Reflections on the role of women in the church

I wish I understood human behavior better. I draw my own conclusions when I see odd or quirky behavior, such as I have witnessed recently at Sunday mass the past few months. When communion time comes and lines form to go the the altar, the longest line is the one where the priest is dealing out communion. If there is a lay minister on the altar (usually a woman), her line is short, while the line to the priest is very long. Additionally I have also witnessed that people (usually elderly) who are sitting in pews on the left side of the church, for example, will walk across to the right side if the priest is dealing out communion on the right side of the altar. I wish I could tell you that there are only a few people who do this. Not the case. This past Sunday, the line for the priest extended from the altar down to the entrance doors, whereas the line for the female lay minister had about four or five people. The priest's line was made up of young and old alike. The priest should have motioned to those on his line to switch lines, but he didn't. I think it's about time it was brought up as a discussion point from the pulpit. 

I have concluded that this is reactionary and pathetic behavior, and it irritates me no end. I have received communion from female lay ministers for years in the USA and never gave it a second thought. It never bothered me and it never will. My feelings toward those who reject women in this way are less than Christian, I must admit. Their unchristian behavior is not even subtle, it's blatant. I feel like giving them a good dressing-down, because they deserve it for their reactionary and ignorant behavior. I feel like yelling at them during the mass--"wake up". I feel sorry for the female lay minister standing there wanting to do the job that the priest has given her. I make it a point to go to her and not to the priest. Are the hosts that the priest deals out of better quality than those the female lay minister deals out? Are they more blessed? No, they are not. The priest has already done that job before communion is dealt out. All hosts are equal. It's just that these ignorant people don't want to receive communion from a woman. It makes my blood boil. 

I'm glad when I see women on the altar, serving in some capacity. Why shouldn't they? As I've discussed in previous posts, what happens when or if there are no more male priests to do these jobs? What happens if vocations fall off to the point where there are no young men to take over for the old ones? What happens if only women are interested in doing the job of a priest at some future point? What will these reactionary parishioners do at that point? Boycott the church? Not likely. They will be forced to examine their behavior, and hopefully they will change. In the meantime, I will work on quieting my irritation at my fellow parishioners who are behaving in an unchristian way. But I will say that there still is a long way to go to eradicate the stupidity and ignorance that unfortunately exists where women are concerned in the Catholic church. I have decided that the next time the church wants me to donate more money for maintenance/upkeep, I am going to say no until this issue is discussed from the pulpit. 

Righteous anger and forcing change in the Catholic Church

I've written about the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church several times, the latest post being in October of this year: A New Yorker in Oslo: French clergy and the latest sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church (paulamdeangelis.blogspot.com). I had a suggestion for how to force the Church to change, and that was to hit them in the pocketbook. Ordinary parishioners, men and women alike, should be angry enough to cease their financial support of the Church at least for the period of time it takes the Church to clean up the mess it's made globally. If the Church needs money, it can sell some of its Vatican treasures; that way it will learn the true value of behaving ethically and decently toward its faithful, be they young or old. 

A couple of days ago I read an online article by a former Norwegian Catholic who was outraged that more churchgoers weren't up in arms about the sex abuse scandals. He said he felt ashamed that more of them didn't vocalize their anger. I understand his anger. At the same time, he really has no idea how many Catholics are or aren't outraged by them. But he's correct that parishioners at least haven't vocalized their anger in their churches. He has left the Church and no longer considers himself a Catholic, unlike me. I will always be a Catholic even though I'm not always a regular churchgoer each Sunday. I keep hoping that the priests will talk about these scandals from the pulpit. So far, they haven't, and I'm not sure why. The victims of these crimes are not even mentioned in the prayers of the faithful. We could pray for them for starters. 

Some of the young priests who preach from the pulpit now seem to be more aware of the problems in society generally and are more willing to bring them up, and that tells me there's hope for change. A few of the older priests also seem aware, but most are not. I am not interested in listening to the same old spiel preached by many of the older priests who deliver company/party line without much insight or reflection. If I know they will have a particular mass I tend to avoid it. They are the types who preach that we should do this or that because that's how the Church wants it done, the Church meaning the Vatican and the men running the Church. They attribute many things to Christ that I doubt Christ would have stood for. I think they would be surprised that Christ would not be willing to look the other way in the face of the sex abuse scandals. Christ did show outrage when he saw that the temple was being used as a marketplace; he tossed the sellers out of the temple. He was angry, and his anger is characterized as righteous anger Righteous Anger - Catholic Daily Reflections (catholic-daily-reflections.com) 

"Jesus went up to Jerusalem. He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.”  John 2:13b-16

He lectured the Pharisees in ways that made them angry. He lost no opportunity to needle the Pharisees, who thought they were wonderful people simply because they followed church laws to a tee. In other words, justifiable anger was allowed. The definition of that type of anger can be discussed, but I certainly think that the sex abuse scandals qualify as the type of crime that can justify righteous anger in Catholic parishioners. After all, we are the Church; the Church is not the Vatican or the clerics in Rome. We have a huge say in how we want the Church to be; we have the power to force it to change. We should use that power. 

As Christians, we must be aware of what goes on around us and not sit back and accept all behavior in the Church simply because it is our Church. If we accept everything, what is the point of trying to recognize good and to do good? We can just stop trying to do so. We must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff--distinguish the good from the bad in all things, be they people, laws, behavior, or material things. The Vatican and clerics have no right to tell us how to feel or think. I think we've reached the point where there is too much passivity in the face of the bad behavior in the Church. People have lost their capacity for righteous anger and protest, willingly or unwillingly. Many become outraged about insignificant things (the loss of the Latin mass being one of them) and stay silent about truly significant things like the sex abuse scandals and the huge harm they have done to the Church. Those Catholics who only want to sweep these scandals under the rug and 'carry on' with the way the Church has always done things are true hypocrites who do not love their Church. 

We must learn to discern what is truly righteous anger and what is anger that will only harm us and others. The former is allowable, the latter is not because the latter often leads to mob rule, violence and vigilante justice. We don't want that. What we do want is justice for the sex abuse victims and punishment for their abusers; the punishments should be public trials in courts of law and long jail terms for the abusers and large financial payments to the victims. These scandals should cost the Church considerably. I've already set in motion my particular brand of punishment; I eliminated my regular monetary contribution to the Church. I will continue this until I see that the Church begins to open its doors to real discussions from the pulpit about these scandals, what they have done to the morale and faith of loyal parishioners, and what is being done about them. I think it is healthy for parishioners to exercise righteous anger and to stand up to what is wrong or evil in society and in the Church. I hope more Catholics begin to protest in this way, because the Church cannot continue on the path it's on without major changes if it hopes to survive. 

 

French clergy and the latest sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church was in the news again for yet another sex abuse of children scandal, this time in France (French clergy sexually abused over 200,000 children since 1950, report finds | Reuters). Over 200,000 children (some reports say 300,000) were abused by priests (and nuns) over the course of seventy years. The sheer number of children is staggering, and it goes without saying that these children must have suffered in silence for many years before the Church decided to do something about the global sex abuse scandals that have plagued it for many years now. All the victims deserve monetary compensation (large amounts of money); however no amount of money can erase the memories that these children, now adults, have. No amount of money can wipe out the feelings and knowledge of betrayal. Adults whom you trusted were not trustworthy. They were instead predators, preying on young children who were most likely told by all the adults in their lives to respect and listen to the adults in their lives.

Every time I read about another sex abuse scandal in the Church, it makes me angry and sad. My respect for the Church decreases; I don’t know when or if it will hit rock bottom. I hope it doesn’t reach that point. I hope that the Church manages to make the huge major changes it needs to make in order to survive well into the 21^st century. But it cannot have reactionaries at the helm if it is to undergo a revolutionary renaissance.  

Random thoughts:

I am fairly sure that the clericalism in the Church is not what Christ envisioned when he founded his church. Clericalism is a policy of maintaining or increasing the power of a religious hierarchy (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clericalism). Clericalism exists to protect clericalism and the organization of the Church. It exists to provide careers for bishops and cardinals. It exists to protect the power of bishops and cardinals—its leaders. Just the word ‘power’ ought to flag the interest of all the faithful. It ought to get Catholics asking why it is necessary for the clergy to have power over anyone, especially since Christ was not interested in earthly power. He was interested in quite the opposite: ‘The first shall be last and the last shall be first’. Those who think they are important will be relegated to last place, while the unimportant will find their place with God. I say again for anyone interested in listening; Jesus Christ was not a clerical type. I doubt he would have been interested in sitting protected inside the Vatican. He was more the type to be wandering around speaking to people, meeting people, meeting the poor, challenging authority. I can bet that there are a number of clerics who don’t particularly like this picture of Christ.  

The Church needs to do the following: open its doors wide so that all the world can see inside it; end the mendacity that has defined it for so long; release priests from their vows of celibacy (or make celibacy voluntary) and allow priests to marry; and stop trying to control the sexual lives of its married and unmarried parishioners when it cannot even control the sexual lives of its priests who have taken a vow of celibacy. The Church has had far too much to say for far too long about how ordinary Catholics live their sexual lives. While most of the latter were trying to follow archaic and illogical rules (e.g. concerning birth control), some priests (and some nuns) were acting on their sexual proclivities for children exactly as they pleased, protected by the willing silence of the Church on the one hand and the unwilling and often forced silence of their victims on the other hand.

As a consequence of this criminal behavior on the part of clerics, ordinary parishioners should cease to support the Church financially. It can be a temporary cessation, but it is the only way to force change. Hit them in the pocketbook. Yes, it means punishing all clerics, but this is how we were treated in Catholic schools—the entire class was punished for the transgressions of one or two students. We had nothing to say about that; we were told to sit down and be quiet, to accept our punishment. Protests were out of the question. Clerics should do the same—accept their punishment. I think they will begin to look at the vow of celibacy and of poverty in a new way when donations are no longer running in, and that will be a good thing. I have stopped giving to the collections as of this month, and will continue this policy until I see that the Church treats its sex abusers as the criminals they are and turns them over to the police, as well as using its wealth to compensate the victims of such priests. I want the Church to use its vast wealth to pay through the nose for what it’s done to children. And if you think I’m being harsh on and judgmental about the Church, you’re right. I am. I’m angry, and there’s nothing wrong with my being angry. How I decide to deal with that anger is my prerogative; not donating to the Sunday collection is one way of dealing with my anger.  

For those who rant and rave about how much better everything was before, and that we need to return to the Church of old--we absolutely do not. The Church of old looked the other way when dealing with pedophilia and sexual abuse, as the French scandal clearly points out. Most of the abuse went on between 1950 and 1970, exactly around the time we were growing up. The Church swept most sex abuse scandals under the rug in an effort to preserve the organization, transferred the offenders to other parishes, got offenders psychological help if possible, and carried on as though little had happened. But they did not turn the offenders over to the police.  From 1950 until well into the 1980s, the Church was still mostly ‘traditional’ in its approach to most things, still strict about sexual matters, about birth control, about divorce—about most secular matters. I have no desire to return to the Church of old, steeped as it is in bygone traditions. Will reciting the mass in Latin prevent sex abuse scandals? If the priest does not face the parishioners while on the altar, will this lessen the number of sex abusers in the Church? Doubtful. While some traditions are good, others are not. Traditions such as unquestioning obedience to the clergy or not questioning their advice on marriage, divorce and sexual matters are impossibly dated and fated for the scrap heap.

Not all pedophiles act on their desires, but the Church still needs to weed out pedophiles as best it can, vigilantly. Pedophilia is not defined as a crime, acting on pedophilic desires is a crime. But the Church would be best served by ridding its ranks of pedophiles. A priest friend I know blames the sex abuse scandals on homosexuality in the Church. I do not agree with him at all. Homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia or sex abuse. There may be homosexuals who are pedophiles, just as there are heterosexuals who are—in the Church as well as in society at large. Weeding out homosexuals will not prevent the sexual abuse of children.

Most priests and nuns are not sex abusers, thank God. One thing that strikes me as rather odd, and that is that the majority of them are rather silent on this issue. I would have expected that they would protest more as a group within the Church, to church leaders. I would have expected more anger, more discord, and more opposition. That is also one way that the Church will change and grow into the organization it needs to be for its faithful. There needs to be room for dissent, debate, disagreements and discussion. The faithful deserve nothing less. In fact, the faithful are pretty much fed up with the sex abuse scandals in the Church. They are fed up with dealing with hypocrisy and betrayal, as well they should be. If the Church wants to hang onto its parishioners, it should make the changes it needs to make, and fast.

It never ends--now the Pope says that nuns were sexually abused by priests and bishops

How deep does the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church go? Very deep, as it turns out. It seems that every time I turn around, there is a new allegation of abuse. Now the Pope has acknowledged that nuns have been sexually abused by priests and bishops:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/05/world/europe/pope-nuns-sexual-abuse.html . I didn't see the statistics presented anywhere, but I'm sure they will be available shortly. It wouldn't even matter to me at this point what the actual numbers are. What appalls me is how the Church initially responded to the victims--by ignoring them, by supporting the abusers, or by sweeping all of it under the rug to be dealt with at a later time, or never dealt with. The latter was the modus operandi until the past few years when the outing of criminal priests became a reality and forced the Church's hand. One wonders if they ever would have dealt with the sexual abuse scandals had they not been forced to.

I am disgusted by the entire business and appalled by the hypocrisy. Here we grew up with all these strict ridiculous rules regarding sex--no premarital sexual activity short of intercourse, no intercourse, and no birth control. All were grievous sins. That's what we were told. Even married couples were made to feel that practicing birth control put their souls at risk. The truth is that most lay Catholics behave much better than many of the priests who have been preaching to them all these years. We grew up with the fire and brimstone sermons. We feared going to confession, feared being reamed out, but if you ask me, our sins pale in comparison to the sins of the sexual abusers, the pedophiles, and the rapists (all criminals) that were and are found in the Catholic clergy. I saw a comment in the New York Times to the above article that said, and I quote "The Pope does not seem to understand that the Church is burning to the ground. The credibility of the Pope's statements and the Church's actions are questionable." I agree with the commenter; it scares me that we may be living in a time where all the things that we took for granted were good and true, are in reality, quite the opposite, and are now being exposed for the shams they actually are. The question is--what remains when the dust and ash settle--when the fire is over. That's what scares me. I no longer believe that the Church is the road to heaven. I know that it is possible to honor Christ without having to believe that. Do I still go to Church? Yes, I do--because I like the celebration of the mass and that one hour a week to reflect on something other than the rampant materialism that characterizes the world. But the part of me that doubts, the part that is confused, the part that is furious--all those parts are growing stronger by the day. I don't know if I will be able to contain them. I am no longer patient inside. I would prefer a quiet mass without sermons. Sometimes I sit in the pew and listen to yet another uninspired irrelevant sermon and I feel like standing up and yelling--talk about the sexual abuse scandal in the Church, tell us what you are doing about it, condemn it and the perpetrators, talk about the misuse of power, the abuse of children and women. Talk about the inequity between men and women, talk about the patriarchies that have ruined the lives of women and children, talk about the refusal of the Church to take women seriously and to allow them to become priests, talk about spousal abuse (physical, emotional, psychological), talk about the brutality of the messages that many of us grew up with. But I don't think I will hear any of those sermons in my lifetime. So much of our childhood was about fear of authority, about instilling compliance in us, about having absolute power over us. I no longer have that fear, I am no longer compliant, and no one has absolute power over me. Those days are long gone. I rely rather on the fact that if God made us all in his/her image and likeness, that we were given a powerful brain by that same God, a god-like brain, that God intended for us to use wisely, humbly and gratefully. I for one, have chosen to use it in those ways.

Sexual abuse scandal, the Jesuits, and Fordham University

I've written about the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church in several previous posts from last year. I recently received an email from the president of Fordham University (where I attended college) entitled Northeast Province of the Society of Jesus Releases Names of Priests Credibly Accused of Abuse. I am posting his letter to us here, which makes it clear that Fordham University takes this scandal very seriously. I am proud to say that I am an alumnus of this university, and am glad to see that they are determined to hold the sexual abuse perpetrators to account. Some of them are most likely dead at this point, but for those who are not, the letter makes clear that they are criminals and that they should be treated as such.

Dear Members of the Fordham Family:

Earlier today, the Jesuit USA Northeast Province of the Society of Jesus released a list of Jesuits against whom there are credible allegations of sexual abuse committed against minors. Among those accused are five Jesuits who, over the past six or more decades, were assigned by the Province to serve at Fordham University or Fordham Preparatory School, which separated from the University in 1970. The USA Northeast Province includes the former New York, Buffalo and New England Provinces.

As the sexual abuse scandal that has engulfed the Catholic Church unfolds, it is incumbent on all of us who are leaders at affected institutions to support the survivors and to acknowledge the inalterable harm that was inflicted on these brave survivors and their families. They are and will remain the University's first and central concern. We must also ensure that policies and procedures are in place to prevent this from ever happening again. To that end, the Board of Trustees has created an independent Advisory Committee of lay trustees – excluding Jesuit members of the Board or management at Fordham – to review allegations of sexual misconduct against Jesuits. In particular, the Advisory Committee has been tasked with reviewing and analyzing allegations of abuse by Jesuits who were employed by or otherwise associated with the University at the time the alleged misconduct was committed, overseeing the management of claims concerning such abuse, and examining any appropriate preventative and remedial measures to address allegations of such abuse.

In connection with the University’s efforts in this regard, and following the Northeast Province’s release of its list of credibly accused Jesuits, we are also releasing a list that includes four additional names of priests who have been identified by other Jesuit Provinces as having similarly credible allegations against them, and who were associated with the University or Fordham Prep prior to its separation from the University in 1970. We also note that some of the names identified on the Northeast Province’s list are of priests who were not associated with the University or Fordham Prep prior to 1970 but who resided at Murray-Weigel Hall, a Jesuit nursing home that is owned and operated by the Northeast Province and is located on property adjacent to the University’s Rose Hill Campus. Fordham University has not historically been empowered to decide who is assigned to reside at Murray-Weigel Hall. Nonetheless, at Fordham’s insistence, the Northeast Province has recently removed all men with known credible accusations against them from Murray-Weigel Hall. In addition, some names on the Province’s list may include individuals who were associated with Fordham Prep after its separation from the University in 1970.

The sexual abuse of a minor or other vulnerable person by someone in a position of privilege and authority is an unspeakable violation of human decency and completely antithetical to the mission and ethos of our University. While none of the accused priests are involved in Fordham University’s student life or operations today, we are horrified that some of these alleged crimes were committed when the perpetrators were associated with the University or were otherwise in close proximity to our students.

Our insistence that alleged offenders be removed from Murray-Weigel is just one aspect of Fordham University’s commitment to protecting our students from potential harm. In addition to the work of the Advisory Committee and the protocols that it is developing, Fordham will report any accusation of sexual abuse of a minor by any member of our community to law enforcement, regardless of its date of occurrence, and immediately remove the offender from any Fordham position they occupy pending the outcome of an investigation. If the allegations are deemed credible, the perpetrator will be banned from campus and from any contact with students.

There are a number of resources at Fordham and in the broader community designed to support survivors of sexual abuse or misconduct. Fordham University’s website and Student Handbook include detailed procedures for reporting sexual misconduct, assault or other acts of violence either confidentially to a counselor, internally to Fordham administrators, or externally to the New York City or Harrison, N.Y. Police Departments. If you have experienced or observed sexual or other misconduct, including unwanted sexual contact, you are encouraged to contact Kareem Peat, Fordham’s Title IX Coordinator, at (718) 817-3112 or titleix@fordham.edu and/or the Province’s Victims’ Coordinator, Kristin Austin, at (443) 370-6357 or UNEadvocacy@jesuits.org.

We are heartsick that the shadow of the crisis within the larger Catholic community has been cast upon our University, and deeply troubled by the very real possibility that there are still survivors whose accounts of abuse we have not yet heard. Know, however, that Fordham will take all actions necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of its students – past and present – faculty, and staff, and of course to be responsive to the concerns of parents, alumni and other members of our community.

With deepest sorrow for the past and hope for the future,

Joseph M. McShane, S.J.
President, Fordham University

Robert D. Daleo
Chairman of the Board, Fordham University Board of Trustees


From the Northeast Province:

J. Peter Conroy, S.J.  At Fordham from 1972 to 1979
Roy Drake, S.J. At Fordham from 1965 to 1968
John McCarthy, S.J. At Fordham from 1956 to 1992
Eugene O’Brien, S.J. At Fordham Prep from 1950 to 1953 and 1960 to 1980, and at the University from 1986 to 1991.
William Scanlon, S.J. At Fordham from 1972 to 1974

Those on the lists prepared by the four other American Provinces with connections to Fordham are the following:

John Bellwoar, S.J.  (Maryland Province) At Fordham Prep from 1936 to 1938
Maurice Meyers, S.J. (Midwest Province) At Fordham from 1951 to 1959 and 1973 to 1974
Francis X. Nawn, S.J.  (West Province) At Fordham from 1980 to 1981
Philip Sunseri, S.J.  (West Province) Lived in University Residence Halls from 1983 to 1986

Celibacy for priests is discipline, not doctrine, and it can change

Good to see that Pope Francis might consider allowing priests to marry, at least in areas of the world where there is a shortage of priests. I think he should just open for allowing all priests to marry, if they wish to. After all, as the article states--"Francis has long said he appreciates the discipline of celibacy, but that it can change given it is discipline, not doctrine.".

https://nypost.com/2018/10/23/pope-francis-willing-to-consider-letting-priests-get-married/

The sex abuse scandal in the German Catholic church

And now the statistics for Germany--it's enough to make your mind reel. What were the people involved thinking? That it would remain covered-up forever? Why did no one in the church's bureaucratic organization stop and say, 'no, I won't be a part of the cover-up and I won't silence my voice or my conscience. I will speak up and speak out'. Just the fact that the church wanted to control how the research results were published/utilized is appalling--I quote: "because the church wanted to reserve its right to control the resulting research papers — and under certain circumstances even ban their publication". The church apparently believes its own hype--that it is judge, jury, and executioner with no accountability to anyone outside the church, and this way of looking at dealing with crime in the church is just plain arrogant and wrong. If I am a typical example of the faithful, my trust in the church to make intelligent and moral decisions is gone. Just plain gone. And sadly, I doubt that it will be coming back. I believe I do a better job of running my life and dealing with moral decisions than the church will ever do.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/world/europe/german-church-sex-abuse-children.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

I'm guessing we'll getting the statistics for other involved countries soon, because there is nothing inherently 'American' about this scandal. It all has to do with the kingdom called the Vatican. Somehow in the midst of all the power and wealth, Christ and what he stood for fell by the wayside.

Is there a civil war within the church now?

If you want to read more about the current sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church, these are some good links:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ny-news-priests-australia-report-sex-abuse-confessions-20180831-story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/opinion/catholic-priest-abuse-reporting.html?imp_id=936089097&action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/opinion/pope-visit-ireland.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/29/us/cardinal-wuerl-catholic-insurgency/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/08/29/a-vatican-diplomats-explosive-letter-reveals-influential-conservative-catholic-media-network/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.056224573d90

If there is a civil war within the church now, it is because it has brought it on itself. But the church can end the war by standing up for change. It can open the doors, let in the light, get rid of the careerism and bureaucracy. It can get rid of the wealth, prestige, and power that dominate the lives of many clergy. It can get rid of the holier than thou attitude. It can get back to the basics of Christ’s teaching. It just needs to do it. 

Two good articles about the current sexual abuse scandal in the American Catholic Church

I read these articles and I try to find understanding in my mind and heart for the priests who have committed these atrocities against children. I find none. What I feel is anger and loathing; anger at the attempts to silence the victims and to pretend that the abuse did not happen, something the church can no longer do, and loathing for the sheer arrogance and belief that the faithful would accept the explanations for the bad behavior, move on, and forget about it. Maybe some of the faithful can do that; I cannot. If you read the first article, it talks about the sense of betrayal that is felt by many of the faithful, and how they might deal with that. Like married couples where one partner has betrayed the other by being unfaithful, it will be a long road back to re-establish trust in the person who committed the betrayal, if it ever happens. Likewise with the church; it will take a long time for the faithful to get over this, and I think that's the right reaction. I don't find it in myself to simply accept the explanations anymore. I want action. I want change. I want the pedophiles to pay for their crimes after having been tried as the criminals they are in a court of law. I want justice for the victims. And that is exactly what the second article is focused on--the criminal priests will not be let off the hook anymore. There will be aggressive criminal investigations, and rightly so. Thank God. This is not about persecution of the Catholic church; it is about persecution of those men who call themselves priests, when in reality they are nothing more than common criminals, who have lived off the good will and economic support of the faithful. They deserve nothing less than life in prison.

I am angry at myself for buying into some of the ideas that the church pushed over the years, especially when I was a teenager. That the word of male priests was somehow 'law'. That unmarried male priests could tell us how to be married, could tell married women what their 'duty' was toward their husbands, could push warped ideas about sex and love on us as teenagers, that only led to unnecessary guilt. I've always thought it strange that sex was promoted as an evil activity for the unmarried to engage in, but that once you were married, it was suddenly holy and good. How many marriages in my generation suffered as a result of that way of thinking? It would have been far better to have focused on self-respect and on the importance of respecting others' wishes when it came to sex and to so many other things. I no longer buy into any of these ideas, but when we were teenagers, it was excruciating at times to listen to this folly. There was a period (post Vatican II) when the doors seemed to fly open and the church seemed to be on the path toward true enlightenment, when it felt as though change was in the air and anything was possible--male priests could perhaps marry if they wanted to, women could perhaps become priests, and so on. But no, none of it came to pass. And why not, when you think about it? Jesus Christ was friends with men and women. He had the utmost respect for women. I have always said that it would not bother me in the least if we found out that he had married and had children. His mission on this earth would have been the same.

Going to mass and sharing in that fellowship are still important to me, although I find myself torn now in a way I never was before. I sit there in the pew and feel the anger inside of me, anger because not one of the priests in my church ever comments on the current scandal. They should. They should be talking about it, opening the doors for the faithful to talk about it, and to talk about how betrayed they feel by the criminal priests and by the church for protecting these priests and covering up their crimes. How could these pedophile priests stand in the pulpits Sunday after Sunday preaching what they no longer (and perhaps never) believed in? Telling the faithful how to behave. How in good conscience do you do that to the faithful, good people who are essentially supporting you financially? How can you stand up there and lie? And how can so many priests stand up there now and defend the blowhard Trump--who stands for all that Christ did not stand for? How in good conscience can they do that? I am currently at odds with the church, with its patriarchal attitudes and its careerist bureaucrats, with its arrogance and blaming of others, and with its lies. I am fed up and disappointed in its support of Trump where that is the case. I may go to mass, but I am now a resister. I no longer buy what they're selling. If they don't want to discuss what's going on and face the wrath of the faithful, then they can skip the sermons and the singing. They can shut their mouths and just celebrate the mass--quietly, solemnly, seriously. And then let us go about our lives. I for one won't miss the preaching.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/opinion/couples-therapy-catholic-church.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/nyregion/catholic-sex-abuse.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Pope Francis and clericalism in the Church

Excellent opinion piece from The New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/opinion/pope-francis-catholic-church-sex-abuse.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region)


Here is an excerpt from the above article--very relevant to the Church's current problems.......

In closed-door meetings on the eve of the conclave that elected him in March 2013, Pope Francis — then Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires — gave a brief, powerful address in which he said the church needed to open up or risk becoming “self-referential” and “sick” with “theological narcissism” that leads to the worst evil, the “spiritual worldliness” of an institution that is “living in itself, of itself, for itself.”

The church, he was saying, had to undergo a moment of kenosis, of self-emptying, like Christ on the cross, surrendering power and prestige and privilege in order to truly become what she is called to be.

As pope, he has saved his harshest rhetoric for his fellow clerics, especially the cardinals and bishops, criticizing them as “careerists” and “airport bishops” who spend more time flying around the world than tending their flock.

“Clericalism is a perversion of the church,” Pope Francis told 70,000 young Italian Catholics at a rally this month. “The church without testimony is only smoke.”

Pope Francis’ vision of the church is clearly more radical than the defensive posture of John Paul or the nostalgic traditionalism of Benedict. But is he willing and able to implement it?

The Catholic Church and Women Priests

When I visit the Protestant churches and see the presence of women priests and that they are leading the services (and doing a very good job), it makes me wish that my church, the Catholic Church, was more enlightened on exactly this issue. I have never understood why women are not allowed to become priests in the Catholic Church, and I have never understood why male priests are not allowed to marry. Both bans are in my opinion, self-defeating and short-sighted. The Church complains about the lack of vocations, but does not understand that if they allowed women to become priests, they would no longer have problems with the lack of vocations. They would also attract more men into the priesthood if men knew that they could marry and still become priests.

I am disappointed in my Church and in the Vatican powers-that-be--disappointed by their discrimination against women, disappointed by their decisions to make the Church remain a patriarchal institution, disappointed by their refusal to let men marry and still become priests, and disappointed by their fierce desire to resist all forms of change in these areas. Most of the women I know who have worked within the Church—nuns, counselors, teachers, altar ministers, office workers—would have made good priests. They were kind and service-minded women, highly-educated and very empathic. I don’t know if they wanted to be priests, perhaps some of them did. They certainly would have done as good a job, if not better, than most of the male priests I have known. I know a little something about the daily lives of male priests because I worked as a receptionist in my neighborhood church in Tarrytown for several years. One of my jobs was to serve the priests dinner in the evening as well as to clean up after them. Most of the priests were lonely middle-aged men who drank and smoked too much and who overate. Some of them died of cancer in their 50s. Others left the priesthood to marry. The loneliness became too much for them. The ones who remained in the Church were often cynical; I think of one in particular who told his congregation that if he had not become a priest he would have become a criminal and probably would have ended up in jail. He was completely serious. He was controversial from the pulpit, and while this was not necessarily a bad thing, he was not a positive or encouraging person, so he was of little help to those who were in emotional pain or struggling with their faith. Some of the priests would come to talk to me in the evening when I sat in the receptionist’s office; they were honest with me about their loneliness and I know they enjoyed talking to me. I was perhaps seventeen years old at the time. The women I have known who have had various service functions in the Church have managed to live much healthier, happier, less lonely lives. I don’t know why. It is strange to acknowledge this after so many years, but it is the truth. In any case, it is time for the Church to let women in; it is time for it to open its doors to major change. I hope that it happens in my lifetime.