Washington D.C., Jan 4, 2019 / 12:00 pm (CNA).- This week the U.S. bishops gathered at Mundelein Seminary in the Archdiocese of Chicago for a weeklong retreat, held at the urging of Pope Francis. Under the guidance of the preacher to the papal household, Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, they will spend a week “pausing in prayer” to “reflect on the signs of the times.”
Although recent scandals loom large over the meeting, the pope has asked the bishops to focus on their own conversion, before further discussion about new systems or structures to address the sexual abuse crisis.
In a letter sent to the American bishops ahead of their retreat, Pope Francis underscored that the recent crisis has “severely undercut and diminished” the Church’s credibility. Only response grounded in unity and communion, the pope wrote, has the power to restore the Church’s authority and authenticity.
The pope warned the bishops to avoid temptations to seek either the “relative calm resulting from compromise, or from a democratic vote where some emerge as ‘winners’ and others not.”
These temptations remain strong. One of the great frustrations for many of them during the Baltimore assembly was what they saw as a missed opportunity to produce “a solution,” in whatever form.
Whatever model bishops supported in November: the proposed lay-led national commission or the so-called metropolitan model, at least some seemed to be looking for a silver bullet, a powerful “fix” that would restore confidence now and prevent scandals from repeating.
Many American Catholics, too, seemed to expect a cure-all structural reform, and are now hoping that at the global summit on abuse in February, Rome will produce the reforms the U.S. Church could not.
But expectations that there can be one practical solution to solve the crisis are likely to prove false hopes. It has become obvious to most observers that no new policy, structure, or process can answer or prevent what is essentially a crisis of sin.
In his letter, Francis called administrative reforms “necessary yet insufficient” as they “ultimately risk reducing everything to an organizational problem.” The pope called the bishops to recognize their “sinfulness and limitations” and to preach to each other the need for conversion.
The pope’s diagnosis seems to be rooted in the evidence of recent months.
The current crisis is really better understood as a web of intersecting crises. The sexual abuse of minors is rightly seen as the most scandalous among them, but it has festered – as the pope has observed – among other illnesses in the body of the Church.
Clericalism, sexual permissiveness, moral indifference, and administrative negligence are themselves serious problems that require answers of their own.
But, if recent history is any guide, those answers are unlikely to come from any canonical or structural reform, however dramatic or well-intended.
As Cardinal Blase Cupich noted in November, there have been structures and commitments of various kinds in place in since 2002. The Statement of Episcopal Commitment was designed to ensure Church law was always followed when allegations were made, no matter who was being accused. And in 2016, Pope Francis issued the motu proprio Come una madre amorivole, which established – or was meant to – an entirely new canonical procedure for investigating and triying allegations against a bishop.
But even with those those policies and promises, Church officials have not seemed to consider themselves bound to any uniform procedure for handling allegations against bishops. Meanwhile, Francis has withdrawn the reforms of Come una madre before they were ever tested.
Many are now realizing that the problems facing the Church have never been the result of a lack of procedures. Instead, attention is beginning to shift to an enduring lack of will in the Church to employ its policies consistently and with rigor.
Absent a moral commitment to see them applied unsparingly, no reform measures – however systematic – can prevent the worst from happening.
As a case in point: last month it emerged that the Archdiocese of New York, which has some of the clearest, best-established abuse policies of any U.S. diocese, left a priest in ministry even after its own independent commission offered compensation to several of his alleged victims.
As recently as last month, the office of clergy personnel issued a letter of good standing stating “without qualification” that no accusation had ever been made against him; this despite an ongoing investigation by the archdiocese’s own review board.
The failures in New York were not caused by a lack of policies and procedures. Instead, they appear to have been truly human failures.
This may be the reason the pope appears skeptical that another policy or structure could yield different results, at any level of the Church, without personal conversion by the people charged with implementing them.
In August of last year, at the height of the Church’s summer of scandal, the USCCB’s own lay-led National Review Board agreed, issuing a statement that ruled out further structural reforms as a solution.
“The evil of the crimes that have been perpetrated reaching into the highest levels of the hierarchy will not be stemmed simply by the creation of new committees, policies, or procedures,” the review board wrote.
“What needs to happen is a genuine change in the Church’s culture, specifically among the bishops themselves. This evil has resulted from a loss of moral leadership and an abuse of power that led to a culture of silence that enabled these incidents to occur.”
Moral leadership, as the pope has told the U.S. bishops in no uncertain terms, cannot be effected by a vote. It requires a personal conversion in the face of failure and sin. Real change will require a totally new mindset among bishops, and the Curia.
The 19th century British Prime Minister George Canning ridiculed what he called “the idle supposition that it is the harness and not the horses that draw the carriage.”
“Men are everything,” Canning said, “measures comparatively nothing.”
Pope Francis echoed this sentiment in his letter to the bishops, warning them that the Church’s lost credibility “cannot be regained by issuing stern decrees or by simply creating new committees or improving flow charts.”
Instead, the pope wrote, the Church will only regain her credibility by “acknowledging its sinfulness and limitation” while at the same time “preaching the need for conversion.”
After the scandals of 2002, many bishops and officials treated the new measures and standards as a hardship to be endured, rather than a new reality of ecclesiastical life to be internalized. The “cultural change” called for by the national review board and the pope may prove to be the only means of breaking what has begun to resemble a cycle of scandal.
By warning the American bishops against measures aimed at recovering their reputations rather than amending their ways, the pope may have set the bar by which his own February summit will be measured. In his letter, Francis has called for a “shared project that is at once broad, unassuming, sober, and transparent.” Such a project, it seems, would bear little resemblance to past attempts to respond to the sexual abuse crisis.
As the bishops pray in Mundelein and the pope’s advisers prepare for February’s meeting in Rome, many Catholics begin 2019 wondering if a hierarchy beset by scandal can truly convert, or merely reform – again.
[…]
To call this sect a Church is not a proper Catholic understanding of the word. It is a non Christian sect. To call it simply “non trinitarian religion” is insufficient. It leaves the only impression that it’s Christian just not Trinitarian.
It’s proper to express condolences but to pray for a man of a different religion is problematic.
“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” (Matt 5:44). Not that he was an enemy. But, there you go. You are correct, however, about “Church.” The LDS is not a “Church” in any truly Catholic sense; not even sure it’s an “ecclesial communion,” as the Mormon understanding of God and Christ are both deeply lacking and wrong.
Nice to know you are an expert on what God the Father knows or believes, or that one religion in which you know very little of could be the wrong one. The Nicene Creed destroyed scholarly study of scripture, deleting and dismissing entire passages based upon the desires of a pagan leader in Constantine. So you easily dismiss what we LDS faithful consider in our faith as Christ Himself actually set in place after the resurrection…that’s mighty narcissistic and vain of you to think that the corruption of the faith that draws nearer to Christ with their lips but still have their hearts far from Him, with grandeur and extreme opulence, fine garments and vainness, political gain and an army corps of pediphilics preying on vulnerable young boys and men…what hubris! Sure, The LDS church has some issues in it’s past, and even if you don’t believe our doctrine or tenets are “correct,” but still the Catholic church takes the cake when it comes to abuse of wealth, association with socialist and communist dogma, and even a strong connection with Nazism, not to mention the forced conversion of non-Catholics during the dark-ages, the crusades and inquisition. If one is forced to believe, do they truly believe? Does anyone really need a cleric to commune with God? Believe as you will, but remember…you open it up to criticism of your own faith when you attack another’s. I could give a fig what Catholics believe…I know that our Heavenly Father will sort it out…not a man.
“So you easily dismiss what we LDS faithful consider in our faith as Christ Himself actually set in place after the resurrection”
An idea with which you agree in principle, since you are so easily dismissing what we Catholic faithful believe that Christ Himself actually set in place after the Resurrection.
“The Nicene Creed destroyed scholarly study of scripture, deleting and dismissing entire passages based upon the desires of a pagan leader in Constantine.”
Flapdoodle. And the more so since it is coming from a man the founder of whose religion created his “scripture” from a hodgepodge of the King James version of the Bible and several works of fiction.
“that’s mighty narcissistic and vain of you”
Someone whose sect believes that members will become gods and form and create their own worlds is not really in a position to accuse anybody of narcissism and vanity.
“Does anyone really need a cleric to commune with God?”
For Holy Communion, yes, one does.
“I could give a fig what Catholics believe”
Which of course is why you came galloping into a Catholic board to pitch a hissy fit and throw insults because people on it have stated the plain fact that Mormon beliefs are not those of Christianity, however much they may borrow words from Christianity and then change their meanings.
“the Catholic church takes the cake when it comes to abuse of wealth”
By which you mean what? Give me examples. The Catholic Church has founded and supported charities, hospitals, schools, and many other things.
“association with socialist and communist dogma,”
Again, what exactly do you mean? That’s a nice, general statement that means nothing. Do you mean because the Church encourages sharing one’s wealth with those less fortunate?
” and even a strong connection with Nazism,”
What connection? The Nazis hated the Church, hated the Pope, and persecuted Catholics.
” not to mention the forced conversion of non-Catholics during the dark-ages,”
There were some forced conversions, and that was wrong.
“the crusades”
The Crusades were an attempt to retrieve the Holy Land from the people who took it by military force. They were not a bad thing in and of themselves.
“and inquisition.”
Which Inquisition do you mean? Against the Albigensians? The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish Inquisition? Be specific, so that your accusations can be addressed, instead of flinging words in randomly.
” an army corps of pediphilics preying on vulnerable young boys and men”
There is no “army corps” of pedophiles. There are some priests who have committed horrible sins, against the teachings of the Church. What they have done is evil. It is a sad fact that people sin.
Your founder, Joseph Smith, however, introduced, as an official tenet of Mormonism, polygamy, and convinced some of his “wives” (some of whom were already married to other men) to “marry” him by telling them that they must to secure their and their families’ salvation (Helen Mar Kimball) or by saying that he himself would be killed by an angel if he didn’t commit polygamy. Strange how so many manmade religions seem to include the idea on the founder’s part that “Cool! I get to have sexual intercourse with as many women as I want!” So, someone whose church had an official policy of promoting evil doesn’t exactly have any standing to criticize the Church because some Catholics sin.
The first Mormon who befriended me was called ‘Tiny’ late seventyish so tall he often dangled his left leg out the pickup window pistol on the dashboard and had a girlfriend. Ramah NM my new mission was built on property he sold to the Franciscans inquired where to find him told the saloon. He invite me for a drink. Baptists called drinking Mormons Jack Mormons. They were the only kind around most tough ranchers from Texas. Tiny was delighted to have a priest in the area and said he would like to ring the church bell on Sundays. His horse Hank roaming free at night would tap on my rectory steps until I appeared. Tiny burst in one day as was his wont with just cut beautiful bark timber for my altar. Needless to say I loved the old guy. I can’t say as much for the non Jack Mormon Mormons who tried to proselytize my parishioners except that their towns were neat and clean.