Friday, April 2, 2010

Loyal Roman Soldiers Upholding The Power Of The Empire

Other loyal Roman soldiers haggling over the spoils and ripping the seamless garment.

This has been an interesting couple of days for Catholicisim, In the US and at the Vatican it has had a whole lot more to do with the NY Times than it has Jesus Christ and Holy Week. After two days of castigating the Times for inaccurate reporting, basically on the testimony of one Fr. Brundage, there has been dead silence now that said Fr. Brundage has retracted his statements. The Old Grey Lady stands vindicated about the facts of their story on Fr. Murphy, if not their conclusions about Cardinal Ratzinger.

The more I've delved into the abuse crisis this week, the more it's becoming apparent that the over all strategy is to give ground on some issues, while desperately deflecting attention away from the priesthood and the authority structure itself. So we have the head of the German bishops, Archbishop Zollitsch, giving ground on the 'protect the Church from scandal' argument:
Clerics have neglected helping abuse victims by a "wrongly intended desire to protect the church's reputation," Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg said.

I'm sure we will see more clerics line up behind this admission because it fails to mention anything about the excessive power held in the hands of clerics, or the theology of the priesthood, or a poorly developed theology of sexuality. Protecting mother church is a better excuse than the reality of abusing and re abusing children to protect clerical power.

We will continue to hear all kinds of wonderful references to the Dallas Charter and zero strike policies and absolutely nothing about the fact the Dallas Charter specifically excludes bishops from it's enforcement policies. We will be told it is mandatory and binding for all dioceses, when in fact that has never been tested or ruled on by the Vatican, which is why Bishop Bruskewitz refuses to implement the Dallas Charter in his diocese and gets away with it. The issue,of course, is whether a national synod has the authority to tell a given bishop what he will be forced to do in his own diocese. Bruskewitz seems to be betting the Vatican will reserve that authority to itself. So far he's been right.

The USCCB and Cardinal Levada desperately want us to believe that the Dallas Charter is being faithfully implemented and yet we know that Cardinal George, the head of the USCCB, did not faithfully implement the Dallas Charter, nor is he playing by the rules. Here's an interesting statement from the linked article which illustrates how carefully one must read diocesan statements:

Archdiocese spokesman Jim Dwyer said that George felt at the time of the review board's advice that he could not remove McCormack without firsthand information."Now we have the protocol in place to be more aggressive in possibly removing priests earlier in the process when we see there's an issue of safety," Dwyer said. "The cardinal has said we're going to do things differently in the future, but he's not going to step down."

Why insert the word 'possibly' if one intends a first strike policy, especially if 'we see there's an issue of safety'. Why not just be more aggressive period. Could it 'possibly' have something to do with a Cardinal being forced to act on the recommendation of mere lay professionals?

Can we trust this current Vatican, even under Benedict, to really reform and follow through on cleaning up the Church--on some sort of permanent basis? Well no we can't, because Ratzinger himself bailed on his desire to investigate Austrian Cardinal Groer and Fr. Maciel and the Legion of Christ. We have absolutely no certainty that the next pope won't be as obstructionist as the last pope and that all the underling "Cardinal Ratzinger's" won't trade in their personal disgust, shame, and integrity in favor of closing ranks and obeying. For the 'good' of the Church.

Catholics can not afford to be diverted by excuses which leave an ultimately unaccountable clerical culture in charge of the whole Catholic show. All that will accomplish is to insure that abuse of the faithful continues, that Catholics will be held hostage not to the principles of love that Jesus asked of us, but to the demands of a highly compartmentalized and protected class of men.

Men, who when it comes to the exercise of secular and clerical power, do not get Good Friday. The day their professed Savior rejected all forms of power in favor of the love and forgiveness He preached. The day He hung ignominiously and powerless from a secular Roman cross. An execution accomplished with the collusion of clerical power.

It angers me no end that any bishop would dare to imply the Church hangs on that cross because of publicity they generated themselves. No, their victims hang on that cross while they sit at the foot and haggle like the Roman soldiers they are over what's left of the spoils.


  1. "It angers me no end that any bishop would dare to imply the Church hangs on that cross because of publicity they generated themselves. No, their victims hang on that cross while they sit at the foot and haggle like the Roman soldiers they are over what's left of the spoils."

    The men in the Vatican have reached a new low and it clearly spells E V I L and P S Y C H O T I C.

  2. These people are so narcissistic! It's a Pity Party. And they're wallowing in it!

  3. "The men in the Vatican have reached a new low and it clearly spells E V I L and P S Y C H O T I C."

    Perhaps now is the time to very carefully re-read the 23rd chapter of Matthew. It was 'spoken' to the Temple Masters of Jerusalem in 33AD. Yet Jesus was speaking in was aimed at the Vatican.

    If you cannot accept this at face value, note this: the Aramaic which Christ would have spoken does not have the delineation of future tense as English does. Now read the 23rd Chapter of Matthew......are the lenses beginning to pull into focus?

    "...woe to you, Scribes & Pharisees, for you travel the land & sea to make one convert, and once made, he is then twice as fit for hell as you are yourselves..."

    Question: did the Jews, then or now, actively proseletyze....seeking converts? No. That Post-Constantinian Church is the group which has been in the convert business.

    "....that build the sepulchers of the prophets & adorn the momuments of the just...."

    The last time I checked, the Jews were not in the "relic business', nor building multiple tourist sites of the tombs of those whom they hold up for veneration........including:

    "..prophets, wise men & scribes which I send you...whom you scourge, crucify & put to death...persecute from city to city..."

    Like Joan of Arc, Archbishop Oscar Romero........Jan Huss.....

    Christ established what we refer to as 'the Church' to gently guide ppl to God. The Gospel & the Faith has reached souls usually IN SPITE OF the Church organization....not because of it.

  4. Exactly TheraP. N A R C I S S I S T I C.

    No remorse for their causing the abuse scandal in the first place by not dealing with it appropriately, placing themselves above the law, above everyone even God, and the total denial of the suffering and misery they caused and brought to thousands of victims.

    We bear testimony to the Vatican's selfish and self-centered remorse for themselves, as if they are the abused victims! How dare anyone report the Truth, to care about the victims, the real victims of abuse. They are so narcissistic that they don't believe anyone else can know or report the Truth. If there is one thing a narcissist hates, it is the Truth of their behavior that they refuse to look at and examine. That gets them angrier. They can't stand it!!! They have no humility. No empathy for others. No desire to change themselves for they feel they are always right and everyone else is wrong and hurting them. The only thing that's really hurting is their Pride.

    Yes, a great big Holy Week Pity Party for the Pope & the Vatican. No remorse for those victims that hang on the cross that they ignore and will not lift a finger to help them.

    Very sick situation as they will work harder to lay burdens on others, to shift the focus off of themselves. This is what control freaks do.

    Colleen, I highlighted your quote because it is so true and it makes me so angry too.

    I've had to deal with narcissists and it is not pleasant to be around them and they hate me because I tell the truth.

  5. Yes, psychotic means they've lost their bearings and are no longer moored to reality. Plus, this is beginning to look more and more like cult behavior we are seeing here. A bunch of lemmings headed for a cliff!

    Jesus: "Come to me all you who labor and are heavily laden... and you will find rest for your souls."

    Anon has given us the Woes against those who would lay heavy burdens, etc. Versus Jesus who lifts those burdens and gives us the "Rest" promised throughout the Old Testament as well.

    It seems to me that we have, in the words of Jesus, the way to "test" whether or not someone who claims his mantle (any cleric, prelate, or pope) actually deserves it. Is the person a servant? A foot-washer? Someone who lifts burdens and provides "rest"? Who is merciful to the least among us?

    Or are they in the business of burdening others? Enslaving them? Denying them safety and "rest"?

    My heart aches as I consider the depth and breadth of all of this. Not only have they "gone round the bend" - but they are bending and perverting the very "Kingdom of God" which Jesus announced!

  6. TheraP I think the kingdom has been more or less bent or perverted for quite a number of centuries. About the time it was decided to elevate community celebrants to ordained priests. Bad idea and not well supported in the New Testament.

  7. And now.....the 'Smoking Gun":

    Senior American Priest Warned Vatican Over Sex Abuse Priests in 1963

    "....The Rev Gerald Fitzgerald sent a letter to Pope Paul VI in 1963 outlining his concerns over the "problem of the problem priest."

    The letter is damning evidence that the Vatican was fully aware – or should have been – of the sexual abuse which spiraled out of control within the American Church.

    Fitzgerald strongly recommended that such pedophile priests be defrocked rather than shuttled from parish to parish, as was the practice in Ireland and the U.S.

    Fitzgerald, who founded the Servants of the Paraclete, was so convinced that the priests would be repeat offenders that he even tried to buy an island to isolate them from the general public.

    Fitzgerald discussed the issue with both the Pope and several American bishops.

    "Personally, I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty, who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young," Fitzgerald wrote. "Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicisation. I say 'total'... because when these men are taken before civil authority, the non-Catholic world definitely blames the discipline of celibacy for the perversion of these men."

    Fitzgerald was not just sending the letter in the hope that it might be read.

    He had been asked to write the letter by none other than Pope Paul VI who met with Fitzgerald in the U.S. to talk about cases of abuse in the US.

    The letter has been discovered by lawyers acting for victims of alleged sexual abuse in Los Angeles.

    The letter proves Vatican officials knew about clergy abuse decades ago and should have done more to protect children," said lawyer Anthony DeMarco.

    But Church officials in Los Angeles are claiming it was unlikely that Pope Paul VI ever saw the letter - even though the Pope had commissioned it."

    As the Arabs say: "they lie like rug".

    Smoking Gun? More like 1000s of them!

    On the heels of this, MSNBC ran an article (sorry no link) that the Vatican claims the Pope cannot be forced to testify or be prosecuted as a head of state.

    ...this is gonna get nasty.

    Anon Y. Mouse

  8. That the abuse and cover-ups go way, way back, as does the top-down dictatorial structure of the hierarchy in the church, is one thing. That it continues today, at a time when people are exposed to information on a daily, even hourly basis and when all European nations are now democratic ones, well that makes it all the worse as the evidence trickles out one day, pours out another, and as the Vatican itself almost daily inflames the inferno!

    Who can remain a Catholic as this continues? (Find yourself a nice Orthodox parish as I have.)

  9. The question of exactly HOW the ordained/ministerial priesthood worked in the early Church seems shrouded in mystery. Rather like the early rite(s) of the Mass.

    Good luck trying to research either of those!

    We do know that there was some sort of 'ordination', at least in the formal sense of confirming the person in ministry by the laying on of hands & invoking the Holy Spirit. But there is one critical difference:

    The 'priest' (if that term was even REALLY used...) had not exalted demi-god status. Likewise for the bishops. They were very close to & lived as equals among the ppl whom they served. The concepts of equality & servant status were very much of prime importance.

    At the time of the Council of Nicea, there were 1800 bishops in the world. Today there are some 2500, covering a vastly greater physical & numerical territory. This indicates that in the early church, the Bishops were well known & close to the ppl they served. We also know that in many cases, the laity elected them - sometimes by acclamation. This was good - as it discouraged an 'old boys network'.

    The 'problem' of the desire among some clergy for such a network had arisen long before Nicea. But was stamped out repeatedly, as being contrary to the Gospel.

    The proponents of that 'network' won at Nicea in 325AD. But that Council, called AND chaired by Constantine (NOT the then pope, who was not even there!), was only attended by slightly less then 300 bishops (275-300 by most sources)

    That is about 15%, which would not be acceptable in most parliamentary circles. Or in any logic! As whatever was decided in said Council was to be binding upon the whole Church. So.....what happened to the other 1500 bishops? Were they not invited? Invitations sent out late, intentionally? Did they refuse to attend knowing that evil was afoot? Or were they simply 'univited'?

    While several of these elements likely came into play, we may never know the whole this world. But that scant 15% +/- screams....HIJACKING.

    Anon Y. Mouse

  10. Anon, I want to thank you for your comments because I have learned more from you, and had my research more directed than I have from anyone in a long long time. Thank you.

    I'm still working on researching what I can on Pope Sylvester II. How interesting that the first Sylvester was Constantine's contemporary.

  11. Colleen -

    You're welcome!

    Pope Sylvester I was the right hand man of Constantine, who (oddly..) did not even attend the Council of Nicea.
    He is also famous for association with the forged 'Donation of Constantine'.....

    ...which, despite having been debunked several centuries earlier, was taught to us as FACTUAL in Catholic schools as recently as the 60s & 70s!

    You might also find it interesting to note that Pope Sylvester II, Thomas Aquinas & his mentor Albertus Magnus had something in common:

    They each owned a 'Talking head' or 'Brazen Head'.

    Though many try to hide or downplay the link with Aquinas, it is very real. It also both casts things in a new light - and poses many questions....

    Anon Y. Mouse