of the human person, the unity and stability of the family and its duties, the obligations which people have from being joined together in society, and the ordering of temporal affairs according to the plan established by God.

Perhaps talking about history or art and the link to faith could be an element of a sermon, but at the present time I would love to hear a strong sermon on the Eucharist, for example, the scriptural basis for the Church’s teaching, what the Church Fathers taught…or the importance of the sacrament of Reconciliation. I think that now is the time to get back to basics.

 

[tweetymom]

As I have stated elsewhere in this thread - people in general will abuse children - they are found in most population groups.

Seperately from that, any institution is prone to cover up all sorts of crimes by its members - police departments, public schools, military units, you name it, cover ups are always an insidious problem for any society.

But for Catholics, given the deep love - or at least the deep respect and spiritual connection the RC Church has in their lives from the youngest of ages, such abuse by spiritual leaders is doubly profound and vile.

This scourge will continue to decimate the RC Chruch until the Church does more than issue “churchy-talk” letters.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[Soler]

I do not think celibacy per se is the cause. Its far more complex. In my opinion, in setting up and maintaining a legalistic structure that enforces celibacy, the RCC is only adhering to a 12th Century edict that drew on older historical institutions as described below. It was not a “legal” requirement of Church leadership before that time.

But in accepting and enforcing this legalism, the RCC creates an insular leadership structure of men who do not choose to be with women. To reject women at such a fundamental level is profound and gives rise to how the Church sees women and how it deals with children.

Further, while many who come into “the cloth”, are virginal and celibate, perhaps the majority of them are spiritually and mentally strong enough to avoid any sexual activity over a life time. I greatly doubt this, but will give a benefit of the doubt. But some who come into that life are drawn to it because they simply cannot function with women and bring with them the emotional baggage that drove them from forming a family.

The greatest risk in leading a celebate life, particulaly men whose natural, God given hormonal levels drive them to copulate, is that they do not share in the absolute greatest human achivement which is forming family and generating offspring. In not sharing in this very real and human event, these men can never really develop a necessary respect towards women and they do not emotionally empathize with nurturing and protecting children. (They may do so on some abstract level, but not a deeper, biological level.) Couple this with the natural sex drive of a man, add to it an institution closely associated with the education of children, and BAMMO, a recipe for abuse.

No one denies married men abuse kids, non clerical men abuse kids, etc. Such incicents occur randomly and with reletive predictability in a given population.

But the simple fact remains that the RC Church fosters a huge grouping of single, unmarried men as its leadership, its a petri dish for abberant behavior and in turn, that grouping poses the largest organized threat of pedophilia the world has ever known.

Moreover, the Church draws on a long, ancient history of all-male groupings where homosexuality and pedophilia were always a by-product. Roman gladiator legions, certain military traditions (Spartans) and certain teaching traditions of both Greek and Roman that fostered all male groupings and adult male and adolescent male parings.

The Church needs to seriously look at the history and roots of its celibacy restrictions. It needs to decide for itself and its members if celibacy - in light of both history and a modern understanding of the human psyche - is a worthy tradition or a harmful one.

I think there is a far simpler solution to the problem of clerical sexual deviancy:

 

[Agripa]

The statistics don’t agree with you there. Worldwide the number of conversions to the Catholic faith and the number of ordinations to the priesthood continues to rise year after year.

Very true in less educated, more supersticious countries - i.e. Africa.

However, in more fully developed countries, those identifying themselves as Catholics (as well as other religious traditions) falls flat or is decreasing.

Religion tends to spread well in the third world.