One of the many deeply disturbing aspects of the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church has been the lack of discussion about penance. While public apologies from bishops who protected abusive priests are becoming more common, doing penance to atone for individual sins is still too rare. This is even more confounding given that when confronting sin, the church has as an obvious model as a resource: the sacrament of reconciliation--known by most people as "confession."
Every Catholic knows that forgiveness in the confessional demands penance. Reconciliation in the church requires the same thing.
This is why Pope Benedict XVI's remarks last week might be an important starting point. "[W]e Christians, even in recent times,” he said, “have often avoided the word ‘penance,’ which seemed too harsh to us. Now…we see that being able to do penance is a grace and we see how it is necessary to do penance, that is, to recognize what is mistaken in our life, to open oneself to forgiveness, to prepare oneself for forgiveness, to allow oneself to be transformed. The pain of penance, that is to say of purification and of transformation, this pain is grace, because it is renewal, and it is the work of Divine Mercy.”
If the church hopes to heal, the turn to penance is, as the pope says, “necessary.” And I mean real penance.
To be clear, I am not speaking here of criminal activities. Obviously, any cleric who has done anything illegal--the sexual abuse of minors, or anything else, for that matter--should face, like anyone else, the full measure of the law. Sexual abusers should be in jail. Instead I'm speaking of sin, a broader category. What is illegal is almost always sinful. But what is sinful is not always illegal. Sin is larger category, and it is that I am addressing here.
Serious sin creates a rupture between the sinner and God, between the sinner and the community and between the sinner and the one sinned against. That rupture must be healed. But without true penance true healing will never take place. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its lengthy section on penance, says bluntly: “The sinner must…make amends for the sin.”
This may be one reason why many victims, victims’ families, and advocacy groups (as well as many Catholics) are so angry with church leaders who seem to have done no real penance. For penance demonstrates not only to God, but to the one sinned against (in these cases victims and their families) the seriousness with which the person takes his (or her) sins. Penance shows that you mean business when it comes to being forgiven.
Some argue that the Catholic church has already done "penance" by paying out large legal settlements to victims and their families; or that the church has done "penance" by being forced to close schools and parishes, and sell church property to pay legal fees; or that the universal church has done "penance" by seeing its stature seriously reduced in the public square. But those are involuntary actions in which the church had no choice. Penance, on the other hand, must be voluntary. The one seeking absolution willingly accepts penance, and fully understands its theological and spiritual importance.
Think about the sacrament of reconciliation. When a Catholic seeks forgiveness of sins, he or she enters the confessional to hear a word of forgiveness spoken by a minister of the church in the name of God. But there are several steps that come before forgiveness. Each step, one by one, can help the church understand what it is called to do, and how it must confront the sins of the fathers, and begin to foster the healing needed in the wake of the abuse crisis.
First of all, the penitent confesses sin. That has already happened in some dioceses in the United States, where bishops have spoken of their errors, their failures, their misjudgments and their sins. It took a tragically long time for some church leaders to recognize the need to confess their sins publicly; but most eventually understood what they must do.
Second, there needs to be a firm purpose of amendment, where the penitent demonstrates a seriousness about not sinning in the future. A person who says, "I sinned but it wasn't a big deal" or "I sinned and I'll do it again" is not showing true contrition. As the Catechismstates, “Contrition is sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again." Some of that contrition began to take place in the church in this country, as with the meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002, when they adopted their "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People," which set forth their now-famous zero-tolerance policy.
But before absolution is granted there is an important step: the acceptance of penance. And this is where too many church leaders have missed the mark, and why Benedict's homily is so critical. For some reason, the idea of penance seems to have eluded some bishops. Some who were responsible for the shuffling around of abusive priests decades ago have died. But some church leaders--those still in office or retired--seem to have a difficult time grasping that real penance, an actual penance, a hard penance, is a necessary part of the process of reconciliation.
James Martin, SJ
Conversations with God: Penance and Reparation @ http://www.therealpresence.org/chapel/pen_rep.htm
To believe THAT requires a tremendous leap of faith. Maciel was the equivalent of a bishop and he was evil incarnate.
I think that this is well said and of utmost important. Penance is not a hardship, but a privilege - a way for a person to atone for his sin and again be reconciled with the community.
This should also be the basis for our penal system. Prison time as a way for a person who commits a crime against society can atone for the crime and re-earn his place again in the community.
Unfortunately, the whole process of reconciliation is not fully understood or implemented. The Catholic Church would be a very good place to start. Sacraments are not just mysterious little rituals, but living springs of grace.
We survivors of clergy sexual abuse by Jesuits (and other religious orders) are completely 100% left out in the cold. Imagine it for a minute.
Bishops tell victims to see the religious order with allegations. When an agreement about that is breached, bishops say see the religious order.
In my particular case (and perhaps many others), I was told to contact the papal nuncio also. That is because the Jesuits (like many religious orders) shipped the perp over to Germany to preside at mass (after he was removed from ministry and had no priestly faculties anywhere and the Jesuits said they would not ask for faculties). The nuncio had no response.
Back to my question: how does a victim arrange a meeting with Fr. Nicolas? Can you find out?
I hope this is not a question that stumps you. Jesuits are soooo variable when it comes to pastoral instincts and abilities. Since I've never heard it in the media, I couldn't figure it out on my own.
Thanks.
Kate
I sent a letter in May 09. I got a letter back in June 09, saying he asked the province to handle it.
I wrote back, said the province did not handle it. And there was no response, and no response, and no response. And no response.
If Fr. Nicolas is who the stories describe, he should not be afraid of people. Hell, it's harder for me. He should be able to listen to how the Jesuits mess up or do well in the US - and tell me how he sees it.
''To my brother bishops It cannot be denied that some of you and your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse. Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations.'' One would have expected the Irish Bishops to rise up and say, ''but we were only following your policy to prevent scandal.'' Hans Kung's open letter to All Bishops, April 16th, makes this point without mincing words.
So, the first thing the pope needs to do is put the charge where it belongs - these crimes are not the result of secularization or materialism in society; they are not the result of the people not praying enough or going to the sacraments enough; and they are certainly not the result of Vatican II. The pope has blamed all of those things - but not the bishops themselves, nor the sin of clericalism and a structure that puts loyalty to Rome and the pope above loyalty to God and the gospel. The pope says penance must be done - by whom? If it is the bishops who were the agents of all this horror, why does he not accept the resignations that have been offered and demand more?
Why was Cardinal Law not given penance? Instead he was given a prestigious basilica, a lifestyle that is the envy of most ordinary Catholics (who do not have servants, drivers, etc), and a position vetting new candidates for bishop. This does not sound like penance for a man who actually thanked one of the worst sexual perverts in Boston history for his service to the church!
Why were some of Cardinal Law's associates not given penances? Instead, they were given their own dioceses.
I am among those who have ''deconverted'' (a term I first heard in another entry in this blog today) - because until the pope and the hierarchy honestly say that what they did was morally wrong and they will do penance - leave their comfortable and prestigious lifestyles to work with the poor, perhaps - there is nothing left to believe in in this church.