|
|
 |
James
Blinkoff
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
The Catholic Church has long maintained that
it has a special relationship with God because
the Church was founded by Jesus.
It also believes that those called to the
priesthood receive their calling directly
from God.
I understand the distinction between infallibility
and impeccability and understand that none
other than Christ Himself is exempt from sin.
I do not blame Benedict XVI, Cardinal Law,
or any other bishops involved in the
sex abuse scandal for doing what they thought
was right in sending the offending priests
under their jurisdiction first to therapy
and then back into the community. I am sure
they acted as they thought was best for the
Church, the victims, and the priests. I also
believe that they prayed for guidance as to
what they should do but I do blame God for
not providing better guidance in answer to
their prayers.
I recognize that hindsight is 20/20 and that
the bishops were following the best medical
and scientific advice at the time of their
action. Nonetheless, it seems to me that
God's decision not to make His representatives
impeccable in their relationships with children
and His decision not to provide better guidance
to His bishops undercuts and perhaps destroys
the Church's claim to a special relationship
with God and to Her claim that each priest
received his calling directly from God.
- Why is my reasoning and conclusion erroneous?
What has made this scandal so different from
similar scandals affecting the boy scouts
and other secular or religious institutions (where the percentage of abusers is about
the same) is that:
- none of them claim a special relationship
to God and that
- parents trusted priests to care for their
children and children trusted the priests
who cared for them because they assumed
that God had made the priests impeccable
in their dealings with children, even as
they recognized that priests, being mortals,
were afflicted by other sins.
This is a serious question and I am not seeking
a Jobian cop-out which says that as mortals
we are not able to second guess the mind of
God. I say this is a cop-out because when any
religion is faced with a question it cannot
answer, it tends to use this response as its
final answer. The problem is that while faith
requires faith, most religions agree that
faith and reason are not at odds. The
Church, for example, provides rationales
for its dogmas ranging from:
- Humane Vitae
- to the infallible doctrines dealing with
Mary
- to Galileo's excommunication
- to it defense of slavery
- to its claim that Vatican II's revisions
were evolutionary rather than revolutionary
- to its prohibition against women priests.
but in the sex abuse scandal, it has no rationales,
not even one which resembles Pope St. John II's
apologies . . . where he blamed members of the Church
rather than the Church Herself for past misdeeds.
James
|
|
{
Since I don't blame the Church for the sex abuse scandal, why is my reasoning on this erroneous? }
|
|
Mike
replied:
|
Hi, James —
You said:
I understand the distinction between infallibility
and impeccability and understand that none
other than Christ Himself is exempt from sin.
Not quite: The Church teaches:
- Christ, a Divine Person, was
obviously sinless and
- Mary, a human person, was sinless.
You said:
Nonetheless, it seems to me that
God's decision not to make His representatives
impeccable in their relationships with children
and His decision not to provide better guidance
to His bishops undercuts and perhaps destroys
the Church's claim to a special relationship
with God and to Her claim that each priest
received his calling directly from God.
- Why is my reasoning and conclusion erroneous?
There is no denying that the Church's
handling of cases of sexual abuse
and pederast priests was for years
more than deplorable. The acts of
these priests have been criminal.
Changes in the manner of handling
these tragedies have come far too
late. I disagree with rationale that
defends Cardinal Law and the like
along the lines you have suggested.
Objectivity and intellectual honesty
require us to insist, however, that
those changes have nonetheless come.
Pope Benedict has spear-headed this
campaign, despite what you hear in
the main stream media about his possible
mistakes as a Cardinal. ("Let
he who is without sin cast the first
stone." John 8:7). The United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops has put out their
own document on the issue of
protecting children.
Your reasoning and conclusion are
erroneous because you make the premise
that because priests, by God's will,
are not impeccable (sinless, like
Our Lady), it undercuts and perhaps
destroys the Church's claim to a
special relationship with God.
It doesn't!
- Does it hurt the secular world's
view of the moral authority of
the Church?
Of course it does. I'd be an idiot
to say otherwise.
Nevertheless, History is history and believers, have to remember that
Our Blessed Lord built
His Church on St. Peter and his successors
and said the gates of Hell would
not prevail against it [on issues
of official faith and morals]. (Matthew
16:13-19) . . .
- with bad, scandalous, embarrassing
behavior? <Yes!>
- with false Teachings? <No!>
Unbelievers, or cafeteria (pick
and choose) catholics just go through
the motions for convenience. They
have to accept the whole faith and
defend it; even in rough times.
You said:
but in the sex abuse scandal, it has no rationales,
not even one which resembles Pope St. John II's
apologies . . . where he blamed members of the Church
rather than the Church Herself for past misdeeds.
That's because grievous, horrific
behavior against children cannot
be defended. When Our Blessed Lord
created man and woman, he gave them
free will. This included free will
to do stupid, sinful things; outside, as well as inside,
the Church.
If Catholic seminaries are not places
of (24/7) holiness, the Christian spirituality
of the United States will plummet. Why? Because we (Catholic Christians) are the Elder Christian brothers to those separated brethren who have not totally accepted the Church Jesus historically founded.
In my humble opinion, the two vocations
that will have the hardest particular
judgment are:
- Catholic seminary teachers, and
- Journalism professors from academia.
These two vocations can either make
the world a much better place
or far worse. Everyone should
pray for this two special vocations.
Hope this answers your question.
Mike
|
James
replied:
|
Dear Mike:
I thank you for your response, but
like George Weigel's article
in the current issue of Newsweek, it seems to me to ignore the elephant
in the house.
Either the Church is
the Mystic Body of Christ or it is
not. If the Church is like any other
earthly institutions then I agree,
it has done a first rate job in:
- cleaning
up the sexual abuse mess and
- taking
steps to prevent its recurrence
but if it is just another earthly
institution, then its claim to be
infallible on matters of faith and
morals is also kaput. If it
is the Mystical Body of Christ, then
the Church, as a holy institution,
has completely betrayed the children
entrusted to its care.
Jim Blinkoff
|
Mike
replied:
|
Hi, Jim —
You have to separate the morality
of the Church's Teachings from the
morality of its members, not
only among the clergy, but
among the faithful as well. Back
in Genesis, when God created man
and woman, he created them with free
will to do good or evil.
That was His Idea, not ours. If you
can show me where the Church's official
teachings are less than Christian
you have a point. Remember though, infallibility is a negative safeguard.
- It doesn't mean the Pope, or bishop's
in union with him, will always
say the best, holiest thing.
- It doesn't mean the pope will
always make the best choices for
bishops.
It means that the Holy Spirit will
protect him, only the Pope, from
teaching doctrinal errors in his
official capacity as Pope.
Mike
|
Jim
replied:
|
Mike:
Thank you for your response. I do
have a further question which is
raised by your response:
- If the Holy Spirit protects the
Pope and bishops from making doctrinal
error on matters of faith and
morals, were not the parents and
children themselves entitled to
believe and act upon the assumption
that the Holy Spirit would protect
the children from abusive actions
of priests?
Jim
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
Jim,
Humanly speaking, children and parents
should have the reasonable expectation
that ministers of God will act in
a godly manner, as they should have
a reasonable expectation that teachers
will act in an edifying manner, but
there is no divine guarantee that
a person will not commit a sin, even
for priests. That is the great mystery
— how evil and free will can
co-exist with an omnipotent and absolutely
good God.
Job solved it by knowing God and
trusting him, without denying the
evil. Christ took the solution further:
He says that He has overcome the
world, and we can trust Him for justice
in the end, bearing, in us and
with us, the evils of this world,
and using them for His Good Purpose.
Mary Ann
|
Jim
replied:
|
Thank you, Mary Ann.
I concur, except that teachers do
not claim that the institution they
represent is the mystical Body of
the Lord. As I said in my original
question, in my view, Job's final
response to God was a cop-out and
inconsistent with earlier portions
of the Book of Job.
While I agree that the ability of
evil and free will to co-exist is
a great mystery, I also believe God
should have done a better job in
making the rationale for the coexistence of the two
clearer to man either through Christ
or otherwise.
Jim
[Related Posting|Related Posting|Related Posting|Related Posting]
|
|
|
|
