In honor of Archbishop Oscar Romero I offer a couple of extracts from a longer NCR article. The first deals with the big problem with his canonization---He was an ecclesiastical leader whose sainthood might send the wrong political message about other ecclesiastical leaders. The second part of the extract touches on how Romero's influence might point out a way for the hierarchical church to survive it's current travails. That would not be in asserting it's dominion over the rest of us, but in actually standing beside us.

The cause for Romero’s canonization, begun 20 years ago and said to be picture perfect in meeting every criteria for holiness and orthodoxy, has hit a final bump in the road that could delay it indefinitely.

San Salvador’s Archbishop José Luis Escobar Alas, just hours after celebrating a solemn Mass on the steps of the Metropolitan Cathedral, during which Romero was called both a martyr and a prophet, said: “With all respect we have asked and continue asking that the figure of Monseñor Romero not be a figure that is manipulated, politicized or used, but rather be a figure that is highly respected, precisely because of the process that is being carried out.”

To many here, the archbishop’s remarks amounted to another way of saying that in order to advance toward sainthood, the figure of Romero must somehow be separated from all controversy. The view constitutes a final criterion that highlights the complex debate over how Romero’s life and death might be interpreted as a turning point for both the church and for the future of El Salvador. (In other words, the canonization of Romero would be a counter example of the kind of ecclesiastical prioritization demonstrated by JPII and Pius XII and impact the canonization efforts of those two.)..................

Saying his last Mass on March 24, 1980, in the chapel at the hospital where he lived, Romero had just read the Gospel passage from John 12:23-23: “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified …Unless the grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a grain, but if it dies it bears much fruit.” Moments later he was shot through the heart by a sniper. (This also marks the day that JPII signed the letter which would have removed AB Romero from his Archdiocese. The powers that be were going to silence Romero one way or the other.)

The shocking nature of his death and the stunning implications of his example have made the question of canonization even more relevant for the universal church. In a global economy marked by what the bishops at Medellín, almost 40 years ago, called the “institutionalized violence” of poverty that remains the fate of billions, the question remains, does the church walk with the poor? (Depends by what one means by Church. Some members walk with the poor, others, like the Magesterium, seems to walk with lawyers--both secular and Canon.)

“That is what Romero did.” said Brackley, “inspiring countless others to collaborate with him. This will invite persecution and misunderstanding, but that is the fifth mark of the true church. Romero sought not what was best for the institution as such, but what was best for the people. In the long run, that is what is best for the church, too. The institution that strives to save itself will lose itself. If it loses itself in loving service, it will save itself.”

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

Archbishop Romero represents the type of bishop whose walk backed up his talk. He understood his mission to be 'one with his people' and not 'one over his people'. Like too many of his people, he died at the hands of an assassin. But had that not happened, he would have been silenced by the pen of a Pope who was also acting from a political agenda. In Romero's case, walking with the poor put him in the cross hairs of two agendas, both which were bent on preserving their power over others. It's probably no accident that both 'triggers' were pulled on the same day.

The Church represented by Oscar Romero is not going to go away, no matter how badly certain Vatican personalities act on that hope. Romero's Church is the one that understands Jesus said we (and by extension His Church) would be judged on how we treat the poor. In fact, this view of Church seems to be gaining steam, even if it's not well represented in official statistics.

On the other hand, Official Rome has opted to fixate on maintaining it's authority and dominion over the laity by asserting it's right to our bedrooms. Funny how it's imploding over sexual acts it can no longer keep in it's own clerical bedroom.

Do you suppose there's a message here about which view of the Church might actually be closer to the Kingdom?

USCCB and CHA On Different Sides Of An Age Old Question

Archbishop Chaput has been all over the Internet giving his opinion about the recently passed health care reform bill. In many of these missives he draws very sharp lines regarding who is 'Catholic' and who is Catholic. The following excerpt is taken from his weekly article in the Denver Catholic Register.

Third, the combination of pressure and disinformation used to break the prolife witness on this bill among Democratic members of Congress – despite the strong resistance to this legislation that continues among American voters – should put an end to any talk by Washington leaders about serving the common good or seeking common ground. Words need actions to give them flesh. At many points over the past seven months, congressional leaders could have resolved the serious moral issues inherent in this legislation. They did not. No shower of reassuring words now can wash away that fact. (I didn't notice Republicans or the USCCB looking for common ground--unless it was their ground. Come to think of it, I never really did know what the Republican ground was except it wouldn't be the Democrats.)

Fourth, self-described “Catholic” groups have done a serious disservice to justice, to the Church, and to the ethical needs of the American people by undercutting the leadership and witness of their own bishops. For groups like Catholics United, this is unsurprising. In their effect, if not in formal intent, such groups exist to advance the interests of a particular political spectrum. Nor is it newsworthy from an organization like Network, which – whatever the nature of its good work -- has rarely shown much enthusiasm for a definition of “social justice” that includes the rights of the unborn child. (Oh my, someone does not like losing. Someone is also ignoring the fact they themselves have thoroughly undercut their own leadership and witness, especially when it comes to children.)

But the actions of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) in providing a deliberate public counter-message to the bishops were both surprising and profoundly disappointing; and also genuinely damaging. In the crucial final days of debate on health-care legislation, CHA lobbyists worked directly against the efforts of the American bishops in their approach to members of Congress. The bad law we now likely face, we owe in part to the efforts of the Catholic Health Association and similar “Catholic” organizations. (Maybe they had the more authentic voice or better argument. After all they are in the actual business of providing "Catholic" health care.)

Here in Colorado, many thousands of ordinary, faithful Catholics, from both political parties, have worked hard over the past seven months to advance sensible, legitimate health-care reform; the kind that serves the poor and protects the rights of the unborn child, and immigrants, and the freedom of conscience rights of health-care professionals and institutions. If that effort seems to have failed, faithful Catholics don’t bear the blame. That responsibility lies elsewhere. I’m grateful to everyone in the archdiocese who has worked so hard on this issue out of love for God’s people and fidelity to their Catholic faith. Come good or bad, that kind of effort is never wasted. (Which means their total blind obedience to their local bishop.)

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

Archbishop Chaput has not been the only member of the USCCB who is not taking this loss particularly well. Cardinal O'Malley was not happy, but more sanguine in his criticism, suggesting certain groups and people should give more attention to USCCB opinions. AB Chaput takes things to the extreme, suggesting faithful Catholics will stop thinking for themselves the minute a bishop opens their mouth, well at least in his diocese.

It maybe time other members of the USCCB put some pressure on Archbishop Chaput to at least temper his language. He is not doing any of them many favors. He is coming across more and more like the issues aren't his real agenda, just his definition of his own omniscient authority. That's not a particularly wise path to take at this particular time. Too many Catholics and self defined "Catholics" are beginning to comprehend that it was exactly that kind of thinking that led to the massive sexual abuse cover up. Many lay Catholics are beginning to see that accepting that kind of thinking led directly to them colluding with and enabling said cover up.

The dispute between the USCCB and the CHA seems to me to be one of chicken vs. egg. The CHA takes the position that providing for a healthy uterine environment keeps the egg developing and fosters the choice to sustain life in the mother. The USCCB takes the side that the existence of the egg takes precedent over the environment in which it must develop. They fail to see that nature itself aborts a large number of pregnancies as a direct consequence of poor fetal environment. In this respect they are refusing to acknowledge what is plainly evident in nature and what is statistically proven in countries with universal health care.

In their myopic stance about Roe v Wade they failed to see that in recommending a no vote on the senate health care bill they were arguing for more spontaneous abortion, still births, and maternal deaths. It could be that the arguments of the CHA, which came from the 'chicken' side made more sense to legislators than the 'egg' arguments of the USCCB and their political allies.

A fetus has no effective right to life in an environment which can't sustain life. This not only applies to the legal and social environment, it also applies to the biological environment. It's too bad the USCCB staked their authority on the legal egg side of the equation because it's the weaker side of the argument. Maybe that's why AB Chaput is so obviously trying to make obedience the issue. His argument just doesn't stand up to real scrutiny so he has to fall back on his authority. That is not an approach which is going to fly with many "Catholics" in today's Church climate.

Bart Stupak is now the rightous right's newest example of a Baby Killer. Wow, how quickly the pack will turn on one of it's own.

We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men

Deal Hudson - InsideCatholic - 3/22/2010

We are the hollow men

We are the stuffed men

The evening the Stupak-Pitts Amendment passed, I expressed the hope that a new era of pro-life politics had begun. For the first time in a long time, the Democratic Party had an advocate for the unborn around whom others could rally.

That was four months ago. Yesterday afternoon, that same man -- Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) -- who "made Nancy Pelosi cry uncle," to quote the Wall Street Journal's Bill McGurn, made her shout with glee. The health-care bill, filled with funding goodies for abortion providers, was the legislative lodestar for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a self-described Catholic who shrugged off every appeal from her bishop. (C'mon Deal this bill is not loaded with funding goodies for abortion providers. Besides, we have alot more nuclear warheads than we do abortion providers. {Just though I'd throw in a non sequitor like Sarah Palin.})

Our dried voices,

when We whisper together

Are quiet and meaningless

As wind in dry grass

Stupak looked hollow and shame-faced as he made the rounds of cable news shows on Sunday explaining the reasons for his change of mind. For the past 160 days, Stupak has been a hero to millions of Americans who believe the right to life is the basis of all other human rights.

Now, Stupak has become a hero to the other side and another example of why our young people view politics cynically -- not as a vocation but as an excuse to put partisan interests ahead of transcendent truths. (Well actually, young adults like my daughter thought Stupak finally put the interests of all Americans ahead of cells in a petri dish. However she is pretty cynical--especially about rightwing pundits who reprioritize Catholic doctrine for political agendas.)

Those who have crossed

With direct eyes,

to death's other Kingdom Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost

Violent souls, but only

As the hollow men

The stuffed men.

After seeing through the deceptions of Sr. Carol Keehan's Catholic Health Association, Catholics United, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and NETWORK, Stupak couldn't see through the deception of an executive order to be issued by President Barack Obama providing "safeguards" against abortion funding. (Deal, Bart warned you when he spoke about being a 'deal maker' {or in you case a Deal breaker} Ain't no bigger dog to make a deal with than the Prez. Makes a bishop deal look down right puppy like.)

"This is the principle we have fought for all these months -- I am now comfortable voting for the bill," Stupak told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News. Stupak admits an executive order can be rescinded at any time, does not have the force of law, and has no authority over those implementing the bill in the private sector, but still says he feels vindicated in his decision.

This is the dead land

This is cactus land

Here the stone images

Are raised, here they receive

The supplication of a dead man's hand

Under the twinkle of a fading star.

It was reported that Stupak relied heavily on support of staff from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in passing his amendment to the House bill barring abortion funding. Today, Stupak turned his back on those who sat with him through the turbulence of the November debate and put himself in thrall to the Democratic leadership who want nothing less than abortion on demand, paid for by the federal government.

The eyes are not here

There are no eyes here

In this valley of dying stars In this hollow valley

This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms

This executive order is nothing more than a promise from one man to another, from Obama to Stupak. It can be withdrawn at any time -- or, more likely, it can be ignored. Stupak should know that the promise of a man who once supported infanticide, and who on his first day in office repealed the Mexico City Policy, is not a man you can trust on the issue of abortion. (Perhaps Bart came to the conclusion that Catholic bishops are even less credible. There is some factual evidence that would indicate that would have been wise on Bart's part.)

Stupak's decision betrays Catholics and the faith he calls his own. As I said in my press release for Catholic Advocate, "Today's vote will go down in history as one of the greatest expansions of abortion since Roe v. Wade." (What will you say when abortion actually goes down as it has in every other country in which there is some form of guaranteed health coverage. That's every country.)

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

(Maybe your world.)

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

Many of us tried to warn folks on the right about what would happen if they should stray just a tad bit from the absolutist line. Bart Stupak is sure finding out what happens. He's gone from 'Champion of the Unborn' to 'Baby Killer' in less than about twelve minutes. At least he now knows who his true enemies are, and always were---who he should have been afraid of and who he misread so totally.

Fanatics are fanatics for a reason.

Friends become enemies in a nano second.

Forgiveness is an option only for the faithless.

Profit is their God.

Fr. Brendan Smyth, the poster child for clerical pedophile abuse, mugging for cameras during his trial.

"Remember not the events of the past, the things of long ago consider not; see, I am doing something new! Now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?" (Jesus Christ according to the Gospel of John)

John (Fr. John McNiell) suggests that the more out of touch the hierarchy of the Catholic Church get, “…the more we learn in a painful way to let go and grow up spiritually”. He calls it “…the blessing of fallibility. We are witnessing the birth pangs of the Church of the Holy Spirit.” (From Queering The Church.)

These two passage from two different sources really struck me this morning. I think the critical concept in the first passage is the request we perceive that which is new. That we not let the past dictate our present and by extension our future. Fr. McNeill is not alone in his perception that what is "new" is the Holy Spirit's demand that we grow up spiritually and cast off the things of our youth.

Pope Benedict is attempting to call us back to our spiritual youth. He is like an abusive parent who feels guilty after a particularly violent episode and asks for a honeymoon period. There are only so many honeymoon periods before the victim says "no mas". I truly believe along with Fr. McNeill, that many of us are reaching the 'no mas' stage. We have seen and heard enough empty apologies, which remain empty because we've witnessed no real accompanying change. The exclusive celibate male clerical priesthood, in which laity are expected to act like dependent children, can no longer sustain itself on apologies while insisting it need not change in form because it has changed in spirit. No, it hasn't changed. What is changing is the relationship between individual Catholics, the priesthood, and the Institutional Church.

Catholics, mostly one at a time, are beginning to pray about this notion of needing the Catholic version of priesthood. They are going way back to rediscover that original 'new'. They are reconnecting with their own baptismal priesthood and looking at other concepts of Eucharistic expression. They are reading scripture and the history of the Church and the Patristic Fathers and the thoughts of modern theologians. They are reading the Pope's own writings and coming to their own independent assessment. The days when the parish priest was the only literate Catholic are long gone, and with that, the power the priest had over the dissemination of Catholic teaching and the exclusive formation of Catholic culture-conscience-in the lay world.

It was only a matter of time until literate lay Catholics began to reassess the whole notion of priesthood on a spiritual level.

Catholicism is passing through a tumultuous period of spiritual and emotional growth. In spiritual terms one can liken it to postpubesence because this stage is characterised by the young adult's movement toward adult autonomy, sexual responsibility, and away from exclusive parental control. In this respect, the clerical abuse crisis centering around teen agers--and this includes a lot of girls, especially in the South-- is truly symbolic.

Any parent could tell Benedict what happens when one attempts to maintain absolute authority in most post pubescent teenagers. Attempting to maintain clerical authority in this new climate can only lead to anger and chaos for society, the church, and individual members. This chaos isn't limited to left vs right or progressives vs traditionalists. The chaos is rampant with in all these camps. It's being played out in secular politics this very instant in the US over health care. Many of the debates mirror cliques of junior high kids maintaining their own tight boundaries at the expense of the humanity of others.

This will be a tough passage for the Institutional church and it's maturing members. Especially if the Institutional Church resists letting it's members grow up. If it continues to insist on maintaining it's exclusive family authority at the expense of it's adult members it will be left with a very small cadre of spiritually obedient children and no real authoritative voice for anyone else. It will have convinced itself that in saving the one, losing the other ninety nine is God's will. It will not convinced the ninety nine of that view of God. Lots of parents engage in that particular thought process as they drive their less compliant children out of the nest. Everybody loses when family relationships are sundered, but the truth is maturing teenagers lose more if they stay in an infantilizing environment.

There is another compelling reason Catholics must look for the new, while understanding this of necessity includes really assessing the lessons in the ashes of present. Dark energy (what Fr. Armoth would call Satanic) is chaos energy and when given free reign, when not checked, when left to it's own devices it is hugely destructive of everything it touches. Especially when that energy is allowed to function in secrecy and complicit silence, or when exposed is shoved behind the door of a closet with another name. Take away the silence, the secrecy, and all the decptive closets and chaos energy can not survive. In fact, the lessons derived from it's exposure serve as the foundation for an even more beautiful structure. That's what it means to find the 'new'.

With that in mind, I offer the story of Brendan Smyth. I mentioned Smyth a couple of days back. Smyth is the one cleric who is totally representative of the chaos principle as it played out in the Irish abuse crisis. His legacy may still take down Cardinal Brady and that's what makes his story and the energy he wallowed in still so much one of the present.

Evil spirit of a ruined church

Irish Times - 3/21/2010

Since Brendan Smyth’s death 13 years ago, the spectre of the relentless child abuser has haunted both his victims and those in the Catholic Church who failed to halt his crimes.
HERE’S AN image.

It’s still dark, pre-dawn, in late August 1997.
A graveside in the Co Cavan countryside at 4.15am, seven silhouetted Norbertine priests and a few locals gathered around, four gardaí standing in the background, the lights from a hearse illuminating the scene as the coffin of Fr Brendan Smyth is lowered into the ground.
It’s like a picture conjured by a modern-day Bram Stoker, only worse because you know it’s real.

They buried Smyth for sure, but his pernicious legacy lives on.
He destroyed lives, toppled a government, and – with the other paedophile priests allied to the church’s own criminal mismanagement – brought Irish Catholicism to its knees.
Now Cardinal Seán Brady prays, reflects and wrestles with his conscience over whether he should step down as primate of Ireland because of Smyth.

Somebody must have loved him once, and maybe there was a time when he was a redeemable figure, but most of Smyth’s adult life seems to have been dedicated to unspeakable acts against children in Ireland and the US, and possibly in Wales and Italy too, that carried terrible consequences for his victims and, on a broader level, for Irish society.

There are elements of the grotesque, evil and gothic about Smyth. Just remind yourself of that growl of his, of his contorted ogre’s face deliberately pressed into the camera as he was led from the Four Courts after being sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment in July 1997.

He’s almost an apocalyptic figure as well, like a character from a Cormac McCarthy book who leaves a trail of destruction behind him and, even in death, still causes devastation.

Court hearings against Smyth when he was finally brought to some form of justice in Belfast and Dublin heard victims’ stories of attempted suicides, broken marriages, destroyed careers, mental illnesses, difficulties with sexual orientation and relationships, hatred of priests and the Catholic Church.

Chris Moore, the journalist whose investigative programme on UTV in 1994, Suffer Little Children , exposed both the paedophile priest and the Catholic Church in how it protected him, believes that Smyth was truly evil.

“I believe that because of the way he treated children,” he says.
A psychiatrist, who prefers not to be named, notes that his profession speaks of evil acts but stops short of describing people as evil.

“The technical term for Smyth is that he had a dissocial personality disorder, with psychopaths at the most extreme end of that spectrum – that is, people who would engage more in violent behaviour, although Smyth is coming close to that, as it were,” he says.

“He was the kind of narcissistic person who was purely into his own gratification, who would repeatedly engage in harming other people, who did not learn from advice, sanctions or supports; a person who had a callous unconcern for other people and relentlessly pursued his own pleasure.”

But the psychiatrist adds that there was no evidence that Smyth had any mental illness. “He was responsible for his actions – there was no empathy for other people and there was no remorse.” (Classic definition of a psychopath.)

HOW DID IT get to this?

Smyth was born John Gerard Smyth on June 8th 1927 (the name Brendan was adopted much later when he became a member of the Norbertine Order).

He had a brother and they were raised in a terraced house in Nansen Street in west Belfast.
His mother was from Co Cavan, his father from Belfast.

Smyth attended the Christian Brothers school at the bottom of the Falls Road in Barrack Street.
According to Chris Moore, Smyth, in his adolescent years, was known to his friends as “The Fiddler”, which is thought to have been an early reference to his sexual behaviour.

In September 1945, at the age of 18, Smyth was vested in the Norbertine Order at Kilnacrott Abbey in Ballyjamesduff, Co Cavan.

Smyth was bright, and was sent to Rome to advance his studies.
The late Fr Bruno Mulvihill, a Norbertine colleague of Smyth’s who, over many years, tried to expose the paedophile, told Moore that Smyth returned from Rome under a cloud in 1951.
“The talk in the abbey was that he had been sent home in disgrace because of some incident with a child.”

It was a way of life that continued remorselessly until Smyth was jailed in the 1990s, first in Northern Ireland and then in the Republic.

An unprepossessing figure Smyth nonetheless had charm, being able to insinuate himself into the confidence of parents so that he could abuse their sons and daughters.

He was described as a “Pied Piper” figure who carefully groomed children and often arrived back in west Belfast from Kilnacrott Abbey to tempt children with car excursions, sweets and treats.
Smyth would visit schools and tell the head teachers that he was calling to see certain pupils at the behest of their parents, children who, as Moore observed, “were duly delivered to a room for a private audience and private abuse”.

He was so brazen that he would abuse children in their homes while, in the kitchen, an unwitting mother prepared a meal for him.

This abuse of the most vulnerable continued throughout his life, notwithstanding that from relatively early on his superiors had suspicions and knowledge about him.

Fr Mulvihill told Moore that Smyth’s interest in abusing children was widely known within the Abbey and that his letters to bishops and superiors over many years to alert them to Smyth’s behaviour were “ignored or ridiculed”.

Over the years Smyth was moved between parishes, dioceses and countries where he continued to prey on victims.

He abused in parishes in Rhode Island and North Dakota in the US, at one stage paying a former altar boy €20,000 in compensation.

He is also suspected of similar actions while on pastoral work in Wales and Italy.
He was a priest on a sexual mission and while his priestly authorities knew of his actions, little was done to stop him. (The road to hell is paved with the devil's complicit helpers and those of good intentions.)

IT IS SMYTH’S relentless career of sexual molestation that is giving Cardinal Brady pause for deep reflection now. Should he and others, such as the Norbertine abbots and Catholic prelates who at various stages were made aware of Smyth’s actions, not have ensured that he was jailed for his criminal behaviour?

Cardinal Brady alerted his own superiors when, as a priest, he held secret canonical investigations into Smyth’s abuse of two young boys in 1975.

Yet for another 18 years Smyth was able to gratify his paedophile insatiability.
Smyth’s exposure opened a Pandora’s Box for the church. It led to a trickle of disclosures about paedophile priests and how they were protected, which has inexorably turned into a flood of revelations that has horrified the Catholic faithful and is threatening to engulf and destroy the Irish church in its current form.

Cardinal Brady, in admitting his shame, said that “the Lord is calling us to a new beginning”.
He asked about that beginning: “Does it allow for wounded healers, those who have made mistakes in their past, to have a part in shaping the future?” (Yes it does if they have truly learned the available lessons and are willing to change to accomodate the lessons.)

Smyth was finally brought to earthly judgment when a Falls Road mother and father went to the RUC (Irish police) after he targeted four of their children. He was arrested in 1991, but after being released on bail went on the run for three years, staying for much of that time at Kilnacrott Abbey.

An extradition request was issued by the RUC, but it lay in the attorney general’s office for seven months, triggering a political crisis that led to the 1994 collapse of the Fianna Fáil/Labour coalition led by a mutually distrusting taoiseach Albert Reynolds and tánaiste Dick Spring.
A complex but catastrophic series of events unfolded, involving Reynolds, Spring and attorney generals Harry Whelehan and Eoghan Fitzsimons, which ended in Labour walking out of government. Smyth was the common destructive factor.

In 1994 Smyth was convicted of 43 charges of sexually assaulting children in the North and was sentenced to four years in prison. He was later handed a concurrent three-year sentence on another 26 charges.

When he was released, he was immediately arrested and extradited to the Republic where, in July 1997, he was sentenced to 12 years after pleading guilty to 74 charges of sexual assault of 20 victims over a 35-year period.

A month later he died of a heart attack in the Curragh Prison, aged 70.

One of his victims was so damaged by Smyth that he successfully campaigned to have the title “Reverend” removed from the headstone of the grave where Brendan Smyth lies in Co Cavan.
In death, he still tortures people.

Letter To Irish Catholics From The Vatican Bunker

Pope Benedict has released his letter to the Irish people on the abuse crisis. As I read the entire letter two parts struck me very forcefully. Section four deals with some of Benedict's ideas as to how the prevailing culture impacted the spread of the abuse, and the last section with his ideas on concretely addressing the crisis.

4. In recent decades, however, the Church in your country has had to confront new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid transformation and secularization of Irish society. Fast-paced social change has occurred, often adversely affecting people’s traditional adherence to Catholic teaching and values. All too often, the sacramental and devotional practices that sustain faith and enable it to grow, such as frequent confession, daily prayer and annual retreats, were neglected. Significant too was the tendency during this period, also on the part of priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel. The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings. (This section is all about focusing the light of the crisis on the Post Vatican II church. Unfortunately for Benedict the majority of the abuse had it's origin in the pre Vatican II church. This whole paragraph is an intentional red herring.)

Finally he ends this 5000 word missive with his concrete proposals:

14. I now wish to propose to you some concrete initiatives to address the situation.
At the conclusion of my meeting with the Irish bishops, I asked that Lent this year be set aside as a time to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country. I now invite all of you to devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace. (This is an exhortation to recommit to the special spiritual power of the sacramental priesthood. It is a call for the sheep to follow as before, as if the betrayal of this whole concept had never happened.)

Particular attention should also be given to Eucharistic adoration, and in every diocese there should be churches or chapels specifically devoted to this purpose. I ask parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries to organize periods of Eucharistic adoration, so that all have an opportunity to take part. Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.
I am confident that this programme will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland in the fullness of God’s own truth, for it is the truth that sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32). (Wow, talk about back to the very past that engendered this mess. Again this is a symbolic reaffirmation of the notion of the special spiritual power of the priest. The truth is Eucharistic Adoration can be accomplished in any church in which the consecrated host is present--and without all the pomp and clerical dress.)

Furthermore, having consulted and prayed about the matter, I intend to hold an Apostolic Visitation of certain dioceses in Ireland, as well as seminaries and religious congregations. Arrangements for the Visitation, which is intended to assist the local Church on her path of renewal, will be made in cooperation with the competent offices of the Roman Curia and the Irish Episcopal Conference. The details will be announced in due course. (With all due cynicism I suspect the final report will probably be plagiarized from the report on US seminaries and will focus on gay priests.)

I also propose that a nationwide Mission be held for all bishops, priests and religious. It is my hope that, by drawing on the expertise of experienced preachers and retreat-givers from Ireland and from elsewhere, and by exploring anew the conciliar documents, the liturgical rites of ordination and profession, and recent pontifical teaching, you will come to a more profound appreciation of your respective vocations, so as to rediscover the roots of your faith in Jesus Christ and to drink deeply from the springs of living water that he offers you through his Church.

(Why not a nationwide synod that actually includes lay people? Guess Benedict wanted to put a stop to that kind of thinking so he proposes a nationwide clerical Mission.)

In this Year for Priests, I commend to you most particularly the figure of Saint John Mary Vianney, who had such a rich understanding of the mystery of the priesthood. “The priest”, he wrote, “holds the key to the treasures of heaven: it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods.” The Curé d’Ars understood well how greatly blessed a community is when served by a good and holy priest: “A good shepherd, a pastor after God’s heart, is the greatest treasure which the good Lord can grant to a parish, and one of the most precious gifts of divine mercy.” Through the intercession of Saint John Mary Vianney, may the priesthood in Ireland be revitalized, and may the whole Church in Ireland grow in appreciation for the great gift of the priestly ministry. (Just in case we weren't getting the gist of things, Benedict spells it right out. There will never be a rethinking of the priesthood on his watch. Just a rehashing of the fantasy.)

I take this opportunity to thank in anticipation all those who will be involved in the work of organizing the Apostolic Visitation and the Mission, as well as the many men and women throughout Ireland already working for the safety of children in church environments. Since the time when the gravity and extent of the problem of child sexual abuse in Catholic institutions first began to be fully grasped, the Church has done an immense amount of work in many parts of the world in order to address and remedy it. While no effort should be spared in improving and updating existing procedures, I am encouraged by the fact that the current safeguarding practices adopted by local Churches are being seen, in some parts of the world, as a model for other institutions to follow. (This only applies to efforts which don't touch on the priesthood.)

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

Benedict did encourage Irish bishops to report abuse to civil authorities, but did not mention anything about changing the canonical norms they all followed that led them to 'misunderstand' the Vatican's intentions about Pontifical secrecy. Benedict probably should have instructed the laity to report to the civil authorities before one word was uttered to clerical authorities because that's the only way a victim will ever get any kind of transparency.

It's a mystery to me as to why this visitation will only include some dioceses. I wouldn't be shocked if those dioceses are the very same ones that the Irish government has already investigated or is slated to investigate. Keeps the bad press to a minimum.

I think Pope Benedict is attempting the impossible. Rather than really address the problems of the priesthood he is trying to return to the very past notions of priesthood which generated this whole mess. That is actually one very good definition of insanity--constantly repeating the same failed strategies expecting a different outcome. Clerical sexual abuse is not a product of today's permissive culture. It has been a cancer in the Church for centuries and centuries. It's was various forms of clerical abuse which spawned the Reformation, that resulted in the reforms of the monastic communities in the twelve hundreds, that fueled the Inquisition, that resulted in the abuses heaped on indigenous populations.

The problem with clerical abuse is at it's root it is about the artificially exalted power of the clerical caste. It is not really about sex. The sexual expression is just a symptom. Benedict will never address the root issue because he has benefited enormously on a personal level and seems incapable of seeing this problem, much less addressing it. In this respect he is like Hitler holed up in his bunker while Berlin exploded around him. Benedict too seems to be an absolute dictator so trapped in his cherished fantasy he is unable to deal with reality. I suppose this is why we are exhorted to Eucharistic Adoration and Confession while Catholicism circles the drain.

Revealed: the oath Brady, Smyth and the children swore

Breda Heffernen - Irish Independent - 3/18/2010

"I will never directly or indirectly, by means of a nod, or of a word, by writing, or in any other way, and under whatever type of pretext, even for the most urgent and most serious cause (even) for the purpose of a greater good, commit anything against this fidelity to the secret, unless a...dispensation has been expressly given to me by the Supreme Pontiff."

THIS is the oath of secrecy the child victims of paedophile priest Brendan Smyth were told to sign during their meetings with Cardinal Sean Brady 35 years ago.

Crimen Solicitationis, the Latin for 'Crime of Solicitation', is a secret 1962 Vatican document which only came to light in recent years.

It instructed bishops how to handle allegations of sex abuse against priests in their diocese and set out an oath of secrecy.

All those involved in the 1975 investigation into Smyth, Cardinal Brady -- then a 36-year-old priest -- the children who had been abused and Smyth himself, were required to sign the oath.
To break the vow would lead to excommunication from the Catholic Church.

The document was written by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, previously known as the Inquisition. (Cardinal Ottaviani also had much to do with Pope Paul's VI renunciation of the recommendations of the Papal Birth Control Commission.)

It was only to be circulated among bishops and it demanded that all parties to an investigation keep a "perpetual silence".

Scripted in dense legal language, the document sets out the steps to be taken for investigating crimes of solicitation against priests.

Once the tribunal has reached its conclusion, it lays out a number of different courses. If there is no foundation to the allegations, all documents relating to the accusation must be destroyed.
If it is not possible to determine if a crime has occurred, the documents should be stored in the diocesan archives to be re-opened if another allegation is made in the future.

Morals

Should the tribunal find there are "indications of a crime serious enough but not yet sufficient to institute an accusatorial process", a check should be kept on the "morals" of the priest.
In the event where it is certain the priest has offended, he is tried under canon law.

Since its unearthing in 2003, opinion has been split on whether the document provides the "smoking gun" to prove there was a conspiracy by the Vatican to cover-up the problem of paedophile priests.

The Irish Bishops' Conference last week said the document had been consistently misrepresented in the media and that it was never the intention of the oath to prevent victims from reporting crimes to the civil authorities.

One canon lawyer has said an oath of secrecy is not unusual in church investigations and is not specific to sex abuse cases. And although those taking part in the investigation are required to remain silent while it is being carried out, they can report the abuse to police before this. (this also applies to any bishop or superior of the offender.)

However Paddy Doyle, author of 'The God Squad' and a survivor of institutional abuse, last night described the oath of secrecy as "chilling".

"It's tough enough to read it as an adult because of the language that is used, never mind putting that to a terrified child. How are they supposed to understand that? (Especially since it precludes them from talking to their parents.)

"My first reaction is absolute disgust, it has to be some sort of criminal offence. In effect, what you are doing is... the bishops and priests are dragging children into becoming criminals by making them collude," he told the Irish Independent. (Against themselves no less.)

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

This is a pretty heavy burden to lay on a ten year old, as was done by Ireland's Cardinal Brady in 1975 when he was the notary for an investigation of the serial pedophile Bryndan Smyth. For those who aren't familiar with the case, Smyth went on to abuse hundreds of victims as he was transferred time and time again--twice in fact to the US. In both his US assignments he left a trail of abuse victims. The Irish court system finally caught up with him in 1995, but the Irish Church court system had allowed his predations to knowingly go on for some forty years.

When I first read the above oath I was struck with it's wording and wondered if it was the entire oath taken by witnesses and officials at these investigations. I found out it's only the last part of the oath. I doubt very many ten year olds could even understand the first parts, but it is a pretty specific oath, and certainly does threaten excommunication and state only the Pope can free one from this oath.

Then I started back tracking and reading the entire document. The four major indiscretions this document deals with, and it makes no distinctions in gravity, are solicitation of sex in the confessional, sexual activity with minor boys and girls, homosexual acts with adults, and bestiality. Given this it's not too surprising that bestiality, homosexuality between consenting adults and pedophilia are frequently all mixed up in the minds of some of our bishops.

Then I wondered what changed in 2001 when Cardinal Ratzinger issued his letter De Delictis Gravioribus. I found out it was the definition of what constituted a grave delict:

The more grave delicts both in the celebration of the sacraments and against morals reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:

-Delicts against the sanctity of the most august eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments, namely:

1. Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or throwing them away.

2. Attempting the liturgical action of the eucharistic sacrifice or simulating the same.

3. Forbidden concelebration of the eucharistic sacrifice with ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.

4. Consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose one matter without the other in the eucharistic celebration or even both outside a eucharistic celebration.

-Delicts against the sanctity of the sacrament of penance, namely:

1. Absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue.

2. Solicitation in the act, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, to sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, if it is directed to sin with the confessor himself. (I guess this means one can still solicit for someone else. Interesting.)

3. Direct violation of the sacramental seal.

-A delict against morals, namely:

the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.

Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

It seems the changes in 2001 dropped gay sex and bestiality but added delicts designed to protect the sacramental nature of the priesthood and the reserved right of priests to 'confect' the Eucharist. I guess by 2001 women priests were seen as a bigger delict than gay sex or bestiality. They certainly get excommunicated a whole lot faster than most pedophiles. Must be because there are far fewer. In any event the demand for pontifical secrecy stayed in effect.

This research answered my questions as to why excommunication came so quick for Catholics associated with the ordination of women. Like pedophelia, this is now considered a grave delict.

Also it's much easier to prove since most ordinations have plenty of video evidence some of it even shot by self appointed sacramental police.

Getting back to the original article, I can't imagine how I would have felt as a ten year old faced with clerics dressed in black, forcing me to take an oath I didn't understand, except that talking about what happened to me would now send me to hell. This is one of the big reasons why victims describe the process of coming forward as double victimization. First your body and then your soul. It's truly sad and very pathological from a therapeutic standpoint.

Speaking of which, in a recent letter Fr. Tom Doyle makes the point that in none of this Vatican angst resulting in these official documents, and this goes all the way back to the 1700's, is there one single statement about pastoral care for the victims. Not one, but plenty of official statements about pastoral care for the perpetrators.

In his extensive explanation Fr. Doyle also makes the case that the Vatican probably never intended these procedural documents to preclude any particular bishop from reporting cases to secular authorities:

23. According to the 1922 and 1962 documents, accusers and witnesses are bound by the secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the initiation of the process. There is no basis to assume that the Holy See officially envisioned this process to be a substitute for any secular legal process, criminal or civil. It is also incorrect to assume, as some have unfortunately done, that these two Vatican documents are proof of a conspiracy to hide sexually abusive priests or to prevent the disclosure of sexual crimes committed by clerics to secular authorities. The documents were written in a style and within an ecclesiastical context common for that pre-Vatican II era. Both are legal-canonical documents written in highly technical language. The English translation of Crimen Sollicitationis, though basically accurate, is also strained and awkward which can lend itself to misunderstanding.

24. To fully understand the overriding concern for secrecy one must also understand the traditional canonical concept known as the “Privilege of the Forum” “privilegium fori” which has its roots in medieval Canon Law. Basically this is a traditional privilege claimed by the institutional church whereby clerics accused of crimes were tried before ecclesiastical courts and not brought before civil or secular courts. Although this privilege is anachronistic in contemporary society, the attitude or mentality which holds clerics accountable only to the institutional church authorities is still active. This does not mean that the official Church believes that clerics accused of crimes should not to be held accountable. It means that during certain periods in history the Church has believed that it alone should have the right to subject accused clerics to a judicial process. The “privilegium fori” was included in the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

1. Clerics in all cases, whether contentious or criminal, shall be brought before an ecclesiastical judge, unless it has been legitimately provided otherwise in certain places.

2. Cardinals, Legates of the Apostolic See. Bishops, even titular ones, Abbots, Prelates Nullius, Supreme Superiors of Religious Institutes of Pontifical Right, and major officials of the Roman Curia may not be summoned before lay judges for matters pertaining to their duties without referring first to the Holy See; the same is true for others enjoying the privilege of the forum, where the Ordinary of the place [diocesan bishop] where the matter is to be tried is to be approached. The Ordinary, however, especially when a lay person is the petitioner, will not deny this permission except for just and grave reasons, all the more so when he is unable to bring about a resolution of the controversy between the parties. (Canon 119)

Fr. Doyle then states this is no longer so boldly stated in Canon Law, but the attitude is still very prevalent as can be seen in recent statements from various Vatican officials including Cardinals Herranz and Bertone and now we can add the recent Vatican campaign to exonerate Benedict XVI. This is an attitude which is part and parcel of the rot at the core of priestly theology. These guys are not above secular law, not equivalent to Jesus, and in spite of the supposed horrid penalty of 'reduction to lay status', not above the laity.

All of this is a description of a legal system designed to authenticate a particular religious fantasy--that of the clerical priesthood. It is so tenuous that to have any force in the real world it must take precedence over the verifiable reality of the devastation maintaining it wreaks on it's victims.

It seems to me the biggest threat to the Vatican is not the loss of it's moral credibility, but that the clerical abuse cover up is working as a global reality check in the minds of the laity. It's the fantasy of the sacramental priesthood itself which is going to burst. In that sense, the victims who have always been treated as the least, are truly those who saw it first. If the Vatican thinks the CDF is swamped with clerical abuse cases, wait till the fantasy of the spiritually superior priesthood comes crashing down.

What Would Jesus Do---Today

I will admit to being some what tired of the ubiquitous WWJD as it's used by both the right and the left. Principally because it isn't a pertinent question. It reflects back to the Jesus of two thousand years ago. The pertinent question is what would Jesus do today? It seems to me that if we come up with the same answers based on the sum total of human knowledge from two thousand years ago we will frequently come up with wrong answers.

In the twenty first century we know a great many more factual things about God's creation and man's evolution. Facts that do not support the rationale of our traditional theology--especially our sexual moral theology. Yet our Catholic authorities would have us believe that if Jesus were alive today He would somehow ignore all of this accumulated knowledge and support the extrapolations of His teachings as done by the Patristic Fathers or theologians like Aquinas. They expect us to believe that Jesus would agree that all the possible understandings of what He taught reached it's endpoint with Aquinas.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that would be Jesus's position. To believe otherwise is to believe that He would teach it was perfectly all right to graduate to other levels of understanding in all subjects but religion because religious insight ends in fifth grade. No other information applies. It's hard for me to imagine that He would tell us "Don't drag your Phd level physics into this, or your PET scans, or any of your other scientific disciplines, and especially not your notions of scientific methodology. My Father's will exempted religious knowledge from any evolutionary concepts added to human understanding from any other sources. Man's understanding of My teachings reached it's summit with Augustine's era as interpreted by Aquinas. End of discussion."

It seems lots of Catholics truly think that's what Jesus would do and say today, especially about sex and the exercise of power. They imagine He would expound and expound on the Traditional Family even though He didn't grow up in one. They imagine He would expound and expound on the evils of pre marital sex and pregnancy outside of marriage even though His mother is not the prime example of such a life style. They imagine He would underline the primacy of the Apostolic succession even though He taught about the importance of subservience in leadership. They imagine He would commend the Vatican for it's excess and wealth even though He told His followers to sell all in order to follow Him and had really really harsh words about ostentatious religious showmanship. They imagine He would stress the importance of the 'right worship' of His Father even though His specifically stated two greatest commandments are about love of God and neighbor having nothing to do with worship or ritual. Some even imagine Jesus would punish little children for the sins of their parents, even though He stated exactly the opposite.

Maybe the issue isn't what would He do today, but are Christians ever going to get what He actually said. Scientific advances seem to indicate we better get it pretty soon or we may not be around to ever get it.

More On The Boulder Situation And A Few Thoughts On Cardinal Newman

Given his own situation, I seriously doubt Cardinal Newman would have made the same decision about the relationship between the two mothers in Boulder, Colorado.

Boulder pastor says Jesus turned some away

By Thomas C. Fox - NCR - 3/17/10

Fr. William Breslin, pastor of Sacred Heart of Jesus parish, seemed like a tired warrior March 13 as he sat on a chair in front of the church greeting parishioners as they left the five o'clock Saturday Mass.

For more than a week, since word became public that he had forbidden two young girls, five and three, to further their education in the parish elementary school because their mothers are a lesbian couple, the parish -- and Breslin, in particular -- has been at the center of a firestorm of controversy.

"Let's pray that we find ways to come together, that we find the means for reconciliation," he said before his parishioners during the Mass only minutes earlier. (The problem here is that Fr. Breslin is not seeking reconciliation. He is seeking capitulation. The use of the term reconciliation is very PC.)

Reconciliation is needed in Sacred Heart Parish. Parishioners are deeply divided in the aftermath of Breslin's decision. Some have already left the parish; others are threatening to pull their children form the parish school.

Meanwhile, the issue of how the Sacred Heart Parish is to deal with the children of lesbian parents rests within other social, religious and cultural divisions in the broader society. But in few places are these divides more pesonal and emotional than within Sacred Heart Parish.

In this progressive community on the eastern edge of the Rockies, where people pride themselves on being open and welcoming to virtually all lifestyles, holding the line on traditional values is not easy or popular. Yet Breslin feels that this is precisely what his church is calling him to do and it has led him to make a decision that appears unique or nearly so throughout the Catholic church in the United States.

As parishioners left Mass Saturday a number stopped to offer supportive words to the man they call "Fr. Bill." One elderly couple, standing next to him, said: "Fr. Bill, keep the faith. We're praying for you. Stay strong."

"Do pray for me," he replied.

Asked by this reporter what moved him to ban the girls from entering the parish elementary school, he responded: "Let me tell you clearly. This whole matter is about having the freedom to uphold the teachings of our faith. It's about preserving that freedom when a secular society doesn't want us to have it." (Thank you for your honesty. It has nothing to do with Jesus Christ or His teachings and everything to do with maintaining power in secular society. What you call freedom is really the power to exclude.)

When Breslin looks out at the world he sees an increasingly secular society, one that has lost its moral compass, and, as it grows even more secular, it is increasingly willing to attacking traditional moral values and more specifically the teachngs of the Catholic church.

Breslin wants to show that someone is not going to take it anymore. (Fr Breslin, is very much a victim of his own making and like most self made victims refuses to actually see whats in the mirror.)

The priest writes a blog on the parish Web site and he has gone to some lengths to explain his seemingly quite unpopular decision.

On his blog -- for awhile he had allowed comments but eventually removed them -- a number of people wrote contrasting Breslin's action with the actions of a compassionate Jesus.

Breslin disagreed, writing the following: "The complaint goes more or less this way: Jesus would never have turned anyone away, no matter where they came from or who they were."

"Now let us set things right: (Who is us?)

"Actually Jesus did turn people away. In Mark 5 Jesus healed the demoniac, and after the healing the man wanted to become a disciple. Jesus said, No, go back to your own people and tell them all that the Lord in His mercy has done for you. And when the rich young man wanted to follow Jesus, He told him, Go first and sell what you have and give it to the poor and then come follow me. And in John 6, Jesus taught a very hard message so that most of those following Him turned away and would no longer walk in His company. He did not soften His message so as to win them back. (In neither of these examples does Jesus make a hard and fast decision to turn anyone away. The demoniac is given a mission, the rich young man makes his own choice, as did all those who chose to leave in the third example. They chose to leave, in this Boulder situation, the choice was the opposite.)

So the post-modern thought that Jesus was warm and fuzzy and making no demands on anyone is just not true and avoids the very hard teachings that eventually led to His crucifixion."

Breslin feels his church is threatened and cannot give in to new thinking on marriage and family.
Breslin wrote: "The core issue for us Catholics on this question is our freedom and our obligation to teach about marriage and family life as our faith teaches. If parents see the cultural interpretation of what tolerance has become as more important than the teachings of Jesus, then we become unfaithful to the Lord and we lose the meaning of the beatitude, "Blessed are you when they insult you for My sake, for the Kingdom of Heaven is yours." Many of Jesus' teachings were not popular. In fact, He was crucified for His teachings."

(Again the issue is keeping control, not living a Christian message of love.)

"The issue, he went on, "is not about our not accepting 'sinners.' It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the church cannot agree to that."

Many who had criticized the decision did so for its inconsistency. Why gays and lesbians? Why not those who are divorced and remarried without the blessing of the church?

Responds Breslin: "People who are divorced do not say divorce is good. There are no pro-divorce parades. Divorce is a tragedy for everybody. So there's no comparing other issues to the issue of gay marriage. Actually, by this decision we really want to protect the child and his or her parents from the necessary conflict that their relationship would bring to a clear-seeing and committed Catholic community. (The real issue here is to protect the parishoners from seeing the deceit in the Church's position that gay relationships are always bad. That they can in fact be good and loving and raise healthy competent children.)

"The policy of the Catholic school system is also to protect the teachers from being forced -- in our own schools -- to face huge conflicts within the classroom, so they can teach clearly, and also support the family life of the children they are teaching." (Avoiding these kind of conflicts must only apply to Boulder, because inner city Catholic schools face these conflicts all the time.)

One supportive comment moved Breslin to share it with his readers.

He wrote: "One of you readers sent me a quote from George Orwell that says it all: 'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. Well, welcome to the revolution! And the revolution is to think differently about love.' (Send this quote to the Vatican. Universal deceit seems to have really taken hold and telling the truth is truly a revolutionary act.)

"If love were defined as doing or saying things that make people feel good, then such 'love' would have been a choice often in conflict with Christ's actions and teachings – He readily challenged and confronted sin and those who participated in it. But if, instead, we adopt a more mature definition of love, as wanting what is truly best for another (e.g., a properly formed conscience, knowing right from wrong, correct relationship with God, and awakening into eternal salvation) and doing our part to help accomplish that, then there is no conflict between telling the truth and being loving."

Responding to the negative comments posted on his blog, Breslin wrote: "Many of the negative comments I have received have inferred that the only acceptable path of love means never speaking the truth about anything that would upset another. 'Live and let live' would be the motto for this manner of loving.

"Would it not be far more loving to confront a loved one than to be silent about his or her pursuing, for instance, a destructive addiction, even though alcohol or drugs may make him or her 'feel good'? In the case of drugs or alcohol, as with inappropriate sexual behavior, the parties involved could say that they derive some sense of 'happiness' from their choices. Nonetheless, the wisdom of the church tells us that wrong sources of this supposed 'happiness' are ultimately harmful and only seek to fill a void -- a void which, according to the church Fathers, can only be filled by a right relationship with God." (The problem with this analogy is that there is a whole host of empirical research which backs up the destructive nature of abuse of drugs and alcohol. There is no such research which backs up the destructive nature of mature loving gay relationships. In point of fact, in the real world, addiction has done more to destroy the traditional family than gay marriage or proponents of the 'gay agenda' could ever ever hope to accomplish.)

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

I really did want to hear how Fr. Breslin was going to justify this decision without making it obvious that the decision was all about the 'gay' and had nothing to do with the care or concern for the children. Oh yea, and it was about the poor teachers too.

I had to shake my head while reading the final paragraph because I sat through more than one class where the description of a happy Catholic marriage and family was a torture for the children whose daddy came home in a drunken stupor and beat the shit out of mommy and them. These children constantly prayed for the 'good' of divorce, feeling it was better to be safe with one parent than terrified with two.

Why have correct sexual acts become the central facet around which Catholicism and lay Catholics are supposed to center their lives? What ever happened to the Eucharist? What ever happened to Jesus? Everything seems to come down to correct sexual acts. Marriage isn't about relationship, it's about correct sexual acts. Ability at parenting is somehow a magical by product of correct sexual acts. In fact, healthy relationships can't exist outside of correct sexual acts. These acts are so important they now transcend the baptismal rights of innocent children. (I did note that Fr. Breslin is offering CCD as an alternative, which says what about CCD? It's for second class Catholics because it's taught by less pure laity?)

Here's my real conundrum. Why aren't correct sexual acts this determinative for our clergy? You know the people for whom there are no correct sexual acts? The very clergy whose incorrect sexual acts have blown the credibility of the Church to smithereens and brought on all these attacks from 'secular relativists'--(also known as Faithful Catholic laity). Father Breslin is not a lone voice crying in the wilderness of secular relativism. He's a scared man attempting to reassert clerical authority in a sewer of clerical betrayal, and has undoubtedly caved into that other Catholic culture warrior who is his immediate boss. I am overawed by the heroic courage of these two men in cleansing their turf of two quiet self effacing mothers and their two children.

This situation is hugely symbolic of what is wrong with the Church. It's not the secular relativism and incorrect sexual practices of the laity. It's the sexual relativism of the clergy and the pathetic defense mechanisms now in play to distract the laity from this truth. And always it centers around children and other innocents and the abuse of spiritual power.

I'm going to make a prediction. If the ugly currents now swirling around the Vatican and the Papacy keep snow balling, Benedict will cancel his trip to Britain. He will be too sick or have some other conflict. For him to beatify Cardinal Newman in this climate would take more chutz pa than I think the man actually has. I doubt very seriously that Cardinal Newman would ever have taken the stand of Fr. Breslin. Cardinal Newman would have given the two women the benefit of the doubt. Especially in view of his own situation.

In the end beatifying Cardinal Newman may not be exactly what Benedict wants to do in this particular climate. Cardinal Newman is a boat full of hopeful symbolism for gays, for the rights of laity, and for checks and balances on papal power. If Benedict does go through with it, it won't be the devil that made him do it. It will be another, more positive influence.

Of benches in hallways and other odious memories

I've spent part of the morning reading the comments section on the NCR interview with the lesbian couple whose two daughters were essentially aborted out of their Catholic school. It's funny to me how many excuses and ways the institutional Church has found to abort and abuse live children. I sometimes wonder if the Church hasn't misinterpreted Jesus's statement about 'suffer the little children'. That instead of putting these words in context with the whole message, they've just literalised them to mean make my children suffer. I guess in the long run it's for the good of their souls or their parents souls or the soul of the Church. The reality is, it's all used to protect power and keep people in their assigned place.

Here's a personal story. When my daughter was in Junior High we moved to the Salt Lake area. We were unsure of just what exactly the public school system was like in Utah. We had heard some real horror stories that it was really an LDS parochial school system and that 'children of gentiles' were constantly proselytized for the good of their souls. I did know that there were seminary buildings attached to all schools which were used for the LDS version of CCD. Non LDS students were given the opportunity to attend their own religious classes if they were available, other wise they had a free hour.

My ex husband and I decided to go the Catholic school route for two reasons. Both of us had been educated in the Catholic school system and this would be the first time our daughter would have had to opportunity to attend a Catholic school. The second reason was our concerns about the public school system.

I did have a personal concern though. Our daughter is a Type I diabetic and the Catholic school we enrolled her in did not have a full time nurse nor any special ed program. There was really no professional support for our daughter should she have a severe insulin reaction. So my ex and I brought a diabetic nurse practitioner into the school to instruct the pertinent faculty on diabetic management and to interact with her classmates so they would understand the need for my daughter to eat outside the normal routine. We did this at our expense.

It never dawned on me that rigid adherence to school regulations would preclude appropriate medical intervention. This very Catholic understanding of the importance of regulations and obedience almost cost my daughter her life. She had a severe insulin reaction at the beginning of the school day before the Pledge of Allegiance and morning prayer. She told her teacher she needed to get something to eat as she was starting to feel out it. Her teacher told her that she would just have to wait until after prayers. Jesus came first.

When my daughter fell to the floor, the prayer continued until it was finished, and then she was helped by her classmates who took her to the office where her emergency supplies were kept. She was given about ten minutes to get herself back together and then sent back to class. During that time my daughter called me at work and asked me to come and get her. I immediately went to the school because I couldn't tell from my daughter's conversation what exactly had happened and whether she had gotten hurt when she passed out. I could tell though, that she wasn't quite all there yet.

When I arrived at the school I went to the principle's office loaded for bear. I really wanted to know if the teacher had refused my daughter permission to treat an insulin reaction because of the school's insistence that all children must be present for morning prayer. The secretary answered in the affirmative. I immediately asked to see the principle. I was told in a tone reserved for impertinent children that "Reverend Mother is busy right now and will see you when she can. Please sit on the bench in the hallway and wait until she is available".

At this point a memory of my own first grade year flashed in my head when I sat on a bench in a hallway and waited on another Reverend Mother. It created the "perfect storm". As an adult, and now a mother, I would in no uncertain terms tolerate being treated like a disrespectful disobedient child when the issue concerned my daughter's well being. I was not going to sit on that bench stewing in my own juices and then be expected to apologize for my anger or excuse their mistakes.

Instead I instantly pulled my daughter out of the school and went down and enrolled her in the nearest public school. I never was allowed to see Reverent Mother, and the letter the school sent acknowledging the tuition reimbursement, blamed the entire misunderstanding on my impulsiveness as I didn't stay around to hear their explanation. And how could I not want my daughter to graduate from their school with all her friends?

I thought my daughter would be quite furious with me for taking her from her friends. I found out something else. She hated being at the school and she had no friends. She was generally treated as the uber smart outsider, the 'sick hick' from Elko, Nv. As time went on she recounted horror story after horror story about how she had been treated and how no teacher ever intervened even though they knew she was being totally 'othered'.

The ironic thing about this is that the good Catholic girl was totally 'othered' in the good Catholic school but totally accepted in the LDS public school system. She was one of the elite in a high school of 2000 and loved every minute of it. It was here that she received some healing for life dealing her a very hard blow. She frequently tells me yanking her from St 'Hell Hole' was the best thing I ever did for her and for the slim attachment she still has to Catholicism. She was never proselytized by her LDS friends. They instead spent hours critiquing, comparing, and contrasting the idiosyncrasies in both religions while staying chaste and college driven.

If I sometimes write with a tendency to cut the LDS church some slack, it's because I have reason too. At a time when a Catholic school had come very close to driving my daughter to suicide, the genuine openness of her new LDS classmates gave her a reason to 'keep on keeping on'. They gave her the 'bread of life' when her experience of her own Church school system had given her ashes, had given her a sponge full of vinegar and gall, rather than the waters of life.

What has happened in Boulder does not surprise me in the least. What surprises me is that the moms are acting with incredible forbearance. (Unlike me.) It's not easy to deal with this kind of betrayal of the very Christian principles you send your children to school to have reinforced. It drives home the the very pointed sword of official Catholicism's need to place obedience to the law before the pastoral needs.

No wonder in all the depictions of the Last Judgement only angels are allowed to carry swords. No wonder Jesus told Peter to put up his sword before He made Peter the keeper of the keys. Someone needs to tell Archbishop Chaput it's time to 'put up his sword' and go find his keys.