Ratzinger... the better pope

In the opinion section of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, there was a piece by New York Times writer Ross Douthat. Basically, he saw John Paul II as the charismatic pope who was "a weak administrator, poor delegator, and sometimes a dreadful judge of character." His protecting of Fr. Marcial Maciel is a case in point. In general, JP's charisma and good looks covered a litany of faults in the public square.

Benedict's handling of the the Vatican and dealings with pedophiles has been far superior. But he's also buried himself in a state of "retrenchment, resentment, and self-pity." And more importantly, he's still not doing enough. He has been tough on pedophiles since he became pope, he has not properly sanctioned any bishop.

To me, Douthat's article is right on. It may be cute for the Vatican to be willfully wrong on doctrinal issues, but claim no fault in the Church's handling of sexual abuse is crazy (see again Fr. Marcial). I wait in great interest to see if Benedict can be the pope I hope him to be.

A Faithful Catholic

Papal Drama Continues...

As reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Friday, 26 March 2010 (from the NY Times), Pope Benedict had memos sent to him concerning the pedophile, Fr. Peter Hullermann. This priest was supposed to be sent to treatment for his pedophilia in 1980, which he was. But he was also returned to active ministry within days of beginning treatment - obviously not enough time to be "cured" even in the pre-1985 world where many thought pedophilia could be cured.

According to Rev. Lorenz Wolf, judicial vicar at the Munich Archdiocese, many memos are never read by the archbishop of Munich and this MIGHT have been one of them. Also, maybe Hullermann's name had come up in conversation with Ratzinger, but he could not remember with any certainty.

This all smells very bad to me. How could any bishop say that they were not aware that known-pedophiles were being reassigned when they were not supposed to be? What about the special relationship that is supposed to exist between the bishop and priest. It is supposed to be like a father-son relationship. I do not think I am alone in thinking that this father allowed his son to be a wolf among sheep.

A Faithful Catholic

Old Wine Skins Falling Apart...

With the recent revelations of sexual abuse in Germany, which open the possibility of some responsibility being with the Pope's brother, and maybe even Benedict himself, it appears that clergy abuse of minors is not simply an "American problem." There are obviously mixed opinions at the Vatican regarding the situation. In the past week, http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/ has documented Vatican responses that vary from "that was in the past, we have control of it" to "we need to examine the role of women in the decision-making processes of the Church."

When the sexual abuse crisis was at its height in America in 2001, some in America wanted John Paul II to take the stand here in America as he was our bishops's boss. Now, with the new revelations that make themselves known everyday in Germany, could the German government be in position to call in Benedict as a material witness regarding his time as Archbishop of Munich and Freising?

I know better than to be overly optimistic regarding quick changes in the Catholic Church, but this scandal epitomizes the problem that is present with the current state of power relationships in the Church. One wonders if the those such as Benedict and his brother hoped that they would be dead before these German revelations came to light. In any case, the next few months will be very interesting...

A Faithful Catholic

Pope trying to save souls by denying annulments

On January 29th, Pope Benedict spoke to the members of the Roman Rota, the church panel with the highest authority in marriage law cases. Although I sympathize with some of his claims that the Church should attempt to aid couples in salvaging legitimate marriages, I think he goes too far in stating: "In the church, the aim of judicial activity is the salvation of souls." If a man or woman is in what the Church considers a legitimate marriage, falls in love with someone else, divorces their original spouse and marries the other person, am I too assume they are probably going to hell because they cannot get an annulment. Or worse yet, let's say that the Church allows the remarried person to receive communion, are they going to hell?

I can think of some extreme cases where I might say yes, but overall, I think not. Is divorce a grave evil that plagues are society... yes. Is preventing the remarried from receiving communion saving marriages and souls... no, not the last time I checked. This is an issue that the Vatican needs to seriously address with an eye for actually saving souls, by bringing people back to the Church.

A Faithful Catholic

The Church is NEVER Wrong... unless it is...

Milwaukee Archbishop Listecki has been on the defense lately. A couple of weeks ago, Listecki was criticized by a police chief in his previous diocese for a having a sexual abuse policy that asks victims to first tell the diocese, instead of the police. The reason for this criticism resolves around a priest who is accused of assaulting a married woman during a counseling session. She first went to the diocese, which did nothing. Then she went to the police, who arrested the priest, who is now facing charges of sexual assault.

For the first week of this news, Listecki ignored it. No comment. Maybe he thought it would go away. Last week he sent out an e-mail to church workers defending his action, but was silent to the press. Yesterday, he finally defended his actions to press, stating that it was a case of "he said, she said" and no further action was needed. He also stated that in his previous diocese, all allegations against minors are reported to the police.

There is a lot wrong here. First, you should tell all victims to go straight to the police. And if they come to you, call the police. Even if you think the allegation is complete nonsense, call the police. Getting the picture... call the police. Not calling the police makes it look like you are not taking the allegations seriously. Scratch that, he did not take the allegation seriously. That is why he did nothing. He stated that he did nothing because since it was "he said, she said," who was he to play judge and jury. He forgot to mention that by doing nothing, he did play judge and jury! His doing nothing was a statement that the priest is probably innocent and he let this possible sex offender continue to serve the community.

There is something that Listecki could do to improve the situation. APOLOGIZE. Bishops are wrong sometimes. Do not be arrogant, because that is exactly how Listecki looks right now.

A Faithful Catholic

Moderation Now in Place

FYI, I have changed my settings that I will view all the comments before they are published. I will still publish all comments that disagree with me, provided they are not overly offensive. The reason I am doing this is because I am getting a lot of spammers. Sorry for the inconvenience.

A Faithful Catholic (who hates spam)

Unrest at All Saints

I often feel uncomfortable pointing out the specific failings of a specific parish or priest, but sometimes they make themselves a little too obvious. A current example of this would be the situation with Fr. Carl Diederichs at All Saints Catholic Church in Milwaukee. In their January 24, 2010 bulletin, there was an entire page dedicated to the Parish Council's problem with the Archdiocese's (and specifically Listecki's) decision not to renew Diederichs for a second term at All Saints. Priests in the Archdiocese normally serve a parish for two separate six year terms, but for a variety of reasons, the Archdiocese can chose not to renew the term. This page or "letter" is supposedly based on a unanimous vote by the Parish Council and the trustees to have Fr. Diederichs stay. Call me a cynic, but a unanimous vote seems rather unlikely. It is also telling that this "letter" ran the same Sunday as Archbishop Listecki's visit to their parish. That is BOLD, to say the least. It seems clear that Fr. Diederichs would like this information as public as possible.

I am often critical of the Archdiocese, but I think they are definitely making the right decision in not renewing Diederichs's second term. Diederich's has a good reputation as a priest committed to social justice, but he has also built a reputation as 1) a poor fiscal manager at a parish that recently had a huge renovation and needs better fiscal management, and as 2) someone who is not a team player and has created a lot of disgruntled parishioners. If this "letter" from the Parish Council was unanimous, it is likely that after being at the parish for over five years, individuals disagreeing with Diederichs no longer felt comfortable serving on Parish Council. This second paragraph is speculation based on some interviews on my part. Also, though the letter is (supposedly) from the Parish Council, it is only taking up a page in the bulletin with the pastor's permission.


A Faithful Catholic