Showing posts with label Roman Catholic Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roman Catholic Church. Show all posts

Sunday, 4 November 2012

Catholic Church Fails on Handling Sexual Abuse Scandal


We have a Church that doesn’t have a tradition of talking together about things. The key in all abuse is to allow people to speak of it. If you can’t name it then you can’t identify what must be healed. There’s nowhere to go unless you name it first.” – Sr. Nuala Kenny
Your words have power
use them wisely

Not many Roman Catholics want to return to the subject of child sexual abuse, self included.  But  recent exchanges with several so called ‘devout’ Roman Catholics helped change my mind.  Opinions about the clerical sexual abuse scandal within the Roman Catholic Church are seen by some, especially its leaders, as nothing more than a vicious attack upon the institution.   Au contraire! This is a worldwide problem and not just within religious institutions.  However painful the subject may be, it must not remain closeted in some dark and secret place if we are to bring healing and understanding to both its victims and abusers. The Church, which could influence a much needed healing on the subject, seems to prefer a defensive approach by blaming the matter on the media, secularism, and atheism etc.. Thus the church avoids looking inwardly. In doing so, it reveals a total lack of integrity and honesty which is desperately needed to bring God’s gift of sexuality out of the present darkness.     

The Roman Catholic Church knowingly and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the perpetrators from abusing more children.  Experts such as Dr. Richard Sipe and Fr. Tom Doyle clearly identified that the chief causes behind the abuse and cover-up are due to the clerical culture that allowed this situation to exist and continue.  A priest who did not feel free to identify himself for fear of repercussions from his bishop wrote, “Clericalism is not simply the burden of priests who abuse children; hierarchy betrays the whole Church by its dishonesty that they justify by a claim to superiority.”

Geoffrey Robertson QC in his book,  ‘The Case of the Pope’ (2010),  states, “The fact is that tens of thousands of children throughout the world have been sexually abused by priests who have mostly been secretly dealt with by an ecclesiastical law that provides no real punishment and gives them ample opportunity to re-offend.  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.”  The culture of secrecy, according to Sipe, lies with Canon law and its instructions to the faithful -   i.e., ‘Do not give scandal —that is: do not say or do anything that could damage the image or reputation of priests or the church—or give the enemies of the church ammunition for attacks.’

Irish priest, Brian D’Arcy (2010) writes, “A combination of bad theology, the dysfunctional abuse of power and a warped view of sexuality, have contributed to the ‘systemic failure’ to protect the most innocent and the most vulnerable children. I believe that the evil clerical culture which pervades our institution, right up to the Vatican bureaucracy itself, needs to be dismantled.”

Again, to quote Richard Sipe, “It is clear that the institutional church is in a pre-adolescent stage of psychosexual development.  This is a period typically prior to eleven years of age in which boys prefer association with their own sex, girls are avoided and held in disdain, often as a guise for fear of women as well as-yet-un-solidified sexuality.  Sex generally is rigidly denied externally; while secretly explored.  The rigidity extends to strict rules of inclusion and exclusion.  Control and avoidance are of primary concern.  A church stuck in the pre-adolescent stage of development is limited in its ability to cope with sexual issues and give sexual guidelines”.

When the Roman Catholic Church is unable to face and handle its self-inflicted wound and refuses to apply the expert advice it has been given, it will simply remain in denial. In this unfortunate way, they are unable to assist the rest of the world in giving spiritual advice about sexuality for they obviously do not possess it themselves.

The late Cardinal Carlo Martini—a voice of reason and humility in the Church—said, “Our culture is out of date, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our rituals and our cassocks are pompous”. It will require a great deal of humility for the Church to finally accept its role in this terrible scandal.

After all, who is going to continue to speak for the thousands of nameless victims (who are never mentioned by most Pro-Life groups)?  The carefully arranged public offerings of apologies by the clergy for its victims may be a beginning but it hardly touches the depth of compassion and understanding required to bring a total healing to this painful episode in the lives of the victims and our church.

Finally, we need to reflect on the following challenging and concluding remarks from the distinguished human rights lawyer and judge Geoffrey Robertson, QC. “What will be required of the Vatican, as a signal of a new com­mitment to put children first, is the complete abandonment of Benedict's claim that the Holy See has the right to deal with sus­pected felons under an obscure, inefficient and secret ecclesiastical process. But Canon Law provides a form of power, and perhaps Benedict's fatal flaw is his attraction to power — to the pomp and circumstance of statehood, to the queues of world leaders who come to bend at his knee and kiss his fisherman's ring, and to the satisfaction of having delegates promote his ideology with six seats at UN conference tables. Journalists often tell how this kindly old man offers to share his food with them, but an analysis of his behaviour suggests a man in thrall to power and unable to give any of it up — even for the sake of innocent children. When it ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Holy See quoted the words of John Paul II, to the effect that children 'are that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity'. John Paul II himself, as we now know, failed that challenge by cosseting notorious child molester and turning a blind eye to the mounting toll of child victims. So did his closest lieutenant, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. On the question of whether Benedict XVI is capable of the wisdom and humanity to protect the children of his church, the jury is out.”




 

  

Saturday, 1 September 2012

In Vetro Fertilization and Masturbation


A recent article in the National Catholic Register tried to re-ignite the long standing problem the Roman Catholic Church has with In Vetro Fertilization (IVF).  According to Church teachings put forward in 1987  by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Donum Vitae (Instruction on Respect for Human Life), the Church officially forbade the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF), stating: “The child has the right to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up within marriage. The good of society requires that children come into the world within a family and that the family be based on marriage, the only setting worthy of truly responsible procreation.”

What these two Church documents   fail to mention is exactly how the Church actually arrived at their conclusion.   The primary problem the Roman Catholic Church has with In Vetro  Fertilization  is that out of necessity it must begin with masturbation.  (How else can semen be extracted?)   But according to St. Augustine 'every genital act must be within the framework of marriage' and that 'masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act' because 'the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside moral conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty'.  (How could St. Augustine possibly understand modern medical techniques today in light of his own tortured views on human sexuality?)  Geoffrey Robertson in his book ‘The Case of the Pope – Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse (2012) adds “The sexual ignorance of the church's magisterium deep­ened when Karol Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II in 1979; he had helped to compose Humanae Vitae and Persona Humana and took such a hard line on sexuality that his follow-up encyclical, The Splendour of Truth (1988), put contraception alongside geno­cide as amongst the acts that are 'intrinsically evil'. He forbade further discussion of contraception and instructed his nuncios to spy on up-and-coming clerics and to recommend for promotion to bishop only those who unquestioningly supported the pro­hibition. This led to appointments of men who in many cases lacked street wisdom and insight into human sexual behaviour, and who were to prove astonishingly naive in accepting the excuses of paedophile priests and in believing that they might be cured by prayer and penitence or by counseling.”

Article 2377 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) supporting the 1987 ruling from Donum Vitae states “Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act.”  Note however no mention is made of the Church’s key argument, carefully tucked away, behind this issue i.e., the supposed sin of masturbation!  Clinical experts, including many Catholics have long ago disposed of this demonized subject.  While the Church remains in the dark ages on human sexuality In Vetro Fertilization has been a blessing for many God fearing and Roman Catholic infertile couples, who would otherwise have remained childless.  Science is not in competition with religion but proclaims the glory of God especially in the world of medicine.  For God  it is not the method (IVF) but the intent (the heart behind our actions and thoughts).

Wednesday, 13 July 2011

The Dysfunctional Church

As the product of a dysfunctional family I feel perfectly qualified to speak on the matter of family values and how it also affects the family we call Church.


When the Catholic Church speaks about the traditional family it immediately reminds me of the popular quote: You choose your friends but not your family!”  While the Church upholds the example of an traditional family as that of Mary and Joseph it hardly speaks to the millions of families that consist of a single parent the  mother who never married, the step family,  or of the foster family. According to statistics taken in 2003 some 69% of American youth are living in non-traditional families that represent a staggering 7 out of 10 families. Now the Church claims that homo-sexual couples and same-sex marriages do not constitute Traditional families and cannot therefore be accepted into the Church.  For the Church then the popular quote mentioned above holds true.  

Statistics on Children in Families today

1 in 2 will live in a single parent family at some point in childhood
1 in 3 is born to unmarried parents
1 in 4 lives with only one parent
1 in 8 is born to a teenage mother
1 in 25 lives with neither parent

(The State of America's Children, 1998 Yearbook, Children's Defense Fund)


It should be noted that there are no statistics that tell us that any of the non traditional families are any more or any less successful and loving than those made up in the accepted traditional style.  What statistics do tell us however is that many families today suffer from some form of dysfunction and this includes the so-called traditional family unit.  
It is estimated that more than 85 percent of families today experience some form of dysfunction.  If we are to learn how to deal with and minimize this destructive behaviour we need to recognize the symptoms.  Wikipedia lists at least five well known conditions that typically fuel dysfunctional behaviours:     


  • Families with older parents or immigrant parents who cannot cope with changing times or a different culture
  • A parent of the same gender never intercedes in father–daughter/mother–son relations on behalf of the child
  • Children who have no contact with the extended family of their mother or father due to disharmony, disagreement, prejudice, feuding, etc.
  • One or more children does not follow suit with demands to have the same sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, etc.) as that of their parents
  • Going beyond mere disagreement, an intense schism between family members regarding religion and/or ideology (for example: parents support their country being at war, while children do not).


Based on the foregoing statistics anyone who claims that their family does not meet any of these criteria is probably in denial. Today the Roman Catholic Church lives in complete denial.  The shame that was brought directly into the Church through the sexual abuse of minors by some unstable priest can also be found present in a many traditional and non traditional dysfunctional families. Dysfunction is certainly not limited to any particular segment of society.   Tragically the  various forms of dysfunction can continue indefinitely when such families remain in denial. When left untreated and unaddressed the pain and suffering from the dysfunction can be passed on for generations.  The cover-ups and failure by the Church to report, and act on its direct involvement in a worldwide sexual scandal proved its preference to remain in denial.  The overwhelming evidence this dysfunction has caused points to a serious breach in a spiritual responsibility to its 1 billion followers.  Its credibility to the rest of the world has resulted in a dramatic loss of members everywhere.    Yet, even today the Church remains in denial by failing to address the endemic and systemic causes which were clearly identified by experts more than three decades ago.

Again, typically to families in denial, the Church prefers to point fingers at others.  Rather than recognizing ‘the elephant in the room’ Its leaders have increasingly stepped up their attacks on homosexuals, women needing abortions, the question of same-sex marriage, birth control, etc.  Should we be surprised that a lot of Church criticism has to do with sexual issues while it  fails to see its own shortcomings in the same pelvic area?  Recent comments by Hans Kung suggesting that the Church may be seriously sick (dysfunctional) certainly seem appropriate at this time.  The Catholic Church appears to have a particular problem admitting its past mistakes. It was only in March of 2000 that Pope John Paul II took the unusual step of apologizing for past errors, faults, abuses, of Roman Catholics. Thus the Church had remained in denial for more than 800 years about sins in staging the Crusades,  execution or torture of heretics, and the continuous persecution of the Jewish people which began almost immediately with the establishment of the Catholic Church.  The questions that we all need to ask our self, regardless of our religious background, is what have we and the Church now learned from these dark periods of history?  How do we avoid a repeat?

Is it not time to return to the Good News?   Jesus came to save ALL not just a select few.  Jesus came to heal and bring understanding among those who we reject or those who are simply different from ourselves.  Jesus said we should not judge and when we do we are acting in a typical dysfunctional manner. Transformation can only come through understanding the pain that exist within each dysfunctional family and that includes the Catholic Church. Remember. Jesus also experienced lies and betrayal among his family of disciples.

Note: less than a week after this posting the BBC News services reported:


"the Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny has launched an unprecedented attack on the Catholic Church in parliament.He said the recent Cloyne Report into how allegations of sex abuse by priests in Cork had been covered up showed change was urgently needed.Mr Kenny said the historic relationship between church and state in Ireland could not be the same again.


He said the report exposed the elitism, dysfunction, disconnection, and narcissism that dominated the Vatican.
"The rape and torture of children were downplayed or 'managed' to uphold instead the primacy of the institution, its power, standing and 'reputation".

Friday, 18 February 2011

Jesus did not found the Church

Jesus did not found the Catholic Church! In many ways this is an old story. But I think it has to be told again, and again. Jesus did not found the Catholic Church or any other religion! Jesus simply offered 'the way' to live in perfect peace and harmony. Had Jesus intended to form a new religion he would have had to denounce his Jewish faith, the synagogue, Temple and perhaps his own mother. Jesus was born to Jewish parents, was raised as a Jew and circumcised in the tradition of his Jewish faith. Jesus attended and took part with other Jewish believers in the life of the synagogue and Temple. He therefore typically observed and celebrated all regular Jewish festivals. He frequently engaged in dialogue with the Jewish populace including its hierarchy such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes etc. His Jewish disciples called him Rabbi – not Father (Mat 23:9), Your Holiness, or Pastor. Jesus’ message was truly universal and inclusive of all humankind – something that often provoked anger from his own Jewish religious leaders. When Jesus spoke to the crowds, he frequently employed the use of parables, to make a religious point. Teaching in parables was characteristic of the historical Jesus, especially in his proclamation of the kingdom of God. This literary style was already well known and used throughout the Jewish world especially the Jewish scriptures or Old Testament.




Jesus never insisted that anyone should adopt his Jewish background. He never implied to the Roman soldier, the Samaritan woman at the well, or anyone else that they must follow the Jewish tradition. Jesus never wrote anything down, and never proclaimed any particular doctrine or dogma – other than call us to love God, one another (especially our enemies), and most importantly to love ourselves.

Jesus would never have suggested the formation of a hierarchical institution as necessary to follow him or establish a power base from which to evangelize the world after his death. There are no suggestions from Jesus anywhere that there should be a hierarchy or persons appointed beyond the Holy Spirit, or occasions where certain religious truths should be made infallible. Instead Jesus promised his followers that what ever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven*. Even after his death when the number of his apostles is reduced to eleven by the death of Judas, a successor is appointed by drawing lots (Acts 1.15-26). Jesus did however entrust his group of uneducated, doubting and often confused disciples to spread his Kingdom message beyond the boundaries of Israel. This message still applies equally to every daring follower of 'the way' regardless of their background.
< The suggestion that Jesus founded a institutional church is based primarily on one singular passage from Matthew 16:18-19 which reads: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”



There are several very important questions that any discerning bible reading should now consider. For example:


Matthew is a gospel originally written in Greek for a community which consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. It is estimated, by most scholars today, to have been written sometime A.D. 80-90 and thus well after the death of Jesus.

The word ‘church’ translates from the original Greek ekklesia meaning assembly or community which is completely compatible with Matthew’s audience and Jesus’ intent to establish God’s Kingdom here on earth. A kingdom based on compassion, understanding, equality, etc., as illustrated through his many parables which many of his frequently disciples did not understand. Jesus came to teach us a way to live communally in peace and harmony, to bring healing and forgiveness.


As for Peter’s qualifications as leader among the apostles there is little doubt. However, to interpret Jesus’ comments about Peter being the ‘foundation’ on which he was to build an institutional church, separate from his Jewish tradition cannot be given any serious consideration. There is nothing in Jewish religious history or tradition that is dependent on a hierarchical institution. Had Jesus intended such, it would have been included or promoted throughout his teachings. It simply is not so. While this understanding may arouse some strong negative feelings among many Christian churches and especially the Catholic Church, we can hopefully all agree on the principle that Jesus' primary message was to Love God, your neighbour and yourself with all our strength, heart and soul. These are the real keys to the Kingdom as promised by Jesus.


At various times in history we forgot to observe Jesus’ simple message to love one another. As a result we allowed the gates of hell to be opened again and again. Millions upon millions have suffered much pain and suffering by ignoring the key to peace and compassion. At the same time we frequently opted to blindly follow others when we needed to take responsibility for the oppression of our fellow human beings.

Jesus died as a Jew. He was nailed to a cross below a sign posted by the Roman soldiers identifying him as ‘King of the Jews’ - a title which he would have clearly denied in favour of his call for Oneness with ALL humankind. The burial preparations were conducted following strict Jewish customs, including the washing of his body, and final entombment.


Metaphorically speaking, I would like readers to see Christ’s resurrection as an awakening of and identification with God who moves beyond time and space, religious identification or membership. We have been given the KEYS to freely to embrace ALL humankind, regardless of their religious beliefs, as One. We are all equally but uniquely endowed with God's divine indwelling to be living examples of his Kingdom on earth. As such we are Holy Temples or churches (communities) of God. Anything less will keep us forever tied to the earth and our egos.

* The doctrine of Apostolic Succession historically allowed the Church to claim exclusive authority to determine and claim (here on earth) what is wrong and what is right. Heaven sets the standard and earth follows heavens’ lead. Because God empowers his people with his divine indwelling it also means that he empowers everyone with the ability, by means of prayer and the Holy Spirit, to discern right from wrong. Through this inclusive model we will come to experience the direct relationship with our Creator.