1. Pope Benedict is the primary culprit in the coverup of the abuse scandal.
Between 1981 and 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s office for doctrinal orthodoxy. A few abuse cases (some from the United States) came before him, and the evidence shows that he did not move with any urgency to defrock priests. In 2001, as the number of cases coming to light worldwide increased, Ratzinger convinced Pope John Paul II to let his office have jurisdiction over all of them. Though the Vatican says church confidentiality did not preclude bishops from reporting crimes to civil authorities, some see Ratzinger’s move as an attempt to keep the cases secret.
Nonetheless, there is just one case so far that can be traced directly to Ratzinger’s tenure as a bishop, when he was head of the archdiocese of Munich in his native Germany. In that 1980 case, Ratzinger allowed a child abuser into his diocese for psychiatric treatment, and the priest was reassigned to a parish where he went on to abuse more children. It’s unclear whether Ratzinger personally signed off on the assignment, but he seems to have acted more or less like most bishops at the time — giving little oversight to the abuser and doing nothing to remove him from the priesthood. Alas, there is plenty of blame to go around for the church’s passivity….
An interesting article. One point struck my eye: It notes, “A 2007 Pew survey of the religious landscape in America found that among Catholics who had left the church, the abuse crisis ranked low on the list of reasons — well behind church teachings on homosexuality, the role of women, abortion and contraception.”
Perhaps. But I assume the survey could only note those who frankly admitted that they had left the RC church, as opposed to those who simply dropped out or who never had much interest except they were raised that way. Abuse is something that happens to “someone else.” But whether or not the church is in line with my own views, regarding those other issues, is something that happens to “me.”
The PBS News Hour last night ran a piece about a tale of two Catholics. One an older ex-Catholic woman who left the Church for TEC because she was disappointed by the RCC’s culpability and response to the sex abuse scandals and the other a younger Catholic couple with children who feel the Church is being treated unfairly by the media in general and and who point out the changes within their own parish. Also mentioned was the USCCB and the changes they implemented in 2003.
I didn’t get much from this presentation of a difference of opinion between an older ex-Catholic and a younger Catholic family other than to wonder if the former is necessarily a Donatist if she left simply because she was disappointed by the RCC’s response to the sex abuse cases and her feeling that the RCC still hasn’t done enough. She teared up describing how she misses the Church but I don’t understand her departure other than one of principal? Does that qualify her as a Donatist?
Sorry for the run-on sentences.
#2 – I didn’t see the program you mention and so perhaps shouldn’t comment, but I’d say that if the older lady rejects the vaidity of RC sacraments based on the moral qualities of the celebrants and/or those in communion with them, then she is probably a Donatist. However, if she is like most Catholics (and most Episcopalians) and is unable even to articulate what a sacrament actually is, the question becomes considerably cloudier. By and large, it requires some level of theological sophistication to be guilty of heresy because you have to understand the errors you are embracing (though not necessarily that they are errors, otherwise you probably would reject them). Hence, while in all likelihood a sizeable number of the people we kneel next to on Sunday mornings hold some sort of heretical beliefs, they lack sufficient ability to articulate or even understand them such that they are really guilty of heresy. Needless to say, ordained clergymen should be well enough trained to be capable of heresy (and hence can be held responsible for propounding it), but I often have my doubts. What [b]do[/b] they teach them at these seminaries?
As to the article itself, I find Point 2 problematic. The author may be right but gives insufficient evidence to support his position. The age of the victims would seem to these eyes to matter a great deal. One could probably say that it is a matter of pedophilia pure and simple if the children involved are, say under 11. However, it is harder to make his case if the boys abused were in their late teens, as was the case, so I understand, with the vast majority of cases in the US. It may still be unfair to blame homosexuality [i]per se[/i], but the matter is significantly different if men are molesting prepubescents of whichever sex versus taking advantage of sexually mature boys, however confused.
Thank you #3. Based on that criteria I suppose she would not qualify as a Donatist since she did not mention the validity of Sacraments only her dismay with the Church “authorities” as her reason for departing the RCC for a home in TEC. I assume she still believes all that the RCC professess and teaches to be revealed by God because she only expressed her opinion that the Church should make financial restitution to all victims of said abuse as a condition for her return. In that case she has not embraced heresy but only her personal feelings. Odd item altogether.
Just a comment on point 4 and media bias. Gibson basically says that the Church should be grateful for the approx. 50% of stories in the media that are positive toward Pope Benedict and the Church.
However, I fail to see how positive stories– that he does not claim are inaccurate– can justify so many other stories in the other 50% of stories that are lies, smears, distortions, etc. Does getting one story right justify a smear job in the next story.
Of course, Catholics who evaluate many of these latest stories as smears and distortions are just written off as having a pro-Catholic bias.
Yet one of the strongest columns evaluating much of the media coverage on Pope Benedict as smear and distortion was by prominent lawyer Alan Dershowitz. The last I read he had not become a devout Catholic