In 1859, Charles Dickens penned the classic A Tale of Two Cities. The opening paragraph, one of the most famous in all of literature, reads thusly:
“It was the best of times,
it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of
foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it
was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of
hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing
before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the
other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some
of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for
evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”
For whatever it’s worth,
recent events in the Catholic Church
summon for me thoughts of those pointed analogies. Of course, I must first admit I approach this
conversation from the perspective of a non-Catholic. As such, it’s perfectly fine for all the
practicing members of the Faith to
dismiss my views as the feeble rant of someone without a clue.
With that disclaimer out of
the way, here goes. Last Thursday, Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger) left behind Vatican City, the Papal Ring, and his red Pradas; becoming the first Pope to resign since Pope Gregory XII in 1415, and the first to do so of his own volition since Pope
Celestine V in 1294 (719 years ago). He is expected to return to the Vatican City
There has been rampant
speculation and numerous conspiracy theories about why, after more than seven
centuries, a Pope chose to opt out. To be fair, this Pope has a number of health challenges, and he cited those maladies as the basis for his decision to leave his elevated station. Still, in full disclosure, much
of the chum being circulated about reasons, at least tangentially associated with the Pope's departure, is
downright salacious. Theories comprise a generous mixture of sex, lies, hypocrisy, secrecy, and of course, money. No word of videotape…yet!
Christendom
acknowledges acts against God as sin.
The most objectionable elements of these acts are often referred to as
Cardinal Sins, Capital Vices, or The Seven Deadly Sins.
The Roman Catholic Church divides sin into two categories: venial sins, in which guilt is relatively minor, and the more
severe mortal sins. In order to eliminate any confusion, the
Cardinal Sins referred to in this post are Cardinal Sins because…they were
committed by Roman Catholic Cardinals; not birds, not the Baseball Team, or the Football Team,
but men; Roman Catholic Priests.
This post points to two
highly placed Catholic officials, and
examines the different ways they are responding to their virtual perp walks. So it is, rather than, A Tale of Two Cities, a tale of two Cardinals; prelates from
different continents, but both influential heavyweights in their own spheres.
On the American Left Coast, the Archbishop of Metropolitan Los Angeles, José Horacio Gómez, removed Cardinal Roger Mahony of all his public and episcopal duties in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, on January
31, 2013. The Archbishop took this action after the release of personnel files
documenting priest sexual abuse cases during Cardinal Mahaony’s tenure.
In 1985, Pope John Paul II appointed Mahony
Archbishop of Los Angeles; he made
him a Cardinal in 1991.
In July 2007, Mahoney and the Catholic Church in Los Angeles Boston , where Massachusetts
Deliver Us From Evil,
a 2006 documentary
chronicles accusations that Cardinal Mahony
knew that a priest serving under him, Oliver
O'Grady, a native of the Republic of Ireland, had a two decades long
history of sexually abusing and molesting children (including one infant), but
that he failed to keep him away from children.
The film claims that in a 1984 (was this Orwellian?) a Stockton police investigation into sexual
abuse allegations against O’Grady was reportedly closed after diocesan
officials promised to remove the priest from any contact with children. Instead, Mahony
reassigned O’Grady to a parish approximately 50 miles east, in San Andreas,
where O’Grady continued to molest children.
By 2012, authorities obtained
internal Church documents showing Mahony had organized the movement of
sexual predators across jurisdictional boundaries to complicate any possible
prosecution. In 1987 he prohibited a priest from seeking therapy for his urges on
the grounds that a therapist might report the crimes to police.
The New York Times, in January
2013, editorialized: "No member of
the Roman Catholic hierarchy fought longer and more energetically than
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles
The only additional piece of information you need to know is, “This man is one of the 115 Cardinals who
will be part of the Papal conclave to elect the next Pope.”
Cardinal Keith O’Brien was Britain
O’Brien, who was also the
Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh Vatican
In addition, O’Brien said through
a spokesman, he is contesting the allegations of reported in a British newspaper, Sunday, February 24th, that three priests had files
complaints to the Vatican alleging
that the Cardinal acted
inappropriately with them. The newspaper
did not name the priests, but said their allegations date back to the 1980’s.
The behavior was not detailed in the story.
This is the first time a Cardinal
has recused himself from a Papal conclave
because of personal scandal. The episode
follows closely a grass roots campaign to shame another Cardinal, Roger Mahony,
into refraining from participating because of his role in protecting sexually
abusive priests. As noted above, however, Cardinal Mahony has, in defiant
fashion, opted to ignore the calls for him to decline participation in the
conclave to elect a new Pope.
An interesting, if not key distinction in the behavior of the two Cardinals is that in Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahoney has been
shown to have covered up the indiscretions of other priests (a category of
violation that has historically shielded accused bishops of sanction), whereas,
in St. Andrews and Edinburgh,
Cardinal O’Brien has been accused
personally of improper behavior. It
seems likely; this difference in focus is the basis for the difference in the
two men’s decision on whether to attend the conclave to elect the Pope.
There are undoubtedly a great many sociological evaluations and assessments delving into why these issues are plaguing the Catholic Church. Without exhausting the full range of possibilities, one observation screams so loudly, it is difficult to ignore.
Mark Dowd, a former Dominican Friar and currently a
freelance writer, wrote in The Guardian
last Monday, that a series of
respondents were interviewed through a program called Queer and Catholic. He notes that:
“We interviewed clerics and ex-seminarians in the UK, US and Rome and uncovered a huge
irony: the very institution that teaches that the homosexual orientation is
"intrinsically disordered" attracts gay candidates for the priesthood
in numbers way in excess of what one would expect, based on numbers in society
at large. One seminary rector based on his own experience told me the number
was at least 50%.”
For its part, the Catholic Church’s
position is certainly not that there are no gay priests. Rather, their vows should trump their
nature. That may be the design, and in a
perfect world, that might be precisely as it would play out. Alas, in the real world scenarios with which
we are faced, we are left to ask, “How’s
that working for you?”
That Pope Benedict XVI, frail
though he admits he is, has by retiring, positioned himself to return to his
long held academic pursuits, is at least in some ways a positive outcome of
this Papacy. It had been more that 700 years since a Pope took
such an unusual course. May the Pope Emeritus enjoy his remaining time,
and immerse himself in pursuits that will continue to accrue to the love of his
life; the Catholic Church.
That the Catholic Church finds
itself roiled by controversy of such a prurient
nature is a most unfortunate circumstance for the institution. By all appearances, the combination of
contemporary folkways and mores, in conjunction with the will of
many people who call themselves Catholic
will serve to make complicated all efforts to resolve the many dynamic issues
related to this matter. Yet, at their
core, Catholics are believers, and it
is written in Mark 9: 23: “Jesus said
unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.”
So,
In a Dickensian kind of way, it
is the best of times, it is the worst of times.
Meanwhile, it is also time we took a closer look at “Cardinal Sins: Catholicism and the Question of Priestly Celibacy.”
I’m done; holla back.
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com
or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com.
A new post is published each Wednesday.
To subscribe, click on Follow
in the bottom right hand corner of my Home
Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com;
enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me
up.” Subsequent editions of “Break
It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.
For more detailed
information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult
the links below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/anti-gay-rhetoric-of-religious-leaders
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment