Five myths about the child rape scandal in the Catholic Church

David Gibson, one of the best journalists on the Catholic beat wrote a perceptive essay for The Washington Post's Outlook section yesterday enumerating five myths about the child rape scandal in the church. These include that Pope Benedict XVI is the primary culprit, that gay priests are to blame and that journalists are biased against the church. The article is pointed, yet evenhanded, and well worth a read.

Meanwhile, the pope's old antagonist, or perhaps its vice versa, the Rev. Hans Kung, has written an open letter to all Catholic bishops in the Irish Times in which he laments almost every development of Benedict's five-year papacy and urges the bishops to reform the church. One of his six recommendations:

Act in a collegial way: After heated debate and against the persistent opposition of the Curia, the Second Vatican Council decreed the collegiality of the pope and the bishops. It did so in the sense of the Acts of the Apostles, in which Peter did not act alone without the college of the apostles. In the post-conciliar era, however, the pope and the Curia have ignored this decree. Just two years after the council, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical defending the controversial celibacy law without the slightest consultation of the bishops. Since then, papal politics and the papal magisterium have continued to act in the old, uncollegial fashion. Even in liturgical matters, the pope rules as an autocrat over and against the bishops. He is happy to surround himself with them as long as they are nothing more than stage extras with neither voices nor voting rights. This is why, venerable bishops, you should not act for yourselves alone, but rather in the community of the other bishops, of the priests and of the men and women who make up the church.

Kung hat tip to Wounded Bird.

Posted by Jim Naughton on April 19, 2010 4:42 PM | |
Comments (3)

The Bugle re: volcano - "By sending up a huge plume of white smoke, even the planet says 'We need a new Pope'."

Posted by John B. Chilton [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2010 5:03 PM

"Just two years after the council, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical defending the controversial celibacy law without the slightest consultation of the bishops."

Does consistency with a two-year-old ecumenical council not count as "consultation with the bishops"? In chapter 3.16 of Prebyterorum Ordinis the bishops specifically confirmed the appropriateness of celibacy for the Latin priesthood. What if Paul VI had, just two years later, tried to reverse that? Then we might be talking about "subversion of the bishops."

Father Kung unhappily exemplifies a common failing of those talking about Vatican II, i.e. characterizing it as saying exactly opposite to what it actually says. And since so few are aware of the actual teaching of Vatican II (despite its easy availability in print and on the web), no one even notices.

Posted by rick allen [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2010 9:53 PM

The problem is not with this particular Pope, it is with the institutional culture of the Roman Church, especially at the higher levels. If we were to get a new Pope, who do you think would be selecting him?

Posted by Bill Ghrist [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 19, 2010 10:14 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space