Herewith, a document published today by a fellow Rad Trad*, one who like moi has been sorely tried by events and trends in the Catholic Church globally and also in our own Diocese of Palmerston North; and I freely confess I have had a hand in it.
To comment, please open your gmail account, or if you have my email address feel free to use it.
*Rad Trad: a radical (meaning, going back to the roots, i.e. the Gospel) traditionalist.
Open Letter to the Leaders of the Catholic Church in New Zealand
This letter is in the public domain.
Title - Fixing the
Catholic Church
|
Archbishop of Wellington
Most Reverend Michael
Dooley
Bishop of Dunedin
Most Reverend Stephen
Lowe
Bishop of
Hamilton
|
Most Reverend Patrick
Dunn
Bishop of
Auckland
Most Reverend Paul
Martin
Bishop of Christchurch
Most Reverend Charles
Drennan
Bishop of
Palmerston North
|
Your Eminence and Most Reverend Bishops,
I ask you to receive the following letter that seeks to
analyse in a holistic manner the issues facing the Church today in New Zealand.
I have expressed these views in the belief that those of us
who hold certain views feel they have not to date been given an adequate voice.
While you may agree or disagree with all or part of what I
have written, I believe this letter illustrates the standards of analysis and
transparency that are now required of the Church if it is to recover from its
current issues and prosper in future as the bride of Christ.
Yours in Christ,
Bruce
Tichbon
Palmerston
North
New Zealand
26 December
2018
1) SUMMARY
The Catholic Church, instituted by Jesus Christ, is
currently wracked by an unprecedented crisis with many threads; part sexual
abuse, part doctrinal, part spiritual.
It seems the Church is being secretively led to become more the Church
of the world, rather than the one truly holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church[1].
This document attempts to analyse the factors and offer
workable solutions that holistically address all the issues.
Public scandal in many countries is caused by priestly
sexual abuse of minors and adults, homosexual relationships within the
priesthood, and cover ups by the Church hierarchy. Civil authorities are producing damning
investigative reports, prosecuting individuals and in the USA imminently
prosecuting the Church as an institution.
The danger grows of the Catholic faith’s serious diminishment, or
annihilation by the state, in many countries.
The origins of this crisis seem to lie in the attempts by
the Church to become more compatible with modern western secular society, whose
standards are now often the antithesis of those upheld by the Church for
millennia[2]. The intense culture wars of secular society
have spilled over into the Church.
Separation of Church and state and accommodating the standards of the
secular society has in some respects bought the Church a more peaceful
coexistence with the state, politicians and media, but is creating doctrinal
splits or schism within the Church.
Perversely at the same time the Church has allowed Her
internal disciplinary processes for sexual abuse to diverge from society’s
legal disciplinary processes, leaving the Church exposed to this current,
consuming crisis.
The Church in New Zealand appears to have extensively
rejected magisterium and doctrine (once a major unifying force in the Church)
and adopted her own drastic reforms that appear to express the faith in more
personal, social and emotional terms. These are often unwritten, confusing and
divisive to many faithful. Their purpose or direction can only be
surmised.
The authority of the Vatican and the Pope and their
governance of the universal Church are called into question. Individual diocese and parishes seem to
implement their own directions, often in direct contradiction of tradition and
doctrine. This independence has
contributed to the loss of unity and failure of governance, and to the current
crisis in the Church.
The Church’s current response to the crisis seems to be
mainly driven by political and media considerations, as well as limiting legal
and financial liability. We would expect
a more recognisable priestly response, driven by doctrine and tradition.
The scandal, reform and doctrinal confusion has created
factions within the Church, often divided on spiritual lines. These fault lines between factions have been
greatly widened by the recent sexual abuse crisis. Lack of transparency in governance by the
Church hierarchy is corroding the loyalty and obedience in the laity. The faith is no longer held in common as it
once was.
The way forward by some appears to be dilution of the
Church’s Apostolic structure given by Christ and our model for 2,000 years, and
the transformation of the Church from theocracy to some kind of democracy.
The approach proposed here is to refocus the Church in the
mission and faith given her by Christ. The Church must adapt to the modern
world only insofar as she can while remaining steadfast to the Truth. The Church must forgo worldly compromise and
stand for the gospel and for the faith.
The Church must rebuild the Apostolic priesthood into a trusted and
accountable leadership team that will remake the Church in the image of God.
Psalm 127 “Unless
the Lord builds the house, those who build it labour in vain”. ESV
[2] The situation with Catholicism may be somewhat
different in non-western countries (e.g. Africa).
2) THE CURRENT SEX
ABUSE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH
The current crisis in the Church has been revealed in the
main by the intervention of secular government legal investigations, mostly
into the sexual abuse by priests of minors (children deemed to be below the age
of consent). In many countries including
Ireland, Australia, Chile, USA, government investigations have substantiated
the claims from large numbers of victims.
The recent report of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury, Archbishop
Carlo Maria Vigano’s testimony, and the now virtual certainty of federal
prosecution of the Church in the USA (rather than of individuals as
previously), have caused this crisis to escalate to an unprecedented level.
Its full extent is too great to analyse here but a few key
issues are analysed.
2.1) CONTROL OF THE NARRATIVE
The information is prodigious. Historically the Church has had an uneasy
relationship with the mainstream media, and now must also contend with
information from the secular legal authorities and the Internet. Information comes from niche Web sites, often
run by groups of activists, often bypassing the mainstream media. The new Web sites provide information
virtually in real time, when in the past information often took years to become
known. Many of the faithful now obtain their news and informed opinion from
these new sources. This is causing the
Church hierarchy to struggle to control the narrative through their traditional
channels.
2.2) CRISIS MANAGEMENT
The Church hierarchy has set itself up for this crisis and
now seems to be struggling to handle it.
Firstly, the Church failed over past decades to predict the
way its internal culture was creating an environment for an increasingly
hostile secular society to exploit the Church’s self-created weaknesses. The sexual abuse of minors should have been
seen as a crime and major vulnerability and addressed decades ago, both for the
sake of the Church but much more for the sake of the victims. The internal conduct of the Church was
creating a set of circumstances that the secular civil legal authorities would
inevitably investigate and institute prosecution proceedings. We address this in more detail below[3].
Secondly, the Church is struggling to manage the more recent
crisis. Pope Francis has shown a woeful
lack of decisiveness and shepherding of his Church. He refused even to speak
about +Vigano’s testimonial, then refused some weeks later to allow the US
bishops to undertake an investigation, then recently decided to launch his own
investigation. Chicago Archbishop
Cupich’s statement saying that Pope Francis had a “bigger agenda” to worry
about, (e.g. defending migrants and protecting the environment) and would not
go down the ‘rabbit hole’ of Vigano’s evidence, caused scandal to countless
faithful.
More recent moves by the Pope in defrocking some Chilean
bishops are more positive but it may be too little too late.
The Church must call for a decisive recovery strategy. Failure to do so only makes the crisis worse,
not better. The hierarchy could look at
such secular examples as the Tylenol disaster in which drugs for sale were
laced with cyanide. Tylenol’s owners,
Johnson & Johnson, reacted promptly and decisively. The Tylenol brand slumped but quickly recovered
and is now once again the top selling drug of its type in the USA. The Church should have similar expectations
for the rapid restoration of the credibility of the priesthood.
[3] See How Should the Church Handle Sex Abuse Cases? Section 3
below.
2.3) THE TERMINOLOGY OF ABUSE
There are major differences between the different parties
concerning the abuse crisis. Many describe the crisis as one of “sexual
abuse”. The term is highly
ambiguous. There are multiple issues.
The first is ‘sexual abuse of a minor’ - an adult sexually
abusing a child below the age of consent (or prepubescent). The abuser is
acting out paedophiliac urges[4],
a moral and legal crime in most countries.
The second is ‘sexual abuse of an adult’ an adult abusing another adult
who is above the age of consent (or postpubescent). The moral and civil criminal dimensions are
confusing when there may be deemed to be consent of the party who might or
might not be considered the victim (if they were not giving full consent or
were otherwise coerced).
The Church defines another condition ‘abuse of a vulnerable
adult’ meaning an adult who has limited mental ability or other limitations to
resist abuse. The use of this term by
the Church has been contentious as it limits the scope of potential
investigations and remedies.
The US Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has been removed from
ministry because of an alleged credible case of sexual abuse of a minor. It appears the many other sexual encounters
he is alleged to have had with adult seminarians at his infamous beach house
may not have directly contributed to his removal from ministry. There is some debate over whether McCarrick’s
relationships with seminarians were ‘consensual’, ‘abuse of an adult’, or
‘abuse of a vulnerable adult’ or simply ‘seduction’.
Debate rages over whether the issue and cause of the current
Church crisis is criminal sexual abuse of minors or a much wider spectrum of
active homosexuality, mainly between adults (arguably abuse or
consensual). US research indicates most
of the Church abuse is homosexual in nature (male abuser, post pubescent mostly
young male victim).[5]
It is significant that the CCC[6]
separates SSA[7]
from sexually active homosexuality. This
distinction is mostly avoided in the current Church dialogue, and the subject
of active homosexuality is similarly skirted.
In failing to use specific terminology, commentators
(secular, laity and hierarchy) create confusion and miss the core issues. Selective terminology may betray bias in the
writer or speaker and/or a desire to control the narrative.
Distressing claims are made that men in the priesthood are
disproportionately gay and many are sexually active; that many exhibit
promiscuous, predatory and addictive behaviour like that of Theodore Carrick
and too many others. Avoidance of the
subject of active homosexuality means discussion and resolution of the crisis
would seem impossible.
While the hierarchy appears unable to establish the facts,
to discuss or visibly act on the full range
of these issues, untold damage is
being done. Manipulation of the issues
is not Godly, it is political.
[4] Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an
adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction
to prepubescent children.
[5] John Jay College of Criminal Justice (JJCCJ)
report released by the U.S. Bishops' National Review Board, commissioned by the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Updated 2011 report found that
"81 percent of sex abuse victims were boys, and 78 percent were
post-pubescent."
[6] CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church
[7] SSA = Same Sex Attraction
3) HOW SHOULD THE
CHURCH HANDLE SEX ABUSE CASES?
The Church is struggling to deal with abuse and fails to
communicate the reasons for her response.
Scripture tells us to deal with errant behaviour internally,
rather than going to civil authorities[8],
but without discernment this approach has proved disastrous.
The secrecy issue is paramount. The following case is
unfortunately too typical.
How does a parent feel when a priest molests their child? If they then discover that he has molested
other children, repented confessionally and been counselled, shown mercy and forgiven
and restored to full priestly function, all sub rosa (in secret), the parties
involved all gagged by the Church - and he has then proceeded to molest their
child? As a parent one might ask why wasn't I told so that I could
protect my child, or why wasn’t that priest named or removed from ministry
immediately?
If the civil authorities had been involved the priest would
have in most cases been publicly named for his first conviction, thus possibly
preventing a second crime.
The Christian process for handling abuse has gone terribly
wrong, betraying children and their parents.
The Church looks to be concealing these crimes and exposing vulnerable
children. Gagging and secret payoffs
makes the Church look dishonest and the state authorities more moral and
trustworthy than the Church.
To be fair, in many cases the Church has possibly been
acting on the societal norms of 70 years ago and caught out by a civil justice
process that retrospectively applies the standards of today. But if the Church had lived by the Gospel 70
years ago, She would have dealt with the problem at the time. This should remind the Church that following
the moral norms of society (the ‘spirit of the age’) is a devilish trap.
The steps to be taken to handle the abuse crisis are as
follows (re-presented in Section 6 below):
1.
Deal openly and honestly with the full range of
abuses - paedophilia and homosexual, minors and adults, prepubescent and
postpubescent, within the priesthood and between priesthood and laity.
2.
Adopt abuse standards based on the Church
doctrine, scripture and Canon Law.
3.
Ensure these standards are aligned with civil
law so that future investigation and/or prosecution is obviated.
4.
Ensure clergy led audit and risk management
teams visit every diocese regularly to ensure standards are met and
implemented.
[8] 1 Corinthians 6:1 When one of you has a dispute with another
believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the
matter instead of taking it to other believers! (NLT)
4) WHAT IS THE
CURRENT NEW DIRECTION OF THE CHURCH?
Many lay people and priests are very confused by what seems
to be a reform agenda for the Church, employed over the past half century or
more.
We are reduced to guesswork in analysing the situation as
many of the new directions the Church is taking are too often apparent only by
their effect. Their intent is generally
not clearly stated and can only be inferred.
We focus here on Church trends in western countries.
To quote Bishop Charles Drennan of the Diocese of Palmerston
North “we seek to include ourselves
in Pope Francis’ reform of the heart of the
Church”.
[9]
Welcom Oct 2018 http://www.wn.catholic.org.nz/call-for-a-radical-change-in-governance
What is the ‘Reform of the Heart of the Church’?
·
why is such a reform needed?
·
what steps are being taken towards this reform?
·
what is the end point of this reform; what will
the Church be like when the intended reform is completed?
·
Who is leading the reform? The Vatican, or the local Bishops Conference,
or the local bishop etc?
One apparent reform by Pope Francis seems to be recognition
of the ‘pastoral’ approach to ministry.
This goes by phrases like ‘meeting people where they are at’, being
‘non-judgmental’, and the primacy of conscience. It’s said Pope Francis wants to emphasize a
more ‘humane’ approach and de-emphasize legal clarity. The ‘pastoral approach’
seems to be a way to negate Church doctrine to facilitate, for instance, giving
holy communion to divorced and ‘remarried’ persons. These pastoral principles, outlined in Amoris
Laeticia, have been challenged by highly regarded theologians in the ‘Dubia’[10].
Many conjecture that the so called ‘reform’ agenda might
include the following:
A Future Church Model?
·
married priests?
·
female priests?
·
actively homosexual priests?
·
optional celibacy within the priesthood?
·
priestly ministry taken over wholly or in part
by the laity?
·
the conversion of the Church from theocracy to
democracy?
·
a Catholic Church generally or wholly
indistinguishable from other Christian churches, achieved under the aim of
‘ecumenism’?
These scenarios may seem farfetched but in the light of
recent trends and without proper information and dialogue, they are reasonable
extrapolations.
The Church has the magisterium, doctrine, Scripture and
tradition to guide Her, but recent local and unwritten ‘doctrine’ is causing
great confusion, contributing to troubling fragmentation within both hierarchy
and laity.
A common consensus is that the Church’s reform started with
Vatican II.[11] While Vatican II instituted various well
documented changes, many in the hierarchy around the world have taken them much
further than intended by the Council documents.
A catch cry for ‘progressive’ changes is that they’re ‘in the spirit of
Vatican II’ (rather than in the letter).
It seems that at the diocesan level Church doctrine is often
ignored. This trend became very public
with the release in 1962 of Humanae Vitae[12]
which was quickly and openly rejected by many in the hierarchy[13]. This seemed to set the stage for a widespread
rejection by many of Church teachings which conflict with the values of modern
secular society. Further, there seems to
be widespread rejection of the authority of the Pope (with Humanae Vitae and
other issues). It has been publicly
conjectured by many that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was a least in
part prompted by his loss of authority. It is also conjectured that by
following a more liberal line Pope Francis is avoiding outright rejection of
his leadership by dissidents in the hierarchy.
The values of secular society that conflict with formal
Church teaching include contraception, abortion, ‘gay rights’, divorce,
‘remarriage’, fornication, the sanctity of the family and euthanasia. Following the ‘60s and ‘70s the sexual
revolution gained immense social traction; ideologies such as feminism and ‘gay
rights’ are highly politicised (some would say weaponised) and have gained
immense momentum, especially with government, mainstream media and educational
institutions. Cultural tension continues
to grow, often with the intensity of cultural warfare.
Much of this was driven by change in policy and
technology. Modern antibiotics and
contraception enabled the sexual revolution. In the case of ‘gay rights’,
antiretroviral drugs curbed the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the earlier ‘70s and ‘80s
and facilitated the movement’s acceleration politically in the early 21st
century. Also, modern state welfare accelerated funding and facilitation of
sole parent families and divorce (and became a major driver of the modern
housing crisis).
The Church’s reaction to these factors has varied. For instance, 50 years ago the NZ Church was
a leader in the anti-abortion movement, with public meetings attended by large
contingents of priests and laity. Catholics now have a low profile at public
pro-life gatherings[14];
Church submissions on proposed reforms of abortion law are best described as
‘soft’ and inconsequential. Is the
Church’s recent switch to low gear in protest against abortion driven by fear
of Her own very strong feminist contingent?
50 year ago, the CCC was taught in all NZ’s Catholic schools.
Students knew its contents. THE CCC states the Catholic faith in brief and
summary and was a centre piece of Catholic teaching and preaching. The CCC is now almost never mentioned, the
problem apparently being that a strict presentation of Catholic doctrine
conflicts with the ‘world’ - and with new reforms within the Church. In particular the CCC’S definition of
homosexual acts as ‘intrinsically disordered’ attracts strenuous objection from
the’ gay rights’ movement and may be the main reason why the CCC is now
effectively ignored.
A key Catholic belief is the Real Presence of our Lord in
the Holy Eucharist. Accordingly, in the past, the tabernacle was always sited
behind the centre of the main alter.
Genuflection was a standard sign of reverence, as was silence (always
kept in the church except for prayer), and kneeling during the Eucharistic
Prayer. The Blessed Sacrament was received on the tongue while kneeling; only
the consecrated hands of the priest ever came into contact with the Sacred Host.
In the diocese of Palmerston North over the past few years
tabernacles have been moved, often to small rooms that are hard-to-find (and
almost always empty). The custom of
genuflecting is rarely observed. The church is now a noisy social meeting
place. Posture for the Eucharistic
prayer is optional, leading to almost comical confusion and lack of visible
unity.
The Church community has been deeply affected by these and
similar changes. Culture wars within the
secular community have spilled over into the Church. New groups and divisions have appeared:
feminist, homosexual, socialist, indigenous, orthodox and liberal. The Church is now divided along many fault
lines representing different positions on cultural issues and the direction of
Church ‘reform’ (whatever that may be).
The Church has always accepted and encouraged
differentiation of spirituality: Marists, Carmelite, Jesuits, Franciscans,
Dominicans, have in general peacefully coexisted in the one Church guided with
wisdom and authority by the Papacy. The
new groupings within the Church are not so.
The orthodox/liberal split has seen the formation of SSPX[15]
and widening support in the remaining Church for the traditional Latin
Mass. Strong feminist groups are calling
for a greater acceptance and role for women, even for priestly ordination. Active homosexuals (‘gays’) seek greater
acceptance as laity and priests. The
swell of political support enjoyed by women and homosexuals in the secular
community and the media is reflected in the Church.
An unexpected aspect of the higher profile noted for
homosexuals is their high representation in the priesthood at all levels, their
stellar careers, promotion and official concealment when their homosexual
activity becomes public and often scandalous to the faithful. Some commentators hold the view that the
celibate priesthood has a natural attraction for SSA men.
Others say homosexuals are a trojan horse for a new model of
priesthood, non-celibate, male and female, and homosexual: SSA men have been
able to come into the priesthood, whereas married men and females have
not. SSA priests that are non-celibate
can gradually gain acceptance from the laity, normalising non-celibacy and thus
paving the way for married and woman priests.
The success of active homosexuals in the priesthood, their promotion,
concealment and protection by the hierarchy (including the Pope it seems) gives
more than passing credibility to this scenario.
The Church takes pride in open discussion and dialogue,
particularly in Her pastoral process for non-Catholics wishing to convert. It’s ironic therefore that the Church seems
unwilling to entertain open dialogue on the issues raised in this
document. The lead taken by Church
hierarchy - inasmuch as it could be called a lead - often looks like cleverly
crafted political spin that fails to deal directly with these issues. The laity struggle to discuss the issues
without unseemly factional disagreements.
The Church hierarchy fails to provide leadership or forums for
discussion: some parishes overseas have arranged ‘town hall’ meetings which
have not all gone well.
Decades of cover ups, pay offs, gagging victims and
witnesses, shunting errant priests and now a very real fear of criminal
liability for the Church as an institution in the US (under RICO[16])
have created an environment hostile to full and free airing of the issues. Church hierarchy also seem to be introducing
massive reform by the ‘boiled-frog’[17]
method, avoiding any discussion which might reveal their agenda, relying on a
strategy of normalisation by stealth.
[10] The letter signed by 4 cardinals
contained five questions (Dubia). The cardinals publicised their letter in
November 2016 after not receiving a response from Pope Francis.
[10] The letter signed by 4 cardinals
contained five questions (Dubia). The cardinals publicised their letter in
November 2016 after not receiving a response from Pope Francis.
[13] For example, the Winnipeg Statement.
[14] Observers at the 2017 March for Life in Wellington report
approximately 600 attendees but only one priest visible (who was from SSPX).
[15] Society of Saint Pius X, an international priestly
fraternity founded in 1970 by Marcel Lefebvre. It is not in full communion with Rome.
[16] Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
addresses criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
[17] A fable used as a metaphor for the inability
or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of changes that arise
gradually rather than suddenly.
5) RECENT LOCAL
SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE
At the time of writing, three items have set the
diocesan scene. We analyse all three
collectively, as they are similar and tied by Bishop Drennan’s apparent
endorsements.
5.1) DAVID MULLIN – ‘Six Men In a leaky boat’[18] Mullin is a project manager for Palmerston
North Catholic Diocese.
Essentially his opinion piece breaks down to two
points:
·
He has a governance plan going forward and seems
to think there is no need to look back to the cause of the problems which would
only favour grandstanding by different interest groups.
·
His proposed governance plan would integrate
laity even more fully with Church management, thus increasing the larger
measure of responsibility for laity which has occurred in recent years.
Does his plan mean the priest or bishop becomes just
one vote on a committee of lay people (qualified or otherwise), and can be
outvoted, and what are the spiritual and doctrinal implications of such a plan?
18] https://pndiocese.org.nz/who-we-are/six-men-in-a-leaky-boat/
5.2) BISHOP LONG (Parramatta Diocese, Sydney) – ‘Being a
Priest In A Unprecedented Time of Change’[19]
His paper was delivered at the national assembly of diocesan
priests in Christchurch 13 September 2018, where Bishop Long was guest
speaker. The address drew a standing
ovation from some of the 200 odd NZ priests who were present; others were
negative. We understand he often
departed from his speech notes.
Bishop Long’s paper proposes paradigm shift. In ‘Breaking Open the Priesthood’ he says,
“the separated, exalted and elitist priesthood…must be consigned to the
past”. He speaks strongly against
‘clericalism’.
5.3) BISHOP DRENNAN – ‘Call for radical change in
governance’[20]
The title speaks for itself.
Bishop Drennan endorses the views of Bishop Long and Mullin. He
expresses strong disgust for ‘clericalism’
and speaks very favourably of new governance models.
[20] http://www.wn.catholic.org.nz/call-for-a-radical-change-in-governance/
5.4) ANALYSIS
+Long and +Drennan’s contributions amount to withering
criticisms of the priesthood and its alleged failings. In describing the priesthood, they employ the
language of the political left who are usually strongly opposed to the
Church. Terms abound like misogyny,
paternalism, patriarchal, hegemony.
Statements like ‘Misogyny parading as theological
orthodoxy is … toxic…’[21]
are cryptic and mostly unfathomable to the lay faithful. The statement would seem to take the debate
to a whole new level - but does it?
People asked by this writer for their interpretation mostly assume it
proposes women for the priesthood and that anyone opposing that proposition is
‘toxically’ orthodox.[22] But we can only guess at Bishop Drennan’s
meaning. If our guess is correct, that
proposition will be opposed by the solution proposed in this paper: restoration
of faith in Christ’s apostolic model of priesthood.
The theme of ‘clericalism’ is taken up by these three
writers. Since Pope Francis[23]
introduced this ambiguous term its definitions by different parties have
spanned the full range of debate. Bishop
Drennan calls it “A pathology of arrogance and ignorance…”. Another commentator in contrast describes
clericalism as an “attempt to steer the conversation away from the cause of the
vast majority of sexual abuse cases (the psychological disorder of
homosexuality) and to lay the blame on structural and institutional factors
that play into their liberal narrative of a Church in need of radical
reformation in its teachings connected with sexuality (e.g., ordination of
women, clerical celibacy, regularization of divorcees, normalization of homosexual
relationships).”[24]
Organisational and cultural failures occur frequently,
and retrospective analysis is often brutal.
Be it a lost battle or a corporate collapse, almost inevitably most of
the blame falls on leadership. Rarely does it reasonably fall on the foot
soldiers or the corporate employees.
Emphasis on ‘clericalism’ tends to place far too much of the blame on
priests, most of whom are faithful and not the root cause. Leadership etiquette and common-sense call
for the hierarchy to take the weight of responsibility. Leadership comes from the top.
None of these three local (NZ) commentators discusses
the ‘elephant in the room’ in today’s Church, the issue of homosexuality:
Mullin dismisses such conversation as ‘finger pointing’ - instead proposing
‘clericalism’ as the cause of the crisis.
It is important to recognise in the debate, the
relationship between governance, organisational structure and other
factors. The proposed changes in
governance imply structural changes and vice versa. These three commentaries fall far short of a
coherent governance and structural plan which must state the future lines of
authority of each party (including priests).
Basic questions needing answers before we can proceed are, for instance
in Section 4 ‘What is the Reform of the Church?’, and what is ‘A Future Church
Model?’
Christ instituted his Church with an apostolic
structure and hierarchy, according to his own divine will. If any party proposes to change the model
given us by Christ, we suggest they will not be able to justify it
theologically. None of these three
commentators discuss this anomaly. Are
they proposing a post-doctrinal Church?
Undoubtedly, the Church has failed spectacularly in
its mission over the past half century, and these failings have been exposed in
the past few years. But it does not
necessarily follow that the Church’s mechanisms of structure and governance are
solely to blame. The Church’s main,
spectacular fault has been widespread heresy and apostasy in the hierarchy and
priesthood, failure of culture and operation caused by attempts to remodel
herself on ‘the world’, rather than on divinely revealed Truths. The mechanism for the Church, given by
Christ, having existed and operated for 2000+ years, is right and just, but if
operated inappropriately and unjustly, will deliver bad outcomes.
By way of example, if most of us tried to fly a modern
jet airliner we would probably cause a crash.
The reason for crashing would not lie with fault in the airplane, but
with ourselves for operated it incorrectly.
Many of the three local commentators’ proposals have
already been implemented, with a hefty devolvement of operation and
responsibility from priests to laity at parish and diocesan level, but have
failed to prevent or contain the crisis.
Naturally many devolved parishes suffer conflict
between parishioners, committees and Parish Priests, depending on the nature
and strength of the personalities involved. Conflict within organisations
generally occurs when the roles and authorities of different parties are not
clearly defined. Conflict in the parish
then arises, both spiritual and ideological, as the parties struggle to
establish authority and rules of operation.
Ultimate responsibility for any such conflict rests with the Church
hierarchy and Papacy, for failure to define and teach doctrine, and to define
the roles of the parties. Fighting in
middle and lower ranks almost always results from failure of management in the
upper echelons.
As Mullin points out ‘Various commentators are blaming
the issue on their pet topic’. The
solution is not to redefine the Church but for Papal authority and the
hierarchy to provide clarity of Church teaching that breaks down group barriers
and restore unity.
[22] We note that French Cardinal Pie (1815-1888) stated ‘The
first condition of sanctity is orthodoxy’, and many still hold this
view today.
[23] Example ‘Letter of His Holiness Pope Francis To the
People of God’ 20 August 2018
[24] Peter Kwasniewski https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/what-clericalism-really-looks-like
6) RECOMMENDED
ACTIONS
To restore the credibility of the Church and leave the
sexual and homosexual abuse crisis behind we recommend the following:
1.
Reaffirmation of the Church as instituted by
Christ and as the sacred deposit of Doctrine and Truth.
2.
Reaffirmation of the Apostolic model for the
Church, given us by Christ, its retainment and reinforcement.
3.
Teaching and preaching right doctrine according
to the Tradition and the Magisterium.
4.
Disqualification from the priesthood of active
homosexuals.
5.
Quick action to obviate any further
investigations and legal action against the Church and individual priests
internationally, to be done transparently so the Church is seen to be above
board and not attempting to thwart due legal process.
6.
Open and honest dealing with the full range of
abuse - paedophilia and homosexual, minors and adults, pre-pubescent and
post-pubescent and where priests are sexually active with laity. Differentiation of SSA from homosexual acts.
7.
Rejuvenation of governance tools in the Church
to ensure they are applied correctly according to Doctrine, Scripture, Canon
Law and the CCC as the necessary governance framework. Where existing governance tools prove
inadequate, provide clear statement of the reasons for new ones.
8.
Transparency in changes at national, diocesan or
parish level, especially when made as ‘pastoral care’ or as part of a ‘reform’
agenda.
9.
Clear documentation and reconciliation of any
apparent conflicts between new reform proposals and Church doctrine.
10.
Introduction of clerical-led audits of Church
activities at national, diocesan and parish level to ensure governance
standards are followed, particularly in areas of prevention, detection and
prosecution of sexual abuse.
11.
Application of Gospel teaching in handling moral
and/or legal crimes, ensuring the Churches code is equal or superior to that of
national secular society.
12.
Application of risk management techniques to
minimise exposure to action by secular authorities. Priests who have offended
should in most cases be publicly named and removed from ministry.
13.
Initiation of a public conversation to explain
the conflict between Church teaching and the values of the secular
society. As the Church’s Gospel
standards differ from the world’s, they necessarily negate any low profile ‘go
with the flow’, ‘avoid any issues and conflict’ mentality. The Church should be
robust and forthright in stating where and why She departs from the values of
secular society.
14.
Identification of key areas of concern for the
faithful and initiation of open, meaningful debate, avoiding complex theology
or high-level conceptualising unless absolutely relevant and dealing only with
the clearly defined issues in terms the laity understand.
15.
Promotion of devotion to the Blessed Virgin
Mary, Mediatrix of all Graces, and to the Saints.
16.
Recognition of the power of evil and satanic
manipulation designed to destroy the Church.
17.
Encouragement of attendance at daily Mass
18.
Promotion of devotional prayer, especially
eucharistic adoration and benediction, and the Holy Rosary.
Some of the points made below may
appear to contradict these recommendations but woud be clarified in discussion.
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
a)
Married priests
b)
Women priests
c)
SSA priests
d)
Celibacy or non-celibacy (for each or all of a),
b), c) above)
e)
Seminaries’ reception of celibate SSA men versus
non-celibate SSA men
f)
Pastoral or reform agendas, full transparency
(especially if they over-ride doctrine and/or scripture).
g)
THE ‘drip feed’ or ‘boiled frog’ approach to
reform
h)
Celebration of ‘gay’ unions or ’weddings’ in the
Catholic Church (especially in secret)
i)
The practice of giving communion to
non-Catholics (intercommunion) without express permission from the local
ordinary.
j)
The Church’s belief in the Real Presence viz
relocation of tabernacles, loss of genuflection, communion in the hand.
k)
Definition of clericalism: is it a major
issue? Does it mean clerical arrogance,
abuse of clerical power, surreptitious advancement of reform, concealment of
clerical sexual abuse, concealment of homosexual promotion, or otherwise?
l)
Specification of management and authority for
laity, especially in regard to theology.
m)
Identification and unity for the different
factions within the Church - orthodox, liberal, SSPX, Carmelite, Kapatiran,
Rosminian, MMP etc.
n)
The priority of the Church: saving souls
o)
Catholic belief in heaven, hell and the devil.
p)
Identification and reunification of different
ideologies: feminism, ‘gay rights’, socialism, freemasonry, relativism,
environmentalism, modernism etc.
q)
Posture during the Eucharistic Prayer.
