I see KellyM has already offered additional cites.
Guin - sorry, but there is a whole lot of ‘negative’ facts re the RCC - maybe a little more than an apology is required?
The letter (in latin), telling the clergy to report alledged sex offenses to the Vatican, but making no mention of notification of police, parents, etc. did nothing to help matters.
The cover letter (also in latin) telling the clergy not to mention the letter outside the clergy pretty much damned the entire matter. IMHO YMMV
I don’t think anyone in his or her right mind would defend those actions, happy.
I still long for the days of Sr. Frances Romana, and Fr. John and all the good people I knew. It seems the church needs a revolution from the bottom up. Somehow, I doubt that’s going to happen.
It is not necessarily so that an unmarried Rabbi was unacceptable. Two prominent names mentioned in the Talmud are ben Zoma and ben Azzai. While it is true that they never received formal ordination as Rabbis (they died fairly young), their opinions in halacha (Jewish law) were taken seriously by the sages of their day.
The Catholic Church seems to be running out or priests.–
Not sure on the accuracy of this. From what I have read, the more “orthodox” a diocese, the more abundant the vocations. I can see a reasonable relationship between the two. Certainly, some dioceses are in major trouble, but arguably, if proper formation of vocations was a priority in the diocese, one would think the laity would be actively involved. Dunno really.
They don’t allow female or married priests. –
True on the female, but certain married priests are permitted (e.g., converts and Eastern Rite Catholics).
The spokesman for the Pope says that gay men can’t be ordained.–
True. Of course all priests are duty-bound to remain celibate, so I can imagine a young man with an ambiguous sexuality becoming a priest only to realize that he is actually attracted to individuals of the same sex. I’m sure about the impact of this.
Personally I hope they don’t allow them. I am not happy with the church’s assault on reproductive rights.–
Not sure what this means, exactly, I will assume “reproductive rights” = the right to obtain a legal abortion. The Catholic Church has pretty consistently taken a position against abortion (I know, we can trot out viability, but even so, a consistent position). By “assault” do you mean that the Catholic Church just began it’s abortion stance? Probably not. I think I know where you are coming from, but I think the term “assault” is not really accurate. Perhaps, “position” better captures the thought in a more even way (assuming that is a goal, of course). Maybe “obstruction” would work, too (e.g., the Catholic Church stands in the way of individual freedom and reproductive rights, etc.) Sorry to be such a nitpick.
I think as the number of priests dwindle, so will their influence.–
Perhaps, but the cetainly the influence of the Catholic Church is less a function of its ordained ministers and more a function of the laity. The hierarchy is more a voice for the laity, if 10 million priests existed, but there were only 20 million Catholics worldwide the influence, well you get my point. One could even imagine that fewer priests will mean a leaner and more Vatican directed Church (in addition to modern communication). This may already be occuring.
The way I see it, the orthodox Catholics will abstain from contraception. Assume that these Catholics will have more children and raise those children in an arguably more “strident” fashion (i.e. Church Militant). I think this may result in a shift within the Church to an even more orthodox laity than we currently have. Which in turn, will result in a more orthodox clergy since it is drawn from the body of the laity.
I said assault, and I meant assault although battery may be a better term considering the damage they have done. They are doing whatever they can to prevent not only abortion, but also contraception, sterilization, and various fertility treatments. In many places that used to have two or more hospitals, many run by other than the church, the sole remaining hospital does not provide any of the services I mentioned due to a deal with the church made when acquiring a catholic hospital. Female sterilization is often best done in hospital and often the best time is right after giving birth. Many mothers that feel they have enough children have to forgo sterilization, or have it done in less than ideal conditions because the church made these deals. I think coercing anyone to have more children than they want is dispicable. Planning to build up a religion by doing so is even more so.
Aside from the interesting mix of Darwinianism and theology…
What is going on NOW is a shift to the ‘orthodox’ RC positions by the Pope and (high-level) Cardinals - canonization of Pius XII, and the founder of Opus Dei (and several others), the stridency and rigidity of doctrine.
This seems to be costing the Church membership, not increasing it.
then there is the petition from the Mariests…
Q: Where did Vat. II come from? Is there anything left in that jar?
I believe the issue here is the ongoing effort by the Catholic Church to prevent anyone (not merely a Catholic) from obtaining not merely an abortion but in fact any form of family planning, be that chemical or barrier birth control, sterilization, infertility treatment involving the use of donated egg or sperm, or surrogacy. The strategy used by the Catholic Church is to sell off its hospitals to other entities at prices that are hard to resist in exchange for an agreement not to perform (not merely at the formerly Catholic facility, but also at any facilities owned by the purchasing entity, which is generally not religious in nature) any of the procedures the Catholic Church disapproves of. This way, the Catholic Church retains control over what services people can get without bearing the expense or risk of operating the services themselves. This is an ongoing practice throughout the country. A small number of hospitals have been successful in having restrictions imposed as a result of such mergers thrown out in court (usually because the acquiring hospital is a state entity or has a special state relationship and the Catholic restrictions constitute a violation of state law, making the covenants void as a matter of public policy), but in most cases these “deals” have forced people seeking these sorts of services to go out of the community for them, forgo them entirely, or seek more dangerous alternatives (leading, in some cases, to unnecessary deaths).
The bulk of the impact of these deals falls, unsurprisingly, on women. There is no prescription form of birth control for men; men can get condoms at virtually any drugstore. Women have to go to a doctor to get chemical birth control or to be fitted for a diaphragm. Vasectomy is an office procedure and can be performed by independent physicians outside of a hospital setting, so these deals generally do not limit access to male sterilization. However, tubal ligation is generally an inpatient procedure, and in a community where the Catholic Church has successfuly subverted medical freedom, tubals are either not available at all, or can only be obtained in the much less safe form of an outpatient laproscopy (a procedure which carries substantial risk and is not generally recommended).
I think this qualifies as an ongoing assault on the freedom of Americans to obtain medical procedures which they are legally entitled to receive and which the medical community considers appropriate and valid. The Church should leave it to citizens to determine for themselves what procedures they should or should not seek from their doctors, rather than use their financial influence to erect barriers in the path of those who are not Catholic.
As to your “breed a better church” theory: the bulk of the growth in the Catholic Church is in South America and in Hispanic communities in Central and North America. The Catholicism practiced by these Hispanic Catholics is rather distinct from orthodox Catholicism, and is in fact a substantial source of friction within the Church hierarchy. Additional growth is likely to further increase the gap between the hierarchy of the Church and its members rather than tend to close it.
I agree. Though this decrease in membership may be the nominal members. With the state of communications, the hierarchy does not require the same number of priests, so control will become more and more centralized, which I think the last 20 years has borne out.
That is a very good question. I am not really that knowledgable, but I am willing to bet that any reform/change is such a large institution will take generations to assess. Right now, it seems like a counter-movement is in ascendency. Not that Vatican II is no good, but just that it has been interpreted overbroadly. Like I said, I’m not too knowledgable about this.
Right. My thoughts weren’t on the nuts/bolts of healthcare delivery. Sticky situation. Let me see if understand the contention:
Purchaser (non-Catholic entity, probably for-profit, but not necessarily) doesn’t much care about providing access to abortion, sterilization, drugs, etc., but the Seller (Catholic affiliated entity, probably non-diocesian) does. Seller says if you restrict/ban the above mentioned services, we will give you a rebate on the price. Alternatively, Seller says no way will we sell unless you agree to above listed restrictions/bans. Purchaser runs the numbers, concludes that lower sale price is better than the money that these services bring in and makes the deal.
Again, I think my original post still holds. This is the Catholic Church’s position of obstruction; no surprises here, no jumping out from behind a corner. Certainly the Catholic Church held this position before 1973. I guess I am having a tough time understanding “assault” when this organization holds the same position it has held (e.g., I am standing still, but my friend moves right up to me and wants to stand in the same place, we get right up next to one another, but if I am the one standing in the place first, I am not sure how an assault can occur–help with this analogy?).
IMHO,it seems the real argument is with the Purchaser; however, the Purchaser has a pretty strong counter-argument, the devil (I mean Catholic Church) made me do it! It’s back-up point would be the MARKET dictates and who are we to argue.
An aside: The delivery of healthcare is not settled in US. It is not strictly a matter of contract and the market, but it is also not a decided fundamental right. The gray area! As gray areas go, it seems reason for two parties to agree that certain services won’t be offered, even if someone has a constitutional right to receive such services. Sure, this is my position, but the alternative seems pretty onerous. From what I can see of the healthcare system, many services are outsourcesd or provided at a clinic. For example, not every ob-gyn has its own ultrasound. So, couldn’t these services be offered at Planned Parenthood or facilities that want to offer them, without deciding that every medical service that people have a right to receive must be offered at every “hospital.” I am not saying that these former Catholic hospitals couldn’t handle offering the services, just that they choose not too and this choice has a decidedly financial impact.
Yes, I agree with you; merely tossing out a point I have heard/read.
I also think Church politics is in a Vat-II backlash. Much of the backlash is about “keeping 'em in line” on doctrinal and political issues (after a feeling that there was too much liberalization in V-II) and it results in “protecting” those who are good, disciplined followers of the old hierarchy line, with little regard for their non-doctrinal wrongdoings.
As to the aforementioned scandalous, even criminal, coverups and slaps-on-the-wrist: the stupid idea is “let’s avoid the public hearing anything that diminishes our authority” – like with any big hierarchical bureaucracy, they feel if they own up to having appointed the wrong man for the job, people will wonder what else they’re wrong about: in the end, this happens ANYWAY.
(I also have this deep though unverifiable feeling that if these priests were involved in, say, lobbying for women’s ordination or anything else that challenges the establishment, any kiddie-diddling would have been acted upon mondo pronto)
Like Guin said, it needs a bottom-to-top shakedown. Too bad the best priests and nuns are often the worst institutional politicians. Who knows, maybe it’s about time for another big Schism or Reformation (lessee… Nicaea was around 325, the E-W schism around 1000, the Reformation in the 1500’s… )
About running out of priests:
The reality is, that in the old Euro-American core of Catholicism, there IS a drought of Vocations. The priesthood is not really an attractive career in these societies. The Church would do well to continue expanding the roles of committed lay people and narrowing the scope of the ordained priesthood so they can select those with a true calling.
Very likely, Guinastasia. Of course part of the controversy over Medellín was whether they were subordinating the “theology” to the “liberation” (and the truth is quite a few in this part of the word did just that). At Puebla (later 70s) they clarified it’s supposed to be about justice, not ideology.
At least I never heard any Central-America-based Maryknollers accused of deviant shenanigans with the parish’s kids.
I understand closing an unprofitable store, but an unprofitable church? Do they expect the poorest of their congregation to afford to go to another church when they cannot afford to support their own, or does the church think they can afford it and just are not contributing enough? Does anyone have good statistics on where current men with vocations in America are from?
My guess is that (most probably because of a declining congregation) the parish is no longer viable - the money it can raise is no longer enough to pay the costs of running it. I imagine that the diocese has some funds to help parishes in this situation, but they cannot be unlimited. So they’ve reached a point where they want to merge these parishes with neighbouring parishes to create larger and hopefully viable parishes.
The article - at least the quote given - doesn’t say that the churches will close. They may continue to host mass and other celebrations, though probably at a reduced level; they just won’t be parish churches any more. Or they may close altogether. But the merger of two parishes doesn’t necessarily mean the closure of one of the churches.
Merging parishes is always sad, particularly when it’s evidence of a declining population in the area. But it may be the right thing to do, and it’s not a gesture of rejection or dismissal to the congregation concerned. On the contrary; the usual reason for merging parishes is so that ministry to the congregation in the merged parish will be more effective. After all, if the parish stays separate but is run on a shoestring so that the parish office is unstaffed, there is no money for parish activities and the church becomes a tatty and unheated mass hall, hosting little or nothing beyond Sunday mass, is the congregation really better off?
My guess is that (most probably because of a declining congregation) the parish is no longer viable - the money it can raise is no longer enough to pay the costs of running it. I imagine that the diocese has some funds to help parishes in this situation, but they cannot be unlimited. So they’ve reached a point where they want to merge these parishes with neighbouring parishes to create larger and hopefully viable parishes.
The article - at least the quote given - doesn’t say that the *churches[/s] will close. They may continue to host mass and other celebrations, though probably at a reduced level; they just won’t be parish churches any more. Or they may close altogether. But the merger of two parishes doesn’t necessarily mean the closure of one of the churches.
Merging parishes is always sad, particularly when it’s evidence of a declining population in the area. But it may be the right thing to do, and it’s not a gesture of rejection or dismissal to the congregation concerned. On the contrary; the usual reason for merging parishes is so that ministry to the congregation in the merged parish will be more effective. After all, if the parish stays separate but is run on a shoestring so that the parish office is unstaffed, there is no money for parish activities and the church becomes a tatty and unheated mass hall, hosting little or nothing beyond Sunday mass, is the congregation really better off?
This has been going on in most large rust-belt cities for 25 years or more. The costs of firing up a 75 year old furnace to heat a 3,500 square foot church (which might be 65,000 cubic feet) each week to keep 450 parishoners from freezing to death behind their uninsulated walls with no storm windows, can be really expensive. Finding enough priests to celebrate mass three times each Sunday for 150 people per mass, while other parishes are packing in 1,000+ people in the hallways because they have too few priests to celebrate more masses on Sunday is also counterproductive.
One other thing to remember about most of these closings (and I do not know Chicago geography well enough to assert that it is true in this instance), is that a lot of times, these parishes are the remnants of 100+ year-old ethnic parishes that were built a few hundred yards apart. There may be four or five churches in a square mile area serving a neighborhood that is now primarily populated by A.M.E.s, Baptists, and Muslims.
It is sad to see any comunity/parish “reorganized” so that traditions suffer and people (often elderly) are forced to deal with new and strange situations.
However, it is often no longer possible, either financially or in terms of manpower, to keep these churches going.
(It is also true, of course, that the closings can be handled poorly. Cardinal Szoka closed a number of churches in Detroit a little over 15 years ago. I know guys who analyzed the decisions and they were necessary (although people will always argue that the wrong church was picked to be the survivor and the wrong ones closed). However, Szoka’s decision process and method of announcement was so ham-handed, that his successor, Maida, is still feeling some of the fallout of bad feelings.)
