Showing posts with label celibacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label celibacy. Show all posts
Thursday, May 03, 2012
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The Unintentionally Honest Bishop
The sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church (meaning abuse + cover-up by bishops) is not over. We all wish it were, but it's not. In Philadelphia, Cardinal Justin Rigali recently removed twenty-one priests from active ministry--only after a grand jury investigation led to charges against several of the priests, including the cardinal's right-hand man, who is accused of helping to cover-up suspected criminal misconduct by priests.
Half-way across the country, another bishop, Robert Finn, has covered up another case of a priest who is alleged to have engaged in crimes against children. If you want to believe that what the bishops' conference did in 2002 in Dallas fixed the problem, you owe it to yourself to read about the case of Bishop Finn.
Robert Finn should resign as bishop of the Kansas City-St. Joseph (Missouri) diocese. Finn has admitted in the last few weeks that he shielded a priest who was behaving inappropriately towards elementary-aged children. The priest is in jail at the moment on child-pornography charges. Bishop Finn has claimed he did not bother to read a four-page letter which a Catholic school principal delivered to the diocese one year ago; Finn did not read the letter, that is, until about five days ago, after the priest was arrested.
Think about the best case here: Finn was indifferent to allegations of inappropriate conduct toward children; he was not interested in learning more after his vicar general summarized the letter for him. Worst case: The bishop is lying about not knowing the letter's contents until last week. One hopes the bishop is not lying--indifference would be bad enough, of course. However, previous abuse cases elsewhere have shown some bishops are not above ignoring allegations of misconduct and then lying about their knowledge of those allegations.
Finn acknowledges he knew the priest had at least one nude photo of a child on his computer as long ago as December 2010, along with numerous other photos of kids from the school. At that time (he has recently claimed), he had someone in the diocese (who?) describe the photo to a police officer who was a friend of diocesan officials--instead of furnishing the suspect photo to the cops--and was supposedly told the picture did not constitute a criminal offense. Notice that no one told the diocese that the priest's behavior was normal or harmless.
Did Bishop Finn notify anyone on the diocesan child-protection board, the group that is charged with looking into allegations and calling the police? He did not. The head of that board was "flabbergasted" when he heard about these allegations in the last few weeks.
There's no way to get around it: Finn has proven himself to be a bad bishop, an irresponsible shepherd who let the wolf hang around the sheep even though he heard the wolf howling. Finn is a bishop who needs to resign immediately.
Ironically, however, Bishop Finn unintentionally spoke a small shard of truth in explaining why he did not turn the priest into the police in December. He told parishioners, by way of apology, that "We have a priest shortage and we needed a pastor there." The bishop did not want to heighten the vocation crisis in the church--so, he kept a priest in action who he had every reason to suspect might pose a danger to children. "We have a priest shortage here..."
In the early 1990s, when Wilton Gregory was bishop of Belleville, Illinois (prior to his service as president of the USCCB and his elevation to his current post as archbishop of Atlanta), he made the brave decision to remove thirteen of his priests from active ministry because credible evidence existed that each of those men had abused children. Thirteen priests out of about eighty priests total in the diocese who were then below retirement age. Such a cut--while absolutely necessary--took courage. The Belleville diocese had a priest shortage prior to the firing of those thirteen men; obviously, the shortage was worse after they left. Of course, all in all, the diocese was much better off once abuser priests were removed.
Every diocese obviously needs to follow its stated policy of calling the police when a suspected abuser is discovered among its workforce. Yet Bishop Robert Finn is, perhaps, ultimately more in keeping with the times than his colleague, Wilton Gregory. Finn, a staunch conservative, knows that whatever else happens, we simply, absolutely cannot have women priests--so say Benedict XVI and the Roman Curia (as they attempt to raise to the level of infallibility John Paul II's teaching from 1994 that everyone should please just shut up and stop mentioning women's ordination). We cannot have married priests--unless, of course, you count those married Anglican priests whom the Catholic church is glad to poach; those married priests who are, by coincidence, afraid enough of women clergy and women bishops to want to split with the Anglican faith.
Joseph Girzone, retired priest and author, has written about the cost that the church incurs as a result of its ban on married priests and women priests. Bishop Finn's failure to act is reflective of both his negligence as a shepherd and his belief that a priest who is dangerous to children is at least better than a woman priest or a married priest. He's following the company line on that one. Which is, sadly, one reason why he likely will not do the right thing and quit.
Catholics in the pews who want to see irresponsible bishops such as Finn go need to speak loudly: both with their voices and their wallets. If you have a bad bishop, why not put a note in the collection basket that you are praying for the bishop's conversion. A prayer of that sort is indeed a meaningful contribution to the church's welfare. Then give your money to the St. Vincent de Paul Society, your local food pantry, or a crisis pregnancy center.
And if you should happen to discover you are not alone in this effort--if you find, for instance, that dozens or hundreds of your fellow Catholics locally are behaving similarly--why not contact your local newspaper or TV station so they can report on this phenomenon?
NB: Thom, at Faith in the 21st Century, has a good discussion of the Kansas City case, with some attention to what Finn really wants to spend his energy on: bringing back Latin, liturgical lace, and everything that might undermine the reforms of Vatican II. On the other side of the coin, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, at the arch-conservative What Does The Prayer Really Say, has a pro-Finn commentary; in Fr. Z's comment box, one finds folks claiming that Finn's approach to this case was just dandy.
Half-way across the country, another bishop, Robert Finn, has covered up another case of a priest who is alleged to have engaged in crimes against children. If you want to believe that what the bishops' conference did in 2002 in Dallas fixed the problem, you owe it to yourself to read about the case of Bishop Finn.
Robert Finn should resign as bishop of the Kansas City-St. Joseph (Missouri) diocese. Finn has admitted in the last few weeks that he shielded a priest who was behaving inappropriately towards elementary-aged children. The priest is in jail at the moment on child-pornography charges. Bishop Finn has claimed he did not bother to read a four-page letter which a Catholic school principal delivered to the diocese one year ago; Finn did not read the letter, that is, until about five days ago, after the priest was arrested.
Think about the best case here: Finn was indifferent to allegations of inappropriate conduct toward children; he was not interested in learning more after his vicar general summarized the letter for him. Worst case: The bishop is lying about not knowing the letter's contents until last week. One hopes the bishop is not lying--indifference would be bad enough, of course. However, previous abuse cases elsewhere have shown some bishops are not above ignoring allegations of misconduct and then lying about their knowledge of those allegations.
Finn acknowledges he knew the priest had at least one nude photo of a child on his computer as long ago as December 2010, along with numerous other photos of kids from the school. At that time (he has recently claimed), he had someone in the diocese (who?) describe the photo to a police officer who was a friend of diocesan officials--instead of furnishing the suspect photo to the cops--and was supposedly told the picture did not constitute a criminal offense. Notice that no one told the diocese that the priest's behavior was normal or harmless.
Did Bishop Finn notify anyone on the diocesan child-protection board, the group that is charged with looking into allegations and calling the police? He did not. The head of that board was "flabbergasted" when he heard about these allegations in the last few weeks.
There's no way to get around it: Finn has proven himself to be a bad bishop, an irresponsible shepherd who let the wolf hang around the sheep even though he heard the wolf howling. Finn is a bishop who needs to resign immediately.
Ironically, however, Bishop Finn unintentionally spoke a small shard of truth in explaining why he did not turn the priest into the police in December. He told parishioners, by way of apology, that "We have a priest shortage and we needed a pastor there." The bishop did not want to heighten the vocation crisis in the church--so, he kept a priest in action who he had every reason to suspect might pose a danger to children. "We have a priest shortage here..."
In the early 1990s, when Wilton Gregory was bishop of Belleville, Illinois (prior to his service as president of the USCCB and his elevation to his current post as archbishop of Atlanta), he made the brave decision to remove thirteen of his priests from active ministry because credible evidence existed that each of those men had abused children. Thirteen priests out of about eighty priests total in the diocese who were then below retirement age. Such a cut--while absolutely necessary--took courage. The Belleville diocese had a priest shortage prior to the firing of those thirteen men; obviously, the shortage was worse after they left. Of course, all in all, the diocese was much better off once abuser priests were removed.
Every diocese obviously needs to follow its stated policy of calling the police when a suspected abuser is discovered among its workforce. Yet Bishop Robert Finn is, perhaps, ultimately more in keeping with the times than his colleague, Wilton Gregory. Finn, a staunch conservative, knows that whatever else happens, we simply, absolutely cannot have women priests--so say Benedict XVI and the Roman Curia (as they attempt to raise to the level of infallibility John Paul II's teaching from 1994 that everyone should please just shut up and stop mentioning women's ordination). We cannot have married priests--unless, of course, you count those married Anglican priests whom the Catholic church is glad to poach; those married priests who are, by coincidence, afraid enough of women clergy and women bishops to want to split with the Anglican faith.
Joseph Girzone, retired priest and author, has written about the cost that the church incurs as a result of its ban on married priests and women priests. Bishop Finn's failure to act is reflective of both his negligence as a shepherd and his belief that a priest who is dangerous to children is at least better than a woman priest or a married priest. He's following the company line on that one. Which is, sadly, one reason why he likely will not do the right thing and quit.
Catholics in the pews who want to see irresponsible bishops such as Finn go need to speak loudly: both with their voices and their wallets. If you have a bad bishop, why not put a note in the collection basket that you are praying for the bishop's conversion. A prayer of that sort is indeed a meaningful contribution to the church's welfare. Then give your money to the St. Vincent de Paul Society, your local food pantry, or a crisis pregnancy center.
And if you should happen to discover you are not alone in this effort--if you find, for instance, that dozens or hundreds of your fellow Catholics locally are behaving similarly--why not contact your local newspaper or TV station so they can report on this phenomenon?
NB: Thom, at Faith in the 21st Century, has a good discussion of the Kansas City case, with some attention to what Finn really wants to spend his energy on: bringing back Latin, liturgical lace, and everything that might undermine the reforms of Vatican II. On the other side of the coin, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, at the arch-conservative What Does The Prayer Really Say, has a pro-Finn commentary; in Fr. Z's comment box, one finds folks claiming that Finn's approach to this case was just dandy.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Consequences of Mandatory Celibacy (Part I)
The last couple days, I've been reading a collection of short essays by Joseph Girzone, the retired Catholic priest who attained fame thirty years ago as author of the popular Joshua series of books. I've never read the Joshua series because, after a single glance many years ago, I thought they sounded cheesy. I still don't know whether they're worth a read or not. Based on how much I've been reading Girzone's nonfiction work, My Struggle with Faith, the Joshua books may well deserve a second look.
In one of the last chapters in My Struggle with Faith, Girzone considers mandatory celibacy for priests within the Catholic tradition. He first makes a good case for how the celibacy requirement has resulted in a shortage of priests in the modern church, which manifests itself most acutely in the reduced access that many Catholics have to the sacraments, including Sunday Eucharist. Girzone writes:
Girzone continues his analysis, however, in a tone that I can only guess is meant to be tongue in cheek. He writes:
Bishops like the late Ken Untener, who did dare to speak up on both celibacy and women's role in the church, faced large-scale opposition from ultra-conservative, traditionalist groups, and it's easy to imagine that his twenty-four tenure as bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, was born not only of his love for the people there (which I have no doubt was sincere) but also from the refusal to the hierarchy to consider him for appointment as an archbishop anywhere. Dissenting bishops unfortunately do not get a proper hearing as the prophets they may in fact be. Instead, they end up getting squashed -- or, if they're lucky, simply ignored. Certainly cowardice is one of the consequences of the church's refusal to reconsider the thousand-year-old tradition of celibacy for priests. Smart people who hold leadership positions in the church know they cannot discuss in any detail possible changes to the celibacy requirement. Those changes have been ruled out of bounds by the Vatican (except, of course, when it comes to married Anglican clergy whom the Vatican hopes to poach).
Girzone is back on track when he observes:
In one of the last chapters in My Struggle with Faith, Girzone considers mandatory celibacy for priests within the Catholic tradition. He first makes a good case for how the celibacy requirement has resulted in a shortage of priests in the modern church, which manifests itself most acutely in the reduced access that many Catholics have to the sacraments, including Sunday Eucharist. Girzone writes:
Churches are closing. Many people have difficulty finding a church wehre the Eucharist is celebrated by priests. Old folks find it almost impossible to find a place to worship. Priests are overworked to the point where it can only serve to shorten their lives, as more and more responsibilities are laid on them at a time in their lives when responsibilities should be lightened, not weighed more heavily on them. The sin is that nothing is being done to respond to the needs of the people.Girzone is right on target; his analysis (published in 2006) is up-to-date. I can't imagine a patient who is about to undergo emergency surgery, or someone who is in hospice care, would have an easy time finding a Catholic priest (rather than an ecumenical chaplain) to celebrate the annoiting of the sick or reconciliation (confession), both important healing sacraments for any Catholic, but particularly the individual who is in great pain or near death. The teenager who is pregnant or suicidal or who has just discovered a parent's infidelity is out in the cold; priests don't have time to be there to listen, to offer perspective. (Not that many priests probably feel comfortable these days spending much time with individual young people of either sex. But that's another post.) Many parishes are overseen by a priest who has three other parishes to tend to, and the priest has limited time to spend at each parish, with only one weekend liturgy (at best) to celebrate at each location. Catholics are being deprived of easy access to the sacraments (not to mention the guidance and spirit of friendship that a good priest, frequently on-site, can bring to a parish).
Girzone continues his analysis, however, in a tone that I can only guess is meant to be tongue in cheek. He writes:
I know it is not cowardice that prevents bishops from speaking out and forcing change. I know they really care about their people's need for Mass and the Eucharist. I know it is not fear of censure or of losing a promotion that paralyzes them from taking a bold stand. I know they realize that there are hundreds of thousands of faithful people who are being deprived of the Eucharist and the sacraments in hospitals, prisons, and nursing homes. What I cannot understand is why they are doing nothing to provide priests for our people.Seriously? It's not cowardice that keeps priests and bishops from speaking out about the consequences of mandatory celibacy? Surely Girzone, who has kept up with the political culture of the church as the church grows ever more conservative in the last few decades, understands that John Paul II did his damnedest to stifle even the hint of debate around both celibacy and women's ordination to the Catholic priesthood. JP2 attempted to take the topic off the table. Bishops dare not speak up, neither in the national conferences of bishops nor in interviews, for fear that they will end up with a coadjutor bishop being appointed to help run their diocese.
Bishops like the late Ken Untener, who did dare to speak up on both celibacy and women's role in the church, faced large-scale opposition from ultra-conservative, traditionalist groups, and it's easy to imagine that his twenty-four tenure as bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, was born not only of his love for the people there (which I have no doubt was sincere) but also from the refusal to the hierarchy to consider him for appointment as an archbishop anywhere. Dissenting bishops unfortunately do not get a proper hearing as the prophets they may in fact be. Instead, they end up getting squashed -- or, if they're lucky, simply ignored. Certainly cowardice is one of the consequences of the church's refusal to reconsider the thousand-year-old tradition of celibacy for priests. Smart people who hold leadership positions in the church know they cannot discuss in any detail possible changes to the celibacy requirement. Those changes have been ruled out of bounds by the Vatican (except, of course, when it comes to married Anglican clergy whom the Vatican hopes to poach).
Girzone is back on track when he observes:
I cannot believe that the Holy Spirit is not calling people to the priesthood. Maybe we are rejecting many whom the Holy Spirit is calling.Indeed, it's all too easy to see this as the most significant consequence of the church's intransigence. The church has made itself wiser than the Holy Spirit. The church dismisses the calls of people with a vocation to marriage -- as well as women, as well as people who are gay -- to serve as the priests God may very well be calling them to. "Can't happen," the church says. "Not possible. They aren't really called." Even though all things, of course, are possible in Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Nevertheless, the deception that Fr. Kevin Lee practiced — marrying on the sly, ignoring (or setting aside) the vow of celibacy he took at ordination, is indeed disturbing. Lies generally do not result in good things. Having to live a life that is based so fundamentally on a lie is unhealthy, and it’s not a good witness to the faithful.
However, the issue of whether a person could be a good priest and also be a good spouse, and even a loving and involved parent, seems to have been settled. Under both JP2 and B16, we have married men — former pastors in the Anglican church — being ordained as Roman Catholic priests. I’m sure neither pope would have permitted this (much less encouraged it, as both popes–particularly Benedict–have done) if they thought this would result in bad priests, or mediocre priests, or poor examples for the faithful. Fr. Dwight Longenecker (whose blog recently moved to Patheos) is a good example of someone who manages to be a husband, a father, and a Father — and while I’m not much in agreement with him on political or cultural issues, I don’t doubt that he fulfills both vocations effectively. I’m confident that he (and his peers in similar circumstances) would not have sought ordination if they didn’t think they could do justice to all of his roles. In fact, Fr. Dwight has more or less celebrated Benedict’s creation of a more defined process for married Anglican priests to “cross the Tiber” and then seek ordination as Catholic priests.
Setting aside for the moment the particulars of this Australian priest’s deception and double life, we all know that the celibate priesthood is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. It COULD be lifted. In some cases (e.g., Fr. Dwight), it HAS been set aside. Yet the faithful are left to believe that cradle Catholics should never be ordained if they are already married or think they might wish to marry after ordination. We are told by the Vatican that combining priesthood and marriage works out okay only if the prospective priest is a convert. Nothing against converts — but I find this line of reasoning rather odd. Hollow, even.
I have heard many priests argue that celibacy is a gift, and it's a gift that brings special graces into their lives. I can respect that idea. Still, it does not seem to be a gift for every priest who has ever been ordained. In some cases, I'm sure, celibacy has led to deep, prolonged loneliness rather than a healthy, focused sense of vocation.
Therefore: Why in heck could celibacy not be made optional for Catholic priests in the Latin rite? And why is the Vatican so resistant to that for cradle Catholics?
[ Newest post: Lessons That Should Not be Learned: the bishops and the LCWR ]