Denver Newsroom, Nov 11, 2020 / 05:10 pm (CNA).- Ordinarily, a news analysis attempts to bring some context or expertise to a situation, in order to assess why something has happened, what might happen next, and whether any of it will prove to be important.
A news analysis often speculates about what newsmakers will do: At CNA, analysis considers often what the pope might do, or USCCB leaders, or bishops of prominent dioceses.
But this analysis will speculate about what ordinary Catholics – people who practice the faith and love the Lord and try to follow Jesus – will do after the publication of the Vatican’s McCarrick Report.
To do that, some context in this analysis will be personal. There is a reason I offer this personal narrative. Please bear with me.
I began working for the Catholic Church in 2005, while I was in canon law school. After finishing my canon law degree, in 2007 I began working regularly on cases involving clergy misconduct.
I have sat with priests guilty of sexual assault and coercion, of grooming young men, of acting with serial disregard for the promises of their priesthood and the spiritual health of their victims. I have also sat with priests falsely accused of those things. I have seen problems ignored, and I have seen problems treated with the attention they deserve.
I have seen priests get justice, and I have sometimes seen them face terrible injustice. I have seen victims mistreated, and victims treated with compassion and respect. I have seen cases in which every rule and protocol is followed, and cases in which most of them are ignored.
Before the initial McCarrick allegations were made public in June 2018, I had already seen some things. As friends dealt with grief and shock, I told some cynically “Now you know why I’m ticked off all the time.”
I had not known about McCarrick, but I knew about clerical abuse, and about the sins of omission and commission that allow it to happen.
The 449 pages of the McCarrick Report detail a story decades long, in which institutional and personal failures allowed a man who abused his power to act with serial and serious immorality — to, put simply, hurt people.
It includes accounts of both cowardice and courage, of institutional blindspots exploited by a manipulator, of naïveté, misplaced kindness, and ill-placed trust, of dysfunction, bureaucratic ineptitude, and malice. The report demonstrates that sin begets sin – it recounts stories of abusers who were themselves abused. It depicts the exploitation of crises for personal gain.
The report documents the damage wrought by a crippling bias towards institutional self-preservation, ironic for a Church that follows a crucified Lord.
There are few heroes: A mother who tried her best to speak out. A priest who blew the whistle to protect seminarians. A cardinal who came to realize, only over time, that he needed to make clear a serious problem.
The McCarrick Report also traces a broad trend of growing awareness of the importance of addressing abuse allegations, and addressing them properly. An increased understanding that presuming on good will is not helpful in the presence of manipulators. Efforts, often faltering, and sometimes failing, to learn from previous mistakes. But even amid that trend, there are appalling personal failures at every stage of McCarrick’s career.
The report does not document, or seem even to consider seriously, how McCarrick’s ambiguous and unmonitored financial situation enabled his decades of abuse. It mentions briefly his ability as a fundraiser, but offers no forensic analysis of his discretionary accounts. U.S. dioceses maintain records of those accounts, and to date have given no indication they plan to release them.
The report addresses bishops who lied for McCarrick, and about him, to the Holy See, but it does not ask why those bishops were willing to lie. It does not give serious attention to McCarrick’s social networks and their influence on the life of the Church – mention is made of a friend leaking high-level documents to McCarrick in the Vatican, but no attention is given to what influence networks that friend has. Many analysts have said it does not address whether there remain in ministry bishops who were gravely negligent, or even who compounded or facilitated cover-ups.
It brings many things to light, but the report is not a complete account of the McCarrick affair. A complete account may never emerge. Further, the Vatican’s report does not seem to consider present-day implications of McCarrick’s life and ministry, nor to draw lessons for the Church beyond McCarrick.
Questions remain, and those questions are very likely to go unanswered. Catholics who hope to see particular individuals brought to justice are likely to go disappointed.
And new scandals will inevitably emerge.
Since the retirement of Theodore McCarrick, there have already been some institutional reforms designed to prevent a situation like McCarrick’s from happening again. Institutional audits in U.S. dioceses, review boards, the promulgation of Vos estis lux mundi. Pope Francis or the U.S. bishops may well add more layers of policy reform.
But Pope Francis has emphasized that policy reform can not substitute for personal integrity. And the McCarrick Report demonstrates how much personal integrity actually matters. The report will likely bring statements from bishops committing to that personal integrity, and it might even inspire real conversion to that effect among some bishops and Church leaders.
Inevitably, though, there will be new failures in the Church’s life, because the Church is both human and divine: The mystical Body of Christ protected in certain ways by the Holy Spirit, and a community of sinners, each of them in need of a savior, few of them yet saints.
The Church is always and everywhere holy— its members are not usually so.
That paradox is a challenge to every believer.
But the future for the Church in the U.S. seems to depend a great deal on how ordinary Catholics respond to disappointment, discouragement, and somewhat unresolved scandal.
Religious disaffiliation is on the rise in the U.S. – a growing number of Americans identify themselves with no religion, or have no religious practice. And many ordinarly practicing Catholics are out of the habit of going to Sunday Mass, because of the pandemic. It will be unsurprising if the McCarrick scandal exacerbates religious disaffiliation, especially among young Catholics, who say in surveys that they prioritize the perceived personal integrity of leaders ahead of institutional affiliation.
Within the Church, there is a small but growing pocket of Catholics who are increasingly strident toward the authority of the pope and of U.S. bishops. In crises past, pockets like those have eventually become schisms. That seems practically unlikely in the contemporary U.S., but it is not impossible or unprecedented — there are more than 25,000 members of the “Polish National Catholic Church,” a schismatic group that began in the U.S in the early 20th century.
The point is that scandals have the capacity to discourage the practice of the faith, to foster cynicism, anger, bitterness, or indifference.
Hence the personal narrative.
My own experience has taught me that confronting the oft-disappointing humanity of the Church is an exercise in accepting that disappointment is real, and that it can be only be relieved by embracing the cross, and the Crucified Savior.
In the spiritual life, moments of disappointment present a choice: One can nurture anger or indifference, or one can turn to Christ on the cross.
One of those choices brings life, the other does not.
That’s true for the spiritual life, and for the mission of the Church itself.
A movement of Catholics who respond to crisis with an increase of prayer, fasting, charity, and evangelization is counter-intuitive. It is also a counter-witness to the “black eye for the Church” contained in the McCarrick Report. It is confounding, and compelling.
Catholics who seek holiness in times of scandal tend often to be conduits of Christian renewal.
Making such a choice, I’ve learned by my failures, is easier said than done.
There is very little saccharine or romantic about following Jesus, especially when confronted with the sinfulness of the Church’s own leaders. There is often more setback than progress.
Humility helps – remembering our own failures tends to put the sins of others in perspective. Confession and the Eucharist help all the more.
Embracing the cross does not mean accepting or tolerating the presence of sin in the Church. Rather it means both assiduously calling for reform and repenting seriously for one’s own sins and shortcomings. Maintaining communion with the Church, even while helping to rebuild it.
The mission of the Gospel probably has very little to do with tweeking existing policy. A statement of regret from the U.S. bishops’ conference is unlikely to spark a renewal of faith in Jesus Christ.
In the wake of the McCarrick Report, renewal of the Church likely has most to do with whether ordinary Catholics will turn to Christ, and embrace his suffering on the cross. That isn’t easy. But it is the path to eternal life, and, in this life, its consequences might well be surprising.
[…]
Does Father Martin have any research data behind his comments about the number of chaste SSA clergy?
I’m guilty of making unqualified statements too but I’m not a priest nor a public figure being interviewed.
Father Martin’s statement is likely correct but he should acknowledge it’s his personal opinion unless he has additional information to back it up.
Perhaps the priest has heard the word, “No”?
To fully understand Martin’s role at the Synod, it is necessary to fully understand the MINDSET of Pope Francis…
Namely (as a mere bystander, I humbly propose), his proposition that instead of dynamically “handing on the deposit of faith,” this deposit itself, within the patience of time, is more of a polarizing space. A polarity within a dynamic tension (no longer deposit) with the different and more concrete pole of the particular. Almost as if the Incarnation of the Creed—two natures in one Person—is no longer the “concrete universal.”
But instead, only the universal in tension with the concrete… Situated morality becomes Situation Ethics, butt with orthodoxy not rejected, but still retained and reaffirmed, as an OPTION within the broader or ostensibly higher mix. This Francis proposition/mindset is favorably and well set forth by one of his tribe, Ivereigh, in this article posted in 2017 on CRUX: https://cruxnow.com/book-review/2017/11/new-book-looks-intellectual-history-francis-pope-polarity.
Regarding Fr. Martin, then, homosexual activity is the “third option” of a transcendent synthesis which does not replace, but which continues to include on the menu the more “rigid” and binary human sexuality (therefore, the new synthesis/ dispensation is not Hegelian). For the real Catholic Church, however, this particular “third option”—and others of its kind: a male alongside female priesthood, authentic alongside bigamous marriages, the “hierarchical communion” alongside redefined synodality, etc.–is really the THIRD RAIL.
Butt, Francis, long before becoming pope, was of the mind that the Church itself [!]—by its very nature (if there still is a “nature”)—is instead more like a “catalyst” (my word, but recalling his early chemistry background) of the Holy Spirit always on the move with the particular, as in “walking together.” Rather than, say, standing STEADFAST together! Evangelii Gaudium: “time is greater than space!” Can we not see, then, that Francis’s hypothesis probably brands even the Faith & Reason polarities(!) as “backwardist” stuff?
Where Francis would have us make “decisions” in the concrete, for example, the Catechism and Veritatis Splendor (VS) already clarify that–with a well-formed conscience (!)–each of us is personally(!) responsible for making concrete(!) moral “judgments” (VS, nn. 56, 95), particularly(!) with regard to moral absolutes (“Thou shalt not…”).
But, then, “who am I to ‘judge’”? Now meaning, let us “decide,” synodally! Now, with the laity recruited as a useful pawn in a theological parlor game—like a black star, Fernandez even absorbs the dubia as synodal!
Ivereigh (in the linked CRUX) then also reasons that Chesterton is also into the polarity thingy, with: “G.K. Chesterton once described a heresy as a good idea gone mad.” CHESTERTON, who said this of what’s truly mad:
“The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason [….] that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but though quite infinite, it is not so large [that is] the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large.” The small circle: the tautological and self-validating (!) Synod on Synodality. With Chesterton, are the lunatics in charge of the asylum?
Or instead, this: “The Catholic Church is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.”
Every priest is human and has his own struggles. No doubt there are many priests who struggle with disordered sexual attractions, but any priest who identifies himself by these attractions, (e.g., “I am gay.”) is going to find it very difficult to live out his priesthood.
It is sad that Fr. Martin falls into the pop culture error of seeing a person through the lens of his or her disordered desires. Christ came to free us from all that.
Well said! If we love someone, we want union with God for them, not sin that can turn us away from God.
How does Fr. Martin know if someone else is chaste? He says many are. So does that mean more are not? Perhaps he knows priests who are not chaste? And to be sure, he knows many priests who have homosexual attractions. Why doesn’t he say if he is chaste? St. Paul had a lot to say in Sacred Scripture about chastity. And he used himself as an example. Perhaps Fr. Martin can preach from his own experience? Is all of this about his own experience?
Fr. Martin has no data. But there is sound data that shows that over 80% of sexual crimes in the Church against children are committed by men with boys. Obviously, legitimizing pererastry is next step on the agenda after “blessings” for same-sex unions. It’s just a matter of time, which is greater than space.
The problem for me is not that same sex attracted priests will be sexually active, it is the immature and childish behavior that they bring into the priesthood. I have witnessed this firsthand and lament the forced revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual so many years ago.
It sounds as though homosexualists can find you guilty in conscience of whatever they decide to identify in you as disfavouring them as to be against faith even; while at the same time it is impossible for the faithful to point out their folly and faux that they themselves have declared integral in their identity.
It is anathema and upholding it is worse anathema.
If they are chaste single men then they are not gay.
A celibate Priest or layman with SSA can be a good Catholic. SSA is a cross to bear. Those who have it deserve our support and encouragement.
Regarding being harassed by “ssa”, you shouldn’t be saying merely that it’s your cross and Bob’s your uncle; you must want to have a very reactive mind and heart against it.