PAPAL APOLOGY...deja vu all over again
So often the papal “we” sounds ponderous and pompous. It has its merits it seems. The Pope's Australia apology for the sexual abuse of children by clergy hardly employed that term. In the texts I read it was almost always “I”. Almost.
A quick check on several other texts/quotes from Australia confirmed that he seems to have dropped the editorial/Papal we generally. The more personal approach seems to be to his credit and certainly more listenable for younger people, more 'authentic' for us older folk. In this instance though, I wonder if it really implied a different message.
In the arena of papal authoritative statement, public relations and media savvy, it seems that every word, every phrase is purposeful. The interviews reported in the lead up to his Australia visit had his spokesmen imply meaning and intentions and subtelties in his choice of words. So, I wonder whether the use of “I” rather than ''we”("...as their pastor, I share in their suffering") or even the use of “we” implies that his apology and his deep sensitivity to the harm to victims, the evil of the perpetrators is a personal statement and a studied avoidance of responsibility and accountability by the institution, papal, hierarchical, administrative.
With this minor 'jaundice' I read his statement for its subtleties. “I would like to pause to acknowledge the shame which we have all felt as a result of the sexual abuse of minors by some clergy and religious in this country.” Allen quotes. He goes on: “I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops, and to work together with them in combating this evil”. While he does say that “those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice”, he seems to have succinctly, absolved himself and “your bishops” from being among “those responsible” and situated them within the category of “we” who have been astonished and scandalized by the actions of “some clergy and religious...”
How really can I work together with my “bishops” when that bishop is as much, and in reality more responsible and accountable than the sick, perverted person who engaged in the acts? How can I cooperate with my bishops in confounding, confusing, denying and obfuscating the individual moral and legal culpability, the systematic and systemic roots in the system, and the culpability and accountability of members of the hierarchy who knowingly facilitated , tolerated, denied, turned a blind or not so blind eye, harrassed victims, etc., etc,? How can I cooperate with my bishops, if my essential role is to listen, accept and obey?
Murphy is right: if something bad can happen, it will. The liklihood of abusive behaviour being absolutely eliminated is unlikely. But, we must respond and act as if it can, will. Let's face it, real healing will not even begin unless and until, “our pastors” adequately and appropriately demonstrate acknowledgement of, who and how responsibility and accountability, and indeed change, meet the high standard of law, the credibility of the ordinary person, the needs of victims and the virtues which the message of Christ deserves and which these same pastors expect of us. We are not even close.
July 20, 2008
Credit where credit is due.
Credit where credit is due. Here is a link to an account of Australian bishop Michael Malone who has apologised for his own mishandling of clerical abuse in his diocese, of his own concealment of criminality (which leaves him open to prosecution) and for the pain his following of the Catholic Church's "cold and calculating" script has caused the victims and their families.
This is the first apology by a member of the hierarchy which didn't remind me of Pontius Pilate.
http://theherald.yourguide.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/a-bishops-epiphany/1226985.aspx
JimH, Thank you for the link
JimH, Thank you for the link on this. I don't usually follow links on here, but I'm glad I did and had a chance to read about a bishop who was "man enough" and did the right thing. Credit due in a climate where silence is consent, indeed.
I tried to read a transcript
I tried to read a transcript of his speech, got bored and set it aside. Tried a little while later, got bored again and set it aside. Tried one more time, got bored again.
I finally figured out what was boring me. It was a canned speech. It had the same structural format that political candidates use. There was no heart in it. There was a lot of pretty rhetoric, a lot of places where the politically correct phraseology was employed, it was structured to elicit emotions from the audience, but it also had the same inherent lack of integrity that one finds in any election year political rhetorical ... in other words, ...
The underlying message of his speech was summed very eloquently in another post:
"In Benedicts mind THE ULTIMATE TRUTH is that the institutional Church is NEVER wrong; none of the the predecessor popes ever made mistakes or errors of judgment that need to be corrected."
COL55 ~ So interesting. The
COL55 ~ So interesting. The reality against which the analogy of institutional humility is modeled would suggest that the ultimate representative of the Church acknowledge error, sin, repent and 'change' its ways. The 'absolutist' must hold fast to its professed identification with the 'ideal' and cannot. He has chosen his way rather than His.
Dennis: I think a better
Dennis:
I think a better description of the absolutist is:
--- He has LOST his way, rather than FOUND His (Christ's way).
But to be fair, we should thank the absolutists for a magnificent contribution they have made to our vernacular. I'm not sure exactly when the critical mass occurred, but it has occurred often enough so that the phrase "I'll Pray for you" has now become synonymous with 4-letter derogatory euphamistic expressions of contempt against ones heritage.
Since I cant use "I'll pray for you Dennis" anymore,
would "God Bless you Dennis" be acceptable?







COL55~ Thank you. How right
COL55~ Thank you. How right you are. We've seen it over and over.... There are though some people who can use: "I'll Pray for you..." and I would see it as you paraphrased it and I would have no question as to their meaning. As tough as you are in thought and word, you are one of them.