The Church is Burning
The cross of the spire burned on the Parisian skyline like a scene out of Birth of a Nation. I streamed the footage for six hours. The church was on fire, the roof was coming down. The narrative of the ensuing flames was clear, and yet I could not peel my eyes from the screen. It was more than a simple church fire. Notre Dame is the pinnacle of 800 years of Parisian and French culture. Henry VI was crowned there, Napoleon walked its aisles. It withstood bloody revolution and the bombing of world wars. Yet there is something profound to be said for the simple act of human misstep. We as beings possess an innate desire to hold on to the past. It defines individuals and cultures. We spend countless dollars and hours maintaining monuments to our species’ perseverance. But it was in this pursuit of restoration that presumably the spark was struck. Those flames embodied our failure as a human race to protect what we have labelled as precious. Physical objects crumbled as the beautiful craftsmanship of the architecture disappeared. But with it burned the decaying spiritual backbone of a continent. As I watched the spire crash through the great forest of roof last April, I witnessed the Catholic Church fall with it.
Notre Dame is possible the most recognized symbol of western Catholicism. Constructed in the 13th century, the building predates the Vatican basilicas. France has long been a stronghold of the Catholic Church, historically referred to as the “eldest daughter of the church”. Roman Catholicism was named the state religion by Clovis I in 5th century and retained the designation for thirteen centuries. In 1910, the country was 99% Catholic, accounting for 13% of the global Catholics population. A stark contrast to modern numbers, as according to Pew Research only 54% of the French population identify as Catholic and 17% as practicing. This course of decline follows one seen by the institution worldwide. It is true that religion in general has taken a blow as atheism and agnosticism become household terms. However, it is particularly devastating in a country geographically and spiritually entwined with the Vatican.
“For many, Benedict is the physical representation of the old church he so strongly advocates for. An image that is further perpetuated with the juxtaposition of his successor.”
While an explicit cause of death will never be declared, several events of the last century can be assumed as contributors to the Church’s decline. In recent years, countless members of Church leadership have been exposed as knowing bystanders or instigators of sexual abuse. Accusations of lies and cover up have permeated every level of the institution, all the way to the Vatican. Since the opening of the floodgates by the Spotlight team in 2002, the Church continually finds itself apologizing and paying monetary settlements. The Boston Archdiocese alone has settled over $85 million to five hundred plus victims; globally, these numbers total a staggering $4 billion.
Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, later known as Benedict XVI, was born in 1927 in Marktl, Germany. He studied theology in Munich and was ordained in 1951. Ratzinger is an expert on traditional catholic doctrine and spent the first two decades of his career as a professor. He rose through the ranks of the Vatican and in 1981 was appointed prefect of The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the church body charged with defending Catholic doctrine. His strong advocacy for a return to fundamental Christian values earned him nicknames such as “The Enforcer” and “God’s Rotweiler”. For many, Benedict is the physical representation of the old church he so strongly advocates for.
An image that is further perpetuated with the juxtaposition of his successor. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born in Buenos Aires in 1936. Pope Francis’ election in 2013 propelled him to the status of pioneer, the first South American and Jesuit to sit on the Chair of St. Peter. As a member of the Society of Jesus, his priestly tenure has focused on social reform and service. Unlike Benedict, Francis does not don the red papal cape or shoes, opting for a simple white garb. He also has forgone the papal residence, opting for a modest suite in the Domus Sanctae Marthae. His papal reign has been defined by a concern for the poor and openness to interfaith dialogue.
Since ascending to the Chair of Saint Peter in 2013, Pope Francis has prioritized addressing sexual abuse and corruption within the clergy. This past February, he convened a conference of 190 of bishops in an attempt to discuss the issue. While very little was produced, many viewed the mere acknowledgement of the endemic as a step. However, the real waves were made in April when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI published a 6,000 word letter discussing what he believes to be the true nature of the crisis. In the eyes of the former pope and highly regarded theologian, there is one true culprit of the abuse scandal: the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
“Sexual abuse is not about the growing societal acceptance of hetero or homo sexual activity. It is about power.”
As Benedict explains, the sexual revolution and concurrent secularization of the West contributed to the abandonment of God by many individuals. There is some empirical truth in this claim. The next assertion, however, is where the argument falters. What suddenly arouse as a direct result of this abandonment of God? According to Benedict: homosexuality and pedophilia. It is easy to immediately dismiss this claim as homophobic and socially tone deaf. But to truly understand and refute his logic, it is important to examine the actual implications of the 1960’s sexual revolution.
The 1960s, particularly in America, was a period of profound social change. The Civil Rights Movement had forced the discussion of race relations into the dining room. Woman’s rights were again on the mind with the persistence of second wave feminism. The Vietnam War and subsequent anti-war activism had forced the country to reexamine the role of young people in society. No beloved American institution or ideal appeared to sit on solid ground. Sex was no longer reserved solely for marriage. In addition, increased female empowerment in the work place spilled into every aspect of American life. As income earners, some women now possessed the ability to provide for themselves and in turn gained a new-found sense of autonomy, leading to a rise in single culture.
The decade also ushered in many changes for the Catholic Church itself. In October 1962, Pope John XXII opened the Second Vatican Council. The three-year assembly gathered thousands of bishops and dignitaries from around the world to discuss the Church’s relation with the increasingly modern world. With the decree of papal infallibility in 1870, the announcement of the gathering shocked the religious community. Many viewed that councils were no longer necessary under the belief of the pope’s protection from error. The gathering sought to increase the Church’s accessibility to the lay person, decreeing that mass no longer had to be performed in Latin and promoting ecumenism. The council is accepted in theological study as the turning point from the “old” to “modern” church.
Benedict’s letter in April signals a concerning divide in the Catholic Church. As the first pope to resign in six centuries, he holds unprecedented privilege. He has chosen the title “Pope Emeritus”, rather than the more modest “Bishop Emeritus of Rome”. He has also decided to spend his remaining years in The Pontifical Palace steps from St. Peter’s rather than return to his native Germany. The bottom line is that Benedict still retains power. Whether he chooses it or not, when he speaks, people listen. In light of the sex abuse scandal, Pope Francis is charged with the difficult task of reunifying the Church. This mission is proven more difficult when his predecessor publishes a letter directly contradicting him.
“Catholic clergymen are clothed in immense amounts of historically misogynistic power. The traditional church has long failed to acknowledge this.”
As previously discussed, Benedict points to the chaos of the 60’s as culprit of the church scandal. While it is true that many of the priests prosecuted were raised during the decade, it is dangerous to draw that conclusion. It is unlikely that a 2000-year-old institution suddenly developed a pedophilia streak in the late 80s. A more logical explanation being that the growing media was finally able spot the holes in the degrading Catholic power curtain. Furthermore, blaming the rise of “homosexual cliques” in seminaries reflects the distasteful homophobia that has long plagued the Catholic community.
Sexual abuse is not about the growing societal acceptance of hetero or homo sexual activity. It is about power. To paint it otherwise is to disregard the innocence and value of the victims. If the issue was simply about sexuality, then most clergymen would break their celibacy vows with other adults. Many of them do, and they manage not to molest children in the process. Catholic clergymen are clothed in immense amounts of historically misogynistic power. The traditional church has long failed to acknowledge this, and Benedict’s letter reflects it. His failure to recognize the power dynamic demonstrates a personal lack of introspection advocated for by Christian theology. Instead, he employs the 1960’s and secular culture as a scapegoat.
The Catholic Church presently sits at a crossroads. It must change if it wants to continue inspiring over a billion people. Francis has dipped his foot in the waters of this transition. His willingness to admit his own sinful status illustrates a papal humility not often seen. For many young Catholics he embodies the hopes of a loving, more accepting new church. But he is still tethered by the antiquated institutionalism epitomized by his predecessor and much of the senior leadership. Much work is still needed to address the Church’s many issues. The solutions will not be comfortable. To let the light in, some more roofs may need to burn.