The canonization of Mother Teresa has been brewing since her death in the late 1990s. The Pope at the time, John Paul II, had been a serious fan of hers, and greased the skids so as to speed up her sainthood — something that usually takes decades, if not centuries. He arranged for her beatification (the first step in the process) in 2003, and many in the Vatican have worked hard since then to get her sainted. As the Religion News Service reports, she is now “Saint Teresa of Calcutta” (WebCite cached article):
Mother Teresa, the tiny nun who devoted her life to the poor, was declared a saint by Pope Francis at the Vatican as he celebrated her “daring and courage” and described her as a role model for all in his year of mercy.
At least 120,000 people crowded a sun-drenched St. Peter’s Square for the canonization of the acclaimed nun who may have worked in the slums of Kolkata but was a force to be reckoned with by political and religious leaders around the world.
Mother Teresa’s reputation for charity goes beyond just the Catholic Church, largely thanks to her having won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. But the reality of her work doesn’t support this reputation. She’s been accused of not having actually helped all the ailing in her “hospital,” due to her devotion to the idea that it’s actually good for people to suffer (good for them, and for humanity as a whole).
A former Guam priest who was publicly accused during a Legislature hearing this week as having molested an altar boy in the 1950s said Thursday “it’s possible” he abused altar boys on island and he’s asking for forgiveness from those he may have hurt.
Father Louis Brouillard, now 95, was removed from his position in 1985 while serving in a Minnesota diocese.
Brouillard spoke to Pacific Daily News on Thursday via telephone from his residence in Pine City, Minnesota, about 70 miles north of Minneapolis. Brouillard said he’s sorry about the possible abuses.…
Brouillard, who said he retired as a priest more than 30 years ago, also said Thursday he’s still receiving checks from the Archdiocese of Agana in Guam.
Brouillard was transferred to Minnesota in 1981 and removed from the ministry a few years later after another abuse allegation there. Guam’s Archbishop Anthony Apuron also stands accused, and has been set aside temporarily as a result.
Brouillard’s mealy-mouthed half-confession — i.e. that “‘it’s possible’ he abused altar boys” — is both laughably pathetic and outrageously chilling. He clearly engaged in a pattern of abusive behavior which spanned decades and locales … yet he can only bring himself to concede merely that “it’s possible”!? Fuck that. He knows what he did, but like a lot of career sociopaths, he’s just too much of a sniveling, crybaby coward to admit it.
Guam’s Catholic Church on Friday apologized to victims of a former island priest who told Pacific Daily News on Thursday “it’s possible” he abused altar boys in Guam in the 1950s.…
Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai issued the statement of apology after Father Louis Brouillard, 95, told the media he regrets the abuses and is seeking forgiveness from his victims.
“With the news that Father Louis Brouillard, a priest who served on Guam confessed to having abused altar boys on Guam in the 1950s, I convey my deepest apologies and that of the entire Church to Mr. Leo Tudela and all other persons who were also victimized,” Hon said.
Yes, folks, the case of the abuser Fr Brouillard is yet another example of how the Roman Catholic Church handles priests it knows abused children: It tells them to say their penance, shuffles them around, and when that continues long enough, they put the abuser out to pasture and pay him off for life. Oh, and when they’ve finally been caught at this little game, they issue a non-apology apology.
Well done, Catholics. Well done! What a remarkable standard of morality your Church exhibits! Why, surely Jesus himself would be proud … no?
Traditionalists in the Roman Catholic Church have had a difficult time with a lot of what Pope Francis has said and done since he assumed office. They’ve complained about him, dismissed him, ignored him, and otherwise tried to act as though none of his innovations was ever offered.
Divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, as well as cohabitating unmarried couples, must “refrain from sexual intimacy” to receive Holy Communion in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput has asserted in a new set of pastoral guidelines.
Released Friday, the guidelines instruct clergy and other archdiocesan leaders on implementing Amoris Laetitia, a major document on family that Pope Francis issued in April.
His six-page instruction, which appears on the archdiocesan website, may be the first of its kind issued by the bishop of any American diocese in response to Amoris Laetitia, Latin for “the joy of love.”
Acknowledging that it is a “hard teaching,” Chaput goes on to say that Catholics in same-sex partnerships, those remarried without a church annulment, and cohabitating persons may not serve on parish councils, instruct the faithful, serve as lectors, or dispense Communion.
Allowing persons in such “irregular” relationships, “no matter how sincere,” to hold positions of responsibility would “offer a serious counter-witness to Catholic belief, which can only produce moral confusion in the community,” according to Chaput.
I get that, as a bishop, Chaput is entitled to issue these sorts of directives, and that as a prince of the Church he can govern its affairs and enforce its doctrines as he sees fit; if gay, cohabiting, or remarried Catholics don’t like it, they can leave their Church. That’s absolutely the case. What’s harder to understand is why Chaput, or any leader within the Church, could be so determined to slam the door of the Church in the faces of some of its lay members. The R.C. Church in the US has been on the wane for years. Traditionalists like Chaput are working to push even more folks out. It’s a dysfunctional way to operate.
But hey, what could this cynical, cold-hearted, godless agnostic heathen possibly know about such important sacred considerations?
Catholics and other Christians not only must apologize to the gay community, they must ask forgiveness of God for ways they have discriminated against homosexual persons or fostered hostility toward them, Pope Francis said.
“I think the church not only must say it is sorry to the gay person it has offended, but also to the poor, to exploited women” and anyone whom the church did not defend when it could, he told reporters June 26.…
At the mention of the massacre in early June at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Pope Francis closed his eyes as if in pain and shook his head in dismay.
“The church must say it is sorry for not having behaved as it should many times, many times — when I say the ‘church,’ I mean we Christians because the church is holy; we are the sinners,” the pope said. “We Christians must say we are sorry.”
Changing what he had said in the past to the plural “we,” Pope Francis said that a gay person, “who has good will and is seeking God, who are we to judge him?”
Surely someone out there will say the Pope was “blaming” the Pulse nightclub massacre on Catholics or Christians; if one actually pays attention to what he said, though, that’s not it. He’s pointing out only that Christianity has contributed to an atmosphere of hatred for gays. That’s a long way — a very long way! — from saying that Christendom collectively conspired to massacre gays in Orlando FL. The two are, quite simply, not even close to the same thing.
I note, too, that the Pope explicitly said that all Christians, not just Catholics, should apologize to gays for marginalizing them. This is a departure from other similar comments in which a pope or other Catholic leader spoke only on behalf of his own Church and what it or its followers had done. On this occasion, Francis said, the apology must come from other sects than just Catholicism. I’m not sure many Christians from other sects — even those who otherwise profess respect for Pope Francis — will appreciate him having said this.
As he did at the meeting with the superiors, Pope Francis told the reporters that his understanding was that women deacons in the early church assisted bishops with the baptism and anointing of women, but did not have a role like Catholic deacons do today.
He used the word “genocide” to describe the massacre of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians in 1915-18 because that was the word commonly used in his native Argentina and he had already used it publicly a year ago. Although he said he knew Turkey objects to use of the term, “it would have sounded strange” not to use it in Armenia.
A Turkish deputy prime minister said on Saturday (June 25) that it was “unfortunate” that Pope Francis had labeled the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Ottoman forces a genocide, and that it reflected the papacy’s “Crusader mentality.”
References to “crusading” are among the worst pejoratives found in the Islamic world, even if it is juvenile name-calling. As I’ve blogged previously, it’s long past time for Turks and the Turkish government to fucking grow the hell up already and stop throwing tantrums every time someone calls the Armenian Genocide a “genocide.” That’s what it was … and the Turks should act like adults and just deal with it, fercryinoutloud.
Pope Francis has established legal procedures to remove bishops who botch handling sex abuse cases, saying they can be kicked out of office if the Vatican finds they were negligent in doing their jobs.
In a law published Saturday, Francis answered a long-running demand by victims of abuse and their advocates to hold bishops accountable for failing to protect their flocks from pedophiles. Victims have long accused bishops of covering up for abuse, moving rapists from parish to parish rather than reporting them to police.
In the law, Francis acknowledged that the church’s canonical code already allows for a bishop to be removed for “grave reasons.” But he said he wanted to precisely state that negligence, especially negligence in handling abuse cases, can cost a bishop his job.
Yes, it’s true there really hasn’t been anything to date preventing a Pope from demanding the resignation of a negligent bishop — for pretty much any reason at all. It could always have been done, had it been desired. The Pope has a great deal of authority, both within and outside of canon law. But having this provision explicitly within canon law is a noteworthy change.
Even so — as with the review commission that collapsed — that doesn’t mean anything will ever come of this. The Vatican will, in all likelihood, continue doing as it wishes. We’ll just have to see if this new canon law actually goes anywhere … and given the Catholic bureaucracy’s glacial pace, it might take years for it to be noticed.
Over the years I’ve taken lay Catholics to task for their general acquiescence to their Church’s hierarchs. Yes, there are exceptions — e.g. groups like Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) and Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) — but most lay Catholics have no problem with things like priest shuffling. At least, they can’t have any problem with it, because the vast majority have done nothing about it. In many of my posts I’ve implored and/or dared lay Catholics to get off their asses, take charge of their own Church, and clean up its act. Still, it just doesn’t happen.
The pastor of St. Rose of Lima has been asked to step down after a group from the parish presented a 129-page report to the Archdiocese of Miami filled with allegations of sexual impropriety against Father Pedro Corces.
The allegations are … well, “fascinating” is an apt word:
The Christifidelis document, titled “Dossier on the Improprieties of Father Pedro M. Corces And an Appeal to His Excellency Archbishop Thomas Wenski For Urgent Action” and dated May 16, consists of information provided by an investigator hired by the parents. It accuses Corces of improper relationships with a maintenance worker he hired and three other individuals associated with the parish, including a deacon. The investigator is not named in the report but he followed the priest for weeks, photographing him, tracking the social media account of the maintenance worker and others, and going through the church rectory trash.
The report, along with dozens of pictures, copies of receipts, and 28 appendices, claims that Corces replaced the maintenance staff with workers who included “a felon and prostitute, Santeria practitioners, promiscuous gay practitioners and people who openly mock the Catholic faith.”
It claimed that Corces became romantically involved with a maintenance worker and that the two men shared “frequent, lavish trips and dinners.”
I’m not sure how these parishioners thought Archbishop Wenski would take this report. But he did exactly as I’d have expected, lashing out against it rather than examining it thoroughly:
“This unfortunate chain of events has fractured the spirit and unity at this long established parish and school,” wrote Archbishop Thomas Wenski in a May 26 letter (cached) emailed to parents Thursday afternoon. A printed copy of the letter was being sent home in students’ communication folder Friday.
But far from calming parents’ concerns, the letter angered the group, which calls itself Christifidelis. The Wenski letter blames the fracturing of the parish on a small group. “Slanderous gossip, calumny, detraction — all sinful behaviors — have fomented division in the parish and school communities,” he wrote.
Miami attorney Rosa Armesto, who has children at the parish school in Miami Shores, is representing Christifidelis. She met with Wenski on May 16.
“It’s such a shameful letter. The archbishop is not upset at what the priest has done but that it has been uncovered,” she said. “The church isn’t upset by the sins of their priests but by the fact that the faithful have had the audacity, the temerity, to bring this up.”
In short, Wenski isn’t concerned with the integrity of St Rose of Lima parish, nor its school, nor the nuns who’d been there, nor the parishioners, nor the children at the school. Oh no. None of that bothers him at all! What bothers him is that some insolent parishioners dared question their priest’s behavior. That — and not the possibility of wrongdoing by that priest — sent him into a tizzy.
I applaud this effort by lay Catholics to force their own Church to own up to its failings. But with that said, this seems to have gone about as far as it can go, given the nature of the R.C. hierarchy. Corces had to quit his parish and the school, it’s true, but he’ll be moved on somewhere else and will land on his feet. Wenski will remain in denial about what happened and ensconced in his palatial office. And that’s it.
Unfortunately, lay Catholics in Miami have a lot more to do. They’ll need to coerce Wenski and their archdiocese to change its tune and its policies. Many will say there’s nothing they can do, the Church is what it is and it’s immutable. But that’s bullshit. There’s plenty they can do! They have the power of the collection plate. If they withhold donations from their Church, its hierarchs will have no choice but to comply with whatever reforms they demand. They won’t have the leisure of not doing so, because their livelihoods depend on those donations. It might take awhile — some parishes and dioceses have considerable financial reserves — but eventually they will have to cave in and do as their donors instruct. It really is as simple as that.
An annual audit of reports of sexual abuse by members of the U.S. Roman Catholic clergy released on Friday showed sharp increases in the number of new claims and in the value of settlements to victims.
The audit showed that 838 people came forward from July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015, to say they had been sexually abused by priests, deacons or members of religions orders while they were children, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said.
That is up 35 percent from 620 new reports of abuse a year earlier, an increase that the bishops said largely reflected a large number of claims in six dioceses that had either filed for bankruptcy or were located in states that opened windows allowing victims to sue over old cases of sexual assault.
It’s true that bankruptcies and changes to the law can bring out more reports of abuse that took place long ago, but this audit included more recent reports:
While the bulk of the reports related to cases of abuse date back to the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, there were 26 reports made by minors of more recent abuse.
If in fact the “priestly pedophilia” scandal truly was the “historical” phenomenon bishops have claimed, this number would have been zero, not 26. Once again, the truth rears its head and reveals the hierarchs as the inveterate liars they actually are. It’s long past time they owned up to what they’ve done — i.e. to protect abusive clergy — rather than making excuses for it or dismissing it (e.g. insisting it’s not an ongoing issue).