Press the title below of another article from Crux for another depressing story on how so many bishops and priests knew about McCarrick but no one in authority went public at the time and the behind the scenes ways to address it were totally ignored.
Clericalism exhibits itself in benign and maglignant ways and when in secret attempts are made to correct it, often nothing happens. Think of the priest who abuses the liturgy or preaches heresy or is just plain mean and unpastoral. What is done to correct it?
But when it is brought to the light by the new or old media, there seems to be all kinds of people falling all over each other to address the problem.
Another form of clericalism has been exhibited by Pope Francis. There are at least 5 cardinals who wrote a public dubia to the pope concerning serious questions they have about some of his teachings. I suspect they did this privately, but to no avail, and then went public. Oddly, the form of clericalism Pope Francis exhits doesn't affect him even when it goes public. Thus no answer whatsoever to the cardinals legitmate concerns. They were ignored and two of the five have since died, maybe due to the humiliation?
Transparency in very serious issues concerning deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals and even the pope is necessary. But there needs to be a transparent canonical way to do it.
Transparency is important to prevent sexual abuse by clerics in the Church. It is also necessary to prevent the abuse of the liturgy, of doctrine and of dogma and yes the abuse of one's clerical office too.
Pope Francis should have set the example in being open to correction in a canonical way. He should have answered the dubia. If His Holiness had done so, Pope Franics would have more credibility in his so-called fight against "clericalism."
Clericalism exhibits itself in benign and maglignant ways and when in secret attempts are made to correct it, often nothing happens. Think of the priest who abuses the liturgy or preaches heresy or is just plain mean and unpastoral. What is done to correct it?
But when it is brought to the light by the new or old media, there seems to be all kinds of people falling all over each other to address the problem.
Another form of clericalism has been exhibited by Pope Francis. There are at least 5 cardinals who wrote a public dubia to the pope concerning serious questions they have about some of his teachings. I suspect they did this privately, but to no avail, and then went public. Oddly, the form of clericalism Pope Francis exhits doesn't affect him even when it goes public. Thus no answer whatsoever to the cardinals legitmate concerns. They were ignored and two of the five have since died, maybe due to the humiliation?
Transparency in very serious issues concerning deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals and even the pope is necessary. But there needs to be a transparent canonical way to do it.
Transparency is important to prevent sexual abuse by clerics in the Church. It is also necessary to prevent the abuse of the liturgy, of doctrine and of dogma and yes the abuse of one's clerical office too.
Pope Francis should have set the example in being open to correction in a canonical way. He should have answered the dubia. If His Holiness had done so, Pope Franics would have more credibility in his so-called fight against "clericalism."
7 comments:
"They were ignored and two of the five have since died, maybe due to the humiliation?"
What a silly comment.
Maybe they died from a stroke, heart attack, old age, falling off a bus into Roman traffic, or eating too much pasta.
Maybe...?
There is no legal way to remove a Pope no matter what. And the current HF should be removed because he has failed in his major function: to support the faithful with clear, unambiguous teaching of the deposit of the faith and hence to avoid schism in the Church. Yet, he teaches ambiguously and also contrary to the magisterium of the past 2000 years on the nature of marriage, homosexual sex, capital punishment, and the worthy reception of Holy Communion. He could shoot some one on St. Peter square in the morning and lecture the College of Cardinals about whatever and he would still be the Pope. Now that is clericalism.
The rabbi who taught us Hebrew in college said that when he dies and arrives at the gates for the particular judgment, God will ask, "What did you do with the gifts I gave you?"
A @11:56,
I would not have thought until this papacy and with the sexual misconduct crisis in all its various shades from black and white to lavender, that the office of the papacy needs canonical checks and balances. But the fact that the post Vatican Church is more centered on the human as the center, the end all and be all, we now have the cult of the personality on steroids, especially that of the pope which went into high gear with JPII. Thankfully there were no questions about his orthodoxy.
Yes the “Supreme” in pontiff needs some parameters, canonical parameters.
"The rabbi who taught us Hebrew in college said that when he dies and arrives at the gates for the particular judgment, God will ask, 'What did you do with the gifts I gave you?'"
And his response will be, "Well, in addition to my perfidious denial of Your Son, I taught Mike and the boys Hebrew for some reason. Oh and how to be Pelagians!"
"Save the liturgy; save the world!" Fr. Z always says. To me, this post highlights this. Liturgical abuse is ignored and, is often encouraged. Pouring forth from that are the other abuses, child and sexual abuse of all types among them. If, the post conciliar church, except for small pockets like a Bishop Sample, Burbidge or, Morlino, ignores that from which all else pours forth - the liturgy - what makes anyone think it will take seriously and address in a transparent fashion all the other abuses? It all comes back to fundamentals.
Anonymous at 1:11 PM - LOL
Post a Comment