|
|
I just read where the Los Angeles diocese settled sex abuse cases by its priests against children for $600 million (NCR, Aug. 3). This is a staggering amount of money that has come from the donations of the people of God. I am sure the archdiocese did not want to go to trial, as it would further expose this scandal. Many have suffered. Parishioners’ faith has been tested. Some priests have been put on the shelf as part of a zero- tolerance policy adopted by the American bishops. Lives and money have been mismanaged at best.
The cover-up now costs the American church not only millions of donated dollars but its credibility, which, in the end, is all the church has. The archbishop most responsible for how this scandal unraveled has been quietly promoted to a post in the Vatican. Bishops are called to be stewards of the gifts of both financial and human resources in a special way just as a shepherd guards his sheep. The ongoing sexual scandal calls for accountability. The people and the priests have paid, and for the most part the bishops have only issued hollow apologies. It seems like a life of prayer and penance might be in order. The costs just continue.
STAN ROTH
Jenison, Mich.
* * *
After the California settlement, criticism of the bishops for mishandling the child abuse crisis is again prominent in the news, and in some cases, properly so. But bishops generally were victims of being in a bind and misinformed. Now it is time to direct attention to the future of Catholic ministry. The bishops were in a bind because the Vatican was more than reluctant to allow bishops to send offenders off duty. And when bishops sent priests for therapy, the institutions where they were treated had a conflict of interest. If they could not report cures of pedophiles, their business would suffer. I am sure many of them were convinced that their treatment was successful. It was not.
Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the structure of the Catholic clergy system. The system is still intact. Membership is still restricted to unmarried males. But while this celibate state is beneficial to some, it is an occasion of sin to others. A bachelor priest in the modern world is adrift compared to a minister who has the benefit, joy and safeguard of home life. I am convinced that if other Christian denominations had mandatory celibacy, they too would be paying out huge sums of money.
(Fr.) CONNELL J. MAGUIRE
Riviera Beach, Fla.
* * *
Why am I here? Why am I Catholic? I have to answer that I am here because I believe I was invited. I was asked. I was called. Ultimately I believe that every Catholic is Catholic for that reason. Not because our church is perfect, not that our priests or bishops are perfect, but because we believe Jesus himself said to every one of us the same words: “Follow me.” Christ is spotless. Christ is innocent. Christ is perfect. In fact, Christ is the victim too, because Jesus suffers whenever one of his own suffers (Matthew 25:31-46). There is a lot of pain in our church, but the sick still need to be visited. The poor still have to be fed. The naked still have to be clothed, the stranger still has to be welcomed, and the sacraments must still be celebrated, because they give us life. Right now, we may do all of these things with our heads slightly bowed, and we may follow with heavy hearts, but this will pass. This scandal and the pain it has caused will be healed in time; please God, never to happen again. In the meantime, Jesus continues to speak to us through the Word of God, and he still feeds us with his body and blood. We cannot turn away. Where would we go?
JOSEPH NUZZI
New York
The caring, sensitive essay “Throwaway priests” (NCR, July 20) touched my heart. It was an example of the beauty and difficulty of forgiveness. How hard it was for author Charlene Duline to feel anything but hatred for abusive priests, since she had suffered her own violation of body and soul at the hands of one such man. She has known the fantasies of a victim, the dream of a slow and torturous death for the abuser. And yet she can weep over the suffering of a priest imprisoned for abuse such as she suffered. From her own cross, she prays for those who placed her there, and in such prayer she has known the liberating presence of the God who in Christ calls us to love and forgiveness of the enemy. May Charlene’s witness be a priestly presence in the lives of her readers.
BILL OTWILER
Charlottesville, Va.
Any religion that proclaims itself to be the only “true path” to salvation is divisive and deleterious to interfaith dialogue and shared good works. Pope Benedict XVI is not running Judgment Day. To assume he is speaking for God and judging non-members to be defective and their religions untrue is making himself one of the “false gods” he rants against. It is not surprising Pope Benedict XVI is claiming a Roman Catholic monopoly on the truth. When he was the head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he oversaw the harassment and silencing of eminent Catholic theologians. His totalitarian treatment of those within the church who have valid questions is now being applied to all religions that object to papal allegiance and obedience. We Catholics who believe in the ecumenical teachings and spirit of Vatican II will continue to ignore papal pronouncements that insult our intelligence and our friends and companions from other faith communities.
The church hierarchy needs to focus on its path to salvation: Confess and publicly repent the sexual abuse of children, reveal all transfers of known pedophiles, admit all cover-ups, and fully disclose the amounts paid to lawyers to re-victimize the victims. Authoritarianism and more Latin liturgies are cultic distractions that are not relevant to living the Gospel message.
NANCY A. MOEWS
Greendale, Wis.
Regarding your editorial “Full participation before all else” (NCR, July 20): Pope Benedict XVI has put an incredible spin on Vatican II. He has succeeded mightily in reversing the liturgical and ecclesiological reforms that flowed from the vision of the in-Spirited John XXIII.
Following the many baby steps taken by John Paul II as well as the current pope (for example, essentially prohibiting the rite of general absolution in spite of the council’s direction that the most “communal form” of the rites be used whenever possible), we’ve finally arrived at full denial that Vatican II was actually inspired reform rather than a continuation of the same old medieval institution. So, now we have the “old” Mass back, together with its condemnation of the Jews, its exaltation of ordained ministries, and the people of God are again relegated to attendees at the “priest’s Mass.” Benedict said he wanted to bring back the Lefebvrites, but they haven’t moved -- the Vatican has. Now we’re all members of the Society of St. Pius X. Kind of makes one nostalgic for Julius II, doesn’t it?
(Deacon) RICHARD WARREN
Springfield, Ore.
* * *
I wouldn’t mind attending a Latin Mass sometime but there are a few safeguards I would insist upon. Does the celebrant know any Latin or is this just going to be a lot of mumbling mumbo jumbo and hocus-pocus magic like some Haitian voodoo ceremony? Lord knows, we’ve come to enough embarrassment of late without exposing ourselves to more ridicule. I’ll never forget an old pastor of mine who relayed to me his insight on seminary training, telling me that he couldn’t understand why they still insisted on teaching Greek, because the only Greek he remembered was agricola, agricolae. So much for his rendering of the sacred text. I always wondered how he could get through his Mass in 20 minutes. But since nobody was listening but saying their rosaries or reading their Little Flower missals, who cared what he was doing? Thank God he wasn’t facing them.
R.J. REINKOBER
New Brighton, Minn.
* * *
In your editorial “Full participation before all else” you state, “We join with Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center and call on the pope to publicly repudiate language in the rite of the Mass that calls for the conversion of the Jews and for God to lift the ‘veil from their hearts.’ ”
Why as faithful Catholics should we repudiate praying for the conversion of the Jews? It seems to me that to not pray for their conversion is anti-Semitic. After all, if we prayed for everyone, except for African-Americans, for example, to come to recognize that Jesus is the Christ and savior of the world, we would be considered racists and bigots. So why exclude the Jews from our prayers for conversion? The Catholic church is missionary at heart and must pray for all to convert. Following your logic, should we also repudiate the language of St. Paul in his letter to the church in Corinth for referring to the veiled hearts of the Jews, which prevent them from recognizing Christ? Why would St. Paul wish himself to be accursed in order that some of the Jews might be saved? Why would St. Paul state in his letter to the Romans that the Jews can be grafted in again if they do not remain in unbelief? Perhaps we should call on the pope to publicly repudiate language in these New Testament epistles.
MICHAEL FUTSCHIK
Lake Jackson, Texas
* * *
The conversation in last week’s issue about the reopening of the “old Mass” (“Opinion divided on Mass decision,” NCR, July 20) sadly reveals the general ignorance of its beauty and its poetic meaning -- even among the professional “liturgists.” I’d like to present just one example: “In the old Mass, the priest had his back to the people” (sneer). As an elder in the present, I understand that at that time that we were all facing in the same direction. In the best of the churches and cathedrals, the altar itself faces the East. We all turned East to greet the sun, which was the emblem of the Resurrection and the symbol of the Risen Christ. The Mass represented the paschal mystery. It was more than a common meal; it had mystical meanings long forgotten in our worship today. People believed in the Real Presence because they felt the divinity present. Joseph Campbell said, “The Mass has become a Julia Child show. Where is the poetry? Where is the glorious chant?” Kathleen Hughes, aren’t you missing something? Or are you too young to remember?
SOPHIA MOORE
Placitas, N.M.
* * *
After reading your editorial on the return of the Latin rite, I was disappointed, dismayed and beyond discouraged. Please speak with the justice and passion with which Jesus Christ would have spoken. The Latin rite is a return to dominance, power and money. Did Opus Dei and its large bank accounts have nothing to do with this? Call a spade a spade. Please embrace the “independent” part of your tag line and stop trying to show both sides. Take a stand. This move is an oppressive act, plain and simple. The lay community, women and our brothers and sisters from other faith traditions have been trampled on in the name of Christ. Please in the name of Christ, stand up for us with your words. Jesus would expect nothing less.
LINDA CHELOTTI
Clifton, N.J.
* * *
I am considerably older than your average reader. I came into the church in college and the Latin Mass offered a safe haven. It embodied the majesty and solemnity of past cultures and allowed me to add my own interpretations where I was unfamiliar with the vocabulary. The change to English was a shock from which I have never quite recovered.
I was in Israel on the feast of the Ascension. The church of that name was in Arab territory but open to Christians on that date. The Mass was said in Latin to accommodate the motley group of worshipers. The universal language gave it the deeper dimension of peace to the world.
PEGGY KAHN
Santa Fe, N.M.
* * *
When I read Melissa M. Nussbaum’s article “Two rites, two coffee carts and a parish divided” (NCR, July 20), I could only think: A house divided against itself cannot stand. Is the destiny of future church a house divided by two Vatican councils? Whatever else Pope Benedict’s motu proprio on the Latin Mass is, it divides the house. Are the pope’s two doors ways of entry or exit? I suspect the latter. The church is destroying its own credibility by its waffling between the two councils. Where’s the “infallibility”?
SYLVESTER L. STEFFEN
New Hampton, Iowa
Letters to the editor should be limited to 250 words and preferably typed. If a letter refers to a previous issue of NCR, please give us that issue’s date. We reserve the right to edit all letters. Letters, National Catholic Reporter, PO Box 411009, Kansas City, MO 64141-1009. Fax: (816) 968-2280. E-mail: letters@ncronline.org (When sending a letter via e-mail, please indicate "NCR Letters" in the subject line. We've installed a new spam filter on our letters e-mail account. If it's not clear to us that yours is a letter, we might delete it.) Please be sure to include your street address, city, state, zip and daytime telephone number
National Catholic Reporter, August 17, 2007