Narcissists and Pope Francis

Just days before Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope, he criticized the Vatican culture as one of narcissism. Speaking to reporters of the popular Italian press La Repubblica Pope Francis emphasized that "Heads of the Church have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers. The court is the leprosy of the papacy.”[1] 

This staggering accusation by the future Pope Francis seems to suggest that he and the Vatican might finally be prepared to address the endemic and systemic issues which until now have remained hidden behind the sexual abuse and financial scandals of the Vatican Bank (Istituto per le Opere di Religione - IOR).

For many years experts, such as Richard A.W. Sipe, have stated that the sexual abuse and cover-up is central to clerical culture and its inherent narcissism. Is it possible that Pope Francis read the article by Sipe published in March of 2013 under the heading Spirituality andthe Culture of Narcissism'.[2]  Judge for yourself.  .

At an unprecedented summit convened in Rome at the behest of Pope Francis earlier this month, a Vatican official warned the treasurers of 500 Catholic orders from around the world that their financial wealth, sometimes used for secular, commercial purposes such as running hotels and restaurants, was contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church and imperils their religious mission. This new move by Francis, just one part of what many Catholics hope are wide-ranging financial reforms within the church, is driven by the pope’s concern that by engaging in modern economic activity, religious institutions “run the risk of losing their true identity.”  Watch the on-line documentary ‘Holy Money’ [3] presented by CBC’s ‘The Passionate Eye’ as they investigate the financial scandals rocking the Catholic Church & the efforts of Pope Francis to clean up the Vatican’s multi-billion-dollar business dealings amid accusations of money laundering, corruption, and misuse of donations here.

A year has gone by since Pope Francis took over leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.  His growing popularity and humble manner has been unmistakable.  Hardly a week goes by when 'Il Papa' does not provide the world with some example of what is means to live a simple Christian life despite the fact that he operates out of an extra-ordinary religious institution which can hardly be called simple.   

Many are now asking is this Pope is finally going to bring about the necessary changes that would restore trust in a much tainted institution?  Is this the Pope who will finally tackle the church’s most challenging issues such as contraception, divorce, women in the church, abortion, celibacy, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage?  Is this the Pope who will finally address and listen to the People of God?  Or, is this a Pope who will ultimately be forced to defer to his immediate advisers?   The latter seems more likely according to his German critics.   

The German weekly tabloid Der Spiegel in an article ‘The Pope’s Sex Problem‘’ [4] takes issue with the Synod of Bishops’ questionnaire ‘Catholic Family Values Survey’.  This hurried document, blessed by Pope Francis, which hardly saw the light of day in most parishes, will be dealt with almost exclusively by an all male and celibate jury in October of this year.  Disappointed Catholics will ultimately see this as a return to the conservative style of Pope Benedict.    

Critics derisively refer to Pope Francis's approach as "Papastroika, as if he were opening the Church like Mikhail Gorbachev opened the Soviet Union. That, as we now know, ended in chaos. But it should be noted that, unlike Gorbachev, Francis has yet to modify or eliminate a single relevant rule or regulation in his realm.

Those who have put their hopes in Pope Francis will need to realize that he is faced with some enormous challenges not the least of which have all been shrouded in centuries of secrecy and intrigue inside an established patriarchal hierarchy such as the Roman Curia that unfortunately sees itself as far above and beyond the $ 1.2 billion followers it is called to serve.  It will probably take more than just one man to make the necessary changes and before it can return the institution to the trusted place it once held. It will probably take more than one man to remove the narcissist from the papal court.              

---

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/01/pope-francis-narcissistic-papal-curia

[2]http://www.awrsipe.com/reports/2013/Spirituality%20and%20the%20Culture%20of%20Narcissism%20-%20Complete%20article%20-%208-30-2013.pdf

[3] http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/ID/2442224876/

[4]http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/catholic-survey-shows-deep-frustration-within-the-church-a-946069.html

Cardinal Marc Ouellet Challenges Reform

Soon cardinals will join the most exclusive “club” in the world – the group responsible for electing the new Pope. However, cardinals  who are over 80, will receive the nomination in recognition of the outstanding work carried out during the course of their long service, but having reached the age limit for electing cardinals, they will not take part in the conclave. One of the those eligible individuals is Canada’s Cardinal Marc Ouellet.

I first learned about our countryman Cardinal Marc Ouellet upon his return from Rome in 2005 following the election of Pope Benedict XVI.  At that time Ouellet was quoted as saying “It’s business as usual”.  Or in other words we have elected a Pope who is as conservative as his predecessor and that’s fine with me. 

Today the conservative Roman Catholic news media tout Ouellet as the hopeful and potential successor to Benedict XVI.  However based on his conservative views it would appear his election would certainly mean more of the same as experienced under his predecessor and for a billion Catholics around the world.

But who is this Cardinal?  A recent (Feb. 22, 2013) article in The Globe and Mail under the title ‘Ouellet Would Help DefendFortress Vatican’ paints a very dogmatic picture for the future of Catholicism should he be elected.  He once admitted that being pope "would be a nightmare." He would know, having enjoyed the confidence of two pontiffs as a top-ranked Vatican insider. Among other things Ouellet is opposed to gay marriage, condemns abortion regardless of the circumstances, and more importantly appears opposed to any serious church reform.  Another meaningful insight into Cardinal Ouellte's background comes from an unusual outside source offered by the Basque news eitb.

Yesterday Canada’s national broadcasting corporation (CBC) represented by Peter Mansbridge interviewed Cardinal Ouellett  asking him some very pointed questions about the Vatican's handling of the sexual abuse scandal.  Ouellet somewhat remorsefully stated “we have learned a lot from its mistakes”.  However, when pressed if he thought that the Church had done enough Ouellet  failed to admit that the church still has not addressed the endemic and systemic problems long identified by experts that continue to seriously prevent the church from moving forward on this issue. The CBC plans to present the conclusion to this two part series tonight during which Peter Mansbridge will ask Cardinal Ouellet if the church doctrine needs to re-act to social reality.  It will be interesting to watch Ouellet’s response because On June 15, 2005 The Catholic New Times published the following article on precisely this question. His response at that time was  "If there needs to be change, it needs to be in the world, not in the doctrine."

Compare this response to that from Fr. Diarmuid O'Murchu from his book ‘Quantum Theology’ which states "Where religions have failed most dismally is in their perception and understanding of the world, which they all tend to dismiss as an inferior, ungodly, and transitory reality”. To ignore O’Murchu’s remarks would deny the overwhelming facts why so many Catholics in the western world have left the church.  In the absence of any meaningful dialogue directly with so many disenfranchised Catholics would almost certainly spell the end for this 2000 year old church.  But it would not necessarily mean the end of a more compassionate and understanding God for the majority of people. Perhaps we will then learn that being Christian means to imitate Jesus, not by building more basilicas and dictating more doctrine and dogma, but by living a life that follows Jesus’ command to Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^[There is no commandment greater than these.”

UPDATE: Mar.8, 2013

According to CNN News Rome -- A group representing survivors of sexual abuse by priests named a "Dirty Dozen" list of cardinals it said would be the worst candidates for pope based on their handling of child sex abuse claims. The complete list which includes Cardinal Marc Ouellet can be read here.

Vatican Secrecy Behind Sexual Abuse Scandal

Recently, while commenting on a conservative Catholic website, I responded to  Pope Benedict’s legacy as follows:

• Kept silent about pedophile priests

 • Silenced more than 100 theologians

 • Denounced Liberation Theology

 • Refused any discussions about women and their role in the Church

• Dismissed Collegiality

• Labeled homosexual actions/relationships as intrinsically evil

• Politicized American bishops by instructing them how to encourage laity to vote

• Prohibited the use of available birth control methods

• Put into doubt the operation of Women Religious in USA

• Maintained that all other religions are inferior to Roman Catholicism

• Called for obedience to the Church teachings at the cost of the individual    conscience

• Re interpreted Vatican II

My comments sparked a number of opposing and rude responses. This was of course not totally unexpected.  However, when one individual surprisingly replied “I have been hearing about this “silence on pedophile priests” accusation for weeks yet I have not been able to find one shred of evidence”.   Perhaps this blindness may be attributed to  Benedict’s insistence that the laity must unconditionally obey church teaching even at the expense of their individual conscience. (a direct contradiction to the views held by Vatican II) For as long as we stick our head in the sand while the Vatican insists on keeping the sexual abuse issue a secret  we and others will not have to acknowledge or address the worldwide problem of sexual abuse.

As a very young victim of sexual abuse I feel compelled to bring this blight out of its present darkness in our church into the light of Christ.  Healing can only begin with truth.  Victims of sexual abuse must be encouraged to speak about their pain, no matter how difficult. Covering it up or hiding it merely allows it to fester and become a lifelong torment.  That the Roman Catholic Church should have choosen the latter is particularly devious and completely contrary to anything that one would suspect a religious institution under Jesus Christ would uphold. To date the church has yet to address the systemic and endemic issues that have led to this disastrous outcome.  Pray we will finally find a reason to address this world wide problem?

Unfortunately the Roman Catholic Church has a long history of secrecy about sexual abuse. Apparently as much as 2000 years according to some very credible and Catholic experts.   Thomas P. Doyle, A.W.R. Sipe and Patrick J. Wall in their book ‘Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes’ (2006) “The extreme secrecy that was imposed on everybody dealing with the investigation of priests accused of soliciting sex from penitents was, in the last century, imposed on every body involved in the investigation of clerical perpetrators of sexual abuse of children.”   

When the media revealed the extend of the sexual abuse that had taken place at Mt. Cashel Orphanage during the late 1980s and early 1990s involving more than 300 young victims some people might have believed this was an isolated incidence.  However, this proved to be only the beginning.  Today we know that these abuses, particularly as it affected pedophile clergy (including bishops and cardinals) within the Roman Catholic Church have occurred and continue to be revealed almost daily. Following its history of secrecy the church followed a policy that allowed these abuses to continue until the beginning of the 21^st. Century.  If anyone wants to understand why the church chose this position they will quickly discover how the church from the second century onward have repeatedly disparaged sex in all its human forms as dirty, sinful, unclean, and even un- natural.  More importantly the man made church wanted to portray itself as the very image of Christ – pure and without blemish or sin.  

Today authors such as David Gibson ‘The Rule of Benedict’ (2006), Richard P. McBrien, ‘The Church – The Evolution of Catholicism’ (2008), Jason Barry & Gerald Renner, ‘Vows or Silence’ (2004) and many others are beginning to reveal the abuse of power in the Papacy of John Paul II as well as Benedict XVI. For more details involving JPII read the following 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis (PDF) file:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2003/08/16/Criminales.pdf

It wasn't until 2001, after a sexual abuse scandal had rocked the Catholic Church in the US, that Cardinal Ratzinger took action. He decreed that the local churches now had to report all such suspected cases to his offices of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome -- but under strict secrecy.  It was not until April 2010 that the Vatican finally issued guidelines dictating that "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes... should always be followed but it does not require the reporting of "allegations" or crimes where reporting is not required by law.

This policy of Vatican secrecy brought British author Geoffrey Robertson, QC to publish his book ‘The Case of the Pope” (2010), which directly accuses Benedict of being accountable for numerous Human Rights abuses. Robertson argues that . . . . .

“there is no doubt that the scale of the sex abuse scandal came about because of directives from the Vatican — specifically from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) — which required all sex abuse complaints to be processed in utter secrecy and withheld from local police and courts, under a Canon Law that was obsolete and ineffective and non-punitive. The Holy See claims the right to operate the system as one of its 'statehood' privileges, along with the exclusive right to speak and lobby at the UN to promote its theo­logical agenda: homosexuality is 'evil', and so is divorce; women have no right to choose, even to avoid pregnancies that result from rape or incest; IVF is wrong because it begins with masturbation; condom use, even to avoid AIDS within marriage, must never be counten­anced. The political power associated with statehood has proved beguiling for a Pope who, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, was the Pre­fect (head) of the CDF from 1981 to 2005 and it was on his watch that a vast amount of the sex abuse took place. How much he knew of its extent, and how offenders were moved around parishes and trafficked to other countries and hidden from local criminal justice, will not be clear until the CDF is required to open its files, although enough evidence has emerged to make his moral responsibility — and that of John Paul II — a matter for anxious debate. His legal responsibility is complicated by his claim to sovereign immunity, but it is surely worth asking, at a time when Benedict XVI has set his face against essential reform, whether the Pope should be the one man left in the world who is above the law”.

 

Finally, to accuse a Pope of wrongdoing is without question a very serious thing. We may never know why Benedict felt it was necessary to apply such secrecy around sexual abuse scandal.  Perhaps it was inherited through the unbending influence of church history, or political pressure from the Roman Curia or simply the accumulation of so many controversial issues facing an already aging Pope.  Speaking to his Cardinals in his final audience concerning his retirement Benedict is quoted as saying   "Among you is also the future pope, whom I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience,"

 

In addition to the books l have mentioned in this blog, I also recommend the following links and references:

 

Wikipedia: Curial response to Catholic sex abuse cases -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curial_response_to_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Spiegel Online, Sex Abuse Scandal: Did Archbishop Ratzinger Help Shield Perpetrator from Prosecution? http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/sex-abuse-scandal-did-archbishop-ratzinger-help-shield-perpetrator-from-prosecution-a-684970.html

Celibacy, Sex and the Catholic Church,  http://www.richardsipe.com/

Thomas C. Fox, Sexuality and Catholicism (1995)

Thomas P. Doyle, AW.R. Sipe, Patrick J. Wall, Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes – The Catholic Church’s Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse (2006)

More on this topic from this week’s issue of The Tablet

 

Reform dominates the agenda - from the Editor's desk 
It would be entirely understandable if Benedict XVI wanted “business as usual” signs to go up at the Vatican as soon as possible after his retirement, and for the new man in charge to carry on the good work of the old though perhaps with extra energy. What is emerging is something rather different – a growing groundswell of conviction, apparently at all levels in the Catholic Church, that things cannot go on as they are. Read more .  .  .   

 

Benedict's resignation looks more like a change of seat in the boardroom: Michael Knowles, guest contributor

Right or wrong, the truth is I can barely contain my concern at one thing above all else that is going on in Rome: Benedict XVI's plans for the period of his retirement now that he has resigned. I find them incredibly insensitive and inconsiderate, even - let me say it - arrogant; and also wide open to being very harmfully divisive. I know we are not supposed to say such things, let alone publicise them, but the truth is, with every other Catholic I speak to about them, it is exactly the same. The Catholic Church is my Church as much as Benedict's. Read more

A Bishop speaks out!

After all the political manoeuvring by the Vatican dealing with the sexual abuse crisis one lone Archbishop in Ireland has finally and courageously spoken out.  The U.K. based Catholic weekly ‘The Tablet’ filed  this surprising report on their website  dated February 10^th, 2011:

Dublin archbishop says Ireland not ready to welcome Pope Benedict

10 February 2012

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin

The archbishop of Dublin has made the startling admission that the Catholic Church in Britain is now stronger than that of Ireland and has cautioned against Pope Benedict XVI visiting the country.

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin said the Church in Ireland was still recovering from the clerical sexual abuse scandal.

He hinted that were the Pope to visit during the 50th International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin in June he would face hostility because the anger over abuse was "much more raw" than in Britain.

"Catholicism in Britain is a minority religion and in some ways it is stronger," he told RTE, adding that while there had been opposition to the Pope's visit to Britain in 2010 it had gone "extraordinary well."

Finally, we have a member of the Catholic clergy saying in effect, stop the charade of parading innocent victims of child abuse by broken priests in front of the Pope, or ‘staging’ public forgiveness programs when the hierarchy is still unable to forgive itself by not addressing the systemic and endemic culture that produced the problem in the first place.

The Vatican’s inability to deal with sexual issues other than to suppress them is indicative of an institution that no longer able to recognize God’s wondrous gift of our sexuality.  Recently an unnamed medical physician articulated this ongoing problem this way: 

The sexual issue is the chief manner by which the Institutional RCC attempts to control people with fear and self loathing. For a church that claims to understand a natural law, the Institutional "understanding" of sex is extremely distorted. Mind and body are part of a whole humanity one that uses eroticism as creative not as sinful.

The church attempts to define what is very natural the bodily function of human sexuality as something that can be perfected by advocating the mind over body in a perfect union with what they define as Godly. This division of mind and body via perfection vs human natural emotion and need is truly against nature.

What it does is to pervert the psychological mind set of any who attempt to practice celibacy for it attempts to remove eroticism of all kinds from the minds and hearts of these men. What we see instead of creativity in this mindset is perversion. We see the perverted eroticism at work in a Cardinal Ratzinger who censures the thoughts of nearly all the great theologians of our time.

Think of all the creative growth the church would have today had so many of these wonderful ideas had the chance to grow and develop inside of an Institutional church. Instead this creativity was stunted stopped in its tracks inside the institution. Ratzinger turned his own eroticism into a perverted perfectionism that is impossible of not only one finite person but an Institution of finite beings. The perfection of spirit required by a life time of celibacy has in of itself been shown to be impossible by the figures about celibacy derived by Richard Sipe (a married former Benedictine monk and Psychological therapist to priests) showing that around 90% of all celibates break their vows when their own definition of masturbation is included in this vow. I believe this figure is not 90% but 99,999 % plus. In other words the perfectionism required of their own clerical membership is impossible. Surprise, surprise perfectionism in a finite human is impossible!

The worst part about this idealization of human lack of sexuality, asexuality, is that it stunts the creativity of ALL who attempt to practice it because it introduces as a mortal sin the lack of perfection in man. Wow no wonder the only answer these men can come up with in the sexual scandal is that all humanity is indeed sinful and we must pray. This type of prayer has NOTHING to do with human spirituality but only is an exercise in officially sanctioned perversion of spirit that fails to lead humans to creativity and growth and development.

For those who are interested in this way of thinking, I highly recommend the book "The Unhealed Wound" written by Eugene Kennedy. Dr. Kennedy is a former Jesuit* who left to marry. He is a Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Loyola university and is a syndicated columnist. He lives with his psychiatrist wife in Chicago.

* see correction in commentary below  

Is it not time for real dialogue with the People of God?   Is it not time for the Catholic hierarchy to stop hiding behind the crumbling edifices in the Vatican?  

Catholic Teaching on Sexuality fails

Human Life & Sexuality
 Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam

In the eyes of Fr. Jack Gallagher, sociologists have proven Catholic Teaching on Sexuality and Marriage is Right.  So reads a recent headline in the Western Catholic Reporter.

However I believe with God it is never about whether we ‘get it right’ or not.  Not one of us will ever 'get it right'! Thankfully, God is only interested in our heart.  

If anyone is interested they can read Fr. Jack Gallagher's entire 300 page book  Human Sexuality and Christian Marriage - An Ethical Study free on-line.

It is evident that sociologist and church teachings still want to take precedence over our God given freedom of conscience while ignoring its primacy guaranteed under Canon Law. That is not to suggest that all Church teachings must be rejected; on the contrary.  Its teachings on justice and peace, for example  have been exemplary.  On the other hand its teachings on human sexuality have been anything but dismal and even downright un-Christian.    

Hopefully one day the   Church’s teaching on sexuality will bring more of Christ’s love, compassion, wisdom and understanding to the subject. (whatever do they think when reading Song of Songs?) Since the sexual act is a highly private and personal activity between a loving and committed couple their need for God’s direct blessing in this regard is certainly more important than any dictates from a celibate institution.   The Church will finally graduate on the question of human sexuality when it:

·       Accepts contraception when practised between two loving and committed heterosexual couples as their personal decision bound by and under God.

·       Accepts and blesses the role of married priests by recognizing that celibacy is a gift from God not a condition forced on them by the Church.

·       Accepts and blesses the role of women as priests, bishops, etc., as a gift of equality confirmed by God and not an artificial condition enforced by the Church.

·       Accepts and blesses the role of the laity in the Church as equal partners working together to bring about Christ’s kingdom here on earth.

·       Accepts and blesses divorced couples who desire to return to the Church by giving them full access to all the sacraments.  (the simple desire to be in communion with God automatically takes precedence over any Church rulings).

·       Accepts its God given role to work for and among all people who have contracted Aids.

·       Accepts and recognizes the sexual act when practiced between two loving and committed homosexual couples as gift from God.

·       Blesses the role of committed homosexuals to adopt and raise children

·       Accepts and blesses abortion in all cases when it threatens the life of the mother or in exceptional cases of rape, and incest etc.,

·       Humbly accepts the advice provided by Catholic experts calling for a total and complete overhaul of the systemic and endemic problems within the institution that resulted in the sexual abuse of women and children by misguided members of the clergy.  

Finally, to paraphrase Fr. Jack Gallagher: “The Church must evangelize recognizing God in the present or it dies.”  God meets us where we are not where others would have us be.

The Catholic Church is seriously, possibly terminally ill

‘Theologian Kung says only radical reforms can save the Catholic Church’ so reads the banner  by ENI News services dated May 8th.  ENI News is a global news service reporting on ecumenical developments and other news of churches as well as giving religious perspectives on news developments world-wide. The report went on as follows:

 
The Catholic Church is seriously, possibly terminally ill and only an honest diagnosis and radical therapy will cure it, one of the sharpest critics of Pope Benedict XVI, the Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Kung, has written - reports Anli Serfontein.

Speaking at a sold-out event in the Literaturhaus (Literary Centre) in Munich on 2 May 2011, Kung who is a former colleague of the pope at the University of Tubingen, introduced his new book, Ist die Kirche noch zu retten? (Can the Church Still Be Saved?).

Kung argues that the malady of the church goes beyond recent sexual abuse scandals. According to him, the church's resistance to reform, its secrecy, lack of transparency and misogyny are at the heart of the problem.

He said that the Catholic church in the United States has lost one-third of its membership."The American Catholic church never asked why," he said."Any other institution that has lost a third of its members would want to know why." He also said that 80 per cent of German bishops would welcome reforms.

Kung is one of today's most outspoken Catholic theologians. Because he questioned the infallibility of the pope in 1971, he had his 'missio canonica', the license needed to teach Roman Catholic theology, withdrawn. Thereafter, he became professor of ecumenical theology in Tubingen. He remains a Catholic priest.

He told the mostly elderly audience in the Diocese of Munich and Freising, the former diocese of Benedict XVI, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, "I would have preferred not to write this book. It is not pleasant to dedicate such a critical publication to the church that has remained my church."

He said he had hoped that Benedict would find a way forward in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) which in the early sixties reformed the church in a number of ways, such as the celebration of Mass in local languages instead of Latin.

However, Pope Benedict has distanced himself from Vatican II and "failed in the face of the worldwide sexual abuse by clergy," King said. Benedict is "in essence a person for medieval liturgy, theology and a medieval church constitution."

Referring to the celibacy debate that arose after the sexual abuse cases, Kung said, "the Roman Catholic church survived for the first thousand years without celibacy." He is strongly in favour of allowing priests and bishops to marry.

Kung compared the changes needed in the Catholic church to the democratic changes taking place in the Arab world."When will in our church the youth take to the street? That is our problem; we have no young people anymore," he said to laughter from the 350 people present.

At the end of the book Kung returns to the question: "Can the church still be saved?" He said he has not lost his vision of a church that would meet the expectations of millions of Christians, but certain conditions have to be met. In their reforms, this Church should show Christian radicalism, constancy and coherency, he said.

"I have not given up the hope that it will survive," Kung ended, to applause.

Readers might also wish to see additional comments about Kung's comments about the state of the Catholic Church today as recently posted on the National Catholic website - click here.
 

[With acknowledgements to ENInews. ENInews, formerly Ecumenical News International, is jointly sponsored by the World Council of Churches, the Lutheran World Federation, the World Communion of Reformed Churches and the Conference of European Churches.]

The Sex Crisis in the Church

I believe it is time for all Catholics to awaken from the shame and guilt they have been bombarded with in recent times. Much of the Church sponsored controversy seems to be focused on human sexuality. Stories about sexual abuse are now part of the daily diet, while abortion, homosexuality, and same sex marriage threaten tear apart the very fabric of the Church. The magnitude of this crisis is so great that our bishops, priests, etc., are unable to cohesively respond to the spiritual needs of those they are called to serve. Thanks to the following wisdom and insight from Prof. Daniel C. Maguire Catholicism may yet recover from its present darkness and enter into a new light.

Hierarchy, Sex and Power —
a primer on educating bishops



By Daniel C. Maguire



Here is the surprising news. The Catholic bishops are not all that interested in sex. As far as I have been able to discover, bishops do not walk around all day lasciviously savoring sexual images. Some of them may do that, and perhaps it would be better if more of them did that, as long as they found nonviolent ways of expressing their obsession. They might then have less time to investigate nuns and harass politicians and pretend in the press that they are theologians although most could not pass a graduate (undergraduate?) exam in theology.


I will grant that the bishops do talk a lot about sexual matters but mainly to say how awful it all is. They have a plausible claim to being the leaders in the "Just Say No To Sex Movement." They say no to stem cell research, no to contraception, no to abortions, no to same-sex marriage. They even say no to masturbation, a topic that does not much concern the rest of the Christian Right. That is carrying the no-to-sex thing a bit too far. Masturbation, after all, has a claim to innocence. No one gets pregnant; no one gets a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and someone has a wonderful time. You would think they would have spared that one. But no. Our bishops are nothing but thorough in their war against sex.

What then is the agenda of these bishops in their crusade against sexual joy? Here I turn to Thomas Aquinas for help. Poor Thomas had a lot of trouble with bishops who were always condemning him—I know the feeling—and I'm sure he would be happy to help us. Thomas said that every negation is based on an affirmation. Stretching that a bit, if people are obsessed with denouncing something they are usually up to something else. What the bishops are up to is power. The bishops want power. They want control. They want to influence political elections, and do so from "tax exempt" properties. The bishops want to exercise thought control in universities and the press; they want to control all Catholic pulpits lest prophetic freedom find a home there. And they want to control the sexual and reproductive lives of people, Catholic or not. All of that is a tad arrogant.


EDUCATING BISHOPS


Here is the good news. The bishops have a problem, but there is a cure. Education. It won't be easy. Students who think they are divinely inspired are a challenge to any teacher. Still, it is worth trying and here's why. For better or for worse, bishops have more clout in society than most other religious leaders. When they use it well, it is lovely. When Congress was moving toward a particularly vicious piece of anti-immigrant legislation, Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles spoke out against it saying he would tell his priests to disobey that law if it passed. Congress blinked and returned to its inhospitable ruminations.There is a reason for that social power. Compare the arrival of a bishop to a Catholic diocese with the arrival of a new Presbyterian church leader. I love Presbyterians but their inauguration liturgies are just plain dull. When a bishop comes to take over a diocese the event is operatic. He arrives dressed in medieval garb with a gilded crown and a large glistening staff in hand. The doors of the cathedral are barred to him. He knocks and knocks again and then with the blare of trumpets the doors open, he is received into the church, and the medieval pageantry unfolds. Presbyterians, eat your heart out.


People notice things like that. Theater speaks with a booming voice where feeble texts and iconoclastic ceremonies wither into boredom. We are liturgical animals and Catholicism is liturgically rich. Hence
my controversial conclusion: bishops are worth educating.

Since bishops like to listen to bishops, we can work with that. It will seem less presumptuous. We don't want to be presumptuous; we want to be nice and we want to help them. The old canon law spoke the obvious when it said that "the bishops, whether teaching individually or gathered in particular councils, are not endowed with infallibility" (Canon 1326,cic 1917). It's good to know that. The Second Vatican Council echoed that wisdom. There the bishops spoke (at times) with a noble humility. In The Church in the Modern World they write: "Let the laity not imagine that pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission." That is a refreshingly beautiful statement.


Moral matters are complicated. As Thomas Aquinas said moral matters involve "an infinity of diverse circumstances" (quasi infinitae diversitates). Take abortion, for example. Now there is a complicated issue full of "diverse circumstances" and it is wise as the bishops say not to imagine that bishops are experts on all such matters or "even that it is their mission." Playing at being infallible is not in the bishops' job description.


Just take these cases from real, complicated life, and see how wise it would be not to pretend to be infallible.


Case 1: A woman is happily pregnant, two months pregnant. She is diagnosed with cancer requiring immediate chemotherapy treatment which also attacks the fetus. She aborts.


Case 2: In spite of her best contraceptive efforts a woman gets pregnant. She has a heart condition which would put her at high risk of dying if she stayed pregnant. She aborts.


Case 3: A young woman is bi-polar, manic depressive and her psychotic condition pregnant in spite of her best efforts. Lithium would devastate the cardiovascular system of the fetus and probably already has. She aborts.


Case 4: A nine-year-old Nicaraguan girl is raped and impregnated. She cannot bear a child at her age without disastrous effects on her body as well as on her mind. An abortion is arranged.


Case 5: A case was once brought to the attention of Fr. Bernard Haring, the distinguished Redemptorist moral theologian. After removing a tumor from the uterus of a pregnant woman, a surgeon in Germany could not stop the bleeding. He removed the non-viable fetus so that the uterus would contract. It did and the woman survived and a Catholic surgeon had performed a direct abortion. A priest told the surgeon he had acted wrongly. The surgeon appealed to Fr. Haring. Fr. Haring disagreed, saying the surgeon acted morally and properly. He had saved as much life as was possible. Fr. Haring asked: by what thinking could the fetus have such a right to life that it could kill both itself and the woman by exercising it? Such rights, he said, do not exist.


Case 6. Alicja Tysiac, in 2000, was advised that her pregnancy, if carried to term, would cause blindness. She was forbidden to abort and lost nearly all her eyesight. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in her favor saying she should have been allowed to abort.


Case 7: In 2005, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that Peru violated the rights of a 17-year-old girl who was forced to carry to term an anencephalitic fetus, missing most of its forebrain and unable to survive outside the womb. The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights ordered Peru to pay reparations and establish a framework for women to access therapeutic abortions.


Case 8: In 2006 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights made Mexico pay a 13-year-old rape victim who was forced to give birth $40,000, plus a stipend for her son's education. Few ethicists in any of the world's religions would argue that abortion is immoral in those cases. Recognizing complexity is the beginning of wisdom on abortion or any other moral issue.


SHOULD WE SILENCE THE BISHOPS?


Of course not. They have freedom of speech and like all of us they have an obligation to use it well and to display an appropriate modesty when addressing truly complicated moral issues on which good and wise people can and do disagree. Where do we go for an example of that?


Back to the bishops.

In November of 1966, the American bishops spoke out on the morality of the American war in Vietnam. They spoke with modesty and sincerity, which is good, since they were dead wrong. Still, their manner of teaching was exemplary and could provide them now with a paradigm for addressing other complicated issues. Here is the admirable way they began:


We realize that citizens of all faiths and of differing political loyalties honestly differ among themselves over the moral issues involved in this tragic conflict. While we do not claim to be able to resolve these issues authoritatively, in the light of the facts as they are known to us, it is reasonable to argue….


What a marvelous way to teach. What a model that offers today's bishops when they move into those pelvic zone issues that so consume them. Using their own example, here is how bishops should teach on same-sex marriages.


We realize that citizens of all faiths and of differing political loyalties honestly differ among themselves over the moral issues involved in same-sex marriages. While we do not claim to be able to resolve those issues authoritatively, in the light of the facts as they are known to us, it is reasonable to argue….


Who could object to that, even if we judge them wrong, as they were in defending the Vietnam War?


We don't want the bishops to be accused of a double standard: total rigor and absoluteness on sexual and reproductive matters, modesty on little things like state-sponsored slaughter, that is, war. That's not what we want from the bishops. That would make them look silly and lopsided in their moral judgment, and we don't want that. We don't want them squandering their moral authority on issues where they have no privileged expertise. That hamstrings any good they might do in advocating prophetically on basic issues of justice and peace.


IN PRAISE OF CARDINAL RATZINGER
Keeping to our theme of "bishops educating bishops," I turn next to the words of Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, in his younger and saner period. In his commentary on the Second Vatican Council, he said: Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against therequirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. (Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II. Vol. 5, 1976.) What the cardinal, some day to be pope, was saying is that bishops and popes who try to usurp the sacred prerogatives of conscience are totalitarian and need lessons humble of heart." This reflects the wisdom of Cardinal John Henry Newman when he famously said he would toast the pope, only after toasting his own conscience. Only in cults are religious leaders taken to be a substitute for conscience.


My next cardinal in this primer for educating bishops is Cardinal Avery Dulles, of somewhat happy memory. Though theologian Dulles, like theologian Ratzinger, did not age well he spoke with brilliance in his presidential address to the Catholic Theological Society of America. He was addressing the question of hierarchical authority over conscience and the proper response to hierarchical teaching. He said that the Second Vatican Council "implicitly taught the legitimacy and even the value of dissent." The Council, Dulles said, conceded "that the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff had fallen into error, and had unjustly harmed the careers of loyal and able theologians."


He mentioned John Courtney Murray, Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar. Dulles said that certain teachings of the hierarchy "seem to evade in a calculated way the findings of modern scholarship. They are drawn up without broad consultation with the theological community. Instead, a few carefully selected theologians are asked to defend a pre-established position....


" He concludes: "We shall insist on the right, where we think it important for the good of the Church, to urge positionsat variance with those that are presently official." Office holders who are being harassed by conservative bishops, the likes of Burke, Tobin and Morlino, take heart and stand your ground. You can disagree with these fellows; and when they are wrong, it is a good idea to do so.


On another occasion, speaking at the Catholic University of America, Dulles wondered whether Thomas Aquinas "if he were alive today…would be welcome at the Catholic University of America." Dulles did not limit the term "magisterium" to the bishops and popes and he insisted that the "magisterium of the professors" relies "not on formal authority but rather on the force of reason." He aligned himself with St. Thomas Aquinas' view that "with the growth of the great universities the bishops could no longer exercise direct control over the content of theological teaching." Their role, Dulles insisted, "was primarily pastoral, rather than academic."


To assume power you do not have is the very definition of despotism. This is the kind of power the bishops use when they plow into debatable issues of morality and politics and use every weapon in their power to impose their control, including sacramental sanctions. And they don't do this consistently.


They assume the authority to say who should and who should not receive sacramental Communion. Sacramental sanctions are out of order. There may be, I concede, a certain attractiveness to the idea of denying Communion to those of another political hue, but even that would be wrong. An informed conscience is the only guide to the Communion rail. No bishop has a right to block the aisle. It is interesting in a pathetic sort of way that the bishops who use the sacrament as weapon do not use it on poverty mongers, war makers and earth wreckers, but only on those who support sexual and reproductive rights. It is here they try to marshal their power and impose their will. It is not for me but for their therapists to help them understand this preferential option for pelvic zone issues as the expression of episcopal power.


A PRAYERFUL TIMEOUT FOR BISHOPS


We should build prayer into our reeducation project for the bishops. Praying to saints is a very Catholic thing. The bishops may already do that but it seems they leave out some of the greatest saints in Christian history. My suggestion, humbly proffered, is this: The bishops should stop their lobbying in congressional offices and kneel for a moment to say a prayer to Saints Sergius and Bacchus, fourth-century male saints, whose marriage to one another is depicted in a seventh-century icon housed in the Kiev Museum of Eastern and Western Art. Jesus is in the picture as the pronubus, or "best man," the official witness of the same-sex union. For a long time in Christian early history, same-sex unions were liturgically performed as John Boswell pointed out in his book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. Perhaps in the illumination that prayer to these two gay saints may provide, the bishops would realize that marriage is not an award for being heterosexual. It is a human good and an epic of interpersonal love and commitment.






While in a prayerful mood, the bishops should then pray to Saint Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, canonized in 1523, and the premier theologian of marriage in his day. Regarding abortion, this saintly bishop was prochoice for early abortions when necessary to save the woman's life, a large category involving many abortions in the medical conditions of that day. A prayer to this saintly prochoice fellow bishop could help to illuminate the minds of theologically challenged bishops.














HEROIC BISHOPS


My plan to educate bishops would seem zany and hopeless were there not examples of bishops behaving wonderfully. The current bishop of Killaloe in Ireland spoke recently with Dublin journalists, including the BBC. Bishop Willie Walsh said he wanted to see "another Pope John xxiii." (That was hardly a compliment to the current papal incumbent.) Such a new pope, said Bishop Walsh, would open up discussion about critical issues in the church, particularly the exclusion of women from the priesthood as well as optional celibacy. Bishop Walsh also expressed sadness about the Catholic hierarchy's attitudes to homosexuality and its policy of refusing the Eucharist to couples who have remarried.He also challenged Vatican skittishness about Protestant Christians receiving the Eucharist, saying that he never suggested to Church of Ireland members that they were not welcome to receive the sacrament in his churches in the Diocese of Killaloe. Now that is an educated bishop. The United States has no comparably educated bishops but that could happen if our plan to educate them succeeds.






A few years ago, the bishop of Maputo, Mozambique, came to say Mass at one of his parishes. Afterwards he took questions from the congregation. The first question was, "What is the church's position on condom use?" The question, posed from an AIDS-ravaged continent related to the Vatican's weird and lethal teaching that condoms cannot be used even if one's partner is HIV positive. "God clearly tells us that we must protect life at all costs. Not to do so is a serious sin against God," the bishop replied. He continued, using the ABC rule: "What does this mean to you and to me? It means that A is for abstinence and looking around at all of you today, many of you cannot live by this advice. Let us be realistic; few if any of you can abstain. Which brings us to B, be faithful. Some of you are faithful…many of you are not. So that leaves us with C, condoms. Now many of you believe that condoms are a crime against God, that wasted semen is a sin, but I am here today to tell you otherwise. You see, if you are hiv positive and you have unprotected sex and infect someone, you have, in the eyes of God committed murder. Or if you are HIV negative and you have unprotected sex with someone who is infected, you have in the eyes of God, committed suicide." He concluded: "So, my children, wearing a condom is not a sin…not wearing one is." The congregation took this advice and ran with it. According to the witness of this liturgy, "Sunday church services will never be the same, as now, every Sunday, part of the celebration is the blessing of the condoms." Now there is a blessing you can believe in.






The South African Catholic bishop Kevin Dowling gives the same message and no thunderbolts from the Vatican have struck him. In 2005, 47 percent of pregnant women in his diocese tested positive for hiv. "The only solution we have at the moment is condoms," said Bishop Dowling.










In the final exam that we give to the bishops they must be able to distinguish between Catholic theology and Vatican theology. Catholic theology is broader, more ecumenical, more professional, more scholarly and better informed by real life experience than Vatican theology.


Once they learn that they will be better Catholics and they will be better prepared to use what power they have to bring "good news to the poor" and peace to this battered earth.



Daniel C. Maguire teaches Moral Theology and Ethics at Marquette University in Milwaukee. He is president of the Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health, and Ethics.