Church in worst credibility crisis since Reformation

Church in worst credibility crisis since Reformation, theologian tells bishops

HANS KÜNG

Fri, Apr 16, 2010

Pope Benedict has made worse just about everything that is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church and is directly responsible for engineering the global cover-up of child rape perpetrated by priests, according to this open letter to all Catholic bishops

VENERABLE BISHOPS,

Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and I were the youngest theologians at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Now we are the oldest and the only ones still fully active. I have always understood my theological work as a service to the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, I am making this appeal to you in an open letter. In doing so, I am motivated by my profound concern for our church, which now finds itself in the worst credibility crisis since the Reformation. Please excuse the form of an open letter; unfortunately, I have no other way of reaching you.

I deeply appreciated that the pope invited me, his outspoken critic, to meet for a friendly, four-hour-long conversation shortly after he took office. This awakened in me the hope that my former colleague at Tubingen University might find his way to promote an ongoing renewal of the church and an ecumenical rapprochement in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

Unfortunately, my hopes and those of so many engaged Catholic men and women have not been fulfilled. And in my subsequent correspondence with the pope, I have pointed this out to him many times. Without a doubt, he conscientiously performs his everyday duties as pope, and he has given us three helpful encyclicals on faith, hope and charity. But when it comes to facing the major challenges of our times, his pontificate has increasingly passed up more opportunities than it has taken:

Missed is the opportunity for rapprochement with the Protestant churches: Instead, they have been denied the status of churches in the proper sense of the term and, for that reason, their ministries are not recognized and intercommunion is not possible.

Missed is the opportunity for the long-term reconciliation with the Jews: Instead the pope has reintroduced into the liturgy a preconciliar prayer for the enlightenment of the Jews, he has taken notoriously anti-Semitic and schismatic bishops back into communion with the church, and he is actively promoting the beatification of Pope Pius XII, who has been accused of not offering sufficient protections to Jews in Nazi Germany.

The fact is, Benedict sees in Judaism only the historic root of Christianity; he does not take it seriously as an ongoing religious community offering its own path to salvation. The recent comparison of the current criticism faced by the pope with anti-Semitic hate campaigns – made by Rev Raniero Cantalamessa during an official Good Friday service at the Vatican – has stirred up a storm of indignation among Jews around the world.

Missed is the opportunity for a dialogue with Muslims in an atmosphere of mutual trust: Instead, in his ill-advised but symptomatic 2006 Regensburg lecture, Benedict caricatured Islam as a religion of violence and inhumanity and thus evoked enduring Muslim mistrust.

Missed is the opportunity for reconciliation with the colonised indigenous peoples of Latin America: Instead, the pope asserted in all seriousness that they had been “longing” for the religion of their European conquerors.

Missed is the opportunity to help the people of Africa by allowing the use of birth control to fight overpopulation and condoms to fight the spread of HIV.

Missed is the opportunity to make peace with modern science by clearly affirming the theory of evolution and accepting stem-cell research.

Missed is the opportunity to make the spirit of the Second Vatican Council the compass for the whole Catholic Church, including the Vatican itself, and thus to promote the needed reforms in the church.

This last point, respected bishops, is the most serious of all. Time and again, this pope has added qualifications to the conciliar texts and interpreted them against the spirit of the council fathers. Time and again, he has taken an express stand against the Ecumenical Council, which according to canon law represents the highest authority in the Catholic Church:

He has taken the bishops of the traditionalist Pius X Society back into the church without any preconditions – bishops who were illegally consecrated outside the Catholic Church and who reject central points of the Second Vatican Council (including liturgical reform, freedom of religion and the rapprochement with Judaism).

He promotes the medieval Tridentine Mass by all possible means and occasionally celebrates the Eucharist in Latin with his back to the congregation.

He refuses to put into effect the rapprochement with the Anglican Church, which was laid out in official ecumenical documents by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, and has attempted instead to lure married Anglican clergy into the Roman Catholic Church by freeing them from the very rule of celibacy that has forced tens of thousands of Roman Catholic priests out of office.

He has actively reinforced the anti-conciliar forces in the church by appointing reactionary officials to key offices in the Curia (including the secretariat of state, and positions in the liturgical commission) while appointing reactionary bishops around the world.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to be increasingly cut off from the vast majority of church members who pay less and less heed to Rome and, at best, identify themselves only with their local parish and bishop.

I know that many of you are pained by this situation. In his anti-conciliar policy, the pope receives the full support of the Roman Curia. The Curia does its best to stifle criticism in the episcopate and in the church as a whole and to discredit critics with all the means at its disposal. With a return to pomp and spectacle catching the attention of the media, the reactionary forces in Rome have attempted to present us with a strong church fronted by an absolutistic “Vicar of Christ” who combines the church’s legislative, executive and judicial powers in his hands alone. But Benedict’s policy of restoration has failed. All of his spectacular appearances, demonstrative journeys and public statements have failed to influence the opinions of most Catholics on controversial issues. This is especially true regarding matters of sexual morality. Even the papal youth meetings, attended above all by conservative-charismatic groups, have failed to hold back the steady drain of those leaving the church or to attract more vocations to the priesthood.

You in particular, as bishops, have reason for deep sorrow: Tens of thousands of priests have resigned their office since the Second Vatican Council, for the most part because of the celibacy rule. Vocations to the priesthood, but also to religious orders, sisterhoods and lay brotherhoods are down – not just quantitatively but qualitatively. Resignation and frustration are spreading rapidly among both the clergy and the active laity. Many feel that they have been left in the lurch with their personal needs, and many are in deep distress over the state of the church. In many of your dioceses, it is the same story: increasingly empty churches, empty seminaries and empty rectories. In many countries, due to the lack of priests, more and more parishes are being merged, often against the will of their members, into ever larger “pastoral units,” in which the few surviving pastors are completely overtaxed. This is church reform in pretense rather than fact!

And now, on top of these many crises comes a scandal crying out to heaven – the revelation of the clerical abuse of thousands of children and adolescents, first in the United States, then in Ireland and now in Germany and other countries. And to make matters worse, the handling of these cases has given rise to an unprecedented leadership crisis and a collapse of trust in church leadership.

There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( “epistula de delictis gravioribus” ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the “secretum pontificium” , the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties. With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope. Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed “urbi et orbi” by the dean of the College of Cardinals.

The consequences of all these scandals for the reputation of the Catholic Church are disastrous. Important church leaders have already admitted this. Numerous innocent and committed pastors and educators are suffering under the stigma of suspicion now blanketing the church. You, reverend bishops, must face up to the question: What will happen to our church and to your diocese in the future? It is not my intention to sketch out a new program of church reform. That I have done often enough both before and after the council. Instead, I want only to lay before you six proposals that I am convinced are supported by millions of Catholics who have no voice in the current situation.

  1. Do not keep silent: By keeping silent in the face of so many serious grievances, you taint yourselves with guilt. When you feel that certain laws, directives and measures are counterproductive, you should say this in public. Send Rome not professions of your devotion, but rather calls for reform!

  2. Set about reform: Too many in the church and in the episcopate complain about Rome, but do nothing themselves. When people no longer attend church in a diocese, when the ministry bears little fruit, when the public is kept in ignorance about the needs of the world, when ecumenical co-operation is reduced to a minimum, then the blame cannot simply be shoved off on Rome. Whether bishop, priest, layman or laywoman – everyone can do something for the renewal of the church within his own sphere of influence, be it large or small. Many of the great achievements that have occurred in the individual parishes and in the church at large owe their origin to the initiative of an individual or a small group. As bishops, you should support such initiatives and, especially given the present situation, you should respond to the just complaints of the faithful.

  3. 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.

  4. Unconditional obedience is owed to God alone: Although at your episcopal consecration you had to take an oath of unconditional obedience to the pope, you know that unconditional obedience can never be paid to any human authority; it is due to God alone. For this reason, you should not feel impeded by your oath to speak the truth about the current crisis facing the church, your diocese and your country. Your model should be the apostle Paul, who dared to oppose Peter “to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong”! ( Galatians 2:11 ). Pressuring the Roman authorities in the spirit of Christian fraternity can be permissible and even necessary when they fail to live up to the spirit of the Gospel and its mission. The use of the vernacular in the liturgy, the changes in the regulations governing mixed marriages, the affirmation of tolerance, democracy and human rights, the opening up of an ecumenical approach, and the many other reforms of Vatican II were only achieved because of tenacious pressure from below.

  5. Work for regional solutions: The Vatican has frequently turned a deaf ear to the well-founded demands of the episcopate, the priests and the laity. This is all the more reason for seeking wise regional solutions. As you are well aware, the rule of celibacy, which was inherited from the Middle Ages, represents a particularly delicate problem. In the context of today’s clerical abuse scandal, the practice has been increasingly called into question. Against the expressed will of Rome, a change would appear hardly possible; yet this is no reason for passive resignation. When a priest, after mature consideration, wishes to marry, there is no reason why he must automatically resign his office when his bishop and his parish choose to stand behind him. Individual episcopal conferences could take the lead with regional solutions. It would be better, however, to seek a solution for the whole church, therefore:

  6. Call for a council: Just as the achievement of liturgical reform, religious freedom, ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue required an ecumenical council, so now a council is needed to solve the dramatically escalating problems calling for reform. In the century before the Reformation, the Council of Constance decreed that councils should be held every five years. Yet the Roman Curia successfully managed to circumvent this ruling. There is no question that the Curia, fearing a limitation of its power, would do everything in its power to prevent a council coming together in the present situation. Thus it is up to you to push through the calling of a council or at least a representative assembly of bishops.

With the church in deep crisis, this is my appeal to you, venerable bishops: Put to use the episcopal authority that was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. In this urgent situation, the eyes of the world turn to you. Innumerable people have lost their trust in the Catholic Church. Only by openly and honestly reckoning with these problems and resolutely carrying out needed reforms can their trust be regained. With all due respect, I beg you to do your part – together with your fellow bishops as far as possible, but also alone if necessary – in apostolic “fearlessness” ( Acts 4:29, 31 ). Give your faithful signs of hope and encouragement and give our church a perspective for the future.

With warm greetings in the community of the Christian faith,

Yours, Hans Küng – (New York Times Syndicate) © Hans Küng

© 2010 The Irish Times

In short, the open letter shouldn’t be a surprise.
By orthodoxy, Küng is a “bad boy” with good graces and cardinally opposes the current Pope’s return to more orthodoxy rather than progressiveness.

Where Küng will see regression, Benedict will see reformation.
Where Küng will see reformation, Benedict will see regression.

Is orchestrating the cover-up of priest pedophilia a “return to more orthodoxy”?

No matter what position man places himself in being representatives of God, temptation can be a downfall. Power and desire seem to be two of the greatest tools satan uses against us.

Perhaps it’s time to do away with men placing themselves as representatives of God, then the need to maintain control won’t serve as a temptation to allow horrible things to happen to thousands of innocent children.

The indiscretions of a few shouldn’t reflect on the whole. Sadly, it’s the few who bring the biggest shame on the greater good.

In a word…yes.

I agree with you on that. The media really has taken this whole thing and ran with it (rightfully so imo), but I did hear one report where these cases were limited to about 4% of the total church structure. So anyone who says that the whole cahtolic church is in trainwreck is being a little over the top.

My wonder is, how much damage does it take to change how things are done? I don’t keep my ear to the ground when it comes to the catholic church, it’s of very little interest to me. But it does seem like this pops up more often than it should. And now that the church is trying to say that they are going to enforce new policies and protect children, it’s like bankers saying they’re going to investigate themselves on charges of fraud.

Perhaps therein lies the crux of the problem.

I agree. It’s a problem stemming from the hubris of assuming too much power.

To support your word would require evidence.

I could criticize various religious organizations at length in this forum. The Catholic faith in particular. However, the log that resides in my eye is a great deterrent since many faults lie within me. Perhaps the hierarchies established in the Catholic religion offers the possibility of corruption. Doctrine in how their redemption and how their prayers are directed could influence misdirection.

It is my considered opinion that a church does need a sheperd to help direct the flock as it were. Being in the position of leading and teaching people bears a great onus upon the one who is in that position. To be accountable to God in that position can be a perilous downfall if they don’t allow God’s Will to guide their every step. It would not be one I would take lightly if I were to be ordained by God to be placed in.

Groups have leaders. That doesn’t mean leaders have to be granted absolute authority. What we know about human limitations ought to mitigate against that.

We live in an era when the authority of formal institutions like the Catholic Church is being seriously challenged. The Catholic church almost the definition of absolutism. Benedict wants to take it further in that direction. My impression is that people are leaving in droves due the child abuse scandal. The current leadership is unlikely to heed Kung. The short term prognosis is for a church that is smaller, more extreme and less socially relevant.

My greatest concern is the potential harm that could come to the parishioners of such an institution. Just because people may leave the Catholic church, it doesn’t mean they will abandon God as well. Some maybe, but not all.

Right…more disappointed religionists fending for themselves in an opaque and ambiguous world.

The widespread and separated parts of an ancient organization are starting to waver and fail due to central corruption and decadence which seems to be endemic across many areas of our societies.

Benedict is to Catholicism as Bush was to America, just as Harper is to Canada. An old school figure head who preaches to emotional and social remnants of our past. With the interest of preventing any progressive thought or change any steps forward are avoided and back steps are taken wherever possible. You can call it conservatism but I call it elitism and greed. Someone who wants to keep things the way they are in terms of global dynamic clearly does not do it with the interest of the entire globe in mind.

With the increasing awareness of the public thanks to more diverse forms of media (largely “underground” by mainstream standards), the failings and inadequacies of our crumbling and socially shamed institutions are now openly questioned in some sectors and violently opposed in others.

Thinkers who embrace change and progress for the sake of improvement like Hans Küng are now able to claw and grab for media attention through open letters like this which on the internet cannot be truly censored.

The objective of any corrupt governmental system includes taking power away from the subjects and concentrating it in the establishment or sometimes even in a single person. We have been intentionally kept ignorant and divided for a long time, it’s now only a surprise thanks to the slowly building modern renaissance of free thought.

How it will all turn out is a mystery. The mob being put down by the establishment or the mob thriving and becoming either intellectual and peaceful or ignorant and savage are all possibilities…

Leadership is always needed, no doubt. Being a leader is difficult, no doubt. My problem with this specific situation is that it seems that the structure around the leaders and the leaders themselves all worked so willingly to protect themselves rather than the people they were leading. I seriously doubt the catholic church is going to undergo any drastic form of change (despite how much I think it is needed) in regards to their power structure… and that is most likely going to be their biggeest problem.

It seems that they have painted themselves into this corner where they fear change because it will translate into a loss of power and refusing to change will also translate into a loss of power. But the tradegy seems to be based on the loss of power, not anything else that happened.

I understand that all of that is very presumptuous. I can’t claim to have the inside track or secret knowledge of the church’s inner workings, I can only comment on the information that I have been exposed to.

No evidence needed.
The nature of orthodoxy of any form is to preserve the standard.
When that standard entails infallibility as core to the orthodoxy and something strikes up within that is of moral conflict there are two choices: 1) indoctrinate the acts under citation of authority 2) move aside from the acts of moral conflict to maintain singularity in the infallible order of authority and access to X.

In this case; God.
God trickles down in the orthodox format, one tier at a time to the next.
Thereby if you bring into question the infallibility of one of the tiers before the lowest tier (the adherent non-clergy), then you are destabilizing the infrastructure of the transference of God through the line of holy authority.

If you destabilize this holy authority, then you threaten the access to God for non-clergy adherents.
This is how Catholic Orthodoxy (conservative) works.

It is not to suggest that one agrees with the acts (or that one does not, neither is addressed), but one would never make them openly known and a presented issue.
To do so would be akin to cutting off God’s hand because of a fallacy of man.
This is the perspective that drives this form of Orthodoxy (generalized).

It is that Küng is quite far from Orthodoxy himself.
He is a progressive Catholic, like Pope John Paul II.
He is, even in this letter, addressing the issues of how Catholicism evolves into a new form for a new age and discusses the tiers in terms of fallible men separate from God, not entangled with God by calling and charge.

This is completely opposite from Pope Benedict’s perspectives; which are a return to fixed Orthodoxy.
Which, in fixed Orthodoxy, the adherents change to fit their religion; not the religion change to fit the people.

Now, in my opinion, both extremes are by themselves detriment; the middle between them is ideal.

Eschewing evidence about the phenomenon in question i.e. the Roman Catholic Church, your arguments are irrelevant. Generalities about the difference between orthodoxy and progressivism don’t make your point. You would have to show how canon law supports covering up pedophilia. Maybe it does. But I doubt it. Was the Nixon cover-up of Watergate justified by a conservative interpretation of the constitution? No. More likely, Benedict wanted to contain a scandal from exposing a systemic weakness in the catholic system. Once upon of time it might have worked. Not in the information age. But Benedict is unlikely to initiate or sanction reform radical enough to stem the tide of the outgoing faithful.

Incidentally, John Paul II was not a progressive, certainly not in the sense that Kung is.

No I do not.
I am not defending the theological stance or attacking it.

I am talking about the psychological thinking of the conservative orthodoxy.
Even Nixon had this same concept; famously, “When the president does it [something illegal], that means that it is not illegal”.

It’s not about whether it’s founded or not in the edicts, laws, or creeds.
It’s the psychology of stability that is at question.

For Pope Benedict, like Nixon, Orthodoxy is a preservationist system of which stability is first-most (or tied) of importance.

He was progressive; not, as you noted, as Küng is, but progressive never-the-less.
For instance, Pope John Paul II was interested in Religious harmony; Pope Benedict is not.
The Dalai Lama’s record number of visits with John Paul and their friendship is well known.
I seriously doubt Pope Benedict will host meetings with the Dalai Lama nearly as frequent; already with the meetings (actually…if I’m not mistaken there’s only one) that have occurred, statements declaring that the visit was completely unofficial was made, unlike Pope John Paul II who would not release the details of the meetings, but would inform they were of spiritual discussions regarding (typically) peace and religious harmony concerns for the new age.