By Douglas Kmiec
Times of Malta
April 11, 2010
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100411/opinion/the-irrelevancy-of-scandal-to-love-of-the-catholic-church
With great anticipation and happiness, Malta awaits the visit of the Holy Father in the coming week. Formally celebrating the 1,950th anniversary of St Paul's arrival on the island, my own sense is that the purpose of Pope Benedict XVI's visit has a larger purpose: specifically, to witness first-hand the vibrancy of the Catholic Church in Malta as the Holy Father prayerfully searches for answers for why so many Catholics elsewhere in the world are adrift from their faith.
It is far too easy to blame the highly publicised priestly scandal for the alienation of Catholics in Europe or the United States. The declines in Mass attendance, vocations, and marriage within the Church preceded widespread knowledge of the ugly behaviour on the part of a tiny fraction of errant priests by decades.
This is not to dismiss the scandal as inconsequential, especially for the families affected. One paedophile priest is enough to ruin a life. Nor is it meant to contradict the Pope's working hypothesis for ecclesiastical decline in Europe: namely, cultural secularism. It is to suggest, however, that understanding the diminished standing of the Catholic Church outside Malta requires a more careful inquiry into the reasons for, and not just the fact of, secularity.
As will be seen, the Church makes a fundamental error when it misdirects too much of its effort towards enacting moral instruction into law rather than converting the hearts and minds of the faithful. The Church in America has unfortunately learned this lesson the hard way. Misdirecting the focus of the Church toward legal change, rather than personal, spiritual conversion, reduces the standing of the Church to ordinary lobbyist, alienates the non-Catholic members of the polity and leaves Catholics with far too little understanding of the obligations entailed by formation in the faith.
Now more than ever, the Vatican understandably desires to hold up Malta to the world as an example, not of perfection, for the Maltese know better, but as a country where genuinely expressed contrition is encouraged by the model of Christ-like forgiveness still practised.
The scandal in the Church is numbing. One reason is because it seems to undermine the last of leg of the three-legged platform upon which modern society has rested: the integrity of public official; the stability of family; and the pastoral, moral formation of individuals in the Church.
Presidents may have affairs or improperly give favours to campaign donors, but priests were different. Sometimes taking vows of poverty, they not only opined that it is blessed to be poor in spirit, they lived a life unencumbered by material obsession. Obedient to their religious superiors, priests submitted their very will to the service of others. And celibacy, extraordinary in any age to contemplate, seemed superhuman in a world where modesty is a forgotten norm and pornography seeps through every internet portal.
And the family? This "first cell of civilisation", as John Paul II described it, has had its own difficulty. Work has been favoured over child rearing by both parents. Couples forego marriage, inviting out of wedlock births with their now well-documented ill effects on the resulting children who then face greater risks of poverty, illiteracy, delinquency, and poor health.
Similar effects are experienced by the children of divorce, which while not recognised by the Catholic Church, has inevitably, if covertly, been pursued by Catholics as well. Hardly anyone made the case any longer in favour of marriage, save same-sex couples, as large numbers of men and women subordinated marriage to university, the first job, house, car, flat screen television, etc.
In the 1950s and 60s, the Church in America was thriving: Catholic school enrolments well above capacity; the election of the first Catholic President, John Kennedy, and a highly confident Church under John XXIII throwing open its windows to the world, and for the first time, acknowledging freedom of religion as a human right, premised not on being "the one, true" Church, but simply as a matter of human dignity.
The Church had a sex problem, however.
 |
In the 1960s, the beginnings of a more permissive age pressed to remove the view of the Catholic Church from the civil laws governing sexual behaviour. Laws against married couples using contraceptives were invalidated by the US Supreme Court and quickly extended to unmarried couples.
That precedent would legalise abortion in America and most countries around the globe would follow suit. Then and now, abortion was argued by some to be advanced contraception.
Appalled, Catholic intellectuals saw abortion and infanticide as one, and argued within the Church that modern forms of contraception be accepted. Paul VI said "no", preferring the perfect ideal of an inseparable procreative and unitive marital commitment. This is a beautiful image of marriage, but many Catholics disregard the teaching and began a duplicitous relationship with their faith.
The sorry tale of abuse, and transfer, and abuse again, began to be told in America in the mid-80s as a result of litigation in Louisiana. However, it would not be until Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law resigned in the early part of this first decade of the new millennium that the Vatican articulated its zero tolerance ethic which directs that a priest be separated from active ministry if there is a bona fide case of abuse.
Not every case is bona fide, of course. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was falsely accused. Often the cases are decades old and well beyond the statute of limitations for criminal penalty. Even if a case was still fresh, the cases are not easy to prove given the lack of witnesses other than the victim.
All this has been known for some time. What is curious is why it has again suddenly flashed to page one. Perhaps it is the documentation that abuse was not confined to the US, but deep within even highly-Catholic Ireland. Perhaps it was the insinuation that the current Pope was aware of the problem and said little.
The secular press in the United States made this small, if obvious, fact into a major story and now there are calls for the Pope's resignation, full disclosure, and the lifting of the time bars which preclude prosecution or action for damages.
The scandal requires realism. On the facts as known, papal resignation is as unthinkable as full disclosure ought to be mandatory. Likewise, compulsory is prosecution of any priest still engaged in the sordid business. That said, criminally prosecuting stale cases beyond the statute of limitations would likely violate principles of due process, and while damages suits are theoretically possible, the offending priests are almost always penniless, and the judgment then is simply a wealth transfer from one innocent set of parishioners to another. When the money comes from a Church fund, the result is less money for schools, hospitals and the myriad other social goods supplied under Catholic auspices.
The love for the Church on this remarkable island of faith and family is manifest, strong, and indeed a great source of happiness. This was, frankly, obvious everywhere we worshipped during Holy Week, from the blessing of the chrism in St John's where hundreds of clergy recommitted to their priestly vows; to the Holy Thursday re-enactments of the Last Supper; the all-night vigils before the Eucharist, the seven church visits, the adoration of the cross on Good Friday and the stunning processions and crowds watching them for miles, to the vigil paschal candle bringing light back into a darkened world, to the Hallelujah first sung and then sent aloft to the heavens aboard abundant fireworks on Easter Sunday.
Since the story of abuse has been disclosed to Malta and the US alike, why does Malta's love for the Church eclipse that of the US?
Let me suggest a tentative response that may at first seem entirely counter-intuitive: the Church in America has sought to enact faith into law; Malta has depended more on the conversion of heart and mind, rather than legal sanction.
This tentative speculation may be resisted simply on the grounds that America's Constitution prohibits the establishment or favouring of one faith over another, while Malta gives acknowledged favour to the Catholic tradition. One might think, therefore, that it is Malta that depends on law's coercion not America. However, that's not the way it actually works.
Remember, Catholics in America saw the law of the land take a decidedly neutral (some would say 'hostile') turn in the 1960s and thereafter. Where laws once prohibited and punished fornication, adultery, the use of contraception, abortion, and divorce, today all of those practices are free of practical criminal or civil sanction. In Malta, most if not all of these behaviours remain unlawful.
In America, it is commonplace to hear clergy strongly denounce abortion, but then devote all of their attention not to changing the hearts and minds of those in front of them in the pew, but to mounting a campaign to have the law changed. In America, the Church is much less likely to intervene in a troubled marriage with counselling and prayer than it is to run to the general assembly to lobby against no-fault divorce.
In brief, faith in America is devoted to converting the law. Faith in Malta is focused on the formation of the person. The former is the trade of lobbyists and public officials; the latter is the vocation of theologians and pastors.
Ask an American whether they love the Church and the answer will often depend on whether the Church is then promoting a liberal or conservative cause with which they concur. Healthcare, abortion, and immigration are all suitable topics for homiletic instruction, but in America these are frequently omitted from Church sermon, even as they are the staple of Church submissions before legislative testimony. There is nothing wrong with the Church reflecting upon the Gospel and suggesting how it might guide a citizen's perspective on contemporary social problems. However, seeing the Church itself as an 'institutional person' in the throes of politics has a profoundly negative effect on the spiritual capability of the Church.
With priests understandably reluctant to be partisan in face-to-face pastoral instruction, the leadership of the American Church has been the opposite before legislative assembly. Charges of hypocrisy result, which becomes anger when the particular position asserted by the institutional Church in the political arena, but not the pews, is antagonistic to one's own view.
Parish priests sensing the hostility pursue a strategy of substantive homiletic avoidance. Outside the Church is perceived as partisan, while the sermons inside are often vapid with repetitive messages of 'can't we just all get along'. As it turns out, when the Church external has been acting more as politician than prelate, the answer is 'no, we can't'.
The value of avoiding these divisions is well understood in Malta where this lesson was re-learned the hard way. Many have recounted to me their discomfort with the Church for having taken sides between Labour and Nationalists in an era not very long ago.
Having once been denied Communion at a Mass in America for endorsing Barack Obama as President, I understand the depth of the wound of being excluded from the body of Christ for exercising one's prerogative as a citizen - even if my local bishop would later proclaim the denial wholly unjustifiable (see Kmiec, Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama; Overlook/Penguin 2008).
It is not enough to say it is wrong for the Church to be anti-Mintoff or anti-Obama. Of course, the denial of faith and the rankness of partisanship are worse when the Church is not only engaging in politics, but also doing so in a manner that takes on the role of precinct captain rewarding one's political friends and punishing one's political enemies.
For most of its history (with perhaps the single historical anomaly mentioned), Malta's exceptionalism has meant a strengthened faith through substantively robust instruction in the context of extraordinary liturgical worship.
The true motivation for love of the Church is its ability to serve as a vessel of Christ's unconditional forgiveness.
The Holy Father has fingered secularism for the decline of the Church in Europe, and that may be right, but arguably it is the Church acting like a secularist that prompts a believer to see the Church, not as unique in voice and purpose, but fungible. It is easy to confuse the cause, imprudent partisan activity by the Church, with its effect - secular disinterest and an allergy against all things religious.
Those manifesting this allergic reaction in their own lives mock those of us who still attend Mass with regularity as being 'sainted' for even bothering. With a telling wink, the cognoscenti suggest that even those who visit the Church once a year on Easter think about cutting back.
Is America's experience a cautionary tale for Malta? Yes, since it reveals how the love of the Church must carefully avoid its casual or conscious entwinement with politics. Some churchmen may think faith is strengthened by an alliance with power, but it is the opposite. It is then simply mortgaged to the next election.
There is a practical reason to avoid making faith into politics as well. Frankly, it is because most faith propositions do not resolve hard cases. For example, to say abortion is an intrinsic wrong does not reveal whether legal penalty or a policy of compassion supplying pre-natal and maternity support ought to be the leading edge against abortion. So too, love for the Church does not settle the nuances of immigration policy, and the love of the Church does not settle whether a civil state ought permit divorce - a topic of continuing discussion in Malta.
The love Malta has for the Church must never come to be dependent on what is enacted into the law. Law is Janus-faced. Become dependent upon it for the maintenance of morality and it will change to suit the morals of the moment, which may or may not be in conformity with faith.
The joy of 'He is Risen' is a transformative joy; it is the delight in first remaking our own lives into as complete an embrace of the needs of others as Jesus did. Loving the Church is not really about hating the sin, because it is all too easy in this life to confuse sin and sinner. Hate abortion, and you end up hating the women who confusedly saw the barbaric practice as necessary; hate despicable acts of sexual licence and you hate the perpetrator of them. When we hate in these ways, we do not accept the risen Lord because we reject His model of unqualified forgiveness.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
These words of unequivocal and unambiguous forgiveness are the essence of the joy of the Risen Christ. Miss them and your life will be not one of happiness, but anger. Miss them and you miss the meaning of the Great Commandment to love one's neighbour. Miss them and you cannot truly love the Church.
As the bride of Christ, the Catholic Church is spotless in its purity, unbounded in its charity, manifest in all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The bride should never be conflated with the clergy or laity even when they are at their best, let alone when they betray what the Church represents.
In these weeks following Easter, as we recite the creed, let us truly rejoice in "the one true, Catholic and apostolic Church" that can still be found in Malta. Let us also pray that the Holy Father will be refreshed and encouraged by his visit here. And pray for the Catholic Church in America, may it again come to love the Church as Christ loved it, and as He loves us - by never overlooking the unconditional availability of forgiveness even for those who have hurt or offended us unspeakably.
Forgiveness is no substitute for judgment. In ways we do not fully grasp, Christ's forgiveness is interwoven with our personal resolve sincerely "to go and sin no more", In God's eyes, a failure to live out one's contrition may condemn for eternity, but the challenge for Christians in this exile is that none of us have warrant or authority to judge the sufficiency or fulfilment of another's spiritual contrition, or to withhold our love from another.
In the end, only the devil profits when civil wrong is thought to displace the spiritual strength of the Church and our love for it.
Welcome, your Holiness. Be not afraid to be refreshed by the "uncommon kindness" that welcomed Paul almost two millenniums ago and that still sets human shortcoming and divisive partisanship aside in order to reaffirm that "above all, let your charity and zeal show how you love the Church. Your work is for the Church, which is the body of Christ."
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.