The Life and Legacy of Pope John Paul II Page 5
As far as the priesthood is concerned, John Paul held fast to the gender diversity of certain religious roles and the need for an exclusively male, celibate priesthood. He viewed the male priesthood as based in Christ’s selection of male Apostles, a definitive tradition faithfully confirmed without deviation by both Catholic and Eastern Churches: a priest, as bridegroom of the Church, is a vital icon of Christ, the way God chose to become manifest on earth. This is not a matter of culturally conditioned discrimination against women but of preserving sacramental symbolism and efficacy.
As such, there was no room for change or debate, in John Paul’s view. Instead, John Paul looked always to Mary, the first disciple, as the epitome of womanhood. Accordingly, he believed that virginity, not priesthood, was a proper course for women who sought to make gifts of themselves for God. He did not mean this in any way to diminish women’s role and observed that the Church hierarchy only exists for the holiness of the faithful. Saints, not priests, he declared, are the most exalted among the faithful (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994). And he did his part to advance the causes of many women for exaltation within the Church.
Even so, his intransigence on divisive gender issues irked and frustrated many Catholics in the West, who bemoaned the pope’s unyielding traditionalism. Whose position, they asked, is really the product of cultural conditioning?
A Dark Time
It must be said, first of all, that John Paul’s strange reluctance to deal head-on with the crisis of sex abuse among the clergy continues to be mystifying, especially in light of his overall human rights record. In fact, the Vatican as a whole seems to have awakened to the fray only when forced to do so. There was extreme reluctance to confront the fact that a large number of supposedly righteous individuals were something other than what they professed. There may have been a tendency to view the accusations as overblown attempts to discredit the Church. Complicating matters further, some of the accused possessed a good deal—in some cases a great deal—of power and influence within the Church. Moreover, the hierarchical structures within the Curia that have sometimes supported misdeeds are even now still being investigated, as Pope Francis recently indicated. Here, then, is a very general summary of the situation under Pope John Paul II.
As an administrator, John Paul had always been known as a leader uninterested in details. He preferred to lay the course and then let the bureaucracy tend to itself. This allowed him to focus on his own programs and agenda.
As archbishop, he had made friends out of potential opponents and avoided schism by retaining in their posts clerics who did not see things or do things as he did. To avoid embarrassing specific individuals, even ineffectual people were retained in their positions until they could eventually be replaced, sometimes only upon death or retirement.
This is not to say that John Paul didn’t listen to his “underlings.” Certainly he took the bold step of giving the College of Cardinals a voice and role beyond that of electing popes every so often. Nevertheless, this management style may have contributed to the debacle in confronting the Church’s child sex abuse scandals.
Alarms were already being raised in the United States during the 1950s, long before the pontificate of John Paul. Father Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the Servants of the Paraclete, had tried to treat molesting priests and was convinced they could not be helped. He felt there needed to be a “uniform code of discipline and of penalties” for dealing with the priest. He communicated this position repeatedly to several U.S. bishops and to Vatican officials. In one 1952 letter to the Bishop of Reno, he stated that such priests should be laicized because the damage to Church should take precedence over concern for the individual priest. Real conversion on the part of offending priests was rare, he advised, and they posed a real danger if moved from diocese to diocese. In 1957 he received a letter from a New Hampshire bishop telling him about a repentant priest who needed a “fresh start.” Fitzgerald responded that such priests only pretended to repent so that they could again be in a position to abuse. In many of the letters, Fitzgerald poured out his own disgust towards these priests, calling them “devils,” “damned,” and a “class of rattlesnake.” He wanted—literally—to isolate them on an island, away from society. The letters were unsealed by a court in 2007 and made public by the National Catholic Reporter in a series of articles in 2009.
In another major instance, credible allegations about the sexual abuse of children by a particular priest were made during the pontificate of Paul VI and thereafter. Two Mexican priests working in the United States accused the influential founder of the Legion of Christ, Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, of abusing them repeatedly while they were children. Over time, there were reports of dozens who had been abused by just that one priest. Although the local U.S. bishop made a full report to the Vatican representative in Washington, D.C., the report seems to have been shelved at the curial level. A letter addressed to Pope John Paul by one of the victim priests also contained some of the information about that particular case, but it is not known whether John Paul ever saw the letter personally. Other letters from other victims followed and were ignored.
It is not clear at precisely what point John Paul became aware, or was made aware, of increasing numbers of allegations about criminal priestly behavior. Certainly, the crisis extended far beyond being a mere “detail,” and warranted his full attention. There is every indication that through the 1980s John Paul knew or should have known—the U.S. Bishops were virtually pleading for help—but failed to act. Some officials within the Vatican itself complained that their leaders failed to grasp the gravity of the problem, whereas others couldn’t understand why the U.S. bishops were speaking so openly about it all. The March 2000 Day of Penance Mass mentioned “minors who are victims of abuse,” among others mistreated but was not terribly specific.
John Paul finally took decisive action in April 2002 by calling in his American bishops to discuss the matter. Consistent with his managerial style, he left it to them to resolve the problem, but he also made it clear that they needed to address it. It’s possible that in taking this course of action, he meant to bypass any obstructions in the Curia, but it was also evident that systemic changes in the Church in the United States needed to be made. This is not to say that the problem of abuse existed only in the United States; however, the major effort was made not within the Church as a whole, but rather where the wheel was squeakiest.
(Other parts of the world are more reticent about holding public debate on such issues. Along with the United States, the English-speaking countries of Australia, Canada, and Great Britain were also more vocal than other parts of the world about the problem.)
In his address to the U.S. cardinals, John Paul stated that he was “deeply grieved” that people who were supposed to be living holy lives had caused such suffering to young people. He continued by stating that abuse by clerics was “by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society; it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God.” He included this message to those most directly affected: “To the victims and their families, wherever they may be, I express my profound sense of solidarity and concern.” He stated in no uncertain terms that there was “no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young,” and he reaffirmed the Church’s commitment to sexual morality and the good of married and family life. Nevertheless, he also expressed a view that may historically have been behind some of the hierarchical foot-dragging; namely, that even the perpetrators could be changed by Christian conversion (Address to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers, April 23, 2002). When similar scandals broke in the Philippines in 2003-04, the pope spoke about the need for Christian mercy in dealing with the priests involved, although he did also talk about transparency and “strict discipline” for the common good.
Following the meetings between the pope and the U.S. bishops, spokespersons for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed disappointment that the me
dia was focusing its attention exclusively on old cases of abuse and had not taken notice of any new measures that had been put in place over the prior ten to fifteen years to prevent such abuses from occurring. Discussing instances when pedophile priests had been reassigned to similar duties in other parishes where they were free to abuse again, they pointed out that those priests had been treated with psychotherapy, and it was thought at the time that this was sufficient. Now, the reality of recidivism was better understood, and bishops were not likely to make the same mistake. Bishop Wilton Gregory, then-president of the Conference, stated that any pedophile priests in the future would have to be turned over to civil authorities and should always have been. He further stated that the pope had a “high level of understanding” of the situation and had personally expressed to him his concern for the spirit of the people, the priests, and the bishops of the United States.
The U.S. Conference of Bishops met in June 2002 and in response to the crisis adopted a comprehensive set of national standards and procedures, the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. The Charter’s adoption followed meetings with victims and their families and with experts on sexual abuse and its impact on survivors, and it took into account the opinions of the Catholic laity. It was approved with revisions at the June 2011 General Meeting of the U.S. Catholic Bishops. In addition, Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons was recognized by the Vatican and promulgated in 2006.
The “Preamble” to the Charter acknowledges the breach of trust involved in past failures. The Charter commits the dioceses to working with victims for healing and reconciliation through social services and counseling, and to involve laity to a greater degree in the pertinent processes. It expresses a zero tolerance for abuse and abusers, stating that if a priest is found to be an abuser in even one instance “the offending priest or deacon is to be permanently removed from ministry and, if warranted, dismissed from the clerical state.” It also made provisions for transparency and accountability.
Victims, their families and supporters, and dismayed Church members wanted to hear Pope John Paul speak to them directly and unambiguously, but he failed to do so. The problem still has not been thoroughly addressed on a global scale. Many in the United States would consider John Paul’s handling of the crisis to be the single biggest failure of his pontificate.
The most recent statements by the Church on the subject of clerical abuse of minors, including the instructions to bishops dating to 1962 (Crimen Sollicitationis), can be found at the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/resources/index_en.htm.
Interreligious Dialogue
John Paul was a student of culture, and he had deep respect for the diversity of world culture, including its religious components. He repeatedly taught that the diversity of peoples must be respected for peace to progress. He was firmly committed to religious freedom for all people and to freedom from coercion of conscience. Freedom from coercion meant that the forceful conversions of the past were unacceptable. Based on Vatican II and his own belief in the shared dignity of human beings as creatures of a universal God, the pope continually promoted interreligious dialogue and respect for non-Christian religions.
Following the teachings of Vatican II, he believed there are elements in all religions that advance the good in humans and in society. Addressing Portuguese Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders in 1982, he affirmed “the undeniable treasures of every religion's spirituality.” The March 2000 Day of Pardon Mass included a confession of “enmity towards members of other religions” and prayed for repentance among Christians.
Pope John Paul was convinced that prayer could bring together the believers of diverse faiths, an idea that inspired the 1986 World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi, Italy. That unprecedented gathering drew together 160 religious leaders representing many distinct groups, including Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Unitarians, and traditional African and Native American religions, in addition to many Christians of different denominations. Together, they prayed for world peace.
Still, he observed, part of truth is recognizing where differences exist, while respecting the boundaries that divide us.
Christian Ecumenism
John Paul wholeheartedly sought reunification of the Christian world. The second millennium of Christianity had been a period of schism in the Church, and with the third millennium of Christianity approaching, he felt the time was right for reconciliation. He especially hoped for rapprochement with the Orthodox Church.
In his 1995 Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That They May Be One), the pope urged putting aside prejudices so that with prayer and “mutual forgiveness and reconciliation,” it might be possible to examine and overcome the divisions of the past. His eye was on nothing less than “full communion among Christ’s disciples.” Nevertheless, “In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth (John 14:6) who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?” There was obviously only so far he could—or would—go. Still, as a student of culture, he knew well that truth could be expressed in different forms. He encouraged joint prayer among Christians, even when not in full communion, as a way of bringing about Christian unity.
The Anglican Communion
The Anglican Communion today consists of approximately 85 million people in 165 countries. While Anglican/Episcopalian churches maintain full communion, each national or regional church is autonomous.
In 1980 John Paul II issued the so-called Pastoral Provision, which allowed former Episcopal priests to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church and to become Catholic priests. It made possible the ordination of married priests under those limited circumstances. It also allowed the acceptance of former Episcopal parishes into the Catholic Church and allowed the retention of certain Anglican liturgical elements within those parishes. According to the Pastoral Provision website (http://www.pastoralprovision.org/), from 1983 to the present more than one hundred men have been ordained as priests and three such parishes were established under the Pastoral Provision. (In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI established the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter for groups of Anglicans in the United States seeking to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church. The Pastoral Provision remains the path for priestly ordination, however.)
In 1982, John Paul became the first reigning pope to visit the United Kingdom, where he preached in Canterbury Cathedral and met with the Archbishop of Canterbury and Queen Elizabeth, who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, with the authority to appoint bishops, archbishops, and deans of cathedrals. He was ultimately disappointed by the Church of England's decision to admit women to the priesthood, which he saw as an obstacle to unity. In 2003, he spoke obliquely about the appointment of a gay Episcopal bishop in the U.S. and the blessing of same-gender marriages in Canada, telling the Archbishop of Canterbury that it was necessary to protect the faith from “misguided interpretations.” On the positive side, joint commissions were able to reach agreement on several doctrinal points, and the pope expressed commitment to pursuing the course despite difficulties.
John Paul II and Eastern Orthodoxy
Today, there are an estimated 225–300 million members of Eastern Orthodox Churches. Important steps toward reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches had already taken place under John XXIII and Paul VI. John Paul viewed the Eastern Churches and the Western Church as the two lungs of a single entity. He believed that with faith, prayer, study, and goodwill, the answers to difficult issues would emerge. He wanted to establish full communion between the two, or as he later put it, “full unity in legitimate diversity” (Ut Unum Sint, “On Commitment to Ecumenism,” 1995). As in the case of gender-specific roles, he described legitimate differences among the Western and various Eastern Churches as cases of “complementarity.”
Consequently, his own follow-up to the earlier papal
efforts was almost immediate. In November 1979, he visited the Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I of the See of Constantinople and laid the groundwork for future theological discussions. A Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was established to work towards full communion, the goal of which was common celebration of the Eucharist.
Patriarch Dimitrios paid a return visit to Rome, but not until 1987. This delay would seem to indicate that the patriarch did not place as high a premium on reunification as the pope. Apparent foot-dragging notwithstanding, delegations from both Sees routinely visited each other for their respective celebrations.
One outcome of those discussions was recognition of the Eastern Catholic Church’s right to its own organization and apostolate. This was meant to smooth relations between Eastern Catholics (already in full communion with the Catholic Church) and Orthodox living in the same territories. The pope claimed a lessening of tensions as a result.