BREATHTAKING!

From the Times:

A defiant Pope Benedict XVI indicated yesterday that he would not be intimidated by the clerical sex abuse crisis now engulfing the Church and threatening to undermine his authority.

Speaking during Palm Sunday Mass, he said that faith in Christ “helps lead us towards courage which does not allow us to be intimidated by the chatter of dominant opinions”.
....

Father Lombardi said: “The recent media attacks have without doubt caused damage. But the authority of the Pope and the commitment of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith against sex abuse of minors will come out of this not weakened but strengthened.”

The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, defended the Pope, saying that he was at the forefront of efforts to tackle the problem of clerical sex abuse. The archbishop told The Andrew Marr Show on BBC One: “The Pope will not resign. Frankly there is no strong reason for him to do so. In fact, it is the other way around. He is the one above all else in Rome that has tackled this thing head on.” (My emphasis)

The RCC tries the "putting facts on the ground" strategy. Just keep saying the words, and they will come to be true. The magic words will not work this time around. The pope and his close advisors are in denial about the damage to their moral authority, which is in shreds at the present time. New revelations of older abuse will probably continue to come to light. The pope's problems are not behind him, and he and his advisors will need to come out of denial if the church is to make a new beginning and the powers in the church restore to themselves any sort of credibility.

H/T to Mark Harris at Preludium for the link to the article in the Times.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

One path forward for the Roman Catholic Church to recover from the numerous revelations of child abuse by clergy and cover-up by those in authority might be for Pope Benedict to call for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

MORE ON THE CHILD ABUSE SCANDAL

After so many posts that I've lost count, I'm pretty well played out with commentary on the child abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church throughout countries in Europe. Turns out that the abuse was not simply an anomaly in the materialist United States of America.

I probably have one more post in me before I reach true catharsis, a post outlining the worst of my personal grievances with the RCC, which may come in due time. For now I offer the best of the links which have come my way recently from the folks who truly keep Wounded Bird going, my faithful stringers. As I said in my comments, keep the cards and letters coming (preferably with cash enclosed), because I couldn't do this without you ;-). So. Instead of more commentary, I give you links and brief quotes from several news sources, to opinions and articles on the subject. I include one opinion column on the expulsion of two little girls from their Roman Catholic school because their mothers are lesbians.

From Andrew Brown's blog at the Guardian:

I said there was something extraordinary and rather shocking hidden in Mgr Charles Scicluna's interview last week. It's hidden in plain sight, so obvious that it has so far been invisible: there was no Vatican conspiracy. There was no Vatican cover-up.

Instead of one centrally ordered cover-up, there were hundreds of little local ones. They didn't require special regulations. They grew quite naturally out of the clerical culture. They worked by silence and omission rather than anything more obviously sinister. The scandal is going to be much worse as a result.

I'd concluded that the cover-up was handled from central command at the Vatican, because a similar pattern of protecting the institution rather than the children was evidenced in different parts of the world. Andrew Brown and Mgr Scicluna say otherwise, and they are probably right.

Thanks to Cathy and Lapin for the link.


From the New York Times:

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

Thanks to Ann and Lapin.

The NYT's link to the documents of the lawsuits against Fr Lawrence Murphy contain information that is truly shocking.


From CNN:

An Irish bishop resigned amid a Catholic church sex abuse scandal, apologizing in a statement Wednesday for any abuse that occurred in his diocese.

Bishop John Magee of the diocese of Cloyne said he tendered his resignation to Pope Benedict XVI on March 9.

"I have been informed today that it has been accepted, and as I depart, I want to offer once again my sincere apologies to any person who has been abused by any priest of the Diocese of Cloyne during my time as bishop or at any time," Magee said in a statement posted on the diocese Web site.

Thanks to Ann.


From Patrick Boyle at The Huffington Post:

With depressing regularity, the men who run the Catholic Church do something that reminds me of why I'm part of the fastest growing religion in the country: Raised Catholic.

You know the type. Someone asks us what our religion is, and we act like you've stumped us on a game show. "Well," we explain, "I was raised Catholic, but ..."

The reasons for the "but" are many, and the archbishop of Denver just handed us another: He kicked two little girls out of Catholic school because they are being raised by a lesbian couple.

Thanks to Ann V.

THE SAGA OF CHILD ABUSE IN IRELAND CONTINUES

From the Belfast Telegraph:

Pressure was today piling on the Bishop of Derry over his involvement in an alleged compensation cover-up.

After revelations in the Belfast Telegraph yesterday over a settlement to an abuse victim, Dr Seamus Hegarty has confirmed that his diocese facilitated a confidentiality clause in an out-of-court settlement in 2000.

Dr Hegarty was one of three priests named in a confidential civil settlement after an eight-year-old girl was abused over a decade from 1979.

Read the rest of the article. Why now? Why the years of silence after the series of revelations of child abuse and cover-up by Roman Catholic clergy in the US? I left the Roman Catholic Church 14 years ago because of the local stories of child abuse and cover-up in my diocese of Houma-Thibodaux. With scant national media coverage, the story stayed under the radar for several years until stories of child abuse began to surface all over the US.

Why the several intervening years of relative quiet before the stories of abuse come to light in Europe, years during which the powers in the church were able to say that the abusive behavior was mainly confined to the US? I'm truly puzzled by the years-long gaps.

From several days ago in the Guardian:

Ireland's most senior Catholic cleric tonight faced down calls to resign after revealing that he was at a secret tribunal where sex abuse victims were made to take an oath of silence.

Cardinal Sean Brady said that he had attended two meetings in 1975 concerning Father Brendan Smyth, a notorious paedophile, where two of Smyth's victims signed an affidavit promising to discuss their claims only with a specified priest.
....

"Frankly I don't believe that this is a resigning matter," Brady said.

The tribunal was held behind closed doors in 1975. Smyth was accused of sexually abusing two 10-year-olds, but the church did not inform the gardai about the allegations at the time. It was only in 1994, after a documentary about Smyth, that the church admitted it had known about his paedophilia and moved him around Ireland, Britain and the US, where he continued to abuse children.

Eight and ten year old children! I want to let this story go, but I can't. It was no small thing for me to leave the church in which I had spent the greater part of my life, but I could not stay. When I went to mass, I was agitated to such an extent that I had to stop attending. I could not pay my tithe. When I went to write a check, my hand froze. I don't want this post to be all about me. What I suffered is nothing compared to the horrors that the children and their families suffered. So why do I go on about the matter? To show that the damage does not stop with the children who were abused and their families? To vent? I don't know, but a sense of horror akin to the horror I felt when the story of the abusive behavior first broke in my diocese wells up within. A flashback, one might say.

Lord, have mercy on us all!

STILL BEATING....

From the New York Times:

A widening child sexual abuse inquiry in Europe has landed at the doorstep of Pope Benedict XVI, as a senior church official acknowledged Friday that a German archdiocese made “serious mistakes” in handling an abuse case while the pope served as its archbishop.

The archdiocese said that a priest accused of molesting boys was given therapy in 1980 and later allowed to resume pastoral duties, before committing further abuses and being prosecuted. Pope Benedict, who at the time headed the archdiocese of Munich and Freising, approved the priest’s transfer for therapy. A subordinate took full responsibility for allowing the priest to later resume pastoral work, the archdiocese said in a statement.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he had no comment beyond the statement by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, which he said showed the “nonresponsibility” of the pope in the matter. (My emphasis)

And we are to take the statement by the Rev. Lombardi at face value? Not if we attend to the words of Fr Thomas P Doyle.

The priest from Essen, “despite allegations of sexual abuse, and in spite of a conviction — was repeatedly assigned work in the sphere of pastoral care by the then-Vicar General Gerhard Gruber,” who worked under Benedict, at the time Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger.
....

But Mr. Gruber took full responsibility for the decision to reinstate the priest to pastoral work. “I deeply regret that this decision resulted in offenses against youths and apologize to all who were harmed by it,” Mr. Gruber, according to a statement posted on the archdiocese Web site.

There was immediate skepticism that Benedict, as archbishop, would not have known of the details of the case.

Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, who once worked at the Vatican Embassy in Washington and became an early and well-known whistle-blower on sexual abuse in the church, said the vicar general’s claim was not credible.

“Nonsense,” said Father Doyle, who has served as an expert witness in sexual abuse lawsuits. “Pope Benedict is a micro-manager. He’s the old style. Anything like that would necessarily have been brought to his attention. Tell the vicar general to find a better line. What he’s trying to do, obviously, is protect the pope.”

I take no pleasure in writing this post. In fact, I feel sick. I'm no admirer of Benedict XVI, and I never was. I remember him as Cardinal Ratzinger in his role as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, or the Enforcer, as he was known in the US. The theologians, presidents, and professors in the Roman Catholic universities, and certain bishops dreaded his periodic visits to the US to assure that all were following the orthodox line. The list is long of the great thinkers and teachers in the RCC who were silenced or otherwise disciplined by Cardinal Ratzinger. Although I had been out of the RCC for nearly 10 years, my heart sank low when he was elected pope. He was not an unknown. My heart sank for the sake of my many family members and friends who are still part of the church.

As pope his policies and practices have been even worse than I expected. I think of him declaring just last year that married couples in which one partner is HIV positive are forbidden to use condoms.

From CNN:

Pope Benedict XVI refused Wednesday to soften the Vatican's ban on condom use as he arrived in Africa for his first visit to the continent as pope.

He landed in Cameroon, the first stop on a trip that will also take him to Angola.

Sub-Saharan Africa has been hit harder by AIDS and HIV than any other region of the world, according to the United Nations and World Health Organization. There has been fierce debate between those who advocate the use of condoms to help stop the spread of the epidemic and those who oppose it.

The pontiff reiterated the Vatican's policy on condom use as he flew from Rome to Yaounde, the capital of Cameroon, CNN Vatican analyst John Allen said.

Pope Benedict has always made it clear he intends to uphold the traditional Catholic teaching on artificial contraception -- a "clear moral prohibition" -- Allen said. But his remarks Tuesday were among the first times he stated the policy explicitly since he became pope nearly four years ago.

The world and the Roman Catholic Church would be better off if the pope resigned. There I've said it.

Other recent posts on child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church at Wounded Bird are here, here, here, and here.

NOT TO BEAT THE SUBJECT TO DEATH....

Yesterday, I resolved not to write more about celibacy and the Roman Catholic Church, but I received more than one email message with links to articles in various media outlets on the statement by Archbishop Schonborn, of Vienna, on celibacy and child abuse in the the RC church, and I decided to post on the subject one more time.

From the Guardian:

The Archbishop of Vienna today said priestly celibacy could be one of the causes of the sex abuse scandals to hit the Catholic church.

In an article for Thema Kirche, his diocesan magazine, Christoph Schonborn became the most senior figure in the Catholic hierarchy to make the connection between the two and called for an "unflinching examination" of the possible reasons for paedophilia.

He wrote: "These include the issue of priest training, as well as the question of what happened in the so-called sexual revolution.

"It also includes the issue of priest celibacy and the issue of personality development. It requires a great deal of honesty, both on the part of the church and of society as a whole."

Schonborn is not the first person to suggest a link between celibacy and paedophilia – the theologian Hans Kung has made the same assertion.

A spokesman clarified the archbishop's words, insisting he was "in no way" seeking to question the celibacy rule or call for its abolition.

Archbishop Schonborn is, indeed, not the first person to suggest a link, nor is Fr Hans Kung, because I, and a good many others, suggested a link when the revelations of abuse first became public a good many years ago. Of course, our questions did not make the leap to the media.

What I don't understand is the statement by a spokesman that "in no way" was the archbishop questioning the celibacy rule. If you believe there may be a link between celibacy and child abuse, why would you rule out questioning the wisdom of the celibacy rule? If the intention is to conduct an "unflinching investigation" of the reasons for child abuse by RC clergy, why cut off what seems a logical component of an open and honest way forward in the investigation?

Who is the spokesman who clarified the archbishop's statement? Was the spokesman from the Vatican?

The Guardian continues:

Writing in L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican newspaper), Lucetta Scaraffia said women might have helped remove the "veil of secrecy" surrounding the abuse.

She used the word "omerta" – the Mafia code of silence – to describe the conspiracy involved in hiding the offences.

"We can hypothesise that a greater female presence, not at a subordinate level, would have been able to rip the veil of masculine secrecy that in the past often covered the denunciation of these misdeeds with silence," she said. (My emphasis)

Brava, Lucetta Scaraffia! The all-male, patriarchal culture of the of the clergy in the RCC could, indeed, have contributed to the conspiracy to cover-up the misdeeds, rather than deal with the abuse openly and honestly, which would have meant that many cases of abuse could have been prevented, rather than allowed to continue for decades.

Note that Scaraffia says "a female presence, not at a subordinate level". My question then is, what would the female presence "not at a subordinate level" look like? For instance, what would be the equivalent non-subordinate, female presence to a cardinal?

In the comments, Paul (A.) suggests the picture below in answer to my question just above.