We're about to enter into Holy Week, as Catholics worldwide watch the Vatican's latest charade. The most retrograde Pope in decades offers nothing to Catholics reeling in Ireland, and the Church refuses to defrock a Wisconsin priest who abused over 200 boys.
Here in Quebec, where thousands of children were abused by priests and families across the countryside were kept poor and uneducated for centuries by a Church hierarchy in league with the wealthy English and Scots and seeking to consolidate and perpetuate its own power, churches will remain largely empty during the holiest days of the Christian calendar. Quebec's Catholics finally threw off the yoke of a hypocritical and oppressive institution during the Quiet Revolution; today the Catholics who still go to mass in this city are mostly elderly Quebecois or immigrants from Latin America and Asia. Does this mean the rest of the population are unbelievers, or even that they don't self-identify as Catholic? Not in the least. What they have done is to refuse to accept the authority of a discredited, hypocritical institution and refused to allow it to be in charge of educating their children. Few Quebecois marry in the church, and many don't have their children baptized.
Fifty years ago the streets of Montreal teemed with priests and nuns and its huge stone seminaries, convents and monasteries were full. The province of Quebec was one of the most conservative, observant and obedient Catholic societies in the world. Today it is one of the most secular. In making these sweeping social changes, but writing their deep convictions about justice and shared social responsibility into their civil code, this society has affirmed, in solidarity, a general belief that priests are not necessary as intermediaries between an individual and God, regardless of the teaching of the Church, and that a secular society and its families and individuals have not only the right but the ability to make moral decisions for themselves.
Last night, J. pointed out this letter by Sinead O'Connor which appeared in The Washington Post. She describes a country which could have been Quebec, forty years ago, and speaks with great personal conviction about the emptiness of Pope Benedict's feeble apology, while affirming her own Catholicism and faith. I hope you'll take a moment and read the whole letter; on the Post's website; there is much more nuance here than most non-Catholics may think.
"To Irish Catholics, Benedict's implication -- Irish sexual abuse is an Irish problem -- is both arrogant and blasphemous. The Vatican is acting as though it doesn't believe in a God who watches. The very people who say they are the keepers of the Holy Spirit are stamping all over everything the Holy Spirit truly is. Benedict criminally misrepresents the God we adore. We all know in our bones that the Holy Spirit is truth. That's how we can tell that Christ is not with these people who so frequently invoke Him.
Irish Catholics are in a dysfunctional relationship with an abusive organization. The pope must take responsibility for the actions of his subordinates. If Catholic priests are abusing children, it is Rome, not Dublin, that must answer for it with a full confession and a criminal investigation. Until it does, all good Catholics -- even little old ladies who go to church every Sunday, not just protest singers like me whom the Vatican can easily ignore -- should avoid Mass. In Ireland, it is time we separated our God from our religion, and our faith from its alleged leaders.
Almost 18 years ago, I tore up a picture of Pope John Paul II on an episode of "Saturday Night Live." Many people did not understand the protest -- the next week, the show's guest host, actor Joe Pesci, commented that, had he been there, "I would have gave her such a smack." I knew my action would cause trouble, but I wanted to force a conversation where there was a need for one; that is part of being an artist. All I regretted was that people assumed I didn't believe in God. That's not the case at all. I'm Catholic by birth and culture and would be the first at the church door if the Vatican offered sincere reconciliation.
As Ireland withstands Rome's offensive apology while an Irish bishop resigns, I ask Americans to understand why an Irish Catholic woman who survived child abuse would want to rip up the pope's picture. And whether Irish Catholics, because we daren't say "we deserve better," should be treated as though we deserve less.
Beth, thanks for writing about this, and for linking to Sinhead O'Connor's letter. It is a far more important issue than many people think.
T.
Posted by: Teresa | March 26, 2010 at 02:55 PM
Thanks for the comment, Teresa. I agree with you. People who aren't practicing Catholics may feel removed from this issue, but it actually has (and has had) far-reaching ramifications - plus, all of us would do well to think more about the influence of religion, both on government and private lives. As a person who does still attend church (Anglican/Episcopal), I find I can only justify it because my denomination is liberal and, at its best, working toward social justice in a positive way. But I still have big problems with the institution as well as with Christianity or any religion, for that matter, that makes claims of exclusivity. If it weren't for my lifelong involvement in liturgical music and working on social justice issues where being part of the church at times gave my efforts more visibility and clout, I'm not sure I'd still be attending. But as I think O'Connor points out very well, for many of us it's not a simple matter of being "in" or "out."
Posted by: Beth | March 26, 2010 at 04:00 PM
As someone who went to Catholic school until grade 7 and went to Mass until... well, I don't remember when exactly I stopped, this continuing news makes me very sad about the whole institution. But it's not surprising I guess when you have a secretive institution that holds itself above the law and is more interested in protecting its power than protecting children.
Of course beyond Catholicism, I continued to be appalled by the so-called Christians in the US who somehow missed the whole part about taking care of those less fortunate. Never mind that subset who spew hatred and intolerance.
Anyway, thanks - good letter from Sinhead O'Connor.
Posted by: leslee | March 26, 2010 at 05:26 PM
It sometimes seems to me, as an outsider, that the Catholic Church has a death wish, as if it had simply tired of its mission and wanted to call it quits.
I realize that this is a blinkered view from the First World -- the Church in the Third World is far from dying out -- but many of the Vatican's actions seem almost calculated to drive the likes of O'Connor out of the fold, as if they woke up in Rome and their first thought of every day was, "what can we do to alienate the Europeans and (Non-Latin-) Americans today?"
Posted by: dale | March 26, 2010 at 05:46 PM
O'Connor's letter, I'm sure, would touch many an American Catholic raised in the Church who has since turned away from the institution. I miss the Church a lot, the ceremony, the tradition, the community, but there is nothing for me there anymore. I wonder how different things would be had there been no rule of priestly celibacy and room in the Church for women beyond being just maidservants.
Posted by: mary | March 26, 2010 at 09:32 PM
Yes, non-Catholics may well feel themselves to be removed from these hideous reports and their ramifications. And, indeed, there will be felt a good deal of schadenfreude on the part of those belonging to denominations who perceive Rome as a long way from Nazareth. But as a non-believer I find myself in the unusual position of feeling real sympathy for those beleaguered Catholics who are having difficulty making sense of these monstrous revelations. With the buck stopping hard and fast at the office of the Pope himself, this is a crisis whose dimensions have yet to be fully sounded.
Is it conceivable that Benedict may yet have to resign - the first pope to have done so since 1296? In that event surely the effects of the shock waves wouldn't be confined to the Catholic Church. With these sickening crimes conceived, committed and subsequently concealed within the ritual and hierarchy of ecclesiastical structure, isn't the very nature of priestly authority going to be questioned?
Posted by: Dick | March 27, 2010 at 02:32 PM
Such a shame for this to happen and the cover up is even worse.
I am appalled at the whole situation, but really not surprised given the secrecy/silence/wealth surrounding institutionalized religion and the high stakes.
But... the man is accused not convicted. yet you write "Wisconsin priest who abused over 200 boys". I am in no way defending his actions but "innocent until proven guilty" is a concept that seems to be forgotten more and more in media and then among us all. I hesitate to write this as it can so easily be misunderstood. Yet one day any one of us may be accused and we will be grateful for getting fair treatment, not a lynch mob, regardless of what someone says we have done.
Or is this case so horrid that we collectively are willing to condemn the man unheard and untried?
Posted by: ej | March 27, 2010 at 10:30 PM
I've been reading the news with a sense of shock, horror and disgust.
As someone who cannot support organised religion, with all of it's rules and paraphanelia,the actions of these so-called Men Of God adds fuel to the fire of my scepticism.
But that the pope, the pope of all people should have collaborated in a cover-up...
But why should I be so shocked? The pope is just a man elected by other men
Posted by: Mouse | March 28, 2010 at 06:03 AM
You know, ej, I am always grateful for your comments that call me on such things. You're right. I haven't read the news closely enough and repeated it the way I read it second-hand; that's inexcusable for someone who believes in innocent-until-proven-guilty as much as I do.
Abuse is abuse; why should priests should be protected by their office from the same penalties as a secular pedophile? For the Church to cover this up, year after year, decade upon decade, is horrific. But I think the Church also bears responsibility for what its policies of celibacy have done to centuries of men. It's unnatural and cruel to expect any human being to deny his or her sexuality for an entire lifetime; how can anyone be surprised at what happens within such a culture of shame and secrecy? That's the root of the problem, and it comes both from institutional inflexibility and warped theology that associates sin with the body. Women have paid a more "open" price for this through the centuries, and patriarchy isn't over yet.
Posted by: Beth | March 28, 2010 at 01:42 PM
O'Connor's letter was in our paper this morning, but I had to leave before I finished it. Thanks for the timely reminder to do so. Fascinating and truly sad what is happening. She does a good job defining the line between faith in God and religion, which often goes so wrong.
Posted by: James | March 29, 2010 at 03:15 PM
I had not been to mass in awhile. But my wife and I went on Palm Sunday. We almost did not go. I had to work in the morning. Then one of my daughters came over for pan dulce, empanadas de queso and lots of talk. The 10:30 mass then the noon mass went by without us going. So did the 2 pm mass. At 10 before 5 we decided to go to the last chance mass. We just made it. Everbody was outside listening to the Bishop. We walked in with the crowd. It was English mass so it seemed a little strange at first. We usually go to the Spanish mass. My wife made a nice cross from the palm fronds. I spaced out during the homily. I finally felt better after eating the host. I am glad that I went. People are hurting, the church is full of hypocrites and is not living up to its mission. But is that something new? Am I not also a hypocrite and am not also failing in my mission?
Posted by: Fred Garber | March 30, 2010 at 03:45 PM