Jesus Loves Jeans

Check out the live broadcast (on internet) of “Jesus Loves Jeans“–evenings at 7:30 p.m. CST, from Dallas. Pr. Kendall Turcios preaching.

Leon Podles, “Sacrilege”

Matt Abbott posts (with permission) a large chunk of the introduction to Leon Podles’ new book, Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church. It’s a powerful statement of Podles’ journalistic journey, starting with his own physical abuse at the hands of a Christian Brother (he was punched in the face, and when he complained to the principal, he was expelled). The book, he warns, has explicit descriptions of the sexual abuse suffered, taken from depositions, avoiding the euphemisms employed by the media to date.

As hard as it may be to believe, I have also practiced restraint in using documents. As horrifying and disgusting as the abuse described in the book is, I have even worse things in my files. Psychologists also generally agree that victims usually cannot bring themselves to describe the worst abuse they experienced. A boy will admit that he was masturbated, but not admit that he was penetrated. There are therefore two levels of evil beyond the evil of the abuse described in this book: the descriptions of abuse I have not used, and beyond that the abuse that victims have not been able to bring themselves to describe.

The abuse problem was not a problem of individuals. It was (and is) a systemic problem within the Catholic Church.

The toleration of abuse was not necessary. It was and is convenient. A canonized saint tolerated abuse. Rings of abusers go back at least to the 1940s in America, and abuse involved sacrilege, orgies, and probably murder (and perhaps even worse). Bishops knew about the abuse and sometimes took part in it. Those who complained were ignored or threatened, and the police refused to investigate crimes committed by clergy.

The Vatican must share in the responsibility.

The Vatican helped set the stage for the abuse by cultivating a clericalist mentality that saw the clergy as the real church, and making the purpose of canon law the protection of the rights and reputation of the clergy, not the protection of children from abuse. The Vatican had also carefully chosen and appointed bishops who would not rock the boat, who would not discipline the clergy and perhaps create a schism. The Vatican — and this means Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II — sought to maintain a façade of institutional unity by tolerating heresy, dissent, and immorality, and got a Church (at least in the United States) in which the laity mistrusted priests, bishops, and popes; the priests mistrusted the laity and bishops; the bishops mistrusted the laity, priests, and the Vatican. In fact, it is hard to explain why bishops almost always followed the same policy of transferring rather than punishing abusive priests unless they had been so instructed by the Vatican — the pope must have either let the situation develop or set the policy himself.

It promises to be an important book. His bottom line:

I would like Catholics to look at themselves in the mirror and see the truth about themselves and their failures. Priests have done terrible things, and much of the rest of the Church — bishops, popes, even the laity — has been complicit.

Update: 11/23–Leon Podles graciously offered to send me a review copy of the book, and it came in the mail today. I’ve read most of the first two chapters. It’s tough going. I’ll have a review up in a few days.

Catholic Bishops to Meet in Baltimore

The Catholic Bishops begin their annual meeting today in Baltimore. John Allen gives a preview. Most of the agenda will deal with internal matters. A much anticipated report on the “causes and context” of the sexual abuse crisis will attract the most attention, I suspect:

Researchers from John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Fordham University (both in New York) will present preliminary results of their study of the causes and context of the sexual abuse crisis. Among other things, the findings are expected to offer a contrast between the periods 1960-1990 and 1990-2002, suggesting that the number of incidents declined and the aggressiveness of the church’s response improved in the latter period. The bishops have already spent $1 million on the study and expect to eventually allocate $2 million, with the project slated for completion in 2009. The results will be keenly anticipated, since the underlying causes of the sex abuse crisis remain a matter of keen Catholic debate.

Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago, will become president; this prompts Jason Berry to ask, “Is the Church Really This Blind?” He sees George as a symbol of the failure of the bishops to “get” the sexual abuse scandal.

The problem is that George shows little indication of having internalized the lessons of the scandal. He displays a stunning insensitivity to the church’s failures. And twice since the 2002 conference in Dallas that adopted the youth protection charter, George has flouted the church’s supposed zero-tolerance attitude in his handling of abusive priests.

In February 2003, for instance, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Father Kenneth Martin of Wilmington, Del., a consultant to the archdiocese on liturgical texts, had been staying at the cardinal’s mansion during his monthly visits to Chicago. He had been staying there despite the fact that he had pleaded guilty in 2001 in Maryland to sexually abusing a teenage boy over three years in the 1970s when he was a lay teacher. Martin received a suspended sentence and was declared by the diocese to be a “priest in good standing” in Wilmington, provided he not do public ministry.

Needless to say, this was shocking news. The members of the 12-person National Review Board, which had been appointed by the Conference of Catholic Bishops to conduct research on the causes and context of the scandal and report back with recommendations on how to avoid future scandals, had met with George just the day before the story broke in the Sun-Times — yet he had told them nothing about the priest’s visits. What could be more telling about George’s attitude than his willingness to welcome an admitted pedophile as a houseguest?

When Sun-Times reporter Cathleen Falsani asked George why he had allowed Martin to stay in his official residence after his misdeeds had become known, and why the priest was still working for the archdiocese as a consultant, George did not apologize but defended his colleague. “Are we saying that people with any kind of question in their past are not employable?” he responded. “Unless we want to say these people are simply permanent pariahs, is it appropriate to put his [Martin's] life under scrutiny that way?”

“When I read the Sun-Times,” said former Rep. Leon Panetta, a California Democrat who served on the National Review Board and was one of those who had met with George that week, “it confirmed for me what is at the heart of this [pedophile priest] problem — the [Catholic] hierarchy’s failure to understand the seriousness of the crisis.”

Members of the National Review Board made a second trip to Chicago nearly a year later to consult with the cardinal. George celebrated Mass for them, but then, according to three sources present at the meeting, he issued a warning over coffee and doughnuts: “You will be the downfall of the church!”

The group was dumbstruck. “The bishops and priests have failed to deal with this [scandal],” Panetta said he told George. The healing process could not begin, Panetta said, unless the church acknowledged the problem.

Several people present at the meeting subsequently confirmed George’s remarks before I called the cardinal for comment for an article for the National Catholic Reporter. George’s spokesman called me back to say: “The cardinal categorically denies making the statement attributed to him, and anyone who said that he said that either heard him wrong or misunderstood him.”

But matters got worse. In August 2005, police questioned Father Daniel McCormack of Chicago after a mother charged that he had molested her 8-year-old son at Our Lady of the Westside School, where he taught. In October, George ignored his own archdiocesan review board’s recommendation to remove McCormack, instead allowing him to continue teaching and coaching. In January 2006, McCormack was arrested on charges of sexually abusing another boy at the school. When asked about it, the cardinal, incredulously, said he had taken no action because he had had no information from law enforcement. McCormack has since pleaded guilty and gone to jail.

The archdiocese did take action against Barbara Westrick, the school’s principal, who had called the police after she learned of the complaint against the priest. She was fired in June. Although the archdiocese denies it, it seems likely that her criticisms of the church’s response cost her her job.

Would the bishops desist from electing George? No, the “election” to the presidency is a formality; the person who has served as vice president moves up to president even if he is in the midst of a scandal. The outgoing president, William Skylstad of Spokane, took office three years ago, days after he had announced his diocese would declare bankruptcy.

John Allen notes that financial scandals (such as diocesan bankruptcies) will also be on the agenda.

Update: Cardinal George now in hot water for saying sexual abuse law suits are just about money.

China and the Bible

Regarding the controversy over whether or not athletes will be able to take the Bible to the Olympic Village, Get Religion asks us not to miss an important point. China is saying athletes will be able to bring “a” Bible for “personal use.” No giving of a Bible–or any other literature that could be construed as in any way critical of China– to another person. China remains a land without freedom.

Evangelicals and Mary

G. Edward Reid has a review (in the Adventist Review) of Tim Perry, Toward an Understanding of the Mother of Our Lord.

In language sure to chill many Protestant hearts, Perry concludes: “As a result of this history, talking about Mary’s intercession, mediation, and coredemption is fraught with difficulty. But it is not impossible [emphasis supplied]. There is sufficient groundwork in place to offer a biblically sound, theologically constructive, and ecumenically sensitive understanding of each of these issues, which while certainly not undoing Protestant reservations, can at least move us beyond the recitation of polemics” (p. 299).

What meaning does this new volume have for Bible-believing Christians such as Seventh-day Adventists? There are several serious problems that cannot be overlooked, even in the name of respectful relationships with persons of other faiths.

First, we must remember that all “Mariology” is based on nonscriptural sources and is based on unbiblical teachings such as the natural immortality of the soul. In fact, Seventh-day Adventists will be quick to note that the two primary constituent elements of spiritualism—the natural immortality of the soul and communication with the spirits of the dead (Mary and “the saints”)—are both present in Mariology and in Marian theology. The ever-adapting nature of the spiritualist challenge to biblical Christianity requires that we pay special attention when these two elements combine in the heart of a powerful and widespread teaching of another Christian denomination.

UN: Ban Human Cloning Except Where Permitted

The UN has urged the world to ban human cloning–except in those cases where it should be permitted. This oxymoronic statement is really meant to promote cloning of humans for the purpose of scientific experimentation.