Punditry

A woman has filed a claim that she was sexually abused 40 years ago by now Bishop Skylstad had of the USSCB. Whether the claim in credible or not is impossible to determine and I will not speak to it, but the response to how this should be handled in light of the bishop’s policy is definitely gray area.

It is unclear under the reforms American bishops adopted in 2002 for responding to abuse claims whether Skylstad should temporarily step down while his case is being investigated.

The policy requires Catholic officials to determine whether there is "sufficient evidence" supporting the allegations against a cleric before they take him out of public ministry while a full review is conducted under Vatican oversight.

In its statement, the diocese said protocols for dealing with sex abuse allegations were being followed, and that Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the Vatican’s Apostolic Nuncio to the United States in Washington, D.C., had been notified of the claim.

Update on Fr. Altier with a statement he issued to Sprit Daily. [Via AMDG]

"Praised be Jesus Christ! The people who take care of the Desert Voice website informed me of your interest in the case in which I am involved with Archbishop Flynn. It is certainly fine with me if you want to write something about it, but there really does not seem to be much of a story, on the surface, to write. The fact that this thing has taken on a life of its own with no help from anyone in particular should tell you that it is really not about me at all. Rather, it is about something much larger than me.

"Beyond that, I really do not have much to say other than what was said of the Apostles 2000 years ago, i.e., that they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name [Acts 5:41]. All of this is part of God’s loving providence and He will bring about a greater good from this than any of us can ask or imagine. Can you think of a better way to live out the Lenten observance?

"Regarding the letter from the Archbishop, I will not release it to anyone. This is done solely out of respect for the Archbishop. He did not request that I not release the letter; it is my decision to act in this manner out of respect for his Excellency.

"The Archbishop acted within the bounds of his jurisdictional rights (canon 831 §2) and I simply have to obey. The rest is up to our Lord and Our Lady. It is so wonderful because I am at peace and filled with joy knowing that through obedience I am doing the will of God.

"Who could ask for anything more in this world than to know with certainty the will of God for you at any given moment and to be able to live it out in peace and joy? The whole thing is a pure gift from God. This is my take on the whole situation, but as I mentioned above, this cannot possibly be about me. I am merely an instrument that God is using for a much larger purpose. So, if you want to write an article, you really do need to look at what God is doing here."

"We’ll let the Holy Spirit do that; we’ll urge obedience (above sacrifice); and we’ll leave it to your own discernment."

While it certainly does appear that this happened because he spoke out against VIRTUS and Talking about Touching, you have got admire his reaction. As the history of the saints have proved it is better to be obedient than right. Please pray for his bishop that he might reconsider his support of these very problematic programs as the chairman of the US bishops’ Ad-Hoc Committee on child and youth protection.

Priest shortage will shift power to Catholic laity

Headlines like the above one really annoy me. Something like this is such a poor understanding of the nature of the Church it is sad. And of course it is from Catholic journalist (former president of the International Federation of Catholic Press Agencies) so the ignorance is even sadder. To even relate positions in the Church in terms of power is to totally miss the Gospel or an understanding of what Jesus called his disciples to do. The proper understanding is akin to one of the Pope’s titles Servus Servorum Dei (Servant of the Servants of God). Being a servant is the proper understanding for both those in the ministerial priesthood and the common The Common Priesthood of the Faithful. Exactly as Jesus said "If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all."

Throughout history there have of course been people who have seeked positions in the Church precisely for perceived power. But this only proves original sin and not how we should exercise our roles in the Church. The priestly shortage of course means increased role of the laity in both teaching and administration within the parish. There is nothing wrong with this there is no reason that we shouldn’t be involved in these roles when properly ordered. Even when a priestly shortage becomes less of a problem this is still a good thing to take the load off of priests in mundane administration or in teaching roles. The problem is of course those who see this in terms of power and not as being a servant to the Church and Christ its head. When they teach their own teaching or the latest fads on university campuses instead of being a faithful servant to the truth. Whatever our role within the Church we should never seek power, but to say with the Gospel `We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’ And as servants we hope one day to hear "Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’ The Church doesn’t have a power vacuum, it has a servant vacuum.

Now as to the article itself it has it good and not so good parts.

…The shortage of priests threatens hierarchical control of the Catholic Church.

You can almost see the sneer when people type out hierarchical and the same mistake of power shows up with the world control. You would never know that hierarchical means sacred order the way it is used today as a progressive swear word. Another paragraph takes the mandatory swipe at the discipline of celibacy.

…There’s nothing comparable to the volume of claims against the church in other denominations, no bankruptcies triggered by sex scandals in Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal and other churches. There’s nothing like it in Jewish or Muslim institutions. This leads some Catholics to wonder whether celibacy has anything to do with the crisis

Well how about the fact that our very unity makes us more of a target? Sue your local non-congregational congregation for an alleged past act of sexual abuse and you won’t run into very deep pockets. The same goes for most churches whether Christian or not who are much higher to go after legally if you want to go beyond the local church. You might be able to bankrupt a local church, but you won’t be able to go after the whole denomination effectively. The argument also misses the fact that public schools have a much higher rate of abuse. You just aren’t allowed to sue them because of government immunity that even if waived allows only 180 to provide a formal claim (See Archbishop Chaput’s recent article on the subject). Last I checked teachers were allowed to be married.

…The Catholic Church says that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered." Some wonder whether the imposition of lifetime celibacy on young men entering the priesthood is not "intrinsically disordered" in the 21st century.

A good remedy for a snarky comment like that is a little G.K. Chesterton

An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another. Some dogma, we are told, was credible in the twelfth century, but is not credible in the twentieth. You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed on Mondays, but cannot be believed on Tuesdays. You might as well say of a view of the cosmos that it was suitable to half-past three, but not suitable to half-past four. — Orthodoxy

The Catechism explains that compulsory celibacy allows men to give themselves entirely to God. It does not mention that it allows men to give themselves entirely to the church, to their bishops and religious superiors, who assign duties without needing to consider wives and children. Celibacy’s spiritual gift to those it binds is accompanied by their own gift of service to church authorities.

Yes once again everything is about power and control of individuals. Too bad he wasn’t around to advise St. Paul on the subject. Well at least the article doesn’t end too badly.

…Such traditions, including celibacy, are not optional for individual Catholics. They are optional for the pope to decide for the whole church. Benedict XVI, beginning his pontificate with a stirring encyclical on love, is a man of prayer and pragmatism, befitting a lover of God and humankind.

He is famous as a conservative. What he wants to conserve, perhaps more than celibacy, is the ability of the church to teach with authority.

With full responsibility, authority and faculties of an Administrator of ********, appointed by Bishop *****, for the sake of the common good of the Church, the parish and the diocese, with the approval of the Bishop, I (very sadly) officially invite you To leave the parish ***** and the diocese of ******.

Was this statement issued to a:

1. Wildly heterodox parish like St Joan of Arc’s in Minnesota
2. A parish that kneels during the Agnus Dei?

If you picked number two – congratulations you have been paying attention.

Dom has some information and commentary on this story.

I just don’t understand some peoples aversion to kneeling? As the old quote goes "A man is never so tall as when he kneels before God." Though at times as I wrote in another post it seems to be just contrariness. To do the opposite of what is recommended by the GIRM.

On a side issue have you ever noticed the phenomenon of faux-kneeling? That is where during the times at Mass that we should kneel people will kind of crouch down instead. This way they appear to be lowered down without actually kneeling. Now of course the elderly or those who are physically unable to kneel shouldn’t even try. But the faux kneelers are usually also the ones who can sprint away from Mass before the final hymn. That I notice this type of stuff shows that I am not paying attention to the Mass as I should, but it is hard not to notice when the faux-kneeler is right in front of you. I am curious though as to why some people choose to do this.

Gerald has a farewell statement from a dissenting priest who appears to have been ordered to shut down his website. Not only does he dissent from the magisterium but his statement shows that he dissents from a dictionary or spellchecker also. Read the whole thing, but here is a snippet.

Therefore i have admitted to "public’ dissent While informing my provinxcial that i cannot recant these fews, that for the sake of keeping me faculties i will be less vocal and public in my dissent.

"Keeping me faculties" I swear if Popeye was a dissenting priest this is how he would write. Though Popeye might also have some problems with trademark infringement with God’s statement at the burning bush. "I Yam what I Yam." Though while I am on this odd train of though would a priestly Popeye anoint somebody with Olive Oyl?

Getting back to Fr. Comella his statement is the very model of disobedience in that he is not going to change his views at all and is only going to be less public in support of them. That his shutting down is not a praiseworthy act of obedience, but to be able to keep his faculties in his diocese.

Contrast this with Fr. Altier whose homilies "In obedient compliance with the expressed written request of Most Reverend Harry J. Flynn" can no longer be published on www.desertvoice.org or broadcast on Relevant Radio. From all indications Fr. Altier is an orthodox priest who has been very critical of programs like VIRTUS (spawned by Playboy and Planned Parenthood) and their use in the diocese. There might be much more to this story so we will have to wait and see. I only illustrate the contrast between two priests and how one makes a non-apology and the other does nothing than inform the website that was publishing his homilies.

It is always easy to quiet orthodox priests since they actually believe in obedience in situations where they might not prudently agree with a superior.

A reader sent me some various takes on the letter by 19 priests and I especially liked this one.

BOSTON — In an unusual public dissent with their leaders, 19 MIT Physicists published yesterday an open letter taking issue with the university’s opposition to both phlogisten and caloric, as well as Tycho Brahe’s geocentric model of the solar system.

Does the university "have the last word on the mysteries of thermodynamics, physics, and chemistry?" the 980-word letter asks. "In these matters, the official teaching of the university has shown itself more than once to be wrong."

One of the authors, Doctor Claude Lefebvre of the School of Engineering at MIT, said the letter stemmed from a discussion group of MIT Scientists who felt uneasy about the university’s official discourse.

"We don’t want people to believe that everyone within the university thinks the same way," he said in an interview.

——

Dean André Gaumond, who is also the president of the Boston Conference of Physicists, said he wasn’t surprised that the 19 scientists had decided to go public with their opinion.

He appreciated that the letter had a polite and non-aggressive tone, he added in an interview with NBC.

"I’m not very happy with the means, to have a public declaration, a public article in the newspaper on a Sunday morning to say, ‘We scientists are not in accord with our university,’" he added.

"I’m not very happy with that, but it’s not a reason to throw them out of the university."

Gaumond said the issue will be discussed at a meeting of deans at MIT in about 10 days.

"What will be the result of our discussion, I do not know, but well, life is going on."

Physicists who penned letter hope for dialogue

One of the letter’s authors, Dr. Claude Lefebvre, said he’s not sure what the group expects the letter to accomplish, but hopes it will open up dialogue on the issues.

A reader sent me an article on Dan Brown’s court case which includes.

Speaking outside the High Court, Brown, who describes himself as a committed Christian, said that the distinction was an important one. "Suggesting a married Jesus is one thing, but questioning the Resurrection undermines the very heart of Christian belief," he said.

Committed Christian? Well I agree some Christians ought to be committed. I also thought questioning the divinity of Christ would also undermine the heart of Christianity. Though this is interesting as a rebuttal towards those "it’s only a book folks" since Dan Brown himself thinks that if he had denied the Resurrection in the book that it would undermine faith.

In an article critiquing the "male spirituality" of Fr. Rohr written by Fr. Bryce Sibley (ex-blogger at A Saintly Salmagundi): [Via RC at Catholic Light]

At the conference I explained to another attendee that I did not think Rohr should call his "male spirituality" Catholic. This individual responded that I was being too rigid in my interpretation of Catholicism, that Rohr just has a very "broad" sense of what it means to be Catholic. To which I posed this situation in reply: Imagine that you, a Cajun, traveled to some state in the Midwest and went to a restaurant advertising that it sold "Cajun food" and you ordered a bowl of gumbo. But what was brought out to you was a bowl of watery soup with a few pieces of steak floating in it. Would you call that authentic "Cajun food"? Of course not. No Cajun in his right mind would. Then why would you be more dogmatic in your approach to food than in your approach to your faith?

I think I have heard Fr. Sibley using that comparison before, but I still love it.

Fr. Sibley critique of Fr. Rohr is quite good and it seems that Fr. Rohr has fallen into the same mistake of others. That the example of a good father in someone’s life means that they will thus be totally unresponsive to God as father. Scott Hahn ran into this same concept where he was asked to tone down his speaking of God as father when speaking to kids from broken families. The opposite is what is true is that when we lack this example of earthly fatherhood that we need to see the perfection on which it is based.

Paul has some good commentary on the statement of Fifty-five Catholic who are Democrats (or is that Democrats who are Catholic) and members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

E.J. Dionne Jr. writes:

What’s significant is that this is not a statement from pro-choice Catholics trying to "reframe" the abortion question. The signatories include some of the staunchest opponents of abortion in the House, including Reps. Bart Stupak, Dale Kildee, Tim Holden, James Oberstar and James Langevin.

In other words, Democrats on both sides of the abortion question worry that it is crowding out all other concerns. And in very polite language, the Catholic Democrats suggest that their bishops allow them some room to disagree. "In all these issues, we seek the church’s guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience," they write in an echo of Kennedy. "In recognizing the church’s role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes from being in disagreement with the church in some areas."

Have you ever heard "primacy of conscience" invoked which wasn’t immediately followed by some excuse to deny some part of the Catholic faith?
Definitely at odds with Blessed John Cardinal Newman’s "the voice of God in the nature and heart of man "
The voice of God does not say that you can murder his children. Even worse that some Catholic Democrats who have a zero percent NARAL rating are willing to support their fellows who have a 100 percent one. When instead they should be calling their party to repent of their support of abortion, ESCR, etc, instead of providing covering fire.

"As Catholic Democrats in Congress we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition " I guess this is much like that "living Constitution" thing. That is you have it mean whatever you want it to mean. In each case the founders (Jesus and the Fathers of the Constitution) original intent is substituted with something quite at odds to it. Democrats see everything as alive except a fetus.

Though of course the GOP has come to treat pro-lifers like the Democrats treat blacks. That is take them for granted and throw a rhetorical bone or two at times.

Captain Ed also opines and even indulges in some apologetics with a reference to the Didache.

Here is an update to the letter written by 19 priests in Quebec in support of homosexuality.

Sherbrooke Archbishop André Gaumond, who is also the president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, said he wasn’t surprised that the 19 priests had decided to go public with their opinion.

He appreciated that the letter had a polite and non-aggressive tone, he added in an interview with CBC.

"I’m not very happy with the means, to have a public declaration, a public article in the newspaper on a Sunday morning to say, ‘We priests are not in accord with our church,’" he added.

"I’m not very happy with that, but it’s not a reason to throw them out of the church."

Gaumond said the issue will be discussed at a meeting of Catholic bishops of Quebec in about 10 days.

"What will be the result of our discussion, I do not know, but well, life is going on."

Priests who penned letter hope for dialogue

One of the letter’s authors, Rev. Claude Lefebvre, said he’s not sure what the group expects the letter to accomplish, but hopes it will open up dialogue on the issues.

Wow open up dialogue! What a novel idea! I just have never heard that before from people who dissent on Church teaching. Hey let us also open up dialogue on other settled Church teaching. How about the divinity of Christ for example or the natures of Christ. Or how about the the Church’s love for the poor? Let’s us dialogue about charitable efforts for the poor. Dumping these charitable efforts could really help the bottom line of most parishes. Maybe we can find 19 priests tired of running soup kitchens, etc that could write an open letter in support of cutting off the poor and opening up dialogue on the issue.

Now as to Sherbrooke Archbishop André Gaumond. This reminds me that most days (if I am sane) I thank God that I have no vocation to the priesthood and possibly being a Bishop. That crushing weight of the care of souls and having to deal with idiotic priests who must think they are Episcopalians or something is not something anyone would willingly desire other than submission to God’s will.

"What will be the result of our discussion, I do not know, but well, life is going on." My simplistic mind would think that either the priests repent of their promotion of heresy or that they be relieved of any position where they can harm souls until they do. My first reaction is to give them the boot, when I should want to present them with knees in supplication. But plan B in this case is much better so I would encourage both myself and my readers to send some prayers the way of the bishop and his misguided shepherds.