Punditry

Because of the priestly abuse scandals we so often hear that the problem is priestly celibacy. That not having sex causes you to abuse children and teens. That it is unhealthy and unnatural for us not to have sex.

Well if they truly believed this then we need a whole new set of laws.

For example what about socially awkward and extremely shy men? Obviously their unwanted state of celibacy will cause them to abuse children. How about marriages that have grown to be sexless because of one spouse being tired of sex? They too will look for children to abuse by this reasoning. What about people not having sex before marriage and still have not found the person they want to marry?

So what we need are a new form of Temple Prostitutes. Yes government prostitutes and I am not talking about politicians. The government should monitor people’s sex life and determine when a person has been without sex for a specified period to be determined. The celibacy cycle must be monitored to prevent abuse.

Plus who knows when this sets in so maybe the government should force people to get married at a younger age or ensure that government appointed prostitutes make visits for preventive maintenance. By this logic we know that a period of celibacy can cause lifelong problems. We know this because priestly abusers often go on to more and more abuse. So they are no longer celibate yet they have steady sex via their abusive relationships. Those that abuse children often go on to abuse more and more children throughout their lifetime. So the celibacy causes abuse logic would dictate that it is not the psychological sickness of the individual, but the often short period they were actually celibate before abusing children and predominately teenage males. Funny how celibacy causes abuse that targets teenage males. I guess the lack of sex makes men all of sudden choose victims of a certain age and gender since it can’t possibly have anything to do with same sex attraction don’t you know. Just one of those odd quirks that come from being celibate for a period of time.

So you parents that believe celibacy causes abuse out there – make sure your male children either get married early and that they have a continuous sex life or that you buy them prostitutes until the government steps in to help. Plus keep ignoring the fact that most child abuse occurs within families and to a lesser extent public schools. Celibacy is the problem, facts be damned.

I was wondering recently what has happened to Fr. Greeley since the accident he experienced. He is back with some advice on how to attract young men to the priesthood. No it’s not allowing priest to marry, but allowing priests to sign up for a time and then reenlist like they do in the military.

He reminds us he has been doing sociological research on the priesthood for 30 years. His previous sociological expertise told us in a column that America was too racist to elect Obama.  I wonder if Fr. Greeley has met with President McCain yet?

We are all aware of course of the scriptural passage “A priest part-time like Melchizedek.” Plus of course the scriptural example of the Apostles putting in a couple of years and then kicking back in another profession. Some people actually think St. Paul was executed when really he just went back to just being a tentmaker. Of course the priesthood is just a job, not an actual vocation from God don’t you know. Plus six years in seminary is just not enough time to discern the call. Diocese would be so happy to pay for six years in the seminary and for a priest after five years to move on to civilian life as Fr. Greeley suggests. Plus don’t we all want a priest not actually committed to the priesthood? It is much more inspiring to have a priest who is in a tour of duty and just might re-up if he feels like it.

Of course why stop there. What Fr. Greeley says about the priesthood applies equally to marriage. There are people miserable in marriages just like in the priesthood and so instead of those guidelines from that idealistic Jesus about marriage being indissoluble we can sign up for five year hitches instead. Or maybe seven year hitches until the seven year itch sets in. After all the priesthood and marriage are just sacraments and they can be as temporary or permanent as you want them to be. Why sacrifice for Christ – just do things until you get bored and are no longer happy.

Fr. Greeley asks “Who are we, in other words, to question where the Spirit leads a person?” Because everything we do can be attributed to following the Holy Spirit. Be a priest for a while – that’s the Holy Spirit calling you. Leave the priesthood to go do something else – why once again that’s the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit must seem rather fickle to liberals. Feel like being a preist again later on – well that’s also the Spirit calling.

Neither the church nor its people nor the priesthood itself is well served by a miserably unhappy priest. What are some of the reasons a man might want to leave? His parishioners get on his nerves; he can’t stand teens; his fellow priests make him chronically depressed; he wants to begin a family of his own; the work is oppressive; he’s bored and he shudders at the thought that he will be doing the same things for the next half century; he has served under three bishops, all of whom have been fools, and he can’t take the folly anymore; he’s exhausted, worn out, bone tired. Permission to return to the lay life as one who has finished his commitment to active service enables both him and the church to cut their losses.

Pick up the cross daily when you want to.  Parishioners getting on your nerves of couse is not something you could use towards your sanctification.  The heck with the offering it up stuff – that’s for people actually committed to Christ and his Church.  Again what about a miserable unhappy spouse – just wait till the marriage tour is over and don’t re-up.

What Fr. Greeley is trying to do is make the exception to the rule be the rule.  Priests already can be laicized for serious reason.  Sure there is a stigma attached to this, but it is not exactly like anyone goes into the priesthood blindly and without sufficient time to reflect on their vocation. Besides why is the answer for a miserably unhappy priest be that he leaves the priesthood as if this is the only option.  Father Groechel  who has worked with a lot of priests who left the priesthood would certainly not agree that this be the best solution.  He has also worked with returning priests who found their problems did not go away upon leaving the priesthood.  Certainly there are other underlying causes that might be looked at.

The final argument is that if the church is faithful to its commitment to permanent celibacy, God will provide priests for us. Thus we do not and even should not consider modifications. This is one of the favorite cop-outs of bishops and conservative laity: Blame God.

Can’t say I have ever heard clergy or conservative laity blame God for the lack of the number of priests.  God still calls men to the priesthood, but that does not mean they all answer the call.  It is also not God’s fault that we are having much smaller families.  The contraceptive worldview and lack of openness to life is not exactly God’s idea.  There are plenty of reasons in the current culture that makes it difficult to young men to answer the call.  Though this lack is area specific since parts of the world have plenty of men answering a vocation to the priesthood.  The growth of the Catholic Church in Africa is not caused by Africans allowing men to sign up for a tour of duty as a priest.

Fr. Greeley thinks that there must be modifications made of this type to bring in young men.  No explanation for why during the history of the Church that we have not had a problem with men answering the call for the most part.  What has changed is the culture and the modifications that must be made is not the term of the priesthood, but how we work against a culture that works to silence the call.  Caving into the culture never inspires anybody.

I believe Fr. Greeley is making a good faith attempt at a solution to the priestly shortage problem.  I just think his solution is worse than the problem.

Fr. Greeley does at least make a good point in regards to celibacy.

…I think that celibacy is a positive good, and my research shows that it is. It does not interfere with happiness for most priests and may contribute to it.

…Those who bother to discuss my proposal tend to be bitterly against it. For many liberal Catholics (lay and clerical), it is a matter of absolute faith that celibacy is the critical weakness in the church. They think it is the cause, for example, of sexual abuse in the priesthood, though the problem is virtually the same among married Protestant clergy. Nonetheless, they say, celibacy has to go.

Creative Minority Report

Does anybody know who the admin is for this Facebook fan Page?

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

The fan photos are out of control.

Bless the Lord all you works of the Lord:

sing his praise and exalt him for ever.

Bless the Lord you heavens:

sing his praise and exalt him for ever.

Bless the Lord you angels of the Lord:

bless the Lord all you his hosts;

bless the Lord you waters above the heavens:

sing his praise and exalt him for ever.

Bless the Lord sun and moon:

bless the Lord you stars of heaven;

bless the Lord all rain and dew:

sing his praise and exalt him for ever.

Bless the Lord all winds that blow:

bless the Lord you fire and heat;

bless the Lord scorching wind and bitter cold:

sing his praise and exalt him for ever.

Bless the Lord dews and falling snows:

bless the Lord you nights and days;

bless the Lord light and darkness:

sing his praise and exalt him for ever.

Bless the Lord frost and cold:

bless the Lord you ice and snow;

bless the Lord lightnings and clouds:

sing his praise and exalt him for ever.

O let the earth bless the Lord:

bless the Lord you mountains and hills;

bless the Lord all that grows in the ground:

sing his praise and exalt him for ever.

Bless the Lord you springs:

bless the Lord you seas and rivers;

bless the Lord you whales and all the swim in the waters:

sing his praise and exalt him for ever.

Bless the Lord all birds of the air:

bless the Lord you beasts and cattle;

bless the Lord all people on earth:

sing his praise and exalt him for ever.

O people of God bless the Lord:

bless the Lord you priests of the Lord;

bless the Lord you servants of the Lord:

sing his praise and exalt him for ever.

Bless the Lord all you of upright spirit:

bless the Lord you that are holy and humble in heart.

The Diocese of St. Petersberg is having a conference on the “Living Eucharist” this month.  People will fondly remember Bishop Lynch of this diocese , the protector of Terri Schiavo – well in a multiverse this was bound to have happened somewhere.  Also this is the Bishop who restricted perpetual Eucharistic Adoration saying that it was not a “normal pattern” of the Church and would require his permission for a  dispensation.  Though it appears at least now that a couple of parishes did receive that dispensation.

So you know a conference on the Eucharist in this diocese should be something special.  To be fair the Bishop’s previous Pastoral letter “Living Eucharist: Gathered, Nourished, Sent”  is a fairly decent letter on the Eucharist.  Though the title of it annoys me with the tone of the Eucharist being about the congregation more than about Jesus.  But I usually quibble too much.

So for a congregation on the Eucharist who would you pick for keynote speakers?  Well I am sure your short list would include:

• Reverend Timothy Radcliffe, OP Best known for known for writing in favor of gay priests, saying Masses for dissident homosexual groups, and for encouraging people to read gay novels and watch gay-themed movies such as Brokeback Mountain.

Cardinal Mahony was once asked about Fr. Radcliffe and what he was teaching at the L.A. Religious Conference.  The Cardinals first reply was “Well, why are you asking me? Ask him.” and followed up with “Do you know how many speakers we have here” and complained that there was no way to know in advance what a speaker would say.  Of course this is only a real concern when you have dissident speakers.  Plus of course Fr. Radcliffe was invited back again to the conference even after the Cardinal was made aware of this.  Strangely I get the feeling we would get the same type of answer from Archbishop Lynch.

• Fr. J Glenn Murray as director of the diocesan Office for Pastoral Liturgy for Cleveland implemented changes to the Liturgy and Communion Rite that went against both what the U.S. Bishops and the Vatican had rejected.  For example standing after Communion.  Not surprisingly, also a fan of liturgical dance
• Fr. J. Bryan Hehir One of the early dissidents opposing Humanae Vitae saying the Church should be silent on contraception.  When it comes to questions of sexual morality he is also known to hold views outside of the Church. A supporter of the idea of seeing Vatican II as a rupture from the past along with supporting homosexual adoption in connection with Catholic Charities. His influence was certainly felt in Boston where Catholic Charities was indeed adopting Children to homosexuals until ironically the State said they had to do this.

Well they are only the keynote speakers.  Surely the presenters at the conference will be just fine.  For example Rev. Lawrence Mick whose book on the sacraments was reviewed by blog friend Rich Leornardi. Oddly Rich only gave it one star for teaching a “horizontalized, incomplete picture of the sacraments at odds with what the Church teaches.”

In two days full of conferences in a conference dedicated to the Eucharist you will certainly find a lot of classes on the topic.  That is if you went to a different conference on the Eucharist than this one.  I could not find one class actually on the Eucharist and the theology of the Eucharist.  Pretty much every other subject though especially in the social justice arena including the pro-life movement.

There I am quibbling again and being downright petty thinking a conference on the Eucharist be about Jesus in the Eucharist.  One of the goals of the conference is:

• Develop a greater consciousness of ourselves as the Body of Christ

Because when it comes down to it, worship is all about us.  So lets sing Here I am Lord until God realizes how lucky he us to have us.

<a href=”http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/jesterHat.png”><img title=”jesterHat” src=”http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/jesterHat.png” alt=”” width=”26″ height=”16″ />Thanks to the reader who sent this in.</a>

Here is another crappy headline which tries to write an editorial in the lede. This time from my local newspaper the Flordia Times-Union

“Catholics in Jacksonville unmoved by Vatican scandal” with the subheadline “The pope is being scrutinized for his actions as a former cardinal.”

Yes we are unmoved by those Vatican scandals, how heartless of us. Funny how the word alleged get thrown in front of every murderer brought to court and you never see the word alleged in connection with a Vatican scandal.

The reactions of people interviewed in the article is much more sensible.  They are not falling for it.  They chalk it up mainly to media sensationalism. Though I would take exception to what one parishioner said.

“Even if he did something of that nature – if, if, if – I’m sure he’s probably been forgiven a long time ago, and you kind of just have to press on with life,” he said.

If a Pope had indeed been complicit in covering up or enabling priestly abuse, it seems to me that there could be a valid outcry for him to resign.  A Pope who knew he did such things and accepted the papacy knowing this would at least be unfit.  Though of course no pope ever has to resign and can not be forced to do so.  We have survived popes who truly committed scandal.

The story goes on to say that nobody has written to the Diocese about this subject.  There has been priestly sexual abuse in my diocese.  The difference is that it was promptly taken care of once known by both my previous and current Bishop.  These priest were not just reassigned and there has been good policy in place long before the Bishops addressed it in Dallas in 2002.

While Catholics in my area seem to be aware for the most part that there is no actual scandal involving the Pope, the media has been successful in getting out their message to others.  I was asked at work if the Pope was going to resign.  I replied no and at first my answer was chalked up to the Pope being “infallible”  At least it was an opportunity to explain infallibility is not impeccability  and how the articles on then-Cardinal Ratzinger were factually inaccurate.  No doubt though that the media has made great inroads into making many people believe that there is in fact a scandal concerning the Pope and many secularists and non-Catholics will find it easy to accept.

This generated scandal also distracts from the fact that there really are Catholics who covered up or enabled sexual abuse and the media’s attention should be directed to those cases and in fact all cases of sexual abuse.

In the continuing chapter, Fr. Pfleger on his Facebook page said:

“Sunday, I mentioned in my Sermon that I believe in married Priests and Woman Priests,” the Facebook comment reads.  “I was then told that I had to apologize for saying it durning [sic] a Sermon because that is not allowed, even though that is my opinion.

“I have received much hate from the right-winged who want my removal,” he added.  “Amazing… Nobody Blogged me or youtubed me about helping Save our children or Stopping the Violence…”
[Ref]

I just love the sweet sound of contriteness and when someone repents.  I rejoice along with the Angels – oh wait.

Now as to his complaints for nobody talking about his “good works.”  Whatever good works he does, does not require any special pointing out.  As followers of Christ what we do should be out of love of God and neighbor and being pointed out for any special praise.  Besides it would not simply cancel out his being in dissent with the Church anyway.

I guess the Archdiocese must have borrowed got a gun from the gun shop owner Fr. Pfleger previous threatened to  “snuff” and forced him to issue an apology.  I would have a little more respect for Father here if had refused to apologize because he held women’s ordination to be a truth not to be denied.  Instead he takes the cowards way out and issues what is in effect a lie since he is in no way contrite for his actions as his Facebook page shows.

Well I guess it is a case of being careful about what you would ask for.  I had hoped said on Twitter that Fr. Pfleger should apologize for his apology – and he did exactly that to his Facebook sycophants.

Plus the Archdiocese does not come off scott free in this either.  They asked him to apologize and then put the problematic  non-apology on the Diocesan site.  Does charity demand that we accept an apology that textually shows it is not a real apology at all?

Hat Tip Matt C. Abbott

The Archdiocese of Chicago acted fairly quickly in posting Fr. Pfleger so-called apology.

“On Sunday, April 11, while preaching a sermon on the power of fear, I was referring to the fear that paralyzed the apostles, locking them in a room, leaving only John and the women at the foot of the cross. I stated that is why I believe women ought to be able to be ordained, as well as priests ought to be able to get married.”

“While this is my personal opinion, I do respect and follow the Catholic Church teachings, and I am sorry I failed to do this.”

No doubt Cardinal George will feel himself off the hook now, though would surely love to be totally wrong on this.

How about an Archdiocesan teaching moment here on Church teaching and the levels of Church teaching?

Fr.  Pfleger seems to have taken the Catholic politician “personally opposed but …” dodge and stood it on its head.  “I’m personally for, but …”  The lasts sentence make zero sense and is itself opposed to Church teaching.

Fr. Pfleger can have whatever opinion he wants on the issue of priest celibacy in regards to Church discipline.  Women ordination is another matter.

How about taking a gander at what Vatican II said in Lunem Gentium.  And let us start with just the fourth level of Church Teaching.

LG 25: “Religious submission of mind and of will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining, in such a way, namely, that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifested mind and will, which is clear either from the nature of the documents, or from the repeated presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of speaking.”

So at first glance “Religious submission of mind and will” must be given to the teaching that women can not be ordained.  There is no room for personal view here,  There is either “Religious submission of mind and will” or there is not.  Fr. Pfleger needs to recant and to repent of his support of women’s ordination.  This is not an “oops” situation where personal beliefs accidentally got inserted into preaching taken care of by a quick apology.

His apology further confuses the issue by making it seem acceptable to have a personal opinion against Church teaching.  He really needs to apologize for his apology.

The problem is actually worse since this teaching goes beyond “Religious submission of mind and of will”, as serious as that is.  When the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was asked about the level of teaching contained in Pope John Paul II’s Ordination Sacerdotalis the Responsum ad Dubium stated.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

This is something that must be believed with “Divine and Catholic Faith.”  The apology seemingly accepted by the diocese makes a mockery of what Catholics are to believe.  I looked all through Lunem Gentium and I just can’t find the “my personal opinion” exception.

“While it is my personal opinion that Fr. Pfleger should be dragged out and shot after severe torture, I do respect and follow the Catholic Church teachings, and I am sorry I failed to do this.”

Yeah that sentence really makes a lot of sense  in light of Church teaching – or as much sense as Fr. Pfleger’s did.

I do pray that Fr. Pfleger recants and repents of this error and that the good Cardinal clarifies the error in the apology.

The infamous Father Pfleger of Chicago has withstood creating scandal before and even got an award last week from Cardinal George for his service. You have to wonder what will happen now that he has upped the anti by supporting woman’s ordination.

I never could understand how this priest could remain so long with only one public rebuke about his political comments which he followed for about a whole week or two.  Part of the dynamic it seems to me is that he is a pastor of a church where the parishioners are mainly Blacks.  He seems to be quite popular there and so there is probably a worry about what would happen if he was yanked as pastor.  Though I think the main concern should be the content of what he teaches and how it actually conforms to Catholic teacher.

I also don’t understand his appeal among his parish.  His Mass is like a minstrel show without the blackface. Like he is mimicking the stereotype of the Black preacher.  I find it rather offensive that just because your congregation is a majority of one race that you have to change the style of how you preach to reach out to them.  Kind of like when Hillary Clinton was campaigning and facing a Black church affected a slow Southern drawl and changed grammar.

Carl Olson puts it rather succinctly.

Fr. Pfleger is, by any reasonable measure, not only a “controversialist,” but a race-baiter, a loud-mouthed hater, a lousy theologian, and a heretic. His recent remarks are not the remarks of a “good priest and pastor.” Here’s hoping that he is disciplined in a swift and appropriate manner.

Should Fr. Pfleger be fired over this. Well I would say yes since he should have been removed some time ago. Heresy at the pulpit certainly needs to be addressed and I hope that Cardinal George will address this problem instead of making statements like he did last week.

…Fr. Pfleger has been a controversialist; and controversy is easier to report on than is love.  Fr. Plfeger has spoken in anger, sometimes unjustly or uncharitably; and anger is easier to capture on the camera than is love.  But Fr. Pfleger is a Catholic priest and a pastor, and in that capacity, like all good priests and pastors, he acts out of love.  Ask his people.  Ask the sick he has visited and the dying he has attended.  Ask the troubled he has consoled.  Ask the young people he has counseled and the school children he has supported.

As any armchair theologian knows, when people act they are seeking a good even when what they are doing might be objectively evil. Fr. Pfleger certainly might be acting out of love – willing the good to another – but that does not excuse his past conduct and especially does not excuse open dissent with the Magisterium of the Church and ultimately the will of Christ. What Cardinal George said can be equally applied to every priest and thus also any bad priests who are visited the sick, etc.

I would suggest that people email Cardinal George about this with a short and charitable message.

archbishop@archchicago.org

Sometimes you would think everyday is opposite day in regards to the media.

The one public leader who did the most covertly to help the Jewish people during WWII is of course vilified by the media as being anti-Semitic and not doing anything.

Now we have the case of one Cardinal who as he became aware of individual cases of priestly abuse and later the scope of the abuse scandal  reacted to the problem.  As Pope he  is now of course vilified as not only not doing enough, but through his actions contributing to the problem.

The media’s opposite day though does not just effect reporting in regards to the Pope.  Mostly all reporting on the Catholic Church is backwards as if every story is run through a simple inverter.

Now apparently the media is under the impression that laicization confers an ontological change in regards to a sexual abuser.  That somehow once a priest involved in the depravity of sexual abuse when laicized all problems will subsequently go away.  I guess Stephen Kiesle didn’t get the message since after he was laicized he got married and then went on to abuse others after this.  For the media it does not matter that the priest in this case was already removed from ministry by his Bishop.

You have to wonder why it is that the ire is directed to then-Cardinal Ratzinger and not the California courts who gave Stephen Kiesle a light sentence and then destroyed the evidence after a two year probation.

The media does an excellent service when it exposes how abuse was mishandled, hidden, or the problem shuffled off to another parish/diocese.  Great evil has been done by those who contributed to the problem instead of protecting their flock.  It is hard to come up with a good reason why bishops would shuffle abusive priests in the first place.  It is safe to say there motives were not to inflict abuse on more victims.  Perhaps some thought that treatment programs would actually work or that a change of scenery would be just the thing — An almost criminal naiveté.  Or simply as so many do they justified the act to hide scandal or to make a problem seem to just go away.  Sin always twists reason until so many vapid justification might seem actually defensible.  Add to this a denial of exactly what they had done and the efforts to hide this we came to the current situation that first broke out here, then places in Europe, and sadly we will find the same in other countries as time goes on.  I have wondered why so many Irish bishops have resigned and yet only one American Cardinal did. It is not as if we didn’t have plenty of protectors of abusers here.  Maybe the Irish bishops had more shame for their actions, I just don’t know.  We have had plenty of diocese pay out millions to those abused, yet the enablers of abuse are pretty much left in place.  I wish that famous Catholic guilt would have been more effective for those destined to wear millstones if they do not repent.

These cases also go to the problem of what you do with sexual abusers generally? Priestly abusers must of course be removed from ministry, but I wonder if just washing your hands of them and releasing them to the general public is the best process?  Those involved with sexual abuse are rarely cured of this and as history has shown will go on and abuse others even if they had spent a term in prison. Societies answer of having a list of sexual abusers where people can find if they are living in their neighborhoods hasn’t prevented abuse in some cases.  The Church just can’t send abusers off to a remote monastery to live out the rest of their lives.  Abusers often see themselves as the victim and are unlikely to remain there.  The Church also can not run a prison for such individuals, that is the role of society which unfortunately is prone to releasing abusers pack into society.  Considering the recidivism rates for sexual abuse should the sentences become lifetime sentences?  There is the case of Alessandro Serenelli who attempted to rape Saint Maria Goretti and who did repent of his act and later lived a life of penance.  Cases like this are rare and most abusers are not helped via the world of psychiatry. These are the questions we should be grasping with instead of the stupdity  of trying to link Pope Benedict XVI as a problem in regards to priest abuse.