I sent the following letter to the Wall Street Journal in response to an article by Peggy Noonan on the Church hierarchy and its handling of the child sex abuse scandal. It is probably my letter to the editor most worth sharing with my readers:
4/3/10
In her characteristically well written and argued 4/3 “Opinion” piece, Peggy Noonan states that “…it happened in the Catholic Church, where hundred of priests and bishops thought they could do any amount of damage to the church, and it would be fine.” As Ms. Noonan goes on to say, the operative assumption of those in the hierarchy who abuse the Church by failing to adequately address the seemingly global child accuse scandal that encompasses the Church is “The old church will survive.”
Ms. Noonan further argues, among other things, that the Church indeed will survive due to the heroic efforts of what she describes as “the good priests and good nuns” and the “heroic (lay) Catholics of the U.S. and now Europe, the hardy souls who, in spite of what has been done to their church are still there...”
As one of those who, despite probably being not all that heroic, is “still there,” I agree, but I would take it a step further. One of the reasons that I believe that the Church is a divinely inspired institution, in addition to Mathew 16:18, which Ms. Noonan quotes, is that the Church has survived the legions of charlatans, knaves, mountebanks, nincompoops, misanthropes, and outright evil men who have ostensibly run it (interspersed, of course, with legions of saintly, holy, loving, caring, and wise men) through much of its history. No institution that is not divinely ordained could have survived the outright idiots who have found themselves nominally running the Church through so much of its history. And the Church will indeed survive the current crowd that thinks it is in charge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Maybe it will survive...but should it? Actions (or inactions) have consequences. I used to think there was something comforting about being a part of the original christian church and not being one of the seemingly less loyal protestant formations (at least that's what Joyce argued and the priests want us to believe), but at some point it becomes clear that those who broke away made the morally correct decision. The theology is not very different in Episcopal or Lutheran and Presbyterian congregations, and the awful soul-crushing baggage of the Catholic Church's history (which continues to this day with Benedict) is not poisoning the well each Sunday. No doubt many good-hearted people of high character remain in the pews, but as Ronald Reagan said about the Democratic Party, "I didn't leave the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church left me."
OK, Devious -- don't move!
4/6/10
Two great comments so far…
On the first comment…
VERY thoughtful comment on the value, or morality, of remaining in the Church. Don’t think (and I don’t think anybody who has read my original comment does) that thoughts such as those you expressed haven’t crossed my mind. But, for now, at least, (at the expense of sounding sacrilegious), like Tom Hagen, I’m staying, for many reasons, including:
First, I love and need the Eucharist and am not convinced that the Protestant denominations have the “full,” for lack of a better term, Eucharist. On the other hand, I do have problems with transubstantiation; while I surely have no trouble believing in the full presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I’m not sure consubstantiation does not make as much sense. Yet I still believe in transubstantiation even if it often makes no sense to me because the Church teaches I should believe in transubstantiation. In that sense, I feel very Catholic. Note that I don’t believe everything the Church says I should believe. Transubstantiation, though, is, to put it mildly, a biggie, and so I believe.
Second, I fear for what would happen if people who, like I, question the Church were all to go elsewhere (the ELCA or the Episcopalian church, perhaps), leaving only the “pray, pay, and obey” crowd. Could you imagine what the hierarchy would get away with then, with no one in the Church to call them on it?
Third, it is my Church as much as it is the hierarchy’s, or at least that it what I perhaps naively believe. Why should I leave my Church to them?
Fourth, believe it or not, I still revel in many traditions of the “old” Church: I prefer to kneel during the Eucharistic prayer, I would rather go “into the box” for confession, I look forward to the Easter Vigil each years, I admire and respect most priests I know or have known personally, I think the sisters are about the best people in the world, I love to sing the “Agnus Dei,” I like the more traditional Catholic hymns (though I have to admit that the old time Protestant hymns like “Amazing Grace” and “How Great Thou Art” can usually stir me as much), etc.
Fifth, I just don’t know how NOT to be a Catholic. It’s such a part of my identity that I somehow feel I wouldn’t be me if I were to leave.
Some might argue that, thinking like I do, I already have left the Church, but that would be the “pray, pay, and obey” crowd who have somehow granted themselves the exclusive power to determine who is somehow “worthy” of the Church.
On the second comment…
And at least someone got this latest example of what my students call my OGCRs (“Old Geezer Cultural References”)!
Thank you both for reading and contributing.
The Pontificator
The Tom Hagen reference is appropriate. As we learned in Godfather III, the One True Church and La Cosa Nostra have many similarities.
Each person has to make the choices that work for him. So as a member of downtrodden class, The Lapsed Catholic, I do not deny the power of childhood memories, of ritual, of music, of the all-encompassing culture that dominated my life from baptism until the end of 12th grade. In that way, the Roman Catholic Church is a successful organization. But it is a failure as a religion and a moral force. Ironically, it was the Jesuits and their insistence on questioning authority and rational thought that convinced me it was OK to reject dogma that made no sense to me and acknowledge the hypocrisy that undermines the church. But for me, it was easy to walk away. I was indoctrinated from a young age, but I never made that Leap of Faith that transforms a beautiful story into spiritual belief. Still, the beautiful story is enough for me. It has moral power even much of it is fiction. If you crave the spirituality, staying in your church is defensible; it sounds as if many elements of the Catholic Church provide you comfort, and you've made your peace with the rest.
4/7/10
“If you crave the spirituality, staying in your church is defensible; it sounds as if many elements of the Catholic Church provide you comfort, and you've made your peace with the rest.”
Very insightful comment; it’s almost as if you know me or that I’ve done a very good job elucidating my thought, and soul searching, process. I’d probably use words other than “comfort,” perhaps “spiritual succor” or “spiritual sustenance.”
In my case, too, it was the Jesuits, with their insistence on, as you put it “questioning authority and rational thought” that led me to feel free not only to question the Church (and most other authority), but also to express those thoughts and questions without fear of some kind of Divine retribution.
I will always remember an English teacher I (we?) had in my senior year of high school, a Jesuit, who told us that if we thought he was an a—hole, it was okay to think he was an a—hole or to say he was an a—hole, as long as we didn’t do it to his face, which none of us would have had the courage to do anyway. He said that if he, or any priest, was an a—hole, it had nothing to do with his priesthood but, rather, with him as an individual, which were separate things. Obviously, I’ve taken that advice to heart when I formulate and express my thoughts on many who share his vocation, especially at the upper reaches of the hierarchy. That particular priest, by the way, was no a—hole, but was a great and wonderful man whom I was privileged to see again at our 30th reunion, not long before he went home.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
The Pontificator
The church will never do it, but I think allowing priests to marry would help. For one, how can a Catholic go and talk to his priest about any marital issue? THe priest has no compass, except for the ever-popular have faith in God. I am a faith-based person, but it is in God and not the church. And is it only a circumstance that we only hear about this in the Catholic church, not in the Episcopalian and Lutheran churches where, I believe, priests are allowed to marry? THere was a huge priest/child molestation problem at Catholic reform schools in Ireland, a problem that we can't even blame on the hated Brits.
4/10/10
I think allowing priests to marry would help on a number of fronts, especially in providing pastors and spiritual guides who can relate to the problems of parents and families. And how many great priests have we lost over the years for the seemingly unpardonable sin of wanting to marry and have a family? Would allowing married priests help with the, for lack of a better term, child molestation problem? I think so, but probably indirectly. Allowing married priests would certainly broaden the pool of potential priests and might provide the hierarchy further insight into just how horrible a crime child abuse is.
Apparently, the Church has little problem with married priests. Eastern Rite priests can be married, though bishops can’t. Converted Lutheran ministers with families have become priests and, of course, are allowed to keep their families. Pope Benedict himself has extended an invitation to conservative Anglicans to join the faith and has stated that he would allow Anglican priests who convert to be married. I suppose I should qualify that first sentence: The Church has little problem with married priests when it suits the purposes of the hierarchy.
I hope you’re wrong when you assert that the Church will never allow priests to marry in cases other than those cited above. You are absolutely right that the Church will never allow priests to marry while Benedict remains pope. But things change, and Jesus guides His Church, so it would probably not be circumspect to use words like “never.”
Thanks for reading and commenting.
The Pontificator
Post a Comment