Veni Sancte Spiritus trots out the reliable charge of "hate"

Unfortunately, it's not as useful as it used to be for completely shutting down discussion and returning equilibrium to a completely pro-homosexual hegemony. At any rate, I don't feel much intimidated by it. I merely reply that my reason for thinking it unwise to ordain homosexuals in the future has to do with statistical probability, not "hatred". The fact is, the overwhelming number of abuse cases are homosexual. Therefore, if we want to eliminate that problem of a gay subculture of contempt for chastity and (with sickening frequency) abuse of children, common sense dictates that it would be wise to not ordain homosexuals. This has nothing to do with hatred. So spare me rhetoric like this: "{a] new ghetto for homosexuals [is] being constructed by [the] Catholic "God hates fags" crowd." It's cheap, low bullshit and doesn't fly anymore with people who are trying to think and who won't be cowed by PC abuse. (By the way, if you want to know, I've actually had the misfortune of having a conversation with members of the thoroughly sick and weird Phelps crowd who promote that sort of stuff.) Also, spare me the notion that "Homosexuals should not be ordained in the future" = "Get out of the Church". It does not.

It's precisely this sort of cheap, below-the-belt rhetoric that makes serious conversation about this subject so rare. Find some way to disagree with those who think there are serious problems with ordaining gays without insinuating they are motivated by "hate" and you will be taken seriously. Otherwise, forget it.

See that little bluish PayPal collection plate button there on the left side of the screen down at the bottom?

It works, and it even takes several major credit cards! Donations to this site's sole writer/editor/oilchanger/janitor/freelance whatchamacallit are really appreciated since this is a labor of love, not lucre, but lucre is still what puts bread on the table for my kidlets. If you've been reading for a month now and like what you see, why not throw a little change in my coffers? Believe me, I'd appreciate it!

Or, if your conservative principles object to the idea of pure charity (though I think I've worked hard on the blog and have done something toward earning my keep), how about buying some of my books and/or tapes? That way you are spurring the economy in wartime as well as contributing to the work of an adorably pudgy Catholic evangelist and writer. Wow. God and country. Who could refuse?

The mystery of non-resigning bishops

The pattern appears to be consistent. More bishops resign when it is shown that they directly violated the law or their oath of celibacy (yesterday, the Kentucky guy, today McCarthy). What mystifies me is why these guys stay until the last dog dies and they are exposed and humiliated in the press. I mean, if I were some gay cardinal or bishop or something and I knew that lots of people knew all about my extra-curricular activities and that the American press was searching every nook and cranny looking for still more evidence of scandal, I think I would have to be some sort of masochist to cling to the job, jabbering about "extreme sadness in this time of difficulty" and blathering about "the need to restore trust" all the while knowing that all my sins and hypocrisies were going to be on the front page tomorrow morning. Why would I cling to such a job? Just to make my humiliation as complete as possible when I was exposed? Why not resign right away (or at least attempt to, if Rome is letting them) and avoid looking like you clung to office hoping against hope that you would not be discovered?

I dunno. Maybe the bad ones have tried and Rome won't let 'em like She apparently won't let Law go. It just baffles me though that these guys seem to think they can go on chattering bishop talk about "trust" and "healing" and so forth while living this preposterously public double life. I suspect they just got used to it and now that the environment has suddenly changed, they are like stegosaurs trying to adapt and not succeeding very well.

Another bishop goes
Auxiliary Bishop James F. McCarthy of the NY Archdiocese resigned today after admitting to multiple affairs with women. It's official. He was Cardinal O'Connor's private secretary, and currently served as vicar for parts of Westchester and Putnam counties.

What Zero Tolerance should mean, and what it actually means

Zero Tolerance should mean no tolerance of real abuse. One strike, yer out. All that. However, in real life "zero tolerance" has tended to metastasize into no tolerance of imaginary abuse, including "point a chicken McNugget at a school mate in a threatening manner" and other looniness. If we think, in the present mood of hysteria, that this cannot happen to thousands of priests or ecclesial types (church workers, youth ministers, whatever), we're dreaming. For example, Fr. Dale Fushek of Life Teen recently revealed he had to settle an "abuse" charge when I will bet money the guy was simply being his typically outgoing self (we've met and he's a good guy) and had a hug or whatever misinterpreted by some hypersensitive person who chose to sue. Why'd he settle? Because you're guilty unless you prove your innocent. And when you are running a ministry called "Life Teen" you just need one smear as a pervert and your life's work is ruined. So you settle. "Zero tolerance" means "open season" for anybody who wants to construe a slap on the butt during a basketball game as "harrassment" if it follows the same pattern as the Chicken McNugget-heads out there have taken it.

Zero tolerance for proven cases of real abuse. Fine with me. Zero tolerance as a slogan for hysterical people. Baaaaad idea.

Time Celebrates Parishioners Suffering from Stockholm Syndrome

Here's a piece on Voice of the Faithful et al, trying mightily to deal with the Situation using only the mental tools furnished them by two decades of teaching by the Paul Shanleys of the world. Not surprisingly, they don't have a clue and think the solution is more heterodoxy and despising of the Tradition. George Neumayr notes the same pattern of hapless dependence on leftist dissenting catch phrases as a substitute for actually thinking. All these people are doing is mouthing the gabble put on their lips by the very people who betrayed them. So sad.

Note, as well, the deeply secular models being applied in the Time piece: ""First up is a man in a gray suit. 'If the church were a business,' he says, 'the hiring manager would be out of a job, and the CEO would be on the next boat out.'"

We've been governed by shepherds who thought like CEOs and hiring managers. That's how we got to where we are. Let's trying thinking with the Tradition instead of against it.

That said...
It is stunningly out of touch for the non-American bishops who have faulted the American media to compare them to Stalin, Hitler, etc for exposing the egregious sins of their brother ecclesiats. Here's a sample of what I mean:

Jurors shown tape of naked altar boy

This happened under the negligent watch of Abp. Elden Curtiss, whose first response to criticism of his negligence has been to write letters assigning penances to little old ladies who dared to criticize him and who most recently was in the news for urging the teacher who blew the whistle on a priestly child porn fan to resign. This sort of stunning combination of arrogance and irresponsibility is not the fault of the American media. It is one of the very rare times in the past 20 years I have felt deeply grateful for the American media. Without them, creatures like Fr. Daniel Herek would still be raping boys and Archbishops like Elden Curtiss would still be arrogant shepherds who thought more of their thin skin than of the lives destroyed by errant priests.

So with all due deference to the "blame the media" commentariat in the foreign ecclesiocracy: you're wrong. Yes, there is some stupid "analysis" courtesy of the Andrew Sullivan's who want to use the Situation to advance an agenda in opposition to the Tradition. But they would not get an inch if the average person perceived the bishops as people who could be trusted. We don't. And that's their fault, not the media's. How I pray they will take Dallas as a chance, first and foremost, to confess their own egregious sins (the guilty bishops, not the innocent ones) and give us some sense that they take responsibility for their own failures, not merely "express profound sadness blah blah blah" over this mysterious outbreak of priestly sin that, of course, had nothing to do with them.

What we have here is a failure to excommunicate
Admit it. Haven't you been longing to use that line? Anyway, been thinking about the bizarre phenomenon of clueless non-American bishops talking about the Situation as a plot by the American media to bash the Church, etc. Those of us with some familiarity with the Situation want to tear our hair out when we hear them talk that way. And yet, I think there is more to it than simple clericalism (though, don't get me wrong, I think clericalism plays a huge role here). But as I thought about it last night, I was noting again the weird way in which the American Press has done such a fine job reporting the Scandal, and then turned around and done such an all-fired atrocious job analyzing the Scandal. They seem to get the facts all right and the meaning all wrong.

The reason is not far to seek: the media are deeply conflicted: one of their favorite targets is embroiled in the biggest Scandal in its history on the North American Continent and they're salivating. But wait! The Scandal is all about homosexual abuse! We can't print that! Indeed, my sources inform me that at least one major eastern newspaper has killed a story exposing one high-ranking prelate (who will probably not stay unexposed forever) because the editor is gay too and doesn't want to draw still more attention to the fact that this is all about homosexual abuse. And so, we see a huge amount of stupid blather (typified by the latest emissions from the Andrew Sullivan "It's not about homosexuality" Fog Factory in Time). Sullivan, who has to be a decathalon champion in Avoiding the Obvious, has blamed celibacy, no women priests, the Church's hierarchical nature, the fact that the Church has any teaching on sex at all, the bishops and practically everything else in the world for the abuse. But he has not been able to say the magic words: "This is all about homosexual abuse and the bishop's failure to name and stop it and restore the Tradition."

In his recent article, he continues the campaign to ignore the Tradition: "When so many church leaders could not treat even the raping of children as a serious offense, how can we trust them to tell us what to believe about the more esoteric questions of contraception, or homosexuality, or divorce?" This is a favorite question among the Jack Chicks of the world: "Why trust the teaching of a Borgia Pope?" It is a stunningly sophomoric thing to say. For, of course, precisely where such moral and doctrinal questions begin is where the bishop's personal life and opinions end. That is, the Borgia Pope or the irresponsible American bishop did not just invent the Church's tradition on homosexuality or contraception or divorce just a moment ago. It was handed to him by Christ and the apostles and the Fathers of the Church. He is a custodian. The bishop's failure to teach or live the Church's tradition in no way falsifies it. It simply shows the bishop to be a bad bishop, not the Tradition to be a bad Tradition. Yet Sullivan insists in calling the Tradition into question, not the betrayal of it.

Now, if our non-American bishops are primarily seeing that sort of thing in the press coverage from the US, it would not surprise me that they recognize a transparent agenda aimed at attacking the Church's teaching, because that is, of course, what it is. What we non-revisionist Catholics have to make clear to them is: Andrew Sullivan and his ilk are not the whole story.

Why Zero Tolerance is Stupid.

In a zero tolerance universe, this monsignor would be toast. Zero tolerance is just another way for bishops to be irresponsible. Haven't we had enough of that?

I can't add much to this

Exhibit 2349342 in the case for having Amy Welborn declared a National Treasure. How succinct: "Stop it. Give us good policies, but moreover, give us the assurance that you will just stop it." How we sheep long to see bishops who will not just demand we trust them but give us a faint reason to do so. It will start, gentlemen, when you read and heed Amy Welborn's suggestions and take them to heart as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking through the sensus fidelium.

Here's a humbling quote

“I check what they are saying before I check the Washington Post," admitted Rod Dreher, a senior writer with National Review Online. "I trust their insights more than I trust the insights found in most secular newspapers." From Tim Drake's article on us Catholic bloggers in the most recent issue of National Catholic Register.

Apparently, I'm still unclear

I agree that, in future, those who experience homosexual temptation should not be ordained. My question pertains to those who already are ordained and who have lived good ministries without succumbing to temptation. Why kick them out? I can't see a good reason for it. Can anybody give me one? I doubt you can.

North Korea: Member of the Axis of Evil

Washington State Governor Condemns Boy Scouts for Failing to be as Irresponsible as American Bishops

Damn!

Yes, you need to spell it out for me
I asked: "But what of the Henri Nouwens [i.e. celibate priests who have faithfully resisted their disordered inclinations and served honorably as priests]? Shall we punish the innocent just to make sure we nail the guilty?"

To which somebody named Jay responds rather testily:

"Homosexuals do not belong in the priesthood for the same reason they don't belong in the U.S. Army or the Boy Scouts. Do I need to spell it out for you?"

Right. You need to spell it out for me. That's why I asked the question. By "homosexual" do you mean every ordained priest who experiences same-sex attraction, including the ones who have lived celibate and chaste lives and done their office honorably for decades, or do you mean those who live in contempt for orthodoxy and chastity? The latter, I agree, should go. Likewise, I agree that it is unwise to ordain any more gays. But what about the Henri Nouwens I describe? I can't see why they should be booted and I can't see why you refer to them with such evident contempt.

What Do I Want?
A number of people seem to think my personal preference and delight would be for bad bishops to go on exactly as they have forever. They seem to have gotten this idea because I have been saying, "Like it or not, the Holy Father (who is neither a fool nor wicked) insists on leaving non-criminal bishops in office, and we had better try to understand his thinking if we are going to think in accord with the way things are and not the way we wish they were."

To clarify: I, like you, prefer things done as easily and efficiently as possible. I very much empathize with the idea of just booting out any bishop who reassigned, covered up, is in denial of same, etc. My natural feelings of repugnance toward them are as strong as yours (and even stronger when they layered on top of this the gross hypocrisy of pretending to be the Voice of Reform, etc.). Like you, I think it shocking, inefficient, an affront to victims, etc. that these guys are left in place.

But: the universe is failing to meet with my demands and since that universe is ruled by a sovereign God (and his Church is governed by a Holy Pope), I am trying to consider the possibility that there may be more than mere efficiency at stake here. To that end, I note that the Cross is terribly inefficient. Jesus had many good years ahead of him, but was instead brutally murdered and (to add insult to injury) replaced by a gaggle of apostles not notable for bravery, intelligence, or fidelity. Indeed, the leader had actually denied him three times and would go on to other moments of conspicuous failure in his office. Still, it seemed to be what Christ insisted on.

I note a similar pattern here. Our bishops are not great men, but it appears that they are still being compelled to do their office in the hope that they might become, if not great, then at least men. As I say, it's still a gamble, but it appears to be one the Holy Father thinks is worth it. I'm willing to pray that God accomplishes whatever mysterious design he intends to accomplish through the train wreck. I'd prefer he be more efficient, but he does not appear to think my advice valuable.

Andrew Sullivan heads for the hills

Sullivan's off to spend some quality time goofing off. Too bad. I'd love to hear him spin his way out of this:

"There is no outbreak of heterosexual child molestation in the American church. In the words of the late Rev. Michael Peterson, who co-founded the well-known clergy-treating St. Luke Institute, 'We don't see heterosexual pedophiles at all.' Put differently, it would be profoundly misleading to tell the tale of Rudolph Kos--what he was and what he did--without reference to the words 'homosexual' and 'gay.'" Just a snippet from the Elephant in the Sacristy, the moment when the mainstream media finally got around to connecting the dots between some rather obvious pathologies at work in the gay subculture and abuse of boys, boys, boys, boys, boys, boys, and boys. Welcome home, my mainstream brethren and sistren, you've struggled up the mountain and found a group of bloggers were there months before you! Well, except for Sullivan, who seems to have some sort of agenda which keeps him from acknowledging the obvious.

50% of the Human Race has an IQ below average

Here's a vital email warning from one of those folks.

SNAP has class

They're withdrawing their lawsuit so the bishops will be free to talk with them in Dallas. God knows the bishops need to listen to them.

James Kovacs' Integrity Blog has some good stuff from Cardinal George on the Situation

Time to start forming a network to Defend the Seal of the Confessional

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. A reader writes:

I have been writing a blog for a couple of weeks focusing on common law developments with an examination of interesting cases published in California and the Ninth Circuit of the United States Courts of Appeal. On Tuesday, I did a post on the Ninth's rejection of a Rastafarian's defense that he was exempt from the Controlled Substances Act because his possession of marijuana was part of his religious beliefs. Then, came the various posts dealing with the proposed legislation limiting confessional privacy. At that time, I felt that certainly such legislation would not withstand First Amendment scrutiny.

I thereafter took a look at Supreme Court precedent, and the answer seems to be that it would because - like drug control laws - child abuse reporting laws are laws of general, neutral application.

You can find my post at peterseanesq.blogspot.com.

I would be interested in hearing what other professionals have to say about this issue.

I'm not a lawyer and will refrain from bloviating about this in relation to the Rastafarian decision, but any lawyer readers are welcome to bloviate away in the comments box or on my reader's site.

Saudi Arabia: Don't Let Your Daughter Live There

Cardinal Dulles on the upcoming Confab

Why "zero tolerance" is just another word for "zero intelligence".

Joe Katzman has the latest scoop on the anti-semitism at SFSU and what's being done about it

From the growing "Shoot the Messenger" file

Note to the unwary and easily panicked: whenever anybody anywhere in the media says stuff like "A Catholic cardinal who some believe may become the next pope..." you may wager your entire life's savings with absolute security on the fact that the cardinal under discussion will never ever EVER be the next Pope. Media people *love* to imagine they have the inside track on stuff like that. They don't have a frickin' clue. Remember: these are the same people who have been confident of the "inside sources" who have assured us all that JPII has been at death's door for 20 years.

Useful Idiots and the Seal of the Confessional

A reader sez:

I'm sure you remember Lenin's remark about people who were sympathetic to Marxism and hadn't realized that it was a giant swindle that enabled leftist intellectuals to ride to power on the support of the proletariat. He called them useful idiots.

Now, there are not an insignificant number of Catholics, both clerical and lay, who feel that auricular confession is an outmoded ritual, one which should be replaced by general absolution, confession among peers or small faith groups, or even should be eliminated altogether. They do not realize that the destruction of the sacrament of confession (as indeed with all sacraments) is one of the enduring projects of the lowerarchy. So, they will be among the useful idiots who will be unwittingly complicit in the campaign for the destruction of the confessional, and their present opportunity will be the support for limiting the totality of the seal of the confessional by the chattering classes.

Here's a bit of prophesy: expect to see some priests involved in a movement to place restrictions on the confidentiality of the confessional. Their stated motivation will be "for the children", but they won't recognize in themselves an egoistic desire for affirmation by a world which approves of their point of view, as well a latent rebelliousness against the authority of the church, which also garners them kudos from the dissenting class.

All the more reason for us to keep up the fight.

Hadn't thought of this, but the logic is sound. I suspect something like this will be one of Hell's strategies should the devil succeed in launching a war on the Sacrament of Confession. St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

I figured as much

Pete Vere basically sez Kevin Orlin Johnson (who I mistakenly took for a canonist) is wrong. Several other readers concur with Pete in email. One also notes, "The ridiculousness of Johnson's statement can be further shown by the fact that in 1853, when Bedini supposedly wanted to remove all bishops, St. John Neumann was Bishop of Philadelphia." For myself, I don't know if the historicity of Bedini's scorched earth recommendation is accurate or not. Given Johnson's misreading of canon law, it's also quite on the cards that Dr. Johnson misread the tale of Bedini. But even if it's an accurate account of what Bedini really recommended, the idea of deposing St. John Neumann on the basis "Better the innocent be punished than that the guilty escape!" seems to argue rather well for my point that Johnson's recommendation is, to put it mildly, draconian.

A friend writes to say:

I don't see any evidence of trauma. In priests who've been accused, whether accurately or falsely, certainly; but not on the part of the bishops. Consternation, yes. "Oh, shit!" sure. But trauma, no. Their behavior is changing, but not because of the conviction that they did something wrong, but due to the fact that their reputation is suffering. This isn't redemption, it's a frantic effort at damage-control. Witness the vaunted policy: no where do they even countenance the very idea that they might have had something to do with this. To do such would appear to be intolerable to them. Don't misunderstand, I don't think they're monsters, I just don't think they're real men.

They do NOT comprehend the damage that has been inflicted. They do NOT comprehend the vile, detestable nature of this crime. They obviously regard their parishoners with a mixture of condescencion and contempt, particularly those who are children. They REFUSE to accept their responsibilities as citizens and priests in this regard.

I think that the policy as currently worded appears to be a textbook example of denial of responsibility. However, I also think that (if my theory about what the Pope is up to is right) this is not terribly difficult to predict. We're looking at a career-long pattern for the guilty guys, and such patterns ain't broken overnight. Remember? Denial, bargaining, anger, depression, acceptance. That's the way we die.

In return, I offer Exhibit A in evidence of my theory about why the Pope is leaving these guys in office and even (apparently) refusing resignations in cases where no criminal act is involved. Got this from a friend in Boston:

I saw Cardinal Law at a First Friday event tonight.

Some people said afterward that he looked awful, and, true, he did: worn, weakened, diminished. But I was thinking something else. He's been on the Cross lately, and I like him better this way. He's less pompous and more real. Maybe he's arriving at what the AA folks call the First Step: he's getting to experience some area of life in which he's "powerless."

He's not perfect, to be sure: a little suggestion of self-pity showed up once in his homily, and the old urge to dominate appeared a little
when he interacted with people up-close: but I'll give God credit for demonstrating some improvement on him.

Pauline Damascus Road conversions are the dramatic exception to the mundane rule of plodding Petrine dullness that takes years to learn and, even then, denies Christ when the pinch is felt (till the Holy Spirit intervenes). It's the clay JPII has to work with, and I continue to suspect it's the clay he is trying to work with.

Kevin Orlin Johnson comments below:

Yes, bishops should be removed immediately--all of them. That was the verdict of Abp. Bedini, the very first papal emissary sent over here, in 1853, to sort out the miscreant American clergy. Every subsequent papal emissary has said the same thing: remove these bishops and replace them with "suitable candidates".

But we can't sit around waiting for the Pope to remove them. We have to help him; in fact, we have to do it ourselves. Pope St. Pius X issued an encyclical, Maxima cura, specifically to allow Americans to remove miscreant bishops and priests, and John Paul II codified its provisions as Canon 1741 in his new Code of Canon Law in 1983. It's up to us.

I'm no canonist, but I can read.

The language of Canon 1741 is this: Can. 1741 The reasons for which a parish priest can lawfully be removed from his parish are principally:

1° a manner of acting which causes grave harm or disturbance to ecclesiastical communion;
2° ineptitude or permanent illness of mind or body, which makes the parish priest unequal to the task of fulfilling his duties satisfactorily;
3° the loss of the parish priest's good name among upright and serious-minded parishioners, or aversion to him, when it can be foreseen that these factors will not quickly come to an end
4° grave neglect or violation of parochial duties, which persists after a warning;
5° bad administration of temporal goods with grave harm to the Church, when no other remedy can be found to eliminate this harm.

Nowhere else in the section did I see a syllable talking about our right to remove a bishop autonomously. It's all directed at parish priests. Perhaps Dr. Johnson can explain where he got this notion.

In the meantime, my main question as a layman is, even if Dr. Johnson can somehow credibly construe a text that appears to be entirely directed toward the removal of miscreant parish priests, not bishops: How realistic (not to mention just) is this, coupled with his amazing demand that we remove every American bishop? Every American bishop? This is far beyond the most draconian idea I have heard anybody propose and seems to me to wildly overreactive.

I should be very interested to hear from other canonists about this.

Just to clarify...

The "comment" feature refers to the blog immediately above it, not below it.

The Weekend Piece is up over at Catholic Exchange

The Mainstream Press Finally Catches up with the Blogosphere

In other news, mainstream press finally acknowledges sky is blue, water is wet, and fire is hot.

Naughty fun over at Ad Orientem

New blog!

A reader writes:

I think several bishops in America should be removed immediately because they have failed to shepherd their people well (a gross understatement.) I appreciate your take on the Pope's "strategy," and agree that it may be best for the bishops if they have to clean up the mess they've made. Dealing with this crisis may well be an occasion of sanctification for them.

Having admitted this, I say "To Hell with what's best for the bishops!" They can try to be sanctified working a crummy job and living in a cheap apartment. The Pope should do what's best for the flocks the bishops were supposed to be serving. That means giving them good shepherds as soon as possible.

I go to Franciscan U of Steubenville and often hear homilies by Fr. Ray Ryland downtown at St. Peter's. I've also lived in NYC and gone to daily Mass at St. Agnes. I've been to Blessed Sacrament in Seattle. I've visited the Oratories in London and Toronto. I know what good liturgy looks like and what sound catechesis is because I've experienced it and it has made me a better person, a holier person than I otherwise would be. (Not that I'm very holy; I've been blessed with so much and have squandered most of it.) I've also witnessed the decay of the faith of people whom I love because they've been subjected to three decades of banality (and outright ugliness and lies), nice people who've followed Father to lukewarmness, exchanging the Catholic faith for political correctness. They deserve better. If a bishop can't or won't or doesn't see to it that they get it, get him the Hell out of there and replace him. Repeat as necessary.

Well, there's my rant. I guess my point is that the people in charge should consider what is best first for the victims, next, for the laity as a whole, then for the good priests, penultimately for the abusers, and last of all, for the people in charge. It is right that our Holy Father consider the needs of the abusers and of failed bishops before his own. It is wrong that anyone in authority place the needs of abusers and others in authority above the needs of the abused and of the simple faithful.

Judging from the feedback I'm getting, it appears a number of people are under the impression I think bishops should be above the law or that their exquisitely sensitive feelings must take priority over the children they have allow to be victimized or the flock they have so badly ruled.

But that's not what I think. My point is not that I (or the Pope who I am trying to understand here) think that Rank Has Its Privileges but rather that Rank Has its Cross. Bishops who have done criminal things should, I think, face criminal charges (I have no idea of the legality of their actions, that's for a lawyer to decode). But bishops have two ways of living their office now: they can take a powder and leave the mess they've made for some equally clueless (because trained by them) protege or they can shoulder the cross and start to learn their office. That won't happen in a day. Much mess must be cleaned up. But precisely for the good of the Church and not for the comfort of the bishops, that cross must, I think, be shouldered. It remains to be seen whether it shall be (a good sign will be if the bishops take some responsibility for the mess they made in Dallas and avoid oblique, passive voice, "accidental outbreak of bad priests, don't know how it happened" language. Their drafft is, so far, unimpressive in this regard. But I'm willing to give them some time (and input).

But please don't think I'm saying the bishops need to have their needs put before the needs of the people they allowed to be victimized. The bishops needs must be put dead last behind those they have harmed. But the way the bishops are going to learn this is by carrying their cross, not taking a powder when it gets hot.

As to the other, less pressing matters, of stupid liturgies, dumb catechesis, etc.: One thing at a time. We've got a lot of old dogs trying to learn some very painful new tricks.

Some Things I'd Like to See in the Policy

Wishful and wrong headed

Somebody writes:

The next scandal will be unearthed when the medica can't find any more child-molesting priests, and then discover how much homosexual activity there is in the priesthood.

There is one and only one solution to the crisis: Defrock all homosexual priests and keep homosexuals out of seminaries.

While I agree that homosexuals should, as a rule of thumb, be kept out of the priesthood in the future (and that anybody who engaged in homosexual practice should be booted), I think that it is wishful thinking to suppose the media will point to the large number of gays in collars. They have twisted themselves into pretzels to avoid making this fact noticeable (see Sullivan, Andrew). Just as they have done everything in their power to avoid noticing that the abuse is almost entirely homosexual in nature.

That said, while most victims are victims of homosexual abuse, it does not follow that most homosexuals are abusers. So I think that kicking all homosexuals (what is meant by this? practicing homosexuals or those who merely experience same sex attraction?) needs to be clarified. Those who practice the grave sin of homosexual intercourse should go, I think. They show contempt for their vows and pose a danger of showing more serious contempt for our children which should not be countenanced. But what of the Henri Nouwens? Shall we punish the innocent just to make sure we nail the guilty? Those who heroically remain celibate deserve our respect, not a bayonet.

Sungenis in the News

New Scientist has taken note of Bob's $1000 dollar geocentrism challenge as well as of another challenge to "prove" evolution. Happily, they refer to Bob's Catholic Apologetics International as a "sect" and not as somehow an "official Catholic organization." The Church has enough trouble. Meanwhile, The Onion has some handy observations that seem somehow apropos.

Much talk about JPII "gambling with our children" etc.

... by leaving in place bishops like Law or Mahony. I think the whole "endangering kids" thing is not going to be much of an issue in future. I think it far more likely the bishops will put in some sort of draconian overkill policy that will cut priests adrift on the slightest provocation ("they're private contractors, not my problem"), than that anything like the previous regime of reshuffle, abuse, coverup and payoff will ever obtain again. Those days are gone forever. I would not be surprised by (and would favor) a one strike yer out policy. So I sincerely do not believe that JPII is "gambling with our children" or anything like that. I do think he is gambling that the American Church (that'd be you and me, not just the bishops) will learn to bear the cross. I do not think he is motivated by a fascination with perks and power. Nor with some bizarre notion that the bishops must continue in their offices merely for the sake of continuance. His entire life tells against this. He may be given to over-optimism (but then when you've seen the Iron Curtain fall without a shot you might have a rather more sanguine view of the power of God than comfortable Americans who prefer to "fix" problems rather than approach them supernaturally), but he is not given to cynical politics.

Really, folks. We have to catch our breath here and stop hyperventilating. A few months ago, everybody was dead certain JPII was going to cart Law off to Rome in the dead of night because they just knew it was a good old boys network etc. Didn't happen. Now, in the twinkling of an eye, JPII goes from being one of the champions of the human person to a heartless lab technician gambling with our children in a grand ecclesial experiment that thinks only of the comfort of ecclesiats and cares nothing for the screams of abused kids who are--somehow--endangered. When such voices whisper in our ears it's always a good idea to splash cold water on our faces and ask if this is really terribly likely given what we know of him.

The danger to our kids is past, by and large. Yes, there are still a bunch of skeletons to be uncovered (perhaps literally, judging from the headlines today). And they will be. Bad priests and bad bishops will be and are being thoroughly outed. The old regime of shuffling, cover up, etc is gone for good. Now we have the problem of what to do with the bad bishops who did this stuff. We do not have the problem, I think, of any future risk that the will ever be dumb or wicked enough to do it again. Pavlov is in the driver's seat on that score and they have learned--really learned--that lesson.

Now they must learn to take responsibility for what they've done and they must learn their office. It may well be that some are taken out or resign. Then again, maybe not. But I don't believe, whether they go or stay, that another child will be endangered again. They will far more likely be draconian toward their priests than toward the victims. That's a step up, though it's still not putting the spotlight on the main authors of this crisis: themselves. To do that requires grace and that, I think, is what the Holy Father is hoping will be given them as they bear the cross.

A reader asks:

The Eastern Churches have secret confession, too. Are their rights also at risk or is this just an anti-Catholic move? Episcopalians and Lutherans also have a form of confession which I'm sure they'd want to defend as private.

Depends on how badly Caesar wishes us to have no other gods before him. And how stiff a resistance we put up when he overreaches. Certainly if the 800 pound gorilla of the Catholic Church cannot stop this attack on her right, the statistically tiny numbers of other denominations have nothing to shield them from the Lidless Eye of the State.

Mailbag

Fr. Robert Johansen (who recently wrote a very good review of Goodbye! Good Men!) writes:

In regards to your reactionary reader, the Church indeed does place mercy above the Law. That's because God does. Canon law provides many exceptions or relaxations of the strict discipline of law under extraordinary circumstances. That's why, for example, a priest may give general absolution to those aboard his airliner as it is about to crash into a mountain. Christ came to give us God's mercy, so we could escape the unrelenting judgment due to us under the old Law. Those of a pharasaical bent should see Canon 1752 (the last canon) which says "the salvation of souls...is the highest law of the Church."

Or to paraphrase Jesus: "Canon law was made for man, not man for canon law". Amen, padre.

*****

Here's a letter from somebody in the trenches, weathering an abuse scandal in her own parish:

I'll take the opportunity to share this with you - a very large-sized shoe dropped in my parish this week. My Franciscan pastor, Fr. Gus Krumm, was removed from the pastorate at Ascension Catholic Church in Portland after he voluntarily disclosed to his provincial that he had been involved in "indiscretions" with teenage boys back in the late '70s and mid-'80s. (He made the front page of the Sunday paper - great.)

The last two weeks in the parish have been very strange. Events seem to have followed the pattern that I've seen as I've read the accounts that you, Amy, and the other bloggers have linked on your sites.

For us, it started at the end of Mass on May 19, when Fr. Gus read a statement from the pulpit in regard to a story published that weekend in the Orange County Register (the paper of Fr. Gus' old parish) about an allegation of abuse made back in the '80s by a student at St. Anthony's Minor Seminary. This allegation was investigated twice, we were told, and Fr. Gus was exonerated on both occasions. Fr. Gus also read a statement of support from the provincial, Fr. Finian McGinn, and as the parish staff went forward to stand on the platform with Gus as a show of support, the congregation rose up as one with applause for a full two minutes at least. Since I was cantoring at that Mass, I was already standing to the side of the platform, and I joined in the applause - half-heartedly, I admit. In my reading about all of these priests who had led double lives and had done awful things to young boys and to those who tried to bring them to account, I would come across reports of parishioners who didn't believe the allegations, who went on record as supporting their pastor, saying he's such a good guy, he couldn't possibly be guilty of such things - and I would think, "How could they not have seen through him - that he was such a monster, and they didn't see it?" So, it was a surreal moment for me - here I am in my church, with my warm, friendly pastor at the ambo reporting allegations, and the congregation on its feet cheering... it gave me pause. I thought, Am I now one of those trusting parishioners that had one put over on them?

It just so happened that the following evening, the Social Action Committee (which Gary, my husband, chairs) had planned an open forum meeting for the parish to discuss the priest abuse scandal. The tenor of the meeting was very different from what we thought it might be going into it - as it happens, Ascension has a reputation for being the most liberal parish in the city (which is saying something for Portland), and in my three short years of being a Catholic, I've realized that I think very differently than many people in my parish. I was afraid it was going to turn into a knock-down, drag-out, fisticuffs-and-dirty-words ragefest. As it happened, the discussion was very tightly focused by the moderating panel that we had, consisting of Gary, another long-time parishioner, a social worker, and our associate pastor, Fr. Chuck Talley. We heard from people who had been abused in the past (not by Gus), parents of children who had been abused in the past, fellow Franciscan brothers of those who had perpetrated some of the abuse in the St. Anthony's Seminary case. Although there were a few who engaged in the seemingly requisite bishop- and Pope-bashing, the meeting actually seemed to help us deal with our feelings a little and be encouraged by each other.

Fast forward to just over a week later... Gary and I were out of town the 22nd through the 29th, and we heard the day we came home that Gus had admitted to these other "indiscretions" and had been removed. Zip, poof, gone. (It's weird to think that I may never see him again.) The linked story appeared, as I said, on the front page of the Oregonian on June 2, and one of the other Franciscan brothers in our parish gave the homily at all the Masses that weekend - basically apologizing to us all. Another open forum meeting was announced, described as a "listening session".

This meeting was held last night in the parish conference room. The discussion was similarly tightly controlled, focused on exactly what had gone on with Gus, again except for the requisite bishop-, tradition-, and Pope-bashing. (I had the feeling that if we all really started to air our differing opinions about what the root cause of the problem was, it would turn ugly, and so I was OK with not going there - I just didn't have the stomach for it last night.) Kristina Kallen, mentioned in the article, was there - I was pleased to see her and hear her stand up for her take on the particular situation she was involved in. (She shared some chilling things about what the man that Gus wanted for youth minister said to her in an interview.) Fr. Chuck told us we're supposed to get a new pastor next month.

I don't really feel my personal faith shaken so much, although I suppose I'm still a little shellshocky. Having been raised Protestant and steeped in the teachings of Vatican II and of the St. Catherine of Siena Institute, I've realized from the beginning of my Catholic walk that priests are human, like me, and that Christian leadership and the sacerdotal priesthood don't necessarily map one-to-one. So... it's just kind of weird. Gus just seemed like an ordinary Berkeleyite card-carrying-liberal priest - "Vatican II means we can do whatever we want", etc. I liked him, actually - he was a nice guy, and a good preacher (although I didn't always agree with his homilies, he was always at least thoughtful and never dull).

There are things that echo louder in my head now, things that I remember being said by other Franciscans in our parish and by this guy Gus wanted to hire. I remember chuckling when I first heard them, but they kind of creep me out now:

"You just need to know how to get around diocesan policy."

"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission."

"Vatican II means we can do whatever we want" - sort of an epitaph for an era of AmChurch silliness. What strikes me (again) is that the people of Ascension parish who were betrayed by their priest have only the theological resources he and others like him gave them in order to meet the crisis thrust suddenly upon them. It's like the Stockholm Syndrome where hostages imprint on the people who hold them hostage and fight against their rescuers. It has left them naked before the storm. Thus, when they get together for their listening session, it doesn't seem to occur to people that the problem is not the Tradition or the Pope who teaches that Tradition, but the clever "Vatican II means we can do whatever we want. You just need to know how to get around diocesan policy. It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission." mindset of those who don't give a fig for the Tradition. Like sheep without a shepherd, many American Catholics can only repeat the stale canards of those who withheld the Tradition from them, even as they were betraying them.

I note, as well, that the policy of just yanking the priest in the dead of night continues ("Zip. Poof! Gone!")_ No chance for the betrayer to face the wounded. No chance for the wounded to face him and vent their wrath or begin the process of forgiveness. No cross. We Americans don't get it.

Alas, for our poor suffering Church. O Lord, come quickly.

*************
A reader writes:

I think it's a misreading of Michael Kelly's column to say he is advocating a "bureaucratic" concept of the Church. He's simply pointing out the most important fact:

"The church's real problem is that its superior officers deliberately allowed these relatively few priests to remain -- in the face of powerful and mounting evidence of criminal wrongdoing -- in positions where they could exploit their priestly privileges and continue to prey on the young and the vulnerable."

He's right. Horrendous as the molesting, abusive priests are, the real problem is that our Bishops did not manage to discern this evil under their noses. The real problem is corrupt and/or ineffective exercise of authority, specifically moral authority

How blind can you be?! Or, some of them maybe discerned but tried to hide, but, besides the craven weakness or, worse, complicity that suggests, it's also another failure in discernment. Only a fool could think this could be kept under wraps.

Or, a lifelong practitioner of bureaucratese.

No disagreement there.

You and your priest friend say that one possible reason JPII is leaving the current group of Bishops in place so that they get a chance to carry their Cross. Who knows, but if that's the plan, so far I think it's come a cropper. Maybe one could hope (in one's wildest dreams) that these bishops will learn to be true shepherds and surely that's what should happen. But I'm not convinced so far.

Mahoney is hiring PR firms, Cardinal Law is trying to claim - what? - freedom of speech or of the press, I forget which in his deposition -- and other cardinals are allowing an aggressive legal strategy of blaming parents or implying that victims were complicit. (I assume that amid all of the genuinely horrible true tales of abuse there are also some liars trying to cash in and I certainly wouldn't rule out the Church mounting a vigorous defense in some cases.)

I'm going off memory here, but I recollect that your priest friend described the situation where the transgressor-priests had to confront their victims and listen to the pain and damage they had wreaked, etc. If that is what is happening to the Bishops, then okay, leave 'em in place. But, they are not enduring that. They are lawyering up. It looks like to me that the seeming piety of "let them carry their cross" gives aid and comfort, unintentionally, I'm sure, to the truly corrupt and corrupting bureaucracy that pretends to be shepherds. A pious shield for evil.

As with all things human, the Pope's strategy here involves a risk and a gamble. The bad bishops may never get it. But what about the many good bishops (you know, all those bishops you haven't heard about, who are struggling to shepherd their flocks in Podunk, Iowa or wherever)? What if they do? Also, of course, there is the reality that 20 or 30 years of habit are not broken in a fortnight. I freely grant that several of our shepherds are apparently opting to think with lawyers and PR firms rather than the Tradition. It's a brand new thing for several of them to have to face the consequences of their actions and it takes some getting used to. Plus (and this should be obvious) we don't want to embrace the Cross. Pain hurts. But we've seen some promising things too. I was impressed with Weakland's willingness to name his sin as sin and to come clean about the theft of money from the Archdiocese. Lying is a hard habit to break. So I give him credit. Egan appears to me to still be doing the legal hardball thing ("Priests are independent contractors. Not my responsibility." Feh!) Mahony also appears to be focusing on image over substance. BUT, I don't know what else they are doing and they may be working very hard to, as Steve Jobs says, "Think different". It's hard for old dogs to learn new tricks. So I will watch to see how the draft gets revised so that bishops take responsibility for *their* part in this debacle. For, as you and Kelly (and Catholic World Report and Deal Hudson and every other sentient Catholic) note, that's the real scandal.

You write:
"As Kelly notes, there is no particular mechanism in place in this proposal for what to do if a bishop doesn't bother with implementing the proposed plan. Right. And I agree this suggests rather strongly that our bishops still are not willing to take responsibility for the wrong they have done. However, even if they were ready to take full responsibility tomorrow, the only conceivable mechanisms for dealing with unserious bishops that I can think of are a) Caesar throws the bishop in the pokey, b) the Pope yanks the bishop from his office or c) both of the above. What else is there? Lynching? Laity can (and should) make life hell for a neglectful bishop (as we've seen)."

But, Kelly doesn't use the term 'mechanism' or call for a mechanism. He just notes, quite correctly, the Bishops, as a group, took no notice of their own culpability or how they plan to atone for it, correct it, promise never to do it again, acknowledge it, refer to it in passing, anything at all?

Kelly, like Amy Welborn and Mike Dubruiel, wants defective Bishop A replaced with shiny new bishop B. That, he thinks, is the appropriate solution to the problem. I maintain that this is a bandaid solution, since the real problem is a failure to grasp what the office of bishop is and means. I think the bishops are (and will for the rest of their lives) be paying for what they have done. I also think we all will be since we are all members of one another in Christ. It's called carrying the cross. For the foreseeable future (meaning my lifetime) no bishop, good or bad, will enjoy the sort of respect he once did. Nor will priests. Sin wounds indiscriminately. Law, Mahony, O'Connell, Egan, Weakland and whoever else is discovered to have reassigned, shuffled, stonewalled, preened, lied, oppressed or whatever, will be the song of drunkards and the laughingstock of their generation till the end of their days. That's not a wish, it's simply a fact. Just watch Leno. They are carrying their cross. They have now to learn how to bear it willingly or be broken on it. Installing shiny new bishop B will not fix anything if bishop B has just as defective a conception of his office as they did.

Kelly writes:
"But the real failing is not what is in the proposal but what is not. Not the slightest mention is made of any intention to investigate or punish the high church officials -- bishops, archbishops and assorted superiors and ecclesiastical bureaucrats -- who, it has been redundantly shown, have systematically aided, protected, hidden and promoted known predator-priests. They are the missing guilty, still."

I don't think Kelly expects them to be arrested or for there to be a lay-led impeachment and institution of the People's Republic of Heaven. He's just saying, the bishops are getting off easy and they don't address their own lack of shepherding in their document. He's right. You could say that Kelly hasn't offered a solution and of course, he hasn't, at least not a four-point plan - but, um, wouldn't that be bureaucratic?

I grant that they don't (yet) address their own gross lack of shepherding in the draft document. I also note that it's a draft and, as I say, there's a certain learning curve when trying to undo 2 or 3 decades of "oil the machine" institutionalism and learn an entirely new paradigm. Some may never round that curve. But I'm not going to despair because a draft is deeply flawed. I'm going to hope in the grace of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Maybe later today I'll post my edited version of the draft. Might even send it to Abp. Chaput (who appears to be one of the good guys).

The bottom line is: not matter who we slice it, the bishop is the one in charge of governing his diocese. The only conceivable way of holding him accountable if he decides to blow off whatever policy is enacted is via the sword of Caesar or the crook of Peter. That's it. Oh, but there is one other (and best) way: true conversion of the heart. That is still our last, best hope.

What are the solutions, at least immediate and practical ones? (Holiness is the ultimate, but it's long term.) There's only the two you mention, Caesar or the Pope, and clearly the Pope is the only one Catholics can obey or place faith in. Now, the Pope just "yanking them" as you term it, is a solution and I wish it was one that was being taken seriously.

"Yank them" is a revealing formulation. It sounds so unrealistically, unsophisticatedly direct - so lacking in politesse and not something that is actually done in the real world. I think "yanking them" isn't taken seriously as an option because we are too much like the secular institutions - it's almost impossible to imagine making the powerful and well-protected pay for their crimes just like the weak and craven.

Rank has its privileges, after all. Just like in the world. Just like in a bureaucracy.

And yet I believe in my bones that this is not an adequate explanation for JPII's actions. I think he's trying to *save* these guys in the profoundest sense of the word. They are paying for their sins in a very real way. Would *you* want to be in Mahony's or Law's shoes right now? God knows I wouldn't. There are worse penances than jail. And the point of punishment is, after all, salvation not just dues paying.

I am highly confident that the genie is out of the bottle with respect to the previous way of doing business in the matter of sexual abuse by priest. We will, I am quite certain, *never* return to the bad old days. Pain has been an excellent educator for these guys in that matter. So what is left. More than "not doing evil" they must learn to do good, which is to say "to do their office". Some may never learn (and who knows, may lose their office thereby). But many will and have learned from watching confreres whose mission in life was to serve as a warning to others. I'm willing to let that learning process work for a while before saying, "It's been two months and still the habits of 30 years have not been broken completely in every single ecclesiat!"

You write:
"Therefore, laypeople must not let them get away with not learning their office and living it. Bishops (and we) must carry the cross. That's why, I am convinced, JPII leaves them in office: to learn it. Otherwise, we opt for bandaid solutions and never get to the heart of the problem, which is refusal of the cross. If we fail to understand this, we will not be replacing defective bishop A with shiny new bishop B."

Maybe replacing Bishops is a band-aid. Personally, I think that many of these guys only understand one thing - power. Earthly power. And, it would be the best thing to happen to the institution and, quite possibly, their souls, if they were to lose that power. I'm not sure they can start this "learning to be a shepherd business" until someone talks to them in a language they understand. Here's a cross someone could carry the rest of their life: admitting that they lost their power, position and prestige because they were unfit to exercise moral authority.

And, if a Bishop or two were removed or at least publicly chastised by Rome or something, it would put those in line for the bishopric on some kind of notice that taking moral stands is part of the job description. (Who'da thought it?)

For myself, a more simple, straightforward, full-throated confession of blindness and failing would be a start. I get very frustrated when ordinary folks like Kelly can see clearly and with no trouble what evil incompetents some (not all) of the Bishops have been. In contrast, the Church has been much slower than its "worldly" counterparts to figure out evil, denounce it, and flee it.

It is in this context that, while I understand that you and your priest friend are as outraged as anyone by this scandal, that the argument of let them stay in place and carry their Cross sounds like wishful thinking traveling under a banner of piety.

I quite agree that the AmChurch leadership appears to be infected with a lack of faith and a dependence on earthly conceptions of power. I don't agree on the solution, however. The cross remains a scandal even today. Miscreant bishops left in their posts are going to be feeling nails a lot more than they feel power. They are, as Jeremy Lott put it, bleeding respect. And that will only continue. They will carry this shame to the end of their days (and we with them). But that is the cross, and its the only way of salvation. Of course, some will naturally view that as phony piety. So be it. Nonetheless, the fact remains that bearing the stigma of the shame while enjoying none of the perks of the office is the only way to discover the true nature of the office. The respect is gone for the rest of this generation at least. If they do not learn the true nature of their office, it could be gone forever (and Caesar will find ways to exploit that weakness, since Caesar also wishes to have no other gods before him). So the bishops will have to either open themselves to revelation or watch their lampstand be removed. That's the great question. But it seems to me the only way out of this.

I'm not sure if Kelly is correct to call this the Church's "greatest existential crisis since the Reformation." It is awful. But the Church has been around a lot of centuries and has seen a lot of awfulness. But, Kelly and other secular pundits seem to have grasped much more clearly the sheer evilness of this circumstance and the gravity of the moment than many who speak for or from the Church's vantage point. None of the responses by the Church have, so far, communicated the visceral moral outrage that these evils deserve. (at least, not to me.) It's not complicated. Some of these Bishops have utterly failed in their responsibility and they should be relieved of that responsibility. Period.

Okay, but John Paul II, he of evident holiness and wisdom, is not taking the more drastic route that seems deserving to me (at least for a few of the Bishops). In addition to his moral character and long experience, he has years of experience shepherding the Church through communism. He has always been long on patience and endurance. Maybe he thinks persevering or even muddling through is the right thing in this situation. Maybe he's right. On the other hand, even holy and wise men make mistakes.

My thought is, I don't know how the Church retains credibility as an authority, indeed THE authority, on things moral and spiritual unless it can show the discernment and sheer nerve to get rid of those who are misusing the teaching authority the Church has entrusted them with. (Well, it will retain credibility for many Catholics, but it's surely tarnished in the culture at large.)

Well, we know the gates of hell will not prevail, so, God put us all on the side of the (good) angels (and Peter).

I'm pretty much with you here. I think JPII is taking a calculated gamble and trusting in the grace of the sacrament of ordination to enlighten the minds of the shepherds here. I dearly hope they will start taking some responsibility for their part in this instead of making it sound like there was a sudden outburst of priestly abusers that had nothing to do with them. That's the next step. I suggest writing Abp. Chaput (who'se looking for input) to make it clear that this is what's needed.

*****

Here's something different. Canon lawyer Pete Vere bring together three of his favorite topics -- Canon Law, post-Vatican II schisms, and light horror fiction -- into a collection of short stories called "Schism and Other Short Stories". Sort of Stephen King meets Andrew Greeley.

Oh, and Pete corrects my scribblings on Roman vs. Anglo-Saxon conceptions of Law:

if you don't mind a correction on the Roman vs. Anglo law thing, the difference between the two systems is really the reverse.The Anglos tend to legislate for everything, and stick to it until the bitter end. Thus the law is above all else, and an end in itself.

The Romans, on the other, tend to keep as few laws as possible, and even the majority of these admit exceptions. The remaining handful are tightly enforced. The idea is that justice is best served by a few good people interpreting and enforcing few laws according to certain set principles Thus the law is mostly an extention of the will of the legislator.

In the end, Roman law basically follows the principle of "favors are to be multiplied, and burdens restricted." So laws that bestow a right or are favorable to an individual are to be interpreted broadly, while laws that place a burden on an individual or restrict rights, are to be interpreted restrictively.

******

Todd Reitmeyer's new blog is http://www.aggiesaway.com/blogger/seminarian/

****

Another reader observes concering the Seal of the Confessional:

Here are a couple of things that I thought might be good to point out. For example, once the confessional seal is gone, you can pretty soon say goodbye to all sorts of privileged conversations. This loss of privacy will erode the rights of an individual, until he is naked and powerless in the sight of the state, a condition that the 100 Million Man Murdering Marxists [TM] and other collectivists refined. Next, the state will be able to compel a wife to testify against her husband, and indeed, the husband against himself. An attorney will have to testify too. (And, by the way, don't let anyone bring up the canard that "Well, an attorney is required to notify the police in the case that he suspects a crime." An attorney - client relationship is a secular one, subject to secular rules. A priest-penitent relationship - like the relationship between husband and wife - is subject to God's rules). Also, it should be pointed out the fact that confession is a bit like going to the dentist. People don't do it unless they feel the need, and typically, if they feel the need, they will be penitent, and if penitent, they won't exactly be planning another crime, and even if they were, it is unimaginable that the would mention anything anyway. After all, a priest doesn't provide absolution for sins about to be committed.

To sum up: attack the Church's (or the human person's) legitimate rights and you will soon be attacking your own rights.

Jeremy Lott does a piece on breaking the Seal of the Confessional and quotes yers truly

About the "conspiracy" thing. I suppose it did come off that way. Partly this is due to taking revelation seriously in the matter of "powers and principalities, and spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places" that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 6. I don't believe in human conspiracies and think those who do (Trilateral commission, black helicopters, etc) are kooks. But I do take seriously Jesus revealed warnings of a "prince of this world" who is ever seeking to destroy the Church. It's hard to look at this situation and not see something beyond mere human stupidity and wickedness at work.

Disagreeing with Amy and Mike

Mike disses the Latin conception of law and exalts the Anglo-Saxon conception. I think they're both very useful. The Latin conception basically says "Make rules about everything and then list all the exceptions." The Anglo-Saxon conception says, "Make as few rules as possible and then stick to them to the bitter end". Obviously the first conception can breed bureaucrats who are adept at figuring out ways to elude the law (it also explains Italian drivers). Equally obviously, the second conception breeds stupid zero tolerance policies that punish kids with expulsion for drawing Star Wars blasters on their homework (it also explain why Anglo-Saxons stop at stop light in the middle of the Mojave Desert when there is not another car around for 100 miles).

Just today, on Steve Ray's board, I was arguing with a reactionary guy who (despite his advocacy of schism since JPII is not a Pope to his taste), nonetheless appeals to canon law (or rather the 1961 document on ordaining gays) to argue that all homosexuals, even celibate ones, should be expelled from the priesthood. When I said that this was merciless (not to mention hypocritical), his reply was telling: "Sad to see you count your mercy above church law". Um, yes. I do think Mercy outweighs this sort of crazed Anglo-Saxon legalism. So does the Church apparently, since canon law is riddled with escape hatches to the effect it applies "in most cases" or words to that effect.

In moments of drastic sin, it is easy to start screaming for inflexible law. In most ordinary times, what we need is a law that takes into account human weakness and failure and does not crucify us merely in order to maintain some weird scheme of inner rectitude. The law was made for man, not man for the law. That entails risks, but zero tolerance thinking entails many more.

A reader observes...

Stephen Brady's [of Roman Catholic Faithful] comments are of the same type as those of Andrew Sullivan. The Church will not fail because of this scandal. We will not have to start attending dissident, heretical, schismatic churches over this, be they "conservative" or "liberal." The Church has lasted for 2000 years, people.

Just so. The solution is not to listen to the over-wise or the over-foolish giant. It is to return to the Tradition, not to break with it by schism of either the Sullivan or Brady variety. Every crisis in the Church's history has provoked people of extreme temperaments to extreme solutions. This one is no different. Those who demand to remake the Church in the image of Andrew "Why should the Church have any sexual teaching at all?" Sullivan or those who demand to remake it in the image of Stephen "Do what I demand or I'll join the schismatic and reactionary Society of Saint Pius X" Brady (both sides always call such images "the true spirit of Christ" of course) ignore the fact that the Church has a Lord already and that he does things in his time and way, not in theirs.

Sean Gallagher at Nota Bene sez...

Roman Catholic Faithful appears to be toying with Donatism. For those that want to know, Donatism is the false idea that a priest's or bishops sin somehow make the sacraments he celebrates invalid. (As Augustine showed long ago, this is false since the sacraments depend for their validity, not on the personal holiness of the priest, but on Jesus Christ). Some of their rhetoric does appear to use Donatist ideas. Other samples of their rhetoric merely seem to be threatening schism.

To those tempted in this direction, I say, along with C.S. Lewis that it is peculiar to try to get the Body of Christ to do its work more effectively by cutting off its fingers. You don't leave. You stay and fight for the integrity of the Faith.

A reader asks

I sincerely hope that Sungenis' attitude is not normal for converts from Protestantism to Catholicism. There are too many av1611 types floating around as it is.

Rest assured, he is not typical of yer average convert. In fact, the principal people trying to bring him to his senses on Steve Ray's board are all converts. Like me, they think this geocentrism thing is kooky.

Michael Kelly appears to make sense

And yet, I'm not sold. It's because of that profoundly mind-changing conversation I had with my priest friend. As I've already made clear, the easiest thing in the world to do is treat the Situation simply as a problem with inefficient bureaucratic machinery. Profoundly American approach. But to do so fails, I think, to address the central problem: which is the total failure of the American Church to grasp the meaning and nature of the ordained office. The way out of this is not going to be more rules or a shinier bureaucracy. It is going to be a clergy (and laity) that understands and takes seriously the mission to carry the cross.

As Kelly notes, there is no particular mechanism in place in this proposal for what to do if a bishop doesn't bother with implementing the proposed plan. Right. And I agree this suggests rather strongly that our bishops still are not willing to take responsibility for the wrong they have done. However, even if they were ready to take full responsibility tomorrow, the only conceivable mechanisms for dealing with unserious bishops that I can think of are a) Caesar throws the bishop in the pokey, b) the Pope yanks the bishop from his office or c) both of the above. What else is there? Lynching? Laity can (and should) make life hell for a neglectful bishop (as we've seen). This includes lay police, prosecuting attorneys and judges, when the situation warrants it. But the bottom line is, the Church is not a democracy. I don't know enough about governance to know whether fellow bishops can badger a miscreant to step down, but from what I've seen this is probably not the case. The bishop is the legitimate head of the Church in his diocese. Ignatius of Antioch goes so far as to say he is Jesus Christ in his diocese and that where the bishop is, there the Church is.

This is why treating this merely as a problem in bureaucratic machinery will not serve. We cannot remake the Church as something Jesus did not institute (the People's Democratic Republic of Heaven). Neither can we let abuse of children go unstopped. The only answer? If a serious episopacy is to be created, bishops must learn what their office is according to the Revelation and live it. External impositions of rules will only create an ecclesiocracy more adept at eluding them, unless the ecclesiocracy carries in its bosom the conviction that they are shepherds of souls and not oilers of an institutional machine. Therefore, laypeople must not let them get away with not learning their office and living it. Bishops (and we) must carry the cross. That's why, I am convinced, JPII leaves them in office: to learn it. Otherwise, we opt for bandaid solutions and never get to the heart of the problem, which is refusal of the cross. If we fail to understand this, we will not be replacing defective bishop A with shiny new bishop B. We will simply be installing an equally defective bishop with no more clue of what his office is than his predecessor--and with as much likelihood of similar results as the crisis abates and life returns to oiling institutional machinery rather than shepherding souls.

Second thoughts

When four of the best people you know in the whole world tell you you're getting carried away, you should listen. I had that exhilarating thing happen yesterday and today, and so have taken down my stupid and excessive comments about Islam off the site. My apologies for letting rhetoric exceed both prudence and justice.

Somebody asks:

"If someone confesses and tells the priest that he is "going to do it again" doesn't that mean that it's not a real confession (no "firm resolve") and therefore the priest is free to go to the authorities?"

No. Everything spoken under the Seal is confidential.

My Friend Pavel Remonstrates wth Me

With all due respect - and I have a lot of it for you - you're way off base when you say '...search every middle Eastern male and every Saudi..'

Without getting too feverish about it, I think you should take a look at the book titled: 'A Convenient Spy, Wen Ho Lee and the politics of nuclear espionage', by Stober and Hoffman, Simon & Schuster, so you can see what a disaster it is to profile a whole ethnic and national group, not only from the ethical, moral, legal and political perspective, but from the law enforcement perspective.

Not only is that sort of profiling illegal, and not only would it make the investigating bodies vulnerable to law suits, it also makes tracking down the real terrorists just about impossible.

Practically speaking, an investigation with a million suspects might as well not even start.

[In the case of Lee, he was only one of literally thousands who might have committed the main crime - if there ever was a crime. They went after him because a certain ambitious high level official at the DOE had Chinese spies on the brain, and because it was politically opportune for Congressional Republicans to seize on the issue, and because the NYTimes ran a hasty and ill-conceived, ill-informed piece that put enormous pressure on the Administration to do something, *anything*.]

As for putting all Muslims into the same bag - I won't even go into it, except to say that I think you've gotten just a wee bit carried away.

I'm willing to grant I got carried away, but I hope I wasn't giving the impression that the Feds should go out and investigate a million people. I simply meant that we need to pay attention to whom we are at war with and not waste energy focusing on those with whom we are not at war. I don't mean a million people should be placed under surveillance. I mean that when a Saudi or Middle Eastern man flies, you check his luggage and not waste time checking the luggage of the blue hair lady, nun, or little kid.

Deal Hudson reports that the Curia are utterly clueless

I tend to think the Holy Father is not, however. Happily, it's not the Curia's Church. God is sole owner and proprietor. Keep praying. We have these treasures in jars of clay.

Mark

Dave Kopel of National Review send me a nifty collection of links to all things Marian.

"It is time for a change!"

Whenever people say things like that, the voice of intelligence does not respond "YEAH!!!!" and then rush off in a random direction simply because it's not the same as the previous direction. The voice of intelligence says, "Okay, what sort of change do you have in mind?" Why? Because Bill Clinton's mantra in '92 was "It is time for a change!" Result: we got Bill Clinton for eight long years. Now Voice of the Faithful is crying "It is time for a change." Learn from history. Don't repeat it. After all, it's weird to say you are "changing" when you do exactly the same stupid thing as you did before.

So Far, So Good

Looks like the bishops are actually using their heads with respect to abuse policies. They're flushing the "move, cover up, abuse accusers" strategy down the toilet forever, but avoiding the stupidity of a draconian "zero tolerance" policy. For my difficulties with "zero tolerance" and the lunacy and stupidity it seems to invariably lead to, go here.

Bob Sungenis $1000 Geocentrism Challenge Update
Bob's pronouncements on the burning question of a Non-Rotational Earth get more confused and odd. This weekend, after contender Gary Hoge posted an elegant proof that the earth rotates on Steve Ray's board, the challenge was suddenly pulled from Bob's site with a torrent of conflicting explanations. Much laughter.

Bob then restored the Challenge because, as he put it "It seems that there has been a great demand by our opponents to leave the Challenge up...or pay out the $1,000. So we've opted for the former." Refreshingly forthright.

Now the struggle continues, of course. It turns out that those NASA satellite location programs Gary used to show the earth rotates are part of a grand pro-heliocentrism conspiracy at NASA. Strange how these fake computer motion predictions can be used to help astronomers all over the world see the satellites through telescopes with their own eyes in just the location and at just the time predicted, but they are doubtless part of the Conspiracy too. No word yet on whether the Moon landings were faked.

And (which is what concerns me) it turns out I was right originally in saying that Bob's basic position appears for all the world to be that Real Catholics[TM] must agree with him on this kooky notion or face the fact they are heretics who sin against "the word of God and the judgments of the Church". This will come as a surprise to, oh, every educated Catholic in the entire world.

Why does this kookiness matter? By itself, it doesn't. Everybody needs a hobby and geocentrism is as good a one as any. But when this kookiness is linked by a somewhat prominent Catholic apologist to the question of "What it means to be a good Catholic" it starts to matter since it makes the Church look preposterous to her enemies and confuses the weak who take Bob seriously and think they might somehow be bound to believe this incredible nonsense. (Don't laugh. The Church proposes all sort of things for our belief that are not easily believable, such as the Real Presence or a Trinity. A demand for geocentrism seems to some newcomers like "just one more weird thing Catholics have to believe". Only it adds the extra difficulty of being counter to all our actual scientific data while the Real Presence or the Trinity is not unscientific, they merely transcend science.)

Become a Catholic evangelist. You meet the most interesting people.

Hannity and Colmes Agree!
... and on something of substance: the outrage of demanding a priest break the Seal of the Confessional. More reasons to hope.

Cardinal Mahony Does Bullwinkle Impression

"This time for sure!" After stonewalling as long as humanly possible, painting yourself as the Voice of Reform, and only caving under intense media scrutiny to admitting failures as egregious as Law's, forgive us if we don't take your "image first" approach seriously, Cardinal. Memo to Hoped-For $50,000 contributor: Send it to Mercy Corps.

Flipper Shanley
Aslan warns the Talking Beasts in Narnia that they can, if they choose, return to acting like the dumb beasts from which they were taken. Paul Shanley's cutting edge progressivism turns out to have been a high octane return trip back to the world of dumb beasts acting on instinct. Behold a dolphin as moral as a Catholic priest.

Emily Stimpson is right
Sweating buckets about Harry Potter while not saying a peep about Philip Pullman is a classic example of the amazing ability of so many Christians to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

"Frodo Okulam"?

A reader sends this bit of weirdness:

In this week's (May 31, 2002) "Catholic Sentinel" Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon newspaper

(There is no link to the particular article)

Holy Name Sisters Accept Associates......

Last month, the Holy Name Sisters welcomed 11 new associate members into the community. The rite was held in the Holy Names foyer of the Provincial House at Mary's Wood in Marylhurst.

New associates are ......Frodo Okulam....

All have been connected with sisters over the years and wish to combine their ideals and hopes with Charisms of the sisters. Three of the new members are Protestant Christian ministers. The other eight are Catholics who have been active in ministry.

Associates are affiliated with the community, but do not take canonical vows. They try to abide by the sisters mission statement, which reads, "Moved by an active love, we collaborate in the church's mission of education, with emphasis on education in the faith, and with a special concern for the poor and disadvantaged."

End of Article

About Frodo, who was mentioned in Michael Rose's "Goodbye Good Men" (pgs 159-161)

Frodo is a priestess of the Goddess and both a Dianic Wiccan and Ecofeminist Christian. She is the coordinator of SisterSpirit, a women's spirituality group based in Portland, Oregon. She is ordained clergy in Metropolitan Community Church and teaches Women's Spirituality at Portland State University. She holds an M.A. in Theology from Mt. Angel Seminary and is a candidate for a Doctor of Ministry degree from Marylhurst University/San Francisco Theological Seminary. She is author of The Julian Mystique, which describes the life and teachings of the 14th-century mystic Julian of Norwich and relates them to our times. "EarthSong: SisterSpirit's Contribution to the Spirituality of the Eco-Justice Movement" is the topic of her dissertation. SisterSpirit has been offering rituals to create change for over 16 years and currently contributes to Wiccan groups, May Day Coalition and other eco-justice actions as well as providing monthly women's spirituality celebrations.

Me thinks we should be look'n at the formation of women religious as well.........

Gosh. What could possibly be odd or un-Catholic about Frodo Okulam, Dianic Wiccan?

Memo to the Archbishop of Portland: WAKE UP!!!!

All the News that Fits

NY Times has a piece today on books generated by the Situation. It's heavily weighted toward dissenting types, but does mention George Weigel and Michael Rose's books (though I'm less sanguine about Rose's heavily anecdotal work). Mostly they seemed to be focusing on Giant Publishers, rather than little guys like Servant or OSV.

So, allow me to give you news you can't find in the NY Times: I'll have an essay (along with about a dozen other contributors) in a book called "Shaken By Scandals" that will be out from Servant this August. The NY Times reporter interviewed Paul Thigpen, the editor, for the piece, but somehow, he never got mentioned. All the news that fits.

More entries in the ever expanding "What's so Bad About Sex with Children" files

Chastity Bono was out last week, singing the praises of her lesbian awakening at the hands of an adult babysitter. Meanwhile the odious Judith Levine continues to make headway with her vile foray into academic legitimation of child rape, Harmful to Minors? (which Amy Welborn has the misfortune of having to review).

Over at Salon, cultured despiser Charles Taylor reviews a book about 19th century sexual adventurers and their forays into (among other things) pedophilia with a cool "Who are we to judge?" attitude of postmodern idiocy. And for a capper, the LA Times does a "balanced" puff piece on the odious Levine (requires registration). "Balanced" means they consider advocates of pedophilia as having just as valid a case as those who oppose it.

It's inevitable really. A media as committed as Andrew Sullivan to the notion that there could not possibly be anything amiss with homosexuality and that God cannot possibly have any limits on our demands for pleasure, is bound, when confronted with the obvious fact that homosexuals are far more like to have sex with minors, to find some way around that fact. Sullivan has been fighting a rear guard action which is two-pronged: 1) Deny the connection between homosexuality and abuse of boys, boys, boys, boys and boys and 2) blame the bishops exclusively for their failure to stop homosexual priests from abusing boys, boys, boys, boys and boys.

But that strategy won't keep. Most people are not sufficiently stupid to go on not noticing this connection forever. So a new strategy will have to be put into effect. That strategy is what you see in the items mentioned above. Every single one of the them says, in effect, "What's so bad about sex with children anyway? When are we going to outgrow this irrational taboo?"

The push to legitimate child sex will come. Depend on it. Just as surely as the assault on the Seal of the Confessional will come. And the amazing thing will be to see advocates of the Zeitgeist simultaneously screaming for the heads of bishops while trying to claim that the child abuse they failed to prevent is, really, anyway, not "abuse" (what an irrational taboo, they'll say), but a legitimate "mentoring" by more sexually experienced adults who have only the very best in mind for their young apprentices.

Show me a culture that despises virginity and I'll show you a culture that hates children.

New Blog!

NASA Goddard Institute: Time on Mars
Just in case you wanted to know.

Steve Mattson speaks good sense.

Waitaminnit
ABC quotes Jason Berry charging "Bishop Quinn was basically saying if you have something that's incriminating, send it to the Vatican Embassy. They can hide it." They have a tape of Quinn saying essentially this--in 1990.

And that, of course, is why none of us has ever heard of John Geoghan or Paul Shanley and the bulging files of a gob of American bishops are not now spilling their contents all over the American media.

Do you see something not adding up here? If the AmChurch bishops were sending everything off to Rome to "hide it"? Then how come everything is still here and being read by eager reporters? Unless of course the American bishops simply figured nobody would call them on their atrocious mishandling of priests and victims.

In fact, I think this is exactly the case. It's why I think they behave so incredibly to this very moment: hiring PR firms and thinking nobody will notice this is not a substitute for reform, arrogantly assigning penances to rational people who tell them they were idiots for putting child porn fans into middle schools, claiming to the be Voice of Reform while they are paying out hush money, being shocked and angry when somebody tells them they are negligent, expecting any sane person to believe them when they tell us they just didn't notice that Paul Shanley advocated Man Boy Love publicly--even after letters of complaint. It's a bizarre combination of cowardice and arrogance that seems to be explicable only in terms of a comfortable CEO mentality that simply got used to not being questioned about its actions. And now that the environment has suddenly changed radically, they are swinging their spiked tails at all the bad press like stegosaurs and trying to figure out how to evolve quickly into something besides bureaucrats with brains (and sometimes hearts) atrophied by comfort and neglect to the size of walnuts.

Look back, gentlemen. Back to the Tradition of which you are so shamefully ignorant. Look back and repent. It is the only thing that can save you because it is the gift of Jesus Christ, who is the only one who can save you. Be priests again (or for the first time). Take up your crosses. The crosses you so shamefully laid on innocent children. The crosses you have so shamefully neglected in your search for PR firms and your Happy Talk and your hidden files and your cowardly abandonment of the Faith. Take them up voluntarily for the hour is already here when, voluntarily or not, you will have to carry them. If you take it up voluntarily, you will be saved by your cross. If you neglect it and go whoring after PR firms and lawyers instead, you will only be broken on it. Repent and live. It's all that's left to you now.

Voice of the Faithful Redux
A while back, somebody sent me a link to Voice of the Faithful. Now the Major Media are starting to notice these guys. Andrew Sullivan, reliably confused about all things Catholic, has anointed them as one of the Church's great hopes, so that's a warning bell to proceed with caution. Now the New York Times does piece on them. Ding! Second bell. But still, we can't do the Petersnet thing and assume guilt by association. So have a look at them. When you do, as I did, I think you will find they are more or less what you would expect to happen in a part of the country angered by the incredible stupidity and even wickedness of its pastors. That is, they react against the evil, but do so in a way which is, in fact, profoundly influenced by the very people who shepherded them and taught them, by word and example, to despise the authentic teaching of the Church. It's a profound irony really. Creeps like Shanley, posing as Cutting Edge Street Priest in Conflict with a Medieval Church, dolloped out a brew of dissent and ignorance of the Faith for 20 years (and did other things in obedience to their principles as well). So what happens? The laity they mistaught for all those long years know only what they were mistaught. When the priest is revealed as a scum and the bishop that did not have the courage or integrity to stop him is shown to have badly failed to teach or uphold the Tradition, what do the laity do? They don't return to the Tradition of which they know so little. They do what Shanley and his ilk taught them to do: demand power for the People's Democratic Republic of Heaven.

Yes, there is a place for governance by consensus in the Catholic tradition (a very different thing than the proposed restructuring of the Church along the lines of the US Constitution which the VOTF people seem to be toying with). Dominicans govern themselves by a sort of democratic consensus model and have done so for 800 years. But then, Dominicans have paid attention to the Tradition. Sudden populist movements like VOTF, born in the hatchery of Boston's (and America's) wretched, wretched catechesis of dissent have no clue what the Tradition is and tend to speak as though the Tradition is part of the problem, not part of the solution. They are, all unaware, acting as the disciples of the people who betrayed them. It's terribly sad to see. And not least Because I think they do mean well. "And he had pity on them because they were like sheep without a shepherd." God have pity on your poor flock in this country. We have been so badly, badly served by our shepherds.

Nicely done, Abp. Weakland
A beautifully contrite Abp. Weakland came clean at a Milwaukee service. May it be the beginning of his healing and the healing of the Church. Every corrupt bishop should take a cue and try his approach. Don't call it a "mistake". Call it what it is: sin. Also, nice job telling the full truth about your falsehood the other day. Dishonest is a habit that's hard to break, so it took guts to make it clear that you did not, as you claimed the other day, earn enough to pay back the diocese for the hush money. I'm genuinely impressed by your courage, Abp. Weakland. If I'd been there, I would have applauded too. Well done.

Vatican Bureaucrats React to The Situation with All the Insight, Speed and Efficiency that Has Made Italy the Global Power it is Today
I wonder what the Pope does, surrounded by such myopic functionaries all day? No wonder he drives them crazy.

Have I mentioned Lately What a National Treasure Amy Welborn is?

Well, she is. When they start creating those lay woman cardinals, I'm nominating her.

Mike Shirley and Michelle Cottle Get it Exactly Wrong

And in terms weirdly reminiscent of the old attempts to divert attention from the fact that Clinton was being impeached for breaking the law, not for sexual improprieties. I don't know of anyone who has attempted to argue that Weakland was an "abuser" (except for the sleazy grifter Marcoux who was obviously a gold-digging slime and whose claims of "abuse" are about as persuasive as a claim of virginity by Madonna). No. The problem was not "abuse" (in the sense that "abuse" has been used lately to refer solely to "child sexual abuse"). The problem was ripping off diocesan funds to cover tracks and maintain Weakland in power. (There was, of course, the infamous counter-suit to squeeze the family of an abused child for $4000 dollars that Weakland stage-managed too. And this, though profoundly abusive, was not "abuse" in the most recent "child abuse" sense of the term).

So please, don't talk nonsense about those mean Puritans hounding Weakland from office because he loved not wisely but too well. Talk about the ripoff of the poor box and the crushing of the oppressed and abused victims of Fr. Effinger. Then you will be dealing with the actual complaint.

Nice piece on Ad Orientum about the shallow prejudices of the Chattering Classes at Bates

Karen Marie Knapp has a blog!

Welcome to St. Blog's, Karen. Now you can tell me why I'm all wet in my dissing of Weakland. :)

Hmmm... I hope he's wrong

But he may be right. Mark Cameron writes:

I agree with your extremely negative evaluation of Islam, however I disagree that "Islam is doomed as a major world religion" with "no power to renew itself" or that "once the various police states that prop it up are done away with and genuine pluralism is permitted in the Islamic world, people will leave its inhuman clutches in droves."

Islam is a religion of great power and internal strength. Its strength comes from the fact that it is a Christian heresy, no less than various forms of Protestantism, or even Judaism (when you consider that Rabbinic Judaism is an ersatz reconstruction of diasporan Rabbis in Babylon and Cairo, not the direct continuation of the Temple Judaism of ancient Israel). Therefore Islam does contain many partial or half truths - even bits of genuine revelation which it has borrowed - that give it solidity. And while it lacks the wholistic truth of Catholic Christianity, it makes up for it with a strong appeal to human psychology. Islam takes a very simplified Judeo-Christian theology (one God, various prophets, but no complicated incarnations or trinities), adds an easily comprehensible code and ritual (pray five times a day, avoid pork and alcohol, go to Mecca), and harnesses it to the very powerful religious/philosophical doctrine of fatalism (also popular in many pagan creeds and various forms of Calvinism). Islam's virtue and strength is its simplicity, and we should not fool ourselves that this will prove an easy foe to defeat.

Yes, Islam has had a bad innings for the past three hundred years, but consider the period before that: it emerged from the Arabian desert to almost conquer France in its first hundred years. It swept aside ancient Christian churches that had been founded by the Apostles and Fathers (Antioch, Damascus, Alexandria, Carthage, Ephesus, etc.) It then proceeded to build the strongest civilization during the middle ages. It defeated Christendom in the crusades. It only went into decline after the Enlightenment West took off in the 18th century, but as late as 1683 the Turk was at the gates of Vienna.

For two hundred plus years it has lain dormant. Yet during that time, when much of the Muslim world was occupied by Christian powers, there was remarkably little conversion from Islam to Christianity (unlike other colonial occupations in Africa and Asia). The historically astute Hilaire Belloc thought enough of a renewed Muslim threat that he included a lengthy discussion of Islam in his "The Great Heresies." When the colonial powers left, the Arab and Muslim world at first embraced various forms of nationalism and socialism (e.g. Nasser), and it is only after their failure that the Arab and Muslim world has turned back to Islam. Remember, the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution was less than 25 years ago. Also, Saudi Wahhabism has given Islam a new dynamic form of orthodoxy which is sweeping the Islamic world from Detroit to Nigeria to Chechnya to Indonesia. Sophisticated scholars will argue that Wahhabi fundamentalism is a simplified, crude version of Islam, but that hasn't stopped fundamentalist and pentecostal Christians from making millions of conversions in the Third World.

Personally, I think Islam is just beginning to feel its oats, and that the next century could see many more ugly turns. By way of comparison, consider China, the other great geopolitical-civilizational threat facing the West. Yes, war with China is imaginable, but so is a Chinese version of Glasnost leading to some semblance of democracy, combined with mass conversions to both Catholic and Protestant Christianity (both thriving in the underground). I can imagine a semi-democratic, prosperous, Christianized China in 100 years, much like South Korea is today. Whereas in the Islamic world, I can foresee only continued chaos, violence, and despair, which could eventually lead to a renewed fundamentalist Caliphate emerging in one of the major Arab states (Egypt, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia) and uniting the Muslim world behind it.

No, I'm afraid the Islamic world is not a paper tiger like the Soviet Union, about to come crumbling down when people are exposed to MTV and Blue Jeans. Eventually, the only answer to Jihad will be Crusade.

Bishop Joseph Gerry of Portland, Maine and Father Jerry Gosselin

Are today's winners of the "Defender Against the Oppressed" Award! To paraphrase you, padre: ""Wait till the Lord hears about this, you're finished."

Was the aborted baby photo out of line before Mass? Yeah. But the draconian response--"[the abortion protestor] was issued an order barring him from the church for a year"--is way the hell out of line. More tender pastoral care for child abusers (of which abortion is the most violent form). Guess that's part of the clerical culture up in Maine too. In case you are interested in letting the good bishop know what you think of such draconian measures, here's the link to the Comments site for his office.

Stupid or Shallow? Shallow or Stupid?

Gosh, it's so hard to choose! I think I'll have to go for both Monty. Favorite quote: "The company's clients have included troubled energy company Dynegy Inc., Global Crossing during its bankruptcy, actress Halle Berry following a traffic accident and comedian Paula Poundstone after her child-endangerment case."

Memo to the Cardinal of Los Angeles: It's not about the skin-deep "image". It's about the soul-deep corruption. But our Lord said it best: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." Matthew 23:25-28

Translation: forget your "image" Cardinal. Cleanse the inside of the cup and stop trying to look good. Do you not fear God?

Mike Hardy needs to talk to Andrew Sullivan

Mike seems to have the idea that those of us who are noting that homosexuality seems to have something to do with abuse of boys are somehow concluding that all homosexuals are child abusers. I think I've made it clear I think no such thing. I think, well, virtually every sane and intelligent person has made this equally clear. However, people like Andrew Sullivan *do* insist on claiming that there is no connection whatsoever between homosexuality and abuse of boys. Instead of taking Kathy Shaidle to task for making a common sense rebuttal of some really really stupid acts of denial by gays who can play Spot the Queer in All About Eve but who pretend there's no connection between homosexuality, why not take all the rhetorical giftedness and write an honest letter to Andrew Sullivan, taking him to task for his dishonesty. Somebody else did. You can too, Mike.

Take up and Blog is doing interesting work analyzing Garry Wills' recent hatchet job on Philip Jenkins. Turns out Jenkins is primarily guilty of not fitting the Wills/Sullivan agenda of a) attacking the Church as a haven for pedophiles while b) pretending the Situation has nothing to do with homosexuality. His data makes it clear this is all about homosexual abuse, not "pedophilia". Therefore he must be destroyed and Wills undertakes to do this with the enthusiastic support of Andrew "Square the Circle" Sullivan.

And as Take up and Blog shows, it looks like the normally prescient Amy and Eve Tushnet may have been sold a bill of goods by Wills on this one. Oh well, even Michael Jordan misses layups sometimes. Too hasty judgments are part of the hazard of blogging.

Something to Counter Popular Eschatology

We are never getting off this rock. Oh sure, we might get a couple people to Mars to walk around. Maybe a space station. Maaaaaaaybe a moon station. But that's about it. We're never going to colonize the planets (it would be far easier to colonize Antarctica and make it a liveable place). We're NEVER gonna go to another star. This is pretty much it. We must learn to face the fact that the frontier period is past and we ain't going anywhere.

Now. Tell me why that ticks you off, makes you feel hopeless, and makes you think I am defeatist trash. Then I will tell you about angels, LGMs and the secularization of eschatology.

Discuss, class.

Greg Popcak is a genius!
Reminds me of Envoy Magazine's hilarious list of hymns for materialists a few years ago. My personal pick: "Behold the Lamborghini".

Have I mentioned lately that Islam is intellectually bankrupt and its creative period ended centuries ago?

If I haven't before. I did now. It's wine has turned to vinegar and, since it is only a man-made religion, it has no power to renew itself once it is sucked into the vortex of fanaticism its worst representatives labor to imprison it in. Barring a providential miracle of God, Islam is doomed as a major world religion. Oh sure, it will take a lot of victims. But I have the strong sense that, once the various police states that prop it up are done away with and genuine pluralism is permitted in the Islamic world, people will leave its inhuman clutches in droves.

There. Got my Islam screed done for the week. Death threats from wahoobi maroons and hand-wringing about insensitivity welcomed.

Another Day, Another Book for Mel Gibson!

Turns out my boss at Catholic Exchange has interesting irons in the fire. He's working on getting support for a film on the life of St. Edmund Campion and is dickering with, among other people, Mel Gibson. (The film's a natural for him, given his ongoing Australian love affair with the English as exemplified by Gallipolli, Braveheart, and the The Patriot. What could be better than a portrayal by a Catholic of a Jesuit brutally murdered by the Brits?) :)

Anyway, Tom's gonna give him a signed copy of [Shameless plug alert! Get it while you can! Supplies are limited!] Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did by the guy who is married to my wife. Pretty exciting for a fat suburbanite like me! Now if I can just get that role as Edmund's goofy sidekick. Or maybe they've already signed Eddie Murphy.

Fr. Robert Johansen has a review of Goodbye Good Men up.

Mike Shirley Takes Me to Task and Then Forgives me--all on one blogsite!

Thanks for calling me on my harshness. It's not hatred of Weakland, but of Happy Talk that prompted my remarks about Bp. Sklba's eulogy. I think its our task to extend forgiveness now, not prolong recriminations in a manner than has made the Balkans the happy place we see today. Thanks for taking me at my word. I like your blog by the way.

Once again, it hard to disagree with Christopher Hitchens

Joe Katzman is doing a good thing, exposing the nitwit anti-semites at SFSU and calling them to account.

Don't Wanna Be Scaped? Don't Act Like a Goat
Kathy Shaidle's dead right, of course. The gay subculture has got to break out of the Andrew Sullivan Total Denial Syndrome if they hope to confront the pathologies they so transparently try to foist off on Everybody Else. Has the hierarchy failed, stonewalled, caved and generally made a catastrophic mess of things? Duh. Is the mess they made largely due to capitulating to precisely the sorts of avoidance of chastity and orthodoxy Andrew Sullivan demands? Yes.

Kathy pleads: "I don't quite get it: gay men are so adept at seeing "gayness" where none exists (i.e., All About Eve), but not where it clearly does--in the seminary."

Catholic theology, with its vast store of spiritual wisdom encoded into impenetrable jargon, puts it this way: "Concupiscence darkens the intellect." In plain English: Sin makes you stupid. Or as C.S. Lewis once said, "The trouble with trying to be stupider than you really are is that you can often succeed."

If I haven't Mentioned it Before...
I think Petersnet's Site Rating System is really stupid. overbearing and arrogant. They grade you on "fidelity" according to your links, among other things. Right Linking is Rewarded. Wrong Linking is Punished. My blog would be hopelessly "suspect" according to this stupid system, since opportunities for ritual defilement by contact with Different Ideas (including ideas I vigorously dispute) abound here. Recently, the Self-Appointed Inquisitors at Petersnet wrote Della, the moderator at Steve Ray's Catholic Convert Board to threaten her with a downgrade for fidelity because one of the links on the site was to somebody they don't approve of. Why? Because he links to people they don't approve of! That's right, they hold you accountable for ritually defiling the (according to their estimation) Stupid Reader Who Can't Think His Way Out of a Paper Bag if you link to sites with links they don't like.

And you thought the Index of Forbidden Books was a thing of the past.

Unfortunately, neither this blog nor my site (www.mark-shea.com) has yet had the honor of receiving a bad grade for the unsavory company I keep (tax collectors and publicans mostly). But I have found a brief letter written by the forerunners of Petersnet to St. Thomas Aquinas:

Dear Fr. Aquinas:

It has come to our attention at Petersnet that your work frequently links to that of Averroes, a Muslim opponent of the True Catholic Faith we define and defend. In addition, you are known to commonly quote from and even recommend the writings of Aristotle, a known pagan and practicing homosexual. If you do not cease recommending the work of these dangerous individuals, we will be forced to lower your rating to D- for fidelity.

Sincerely,

Sempermaria Torquemada
Supreme Self-Appointed Grand Inquisitor and Guardian of True Faith
Petersnet

They're adapting in Milwaukee.

Interesting Conversations!
featuring Amy, Woodeene Koenig-Bricker, Greg Popcak, me, and others on laity, Texas Death Penalties, Gallery Owner Jesuits, and cloning James Brown (the Hardest Working Man in Show Business) over on the Heart, Mind and Strength blog. Check it out!

The Lidless Eye of the Reactionary is On the Victims of Sexual Abuse

Yesterday, I defied Andrew Sullivan to name a "Church conservative" pundit who is trying to blame victims of abuse. A reader helpfully sent the following:

I am circulating the following story as an example of Really Bad Thinking about the Scandal among some extreme-right Roman Catholics. The friend who sent me the story is less diplomatic, saying, "satan could not have done a better job in composing this document."

The article, "Pointing The Finger of Blame In The Moral Scandals," is NOT a parody. It is a real story, produced by the "Catholic Dispatch Internet Apostolate," and sent to subscribers from the web site . If the Church really thought as the Catholic Dispatch story authors do, then the Onion site's cruel parody, "Pope Forgives Molested Children," would be 100% on target.

A canon lawyer friend who is knowledgeable about the Catholic extreme-right says, "Catholic Dispatch is a sort of ultra-traditionalist anonymous internet editorial … either sedevacantist or sympathetic [to sedevacantism.]" Sede-vacantism is the notion that Catholics have not had a valid Pope since the death of Pius XII in 1958, and that the more recent Popes have been heretics.

C.S. Lewis once remarked that opposite evils, so far from balancing, aggravate each other. This is a perfect example. Sullivan dissents from the Church in one direction and labels those who stand with the Tradition and the Holy Father as "Church conservatives". He libels them as "blame the victim" types. Meanwhile, reactionary dissenters dissent from the Church in the opposite direction and despise the Church of Vatican II as much as Paul Shanley, Andrew Sullivan, and Rembert Weakland despise the Holy Father and the morality taught by the Tradition. In the process, reactionary dissenters actually do what Sullivan libels non-revisionist Catholics for doing: they blame the victims.

What's the common thread between Sullivan and the Reactionaries? Dissent. Non-revisionist Catholics don't revise the Faith to suit either "liberal" or "conservative" agendas. They just want the Faith. And they don't blame the victims. Indeed, they lead the charge against those who do, whether they are named Weakland, Egan, Law, or the dimwit reactionaries at Catholic Dispatch.

By the way, I'm not posting the revolting "blame the victims" story from the Reactionary site. It's too long and too dumb. If you are dying to read it, you'll need to write them.

A reader frets:

On Weakland: is it really over? He is still healthy, articulate, has his defenders, is famous, and now he has nothing to lose. He could still pull a David Brock ("I am the ultimate authority about the Bad Guys ... I was one of them, after all") or a Bishop Spong (next book: "Nobody Should Believe That Crap" by Famous Former Bishop). I hope that sort of thing does not happen, but he still has the ability for mischief.

I s'pose, though Brock is providing an object lesson the immense spiritual benefits of being er, hard to believe, and turncoat and Spong is not (so far as we know) guilty of ripping off his diocese or smashing abused families who got in his way. But you are certainly right that he might do the Clinton thing and linger on, feeding his ego, blubbering on Oprah, or joining Fr. McBrien on Larry King to provide color commentary on the Pope's Latest Evil. Let's not fret about it till he does so, however.

I Can Put Up With a Lot From Kathy Shaidle
but one thing I WILL NOT STAND FOR is getting details about Star Trek, The Original Series wrong. And not just wrong, but horribly, horribly wrong. Good heavens, woman! Spock had to return to Vulcan for biological, not religious, reasons. Don't they teach anything in schools these days?

A Gay Sullivan Reader Gets It

From the Letters page at AndrewSullivan.com

EPHEBOPHILIA AND THE CULT OF YOUTH:
I must disagree with your disavowal of any homosexual complicity in the Church scandal. Here, your use of pedophilia acts as a propaganda tactic to dispel attacks on homosexuals or homosexuality's distinctly ephebophilic culture. As a gay man who has never looked "boyish," who is not "smooth," I have grown up knowing that most of my fellow gay men are not interesting in fully developed, post-pubescent adults, but are interested in men who look like, or are, younger than 18. Until all queers are able to face the fact that we have created for ourselves a culture that values youth and beauty above all else, and to realize that this obsession creates, in at least some gay men, a deviant and abusive tendency toward sex with minors, we are doomed to continue to create victims as surely as the atrophied Church.

Dunno what's "atrophied" about a 2000 year old Church of a billion people that shows no sign of mass defection over the sins of its clergy and in fact continues to grow, but the rest of the analysis is right on.

"Therefore we enter this new moment "living the truth in love" (Eph 4:15) and remembering Archbishop Weakland with the respect and love he has earned from his dedicated public service in our midst for the past quarter of a century."

Yeah. I know. Speak no ill of the dead (or resigned in disgrace) and all that. But really. Does Bishop Sklba have to say that Weakland "earned" respect and love? Is it not closer to the mark to say that yer average bishop starts (or at least started) with respect and love simply by virtue of his office and that, in Weakland's case, he prodigiously squandered these precious commodities, not only for himself but for so many other bishops and clergy? In our eulogizing, let us not fall into Weakland's own pattern of mendacity and outright falsehood. Yes, it's incumbent on the Successor to Say Something Nice. But for the love of God, tell the truth as you do so, Bishop Sklba. Don't just give us more Happy Talk rendered in the highly forgettable cadences of Ecclesial Bland. Even Gerald Ford could do better. Take a page from him and try "Our long diocesan nightmare is over." Think about the victims of Abp. Weakland's abuse and neglect (no, not Marcoux: the rest of the diocese, particular the family the Great Man countersued) and stop talking as though this is All About Rembert. Or else don't jaw about "living the truth in love."

It Appears David Yallop is a Quack

A reader writes:

I had the pleasure of buying his book In God's Name : An Investigation Into the Death of Pope John Paul I at a garage sale (ironically a church garage sale... the book was donated by someone getting rid of books that were clogging their attic). I'm glad I onyl spent 50 cents on the hardback book cause that was 50 cents more than the book is worth.

I wrote a review on this book over at Amazon here it is:

How serious can you take a book that brags about antagonizing the very subject (The Catholic Church) of the book itself? Second, how can you take seriously, a "investigstive reporter" when he cannot even reveal any of the sources that he uses for what he claims are the more "damaging claims" that he makes? Rather than investigative reporting, this book is conspiracy theory laden and one wonders how many times Mr. Yallop has contributed articles to the Enquirer. He has no proof whatsoever about a true motive inside the Church. His accusations against Opus Dei are entirely unfounded. He blames everyone from the head of the Vatican Bank to the Masonry, without producing a shred of evidence.

This appears to be just one of a series of books written by authors who have an overall disdain for the Catholic Church. If you want to read an investigative report that doesn't cite any sources (sort of like looking at a ton of tv expose' when everyone is blacked out and their voices muffled so you can barely understand them) then this book is for you. If you prefer something that befits your intellect, don't waste your time on this book.

After a person has said this...

Why would anybody think him credible about anything else in The Situation? Here's Andrew Sullivan, Explaining it All For You:

The use of the term ephebophilia has been insisted upon by some Church conservatives for several reasons, it seems to me. It can help make the scandal seem less appalling to the general public (so helping to exculpate the hierarchy); it can help shift the onus of responsibility away from the abusers and toward the victims (arguments like "those teenagers were complicit," etc.); and it is a way to insist that this scandal is not about the abuse of minors or the abuse of power to cover such assaults up, but is in fact a function of the dreaded homosexuals, "conspiring" in the heated language of National Review's pop-up book ads, to destroy the Church.

This quote is almost perfect in its obtuseness. First off, I don't see any "Church conservatives" laboring to exculpate the hierarchy. They are laboring to whack the bishop upside the head as hard as they can so they will finally get a clue and take responsibility for their stupid and sometimes criminal dereliction of duty. If Sullivan seriously thinks that Rod Dreher, Amy Welborn or the various other Catholics who take Catholic teaching seriously are stooges and apologists for the ecclesiocrasy in this country, he is either an idiot or veracity-challenged. True there have been apologists and cheering squads for some of the episcopacy. Fr. Richard "Mahony and Weakland Are the Voices of True Catholicism" McBrien comes to mind. But I don't think even Sullivan would regard him as a "Church conservative".

Secondly, I defy Sullivan to find a single "Church conservative" at National Review or otherwise who has tried to shift blame to the victims. True, Law and his idiot legal team tried this in Shanley's defense and Egan, the consummate heartless bureaucrat, has played brutal legal hardball. But I found out about both Law's stupid stunt and Egan pathological behavior from Rod Dreher in the Corner. So the only conceivable sense in which "Church conservatives" could be spoken of by Sullivan is in referring to the idiot clerics who have bungled their jobs so badly, not the "Church conservatives" in the pundit class whom Sullivan is accusing. For the Church conservatives in the pundit class have the integrity to call a twit a twit whether he is a "conservative" or a "liberal." Law gets no more slack cut him than Weakland and Egan is just as excoriated as Mahony. Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan is silent as the grave in noting that other voices have indeed been blaming the victims: voices like Paul "Courageous Street Priest and Defender of Catholic Homosexual Practice" Shanley and Abp. Rembert Weakland, Defender Against the Oppressed, who said, "Not all adolescent victims are so innocent. Some can be sexually very active and aggressive and often quite streetwise. We frequently try such adolescents for crimes as adults at that age." So if you are looking for slanted "blame the victim" rhetoric (and silence when that rhetoric makes your agenda of dissent look bad), look to Andrew Sullivan and NCR, not to "Church conservatives".

But of course, these stupid arguments, strawmen, and downright falsehoods are simply more ASCII sprayed in our eyes like the ink of a panicked squid in a desperate attempt to continue avoiding facing reality and what Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has referred to as the "pole star" of Sullivan's journalism: the quixotic attempt to deny that homosexuality has anything whatever to do with the abuse, not of "children" or "minors" (those usefully genderless words) but of boys, boys, boys, boys, boys, and boys. This is indeed about a lawless culture of homosexual license in the priesthood. Sullivan knows it but, like so many, is in deep, deep denial. As I say, the Church will survive this crisis. We have Christ's promise of that. Will the homosexual subculture?

Fr. Richard "Weakland is the Future of the Church" McBrien...

sifts through the ashes of FutureChurch in search of evidence of his own infallibility. An article quotes him, moments after he clipped on his collar for the cameras:

A black mark on Weakland's reputation should not undermine his philosophy within the church, theologians said.

"Sexual orientation and sexual behavior -- whether proper or improper -- has absolutely no connection with ideology," said Father Richard McBrien, a theologian at Notre Dame. "We should have long since learned that lesson from the U.S. political scene, where conservative Republicans have been just as likely to be involved in sexual improprieties as liberal Democrats. Human nature, not ideology, is the driving force."

Interesting the way the American media confers Trinitarian status on Fr. "Set My Superior Chromosomes Free!" McBrien, who magically becomes "theologians" (an entire theological community subsisting whole and undivided in the One McBrienhead). Also fascinating how Father McBrien insists that there is "absolutely no connection with ideology". Fine. But what about with theology? What about with sanctity? What about with the Tradition? What about with Jesus Christ? McBrien shows once again how you can be the head of a theology department and never get around to thinking with the Tradition because you are so enamored of secular categories (and with the cameras on "Larry King Live").

I don't suggest for a moment that it is impossible for some so-called "conservative Catholic" to betray the Faith. Of course they can and do. I do suggest that it is moronic (or rather mendacious) for McBrien to try to analyze this in terms suggesting that the Faith is an ideology and not a revelation. If he thinks that, he's got no business pretending to speak for the Catholic Church. But then, if you've heard his hosannas to Mahony and Weakland and his condescensions to the Holy Father, you've probably already noticed that.

Lane Core is One with the Blogosphere!

Mail Call!

Boy! Go away for the weekend and people keep writing! Here's the mail round up!

My pal Greg Krehbiel had his review of Attack of the Clones linked by Christianity Today. Way to go, Greg!

A reader sez:

Andrew Sullivan is arguing that JPII is not doing enough for the American Catholic Church. Doesn't he usually argue for subsidiary, collegiality, and democratization? I'm confused. :-)

Andrew's entire treatment of the Situation and the Church has been one colossal exercise in confusion. This "c'mere/go away" thing with the Pope is but the latest in the long saga of Andrew's Life Work of Squaring the Circle. And it reflects the general "any stigma to beat a dogma" attitude of so many Catholics loyal to the Zeitgeist. Last week, the Pope is condemned for trying to micromanage the American Church and stifling "free spirits" like Rembert Weakland and Paul Shanley. This week, he's condemned for not micromanaging the Church and keeping a short leash on loose cannons like Rembert Weakland and Paul Shanley. There are many other reasons to condemn him and all faithful Catholics. For a brief list, go here. The main thing to remember is that the Brave Critic is always right and Catholic orthodoxy and chastity are always wrong. Oh, and this Situation has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality. Andrew Sullivan says so.

I see where some nutball is suing the Church to ordain women. Only Americans are dumb enough to think a sacrament is a civil right. A classic example of trying to impose secular categories on revelation. For my take on women's ordination, go here. For my take on the stupidity of trying to engage in "rights talk" as though rights are in opposition to the Tradition, go here.

Gerard Serafin is really good!

Media watch note: After Princess Diana, the miserable little yipdog papparazzi in Fleet Street were roundly and rightly reviled as accessories in her death by pursuing her obsessively and motivating her driver to drive like a maniac to escape them. For several days, decent people spat at the mention of these noxious creatures who had dogged her to death. Then Fleet Street got a bright idea: run huge headlines like "YOUR PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING, MA'AM" and divert all that rage to the Royals. Worked like a charm. Suddenly Fleet Street was the Voice of the People and not the carcass full of maggots it had been the day before. Why mention this? This line from Gerard's post made me think of it: "I can even recall reading glowing accounts in The National Catholic Reporter of "the street priest" of Boston, Father Paul Shanley." Amazing how NCR has gone from those glowing reports (and the de rigeur demand for a Church in Shanley's image and likeness) to cries for "reform" and tut-tutting at our stupid bishops for their previous spinelessness in caving to their demands. If you think the American ecclesiocracy is clueless, you should take a look at the pages of NCR. The bishops are at least suffering from the immensity of their dereliction of duty and something may eventually penetrate their skulls with sufficient experiences of pain. But NCR is profiting by the suffering they inflicted and enabled and coming away with an even greater sense of the moral superiority than they already possessed.

This and this sound like good ideas.

A reader writes concerning Weakland's thefts from the poor box:

What personal funds? Did he have a personal bank account with that much
money in it? If not, he took it from the archdiocesan bank account, no
matter what the origin of the sum was. Who knew about that at the time?
Who authorized such a withdrawal?

Is an archbishop authorized to draw that kind of money on his own
responsibility, without telling anybody? Don't they have auditors out
there?

Under ordinary circumstances, the party from whom the money was drawn
would be on its way to the DA with a serious complaint.

What the hell happened?

I feel bewildered and for some reason extremely pissed off.

The reason you feel pissed off is summed up best by Rod Dreher.

Speaking of whom, Kathryn Lopez at NRO wrote me to say:

Mark, Love your blog....

but...lost our nerve? Just because we are not piling on 24/7? Rod and others are still working, as you see from Rod's Weakland piece today. It's just we're not a "Catholic scandal all the time" site. I assure you we haven't lost our nerve on this or any other issue.

Dunno, K-Lo. With the exception of a couple of articles, NRO and the Mighty Rod Dreher have been pretty quiet about the Situation lately. In particular, the Corner (previously a major source of news and information on The Situation) has gone stone silent for nearly a month. Smells like an editorial decision to me. There's a difference between not "piling on 24/7" and not uttering a peep. Now, as a selfish guy, I can rejoice in the mysterious silence of the Corner since it means more people read my site if they want to know what's going on in the Priest Follies. But I do miss Rod's extremely fine work in this area and hope that NRO will encourage him (or, if it is an editorial call) at least not forbid him to speak out about the Situation on the Corner again. If we have to wait for his Pulitzer-worthy reportorial work on a week-by-week or (Heaven forbid) month-by-month basis we'll starve out here in Blogland. Unleash the power of Rod.

Mark Cameron's "Mystique et Politique" is on the air.

Cardinal Law spoke this weekend. A reader summarizes: "He didn't say anything stupid, so that's a plus."

Chances are you've seen this, but it's still funny.

Somebody asks:

Lately I have been thinking about Pope John Paul I's death and whether he could have been murdered. As I'm sure you know, there was a book by David Yallop detailing his investigations into the allegedly suspicious circumstances of the Pope's death. Do you know if Mr. Yallop is a respected journalist? In your opinion, how credible is his conspiracy theory?

I have no idea who Mr. Yallop is, and tend to take conspiracy theories with a grain of salt. Sorry I can't help you more!

Finally, this week's Letter from Dale:

Not a clergy abuse report this time. Nope, this one involves good, old-fashioned liturgical abuse. But the two are related, trust me.

This weekend brought the family back into the Lower Peninsula's North Country, this time further north than my troubled home town. We spent time as a happy family at my parents' property up north. All of the conveniences of home, with the exception of a phone. Given how hard we get hit by telemarketers, this experience is almost a foretaste of Heaven. Still, it's a grueling 180 mile drive, and worse yet, it puts us at the northern fringe of Untener Country. Worshipping in the Diocese of Saginaw is a depressingly familiar process, with a predictable sameness everywhere you go. I have a sneaking suspicion that the unofficial motto for the Diocese is one of the following:

"Making Sure That Catholic Worship Won't Offend Our Protestant Friends."

"Tabernacle? What Tabernacle? That's SOOO Pre-Vatican II."

"Celebrating Diversity In Churches That Look Exactly the Same."

"Crucifix? What Crucifix? That's SOOO Pre-Vatican II."

"Maybe The Iconoclasts Were Right."

"Kneelers? What Kneelers? That's SOOO Pre-Vatican II."

The list could be multiplied ad nauseum. The point is, the worship experience is drearily predictable: The reserved Presence of the Lord is shoved off to the side, the altar has the dimensions and shape of a card table (or in one weird case, a pointy lozenge), and all of the readings have introductions Explaining Things To The Lunkheads In The Pews. Usually, the explanation takes great pains to point out or strongly imply (the "sacred writer," not Paul, Matthew, etc.) that we enlightened moderns now know, thanks to the assured results of critical scholarship, that X was not actually written by X. No further explanation is given, leaving the unfortunate impression that Holy Scripture was written and compiled by idiots, liars, or both. Moreover, the song selections must ensure that the congregation sing as though it were God at least once during Mass. And did I mention the absence of kneelers?

The fact is, we've become used to it. It's almost perversely reassuring: "Ah! We must be in Saginaw!" But just when you think you've had enough, Bp. Untener ups the ante. This time, the officiant, a retired priest, was conspicuously over-assisted at Mass by the Pastoral Administrator, a nun-sans-habit named Sister....well, I forget her name. We arrived for the later Sunday Mass, and apparently Fr. had gotten some comments from people at the earlier mass (the area is an increasingly-popular Michigan vacation spot, and draws a lot of metro Detroiters), so he saw fit to give the later batch of philistines a heads-up. He sonorously stated that he was a retired priest, and that Sister was "the actual Pastor for the parish," further noting that she would be participating in the prayers and other unspecified tasks. He was strictly there as a "sacramental minister." The tone and verbiage was that of a man who couldn't be bothered to consider otherwise, and couldn't care less. In short, Father preferred to switch than fight. The klaxons began to go off, and became increasingly shrill as her participation in the offered prayers became obvious. They became deafening as she gave the homily. Mercifully, it wasn't horrible, although she missed the obvious opportunity to teach about the Trinity, favoring instead the preferred over-focus on living a trinitarian life. It could have been worse.

Now, of course, I had to worry about her role in the consecration. Fortunately, it was brief, and she said none of the prayers of consecration. What else she did, I don't know--My wife and I were kneeling on the carpeted concrete floor in the back, and couldn't see past the twelve rows of standing parishioners. Still, it sounded valid, so I didn't have to restrain My Much Better Half from going up. The rest of the Mass proceeded without incident. An isolated incident? Nope--the Diocese has a program for training non-priests to give homilies at communion services, and encourages test-runs at the parishes--during Mass. However, the person giving the homily is usually identified as such a trainee. This was not done here.

What has this to do with the abuse scandals, you may ask? Simple--it's of a piece with the same clericalist mindset that recycles abusive priests. Why? Because he can, and he knows no one--not Rome, and sure as hell not the laity--will be able to call him on it.
As you pointed out in our early discussions, bishops do not get removed. Ever. In this knowledge, the American bishops sit secure in their diocese--secure enough to pay $450,000 to protect an inflated reputation, secure enough to shuffle around priests with a history of abuse, and secure enough to allow flatly unlawful tampering with the worship of Jesus Christ. Their biggest concern is the Pope accepting their mandatory retirement proffer at age 75. Clearly, they do not fear agonized letter writing campaigns to the Papal Nuncio. For all the shrieking that Weakland, Untener, etc. do about the Curia in Rome, they are missing a delicious irony: they have managed to recreate the same thing right in their own downtown chanceries.

--Dale

Let's Make Like the Druids, Running Naked Through the Wooids!

Gimme that old time religion! That's for me!

Well, okay. Prescinding from the "running naked through the wooids" bit, and the "Druid" bit for that matter, my fambly and several friends will be departing for lovely Lopez Island in the San Juans (betcha you Right Coast people didn't know Washington had islands, didja?). Anyway, we're outta here in a short while and back late Monday.

(Slight theology lesson: We will in fact participate (at Mass on Sunday) in the Oldest Time Religion of All: worship of the Father through the Incarnate Word who was "with God in the beginning". Pagan nature worship is a new kid on the block. The Logos has been worshipping the Father since before the Big Bang, which is before there was Before! And not only is pagan nature worship wet behind the ears, it's stupid, since it worship Nature and not the Creator, which is like complimenting the stereo speakers for their music composition skills.)

Anyway, my advice to you is: if you wanna read all things Sheavian (Sheaish? Sheaesque? Sheaonian?) go peruse my website www.mark-shea.com. Also, I will have my customary weekend piece on Catholic Exchange this weekend, so even while I frolic with the deer and fuzzy bunnies, I will be endeavoring to serve you. In the meantime, if you go there today, you can see Steve Greydanus' hilarious Surgeon General's warning against the toxic new film, "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron". I knew it would suck from the trailers, but Steve's review makes clear just how bad it sucks. Enjoy!

Oh, and to all the folks in the mailbag: trust me. I'll get back to you, but a guy needs a vacation now and then!

Where's NRO?

Andrew Sullivan has wondered, sensibly enough, why nobody at the Weekly Standard has touched the Catholic scandal in its pages. Let me add this: why have National Review and National Review Online fallen silent? Lots of us first started following the scandal through Rod Dreher's blogs on NRO, but he hasn't mentioned it in The Corner for weeks. What's going on? Has NRO lost its nerve?

Coupla Things and Then I'm Outta Here

One person writes to urge me not to give credit to Weakland for having the grace to resign. Gotta disagree. Rome's had a freeze on accepting resignations because of the Situation (didn't want to make guys who were just retiring because they were 75 look like they were retiring under a cloud of Scandal). Weakland could have done the patented "claw marks across the Oval Office carpet" schtick that Clinton perfected and cling to power simply for the sake of power, prolonging his disgrace and turning his office into a complete sewer (like Clinton). But he didn't. He knew it was time to go. In our day and age, we have to be thankful for small graces. So I am.

I also give him (small) credit because of something else:

We can't be too tough on reprobates like Weakland. My liberal diocesan newspaper (Rochester, NY) this week ran a story about several priests around the U.S. who committed suicide after revelations of sexual misconduct.Perhaps they experienced the same horror that Judas did when the full realization of their actions struck home. At least they had the guts to look at themselves in the mirror. Which is more than we can say for Weakland, Mahony, et. al.

This disturbs me. Suicide comes not from "a good look in the mirror" but from a resolute refusal to look. I think we can be too tough on reprobates and a good college try is the vague suggestion that they would be better off dead. I don't want death and I don't want vengeance (at least human vengeance) because it only leads to death. I am relieved he is out of office because he can't do any more harm to the Church. But what I want most of all is salvation--not suicide--for Weakland, Mahony, et al.

We can be too hard on people. Now that he's gone, I think piling on Weakland is merely an indulgence of anger, not an exercise in justice. Let God judge (and please God) heal him and the lives he's destroyed (and the Church he's tried so hard to wreck). For our part, forgiveness is the demand of the hour.

Music in Massachusetts

Nick Alexander writes:

I am involved with the Proud 2 Be Catholic concert series in Salem, Massachusetts.

It is the second in an annual concert that will provide entertainment, mass, Eucharistic adoration and activities for all ages. Top Catholic artists Fr. Stan Fortuna, Tony Melendez, Martin Doman, Bob Rice and many others will be present.

Because of the scandals, donations for such an event have been way down. But despite the scandals, we want to make a statement of pride in our Catholic faith, especially now in the torrent of the current storm.

It is entirely lay-run, and such events provide a wonderful venue to reach teenagers and Gen-Xrs, and anybody who's interested in quality music and fun.

Donations are way-down this year. If not enough funds come through, the concert would have to be cancelled. I'm a terrible begger, but if there are some people who are looking for a lay Catholic non-profit organization that will help return Catholic pride within Massachusetts, I could not think of a better opportunity.

My final word on Weakland

People are asking me if I don't think I'm being too hard on him. It's a good question. My answer is this:

As recently as a week or so ago, Rembert Weakland, Defender Against the Oppressed, Accuser of the Abused ("Not all adolescent victims are so innocent. Some can be sexually very active and aggressive and often quite streetwise. We frequently try such adolescents for crimes as adults at that age."), was boasting to his diocese about what a great and good man he is:

Members of the Roman Curia often referred to me as a "maverick." (The word comes from Samuel A. Maverick, 1803-1870, a Texas cattleman who refused to brand his calves like the others.) The best compliment I received, then, came from a religious superior in Rome who said: "Rome does not know what to do with Weakland. He is a free man." I feel I have been able to maintain my own dignity and identity through it all.

That's right. The man who knew perfectly well that he was spinelessly robbing the poor box of $450,000 in order to pay off a blackmailer with a perfectly solid case against him was assuring his luckless flock that his immense courage made him "a free man" who had "been able to maintain my own dignity and identity through it all".

As I've already made clear below in my comments on zero tolerance. I don't think isolated little incidents from 30 years ago should be suddenly dragged out and used to crucify people. But we are talking about a pattern of vanity, mendacity, and arrogance in Weakland's case. In short, he knew perfectly well that he was deeply compromised but, like Cardinal Mahony, insisted on portraying himself as a heroic figure of Reform and a Moral Light who could talk down to John Paul to the cheers of millions. And perhaps most galling, he could rob from the poor box while offering auto-hagiography like:

The concern for the poor, especially on a global level, remains a strong motivational factor in my thinking.

This, combined with his infamous countersuit for $4000 against a family whose son was raped by a priest does not in the slightest make me think we are dealing with one pathetic incident long ago. It makes me think we are dealing with a vain mendacious man who clung to power as long as he possibly could wrapped in a cloud of vainglory and falsehood, when he should have had the good grace to go quietly long ago. I feel not much pity for his goldigging blackmailer. He has his reward. But for the people who have suffered under the rule and borne the thefts of this mendacious man to shore up his inflated assessment of himself, I feel great pity. As I say, I commend him for having the grace to offer his resignation. But I also recall the words of C.S. Lewis that it hardly to your credit to say that you are willing to lay down when it is no longer possible for you to stand up.

Dale the Lawyer Weighs In

Here's the link to the handwritten letter from Our Man In Milwaukee to Marcoux.

And here's the Abp's response to L'affaire Marcoux:

"I have never abused anyone.

[Depends upon what your definition of "abused" is. Believe it or not, I hate the fact I've had to break my Clinton Obfuscation Detector/Filter out of storage to use it on our shepherds. No choice, really. They've made word-parsing a necessity.]

I have not seen Paul Marcoux for more than 20 years. When I first met him here in Milwaukee he was a man in his early 30s.

[And a profoundly troubled and vulnerable one, from the text of the Abp's letter. COD/F Warning: Did he meet Marcoux outside of Milwaukee? Sigh.]

Paul Marcoux has made reference to a settlement agreement between us. Because I accept the agreement's confidentiality provision, I will make no comment about its contents.

[Because the flock would fly further off the handle if I admitted that I had to skim a half-million (legal fees included) off the collection plates to pay for my...well, mistakes were made.]

However, because I have financial responsibility for the well-being of this archdiocese, I want to let the people of the archdiocese know that through my 25 years as bishop I have handed over to the archdiocese money obtained by my lectures and writings together with other honoraria.

[COD/F: All of it?]

Cumulatively, those monies far exceed any settlement amount.

[4500 Benjamins? Wouldn't mind seeing the books--to do a little comparative accounting.]

Given the climate in today's world where the church must regain its credibility, the situation would be an added and continuing distraction from that goal. I do not want to be an obstacle to that search for credibility on the part of the church, which I will continue to love with all my heart and which I have served to the best of my abilities for these 51 years. As required by church law, I submitted my resignation as archbishop to the holy father on my 75th birthday, April 2. I have now today asked the Vatican to accelerate its acceptance.

[Appropriate, good, and necessary--but too late to be meaningful. Not to mention a foregone conclusion in any event.]

I ask for your prayers and healing.

[Done.]
Rembert G. Weakland, Archbishop of Milwaukee

[Not for much longer.]

None of which entirely excuses Marcoux, who strikes me as a manipulative little weasel in his own right, milking this for all it's worth. Just another red-letter day in the history of the Catholic Church in America.

One final question: "Christodrama"?

I'm glad the man has the (apparent) integrity to try to step down and I will certainly pray for him and his victimized archdiocese. Whether he will be allowed to go is another matter. It's anybody's guess as to whether he will be allowed to take a powder now that his hypocrisy, mismanagement, corruption, vanity, arrogance, and, yes, cruelty, to victims has been exposed. He may well be left to carry the cross he so recklessly laid on the shoulders of others. But it was a good beginning for him to at least try to resign and I commend him for it. Personally, I hope Rome accepts the resignation forthwith. But it's the Holy Spirit's Church, not mine. We'll see.

Another member of the Ever-Growing Phalanx of Episcopalian Bloggers is on the Air!

Zach, meet Anne. Anne, Zach.

The Mysterious Working of Bill Donohue's mind

A friend writes me:

Just got on my desk a faxed release from the Catholic League, responding to the Rembert Weakland news.

"[I]t needs to be asked what social good is served when current disclosures of past indiscretions are made public? The time has come to invoke an ethical statute of limitations," Donohue says. He goes on to decry "sexual McCarthyism," and blames American society because "we sponsor a libertine understanding of sexuality that puts a premium on genital liberation and yet are appalled by the psoychological and physical consequences that such a vision entails. We also expect that every person of the cloth will at all times restrain his libido while everyone else is free to throw constraint to the wind."

Finally, this: "[T]hose who always harbored an agenda against their most-hated prelate think it's time to rejoice. Count the Catholic League out."

I'm really puzzled by this response from Donohue. This man who was sexually set upon by Rembert probably isn't acting from the purest of motives. He was 28 years old when the incident happened, and he certainly seems like he was trying to exploit the situation to make money. That said, the REAL scandal here is that an archbishop paid nearly half a million dollars in money that was meant for the support of the Church and the poor to buy the silence of a man whose pants he tried to get into. Why doesn't Donohue see that, I wonder?

The Wonderful Steve Mattson writes:

In connection to your recommendation to the Archbishop that he should chip off the millstone while he still has time, I was thinking of Lewis's Till We Have Faces. The heroine has written a long complaint against the gods. In the process of coming to clarity about herself, when she begins to see herself clearly, she is told: "Die before you die. There is no chance after" (p. 279).

Later, after she makes her complaint, she sees her complaint for what it is--layers of self-deception and sin. The heroine says this: "When that time comes to you at which you will be forced at last to utter the speech which has lain at the center of your soul for years, which you have, all that time, idiot-like, been saying over and over, you'll not talk about joy of words. I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?" (p. 294).

I think you're right. It's time for deep reflection on the part of all who confess Christ, that we would grow up into the likeness of Him who showed us the way to the Father--through self-sacrifice. Indeed, we all--bishops, priests, laity alike--need to die before we die. Only then will we truly come to be like Him, with faces that reflect His Face of Love.

But Mark! The Weakland Article Doesn't Prove Anything
Recall Advanced Probability Theory, otherwise known as the Duck Test. The Great Man was willing to crush an abused family in court and even countersue them when the statute of limitations ran out on the fittingly named Fr. Effinger after he boffed their son. Now he's willing to fork over $450,000 to somebody for... nothing?

Quack!

Lane Core on Zero Tolerance and Intellectual Sloth

In case you are tongue-tied...

Here's what I just sent to the Contact us link for the Milwaukee Archdiocese:

"You promise a phony "listening session" now, Abp Weakland. Why not listen to the Holy Spirit instead of your own colossal ego and resign? You promise a "zero tolerance" policy for abusive priests. Why not show an ounce of integrity by leading the way and applying it to yourself?

How *dare* you position yourself as an "Authentic Voice of Reform" and brag about your nobility when you do such things and crush the weak besides? Do you not fear God? Chip away at the millstone around your neck while you have time. Resign today."

Feel free to adapt, cut and paste, edit or expand. Abp. Weakland says he's "listening". Let's see if he means it.

On the other hand...

"Last month, with sex abuse scandals battering dioceses across the country, [Weakland] said the Milwaukee Archdiocese would adopt a zero tolerance policy toward molestation by priests."

Physician, heal thyself. If you are going to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy, start by applying it to yourself, Abp Weakland. Don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out. Oh, and pay back that family you heartlessly crushed in litigation.

Memo to readers: The Great Man is still planning a phony "listening session" this June 11. Why not give him an earful right now?

The Further Adventures of the Great Man Who Thinks Outside the Box
Another Authentic Voice of Reform Who Can Talk Down to JPII heard from.

The pattern I noted appears to continue. If a bishop is an actual abuser himself, he comes from the cutting edge faction of the Church that, until quite recently adored people like Paul Shanley as poster boys for brave dissent. If he is a stupid enabler and protector of abusers, but not an abuser himself, he comes from the bovine "Preserving the Machinery of Institution is the Same Thing as Fidelity to the Tradition" faction of dumb conservatism. The Situation has, as I've noted, brought out the worst qualities in both "push the envelope" liberals and "don't rock the boat" conservatives.

Zero Tolerance Zero Intelligence

My burning question

How can somebody be smart enough to have made hundreds of thousands of dollars and yet stupid enough to lose it to a transparent scam like this?

A reader objects...

to my post about prayer for S.J. Gould:

You state: "However, neither you nor I know that he or anyone else has ever died in mortal sin." If your position is that we don't know the destiny of any particular person, I agree. However, if your position is that we don't know whether there is anyone in Hell, then that is contary to Scripture. Since one has to believe in Jesus to be saved -- and not everyone believes -- there are obviously people in Hell.

The Bible never tells people to be "open in some mysterious way to the working of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ." The command is simple -- believe in Jesus to be saved. So if a person knowingly and deliberately rejects God's existence, how can he in any sense be "open" to the Holy Spirit (who is after all, God)? Paul's opinion of atheism isn't so mamby-pamby. He says that unbelievers are "without excuse," "vain" and "fools." (Rom. 1:20-1.)

You trivialize Protestant teaching to suggest that the issue is saying "magic words." No one has ever said you get to heaven by saying magic words.

I'm speaking here as a Catholic, and one influenced by the dangerously heterodox views of von Balthasar (Dare We Hope), when I say that we know no such thing. There are two things a Catholic needs to understand in this matter. He is not compelled by any dogma to say that we know people will certainly be damned and he is forbidden to say we know people will certainly not be damned. Calvinism makes the first mistake and universalism the second. The fact is, we know nothing. We may suppose or strongly suspect some will be damned. We may suppose or strongly hope nobody will be. But we can't know for the simple reason that we are not God and we do not know how the story ends.

Scripture, in fact, proposes to us (like a Buddhist koan) a seemingly irreconcilable pair of propositions: 1) that it is really and truly possible to damn your soul to hell by refusal of grace and 2) that the omnipotent God for whom nothing is impossible wills to save all. Both propositions must be held at full strength. Appeals to Scripture by either Calvinists or Universalists inevitably work by submerging one proposition and exalting the other. Von Balthasar essentially reminds us that we can't do this and are therefore left "under judgement, not over it" and without certain knowledge. The thing to do therefore is to hope, not to claim knowledge of what we do not know. That is why I pray for the deceased, even if he was an atheist. Could'n't hoit.

As to being sure Gould "knowingly and deliberately rejecting God's existence", this too is a dicey proposition. Yes, if Gould or some other atheist really and truly shuts his eyes to what he knows to be true then he is committing a sin against the intellect and its Maker. And such sins do occur. But it is also true that causes of atheism are not nearly so simple as that in many cases and, since I know nothing of Gould's interior life, I refrain from making such easy assessments. As the Catechism points out: "2125. "Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. 'Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.'" And, by the way, Paul isn't talking about atheists in Romans 1:20. He's talking about pagans.

Finally, I think you underestimate the "magic word" factor in many expressions of Protestantism. There is most definitely a way in which many Protestant believers (like many Catholic believers) look for code words and shibboleths in order to admit Real Christians[TM] into the guild. As a Catholic, for instance, I constantly hear people say "Sure, I was baptized a Catholic, but I became a Christian when I asked Jesus into my heart as my personal Lord and Savior". Subtext: I said the magic words and now I'm *really* a Christian. My point is simply that life is not that simple. Some people (think Mother Teresa) never have such moments yet are clearly Christian. Others have them a lot. There is, of course, a place for Pauline "conversion experiences" in the Christian life. But there is also a place simply being born and raised in the faith as, for example. Maximilian Kolbe was. There is also a place for people being worked on by the Holy Spirit in unnumerable ways without their even being quite conscious of it. We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not.

Bottom line: we are, of course, to respond to the call of Christ as best we can. But we are not to presume from this that those who do not respond in ways we recognize as a response are therefore cut off from grace. As Catholics, we believe that "we are bound by the sacraments, but God is not." Analogously, Protestants would do well to say that "we are bound to profess Jesus as Lord and Savior, but God is not necessarily hindered in working in somebody's life if they don't figure that out." If we really and truly refuse grace we shall indeed be damned. But only God knows who, if anyone, has done this. Meantime, our job is to hope and obey him.

Another Stupid Bishop and his Neglect
Let's get 'em all out into the open so their flock can keep an eye on 'em.

John Mallon is On to Something

These are not the darkest days in our Church. Six months or a year ago it was far darker. Because then the cancer that is now open and exposed on the operating table was silent and unseen and doing its deadly work as it had been for decades. Yes, the surgery is awful and bloody and no fun. But the surgery is vastly preferable to simply letting the cancer kill us. This is a textbook example of "losing your life in order to save it". The Church will never be the same--and that's good!

Next to "Anthem"...

the most irritating phenomenon in AmChurch is the dumb habit congregations have fallen into of applauding after the liturgical musicians have finished playing "Anthem" or "Aren't We Fabulous" or whatever else it is they thump out on their washboards and zithers to cheerlead. Mass is prayer, not performance. Let's stop going to Mass to worship ourselves and use the time to pray instead.

Farewell, Fr. Shawn!
You do good work in the Vineyard. Men such as you are worthy of double honor! Thanks!

I dunno, Amy, what does "Zero Tolerance" Mean?
If it means "one proven act of abusive behavior with a minor by a priest or seminarian means you are not a priest anymore", I'm cool with that for the most part. But what about the anomalous cases such as my reader mentioned yesterday? Is it really sane to dredge up something some idiot teenager did 30 years ago with a slightly younger idiot teen--once--and destroy his life for it? I can't help but think we are still looking to secular models to pattern our thinking rather than to revelation. I've never seen "zero tolerance" policies work. They tend to lead to absurdity. So I want to have a very clear idea of what exactly is meant by "zero tolerance". It sounds so refreshingly morally clear after the long night of ecclesial cluelessness. But it could well be just another form of ecclesial cluelessness which continues to put institutional butt-covering over the needs of human persons.

Islam Means Peace
I am reasonably sure that no matter how many times somebody says our bishops wear funny hats, no Christian is going to blow somebody away over it.

Wow

This story is for every single victim of priestly abuse (or any other abuse) in the world.

When I made sackcloth my clothing,
I became a byword to them.
I am the talk of those who sit in the gate,
and the drunkards make songs about me. - Psalm 69-11-12
The difference between Andrew Sullivan and me is that he thinks this is the "best story" to come out of this whole wretched, wretched mess. Har Har. I think it is bitterly, awfully unfunny and doubly so because, with the unerring aim of so many bent on hating the Church rather than hoping for it, it blames exactly the wrong man in the cruelest possible terms. It is, I repeat, the failure of the American ecclesiocracy to listen to John Paul and their lickspittle cowardice in the face of dissenting agendas promoted by people like Andrew Sullivan (and, yes, Paul Shanley) which got us here. To now blame John Paul, and in such breathtakingly cruel terms, for the consequences of that incredible folly is simply despicable. Guys like Sullivan have demanded for years that John Paul have little to no influence on the American Church. They got their wish. The American Church, typified by Rev. Richard "Mahony is the True Voice of Reform" McBrien has done its damnedest to spit in his eye at every turn. Now they blame him for their not listening.

The true difference between John Paul and the majority of bishops in our Oh-So-Special American ecclesiocracy is this: you won't hear him pissing and moaning over this ugly ugly slander whereas we hear them whining, evading, dishing disinformation, boasting of their "thinking outside the box" (and even jockeying for position over one another when they are in fact guilty of egregious failures, betrayals and sins. In short, he carries his cross. Most of our bishops, so far, don't. He knows it's the only way. Most of our bishops don't appear to know a damn thing.

Hope for Stephen Jay Gould?

A reader asks:

Could you clarify this statement concerning S.J. Gould: "God have mercy on his soul and grant him everlasting life through Christ."

As a Protestant, I believe that if a person doesn't believe in Jesus, then that person is lost. There is no "second chance" after death.

Now, it may be the case that some people will be saved who haven't heard the Gospel. However, Mr. Gould certainly heard the Gospel message, even though he lived in Mass. If he rejected that message (and of course I have no way of knowing this) then he must live with that consequence.

Good question. Catholics also reject the idea of second chances after death for those in mortal sin. As the Catechism makes clear: (CCC 1035). "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.' The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." So if Gould did die in mortal sin, he's in hell.

However, neither you nor I know that he or anyone else has ever died in mortal sin. Gould's failure to "ask Jesus Christ into his heart as personal Lord and Savior" in a way recognizable to your average Protestant (and his failure to be baptized) is no infallible index in determining whether or not he was open in some mysterious way to the working of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. If he was open to the Holy Spirit in some way, then I am confident Jesus will accept any toehold and my task is to pray in hope, not to tell Jesus that Gould did not say the magic words and is therefore out of luck. So I pray in hope, not knowledge, for Gould's eternal happiness.

If you've not done it, I recommend a reading of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle. Pay particular attention to the character of Emeth. Not everybody who looks like an enemy of Aslan is a true enemy. Many who say "Lord, Lord" will be condemned. But I also suspect that some who say "I do not believe" will discover to their surprise that they did. For more detail on my thoughts here, see my essay on "Eupocrisy". Bottom line: Just to be on the safe side, I pray for 'em all. I'd rather be told on That Day that I prayed for an enemy than discover I condemned a friend to hell presumptuously.

Old Tim Drake has a Blog
E I E I O!

Make the hurting stop!

Ad Orientem is on the air!

Stanley Kurtz Continues to Make Sense, Andrew Sullivan Continues to Not Make Sense

As I say, We're not Really Temperate, Just Lucky
We are intemperate in sloth and we will be intemperate in vengeance when the Islamofascists (who have not forgotten we are at war) do something to dwarf 9/11. I am amazed at how stupid we can be. Anne Wilson's right. The main reason the coming terror is "inevitable" is because we are standing here with our mouths open and a stupid look on our faces as the juggernaut bears down on us. Why exactly is Mineta still in office?

Looks Like a Worthy Cause

A reader writes:

I just thought you might want to tell other people about the websites: OneMillionDads.com and OneMillionMoms.com.

According to Dr. Scott Hahn, one of the most serious problems we have today is smut on TV, such as Boston Public or The Shield, that encourage or glorify immoral behavior . Now we can do something about it.

OneMillionDads.com and OneMillionMoms.comspecialize in having their members email companies that advertise on TV to pull their ads from morally offensive TV programs which promote promiscuity or immorality.

So far, they've been successful at convincing advertisers to pull their ads from these kinds of shows.

If you know people who are interested in finally putting a stop to smut on TV which negatively influences our youth, then please ask others to join OneMillionMoms.com or OneMillionDads.com for free. You don't have to be a mom or dad to join.

Please pass this on to everyone you know.

Thank you and God bless you.

In Belated Homage to the Demise of the X Files
I offer this piece, written a few years ago.

"If you neglect the Big Laws...
... you do not get freedom. You do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws." - GK Chesterton

Nowhere is this pattern seen more clearly than in the Priest Scandals (though it was seen pretty clearly after Columbine). Here's a letter from a reader:

Here's a snapshot of the bright new world in which we live:

The front page of a paper in Colorado today declared that a priest was removed from the local diocese last week for sexual abuse.

It seems that over 30 years ago, in his late teens - he had sex (unbelievable in 1970, I know) with another teenager (yet more stunning) in his mid-teens. So there's an age gap of 2-3 years, probably. Since he was in minor seminary, he confessed his transgressions and they were recorded and in the general review of his order's records came to light last week. There has never been any complaints about him as a priest but he has been removed from a clergy-short diocese in the name of "zero tolerance" - meaning, of course, fear on the part of the diocese.

Know what zero tolerance is coming to mean? How many of us dated someone a couple years younger than ourselves when we were 18 or 19?

Better hope that nothing more transpired than a consensual hug and that you've stayed on really good terms with this person because they could, if they wished, accuse you of child abuse and by today's standards, you would be guilty.

I have to say I find it hard to argue with this reader. I've never seen a "zero tolerance" policy that didn't lead to massive stupidity ("No drawings of Star Wars blasters on your homework Billy! You're expelled!"). It is the quintessence of "small laws" thinking. Neglect of Big Laws (see "Commandments, Ten") leads to Columbine or the Current Situation. Ham-fisted attempts to micromanage the unmanageable reality created by massive neglect of the Big Laws leads to the Small Laws. It is, in my estimation, just as stupid to impose some insane "Zero Tolerance" policy that is stone blind to the nuances of human behavior as it to follow the previous regime of stone blindness to clear and obvious evil. Can't somebody in the hierarchy and clergy begin to think with the Tradition a bit and employ something other than models borrowed from Enron or stupid one size fits all "one strike" policies created by butt-covering bureaucrats?

A note to panicked Purists: No, I don't think the priest's homosexual dalliance in seminary was just fine. It's called "a sin" (fornication among others). But it appears to have been confessed long ago and I am not his judge. But let's have some perspective, please. It was an oafish thing to do and it happened thirty years ago. It does not appear to have the character of rape or much beyond two confused homosexual teens consensually doing what confused homosexual teens do. God help us if we all have to have our lives summed up by our first inept and not terribly moral sexual experiences at 18 or 19 years of age. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." The man appears to have lived a creditable life since then with no record at all of the sorts of evil of which Shanley and Geoghan are such poster boys. Hanging him out to dry now on this flimsy and insane "zero tolerance" basis is just one more demonstration of the secular "save the institution, human persons be damned" thinking that got us where we are. It's time we start thinking with the Tradition.