HANS KUNG ON CLERICAL CELIBACY - 2

Read Hans Kung's piece in the National Catholic Reporter titled "Ratzinger's Responsibility".

I know that some of you disagree with me about a connection between celibacy and child abuse amongst priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Mind, I am, by no means, suggesting that celibacy is the sole cause of child abuse by clergy. We know of the connection between having been abused as a child and turning to child abuse as an adult.

In the days of my youth, all sexual outlets were forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church except sex between a man and a woman after a church wedding without the use of any form of birth control. Tell teenage boys and girls with raging hormones, that masturbation is a mortal sin for which they will burn in hell for all eternity. Tell the young teens that having sex with a person to whom you're not married is a mortal sin for which you will burn in hell. An equivalency forms in the minds of a good many of the young people that the two actions are on a par. How can you, in good conscience, urge the teens to wait to have sex, if you forbid them the one sexual outlet that brings harm to no one? If you're going to burn for masturbating, why not just go ahead and have sex at the age of 13, 14, or 15?

Tell seminarians and priests that they may never have a deliberate sinless sexual outlet in their whole lives if they want to be priests. Do you see how screwed up this kind of thinking is? Do you see how such screwed up thinking could lead to abnormal acting out?

In his piece in the NCR, Fr Kung asks and responds to 4 questions:

1st Question: Why does the pope continue to assert that what he calls "holy" celibacy is a "precious gift", thus ignoring the biblical teaching that explicitly permits and even encourages marriage for all office holders in the Church?
....

2nd Question: Is it true, as Archbishop Zollitsch insists, that "all the experts" agree that abuse of minors by clergymen and the celibacy rule have nothing to do with each other? How can he claim to know the opinions of "all the experts"?
....

3rd Question: Instead of merely asking pardon of the victims of abuse, should not the bishops at last admit their own share of blame?

4th Question: Is it not time for Pope Benedict XVI himself to acknowledge his share of responsibility, instead of whining about a campaign against his person? No other person in the Church has had to deal with so many cases of abuse crossing his desk.

Please follow the link to the article in the National Catholic Reporter, because I have not quoted the complete texts of Fr Kung's questions, nor have I included his responses in my post.

Even if you disagree with the premise that there is an association between celibacy and child abuse by RCC clergy, Fr Kung's article is worth a read.

And yes. Feel free to call me obsessed.

HOW TO LICK A BOWL

I love this.

 

 

 

 

"If you have never loved a dog, part of your soul remains unawakened."


From Doug.

STORY OF THE DAY

Just finished walking in the landfill so
he's avoiding even thinking about where
his feet have been.


From StoryPeople

Perfect.

ET TU, RATZI?

Yahoo News:

Pope Benedict XVI rebuked Irish bishops Saturday for "grave errors of judgment" in handling clerical sex abuse cases and ordered an investigation into the Irish church. But he laid no blame for the problem on the Vatican's policies of keeping such cases secret.

In a letter to the Irish faithful read across Europe amid a growing, multination abuse scandal, the pope apologized to victims but doled out no specific punishments to bishops blamed by Irish government-ordered investigations for having covered up abuse of thousands of Irish children from the 1930s to the 1990s.

Ireland's main group of clerical-abuse victims, One in Four, said it was deeply disappointed by the letter because it failed to place responsibility with the Vatican for what it called a "deliberate policy of the Catholic Church at the highest levels to protect sex offenders, thereby endangering children."

"If the church cannot acknowledge this fundamental truth, it is still in denial," the group said.

Yes. And who was a bishop in Germany when child abuse by clergy was taking place there? And who was a cardinal serving at the Vatican advising bishops on how to handle the charges of child abuse? Et tu, Ratzi?

The letter directly addressed only Ireland, but the Vatican said it could be read as applying to other countries. Hundreds of new allegations of abuse have recently come to light across Europe, including in the pope's native Germany, where he served as archbishop in a diocese where several victims have recently come forward. One priest suspected of molesting boys while the future pope was in charge was transferred to a job where he abused more children.

While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a 2001 letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep the church investigations secret under threat of excommunication. While the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police, Irish bishops have said the letter was widely understood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to civil authorities.

Then from the New York Times:

Faced with a church sexual abuse scandal spreading across Europe, Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday apologized directly to victims and their families in Ireland, expressing “shame and remorse” for what he called “sinful and criminal” acts committed by clergy.

But the pope did not require that church leaders be disciplined for past mistakes as some victims were hoping; nor did he clarify what critics see as contradictory Vatican rules they fear allow abuse to continue unpunished.

But wait!

The strong letter was written in language at once passionate, personal and sweeping. And the pope did take the relatively rare step of ordering a special apostolic delegation to be sent to unspecified dioceses in Ireland to investigate.

See. The pope ordered a special apostolic delegation.

The most recent revelation came last week when a psychiatrist who treated a priest decades ago in an archdiocese run by the future pope in Germany said he repeatedly warned that the accused priest should never work with children again. The priest was reassigned to pastoral work, but another church leader had taken responsibility for that decision.

Ratzi said, "I didn't do it!" and sure enough, an underling took the blame.

Here's the link to the text of Pope Benedict's pastoral letter to the Irish church.

The pope cites a changing world and creeping secularism as partial explanations for the child abuse and cover-up. Yes, the world turns, and secularism creeps, but please, Your Holiness, give us a break from lame excuses and put the major blame where it belongs - on the institutional structure led by the powers in the Vatican.

Just as I was feeling glum comes Erika to the rescue.


GROVE JOKES AND QUOTES

How do crazy people go through the forest?
They take the psycho path.

How do you get holy water?
Boil the hell out of it.

What did the fish say when it hit a concrete wall?
"Dam!"

What do Eskimos get from sitting on the ice too long?
Polaroids.

What do you call a boomerang that doesn't work?
A stick.

What do you call four bullfighters in quicksand?
Quatro sinko.

What do you get from a pampered cow?
Spoiled milk.

What do you get when you cross a snowman with a vampire?
Frostbite.

What lies at the bottom of the ocean and twitches?
A nervous wreck.

What's the difference between roast beef and pea soup?
Anyone can roast beef.

Where do you find a dog with no legs?
Right where you left him.


Thanks Erika. I needed a laugh.

FEAST OF ST. JOSEPH

St Joseph with the Infant Jesus, Guido Reni (c. 1635).

Readings:

Psalm 89:1-29 or 89:1-4,26-29;
2 Samuel 7:4,8-16;
Romans 4:13-18;
Luke 2:41-52

O God, who from the family of your servant David raised up Joseph to be the guardian of your incarnate Son and the spouse of his virgin mother: Give us grace to imitate his uprightness of life and his obedience to your commands; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.


I believe I can do no better than to urge you to click on over to Kirkepiscatoid to read her post on the feast of St. Joseph.

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!

PLEASE PRAY FOR THE DIOCESE OF WYOMING

Ann said...

Prayers for Wyoming - Saturday (weather permitting) we elect the next bishop of Wyoming. Though Bruce and I have had our disagreements - he has been a leader in the church for full inclusion and for developing shared ministry/mutual ministry/ministry of the baptized here in Wyoming -- helping all to understand that we are all called to ministry - lay and ordained -- that the church is God's church and not the priest's church. Prayers for his successor.

OH WELL, THAT DIDN'T TAKE LONG

From the Times Online:

The Archbishop of Canterbury's office yesterday described the election of an openly lesbian bishop in the United States as "regrettable" and warned that it could further threaten the unity of the Anglican Communion.

The London office of Dr Rowan Williams responded to the election of Canon Mary Glasspool to a suffragan see in Los Angeles by warning of "important implications". The statement from Lambeth Palace said that further consultations would now take place and regretted that calls for restraint had not been heeded.

Now that the Archbishop of Canterbury has sent his regrets, we go on with our march forward toward justice and equality without his blessing.

Her election was strongly opposed by conservatives and is expected to exacerbate tensions and imperil the success of the new Covenant process, intended to find a basis of common doctrine and practice for the entire Church.

Well, we can but hope with respect to the imperilment of the "new Covenant process". I thought we already had a New Covenant from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Canon Glasspool] added: "I am also aware that not everyone rejoices in this election and consent, and will work, pray, and continue to extend my own hands and heart to bridge those gaps, and strengthen the bonds of affection among all people, in the Name of Jesus Christ."

Mary Glasspool demonstrates what a class act looks like.

The Most Rev Peter Jensen, the Archbishop of Sydney, said: “With the election of the Reverend Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, as a bishop in Los Angeles in The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion reaches another decisive moment.

"It is now absolutely clear to all that the national Church itself has formally committed itself to a pattern of life which is contrary to Scripture. The election of Bishop Robinson in 2003 was not an aberration to be corrected in due course. It was a true indication of the heart of the Church and the direction of its affairs.”

No, Archbishop Jensen, the election of Bishop Robinson is not an aberration to be corrected in due course, and it is a true indication of the heart of the church which opens to embrace ALL the baptized.


UPDATE: I note that the words quoted in the article are from the Archbishop of Canterbury's office. Which means what?

HUMANISTS UNITE!

MadPriest asks:

The bosses, in politics, business and religion have let us down big time recently and capitalism has lost all claims to being our "saviour." Is the next shift in society a real move to "bottom up" paradigms? What part will the internet play in this? Can the emergent church (the bit based on liberation theology not evangelical leadership models) be a major player in this - even an initiator? Is it the answer to the current stalemate in Anglicanism - e.g. should progressives and radicals just, unilaterally, move away from the centralist, controlling "instruments," ignore them, and make new alignments with anybody who is committed to the upside down way of doing things? This would fit in with my idea of "true, universal humanism" - in which believers and non-believers alike could get together to sort out the mess without either feeling threatened by the other?

Read the rest of the post at OCICBW.

The questions intrigued me and, rather than respond in a long comment, I decided to take on the questions here at Wounded Bird..

The bosses have, indeed, let us down. Are we now seeing the beginning of a shift to a "bottom up" paradigm? We may be. In the political arena, health care reform would probably now be dead but for the continuing efforts of the grass roots to goad President Obama and the Congress from their lethargy into action. In the end, health care reform legislation may not pass, but at least for now, the legislation is still alive. The public option may even be a possibility, thanks again to ordinary people and the loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts, which should have been a win for the Democrats. 40 brave senators have now pledged to support legislation which includes the public option.

What part did the internet play? A great part, I believe. Blogs, Facebook groups, and Twitter have changed the political landscape so that information spreads quickly, and responses are close to immediate.

What about the stalemate in the Anglican Communion? General Convention 2009 of the Episcopal Church passed two resolutions, D025, which states that all orders of ordained ministry are open to all the baptized, including gays and lesbians in committed same-sex relationships, and CO56, which permits a diocesan bishop who so chooses to allow same-sex blessings and marriages in states where same-sex marriage is legal.

Two Episcopal dioceses in the South, Louisiana and Upper South Carolina elected moderate to progressive bishops, both of whom received consents - no surprise there. The Diocese of Los Angeles elected two women as suffragan bishops, one of whom is a lesbian in a long-term partnered relationship. Both women received consents from both the bishops and the Standing Committees of the Episcopal Church. Progressives in the church are greatly encouraged by this series of events. I don't expect that Bishop Katharine will ever ask members of the church to stand in a "crucified place" again.

The Episcopal Church goes about its business of moving forward toward justice and equality, despite awareness that there are those in the wider Anglican Communion who will not approve, including the Primus inter Pares, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. In the comments to my post on Mary Glasspool receiving consents from both the bishops and the Standing Committees, I asked how long it would be before Rowan Williams speaks out in an attempt to rain on our parade. Another commenter asked, "Rowan who?"

The trend in the Episcopal Church toward justice and equality is, I believe, irreversible. In the Anglican Communion, I believe that other churches will take similar steps toward inclusion to the Episcopal Church. The Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church of Scotland seem likely to follow soon. The Church of England may be slower.

On the political scene in the US, I don't know what lies ahead. I hope that we get a health care reform bill passed and signed into law, preferably a bill which includes the public option. I hope that we move ahead to further regulation of the financial institutions which have demonstrated that they cannot or will not regulate themselves. And much more.

As to humanists within and outside the church cooperating, I don't see why not. I see seeds being planted as the Roman Catholic nuns and the Catholic Hospital Association speak out in support of health care reform in opposition to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. The church may, indeed, have to take the lead to reach out to establish relationships of trust with secular humanists.