Les Femmes website linked to my criticism of the beatification of John Paul.
This reply I think is typical of the Catholic reaction:
It is an out-and-out lie to claim that Pope John Paul II failed to carry out the duties of his state in life. Could he have done a better job? Yes, but then again, one could say that about anyone in any situation — no matter how well anybody may do something, they could always do better. Podles’ article is devoted to His Holiness’ handling of the sex abuse situation in the Church. How does he, or you for that matter, know that he did nothing and ignored the problem? He may very well have taken action behind closed doors; I mean, the Vatican doesn’t call press conferences to broadcast such things. Even so, during his years in Communist Poland, the Communists often slandered priests by falsely accusing them of sexual impropriety. So if His Holiness was slow to believe such charges about any given priest, can you really blame him? As for allegedly raising most of the bad bishops in question to the episcopacy, do Podles or you know for certain that he was aware that some of those whom he was appointing weren’t going to be good bishops? Even if he was aware, did it ever cross your mind that maybe he chose the ones he chose because there was literally NOBODY better at the time? But then again, remember that Our Lord chose Judas to be one of His disciples. He also chose Peter, who denied Him three times, and the other disciples, who, except for John, were nowhere to be found during His Passion. One might as well accuse Our Lord of doing a terrible job of choosing disciples.
In closing, I want to say to you, Mary Ann, but also Kindred Spirit, that if the Church does indeed beatify and/or canonize John Paul II (I say “if” because anything could happen between now and May 1), I hope you will humbly submit to the Church’s judgment (and believe me, the Church makes sure to do its homework when it comes to the causes of saints), especially if he gets canonized, as canonizations are infallible.
You see there must be a good reason for what John Paul did or failed to do, because, because, why BECAUSE! Otherwise we could not place childlike trust in the popes and might have to think like adults, judging character and actions by normal human moral standards.
One can see why Freud regarded religion as a sign of infantilism.
Leon, I feel left out. Call me a “Know-nothing.” I KNOW nothing but BELIEVE two things: (a) that JP2 MAY have had sufficient knowledge to address the abuse and failed to act. (b) one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I suggest that you should not infer from point (b) that I am making excuses for JP2. I also suggest that you should not convict a man of a crime until the facts can be carefully weighed. There are a lot of accusations, such as Doyle’s, but these do NOT constitute FACTS.
The man is now dead, and I doubt we will ever know the facts, because it would require that JP2 testify about his knowledge and his beliefs.
Pope John Paul II held admiration and friendship toward pedophile clergy: priests, bishops, and cardinals. He thought it proper to continue allowing these pedophiles to baptize, hear confessions, and bury your grandmother, furthering the clerical rape of children. What an unusual path to heaven! Infallible? Infullobull.
AW
You’re asking people to cross an intellectual line that is very dangerous. Once a person admits to himself that he does not have to react to every little thing from the Vatican with childlike trust and “benefit of the doubt” thinking, the tapestry starts to unravel.
There is nothing intellectual about reacting “to every little thing from the Vatican with childlike trust and ‘benefit of the doubt’ thinking. No line to be crossed.
What is dangerous, and infinitely so, is blind obedience to papal authority. Folks who believe that “papist” and “catholic” are the same, might want to take another look at the teachngs of Our Lord.
AW
Rick.
I have had long conversations with Cardinal Schönborn about John Paul’s failure in the Groër case, and I have no reason to question Schönborn’s veracity. Schönborn later publically stated many of the things he had previously told me. I regard this as indisputable fact.
I will be seeing Tom Doyle in February and I will try to ascertain precisely what he wrote John Paul
Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos also said that he showed John Paul the letter in which he praised the French bishop for not contacting the police about an abusive priest, and John Paul approved sending it to the other bishops. Castrillón Hoyos is a less reliable source, but there is no reason to think he is lying.
Unfortunately all the evidence fist together: John Paul had decided to disregard warnings about rampant sexual abuse in the clergy. Why he had decided this is unclear, but his decision was irresponsible and caused vast harm. Victims committed suicide after they had been abused by priests who had been left in ministry under the not-so-benign neglect that was John Paul’s policy.
Lee Podles
Lee,
Thank you, thank you, thank you for your posts. The reactions of 99.99% of Catholics is horrifying to me. Where does that deference and blindness come from? Quite simply, we were taught that way.
There is another point to remember when you see Tom Doyle: Vaticanese, that peculiar form of communication based on indirection, and outright evasion.
I doubt anyone will ever find a Vatican document on the scandal that speaks transparently and plainly. One suggests or infers, is ambiguous, full of abstraction and deflection — providing cover no matter which way something develops. It’s a cousin of Romanita.
Tom was never directly fired from the Vatican embassy. Instead, suddenly you are excluded from correspondence, meetings, your desk may be moved or reassigned. Then you get the message, along with a bright invitation to attend a dinner in honor of your service.
Interpreting and spinning Vatican documents is an industry of its own. Inviting Maciel to a life of prayer and penance may mean he is judged guilty, maybe not.
A bishops tells a pastor, I hear something about women preaching at mass, why don’t you look into it? Translation, stop it by my order.
Bertone calls a meeting with Weakland about the Murphy case and outlines “procedures to be followed,” none of which includes continuation of a canonical trial.
Weakland speaks of the difficulty of explaining that approach to the deaf community. He walks out with everyone understanding the Vatican has just ordered him to halt a trial. He goes home to implement the alternative approach.
But the minutes of the meeting contain no direct order to stop a trial, so a flood of commentary noting that lack says, “See, the Vatican did no such thing, it was Weakland’s call” under canon law. Sure.
A friend directed me to an apt comment by Albert Camus after WW II:
“What the world expects of Christians is that Christians should speak out, loud and clear… (in) such a way that never a doubt, never the slightest doubt, could rise in the heart of the simplest man. That they should get away from abstraction …(and be) resolved to speak out clearly and to pay up personally.”
Crowhill: I am not sure what point you’re making.
Leon: I concede that there is a very disturbing pattern of reports. I must add, however, that on such matters, there is no such thing as an “indisputable” fact. This does seem to be at the nub of the problem, seeing certainty where this is only possibility or plausibility. I do thank you in advance for any follow-up information you can provide. I am signing off for now.
Carolyn, I well understand your anger at the lack of moral outrage among many Catholics. I can tell you though, that the percentage is far less than 99.99 (though it obviously seems otherwise to you). On the National Catholic Register’s Web site are several vigorous discussions about whether JPII should be canonized, let alone beatified, specifically because of his possible malfeasance in the clerical sex-abuse crisis. For many, the scales are coming off the eyes rather quickly.
I believe the Catholic Church is on the verge of total collapse. JPII’s beatification might just be one major push toward it. I also think that JPII won’t be canonized for that same reason; the possible outcry over his beatification would be too strong.
Rick, I don’t think anyone is asking you personally to achieve moral certainty in this matter; if you don’t feel the evidence is strong enough for you to move beyond principled agnosticism, fine. But your postings here seem to carry an implication that others should not attempt to draw any conclusions, either–that the evidence is not just too weak for you to rely on, but too weak for anyone: JP2 is entitled to be considered innocent until proved guilty, and he can never be proved guilty because he is no longer around to explain or defend himself, so we just have to drop the whole thing and move on.
Unfortunately, this is somewhat like asking the court to be merciful to a parricide on the grounds that he is now an orphan. True, we do not have all the facts–but that’s because the whole hierarchy, from the Pope all the way down to the lowliest diocesan functionary, has made the facts exceedingly difficult to get. True, it’s hard to find incontrovertible proof of a top-down conspiracy to cover up clerical crimes and protect clerical criminals–but that’s because the Vatican has “sovereign immunity” not only in its own courts but in much of the rest of the world as well, and the bishops who are (at last theoretically) subject to legal process have used every weapon in their arsenal to make sure that any such process is blunted or derailed if at all possible. All you have to do is read the newspapers and follow the court cases to see the ecclesiastical game in action: deception, duplicity, obfuscation, perjury, stonewalling, delaying tactics, withholding evidence, destroying documents, bribing or intimidating witnesses, running out the clock on statutes of limitation, spiriting suspects out of jurisdiction just ahead of the police, hiding assets, cutting under-the-table deals with law enforcement, feigning bankruptcy to disrupt legal processes, claiming that the pope is not responsible for the behavior of his bishops, claiming that bishops are not responsible for the behavior of their priests, blaming the victims for their own victimization, blaming the media, blaming the culture, blaming the Jews and the liberals and the Freemasons and the Communists and anyone else they can think of … on and on and on.
Your intentions may be pure as the driven snow, but I’m afraid in the current context you come across too much like a lawyer arguing that the charges against his client must be dropped because all the witnesses have died and all the evidence has vanished. That may well be true, but the mere fact that all the witnesses have died and all the evidence has vanished may in itself be enough for us to draw the appropriate conclusions, especially when it happens over and over again. Once may be an accident, twice may be a coincidence–but after several hundred times you have to recognize it for what it is: standard operating procedure.
Twitter Trackbacks for If Only the Führer Knew! Part II [podles.org] on Topsy.com
[…] If Only the Führer Knew! Part II podles.org/dialogue/if-only-the-fuhrer-knew-part-ii-403.htm – view page – cached Les Femmes website linked to my criticism of the beatification of John Paul. This reply I think is typical of the Catholic reaction: It is an out-and-out lie to claim that Pope John Paul II failed to carry out the duties of his state in life. Could he have done a better job? Yes, but then again, […] […]
I agree with much of Carolyn Disco’s comments, but I don’t understand the implied defense of Weakland. His own record on sexual abuse has been terrible, including blaming the “squealing” victims, shredding official documents about pedophile priests, etc. And spare me that he was doing all this to placate Rome, when he had no problem with routinely disobeying Rome when it came to liturgical and doctrinal matters.