The Goal of Perfection?

In a recent string, Terra made a comment about paragraph 168 in the Compendium of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church in reference to ecumenism. That paragraph reads:

168. Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

All human beings in various ways belong to or are ordered to the Catholic unity of the people of God. Fully incorporated into the Catholic Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, are joined to the Church by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion. The baptized who do not enjoy full Catholic unity are in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

Terra’s comment was:

But here is the problem – what does 168’s (who belongs to the Church) description of ‘imperfect communion’ really mean? It’s this kind of fudging (and I do think that is the right word) that has led to multiple interpretations of what the purpose of ecumenism is for example, and finally led the Holy Father to his recent attempts to clarify this and state clearly that full membership of the Church must be the real goal (as it always has been traditionally).

I don’t think it is “fudging” at all, if we give attention to the meaning of the word “imperfect”. There is no Latin version of the Compendium available on the Vatican Website, so we will use the original source of this phrase, which is the declaration Unitatis Redintegratio from the Second Vatican Council. In Chapter three of this document, the Council said: « Hi enim qui in Christum credunt et Baptismum rite receperunt, in quadam cum Ecclesia catholica communione, etsi non perfecta constituuntur ». The word “imperfect” actually translates the phrase “non perfecta”. “Perfectus” in Latin actually has precisely the sense of “complete, finished, done”. Something is “perfect” when it has reached its goal. If we consider that baptism is the the first sacrament of initiation, it is “completed” by the other two sacraments of initiation, confirmation and reception of the Eucharist. Baptism alone therefore is a sacrament which is pressing toward a goal of completion in communion with the Church (confirmation) at the table of the Lord (Eucharist).

Far from “fudging”, I think the use of the phrase “imperfect communion” to describe faithful baptised believers not in full communion with the Universal Church as “in quadam communione, etsi non perfecta” to be absolutely right on the money. The alternative would be to posit that baptism outside the visible boundaries of the Church’s communion is either ineffective or invalid – and this assertion would need to be explained somehow in terms of ecclesiology. The Orthodox do just this. I read in an article just the other day the following quotation from Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky:

The basic principle underlying its use is that the Church has been endowed by God with authority to manage the affairs of her household. She is therefore in a full sense the steward (oikonomous) and sovereign administrator of the sacraments; and it falls within the scope of her stewardship and ecomony to make valid – as she thinks fit – sacraments administerd by non-Orthodox, although such sacraments are no sacraments if considered in themselves and apart from the Orthodox Church. Becaue a person’s Baptism is accepted as valid – or rather made valid by economy – when he becomes Orthodox, it does not therefore follow that his Baptism was valid before he became Orthodox.

While there are some similarities here with our ecclesiology, the notion that the sacrament of baptism only becomes valid when the baptised person enters communion with the Church (we would say, “when he becomes Catholic” where Florovsky above says “when he becomes Orthodox”), is foreign to us. We follow the belief that if a sacrament is performed by the right minister, with the right intent, the right matter, and the right form, then by God’s promise it is a valid sacrament. In the case of baptism, we believe than anyone – even one who is not himself baptised – can, with the right intent, form and matter, validly baptise. For this reason baptism must be a valid sacrament wherever and by whomever it is performed. It is, as Florovsky states, the Church which gives it this validity, but we would not say that the sacrament only becomes valid when the baptised person has his initiation completed by the sacraments of confirmation and Eucharist.

What I am getting at is this: the words “perfect” or “imperfect” actually apply to a goal, that goal being “full communion” and membership in the Church, ie. “joined to the Church by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion”. However, Baptism, wherever it is validly celebrated, is a beginning of this initiation. The goal of ecumenism is “full, visible unity of all the baptised”. It is a goal which is in fact determined by the inner reality of baptism itself. We cannot therefore regard separated Christians as anything other than our brothers and sisters in Christ, destined with us to enter the fullness of divine life and communion – destined by their baptism, that is. [I recently was in conversation with a Russian Orthodox SCE reader who very politely informed me that as an Orthodox Christian he could only regard us Catholics in the same category as Jews and Muslims. We had a polite discussion about that, and agreed to disagree! 🙂 ]

Obviously this destiny is not fulfilled in each and every baptised person during this life, so we leave that in the hands of God. But the goal is perfection, and I trust that, while God may yet bring about the “ecumenical goal” either here in this world in his own way and time by his Spirit, he will certainly do so in the world to come.

More on the emergence of infant baptism

A reader contacted me just today on a point we discussed some time back, namely, the prevalence (or otherwise) of infant baptism in the Post-Nicene Church. Our case in that instance makes this discovery from our reader all the more interesting.

A while back, there was a discussion on your blog about Infant Baptism, and when it came in. Apropos of that, I came across an intriguing little quotation from St. Gregory Nazianzen’s Orations 40.28:

“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we tobaptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.

“A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on the eighth day, which was a sort of typical seal, and was conferred on children before they had the use of reason. And so is the anointing of thedoorposts, Exodus 12:22 which preserved the firstborn, though applied to things which had no consciousness. But in respect of others I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they may be able to listen and to answer something about the Sacrament; that, even though they do not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration. For this is how the matter stands; at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, whenreason is matured, and they learn the mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years they have no account to give), and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the Font, because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall us, stronger than our helpers.”

Evidently, he feels the need to justify it, but it was moving further and further back.

Interesting, isn’t it?

A good idea I learned from Steve Kellmeyer

I have been a little critical of Steve Kellmeyer in the past. But there was one thing I learned from something he said in one of his RCIA podcasts that I have taken to heart, for it is great advice.

His advice was this: “Every time you come out from Confession, make use of the opportunity that your state of grace gives you by seeking to gain an indulgence, either for yourself or from the faithful departed.” They may not have been his exact words, but it is the gist of what he said.

And I have tried to make this my own rule now too. An easy one is a partial indulgence that is granted for praying the “Anima Christi” after receiving communion. Plenary indulgences, by their very nature, take more effort, but one that is fairly straightforward (and for which the opportunity is now past for 2010) is this one: “on any of the Fridays of Lent”, a plenary indulgence is available to those who, fulfilling the necessary conditions of sacramental confession, reception of Holy Communion and prayer for the intentions of the Holy Father, also “devoutly recite after Communion the prayer En ego, O bone et dulcissime Iesu before a crucifix.” For more information on this, and for the prayers, see here.

But now here are two that you should be getting yourself ready for right now: a plenary indulgence is available for those who take part in the Eucharist Procession on Maundy Thursday (details see here) and also for those who renew their baptismal vows at the Easter Vigil (details see here).

As I understand it, if you go to confession this week, you can obtain these plenary indulgences. I need a clarification on this from a reader, if you can. As I read it in the Manual, under the Norms N20, “a single sacramental confession suffices for gaining several plenary indulgences…” and “the three conditions [including sacramental confession] may be fulfilled several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work…”. I thought I had read somewhere that sacramental confession in connection with a plenary indulgence can be undertaken “15 days before or after” the prescribed work, but I can’t find where I read that now. That seems more than “a few days”. In any case, make your “Easter Confession” now, and make use of the opportunity on Holy Thursday and at the Easter Vigil for the Plenary Indulgences. One for you on Maundy Thursday and one for the Faithful Departed at the Easter Vigil!

Still here, just – but Cooees is back!

Hi guys! Sorry that things have been a little slow around here for a bit. I have been very busy putting together our Interfaith Symposium on Death and Dying next week. It is going to be a great event, and I am really looking forward to it, but it does mean that I don’t have much time for blogging at the end of the day (or energy, for that matter)!

However, if you haven’t noticed, the guys at Cooees from the Cloister have come out of their period of self-imposed Lenten silence, so you might want to go and check them out until I resurface again! (I think we can forgive them, eh? and renew our loyalty?)

In the mean time, if you have three days free next week, you might think about coming to our Symposium!

Priceless: + Elliott + Lady Jaqueline + The Archibald

This finalist entry in the Archibald Prize competition this year has my vote. But I am not quite sure whether Bishop Elliott is qualified to canonise his cat, even if he believes her qualified for the recognition! Yi Wang, the artist, is, I understand, one of the Bishop’s parishioners.

Bishop Elliott and Lady Jacqueline, by Yi Wang Archibald Prize 2010 Courtesy of The Art Gallery of New South Wales

Maybe this painting was the inspiration? HT to a Dominican reader.

On Removing Bishops

Just a quick thought. One of the main objectives of the current critics of the Catholic Church’s response to the sexual abuse crisis is that the Pope has not “sacked” bishops who are revealed to have “covered up” or “concealed” cases of abusive priests.

This contrasts with another call that was heard more regularly in the past, namely a call for decentralisation that would allow a greater autonomy to local bishops, often in areas of morality or liturgy. Then, any action by the Holy See in the matters of a local Church were called “interferance”.

I wonder if one of the reasons we have seen few bishops “removed” from office is the fact that the Vatican has a high respect for the place of a bishop in a local Church. Bishops are not “employees” of the Vatican. The Bishop of Rome is not their “boss”. They bear the responsibility for the mission and governance of the Church in their diocese. If you are looking for where the buck stops, the Vatican seems to be saying, it stops with the local Bishop.

I wonder if a comparison with that infamous event in Australian political history – the 1975 dismissal of the Government (and Prime Minister) of the day by the Governor General – is not perhaps illustrative. While constitutionally it is the Governor General who appoints the Prime Minister, and constitutionally he had the power to act to dismiss the Prime Minister, the nation was horrified that such power be used for the latter purpose.

Should the Pope have exercise his real – but rare – power to remove a bishop? What are the historical precedences? It seems to me that the Holy Father would prefer the bishops to take responsibility for thier own actions – and their own mistakes – and to act justly on their own initiative. What do you think of the reading of this situation?

An interesting article on the Pope

Here is an interesting article on the Holy Father (“Is this pope a reactionary or a prophet?”), from The Guardian by John Hooper. It isn’t available on The Guardian website for some reason. It repeats much that we know, but has some interesting quotes, such as:

“It would be interesting to know how he is viewed in a hundred years’ time,” muses a professional Vatican-watcher who also requested anonymity. “It will be either as a reactionary or a prophet. Benedict may be behind or ahead of his time, because one thing is certain – he certainly isn’t of his time.”

The idea that today’s Catholic church – hostile to abortion and contraception, antipathetic to homosexuality and dismissive of the idea of women priests – might be a bastion of enlightened values is one many Britons will find hard to accept. But then it is difficult to think of a society that provides Benedict with a greater challenge to his ideas than multicultural Britain

What we need in this situation

By Michael Leunig, published in the A2, The Age, 20th March 2010

I think Leunig has put his finger on just what it is that we need in the current situation. Where can I get one?

“A step comparable to a parent who denounces his or her own child”: A different perspective

Pastor Mark made the following comment on the post below:

There are ways and means of reporting child abuse to the police without violating the confidentiality of confession. This really is a red herring, given that the Vatican’s own investigations must presumably tread on this territory. I do think that this is a less than satisfactory reponse, given the gravity of these crimes. The cloak of secrecy really needs to be removed entirely if the Roman church is to regain public trust and respect.

There has been a lot of confusion about the so-called “policy of secrecy” in the Catholic Church regarding the offences we are discussing. I thought it would be helpful to include here a few paragraphs from an interview by Italian journalist Gianni Cardinale with Monsignor Charles J. Scicluna, the Promoter of Justice in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. John Allen carries the full interview translated into English.

Monsignor, you have the reputation for being tough, but the Catholic Church is systematically accused of being accommodating with regard to so-called ‘pedophile priests.’

It’s possible that in the past, perhaps due to a misunderstood sense of defending the good name of the institution, some bishops in practice were too indulgent with regard to these very sad cases. I say in practice, because in principle the penalty for this type of crime had always been firm and unequivocal. Just in terms of the past century, it’s enough to recall the now-celebrated instruction Crimen Sollicitationis of 1922 ….

Wasn’t that 1962?

No, the first edition dates to the pontificate of Pius XI. Then under Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Office prepared a new edition for the bishops in the Second Vatican Council [1962-65], but they only made 2,000 copies, which were not enough for distribution, and it was delayed indefinitely. In any case, it’s a matter of procedural norms to follow in the case of solicitation in the confessional and other grave crimes of a sexual nature, such as the sexual abuse of minors …

Norms, however, which recommended secrecy …

A bad English translation of the text made people think that the Holy See had imposed secrecy in order to hide the facts, but it wasn’t like that. Procedural secrecy served to protect the good names of everyone involved, first of all the victims themselves, and then the accused clergy, who have the same right as everyone else to the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. The Church doesn’t like to make a spectacle of justice. The canonical rule on sexual abuse, however, was never understood as a ban on reporting [crimes] to the civil authorities.

That document, however, is periodically invoked in order to accuse the current pope of having been, in his capacity as prefect of the Holy Office, responsible for a policy of cover-up on the part of the Holy See …

That’s a false and slanderous accusation. In this regard, let me point out certain facts. Between 1975 and 1985, I’ve found that no report of cases of pedophilia involving clergy arrived to the attention of our congregation. However, after the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, there was a period of uncertainty about the list of delicta graviora reserved to the competence of this dicastery. Only with the motu proprio of 2001 was the crime of pedophilia returned to our exclusive responsibility. From that moment, Cardinal Ratzinger demonstrated wisdom and firmness in handling these cases. What’s more, he also showed great courage in taking up some cases which were extremely difficult and delicate, sine acceptione personarum (without special treatment for anyone). Therefore, to accuse the current pope of a cover-up is, I repeat, false and slanderous.

…A frequent accusation directed at the ecclesiastical hierarchy is that of not denouncing the crimes of pedophilia of which they were aware to the civil authorities.

In some countries with an Anglo-Saxon legal culture, but also in France, the bishops – if they become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside of the seal of the sacrament of confession – are required to report them to the civil authorities. That’s a very grave matter, because these bishops are being forced to take a step comparable to a parent who denounces his or her own child. That notwithstanding, our position in these cases is to respect the law.

What about situations in which bishops aren’t legally required to do it?

In these cases, we do not impose an obligation on bishops to denounce their own priests, but we encourage them to contact the victims to invite them to report the priests who victimized them. Beyond that, we invite them to give every kind of spiritual assistance, and not just spiritual, to these victims. In a recent case regarding a priest condemned by an Italian court, it was precisely this congregation that suggested to the accusers, who came to us for a canonical process, to also take it to the civil authorities, in the interests of the victims and also to avoid further crimes.

Final question: Is lifting the statue of limitations [the canonical term is “prescription”] for the delicta graviora anticipated?

You’re touching a sensitive point, in my opinion. In the past, meaning prior to 1898, a statute of limitations for penal action was not part of canon law. For the most serious crimes, it was only with the motu proprio of 2001 that a ten-year prescription was introduced. On the basis of these norms, in cases of sexual abuse the ten-year period begins to run on the day the minor turns eighteen.

Is that enough?

Experience indicates that the term of ten years isn’t adequate for these kinds of cases, and one would hope for a return to the previous system of no prescription for the delicta graviora. On November 7, 2002, however, the Servant of God John Paul II gave this dicastery the faculty to derogate prescription on a case-by-case basis in response to requests from individual bishops. That derogation is normally granted.

Pope Outlines Spiritual Reformation of the Church in Letter to Ireland

The Pope’s Letter to the Catholics of Ireland has been released. While specifically addressed to the Church in Ireland, it has ramifications for the whole Church, calling for nothing less than a reformation of the post-Conciliar Church. It bears reading in full, but here is a quick glance at what it contains.

The letter consists of five main parts:

§§1-2 Introduction acknowledging the occasion for the letter
§§3-5 Historical background and causes of the current situation
§§6-12 Address to particular groups affected by the crime of child sexual abuse
§14a Proposed initiatives to address the situation
§14b and appendix: Conclusion and Prayer for Ireland

§§1-2 Introduction acknowledging the occasion for the letter

The Letter is specifically addressed to the Irish situation. The Pope writes:

For my part, considering the gravity of these offences, and the often inadequate response to them on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities in your country, I have decided to write this Pastoral Letter to express my closeness to you and to propose a path of healing, renewal and reparation.

§§3-5 Historical background and causes of the current situation

The Pope recalls the essential role that Ireland has played in the propagation of the gospel to all the world. He evens mentions Australia as one place that has benefited from the strong faith of the Irish. He recalls the persecution and the lively growth of the Church in Ireland after the Emancipation. He also recalls that

In almost every family in Ireland, there has been someone – a son or a daughter, an aunt or an uncle – who has given his or her life to the Church. Irish families rightly esteem and cherish their loved ones who have dedicated their lives to Christ, sharing the gift of faith with others, and putting that faith into action in loving service of God and neighbour.

He is also fairly clear about the when “the rot” set in. His opinion in this area will not be a surprise to most readers of SCE:

In recent decades, however, the Church in your country has had to confront new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid transformation and secularization of Irish society. Fast-paced social change has occurred, often adversely affecting people’s traditional adherence to Catholic teaching and values. All too often, the sacramental and devotional practices that sustain faith and enable it to grow, such as frequent confession, daily prayer and annual retreats, were neglected. Significant too was the tendency during this period, also on the part of priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel. The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings. (My emphasis)

He then lists what he sees as the major “contributing factors” that “gave rise to the present crisis”:

• inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life;
• insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates;
• a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures;
• and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person.

Like I said, this Letter has ramifications for the Church far beyond Ireland.

He points out that he has, on a number of occasions, “met with victims of sexual abuse” and that he will continue to do so in the future.

I have sat with them, I have listened to their stories, I have acknowledged their suffering, and I have prayed with them and for them.

This brings to mind something I read in a report in today’s “Sunday Age” (“Catholics rocked as shadows cast on Pontiff” – originally published in The Guardian):

Christian Weisner, the spokesman for the lay movement Wir sind Kirche, …argues that this Pope ”learned more about clerical sex abuse than any other bishop or cardinal and has done more to fight it than any other cardinal or Pope”.

[That quote was not meant to be entirely complimentary, as it included – in the dot dot dot section – the question of what Ratzinger did or did not do when he was Archbishop of Munich (just wait for that story to break). Nevertheless, he is quite right: no one can accuse Pope Benedict of inaction on this matter. Although again, there will be many who will and do argue that he is still not doing enough. It is hard to know in this context what “enough” will be for these critics.]

§§6-12 Address to particular groups affected by the crime of child sexual abuse

In this section, the Holy Father says he is writing “with words that come from my heart”. I can only compare it to the letter he wrote after he rescinded the excommunication of the Lefebvrist bishops. When Papa B. speaks “from the heart”, he does not mince words.

He directly addresses each of the following groups:

• the victims of abuse and their families
• the priests and religious who have abused children
  parents
• the children and young people of Ireland
• the priests and religious of Ireland
• his “brother bishops”
• all the faithful of Ireland

The three most power statements are to the victims, to the perpetrators and to the bishops.

To the victims he writes:

You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen. Those of you who were abused in residential institutions must have felt that there was no escape from your sufferings. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel.

He could have left it there, but he does not. He realises that those who have experienced this abuse have been robbed of two things: 1) hope, 2) a relationship with Christ.

Paradoxically – and he knows that this is his toughest call – the hope for healing and for relationship with Christ are only possible through the same institution in which they experienced their abuse: the Church. This is a real difficulty, and the Pope knows it. How the heck will they ever regain trust in the Church? The only answer the Holy Father can offer – and the very best answer he could offer – is that answer of Jesus Christ himself:

At the same time, I ask you not to lose hope. It is in the communion of the Church that we encounter the person of Jesus Christ, who was himself a victim of injustice and sin. Like you, he still bears the wounds of his own unjust suffering. He understands the depths of your pain and its enduring effect upon your lives and your relationships, including your relationship with the Church. I know some of you find it difficult even to enter the doors of a church after all that has occurred. Yet Christ’s own wounds, transformed by his redemptive sufferings, are the very means by which the power of evil is broken and we are reborn to life and hope. I believe deeply in the healing power of his self-sacrificing love – even in the darkest and most hopeless situations – to bring liberation and the promise of a new beginning.

But what does he have to say to the actual perpetrators of these crimes? First he confronts them with their crime:

You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres. Those of you who are priests violated the sanctity of the sacrament of Holy Orders in which Christ makes himself present in us and in our actions. Together with the immense harm done to victims, great damage has been done to the Church and to the public perception of the priesthood and religious life.

Then he asks of them three things: 1) “examine your conscience, take responsibility for the sins you have committed, and humbly express your sorrow”, 2) “conceal nothing[, o]penly acknowledge your guilt [and] submit yourselves to the demands of justice”, but 3) “do not despair of God’s mercy”:

Finally to the bishops, he issues this damning rebuke:

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. I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness. (My emphasis)

He includes the leaders of religious orders in this rebuke. He goes on to say that “only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people towards the Church”.

§14a Proposed initiatives to address the situation

This is in fact probably the most significant part of the letter, because everyone by now is asking: But what do you propose? How will you fix this problem?

Secular commentators may express incredulity at the proposals of the Holy Father, for they are proposals for spiritual action, rather than legal and punitive. This reflects the fact that Pope believes – quite rightly too – that the core of this problem is spiritual, and not psychological or sociological or even sexual. Therefore resignations are not demanded, nor is an end to priestly celibacy envisaged. These will not fix the problem, which goes deep to the heart of the Church. So what will? Here are his proposals in order:

• that Lent this year be set aside as a time to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in Ireland
• that all Irish Catholics devote their Friday penances (ie. their acts of fasting, prayer, reading of Scripture [Nb!], and works of mercy), for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to the intention of obtaining the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland.
• an encouragement Irish Catholics to rediscover and regularly avail themselves of the sacrament of Reconciliation
• that particular attention should also be given to Eucharistic adoration, that in every diocese there should be churches or chapels specifically devoted to this purpose, and that parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries to organize periods of Eucharistic adoration, so that all have an opportunity to take part to make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord and at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful

Only then does he outline two novel administrative and canonical actions specifically designed and implemented in reaction to the crisis. These are:

• an Apostolic Visitation of certain dioceses in Ireland, as well as seminaries and religious congregations.
• a nationwide Mission [ie. special retreat periods of intense preaching, teaching and reflection] for all bishops, priests and religious focusing on “exploring anew the conciliar documents, the liturgical rites of ordination and profession, and recent pontifical teaching”, to lead them more deeply into a rediscovery of their vocation.
  While the media will understand and welcome the first initiative, the second of these actions still shows that Benedict is convinced this is at core a spiritual crisis, a crisis of vocation.

Nevertheless, Benedict also calls for “no effort [to] be spared in improving and updating existing procedures”, although he remains “encouraged by the fact that the current safeguarding practices adopted by local Churches are being seen, in some parts of the world, as a model for other institutions to follow.”
That last comment seems to indicate that while he is confident that the Church can and has implemented top notch “safeguarding practices”, but that he remains convinced that the real problem from here on is not ultimately administrative, but spiritual.

We all know that this will not be the last that we hear of this subject. There is clearly much more to come yet. If Benedict is able to pull this program off – which is essentially a penitential program focused on all Catholics rediscovering the power of the gospel and the sacraments and a program focused on priests rediscovering the profound meaning and nature of their vocation – he will be likened by future historians to the 11th Century reforming popes who followed their scandalous predecessors of the 10th Century. If we take this message to heart, Catholics throughout the world, and not just in Ireland, will benefit from the program of reformation he has outlined in this letter.