Pope Francis has been pope for what, four months now?

Another Canadian blogger referred to him as "confounding".  That word perfectly describes my feelings toward the Pope, too.

Pope Francis becoming fodder for blogs and homilies.  His style is so markedly different from that of Pope Emeritus Benedict XIV that comparisons are nearly impossible to avoid.  Those comparisons also occurred between Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II.

It distresses me that so many see the papacies of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis as an either/or situation.

They are two different men with two different backgrounds and styles.  We could add Pope JPII in there and make it three.

All of the popes I recollect (and that number is growing!) have been different in styles and all, perhaps excepting John Paul I have weathered some sort of critical situation.  All have managed to seriously annoy some quarter of the population, Catholic or otherwise.

We must either trust that the Holy Spirit knows what it's doing or we don't.

Pope Francis is the Pope.  So was Benedict.  They will or have done fantastic things and have or will probably commit some very human screw-ups.

We have a very limited part of the "Big Picture" available to us, due to our ages, backgrounds, linguistic limitations and prejudices of some sort or another.

I really think we need to remember that when we make comments about what this or that pope said or did. We must also remember how selective the media can be.  Pictures of Pope Francis doing this or that treat the situations as something novel.  Frequently all that is novel is that Pope Francis is doing them, but what is implied is that Pope Francis is doing something that Pope Benedict did not, such as hugging a handicapped person.

We must remember to be charitable and to remember that there are many things we do not know about what is going on with any Pope, and within the spiritual realm in which they spend so much of their time and energy.

We must be humble as they are humble.

Condoms and Catholicism

The mainstream media has once again gotten all excited about what they've perceived as a weakness in the Church's stance on something.  In this case it's condoms.

The Pope, bless him, made a statement about how the use of a condom by a male prostitute may show that he's developing a moral sense.

No, this does not mean that the Church endorses condom use...ever.

But is the Church against condoms?  Is the Church against guns?  Garden tractors?

A condom is a piece of rubber (or something).  In and of itself it has no morality.

It is its frequent use as a means of birth control that is the problem.  If a male (presumably homosexual) prostitute uses a condom, it is not going to be for birth control.  So the Holy Father can actually see the USE of a condom, with the intent to reduce harm, as a sign of a good development.  That there is a condom involved is rather peripheral.  The user is showing concern for the other party and attempting to prevent further evil from occurring, in the form of disease. 

I've seen this likened to someone seeing that a murderer stops torturing his victims before killing them as a sign of a developing sense of compassion.  The murder is still obviously evil, but it is not compounded evil.

The Holy Father, by making statements such as the latest one public, is showing that he believes we have the intelligence to understand what he is saying.  He is not dumbing things down for us.

Let's respond by showing that we do have the intelligence he knows is there, and thinking with the mind of the Church.

And I do thank the poster at Catholic Answers for being the catalyst for this post.

More on Father Lawrence Murphy

Borrowing from Catholic Culture.org

Canadian bishop defends Pope, criticizes Archbishop Weakland, New York Times

March 30, 2010

Denouncing “attempts to personally embroil Benedict XVI in the sex abuse scandals,” Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary has written a pastoral letter in which he criticizes the inaccurate reporting of The New York Times and notes that retired Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee “did nothing” about the notorious Father Lawrence Murphy between 1977 and 1996.

“The New York Times on March 25, and parroted by other newspapers, accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of intervening to prevent a Wisconsin priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, from facing penalties for cases of sexual abuse of minors. The story is not even supported by the evidence of the Times,” Bishop Henry writes.

He continues:

Cardinal Ratzinger does not appear in the record as taking any decision. His office, in the person of his deputy, Archbishop (Tarcisio) Bertone, agreed that there should be a full canonical trial. When it became apparent that Father Murphy was in failing health, Archbishop Bertone suggested more expeditious means of removing him from any ministry.

Furthermore, under canon law at the time, the principal responsibility for sexual abuse cases lay with the local bishop. Archbishop (Rembert) Weakland had from 1977 onward the responsibility of administering penalties to Father Murphy. He did nothing until 1996. It was at that point that Cardinal Ratzinger's office became involved, and it subsequently did nothing to impede the local process.

In August 1998, Archbishop Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from ministry. That same month, Father Murphy dies.

The New York Times flatly got the story wrong. Readers may want to speculate on why.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• Bishop Henry: It's wrong to point finger at Pope in sex abuse scandals (Calgary Herald)

Days of Darkness

Hi Folks

As I was trying to fall asleep last night, I was reflecting on current 'events' in the Church.  Maybe not so current...and maybe not really events.  Depends on who you talk to, I think.

There is another newscast, this one from Rome (as if that lends it some sort of legitimacy.  No one from Vatican 'officialdom' had any part in the clip).  More on Benedict's involvement (so they say) in the abuse scandals.  "People" are demanding transparency from the Pope.

Sure.  They will likely get it.  As a matter of fact, if they read Church sources instead of what's in the media, the light might already be dawning.  Transparency will not help.  People will not believe what does not fit into their pre-conceived notions...at least not without some sort of revelation.

One need only look at the 'case' (so they say) surrounding Pius XII's supposed non-aid toward the Jews.  SO much of what was done by the Vatican is part of the public record, and has been for years, if one really wanted to find it.  Now, the Vatican has released a pile more of their documents surrounding the time of WWII.  I will be very surprised if this quiets the chattering classes.  I will be grateful...but surprised.  There really was enough evidence already available to show the good works of Pius XII.

Jesus had the same problem.  People asked Him for miracles to prove that he was the Messiah.  They'd had plenty.  Jesus recognized that more miracles would not change their minds.

The Pope is under attack.  No question.  He needs our prayers.  Even if you're not convinced of his lack of involvement in alleged scandal cover-ups, please pray that the Truth will be borne out...and that we'll all listen.

Keeping the record straight on Benedict and the crisis

Today I'm borrowing someone else's work.


I will pose a rhetorical question of my own, though.  If people are really concerned about the welfare of the victims, why is it that only the Catholic Church comes under this much scrutiny?


Have a blessed Holy Week.


Keeping the record straight on Benedict and the crisis
By John L Allen Jr

Mar 26, 2010

Intense scrutiny is being devoted these days to Pope Benedict XVI's history on the sex abuse crisis. Revelations from Germany have put his five years as a diocesan bishop under a spotlight, and a piece on Thursday in The New York Times, on the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy of Milwaukee, also called into question his Vatican years as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Despite complaints in some quarters that all this is about wounding the pope and/or the church, raising these questions is entirely legitimate. Anyone involved in church leadership at the most senior levels for as long as Benedict XVI inevitably bears some responsibility for the present mess. My newspaper, the National Catholic Reporter, today called editorially for full disclosure [1] about the pope's record, and it now seems abundantly clear that only such transparency can resolve the hard questions facing Benedict.

Yet as always, the first casualty of any crisis is perspective. There are at least three aspects of Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis which are being misconstrued, or at least sloppily characterized, in today's discussion. Bringing clarity to these points is not a matter of excusing the pope, but rather of trying to understand accurately how we got where we are.

The following, therefore, are three footnotes to understanding Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis.

1. Not the 'Point Man'

First, some media reports have suggested that then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger presided over the Vatican office with responsibility for the sex abuse crisis for almost a quarter-century, from 1981 until his election to the papacy in April 2005, and therefore that he's responsible for whatever the Vatican did or didn't do during that entire stretch of time. That's not correct.

In truth, Ratzinger did not have any direct responsibility for managing the overall Vatican response to the crisis until 2001, four years before he became pope.

Bishops were not required to send cases of priests accused of sexual abuse to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until 2001, when they were directed to do so by Pope John Paul II's motu proprio titled Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela. Prior to that, most cases involving sex abuse never got to Rome. In the rare instance when a bishop wanted to laicize an abuser priest against his will, the canonical process involved would be handled by one of the Vatican courts, not by Ratzinger's office.

Prior to 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith got involved only in the exceedingly rare instances when the sex abuse occurred in the context of the confessional, since a canonical tribunal within the congregation handled cases involving abuse of the sacrament of penance. That, for example, is how the case of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, ended up in the congregation, and it's also why officials in the Milwaukee archdiocese directed the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy there.

One certainly can question how Ratzinger's office handled those exceptional cases, and the record seems painfully slow and ambivalent in comparison with how similar accusations would be dealt with today. Moreover, Ratzinger was a senior Vatican official from 1981 forward, and therefore he shares in the corporate failure in Rome to appreciate the magnitude of the crisis until terribly late in the game.

To suggest, however, that Ratzinger was the Vatican's "point man" on sex abuse for almost twenty-five years, and to fault him for the mishandling of every case that arose between 1981 and 2001, is misleading. Prior to 2001, Ratzinger had nothing personally to do with the vast majority of sex abuse cases, even the small percentage which wound up in Rome.

2. The 2001 letter
In some reporting and commentary, a May 2001 letter from Ratzinger to the bishops of the world, titled De delictis gravioribus, is being touted as a "smoking gun" proving that Ratzinger attempted to thwart reporting priestly sex abuse to the police or other civil authorities by ordering the bishops to keep it secret.

That letter indicates that certain grave crimes, including the sexual abuse of a minor, are to be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that they are "subject to the pontifical secret." The Vatican insists, however, that this secrecy applied only to the church's internal disciplinary procedures, and was not intended to prevent anyone from also reporting these cases to the police or other civil authorities. Technically they're correct, since nowhere in the 2001 letter is there any prohibition on reporting sex abuse to police or civil prosecutors.

In reality, few bishops needed a legal edict from Rome ordering them not to talk publicly about sexual abuse. That was simply the culture of the church at the time, which makes the hunt for a "smoking gun" something of a red herring right out of the gate. Fixing a culture -- one in which the Vatican, to be sure, was as complicit as anyone else, but one which was widespread and deeply rooted well beyond Rome -- is never as simple as abrogating one law and issuing another.

That aside, here's the key point about Ratzinger's 2001 letter: Far from being seen as part of the problem, at the time it was widely hailed as a watershed moment towards a solution. It marked recognition in Rome, really for the first time, of how serious the problem of sex abuse really is, and it committed the Vatican to getting directly involved. Prior to that 2001 motu proprio and Ratzinger's letter, it wasn't clear that anyone in Rome acknowledged responsibility for managing the crisis; from that moment forward, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would play the lead role.

Beginning in 2001, Ratzinger was forced to review all the files on every priest credibly accused of sexual abuse anywhere in the world, giving him a sense of the contours of the problem that virtually no one else in the Catholic church can claim. In a recent article, I outlined the "conversion experience" Ratzinger and his staff went through after 2001. Beforehand, he came off as just another Roman cardinal in denial; after his experience of reviewing the files, he began to talk openly about the "filth" in the church, and his staff became far more energetic about prosecuting abusers.

For those who have followed the church's response to the crisis, Ratzinger's 2001 letter is therefore seen as a long overdue assumption of responsibility by the Vatican, and the beginning of a far more aggressive response. Whether that response is sufficient is, of course, a matter for fair debate, but to construe Ratzinger's 2001 letter as no more than the last gasp of old attempts at denial and cover-up misreads the record.

3. Canonical Trials
Ratzinger's top deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on sex abuse cases, Maltese Monsignor Charles Scicluna, recently gave an interview to an Italian Catholic paper in which he said that of the more than 3,000 cases eventually referred to Rome, only 20 percent were subjected to a full canonical trial. In some reporting, including the Thursday piece in The New York Times, this figure has been cited as evidence of Vatican "inaction."

Once again, however, those who have followed the story closely have almost exactly the opposite impression.

Back in June 2002, when the American bishops first proposed a set of new canonical norms to Rome, the heart of which was the "one strike and you're out" policy, they initially wanted to avoid canonical trials altogether. Instead, they wanted to rely on a bishop's administrative power to permanently remove a priest from ministry. That's because their experience of Roman tribunals over the years was that they were often slow, cumbersome, and the outcome was rarely certain.

Most famously, bishops and experts would point to the case of Fr. Anthony Cipolla in Pittsburgh, during the time that Donald Wuerl, now the Archbishop of Washington, was the local bishop. Wuerl had removed Cipolla from ministry in 1988 following allegations of sexual abuse. Cipolla appealed to Rome, where the Apostolic Signatura, in effect the Vatican's supreme court, ordered him reinstated. Wuerl then took the case to Rome himself, and eventually prevailed. The experience left many American bishops, however, with the impression that lengthy canonical trials were not the way to handle these cases.

When the new American norms reached Rome, they ran into opposition precisely on the grounds that everyone deserves their day in court -- another instance, in the eyes of critics, of the Vatican being more concerned about the rights of abuser priests than victims. A special commission of American bishops and senior Vatican officials brokered a compromise, in which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would sort through the cases one-by-one and decide which ones would be sent back for full trials.

The fear at the time was that the congregation would insist on trials in almost every case, thereby dragging out the administration of justice, and closure for the victims, almost indefinitely. In the end, however, only 20 percent were sent back for trials, while for the bulk of the cases, 60 percent, bishops were authorized to take immediate administrative action, because the proof was held to be overwhelming.

The fact that only 20 percent of the cases were subjected to full canonical trial has been hailed as a belated grasp in Rome of the need for swift and sure justice, and a victory for the more aggressive American approach to the crisis. It should be noted, too, that bypassing trials has been roundly criticized by some canon lawyers and Vatican officials as a betrayal of the due process safeguards in church law.

Hence to describe that 20 percent figure as a sign of "inaction" cannot help but seem, to anyone who's been paying attention, rather ironic. In truth, handling 60 percent of the cases through the stroke of a bishop's pen has, up to now, more often been cited as evidence of exaggerated and draconian action by Ratzinger and his deputies.

Obviously, none of this is to suggest that Benedict's handling of the crisis -- in Munich, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or as pope -- is somehow exemplary. An accounting needs to be offered if this pope, and the church he leads, hopes to move forward. For that analysis to be constructive, however, as opposed to fueling polarization and confusion, it's important to keep the record straight.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]

Father knows best

So, how 'bout that Pope?

Pope Benedict XVI never ceases to amaze me. His selection from among the other Cardinals started it. He was so OLD!

He was already known, too, as something of a hard-liner as far as adherence to Catholic teaching went. I counted that as a good thing.

He has not disappointed. He may have a short pontificate, but his influence will resound for a long time. Of this I have little doubt. He predicted that his pontificate would see the reduction of the Catholic Church to a smaller institution, but one less swayed by the winds of public opinion. One can only hope that is prophetic.

As it is now, there are so many who call themselves Catholic, but who hold few of the tenets of the Church and seem hell-bent on changing the Church to suit their notions. Protestants may goad us about Sacred Tradition, in which they say they do not believe. It would seem a good many Catholics do not believe in it either.

Having a Church in which fewer of these dissenters are present could only be a good thing.

Pope Benedict, it seems to me, is making it more and more difficult to be a dissenting Catholic. His clarifications on our beliefs only reiterate Church teaching. His refusal to pander to public opinion will, I think, give confidence to loyal Catholics.

He has been accused of public relations mis-steps. I do not think these were mis-steps at all. I think he knew exactly what he was saying, why he was saying it, and what the reaction to it would be. He is proclaiming Truth. He is saying what the Church believes on his own terms and not the terms of those who do not agree with the Church anyway. Imagine that.

I remember the day I accidently walked in on a pow-wow (sorry. I guess the proper term might be an O-group) of chaplains, both RC and others. I could feel tremendous tension in the room, although I did not actually hear anything that was being said. This was after the Pope told the denominations that they were not churches, but "ecclesial communities". As I spoke to one of the RC chaplains later he said to me "The truth hurts". The truth is this: Jesus formed only one Church, and that one is the Catholic Church. To believe anything else is to revise or ignore history.

He upset the Muslims with his Regensberg address, in which he quoted an earlier scholar who said something to the effect that Mohammed's additions to the faith of Abraham (which is shared by Jews, Christians and Muslims) were evil and violent.

In his writing, Benedict has very clearly taken issue with trends in liturgy, which he sees as novelties, and trends in theology which seem to try to remove Christ's divinity.

What he says is very clear. It's hard to read anything into his writings...nothing is hidden.

This Catholic feels very comfortable with Benedict as Pope. Long may he live!

The One-Two Punch

Hi Folks

Well, this past week, the Vatican has given us what I promptly dubbed a one-two punch. (I know Fr. Eutenauer also used this, but I used it before I read his letter...honestly!).

First, last Saturday, the long-awaited motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum was issued by the Pope. The motu proprio is essentially a memo from the Pope's office. In this case we were informed that the Tridentine Latin Mass (TLM) as it is called by some, may be celebrated by any priest, with or without permission of the local Bishop.

This Mass is now to be referred to as the Extraordinary form of the Mass, with the New, or Novus Ordo, or Mass of Paul VI, being the Ordinary form.

While I am not on the front lines of liturgical comings and goings, I know how I, and many of my friends, felt about this announcement.

I was pleased, and I know many of my friends were, too, although a couple wondered what all the fuss was about!

Do I hanker for an extraordinary form of the Mass in my neighbourhood? It would probably surprise many of my friends to hear me say "not particularly". If a priest in this vicinity cares to celebrate such once in a while, I will likely come and see what it's like. If it becomes a regular weekday Mass, I would attend whenever possible.

I am too young to have any real experience with what I will call, for expediency, the TLM . I've been to one and it disappointed me. That said, I can find my way around the TLM reasonably well, due to my study of liturgical music and its historical forms. And I was fortunate enough to have taken two years of Latin in High School.

What I am hoping for is a greater exposure to Latin and to more classic forms of liturgical music. It is news to many that even we of the post-Vatican II, 'new Mass', era are supposed to (according to the SC, Sacrosanctum Concilium, a Vatican II document) be able to recite the prayers of the Mass in Latin. I can do a little. Most people I know can do less.

And don't get me started on liturgical music. THAT is for another day.

Another thing I hope for is that those who ache for the Mass they grew up with will once again have the comfort of the unchanging Church. And for the young folk who are willing to take the step of familiarizing themselves with the TLM, go for it! It was a sad thing that Vatican II was seen to create such a breach in Church history. The TLM leaves little room for liturgical abuse, as it has few, if any, options. THAT alone is a reason for many to hanker for it.

The fallacy that congregations of the TLM didn't know what was going on during Mass continues to be perpetrated by those against the use of Latin. First, missals with both Latin and the vernacular (local language) have been available for a long time. Secondly, many people in the time of the TLM were taught about liturgy in school! Thirdly, if we think exclusive use of the vernacular for the celebration of Mass has automatically boosted people's understanding of what is happening during Mass, we would be mistaken. I've been in catechetics too long to believe Latin was the only obstacle for understanding Mass. And finally, is understanding Mass a requirement for anything? There are many aspects to our faith the are and will remain a mystery, regardless of the language of presentation.

The other 'punch' was delivered a few days later from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF). Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was head of this congregation before his election to Pope.

We Catholics have been told, on no uncertain terms, what our relationship with Protestants is. We have been told that their denominations are "defective". Ouch! That is a harsh word. But really, we have been told repeatedly in encyclicals, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in other places and times that the Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Christ, and the only Church that contains the fullness of Truth. Perhaps the strong language was used because all the kinder, gentler more politically correct words had been used up...and we weren't getting the message being extended.

Does this change the drive for Ecumenism? Not at all. It just reminds us of what we should have known all along. In the "ecumania", as an email friend of mine labelled it, started after Vatican II, most have lost sight of the goal, which is leading all to the complete Truth. What we had instead was a seeking of the lowest common denominator. Sure, we all know Jesus is Lord, and the God Loves Us. Most of us can recite the Lord's Prayer together. Some of us can recite the Liturgy of the Hours together. A very few of us can pray the Rosary together.

Many believe that 'real' ecumenism (and I believed this myself at one time) included ALL faiths, even those outside the umbrella of Christianity.

At the same time as all are gushing about ecumenism, many denominations (and by this I mean only Reformation churches and other Protestant groups. Catholicism is not a denomination) are gleefully scooping poorly formed Catholics into their folds, to feed on their ignorance and grow fat on their need to feel good.

There are many poorly formed Catholics. Changing Mass to vernacular languages didn't help that at all. Since Vatican II, few Catholics have been well formed in the basic tenets and requirements of the Faith. This has made us sitting ducks for congregations and denominations that make us feel good, and tell us what we want to hear. This happens within both Catholic and Protestant circles.

My personal feeling is that there is a very cozy place in Hell for Catholic teachers, be they priests, catechists, liturgists, parents or anyone else, who deliberately misrepresents Catholicism to make something relevant or to simply make someone feel good. How is endangering someone's immortal soul by lying to them a loving thing to do? Short term comfort could lead to long term, nay eternal, agony.

So, is pretending that ecumenism extends no farther than shared bowling matches and potlucks and singing Kumbaya a loving thing to do? Is telling members of the denominations that as long as they love Jesus and are good people they'll go to heaven, love? I do not see how it could be. We could be hanging a millstone around our own necks while we manage to tickle each others' ears with words of comfort alone, when what is needed is words of Truth.

I will add a word about our Jewish brethren. There has been a fear that increased use of the 'old' Mass, with its prayer for the conversion of the Jews will set back Jewish/Christian relations. Much of what I've said about applies to this situation as well.

A few years back, a group of American Bishops issued a document stating that the conversion of the Jews is not necessary for their salvation. This group rejected any further efforts on behalf of Christians to work toward this conversion.

This document was criticized from some high places. It is not considered representative of Church teaching.

So why are Jews surprised that prayers for their conversion should re-appear in the Mass?

It will be interesting to see the result of these two documents. There are already Catholics apologizing for the Church. They'd be the poorly formed ones who thought that the Church ever said anything different than what has been strongly stated this week.

I pray that wisdom and charity and God's will prevail.

God Bless