From the National Catholic Reporter ( I highlight in red my own comments and in blue what is clearly damnable about synodality and inculturation in so many other areas of the Church since Vatican II and now with Pope Francis:)
Aug 31, 2018
Along with seven other survivors I met with Pope Francis Aug. 25, at which time I asked him why the central Vatican Accountability Tribunal announced in 2015 was not being implemented.
In reply to me, he spoke of his belief that for cultural reasons such a tribunal was "not viable." He referenced his 2016 moto proprio "As A Loving Mother" at this time and later in his press conference Aug 26 on the plane home to Rome, rather than the tribunal.
On the plane he expressed the belief that I was a "bit fixated" and did not "understand" the process being used now. I have no problem in admitting to being determined to see those who protect perpetrators held accountable (though "fixated" is not how I would describe myself!)
The priest who abused me was exposed as a perpetrator to his bishop soon afterwards, but the bishop did nothing, and the priest went on to sexually assault little girls in his parishes for the next 30 years — hence my determination that perpetrators not be protected. (My comment: What Marie experienced is pedophilia and thus the reason why she calls her abuse not homosexual, but clericalism. A pedophile normally could care less about the sex of the small child and thus with pedophilia the problem indeed is not homosexuality but serious pathology enabled by power or clericalism that gives cover to the pedophile but in her case it was the bishop who enabled this pedophile as well as his status as a priest! But pedophilia is not the primary problem in the Catholic Church as bad as pedophilia is and the grotesque number of victims just one pedophile priest can have due to clericalism, the major problem is homosexual predatory behavior toward teenage boys and young adult men. These situations usually entail a fewer number of victims per priest compared to the true pedophile.)
I do understand the alternative option Francis has chosen over a centralized one. The statement in regard to my lack of understanding is reminiscent to me of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who after my resignation from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors in 2017 also said I did not "understand." I did in that case too.
Francis clearly now favors separate or local courts to hold bishops accountable, but I wonder: What has changed his mind since 2015? At that time a central Vatican Accountability Tribunal was recommended to him by his Commission for the Protection of Minors. This recommendation for a central tribunal was approved by every member of the Commission, experts he had chosen from differing cultural backgrounds to advise him.
On June 10, 2015, it was announced by the Council of Cardinals that the pope was in agreement with this recommendation and he would provide any funding or personnel needed to implement it. Later, it was reported to the Commission by a member close to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that it had been blocked by them and, as we know, it was never implemented.
Pope Francis has not explained why he accepted a central tribunal in 2015 but now feels it "is not possible." Who or what has caused him to change his mind? (my comment: very good question as we know that Pope Francis has surrounded himself with questionable advisors who are compromised themselves!)
The pope's main reason for different judges for different bishops, as expressed during the press conference, is because of the "different cultures of bishops who must be judged." This I freely admit I do not understand. The Catholic Church should have a universal standard to which all leaders are held.
On the plane he expressed the belief that I was a "bit fixated" and did not "understand" the process being used now. I have no problem in admitting to being determined to see those who protect perpetrators held accountable (though "fixated" is not how I would describe myself!)
The priest who abused me was exposed as a perpetrator to his bishop soon afterwards, but the bishop did nothing, and the priest went on to sexually assault little girls in his parishes for the next 30 years — hence my determination that perpetrators not be protected. (My comment: What Marie experienced is pedophilia and thus the reason why she calls her abuse not homosexual, but clericalism. A pedophile normally could care less about the sex of the small child and thus with pedophilia the problem indeed is not homosexuality but serious pathology enabled by power or clericalism that gives cover to the pedophile but in her case it was the bishop who enabled this pedophile as well as his status as a priest! But pedophilia is not the primary problem in the Catholic Church as bad as pedophilia is and the grotesque number of victims just one pedophile priest can have due to clericalism, the major problem is homosexual predatory behavior toward teenage boys and young adult men. These situations usually entail a fewer number of victims per priest compared to the true pedophile.)
I do understand the alternative option Francis has chosen over a centralized one. The statement in regard to my lack of understanding is reminiscent to me of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who after my resignation from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors in 2017 also said I did not "understand." I did in that case too.
Francis clearly now favors separate or local courts to hold bishops accountable, but I wonder: What has changed his mind since 2015? At that time a central Vatican Accountability Tribunal was recommended to him by his Commission for the Protection of Minors. This recommendation for a central tribunal was approved by every member of the Commission, experts he had chosen from differing cultural backgrounds to advise him.
On June 10, 2015, it was announced by the Council of Cardinals that the pope was in agreement with this recommendation and he would provide any funding or personnel needed to implement it. Later, it was reported to the Commission by a member close to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that it had been blocked by them and, as we know, it was never implemented.
Pope Francis has not explained why he accepted a central tribunal in 2015 but now feels it "is not possible." Who or what has caused him to change his mind? (my comment: very good question as we know that Pope Francis has surrounded himself with questionable advisors who are compromised themselves!)
The pope's main reason for different judges for different bishops, as expressed during the press conference, is because of the "different cultures of bishops who must be judged." This I freely admit I do not understand. The Catholic Church should have a universal standard to which all leaders are held.
My comment: Thank God for Marie stating the obvious and in a commonsense way and this is the root problem of synodality and inculturation especially when you think of the German bishops doing their own thing and how inculturation has deformed the Latin Rite Liturgies!: If in some cultures practices are acceptable that are not
approved in international law or in the church's own canon law — rather
than lower its standards to suit the culture, surely the church should
be ensuring they do the opposite and become a front-runner in changing
that culture in order to protect the vulnerable. All children should be
cherished equally.
Speaking at the press conference in the context of an accountability question, Francis referred to the finding against Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron as the last time this system was used. I believe this case was one of a perpetrator of abuse and so this is not an accountability issue. Why the confusion?
The pope speaks of the reason for not having a central tribunal as being that for some bishops "leaving their dioceses ... is not possible." If it is a true impossibility, then could an exception not be made by any Vatican Tribunal to have a local hearing in that particular case?
In speaking of his process in using "As A Loving Mother," the pope said "many bishops have been judged this way." Have they all been found not guilty? Or if there have been findings of guilt, why have these not been made public?
If all is in place and bishops are being held accountable behind the scenes then why, in his recent letter to the People of God, does Francis refer to efforts "to come up with" and delay in "applying" the "actions and sanctions that are so necessary"?
At his press conference, the pope expressed an intention to meet with me when I am in Rome and explain how the new accountability process under his moto proprio is working. Due to pressure of time on Aug. 25 we were not able to discuss the issues at length, so I would appreciate that opportunity. I believe a number of the above questions would be important to ask, and then have explained, in order to bring clarity on the issue of accountability.
I will be in Rome from Sept. 9-14 on a private visit and would very much like to meet with Francis to understand better the answers to these questions. If this is not possible, I do hope he will make a statement to the faithful covering these issues and stating clearly what is being done as so many are hurting at what is happening in their church today.
[Marie Collins is a former member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors and an Irish survivor of clergy sexual abuse.]
Speaking at the press conference in the context of an accountability question, Francis referred to the finding against Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron as the last time this system was used. I believe this case was one of a perpetrator of abuse and so this is not an accountability issue. Why the confusion?
The pope speaks of the reason for not having a central tribunal as being that for some bishops "leaving their dioceses ... is not possible." If it is a true impossibility, then could an exception not be made by any Vatican Tribunal to have a local hearing in that particular case?
In speaking of his process in using "As A Loving Mother," the pope said "many bishops have been judged this way." Have they all been found not guilty? Or if there have been findings of guilt, why have these not been made public?
If all is in place and bishops are being held accountable behind the scenes then why, in his recent letter to the People of God, does Francis refer to efforts "to come up with" and delay in "applying" the "actions and sanctions that are so necessary"?
At his press conference, the pope expressed an intention to meet with me when I am in Rome and explain how the new accountability process under his moto proprio is working. Due to pressure of time on Aug. 25 we were not able to discuss the issues at length, so I would appreciate that opportunity. I believe a number of the above questions would be important to ask, and then have explained, in order to bring clarity on the issue of accountability.
I will be in Rome from Sept. 9-14 on a private visit and would very much like to meet with Francis to understand better the answers to these questions. If this is not possible, I do hope he will make a statement to the faithful covering these issues and stating clearly what is being done as so many are hurting at what is happening in their church today.
[Marie Collins is a former member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors and an Irish survivor of clergy sexual abuse.]
1 comment:
Fr Allan, I think you meant 'not the least of which is liturgical'.
If Marie Collins was abused by a priest as a little girl, the abuse would have taken place in the 1950s and the perpetrator is unlikely to be still living - the bishop who 'did nothing' is long dead. They can no longer be held to account by any earthly tribunal.
If the priest had been molesting little girls over a thirty year period, and in several parishes, why was he allowed to get away with it for so long? It is a serious criminal offence, and even if the bishops were reluctant to bring the police in, surely the parents would want justice for their offspring. I am aware that in the Irish Republic in times past there was an exaggerated deference to the clergy, but a conspiracy of silence over such a long time would have had to involve not just the bishops, but the civil authorities whose duty it was to enforce the law, as well as the victims themselves and their relatives.
One wonders in what circumstances a priest would have had unfettered access to girls. Even altar boys were normally rostered in pairs (in case one didn't turn up) which unintentionally provided a safeguarding element.
What would be the point in having a tribunal based in Rome trying to unravel events which happened in different parts of the world, usually decades ago, and trying to apportion blame? In spite of what liberals have been saying since JP II was elected in 1978, the Vatican does not micro-manage the Church; apart from anything else, its bureaucracy is tiny compared with that of even small nation-states. The day-to-day running of the Church is devolved on the bishops. This is subsidiarity (not to be confused with synodality or inculturation). If they failed in their duty, and in the case of historical sex abuse they undoubtedly did, it is up to them to put their own house in order.
Post a Comment