SSPX Is On The Path To SSPX-2, SSPX-3, and SSPX-4

I don't know if Pope Benedict is after SSPX priests, but I bet Gammarelli is after their clerical bling business. 

SSPX is making the news again, and this time I think traditionalists should take note.  There is a prophetic lesson for them on which to meditate.  Pope Benedict has bent over backwards to bring this group back in the Catholic fold.  He has done so, according to John Allen's latest take, at some expense to his Papacy and the unity of his own Vatican, not to mention the unity of the rest of Catholicism.  But with all such groups who pride themselves on their orthodoxy, they are splitting over whose vision of orthodoxy is most orthodox.  Consequently Bishop Fellay has been taken to task by the other three illicitly installed bishops of SSPX as giving away too much to the Vatican:

 
.....On April 7, Mallerays, de Gallareta and Williamson wrote to Fellay insisting that “agreement is impossible with Rome,” because after Vatican II “the official authorities of the church separated themselves from Catholic truth”.
The three prelates warned of the dangers of “placing ourselves in the hands of conciliar bishops and modernist Rome,” and said that Fellay is leading the society to “a point of no return” and a “deep division.”
On April 17, Fellay wrote back, telling his fellow prelates that they have an “overly human and fatalistic conception of the church,” seeing “dangers, plots and difficulties, but not the grace of the Holy Spirit.”
Fellay argued the traditionalists should embrace Benedict’s overture, since the pope “knows very well it would have been easier for him, and for us, to leave things as they were.”

That line apparently hasn’t convinced everyone, as evidenced by an essay published on “Porte Latine,” the website of the French district of the Society of St. Pius X, in early May. (France is home to the world’s largest concentration of Lefebvrists, with some 120 of the society’s 500 priests.)
Fr. Régis de Cacqueray, superior of the French district, wrote that Benedict XVI still does not see “the calamitous consequences of the new religion which has unfolded over the last half-century in the church,” asserting that he’s under “grave and deep illusions” about Vatican II.
Cacqueray urged the society to “distrust like a plague the novelties introduced by Vatican II, and the popes which have come after the council.”
Such sentiment may be what Fellay had in mind when he told the Catholic News Service in early May that “there might be a split” should a deal with Rome occur.

I happen to think what Pope Benedict doesn't understand is that SSPX is a classic cult, with at least three of their four bishops unwilling to give up their autonomy to any other hierarchical structure or answer to any other authority, including their own leader. It's their way or the highway, and in this case, the Vatican will never ever be able to placate men who are this enamored of their own vision.  Even if the Vatican caved in completely and determined Vatican II to be a heretical counsel, it wouldn't be enough.  The three would then most likely start fighting with each other over who is to be the next 'real' pope of the Roman Catholic Church since the current crop of Catholic Bishops and Cardinals are all steeped in that 'new religion'.  

This was always going to be a no win situation for the Vatican, but now, it could be just another huge loss of face for an already weakened papacy.  I also don't find it the least bit surprising that suddenly Opus Dei is expressing their misgivings, going so far as to call for a loyalty oath to the teachings of Vatican II for anyone who wishes to enter the Church.  Of course it could also be they don't want to give up their status as the only group designated as a Personal Prelature of the Pope.  God forbid SSPX be given the same designation because then OD wouldn't have their singular access and it's quite easy to see SSPX attempting to take over their self proclaimed designation as the 'most orthodox and obedient' of all the various Catholic conservative cults.  

And that brings up another point which conservative/traditionalists should meditate on:  Just why do conservative traditionalists need all these 'new movements' each claiming to be Truer True Believers?  I look at all these movements and just laugh when conservative comments berate progressive or protestant movements for constantly spawning new protestant sects.  Excuse me?  Just what exactly have they done with in the Church.  How many parallel conservative sects does Catholicism really need?  Apparently one for every priest whose ego convinces him he is the proponent of the Truest Truth.

This was all so predictable, and it didn't take prophecy to make the prediction.  It's right there in the best of the science of cults and group dynamics.  Fellay should just take Benedict's offer, bring in those who wish to follow him, and let the others fight, splinter, and disintegrate like all real cults eventually do.  In the meantime it would serve Pope Benedict and the Church a whole lot better to turn his attention to progressive Western Catholics, where he is losing Catholics by the millions, or South America where he is losing Catholics by the hundred million.  Of course in those two situations the problems go far beyond what one SSPX apologist calls  'a few paragraphs in a few documents of Vatican II'.  It could very well be that those two situations are not just beyond the energy of an 85 year old pope, but the courage of his entire College of Cardinals, Vatican bureaucracy, and most of his 5000 hand picked bishops.  Given that I am sure we will see this Pope and this Vatican waste a lot more time on SSPX.

Cardinal Marc Ouellete On The Qualities Of The Modern Bishop---And Puzzlement That Priests Are Saying "No Thanks"

Cardinal Marc Ouellete is surprised priests are turning down promotion to bishop. I'm not. What sane priest wants to be part of this kind of 'pastoral' work?

A while back, I came across an article that quoted Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops.  The article was a series of reflections on his first year as Prefect.  There was one statement I've found very intriguing and it has stayed with me for months.  He stated one of the surprises was the number of men who turn down promotion to bishop. The following is an excerpt from an article in Catholic News Ireland which has this observation:

RC priests reluctant to become bishops

December 3, 2011 - Church News Ireland

An intimate of the present Pope, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, a Canadian, has just completed his first year as prefect of the congregation for bishops – the man who short lists possible bishops for appointment. In the interview with the Italian bishops’ newspaper he reveals that more priests turn down preferment that he could have expected.
Cardinal Marc Ouellet was interviewed for “Avvenire,” the newspaper owned by the Italian episcopal conference.
In the interview, he revealed among other things that it often happens, “more than I could have expected,” that the candidate chosen to be made a bishop does not accept the appointment.
He indicated the reasons for such refusals in the growing difficulty of fulfilling the role, in a society in which the bishops are under public attack, “in part as a result of the scandals and charges concerning sexual abuse.”
As for career ambitions – the cardinal cautioned – if a priest or a bishop aspires and maneuvers to be promoted to a prominent diocese, “it is better for him to stay where he is.”
And he concluded the interview by sketching the profile of the bishop the Church needs most today. A bishop who is at the same time a theologian and an apologist, a public defender of the faith:
“Today, especially in the context of our secularized societies, we need bishops who are the first evangelizers, and not mere administrators of dioceses. Who are capable of proclaiming the Gospel. Who are not only theologically faithful to the magisterium and the pope, but are also capable of expounding and, if need be, of defending the faith publicly.”
This profile of the bishop as theologian and “defensor fidei” fits Cardinal Ouellet himself perfectly.

************************************************

There a number of statements from Cardinal Ouellete that are disturbing to say the least.  I have my doubts as to whether the abuse crisis and the less than flattering news coverage it has engendered is the main reason men are turning down promotion to bishop.  I can't help but wonder if this has far more to do with the final statements of Cardinal Ouellet in which he states bishops must be theologically faithful to the Magisterium and the pope and become professional apologists.  Cardinal Ouellete even puts an emphasis on proclaiming the Gospels, but says zero about living the Gospels.  Oh, and lest I forget, the word pastoral never even comes up.  

So much for the insight of St Francis: "Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary use words." Or: "It is no use walking anywhere to preach, unless our walking is our preaching."  No, it sure looks like our bishops are to follow the insight of Newt Gingrich who says people don't care what he does, just what he says. I'm not thinking the original Jesus movement would have lasted very long if Jesus just talked His talk and hadn't done more than a few things to back up all His talk.  My how things have changed.  Perhaps secularism isn't the threat the Church wants us to believe it is.  Perhaps the real threat is a leadership who thinks loud defensive ranting is somehow more effective than quietly living the Gospel and actually converting hearts as well as minds.

Sadder still is the thought that Cardinal Ouellete is considered a front runner in the papal sweepstakes. Part of this is due to his long association with Pope Benedict and part of it due to his current position.  No question he has a lot of say in who becomes part of the Magisterium and who doesn't.  That's got to help his chances. On the other hand,  I imagine it is difficult for him to deal well with men saying 'thanks, but no thanks' when it comes to becoming part of his exalted club.  I can also imagine he finds it much easier to blame this trend on the news coverage surrounding the abuse crisis rather than to think a little deeper---deep enough to consider it might also have something to do with the demands of Cardinal Ouellete's style of blind obedience to the Magisterium and papacy which was directly responsible for the abuse crisis.  

But then just maybe this problem with priests saying "NO" is all about thinking feeling committed Catholic priests don't want to be part of a system where the price of conformity is their souls.  Just maybe.

A Cardinal Takes On Fundamentalist Thinking

There's a fun fascinating story behind these baseballs.  Cardinal Ravasi signed the second from the left, and Cardinal Schonborn signed the one on the far right.  Hmmm, no Cardinal Dolan?

In John Allen's latest column in which he lays down the possible replacements for Benedict XVI, he has this to say about Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi , who along with Cardinal Tim Dolan,  Allen lists as a long shot:

1. Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, 69, Italy, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture
The case for: Ravasi is undeniably brilliant, conversant not just in theology but across a staggering variety of disciplines, including world literature, art, science and philosophy. He’s pioneered the “Courtyard of the Gentiles” project, the Vatican’s most successful recent effort to engage secular non-belief. Ravasi typically comes off as funny, relaxed and affable, and is remarkably down to earth for a man of his erudition, having written not just learned tracts but also popular columns in Italian newspapers.
The case against: In the tribal world of Italian church politics, Ravasi has always been a tribe unto himself – which is part of his charm, but it also means he has no natural base of support. There are also questions about his ability to bend the Vatican to his will, as well as whether his classically European intellect is suited to the new global realities of Catholicism.

I found Allen's description of Ravasi very interesting and couldn't stop myself from comparing him to Cardinal Dolan.  Low and behold,  Catholic News Service ran the following article about Ravasi on the same day Allen posted his thoughts.  Again, I couldn't help but compare Cardinal Ravasi's attitude toward fundamentalist thinking with Cardinal Dolan and his right hand man Bill Donohue.  I think I know which one I would prefer to lead Roman Catholicism.

Well-formed faith makes dialogue with opponents easier, cardinal says
By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The recent call for the resignation of top officials at the Pontifical Academy for Life stems from some members' concern that inviting speakers who oppose church teaching in their scientific practice confuses the faithful and compromises the academy's commitment to the truth.

Any kind of "neutral scientific description" of practices opposed to church teaching have "absolutely no place in our academy," wrote Joseph Seifert, an academy member and founding rector of the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein.

However, a Vatican cardinal who has been leading a global initiative engaging Catholics, atheists and agnostics in dialogue said when Catholics are well-formed in their faith they have nothing to fear from listening to opposing views.

It's a shaky or fundamentalist grasp of faith that sparks suspicion or fear of the other, said Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The cardinal spearheads and coordinates the "Courtyard of the Gentiles" project, which seeks to promote discussions between Christians and nonbelievers on themes as diverse as art, spirituality and bioethics.

"Oftentimes this fear (of dialogue) stems from the fact that the person doesn't feel capable of defending or justifying his own reasons, hence he doesn't want to listen to the other," he told Catholic News Service May 10. (Sometimes this fear is so strong people literally don't hear the other because their mind is totally involved in developing rebuttals which often include points the other person hasn't even brought up.)

The culture council, too, faced negative reaction and controversy in November, he said, when it hosted an international conference on the latest research using adult stem cells.

Though the conference topic focused on adult stem cells, some of the speakers were also involved in research using embryonic stem cells, which the Catholic Church opposes because it involves the destruction of human life. However, the church supports research and therapies utilizing adult stem cells, which can develop into a variety of specialized cells, alleviating degenerative illnesses by repairing damaged tissues.

Cardinal Ravasi said the conference was a success because the key to successful dialogue in any field is not to pick just the best and the brightest, but to choose the most qualified experts who also are open to a mutual exchange of ideas and criticism.

An obstinate fundamentalist attitude, open hostility or blatant indifference are recipes for failure no matter how famous or accomplished the expert, he said.

A handful of members of the Pontifical Academy for Life had harshly criticized the academy's plans to host a conference in April on adult stem-cell research that would have featured some of the same speakers as the council for culture's event.

Academy organizers canceled the meeting a month before it was to be held due to a lack of funding; members critical of the event praised its demise citing concern that scientists not in line with church teaching speaking at a Vatican-sponsored event would confuse the faithful. (Lack of funding? More likely a threat from well healed fundamentalists to remove all kinds of funding from other areas if this conference went forward.)

Another Vatican-related advisory group, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, had a working group meet to discuss developments in stem-cell research in mid-April. The meeting was held behind closed doors to avoid any media-stoked speculation or controversy.

The latest disagreement at the life academy comes from the reaction of a few members to a workshop held in February on the causes, prevention and treatment of infertility.

Seifert wrote a sharply critical six-page open letter to the life academy's president, Bishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, and distributed to media outlets, saying the academy's directory board should resign.

He said the infertility workshop was "possibly the worst day in the history" of the academy because there was too much emphasis on "a neutral scientific discussion" of infertility treatments rather than scientific presentations that were "primarily from an ethical and magisterial viewpoint."

The Pontifical Academy for Life, established in 1994, "was explicitly founded to deal with (scientific) matters in the light of anthropological, theological and moral truth," Seifert wrote.

"Any 'purely scientific' treatment of (topics) falsifies them by failing to take into account the most important truths about the questions at hand," said his letter, dated May 4.

Father Scott Borgman, an academy official, told CNS that the academy was created for scientific research to further "the promotion and defense of human life from conception to natural death."

Firmly rooted in "the stability of knowing what the magisterium teaches," the academy also wants to be aware of advances in scientific research even if they do not conform to church teaching, he said.

"This doesn't mean that we uphold people's teachings that are against church teachings," he said. But there is research that does respect Christian morality being conducted by researchers whose scope also includes methods that do not conform to church teaching and "we want to be able to be open to dialogue" to find the latest therapies that the church can endorse.

Msgr. Michel Schooyans, an academy member and retired professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, told CNS that dialogue with people who don't agree with church teaching may be acceptable outside of the Vatican, but inviting such experts to a Vatican-sponsored event, he said, gives them an opportunity to "falsify the doctrine of the church in respect to human life."

"When you start compromising the Vatican you are starting a process that troubles public opinion" and confuses the faithful about what the church believes, he said. (As far as the Vatican goes, how do you further compromise an institution that has amply demonstrated it's capacity to compromise itself?)

When asked whether he believed such a situation could damage the church or would confuse Catholics, Cardinal Ravasi said, "No, that's not true."

However, Catholics need to be well-formed first, he said, hence the importance of the Year of Faith to strengthen people's understanding of what their faith teaches.

"When you are well-formed, you can listen to other people's reasons," he said, so solid, serious catechesis goes hand-in-hand with respectful dialogue.

A solid Catholic identity -- whether as a layperson, a religious or as a Catholic institution -- provides the needed foundation for confronting differing opinions and also for critiquing views, since listening doesn't always mean agreeing, he said.

When asked specifically about the tensions at the life academy, he said, "this is why it's necessary to have a precise identity," which means "an identity that's serious and well-formed, not just fundamentalist."

**************************************************************

One of the points in this article that struck me very forcefully is just how powerful the fundamentalist voices are in the Vatican.  Apparently it takes one letter from one man to cause enough of a scare for the Vatican to cancel a conference on stem cell research because a few of the presenters are not card carrying Catholics with the reactionary forces seal of approval. There is very little doubt left in my mind as to who is really running the Vatican, and it's not Benedict.  I should hardly be shocked to find that Joseph Seifert is a card carrying member of Opus Dei.

I take these observations from Cardinal Ravasi as a warning to the Vatican itself.  It can be read as a statement which says, "you are destroying your own credibility in the informed educated world by your constant caving to reactionary fundamentalist agitators."  And he would be right, because an informed Catholic identity is not synonymous with a fundamentalist approach which is too weak and terrified to tolerate any dialogue of any sort, much less any dissent. Cardinal Ravasi is defending the strength and intelligence of the Catholic faithful, while fundamentalists like Seifert demean the faith and intelligence of the Catholic faithful.  One is asking that Catholics be treated as thinking responsible adults, the other is asking Catholics be treated like lazy ill educated children in need of direction and protection.  Not surprising Cardinal Ravasi comes across as a man who has wrestled with his faith and is mature and comfortable with in it.  Seifert?, well, he seems to be projecting his own struggles onto the Vatican.

Roman Catholicism could use a Pope with the approach and qualities of Cardinal Ravasi.  If John Allen is right and this man is 'a tribe unto himself', he may indeed be just the man for the job.  As to controlling the Vatican curia, there's a simple solution for that, start over. 

No Wonder The Boys In Purple Have A Problem With Their 'Sisters'

After today's testimony I doubt there were any smiles around the defense table, on certainly not on Msgr Lynn's face.

The following is an excerpt from the most recent post by Ralph Cipriano's coverage of the clerical abuse trial still underway in Philadelphia.  It's powerful because it carries foundational truths.  It involves the testimony of a nun who was sexually abused by one Father Cudemo, her uncle,  who not only abused her, but other of her cousins and ten other female victims. The Archdiocese was first made aware of Cudemo's problems in 1966, but he was allowed to prey on children for another 25 years until something was finally done.  As far as defendant Msgr Lynn is concerned, her testimony probably put the dagger in Lynn's Nuremberg style defense.

All along, the defense mantra has been that the monsignor was just a cog in the wheel down at archdiocese headquarters on 222 N. 17th St., and that the ultimate villain in the case was the guy who wielded the ultimate power in the archdiocese, the conveniently dead Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua.

But the nun on the witness stand refused to play along.

It started when Thomas Bergstrom, a defense lawyer for Msgr. Lynn, tried to get the nun on cross-examination to agree that Msgr. Lynn did not have the power to remove from ministry a pastor who had sexually abused her and at least 10 other women.

"He [Lynn] had the power to suggest it," she said, referring to the removal of the pastor. And then on redirect, when the prosecutor asked her about the power Lynn had as the archdiocese's secretary for clergy, the nun said that Lynn had the simple power of just saying no.

Instead of going along with the power structure, the nun said, "You can also say, I cannot do this."

It was a simple, but powerful declaration coming from a nun who herself was an administrator down at archdiocese HQ, and also as a young woman, a victim of sex abuse from a pervert priest.

The nun, who did not want to be identified, wasn't finished.

"I would think that his [Lynn's] recommendation would be heard,"she told Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington. And if it wasn't, Lynn could have told the cardinal, "I cannot go on; if it isn't done that way, I can quit."

The nun's firm but understated conviction about the need to simply do what was right sent a ripple of excitement through courtroom spectators, which included victims of sex abuse, and activists hoping for the impossible, reform in the Roman Catholic Church. It also raised an age-old question, namely why do the women in the Catholic church usually have more balls than the men?

****************************************

"why do the women in the Catholic Church usually have more balls than the men?"  Maybe because it's been that way since Mary said yes, and Jesus looked down from His Cross and only one of his male 'apostles' could be found, and when He rose from the dead, there were only women.  It's always been this way, but it can no longer stay this way.  It's time more men found their balls---even the one's with collars. 

Advancing The Spirit Beats Reforming The Reform

Ireland is beginning to move forward on the long long road to advancing their Vatican II vision of Church.

Ireland's Association of Catholic Priests held a conference this past weekend in Dublin at which attendance far surpassed organizers estimates. Over 1000 people showed up instead of the expected 200. The following article take from Clerical Whispers notes some interesting demographics and gives a good over view of the concerns of attendees.  Although it 's easy for me to imagine that the Cardinal Brady situation helped attendance numbers, I still think the Irish hierarchy took note.  Events are moving fast in Ireland and not in Rome's direction.

1000 attend conference on future of Catholic Church

ANALYSIS: Speakers showed the spirit of compassion unleashed by Vatican 11 remains alive.

TWO OUTSTANDING characteristics were immediately evident at the “Toward an Assembly of the Catholic Church” event in Dublin yesterday morning.

One was the unexpectedly large number there. 

The other was their age profile. 

One of the organisers, Fr Brendan Hoban, parish priest in Moygownagh, Co Mayo, and a member of the Association of Catholic Priests leadership team, seemed taken aback. They had expected 200, he said, but “there are in excess of 900”.

The number increased to well over 1,000 and, unusually for a day-long conference, continued to grow as the day progressed. The attendance was, Fr Hoban felt, “a huge statement” of the desire of Catholics for change.

Many were priests, many were nuns, most were laity. Almost all were middle-aged and older. 

But then the average age of an Irish Catholic priest today is 64, while the age profile generally seemed an accurate reflection of those at any weekend Mass. They were broadly representative of Ireland’s practising Catholics.

Even a couple of younger people who spoke during open sessions were an accurate representation in number and view of that increasingly strident, traditionalist element among young Irish Catholics today. 

Though there were also more liberally minded young Catholics there too. 

But, and typically, they were less assertive than their traditionalist peers and did not get the chance to speak.

Still, that is to digress from the spirit of yesterday’s event which was overwhelmingly of Vatican II, as articulated again and again by those forever loyal children of that great council.

Despite four decades of rowing back by Rome it was evident from yesterday’s contributions that the 60s spirit of openness, inclusiveness and compassion unleashed by Pope John XXIII remains alive and well in the Irish Catholic Church.

Also striking was the passion with which contributors spoke. It was to be reminded once more that in the Ireland of today it is not to the young one looks for those grand old architects of change: courage, drive, commitment, or its great engine, anger. You look to the older generations.

It was to be reminded that the only real people revolution of recent years in Ireland was when the over-70s faced down Brian Lenihan over their medical cards in October 2008.

Of course age is itself a reason why people such as those at yesterday’s assembly are prepared to stand up and say they are not going to take it anymore. 

For the laity among, then life’s responsibilities have been discharged and there’s little to lose. 

For the priests and nuns present the attitude was one of “what more can they do to me”?

It is early days and there’s a long way to go, as Fr Hoban also said, but something was unleashed yesterday. 

Time will tell “what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born”?

 

 

*********************************************

 

I truly have to admit I get ever so tired of hearing young traditionalists denigrate the Vatican II blue hairs and the ever aging out of existence LCWR.  Part of my frustration is they seem to be utterly blind to the simple fact Benedict and his curia are even older, a generation older, and that the priesthood itself is aging out of existence.  In Ireland the average age is 64 and it's only slightly better in the US.  Who do these young traditionalists think is going to 'save' the Church.  Certainly not them, they just don't have the numbers nor the resources.  It certainly isn't going to be Pope Benedict's age bracket, unless it's the women.  That leaves the boomers, and that's who is showing up at conferences like this one held in Dublin by the ACP.

 

I can freely admit it maybe time the 'boomers' got off the cultural stage and let the younger generations take up the mantle, but not on the spiritual stage.  It is on this stage that we have the time and the resources and the motivation to work for change in Roman Catholicism.  This is especially true if we want to leave anything meaningful after we have permanently left the stage.  One of the big reasons I believe this is because the young trads have no clue what they are supporting in their drive to return Catholicism to pre Vatican II days.  That period was not just about the Gregorian Chant and the Tridentine Latin Masses of their fantasies.  It was also about a practical theology which used huge amounts of fear to enact a conformity by terrorizing laity, especially children, with threats of eternal damnation for virtually everything.  Scrupulosity was a real and present danger.  Many of us got so discombobulated we would make up sins, lie essentially, so we could delude ourselves into thinking we made a 'good' confession and could then go to communion.  It was a crazy time, not a spiritually beneficial time.

 

Vatican II did not just open windows, it got rid of an enormous amount of fear and opened us up to the possibility of relating to a very different kind of Jesus.  Because of that, we began to see beyond our own little parish ghetto and gaze upon a much bigger world.  It was a world crying in it's pain.  It is the world the LCWR orders chose to minister to and the world to which it still has that commitment.  It is the world that still desperately needs the vision of the Vatican II church.   That vision is big enough to include Latin Masses and Gregorian chant.  It's big enough to include believers who still desire an external form of conscience and behavioral control.  Why wouldn't it be, that's where we all start our faith journey, but that's not where the People of God should finish and conformance to an external authority should never be mandated.  People do move past using training wheels to ride a bike. No one should ever be commanded to always use training wheels because then they never learn to balance---and falling down and getting back on is part of that process.

 

The second major change didn't quite make it out of Vatican II and that change involves the status of women.  That just has to change.  I read a comment on an NCR article this morning where the gentleman is listing historical attitudes towards sex offered by the early doctors of the Church.  It's just ugly, and their ideas about women were uglier, but it struck me that the Church has had no female voices speaking about sex and gender.  Our entire history has been men, mostly terrified or disgusted by their own sexuality, assuming the right to teach women about female sexuality.  It is literally impossible for most Catholics to conceive of this dynamic working the other way around. We can't go into the twenty first century leaving the voice of over half the Catholic population officially silenced.  Just can't happen.

In any event, if Ireland is destined to save Western Catholic civilization one more time, they seem to be off to a good start.  It would help if the rest of us blue haired Vat II lovers would join them in their effort.

 

The Sad Irish Abuse Story Adds Another Chapter

 

This video is the first part of BBC's The World program mentioned in the article.  The links to the other three parts are at the end of each segment. 

The saga of Cardinal Sean Brady of Ireland is both sad and illustrative of what happens when good men participate in a rotten system.  They lose their humanity.  They become robots in and to the system.  The following article by Alf McCreary of the Belfast Times poignantly makes this point.

Clearly Cardinal Brady’s time at helm is almost up

Alf McCreary - Belfast Times - 5/7/2012

One of the saddest sights this week has been watching Cardinal Sean Brady trying to defend the indefensible. He is a good man caught up in a public struggle for the soul of the Irish Catholic Church, and he is now well out of his depth.
Two years ago when the story broke about his involvement in a secret meeting with a young victim of the paedophile Brendan Smyth, I was one of the few commentators to suggest publicly that Cardinal Brady should resign.
Even then it was obvious to me that the game was up, and afterwards a number of prominent people told me privately that they agreed with my view.

However, Cardinal Brady chose to struggle on, in an attempt to spearhead reforms as a “wounded healer”. He has tried to do so with dignity and courage, and his many friends inside and outside the Catholic Church wince for this decent human being who became the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The latest important revelations in the BBC’s This World programme have put further pressure on Cardinal Brady, and his involvement in the Brendan Smyth scandal is symbolic of the Catholic Church’s failure to deal properly with the cancer of clerical child sex abuse.

Cardinal Brady has chosen to stay on and to fight his corner. This does not surprise me. Whatever he may feel personally, you can be sure that the Vatican is watching every move.
Even if the cardinal decides to hand in his resignation, I doubt if the Vatican will accept it just now. Sean Brady is a high profile scapegoat for an institutional failure that goes right to the top.
 
Of course he should have done much more in 1975 when he discovered that young people were being abused. However, he was no better and no worse than his peers in a system where no-one had the courage to by-pass the Catholic Church and go straight to the police and the children’s parents.
Lest any one is tempted to take a holier-than-thou attitude, we all have known of situations where it was better not to sacrifice a career by making a stand and to push the problem up the line.

When Sean Brady’s superiors failed to put pressure on the relevant church authorities in 1975, the problem got much worse, and now that church is deservedly reaping the whirlwind.
My guess is that Cardinal Brady, now 72, will be kept in post until after the important International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin next month, and that sooner rather than later he will retire, or be retired.

However, the cardinal is under immense pressure and his position seems precarious but whether Sean Brady goes or stays in the short term is beside the point. The major problem is that the Catholic Church in Ireland has badly lost its way and has betrayed its people.

By trying to censor a popular and perceptive priest like Fr Brian D’Arcy and others in the Republic, the Vatican is showing that autocracy still rules all. But did any one really expect a hardliner like Cardinal Ratzinger to become a ‘liberal’ Pope Benedict overnight?
However, the most damning indictment this week was the Irish Church’s claim that in 1975 there were no church or state guidelines about dealing with allegations of child abuse. That is a total cop-out, from an institution which is supposed to base its existence on the teachings of Christ, who is quoted in St Matthew’s Gospel with this devastating judgment:

“Whoso shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
That really says it all.

*********************************************
 

The train wreck known as the Catholic Church in Ireland, just underwent another derailment. This one seriously implicates it's conductor, Cardinal Sean Brady. The above linked video is the BBC documentary which has precipitated another earthquake in the Irish Church. What's been especially sad to me is watching Cardinal Brady and his PR people use every spin they can to keep the real truth at arms length. That truth is Fr Sean Brady, back in 1975 risked his own excommunication if he went to the authorities or the parents of the children he knew were actively being raped by serial pedophile Brendan Smyth. "Crimen Sollicitationis" was in full effect. The penalty for violating these oaths was automatic excommunication and it applied not only to the two witnesses Cardinal Brady interviewed but also himself. This insured the boys suffered in silence without any outside support, including from each other, and that Brendan Smyth was free to continue abusing the very children for whom Cardinal Brady had been given both names and addresses. Brady was under this silence until 2010 when the Vatican finally changed it's Canon Laws to free investigators and bishops to release information to those with a need to know. Hence Cardinal Brady said nothing of any substance about this incident when it first came to light in 2008. He was still under obligation to honor the code of secrecy.

In the interests of adhering to Papal demands, and protecting both the Church and his own soul, Cardinal Brady kept his silence while dozens more children were raped by Brendan Smyth. At least a dozen of those were US children because Smyth was transferred to the US by the Norbertine Order just as police in Northern Ireland were finally getting on to him. I just had this really difficult time putting together the fact most of this could have ended in 1975 if one Fr Sean Brady had not been so vested in self serving Catholic Canon Law and protecting his own soul and career. But he was far from alone as one wag pointed out in a comment: "The mental reservation is getting full. Another inmate is coming." It's time to close this particular reservation and let the full truth out.

Sr Brigid Speaks Her Mind About Ratzinger And His Ideas About American Sisters

Sister Brigid McDonald has the look of a woman who knows her place and it isn't where Pope Benedict thinks it is.

The following interview was done by the webzine MinnPost.  It is with 79 year old Sr Brigid McDonald of the Sisters of St Joseph of Carondelet.  Sr Brigid is a member of Benedict's generation, but does not have Benedict's particular theological bent. It's a fascinating read from a woman who knows her true place and worth and that itself separates her from the man she refers to as 'Ratzinger'.  Be sure to follow the above link for the whole article and some fantastic comments by readers.

Sister Brigid McDonald calls Vatican's reprimand of U.S. nuns group a 'misuse of power' 

 Beth Hawkins - Minnpost - 5/4/2012
MinnPost: What are you hearing in your community about the decision?
Sister Brigid McDonald:
Well, some are shocked that he would go that far, you know, to start using his power. To me, it is a misuse of power, a misuse of authority where he can step into religious communities and dictate how they should speak about these issues.

MP: When you say “he,” you are talking about Benedict?
SBM: Yes. I still call him Ratzinger. That fits him better. But that is just a personal bias.
I think they are overstepping their jurisdiction to expect that nuns are going to think as they tell us to think. To me those issues are not spiritual issues; many of them are political issues and some, of course, are social justice issues. I think that our personal spiritual life, it is another matter and that is our private belief.I can't even begin to imagine what he could say or do that would change religious women's beliefs. I don't know how he plans to change that. That is of concern. That could be scary — what will he do to change our beliefs. You know, that scares me.

MP: Can you speak a little bit more about that, the difference between changing your belief and silencing you, and where that line gets murky?SBM: You are right, those are two different issues. If he wants us just to shut up about how we believe and don't put it out in public,  that is one issue. Or if he is really trying to get us to make statements that are opposite of our beliefs, I don't know what his motivation is for this. Other than control, I don't know what his motivation is.
I think it is pretty impossible for us to all change our beliefs on these issues to coincide with his beliefs. That sounds impossible.

MP: Can you stay silent about a belief that you hold in good faith?
SBM: I personally would never choose to. But I don't write and speak publicly for the community. I sometimes give talks about the peace movement, because I am in the peace movement quite heavily. Sometimes those things overlap, you know, the social justice issues and the peace and justice issues.
When I am speaking, I am not giving an official stance of The Sisters of St. Joseph. I wouldn't. Mine always is my personal reaction of what he is doing. Nobody is going to speak for the whole community. It is too hard to speak for hundreds of women. They aren't all going to talk alike anyhow.

MP: Can you tell me what you are hearing? Are people afraid?
SBM: It is interesting. The nuns that I talk to aren't really afraid, because they can't see or they can't imagine what he would do to change us. I mean, like, excommunication? That is a thing of the past. You can't excommunicate hundreds of nuns.
Wouldn't that be kind of funny? Excommunicate the whole order! It is irrational. I don't know what other consequences there would be.

 MP: One thing that I have been told is a bishop will now screen all of the speakers at your meetings. Will that have any practical effect?
SBM: Now that could affect our college, the St. Catherine University. And we do still have some high schools. But they have stepped in before to say we can't talk about this or that. I am not affiliated with any schools, so I don't know how their curriculum gets around those issues.
But I know he has tried to silence people in our schools. That could be a very severe possibility, to silence some of the voices, really the social justice voices, you know. Maybe they get around it some way. I don't know.
Why is he picking old nuns? More than half of us are over 75. We are almost an endangered species now. If he is trying to really change the church, he should start at the level with youth and talk to youth groups or something like that.
He should start with getting his priests together and try to help them through some of their problems. He should get after them for molestation.

 MP: Somebody suggested to me that nuns in the past had enjoyed some latitude because you were thought to be powerless, and that in a strange way, this might be recognition that your ministry is powerful.
SBM: That is good insight. Because [before] we were just school teachers and we just had nice little kids in front of us, you know, and we just emptied bed pans in the nursing homes and in the hospitals. But now they are right, we are out there in the different movements. We help with the Occupy movement and the right-to-choice movements.
It is giving us more credibility in the public. Lots of times people will call and seek out our opinions about certain issues, where it never was that way when I entered the convent. After we taught school, we went home, and said our prayers and ate supper and did our lesson plans and went to bed. Now we are out there.

MP: The other thing people have said is possibly dangerous about nuns is that you understand church teachings and can talk about the ways in which they might be being subverted or perverted.
SBM: Nuns [traditionally] haven't been educated in theology. There are more theologians now. We go to workshops and we are at schools and we are taking classes and people are going on for further degrees in theology and stuff like that. So, maybe that is a threat that we are getting educated, especially in theology.
I see the bishops and priests don't get updated in theology. They are still back, for an expression, with Noah's ark.
But, that is a point: People will ask our opinion of theological insight and possibly not ask Father anymore, you know. So, he might be losing his authority in theology particularly.
We should get into cooking or something, I suppose he thinks.

MP: Who do you think will be hurt by this move?
SBM: I have a feeling women theologians who are partners with the nuns and some of our teachers in our schools will be really hurt. It will be a fear hurt and they may not feel free to speak out.
I am suspicious of the motivation. I don't think it is for the common good. They are trying to get us back, bring us back, as it was in the beginning and now as it will ever be, amen, or something like that. They want us back in the habits and being obedient. You don't belong out here with social workers.

MP: Do you think that it will work?
SBM: I can't imagine it working. I think we are too wrapped up in the issues of the time. You can't just forget the common good and the people who are suffering right now. The more you are with those in pain, the more radical you become to overcome that pain. I don't think it is possible to go backwards.
I really feel that Jesus would want us to go forward and to be out there where the people are in pain. I believe that about Jesus. I always say, Jesus never said worship me, he said follow me, so that is what I am trying to do.
We haven't got any more habits left anyhow. We would have to find those all over again.

*************************************

Sister Brigid is correct when she says "I don't think it's possible to go backwards."  It isn't possible when your world view has been transformed into a bigger and more compassionate world view and you personally have been empowered.  And she is right to be suspicious of the Vatican motivation precisely because it is not about the 'common good' of Catholics.  It is about the self perpetuating good of a hierarchy that will brook no competition, no confusion in the faithful about who speaks as if they are God.

Sister Brigid is also right about another thing.  This won't work because as she says, 'the more you are with those in pain, the more radical you become to overcome that pain'.  Jesus got pretty radical Himself, and if one spends as much time following Him as they do worshipping Him, one can't help but get pretty radical.  As opposed to the hierarchy, which is just getting more and more scared and more and more out of control as they attempt to everything they can to maintain their illusion of control. 

Moving Beyond The LCWR, Now The USCCB Has Issues With The Girl Scouts

I can't help but wonder how much the existence of this group for girls is influencing the attack on the Girl Scouts.

I just gotta give our clerical leadership credit.  There is no women's group, even one composed only of girls, that is under their radar when it comes to birth control or potentially remote links to Planned Parenthood. The following is an edited version of an article from Catholic News Services.  I couldn't help but notice it was released with a Philadelphia byline.  I find that some what ironic since Philadelphia is also the place where a criminal trial is taking place concerning Catholic clerical men behaving badly with Catholic altar boys. Nothing like diverting the official Catholic spotlight in another direction,  but to the Girl Scouts?  That's a new definition for grasping at straws. The following excerpt begins about half way through the article.

 Dialogue between Catholic leaders, Girl Scouts addresses criticisms

 By Christie L. Chicoine Catholic News Service  PHILADELPHIA (CNS) 4/24/2012

......Criticism of the Girl Scouts as an organization has surfaced off and on over the last several years and earlier this year made the rounds again on the Internet.
In response GSUSA has strongly stated it "does not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood and does not plan to create one" and takes no position on abortion or birth control. "Parents and volunteer troop leaders in Catholic churches," it said, "have total control of the Girl Scout programming their girls receive."

Given the large number of Catholics involved in Girl Scouts, such concerns prompted the bishops' Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth at its mid-March meeting to discuss GSUSA's "possible problematic relationships with other organizations" and questions about some of its materials and resources. (Nice to know that when it comes to girls and women, possible problematic relationships, seem to hold more importance than the real ones involving clerical men.)

In a March 28 letter to his fellow bishops, committee chairman Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of South Bend-Fort Wayne, Ind., said some questions may need to be answered at the national level and others at the local level.
Among other actions, he said the committee wants to develop a resource bishops can share with priests, youth ministers, pro-life directors, educators and others in their diocese on Catholic identity for troops and guidance for parents....

.....The bishop invited Robert McCarty, executive director of the Washington-based National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry in Washington, and Kathleen Carver, the federation's associate director and communications director, to the meeting to give committee members their perspective on the claims made about the Girl Scouts.
The federation's website, www.nfcym.org, has a question-and-answer section on the issue, and according to McCarty, dialogue between the national Girl Scouts office in New York and the federation has been ongoing.

McCarty told CNS April 9 that the bishops' Secretariat for Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth would convene a group soon to discuss what resources and tools would help create dialogue among church and Girl Scout leaders "more intentionally" and provide clear guidelines for predominantly Catholic troops where "Catholic teaching is honored and at the forefront."
Beyond the church's relationship with Girl Scouts is the bigger issue of "how does the church engage secular organizations?" McCarty stated. "We advocate for church teaching through direct engagement and honest respectful dialogue."
In an earlier interview with CNS, McCarty said he has met with Girl Scout leaders in New York to convey concerns the federation has heard from the field, though he rejected the claim that Girl Scouts promotes Planned Parenthood.
 
Other criticism has been directed at the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, known as WAGGGS, which, for example, has advocated for emergency contraception for women in Third World countries, McCarty said. GSUSA is one of WAGGS' 145 member organizations. (Perhaps this is because in third world countries many of those 'women' are chronologically the ages of Girl Scouts.)

In the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, Deacon Dana Allen Nearmyer, a consultant for evangelization and Catholic formation in the archdiocese, said Catholic leaders are concerned by the fact the GSUSA sends money to WAGGGS.
"We've said that's not acceptable," Deacon Nearmyer told CNS in a recent interview. "Our recommendation would be that they would stop funding the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts." .....(What is sent to WAGGS is investment earnings, not dues or registration fees.)

......"We're certainly not looking at banning Girl Scouts, unless that's a directive," Deacon Nearmyer told CNS.
"We appreciate being part of the conversation and moving the curriculum of Girl Scouting to its more traditional, original roots -- protecting families. We also value their national connection and notoriety," he said.

"But ... at some point, if parishes are looking for something that's a more substantial faith organization, Girl Scouts is only going to be able to carry them so far because they're a secular organization.

************************************

I do have to agree with Deacon Nearmyer, the Girl Scouts was never intended to be a religious organization, much less a distinctly Catholic organization.  I just wish someone would inform the USCCB Secretariat for Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, so they could investigate real threats to family life and youth.  Perhaps they could start with their own membership.   

For me the bigger question is why this concern about the Girl Scouts at this particular time?  Why take the culture war on women's reproductive rights down to the Girl Scout level?  I strongly suspect it's because there's a new group on the block, the Christian based, American Heritage Girls.  This group enjoys the support of the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and other conservative religious groups.  The very kinds of groups who don't have a problem with denying young girl rape victims in the Sudan emergency contraception.

Vatican Mandates Loyalty Oath For Caritas. No Joke

The Church, which screams it's all about freedom of religion and human rights, has a real problem with the concept when it applies to them.

If the LCWR wants a glimpse of what's in store for them all they need do is read what the Vatican has determined constitutes 'dialogue' with Caritas Internationalis.  The following is an excerpt from John Allen's post at this morning's NCR.

 Vatican imposes new controls on charity federation

by John L Allen Jr on May. 02, 201 ROME -- After moving last year to block the re-election of the first laywoman to head Caritas Internationalis, the Rome-based confederation of Catholic charitable agencies around the world, over an alleged “lack of coordination” with papal aides, the Vatican today imposed sweeping new rules that effectively tightens its control over Caritas' finances and global operations.

Among other points, the rules require the top officials of Caritas to make promises of loyalty before a Vatican official, including "Christian obedience" to church leaders.

Aside from its direct importance for Catholic charities, today’s Vatican move is also interesting for the recently decreed overhaul of the Leadership Conference for Women Religious in the United States, the country’s main umbrella group for superiors of women’s orders.

Like LCWR, Caritas Internationalis is a juridical person under church law recognized by the Vatican. The new rules are thus a further indication that the Vatican is in earnest about tightening its grip over groups that enjoy official status and, in some sense, represent the church.

The rules came in the form of a “General Decree,” released today in the name of Italian Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s Secretary of State.
Composed of nine articles, the rules specify that:

• The Vatican office which oversees Caritas is the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, and it has the power to approve in advance “any text with doctrinal or moral content or orientations,” which may also be submitted to the review of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
• Cor Unum will appoint an ecclesiastical assistant to Caritas, whose role will be to “promote its Catholic identity.”
• Cor Unum must approve any cooperative agreements between Caritas and non-governmental organizations, except in cases of dire humanitarian emergencies. (In the past, Caritas had been criticized for entering into agreements with NGOs whose approach to issues such as population control differs from that of the Catholic church.)
• Caritas officials are required to report any contact with foreign governments or diplomatic missions to the Secretariat of State. (Also in the past, Caritas has been criticized for conducting a sort of "parallel diplomacy" alongside the Vatican's official diplomatic apparatus.)
• Cor Unum, in consultation with the Secretariat of State, must approve various sectors of Caritas’ financial operations, such as wages, contracts and the review of budgets.
• Top officials of Caritas Internationalis must pronounce loyalty oaths before the president of Cor Unum, who is currently Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea. The officials are required to vow “always to conserve communion with the Catholic church, both in word and in mode of acting,” to preserve and transmit “faithfully the deposit of faith, rejecting any doctrine contrary to it,” and to “observe Christian obedience to what the Sacred Pastors declare as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, or stabilize as leaders of the church.”

********************************************


What's next arm bands with the Vatican coat of arms?  A special salute for our papal ruler?  If this wasn't so sad, I'd think it was some sort of Monte Python parody.  

Somebody in the Vatican is really afraid of something or someones.  Caritas Internationalis was effective precisely because it had autonomy to deal with situations on the ground in ways which would actually help and the freedom to make cooperative agreements with other NGO's as needed.  I can't wait for the Vatican to define 'humanitarian emergency'.  Undoubtedly it will involve some notion that no humanitarian emergency ever justifies Caritas moving on it's own with out their supervision.  My God a condom might slip through under the smokescreen of an 'humanitarian emergency'.

It also won't surprise me in the least if Caritas loses access to politically sensitive areas because it most certainly won't be seen as a-political any longer.  It will be seen as a papal lackey, an agent of papal politics and that would be the truth.

If the Vatican is hell bent on tainting everything good about Catholicism with it's own heavy handed fascist stench, they are doing a very thorough job of it.  I hope Caritas leadership votes to separate themselves from any Vatican association.  It's the only way they can keep their integrity because the instant they raise their hands and take that oath, they have none when it comes to their mission.  They will have given up all their autonomy.

This is most certainly the kind of 'reform' the LCWR can look forward too in their future.  The first thing they will now have to do is to change their vows to their congregational superiors and take up a new one of obedience to the Pope and his representatives. I wonder how many of them will take such an oath.

This is no longer a Church in which primacy of conscience has any meaning what so ever except to maybe find the nearest exit door.  It's getting harder to stay and feel like one has any kind of integrity at all.  But I guess that's not surprising since personal integrity takes such a very back seat to obedience and loyalty when it comes to the culture of the Vatican.

For all it's bluster about the loyalty oath of the Legion of Christ, the concept sure does seem the be a hit with Pope Benedict.  Wonder why that is.  And finally, if one reads the mandated oath, one will see that fidelity to Jesus Christ or fidelity to the Gospels, is conspicuously absent, but fidelity to our 'Sacred Pastors" is the definition of Christian obedience.  Seriously, it is truly getting harder and harder to even find the name Jesus without having to look behind all the clerical skirts.  Enough already.

Mistaking The Myth For Reality

The following article from the Irish Times by Fintan O'Toole is one of the best laments I have ever read about the cynicism my generation has developed regarding the 'reform of the reform' and our Catholic leadership.  Back in those heady original days of Vatican II we thought Vatican II would truly open the doors to something more than rote memorization of a catechism, or abject obeisance to whatever priest was assigned to our parish, or whatever bishop to our diocese.  We dared to think our thoughts mattered and our voices would be heard and peace and joy would mean more for Catholics than condemnation and hell.  What we didn't take into consideration is that power corrupts and it's wielders will never give up their perks. They will fight tooth and nail to keep their prerogatives.  And so fifty years later the Church is where it is now, and we optimists are forced to deal with really really ugly truth.  None of us started out as liberals. We started out as silly naive optimists who thought we were on the same page as our leaders.  Truly silly us, we had no clue of the actual reality of the leadership we believed in.  Our hope was in the myth.  We mistook the myth for reality.  Now we know.  No more silly naivete.

Vatican loud on liberals but silent on abuse

FINTAN O'TOOLE - Irish Times - 4/30/2012

We are witnessing the cruel humiliation of a generation of clergy that deserves better.

THERE’S A column I would have written a few years ago, but can’t be bothered to write now. It was a reliable old standby about the latest abuse of power by the institutional Catholic Church. It would be fuelled by anger and by expectation – rage at the hierarchy’s latest folly but an implicit hope that the innate decency of Irish Catholicism would some day be allowed to blossom. There was something real at stake in this argument – the church’s hold on Irish public culture was so strong that everything it did mattered.
I thought about writing one of those columns in response to the Vatican’s censuring of five priests – Brian D’Arcy, Tony Flannery, Gerard Moloney, Seán Fagan and Owen O’Sullivan – simply for saying what most Catholics actually think about celibacy, women priests and homosexuality. But I couldn’t find either anger or hope.

All that’s left is a double dose of sadness – for a generation of idealists; for a society in need of moral leadership that is being given just one more, all too familiar dose of the most abject cynicism.
What we’re seeing now is the sadistic humiliation of a generation of clergy that deserves better. At a simple human level, there’s something genuinely tragic in the fate of these priests: not just those who have been silenced but all their like-minded colleagues. These were once young men and women, mostly in rural Ireland, in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. They were infused with the energy of reform and renewal. The priesthood still had glamour, and it was still tied up with familial snobbery, social prestige and institutional arrogance.

But there was also a promise of something more: that the institution to which they were drawn was changing, opening up, moving away from cult-like obedience to obsessive sexual doctrines. It was engaging with deep questions about power and poverty. And it was reasonable to think that this process was sure to continue, to imagine that by 2012 the church would long since have made its peace with democracy.

These young men and women may have been naive, but they were not contemptible. Their families and communities invested in them their often meagre resources of pride and hope and idealism. They returned that investment, in many cases, by expanding the narrow horizons of the world from which they had come. Especially those who worked in developing countries brought back experiences and ideas that made Ireland a richer, more complex place. The relative success with which new migrants were integrated in the last decade, for example, owes much to their influence.

These people don’t deserve to be called to heel like errant lapdogs. It is easy to say that they should refuse to follow orders or just walk away from an abusive institution. But that would be to walk away from the only adult life they’ve known. It would be to write off decades of work and sacrifice – to accept that the most profound decision of one’s life was based on a delusion.

It’s desperately sad that what should have been a noble story in Irish life should end so cruelly. But there’s also a sadness for Ireland itself. Our society hardly needs yet more hypocrisy, another layer of self-serving cynicism. The institutional church disgraced itself by systematically covering up child abuse. It is almost beyond belief that its final conclusion from that trauma – the real outcome of all those apologies and visitations – is that the true problem is some mildly liberal articles in Reality or the Sunday World.
 (Unfortunately for modern Catholicism, the men with all the power are themselves living in a delusional world.)


This is the institution that told us that it was unable to control child rapists in its ranks because it couldn’t just issue orders. Remember Cardinal Cahal Daly writing to the parents of a victim of the hideous abuser Brendan Smyth: “There have been complaints about this priest before, and once I had to speak to the superior about him. It would seem that there has been no improvement. I shall speak with the superior again.” Remember the stuff about how bishops were lords in their own dioceses and religious orders were their own kingdoms?

When priests were raping children, the institutional hierarchy was wringing its hands and pleading “what can we do?” The Vatican was very busy and very far away. But when a priest makes some mild suggestions that women might be entitled to equality, the church is suddenly an efficient police state that can whip that priest into line. The Vatican, which apparently couldn’t read any of the published material pointing to horrific abuse in church-run institutions, can pore over the Sunday World with a magnifying glass, looking for the minutest speck of heresy. (This is a brilliant paragraph.)

An institution so stupid that it thinks its Irish faithful is more scandalised by Brian D’Arcy than by Brendan Smyth is not worth anyone’s anger. It is doing a far better job of destroying itself than its worst enemies could dream of.

All we can do is mourn the passing of a strain of decency and hope in a society so inured to hypocrisy that one more example is neither here nor there.


************************************************

What's really stupid is the institution thinking it's laity are stupid enough to actually think the mild statements of D'Arcy are more scandalous than the estimated 100 children raped by Brendan Smyth.  That's truly stupid.  And yet, it may be stupid like a fox, because as statistics show, money rolls into the Vatican from right wing sources when the Vatican engages in crusades against the left.  So, it is, as it always is with the wealthy and powerful.  It's about money and control.  The real stupidity lies in Catholic laity who believe other wise.