Pope Francis continues to surprise us. First it was the July “who am I to judge” airplane conversation with reporters during the twelve hour flight from Rio to Rome. Now it is the more extensive interview conducted in August and published simultaneously in a number of Jesuit publications.

The most recent interview was conducted by Antonio Spadaro, S.J., editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal. Spadaro conducted the interview on behalf of La Civiltà Cattolica, America and several other major Jesuit journals around the world.

Reporting for The New York Times on Friday, September 19, Laurie Goldstein wrote: “Six months into his papacy, Pope Francis sent shock waves through the Roman Catholic Church on Thursday with the publication of his remarks that the church had grown ‘obsessed’ with abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he had chosen not to talk about those issues despite recriminations from critics.”

The headline in the September 20 The International Herald Tribune proclaimed: “Bluntly, Pope Pushes Shift in Church.”

One of my bishop friends reacted quickly to what I called a “climate change in the Catholic Church.” “Just remember,” he said, “the pope cannot change Catholic moral teaching!”

I wonder……. It seems to me, as an historical theologian, that there have been a lot of changes over the centuries in Catholic moral teaching. And I am sure more changes are on the horizon….

Official Catholic teaching has always given the impression that Catholic moral teachings can never change because these teachings are based on God’s law. Certainly Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI insisted on this approach and understanding.

In fact, however, the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues.

For more than 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery. Up until the 17th century, popes, in the very strong terms, condemned making loans with interest.

What about Catholic misogyny? Early Christian writings by great bishops and doctors of the church like Augustine, John Chrysostom and Thomas Aquinas are prime examples of the negative perception of women that has been perpetuated in Catholic teaching and practice.

St. Augustine – “I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes the purpose of procreation. If woman was not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?”

St. John Chrysostom – “The whole of her bodily beauty is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum, and the fluid of digested food… If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is merely a whitened sepulchre.”

St. Thomas Aquinas – “Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence, such as that of a south wind, which is moist.”

Papal social teachings have change significantly in the last two hundred years. Pope Gregory XVI, for instance, in an 1832 encyclical condemned freedom of conscience in society as an “absurd and erroneous teaching or rather madness.” Pope Leo XIII condemned “the modern liberties” and opposed the equality and participation of citizens in civic and political life. The people, he wrote, are “the untutored multitude” that must “be controlled by the authority of law.” Vatican II, of course, accepted religious liberty for all human beings.

Quite frankly there has been a fair amount of papal and magisterial schizophrenia about changing moral teachings in the Catholic Church. Can Francis change that? Indeed, for me, that will be the big test.

Papal schizophrenia…….When one examines issues of civic, political, and economic life, contemporary papal social teachings have stressed history and the understanding that social understandings can and do change with the times. Church teachings now emphasize the freedom, equality, and participation of the person, in what moral theologian Charles Curran calls a “relationality model” that understands people developing in multiple relationships with God, neighbors, the Earth, and self.

When it comes to papal and magisterial sexual ethics, however, Catholic teaching regresses to the older no-change methodology. It stresses an unchanging human nature and God’s unchanging eternal law. There is no understanding of human development.

Of course, a great many people inside and outside the Catholic Church recognize the dissonance (schizophrenia) between papal / magisterial sexual and papal / magisterial social teachings.

One authority but two different understandings and two different methodologies at work in areas where there should be consistency.

Changes would logically occur in Catholic moral sexual teachings if these teachings resulted from the same methodology as used in papal social teachings. Indeed, the CDF does not like to hear this but papal sexual teachings, like social teachings, will never be able to claim absolute certitude about complex and specific issues.

We are pilgrim people, making new discoveries along the human journey. Our understandings and the daily applications based on them are provisional. (I thought about this last night sitting at my desk. To my right was a handsome old crank telephone, made in Paris in 1920. In my hands I held my iPhone5, as I upgraded it to IOS 7. Afterwards my wife said: “well that will do it until next year’s upgrade.” Provisional.)

A final reflection. Church history should remind us that change in Catholic moral teachings has always come from the grass roots. Vox populi vox Dei. When it comes to the papal condemnation of artificial contraception, for instance, the vast majority of Catholics do not follow the pope.

And so the discussion about gay marriage, about women’s ordination, about our understandings of Jesus, God, and the church are all works in progress.

I hope Francis allows the work to go on

much more smoothly and much more constructively

than his two predecessors!

This weekend I finished preparing a lecture I will be giving next month about theology and contemporary culture.

The inspiration for my lecture came from a long discussion I had a couple of months ago with a  young Roman Catholic ordained minister. I had asked him what he sees as the major challenge in his pastoral ministry. His response surprised me. “The world is an evil place,” he said. “The culture in which we live is like polluted water that infects our minds with the work of the Evil One. The Human City is not and cannot be the City of God.”

He went on to explain that when he becomes pastor of a parish he will turn the altar around in his church so that he does not have to look at people but can face God directly. “In liturgy,” he said “looking at all those people is a terrible distraction and upsets my prayer.” I asked him how he would reconcile that viewpoint with the Incarnation. He said he really didn’t understand my point.

Somewhat annoyed, I replied that contemporary culture is where we live and that is the only place where we can experience and meet the Living God. He said he would like to return to the 1950s. I chuckled and said: “we can only live where we are planted.”

When we do theology we necessarily express ourselves in the symbols, words, and rituals that are products of our culture. In fact all of our concepts and all of our experiential interpretations of the Divine, of Christ, and Christian life are shaped and influenced to a great extent by the culture and the language out of which they emerge.

I have no doubts that contemporary people do indeed want to experience the Divine, the Transcendent, the Living God  – yet contemporary religion often seems to give them answers to their religious questioning from a place far away from their daily lives.

We need to find a way to understand the positive, substantive, and real meaning of transcendence as it makes a claim on human beings within their contemporary historical existence: within contemporary culture.

We need to find a new theological language. As Paul Ricoeur noted already, some years ago, “It is not regret for the sunken Atlantis that animates us, but hope for a re-creation of language. Beyond the desert of criticism, we wish to be called again.”

Indeed, much current churchly theology – like the theology of my young priest friend — seems motivated by a longing for the sunken Atlantis!

 

And so here…….. My four principles for a life-giving theology anchored in contemporary culture:

(1)     The AIM of theology cannot be a kind of nostalgic retreat to recover a lost mode of being in the world. We really cannot turn-back the clock. To become a religious child again would mean to abandon the adult capacity to think and make one’s own judgments on the basis of critical principles. That is why the upsurge of fundamentalism today is so offensive. It is fundamentally faulty.

(2)     Theological thinking today needs to feel and experience the “call” of the Sacred (the Faith experience) by interpreting and thereby re-creating the meaning and power of religious language. The truly contemporary theologian must have one foot anchored in the present and the other in the tradition of the past. There must be a dynamic tension between contemporary religious consciousness and historical critical consciousness.

(3)     When we do theology – when we reflect in-depth about our Faith experiences of God – we necessarily express ourselves in the symbols, words and rituals that are products of our culture; but we also look for the resonance and dialogue with tradition: with the theological expressions of earlier cultures.

(4)     A truly authentic theology can never be simply the expression of individual, subjective experience. Theology is the result of deep reflection about my Faith experience AND your Faith experience and the Faith experience of the community of Faith: today as well as yesterday. Yesterday’s theology becomes a heritage, a tradition that finds expression in doctrine, scripture, symbol, ritual and patterns of conduct.

Yesterday I saw photos and read about the small group of Syrian rebels who brutally executed seven Syrian government soldiers.Their commander invoked the name of the “Lord of the Throne,” then the seven shirtless, bound, and terrifed men were shot in the head. I had just finished reading that Syrian update when I received an article from a good friend.

Richard Kropf is a priest theologian friend from my home state Michigan. His reflections often appear in the religion section of the Huffington Post. With his permission I am pleased to post his reflections about the situation in Syria.

By now there seems to be very little doubt that Bashar al Assad, or at least some of his military command, are guilty of using chemical weapons against their own people. However, I do very much doubt that President Obama’s call for a limited but unmistakable punitive strike against his regime will accomplish much except to throw the Middle East into even greater chaos.

I will leave it to the reader to speculate as to why our government opted out of something that is so sorely needed in this world, despite the fact that we were among the first to agree to or even insist upon holding the Nuremberg trials of the Nazi leaders and the trials of the Japanese military commanders after World War II. Admittedly, the whole idea and functioning of the ICC remains a work in progress. Instead, I will only suggest that President Obama, as constitutional lawyer who in 2009 at least pledged to cooperate with the ICC, needs to put first things first before we wade into a conflict in which, however things turn out, we are likely to be the loser.

[Richard Kropf’s website, where his writings are posted, can be found at http://www.stellamar.net]

In Orlando, Florida, on the Feast of the Assumption, 825 U.S. Catholic women religious were meeting to discern their relationship with the Catholic Church’s bishops. Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, the man appointed by the Vatican and ordered to oversee the sisters and exercise control over over their statutes and programs, told the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), that the Virgin Mary teaches the faithful to hand themselves over “completely to the will of God.”

Mary, stressed the archbishop, teaches that it’s only in “submitting ourselves over to the one who made us … that we find fulfillment.” Archbishop Sartain’s message was clear: Mary, said the Vatican overseer “…shows us … what God himself desires to do in us all and through the church when we let the grace of God overtake us without placing an obstacle between ourself and that grace.”

LCWR, represents about 80 percent of the 57,000 U.S. sisters.

Archbishop Sartain’s image of the Mother of Jesus is a convenient image for upper-level male administrators who want to keep lower level women, as some say, “in their place.” But is it biblically correct?

Sister Joan Chittister, writing in NCR on August 30th, offers a different perspective; and I resonate very much with Joan.

Joan writes: “In this homily [i.e. Archbishop Sartain’s homily on the Assumption] Mary is ‘quiet,’ ‘docile,’ submits herself over and has no ‘desire or a need to figure things out … or resolve them to her own personal satisfaction.’ There was, we’re told here, no ‘no’ or ‘mine’ in her. The Mary of this homily is a passive receptacle of what she understands to be the Word of God.

“Well, maybe. But it might be good to think about all that a bit in the light of the other things we also know about Mary….

“The purpose of this column is not to parse what the bishop said about Mary on the Feast of the Assumption. I prefer instead to look at what he did not say about her because, it seems to me, what he left out of that homily says much about what is expected of women in the Catholic church.

“For instance, Mary answers the angel’s declaration to her by questioning it. An angel! Someone of much higher rank, it would seem, than even apostolic delegates, and only then with a ‘Be-it-done-unto-me’ response to a situation to which, apparently, ‘no’ was a viable answer. Otherwise, why bother to have the conversation?

“Even more important, perhaps, is the awareness that despite the seriousness — even the danger — of her situation, Mary did not go to any man — to the high priests of the temple, the local rabbi, her father or even Joseph — for directions about what to do next. She went to another woman for the wisdom she needed and followed that instead….

“In another instance, at the wedding feast at Cana, Mary gives her own set of apostolic orders to no less than Jesus himself as well as to the wait staff, as in, ‘Go and do what he tells you.’

“And finally, if anyone wants to know just how influential and important a figure Mary was to the development of the early church, the very idea of her being part of the gathering of apostles on Pentecost when each of them is anointed into discipleship by the Holy Spirit ought to be enough to dispel the notion that what we have here is a woman without a strong sense of self.

“No, the Mary not mentioned in this homily on the Assumption was a woman not intimidated into the Incarnation, not beholden to male answers, not shy about giving directions about what should be done, not without a high sense of personal responsibility, and not one bit in doubt about her place in the hierarchy of the church.

“Those, I think, are precisely the qualities we see in women in our own time that make for what some parts of the church are now calling ‘radical feminism.’

“From where I stand, that is a sad misuse of language and an even sadder case of spiritual blindness.”

And so, we continue to move forward, step by step……..

(Photo: Sister Joan Chittister)

In my latest reflection, “undermine” should have been “underline.”

Jad

Is it time to cautiously lower the volume of acclaim for the new Bishop of Rome? Is there a danger of losing a proper perspective on the papacy? Do we need a new papal superstar? Are some people blindly promoting a new cult of the papacy? Is the pope really the heart of the church?

I suggest these are important questions. I leave it to thoughtful brothers and sisters in our community of faith (the church) to ponder and propose the answers.

Historically, superstar popes have not always generated and promoted a healthy institutional church. I leave aside for the moment the Polish Superstar Pope John Paul the Great. We can more objectively examine an earlier papal superstar: Pope Pius IX. (He started at least as a papal superstar, before becoming more of a theological death star; and later a self-centered pontifical megalomaniac.)

Following the death of Pope Gregory XVI (1831–46), the conclave of 1846, not so unexpectedly, began with a struggle between conservatives and liberals. After the first ballot there was a deadlock. Liberals and moderates then decided to cast their votes for Cardinal Mastai-Ferretti . On the second day of the conclave, on 16 June 1846, Mastai-Ferretti was elected Pope. Historian Francis Burkle-Young wrote about him: “He was a glamorous candidate, ardent, emotional with a gift for friendship and a track-record of generosity even towards anti-Clericals….”

Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti, Bishop of Spoleto, took the name Pius IX in honor of his great patron Pope Pius VII (1800–23), who had encouraged him to enter the priesthood despite Mastai-Ferretti’s childhood epilepsy.

Somewhat like today’s Pope Francis, the election of the liberal Pope Pius IX created great enthusiasm in Europe and elsewhere. For twenty months following his election, “Pio Nono” was the most popular man in Italy. Even English Protestants were delighted with him, cheering him as a friend and a reformer who would move Europe toward greater freedom and progress. The press applauded him as pious, progressive, intellectual, a really decent fellow, friendly, and open to everyone. Many religious and secular observers considered him a model of simplicity and poverty, in his every day affairs

Three years after his election, however, Pius IX was already revealing himself as another kind of leader: autocratically imposing an ever-increasing centralization and consolidation of power in Rome and the papal office; and exaggerating the place of Jesus’ Mother, proclaiming her Mediatrix of Salvation in 1849.

At Vatican I of course he had himself proclaimed infallible. Prior to that, in 1864, he had issued the Syllabus of Errors, which set the Roman Catholic Church in reverse gear for almost a hundred years.

Some of the key “MODERNIST ERRORS” condemned in the Syllabus were the following points:

• “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” (No. 77)

• “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.” (No.18).

• “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” (No. 55)

• “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (No. 15)

• “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with, progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” (No. 80)

One can argue – perhaps feverishly – that Pope Francis is not another Pope Pius IX. I certainly hope he isn’t. I applaud the new pope’s simple attire, friendly approach, and rejection of Renaissance papal pomp and circumstance.

Nevertheless I do fear a return to the cult of the papal personality. Papal canonizations of previous popes simply underline my concerns. How many former popes is Francis going to canonize? Why?

And very frankly, I have seen very little “progressive” theology or healthy and truly contemporary theological decisions coming from his pen.

Since Vatican II, we have stressed that we are a church of collegiality and shared decision-making. At all levels. I want to see some powerful signs that Francis and his administration are moving in that same direction.

And of course, three years from now I hope Pope Francis has not become a resuscitated Pio Nono!

I have absolutely no desire to denigrate Jesus’ Mother. She must have been a wonderfully faith-filled, attentive, and caring mother. She remains as well a source of strength and encouragement for any woman who has lost a son or a husband especially through a violent death. No wonder she is also Our Lady of Sorrows, Our Lady of Consolation, and Mother of Perpetual Help.

Reflecting, on August 15th — Feast of the Assumption — at the end of my vacation, it struck me, nevertheless, that The Assumption is indeed a good case study for Catholic dogmatics past and present.

The Assumption of Mary is a Roman Catholic dogma: a belief which must be accepted and affirmed by all Catholics. Pope Pius XII proclaimed this dogma, infallibly, on November 1, 1950. The document issued that day taught that the “Immaculate Virgin,” the Mother of Jesus, “after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven.” This means that after her death, Jesus’ Mother was assumed into heaven, body and soul, in a manner similar to Enoch and Elijah in the Hebrew Scriptures. The doctrine further states that she was glorified in heaven and is “exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things.”

The dogma of the Assumption, however, is based solely on church tradition and has no foundation in the Christian Scriptures.

The Christian Scriptures say very little, in fact, about the Mother of Jesus. The Gospel According to Mark names her only once (6:3) and mentions her as Jesus’ Mother, without mentioning her name: in 3:31. The Gospel According to Luke Luke’s mentions Mary the Mother of Jesus most often: identifying her by name twelve times and all of these in the infancy narrative (1:27,30,34,38,39,41,46,56; 2:5,16,19,34). The Gospel According to Matthew mentions her by name five times, four of these (1:16,18,20; 2:11) in the infancy narrative and only once (13:55) outside the infancy narrative.

The Gospel According to John refers to the Mother of Jesus twice but never mentions her by name. She makes two appearances in the Johannine Gospel. She is first seen at the wedding at Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1-12) which is mentioned only in this Gospel. The second reference, also exclusively listed in this Gospel, has the Mother of Jesus standing near the cross of her son together with the (also unnamed) “disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 19:25-26). John 2:1-12, by the way,  is the only text in the Christian canonical scriptures in which the Mother of Jesus speaks to, and about, the adult Jesus.

In the Book of Acts, the Mother of Jesus, and the “brothers of Jesus,” are mentioned in the company of the eleven, gathered in the upper room after the ascension (Acts 1:14).

It took a good four or five hundred years, after the earthly days of Jesus’ Mother, for the development of an imaginative and creative Marian tradition that became the basis for nineteenth and twentieth century infallibly-proclaimed Virgin Mary dogmas.

In the second century, St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 to 165 CE) gave us the understanding that the Mother of Jesus had always been a virgin (based on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7.14, in which “virgin” was substituted for “young woman” as found in the Septuagint). In the fourth century, Christian theologians decided Mary the Mother of Jesus was a very unique kind of virgin: her hymen was not even broken in childbirth. Baby Jesus simply passed miraculously through the wall. (A bit of theological hymenology by celibate males?) But then the learned men had to deal with another Bible-based theological problem.

In the Gospel According to Mark and in the Gospel According to Matthew, we read about Jesus’ “brothers and sisters.” As the doctrine of Mary’s “perpetual virginity” became increasingly widespread so did confusion about Jesus’ siblings. Theologians had to harmonize the New Testament with the new dogma (a bit of biblical revisionism) ….and so “brothers and sisters” became “cousins.” Problem solved……

The fourth century was also a particularly fruitful time for religious archeology. Constantine’s mother, Empress Helena (c. 246 to 330 CE) was a strong supporter of the developing Mary-Mother-of-Jesus cult and created what one could call ecclesiastical archeology.

Helena was quite a tourist. Everywhere she went she found “evidence” of Jesus or the Mother of Jesus; and she then had churches built on the spot! She found, for example, the cave of the nativity (or so the local people had told her), the house of the Last Supper (or so the local people had told her), the Garden of Gethsemane (or so the local people……), the hill of crucifixion, the empty tomb, the cross itself. She even found the very tree from which the wood for Jesus’ cross was cut!

Every shrine that Helena discovered was honored with imperial patronage and became  a profitable pilgrimage site as well. With each shrine went a Mary festival.

But back to my reflection about The Assumption……

The world view and the theological perspective that underlie The Assumption belong to an archaic pre-Galileo cosmology: the older flat earth model of Hebrew biblical and early and medieval  Christian cosmology. Over the flat earth was a dome-shaped rigid canopy called the firmament. God the Father’s throne was in the firmament and he controlled the earthly and human events down below. Heaven was understood as the place and space around God high up in the firmament.

Sitting at the right hand of God the Father was Jesus, his Son, whom he raised from the dead and elevated up to heaven, on a cloud, on Jesus’ Ascension Day.

Later, in the seventh century, thanks especially to the theology of John of Damascus (c. 675 to 749 CE) and Gregory of Tours (c. 538 to 594 CE), the church developed the understanding (another theological assumption) that the Mother of Jesus, as well, was carried on a cloud and assumed body and soul up to heaven.

And my point today?

What do contemporary Catholic believers do when they suspect that a dogma or doctrine safeguarded by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is flawed or is simply not believed anymore by many in the Church, including its best scholars?

There must be an avenue in the Roman Catholic Church for open and respectful and intellectually honest dialogue about these very serious kinds of questions.

The Assumption is probably more of a side issue. There are indeed bigger issues confronting us today, with major implications for Catholic belief and institutional credibility.

What do our leaders fear? Is it disloyal to ask a question? To ask for discussion? To propose a changed doctrinal understating based on new historical or biblical evidence? Yes our statements of belief do change and are shaped by history and culture and new knowledge. I certainly would not go to a cardiologist operating out of a nineteenth century medical understanding. Why do church authorities maintain and insist upon nineteenth century (or medieval) theological understandings?

Some examples…….

— Historians and biblical scholars agree that Jesus did not ordain anyone at the Last Supper. Why do our institutional leaders maintain that he did! (And why do they think the Last Supper was just a group of guys sitting around a table with Jesus?)

— In the early Christian communities, the first people to preside at Eucharist were not “ordained” but were the heads of families: men and women. Why do our institutional leaders insist that women cannot be ordained? When it comes to women presiding at Eucharist, historical evidence says our leaders are simply misinformed or outright sexists.

— Why do our institutional leaders still operate with a distorted and uninformed understanding of human sexuality? This has direct implications for any consideration (or refused consideration) of issues touching on marriage, birth control, celibacy, sexual abuse, and of course homosexuality.

— I am 100% pro-life, but I wonder why we cannot discuss whether or not all procedures called “abortion” are really taking human life. My bio-medical friends — some very conservative — tell me even here we need to make distinctions.

— And if many of our institutional leaders are genuinely appalled by an “anti-life” socio-political America, why have they been, in comparison to the abortion rhetoric, so silent about capital punishment, the war in Iraq, US military activities in Afghanistan, and closer to home: universal health care, child support for the unmarried, and strong criticism for the US rich getting ever richer.

The biggest and most important question of course concerns the Divine Presence.

I would expect authentic Christian leaders to be insightful and trustworthy guides here. Genuine spiritual directors.

Who is God for us today? How do contemporary people speak about and relate to the Divine Presence? God the Father up in the heavens doesn’t work for truly contemporary people. But contemporary people long for an experience the Divine…not up there but right down here where normal people live, make love, raise or educate the next generation, grow older in wisdom from life experience, then pass on to the next life.

Well friends….enough reflections for today…… I have neglected my yard and garden for three weeks. Now I need to get busy in the backyard!

The Bishop of Rome is in Brazil. We have friends visiting for a few days……The thermometer keeps climbing. My wife and I need to escape from our computers for a few days……Another Voice will be back after 15 August.

John

Stephen Crittenden reports in NCR, this week end, that Hunter Valley in New South Wales, located in the Maitland-Newcastle Diocese, is noted for its beaches and vineyards; and more recently it has become the epicenter of Catholic sex abuse in Australia.

Now, a special commission of inquiry in Newcastle reports that leaders of the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle knew of repeated sexual abuse by one of its priests, for at least for 50 years, but failed to notify police until 2003.

The inquiry was launched after allegations by a senior Hunter Valley detective that the Catholic Church “covers up, silences victims, hinders police investigations, alerts offenders, destroys evidence and moves priests to protect the good name of the church.”

In this case, the detective reports that the abusive priest had up to 100 victims, mostly girls from age 4 to 12; and that he was moved from parish to parish in Australia, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea, even though four successive bishops of Maitland-Newcastle knew of his crimes but kept their mouths shut “to protect the good name of the church.”

“Protecting the good name of the church” is the theme song these days for a great number of our episcopal leaders, in Australia, in Europe, and of course in the United States where it has echoed loudly in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Los Angeles…and many points in between.

What we have seen and still see, as John Salveson strongly observes, in an excellent article in this summer’s Notre Dame Magazine, is Roman Catholic risk-management.

As Salveson, a survivor of sexual abuse on Long Island and later as a student at Notre Dame, observes:

“At the Long Island parish where I grew up, I spoke to 400 parishioners who were trying to oust their pastor. He was, according to a 2003 report issued by a grand jury in Suffolk County, New York, a central player in the cover-up of the abuse committed in that diocese. Throughout this period, I gave television, print and radio interviews, held press conferences and wrote Op-Ed pieces for newspapers…….

“An institution focused on doing the right thing would admit wrongdoing, immediately remove abusive priests from ministry, embrace victims, reach out to their families, do everything possible to help them heal, and work to change laws that hide perpetrators and deny justice to victims.”

Risk-management or moral action?

The answer should be clear. And at all levels in the church. And no one can sit quietly by, to protect the good name of the church.

Perhaps one should give Francis the benefit of the doubt, since his first encyclical is really a re-make of predecessor Benedict’s final one.

I just finished reading Lumen Fidei. Didn’t find it very stimulating; and it could have used a good copy editor. It’s a bit of a hodgepodge: As one friend observed, it is a blitz of poetic and pietistic sound-bytes, with chunks of Ratzingerian scholarly prose thrown in here and there. The writer/writers made occasional attempts at inclusive language; but most of the letter proclaims the papal message in the familiar church docu-prose: male nouns and pronouns to describe men and women.

In theory Lumen Fidei seeks to enlighten people living in today’s world. Its piety, however, is from Benedict’s yesterday, with a good dose of Francis’ old-time Mariology.

Lumen looks askance at our contemporary times in an old world-is-evil Augustinian way. That of course is also the old Ratzinger way. The term “Vatican II” is scattered around the Benedict-Francis text, like raisins in a cake; but it tastes strange and lacks the flavor of Vatican II’s more positive incarnational perspective. Finally, readers are offered the usual reminders that a proper understanding of faith requires fidelity to the Magisterium; and sexual differentiation (being a man and being a woman) is the divine plan for human sexuality.

If the Bishop of Rome were my student, I would suggest he shred this document and try again, after meditating on something like the latest Pew report on contemporary belief.

Over the past few years, for instance, Pew Research surveys have found evidence of a gradual decline in religious commitment in the United States and in Western Europe. The number of Americans, for example, who do not identify with any religion continues to increase. (And the Catholic exodus continues.) Nearly one-fifth of the U.S. public overall – and a third of adults under age 30 – were religiously unaffiliated as of 2012. Two-thirds of contemporary Americans – those church-affiliated as well as those unaffiliated – say organized religion is losing its influence in their daily lives.

With the Bishop of Rome and the Emeritus Bishop of Rome, I would contend people today do indeed need a good dose of Lumen Fidei. I would like to see a new and better-written encyclical that addresses the really contemporary issues: What does it mean to experience God today? How do we speak about God and God’s presence in our daily lives and world events? How can we live, with dignity and mutual respect, as men and women with a great variety of God-given, and continually evolving, sexual, cultural, and ethnic identities. And what then is the place of organized religion in this grand scenario?

Let the Light of Faith shine brightly and illuminate all of God’s people.