Post Reply
Page 18 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18
Switch to Forum Live View The stakes in Philly...
2 years ago  ::  Sep 25, 2012 - 8:55PM #171
mokantx
Posts: 3,814


Quanda


Agreed (obviously).



I continue to wonder how all of this might have played out had the Bishops played their hand very differently from 2002 forward.  They went with the big Dallas accord splash, got their pinkies slightly slapped by a Rome that even today, I think may not get it all, and then proceeded forward. They've spent millions on training the laity, priests, deacons, etc.  They've given countless talks full of assurances that they want to take care of the victims, etc.  But the thing they have yet to do, in my mind at least, is to convince the world that they've had a change of heart about what's really at the core of this all, which is, their priorities.  The way they prioritize their issues, has made it clear over and over that STILL believe that protecting the "church" (conveniently defined as being the bishops) is more important than mere human beings.


So HOW do they show that they've had a change of heart?  I believe that in a church rooted reeally deeply in the power of symbol, we need some new, and meaningful symbols here.  Practically speaking, they've simply GOT to stop handling this stuff through private "fraternal correction," and instead, publicly start holding themselves accountable.  When Finn got convicted, the man shoulda been removed within a week.  Period.  When Cdl George blew two cases of then-current abuse a matter of weeks before he was elevated from VP to President of the USCCB, they should have broke with tradition (which interestingly they DID  with his successor, Dolan) and NOT elected the sitting VP, but gone with somebody else, and made it clear that it was BECAUSE he blew those cases.  Benedict may think he was holding those two Irish bishops "accountable" by refusing to accept their resignation in the face of the absolute disaster they created over there.  But by taking that position, the man literally and completely  screwed the people in those bishops' dioceses.  So he "punished" those bishops by leaving those poor people who had been under their care for decades, to endure even more of that "care." 


We all know the litany here.  The problem is that I see no way to interpret this stuff OTHER than as a powerful sign of what the bishops believe to be really inportant.  And you'll notice that in every one of these cases, the continuation of the adminstrative church "as is" wins out over the chance to tell the world that it's no longer business as usual.


While I'm sure there are cases of really good bishops out there, has anybody else noticed that not a one of these good men seems to EVER speak their minds until AFTER they have retired?  Again: absolute slience wins out no matter HOW heinous the injustice.  Yet somehow, we're supposed to take it as a matter of faith that they have had a change of heart?;


Chaput has his work cut out for him.  As I said earlier, I'll wait and see on this one.  But if Chaput is playing ANY, and I mean A-N-Y games here at all, then I think absolutely every fear I have had about the church will be completely validated.  It really is that simple.  And that's why this particular law suit is interesting...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 25, 2012 - 9:42PM #172
quandampaupere
Posts: 245

I am not that knowledgible about affairs in Philly, but a question that has always fascinated me is where does Ragalli land in all of this. Given the culture, although it is certainly possible that he changed things for the better, I cannot help but think that child abuse was not even on his radar screen, except in terms of "protecting the church". Yet, the hierarchy target has historically been Bevalaqua. I have a real problem giving Ragalli the benefit of the doubt.



As for Chaput, I am certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. The Dallas Charter reform measures constitute meaningless charade for consumption by an [[uninformed or disbelieving]]  catholic laity and additionally a larger public that wants to believe and wants to forgive and wants to give the benefit of the doubt.



And as for and modicum of accountability in fraternal correction, at this point I do not know what that  means. The old boy network will win again and again and again UNLESS structures quite outside the church in both civil and criminal law to force change.Thats why going after Finn and company in Missouri is so very important.



IF a RICO litigation in Philly should commence and be sucessful, I will honestly and deeply grieve for the Roman Catholic laity and scores of good hard working priests, deacons, sisters and the like who are out in the trenches every day carrying on in the footsteps of Christ... And for all Catholic and non Catholic laity who have benefited from the exceptional social services of the church which may have to be sacrificed. At this level, it will be only good...and the true Body of Christ... that is being destroyed from a massive punitive damage verdict RICO or otherwise. 



But on the institutional side of things, it is the higher ups, and the syncophants and hypocrites and moral whores that bother me the most. If the upper institution goes to the dry cleaners...the dishonest people in chanceries and their bishops, I will grieve not a damn. Not one minute or nannosecond. They are the betrayers of us all. Coconspirators and murderers of hearts and souls of innocents. This includes, by the way, many of the hierarchy in Rome  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 25, 2012 - 10:02PM #173
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Sep 25, 2012 -- 8:55PM, mokantx wrote:



Quanda


Agreed (obviously).



I continue to wonder how all of this might have played out had the Bishops played their hand very differently from 2002 forward.  They went with the big Dallas accord splash, got their pinkies slightly slapped by a Rome that even today, I think may not get it all, and then proceeded forward. They've spent millions on training the laity, priests, deacons, etc.  They've given countless talks full of assurances that they want to take care of the victims, etc.  But the thing they have yet to do, in my mind at least, is to convince the world that they've had a change of heart about what's really at the core of this all, which is, their priorities.  The way they prioritize their issues, has made it clear over and over that STILL believe that protecting the "church" (conveniently defined as being the bishops) is more important than mere human beings.


So HOW do they show that they've had a change of heart?  I believe that in a church rooted reeally deeply in the power of symbol, we need some new, and meaningful symbols here.  Practically speaking, they've simply GOT to stop handling this stuff through private "fraternal correction," and instead, publicly start holding themselves accountable.  When Finn got convicted, the man shoulda been removed within a week.  Period.  When Cdl George blew two cases of then-current abuse a matter of weeks before he was elevated from VP to President of the USCCB, they should have broke with tradition (which interestingly they DID  with his successor, Dolan) and NOT elected the sitting VP, but gone with somebody else, and made it clear that it was BECAUSE he blew those cases.  Benedict may think he was holding those two Irish bishops "accountable" by refusing to accept their resignation in the face of the absolute disaster they created over there.  But by taking that position, the man literally and completely  screwed the people in those bishops' dioceses.  So he "punished" those bishops by leaving those poor people who had been under their care for decades, to endure even more of that "care." 


We all know the litany here.  The problem is that I see no way to interpret this stuff OTHER than as a powerful sign of what the bishops believe to be really inportant.  And you'll notice that in every one of these cases, the continuation of the adminstrative church "as is" wins out over the chance to tell the world that it's no longer business as usual.


While I'm sure there are cases of really good bishops out there, has anybody else noticed that not a one of these good men seems to EVER speak their minds until AFTER they have retired?  Again: absolute slience wins out no matter HOW heinous the injustice.  Yet somehow, we're supposed to take it as a matter of faith that they have had a change of heart?;


Chaput has his work cut out for him.  As I said earlier, I'll wait and see on this one.  But if Chaput is playing ANY, and I mean A-N-Y games here at all, then I think absolutely every fear I have had about the church will be co.


mpletely validated.  It really is that simple.  And that's why this particular law suit is interesting...




I don't trust Chaput--why would I ?


Something I've noticed over the years about Philly is that an almost ghetto Catholicism there has been in play.




 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 25, 2012 - 10:14PM #174
mokantx
Posts: 3,814


Quanda


Not that it really matters, but my sense with Rigali is that most of the guy's career as a bishop was spent in Rome, in personal service to JPII.  JPII wanted to give him the red hat, but first he had to get  him an archbishop's role.  So he was assigned to St. Louis as abp.  There, his handlers quickly learned to never let him get in front of a microphone without serious briefing, because they spent a ridiculous amount of damage control every time he spoke. 


From various accounts, when the second Grand Jury report hit in Philly, Rigali literally had to turn to his aids and ask "is it true?"  What I find interesting about that is that it was his JOB to "know" how his own people were handling the first Grand Jury Report.  The fact that he even had to ask that question speaks volumes...   So my take on him is that the guy might have a good heart, but as a leader, he was simply inept. 


I'm pretty sure that Benedict's selection of Chaput to back fill him was based on the assumption that serious change was needed at that Chancery, but that Benedict wanted to make sure that any changes were controlled by a very conservative man, hence Chaput.  Chaput is relatively young, he's a rising star among the conservative set, and he himself made it clear when he went in that he simply had to clean the mess up, and to restore trust.  So by his own words, Chaput recognizes the problem, and simply has to perform.  Maybe that's part of the reason I question this latest case: there HAS to be more there than meets the eye, cuz I cannot IMAGINE Chaput blowing one badly at this point.  And even Benedict must understand that if the  diocese gets hit with a third grand jury report, the odds are high that the Justice Department will be the next knock on the door.  I'm GUESSING that the attorneys in this latest case may be angling for future political office, knowing full well that Chaput HAS to respond well to this mess, as neither ne, nor Rome, can afford that third Grand Jury.... 



I know many priests, and have two brothers who are priests.  I have a pretty good sense of where a lot of these guys are, and although they may not always feel free to say so from the pulpit, I'm pretty sure that much of the anger we in the laity feel, these guys feel and amplify.  They get it from both sides.  They see inept leadership, double dealing, politics, shenanigans, apple polishing, and all the seamier stuff.  But they ALSO see the good the church does, both publicly and in private.  They understand that the daily lives many of us live are so far removed from that idyllic world we hear the Vatican address, that sombody needs to try to bridge the gap, and at least some of them see that as their role.  But they are stretched, tired, angry and scared at times.   


The real church needs better leaders.  And that simply ain't gonna happen as long as those litmus tests continue to exist, as long as the voice of the 99.9999% of the real church are excluded from that decisionmaking process, and as long as those at the top see no benefit to a healthy dialog and debate about absolutely  EVERYTHING that is church.  I don't see that happening with the current crop.  But until it does, the bleeding will continue.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 25, 2012 - 10:20PM #175
mokantx
Posts: 3,814

Jane


Neither do I.  But I DO think the man is a good indicator of "things church" these days.  If you're a strong conservative (churchwise), you'll problaby assume he's the right guy, and trust him implicitly.  And if your not happy with the direction of the church in recent years, you're gonna see him as the shining example of all that is wrong with the church.  I'm guessing the truth falls somewhere in between.  But the really sad part, is that it pretty much doesn't matter anymore.  The church has become so polarized that as I see it, a huge clash is coming.  I see the "solution" playing out in only a few ways:


1: the fall of the hierarchy as we know it.  That can happen through a Vatican III-like event, wherein the bishops themselves take it all apart and reassemble the church from the top, OR some kind of "bottoms up" action that somehow, some way, effectively tears it all down.  (no clue how that might happen...)


2: something akin to the reformation, wherein the church goes through a period wherein we see a series of major schisms and departures.



The thing I do not see, is a gentle turn.  The split is too wide,  the differences too deep, and the anger too strong.



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 26, 2012 - 11:02AM #176
gilg
Posts: 5,199

Sep 25, 2012 -- 10:20PM, mokantx wrote:


Jane


Neither do I.  But I DO think the man is a good indicator of "things church" these days.  If you're a strong conservative (churchwise), you'll problaby assume he's the right guy, and trust him implicitly.  And if your not happy with the direction of the church in recent years, you're gonna see him as the shining example of all that is wrong with the church.  I'm guessing the truth falls somewhere in between.  But the really sad part, is that it pretty much doesn't matter anymore.  The church has become so polarized that as I see it, a huge clash is coming.  I see the "solution" playing out in only a few ways:


1: the fall of the hierarchy as we know it.  That can happen through a Vatican III-like event, wherein the bishops themselves take it all apart and reassemble the church from the top, OR some kind of "bottoms up" action that somehow, some way, effectively tears it all down.  (no clue how that might happen...)


2: something akin to the reformation, wherein the church goes through a period wherein we see a series of major schisms and departures.



The thing I do not see, is a gentle turn.  The split is too wide,  the differences too deep, and the anger too strong.






I would bet on Item 2, above, it is  what one would expect given Ratzinger's goal of a smaller church. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 26, 2012 - 11:31PM #177
hewy1952
Posts: 2,454

Sep 26, 2012 -- 11:02AM, gilg wrote:


Sep 25, 2012 -- 10:20PM, mokantx wrote:


Jane


Neither do I.  But I DO think the man is a good indicator of "things church" these days.  If you're a strong conservative (churchwise), you'll problaby assume he's the right guy, and trust him implicitly.  And if your not happy with the direction of the church in recent years, you're gonna see him as the shining example of all that is wrong with the church.  I'm guessing the truth falls somewhere in between.  But the really sad part, is that it pretty much doesn't matter anymore.  The church has become so polarized that as I see it, a huge clash is coming.  I see the "solution" playing out in only a few ways:


1: the fall of the hierarchy as we know it.  That can happen through a Vatican III-like event, wherein the bishops themselves take it all apart and reassemble the church from the top, OR some kind of "bottoms up" action that somehow, some way, effectively tears it all down.  (no clue how that might happen...)


2: something akin to the reformation, wherein the church goes through a period wherein we see a series of major schisms and departures.



The thing I do not see, is a gentle turn.  The split is too wide,  the differences too deep, and the anger too strong.






I would bet on Item 2, above, it is  what one would expect given Ratzinger's goal of a smaller church. 





In business, when a facility (hospital) was doing poorly, we always had a saying, that went like this.  "A thing is usually dead for 3 or 4 days before it really starts to smell".  Ibidem ecclesiam.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 18 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook