Catholicism on Trial

I rarely agree with the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan (although I'm a real fan of her writing). In one of her recent columns, however, she writes candidly as a Catholic who is dismayed by what is happening in the Church (The Catholic Church's Catastrophe, WSJ, April 2, 2010). I agree with most of what she says although I'm not so sure I'd be as charitable regarding the role and agenda of the Press. There is no doubt in my mind that The Boston Globe and The New York Times "have it out" for the Catholic Church. Reporting has been, to say the least, stilted and the juxtaposition of seemingly unrelated articles about the Church add to the overall negative tone. The press' agenda, however, does not change the facts. The hierarchy of the Church doesn't seem to understand just how real and hurtful reports of these accusations are to thinking, devout Catholics. In fact, the acts of these sick priests, albeit heinous, are not what disturbs me most. A crime of almost equal stature is the unwillingness of the Church's leadership to address the issue "head on".

In making this critique, I in no way want to denigrate the incredible, unheralded work done by both male and female religious all over the world. Unfortunately, the hierarchy seems to be "blissfully ignorant" of the fact that their seeming diffidence overshadows all the good work which the Church has done and is doing around the world. One of the saddest aspects of this whole controversy is that it has negatively colored the way many unknowing individuals (Catholic & non-Catholic) regard those who live and work with the poor, downtrodden and unwanted segments of society. They truly are living saints.

Our regard for those who work tirelessly ministering to the faithful, however, should not prevent us from objectively critiquing the way in which the current hierarchy is leading the Church. Papal infallibility extends only to matters of "faith and morals". It does not (as my favorite source, Wikipedia tells us) "state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies." The pope has used this "ex cathedra" authority a total of one time since it was proclaimed in 1870.

The current pope is a very learned man. That may be part of the problem. He is an academic and not an administrator. He may not understand that acting quickly based on instinct and pastoral compassion may sometimes be preferential to waiting, sometimes for years, until all factors are analyzed and considered. This procrastination, rightly or wrongly, can look like a "cover-up". A case in point is the California priest (a Fr. Kiesle) who, according to CBS, was sentenced to "three years' probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory." When the probation ended, the diocese and the priestasked that he be defrocked. Four years later, Rome had not given an answer. CBS recounts it this way:

"In the November 1985 letter, Ratzinger says the arguments for removing Kiesle are of 'grave significance' but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the bishop to provide Kiesle with "as much paternal care as possible" while awaiting the decision . . . But the future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the universal church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful . . ."

Kiesle was not defrocked until 1987. He later volunteered in area Catholic churches as a Youth Minister. In 2004 he pleaded no contest to a felony for molesting a young girl in his home and was sentenced to six years in state prison. What one man considered "due diligence" can look to others like incomprehensible foot dragging "for the good of the universal church". It sounds as if the Pope was intoning that old saw about considering the good of the many over the rights of a few. In reading this I could only think of Jesus' reminder that it is more important to care for the one sheep who needs help rather than to worry about the 99 others who are safe. Moreover, it was also Jesus who said "whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me: it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea."

Finally, lost (to me at least) in all the commotion caused by Rome's blunders is news that Benedict plans to "reform the reforms" of the Second Vatican Council. Some are subtle and some more dramatic (I suggest that anyone interested read the series on reinterpretation of Vatican II on the National Catholic Reporter's (NCR) website -http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/battle-lines-liturgy-wars). The Pope's head of liturgy, Msgr. Guido Marini, told the NCR that the changes are not dictates but "proposals":

It’s the style of the current pope to move forward not by imposing things, but proposing them. The idea is that, slowly, all this may be welcomed, considering the true significance that certain decisions and certain orientations may have,” Marini said.

Marini did not rule out, however, that such practices might be made binding at some future point.

They may call them proposals, but it sounds to me like only a matter of time before they are made permanent.

One might argue that concern with changes in liturgy is worrying about form over substance. I think, however, that liturgy is symbolic of our very relationship with the Church and, ultimately, with God. When Vatican II took down the Communion rail it was taking down a barrier between God and His people. As the above-mentioned NCR articles point out, Vatican II changed everything:

• Latin was replaced the world over by languages spoken by the people;
• The liturgy was seen as intimately connected to what takes place outside the sanctuary walls, particularly regarding issues of social justice;
• In a deeper change, an understanding of Christ’s humanity took its place in a profound way in the Mass alongside reverence for the divinity of Christ, and there was a shift in emphasis from a vertical relationship with God to a more horizontal relationship to God in the community;
• Perhaps most important for average churchgoers, everyone became participants, and not simply passive observers, in the eucharistic celebration.

The image of God as the great disciplinarian was replaced by a loving God; a God who was fixated by rules and regulations was replaced by a God who truly wants his children to be saved. It is this revitalized view of God (the God of the New Testament rather than the Old) which kept many in the Church. I know it did me.