Germany is not only a secular country, but a sexually liberated one as well. Many Germans find the Vatican’s demand of priestly celibacy completely alien, and we recognize it as a historical, rather than holy, tradition, going back to a decree by Pope Benedict VIII in 1022. Indeed, in a poll conducted last week, 87 percent of Germans said that celibacy is no longer appropriate.
Peter Schnieder in an OpEd in the N.Y. Times
The crisis of the Roman Catholic Church moves closer and closer to its head. Now documents show Benedict was up to his robes in it.
If he were the head of a multi-billion dollar corporation instead of a multi-billion dollar church, the Board of Directors would have gotten rid of him long ago. Is it time for him to resign?
[UPDATE: The bookies are taking bets on the resignation now.]
[UPDATE: The complaints started in the mid 1950's!]
[UPDATE: The founder of an order of priests and brothers was an abuser.]
Has a Pope resigned in modern times?
ReplyDeleteHaving a retired Pope hanging around would create difficulties, because of the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Suppose the new guy (no hope that the next one will be a gal)sets a new course, negating some pronouncement of the previous Pope?
"I'm infallible!" "I was infallible before you were!"
Persons with disabilities suffer a much higher incidence of sexual abuse than the general population.
ReplyDeleteA residential school, lack of sex education, an authority figure on the prowl--a recipe for disaster.
The same thing happened at the Governor Baxter School for the Deaf, in Maine, in the 1960s. To make matters worse, many of the school staff were sexual or physical abusers, including the superintendent. The school is on an island, which made detection more difficult.
For the Maine boys, the statute of limitations had run out when their lawsuit was filed. However, the Maine Legislature guaranteed the victims free counseling at state expense, for the rest of their lives.
There were also cases in Canada; I'm less familiar with those.
Pope to resign?
ReplyDeletehttp://fratres.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/betting-against-benedict-31-odds-pope-will-resign/
Seems that seven Popes have resigned, over the centuries. So there's precedent.
ReplyDeleteMore on the Wisconsin boys--
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36063186/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times
My remarks are NOT to be construed to condone practices of abuse.
ReplyDeleteTim, the logic used in this entry is well off mark.
Even your opening line betrays what comes later. As you write, Germany is a sexually promiscuous (the euphemism you choose is "liberated," but from what?) and "secular" country.
Analogously, it might be similar to sending a Texas beef grower's association member to a vegetarian conference. The two will ne'er see eye-to-eye. Similarly, the Church has NEVER condoned sexual or other sin, including, but not limited to pederasty, adultery, fornication, prostitution, abortion or other sins.
Writings from the First Century - and I specifically refer to the Didache - clearly, unmistakably, and unambiguously forbid such practices as I mentioned. And such prohibition itself was not a new thing, but rather an extension of Jewish laws and customs.
Paul's letters to the Corinthians - a sexually "liberated" pagan society and culture of the day, making moderns pale by comparison - addresses the behaviors those whom name Christ ought to practice, and those they should forswear. The Corinthians, you recall, had believed in the Gospel message, and shortly had returned to their hedonistic heathen practices, including incest.
And regarding your implication of the Holy Father, it too is faulty.
In analogy, I reference this paragraph from another blog - JohnPriess.wordpress.com - and the entry by George Gil entitled "Why The Veil?"
"On April 3, 1969 when Pope Paul VI promulgated the new Roman Missal reporters gathered at the Vatican and quizzed those who were announcing the new missal. One reporter asked, “Does the new Missal say anything about women wearing head coverings in Church?” The answer given was simply, “No.” Other reporters picked up the response and interpreted it that women no longer needed to wear any head covering in Church. Articles appeared in the secular press around the world, “Catholic women no longer need wear head coverings in Church.” That was a conclusion not even implied in the “No” answer. The Missal had never ever been the place where women were told to wear head coverings. Why should the new Roman Missal so state what concerned the rubrics for the priest celebrating Mass?"
Note that because no mention was specifically made of the veil, media mongers (I use the term in the highest sense, not with derogatory intent) gave their own "spin" to the answer they received.
The absence of a response, in and of itself, does not imply endorsement.
For many years, there have been, and continue to be, guidelines, canon law, and other internal regulatory mechanisms in place to sufficiently address, deal with, and punish wrong-doers in the Church. The failings of inferiors whom are directly responsible for such matters to appropriate the necessary guidelines and practices to effectively try and punish those accuse in no way indicts the superior.
It'd be like accusing the president because Bob Riley, Troy King, or some AL legislator did something stupid. (Such as Steve "Jug" Windom's urinating in a jar stunt on the floor of the AL statehouse during a legislative session.)
Similarly again, this current Congress has not written law changing statute on a national lottery. Should we therefore interpret such inaction to be an endorsement of national lottery?
The Holy Father, in his letter to Irish Catholics, specifically addresses priests and religious who have abused children, priests, bishops and more. His letter may be found here: (ref: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html)
Papal infallibility is not about an individual.
ReplyDeleteThe USCCA states this about papal infallibility: ""The Church, through its magisterium, has been entrusted with the task of authoritatively interpreting what is contained in revelation, so that 'all that is proposed for belief, as being divinely revealed, is drawn from the one deposit of faith' (DV, no. 10). ...at certain times, the bishops gather in an Ecumenical Council with the Pope, and they teach and proclaim a doctrine that must be accepted with faith because it is divinely revealed. The bishops of the world defined and proclaimed a divinely revealed doctrine at the First Vatican Council (1869-1870). This was when they taught that under certain conditions the Pope himself can proclaim a doctrine that is divinely revealed and must be believed by all. This is known as the dogma of papal infallibility." (ref: United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, chapter 11, p133, Fourth printing, September 2007, ISBN-13-: 978-1-57455-450-2)
Hopefully, that is more enlightening.
Hi WSA,
ReplyDeleteThe opening paragraph is not me writing, but quoting an OpEd piece in the Times, so I won't comment on your comments about the RC church in Germany.
As for the Pope being held responsible for the actions of proests and brothers (and his own inaction..see the update on the entry), that's a far different matter than holding a President responsible for a governor's actions. The latter are elected individually, the Pope is head of a church he rules, and every official in it answers to him.
Thank you for clarifying the authorship of your posting. There were no quotation marks, which therefore led me to believe they were your words.
ReplyDeleteIt is disturbingly interesting to note that Rev. Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, stated that civil authorities had investigated the case and dropped it, and the Vatican was not forwarded the case until 1996, many years after civil authorities dropped the case.
Civil authorities dropped the case.
Why?
Concerning the structure of Church authority, however imperfect my analogy may have been, I understand your comment.
Responsibility is delgated. If the inferiors do not follow canon law, and the superior is not made aware, upon whom shall we squarely place responsibility? With the lower ones whom keep secrets and fail to communicate (the point of failure), or the head? That'd be like punishing parents for the actions of adult children.
Yet, if one is wanting to play the "blame game," it would seem there's plenty to go around. Where should we start?
And toward that end, the papal list from 1950 forward is as follows:
#260-Pius XII, 1939-1958;
#261-John XXIII, 1958-1963;
#262-Paul VI, 1963-1978;
#263-John Paul I, 1978;
#264-John Paul II, 1978-2005;
#265-Benedict XVI, 2005-present.