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.

Why Islam is in Such Deep Doo Doo

"Masked gunmen assassinated a leading Kashmiri peace advocate during a ceremony marking the murder of another independence leader 12 years ago. The shooting of Abdul Ghani Lone, a moderate, soft-spoken Muslim separatist leader who sought dialogue with India to bring self-determination for Kashmiris, comes at a time of heightened tension over the disputed Himalayan region."

These wahoos want to go on killing the best and brightest people in their own community and "purify" Islam into the darkest planetary scourge the world has ever known. If they succeed, it will have none of the self-restraining factors of good old evil communism because its leaders will be fired with religious zeal and not get bogged down in plain old institutional inertia and corruption like the living mummies in the Kremlin were. My personal guess is that our Islamic friends are going to wind up doing something so heinous (eg, nuking NY, Rome, London, DC or all four) that America's previous insane restraint (frisking little old ladies in order to avoid "profiling" the actual people we are at war with, truckling favor with the creeps of Saud) will turn to insane lack of restraint (mass deportations, nuking Mecca, etc). We Americans are not, I suspect, a temperate people, merely a lucky one. When America's luck runs out, katie bar the door. Islam will do great evil before it's run its course. But the worst evil it will do--besides sending many of its adherents to hell--will be to lead to the mass slaughter of its own adherents by glorifying yahoos like the murderers who killed Abdul Ghani Lone. There is something insane in the fallen human mind that prefers Barabbas over Christ. Lone was, whether he knew it or not, doing the work of Christ. Once again, fallen Adam has chosen Barabbas.

A Bit More on Gould

A reader sez:

He is the only writer who ever noted that "how many angels can dance on the head of pin?" is in fact a good question. From "Wide Hats and Narrow Minds" in _The Panda's Thumb_:

"Even the standard example of ancient nonsense -- the debate about angels on pinheads -- makes sense once you realize that theologians were not discussing whether five or eighteen would fit, but whether a pin could house a finite or an infinite number. In certain theological systems, the coporeality or noncorporeality of angels is an important matter indeed."

Gould, incidentally, also made a case that the great, sainted, visionary, etc. Teilhard de Chardin may have one of those responsible for the Piltdown Man.

I've heard the suspicion of Teilhard's involvement in the hoax before. Dunno anything more. I appreciate Gould's tendency to refrain from cheap shots and tired canards, but I would be remiss in duty if I failed to point out that Peter Kreeft has also repeatedly shown (for instance in his cornily titled but very fine book Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Heaven but Never Dreamed of Asking) that "the real pinheads" are those who think the medieval pinhead question was a stupid one.

Good News for the Day
Evangelicals and Catholics are working together to do good. Check out Emmaus Ministries and help 'em out if you can.

Dave Pawlak has a blog!
Let's give it up for another sensible Catholic blogger!

A quick take on weird cloning questions by Yours Truly

Somebody writes:

The article you posted today stated that Baker “confessed” to Mahony. Was this a Sacramental Confession?

I doubt it, since the piece goes on to say that Mahony talked about it in a letter to diocesan priests in 1986.

In another case, have you heard about the Oklahoma Diocese?

It seems AB Beltran accepted an admitted pedophile from a religious order in another state. Gave him a second chance he did.

Same song, second verse, he did it again, and again.

AB Beltran did the right thing and notified the police. Unfortunately, his poor judgment has cost the good Catholics of Oklahoma, are you ready?

$5,000,000 for one victim; the media states that this is a world record, so far.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, I guess the second victim, who is still negotiating with the Bishop’s lawyers, won’t get near as much “hush money”.

It looks like C. Law’s hope that the other dioceses would help out Boston won’t materialize because they will all be broke after this is over.

Lord Jesus, purify your Church.

'fraid I haven't heard of the OK case, but then they are coming in so fast and furious that it's hard to keep up. The flood will eventually crest (we are watching the results of an enema on a 30 year old impacted bowel and such things are not accomplished in a day) and recede, but right now it seems like it will never end.

The most heartening thing about what you write is the last line and the refreshing heedlessness to matters concerning the Financial Bottom Line. It has been a very moving thing to me to see so many faithful Catholics take the Church's finances so lightly (as indeed Jesus does) and her holiness so very seriously (as he also does). Let the Great Enema of 2002 continue!

Here's a gutsy priest in training. May God raise up a million like him.
We'll need them when Caesar makes war on the Church's legitimate rights using the opening our idiot and irresponsible bishops have so obligingly handed him.

Does This Strike You as Rather Disturbing?

I hate to seem like I'm on Bob Sungenis' case, but doesn't it seem rather strange to have a feature on your site called "In the Crosshairs of Love"? Does this not send a message something like "Stalked by A Friend" or "Crushing a Skull for Compassion" or "Garrotting for Grace" or any one of a thousand other creepy mixed metaphors? There's something about the "apologetics community" that often tends to think smashing an opponent into bugsquat is tantamount to "bearing witness for Christ". But I've never seen a more Freudian manifestation of this dark and creepy confusion of love and hate than the unsettling title "In the Crosshairs of Love".

When Worlds Collide

Somebody contact this guy and tell him he can win an easy $1000 from Robert Sungenis.

A couple of lessons learned from the piece.

1. Learning science does not make one any less a PC Jesuit: "'The God who wanted that kind of universe is one who wanted us to participate in his or her dynamism,' said Coyne." Don't fear the masculine pronoun, Padre. The masculine pronoun never killed anybody. You are a priest of a revealed religion that calls God "Father." It's okay. You're safe and among friends here.

2. Even a scientist stuck in an observatory on a mountain in Italy can figure out more readily than many American bishops that secrecy and deceit are bad ideas.

3. There's something goofy about a scientist weighing in on the Priest Scandals as though it really has anything to do with his particular field. It's something like Noam Chomsky talking about our policy in Afghanistan. He's entitled to an opinion, but I'm not obligated to think it important just because he's a big name in his particular field. It was like the other day at the Home School conference, when somebody announced that the Chief Exorcist of Rome doesn't like Harry Potter. My reaction was "So what does the Chief Exorcist of Rome know about literature? Why should I especially care what he thinks?" I keep waiting for a headline that says "Vatican Poodle Trainer Weighs in on Scandals".

Fr. Coelacanth Corrects the Mass

A reader writes:

One of those linguistic fossils is my pastor. During Mass, he says "May the Lord accept this sacrifice at our hands. For the praise and glory of God's name. For our good and the good of all God's Church." So, in other words, he goes out of his way to castrate God since he's not supposed to say that part any way. During Good Friday, he dutifully went through all those prayers taking out every male pronoun. Momentarily I thought of saying "Amen and Awomen" just to make a point, but of course that wouldn't be respectful during the liturgy.

Padre, don't be afraid of the masculine pronoun. The masculine pronoun is your friend. Trust the masculine pronoun. It was, after all, Jesus who said, "When you pray, say 'Father.'" But then, what does the Incarnate God know?

The Glory of Capitalism
For all those trying to buy my books and tapes, the glitch on my website is now fixed and you should be able to spend with abandon using the awesome (and secure server) power of PayPal. Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover and ECheck are all gratefully accepted.

No. Really. You need these books and tapes. You'll kick yourself someday if you let this golden opportunity for a signed copy of my work pass you by. Avoid the reproachful looks of future progeny now.

Cardinal Roger "Richard McBrien Says I'm the True Voice of Reform" Mahony is now in the running
for the coveted Heartless Prelate Award!

Last week it was a horse race between Weakland and Curtiss, who were duking it out with conflicting claims to superior callousness and arrogance. But this week, Cardinal Mahony adds a whole new ingredient--mendacity--which radically alters the complexion of the race and makes him a sudden front runner for the hotly contested HPA! Every day he sounds more and more like Mr. Keefer, Fred MacMurray's revolting character in The Caine Mutiny.

A friend comments on this story from the LA Times:

> Points West
> Mahony's 'Big Problem' Is Largely of His Own Making
>
> May 17, 2002
>
>
> He didn't call the police.
>
> He didn't warn parishioners.
>
> He didn't check up on the molester who had confessed to him in 1986. That
> left the offending priest free to prey on more children for another 14 years.
> I don't know whether to ask for a grand jury investigation of Los Angeles
> Cardinal Roger M. Mahony or run to the nearest church and light a candle for
> him.
>
> Mahony, who has held himself up as a crusader against sexual abuse by
> priests, is not the reformer he'd have you believe. The latest proof is the
> case of Father Michael Baker, as detailed by Glenn F. Bunting and other
> colleagues in Thursday's Times.
>
> For months now, those of us who've been covering the scandal in the Roman
> Catholic Church have been aware of Father Baker. We knew about Mahony's
> attorneys writing a $1.3-million check in 2000 to quietly settle a claim by
> two brothers. They say Baker molested them for 13 years after the priest
> confessed his compulsion to Mahony.
>
> But Mahony isn't an easy man to get answers out of, unless they're the ones
> he wants you to hear. Here's what I'm talking about.
>
> After I'd hammered him in print for weeks, the cardinal stunned me with an
> e-mail invitation for a personal tour of the new $200-million downtown
> cathedral. It was my first clue he'd missed his true calling. He should have
> gone into PR.
>
> Fine, I replied. The sooner the better, because I've got some questions I'd
> like to ask. But after several cordial exchanges, Mahony laid down the 11th
> Commandment: Thou shalt not ask questions about anything but the cathedral.
>
> Was he kidding? He's sitting on top of a festering scandal, I've got two or
> three dozen queries about what he knew and when, and he thinks I'm going to
> come by to marvel at the Rog Mahal?
>
> In the end, he canceled my tour, and any hope of resurrecting it faded soon
> thereafter. Mahony couldn't have been eager to see me after I dug up the
> details on the way he handled a confessed molester back when Mahony was
> bishop in Stockton. The priest molested again and again after Mahony moved
> him around the diocese in the 1980s. Sound familiar?
>
> But if I couldn't get to Mahony, my colleague Beth Shuster did. Last month
> she asked him whether Father Baker had confessed his abuse of minors.
>
> No recollection of it, Mahony said.
>
> Later, he told Shuster he thought another church official might have met with
> Baker.
>
> Then, this Tuesday, he gave a third version. In a letter to diocesan priests,
> he admitted that in 1986, "Baker disclosed to me that he had problems in the
> past of acting out sexually with two minors."
>
> Sounds like a case of repressed memory. But what caused the epiphany?
>
> "It's quite likely that very soon the public media will highlight the case,"
> Mahony wrote to his priests. In the letter, he said Baker was removed from
> the ministry after the allegations in 2000.
>
> Indeed he was. But not even then did Mahony call police. He wrote a
> $1.3-million check instead.
>
> Then, as the scandal grew and Mahony promised everyone he had handed the
> names of all known molesters to police, internal memos revealed the
> cardinal's dilemma.
>
> Should he tell police about Baker, even though it would reflect badly on him
> and the diocese? Or should he keep it quiet and risk being dragged before a
> grand jury and, in his own words, get hit with "charges of cover-up,
> concealing criminals etc. etc."
>
> His worst nightmare might actually now come true. L.A. County Dist. Atty.
> Steve Cooley apparently woke from his nap long enough to see that The Times
> was doing his job for him and ordered the cardinal to either open up
> personnel files or answer to a grand jury.
>
> Either option might prove uncomfortable for Mahony, who just a few weeks ago
> was wagging a finger at Boston Cardinal Bernard Law. If Mahony were ever
> guilty of gross negligence like that, he promised, he'd have trouble walking
> down a church aisle.
>
> But this story has been about hypocrisy and betrayal from Day One.
>
> "Our biggest problem" in dealing with Baker, Mahony told The Times, "was that
> ... he wasn't found guilty of a criminal act. That's a big problem."
>
> No it isn't. When a priest confesses to molesting children, there are three
> things to do.
>
> First, call the police. Second, check on the victims. Third, defrock the
> priest.
>
> To do anything less is a morally corrupt act of self-preservation, an insult
> to victims and a disservice to countless honorable priests.
>
> Why can everyone but church leaders see the obvious?

My friend says, "It's an open-and-shut case of cardinatial arrogance. Mahony flat-out lied about this case, and only told the truth when he became convinced the media was going to tell it for him. Meanwhile, he had no trouble presenting himself in public as an upstanding archbishop, not like that creepy Cardinal Law. It was all a LIE. I'm astonished by the nerve of these guys. How can they do this high-wire act in public, knowing what they know about themselves? These men are freakin' pathological."

It does make you wonder how dumb they are--or how dumb they think we are.

TV to American Children: You're Getting Stoooooopid
I had fun with this.

Stephen Jay Gould, RIP

I always had a soft spot for the man. He was, if memory serves, an atheist like so many of his trade. But there was a willingness to at least attempt fairness toward religionists that was woefully lacking in tiresome and shallow dogmatists like Richard Dawkins. I shall miss him. God have mercy on his soul and grant him everlasting life through Christ.

More on the War on the Seal

A fellow named Todd Reitmeyer is a seminarian with his own blog.

He writes concerning the danger to the Seal our bishop's stupidity and wickedness has caused:

I wanted you to know I have been telling people for about two months that this is going to happen and no one has believed me. I am glad you see it as well. As a seminarian getting ordained (God willing) into the firestorm this summer I have noted that this is coming. There will be a lot of us in jail for contempt of court.

My friend and I were just discussing this tonight. He had some questions about what we can and can't do in regards to the confessional and was stunned to find out how strict the seal was. The part he didn't appreciate was if the guy had no contrition and didn't intend to confess that I still couldn't break the seal.

I am glad you have this up. It is coming big time. Check out this excerpt I clipped.

CANADIAN BISHOPS PROTEST AGAINST INVASION OF PRIVACY

OTTAWA, SEP 17, 1999 (ZENIT).- In a recent letter labeled "urgent" to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, the Catholic Conference of Canadian Bishops expressed their "grave concern" for the government's proposal to the preparatory commission of
the International Criminal Court, to eliminate the protection of privacy from the secret of confession.

The letter, signed by Father Emilius Goulet, Secretary General of the Bishops' Conference, refers to "disquieting reports ... that the Canadian representative ... has proposed that the new international court not recognize the centuries-old legal tradition that respects the sacred confidentiality of matters shared between a penitent and priest during the confession of sins."

While acknowledging that the proposal has received very little international support, the bishops make it clear that they are "disturbed that the Government of Canada would even propose such an undertaking."

"The strict confidentiality of matters shared between a priest and penitent," the text continues, "not only concerns the more than one billion Catholic and Orthodox Christians in the world who consider the confession of sins to be a sacrament, but members of all religions, given that the recognition of such confidentiality has been legitimately extended over time to include private religious counseling in all religious faiths."

"Furthermore, the inevitable effects of the Canadian proposal would have meant interference with the right to personal privacy as well as erosion of freedom of conscience and religion. As you will recall, in a letter dated August 5, 1999, to the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, you had rightly stated that religious freedom is a fragile right in many areas of the world. Such freedom would certainly not have been strengthened internationally by this recent Canadian proposal," the document concludes.

Memo to Kathy Shaidle: Note the date on the article. "If men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?" Please turn your talents for excoriation away from the fine work of prolifers (I've never met people resembling your unfair caricature) and toward the empty suits in the Canadian government who want to get their grubby hands on the Seal of the Confessional "for the children." I think you could write something exquisite and memorable.

Sure it's way funny.

But imagine how much funnier your attempts to say something in Japanese would be. Reminds me of one of Mark Twain's favorite books: English As She is Spoke, a phrasebook written by the enterprising Portuguese Pedro Carolino in 1883. Carolino did not know English but, nothing daunted, he used an English/French phrasebook and a French/Portuguese phrasebook to produce a classic in... some as yet to be determined language.

The Lidless Eye of the Reactionary is Watching Scott Hahn too!
Gotta love it when EWTN is too far out for the Truly Catholic[TM] Pharisees. For the record, some of the sweetest, most-docile-to-the-Holy-Spirit-and-teaching-of-the-Church Catholics I have ever known are Charismatics. I'd take their company over the Grand Inquisitor who wrote and published the piece linked above any day of the week.

Father Paul Weinberger Speaks!
This is the pastor of Blessed Sacrament in Oak Cliff, TX that Rod Dreher was raving about. If you are a pastor, here's a role model for you!

A Very Good and Thoughtful Letter

A reader tells me she read "an article that I like very much written by a Palestinian Christian who is engaged in peace efforts with Israelis and his perspective on the politics of victimhood, which I have seen as operative both in the current scandal, in the mideast and in my own life which I am convinced is directly contrary to the commands of Christ and which does not lead to healing and restoration for either victim or abuser. The phrase that really resonated was as follows:

Both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs strongly perceive themselves as victims, and therefore are unable to see themselves as a threat to the other. If we are the victims, then we cannot be the victimizers. The victims' mentality causes them to be blind to others' pain, aspirations and needs, and therefore justify their attitude towards the other. This perception of themselves as the threatened and injured party, also allows for fear and hostility towards the other."

She then continues with her own story:

This is not an academic matter for me. I am not from a Catholic background myself but I am a seriously practicing Christian from a conservative evangelical Protestant family in the south and also the survivor of many years of very serious emotional and physical child abuse as well as sexual abuse.

My mother was (and still is) mentally ill (serious personality disorder/probable dissociative disorder) for which she has never received serious treatment. My father was a essentially passive man and classic enabler who although kind by himself, always supported mom and did not exert himself to protect us. As the eldest girl, I received the lion’s share of the physical abuse ---- constant whippings with sticks or a metal flyswatter, having my head bashed repeatedly against the wall, as well as less formal beatings. I have no memory of being touched by my mother in anything but anger until I was grown.

Because I was the eldest, I was also my mother’s only confidante. She had a psychic break the summer I turned 12 and shared all her black thoughts with me. All I can remember of that time is 3 months of constant terror and the fact that I made contingency plans as to how to rescue my younger siblings if mom decided to do us all a favor and put us out of our misery by killing us before she committed suicide. (I had read about a depressed mother murdering her children somewhere). My private name for my mother was the “demon god”.

I was sexually abused (but not raped) at six in a matter that would be considered fairly serious today. It was completely non-violent, once only and relatively brief. I was hugely puzzled by the whole thing but not traumatized. I suppose that it might have been more distressing if I’d know nothing but love and kindness but as it was, it was, to my mind, just one more incomprehensible thing that adults did.

That’s enough details to give you a feel. My childhood and adolescence were completely consumed with fear, rage, and depression. I had a major breakdown at 19 and recovered very, very slowly. Then I underwent a conversion in college and gave my life to Christ. I think I was lucky that this all happened before the cult of victimhood became so popular. All I knew was that Christ desired me to follow him and commanded me to forgive. My 20’s were consumed by the struggle to become whole and to truly forgive. I prayed with all my might that God would make a way and he did. I received 7 years of intense pastoral care from a remarkable woman pastor and then a brief period of very intense psychological treatment from a renowned Christian psychologist. Somehow I was certain that healing and happiness was possible even though I had never experienced it. I believed Scripture when it said that God would give me the desires of my heart but I also believed that the way to healing and fullness of joy led through obedience and that full and free forgiveness was an essential part of obeying Christ.

It took me 10 years to grow strong enough emotionally and spiritually to let go of my demands that my mother “pay me back” for all the suffering she had caused me. The moment of freedom came when I was able to place my hands on my mother’s head and affirm out loud, as an act of faith in God’s creation, that she was a blessing. I ran delirious with joy around a local lake afterward, rejoicing over and over “ I have blessed my enemy.” “I have blessed my enemy.” Even today the memory of that moment can move me to tears. I was free at last.

Fifteen years later, the power of that moment is still a constant source of gratitude. My life is full of the things that once seemed impossible. I am privileged to be doing the work of my heart and am happily married. I can hardly remember what it was like to be depressed. My sense of gratitude to God, of being miraculously restored to life is still fresh. I don’t think that I will ever take the simple goodnesses of life for granted. I do not doubt that one of the primary foundations of my present happiness was that decision to obey Christ and wage the battle to both take my life back and to forgive the one who had despitefully used me. I am convinced the decision to forgive was an essential part of “taking my life back”.

And now back to my thoughts regarding the scandal of the moment. Of course, the abuse must be stopped immediately and children protected. The abusers must be held accountable as part of justice and as part of their own redemption. The decisions of the some Catholic bishops in this regard are completely incomprehensible to me. But all this has been covered exhaustively by others and I want to focus on responding primarily from the prospective of a victim who has experienced the power of Christ to redeem both victim and abuser.

I read a Catholic blog today that actually stated that child sexual abuse was worse than murder. May I say that from the perspective of a child victim, this is the most absurd thing I have ever heard! Only being caught up in communal hysteria can excuse it and I can only hope that when the author calms down, he/she will begin to feel more than a little silly about the whole thing.

I know what it is like to fear for my life as a child at the hands of the very person who gave me birth and I know what it like to be sexually abused and I know which one I would choose! I happen to think that it’s a damn fine thing that I’m alive (although I realize that my opinion on that score may not be universally shared). I used to be so afraid that I would die young, before I had experience real healing. I couldn’t bear the thought that the experience of my childhood would be the sum total of my life. Being murdered by my own mother would seem to put the final, pathetic, grotesque seal on the whole tragedy.

But if our Christian faith is true, then the deepest truth, the greatest power in the universe is not sin or death but redemption. As C. S. Lewis wrote in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, redemption is the “deep magic beyond time” that brings life out of death and shatters all our earthly calculations. And as G. K. Chesterton wrote in his magnificent poem, “Glory in Profoundis” – “outrushing the fall of man is the height of the fall of God. Glory to God in the lowest.” There is nothing that a human being can do that Christ has not already died to redeem and transform into life. That includes sexual abuse.

No matter what the offense is, Redemption is always possible and it is always available to both the victim and the victimizer. This is good news indeed because all of us have been victimizers at some point in our life. If those of us who have been abused don’t yet know that about ourselves, then we have a long way to go. That is the special temptation of the victim: not just to acknowledge and feel our pain but to linger there when it is time to let go and move on. To assume that my suffering excuses any retribution that I take, excuses failure to take as much responsibility for my feelings and my life as possible, and ensures that I can never really victimize someone else because all that I do is excused by what was done to me.

I have watched my siblings wrestle with these same issues. The four of us who have, in different ways, pursued our life in Christ and striven to take back our lives and to forgive have experienced real if not perfect healing. Our greatest remaining sorrow is that our one brother who has clung to his rage and his identity as victim is on psychiatric disability. In his despair, he has become manipulative and abusive to those who have tried hardest to help. I don’t think that lack of forgiveness has caused his illness but I do suspect that his refusal to consider letting go of his rage is one of the factors blocking his recovery.

One of my quiet joys these days is that my mother seems to be experiencing some genuine happiness for the first time in her life. It is as though the final movement of my own healing is to see my mother becoming free to enjoy herself. I realize that in the current climate, rejoicing in the ultimate happiness of the one who made your childhood a living hell must seem unimaginably sick. One of the unexpected fruits of forgiveness for me was that I was suddenly free to see my mother as a person for the first time, a pathetically child-like, self-absorbed, but not unlovable fellow human being. But, you might say, I suppose it’s excusable. She is your mother after all. But a priest would be entirely different! Would it? How could betrayal by a relative stranger, however exalted his office, be more terrible than decades of rejection and abuse by the one person who has known me since conception and whose personal vocation it was to love me into life and maturity? Who most profoundly and immediately stands in God’s place in the life of a child: the one who gave you birth or a priest that you barely know?

What on earth do we think our Lord meant, when he commanded us to bless those who curse us and do good to those who despitefully use us? Of course, I must do all I can to stop injustice but that is only the beginning. How dare I, who have been forgiven much, not hope and pray for the ultimate transformation and happiness of my enemy? We know by faith that child abusers are not monsters simply because God does not make monsters. They are broken human beings like you and I who are trapped in a particularly horrific sin. Some of them may be a continuing danger to society. I may need to take stern steps to protect children from their selfishness but I am forbidden to rejoice in their fall or wish for their destruction. And I must do whatever I can to encourage their reclamation and ultimate restoration. Our Lord warned us solemnly about what would happen if we who have been forgiven much refuse to forgive those who sin against us. And what do I gain in the long run by clinging to my rage? What can I possibly extort from my enemy through my refusal to forgive that God can not give me in overwhelming abundance?

I have always loved C. S. Lewis’s little gem, the Great Divorce. As his dour Scotch guide on his day trip to Purgatory puts it, “you cannot in your present state, understand eternity . . .but you will get some likeness of it if you say that good and evil, when full grown, become retrospective . . .Both processes begin even before death. The good man’s past begins to change so that his forgiven sins and remembered sorrows take on the quality of heaven.” (p. 67-68). Heaven begins now for those truly want to be happy and are willing to jettison everything, including the dubious satisfaction of vengeance, that gets in the way. I think that this is what the French poet, Paul Claudel, meant when he said “there is only one real tragedy in life and that is not to be a saint.”

I must bear witness that my own childhood memories and sorrows are beginning to take on the quality of heaven and pray that all who are caught up in this present tragedy, victim, families, and abuser alike, will someday find it to be true as well. I can only affirm that real healing and genuine peace for abuse victims is to be found on the other side of the severe and scandalous discipline of forgiveness.

God bless and may we all meet merrily in heaven!

She then appends this article:

Who Hates More? Who is More Evil?
Due to the language barrier, Israelis and Palestinians do not read each other's newspapers and watch their TV programs. Thus they are dependent on very selective information given to them about the other side. One example is when a Western group associated with Holocaust denial wanted to hold an international conference in Lebanon. The conference was cancelled due to the strong protests of Palestinian, other Arab and international scholars and leaders. However, Israeli media focused on the issue of the conference and its supporters, giving little attention to those who blocked the event.

On the other side, when the previously mentioned rabbi cried out for the destruction of Palestinian homes and their death, Palestinians attributed these sentiments to all Jews. They failed to hear the voice of many Israelis condemning the rabbi's words.

While we understand and perhaps accept the variety of feeling and opinion within our own group, we do not recognize the debates and disagreements within the other group. Rather, we see them as one group united together against us.

3). Moral superiority . Thus, we decide that we are more peace loving, trustworthy, and honest. Our values become a moral authority, and we view with contempt those who have different values. Often we will not mix with those who do not share our moral standards, as they might change or corrupt us. The feeling of moral superiority allows for separation and protection; and can justify hatred or legitimize mistreatment of them.

During the pope's visit to Syria, President Bishar Assad gave an example of this attitude of moral superiority, when he likened the actions of the state of Israel to those of the Nazis; declaring that they are violating all human, moral principles. On the other side, Israeli President Moshe Katsav recently gave a speech where he spoke of a huge gap between us and the enemy [Arabs] in the areas of morality, ethics and conscience, as the Arabs are coming from a "totally different galaxy."

4). Perceived threat/victimization. Both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs strongly perceive themselves as victims, and therefore are unable to see themselves as a threat to the other. If we are the victims, then we cannot be the victimizers. The victims' mentality causes them to be blind to others' pain, aspirations and needs, and therefore justify their attitude towards the other. This perception of themselves as the threatened and injured party, also allows for fear and hostility towards the other. Therefore violent action is justified, and some politicians use these fears to promote their political agenda.

Biblical Principles and Response

As Israeli and Palestinian believers we feel and experience with our people the effect of the conflict. Awareness of the dynamics of hatred can help us not to allow hatred to overcome us. Biblical principles can help us in this difficult situation.

1). "So God created man in his own image," (Gen. 1:27). All people are created in God's likeness. Thus, as believers we are not permitted to dehumanize or demonize the other, as all are formed after the image of God. We are commanded to act in love and respect towards all of God's creation.

2). "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23) All of humanity is fallen and in need of restoration, regardless of their ethnicity or religious background. The prophet Amos spoke to not one, but many nations on their responsibility for their own sin. Also as individuals it is clear that "At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another" (Titus 3:3). We are all in need redemption from the sin of hatred and restoration through the power of resurrection.

3). Hatred is a destructive sin. In Romans 3:10,14-17, Paul quotes: "There is no one righteous, not even one.... Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery make their ways, and the way of peace they do not know." As believers we should mindful that hatred and hostility leads to violence and murder of those created in God's image. We must be alert, for Jesus warns that in time of trial, "many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other" (Mt. 24:9-11).

4). We must deal with the sin of hatred within ourselves and our people before judging others. The blame that we assign to others, our bitterness at their offenses, falls second to the recognition of our own sinful natures. Jesus spoke to individuals, asking us to take a sincere look at ourselves before passing judgment on others. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Mt. 7). We are called to introspection and self-examination before confrontation with others. Before we preach about the other's hatred we much check our own hearts.

5). How then are we to respond to our enemy? How do we react to hatred? Jesus' answer is clear: "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Mt. 5)." In many conflicts around the world, even believers in Jesus find themselves on opposite sides of the fence. However, we cannot follow God and stay in the darkness of hatred, "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness" I John 2:9. Jesus asks us to take more than a passive role. We are prompted to take a stand against evil, and to take action by loving one another and even those who hate us.

Paul instructs us on how to treat one another: "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves...Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse....Do not repay anyone evil for evil....Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath...Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12: 9-21).

As humans, to love those who hurt and persecute us is difficult. Thus we rely on the Holy Spirit to help us fulfill God's calling on our lives. "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness" (Romans 8:26). Although we might be unable to resist the anger, bitterness and hatred that so quickly springs up, we remember that "No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us" (Romans 8:37). In this world that preaches revenge, we must stand in radical opposition to the sin of hatred that separates us from God and from each other. "Above all, love each other deeply, for love covers over a multitude of sins" (1 Pet. 4:8).

Musalaha - Ministry of Reconciliation
PO Box 52110, Jerusalem 91521, Israel
Tel: 02-672-0376, Fax: 02-671-0897

If Mike Hardy Hates It, You Know It's Good! :)
Just giving you a hard(y) time, Mike. But I did think the piece very insightful.

Shameless Plug
If you like this blog, why not consider using Paypal to help support this decidedly lower middle class writer with a wife and four kids by clicking on the "Make a Donation" button on the left side of the screen. In the words of Wayne Newton, "Danke Schoen". Also, check out my books, which you can also buy via PayPal. Not to worry, it's a secure server. And I take credit cards!

Culture War
A little salvo--a cloud no bigger than a man's hand--in the coming attack on the Seal of the Confessional.

Greg Popcak is great.

Update on Brian Halderman

Seems our Man of Integrity suddenly got rid of the drag nuns and faux priests photos today. Trust me. They were there. Poor persecuted man. What is interesting about his action is that this sort of cowardice and deception is not called "cowardice and deception" by the gay community. It's called "being driven back into the closet". But of course, this is untrue. I don't want Mr. Halderman's photos off line. I want them where we can see them and ask ourselves if this is really the sort of thing we want to see in the priesthood. Mr. Halderman's decision to remove from our sight just what sort of contempt he has for religious and clerical life is not my fault nor the fault of others who pointed out his site. It is his fault and his free choice. Evidently he is not all that filled with gay pride.

Memo to Amy re: Seattle Catholic.com

I don't know the facts about Abp. Brunett. But I do know a little about Seattle Catholic.com, the people who wrote you attacking Brunett. They appear to be an embittered nucleus of reactionary malcontents who made the mistake of passing along to me a completely false rumor about a priest I know extremely well (evidently they thought I live elsewhere and figured they could do so with impunity). When I challenged them on it, they simply refused to reply. Cowards. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. That commandment even applies to Righteous Reactionaries of Rectitude.

Don't trust them, Amy.

By the way, it's not just American bishops that Don't Get It

Many in the gay community don't get it either. Take, for example, this stunningly clueless guy name Brian Halderman. He seems to think there's something weird about lots and lots of people connecting the dots between his complete contempt for chastity and orthodoxy (a contempt he shares with Paul Shanley), abuse of boys, boys, boys, boys, boys, boys and boys, and the priest scandals. It's all a witch hunt, says he and he is a put-upon man to be pitied, not a clueless buffoon to be rebuffed. Sounds rather like Rembert Weakland, Cardinal Law or Mahony, don't it? And if the preternaturally stupid bishop John "I didn't notice anything unusual about Shanley's publicly advocating Man Boy Love" McCormack of New Hampshire is a flaming fool for using this image in a healing mass for victims of priestly abuse, how many orders of magnitude dumber do you have to be to put links to your Halloween party with gay guys dressed as campy nuns and priests on your website and whine when nobody thinks that you would be a great candidate for clerical or religious life?

Like I say, this is a crisis for the clueless ecclesiocracy in the US, to be sure. But it's also a crisis for the gay community that does not seem to get it any more than Law does when he gets riled at his negligence and insensitivity being named as such. A Clue for the clueless Mr. Halderman: it's not a witch hunt. It's common sense. There is a connection between a gay subculture that holds chastity and orthodoxy in contempt and abuse of boys, boys, boys, boys, boys and boys.

What are they afraid of?

Make checks payable to M-A-R-K S-H-E-A

Mailbag

My readership has increased exponentially in the past couple weeks, so much that I've already discussed needs discussing again for you new folks. For example, one reader writes to ask the question that has perplexed so many of us:

How can the Roman Catholic Church keep Cardinal Law in place in light of the recent scandals?

It seems clear that on at least 2 occasions he wrote letters helping priests get transfers stating that they had good records, knowing that they had engaged in misconduct. Besides his bad judgment and coverup, isn't it obvious that he is not a particularly honest man?

In answer, I direct you here, here, and especially here. Bottom line: if we want to understand what JPII is thinking we have to begin with the realization that he is thinking with the Tradition, not politically.

Another reader writes:

Have you seen the 5/17 AP article by Tom Rachman "Vatican Official Says Priests Solely Responsible for Abuse" from an article in the Jesuit magazine Civilta Cattolica by Rev. Gianfranco Ghirlanda a canon lawyer?

I've heard about it, but haven't seen it. My own take is similar to Amy Welborn's. I am loathe to try to make too much of this piece without know more facts. Incredible as it may seem to Americans who have more in common with Robert Sungenis than they realize, the universe does not orbit around them and the formulations of canon law sometimes take into account more than simply the American experience (such as the experience of Christians in Iron Curtain countries who routinely had bogus charges hurled at them by Authorities who want to clap them in irons. Until I knew more, I would not, like Progressive Catholic, assume that Rome was saying "Screw You" to us. I will readily believe (because so many of them have taught me to believe) that the American ecclesiats say "Screw You" to us on a regular basis. They also say "Screw You" to Rome (as when they spinelessly allowed men like Paul Shanley to be the Voice of Cutting Edge Progressiveness for 20 Years while Rome asked them to please clean up the American Church). There's a common thread there that subtle minds might pick up, but it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that more Progressive defiance of the Faith is the solution to our ills, nor that the Holy Father doesn't care about what's happening here.

Another reader sends me more happy news about our empty suits in Congress being asked to make Solomonic Judgments using only one volt battery powered brains. "I tremble for our nation when I remember that God is just." - Thomas Jefferson

Well, this is different, especially for Australia!

Somebody write to ask me why I have a link to "Enemy of the Church?" and then adds:

You ask us to write various presidents of Catholic Colleges because they host speakers who support abortion on demand. Yet you have a link (which is a tacit recommendation) to "Relapsed Catholic" who has recently been vilifying the lumpenproletariat who, she claims, are the core constituency of the pro-life movement. I welcome and enjoy different points of view in venues of Catholic thought and discussion. But scurrility and elitism should have has no place in these forums.

Point 1: I have a link to Enemy of the Church because I argue with Mike from time to time and it's somehow not sporting to argue with him without making his site available to my readers. Sorry. Personal idiosyncratic code of honor (hmmm... have I put up a link to Progressive Catholic? I argue with him too. Must check.)

Point 2: I think Kathy's take on prolifers was rather unfair. Just by way of example, I thought the cheap shot about prolifers being ugly was lame. Most men I know would find Ann Coulter definitely easier on the eyes than Bella Abzug was. But, of course, looks aren't the issue, ideas are. And what I find troubling is that my reader did not really reflect very deeply on what Kathy was saying. For nowhere does she argue for a pro-abort position. She's a Catholic. What she does argue for is the idea that prolifers need to make their case better. I think some of her characterizations were more like caricatures, but I think her aim is to help prolifers promote their cause better. Jeremy Lott thinks so too.

Finally, a note: I do not believe the purpose of my blog is to maintain ritual purity from contact with people of opinions different from mine. I think Fortress Catholicism is as dumb as Uncritical Catholicism. You may take a link as a "recommendation". I don't necessary do so. You may also think that people reading my blog are so stupid that they can't tell an opinion on another blog to be sharply at variance with mine, or the Church's, or their own and so might be "ensnared by error". I don't think my readers are that stupid. And, I take no alumni's support money or tuition to link to sites which attack the Church. Nor when they differ from me or the Church, do I try to pretend that they don't. These are significant variations between my policy and that of your average Jesuit college.

Diary of a City Priest looks like it might be interesting.
Haven't seen it, so caveat emptor.

I Made a New Friend This Weekend

The very sensible, intelligent, learned, and charitable J. Fraser Field who captains the Catholic Educator's Resource Center in our neighbor to the North: Canada. I'm making CERC a permanent link cuz their stuff is so good.

If Some is Good, More is Better and Too Much is Never Enough!

If you like this blog, if you love Amy Welborn, if you enjoy Catholic Parent and Matt Pinto's Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons, if Mary Beth Bonacci fills you with a sense of well-being, Deal Hudson rocks your world, and Decent Films is your reviewer of choice then does Greg Popcak have a blog for you! Check out the brand spankin' new Heart, Mind, and Strength blog over at Exceptional Marriages. I and many others will be regular contributors.

The Shadow Tradition

Am I the only one that's noticed that there is a significant component of lingering anti-semitism among Reactionary Catholics? The thinking appears to be "Jews were persecuted by Catholics for centuries so Jew hatred is old so Jew-hatred is part of the Tradition". Weird. Sin is old too. Is it part of the Tradition? I've run into Reactionary types repeatedly who have good words for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or who never heard an anti-Israel story they didn't love, or who will even try to soft-pedal the incredible blood libels of the Saudi press about Jewish vampires drinking the blood of Christian and Muslim children. There's something very dark at the heart of the Reactionary "Repeal Vatican II" faction. Don't like it. Never have.

The Pronoun Formerly Known as He

English major grumble. Sometime in the Eighties some sort of revolt was attempted in which somebody had the bright idea of castrating God in deference to bitter nuns with short-cropped, iron grey hair, bland wardrobes and sensible shoes who attended conferences on liturgy featuring undersexed men with scraggly beards and guitars who mewled on about subverting the dominant paradigm. Judging simply from the results (not that I was there when the fateful decision was taken), some Task Force on the Elimination of Sexism evidently decided that the thing to do was start by getting rid of the masculine pronoun. And so, like a rising tide, more and more parishioners were instructed/influenced/miscatechized to say things like "Glory to God in the highest and peace to(Delete:his/insert "God's") people on earth" or "It is right to give (Delete:him/insert "God") thanks and praise" and so forth. Some even got as far as getting a few ninnies to change the Sign of the Cross to "In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier". But then, somehow, the enthusiasm waned. The tide rolled back. The Sign of the Cross reverted to normal. Most of linguistic victimology withered on the vine. And so, each Sunday, in the liturgy, we now have a congregation in which everybody refers to God as "Father" (like our ignorant sexist Lord did) and not "Parent". We also, of course, call Jesus Lord, not "Lady". But about 1/25 of the congregation has this strange lingering terror of the masculine pronoun and can't bring itself to say "he" "him" or "his" while the rest of us do. Sort of a linguistic fossil remnant of the revolution that failed. Since I live in the Seattle Archdiocese where this sort of thing was most enthusiastically promoted, I cheer myself with paraphrasing Frank Sinatra: "If it can't make it here/Can't make it anywhere!/It's up to you Seattle, WAAAAAAAAA!"

The Second Piece of Good News in 24 Hours

And this one is from Our Man Vacationing In Dallas, Rod Dreher:

Just got in a few minutes ago from Dallas, where we were visiting my wife's family. I had to write and tell you some wonderful news from that city, which has been so badly afflicted by Catholic episcopal leadership over the past decade. Fr. Joseph Wilson, our Brooklyn priest friend, recommended that we go to mass at Blessed Sacrament parish in Oak Cliff, a relatively poor neighborhood in Dallas. The pastor is Fr. Paul Weinberger, an old friend and seminary classmate of Fr. Wilson's. "You'll love it there," Fr. Wilson said. "Fr. Weinberger was basically sent in to close that parish, but he's revitalized it."

So, we took the advice. Fr. Wilson has never steered us wrong. His record still stands. Mass was terrific! We went to the 10:45 a.m. mass, which is the Novus Ordo done almost entirely in Latin. The congregation was mixed by ethnicity -- Anglo, Latino and African-American -- and age (there were elderly folks there, middle-aged parishioners, and young families too). The mass began in a church filled with incense and Gregorian chant. Fr. Weinberger was astonishingly reverent (astonishing to those of us accustomed to the hugger-mugger mess that most Novus Ordo priests make of the liturgy), but he wasn't the least bit remote or stiff, and my wife and I didn't feel alien to the liturgy, as we have on the occasion that we've attended the Tridentine mass.

His homily was wonderful. He preached about how John Paul II was formed in sanctity by his own father, and by the good example and loving care of holy laymen throughout his early life. His point was that the laity was absolutely key to the making of our sainted pope's character, and that we in the congregation should understand that we too are the Church, and responsible for living and teaching sanctity. He said that in this time of terrible scandal for the Church, we shouldn't look to the bishops and the clergy to lead us out of the mess. If they do, that's great, but we mustn't despair and forget that the Holy Spirit is calling us to do our part to restore holiness and righteousness to the Body of Christ.

The liturgy of the Eucharist was amazing. The lights went down in the church for the consecration, and Fr. Weinberger confected the Eucharist by candlelight, through a curtain of incense. He held the Host and then the chalice high for a solid minute. We received kneeling at the altar rail. When we returned to our pew, my wife was making her thanksgiving, and started crying. She couldn't stop weeping, and I asked her if she was okay. She said, "This is what I thought the Church was. This is why I became Catholic."

After mass, Julie was speaking to one of the parishioners outside the parish about how great the mass was. She said to the woman, "Do you realize what you have here?" The woman replied, "You don't have to tell us! We know how blessed we are."

There is so much to be angry and depressed about in the life of the Church these days. In a poor corner of a troubled diocese, there is one priest lighting a tremendously bright candle. People should know.

I'm not, nor would I guess is Rod, especially fanatical about the Mass being said in Latin. But I do care that it is said reverently and not in a spirit of "Hey! Look at me!" by the priest or "How can we fix this to be more acceptable to Modern Consumers in Today's World." Between this and Cardinal George's gesture yesterday, I am very heartened. And I note that the name of the parish in Oak Cliff TX is Blessed Sacrament, which is (ahem) the same name as my parish. Coincidence? I think not! Rod: mazeltov!

Rembert the Great Satirical Rhymes are Always Welcome

A reader offers the following:

Rembert G. Weakland O.S.B,
"Maverick's" now his name.
Windy as hymns from Oregon,
Courtiers his companions,
Reminding him of his fame.

"An honorary degree,
endowed chair named for me,
Varillas' lifesize bronze bust of yours truly.

"Published both near and far,
Once washed Roncalli's car,
I should be in New York or in D.C.."

Here is the first ray of dawn in the Situation
Cardinal George! Way to go! You da man! May God raise up many more like you.

Reminds me of a famous tale from the life of St. Dominic. He was in Rome as the the story goes and the Pope bragged about the gorgeousness of the papal palace saying, "Peter can no longer say 'Silver and gold I do not have'". To which Dominic replied, "Neither can he say, 'Rise and walk.'"

Memo to the American Episcopacy: Now would be a good time for a Domino (or Dominic) Effect. Cardinal George has done right. Go thou and do likewise.

Here's a valuable group doing valuable work

The Cardinal Newman Society sends me this. If you want to do more than moan about the Church, you might consider informing the educrats running the various "Catholic" colleges here that their voiding their mucus on the Catholic faith is not the sort of thing that elicits funding from Catholic laity who care about the Faith:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 16, 2002

Contact: Patrick Reilly, President
Cardinal Newman Society

(703) 536-9585

preilly@cardinalnewmansociety.org

Catholic Colleges Invite 'Scandalous' Commencement Speakers, Awardees

FALLS CHURCH, VA - A national Catholic organization has called on American Catholics to protest 17 inappropriate commencement speakers and awardees at 14 Catholic colleges and universities.

"Despite the U.S. bishops' clear call for reform of Catholic higher education, it seems that a significant minority of Catholic college leaders simply aren't listening," complained Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, a national organization seeking the renewal of Catholic identity at Catholic colleges and universities. "Several of this year's speakers and awardees are inappropriate and their presence at Catholic institutions is scandalous."

Speakers and awardees opposed by the Cardinal Newman Society include:

BOSTON COLLEGE (MA): Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot, Chairwoman of the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, will receive an honorary degree on May 20. The MacArthur Foundation's Population and Reproductive Health grant program is a leading contributor to radical and anti-Catholic organizations advocating abortion, contraception and population control. (Protest: Rev. William P. Leahy, S.J., President, William.leahy.1@bc.edu, 617-552-3250.)

BOSTON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL (MA): Ambassador to Canada and former Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci will speak on May 24. While governor, Cellucci was a determined advocate of abortion rights. (Protest: Rev. William P. Leahy, S.J., President, William.leahy.1@bc.edu, 617-552-3250.)

COLLEGE OF NEW ROCHELLE (NY): Mary O'Connor Donohue, pro-abortion Lieutenant Governor of New York, will speak on May 23. (Protest: Dr. Stephen J. Sweeny, President, College of New Rochelle, 914-654-5000.)

COLLEGE OF ST. CATHERINE (MN): Pro-abortion U.S. Rep. Betty McCullom (D-MN), who has opposed legislation to ban cloning of human embryos, will speak on May 19. (Sr. Andrea H. Lee, IHM, President, Andrea_Lee@stkate.edu, 651-690-6525.)

COLLEGE OF ST. ROSE (NY): Frank Rhodes, president emeritus of Cornell University, spoke on May 11. In 1987, Rhodes publicly welcomed dissident theologian Charles Curran to teach at Cornell in the midst of Curran's high-profile battle with the Catholic University of America (DC), which eventually fired him for dissent from Church teaching on contraception, divorce and homosexual activity. His honorary degree from St. Rose is hardly appropriate when Catholic educators are striving to implement Ex corde Ecclesiae, the 1990 apostolic constitution on Catholic higher education. (Protest: Dr. R. Mark Sullivan, President, 518-454-5120.)

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE (DC): U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will speak on May 18. Pelosi is a dissident Catholic politician with a pro-abortion voting record, including her vote against a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Protest: Dr. John DiGioia, President, president@georgetown.edu, 202-687-4134.)

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW (DC): Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams will speak on May 18. Both are public advocates of abortion rights and homosexual rights, and therefore inappropriate despite their commendable leadership on September 11. (Protest: Dr. John DiGioia, President, president@georgetown.edu, 202-687-4134.)

LE MOYNE COLLEGE (NY): Chief Judge Judith Kaye of the New York State Court of Appeals will speak on May 19. In 1998, Kaye wrote the court's ruling that individuals and not the state have the right to determine the fate of frozen embryos, which are not "persons". The ruling prevented a woman from impregnating herself against her divorced husband's wishes and thereby saving her offspring from being destroyed. In 1995, Kaye superseded New York law and wrote the court's ruling that homosexual and unmarried
partners may adopt children. (Protest: Rev. Charles J. Beirne, S.J., President, beirnecj@lemoyne.edu, 315-445-4100.)

LOURDES COLLEGE (OH): U.S. Rep. Nancy Kaptur (D-OH) will speak and receive and honorary degree on May 18. Kaptur's voting record on abortion is mixed, often earning about a 50 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee and including many votes in support of abortion rights. (Protest: Dr. George C. Matthews, President, matthews@lourdes.edu, 419-824-3809.)

LOYOLA COLLEGE (MD): Former U.S. Senator George Mitchell will speak on May 18. Mitchell authored the Freedom of Choice Act and consistently voted the pro-abortion position. (Protest: Rev. Harold Ridley, S.J., President, vweller@Loyola.edu, 410-617-2201.)

MARYWOOD UNIVERSITY (PA): Yolanda King, daughter of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke on May 12. King is an activist for special rights for homosexuals, including efforts to change the United Methodist Church's prohibition on same-sex marriages and ordination of sexually active homosexuals (positions similar to Catholic teachings). (Protest: Sr. Mary Reap, I.H.M., President, mreap@es.marywood.edu, 570-348-6231.)

MOUNT ST. MARY'S COLLEGE (CA): Leon Panetta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, spoke on May 11. Panetta publicly supported Clinton's position on abortion, including partial-birth abortion. During his previous tenure as a U.S. Congressman from California, Panetta had a pro-abortion voting record and co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act in 1990. (Protest: Dr. Jacqueline Powers Doud, President, 310-954-4011.) Panetta also serves on the board of trustees of Santa Clara University (CA), a Jesuit university. The SCU Law Alumni Association will confer its Achievement Award on Panetta on May 17. (Protest: Rev. Paul L. Locatelli, S.J., President, plocatelli@scu.edu, 408-554-4023.)

NOTRE DAME COLLEGE (OH): Pro-abortion U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) spoke on May 11. (Protest: Dr. Anne L. Deming, President, 216-373-5200.)

SAINT MICHAEL'S COLLEGE (VT): Barbara Snelling received an honorary degree on May 12. The pro-abortion politician is a former Lieutenant Governor of Vermont and state senator. (Protest: Dr. Marc A. vander Heyden, President, 802-654-2000.)

STONEHILL COLLEGE (MA): Paul G. Kirk, Jr., former Democratic National Chairman and abortion-rights advocate, will speak on May 19. (Protest: Rev. Mark T. Cregan, C.S.C., President, presidentcregan@stonehill.edu, 508-565-1000.)

WHEELING JESUIT UNIVERSITY (WV): Robert Wise, pro-abortion Governor of West Virginia, will speak on May 18. While a U.S. Congressman from West Virginia, Wise helped defeat a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Protest: Rev. George F. Lundy, S.J., President, 800-624-6992.)

For more information about Cardinal Newman Society, see www.cardinalnewmansociety.org or call 703-536-9585.

More on Harry Potter
Here's an interesting piece on Harry by Mike Hertenstein.

After the Gandalf vs. Harry Potter panel at the Home School Conference this weekend, I was the Lone Contrarian arguing that Harry was mostly innocent, the books are certainly not occultic and though they are no more in Tolkien's league than a pop gun is in the same league as a B-52, they are fun and okay in their own way. Much acrimony. One guy came up to another panelist and said, "You were great. He [gesturing at me] is an idiot." :) He also informed me the books are being "channelled" by the author.

Fascinating.

To be fair, the other panelists made some interesting points, but not very persuasive ones in my books. I continue to think of Harry Potter as largely disposable mind candy. Fun. Aware of the cardinal virtues but not the theological ones. Not the locus of evil in the universe.

Between angry Muslims and Harry-haters my mail should be fun this week!

Worth noting

A reader writes to say:

Recall that Archbishop Curtiss is depicted in Michael Rose's "Goodbye! Good Men" as a model of orthodoxy and sound policy.

True indeed. One of the interesting marks of this scandal is that episcopal arrogance and folly seems to know none of the secular categories of "liberal" and "conservative". Curtiss and Egan are as heartless and arrogant as Mahony and Weakland. This shows, once again, the folly of trying to analyze the Church's difficulties using secular categories and reinforces the vital point my priest friend made concerning the necessity of thinking with the Tradition in order to get an accurate bead both on our woes and on the way out of them. (Go here to see that discussion.)

Great Scott! Another One!

Gerard Serafin has a new blog too!

New Blog in Town

Steve Mattson has a new blog--and from an unusual perspective: he's a seminarian in formation for the priesthood. Check it out!

Ahem

One last thing before I go: I AM THE CHAMPION, MY FRIENDS! I WENT ON FIGHTING TO THE END! I AM THE CHAMPION, I AM THE CHAMPION!!!

You like me! You really like me! [sob! gush!]

In this hour of complete triumph, I would like to graciously, maganimously, and (gosh darn it) humbly extend the hand of friendship to Kathy, Rod, Amy, and Emily as they writhe in humiliated defeat. If a man as hugely hugely HUGELY popular as me cannot be kind to those he crushed underfoot in overwhelming victory, then what sort of man is he?

So, with towering humility, let me just say: The Vatican Radio Archives are MINE! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I'm Gone to Host the Northwest Catholic Education Conference Conference Today and Tomorrow

So posting will again be light. I hope the massive quantities of text I put up earlier will suffice for the nonce. And if you are looking for more, check out my Sheavings on my pretty, fancy pants website www.mark-shea.com.

If you are in the area, stop by and check out the conference. At 2:00 PM today, I'll be the Lone Contrarian on a session titled "Gandalf vs. Harry Potter: A Panel Discussion". For more info call the Conference Hotline: 206-725-9026). To get a feel for my dangerous heterodox views about Harry, go here, here, or here.

See youse later!

Mailbag

A reader writes the following ideas for any eager beaver journalists out there who want to pursue, not just exposure (we've got that, thanks!) but healing of the grievous wounds inflicted on the Body of Christ by evil clergy (see Shanley, Paul), and or idiot/abusive/corrupt/arrogant prelates (see, for the present, Curtiss, Elden [though the Heartless Prelate Award is now being updated almost hourly]). I don't have the time to do this stuff myself, but if a reader wants to take on the job, knock yourself out:

Here are some ideas for your use in researching and writing on the RCC
Scandals, and graphics that would show the gravity and extent of the problem.
I have posted an earlier version of these to the LINKUP survivors' list, but
also wanted to put them in front of you. Feel free to use them yourself, or
to forward them to anyone ... including other writers, attorneys, police,
survivor advocates, etc.

1. Compare the treatment given to priests who left in order to marry,
regarding pensions, housing, logistical support, etc. ... to that given by
the Church authorities to suspected ped/abuser priests (at least until
zero-tolerance policies appeared, within the last few months).

2. List the dioceses who have sent their suspect priests to serve in:
(a) marriage tribunals ... and give a special mention to any diocese
whose
tribunal has a majority of suspects on its staff
(b) prisons
(c) hospitals
(d) overseas missions
(e) retreat centres
(f) old age homes

3. Publish a map showing which bishops have engaged in cover-ups; color the
"clean" diocese blue, where there has been no cover-up or transfers of
pedo-priests ... and color the offending dioceses various shades of pink.
Shade the pink according to the proportion of years in the last 40 or 50 that
the bishop in charge has been doing a cover-up ... so the range could be from
pale pink for less than 10 years of misgovernance, to shocking bright pink
for 50 years of misgovernance. And color the diocese RED if its bishop is
(or was) both a molester and a cover-up artist.

4. Prepare a map of each diocese, and show each Catholic institution on the
map (parish, school, college/university, religious house, etc.) ... and give
each one a color code. (Probably, include the ones that have operated at any
time in the last 40 years, but have since closed. This is relevant, since so
many institutions have closed since 1965.) Color the dots blue, if
no suspect priest ever served at the site for the last 40 or so years. Light
pink, if there was one suspect present there, etc. How many of the dots will
be blue, and how many dots would be varying shades of pink?

5. A possible addition to the above map would be the addition of arrows and
names, to track the movement of suspects around the diocese during the last
40 years. Add arrows from outside the diocese for suspects entering the
diocese from elsewhere, and arrows leaving the diocese, for suspects who find
a haven in other diocese or overseas.

6. Prepare an organization chart for each diocese, seminary, religious
order, etc., showing the leaders and positions as of 2001 (i.e., the official
directories for last year). Color the boxes: blue, not a suspect. Pink,
credibly suspected or proven molestation. Lavender: cover-up artist. Bright
red --
molester AND cover-up artist. How many of the boxes will be blue?

7. Do the same org chart as in 6 above, but for the national and regional
Church bureaucracies. How pink are they now? How pink have they been?

8. Tally the victims over the last 40 years nationally, by age (12 and under,
13-17, and adult) and by sex.

9. For each proven (or credibly suspect) priest/religious, note when and
where they were trained, and when they were ordained. How many were in
seminary during these 3 periods: before the Council (earlier than 1962), from
the Council until the Gauthe scandal and the Doyle report (1962-1985), and
more recently (1986 to date)? How many of the perps were ordained in these 3
periods? The statistics will tell the extent to which the problem
pre-existed the Council, and the extent (if at all) to which it became less
after the mid-1980s.

10. For each cover-up bishop, analyze when they were in seminary, ordained
to the priesthood, and raised to the episcopacy. Do the same analysis for
them as for the perps ... when were the bulk of the bad bishops trained,
ordained, and consecrated? Any relationship to the Council, or to papal
policies?

I will bet that these pictures would be VERY INTERESTING to attorneys, to
journalists, to prosecutors, and to juries.

I will bet that -- contrary to those who are defending the Corporation now --
that FAR MORE than 2% of the dots/boxes/etc. mentioned above will be pink,
lavender, or red. "A little leaven leavens the whole loaf ... "

Note that when I refer above to a "suspect," I mean anyone who has been
proven
guilty of molestation or cover-up, or against whom credible charges exist ...
i.e., including those for whom the church paid settlements, so the case
stayed out of court.

I use 40 years as what seems like a reasonable time
window ... but anyone who would actually prepare these pictures could make
their own decision on how many years back the pictures should cover.

What do you think? I can't do these graphics, since I do not have the
relevant data, nor the time, nor other resources ... but maybe you, or one of
your associates, can do this.

Pursue the truth wherever it leads.

Another reader has created a "just plain boring facts" site containing "current and historical information about Bishops and Dioceses in the Americas and Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, etc.). Other regions of the world are in development. The site is at http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/

Anne Wilson (conservative babe, not leader singer for Heart) writes about my screed on Islam:

"Whoo boy. Tell them what you really think. The part about the spoiled brat getting the snot beaten out of him was great."

Much obliged, Anne.

and a link to an interesting, albeit unfortunately titled, piece by Thomas Hibbs in Christianity Today.

No death threats so far. This is good.

And the winner of today's Heartless Prelate Award...

Bishop Elden Curtiss! This one's so un-freakin'-believable I reproduce the article here in full:

Curtiss could face charges of tampering in Madison County

BY DAVID HENDEE

WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
NORFOLK, Neb. - Omaha Archbishop Elden Curtiss could be charged with witness tampering after a conversation with a Catholic school kindergarten teacher, Madison County Attorney Joe Smith said Thursday.

After meeting teacher Linda Hammond and learning that she was responsible for alerting authorities to a priest who allegedly viewed child pornography on a computer, Curtiss reportedly told her that she should resign.

"I remember ... walking down Madison Avenue and thinking this didn't go the way I thought it would," Hammond said.

Smith said he is awaiting additional police reports before he decides whether to file charges.

"It's premature to say he'll be charged," Smith said of Curtiss. "The incident occurred. The police had an obligation to investigate. I have an obligation to look into it."

Curtiss and the Rev. Michael Gutgsell, archdiocesan spokesman, did not return calls Thursday.

The incident took place nine days ago after Curtiss celebrated a morning Mass at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Norfolk for students at Sacred Heart School.

Hammond said she introduced herself to Curtiss near the sanctuary. He did not recognize her name until she told him, "I was the one who went to the police about Father Allgaier."

The Rev. Robert Allgaier is a former Norfolk priest who faces trial in June on a misdemeanor count of attempted possession of child pornography.

Hammond said Curtiss replied: "I'm sorry you did this. You shouldn't have done this. We had it handled. You ruined a man's life."

She said Curtiss told her that Allgaier probably would never serve as a priest again and added, "I'd appreciate it if you'd resign."

Hammond said she told Curtiss that she didn't appreciate the way he was talking to her. Curtiss told her to resign as least one more time during the few minutes they talked. There were two adult witnesses, Hammond said.

Hammond said she told Curtiss that she alerted police last October because of her concern for the safety of children. Curtiss did not respond to that comment, she said.

Hammond alerted authorities that two former Sacred Heart students had found evidence in January 2001 that indicated Allgaier viewed child pornography on a church computer. Court records said Allgaier admitted to Curtiss in February 2001 that he had viewed child pornography up to four times a week, for several hours each time.

Curtiss removed Allgaier from his teaching duties at Norfolk Catholic High School and ordered him to abstain from contact with children outside worship services. The church had Allgaier evaluated by a psychologist, and the priest entered counseling.

In June, Curtiss transferred Allgaier to St. Gerald's Catholic Church in Ralston, where the priest's duties included teaching religion at St. Joan of Arc-St. Gerald Middle School in Omaha. He remained at the Ralston parish until he was arrested in February and charged.

Smith said a charge of witness tampering requires the prosecution to show that the purpose of Curtiss' remarks were to dissuade Hammond from testifying at Allgaier's trial.

"It may or may not be that," Smith said. "The resolution may not be in the context of a criminal proceeding. Not all conduct that is upsetting is criminal in nature."

Smith has criticized the archbishop for not coming forward with the evidence against Allgaier. He said Curtiss knew for eight months that Allgaier had viewed pornography before Hammond came forward.

"If it hadn't been for Linda Hammond, the people of the Norfolk parish would not have known, the people of St. Gerald's parish would not have known and the police would not have known" about Allgaier, Smith said. "Any evidence we have is the result of her exemplary citizenship."

World-Herald staff writer Julia McCord contributed to this report, which also includes material from the Associated Press.

Who was it that decided putting somebody in the stocks and pelting them with mud was cruel and unusual punishment? If you live in the diocese of Omaha, why not think about tithing to, oh, almost anything besides the diocesan appeal?

Oh, and if you'd like to (hint hint) email the chancery of Omaha and let them know your feelings about the good bishop's pastoral skills and integrity (and the worth of these compared to the honesty and courage of Linda Hammond) the email address is 110377.1446@compuserve.com . Let's see if the good bishop can tell all of us to shut up.

Light posting today.

Many errands to run. Back tomorrow most likely.

My Pal, the Wickedly Funny Doug Sirman, has a Blog!

He emails me this:

Y'know, this explains a hell of a lot. What's wrong with the clerical sub-culture in a nutshell.

From Amy's blog:

Imesch of Joliet facing criticism (Chicago Trib. Link requires...you know.)

Joliet Bishop Joseph Imesch seemed unfazed as a lawyer questioned him in 1995 about bringing in a priest who had been convicted of molesting an altar boy in Michigan.

"If you had a child," the lawyer recalled asking the bishop during the deposition for a civil suit, "wouldn't you be concerned that the priest they were saying mass with had been convicted of sexually molesting children?"

Replied Imesch, "I don't have any children."

No Shit, Bishop...that's precisely the problem. You think you don't have any children when actually, every one of your parishoners should be considered one of your kids.

Hard to argue with that.

Great News!

Peter Kreeft has a website! Dave Nevins is apparently building it in cooperation with Dr. Kreeft. This is probably best since, as anybody who knows Dr. Kreeft will attest, he understands and trusts no machine more complicated than a forge bellows. Check him out. Buy his books. Drink deeply. He's a terrific (and very fun) writer.

Chesterton Would be Pleased

I found somebody was watching my blog through this link.

I can't, of course, log on. But I am gratified to think that, with enough imagination, anybody can live a life of adventure.

Fortuyn Kooky
Turns out the late Pim Fortuyn was an advocate of pederasty. Another triumph of Dutch Catholic catechesis, no doubt. It appears that the Devil is up to his old tricks again. He always sends errors into the world in pairs so that, fleeing one, we will embrace the other.

Islamofascism or Western decadence? Western decadence or Islamofascism? Gosh, it's so hard to decide! Surely one of them is the good choice, isn't it?

(And yes, I do claim double-dog dibs on that headline!)

That Does It! No More Xylophones!

The irrepressible Dale writes:

Whether Luke's set of musical choppers is best described as a xylophone, harpsichord or a Fender Stratocaster is beside the point. The real point is that he's giving a brand new meaning to the phrase "tickling the ivories."

"Thank you--I'm here all week! Try the veal and tip your waiter! Des Moines audiences are the best in the world!"

One Last Word from Rembert the Great Himself

Abp Weakland reflects on what a great and good man he is. And incredibly courageous too.

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.

Yes, by his own humble admission, the Great Man "thinks outside the box", especially the witness box. Of course, he does (suddenly) appear to be stricken with public guilt about his wretched treatment of the victims of Fr. Effinger. But that doesn't appear to include sincere apologies to the victims, much less handing over the money he squeezed from them when their suit was found to have exceeded the statute of limitations. No, instead we are treated to the following humble (yet noble, doncha know) bit of auto-hagiography:

Often I am asked if there are many decisions I regretted. I have spoken of these regrets before, but I bring them up again. Hindsight makes it easy to say yes. I regret to this day and will go to my grave with it on my conscience how I handled in 1979 the case of Fr. Bill Effinger. As an abbot, I simply would have brought him back to the monastery where he could have been monitored. Bishops do not have monasteries to put priests in. Obtaining laicizations from Rome was next to impossible in those days and never really brought up as an option. I am sure that bishops took risks then that they now regret. It would have been so much wiser just to hand it over immediately to the state as a crime and let the law take care of it.

Translation: It was Rome's fault I didn't go to the cops. I'm a courageous "risk taker". And besides, other bishops did it too!

Finally, the Great Man concludes with this winsome self-assessment:

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

Archbishop: Think globally, act locally. You owe at least one poor family you steamrolled at least $4000 bucks and an apology. Why do I think you might owe others some apologies as well?

Violent Xylophonic Passions Continue to Flare

"Luke is a mere primitive," writes one reader, "He needs to learn more sophisticated (and hygienic!) forms of music. I have been playing music against my teeth while I brush my teeth since BEFORE LUKE WAS BORN! You should hear me knock out "Turkey in the Straw."

I've Created a Monster

After my inflammatory words about Islam, readers are hitting me fast and furious with comments...

...about xylophones:

A few minutes Googling produced several encyclopedia or other reference sites that confirmed that xylophones are made of wood. The name comes from the Greek word for wood.

http://www.lehigh.edu/zoellner/encyc_xylophone.html

http://www.si.umich.edu/chico/instrument/pages/xylo_gnrl.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/x/xylophon.asp

This site doesn't have the word "wood" that I noticed, but it has a nice color photograph showing bars that are clearly wood. It also lets you (or your children) use the cursor as a mallet and play it.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/mindazzle/xylophone/

However, I must admit that I found one site that said "wooden or metal bars" http://www.mathcs.duq.edu/~iben/marixylo.htm

It is indeed a decadent world in which we live. (One site I didn't copy the URL for suggested it started with children's toy xylophones made of metal.)

Furthermore, I found a site that tells how children can make a "glass xylophone" but putting varying amounts of water into eight
drinking glasses. This is on a site connected with the National Science Foundation and PBS, so, despite disclaimers about not
necessarily relecting the opinion, etc., etc., it's got to be true.

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/events/fow/fowtfkv2n4/htm/glass.htm

If you can have a glass xylophone, I suppose you, or your son Luke, can have a dental xylophone.

And I did that without having to walk across the street to the Music Library, which, as I've mentioned elsewhere, has a Mac for use by its patrons that has two icons on the screen: "Classical Composers" and "Trash".

The Argument Clinic

The Paulists at www.bustedhalo.com are pretending to have a Catholic discussion. However, with the exception of one Catholic and one Anglican, mostly they are rehashing the same old TV-wisdom once blathered about by such "celebrated street priests" as Paul Shanley. If you are a serious Catholic who would like to argue for serious Catholicism and not the warmed-over cutting edge ideas of Paul Shanley, why not go there, click on Forums, go to "Spirituality" and scroll down to "Is God calling?" Might be fun!

More on the great xylophone controversy:

A reader sez:

_Harper's Dictionary of Music_ states that a xylophone "consists of a set of wooden bars of different lengths." It notes that "stone slabs, bamboo tubes and metal bars have beenused in a similar way by ancient and primitive peoples." It does not mention teeth. A marimba also is essentially a set of wooden bars, while the glockenspiel and vibraphone involve metal bars. Concerning dental percussion: I have seen a jawbone used as a rhythm instument, with the performer scraping a stick over the teeth. (The jawbone in this instance was probably that of a cow; the jawbone of an ass is another matter.)

Blogging allows you to discuss the Weighty Issues of the Day with complete freedom.

Spoke too Soon

A source tells me that His Majesty Rembert of Milwaukee, Defender Against the Oppressed, Despoiler of the Downtrodden and Man Who is Too Good for his Flock "told his privy council, or whatever the hell he calls it, that the Holy Father has let the American bishops know he's not going to move any of them in the middle of this crisis. Remby is going to be there for quite some time." However, if my guess is right and the Holy Father hopes for men like him to finally get a clue about what their priestly office means via carrying, rather than simply laying on the shoulders of others, the cross of Christ, this does not necessarily add up to the jolly news that His Majesty might think. How about it Milwaukee? Doncha think Rembert Weakland the Great could begin by wrapping an apology to the family victimized by Fr. Effinger in the $4000 dollars he had the temerity to squeeze from them and then handing it to them personally--and on national TV? That would be a good beginning for his penance.

There's a phony "victim listening session" being planned by the Great Man this June 11. But why wait? Why not tell the Great Man to pony up the money and the apology to the abused family right now? Heck! Since this is a matter of common justice, you don't even have to be Catholic to let him know what a disgrace his actions are. Let's see if he really listens or just pretends to.

This I did not Know

A reader from Milwaukee writes with happy news about the Great Man, Abp. Weakland:

Rembert has already submitted his resignation, since he turned 75 this past April. We're just waiting for Rome to name his successor. And let me tell you.....it can't come soon enough. Thanks to the Situation, we have to wait longer than anticipated.

After reading what I read this morning, my attitude is "don't let the door hit you on the keester on your way out."

May Almighty God in Highest Heaven Solemnly Damn the Sins of the Clergy and Bishops Who Did This Vile Thing to One of Your Lambs
And may he have mercy on us all, especially victims and abusers. We must have both: full-throated "We Will Not Stand for This Shit From our Shepherds Anymore!" rage at this evil and radical mercy extended to all in the hope they repent. Grant the abusers, in particular, that mercy in the jail cells they so richly deserve and should continue to occupy, along with their enablers. But grant, O Lord, even more your mercy to those who have fallen prey to the lie of the devil that their victimization somehow makes them culpable for the abuse perpetrated against them. Free these innocent victims, Heavenly Father, from that evil, evil lie and give them the grace to name the evil done to them, to clearly see that it was not their fault, and then to forgive both themselves and their attackers so that they will be finally and fully free. Heal their loved ones as well, that they may find you again in the sacrament of the Eucharist and have supernatural power to forgive even this sin and be a force for healing within your sick Body.

Time to Draw Down the Wrath of the Thin-Skinned Whiners at CAIR

Maybe our peaceful Islamic friends will even threaten my life, who knows? It's certainly not unusual for devotees of that great Religion of Peace to act that way. Just ask Jonah Goldberg. Anyway, for all you moral equivalists out there, consider this: in order to get a hearing in some allegedly "Christian" forum anywhere in the Western world, white supremacist, anti-semitic creatures like David Duke have to locate websites run by neanderthal "Christian Identity" loonies living in tarpaper shacks in Montana. But to get a hearing in the Islamic world, they just have to submit something to ArabNews, a press organ reflective of so much that makes so much of Islam the backward, corrupt, soul-destroying bastion of ignorance, repression, violence and thuggery that it is today.

Does Islam have to be the thin-skinned, imperialist, know-nothing realm of ignorant, brutal wahoobis and enemies of humanity that so many of its representatives want it to be? No. Islam, recall, is not a magisterial faith. Indeed, no faith is except for the Catholic faith. There is no "The" Islamic view. It can develop along other lines if the present lines are abandoned and the good things it emphasizes can be emphasized more. But that's a big if. Salman Rushdie rightly pointed out after 9/11 that it's kind of Pres. Bush to say that the problem is not Islam but a few fringe nuts. But he also pointed out that the problem is, in fact, Islam. It's a religion that began with century after century of conquest (don't believe the PR about "defensive war" being the only legitimate form of war for Islam. Spain and Vienna are an awful long way from Mecca. Just what threat did they pose to Arabs?). In fact, the definition of what constitutes "defense" for a huge number of Muslims is so elastic that all wars against the dar el harb (world of war) are "defensive", including 9/11, which is why so many representatives of that great religion of peace were dancing in the streets at the death of 3000 "aggressors" who were sitting at their desks on the 90th floor of the WTC reading Dilbert cartoons on the web and thinking about how to get their daughters to music practice that evening when the valiant heros of the dar el Islam incinerated them.

Imagine--imagine--if some Christians had done this to Mecca. Not only would there be mass outrage in the Islamic world, there would be mass outrage in the Christian world. Stadiums all over the West would be full of breast-beating Christians rightly grieving for this betrayal of their faith. In the Islamic world, what did we see? Cheering in the streets. Morons with "Osama and Bert" posters. "Osama" as the most popular name for Muslim baby boys last year. Why? Because they did not see it as a betrayal, but as an expression of their faith.

Islam doesn't have to go this route, but the fact is, right now it is. It is a religion which possesses no theology of the fall, no experience of persecution for centuries after its start, a festering sense of entitlement to rule the world, coupled with a corrupt, ignorant, medieval conception of despotic theocratic rule that assures it of never achieving that goal. Like a spoiled child who was pampered in youth and then found itself destitute in adulthood, it blames everybody but itself for its troubles; remembering everything and learning nothing. And so, it embraces the most grotesque losers (like Duke) as its champions while failing to ask a single hard question of itself. It is a textbook example of how false ideas about God can lead to human misery on a massive scale. And it is, at present, a planetary scourge that threatens the lives of millions of people while whining about persecution every time somebody points that out.

Islam can change because people can change. It is, after all, a manmade religion (a fact that its adherents will sooner or later have to face if they hope to escape the prison of their present circumstances). Like all manmade religions, it borrows certain elements of true revelation from the Logos who is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. These elements can and should be encouraged to grow. But that growth will have to mean a huge amount of repentance and re-thinking in a religious culture that is not used to thinking its champions can seriously sin and which is far more inclined to ask David Duke for his valuable ideas or to claim Jewish vampires drink the blood of Muslim children. Such a spoiled-brat-fallen-on-hard-times culture is probably going to get the snot beat out of it several times before it finally loses its fundamental haughtiness and bends the knee to God in a way that is more than mere ritual.

Death threats from wahoobi morons and David Duke fans welcomed. Operators are standing by.

Okay, I Can Live with That
Progressive Catholic clarifies why the term "disorder" irks him. I agree that Catholic terminology can often be misunderstood by people who aren't interested in taking the time to find out what it means. I've had to write whole articles on Merit, Purgatory , Infallibility, and Indulgences just make clear what is not meant by these easy-to-misunderstand words. If that's all that's bothering him, I can agree. However, rightly understood, the Church's description of homosexual orientation as "objectively disordered" is simply true, I think. End of controversy. Happy concord reigns! :)

Be Nice to Lawyers and Psychologists!

This is funny. Yesterday, I got emails from a psychologist and a lawyer in response to my musings here and here.

My psychologist friend writes:

Perhaps I'm being a bit sensitive on this issue--and it doesn't bother me that much--but all this carping about psychologists is hitting a little close to home. Both you and Mike Dubruiel talk about Law consulting with lawyers and psychologists. The problem, it seems to me, is that Law did not listen to the advice of the therapists that was received. In one case, Bishop Dailey called the Institute for Living to complain that the discharge summary for Shanley was not as positive as he thought it would be, and in Geoghan's case, they did not go by the reports of a therapist, by his family physician.

I am the first one to point out the stupid, unprofessional, politicized rubbish many of my colleagues spout as fact, but it doesn't seem entirely fair to me to pin this one on the psychologists. Law's deposition seems to make it pretty clear that he and his episcopal cronies chose to either ignore good professional advice or seek it where they knew it would already confirm their bias. They want to hide out behind plausible deniability, but it seems to me that the records from the Institute for Living Speak for themselves, "We cannot guarantee that this will not occur in the future." I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist (or an Archbishop) to know that probably means bad news for the future of the priest in question.

Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

I doubt you're wrong. What I (and, in particular, my priest friend) was reacting to is stuff like this testimony from Law discussed in a very good piece by the invaluable Alan Keyes on Catholic Exchange today:

Question: “What was the practice that you had in place in 1984 when you were archbishop to deal with this kind of allegation when it comes in?”

Cardinal Law: “I viewed this as a pathology, as a psychological pathology, as an illness. Obviously, I viewed it as something that had a moral component. It was, objectively speaking, a gravely sinful act, and that’s something that one deals with in one’s life, in one’s relationship to God”.

"But I also viewed this as a pathology, as an illness, and so, consequently, I, not being an expert in this pathology, not being a psychiatrist, not being a psychologist, my — my modus operandi was to rely upon those whom I considered and would have reason to consider to have an expertise that I lacked in assessing this pathology, in assessing what it is that this person could safely do or not do."

Keyes nails the problem as my priest friend did: "What’s wrong with that answer? I think everything’s wrong with it. If it came from the manager of a big corporation or a government official, I might be able to understand it. But Cardinal Law is a prelate, a preeminent spiritual leader of a spiritual institution proclaiming itself to the world as the Body of Christ." The problem is a complete failure to understand his office. Law thought and acted like a CEO, not a priest. And he's not alone. My priest friend doubts most of the American hierarchy has a clue what the office of priest means according to the Tradition.

My lawyer reader also writes:

Love your blog, but you guys really need to quit blaming the sexual abuse crisis on lawyers and "corporate mentality."

I represent corporations in employment law, which nowadays means I handle a lot of sexual harassment situations (litigation prevention and defense). A few years ago, a client learned that a member of management, a middle-aged man, had allegedly had a "same-sex encounter" with a teenager who was working there part-time.

We investigated immediately. We concluded that a sexual encounter occurred but that it was probably somewhat consensual. We nonetheless believed that the manager had behaved in a grossly inappropriate manner.

We fired the manager (our "mercy" consisted of some severance pay) and disciplined a co-worker who had heard about the incident and had failed to report it. We had an in-person meeting with the young man and his mother, paid for him to get counseling, and asked them to let us know if there was anything else we could do. We did not ask him to sign a release in exchange for this -- we felt that would be unduly legalistic and adversarial under the circumstances, and we wanted to do the right thing.

The whole resolution of this event, from start to finish, took us about a week. And, significantly, there was no serious dispute among ourselves as to whether this was the proper course of action.

It is because of this experience that I bristle when Catholics (of whom I am one) say that the cardinals' mistake is treating the Church as if it were a corporation and relying on the advice of lawyers. I don't know of any self-respecting corporation today that wouldn't fire an egregious sexual harasser, which is the nicest way to describe what these clergy are. I also don't know any reputable lawyer who wouldn't recommend immediately getting the perpetrator out of a position where he would be able to do it again.

In my opinion, the Boston and other archdioceses should have acted a lot more like corporations and listened a lot more to their lawyers. I strongly doubt that their handling of these cases was based on legal advice -- I believe instead that it was based on probably well-meaning but misplaced permissiveness toward the perpetrators and insufficient concern for the victims and potential future victims. But, if based on legal advice, then the bishops need some new lawyers because there are plenty out there who would've advised them to act differently.

I'm no lawyer and will certainly take your word for what you say. But I do note that some of Law's action do appear to be done on the advice of lawyers nonetheless. The recent outrage wherein "standard boilerplate legalese" was employed to blame hold one of the evil Paul Shanley's six year old victims and his parents "negligent" is a classic example, if the press reports are to be believed. But the central problem is not lawyers or psychologists, whatever they may or may not be up to. The central problem is that many bishops have forgotten they are priest and have thereby ended up denying people access to Christ. If we don't grasp that, we will not grasp what motivates the Pope's thinking here in his (IMO risky) attempt to let the American episcopacy begin to get a clue about what their office is. Prayer's the thing now, cuz this is a job for the Holy Spirit.

My pal, Steve Greydanus of Decent Films has a typically thoughtful review of "Attack of the Clones" up

I Can See a Major Controversy is Brewing
A reader writes:
"Xylophones are actually metal bars mounted on wooden blocks. Glokenspeils are all metal, but Marimbas are made of wood though."

Today's Heartless Prelate Award Goes to Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee!

Garry Wills, a remarkable font of lucid idiocy and idiotic lucidity about the Church writes a piece for the NY Review of Books which performs the now standard idiot savant trick of so many in the American media who accurately report clerical outrages and then draw lots of doltish conclusions from their own reports. Snipping away the doltishness, we find this flattering portrait of another of Fr. Richard "Set My Superior Chromosomes Free!" McBrien's "Authentic Voices of Reform", Archbishop Rembert Weakland:

It might be thought that churchly surroundings and sacred rites would discourage the priest's sexual aggression. They seem rather to have stimulated them, providing a frisson of the forbidden. It was while celebrating an Easter meal with a family in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, that a priest, William Effinger, suggested that the son in the family serve his Mass the next day, and stay overnight at the rectory so he could rise early for that assignment. At the rectory, Father Effinger said that there was only one bed, so they would both have to sleep in it. No doubt there was a crucifix on the wall, as in most priests' bedrooms. In Moravia's The Conformist, the defrocked priest is kept from raping a young boy by the sight of a crucifix. (On a later occasion he does assault the boy, but only after removing the crucifix from the wall.)

Father Effinger was not inhibited by any sacredness of site or symbols from raping his victim—whose shamefaced agony was so obvious to his mother the next morning, when she went to see him serve Mass, that she quickly got the story from him and took it to Archbishop Weakland, who promised her that Father Effinger would be reassigned where he would not have access to children. He recommended for the boy a psychologist the archdiocese used, who reported back to the chancery, as part of his services to it, that the boy's father "had the rare and God-given sense not to scream both to the police for justice and to heaven for vengeance"—so Father Effinger was reassigned to a parish by Weakland, where he was convicted of molesting another boy and sentenced to ten years in prison, where he died. When the boy finally brought suit for damages, a judge threw out the case because the statute of limitations had expired—and the archdiocese successfully countersued for the $4,000 it had spent on the court procedure."

It is instructive to compare this noble moment in the life of the Great Man of Milwaukee with his own self-assessment, recorded by the inimitable Fr. Richard John Neuhaus:

I always thought that I would have made a great archbishop in Salzburg during the time of Mozart," reflects Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who is a classical pianist. "But instead I’m the archbishop of Milwaukee in the time of rock ’n’ roll. That’s the way life turns out." No doubt there are many Catholics, and not only in Milwaukee, who share his wish that things had turned out differently. He goes on to say, "Many of us Catholics have a certain ambivalence, a love–hate relationship, with our church. You can see that if you watch your newspaper’s letters to the editor. We are the only church that publicly criticizes itself in the newspaper." With due respect, there are a couple of things wrong with that. I don’t believe for a moment that the Archbishop hates the Catholic Church, although, admittedly, he sometimes has an odd way of showing his love. The business about letters to the editor, on the other hand, reflects the lingering influence of the Catholic ghetto mentality. It may still be true in Milwaukee, but out there in the big world that is America all kinds of people write letters critical of their churches. Check out, for instance, letters about the Southern Baptist Convention in Memphis. It probably is true, however, that most other churches do not have bishops who regularly and publicly distance themselves from their church. Friends in Milwaukee tell me there is widespread agreement with the Archbishop that he does not deserve Milwaukee, and vice versa. Such harmony of feeling between a bishop and his people may be construed as an edifying spectacle.

Whether or not Archbishop Weakland hates the Church I don't know. But he could hardly do more damage to Her if he did. And hate Her or not, it is clear he has no love for the victims of his abusive priests. If he hasn't the humility to tender a resignation, perhaps the good people of his diocese might at least prevail on him to pony up $4000 to the victims of his contemptible and callous behavior. Where is Dante when we need him?

Cultures, Like Organisms, Attempt to Reproduce Themselves and Minimize Threats to Their Existence

Among the concerns of American prelates are reports that an aggressive gay ethos has arisen on campus, manifesting in unwelcoming cliques and ecclesiastic flamboyance—a tendency to embrace the stagier elements of the liturgy, for instance. Witnessing this, some may conclude that the men are freely breaking their vows, but there is no evidence of this. Regardless, books on the subject argue that heterosexual seminarians feel so uncomfortable in this culture that they question their vocations. “People I know quite well have left the seminary either in disgust because people are not keeping vows, or in alienation because they’re not gay. In some cases it’s a serious problem,” says R. Scott Appleby, a history professor at Notre Dame. The Most Rev. Wilton Gregory, who heads the bishops’ group, has come to a similar conclusion. ”[T]here does exist a homosexual atmosphere or dynamic that makes heterosexual men think twice,” he said last month. Such complaints irritate gay clergymen and their defenders. “I think straight priests and seminarians shouldn’t be whining,” says the Rev. Charles Bouchard, president of the Aquinas Institute of Theology in St. Louis. “I just don’t think it’s a big deal.”

This is a curious passage. The writer tells us, "Some may conclude that the men are freely breaking their vows, but there is no evidence of this." Then he follows it up with... evidence of this: “People I know quite well have left the seminary either in disgust because people are not keeping vows, or in alienation because they’re not gay. In some cases it’s a serious problem,” says R. Scott Appleby, a history professor at Notre Dame. The Most Rev. Wilton Gregory, who heads the bishops’ group, has come to a similar conclusion. ”[T]here does exist a homosexual atmosphere or dynamic that makes heterosexual men think twice,” he said last month. And, of course, the 90-95% rate of abuse of boys, boys, boys, boys, boys and boys would suggest that at least some of our guys are indeed breaking their vows in rather dramatic ways. Perhaps he means the current crop of seminarians is not doing this, just the Woodstockized guys of yore. Hopefully so. But since we were assured everything was hunky dory 20 years ago, it would perhaps be wise for Rome to "trust but verify."

Marty tells me xylophones are made of wood
So maybe Luke's teeth are more like a glockenspiel? Anyway, it's good to have Marty keeping me posted on these vital matters.

The Christian Conscience disagrees
...and with such a lot of preliminary salving of my feelings and generous words of tribute that I was expecting a really terrific blast to follow. But alas. No blast. Just a good solid disagreement that I can hardly fault. Okay Thomas. I see your point. The Jezzie memo wasn't that big a deal after all. :)

Looks like I'm Dumb
Completely misread Progressive Catholic's thingie on the economics of celibacy. D'oh!. Need more chocolate. Not awake.

As to the other business about the intrinsic disorder of homosexual orientation, PC writes:

"What bothers me is the likening to homosexuality to criminal behavior and disease. The CDF documents talk of the homosexual orientation as inclined to a intrinsic moral evil. I can accept that as long it is balanced that heterosexuals are also tempted to intrinsic moral evil."

This would indeed be fair and balanced--if heterosexual attraction was intrinsically morally disordered. But it's not. If it were, then all heterosexual expression would be sinful.

Now all homosexual expression is sinful. The temptation is not sinful, but it remains disordered. Can heterosexual temptation be disordered too? Sure! Just look at Bill Clinton (or your own heart). To be "disordered" is to be "dis-ordered": ie., wrongly ordered to the way God intends things. God intends sex to be between man and woman in marriage. This is revelation. All other expressions of sex are disordered. Some forms (homosexuality, bestiality, incest, sex with children, etc) are *intrinsically* disordered. That is, there is no way they can be rightly done. Heterosexuality per se is not intrinsically disordered because it can be rightly expressed (see Marriage, Sacrament of).

I agree that the notion that there is something extra specially sinful about homosexually disorder sexuality is a convenient thing for heterosexuals to think and overlooks the reality that most of the sexual sin in the world is heterosexual sin. But I flatly disagree that there is anything in the world wrong with the Church's basic teaching on the intrinsic and objective disorderedness of homosexual temptation, nor with the Church's teaching that homosexual practice is sinful. Likening it to lefthandedness doesn't fly, for the reason I gave before.

One last thing, I think the idea of revisiting celibacy in order to expand the pool of candidates has some merit. But I think even more that not weeding out the candidates we have now who are both chaste and orthodox has even more merit. I'm not wedded to celibacy (har, har). If the discipline changes, I will have no problem. But I am frankly suspicious of the haste with which so many clueless people has decided that this is the solution. It's a bandaid on a cancer and the cancer is the thing to be addressed.

Gerard Serafin is a beautiful guy with a beautiful site.

My Son Luke Can Produce Musical Notes by Clicking His Teeth with His Fingernails
Think of it as a kind of dental xylophone.

I just hope he uses his God-given gifts for good and not for evil.

Mike Hardy has a question

I wrote:

Folks like Mike aren't content with the fact that I don't think homosexual temptation a sin. They want very much for me to not regard it as temptation.

and he asks:

I just went through my entire blog after reading this statement. I could not find one place where I suggest that anyone needs to avoid seeing the homosexual orientation as a temptation. Can anyone else find it?

Perhaps I misunderstood. Mike rejects the Church's very sensible teaching that homosexuality is an objective moral disorder. This suggests to me that he does not think homosexual desire is temptation but is something more along the lines of what the nice but deeply confused Progressive Catholic thinks: a natural and even "God-given" condition like blue eyes or lefthandedness. If it is not objectively morally disordered I don't see how it could be a temptation. If it is, then I don't see what's wrong with what I wrote.

As to PC's likening of homosexuality to lefthandedness, one wonders if all allegedly morally disordered conditions are the same in his book? What distinguishes the person who "can't help" his attraction to children from somebody who "can't help" his attraction to the same sex? Is that also a bit of diversity to celebrate? It will be important for Progressive Catholic to find a coherent answer to that question quick because Judith "What's so Bad about Sex with Children? Let's Abandon These Irrational Taboos!" Levine and her minions will be urging it on the body politic sooner than he realizes. Purely emotion-based answers like "ick" won't do. Answers rooted in the actual Catholic Tradition are much sturdier. That's why it's important to understand that Tradition before you start critiquing it, Anthony.

I'm likin' this Kairos guy

This didn't happen in Mississippi
or among the denizens of the Vast Right Wing conspiracy. This is not your father's fascism. This happened at ever-so-tolerant San Francisco State. Queer thing about the demonic: it always delivers exactly the opposite of what it promises. Postmodernist deconstruction fads on campus promised to deliver us into a world with no oppressive judgments being made by anybody. Instead it is creating the perfect enviroment for Islamofascism and an insane anti-semitism that is almost foreign to our experience as Americans. In a world without moral judgments, power wins.

"Boston Cardinal Bernard Law in a deposition on Monday angrily rejected charges he was negligent when he failed to keep a priest accused of sexual abuse away from children"
Wasn't I being was being "responsive"? Wasn't I listening to the laity? Wasn't I taking the best advice of lawyers and psychologists? Yes you were Cardinal. And that's the problem.

Uh-oh
God protect us from vigilantes. The anger of man does not bring about the righeousness of God. God give our bishops a freakin' clue about the anger their failure to do their office (or even comprehend what their office is) has provoked. Pray, pray, pray for this this June confab that the Holy Spirit enlighten the Church and grant real reform, not happy talk and more secular models and thinking.

Great Scott!
Chesterton escaped his Manchurian Candidate handlers in the dungeon of the Theology Department at Seattle University (Motto: "Pretending to have Something to Do with Catholic Faith Since 1970") and got himself a blog!

Good Music!
If you haven't yet, check out the fabulous Celtic rock'n'roll of Ceili Rain. Really really great stuff.

This Week's Report from Dale

Happy Talk from Bp. Untener doesn't seem to be impressing the flock:

I was in Alma [Michigan] for the first time since the resignation of Fr. John Hammer. I passed by the Church on Saturday, and saw the first concrete evidence of the scandal: Rev. Hammer's name had been actually cut out of the sign. It now reads: "_________, Pastor." A little thing, seemingly, but it brought the reality home in a surprising way.

Sunday Mass was the exclamation point. As has become usual since the birth of our little girl, we tend to arrive just before the start of Mass (or slightly after it begins). Such was the case here: 11:00am Mass, 11:00am arrival. I was especially dreading it because it was very likely that my family was in for a long walk. This is, after all, the only Sunday Mass for two parishes, and is therefore very heavily attended.

Not this time--there was no problem finding parking. Usually, I would have had to park half a block away. Instead, I was able to plant us very near the rear entrance. Upon turning the corner, my wife said "Wow." My sad rejoinder was "I wonder why...."

A quick survey of the Church after entry confirming the parking evidence--there were about sixty percent of the usual number of people in attendance. The final piece of the puzzle was the announcement of where the parish stood regarding its CSA [Catholic Services Appeal] goal. Last year, St. Mary's went over its target. This year, it's at 62%.

Contrary to Bishop Untener's claims, people at St. Mary's are mad, and they are registering their disapproval with their feet and wallets. This is happening two weeks after his ballyhooed visit to the parish, and his explanation of his actions (I really haven't heard more than a brief report, so I don't know what he said, or was asked). Apparently it didn't work.

Just another gaping wound in the Body of Christ.

--Dale

P.S. My daughter's Madeleine's "happy hoots and shrieks" caused me to miss the bulk of the homily on the Ascension. I probably should thank her, especially after the opening prayer that thanked God for "his/her love." I ducked back in from the foyer, and heard Father's Crossanic reference to "the Jesus Event," which was then promptly punctuated by one of Maddie's good-naturedly loud chirps. This gave me the cover to duck back out.

Did I mention that Bishop Untener and his diocese are reliably liberal....?

P.P.S. I think my least favorite Bishop in the whole mess is the Rt. Rev. Mr. McCormack. Say what you will about Law, Hollywood Roger and the rest--Bishop "Odd That I Didn't Notice That Obvious Man-Boy Love Reference" McCormack redefines obtuseness, taking it to levels undreamed of. I'm not convinced that someone with his impaired judgment should be busing tables, let alone acting as a shepherd of souls.

"His/her love"? Don't be surprised if an angry mob of Catholics catechized by Bp. Untener turns on him and and burns a question mark on his front lawn.

Anthony over at Progressive Catholic strikes me as a nice guy
...but not yet thinking very clearly. For example, as this utterly baffling bit of "satire" demonstrates, he seems to have the idea that Authority Figures are all Rush Limbaugh laissez faire capitalist Republicans and that, since Ratzinger and American ecclesiats are Authority Figures they too must somehow be all agog for crushing Ethiopians and exalting the American economy. I'm afraid this is the sort of vague Marxism that only a young idealist could write. I can't help but like the guy. But he needs to stop thinking in platitudes and start grappling with the world's complexity a bit more. A reading of Centissimus Annus would be a good place to start.

Another Hopeful Sign of the Spring that Will Come, Courtesy of Fr. Benedict Groeschel's Friars of the Renewal

Fr. Wilson speaks the Truth
Talking about "the media" indiscriminately in discussing this scandal is dumb. Rod Dreher =/= Bill Keller. The former has done the noble work of a good Catholic journalist who seeks reform and tries to obey the injunction of St. Paul to "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." (Eph 5:11). The latter is, not to put to fine a point on it, a nitwit who seeks to exploit the sins of the Church's members to foist on the Church an agenda little different in its essential from that of Paul Shanley. There's a difference between speaking the truth and telling lies. Many honorable journalists have tried to do the former, many other sleazeballs have done the latter. Don't moosh them all together.

Left thinking will be rewarded. Right thinking will be punished
The New York Times proves again that it only prints the news that fits. Happily, blogging is fast making the stranglehold of the NY Times editorial board a quaint relic of the past, like the Index of Forbidden Books.

Mail bag

A reader notes that of all the archived shows by Mother A, the only one EWTN does not post is the one where she said that Cdl. Mahony should receive "zero obedience". That's a good enough retraction for me. Way to go, Mother.

Sean Gallagher takes issue with my dressing down of Cdl. "I'm waaaaay better than Law. I am the Voice of True Reform" Mahony. Understood. I can be somewhat vociferous. But my point was to emphasize that I can certainly see why somebody like Mother A would find Mahony to be an odious man. I do too. But his personal odiousness has nothing to do with his office, which remains intact since it was instituted by Christ, not by Cdl. Mahony. As father, I honor him. As a man, I recognize him as a fellow sinner and rebuke the sins. And I hope he will be able to renounce his odious acts and acquit himself like a priest and not like Lt. Keefer in the Caine Mutiny henceforth.

Somebody else asks me to "Remind you readers that the conference coverage the last few years has been funded by the Knights of Columbus. So the coverage is a matter of financial resources as much as will. So if the folks writing will include financial support along with words of encouragement, perhaps you will get the TV coverage you want." Done.

Another reader weighs in on the Sungenis Geocentrism Thang and says:

The theory of relativity has nothing to do with the argument about whether the earth moves. (Well, not nothing, but it takes a long time to get there.). Even in a straight Newtonian context, you can work the equations with any fixed point of reference you want.

The problem with geocentrism is just that, while you _can_ work the equations that way, there's no good reason you should. Jupiter's
moons revolve around Jupiter, which revolves around the Sun. In each case, it's a lot easier to work the equations as if the body of
negligible (comparatively) mass rotates around the body with great mass. So why work the Earth/Sun equations differently? Why should the Earth have a privileged position in the calculations?

Still worse, the geocentricists are doing their best to die in a ditch that doesn't even have anything behind it. Galileo was not tried for
saying that the Earth moves--he was tried in the first instance for saying he had proved it when in fact he had not; and in the second
instance for disobeying an order not to publish. So the Church never stated flatly that geocentrism was de fide.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Galileo is pretty good. Even better, and from a non-Catholic perspective, is the chapter on
Galileo in _6 Modern Myths_, by Philip Sampson (IVP).

Another reader asks:

Can you recommend a Web site, or even an iterative column somewhere online, that specializes in spirituality from a Catholic perspective, meaning feeling God in our lives, things to think about while praying and/or meditating, faith-reaffirming contemplation, et al.? You know, something to turn to for necessary breaths of uplifting air during breaks from work on these rainy days.

Best thing I know is Magnificat. It's not a website but a terrific little devotion. Even I like it, and I don't like devotionals much.

An apodictic reader sez:

(1) There is a very complicated technical legal term for organized gunmen occupying a church during an armed conflict. It's called, ahem: a "war crime". The Hamas (or whatever) gunmen are _war criminals_.

Check.

(2) The correct spelling is "pooh-pooh", and no other.

I sit chastened and humiliated under the punishing blows of the OED.

A reader sends a promising link to something called Second Spring.

Finally, my priest friend whom I spoke with the other day tells me I pretty much captured his thought but that he wanted a) a clarification and b) one last thing pointed out.

Clarification: all the language describing bishops as "bumbling" etc come from Mark, paraphrasing in his own words, not from my priest friend. This is true. My friend is, as I say, the closest I will ever get to Aquinas and does not indulge himself in these flights of purple that are my habit. If you read something in our conversation that sounds rather florid, rest assured it's me paraphrasing, not him speaking. I haven't Boswell's gifts for recording conversations in much more than the basic idea. Verbatim transcription is beyond me.

Second: the final and crucial point that my priest friend wanted to make is that the gravest sin involved in this blasphemy of Holy Orders is not abuse of children, horrible as that is. It is that such sin denies people access to Christ and grotesquely deforms our ability to see him or blinds us to him altogether. Again, I can't argue with this. The failure here is a failure to understand and live the office of priest. If we don't understand that, we will not understand JPII's approach to the problem. I think my priest friend is right.

Lot of Opportunity for Penitential Suffering in AmChurch Masses!
This makes me ever more appreciative of how wonderful we have it at Blessed Sacrament parish with the great Nan Holcomb doing the music! She (and our wonderful priests and staff) clearly grasp that the command to Christ was "Feed my sheep" not "Try experiments on my rats." I love my parish! Thank you God! (The horror story I tell Amy is not reflective of them. They're good as gold.)

Kathy Shaidle tells us that the South African Catholic Church is refusing to report abuses cases to the cops
For those of you with Jesuit educations, that's called "obstruction of justice". For those of you who poo-poo the idea that a renegade subculture of homosexual contempt for chastity and orthodoxy would never engage in criminal activity in order to protect itself from the consequences of its behavior, recall that his ever-so-esteemed Bp. Reginald Cawcutt, Point Man for St. Sebastian's Angel's, a Web porn ring for priests, is a South African bishop. There is, of course, no conceivable connection between the sort of gross and graphic stuff in this link (authored by the good bishop himself) and the subculture which has produced South African pervert priests and their scofflaw bishops. Obviously these guys are interested in living life out loud and in the daylight. Men such as them would welcome the investigation of the cops. So there must be some other reason they are are trying to obstruct investigation. Probably it's got something to do with celibacy.

A Reader Writes:

I entered the Catholic Church, from Orthodoxy, last year. And with joy. With gladness, because it was a given joy, something placed upon my path. Irresistible, a stumbling stone gladly tripped over. What pushed and pulled me in? Too many to recount here. One, significantly, was watching (thank you, Cardinal Ratzinger) how Catholicism accepts God's patrimony of the Jewish people. Israel is His First Beloved. We ignore that at His displeasure.

Yes, I left the Orthodox Church with a sweet sadness, even a certain regret; but not at leaving, behind, the ever there stench of its dislike of Jews. That disregard, somehow, contributed to the very definition of what is Orthodoxy and who is Orthodox.

So, upon reading the Catholic Press' sympathetic coverage of the PLO and Arafat (especially this business regarding the Church of the Nativity) I am stumped. Upon becoming Catholic I didn't know I had to give credence to murderers and mongers of hate who (according to the Arab press) pray for the day are lifted to mountains of dead Jews, to "piles and piles" of them. Though not for the stench of Jewish dead, such wishful prayers, for other means of Jews laid low, are even raised by Arab Christians. That I know. It was hard to hear.

First, welcome!

Second, I'm aware that there is a more pervasive ugly attitude toward Jews in many Orthodox circles but I must also say that, as a Catholic, I have encountered similar attitudes among the (thankfully few) Reactionaries in my own communion. However, it does seem to be rarer in Americans of whatever denomination than it is in Europe, partly due to our happy relationship with Israel and partly because of something in the American character that appears to have bred the anti-semitic gene out of the body politic somehow.

That said, I have a few remarks to offer which basically describe my own attempts to digest what the Catholic media (more Euro than American) have to say. First, you are not of course, bound to "give credence" to what some reporter thinks. The Vatican Radio website, for reasons utterly mysterious to me, was (at least last week) still jabbering about the "massacre" at Jenin. I have no idea why since even the UN knows it's bogus. Judging from the Stone Age equipment they used to record my interview I can only guess at the tortoise-like swiftness with which a bunch of Italians got around to figuring out that the Euro-rumors they were reporting on Vatican radio were swamp gas.

Beyond that, of course, you have Europeans who are as devout as Catholics as Bill Clinton is devoted to the tenets of the Southern Baptist Church. These are the twits who sing "Imagine" and overlook the obvious threat of Islamofascism in favor of the phantom threat of the Jews.

Finally, you've also got the policy of the Holy See, which has been the fly in the Israel Can't Ever Do Wrong scenario so beloved by so many. I more or less think they are right. Is Arafat a poisonous toad? Yes. Has Palestianian culture been deeply corrupted by the Islamofascists? You bet. Does Israel share some blame in the situation coming to this pass.

Yes, says Rome. Because while the Palestinians have been being schooled if fire-breathing Nazi rhetoric by their Islamofascist masters, Israel has been giving that rhetoric credibility by doubling the number of settlers on the West Bank since 1993. Palestinians, not surprisingly, have concluded Israel was no more serious about their having a homeland than Arafat was about making peace.

I deplore the acts of anti-semitic violence in Europe. I deplore Arafat's terrorism. But I do not think criticizing Israel's lack of resolve in telling the settlers to give the Palestinians their land amounts to anti-semitism. The Holy See refuses to sign off on the notion that Palestinians have absolutely no case and Israel is totally right. That's not the same thing as endorsing Islamofascism. In some future post I will endeavor to incur the wrath of CAIR for my opinion of Islam. Short description of that post: the problem is not a few terrorist Muslims. The problem is Islam.

A Troubled Reader writes:

There have to be some good analyses of why such a thing can happen and not destroy the credibility and authenticity of the Church. If you know of any, please post any such writings on your blog, and I (and lots of others, I'll bet) will check them out. I need it bad right now, because my outrage fuses seem to have blown and now I'm just wondering why I bother. Even though it's almost too much to deal with, I have to, because if the Catholic Church doesn't have the truth, then no church has, and I won't go to another church.

I've given the best I can on my blog. The scandal harms the credibility of the bishops. It does nothing whatever to the Faith, IMO. Catholics are sinners. We know this. One of the stupid things the bishops did was to forget this and think they had to hush up the fact that priests sin--as though the Church was something besides a communion of losers whose only hope is Christ. All this scandal has done is show that we didn't take "Catholics are sinners" seriously till the sin was something we found personally disgusting. But when the Tradition tells us we are sinners it doesn't mean we are charming rogues with excusable faults. It means that our sins put the sinless Lamb of God on the cross, begging for water while we laughed at him. Our sins raped children in the name of God and flew cover for the rapists. They did the most horrible things you can imagine and still God forgave it and brought life from it. That's what sin and redemption means. It's a problem as old as Judas Iscariot and our cowardly first Pope, Peter. But it does nothing, so far as I can see, to show that Jesus is not who he claims to be. And that means that this scandal, like all sins, will be turned to God's glory. Because he's not kidding when he says "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." As George Weigel says, the Pope is fearless because he knows the worst thing that can ever happen has already happened 2000 years ago on Calvary. We murdered God, an infinitely greater crime than raping a child or destroying the world. Yet from the worst thing in the Universe, God brought the best. But, as with our slowness to believe we are sinners, so we are slow to believe sin can really be redeemed. The Church is what it always was, a communion of sinners (not charming rogues: sinners), a communion of people trying to be Catholic with varying degrees of success and failure, and a communion of saints, the soul of which is the Holy Spirit. It's only that last thing that makes it holy. We sure as hell don't.

More on "What is JPII thinking?"
Spoke this weekend with a wonderful priest friend, the soul of common sense and probably the closest I will ever get to meeting St. Thomas Aquinas. He is habitually cool and sane in his judgments and fully informed by the Tradition. In the course of the conversation, I became more convinced than ever that I am right in my guess about why the Pope refuses to relieve our bumbling bishops of their offices.

Fr. observes that the problem here is not "failure to consult the laity". Laity, he noted, have been consulted all through the past two decades. The problem is: the laity consulted were lawyers and psychologists. Tremendous attention was paid to various secular models of doing business, evaluating problem priests, dealing with threats of lawsuit, etc. What nobody has paid attention to is the Tradition and what revelation says about the nature of the office of priest. Heck, even here in Seattle, the bishop's letter to the archdiocese about The Situation closed with a reference, not to Scripture, but to Kubler-Ross. The bishops have forgotten the Tradition they are supposed to be teaching and flailing about in secular models and paradigms trying to get a clue about what they are supposed to be doing.

"I begin," Fr. says, "with the rather obvious evidence that Cdl. Law is not a bad man. So how did we get to where we are?" His diagnosis in a nutshell is that the vast majority of American bishops simply have no clue what the office of priest means and have forgotten that they are priests, thinking rather that they were the CEOs of corporations and running their dioceses on models derived, not from an understanding of their offices, but on purely secular grounds. Thus, when something arises that threatens the smooth running of the machine, they think first of guarding the institution while forgetting what the institution exists to do. After all, "qualified experts" have counseled them to do exactly this, and they want to be "responsive." Yes, that is what's going through their heads.

What has not been named in this scandal, he said, is that the first one wounded in this is Jesus Christ, not the institution and not even the victims. It is the sacrament of Holy Orders that has been blasphemed and this is greater even than the crimes against children and other innocents for Jesus Christ is peculiarly present in the sacraments.

This diagnosis, though counter-intuitive, is simply right, I think. Children are not the primary victims of these sins: Jesus Christ is. And he is so precisely because he is present both in the children and families wounded and in the sacrament of Holy Orders which criminal priests and their protective bishops share.

This disconnect between the AmChurch bishops' conception of their office and the Holy Father's is, said my priest friend, quite clear and obvious to the Holy Father. He's been re-reading the ad limina addresses JPII gave to our bishops a couple of year ago and, as you might expect, JPII has a markedly different conception--what some of us might call a Catholic conception--of the ordained office as being a shepherd of souls, not a CEO of a large corporation. Those addresses appear to have gone in one ear and out the other of our bishops. After all, when you live in the Land that has Progressed Beyond the Need for Confession, why do you need some old guy's outdated musings on Holy Orders? Bill Gates, not John Paul the Great, knows what's happening.

But now the need for a more Traditional conception of the nature of Holy Orders as shepherd and not CEO is suddenly making itself felt in exquisite ways to our hapless and chuckleheaded bishops. And ironically, I find that my conception of what to do about things is remarkably closer to Bill Gates than to JPII's or my priest friend's.

"The first blunder" said my friend, "was to yank abusive priests out before they had the chance to face the people they'd hurt." He did not mean they should be left in place to harm more kids. Those priests (like Shanley or Geoghan) who did the crime should do the time. But in addition to handing them over to civil authorities, it should, said my friend, be church policy to allow their parishes and victims to confront them in some sort of parish meeting so that abusers can receive the full wrath (and the possibility of mercy and reconciliation) from the people they've hurt. Simply yanking them in the dead of night truncated the possibility of a victim's working through their anger to forgiveness and positively encouraged abusers to think they were immune to the consequences of their actions. To be priest is to carry the cross, not to take a powder. And that includes crosses they themselves made and laid on the shoulders of their victims.

And this explains very well, I think, why JPII leaves the present crop of clueless bishops in their jobs to endure and carry the cross they have created and laid on the shoulders of so many innocent people. My priest friend thinks that JPII believes that this is the time when American clergy are going to have to carry the cross they made for others so that the American Church (both laity and clergy) learn what the true nature of priesthood is supposed to be. Simply treating this as an administrative problem will not serve. It is a failure to grasp the nature of the sacrament and yanking these guys off the crosses they now occupy will only mean that they don't really face the consquences of their actions and that they will be replaced by more people who have no more conception of the nature of their priestly office than their predecessors did.

I'm beginning to be convinced that if we want to understand JPII's actions in The Situation, that is where we are going to have to start.

Also, check out the wonderful St. Austin Review edited by my pal Joseph Pearce, who also wrote fun books on Tolkien, Chesterton, and a whole gaggle of Literary Converts.

Hey! Check out the Mars Hill Review!

More Science Stuff

A reader writes:

Quick question -- a spin off from Mr. Sungesis (sp?) blog postings. We homeschool and are in a Christian homeschooling co-op with a lot of creationists, they have given us a lot of material that casts a lot of doubt on evolutionary theory but the literal interpretation of Genesis still doesn't fit right. I know the Church's teaching about this (I actually survived with my faith intact after graduating from Catholic U. in the early eighties), I've read summaries of JP II on EWTN website, read Behe, Dembriski, First Things, . . .So believe it or not I'm actually more confused than ever!! Is the universe 15 billion years old or a lot less? I think more the former but my questions are: your recommendation for me AND (moreso) the kids on what to read/teach. I know of Nothing that gets into this in a good, solid way for kids from a Catholic perspective -- even if it says we don't know everything (Duh!) My second question is a theological/philosophical one I never thought of until I read our friend's critiques on evolution -- If God did utilize evolutionary changes to get us where we're at what happens to the inspired teaching of Genesis that man's sin caused death to enter the natural world? It's not enough to just say it caused our death, Kreeft says that original sin started even nature's demise. Thank you for even reading this too long e-mail.

My background is in theology more than science, so I'm not the guy to go into the details on science. From the biblical theological angle on Genesis, my quickest suggestion would be to get a copy of my book Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did which deals, among many other things, with the supposed "conflict" between science and religion in the book of Genesis (Special deal: email me and order the book and I'll send you a signed copy cheaper than you'd get from Amazon!). My basic take: there's no conflict because the author of Genesis is asking "Who?" and "Why?" questions and science is asking "How? When? What?" questions. As I understand it, the universe is about 12-15 billion years old and the earth is about 4-5 billion years old.

As Catholics, we have long believed that grace perfects nature. That already goes a great distance toward opening a big hole for some sort of theistic evolutionary model to account for the formation of all non-human life. Beyond this, though, there's very little in revelation and we're left to the varying models proposed by the sciences. While these models all offer some explanatory value there is also the problem that they don't explain everything and there are some rather huge gaps in our knowledge and in the plausbility of the theories. Behe and Philip Johnson have done some nice work in this area. What they haven't done is put anything in place of the theories they deconstruct. Not being a scientist, I don't either. Personally, I don't think we will ever really have a clear understanding of human origins. Genesis tells us the "Who?" and "Why?" answers to those questions, but doesn't bother itself about the scientific whys and wherefores.

As to the appearance of death in the world, I'm not sure of which of Dr. Kreeft's writings you mean, but we've spoken in the past about this and he has no particular problem with a theistic evolutionary model. It is true that nature suffers from the fall, but it's not at all necessary to think this is limited to the fall of homo sapiens. Genesis in fact hints that there was evil present in the world before the fall of man. I see no particular reason to think that Satan had to wait around for us before he started fouling up creation. All Scripture is concerned with is the cause of human death, not the death of oysters. It is human death alone that concerns the writers of Scripture when they say that "death entered the world through sin."

Recommended reading: C.S. Lewis' Problem of Pain.

Mahony, Mother A, and me
I mentioned earlier that EWTN has been mouthy in its treatment of some of our bishops. I should clarify lest I be taken as pulling a punch. As should be clear, I think Cdl. Mahony is an odious man. From his appalling treatment of abuse victims in his care, to his endless jockeying for position and portrayal of himself as the Voice of Reform, from his high-handed and condescending plays for the cameras to his patronizing attitude toward the Holy Father, Cardinal "Ain't It a Shame about Law, Gee I'm Glad I'm not Him, I will Explain to the Old Man in Rome that It's All About Celibacy, Gosh I miss my Personal Helicopter, We'll Take Care of the Priests Who Abused You Ma'am, Get Me My Minions at the LA Times I have To Do Damage Control" Mahony has shown himself to be a man profoundly unworthy of his office. Compared to him, I actually take Cdl. Law to be a basically good man who forgot he was a priest and instead thought he was a CEO of a corporation. Mahony has forgotten he's a priest and thinks he's the CEO of a ruthless, cutthroat corporation. If I were in his archdiocese, I would obey him for he is a bishop. But that would be the utmost limit of "Honor your father" I could muster for I think him a deeply dishonorable man.

That said, I have to add that it was precisely here where EWTN screwed up majorly several years ago when Mother A actually called for people to render this odious man "zero obedience." Sorry, but this is simply wrong. Mahony could be the worst bishop in the world. Indeed, he would get a strong vote of confidence for this honor from me (though there are so many American bishops to choose from, it's hard to decide). But he is still owed obedience by his flock. Obedience, I say, not bovine acquiesence to his grotesque abuse of his office. Mother A did go on to retract this statement though in somewhat half-hearted terms. But it still needs to be said that the authentic voice of Reform in the Church must not give in to a radical refusal to obey duly constituted authority acting within its proper sphere. Neither must it conflate the actions of sinful members with the nature of the Church and refer to the Church as "despicable" "evil" or whatever else. Call the Church's members sinful all you want. Call the Church herself sinful and you are calling Christ sinful for his Spirit is the soul of the Church. A small but vital distinction.

Speaking of which...
The Catholic Church in Washington, always a cutting edge place, shows that homosexual abuse is an equal opportunity employer.