Benedictions: The Pope in America

Benedictions: The Pope in America


Pope Benedict gets thumbs up, Cardinal George thumbs down, from former head of Lay Review Panel

posted by David Gibson

In a post yesterday on the roots of Benedict’s “conversion” on the issue of sexual abuse by priests–and the enabling behavior of many bishops–I recounted the story of Anne Burke, a widely-respected Illinois jurist and former head of the National Review Board of prominent lay Catholics charged with holding the bishops to their word in implementing policies to remove abusers and prevent future cases. Burke and two other board member met with then-Cardinal ratzinger in the Vatican in January 2004 to tell him the real story of the crisis which she said was not being communicated by the bishops to Rome. Ratzinger listened, and followed up. “We named names,” Burke said.
I was interested in Burke’s reaction to the pope’s words to the bishops last night, in which he noted that some of them had “badly handled” the cases–the first public acknowledgment that the bishops themselves contributed to the scandal.
Burke called this morning and her verdict was unequivocal: “I can’t tell you how delighted I was to read what he said,” Burke said. “I think something directly from him was very important.” And she, said it was important that it was done publicly–there were reports that the American bishops wanted to keep last night’s meeting with the bishops closed to media, as they were anticipating that Benedict’s message might have some teeth, on the abuse issue as well as other topics. But the Vatican–reportedly–asked that it be televised. “He had to do that,” Burke said of the public comments. “He”–the pope–“knows,” she said of the bishops’ track record. And now, “He let them know that he knows.” Based on her past meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger, she said, “I knew in my heart of hearts he was going to do something like this.”
Burke has been a forceful voice for greater accountability for bishops, something that has not exactly made her a darling of the hierarchy. She would like to see more done, but thinks Benedict’s statements were the crucial signal.
What disturbed Burke about last night’s talk at a vespers service at the National Shrine was that he was welcomed by the president of the national bishops conference, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who Burke–and many others–considers a scofflaw when it comes to the very policies that George helped implement. Her frustration focuses in particular on the case of a priest, Father Daniel McCormack, a Chicago priest who was accused of molesting children but was not removed from ministry in 2005 despite requests from George’s own lay advisory board to do so.


McCormack subsequently abused other boys. He was arrested Jan. 20, 2006 and in March 2006 Cardinal George publicly apologized for not removing him and for intially indicating he did not know about the case. Yet he faced no sanctions–there are none for bishops who violate the policy known as the charter–and victims, their relatives, and lay leaders like Burke are furious. She is especially angry that George was subsequently elected as leader of the U.S. hierarchy.
(Daniel McCormack eventually pleaded guilty to abusing five boys. He is serving a five-year sentence in prison.)
“It’s outrageous, actually, that he is president of the national bishops confernece,” Burke told me. “”McCormack is a recent case, and Cardinal George did not follow what the bishops said they were going to do.” Burke said that in her January 2004 meeting with then-Cardinal Ratzinger “we told him a lot about George,” so Benedict knew George’s track record when he delivered his remarks last night. “We knew that Cardinal George was disingenuous with us on many occassions. He showed he can’t be trusted.”
But, she insisted, the scandal and her anger are “not about faith. People keep getting that mixed up. It’s just bad administration.” She will be encouraged if Benedict continues to appoint bishops who are better administrators, above all on this issue. The statement by some church leaders that the scandal “is history” is not her takeaway. “It’s not history.”



Advertisement
Comments read comments(5)
post a comment
goodguyex

posted April 17, 2008 at 12:26 pm


>The statement by some church leaders that the scandal “is history” is not her takeaway. “It’s not history.”



report abuse
 

B. Rickman

posted April 17, 2008 at 5:37 pm


That was one frustration for me after the vespers service was over. The questions I wanted to ask, if I could, would be:
1. Why have you not laicised bishops who refuse to keep their promise of obedience to you? Why do you tolerate this disobedience?
2. Why do you tolerate bishops who still allow bad priests to serve in their diosces? (Archbishop of San Francisco comes to mind)
3. Why is Cardinal Mahoney still serving as a cardinal when he has ordained a practicing homosexual man to the diaconate (2006 I think)
Holy Father!!! If you want what you say you want the Catholic church in America to be..FIRE these men!! Stop tolerating evil from your episcopate in this country!! Hear our cry and get these persons out of office before your credibilty is comprimised in our eyes for all time.
bjr



report abuse
 

bill bannon

posted April 17, 2008 at 9:20 pm


Court papers showed that the Vatican had a tape of Shanley’s pro gay activity views in 1979 and they did question Boston but accepted a general letter from Boston which did not specify as requested what they were doing about Shanley. The curia did not follow up but trusted the general letter of Boston; and Shanley then raped twice in subsequent years and was actually promoted by Cardinal Law in 1985 to pastor….Law who had twice been told by a laywoman that Shanley was dangerous. Benedict is avoiding the Rome accountability aspect as are most Catholics… in an effort to protect the Church….wasn’t that the reason given for much cover up activity in the US itself?



report abuse
 

Joseph D'Hippolito

posted April 18, 2008 at 1:31 am


goodguyex, if the American bishops dealt with the issue forthrightly when it was brought to their attention by Fr. Thomas Doyle in 1985, and if the Vatican dealt with the issue forthrightly, the Church wouldn’t have these problems with moral credibility.
In any centralized, bureaucratic hierarchy, the man on top is the one who is ultimately accountable. Benedict understands that and is trying to make his bishops understand that. JPII didn’t. Neither do Catholics like you who continue to blind yourselves to the ultimate problem.



report abuse
 

Pauli

posted April 23, 2008 at 1:26 pm


goodguyx: “No it is not history, because regretably in any group of hundreds of thousands of men you will have a percentage with such behavior.”
Well, there are ways of reducing this sort of behavior via better formation. Most people aren’t talking about those because they’re too busy milking and/or fussing.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Benedictions. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Prayer Plain and Simple Happy Reading!!!

posted 9:41:52am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

Archbishop Chaput weighs in against "Obama Catholics"--and for...?
Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput combines an intellectual's depth with the doughty persona of a politicker, which is what he used to be--he worked for the RFK campaign and later, even as a priest, was a campaign volunteer for Jimmy Carter. Some say he's still a political operative, though for the

posted 11:18:53am May. 20, 2008 | read full post »

The Hagee-Donohue ticket: "Liberals' worst nightmare"
The elaborate courtship of Texas televangelist John Hagee--who is covering McCain's evangelical flank--and the Catholic League's Bill Donohue, who accused Hagee of anti-Catholicism for his "Great Whore" sermonizing and other standard anti-papist barbs, always seemed to hold about as much suspense as

posted 10:54:05am May. 19, 2008 | read full post »

An olive branch to divorced-and-remarried Catholics?
An item in the current edition of The Tablet of London hints at a possible opening for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion--even though many do, obviously, their ban from the altar under church law remains one of the sorest pastoral points in the US church. It is also a sore point

posted 6:00:00am May. 17, 2008 | read full post »

The key to Benedict...
It is summed up in a response recounted by Father Jim Martin, a Jesuit and author who posts (and edits) at America magazine's blog. Father Martin has a post on "Three Unreported Papal Stories" from last month's visit. The third is the payoff: Third: Another priest friend serving as a secretary to on

posted 5:12:35pm May. 16, 2008 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.