• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Samantha on Ask a Priest
    Jeff Lawson on Ask a Priest
    Jeff on Ask a Priest
    Stan on Ask a Priest
    Debra on Ask a Priest

Trust & a Corporate Sole Church

156780875895068094 (16)

Many Catholic parishioners assume the each parish is a legal and economic entity all to itself.  Those most faithful who give regular support may even imagine that they as a community own the church they attend.  However, in truth most churches belong to the local ordinary or bishop.  It is for this reason that those bishops who are ordinaries, not associate or helping bishops, are generally forbidden to drive cars.  One accident on the road could cost the whole diocese.  Yes, everything is owned by one man.  When a new bishop comes in, all the appropriate papers are signed, and there is a transfer, not just of spiritual jurisdiction, but of property, investments, other resources and money.  During the colonial and early days of the Catholic Church in the United States we followed the pattern of having trustees or a board own each church or school.  This is a pattern that we find with many Episcopal churches.  The problem we quickly discovered is that it watered-down the bishop’s authority.  Parishes would sometimes refuse to accept priests that were assigned to them.  The bishop could not close parishes and often did not have the resources to build new ones.  Catholics would even invoke civil laws to fight the decisions of their bishops.  Ethnic groups would frequently send back to Europe, hiring their own clergy.  Vagrant clergy traveling from place to place would find work in parishes even though they had not been vetted by the bishop.  The Old World sent many of its more troublesome priests to America.

Trusteeism died out as the American bishops increasing asserted their authority under canon law and national legislation passed in councils or gatherings at the primatial see, Baltimore.  Lay parish leadership in administering parishes was crushed.  It seemed that the problem was solved.

However, the days of rapid church growth are behind us and the model of corporate sole is becoming increasingly controversial if not problematical.  Churches have been consolidated, especially as populations have moved and ethnic groups have intermarried.  National churches are rapidly disappearing.  While the cause is sometimes espoused as being that of the priest shortage, viable parishes have suffered, too.  The priest abuse scandals have required that some bishops sell off church properties in order to pay settlements.  The faithful in the pews are made victims to sick men in priestly collars, bishops afraid of exposure, the hurting that want first justice and then revenge, and lawyers possessed by greed.

I recall a meeting years ago where the priests learned that funds earmarked for the care of sick and elderly retired clergy had almost been exhausted in the maintenance of priest abusers and settlements.  We were essentially told that should we need long-term care that we would be on our own.  A three-person board would be established for what little remained.  We were told this would protect the money from litigation and/or the whim of future bishops.  Nevertheless, a promise echoed since the days of Cardinal O’Boyle had been broken.  Parents were anxious about the future of the men who became priests. They would have no spouse or children to care for them in later years.  Mothers were told at ordinations, “Don’t worry about your boys; the Church will always take care of your sons.”  Ah, but we live in a world of broken promises— what is one more?

The Church is still wary of lay leadership in parish administration.  So much of the scandal could have been avoided.  Counselors and psychologists might tell a bishop that a priest abuser is healed and could be returned to ministry (which we know now is untrue); however, I doubt that an advisory board of laity (including parents) would have agreed to having such men returned to their churches.  The answer would have been, “Hell no!”  One strike and you are out— a man might be forgiven, but the wrong cannot be forgotten— the risk is too great.

It is my understanding that one diocese in California deliberately broke itself up into many smaller corporations sole.  However, the problem with trust remains.  We are required to keep confidence with an episcopacy that has sometimes violated this trust; indeed, the entire set up communicates that the bishops do not trust their own people. Given the recent exposure of Bishop Michael Bransfield in West Virginia, who knows how widespread an abuse there may be of the corporation sole model?  Schools were closed and charities suffered; nevertheless, the bishop could spend $2.4 million on private planes, luxury hotel rooms, limos, fine dining and even jewelry.

Here is precisely a case where the triangle needs to be turned onto its point.  The top part is the largest, the laity among the People of God.  Below this would be the religious, the priests, then the bishops and finally the pope.  Priests and bishops are not princes or rulers but servants; indeed, they are ideally the slaves of God’s people.  The pope is “servant of the servants of God.”  Bishops that live in expensive penthouses and mansions are confused about their station.  Even the popes live in modest apartments in a structure made for worship or as one pope suggested, that sometimes feels like a museum.

If there is a problem with clericalism then I suspect it has infected the corporate sole model of church administration and governance. The concentration of power in individuals is an incredible temptation.  Often it is accompanied hand-in-hand with a desire for secrecy and a lack of genuine transparency.  Notice that the revised standards for child protection still places bishops over bishops instead of independent lay boards.

I cannot say that I have all the answers. But it seems to me that there are pertinent questions that need to be asked.  Otherwise, how can we move forward?

The Holy Father & His Sons

156780875895068094 (13)

I posted some time back that I was distressed that the Holy Father would constantly bombard with insults men who earnestly struggled to be good and faithful priests. It was my hope that the pendulum was finally and decisively moving to the other side with the papal letter to priests on the 160th anniversary of the death of the Curé of Ars. Indeed, I even printed a copy for myself feeling that these encouraging words from the heart of Pope Francis were long overdue. But I guess old ways are hard to change.

Why would Pope Francis admit in public that he feels it is an honor to be attacked by Americans, when the most critical voices profess genuine loyalty to him and only beseech clarity and orthodoxy from the Holy See? Does he not understand that he has disparaged a church that has endured vile bigotry, fought back dissent, defended the sanctity of life even against her own, and is even now in a knock down fight with a modernity that has already vanquished much of Europe? Unmatched by any other entity except for maybe the U.S. government, the Knights of Columbus and Catholic Charities reaches out a helping hand in charity and proclaims a message of freedom— not asking for thanks— but deserving at the very least a certain level of recognition and respect. The Vatican would be in a shambles and there would be no “Peter’s Pence” if Americans did not shove money into the papal pockets as fast as the Pope took it out.

American Catholics love the Holy Father.  While many of our brethren have fallen away, there are still millions of us who keep the faith even when it takes us to the cross.  As for the priesthood, we have our share of sinners and saints, but most of our men daily lay down their lives for their flocks.  They try to help people while not compromising the Gospel.  This is not rigidity but an effort at humble service rooted in charity and in truth.  We preach both repentance and the forgiveness of sins.  If we pamper sin we might make friends and even fill a few more pews, but the lie would deny salvation to souls and make us accomplices in sin.  This is not the form of accompaniment demanded by Christ.

My priest colleague and old friend, Msgr. Charles Pope has an ever widening media footprint and he has taken some negative feedback recently for saying that which needs to be said. Knowing him and his profound loyalty to Christ and to the holy pontiff, it must have been the most painful statement of his life.

The Holy Father stated:

“I would like to emphasize an attitude that I do not like, because it does not come from God: rigidity. Today it is fashionable, I do not know about here, but in other parts of the world it is fashionable, to find rigid people. Young, rigid priests, who want to save with rigidity, perhaps, I don’t know, but they take this attitude of rigidity and sometimes – excuse me – from the museum. They are afraid of everything, they are rigid. Be careful, and know that under any rigidity there are serious problems.”

Monsignor Charles Pope wrote on social media:

“Santo Padre, I’m not feeling the love here, I don’t feel accompanied by you. Make room in your heart for me and others like me. I am not a young priest, but I know you don’t like my type of priesthood. Further I am an American and this mere fact seems to also make me troublesome in your eyes. I am not afraid of everything as you state, but I do have concerns for the ambiguity of some of your teachings and severity of some of your actions. Yet when we, your less favored sons, ask you questions, you will not answer or clarify. In all this I am still your son and share the priesthood of Jesus with you. I await the solicitude and gentle care from you that you say I, and others like me, lack. Meanwhile I must honestly and painfully say that I am wearied from being scorned and demonized by you. Respectfully, Carlo.”

If there should be any backlash for such courageous honesty, I hope it will be measured by justice and respect for the truth. The saints are weeping.

A Priest Trying to Understand the Pope

Pope Urges an End to Insults… YES!

Harry Potter & the Occult

156780875895068094 (10)

A person recently asked me the question,  “Are the Harry Potter books a dangerous introduction to the occult and demon possession?”  The inquiry was a response to a news topic.  A Catholic school in Tennessee reportedly has removed the popular Harry Potter book series from its library because they “risk conjuring evil spirits.”

How might I answer?  I would not routinely presume to second-guess the prudential decision of another Catholic pastor. When the Harry Potter books were removed from the school library, Rev. Dan Reehil, the pastor of St. Edward School in Nashville stated:

“These books present magic as both good and evil, which is not true, but in fact a clever deception. The curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text.”

It may be that he knows something that I do not. Have there been any exposed cases of possession due to reading children’s books? I really cannot say. It has not been my experience.  Reasoning along these lines, I have warned against the use of Ouija boards for incidents that are clearly documented.

Rebecca Hammel, the superintendent of schools for the Catholic Diocese of Nashville, stated that the Catholic Church does not have an official position on the Harry Potter books. I think this would be a sufficient answer to the question posed here. Admittedly, as someone who cringes against censorship, I do have my own “personal” opinions about the matter.

The universal catechism does not address the Harry Potter books directly, but it does speak about sorcery or the occult:

[CCC 2116]  All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

[CCC 2117]  All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others – even if this were for the sake of restoring their health – are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another’s credulity.

Does such exclude fiction?  If not then Doctor Who television shows and books as well as the Back to the Future films would also be prohibited as there is certainly “a desire for power over time, history, . . . .”  I am well aware that there is a doctrinal issue with time-traveling as it puts into question the delineation of divine providence.  Exorcists have warned us that psychics might be performing their paranormal feats by means of a demonic presence; however, one of the exorcists of Rome related that he sometimes employs sensitives to help discern the presence of demons or suffering souls.  The boundary line is also blurred in the lives of certain saints like Fr. John Vianney who often argued with the devil and could read souls.  Some of the events and manifestations around Padre Pio are downright terrifying.  While many are drawn in faith to the sites of Marian apparitions; it must be related that there are some simply attracted to sensational spectacles.  They want secret messages, weeping statues and miraculous signs from heaven.  All this is mentioned so as to emphasize that it is not the supernatural as such that is condemned; rather, it is any source or intervention outside of Jesus and the communion of the saints.

The Vatican has criticized the Harry Potter books although the final movie in the series based upon them was praised by its authorized newspaper reviewers. If the books truly pose a danger of enticing children into witchcraft and the occult; then I would agree with a Church censure. However, the question must be asked, do these books and stories really pose such a threat? It seems to me that if the Church feels that Harry Potter is “the wrong kind of hero” then we should do more to promote good literature that appeals to the youth with proper characters for emulation. I am also an advocate of parents and children reading together and discussing what is read. Might we be able to baptize the books, sharing what we find problematical and talking about those moral themes that help build good character? As a child I was a fan of horror comics, fairytales with all sorts of magic, and television shows like Dark Shadows, The Addams Family, Bewitched, The Monsters, The Twilight Zone, and the animated Sabrina the Teenaged Witch. Nevertheless, I learned my catechism, knew what was real and what was not, and eventually became a fairly conservative (i.e. orthodox) Catholic priest.

The Greek term for sorcery in the New Testament was “pharmakeia,” from which we derive the English word “pharmacy.” This folk science mixed with superstition often had to do with potions or so-called magical drugs. The practitioners provided abortifacient concoctions that caused miscarriages. The biblical prohibition against sorcery, while viewed as an offense to the power and providence of God, was also a condemnation of abortion or the murder of children.

I cannot say how many outright Satanists there may be in the world today. I suspect the most egregious witnesses to such a twisted religion are really soured Christians who delight in blasphemy.  It strikes me as a kind of sickness of the soul.  Many who identify themselves as such are actually atheists who delight in tormenting the sensibilities of Christians and Jews.  Others have embraced the label of Satanism due to a rejection of charity or self-sacrifice as espoused by the Gospel.  Theirs would be a philosophy of selfishness.   Groups of this type are distinct from the Wiccans or neo-pagans.  Often connected to radical feminism, they speak of finding the goddess.  In truth they may worship a deity of their own fancy or no god at all.  All this makes their religion hard to define.  Modern witches and their craft reflect a naturalistic type of faith. Their worldview is immanent and pantheistic.  They would seek to employ the so-called cosmic energies in the world around us.

While they attempt to exploit a pedigree that goes back to pre-Christian times (as with the druids), in truth modern witchcraft probably only goes back to the 1940’s.  It is argued that Gerald Gardner was inspired by the masonic secret rituals in his reimaging of witchcraft.  What is the interpretation given to all this by Christianity?  If you call upon any spirit other than God then you are likely summoning demons.

Just as Christianity has its sacramentals like holy water, holy salt, the rosary, etc. so too do they.   We are familiar from scary movies where fortune tellers use crystal balls, read tarot cards and cast spells.  While it is used in psychiatry, witchcraft also employs hypnosis and sensational forms of faith-healing.  Much of the superstition is merely to exploit the gullible.  Connected to the current fascination with the paranormal, these poor people and their so-called psychics deceive others and themselves.

Many of the practitioners of witchcraft like the late Aleister Crowley accented the philosophy of selfishness and defined magic as real but as natural and not supernatural.  He and his disciples thought they could manipulate reality or creation by acts of will. I suspect he would be offended by the magic of Harry Potter and regard it as rather silly and contrived.  Condemnations toward the belief system of Satanists or Wiccans or Neo-Pagans would not seem to really apply to the magic in Harry Potter.  It literally is the witch on the broomstick parody.

We would no longer condemn conjuring tricks like slide-of-hand, but would question an appeal to invisible powers or spirits. The fundamentalist might equate all magic with devil worship. According to this mindset, there is no good magic, only the bad that sometimes masquerades as good.  If it is not God then the danger is we might be appealing to the demonic. The most impressionable might imagine that magic is a mysterious power untapped by most humans. A skeptic by inclination, I would view much of this as empty superstition or trickery to fool others. This would still make sorcery a sin as it becomes an occult religion and false worship.

While I would assume in truth that all sorcery is from the evil one, I am not convinced that J.K. Rowling’s witchcraft is anything more than a fanciful literary device to motivate and to drive her various storylines. Is it really witchcraft that is proposed as a positive ideal? While it is employed by both sides in the books, it seems the gravity is upon themes like family, friendship, loyalty, goodness, and mercy.

The author, herself, is a member of the Church of Scotland. She is honest about her struggles in faith and how she desperately wants to believe in life after death. Granted her Christianity may not be as mature as C.S. Lewis or Tolkien or George MacDonald, but it should not be dismissed. Indeed, it is reflective of the agnosticism that infects so much of contemporary Christianity. She is a woman of her times. Toward the end of the Harry Potter book series, she makes a few explicit references to Christianity— in particular about the themes of life beyond the grave and resurrection.

The Greyfriars Cemetery in Edinburgh is purportedly the inspiration for the Godric’s Hollow graveyard. Harry and Hermione find his parents’ grave. It is Christmas Eve. This inscription is written on the tombstone: “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26). Let us look at the larger context (1 Corinthians 13:20-28) from which the verse is taken:

“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (KJV)

We are given to understand that the character Albus Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts, is the source. Note that he does not cite books of magic but turns to the Bible. He gives gravity to the Scriptures with his inscriptions.

The book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows also has the following inscription on the tombstone of Ariana Dumbledore: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matthew 6:21 or Luke 12:34). Here’s the full passage, Matthew 6:19-24:

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (KJV)

J.K. Rowling has confessed (in 2007) that these two verses “epitomize” or sum up the entire series. Admittedly, Harry Potter (probably like many readers) seems not to understand what the verses really mean. Did Dumbledore understand, that Christ would defeat all enemies, the last being death?

The scene is poignant in the film. The church in the background is called St. Clementine in a video game; but it is otherwise revealed as St. Jerome. There is a large image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus over the entry door.

As an aside, St. Jerome as a learned man of his time, was challenged for his study of a Greek philosopher Apollonius of Tyanna who was a contemporary of Christ. His life paralleled the Lord somewhat in that he had disciples and also apparently performed miracles. He contributed to the development of reasoned arguments. The purported paranormal elements had him branded by early churchmen as a sorcerer in league with demons. But he proved to be nothing to worry about as his following quickly disappeared with no school or church as a legacy. It is likely too far-fetched to imagine a deliberate connection here by J.K. Rowling in reference to the charges of the occult leveled against her. I suspect it is simply a case of a curious and unfathomable synchronicity.

While sorcery is condemned by Scripture and the Church, there are many fantasy books that portray magic as good and evil. Indeed, one might argue that C.S. Lewis’ Narnia Chronicles and Tolkien’s stories about The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings portray magic as such, even if as a metaphor for other things that we regard as real like the sacraments and the Eucharist. The news story comes from a Catholic school deep in the Bible belt where even these books by notable Christian authors might come under negative scrutiny and prohibition, too.

Indeed, it might be argued that Tolkien’s Sméagol is to Sam and Frodo what Tom Riddle is to Ron and Harry. The battle is essentially between good and evil. Harry has been marked by Voldermort and he could easily be corrupted by the same hate and anger. However, his friends, especially Ron, keep him rooted in goodness. Frodo is tempted as was the Gollum. Notice the name change in both stories. If it were not for Sam’s friendship, he would likely have destroyed himself like the pathetic Gollum. Arguable Tolkien has given us a masterpiece while there are more than a few literary critics who criticize the level of Rowling’s composition, even if she does present a good action yarn. But that may be beside the point.

One reviewer postulated that the Harry Potter saga promoted the old heresy of Gnosticism, particularly in reference to secret truths, power and ultimate salvation. Really?  Are we not projecting what is really not there?  I must admit that I saw little theological depth in J.K. Rowling’s writings.

It is a fantasy story told by a woman who claims to be a Christian but not one who seeks to endow her story with many overtly Christian elements.  We might equate something of our battle with powers and principalities; but it is the world of fanciful creatures, flying brooms and dragons. In a sense, she has given us modern fairy stories.

While another critic saw the derisive criticism of the “muggles” or normal humans as “diabolical” I simply saw it as an imaginative way to detail the division we know among people in the modern world. There is serious ethnic and religious division. People are looked down upon and even being killed by other people for being different. The world of Harry Potter mirrors the real world and its bigotries; indeed, she presents the corrupted face of Voldermort to stand for the evil that we confront daily in the many faces and souls distorted by hatred, anger and selfishness.

We live in a culture of death. We are surrounded by the lovers of death. How else could we explain New York politicians clapping and rejoicing over the legalization of terminating children who are nine-months old in the womb and ready to be born? J.K. Rowling is apparently blind to this connection as she supports legalized abortion; could it be that along with many of our own Catholics, she has been figuratively seduced by her own “death eaters”? How does death come into the world?  It is the result of the fall and the temptation of Satan.  Obviously she draws upon ancient Hebrew mythology regarding the devil as a serpent in the garden when she characterizes her villain as associated with an enormous snake (Nagini who also has a name change, Maledictus). How is death defeated?  Christ makes himself our sin-offering and redeems us with his Cross.  Harry is a Christ-figure.  He must be willing to sacrifice himself.  He must also be willing to die.  Of course, he does not stay dead.  He is also not alone.  Harry faces Voldemort.  His classmate Neville slices off the head of the snake.  It must be said that the theme of sacrifice is essential in the Potter universe.  We see it with both Severus Snape and Albus Dumbledore, as well.  We must note it at the very beginning with Harry’s parents who died so that their child might live.  (This is a theme that young people might find benefit in a guided reflection.)

As believers we appreciate that ours is a God who is both independent of his creation and yet he sustains it.  We are stewards of creation but not the masters of God.  In contrast to this, a realm of magic usually implies an immanence where the divine is either associated with the physical world or where the world itself is divinized.  I suspect this is where the more thoughtful might be somewhat critical of Rowling. The worlds imagined by Lewis and Tolkien always make room for a transcendence that Rowling only hints at. Rowling is not well versed in Christian theology and philosophy. Her world is much more chaotic and lacks order. Must we fault her for what most secular authors today would utterly dismiss?  The magic of Harry Potter is employed much as science and invention is presented to us in the real world. Do we not sometimes treat our tablets and portable phones and the internet as a scientific kind of magic? People even live out much of the lives in virtual gaming worlds. My fear in the latter is whether we are abandoning the real for that which is only make-believe.

As a Christian what I brought to the story was that Harry Potter was fighting against a variant of Satanism. In truth, one could not use sorcery because one should not battle evil with evil. But I think there is a crucial disconnect between the magic that Christians would condemn and the make-believe antics portrayed in the books and on the cinematic screen. It is no more real than the Marvel and DC superheroes with their fantastic powers.

I suppose I would ask young Christian readers a series of questions.  We would examine the themes of goodness, evil, sacrifice, love, justice, death, redemption, mercy, etc.  We would also seek to make a leap from fiction to reality.  How would we fight against evil?  Who or what are our enemies in the world today?  What are our weapons?  We could then talk about, not spells, but the power of prayer. We could open the newspapers and give the real devils of our times the names they now go by. We could invoke, not fanciful spirits or the occult, but Christ with his communion of the saints and the holy angels. And then, we would seek to be heroes and heroines in the real world with apostolates that seek to make a difference for the oppressed, the poor, the hurting and the unwanted unborn. While there is no denying the malicious efforts of our ancient enemy, the devil; we would also appreciate that many of our battles are with a secular modernity imbued with selfishness and not so much with a juvenile attention to magic.  When it comes to the Harry Potter series, and much else in our culture, we would do what people of faith have done for two thousand years— we would seek to understand and to transform that which is in the world for the purposes of Christ.

Pope Urges an End to Insults… YES!

156780875895068094 (14)

We read:  “The pope said that ‘nowadays it is fashionable to hurl adjectives’ in what’s tantamount to ‘a culture of insults.’ He recommended responding ‘to malice with goodness.'”

Pope laments current “culture of insults,” church propaganda

It is public knowledge that the Holy Father has hurled many insults, especially at many whom are largely regarded as faithful priests and even bishops. If such is the case, then why is he surprised if some should return them or even try to laugh through their tears with humor? The humility of Pope Benedict was rooted in his intellectual life and prayer. Yet the world hated this gentle and ascetic man (careful with his words) as much as it seems to love the provocative and outgoing Pope Francis, who like President Trump, says what he wants without a filter.

My intention is not to foster scandal.  This is merely a cry in the wilderness.  The Pope’s words (unfortunately) speak for themselves:

  • The CLERGY have been called “vain butterflies,” “smarmy idolaters,” “priest-tycoons,” “animals,” “new Pharisees,” and “confessional torturers!”
  • The CURIA has been labeled “the leprosy of the papacy.”
  • SEMINARIANS, especially the traditionally-minded have been targeted as “potential little monsters.”
  • NUNS who preferred the older disciplines and vestiture were criticized as “uninspiring old maids.”
  • TRADITIONALISTS were censured as “museum mummies.”
  • While the Holy Father has made powerful efforts to reach out to those who feel estranged from the Church and those in irregular unions, he is less friendly toward REGULAR CHURCH-GOERS in the pews. He calls them “pickled pepper-faced Christians,” “closed, sad, trapped Christians,” “defeated Christians,” “liquid Christians,” “creed-reciting, parrot Christians,” and “watered-down faith, weak-hoped Christians.”
  • JOURNALISTS do not escape but are insulted as “fomenters of coprophagia!” If Trump has his fake news, the Pope has literally referred to his dogs eating feces.

So I agree with the Pope, enough with the insults… all around.

In fear and trembling… pledging obedience… a faithful but derided son.

Tension Between Homosexuality & Christianity

155794015975802306

The traditional Christian view is that homosexual acts are grievously sinful.  This was expressed recently by Vice President Pence and it precipitated an immediate response from the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg.  Making an assessment of his own same-sex “marriage” to Chasten Glezman, he states:  “Being married to Chasten has made me a better human being because it has made me more compassionate, more understanding, more self-aware and more decent. My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man. And yes, Mr. Vice President (Pence), it has moved me closer to God.”

What should be the response of a traditional Christian who is well aware that the revelation of God in Scripture and in creation, itself, stipulates that homosexuality is a grievous sin and that it can cost us a share in Christ’s kingdom?  Some churchmen contend that the Church herself can overrule the testimony from the Bible; however, the Pope and Magisterium may interpret Scripture and Tradition but do not have the authority to revoke or reverse revealed doctrines.

Some authorities claim that the harsh stand against homosexuality in the Bible reflects not the mind of God but the bigotry of men. If this be entirely the case then the whole question of biblical inerrancy is called into question. What is or is not inspired by God then becomes dubious.

Some authorities assert that there are certain teachings and practices in the Bible and in the life of the Church where we see a development over time in our understanding, as with the institution of slavery.  While this is true, critics would quickly add that such development must be organic or natural (as when various biblical themes interplay against each other) and cannot be forced. Those who would promote a radical anti-patriarchal feminism have sought to fabricate a new divine archetype.   There is a return to the goddess or the Lord (in some cases) is viewed less as a man and more as an androgynous human. Could the God proposed by Buttigieg be of this sort— a deity fashioned precisely for homosexuals?  The problem in both cases is the forfeiture of what is real and the substitution of human fancy.  While there are subjective elements to our discipleship, Catholic Christianity demands attention for what is objectively real.  This is a necessary symptom of our belief in the incarnation and resurrection.  Either Jesus is God made man or we are still in our sins.  Only God has the power to save us.  Either Jesus rose from the dead or we are the greatest of fools who will be soon forgotten in our graves.  None of this can be left to empty myth or to a sentimental feeling or to a drunken hallucination.  Either the story of salvation is true or we are lost and the Gospel is a lie.

If he has not fashioned a new god, could it be that Buttigieg is ignorant of his deity’s demands?  Could he be in psychological denial as to what the Judeo-Christian faith and its deity demand?  Could he have bought into the notion that biblical moral teachings are somewhat capricious and that all that matters is that we try to be “kind” or “compassionate” or “nice”?  Some politicians think that they can legislate morality at will to satisfy their current agenda.  Unless one has the gift of reading souls, no one can truly know whether Buttigieg is closer to God or not.  This is despite the fact that those of us who believe in an objective order would insist that homosexual acts constitute the matter of mortal sin.  How can one be close to God if one has severed his personal and communal relationship with Christ through sin?  Sin is a declaration of the person to God and to his fellow men— he is saying not merely that he hates God but that he is indifferent to him and toward anything he commands.

I cannot say I have heard much rhetoric of an alternative deity as I have from the camp of radical feminists.  This group hates men and raises abortion to the level of an infernal sacrament.  It is for this reason that many Christians view abortion as the return to the practice of human sacrifice.  The innocents are being devoured by demons (masquerading as deities).

When we see rallies for militant homosexuals, they are also often associated with the new atheism and its tendency toward sacrilege and the vulgar or profane.  Homosexuals have a widespread tendency toward promiscuity and multiple partners.  The Christians among them seem to yearn for a particular friendship.  Many have noted that while of the same gender, men and women alike in these same-sex bonds seem to mimic heterosexual polarities:  one is more manly or dominant and the other is more feminine or passive.  Most Christians who struggle with homosexuality tend to stay clear of much of the more blatant and overt shenanigans.  They are not cross dressers and the notion of spitting the sacred host into the face of priests (as was done to the late John Cardinal O’Connor is repugnant to them). They tend to steer away from public expressions of intimacy.  They deplore violence and emotionally are easily hurt.  They love the Church but often feel that the Church does not want them. They struggle with the judgment that they are welcome but only as long as they remain chaste and celibate.  While it might sound like a stereotype, they are attracted to ritual and sacred music.  They delight in liturgies that are aesthetically beautiful and which raise hearts to heaven.  As a group they are attracted to churches with set ceremonials and find comfort in familiarity.

Catholicism cannot affirm disordered homosexual acts as akin to the marital act between a man and woman.  The Church does not have the authority to ratify as good or neutral what is deemed by both divine positive law and natural law as wrong and sinful.  As with our COURAGE program, we can assist them to live out a chaste celibate love.  We can partner with them in prayer and service.  They should not define themselves principally by the same-sex attraction with which they struggle.  They may not be called to marriage but they are called to holiness.  They should not engage in homosexual acts but they are called to love and to have friendships.  There is a place for them in the Church.  It is best that homosexuals not enter the priesthood; however, priests can rightly model for them lives of celibate service.  God will give his children the gifts and the strength they need to be good and holy.

What can we affirm?  First, we should accept as genuine the religious sense that they have.   They should seek to remain in a state of grace so as to make the most of faith study, prayer and the sacraments.  Second, love needs to be expressed and our parishes have many initiatives where they can participate.  They have generous and selfless hearts.  Third, the church would be the first to promote friendship or brotherhood or sisterhood.  Love does not have to be sexual.  The sacrifice of Jesus shows us the true depths of a love and passion that eclipses all other loves, including the passionate intimacy of spouses.  The covenant of lovers points toward that greater covenant that is merited by the blood of the Cross.       

There is something of a mystery when we speak of the God who has revealed himself and the God we know.  The saving acts of God take place in history but the presence of God is not locked in the past. As Catholics, we would make a case for the Christian deity or the Trinity.  We would insist that God is real and one; that he is the author of all things; that he cares about us; that he has inserted himself into human history; that he has shown his face to us; that he has redeemed us from the folly of sin and death; and that he has established a community of faith to proclaim the truth and to perpetuate his saving work in Christ.  We argue from faith, philosophy and even science that God objectively exists apart from whatever many might subjectively believe or not believe.  While Christians would seek to live in peace with others, we would not personally tolerate or regard as also real the various opposing notions of deities or the negation of atheism.  Tension often arises because belief is not easily captured between church walls but tends to saturate the society in which one lives, influencing human values and how people would express them.

Many early Christians became martyrs in the pagan Roman Empire because they refused to worship mythical deities or the emperors.  These deities were interpreted by the ancient Church fathers as false gods or worse as demons in disguise. When we read the later pagan authors, they blamed the fall of the empire upon the rise of Christianity and how it had reinvented or replaced the deities they previously followed.  Their arguments were somewhat pragmatic because even during its heyday, many Romans went through the prescribed motions but really placed no faith in the false deities and their “soap opera” lives.  But the acceptance of Christianity had a profound impact upon the values of Rome.  There was a definite moral shift.  Today, many are again recreating our understanding of a deity while growing numbers are complaining that the whole notion of a God has served its purpose and should now be discarded.  As before, many say they believe but in truth there is nothing about their behavior that would convict them as Christ’s disciples.

Within the context of Christianity, many would say that revisionists have no right to reinvent God and to modify or to reverse his moral teachings.  Leaning toward the subjective, they would counter the argument by a preponderance of questions.

For further reading…

National Catholic Register
Pete Buttigieg is Wrong — God Still Forbids All Homosexual Acts

Abuse Scandal & “Vos Estis Lux Mundi”

popabuse

Having read this article in THE CATHOLIC STANDARD and the document on the Vatican website, I am hopeful but unconvinced that this will prove sufficient. Can Church leaders still be trusted to police themselves? Will this satisfy demands for transparency? While not mentioned at all, did not the crisis with Cardinal McCarrick clarify that the roots of the scandal were not in pedophilia but rather an active homosexuality? Can the problem we face be resolved without first a purification of the Church, next a rededication to celibate love and most importantly a renewed call to holiness?

We are Called to Live & Minister in Fidelity to Christ 

The Holy Father is quite right that we are all called “to give concrete witness of faith in Christ in our lives and, in particular, in our relationship with others.”  No one is excused from the demands of the moral life.  Indeed, our fidelity to our calling to holiness finds its demarcations within the parameters of our vocations of service, particularly in the mutual life of support and affection shared by spouses in marriage and by the cleric in his surrender to a celibate love that finds its direct source in God.  The motu propio rightly speaks of this truth but it must be asked, does it ever really target by name the key issue behind the current crisis about priestly misbehavior and abuse?

Yes, sexual abuse is obviously an offense to God and it certainly causes “physical, psychological and spiritual damage to the victims and harm to the community of the faithful.”  I would also add, that as a sin, it also brings ruination to the soul and character of the perpetrator.  Efforts to prevent further abuse will certainly require an openness to the grace of the Holy Spirit; however, it will also require sufficient “concrete actions.” Measures already taken proved their value even though they were not fully effective, given their application to the laity and to accused priests while leaving the bishops largely immune or detached from the reach of child protection initiatives.

The Shepherds of the Church are Entrusted to Safeguard the Flock

We have seen a peculiar development in the response to the abuse of children in the Church.  Initial initiatives focused on the laity (parish staff and teachers) with the clergy almost entirely outside the purview of child protection programs.  Then as more and more priests were charged and judged guilty of abusing minors, religious and parish priests were added to the mix.  Recent efforts at deflection failed for the bishops when attorneys targeted them by name as either abusers (themselves) or as protecting, enabling or hiding  priests who harmed children.  Can we now trust them to do what is right?  The papal initiative continues our efforts to deal with dangerous priests but also places bishops on the radar.  While we are all called to a moral life, the practical focus here is specific to the clergy, given the current scandal.  The scope of the misbehavior begins with violations of the sixth commandment (You shall not commit adultery).

Yes, the bishops have a singular role to play as the successors of the apostles possessing the fullness of priestly authority.  They must edify their flocks “in truth and holiness,” not as pampered princes but as humble servants who live out “the evangelical counsels” in obedience to the Lord.  They must keep trust with God’s people, placing the needs of the faithful centermost in all they say and do.  Will these new universal procedures be sufficient in combating ecclesial betrayal?  Frankly, the document looks to the future while many of us are still concerned about the past and present.

Yes, there should be “mutual listening” and openness “to the contributions of those who care deeply about this process of conversion.”  But where does this place agnostic clinicians that continue to work for the Church who once counseled the return of abusers to assignments and later couched the scandal as one of pedophilia while it was in actuality one of homosexual pederasty?  How can we trust those who treat priests when an unspecified number of their centers are suspected as hotbeds for homosexuality and dissent?  How does a Church express sorrow and reach out to victims so that they might find real healing and peace when the leadership apparently places an inordinate emphasis upon hiring savvy lawyers so as to avoid liability or fault?  What becomes of truth when both shepherds and attorneys employ a plethora of words that baffle the mind and fail to answer pertinent questions? Where is true transparency when the critical and revelatory letters of a high profile prelate like Archbishop Viganò can be dismissed, even by the Pope, himself?

The Strengths & Weaknesses of the Papal Intervention

What are the positive elements of this document that build on past efforts to stem the abuse of minors by clergy?

  • Episcopal cover-ups are now deemed as crimes in the Church.
  • Dioceses cannot be indifferent and must render material and physical help to victims.
  • There is finally a system to report the malfeasance of bishops.

What might be the negative or problematical points in this document?

  • Homosexuality is not named as having any part in the problem and scandal.
  • We must still trust bishops to investigate their fellow bishops.
  • No penal actions or disciplines are dictated.
  • The new policies are not retroactive to older cases.
  • Nothing dictates transparency, either in the investigations or the subsequent punishments.

Given the nature of the crisis, the document singles out clerics and religious.  This is as it should be but many remain deeply worried about priests who are wrongly accused.  The document speaks of a presumption of innocence; but in truth, what constitutes “credible” accusations has never been sufficiently or universally defined.  Allegations going back decades and lacking forensic evidence, still result in suspensions. The stigma from charges will always remain and frequently Church authorities feel that these men cannot be reassigned. Those who are dead cannot defend themselves but they can have their good names and reputations destroyed.  The methodology we follow would require that even if allegations should later be proven untrue, we must approach each case as if a wrong did occur.  Many bishops did not seem overly concerned about possible injustice, that is until attorneys and victims turned their sights upon them.

While it is lamentable that priests known as abusers were shuffled around; it is just as sad when possibly innocent priests are not convicted of crimes but are still convicted by the court of public opinion (largely uninformed) and a bias media.  They are frequently left out in the cold and attempts to defend them, especially from conservative voices, are often rewarded with charges of intolerance and homophobia.  It may simply be a matter of cynical over-reaching, but some have noticed that the prosecution of cases of priestly misbehavior are not handled the same by different bishops and in varying locations.  If the new document brings uniformity then that may be a definite improvement, providing that justice is real. Too often it seemed that certain priests, even where a preponderance of the circumstantial evidence pointed to guilt, got off easier than others.  We have seen this in a number of cases where men charged with homosexual indiscretions or misbehavior were either defended or quietly returned to ministry.  While we must not be uncharitable or fall prey to calumny, the question does logically arise, were they being specially protected by friends in high places (perhaps with similar inclinations)?

How Should We Punish Bad Bishops & Priests?

Note here that “no penal actions or disciplines are dictated.”  This is a serious matter that should become part of the global discussion.  What do we do with bishops and priests who are not incarcerated?  Priests suspended from ministry and/or lacized often have to find new  employment.  The Church loses track of them.  If they are registered sex-offenders in the US then the government might track a few of them.  Given their tarnished reputations, it may even be hard for them to find a place to live.  Some places post signs and various people have taken it upon themselves to warn neighbors and to alert nearby schools.  God forbid that the man is actually innocent; however, if he is a predator, many of these men are serial offenders.  They seem unable to stop themselves.  The homosexuals among them, and this is the majority, seem drawn to multiple partners.  Many of these priests, themselves, suffered trauma in experiencing a homosexual encounter when they were teens.  Yes, the abuser was himself abused.  All the while our society has sought to make the disorder of homosexuality normative.  That is why the media often falls over itself in attacking the abuse scandal in the Church while desperately trying to sever it from homosexuality.  Can we keep the priest abusers in Church run facilities indefinitely?  Must they accept chemical castration?  Can we mandate that they live in special monastic centers far from populated areas?  What do we do with a priest when all he knows is being a priest, even if a bad, sick or criminal one?  The Church has been condemned for keeping these men in Church facilities.  The Church has also been criticized for letting these men go and not supervising them.  We need to do something but I am unsure that we can do anything that will please everyone.

Abuse of Priests as Spiritual Incest

Although the attitude of certain shepherds makes it hard to believe, we are traditionally taught that the relationship of a bishop to his priests should be that of a father to his son.  If this is the case, then we have a problem in the Church that is more complicated than a few sick bishops having sexual relationship with priests.  Fathers nurture and care for their children.  They treat them with justice and compassion.  They hear them out.  They may even discipline them when such is necessary.  We cannot excuse past abuse or enable clergy to hurt others.  But the question must be asked, would a father disown his son?

Clarifying the delict, we read that it first applies to “forcing someone, by violence or threat or through abuse of authority, to perform or submit to sexual acts.”  I recall years ago a bishop in Hawaii who was accused of sexually abusing some of his priests.  Along these lines, the situation with McCarrick (former cardinal in Washington) is an egregious tale of deception, complicity and perversity.  However, it would still be a scandal even if these acts with priests or other men were consensual.  Are we not limiting ourselves to that which might be prosecuted legally?  Further, I have a hard time imagining an “innocent” priest (as a grown man) submitting himself as a sexual pawn to his bishop so as to avoid punishment.  I would either walk away or more likely give him a quick punch to the face.  Many of the stories imply that such misbehavior was to incur favor and plum assignments, maybe even elevation to the episcopacy. These are not abused innocent men. These are homosexuals victimizing their own fellow homosexuals.  It would seem to me, after proper investigation; that a number of these so-called adult priestly victims would also have to be dismissed from the clerical state.

Minors, Vulnerable Persons & Trust

Point number two is where most of the gravity in the current scandal can be found.  It is also a matter that will need further development.  For instance, what is a minor?  Currently in the US it is regarded as someone under 18.  Many other places in the world lower the age of majority to 16 or even 14 years of age.  Again, it seems that we are giving an emphasis to legal liability.  Is this not somewhat capricious?  Children and young people should not be abused.  That should be a given.  But what is deflected is that the priest or bishop is not supposed to have sexual relations with anyone, of any age, and of either gender!  If priests remain true to their promises, then youth and other vulnerable persons are safe.  The issue here is one of morality and holiness.

Practically speaking, there has been more than a little confusion as to what constitutes a vulnerable person.  During a conference with archdiocesan officials a few years ago at St. Jerome’s hall in Hyattsville, I asked a recently hired official if the protection guidelines included the intellectually challenged and the elderly.  He said no, just minors.  I argued with him.  Now it seems he was indeed wrong.  Left unsaid is how does one protect both the vulnerable persons from harm and the clergymen from false charges?  We are told not to be alone with children and yet many parishes still have reconciliation rooms with closed solid doors.  Would it not be better to insist upon the traditional confessional with a wall and screen?  Are we consistent in not having clergy alone with people suffering intellectual challenges?  When a priest does sick calls, is he alone or accompanied by others?  There was a recent case where Fr. Gerold Langsch was charged with groping a woman in hospice care after he was summoned to give the last rites.  Are our priests never to be trusted?  What does this communicate about the clergy?  Our Lord sending his disciples out “two by two” is making ever more sense.

All Pornography Poisons the Soul

Certainly I would agree that it is grievously wrong for the clergy to possess child pornography.  However, it is also sinful and inexcusable for priests to collect adult and/or gay pornography.  Where are the programs to assist priests who are addicted to pornography and self-pollution?  Even if the filth is not of the type that will land the priest in jail, it is still sufficient to posit him in hell.  How can a priest authentically care about persons while he looks upon the bodies of others as commodities to satisfy his own lusts?  Pornography is literally a form of virtual prostitution— others are devalued as persons by the very one who should be praying for them, to raise their dignity, and to save their souls.  The priest who would exploit others has forfeited within himself the grace that others need to be spiritually enriched.

Giving a Name to the Sin that Fuels the Scandal

The sixth commandment (against adultery) is interpreted by the Church as pertaining to all sorts of sexual misbehaviors.  Many feel that the document would have been stronger with an elaboration of the crimes or sins that made this document necessary.  As it stands, there is arguably a level of ambiguity.  The universal catechism gives us a list of sins that violate the sixth commandment and offend against chastity: (1) lust, (2) masturbation, (3) fornication, (4) pornography, (5) prostitution, (6) rape, and (7) homosexuality.  While today we must deal with a whole list of deviant sexual practices, like pedophilia and bestiality, it is apparently presumed in the catechism that all but homosexuality would be universally condemned and hopefully quite rare.  The last sin listed here is very important to this discussion.  The universal catechism states that when it comes to homosexuals, “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”  No reference is made to this sin by name in the papal document.  Deliberate or not, is this a fatal oversight?  The popular characterization of pedophilia is grossly false. Pedophilia is a psychiatric malady in which an adult has a primary or exclusive sexual disorientation toward prepubescent children.  By contrast, well over 80 percent of the abuse cases with priests in the United States involved older or teenaged boys. Nevertheless, this misdiagnosis of pedophilia is what has allowed the US bishops’ conference to wrongly conclude that homosexual priests are no more likely than heterosexual ones to enter into abusive behavior.  How many cases of active homosexual clergy (as with McCarrick) are known to the bishops?  How many have similarly been protected and promoted when they should have been severely disciplined?

Just at a time when we are called to embrace the truth, the reality of the situation is often carefully worded by churchmen in a way that seems inexact if not explicitly deceptive. Further, many people are themselves so morally bankrupt that they cannot distinguish what is right or wrong, particularly when it comes to human sexuality.  They are formed more by our secular culture than by the Christian kerygma.  It is in this light that some may complain that these new measures should have better spelled out what sins violate the sixth commandment.  While it would probably be widely unpopular and condemned as intolerant, should not some mention have been made about homosexuality as at the root of the current problem?  The failure to do so will make it easy for the harshest critics to say that nothing has changed… that the Lavender Mafia is still pulling the strings and protecting its own.  It was not long after Pope Benedict XV asserted that homosexual men should not be ordained as priests that he called it quits.  He apparently had neither the health nor the strength to fight this powerful enemy from within… this proverbial “smoke of Satan.”  Those who would dissent on homosexulaity would likely be the first to liberalize teachings about fornication and adultery.

We need a priesthood that is unassailable in its individual membership and that speaks with one voice as the sentinel of Christ.  Priests must be witnesses to the whole world of a calling to be living signs of contradiction to our times.  Ironically, the world attacks the priesthood for the very corruption with which it has infested the priestly soul.  The scandal is not that we have faithfully stood up against the world but that too many have succumbed.

The current crisis in the Catholic Church is one of homosexuality; no matter how many bishops and their so-called experts would say otherwise. It would NOT be “unjust discrimination” to remove them (any who have experienced even one act of homosexual intimacy) from the seminaries and from the active priesthood.  This should be a given if we want to insure the high moral character of the priesthood and the reputation of the Church. Homosexuals are loved by God and his Church; but they must remain chaste.  They can serve the Lord in many ways, albeit outside of holy orders.  No one deserves to be a priest or bishop.  It is a gift from God and his holy Church.  No women are called and few men.  No one can demand ordination as a matter of justice.  I am fearful that without this purge, the scandals and problems we face will remain to haunt us for many years to come.

Can We Find It in Ourselves to Trust the Hierarchy?

Not new is the level of care that many local churches already offer to those who come forward as victimized.  God stewards have welcomed them to come forward and have listened to their sad stories.  They were treated with respect and their dignity was acknowledged as children of God.  Many good bishops have offered both spiritual and therapeutic assistance.  However, we as a Church are ashamed that charges of abuse were sometimes not taken seriously and clergy were allowed to continue in preying upon innocence.  Those with any moral conscience are deeply troubled by allegations that officials threatened victims to be silent and that hush money was paid.   The institution of the Church failed a number of her own.  All the while, Mother Church with Mary’s immaculate heart weeped for her children.  I suspect there are still tears pouring from heaven.

The provisions call for the submission of reports through the institution of a specific ecclesiastical office and to Ordinaries.  Reports could also be sent directly to the Holy See. The Metropolitans would regularly take the initiative in commencing investigations of higher clerics.  (This is much as Cardinal Wuerl had suggested some months back; has Pope Francis put his name to the cardinal’s plan?)  I have not yet read any other critiques but I can well imagine that a number will complain.  Are we again being asked to trust that the bishops of the Church can police themselves? We read that the proposed procedures will insure “confidentiality” (to protect the applicant) and yet no one will be obliged to secrecy.   It will be interesting to see how this will work.

As an alternative, many of us urged the further establishment or expansion of independent lay review boards.  Canonical changes would be required so as to give these boards some teeth against slippery and guilty higher level clerics.  At present, given this document, it seems unlikely this will happen.  Did the cries of many fall upon deaf ears? It is indeed possible that our shepherds know better than many of us as to what must be done.  The problem is that earlier assurances proved shortsighted and McCarrick (a principal spokesman for the American bishops) was revealed as part of the problem, not the solution.   As I first said, I hope this new stratagem will bear fruit.  Be that as it may, it is hard to shake off a nagging pessimism that this effort of the Holy See will satisfy the level of transparency for which critics and victims are clamoring.  We pray that this is not more of the same.  Have we been down this road before?  Are we trying to fix with a bandaid what needs surgical intervention?  Are we seeking to resolve a major challenge to the Church’s life and authority with a gentle tweaking of policies when what she really needs is a full-blown reformation?

A Few Links to the News About This Blog Story

CNA – Analysis: Is Pope Francis’ new abuse plan the answer Catholics are looking for?

Vatican News – New norms for the whole Church against those who abuse or cover up

Catholic Telegraph – Q & A Regarding Pope Francis’ Motu Propio VOS ESTIS LUX MUNDI

Intermountain Catholic – US Bishops’ Conference Statement on Motu Proprio

America – Pope Francis’ new sex abuse rules are a revolution for the Catholic Church

CRUX – Reaction to Pope’s abuse letter: ‘Nice words, but it’s time for action’

NC Register – Pope Francis Signs Motu Proprio to Prevent and Denounce Abuses in the Catholic Church

Powerful Stories Impact the Faith

silence

While I read the book SILENCE by Makoto Fujimura many years ago, I have not yet seen the movie. As with Graham Green’s book THE POWER AND THE GLORY there is often as much to learn from bad or weak priests as from strong ones. Both works are extremely unsettling. While outwardly devout, his own compassion and maybe a lack of true faith works against the main priest character in SILENCE. Greene’s whiskey priest comes across as externally weak, undisciplined and cowardly; however, in the end what remains of his faith is shown to be selfless and even courageous. No matter how much he runs away, the “Hound of Heaven” catches him in the end.