Vatican City, May 15, 2018 / 02:08 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- This week 34 Chilean bishops are meeting with Pope Francis to discuss the country’s clerical sexual abuse scandal, which involves at least one of the bishops attending the meeting. The meeting is significant, but not unprecedented.
Francis summoned Chile’s bishops to Rome in an April 8 letter admitting he had made “serious mistakes” in judgment of the nation’s abuse crisis, and which was a follow-up to the results of an in-depth investigation into accusations of abuse cover-up carried out by Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s top prosecutor on clerical abuse.
In April 2002, Pope St. John Paul II called 13 U.S. cardinals and bishops to discuss a large-scale clerical sexual abuse crisis. Benedict XVI followed suit when the abuse crisis in Ireland came to light in 2009, inviting high-ranking Irish prelates and members of the Roman Curia to meet at the Vatican in February 2010.
It is practically unheard of, at least in recent history, that the pope would summon an entire bishops conference – or even the leading bishops and cardinals of a country – to Rome for a previously unplanned emergency visit. But sexual abuse, and cover-ups within ecclesial environments, seems to have merited that treatment more than other issues.
While John Paul was the first of the three most recent popes to make such a drastic request, Vatican observers say that a letter sent by Benedict XVI to the Catholics of Ireland in March 2010 set the tone for the Vatican’s approach to sexual abuse crises around the world.
The letter, which was published after Benedict met with Irish prelates, is still widely read, taught, and referenced as a clear example of how the Vatican should respond to instance of abuse and cover-up.
According to veteran Vatican journalist John Allen, when the American bishops came to the Vatican in April 2002 to discuss the abuse crisis exploding in the U.S., the final results of the meeting were a mixed bag.
On one hand, John Paul II’s declaration that “people need to know that there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young” empowered American bishops to develop the June 2002 “Dallas Charter,” which set national standards in place for the prevention and reporting of child abuse.
On the other hand, Allen says, the documents outlining resolutions made by US bishops and the Vatican going into the future were rushed, and were considered by most in both the U.S. and Vatican delegations to be an inaccurate account of the discussion, and the plans that had been made.
In all, it would seem that the Vatican communiques following the meeting were a missed opportunity for the Church to send a strong, unified message to the world on the issue of clerical abuse.
However, Benedict XVI, who was present for the meeting with U.S. bishops in his capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, got a first-hand account of the scope of the problem, the failures that allowed the abuse, the steps that needed to be taken in the future, and the damages done to individuals and to the credibility of the Church in an entire nation.
He likely drew from the experience when dealing with Ireland’s abuse scandal in 2009, and his insights seemed to guide his own discussion with Irish prelates, his handling of the conclusions of their meeting, and his 2010 letter to Irish Catholics.
During a May 14 press conference ahead of the meeting with Pope Francis to discuss their own country’s abuse crisis, Chilean bishops Fernando Ramos and Juan Ignacio González said they and their brother bishops had recently read Benedict’s 2010, and that it provides essential guidelines for them to follow in their own country.
In the letter, Benedict addressed Catholics in Ireland not only with the concern of a father, but also “with the affection of a fellow Christian, scandalized and hurt by what has occurred in our beloved Church.”
He divided the letter into sections addressed to particular groups of people, including victims and their families, parents, priests and religious guilty of abusing children, children and youth from Ireland, priests and religious from Ireland, Irish bishops themselves, and Irish Catholics on the whole.
Benedict apologized to victims, saying that nothing could undo the wrongs they had endured, and that it was understandable if they were unable to forgive and reconcile with the Church.
“In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel. At the same time, I ask you not to lose hope,” he said.
Among other things, Benedict urged greater formation on the issue of abuse for priests and religious, which was echoed by the Chilean bishops during their press conference.
He also highlighted several factors he said were causes in the abuse crisis. In addition to a rapidly changing and secularized cultural landscape, he said the procedures for finding suitable candidates for the priesthood and religious life were “inadequate,” and cited “insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates” as one of the causes of institutional failure.
Also a problem, he said, was clericalism and an exaggerated respect for those in authority, as well as a “misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person.”
In terms of concrete action, Benedict proposed a number of concrete initiatives, the first of which was to do penance.
He asked Ireland’s bishops to dedicate Lent of that year, 2010, as a time “to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country.”
Benedict also asked that Irish Catholics offer their Friday penances for that intention for a year – from Lent 2010 to Easter 2011 – requesting that they offer their regular prayer, fasting and acts of charity for healing and renewal for the Church of Ireland, and that they go to confession more frequently.
He said special attention ought to be paid to Eucharistic adoration, especially in parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries in order to “make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm” and to ask for the grace of a renewed sense of their mission.
Benedict also announced that he would carry out an apostolic visitation to certain dioceses, seminaries and religious congregations and said he would implement a mission for bishops, priests and religious from Ireland.
The hope for the mission, he said, was that by access to holy preachers and with a careful rereading of conciliar documents, liturgical rites of ordination and recent pontifical teachings, consecrated persons would “come to a more profound appreciation of your respective vocations, so as to rediscover the roots of your faith in Jesus Christ and to drink deeply from the springs of living water that he offers you through his Church.”
During the press conference Monday with Chilean bishops, Ramos and González called Benedict’s letter “a precious and beautiful text full of guidelines that we will follow or are following.”
They also made comments reminiscent of the sentiments voiced by Benedict XVI, saying they are coming into the meeting this week with “shame and pain,” but they also voiced hope that the discussion will be a fresh start for the bishops, and will provide a decisive direction going forward.
However, while they have Benedict’s guidelines in mind, the bishops said that as far as this week goes, they are in Rome at the beckoning of Pope Francis, and their task “is to listen to Peter, to listen to the pope.”
“Conclusions will come, new paths will come out,” González said, adding that “the pope gives us light” indicating the path to be taken.
Meetings between Pope Francis and the Chilean bishops began early in the afternoon Monday, and will continue through Thursday, May 17. Unlike the 2002 meeting, the Vatican has already said there will be no communique or press release after the meeting, in order to keep the discussion confidential.
[…]
What a journey. All have gathered to sow what was planted. To share the harvest of what grew. To remind us that allare called to go together, Synodaling into the future, following Franciscus. We have style, an attitude, etc., and so on, and so forth.
While time did not permit Leo to stay for the entire afternoon session, it’s grand that they got a few photos before the Pope had to press on…
Synodaling is like a flash mob, eating Tide pods, wearing baggy bell bottoms, sporting a mullet, bowl cut or rat tail. Synodaling is similar to collecting Pet Rocks, Silly Bandz, Pokémon Cards, Chia Pets, Cabbage Patch Kids or Beanie Babies. Synodaling looks like planking or gatherings to each try and solve Rubin’s Cube.
A style and attitude, Holy Father? With respect, did not the Church discover that originally at it’s birth, so what is need for synodality?
Are we witnessing the maturation of Synodality, the finessed articulation of the premises advanced in Amoris Laetitia? Or are we not?
We read of synodality “as a style, an attitude that helps us to be Church.”
Surely, too, as Pope Benedict explained in 1985 (The Ratzinger Report), that even “a Council [or synod] is what the Church DOES, not what the Church IS [as in “TO BE Church”]. So, not a radical deconstruction of governance as with an “inverted-pyramid.”
A subtle memo, here, to post-synodal study groups #9, #14 and #15 on the “hot button issues,” to possibly edit their recent homework (#9: “Theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues;” #14: “the synodal method;” and #15: “the ‘place’ of the synodal Church in mission.”)
Instead, yes, a valued but clearly defined attitude or style “…promoting authentic experiences of participation and communion.” But not a process to displace the accountable Apostolic Succession with a town-hall non-structure of governance. The distinct “Synod of Bishops… naturally retains its institutional physiognomy.” Likewise the “local Churches.”
What’s not to like about Leo’s succinct and papal style of “walking together” within the acknowledged “hierarchical communion” of the Council (Lumen Gentium)?
It’s prudent and virtuously hopeful to interpret Leo XIV as you have. Some of the wisest say give the man some time. Although on the other hand it’s surprising as you allude to saying ‘What’s not to like’ that so many here who were hoping for a new pontificate and return to clarity and fidelity are roundly disappointed.
Yes, indeed! There’s a very troubling phenomena occurring with Leo, in which people are claiming he’s very different from Francis but they read things into what he says or look at some singular thing he did 10 years ago to justify their view. If Leo was trying to somehow dismiss synodality, he should actually be doing something to dismantle it, but he’s only been encouraging it, including using the same fluffy, vagueness. We’re at a very dangerous point of now accepting the bad things Francis put in place, because we don’t have the nastiness and such that accompanied it, while Leo has resumed some traditional aspects of the papacy. We just want to breathe a sigh of relief and be satisfied with the absence of the outright hostility Francis gave us. As far as substantial actions of Leo go, they’re mostly problematic, e.g., the kind of people he’s been appointing as bishops or officials at the holy see. Even more, we must look at what’s not being done, which is any reversal from Francis. We can’t continue to say “give him time” much longer, as he’s had plenty already to do negative things, e.g., he took time to assign various heterodox cardinals/bishops as advisors to a vatican dicastery this past week, so he could just as well have done something about other vatican posts/people, but he didn’t. And obviously if those are the types he’s appointing, it’s even more doubtful he’ll be replacing Fernandez, Grech, hollerich, Roche(he was one of the above mentioned appointments!) This is even more so as there was no pressing need to do the former.
“Indeed, you are here because the assembly has recognized you as credible interpreters of synodality.”
I can only conclude that I have not only missed this train, but I have bought the wrong ticket at the wrong station for the wrong destination.
I understand that the definition of synodality is that it is a “journey.”
I have missed the critical connections of this “journey” in regard to its starting point, its destination and most important of all, how this synodal journey connects to Jesus Christ, who is the ONLY Way, Truth and Life.
Since Jesus Christ, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium have given us the fullness of Divine revelation, I am at a loss to understand what the purpose of this “synodal journey” is, and what it is supposed to give the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that it must have been sorely lacking up until the pontificate of Francis I.
The unfathomable ambiguity of synodality frightens me, and my instincts tell me to flee from this.
The people who support synodality make me feel uneasy.
For now, I can do nothing but to keep my distance and watch to see what unfolds. My faith and trust is in Christ.
The synodalists have much to do in order to win me over.
“Helps us to be Church.”
That is bureaucrat-speak.
The same phrase jumped out at me as well, Chris — “Helps us be Church.”
Because somehow I didn’t realize the word, “Church,” was an adjective.
I thought it was a verb.
Which would mean, “Helps us to be Church,” becomes, “Helps us to Church.”
And so we become “Churchers,” or, perhaps, “people who Church.”
The Dark Vatican remains dusky, even months after Bergoglio’s departure.
Yes.
It all sends a message “We’re not serious people.”
Exactly. It is the tone used by effeminate men trying to be “hip.”
Modernist double speak.
Well, if it’s a style and an attitude, it isn’t a binding structure, so I’d call Leo’s description an improvement.
Bingo!
“… the current pontiff said. “And the legacy he [Pope Francis ] has left us seems to me to be above all this: that synodality is a style, an attitude that helps us to be Church, promoting authentic experiences of participation and communion.””
It is quite self-descriptive. A style, especially in our time of post-modernism, has no life in itself; give me a bunch of flowers and I can arrange them in many different styles, from baroque to minimalism. Alternatively, I can just trim their stems and put them, unadorned, into the plane glass jar. They still will be the flowers, with their unique life or “flower-substance”, as God designed them. The best style of arranging them is the one which considers that peculiar “flower-substance” and highlights it.
This is why a style is always subordinate to the essence of the phenomenon; a style without the substance (meaning) is meaningless and empty.
As I see it, this principal is true for the Church as well. If it is so, before defining any “style” of whatever the Church does, one must define the core of the Church first, especially its Head, Christ. What “style” would be appropriate for Christ and his Church?
However, the reference to Christ and His Church (not just “church” but “Christ’s Church”) immediately shows that the word “style” does not go well with Christ somehow, probably because it lacks the substance and also because Our Lord never thought and thought in terms of “style”. Pope Leo adds to the word “style” the word “attitude”. It improves the situation a bit, but then he says that the attitude is for “promoting authentic experiences of participation and communion.” The ultimate purpose of “experiences of participation and communion” seems to be a promotion of so-called “synodality” that is “a style”. Or is it that “a style’s = synodality’s” ultimate purpose is to promote “authentic experiences of participation and communion”? I think so; I think I have just come up the most “coherent” explanation of what synodality is. It is an attitude which promotes some “experiences of communion”. There is probably some style in it but no substance whatsoever.
Why am I so certain? Simply because there is only one way “to experience communion” with each other. It is done via partaking from the Chalice and becoming one via Christ. I have to correct myself here: it is a true communion with the other via Christ, not “an experience” of such. Whether we have subjective experiences of that communion or not is quite irrelevant because it is the objective divine action of Christ in us (he is the guarantor of that communion truly happening). As a response to that action, the next step for everyone is to practice an attitude to the other as to A PERSON. An attitude to a person means respect, seeing, hearing, interacting meaningfully and so on. It is often difficult and this is why we need Christ to act in us. This is it. It is not a “style” but a ground reality. It is not about “experiences”. It is about receiving Christ and treating others as He wants us to: not lying and deceiving, not abusing, not brushing off, not devaluing, not trying to use the other for self-satisfaction and so on. And this is all to that. (NB: this true attitude to each other in truth can be very uncomfortable for the other who used to lies; Christ did it and this is why He was not universally liked.)
I have no doubts that one may experience synodality-related activities as “authentic experiences of participation and communion”. However, what are the fruits of those “communion and participation”? The true fruits should be doing away with all that is against that “communion and participation”, namely doing away with all kinds of abuse within the Church (including liturgical), stopping unjust prosecution of the members of the organization which “communes and participates”, weeding out all that is contrary to its Head, Christ. The problem is that it cannot be done “in style”.
Yes. He’s opening up his mindset with catch or buzzwords. Trivializing slogans as you suggest don’t fit well with Christ. Who is our creator, savior, and treasure.
While still early in his Pontificate, Pope Leo is beginning to sound like cross between Pope Francis and fellow Chicagoan-turned-citizen-of-the-world, Barak Obama.
You beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing. “Catholic” Democrat politicians are all breathing a big sigh of relief. Here is a man who speaks their language.
Leo didn’t have time to stay for the whole session?
“… helps us to be Church.” Fabulous. Right out of the 1970s. Francis II is going to be such a terrific pope.
I tend to see attitude and style as less than essential substance. How does Leo define those words? Attitude and style may reflect authentic essence, but they may also screen nothing more than smoke.
Pro-NO liturgist lovers commenting at CWR this past week raged most notably about the attitude and clothing styles of TLM-ers.
Il ne faut pas se fier aux apparences.
I HOPE that Leo’s words about attitude and style simply reflect him biding his time, taking the temperature of those ‘people of God’ around him. He seems a somewhat cautious and prudent character.
Are we hoping against hope or are we seeing into the darkness something truly sinister?
A test of your last sentence may likely be his response to Cdl Raymond Burke’s request for a reversal of Traditionis Custodes and a return to Summorum Pontificum. Progressive Bishops are rapidly prohibiting the TLM in their dioceses.
Leo XIV by calling Synodality a ‘style, an attitude’ attempts to change the actual meaning of Synodality as previously professed as a Synodal Church. He fails in doing so because the manner in which the Synod continues to exercise its function hasn’t changed.
What is Synodality in essence if not a glorified, glorified by universality, parish council? As were the early parish councils, more deliberative than consultative, composed of laity and clergy the former frequently given prominence. Why should it be deemed deliberative when it’s been described as consultative? The end. If we continue to debate permanent doctrine it no longer remains permanent doctrine.
Repeated here is a segment from my comment to the article ‘Synodality is the result of a theological error: Küng vs. Ratzinger 2.0’.
“Essentially, the Church is not a consultative assembly, but rather an assembly around the Word of God and around the Sacrament” (Msgr Grichting). Fr Hans Kung was a close associate of Cdl Carlo Martini Archbishop of Milan who initially devised and promoted the concept of Synodality, a restructuring of the Church as a permanent consultative body formulated at St Gallen Switzerland. Francis I when archbishop of Buenos Aires was mentored by Cdl Martini.
In matters of faith and theological reflection, I am drawn to discourse characterized by lucidity and directness. The use of convoluted or ambiguous language, often termed “word salad,” is not conducive to authentic engagement, as it tends to obscure rather than illuminate the truths being presented. My own disposition, perhaps characterized by a certain theological simplicity, finds such linguistic opacity profoundly unhelpful, bordering on an impediment to spiritual discernment. I would earnestly request a return to the plain and accessible forms of expression found in centuries of English or French theological tradition.
The initial anticipation surrounding the current pontificate is regrettably diminished by the perception of continuity with methodologies that, under the preceding pontiff, ultimately proved to be counterproductive to the Church’s mission. This echo of past strategies evokes a measure of profound disappointment.
Chris in Maryland above – Who is your “bingo” for?
I’m with Rich Leonardi.
I say we give Leo some time. He can’t really come out and say, “You guys are full of hot air. Go home.”
Sure he can. He is the Pope. He just has to have an ounce of common sense and courage.
Any day now, Where Peter Is will be explaining to us that the Pope’s troubling statements are really just faulty translations from his native tongue.