Editor’s note: Samantha Pearl, a Battle Creek resident, parishioner at St. Philip Roman Catholic Church with children attending Battle Creek Area Catholic Schools, wrote this in reponse to a letter from Monsignor Michael Osborn, vicar general at the Diocese of Kalamazoo. It is posted here with her permission.
—
With all due respect, this letter is an outrageous response to an already inflammatory situation.
Let us look at the information available to us: the Kalamazoo Gazette article, the Battle Creek Enquirer article, the investigative article published by the Minnesota Public Radio. This man has been accused of improprieties by almost a dozen seminarians and two fellow priests.
He has been accused of protecting and relocating Curtis Wehmeyer, the priest who confessed and was convicted of raping two young boys. He has been accused of failing to report sex crimes, giving extra payments to priests who admitted abusing children, keeping some abusers in the ministry, and choosing not to warn the public or the parishioners most directly affected.
Investigators have provided sworn statements that he withheld information and impeded the investigation into the Diocesan handling of sex abuse cases in his Diocese. His Diocese settled three cases with victims of child sex abuse at the hands of priests under his watch. His Diocese is the first in the United States to be indicted for its role in covering up sex abuse scandals.
Two auxiliary Bishops in his own Diocese traveled to Washington to bring the situation to the attention of the Pope’s ambassador to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, and to ask for an intervention.
Our pastor introduced this man to our parish through our bulletin as an “old and trusted friend.” You have told our children in the high school not to listen to the accusations against this man; that he is safe and to be trusted. You have told us, as parents, through Father Osborn’s Diocesan letter, that you “sought additional reassurances” regarding Archbishop Nienstedt and that the environment at our schools is safe.
What you are asking us to do is suspend reason, judgment, and prudence — to ignore independent evidence and information, to accept your “assurances” that this man’s integrity and behavior entitle him to continue to serve in the ministry, in parish life, in proximity to children.
You have placed a man clearly known to have failed to protect children from sexual predators in a position of ministry — the highest calling of God's work. The letter from Father Osborn at the Diocese asserts that you are not responsible for bringing him here — as though it is not your doing — at the same time you assure parents that you have done your due diligence regarding his past.
For too long, parishioners in this Diocese have been given no say in our pastoral leadership and our concerns fall on deaf ears. Our concerns as parents are your responsibility, and platitudes about this person being "safe" are a disrespectful and trite response to a serious and concerning situation.
You urge "reason and charity," as though we're expressing unfounded or mild concerns, as though there is no evidence or information to warrant caution. Let us be honest, Bishop Bradley, your permission to allow this to happen, despite the repeated and egregious failure of Archbishop Nienstedt to protect children, suggests you place the protection of this man and his reputation above the protection of our children. You are the spiritual, pastoral, and executive leader of this Diocese. This occurrence is your responsibility.
As a victim of a child sex predator, I am infuriated at your ignorant and irresponsible behavior. Victims of sex abuse suffer a pattern of abuse after the sexual abuse, perpetrated by our parents and pastoral leadership, including the inherent message that we will not be protected, that the crime is not heinous, that the rights and reputation of the perpetrator take precedence over the rights and protection of the victim. You will not silently perpetrate the continuation of these crimes in my parish. I am deeply grieved by the leadership of the Diocese and the need to speak publicly given the lack of integrity and Godly leadership shown by you, by the Diocese, and by the pastor in my parish.
Bishop Bradley, the Diocese has lost its way. Do the right thing. Remove Archbishop Nienstedt from ministry at any church in our Diocese or step down from your post.
-------
Here is the diocesan letter referred to above.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Samantha Pearl: the diocese of Kalamazoo has lost its way
Samantha Pearl
Battle Creek Enquirer
January 16, 2016
Editor’s note: Samantha Pearl, a Battle Creek resident, parishioner at St. Philip Roman Catholic Church with children attending Battle Creek Area Catholic Schools, wrote this in reponse to a letter from Monsignor Michael Osborn, vicar general at the Diocese of Kalamazoo. It is posted here with her permission.
—
With all due respect, this letter is an outrageous response to an already inflammatory situation.
Let us look at the information available to us: the Kalamazoo Gazette article, the Battle Creek Enquirer article, the investigative article published by the Minnesota Public Radio. This man has been accused of improprieties by almost a dozen seminarians and two fellow priests.
He has been accused of protecting and relocating Curtis Wehmeyer, the priest who confessed and was convicted of raping two young boys. He has been accused of failing to report sex crimes, giving extra payments to priests who admitted abusing children, keeping some abusers in the ministry, and choosing not to warn the public or the parishioners most directly affected.
Investigators have provided sworn statements that he withheld information and impeded the investigation into the Diocesan handling of sex abuse cases in his Diocese. His Diocese settled three cases with victims of child sex abuse at the hands of priests under his watch. His Diocese is the first in the United States to be indicted for its role in covering up sex abuse scandals.
Two auxiliary Bishops in his own Diocese traveled to Washington to bring the situation to the attention of the Pope’s ambassador to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, and to ask for an intervention.
Our pastor introduced this man to our parish through our bulletin as an “old and trusted friend.” You have told our children in the high school not to listen to the accusations against this man; that he is safe and to be trusted. You have told us, as parents, through Father Osborn’s Diocesan letter, that you “sought additional reassurances” regarding Archbishop Nienstedt and that the environment at our schools is safe.
What you are asking us to do is suspend reason, judgment, and prudence — to ignore independent evidence and information, to accept your “assurances” that this man’s integrity and behavior entitle him to continue to serve in the ministry, in parish life, in proximity to children.
You have placed a man clearly known to have failed to protect children from sexual predators in a position of ministry — the highest calling of God's work. The letter from Father Osborn at the Diocese asserts that you are not responsible for bringing him here — as though it is not your doing — at the same time you assure parents that you have done your due diligence regarding his past.
For too long, parishioners in this Diocese have been given no say in our pastoral leadership and our concerns fall on deaf ears. Our concerns as parents are your responsibility, and platitudes about this person being "safe" are a disrespectful and trite response to a serious and concerning situation.
You urge "reason and charity," as though we're expressing unfounded or mild concerns, as though there is no evidence or information to warrant caution. Let us be honest, Bishop Bradley, your permission to allow this to happen, despite the repeated and egregious failure of Archbishop Nienstedt to protect children, suggests you place the protection of this man and his reputation above the protection of our children. You are the spiritual, pastoral, and executive leader of this Diocese. This occurrence is your responsibility.
As a victim of a child sex predator, I am infuriated at your ignorant and irresponsible behavior. Victims of sex abuse suffer a pattern of abuse after the sexual abuse, perpetrated by our parents and pastoral leadership, including the inherent message that we will not be protected, that the crime is not heinous, that the rights and reputation of the perpetrator take precedence over the rights and protection of the victim. You will not silently perpetrate the continuation of these crimes in my parish. I am deeply grieved by the leadership of the Diocese and the need to speak publicly given the lack of integrity and Godly leadership shown by you, by the Diocese, and by the pastor in my parish.
Bishop Bradley, the Diocese has lost its way. Do the right thing. Remove Archbishop Nienstedt from ministry at any church in our Diocese or step down from your post.
-------
Here is the diocesan letter referred to above.
Editor’s note: Samantha Pearl, a Battle Creek resident, parishioner at St. Philip Roman Catholic Church with children attending Battle Creek Area Catholic Schools, wrote this in reponse to a letter from Monsignor Michael Osborn, vicar general at the Diocese of Kalamazoo. It is posted here with her permission.
—
With all due respect, this letter is an outrageous response to an already inflammatory situation.
Let us look at the information available to us: the Kalamazoo Gazette article, the Battle Creek Enquirer article, the investigative article published by the Minnesota Public Radio. This man has been accused of improprieties by almost a dozen seminarians and two fellow priests.
He has been accused of protecting and relocating Curtis Wehmeyer, the priest who confessed and was convicted of raping two young boys. He has been accused of failing to report sex crimes, giving extra payments to priests who admitted abusing children, keeping some abusers in the ministry, and choosing not to warn the public or the parishioners most directly affected.
Investigators have provided sworn statements that he withheld information and impeded the investigation into the Diocesan handling of sex abuse cases in his Diocese. His Diocese settled three cases with victims of child sex abuse at the hands of priests under his watch. His Diocese is the first in the United States to be indicted for its role in covering up sex abuse scandals.
Two auxiliary Bishops in his own Diocese traveled to Washington to bring the situation to the attention of the Pope’s ambassador to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, and to ask for an intervention.
Our pastor introduced this man to our parish through our bulletin as an “old and trusted friend.” You have told our children in the high school not to listen to the accusations against this man; that he is safe and to be trusted. You have told us, as parents, through Father Osborn’s Diocesan letter, that you “sought additional reassurances” regarding Archbishop Nienstedt and that the environment at our schools is safe.
What you are asking us to do is suspend reason, judgment, and prudence — to ignore independent evidence and information, to accept your “assurances” that this man’s integrity and behavior entitle him to continue to serve in the ministry, in parish life, in proximity to children.
You have placed a man clearly known to have failed to protect children from sexual predators in a position of ministry — the highest calling of God's work. The letter from Father Osborn at the Diocese asserts that you are not responsible for bringing him here — as though it is not your doing — at the same time you assure parents that you have done your due diligence regarding his past.
For too long, parishioners in this Diocese have been given no say in our pastoral leadership and our concerns fall on deaf ears. Our concerns as parents are your responsibility, and platitudes about this person being "safe" are a disrespectful and trite response to a serious and concerning situation.
You urge "reason and charity," as though we're expressing unfounded or mild concerns, as though there is no evidence or information to warrant caution. Let us be honest, Bishop Bradley, your permission to allow this to happen, despite the repeated and egregious failure of Archbishop Nienstedt to protect children, suggests you place the protection of this man and his reputation above the protection of our children. You are the spiritual, pastoral, and executive leader of this Diocese. This occurrence is your responsibility.
As a victim of a child sex predator, I am infuriated at your ignorant and irresponsible behavior. Victims of sex abuse suffer a pattern of abuse after the sexual abuse, perpetrated by our parents and pastoral leadership, including the inherent message that we will not be protected, that the crime is not heinous, that the rights and reputation of the perpetrator take precedence over the rights and protection of the victim. You will not silently perpetrate the continuation of these crimes in my parish. I am deeply grieved by the leadership of the Diocese and the need to speak publicly given the lack of integrity and Godly leadership shown by you, by the Diocese, and by the pastor in my parish.
Bishop Bradley, the Diocese has lost its way. Do the right thing. Remove Archbishop Nienstedt from ministry at any church in our Diocese or step down from your post.
-------
Here is the diocesan letter referred to above.
Letter regarding Archbishop Nienstedt from Msgr Osborn
Diocese of Kalamazoo
Office of the Bishop
January 15, 2016
Dear St. Joseph School Parents,
In the event that you didn’t receive this information earlier, and In light of recent concerns expressed regarding Archbishop John C.Nienstedt’s temporary stay in the Diocese, we wish to share with you the following information:
• Archbishop Emeritus Nienstedt is a retired priest temporarily visiting the Diocese who voluntarily offered his assistance to Fr. John Fleckenstein, who is addressing serious health concerns. He has not been appointed,
assigned or “hired” by the Diocese.
• As arranged by himself and Fr. John, he has simply agreed to celebrate Mass at St. Philip Parish and assist in hospital ministry as needed. The Archbishop will not be scheduled for any interaction or involvement with our schools.
• Bishop Bradley gave approval to this arrangement, following the standard procedures for any visiting priest who wishes to exercise priestly ministry within the Diocese in order to make sure that he was a priest in good standing.
• We take very seriously our commitment that safe environments are maintained for our precious children and for all people. It is because of this that Bishop Bradley sought additional assurances regarding Archbishop Nienstedt,
in addition to making sure he meets the stringent requirements it takes to be a “priest in good standing.”
We remain confident that the environment at St. Joseph Elementary and Middle School is safe. Please find for your
information and background Fr. John Fleckenstein’s letter published in the St. Philip
Parish bulletin along with the Diocesan statement on this matter. We regret that this important information was not more widely distributed, as was originally intended. Together let us pray that reason and charity prevail. Sincerely yours in Christ, Msgr. Michael Osborn
Vicar General
----------
For response from an affected parishioner, see letter from Samantha Pearl.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Archbishop John Nienstedt, Bishop Robert Finn have new homes outside former dioceses
Brian Roewe
National Catholic Reporter
January 14, 2016
Two U.S. bishops who prematurely resigned their posts amid clergy sexual abuse scandals each have found new landing spots outside their previous dioceses.
A southern Michigan parish announced over the weekend that Archbishop John Nienstedt, formerly head of the St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese, will help out temporarily in the coming months, while Bishop Robert Finn, former head of the Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo. diocese, began last month as chaplain for a Nebraska community of women religious.
Within the span of two months last spring, Finn, 62, and Nienstedt, 68, stepped down -- years before the traditional age of 75 when bishops must submit their resignations to Rome -- as shepherds of their respective dioceses, both of which teemed with anger and anguish for their church's handling of child sexual abuse allegations. In the case of Finn, it was a 2012 misdemeanor conviction for failing to report suspected child abuse that drew a probationary sentence in civil court but no recourse from the church. For Nienstedt, his abdication, along with Auxiliary Bishop Lee Piché, came just 10 days after the Ramsey County prosecutor brought criminal charges against the archdiocese for its handling of abuse allegations.
Both Finn and Nienstedt now have new homes.
Nienstedt has agreed to assist in pastoral ministries at St. Philip Roman Catholic Church in Battle Creek, Mich., in the Kalamazoo diocese, or about two hours west of his hometown Detroit diocese. He took up residence in Battle Creek on Jan. 6.
The St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese said it would not comment on Nienstedt's move and directed questions to the Kalamazoo diocese. Victoria Cessna, executive director of the Kalamazoo secretariat of communications and public affairs, told NCR that Nienstedt is a retired priest offering his assistance to a friend, and was not appointed or assigned to the parish.
The Kalamazoo diocese in a statement said Nienstedt is welcome in the diocese, while reiterating its commitment "to providing safe environments for all people."
"As is the case for any priest or bishop ministering in the Diocese, Archbishop Emeritus Nienstedt begins his temporary ministry at St. Philip Parish as a priest in good standing, having met the Church's stringent standards required to attain that status," it said.
It remains unclear, though, if the Kalamazoo diocese was made aware of, or given access to, the investigation to alleged sexual improprieties by Nienstedt with seminarians and other adults, which extended to his time in Michigan in the early 1980s. Two years ago, Nienstedt himself commissioned the St. Paul law firm Greene Espel to look into the charges against him. Last July, Nienstedt again denied the allegations to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, calling them "entirely false and based wholly on rumor, hearsay, or innuendo." At the time, the Star Tribune reported that the archdiocese was considering making the investigation's report public. The archdiocese declined comment to NCR Tuesday on the status of the investigation.
David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, objected to Nienstedt's move and urged people in Kalamazoo to educate themselves on the abuse crisis in Minnesota.
"This decision shows that Catholic officials still put the wishes and needs of their brother bishops ahead of nearly every other consideration, including the safety of the flock," he said in a statement.
"The diocese, after checking with others in higher positions of ecclesiastical authority, was given assurances that there was nothing standing in the way of Archbishop Nienstedt being considered a priest in good standing and helping out a brother priest who is ill in providing pastoral care to people proper to a priest," Cessna told NCR.
In the Jan. 10 parish bulletin, St. Philip pastor Fr. John Fleckenstein said that the archbishop will join the parish for about six months, while also describing health issues that have necessitated assistance at the parish. While Fleckenstein has led the parish on his own since the summer, he anticipated his health, and role as Episcopal Vicar for Education, would require additional help in coming months.
The St. Philip pastor said that Nienstedt, his friend of 20 years, will celebrate some weekend and weekday Masses at the church and at a local nursing home and assisted living facility, and will visit the sick and homebound. Nienstedt will maintain an office at the parish but reside at the St. Clare House at St. Joseph Catholic Church in Kalamazoo.
"While the Archbishop is not 'assigned' to the parish, I'm grateful he will assist us in these next few months," said Fleckenstein, who added that Nienstedt "anticipates moving on to a new ministry" at some point in the summer.
As Nienstedt found a new home, his old one moved closer to sale. As part of its ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, the Twin Cities archdiocese asked a bankruptcy court judge last week to approve a $2.75 million sale of its chancery building and archbishop's residence to commercial developer United Properties. The deal isn't expected to finalize until mid-March.
As for Finn, in December he began as chaplain of the School Sisters of Christ the King in the Lincoln, Neb., diocese, appointed to the position by Lincoln Bishop James Conley. Both his former and current dioceses announced the new role in their diocesan newspapers. Finn will reside at the School Sisters' Villa Regina Motherhouse.
While rumors have floated in Kansas City that Finn might also teach at the St. Gregory the Great Seminary in Seward, Neb., attended by several Kansas City seminarians, its rector, Fr. Jeffrey Eickhoff, told NCR that the bishop is currently not teaching, and at this point nothing further has been determined.
Two U.S. bishops who prematurely resigned their posts amid clergy sexual abuse scandals each have found new landing spots outside their previous dioceses.
A southern Michigan parish announced over the weekend that Archbishop John Nienstedt, formerly head of the St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese, will help out temporarily in the coming months, while Bishop Robert Finn, former head of the Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo. diocese, began last month as chaplain for a Nebraska community of women religious.
Within the span of two months last spring, Finn, 62, and Nienstedt, 68, stepped down -- years before the traditional age of 75 when bishops must submit their resignations to Rome -- as shepherds of their respective dioceses, both of which teemed with anger and anguish for their church's handling of child sexual abuse allegations. In the case of Finn, it was a 2012 misdemeanor conviction for failing to report suspected child abuse that drew a probationary sentence in civil court but no recourse from the church. For Nienstedt, his abdication, along with Auxiliary Bishop Lee Piché, came just 10 days after the Ramsey County prosecutor brought criminal charges against the archdiocese for its handling of abuse allegations.
Both Finn and Nienstedt now have new homes.
Nienstedt has agreed to assist in pastoral ministries at St. Philip Roman Catholic Church in Battle Creek, Mich., in the Kalamazoo diocese, or about two hours west of his hometown Detroit diocese. He took up residence in Battle Creek on Jan. 6.
The St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese said it would not comment on Nienstedt's move and directed questions to the Kalamazoo diocese. Victoria Cessna, executive director of the Kalamazoo secretariat of communications and public affairs, told NCR that Nienstedt is a retired priest offering his assistance to a friend, and was not appointed or assigned to the parish.
The Kalamazoo diocese in a statement said Nienstedt is welcome in the diocese, while reiterating its commitment "to providing safe environments for all people."
"As is the case for any priest or bishop ministering in the Diocese, Archbishop Emeritus Nienstedt begins his temporary ministry at St. Philip Parish as a priest in good standing, having met the Church's stringent standards required to attain that status," it said.
It remains unclear, though, if the Kalamazoo diocese was made aware of, or given access to, the investigation to alleged sexual improprieties by Nienstedt with seminarians and other adults, which extended to his time in Michigan in the early 1980s. Two years ago, Nienstedt himself commissioned the St. Paul law firm Greene Espel to look into the charges against him. Last July, Nienstedt again denied the allegations to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, calling them "entirely false and based wholly on rumor, hearsay, or innuendo." At the time, the Star Tribune reported that the archdiocese was considering making the investigation's report public. The archdiocese declined comment to NCR Tuesday on the status of the investigation.
David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, objected to Nienstedt's move and urged people in Kalamazoo to educate themselves on the abuse crisis in Minnesota.
"This decision shows that Catholic officials still put the wishes and needs of their brother bishops ahead of nearly every other consideration, including the safety of the flock," he said in a statement.
"The diocese, after checking with others in higher positions of ecclesiastical authority, was given assurances that there was nothing standing in the way of Archbishop Nienstedt being considered a priest in good standing and helping out a brother priest who is ill in providing pastoral care to people proper to a priest," Cessna told NCR.
In the Jan. 10 parish bulletin, St. Philip pastor Fr. John Fleckenstein said that the archbishop will join the parish for about six months, while also describing health issues that have necessitated assistance at the parish. While Fleckenstein has led the parish on his own since the summer, he anticipated his health, and role as Episcopal Vicar for Education, would require additional help in coming months.
The St. Philip pastor said that Nienstedt, his friend of 20 years, will celebrate some weekend and weekday Masses at the church and at a local nursing home and assisted living facility, and will visit the sick and homebound. Nienstedt will maintain an office at the parish but reside at the St. Clare House at St. Joseph Catholic Church in Kalamazoo.
"While the Archbishop is not 'assigned' to the parish, I'm grateful he will assist us in these next few months," said Fleckenstein, who added that Nienstedt "anticipates moving on to a new ministry" at some point in the summer.
As Nienstedt found a new home, his old one moved closer to sale. As part of its ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, the Twin Cities archdiocese asked a bankruptcy court judge last week to approve a $2.75 million sale of its chancery building and archbishop's residence to commercial developer United Properties. The deal isn't expected to finalize until mid-March.
As for Finn, in December he began as chaplain of the School Sisters of Christ the King in the Lincoln, Neb., diocese, appointed to the position by Lincoln Bishop James Conley. Both his former and current dioceses announced the new role in their diocesan newspapers. Finn will reside at the School Sisters' Villa Regina Motherhouse.
While rumors have floated in Kansas City that Finn might also teach at the St. Gregory the Great Seminary in Seward, Neb., attended by several Kansas City seminarians, its rector, Fr. Jeffrey Eickhoff, told NCR that the bishop is currently not teaching, and at this point nothing further has been determined.
Cardinal Rodriguez: homosexual lobby exists in the Vatican
Edward Pentin
National Catholic Register
January 13, 2016
Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has confirmed the presence of a homosexual “lobby” in the Vatican and revealed that Pope Francis is trying “little by little to purify it.”
The Honduran Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, who coordinates the Council of Nine cardinals advising the Pope on reform of the Roman Curia and Church governance, was responding to a question from a Honduran newspaper reporter who asked him whether there had been “an attempt to infiltrate the gay community in the Vatican, or a moment when that had actually happened?”
Cardinal Rodriguez replied: “Not only that, also the Pope has said there is even a ‘lobby’ in this sense. Little by little the Pope is trying to purify it.” He added: “One can understand them [members of the lobby] and there is pastoral legislation to attend to them, but what is wrong cannot be truth.”
The Pope acknowledged the presence of a homosexual network of priests at the Vatican during a private conversation with leaders of a Latin American confederation of religious in June 2013. In the context of saying he found reform of the Roman Curia difficult, the Pope said: "The 'gay lobby' is mentioned, and it is true, it is there … We need to see what we can do."
He alluded to it again a month later, telling reporters on the plane back from Rio de Janeiro that “you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good.”
A homosexual lobby was also suspected to have been influential on both Synods on the Family when controversial passages relating to homosexuals made their way into the interim report during the 2014 meeting despite being hardly discussed, and external lobby groups sought to pressure the participants.
There was also a common perception that the Communion for remarried divorcees issue, which dominated both synods, was a “Trojan horse” to allow Church recognition of same-sex relationships and other extra-marital unions.
During last year’s synod, statements on homosexuality “seemed to come out of nowhere” at press briefings when the issue was hardly raised by synod fathers during the three week meeting.
The comments from the Pope and now Cardinal Rodriguez contradict those made by Father Krzysztof Charamsa, a homosexual Polish priest who was dismissed as an official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after publicly announcing his homosexuality just ahead of the Synod on the Family last October. He told Italian television he had "never met a gay lobby in the Vatican".
Also in the interview with Heraldo de Honduras, Cardinal Rodriguez was asked whether the Pope would ever support same-sex “marriage.”
“No,” he replied. “We must understand that there are things that can be reformed and others cannot. The natural law cannot be reformed. We can see how God has designed the human body, the body of the man and the body of a woman to complement each other and transmit life. The contrary is not the plan of creation. There are things that cannot be changed."
The cardinal also tried to reassure readers there would be “no major” changes to doctrine as part of the Pope's reforms. “We should not expect there will be major reforms in the doctrine of the Church. The reform is the organization of the curia.”
He also said there has not been much resistance to curial reform. “There is resistance of course, there are people who, precisely because they do not know the life of the Church, resist any changes.
“These, of course, are wrong attitudes,” he continued. “As I’ve said, to be able to understand the Church, we must see that it is not merely a human institution, it is humane-divine, it is natural and supernatural and, by consequence, there are things that do not really depend on what is human.”
Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has confirmed the presence of a homosexual “lobby” in the Vatican and revealed that Pope Francis is trying “little by little to purify it.”
The Honduran Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, who coordinates the Council of Nine cardinals advising the Pope on reform of the Roman Curia and Church governance, was responding to a question from a Honduran newspaper reporter who asked him whether there had been “an attempt to infiltrate the gay community in the Vatican, or a moment when that had actually happened?”
Cardinal Rodriguez replied: “Not only that, also the Pope has said there is even a ‘lobby’ in this sense. Little by little the Pope is trying to purify it.” He added: “One can understand them [members of the lobby] and there is pastoral legislation to attend to them, but what is wrong cannot be truth.”
The Pope acknowledged the presence of a homosexual network of priests at the Vatican during a private conversation with leaders of a Latin American confederation of religious in June 2013. In the context of saying he found reform of the Roman Curia difficult, the Pope said: "The 'gay lobby' is mentioned, and it is true, it is there … We need to see what we can do."
He alluded to it again a month later, telling reporters on the plane back from Rio de Janeiro that “you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good.”
A homosexual lobby was also suspected to have been influential on both Synods on the Family when controversial passages relating to homosexuals made their way into the interim report during the 2014 meeting despite being hardly discussed, and external lobby groups sought to pressure the participants.
There was also a common perception that the Communion for remarried divorcees issue, which dominated both synods, was a “Trojan horse” to allow Church recognition of same-sex relationships and other extra-marital unions.
During last year’s synod, statements on homosexuality “seemed to come out of nowhere” at press briefings when the issue was hardly raised by synod fathers during the three week meeting.
The comments from the Pope and now Cardinal Rodriguez contradict those made by Father Krzysztof Charamsa, a homosexual Polish priest who was dismissed as an official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after publicly announcing his homosexuality just ahead of the Synod on the Family last October. He told Italian television he had "never met a gay lobby in the Vatican".
Also in the interview with Heraldo de Honduras, Cardinal Rodriguez was asked whether the Pope would ever support same-sex “marriage.”
“No,” he replied. “We must understand that there are things that can be reformed and others cannot. The natural law cannot be reformed. We can see how God has designed the human body, the body of the man and the body of a woman to complement each other and transmit life. The contrary is not the plan of creation. There are things that cannot be changed."
The cardinal also tried to reassure readers there would be “no major” changes to doctrine as part of the Pope's reforms. “We should not expect there will be major reforms in the doctrine of the Church. The reform is the organization of the curia.”
He also said there has not been much resistance to curial reform. “There is resistance of course, there are people who, precisely because they do not know the life of the Church, resist any changes.
“These, of course, are wrong attitudes,” he continued. “As I’ve said, to be able to understand the Church, we must see that it is not merely a human institution, it is humane-divine, it is natural and supernatural and, by consequence, there are things that do not really depend on what is human.”
Sunday, January 10, 2016
In new interview, Pope Francis pushes for a church big on mercy, tough on law
Joshua J. McElwee
National Catholic Reporter
January 10, 2016
Pope Francis has offered his most detailed outline yet for the role of the Catholic church in the modern era, saying in a new book-length interview the church needs to follow Jesus' example more closely and seek to "enter the darkness" in which many of today's people live.
The pontiff has also responded sharply to church leaders who have criticized his focus on the boundless nature of God's mercy and who suggest that the focus obscures church teachings.
Francis compares such criticisms to "angry mutterings" that Jesus also heard "from those who are only ever used to having things fit into their preconceived notions and ritual purity instead of letting themselves be surprised by reality, by a greater love or a higher standard."
In the new book, titled The Name of God is Mercy and to be released Tuesday, the pope states: "Jesus goes and heals and integrates the marginalized, the ones who are outside the city, the ones outside the encampment. In so doing, he shows us the way."
Reflecting on Jesus' healing of lepers -- who were forbidden to be visited or touched under Mosaic law for fear of causing contamination to the rest of the community -- the pontiff says the Gospels show there are two types of logic of thought and faith.
"On the one hand, there is the fear of losing the just and saved, the sheep that are already safely inside the pen," says Francis. "On the other hand, there is the desire to save the sinners, the lost, those on the other side of the fence."
"The first is the logic of the scholars of the law," says the pope, using a term he frequently references in homilies to speak of those who emphasize strict adherence to church teaching over the practice of mercy.
"The second is the logic of God, who welcomes, embraces, and transfigures evil into good, transforming and redeeming my sin, transmuting condemnation into salvation," he continues.
"Jesus enters into contact with the leper," says Francis. "He touches him. In so doing, he teaches us what to do, which logic to follow, when faced with people who suffer physically and spiritually."
The new book is the result of an interview between the pope and Andrea Tornielli, an Italian journalist and the coordinator for the Vatican Insider news website. The book is being published in 86 countries and about 20 languages on Tuesday. NCR received an advance copy of the English-language version of the text.
The book contains an extensive conversation Tornielli had with Francis in July 2015, just after the pope's visit that month to Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay and before he presided over the contentious worldwide meeting of Catholic prelates known as a Synod of Bishops in October.
Tornielli states in the forward that he wanted to ask the pope questions on the themes of mercy and forgiveness "to analyze what those words mean to him, as a man and a priest" in the context of the Jubilee year of mercy Francis opened Dec. 8.
Throughout the 99 pages of the interview -- broken into nine interconnected parts in the book -- the pontiff speaks expansively about how he understands mercy and what it means to him personally and to the wider church.
He also responds at several points to those who say he has focused too much on mercy, and offers a clear vision for how the church should act in the future. He frequently bases his thoughts on the parables offered by Jesus, even saying once: "We must go back to the Gospel."
Francis also offers a number of personal anecdotes from his priestly work and notably quotes four times from homilies and writings by Albino Luciani, the man who served as Pope John Paul I for only 33 days before his sudden death on Sept. 28, 1978.
Outlining what the church should be doing today, Francis states plainly: "We need to enter the darkness, the night in which so many of our brothers live. We need to be able to make contact with them and let them feel our closeness, without letting ourselves be wrapped up in that darkness and influenced by it."
"Caring for outcasts and sinners does not mean letting the wolves attack the flock," says the pontiff. "It means trying to reach everyone by sharing the experience of mercy, which we ourselves have experienced, without ever caving in to the temptation of feeling that we are just or perfect."
Speaking more specifically about the so-called "scholars of the law," the pontiff again speaks plainly.
"I will say that there is often a kind of hypocrisy in them, a formal adherence to the law that hides very deep wounds," states Francis. "Jesus uses tough words; he defines them as 'whited sepulchers' who appear devout from the outside, but inside, on the inside . . . hypocrites."
"These are men who live attached to the letter of the law but who neglect love; men who only know how to close doors and draw boundaries," says the pope.
"Chapter 23 of the Gospel of Matthew is very clear on this; we need to return there to understand what the Church is and what it should never be," Francis continues.
"He describes the attitudes of those who tie up heavy burdens and lay them on other men’s shoulders, but who are unwilling to move so much as a finger; they are those who love the place of honor and want to be called master," states the pope.
"This conduct comes when a person loses the sense of awe for salvation that has been granted to him," he continues.
"When a person feels a little more secure, he begins to appropriate faculties which are not his own, but which are the Lord’s," he says. "The awe seems to fade, and this is the basis for clericalism or for the conduct of people who feel pure. What then prevails is a formal adherence to rules and to mental schemes."
"At times I have surprised myself by thinking that a few very rigid people would do well to slip a little, so that they could remember that they are sinners and thus meet Jesus," Francis states.
[this is part 1 of a 3 part column.
part 2:the pope's personal encounters with mercy
part 3: Francis explains "who am I to judge"]
Pope Francis has offered his most detailed outline yet for the role of the Catholic church in the modern era, saying in a new book-length interview the church needs to follow Jesus' example more closely and seek to "enter the darkness" in which many of today's people live.
The pontiff has also responded sharply to church leaders who have criticized his focus on the boundless nature of God's mercy and who suggest that the focus obscures church teachings.
Francis compares such criticisms to "angry mutterings" that Jesus also heard "from those who are only ever used to having things fit into their preconceived notions and ritual purity instead of letting themselves be surprised by reality, by a greater love or a higher standard."
In the new book, titled The Name of God is Mercy and to be released Tuesday, the pope states: "Jesus goes and heals and integrates the marginalized, the ones who are outside the city, the ones outside the encampment. In so doing, he shows us the way."
Reflecting on Jesus' healing of lepers -- who were forbidden to be visited or touched under Mosaic law for fear of causing contamination to the rest of the community -- the pontiff says the Gospels show there are two types of logic of thought and faith.
"On the one hand, there is the fear of losing the just and saved, the sheep that are already safely inside the pen," says Francis. "On the other hand, there is the desire to save the sinners, the lost, those on the other side of the fence."
"The first is the logic of the scholars of the law," says the pope, using a term he frequently references in homilies to speak of those who emphasize strict adherence to church teaching over the practice of mercy.
"The second is the logic of God, who welcomes, embraces, and transfigures evil into good, transforming and redeeming my sin, transmuting condemnation into salvation," he continues.
"Jesus enters into contact with the leper," says Francis. "He touches him. In so doing, he teaches us what to do, which logic to follow, when faced with people who suffer physically and spiritually."
The new book is the result of an interview between the pope and Andrea Tornielli, an Italian journalist and the coordinator for the Vatican Insider news website. The book is being published in 86 countries and about 20 languages on Tuesday. NCR received an advance copy of the English-language version of the text.
The book contains an extensive conversation Tornielli had with Francis in July 2015, just after the pope's visit that month to Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay and before he presided over the contentious worldwide meeting of Catholic prelates known as a Synod of Bishops in October.
Tornielli states in the forward that he wanted to ask the pope questions on the themes of mercy and forgiveness "to analyze what those words mean to him, as a man and a priest" in the context of the Jubilee year of mercy Francis opened Dec. 8.
Throughout the 99 pages of the interview -- broken into nine interconnected parts in the book -- the pontiff speaks expansively about how he understands mercy and what it means to him personally and to the wider church.
He also responds at several points to those who say he has focused too much on mercy, and offers a clear vision for how the church should act in the future. He frequently bases his thoughts on the parables offered by Jesus, even saying once: "We must go back to the Gospel."
Francis also offers a number of personal anecdotes from his priestly work and notably quotes four times from homilies and writings by Albino Luciani, the man who served as Pope John Paul I for only 33 days before his sudden death on Sept. 28, 1978.
Outlining what the church should be doing today, Francis states plainly: "We need to enter the darkness, the night in which so many of our brothers live. We need to be able to make contact with them and let them feel our closeness, without letting ourselves be wrapped up in that darkness and influenced by it."
"Caring for outcasts and sinners does not mean letting the wolves attack the flock," says the pontiff. "It means trying to reach everyone by sharing the experience of mercy, which we ourselves have experienced, without ever caving in to the temptation of feeling that we are just or perfect."
Speaking more specifically about the so-called "scholars of the law," the pontiff again speaks plainly.
"I will say that there is often a kind of hypocrisy in them, a formal adherence to the law that hides very deep wounds," states Francis. "Jesus uses tough words; he defines them as 'whited sepulchers' who appear devout from the outside, but inside, on the inside . . . hypocrites."
"These are men who live attached to the letter of the law but who neglect love; men who only know how to close doors and draw boundaries," says the pope.
"Chapter 23 of the Gospel of Matthew is very clear on this; we need to return there to understand what the Church is and what it should never be," Francis continues.
"He describes the attitudes of those who tie up heavy burdens and lay them on other men’s shoulders, but who are unwilling to move so much as a finger; they are those who love the place of honor and want to be called master," states the pope.
"This conduct comes when a person loses the sense of awe for salvation that has been granted to him," he continues.
"When a person feels a little more secure, he begins to appropriate faculties which are not his own, but which are the Lord’s," he says. "The awe seems to fade, and this is the basis for clericalism or for the conduct of people who feel pure. What then prevails is a formal adherence to rules and to mental schemes."
"At times I have surprised myself by thinking that a few very rigid people would do well to slip a little, so that they could remember that they are sinners and thus meet Jesus," Francis states.
[this is part 1 of a 3 part column.
part 2:the pope's personal encounters with mercy
part 3: Francis explains "who am I to judge"]
Friday, January 8, 2016
The Catholic story, conservative vs progressive
Fr. Tom Reese, SJ
National Catholic Reporter
January 8, 2016
Ross Douthat is a thoughtful and articulate conservative who converted to Catholicism in his teens and now writes for The New York Times. He infuriates many of my progressive friends, but I usually find his writings interesting and thought provoking even if I often disagree with him.
This month, First Things has published his 2015 talk, "A Crisis of Conservative Catholicism," which is a thoughtful address to conservative Catholics in the era of Pope Francis. He is attempting to help conservatives cope with the changes happening in the church today.
I hope I will be forgiven for entering this intraconservative conversation. Although no one today would label me a conservative, I was raised in the conservative church of the 1950s, entered a conservative Jesuit novitiate in 1962 before the Second Vatican Council, and had a very difficult time making the transition to the post-Vatican II church.
In short, I have some sympathy with what conservatives are experiencing today because I went through a similar experience in the late 1960s.
For another view, see "Ross Douthat's Erasmus Lecture" by Michael Sean Winters, which I did not see until after I wrote this column.
Douthat begins his talk by relating the accepted conservative narrative explaining the last 50 years of Catholicism, beginning with Vatican II. The goal of the council was "to reorient Catholicism away from its nineteenth-century fortress mentality, to open a new dialogue with the modern world, to look more deeply into the Catholic past in order to prepare for the Catholic future, and to usher in an era of evangelization and renewal."
But "the hoped-for renewal was hijacked, in many cases, by those for whom renewal meant an accommodation to the spirit of the 1960s, and the transformation of the Church along liberal Protestant lines."
The post-conciliar church was divided into two camps. "One followed the actual documents of the council and urged the Church to maintain continuity with Catholic teaching and tradition, and the other was loyal to a 'spirit of the council' that just happened to coincide with the cultural fashions that came in its wake."
Douthat writes that in the period immediately after the council, the second party controlled seminaries, religious orders, Catholic universities, and diocesan bureaucracies. "The results were at best disappointing, at worst disastrous: collapsing Mass attendance, vanishing vocations, a swift erosion of Catholic identity everywhere you looked."
Fortunately, according to this narrative, a new pope was elected from the first party "who rejected the hermeneutic of rupture, who carried the true intentions of the council forward while proclaiming the ancient truths of Catholicism anew." This pope and his successor "inspired exactly the kind of renewal the council fathers had hoped for: a generation of bishops, priests, and laity prepared to witness to the fullness of Catholicism, the splendor of its truth."
Liberal Catholicism was dead and the future belonged to the conservatives.
Douthat acknowledges that this narrative is in crisis. The sex abuse crisis and its cover-up "cast a shadow over John Paul II’s last years, raised significant questions about his governance of the Church, and discredited Catholic leaders (from Bernard Law in Boston to the nightmare that was Marcial Maciel) who had once seemed pillars of a conservative revival."
The rout of conservatives in the cultural wars, the continued decline in church numbers, and the rise of the "nones" show that the conservative program has not succeeded. He might have also added the growing alienation of women from the hierarchy.
Finally, according to Douthat, Benedict proved an administrative failure who could not finish John Paul’s work of restoration or control an "essentially ungovernable Vatican, blind to contemporary media realities, corrupt and leak-riddled."
Before moving on to Douthat’s recommendations, let me first respond to his outline of the conservative narrative and what went wrong.
First, I think it is necessary to push the timeline back to the 19th century, when the Catholic hierarchy after the catastrophic experience of the French Revolution, aligned itself with the conservative political establishment in fighting all things modern (free press, free speech, democracy, unions, etc.). The church lost European intellectuals and the working classes (especially men) long before Vatican II. The response of Europe to the church’s alliance with political conservatism was anticlericalism.
The American experience was different because while in Europe the church fought against the expansion of freedom, in America the church was on the side of freedom and accepted the separation of church and state. As a result, until the sex abuse crisis and the culture wars, there was no significant anticlerical movement in the United States. American bishops were seen as defenders of unions and working class families from which they had come. The bishops faced anti-Catholicism but not anticlericalism.
Today, on the other hand, anticlericalism is alive and well in America among political liberals, because of the bishops' political agenda, and among women, because of the bishops' stance on women's issues both in and outside the church. Much of what is labeled anti-Catholicism by conservatives is really anticlericalism. The liberal elites do not hate Catholics; they hate the bishops.
Second, Douthat’s narrative passes over the actual events of Vatican II as if there was no conflict or disagreements at the council. In the progressive narrative, a conservative Roman Curia attempted to foist its draft documents on the council fathers who revolted and turned to theologians for help in drafting alternatives.
The bishops did not arrive in Rome as reformers. Rather the first couple of years of the council proved to be a continuing education program where bishops became educated in contemporary developments in theology. Only after updating their theology were they ready to work on documents.
The Curia and its conservative allies fought tooth and nail against these reforms, which they certainly saw as revolutionary and a rupture with the past. Putting the liturgy into the vernacular, giving the cup to the laity, promoting ecumenism, acknowledging freedom of conscience and religion -- all of these were seen as Protestant innovations, and they were right. After hundreds of years of opposition, the church finally accepted some of the reforms that came out of the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
Paul VI, fearing schism on the right, forced the progressive majority to accept numerous compromises in order to get the conservatives to vote for the final documents. This led to documents with ambiguous and sometimes contradictory language.
Progressives accepted the compromises because they saw the council as the beginning of a process of reform not as a conclusion. The compromises and ambiguous texts were simply ways of postponing until a later time discussions that they thought would continue in the church.
The fight between conservatives and progressives continued after the council, but it is false to portray it simply as conservatives promoting the documents while the progressives promoted the "spirit" of the council. In fact, the argument was also over the interpretation of the documents, which sometime were purposefully ambiguous.
Douthat’s narrative also skips Humanae Vitae and its impact on the church. In the United States, this marked the end of clerical dominance over the faithful who rejected out of hand the conclusion that all artificial contraception is immoral. When papal teaching contradicted their own personal experience, the laity rejected the teaching. Earlier generations might have felt compelled to leave the church over such a serious disagreement, but that did not happen here.
Humanae Vitae also had a profound impact on Karol Wojtyła, who had been in the minority on the papal birth control commission that had recommended a change in church teaching. He was scandalized by dissenting bishops and theologians who questioned the encyclical. His experience in the Polish church had taught him the importance of unity for a church under siege first by Nazism and then Communism.
As pope, he made loyalty to papal teaching (especially Humanae Vitae) the litmus test for episcopal appointments. Loyalty trumped theological, pastoral, or administrative skills. His long reign, plus the shorter reign of his successor, insured that the episcopacy was remade in his image.
John Paul also brought in Joseph Ratzinger to rein in dissenting theologians, removing or silencing priests and religious who questioned papal teaching. He also presented an authoritative and often conservative interpretation to ambiguous texts in conciliar documents. Topics that had been postponed at the council became closed to discussion.
Loyalty became the critical requirement for seminary professors and theological advisors. Since the vast majority of theologians disagreed with Humanae Vitae, this meant the alienation of this important constituency in the church. In order to avoid conflict and keep their jobs, most priest theologians simply stopped discussing controversial topics. Even lay theologians, who were not subject to vows of obedience, avoided controversy at least until they got tenure.
Whether by design or by accident, the John Paul papacy broke the alliance between bishops and theologians which had proved so successful against the Roman Curia at Vatican II. In fact, the bishops appointed by John Paul either attacked theologians or avoided them. As I have written elsewhere, this is the ecclesial equivalent of a corporation where management is not on speaking terms with the research and development division.
In short, the renewal process started by the council was stopped and sometimes rolled back, according to the progressive narrative. For example, if married clergy had been allowed and Humanae Vitae had not happened, we would have a very different church today. The church ran into trouble after the council because the reform agenda was abandoned not because of the reforms that were implemented.
Finally, in the United States, Republican operatives saw a unique opportunity to bring white Catholics into their party. They wanted to turn the Catholic church and the Evangelicals into the Republican Party at prayer. On the campaign trail, they promised aid to Catholic schools and an end to abortion, but never made these priorities once they were in office.
Many American conservative Catholics downplayed Catholic social teaching because it went contrary to their political and economic views or because they felt it would distract attention from the culture wars. They ignored or spun what John Paul and Benedict had to say about war and peace and economic justice.
I agree with Douthat that the conservative narrative is undercut by the sexual abuse crisis and the continued exodus of people (especially young people) from the church under John Paul and Benedict. I also agree that the progressive narrative is undercut by the rise of the Evangelicals and the decline of the mainline churches. While half those who leave the church become unchurched or "nones," about a third become Evangelical. Few in comparison join mainline churches.
Neither the conservative nor the progressive narrative has a good explanation for the Catholic exodus. My personal belief is that it has little to do with theology and more to do with a desire for emotionally charged worship services and a sense of community, which are absent from most Catholic parishes.
Narratives are important for explaining the world to ourselves and others. These competing conservative and progressive narratives help define the church of today. Can we have a conversation about them without name calling and stone throwing? I hope so.
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Texas bishop rips 'cowboy mentality' against gun control
David Gibson
Religion News Service
January 6, 2016
In a blistering critique of what he describes as congressional kowtowing to the “gun lobby,” the Roman Catholic bishop of Dallas is praising President Obama’s new actions on gun control and ripping the "cowboy mentality" that allows open carry laws like one that just went into effect in Texas.
"Thank God that someone finally has the courage to close the loopholes in our pitiful gun control laws to reduce the number of mass shootings, suicides and killings that have become a plague in our country," Bishop Kevin Farrell wrote in a column, posted on his website on Jan. 5.
"President Barack Obama’s executive actions, though modest, are first steps in correcting gun laws so weak that they are ludicrous," he wrote. "Congress has unabashedly sold itself to the gun lobby. If there was ever any doubt, its recent action to kill legislation to ban people on the terrorist no-fly list made it obvious."
Farrell’s remarks are notable not only because they are so pointed and his diocese is in the heart of one of the most pro-gun states, but also because the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. is coming under increasing scrutiny for its reticence to speak out on the gun control issue.
When Pope Francis addressed Congress during his first-ever visit last September, he delivered a vivid denunciation of gun violence, telling the representatives the reason weapons are so readily available is because of money -- "money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood."
In October, Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich -- whom Francis personally picked for the high-profile post -- echoed the pontiff’s exhortation in a column in which he said the original intent of the Second Amendment protecting the right to bear arms had been “perverted” and the nation needed to pass tougher gun control laws like those that have sharply reduced gun violence in other countries.
Cupich and some other bishops were hoping the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops would vote to make gun control a priority in its public policy agenda when the bishops met the following month, in November.
But the bishops were sharply divided over how much they should adapt their agenda -- which has focused on fights over gay marriage, abortion and birth control -- to Francis’ priorities, and in the end they largely maintained the status quo.
Since then, gun massacres in places such as San Bernardino and Colorado Springs, along with the daily toll in Chicago and other cities, have prompted a few bishops to speak out and have prompted some Catholics to push them to do more.
"(W)hen it comes to the epidemic of gun violence afflicting American society, the Catholic Church has been, for some time now, largely quiet,” Michael Bayer wrote in The Washington Post on Wednesday. “This needs to change."
A few hours later, Miami Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, issued a cautious statement that endorsed "reasonable regulation" of guns.
He avoided directly praising Obama -- a longtime nemesis for conservative bishops -- and called on Congress to strengthen social services for people with mental illness.
"Violence in our society is a complex issue with many facets, taking many forms," Wenski said. "While no measure can eliminate all acts of violence which involve firearms, we welcome reasonable efforts aimed at saving lives and making communities safer. … We hope Congress will take up this issue in a more robust way, considering all of the varied aspects involved."
Farrell’s broadside this week was also informed by the new law that went into effect on Jan. 1 that allows Texans to openly carry weapons, including in houses of worship, unless expressly forbidden.
The state’s Catholic bishops, as well as many other religious leaders, objected to the law and have said worshippers cannot carry arms into church. Farrell said the statute is evidence of what he provocatively called a "cowboy mentality."
"It is difficult to see how this new law allowing persons with concealed handgun licenses … to openly carry firearms can accomplish anything other than cause people to feel threatened and intimidated."
In a blistering critique of what he describes as congressional kowtowing to the “gun lobby,” the Roman Catholic bishop of Dallas is praising President Obama’s new actions on gun control and ripping the "cowboy mentality" that allows open carry laws like one that just went into effect in Texas.
"Thank God that someone finally has the courage to close the loopholes in our pitiful gun control laws to reduce the number of mass shootings, suicides and killings that have become a plague in our country," Bishop Kevin Farrell wrote in a column, posted on his website on Jan. 5.
"President Barack Obama’s executive actions, though modest, are first steps in correcting gun laws so weak that they are ludicrous," he wrote. "Congress has unabashedly sold itself to the gun lobby. If there was ever any doubt, its recent action to kill legislation to ban people on the terrorist no-fly list made it obvious."
Farrell’s remarks are notable not only because they are so pointed and his diocese is in the heart of one of the most pro-gun states, but also because the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. is coming under increasing scrutiny for its reticence to speak out on the gun control issue.
When Pope Francis addressed Congress during his first-ever visit last September, he delivered a vivid denunciation of gun violence, telling the representatives the reason weapons are so readily available is because of money -- "money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood."
In October, Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich -- whom Francis personally picked for the high-profile post -- echoed the pontiff’s exhortation in a column in which he said the original intent of the Second Amendment protecting the right to bear arms had been “perverted” and the nation needed to pass tougher gun control laws like those that have sharply reduced gun violence in other countries.
Cupich and some other bishops were hoping the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops would vote to make gun control a priority in its public policy agenda when the bishops met the following month, in November.
But the bishops were sharply divided over how much they should adapt their agenda -- which has focused on fights over gay marriage, abortion and birth control -- to Francis’ priorities, and in the end they largely maintained the status quo.
Since then, gun massacres in places such as San Bernardino and Colorado Springs, along with the daily toll in Chicago and other cities, have prompted a few bishops to speak out and have prompted some Catholics to push them to do more.
"(W)hen it comes to the epidemic of gun violence afflicting American society, the Catholic Church has been, for some time now, largely quiet,” Michael Bayer wrote in The Washington Post on Wednesday. “This needs to change."
A few hours later, Miami Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, issued a cautious statement that endorsed "reasonable regulation" of guns.
He avoided directly praising Obama -- a longtime nemesis for conservative bishops -- and called on Congress to strengthen social services for people with mental illness.
"Violence in our society is a complex issue with many facets, taking many forms," Wenski said. "While no measure can eliminate all acts of violence which involve firearms, we welcome reasonable efforts aimed at saving lives and making communities safer. … We hope Congress will take up this issue in a more robust way, considering all of the varied aspects involved."
Farrell’s broadside this week was also informed by the new law that went into effect on Jan. 1 that allows Texans to openly carry weapons, including in houses of worship, unless expressly forbidden.
The state’s Catholic bishops, as well as many other religious leaders, objected to the law and have said worshippers cannot carry arms into church. Farrell said the statute is evidence of what he provocatively called a "cowboy mentality."
"It is difficult to see how this new law allowing persons with concealed handgun licenses … to openly carry firearms can accomplish anything other than cause people to feel threatened and intimidated."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)