Let the (Blame) Games Begin

.

Defenders of the pope attempt to shift blame
from Rome to Milwaukee. Do they have a valid point?

An article in Wednesday’s New York Times asserts that in the 1990s, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, failed to take action against a priest in Wisconsin, Lawrence Murphy, who was known to have sexually abused as many as 200 deaf boys. Since the publication of this claim, the Vatican and its defenders have been quick to both denounce it and offer their own version of events.

For instance, in an unsigned commentary in the Vatican daily L'Osservatore Romano, it’s stated that:

According to the reconstruction made in the [New York Times] article, based on ample documentation provided by lawyers for some of the victims, reports relating to the conduct of the priest were only sent in July 1996 by the then-archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert G. Weakland, to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – its then prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and its secretary Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone – to the end of obtaining indications on the correct canonical procedure to follow. The request, in fact, referred not to the accusations of sexual abuse, but to a violation of the sacrament of penance, perpetrated by an enticement in the confessional, that takes place when a priest solicits a penitent to commit a sin against the sixth commandment (canon 1387).

Were Archbishop Weakland’s letters to the Vatican all about Murphy’s “violation of the sacrament of penance” and not Murphy’s long history of sexual abuse? As far as I know, neither the Vatican nor the New York Times have released the actual text of these letters. It’s hard to believe, however, that the Times would not get such a basic element of its story checked before going to press.

Meanwhile, in an article at CatholicCulture.org, Phil Lawler argues that what this story is really about is “the abject failure of the Milwaukee archdiocese to discipline a dangerous priest, and the tardy effort by Archbishop Weakland – who would soon become the subject of a major scandal himself – to shift responsibility to Rome.”

Lawler’s referencing of Weakland’s consensual affair with an adult male is reprehensible. What’s it got to do with this particular situation or issue? It seems to be just one more attempt to “blame the gays.”

But what of Lawler’s main argument, that blame for the Murphy case rests in Milwaukee, not in Rome? Given that I gave space yesterday to a commentary by Andrew Sullivan that was highly critical of the pope’s role in the burgeoning clergy sex abuse scandal, it seems only fair to share Phil Lawler’s perspective and the points he raises to support his argument. These points are as follows:

1. The allegations of abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy began in 1955 and continued in 1974, according to the Times account. The Vatican was first notified in 1996: 40 years after Church officials in Wisconsin were first made aware of the problem. Local Church leaders could have taken action in the 1950s. They didn’t.

2. The Vatican, following the standard procedures required by canon law, kept its own inquiries confidential. But the CDF never barred other investigations. Local Church officials could have given police all the information they had about the allegations against Murphy. Indeed they could have informed police 40 years earlier. They didn’t.

3. Milwaukee’s Archbishop Cousins could have suspended Father Murphy from priestly ministry in 1974, when he was evidently convinced that the priest was guilty of gross misconduct. He didn’t. Instead he transferred the predator priest to a new diocese, allowing him to continue pastoral work giving him access to other innocent young people. And as if that weren’t enough, later Archbishop Weakland made sure that there was no "paper trail." There was certainly a cover-up in this case. It was in Milwaukee, not in Rome.

4. Having called the Vatican’s attention to Murphy’s case, Archbishop Weakland apparently wanted an immediate response, and was unhappy that the CDF took 8 months to respond. But again, the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited decades to take this action. Because the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited so long to take action, the canonical statute of limitations had become an important factor in the Vatican's decision to advise against an ecclesiastical trial.

5. In a plea for mercy addressed to Cardinal Ratzinger, Father Murphy said that he had repented his misdeeds, was guilty of no recent misconduct, and was in failing health. Earlier this month Msgr. Charles Scicluna, the chief Vatican prosecutor in sex-abuse cases, explained that in many cases involving elderly or ailing priests, the CDF chooses to forego a full canonical trial, instead ordering the priest to remove himself from public ministry and devote his remaining days to penance and prayer. This was, in effect, the final result of the Vatican's inquiry in this case; Father Murphy died just months later.

6. The correspondence makes it clear that Archbishop Weakland took action not because he wanted to protect the public from an abusive priest, but because he wanted to avoid the huge public outcry that he predicted would emerge if Murphy was not disciplined. In 1996, when the archbishop made that prediction, the public outcry would - and should - have been focused on the Milwaukee archdiocese, if it had materialized. Now, 14 years later, a much more intense public outcry is focused on the Vatican. The anger is justifiable, but it is misdirected.

Actually, I think there’s enough anger and blame to go around to both Rome and Milwaukee.

Also, if for decades no one in Wisconsin took action against Lawrence Murphy (and no doubt other abusing clerics), doesn’t that say something about the culture of denial and secrecy throughout the entire Church on this issue? Has not this culture been set and maintained by the Vatican and successive popes? And is not such a corrupt culture the inevitable result of a dysfunctional clerical caste system - a system that, again, is vigorously championed and maintained by the papacy?

I welcome my readers’ thoughts and perspectives.

Also, for updates on this issue, check the News Links at The Progressive Catholic Voice.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Game Over
An Offering of Ashes
The Roman Catholic Pyramid is Crumbling
Rome Falling

Recommended Off-site Links:
Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys - Laurie Goodstein (The New York Times, March 24, 2010).
The Pope and the Murphy Case: What the New York Times Story Didn’t Tell You - Phil Lawler (CatholicCulture.org, March 25, 2010).
The Pope's New Outrage - Barbie Latza Ladeua (The Daily Beast, March 26, 2010).
Vatican Says Media in "Ignoble Attempt" to Smear Pope - Andrew Roche (Reuters, March 25, 2010).

Game Over

For Benedict XVI and the "vast and twisted criminal conspiracy"
he has overseen, the "game is all over," writes Andrew Sullivan.

As difficulty as it may be to read, I nevertheless appreciate the perspective of Andrew Sullivan, a fellow gay Catholic man, as he bravely and honestly writes about the tragic and unprecedented level of criminality of Roman Catholicism’s clerical leadership in the ever-burgeoning (and worldwide) child sexual abuse scandal.

______________________________________

Sin or Crime?

By Andrew Sullivan

The Daily Dish
March 25, 2010

What’s fascinating in the steady onslaught of new incidences of previous cover-ups of child rape and molestation in the Catholic hierarchy is the notion that the hierarchs tended to see child rape as a sin rather than a crime. Hence the emphasis on forgiveness, therapy, repentance - rather than removal, prosecution and investigation. Obviously, there’s one reason for this: they were defending the reputation of the church by hiding its darkest secrets, and they were using the authority of religion to do so. But I suspect it’s also true that this is how they genuinely thought of child rape or abuse.

How could that be, one asks? Well: imagine you are a young gay Catholic teen coming into his sexuality and utterly convinced that it’s vile and evil. What do you do? I can tell you from my own experience. You bury it. But of course, you can’t bury it. So you objectify sex; and masturbate. You cannot have sexual or even emotional contact with a teenage girl, because it is simply impossible, and you certainly cannot have sex with another teenage boy or you will burn in hell for ever ... so you have sex with images in your own head. Your sex life becomes completely solitary. It can be empowered by pornography or simply teenage imagination. Some shard of beauty, some aspect of sensuality, some vision of desire will keep you sexually energized for days.

Now suppose your powers of suppression and attachment to religious authority are also strong - perhaps stronger because you feel so adrift you need something solid to cling onto in your psyche. And you know you cannot marry a woman. But you want to have status and cover as a single man. If this is the 1950s and 1960s, it’s into the Church you go. You think it will cure you. In fact, it only makes you sicker because your denial is buttressed by their collective denial. And the whole thing becomes one big and deepening spiral of lies and corruption.

Many of these tormented men have arrested sexual and emotional development. They have never had a sexual or intimate relationship with any other human being. Sex for them is an abstraction, a sin, not an interaction with an equal. And their sexuality has been frozen at the first real moment of internal terror: their early teens. So they tend to be attracted still to those who are in their own stage of development: teenage boys. And in their new positions, they are given total access to these kids who revere them for their power.

So they use these children to express themselves sexually. They barely see these children as young and vulnerable human beings, incapable of true consent. Because they have never had a real sexual relationship, have never had to deal with the core issue of human equality and dignity in sex, they don’t see the children as victims. Like the tortured gay man, Michael Jackson, they see them as friends. They are even gifted at interacting with them in non-sexual ways. One theme you find in many of these stories is that until these screwed up priests’ abuse and molestation is revealed, they often have a great reputation as pastors. As emotionally developed as your average fourteen year old wanting to be loved, they sublimate a lot of their lives into clerical service. But they also act out sexually all the time.

And they know that many around them have the same patterns, and so a truly sick subculture perpetuates this. In the end, it is all about themselves and their pathologies, how to express them and how to hide them. As social sexual tolerance advances, and as fewer straight men are prepared to give up sex for life to become priests, the proportion of screwed up pastors increases. In this self-protective environment, these priests do not even see the children as fellow humans. They remain like those solitary abstract images in their heads. So they cannot fully grasp the enormity of the crime they are committing and see it merely as another part of the vortex of their sexual sin.

So they cover up for one another; they fear that if one of them falls, they will all fall; even those who are not totally screwed up about sex are eager to prevent the church's secret from being exposed. But the more they cover up, the bigger the calamity when it all emerges. And when it’s clear that at the center of this kind of pathological secrecy and shame is the current Pope, then it is clear that the entire institution is corrupt from the top down.

These men are too objectively disordered to run a church. They bask in self-denial, while they wage a culture war against gay men who have actually dealt with their sexuality, who have owned it, and celebrated it and even found ways to channel it into adult relationships and even civil marriage.

We all know this game is now over. The current Pope is now found directly responsible for two clear incidents of covering up or ignoring child abuse and rape. As head of the organization that took responsibility for investigating these cases for so long, his complicity in this vast and twisted criminal conspiracy is not in dispute. If he were the head of a secular organization, he would have already resigned and be cooperating with the police.

But he is the Vicar of Christ on earth.

It’s hard to imagine a deeper crisis for the Catholic hierarchy than this. If the church is to survive - and it will because it is the vessel of eternal truth - it will have to go through a wrenching transformation.

Beginning with the resignation of this Pope and an end to priestly celibacy.

_____________________________________

There’s a local connection to this unfolding story, as the St. Paul, MN law firm of Jeff Anderson and Associates is representing five people in a lawsuit against the the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Lawyers at the firm say they have uncovered documents implicating Pope Benedict in the cover-up of sexual abuse by a Wisconsin priest. It's one of the "two clear incidents" cited by Sullivan of covering-up by the pope.

Attorney Jeff Anderson (pictured at right) said, "All trails involving the cover-up and concealment of sexual abuse by Catholic clerics lead to Rome and the pope."

In a news conference earlier today Anderson said that Vatican and church documents show that Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee sent a letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - now Pope Benedict - back in 1996 asking how to proceed with the Rev. Lawrence Murphy, a priest accused of sexual misconduct. At the time, Ratzinger was in charge of the Vatican office that determined whether accused priests should be removed from the priesthood.

According to the documents, Weakland sent a letter to another church official a year later complaining that Ratzinger never responded.

The Associated Press notes that "Vatican documents also show Wisconsin bishops urged Ratzinger's office to let them hold a church trial against Murphy. But, the church trial was halted after Murphy wrote Ratzinger a letter saying he was ill and infirm.

"The church never formally punished Murphy. He died in 1998. He was accused of molesting some 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin in the 1960s. A statement from the Milwaukee archdiocese Thursday says Murphy’s actions were criminal and that it apologizes to those who have been harmed by Murphy."


NOTE: For updates on this issue, check the News Links at The Progressive Catholic Voice.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
An Offering of Ashes
The Roman Catholic Pyramid is Crumbling
Rome Falling
Eugene Kennedy on Roman Catholicism's "Post-Hierarchical Blues"
No Patriarchy Hierarchy, No Rigid Conformity
Keeping All the Queens Under One Roof

Recommended Off-site Links:
Pope Accused of Failing to Act on Sex Abuse Case - BBC News (March 25, 2010).
Pope Implicated in Cover-Up of Wisconsin Sex Abuse Case - Associated Press (March 24, 2010).
Sex Abuse Scandal in US, Italy Taints Papacy - Nicole Winfield (Associated Press, March 25, 2010).
The Church as Sexual Predator - Emilie Townes (The Huffington Post, March 19, 2010).
A Reporter’s Insight Into the International Clergy Abuse Flare-Up - Marian Wang (ProPublica.org, March 24, 2010).
Can the Pope Be Fired? - Christopher Beam (Slate.com, March 17, 2010).

Image 1: Photographer unknown.
Image 2: Michael J. Bayly.

A "Fruit" Reflects Upon the Meaning of "Fruitfulness"

Then Jesus told this parable: “A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the gardener who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’

“‘Sir,’ the gardener replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. It may yet bear fruit. If not, then cut it down.’”

Throughout both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, our loving God invites us to be fruitful, to bear fruit. We hear too of the “fruits of the Spirit,” and are told that our lives should bear witness to these attributes and qualities.

Yet what does all of this really mean in our day-to-day lives and our life together as Church?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this question as I observe the clerical leadership of the Roman Catholic Church intensify its efforts to deny civil marriage rights to gay couples and, in at least one case, deny a Catholic education to the children of a gay family.

For this clerical leadership and their supporters, “fruitfulness” within the context of a loving relationship between two people is first and foremost about procreation, about making babies.

As important as procreation is, however, as a Christian I think God’s call to be fruitful needs to be primarily grounded in Jesus’ call to fullness of life; to that abundant life in God that Jesus certainly experienced himself and invites us all to experience. Living this life ensures that we flourish as individuals, couples, families, and communities.

The question then becomes, are gay people (ironically, often maligned as “fruits”) excluded from such a life of flourishment and fruitfulness?


Selfish?

The clerical leadership of the Roman Catholic Church certainly believes that such exclusion is warranted for gay people who physically express their sexuality. Such expression, according to the testimony recently delivered by Fr. Michael Becker at the Minnesota State Capitol, is fundamentally selfish. Becker was testifying on behalf of the Minnesota Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops against a number of marriage equality bills currently before both the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Minnesota Senate.

Because there is no possibility of making a baby, Becker argues, those who engage in gay sexual activity can never give themselves fully to one another. Gay sex, therefore, is only ever about “using” another for one’s own pleasure. There’s never any mutuality, equality, or dignity. Furthermore, children raised by couples who engage in such selfish and immoral activity are disadvantaged and prone to all kinds of potential traumas and problems.



Yet is this really the case? Many people - including Catholics - question and even dissent from the position advanced by Becker. How then are we to proceed together as Church in order to come to some consensus in this matter?


Discernment and change

In preparation for the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform’s 2010 Synod of the Baptized, I’ve been reading two books: Paul Lakeland’s Church: Living Communion and Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler’s The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology. Drawing upon the insights of the great twentieth-theologian Bernard Lonergan, Lakeland contends that “as Catholic Christians we are . . . shaped by . . . courageous, Spirit-driven discernment of the changes we need to make in order not only to be attentive, intelligent, and reasonable but also, and above all, to be loving. If the Catholic Church is not evidently a loving community of faith, then it is failing.”

Lakeland contends that as a “community of conversion,” the Church is “constantly in process of change.” Our challenge is to “make the right changes,” changes that are dictated by the Church’s mission, one that calls us – individually and collectively – to be “an effective sign of the love of God in the world.”


In all honesty, I have to say that I’m at a loss as to how the current words and actions of the Church’s clerical leadership concerning gay people, relationships, and families, are loving. Rather, they seem to convey and champion divisive triumphalism; abstract tenets divorced from both human experience and the insights of science; and what seems to be a fear-based rigidity to the idea (and reality) of development and change.


Compassion and justice

It seems to me that the “fruitfulness” that our brother Jesus calls us to is all about embodying compassion and justice in our world (fulfilling the Church’s mission, in other words). In an ever-changing world, such embodying and fulfilling requires that all of us as Church be attentive (i.e., willing and capable of reading the signs of the times), intelligent (i.e., willing and able to practice discernment), reasonable, loving, and, if necessary, open to change. It has little space for attitudes and beliefs that insist that certain things can’t be changed because they represent God’s “rules” not ours – an argument one hears incessantly from those who remain unresponsive to the presence and action of the sacred in the lives and relationships of gay people.



I appreciate the insights of Sebastian Moore, shared recently in a letter in the February 20 issue of The Tablet. Moore observes that what is never mentioned in the discussions concerning homosexuality and the Church is “the collapse of the taboo on homosexuality, reflected [for example] in the striking of homosexuality off the list of deviances by the psychiatric associations of [the United Kingdom] and America.” For Moore, “this surely marks a unique progress in human self-understanding.” It also means that those civil societies, “being in support of this position in advocating acceptance of homosexuals as of all other persons, [are] ahead of the official church teaching which still maintains, as does the taboo, that homosexuality is a disorder.”


Ever-growing

All of which brings us back to Jesus’ parable of the unfruitful fig tree. I think the number one reason why I love and follow Jesus is that he was such a boundary breaker; that, in the words of Bishop John Shelby Spong, he “appeared to need no security barrier behind which to hide. He could thus step across the boundaries of tribe, prejudice, guilt, and even religion into a new dimension of what it means to be human, and this is what caused people to experience God present in him.”

What does this inspiring and salvific quality of Jesus tell us? According to Spong, it means that Jesus’ “call to us is . . . not to be religious but to be human and to be whole.” And to be human and whole surely means that we are ever-growing in awareness and compassion – a growing that leads to flourishment, to fruitfulness. I see such flourishment and fruitfulness in loving gay couples and families; I see it in the communities – religious and secular – that recognize and celebrate such relationships and families. Yet as noted above, I’m having a really hard time seeing it in the words and actions of the clerical leadership of my Church.

Instead, I see a disturbing fixation on certain sex acts, and an unrealistic demand that all gay people live lives of celibacy simply because they’re gay. In reality, though, human beings – gay or straight – flourish when they engage in and build relational lives that are experienced and expressed sexually. Actual sex acts are just one aspect of such relational lives. It’s the quality of these relationships that the Church should be concerned about, not so much who puts what body part where and with whom. I consider this latter type of fixation to be typical of the psycho-sexually stunted.

Like the fig tree in Jesus’ parable, the Roman Catholic clerical leadership’s position on homosexuality is barren. It other words, it’s inattentive to “the signs of the time,” it’s unintelligent to intelligent people, it’s unreasonable, and, worst of all, it’s unloving. Catholics have every right to question this position, to require that it be clarified and justified to the point that all are satisfied. That the clerical leadership has so far been unable to provide such clarification and justification says much about the credibility, the validity, the truthfulness of this particular position.


A “fruitful” understanding of homosexuality

Meanwhile, there are Catholic theologians, scholars, and commentators offering what could be considered a “fruitful” understanding of homosexuality, i.e., an understanding that is attentive, intelligent, reasonable, loving, and open to ongoing development. Two such scholars are Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler. When discussing self-integrity and sexuality in their book The Sexual Person: Towards a Renewed Catholic Anthropology, they note, for instance, that:

We argue from empirical human ‘nature’; this enables us to take the experienced reality of homosexual orientation seriously as what a person is and, therefore, how she or he might act personally, sexually, and morally. Because marital acts of a heterosexual and reproductive kind – that is, the insertion of a male penis into a female vagina – are naturally beyond the capacity of homosexuals, they cannot be bound to them morally.

In light of contemporary human knowledge about homosexual orientation, we have examined in this chapter the threefold bases on which the Catholic Church rests its judgment that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and gravely immoral, namely, the teaching of scripture, the teaching of the Magisterium, and the moral sense of the Christian people. On all three bases . . . the Church’s teaching needs serious reevaluation.

Such a stance echoes theologian Margaret Farley’s observation that “At this point, . . . it is difficult to see how on the basis of sheer rationality alone, and all of its disciplines [including theology], an absolute prohibition of same-sex relationships or activities can be maintained.”



These theologians – along with countless Catholics throughout the church – are aware of the many, many flourishing gay individuals and families living in our midst. Think of such individuals and families, if you like, as fruitful fig trees. The reality of their lives and relationships, their faithfulness to the Church’s mission to be living signs of consciousness, compassion, and justice – regardless of whether or not they can procreate – stands in stark contrast to what many see as the rigid and sterile position of the Church’s clerical leadership.

And, yes, even though I often feel like the vineyard owner and want to just say of this leadership, “Cut it down,” I chose instead to take my cue from Jesus, the ever-patient and loving gardener, who in his efforts to encourage growth and change, remains dedicated and hopeful.

_________________________________

NOTE: I first posted this article at The Open Tabernacle on March 15. Following are the comments it generated at that site.

Terence Weldon wrote: Thanks, Michael. As you rightly point out, there are indeed sound Catholic theologians who have shown that gay men and lesbians can also be spiritually fruitful. Some go further: The Jesuit theologian James L’Empereur and other leading specialists in spirituality argue that from our gay experience, we have much that we can teach the rest of the church about spirituality – a theme I will be expanding on shortly in a post of my own.

The Vatican falls down in blithely ignoring all empirical evidence that does not support its own conclusions, depending instead on repeated recourse to the long standing “authority” of its own documents.

Thank God for the vigorous theology coming from secular thinkers and women religious, who are not constrained by the shackles of the Vatican. While the official theologians of the Church remain mired in the fifteenth century , these new voices are taking us into the twenty first.


William Lindsey wrote: Michael, thank you for a valuable and outstanding presentation of these issues.

It seems to me that a focus on generativity in the sense that Erik Erikson came to use that term in the latter part of his career would be so valuable to the Catholic tradition, as it looks on the fruitfulness of committed relationships. And a stress on relationship and not acts . . . .

I’m struck, too, by the glaring double standard of statements like Fr. Becker’s, re: the “selfishness” of gay relationships. When it’s easy to demonstrate that the vast majority of married heterosexual Catholics use contraception, to speak of gay sexual acts and relationships as selfish in an exclusive way that overlooks the general Catholic rejection of natural-law thinking about sexuality is obviously discriminatory.

It’s as if the church is some fixated, in a very unhealthy way, on gay lives and gay “acts,” to the exclusion of anything else–including the way in which the large majority of straight Catholics reject and depart from the same norms used to bash gays.


Brian wrote: Great post. I always found the “selfish” argument puzzling. My encounters with it have been in the context of contraception. I can remember in college hearing that on a retreat given by the religious community that ran the student Catholic Center. Now the scene strikes me as absurd: a professed celibate man telling young people about how other people having sex were being “selfish” for using contraception.

I often wonder if the champions of Natural Law react in horror when they leave for work and find the windshields of their cars covered in pollen. Onanism! And on a massive scale! They’d probably say that was O.K. for trees but not for people because God endowed human males with, ahem, better aim.


Mark wrote: Another excellent article. You covered a lot of good points here. Who is Fr. Michael Becker that he would testify? What special understanding does he have on gay issues? Is he some kind of expert?


Ross wrote: This is a beautiful piece, not only because the points are beautifully and passionately expressed, but also because it reminds us that we are followers of Jesus, whose commandment to us, through his Apostles, was “Love one another as I have loved you.” Sad to say, somewhere in the line of apostolic succession, the true and deep meaning of this commandment has been forgotten.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Non-Negotiables of Human Sex
Stop in the Name of Discriminatory Ideology
Sex as Mystery, Sex as Light
Human Sex: Weird and Silly, Messy and Sublime
Making Love, Giving Life
Joan Timmerman on the “Wisdom of the Body”
Relationship: The Crucial Factor in Sexual Morality
Italian Cardinal Calls for “New Vision” for Sexuality
What Is It That Ails You?
A Wise and Thoughtful Study of Sexual Ethics
The Standard of Sexual Ethics: Human Flourishing, Not Openness to Procreation
The Many Manifestations of God’s Loving Embrace
Trusting God’s Generous Invitation
“More Lovely Than the Dawn”: God as Divine Lover
Liberated to Be Together
Somewhere In Between
Do Not Be Afraid, You Can Be Happy and Gay
Getting It Right
The Gifts of Homosexuality
Gay People and the Spiritual Life

As for the Bishops . . .

In an op-ed at PoliticsDaily.com, David Gibson, author of The Coming Catholic Church: How the Faithful are Shaping a New American Catholicism, writes:

. . . The passage of health care reform could . . . quite easily be read as a serious setback for the many lobbies that oppose abortion. If their apocalyptic warnings come true -- which appears more unlikely than ever -- then they have lost the greatest battle in the abortion wars since Roe v. Wade. In addition, they could begin to see the Democrats take some of the pro-life mantle from the Republican Party, which could potentially lead to a significant electoral shift.

But groups like the Family Research Council, National Right to Life Committee and Americans United for Life have often worked most effectively when they were in the minority, much like their Republican allies. And even in the run-up to the historic bill's passage, these groups were capitalizing on fears about the legislation to raise money. They are sure to pursue that strategy with even greater fervor as the fall campaign approaches.

As for the Catholic bishops, the other central player in this drama, there appear to be few redeeming elements.

Their run as political dealmakers was cut short by their own miscalculations, and within the church they did little to burnish their already strained credibility. Politically conservative Catholics were already angry that the bishops supported such a repellent idea as universal health care in the first place, and many blame them for not succeeding in killing the bill altogether. The more liberal members, including pro-life elements, of the church, on the other hand, saw the greater (and common) good of health care reform as so obvious that they just shrugged the bishops off.

"Catholic members of Congress showed that they will not bow to the bishops when it comes to something that is outside their area of expertise -- namely the interpretation of legislative language," said Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and longtime observer of politics both inside the church and the Beltway.

And in the background, of course, is the other dominant Catholic story line of the last decade, that of the sexual abuse of children by clergy, which is emerging again in Europe and even the Vatican, doing the reputation of the hierarchy no favors.

Then again, at the end of the day Congress took a major step toward universal, affordable health care that will not finance abortions and will likely go a long way toward reducing abortions by supporting pregnant women and financing adoptions.

So the bishops won in the end, even if they don't know it. The problem is, no one else does either.

- David Gibson
How the Bishops Lost, Even as Their Cause Prevailed
PoliticsDaily.com
March 2010

Recommended Off-site Link:
The Bishops and the Catholic Health Association: On Different Sides of An Age Old Question - Colleen Koghivar-Baker (Enlightened Catholicism, March 23, 2010).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
American Catholics and Obama
The Bishops and Obama (Part 1)
The Bishops and Obama (Part 2)
Why the Bishops Are Being Ignored

Paul Krugman on Last Night's "Victory for America's Soul"

I appreciate the following commentary by economist Paul Krugman on last night’s successful passing of health care reform by the U.S. Congress.

As most readers would know, Democrats voted 219-212 late last night on legislation that will extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, reduce deficits and ban insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

In his commentary, Krugman takes to task the fear-mongering tactics of those opposed to health care reform.

_________________________________________

Fear Strikes Out

By Paul Krugman

The New York Times
March 22, 2010

The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”

And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.

I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.

But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)

And that cynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform.

Yes, a few conservative policy intellectuals, after making a show of thinking hard about the issues, claimed to be disturbed by reform’s fiscal implications (but were strangely unmoved by the clean bill of fiscal health from the Congressional Budget Office) or to want stronger action on costs (even though this reform does more to tackle health care costs than any previous legislation). For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan — very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts — that Democrats were proposing.

Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency.

It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” It was wild claims about abortion funding.* It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives.

And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”

Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?

And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.

This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.

______________________________

* Sadly, the United States Conference of [Roman] Catholic Bishops (USCCB) got caught up in some of these “wild claims about abortion funding.” The National Catholic Reporter, for instance, noted last week that,

What is being debated is not the morality of abortion but the politics of abortion, and there is plenty of room for honest and respectful disagreement among Catholics about politics.

That said, the bishops have to be clear that some of their talking points might lead honest observers to question their competence – or worse. In the past week or so, much has been made of the bill’s provision of $7 billion dollars to community health centers. The National Right to Life Committee chimed in that this money could go to pay for abortions at clinics run by Planned Parenthood. Back to Logic 101: All Planned Parenthood clinics may be clinics, but not all health care clinics are Planned Parenthood clinics. The community health centers in question do not, never have, and have no intention of performing abortions, and they are prohibited by statute from doing so. This is a red herring and it was profoundly disappointing to see the USCCB Web site give credence to it.

Bottom line: The current legislation is not “pro-abortion,” and there is no, repeat no, federal funding of abortion in the bill.

Recommended Off-site Links:
Signed, Sealed, but Not Delivered: Six Big Flaws that Need Fixing to Make New Law Meaningful Health Care Reform - Jon Walker (FireDogLake.com, March 22, 2010).
How the Bishops Lost, Even As Their Cause Prevailed - David Gibson (PoliticsDaily.com, March 22, 2010).
The Health Care Hindenburg Has Landed - Chris Hedges (TruthDig.com, March 22, 2010).
The Great Thing About the Health Care Law That Has Passed? It Will Save Republican Lives, Too - Michael Moore (CommonDreams.com, March 22, 2010).
Waterloo - David Frum (FrumForum.com, March 22, 2010).
Opponents Take Last Stand Against Health Care Bill - Denise Lavoie (Associated Press, March 22, 2010).
Now That Obama’s Signed It, Let’s Reform the Reform - John Nichols (The Nation, March 23, 2010).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Krugman Enters the Fray
The Bishops and Obama (Part 1)
The Bishops and Obama (Part 2)

A Springtime Prayer

By Joyce Rupp

Ever-renewing and energizing Creator,
Come, stir in my dormant spiritual limbs.

Wake up my tired prayer.
Revive my weary efforts of care.
Sing hope into my discouragement.

Wash my dusty, drab attitude
with the cleansing rains of your vision.

Go deep to my roots and penetrate my faith
with the vibrancy of your grace.

Shake loose the old leftover oak leaves
of my tenacious ego-centeredness.

Coax joy to sprout from my difficulties.

Warm the buds of my relationships
so they bloom with healthy love.

Clear out my wintered debris
with the wild breeze of your liberating presence.

Nudge me, woo me, entice me, draw me to you.

I give you my trust and my gratitude as you
grace my slowly thawing spirit.

Light-filled Being, my Joy and my Hope,
let the greening in me begin.

– From Out of the Ordinary: Prayers, Poems, and Reflections for Every Season by Joyce Rupp.



See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Waiting in Repose for Spring’s Awakening Kiss
• In the Footsteps of Spring
• Spring Garden

Images: Michael Bayly.

Classic Engelbert III

A musical interlude tonight at The Wild Reed with the great romantic balladeer Engelbert Humperdinck singing two of his classic songs, "The Way It Used to Be" and "Another Time, Another Place." Enjoy!

The candles flicker in the fading light,
I sit alone and watch that lonely night.
I see you everywhere
and I try desperately to hide.

Another time, another place,
I see that old familiar face
and I try hard to catch your eye.

Another road, another mile,
I see that old familiar smile,
but you'll be with somebody new.

Another night, another day,
I'll see you standing in my way
I'll stop and say "hello, my friend"

Another place, another time,
you'll tell me you've been doing fine,
and walk away from me once more.

I try to run away from sad regrets,
the bitter wine won't help me to forget
that I locked up my heart
and threw away the precious key.

Another night, another day,
I'll see you standing in my way.
I'll stop and say, "Hello, my friend."

Another place, another time,
you'll tell me you've been doing fine,
and walk away from me once more.

See also the previous Wild Reed post:
• Engelbert Humperdinck: Not That Easy to Forget
• The Empty Beach

Celebrating St.Patrick's Day

Here are a few photos from a St. Patrick's Day celebration I participated in earlier today with some friends.

These images are accompanied by an insightful article by Chris Weigant on "Saint Patrick and the Snakes." Enjoy!

Saint Patrick and the Snakes

By Chris Weigant

Huffington Post
March 17, 2010

First off, Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig!

For our non-Gaelic-speaking readers, Happy Saint Patrick's Day!

Saint Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, lived in the fifth century A.D., and he came to Ireland as a proselytizer for Christianity. That is about the sum total of the known, verifiable facts about Patrick. The rest is myth.

Since such mythologizing began only a few hundred years after his death (which happened on March 17, by the way), these myths of Patrick are much more widely known than the thin shreds of his real history (which are limited to two surviving letters written by Patrick in Latin). Besides, it's much more fun to sit around telling these tales over a pint of Guinness than to dig up actual facts. Even if the tales are pure blarney.

There are many of these myths, from Patrick's supposed use of a shamrock to explain the mystical Christian Trinity (hint: three separate leaves make a single shamrock...), to the well-known story of Patrick banning all the snakes from Ireland. Everyone's heard the one about the snakes, right? And Ireland has no snakes today, therefore the story must be true.

Well... no.

This is an interesting case in mythologizing, because the story was originally a metaphor which was widely understood when it was introduced, but then as the symbological link faded over time, somehow began to be interpreted literally instead of metaphorically. Which led to lots of confusion over the years. Or, at least, that's what schoolchildren in Ireland are taught. Myths are slippery creatures, so one can never be completely sure of the facts, such as they are.

It is indeed true that there aren't any native snakes in Ireland. But there never have been. Or, to be finicky, if snakes somehow ever existed on what is called Ireland today, humans weren't around at the time. Snakes evolved a few million years ago, from lizards (they dropped the idea of legs). At this time, Ireland may have been part of continental Europe (it hasn't always been an island), or it may have been underwater. Either way, it was much more recently completely covered with ice. During the last Ice Age, Ireland was a frozen wasteland (check out where Ireland is on the globe compared to North America -- the same latitude as Hudson Bay). No humans lived there, and any snakes who might have been around previously were frozen solid (snakes, remember, are cold-blooded).

When the ice retreated, Ireland was an island. And snakes can't fly. Meaning there simply was no way for them to migrate to the Emerald Isle. Patrick, sorry to say, had nothing to do with this geologic and evolutionary coincidence.



So why does the story of Patrick banning the snakes even exist? Was it just that overzealous Patrick fans were trying to come up with a few miracles to convince the Pope to sanctify him (don't laugh, this sort of thing happened all the time back then)?

Well, no. The story has meaning. But rather than Patrick commanding all the Irish snakes into the sea, or tricking them somehow to slither beneath the waves (differences abound in the snake-ridding mechanisms ascribed to Patrick by those who mistakenly take the story literally), the story goes to the core of Patrick's sainthood and his core mission in Ireland.

Previous to Christianity's ascent in Ireland, the Romans claimed the island, but only in a halfhearted manner. Rome never really "held" the island, the way that they had conquered and occupied Britain (or at least the parts of it south of Hadrian's Wall). In reality, Ireland at the time was a land of tribal Celtic "kings" who ruled over their people, and whenever they got bored (which, according to their myths, was quite often), they fought and raided cattle from neighboring tribes for entertainment and healthy exercise. The dominant religious figures were the Druids. There was no written language, as the traditions of the people were all passed down in oral histories. Which means not much is actually known about the Druids, either. They were spiritual advisors to the tribal kings, and likely knew the secrets of the stars and the calendar -- mystical knowledge indeed to a tribal society.

They also, Irish schoolchildren are taught, had tattoos. Big tattoos of snakes, on their arms.

Which brings us back to Patrick's story. Patrick did not "bring Christianity to Ireland" (it had arrived previously, other Christians were already there when Patrick arrived), but Patrick was indeed Ireland's biggest evangelist (in the classic, rather than the modern, sense of the word). Patrick was a missionary to the unconverted parts of Ireland, and lived up to the stories of tramping all over the island, proselytizing and converting as he went. This part of the myth (which would later spring up in his name) was largely true, which is one reason why he's the patron saint of the island.

By bringing Christianity to so many of the Irish people, Patrick was a major instrument of Christianity supplanting the Druids. And, by doing so, Patrick "drove the snakes into the sea" in a metaphorical way. Because by the seventh century, the Druids had pretty much disappeared. Coincidentally, the seventh century is also when the myths of Patrick began to take form (at least as far as the historical record shows). So, assuming the story of snake tattoos is true, and assuming the myth began back then, it's easy to see how the story changed. Patrick transformed the island's dominant religion from listening to the "snake-tattooed people" into listening to the Catholic priests and bishops. A contemporary would understand the "snake" symbology for what it represented (the Druids) instead of actual serpents. When that link disappeared into the mists of time, so did the symbolic meaning of the myth. And absent the knowledge of what the symbol was originally supposed to represent, people started taking it literally. Which they were never meant to. Patrick never, like the Pied Piper, charmed actual snakes into mass suicide so the Irish people wouldn't ever have to worry about them again -- but he did "rid" the island of the snake-tattooed Druids, in a way.

So you'll now excuse me if all this typing has raised a monstrous thirst in me. As the Irish say to their barmen, "I believe my physician would recommend the customary...." While awaiting the delivery of your own pint of Arthur's famous product, feel free to impress your friends with the tale of Saint Patrick ridding Eire of the snakes. Which had nothing to do with actual snakes, but rather the conversion of the island from one religion to another.

- Chris Weigant

Today is also my friend Raph's birthday.

Happy Birthday, Raph!

Recommended Off-site Links:
St. Patrick, Gay Role Model - Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, March 17, 2010).
Nation, World Goes Green for St. Patrick's Day - Sara Kugler and Verena Dobnik (Associated Press, March 17, 2010).

See also the previous Wild Reed post:
Celebrating St. Patrick's Day (2009)

Re-Forming "the Vatican" Doesn't Mean Destroying the Church

I share in this post one of the most powerful commentaries I’ve read on the clergy sex abuse scandal and the moral bankruptcy of the Roman Catholic Church’s clerical leadership. It also provides a good summary of events currently unfolding in Europe concerning this scandal, and the role that Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has played in it.

Some, of course, will dismiss the perspective of this article because its author, Peter Finocchiaro, is “no longer a person of faith.” That would be a mistake. Indeed there are many people of faith, many Catholics, who would whole-heartedly agree with Finocchiaro that “an institution so warped by anachronistic notions of tradition — and gripped so fully by the instinct for self-preservation that it would endorse such vicious means to an end — doesn’t deserve to exist in its current form any longer.”

Does such a statement imply the destruction of “the Church”? Of course not. The Church is – and always has been – bigger than its office holders, bigger than “the Vatican.” Such terms refer to but one component of the Church – an important one, but still only one. It cannot be taken as comprising the totality of the Church.

Also, the idea that the current corrupt and dysfunctional expression of clerical leadership, or “papalism,” is what Jesus envisioned as the Church, against which “the gates of Hell would not prevail,” is both preposterous and repugnant – not to mention theologically unsound. In my view, it’s those Catholics calling and demanding reform and renewal of the institutional component of the Church – and not the office holders within this component – who are ensuring that the “gates of Hell” do not ultimately prevail.

Following is Peter Finocchiaro’s article in its entirety.

___________________________________________

The Vatican Owes More Than
an Act of Contrition

By Peter Finocchiaro

The Cornell Daily Sun
March 16, 2010

Just before his ascension to the head of the Catholic world in 2005, Pope Benedict XVI — then Joseph Ratzinger, the dean of the College of Cardinals — railed against moral relativism in modern society. He has returned to this rebuke often, blaming “the dictatorship of relativism” for the prevalence of all kinds of sins that the Catholic Church’s hard-line conservative base perceives.

So adamant has the Pope been in his conviction that there are moral absolutes — pure good and unqualified evil — that one begins to wonder why this righteous certitude has so often been compromised during his time as a man of God. If there were ever such a thing as evil, Ratzinger has stared it straight in the face, particularly in the actions of clergymen under his jurisdiction. But rather than accord with the principles he so often professes, he has instead turned a blind eye to monstrosities, over and over again.

“O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all my sins ...”

Most are probably weary by now of the seemingly endless string of incriminations, tying members of the Catholic clergy to acts of pedophilia. The details of the sexual abuse aren’t just gruesome. They’re downright repugnant and an affront to every standard of decency we have. But, while the grisly truth is hard to stomach, we unfortunately need to cast our attention to that dark place once again.

Though the story has gotten little play thus far in the States, new allegations of abuse — committed over a span of decades in countries all across Europe — have been surfacing in recent weeks and months. These allegations cast a harsh light on the edifice of the Church, not least because they make clear the lengths to which Catholic leadership has gone to conceal the nature and scope of the misdeeds from public scrutiny.

Of particular note is a story of abuse that occurred in Germany. In 1979, a priest took a boy — now only known as Wilfried F. — to a remote location in the Bavarian Alps. Over the course of the trip, the 11-year-old was submitted to sexual abuse by his ostensible guardian, described here by Slate’s Christopher Hitchens: “[The boy] was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked and forced to suck the penis of his confessor.”

“Because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell ...”

The nature of the subsequent cover-up should offend everyone. After catching wind of the abuse, Ratzinger — at that time the archbishop of the diocese in question — relocated the offending priest for some form of rehabilitation. It wasn’t long, however, before the man was restored to his position, and thus given free reign to continue tormenting children.

But there’s more. Beginning in 2001, when he was a senior official under Pope John Paul II, Ratzinger oversaw the Church’s effort to distance itself from the widespread allegations of child molestation — which had gripped the U.S. — and performed damage control to shield the Vatican from culpability. In short order, he issued commands to every Catholic bishop dictating that anyone who so much as hinted at priestly abuse would face excommunication. The implication was that the Church was above the law, subject not to the codes of secular bodies, but only to that of the Holy See.

“But most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love ...”

Lucetta Scaraffia, an Italian journalist and scholar of history, penned an article last Thursday — published in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s semi-official newspaper — which tackled the subject of child abuse and the priesthood. In it, she argues that, “a greater female presence [in the Church] ... would have been able to rip the veil of masculine secrecy that in the past so often covered the reporting of these misdeeds with silence.” That same day, Austrian Archbishop Christoph Schonborn became the most senior member of the Catholic hierarchy to suggest a link between the vow of celibacy — a requirement of all priests — and acts of sexual abuse.

Though calls for reform to Roman Catholic practices — particularly with regard to celibacy and the role of women — have been sounding for years, perhaps now, when the religion’s highest authority has been thrust in the middle of the controversy, some progress might actually be made.

And it wouldn’t be a moment too soon. The election of Ratzinger to the papacy in 2005 was an endorsement of Catholic arch-conservatism, and a tacit refusal to address the legacy of egregious sexual misconduct that had been hidden in the shadows for decades.

First thing’s first, though, Ratzinger should resign the papacy. It is fairly clear that his involvement in the cover-ups — as archbishop of Munich in 1979, and as the dean of the College of Cardinals this past decade — was both complicit and far-reaching. His moral authority is beyond compromised, and his continued dominion over the spirituality of a billion Catholics around the world is a travesty.

“I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.”

Though I was raised and confirmed Catholic, I am no longer a person of faith. While my argument here is not that of a devout Christian, it is that of someone who understands that spirituality has a role to play in many people’s lives. It’s easy to be cynical about religion, but I’ve always resisted that impulse, in spite of my differences of opinion with many aspects of Catholic teachings

Still, faced with an abomination of this order, there’s really only one conclusion to be drawn. An institution so warped by anachronistic notions of tradition — and gripped so fully by the instinct for self-preservation that it would endorse such vicious means to an end — doesn’t deserve to exist in its current form any longer.

Much more is required now than an act of contrition.


Peter Finocchiaro, a senior in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, is a former Arts and Entertainment Editor of The Sun. He may be reached at pfinocchiaro@cornellsun.com.


Recommended Off-site Links:
Vatican Meltdown - Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, March 15, 2010).
Where Does the Buck Stop? - Sr. Maureen Paul Turlish (Catholica, March 12, 2010).
Vatican Silence on Germany’s Priest-Sex-Abuse Scandal - Jeff Israely (Time, March 16, 2010).
Whole Church Urgently Needs Radical Reform - Daniel O’Leary (The Tablet, January 16, 2010).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Roman Catholic Pyramid is Crumbling
An Offering of Ashes
Fr. Thomas Doyle: “There is Something Radically Wrong with the Institutional Catholic Church”
Rome Falling
Beyond Papalism
Eugene Kennedy on Roman Catholicism’s “Post-Hierarchical Blues”
Beyond Papalism
Authentic Catholicism: The Antidote to Clericalism
Trading with Frozen Truths
Hans Küng: “We Are Facing a Structural Problem”
Clearing Away the Debris
Weakland, the Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal, and Homophobia
Abuse Survivor Says Scapegoating Homosexuality for Clergy Sex Abuse is “Ill-informed, Ignorant, Corrupt, and Dishonest”
Report: Homosexuality No Factor in Abusive Priests

Image: The Vigil of Solidarity with LGBT Catholics - December 2, 2007.