Trahison des clercs

Kate, over at her blog Australia Incognita, has been publishing a hard-hitting if necessarily depressing series of posts (here is a link to her latest summary) about what ought be done to arrest the decline and fall of Catholicism in Australia, a series I have been following with interest if also with uncomfortable recognition of painful realities.

Here are some thoughts of mine on this topic, from notes I jotted down while walking...

Regarding both priests and laity, the collapse of the symbolic universe that was the Catholic Faith began at the time of the Council, when the world, and the Church also, were subjected to great cultural revolutions, the results of which are still being played out. In retrospect, one may wryly surmise, perhaps those who left at the outset of the changes (clergy and layfolk alike) were the most quick-witted: they saw the collapse of former verities and drew the appropriate conclusions!

The still-unfolding crisis relating to sexual abuse of children by priests is another bitter fruit of everything going haywire. Of course most priests are not pedophiles: but it would be simplistic to assume that the only moral failures among their ranks are criminal – for every one who deserves prison, there must, as statistics would suggest, be more who have arranged other compromises with carnality, whether concubinage or attendance at places of low repute.

Turning to matters spiritual instead, it is an open secret that many do not pray the Office; and given the low standard of preaching, they cannot spend too much time searching the Scriptures, let alone perusing the Fathers or approved authors. Doubtless weekend football has much to answer for; but as my mother once asked me, what do priests do all day? Laymen in professional careers attend meetings, as do those who are ordained; but here the analogy ends, for such laymen do in fact work full time, whereas even close contact with priests leaves me convinced that only a minority ever have.

The minority of Catholics who still practise their faith now see that their leaders and 'betters' were hypocrites and worse – we read daily in the news and see on our televisions unrebutted allegations of the utter moral turpitude of the very hierarchy Catholics once revered: we have the filth and wickedness of "men of God" paraded before our faces. No wonder non-Catholics fear and hate the Church! They have, alas, in all this mess good reason! After all, if some were moral monsters, that is bad enough; but to find out how hand-wringing, ineffectual faffing about, malign neglect and even winking at crime while covering it up was all too common is to discover how even priests and bishops have completely lost their moral compass.

Surely a man of common decency, upon learning of such abominations, would have stopped at nothing to have such evil ministers defrocked and excommunicated (as St Paul excommunicated the incestuous member of the church at Corinth; see I Cor. v, 1-5) – the commonsense deduction is that those who did little or nothing were completely indifferent. No doubt the purely passive virtues of jellylike uselessness and pretended compassion more for perpetrators than victims will be invoked by those who should have acted with manly vigour instead. What must be the judgement meted out to those prelates who have died with such matters on their conscience?

The symbolic universe of Catholicism has been destroyed. Without a coherent view of the natural and supernatural world, there is no future for Catholic belief – and such a coherent vision has been smashed. "My people is destroyed for lack of knowledge" says the Lord Almighty (Hosea 4:6).  If only, say, a woman believing in her right to ordination held otherwise to orthodox belief; but it transpires that any and all doctrines are up for debate, the mere fact that such-and-such used to be a dogma almost guaranteeing that it will be mocked and rejected in favour of arrant nonsense. Religious sisters of a certain age and dress sense, and their lapses into strange novelties, are a case in point: out with the kneelers, in with the bean bags, coloured candles and amateur arts-and-crafts.

Of old, the Jansenists claimed that a general darkness and confusion had crept in and obscured the true doctrines of the Church (such as, they pretended, a neglect of the stricter views of the great Augustine); that claim was rightly condemned, but it would be perfectly easy to assert the truth of this statement with regard to the general ignorance, not to say dissent and heterodoxy, that is common throughout parishes (and presbyteries) these days. I recall, as a humorous example, the laywoman who told me without a trace of a smile that Vatican II called for whole-wheat hosts... she appeared miffed when I rolled my eyes and speculated aloud on the likelihood that three thousand bishops met for three years to decide on that, but then again, given the usual importance of episcopal conference statements, I may have been assuming too much.

The irony is that the great desire of many aCatholics, apparently – that Catholicism might by stages approximate to Episcopalianism – is a mirage; and even if it were possible (by going into practical schism from Rome to an ever greater degree, which to be honest has been a strategy employed fairly successfully over the last four decades throughout Australia and beyond), it would only speed the rate of decline.  After all, if our religion is reduced to pious foolery adorning secularism, what need is there for playing at church at all? Again, the honest ones gave up Christianity as ridiculous long ago, and the generations that have grown up have only given way to practical atheism more and more completely, to the extent that even in a Catholic school it is a rarity for many of either staff or students to, for instance, regularly attend Sunday Mass (or even think that doing so might be of theoretical importance for some strange reason).

Consider the former Bishop of Toowoomba, whom Benedict XVI noted to have lacked the theological and mental calibre to ever have been worthily appointed a bishop – and yet one assumes the official rescript of his appointment, as read out by the Nuncio when Morris was consecrated, contained the usual platitudes about his eminent abilities and virtues. It need hardly be stated that many of his peers would most probably fall in a like category, but merely have managed to keep their dafter opinions sufficiently quiet – I recall hearing of one of Australia's younger bishops, who upon first attending the Bishops' Conference was horrified by the low intellectual and cultural level.

And what is said of bishops is certainly true of priests: consider the one who in a homily in my hearing said that, when Our Lord died on the Cross, He didn't know He would rise again – what heresy! has the man (a "scripture scholar") never read the Gospels, wherein Christ clearly spoke of His coming death and resurrection? But I suppose I am succumbing to fundamentalism, and ought not fall into the sin of daring to criticise the Lord's Anointed (funny how clericalism never really dies, but is a truly hydra-headed monster)... 

Or again consider the typical sort of priest whose views on sexuality are rather at odds with Humanæ vitæ (as is the norm for Catholics and has been since 1968). When did you last hear a sermon against fornication (a rather common sin, yet strangely never criticised), or unnatural practices, or contraception, or anything of that sort? Yet surely the Magisterium still takes the age-old view that such things are rotten and gravely sinful. Of course, in "reality", this, and much if not all else that makes up the symbolic framework of Catholicism, is simply no longer believed. There is great cognitive dissonance between the actual objective content of the Faith, and the confused and subjective hold on it possessed by the average Australian Catholic – hence the paradox whereby the "liberals" who in fact hold much authority in the Church are yet still angry and afflicted with feelings of powerlessness to overcome nasty old Rome.

Recall Neuhaus' words: orthodoxy, if made optional, will sooner or later be prohibited; to which I add (from whereever I suppose I first heard it), doctrines not preached are not believed. I recall too what a Lutheran pastor mentioned to me: that he was sick of meeting self-hating Catholics who couldn't wait to tell him how proudly they dissented from the teachings of their Church, little realizing that he, as a zealous and orthodox Lutheran, was if anything closer to Rome and to more than mere Christianity than they were.

Catholicism, as played out in most parts of Australia, has no future. Evangelism, by a body not believing its own teachings, nor following even its most basic professed morals, but exposed to all and sundry as a nest of fools and perverts, is a sick joke, not a realistic hope. Looking around my own parish Mass – blessed with a good and dedicated priest, I hasten to add – I see very few children and young people, as Father himself lamented only last week. Our priest, though hale and hearty, is eighty; the congregation is fast catching up to him; I see a far healthier spread of ages at the monthly Latin Mass in Hobart!

Come, Holy Spirit, save us who cry to Thee! Descend with Thy Divine Fire and purge us of our unbelief and wickedness! Save us from ourselves!

"Empty and evil hearts... How much filth..." - even in the Vatican

So it has come to this: La Repubblica reports on what the three Cardinals tasked by Benedict to investigate Curial intrigues and worse informed him about – Vatican officials no better than whitened sepulchres, so corrupted are they by their continual breaking of the sixth and seventh commandments, that is, by homosexual vice, and theft of money, money laundering, and every sort of malfeasance courtesy of the notoriously dubious "Vatican Bank". Judases, not just selling their souls for thirty pieces of silver, but committing sacrilege against their bodies, bodies consecrated to celibate chastity, for the sake of carnal pleasure! What more can be said?

Exhausted, worn out, frail with age, and now informed that the among the men who ought work for him are slaves of the Devil instead, who can wonder that the Pope has decided to resign, having prudently and carefully adjudged himself unable to fulfil his Petrine ministry given his advanced age and incapacity, and thus in duty bound to beg the Lord to appoint a new Pontiff in his stead? Pray, as Benedict no doubt does so fervently, that the new Pope to be elected will be a man of steel, able and willing to purge out the Augean stables that the Roman Curia, hitherto ever resistant to all real reform, has proven to be. From corrupt and cynical prelates, priests of empty and evil heart, good Lord, deliver us. And send us, Lord, a truly holy man of God, be he a Cardinal or not, to be the Pope to do what must be done.

Those words of His Holiness, which he spoke while yet a Cardinal, at the Ninth of the Stations of the Cross on Good Friday in 2005, prove ever more prophetic and terrifying in their dreadful import:

What can the third fall of Jesus under the Cross say to us? We have considered the fall of man in general, and the falling of many Christians away from Christ and into a godless secularism. Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church? How often is the holy sacrament of his Presence abused, how often must he enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! What little respect we pay to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where he waits for us, ready to raise us up whenever we fall! All this is present in his Passion. His betrayal by his disciples, their unworthy reception of his Body and Blood, is certainly the greatest suffering endured by the Redeemer; it pierces his heart. We can only call to him from the depths of our hearts: Kyrie eleison –­ Lord, save us (cf. Mt 8: 25).

I turn now to the famous prayer for Christ's Church – now taken up for Catholic use, courtesy of the Ordinariates established by Pope Benedict – authored by the Anglican William Laud so long ago:

Gracious Father, we humbly beseech Thee to bless Thy holy Catholic Church, and fill it with truth and grace. Where it is corrupt, purge it; where it is in error, direct it; where anything is amiss, reform it; where it is right, strengthen and confirm it; where it is wanting, furnish it; where it is divided and rent asunder, heal the breaches thereof, O Thou Holy One of Israel, for Jesus Christ’s sake, who with Thee and the Holy Ghost now liveth and reigneth, world without end.  Amen.

Why Should the Faithful Do Penance?

The bishops of New South Wales have told their faithful flocks in their joint Lenten pastoral letter Sowing in Tears what apparently is the call of all our bishops to the Catholics of this nation:

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference calls on all the faithful to join them in observing the Fridays of Lent in 2013 as special days of penance in the wake of the abuse crisis, by such means as prayerful reading of the Holy Scripture, a holy hour of prayer and petition before the Blessed Sacrament, and by traditional acts such as fasting and abstaining from meat. As your Bishops in New South Wales we undertake to lead you in these efforts and to continue to make a holy hour ourselves beyond Lent. We invite clergy and religious to join us in giving this lead and redoubling their prayers for this intention.

I am very pleased that the bishops will lead and set an example in all this penance.

But – forgive me, Your Eminence, My Lords – I must ask, why exactly should we, the lay faithful, do penance for the sins of such of our (past) priests and bishops who have been monstrously and notoriously unfaithful, not to say sinful, criminal abusers, co-conspirators in evil, very Judases, rapers of bodies and slayers of souls?

Forgive me – and I do know several of you – but I am rather unimpressed by this no doubt well-meant suggestion that we the "simple faithful" should participate in repenting for what we didn't do: au contraire, it will be not before time when not a few guilty parties in holy orders, yes, and not a few of their innocent brothers who we know should have been a good deal more vigilant and proactive, repent in sackcloth and ashes.

I think the clergy (and religious) should do penance for the sins of their brothers (and sisters) – it is their corporate body that has so conspicuously let us down, scandalizing the faithful, shaming us all before the scoffing world, bringing opprobrium upon Holy Church, giving new reason for all to hate Catholics, aiding atheists, pleasing Satan, and driving wounded souls from Christ.

Whose sins? Those in holy orders and in vows. Who covered up? Priests and bishops, religious sisters and brothers. What group as a whole ought therefore do corporate penance for the sins of their brethren? The clergy and religious congregations.

Who were the victims? The sons (and to a lesser extent, the daughters) of the laity. Who spoke out and protested but were ignored? The fathers and mothers of the abused. Who had to seek justice from the secular courts when the hierarchy proved worse than useless? Christ's faithful.

So, who should tell who to do penance? I think the average Catholic would be quite ready to tell priests – and I know whereof I speak – to work rather harder, and to do penance themselves, rather than nobly volunteer on behalf of the much-scandalized laity at large to join them in doing so!

Yes, yes, we are all one body, one spirit in Christ – and so the sins of one aggrieve and afflict all... still, I think I have a valid point... comments? If I am too harsh and impertinent in my words to my betters, mea culpa... correct me.

Section 116

Section 116 – Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion 

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

— Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia

Hence, whatever Roxon, or Pyne, or any other Federal MP or Senator may say, by the Constitution of the land (drawn up by our forefathers, approved in referenda held across Australia, and enacted for us by the Queen, Lords and Commons back Home), the Federal Parliament has no power to interfere in the "free exercise of any religion" – as by attempting to force priests to break the seal of the confessional.

While American law does not apply in Australia, both jurisdictions stem from the same Common Law tradition; hence, the 1813 ruling made by a New York court in People v Phillips may be read as usefully persuasive at least, and admirably clear in its rational exposition:

It is essential to the free exercise of a religion, that its ordinances should be administered—that its ceremonies as well as its essentials should be protected. Secrecy is of the essence of penance. The sinner will not confess, nor will the priest receive his confession, if the veil of secrecy is removed: To decide that the minister shall promulgate what he receives in confession, is to declare that there shall be no penance...

Prior to the present moral panic, a learned article was published summarizing the legal status of what may be termed clergy-penitent privilege in Australia: briefly, it is protected by law in most jurisdictions (the Commonwealth, the ACT, NSW, Norfolk Island, the Northern Territory, Victoria, and Tasmania) but not in several others (Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia), although there a shadowy Common Law privilege may be argued to persist – my first source was unclear as to the situation in some, but another search turned up further details.

The States, of course, having inherited the plenitude of legislative power from the British Parliament, possess all the residue not specifically granted to the Federal Parliament; it is they who may seek to pass laws that could "prohibit the free exercise of any religion".  If they attempt to do so, it will be the duty of Catholics to strive to oppose such wicked laws; if any such laws are passed, it will be the duty of Catholic priests to refuse obedience to such laws, opposed as they are to divine law, ecclesiastical law, and logic alike.

Moral panic has brought this on: if the secrecy of the confessional has been recognized and unquestioned until now, even in cases of murder, why then turn upon this privilege? After all, a moment's candid reflection will reveal that, given the great decline in the use of confession, even among the clergy, and the sad truth that those hardened in sin rarely repent and confess, not to mention the impossibility of proving that a priest had heard a confession involving a certain crime (short of police having obtained a warrant to bug the confessional), it is manifestly foolish to imagine – especially in the face of absolute opposition to this law by those it would affect – that such a bad law would achieve anything, other than an increase in bigotry.

Dog-whistling seems to be the underlying aim of these comments against the confessional: cartoons in newspapers daily display the Cardinal hearing the confession of the Opposition Leader.  "Dog-whistling" is of course the term that signifies the use of mutually understood references to attack a given person – it is notorious that the Opposition Leader is a Catholic, as are several other Coalition MP's, and these days to call someone a Catholic is to invoke a dark image of obscurantism and crime.  Time was, the very term atheist was an abusive epithet: but no one would bother to criticise our Prime Minister for her notorious atheism (just as to remark on her living in sin would, by what passes for etiquette in our present godless age, be regarded as rude as well as pointless, so common are such arrangements).

******

Anti-Catholicism remains an acceptable prejudice.  But would to God the Church's sinful members had not by their vile crimes brought such added opprobrium upon her!  As always happens, the hierarchy's negligence (perhaps, which God avert, even some connivance) regarding the perpetrators of such crimes has made these horrors even worse.  In a sense, we have our "betters" to blame for all this: corruptio optimi pessima.

Sad to say, when the Nazis tried to blacken Catholicism with accusations of perversion against priests, the Church was able to defend herself, for she had nothing to hide: secularists, whether motivated by sincerity or malice, are these days quite able to point out damning evidence of moral corruption within the Catholic Church.

I suspect that the Church has fallen into corruption because of laxity about doctrine and morals during the post-Conciliar period (not a time known for any certainty about either area, as is all too obvious): God will grant in His inscrutable, ineluctable Providence the trials and tribulations, yes, He even may permit the punishments and persecutions – amongst which these threats raised against the seal of the confessional may be counted – that will serve to purge out His errant Church.

Kate's Wise Comments

In response to my last post, the inestimable Kate Edwards made several wise comments:

First, several of the recent (and not so recent) appointees were not merely 'confirmation stooges' (!) but were vicar-generals in their (previous) dioceses and may well have been actively involved in the cover-ups. Indeed, at least two of them are reportedly under active investigation in this context (the most senior case being AB Wilson, who has allegedly refused to cooperate with the police investigation. If that doesn't warrant standing aside, I'm not sure what does!
Secondly, it is not at all clear that the 'we've handled it properly since 1996' line actually holds up. In the last week there have been claims that many in Melbourne were dealt with outside the Melbourne Response process; that religious orders are continuing to shield members and pay for endless appeals; and above all that the Church's in-house rehabilitation program (headed for years by the ultra-liberal and now rejector of the seal of confession, Bishop Robinson) treated hundreds of cases up to 2008 without disclosing one to the police and with the 'treated' being parish shuffled afterwards.
Thirdly, given the utter failure of our seminary selection procedures for so long, and the apparent failure of so many of our prelates to 'get it', can we really be sure that no new situations are arising, and that if they do they will be dealt with appropriately? Can we be sure that there are no (more) prelates with porn on their computers a la Canada? Can we be sure that some well meaning bishop will not, like Bishop Finn, dismiss the concerns of laypeople and decide to try and 'save the priesthood' of an offender?
It would be nice to think they have learnt the lessons, but public comments and inaction to date seem to suggest otherwise.
Personally, I'll have some hope when:
1. The assorted whistleblowers (mostly teachers, but also some priests) get their jobs back and compensation.
2. When those accused of failing to report cases stand aside from their jobs pending the outcomes of the investigations.
3. When anyone who in any way supported those guilty (paying their court costs, accompanying them to court, etc) do public penance and admit not just that it was an error in judgment to be apologised for, but a serious sin of complicity. We need our bishops to come out and say that these men committed sins that deserve punishment.

So Who Should Resign?

It seems foolish to call for to-day's bishops to resign on account of negligence (or worse) committed during the (mal)administration of their predecessors.  Let us consider the current crop of Australian bishops, and when they took up the reins (by ordination or succession) in their dioceses, (past and) present (recalling that auxiliary bishops have no power whatsoever, being but "confirmation stooges", to quote a certain prelate in northern NSW):

The Archdiocese of Canberra-Goulburn is presently vacant; the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes is also vacant (and by all accounts will be officially suppressed soon enough).

Those who took charge in the last six years – thirteen bishops:

• Father Harry Entwistle, Ordinary of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross since 2012;
• His Grace Timothy Costelloe, Archbishop of Perth since 2012 (auxiliary bishop in Melbourne 2007-2012);
• His Lordship Robert McGuckin, Bishop of Toowoomba since 2012;
• His Lordship Paul Bird, Bishop of Ballarat since 2012;
• His Lordship Leslie Tomlinson, Bishop of Sandhurst since 2012 (auxiliary bishop in Melbourne 2009-2012);
• His Lordship Michael Kennedy, Bishop of Armidale since 2012;
• His Lordship William Wright, Bishop of Maitland-Newcastle since 2011;
• His Lordship Robert Rabbat, Bishop of the Melkite Eparchy of St Michael of Sydney since 2011;
• His Lordship Anthony Fisher, Bishop of Parramatta since 2010 (auxiliary bishop in Sydney 2003-2010);
• His Lordship Gregory O'Kelly, Bishop of Port Pirie since 2009 (auxiliary bishop in Adelaide 2006-2009); 
• His Lordship Michael McKenna, Bishop of Bathurst since 2009;
• His Lordship Christopher Prowse, Bishop of Sale since 2009 (auxiliary bishop in Melbourne 2003-2009);
• His Grace Mark Coleridge, Archbishop of Brisbane since 2012, Archbishop of Canberra-Goulburn 2006-2012 (auxiliary bishop in Melbourne 2002-2006).

Those who took charge more than six years ago, but within the last twelve years – eight bishops:

• His Lordship Max Davis, Bishop of the Military Ordinariate of Australia since 2003;
• His Lordship Ad Abi Karam, Bishop of the Maronite Eparchy of St Maron of Sydney since 2002;
• His Lordship Gerard Hanna, Bishop of Wagga Wagga since 2002;
• His Grace Denis Hart, Archbishop of Melbourne since 2001 (auxiliary bishop in Melbourne 1997-2001);
• His Lordship Gerard Holohan, Bishop of Bunbury since 2001;
• His Lordship Geoffrey Jarrett, Bishop of Lismore since 2001;
• His Lordship Michael Putney, Bishop of Townsville since 2001 (auxiliary bishop in Brisbane 1995-2001);
• His Lordship Peter Ingham, Bishop of Wollongong since 2001 (auxiliary bishop in Sydney 1993-2001).

Those who took charge more than twelve years ago, but within the last twenty-one years – eleven bishops:

• His Lordship Daniel Hurley, Bishop of Darwin since 2007, and Bishop of Port Pirie 1999-2007;
• His Grace Adrian Doyle, Archbishop of Hobart since 1999 (ordained coadjutor with right of succession in 1998);
• His Eminence George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney since 2001, Archbishop of Melbourne 1996-2001 (Auxiliary Bishop in Melbourne 1987-1996);
• His Grace Philip Wilson, Archbishop of Adelaide since 2001, and Bishop of Woollongong 1996-2000;
• His Grace Djibrail Kassab, Archbishop of the Chaldean Eparchy of St Thomas of Sydney since 2006, Chaldean Archbishop of Basra 1996-2006;
• His Lordship David Walker, Bishop of Broken Bay since 1996;
• His Lordship Christopher Saunders, Bishop of Broome since 1996;
• His Lordship Peter Stasiuk, Bishop of the Ukrainian Eparchy of SS Peter and Paul of Melbourne since 1993;
• His Lordship James Foley, Bishop of Cairns since 1992;
• His Lordship Justin Bianchini, Bishop of Geraldton since 1992;
• His Lordship Brian Heenan, Bishop of Rockhampton since 1991.

Since, in the words of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference press release regarding the imminent Royal Commission, major reforms for dealing better with the scourge of child abuse have been implemented during the last twenty years, and "[m]uch of the public discussion is about how the Church dealt with cases 20 or more years ago", it would seem more likely that the various retired bishops of Australia (those still alive) are probably those who most need to tremble in their boots...

Of course, if any of the above are found derelict in their duty, one hopes they will rediscover their honour, and do the honourable thing.

Horribile auditu

It has been horrible to hear so much of the sexual abuse crisis – but nowhere near so horrible as the sufferings of the victims, be it remembered – and in this Catholic it has engendered confusion and competing emotions. I suppose we all begin with outrage: both at the commission of such crimes, and the attribution of them to the Church, and the Church alone. Then comes further horror: the realization that such imputation of blame is not wholly anti-Catholic bigotry, but in many cases richly deserved.

I suppose if priests and bishops smilingly preside over the loss and warping of the Faith, it is hardly surprising that they likewise look on unworried while perverse crimes are hidden away.

The greatest horror is that the Church of God, Christ's Body and Bride, far from acting as His instrument of salvation in converting and sanctifying souls, is so befouled by her sinful members' crimes as to be manifested to too many – especially the victims of abuse – as a monstrous Anti-Christ, an instrument of Satan, of destruction and degradation.

I am sick of the passive virtues espoused by mealy-mouthed clergy, wringing their hands, whining and whinging that they knew not, O they knew not, and that they feel so sad... How much worse suffered and still do suffer the little raped children! Where are the active virtues that would with manly vigour condemn, fight against and rise up to extirpate such outrages? Where is the bishop that would not walk alongside a pedophile to court, but rather slap him in the face for his abominable wickedness?

It sickens me to the core to read of the assaults of voices threatening the sanctity and the seal of the confessional: but, humanly speaking, who can blame those ignorant of the divine origin of the sacrament, who see it as but another device by which the wicked pretend to cleanse themselves while yet sinning on with impunity?

It is not as if a certain Eminence did himself or any Catholic any great service recently with his most imprudent comments, which not only were made at the worst possible time, but, in regard to confession, were so badly worded as to appear to corroborate the accusation that confession was misused, and that the proverbial "say three Hail Mary's and don't sin any more" was the advice given not too long ago to priest-perverts.

Frankly, if more than a few priests and prelates go off to prison, it will be no bad thing for the Church.

The Royal Commission

A paragraph in today's Australian newspaper to my mind hit the nail on the head:

Giving evidence to the Victorian inquiry, Chamley said church abuse took place in a state of anarchy. "There is no compliance with the nation's laws, or their own canon laws, their own moral laws by these offenders," he says. "And others in the organisation don't force any compliance. That's anarchy."

Does not this phrase "a state of anarchy" exactly describe the sad state of affairs in the Catholic Church ever since all hell broke loose just after the convoking of the Second Vatican Council, when even the then Pope lamented that "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church"? Within a few years, there was outright rebellion against Church doctrine and discipline amongst both the clergy and laity: and the sixties and seventies being what they were, with sexual boundaries well and truly breached, it is sadly unsurprising that even the most vile crimes against children were both committed with impunity and, what is worse, not dealt with in the ways that both State and Church law separately prescribe.

There was a taboo against believing dark tales of pedophilia, certainly: but there was a very clear duty to report, to investigate, to convict and punish cases of such crimes. Instead, too often powers both secular and ecclesiastical preferred to look the other way, to deny such horrors could exist, and quietly to move suspected offenders into new hunting grounds, pretending that any problems would thereby evaporate, rather than multiply.  There was much ignorance of the problem of pedophilia, let alone of its rapacious, insatiable drive; and the psychological advice proferred at the time tended if anything to downplay its seriousness.  Too often, the naively trusting were simply unable to accept that persons in holy orders could ever do something so terrible.

Catholics in the know are quite familiar with the usual protestation of Church authorities when faced with complaints, whether about preaching, or the conduct of the liturgy, or the vilest crimes against the innocent: "Nothing is wrong, everything is fine," too many say, even now, about all these matters and more.  Would that the matters about which the faithful complain without being heeded were minor!

There is the strange refusal to actually believe in and try to enforce "moral laws" – hence, to say nothing of molestation, the decline in Mass attendance, and the vast increase in cohabitation and contraception, are matters not even worried over, despite the fact that by the standard of official Catholic moral beliefs, all these matters are serious mortal sins that drag souls down to Hell.

There is the like refusal to enforce canon law – to say nothing of the penalties contained in the Code of Canon Law that ought be enforced against priests who break most grievously the Sixth Commandment, the penalties provided for many offences against the canons (for instance, the withholding Holy Communion from notorious public sinners, such as politicians who vote to legalize abortion and speak in favour of abortion, despite claiming to be Catholics in good standing) are not enforced.

And as for secular law, surely anyone alerted to any person, let alone a priest, who might be committing serious crimes, whether sexual or otherwise, ought advise the relevant law enforcement agencies immediately – that's just common sense.  How can too many have mouthed platitudes and yet done nothing while the young were most cruelly raped?  Their pretense of religion is vain, their sin is manifest, their hypocrisy beneath contempt, their fate hellfire if they do not repent in dust and ashes: one fears that they but play at belief in Christ, else they would not so casually spit in His face.  "Inasmuch as ye have done unto the least of My brethren, ye have done so unto Me," says the Son of God.

Yes, truly "others in the organisation don't force any compliance. That's anarchy." Many a wit has observed that no one has obeyed authority in the Church since 1968: and worse still, no one has attempted to enforce authority for as long. Rather than do what might seem harsh, bishops have sat on their hands.  Paul VI notoriously acted as a very Hamlet rather than seriously attempt to reimpose stronger control on the Church in his day.  Did they fear the spectre of schism? Instead of a schism, they have engendered squalor, the filth of moral turpitude and outrageous crime.

On paper, the law of the land is clear, and always has been. On paper, canon law is likewise clear, and should likewise have been implemented. On paper, the moral teachings of the Church – not those of the parallel magisterium – are just as unchanging.  Recall, however, a sad corollary to Neuhaus' Law: A doctrine not preached (or a discipline not enforced) is not believed.

A priest who commits such vile crimes, even once, let alone over and again, upon being found out, should be tried and then subjected to every penalty of canon law, just as his crimes against the secular law should be tried and then punished by imprisonment. A priest (or anyone else) who comes to repent of such sins should, when confessing such, be most earnestly counselled to go and turn himself in (a priest whom I know and respect explained that this is what a confessor would be expected to do if he heard such a confession).

Any priest who, upon hearing such a confession, merely prescribed some light penance without requiring the penitent to turn himself in, has – I would argue strongly – himself abused the Sacrament, outraging Christ the Judge (Whose representative he is) by giving so wrongly lenient a verdict.  In any case, I rather suspect that pedo priests rarely darkened the door of the confessional – just as with the vast number of laity who haven't been to confession since 1968.  Those hardened in sin rarely repent.

Anarchy in the Church is also a result of – mock not – the radically decentralized structure of the Church. It amuses me greatly that so many seem to think Cardinal Pell ought resign, as if he has any control at all over all the dioceses of Australia, or as if he has any responsibility for matters in Sydney prior to his translation thereto in 2001, or in Melbourne before and after his tenure there (1996-2001).  Is the repetition of his name simply because his is the only bishop's name that most people know?

No bishop has any authority outside his own diocese; titles such as Archbishop or Cardinal, let alone President of the Bishops' Conference, are merely honorary.  What does one bishop know of the priests in another diocese? Only what he may be told by another diocese regarding a priest of that diocese if he be moved from that diocese into the diocese of the bishop in question. What does a bishop know of the priests of any religious order or congregation? Only what that body, a true imperio in imperium, may tell him.

And priests in their parishes are, in truth, quite independent of outside authority: there being a shortage of priests, they are rarely severely dealt with, since bishops have so few with which to man their churches. Very grave financial irregularities are one of the few reasons priests are suddenly removed from office; until recently, it is alleged, even sexual scandals were not acted on until matters were near to public exposure; as for any doctrinal or liturgical irregularities, they are tolerated always and everywhere, unless the Vatican itself becomes involved (as with the invalid baptisms conducted for decades in South Brisbane, or the nonsense foolishly declared publicly by the late bishop of Toowoomba, a man who in the Pope's own view lacked the theological acumen to be a bishop).

Until the state of law, that is, the state of justice and equity, is restored within the Church, by obedience to Divine law, ecclesiastical law and secular law, there is no hope for real change.  Too often sentiment, and much indulgent prating about "love" and "mercy" while practising neither, or worse, favouring the abuser over the victim, have been the poor substitutes for the tranquillity of order that has been sadly lacking for decades.

Should not priests be most angered and righteously indignant against those wolves in sheep's clothing, their errant fellow clerics? I would have more respect for bishops and priests if they called for the harshest penalties, and sought manfully to have them enforced, against predators, Judases, in their ranks. The silence of the many can appear to betoken consent in the eyes of the cynical world.

In respect of the most terrible crimes of clerical sexual abuse against children, the chickens have come home to roost: the Church's reputation is in tatters, priests are looked upon as potential molesters, and the body that Christ established to continue His saving work on earth is seen by too many as a vile nest of vipers spewing forth poison, a corrupting influence from which the young must be protected.

So great is the moral panic at the moment, that even the inviolability of confession is being attacked – rather naively, it must be said, since so few go to confess these days in any case, and the sort of priest who goes to confession regularly is hardly likely to be a child abuser, just as murderers and thieves can scarcely be expected to be habitués of the confessional!  As I once heard said, the worse the sin, the less likely it is to be confessed, and vice versa.

In any case, even if – which God avert – it were mandated that priests report all they hear in confession about sex crimes against children, how on earth would such be enforced? It is obviously ridiculous to attempt to impose such a law, given, for example, the words of the Bishop of Darwin to-day, that he would rather die than reveal the secrets of the confessional, and the words to me of a wise priest, who said that this issue perhaps alone unites all priests, left and right, liberal and conservative, in that to a man they would rather go to prison than break the seal.

Even if, as another put it, thousands of priests were imprisoned for refusing to break the seal, still it would effect nothing, the discipline of the Universal Church would never change. How could anyone be convicted of not divulging matters heard in confession anyway, since there would be no way to prove that they were hiding anything anyway (since, one suspects, ASIO wouldn't be up to the job of bugging every confessional).

Pray that the Royal Commission being established here in Australia to inquire into child abuse will truly uncover the truth, be it ever so uncomfortable: for great is the truth, and it shall prevail.

Laud's prayer for the Church is apposite:

GRACIOUS Father, we humbly beseech Thee to bless Thy holy Catholic Church, and fill it with truth and grace. Where it is corrupt, purge it; where it is in error, direct it; where anything is amiss, reform it; where it is right, strengthen and confirm it; where it is wanting, furnish it; where it is divided and rent asunder, heal the breaches thereof, O Thou Holy One of Israel, for Jesus Christ’s sake, who with Thee and the Holy Ghost now liveth and reigneth, world without end.  Amen.

What about Punishment?

An auxiliary bishop in Los Angeles has resigned, owing to the unfortunate revelation that he has two teenage children.  A handwringing statement of "sadness and shock" emanates from the Archbishop: but what about the justified anger and rebuke due to such a shocking piece of episcopal hypocrisy?  Meanwhile a Canadian bishop has been imprisoned for possession of immoral images of children.  (There is of course a difference between an immoral but non-criminal relationship engaged in on the sly, and criminal, outrageous perversion plotted in secret: the former is less wicked than the latter, as being less against the order of nature; and only the latter results in a custodial sentence.)

In both cases – as, horrible to say, in many more – the Church hierarchy should not limit itself to passive sentimental messages expressing "sadness and shock": the hierarchy should rebuke and punish such sins and crimes, making examples of their perpetrators, rather than keeping silent in the face of such scandals.  Indeed, in the case of the whoring bishop, rather than letting him scuttle off to his concubine and bastards, what about imposing ecclesiastical penance on him on pain of excommunication, such as a long stay in a monastic cell on bread and water?  He's had his fun, let him pay for it.  If he decides to take such medicine, well and good; if not, tough.

When was the last time such a clerical malefactor was given a public warning of the threat of eternal damnation hanging over his corrupted soul?  Where are the justly harsh words scolding such perverts and hypocrites?  Our Lord did not whine about how the Pharisees made Him feel "shocked and sad", no; He named them whited sepulchres, vipers, and worse.  In all this, such stinging rebuke and harshness is not intended to drive such sinners to despair, but rather to wake them up, that they repent and by grace are saved, and to teach others to fear lest they fall.  Our Lord did not say, Go, and keep on sinning!

The morning newspaper mentioned in regard to this latest L.A. outrage that the Pope has said – I am searching for the original quotation* – that those clergy who cannot keep their vows should resign.  (This is of course a corollary of what the Apostle says: "If they do not contain themselves, let them marry" – I Cor. vii, 9.)  That should hardly be news!  If a man cannot keep his vows, then he ought seek to be dispensed from them, for the good of his soul, that, having sinned, he may be saved at the last (and not to mention averting some of the damage the scandal will cause when sooner or later it breaks).

(*From the news media: "The pontiff has demanded action be taken in the case of priests who are homosexual or married, calling on those concerned to hand in their resignations if they cannot abide by their vow of chastity.")

After all, the last Bishop of Wilcannia-Forbes quietly resigned when some moral failure of his from the past threatened to become public.  At the time, nothing was said, but some months later a reticent remark to that effect was made public.  I would add that, rather than giving the impression of sweetheart deals (perhaps in the literal sense!), there should be nowadays a severe public rebuke addressed to such an errant prelate, and the assignment of quite some penance for his crime.

In the past, certain religious orders ran penitentiaries for priests and religious guilty of ecclesiastical misdemeanours, and these were known for meting out severe and certain punishment.  It appears from an amusing post on Fr Z's blog that like institutions exist even to-day, despite the nannification of the Church since Vatican II, given his report of a criminal, assigned to a Franciscan monastery as part of his sentence, who escaped and demanded to be sent back to prison!

Why do priests – if they have such skeletons in their closets – agree to be made bishops?  They must know that in this prurient age their faults and failings will be made known.  Vaulting ambition o'erleaps itself, as the Bard remarked.

In sum, priests and bishops who commit notorious sins should be given a stinging rebuke in public, and a sentence of penance and fasting on pain of excommunication.  Otherwise, it appears that there is no justice, but rather for them an understanding wink from their peers.

******

(Surprise, surprise, that auxiliary bishop was no great supporter of anti-abortion activism, but on the contrary aided and abetted ministry, questionably Catholic in attitude, to those with same-sex attractions; and was a fairly stereotypical social justice activist himself, right down to, as mentioned, his insouciance about abortion.  One particularly selfish remark of his was that Catholic media reporting clerical sexual crimes should speak with "love and mercy" – what a vile loathsome hypocrite!

(And the Archdiocese of Los Angeles now undertakes to help pay for the education of his illbegotten offspring!  On the contrary, the ex-bishop should do some work and raise the money for that himself, as the breadwinner for his family, for that is what he owes them in justice. I am outraged on behalf of all Catholics there, now expected to pay for the benefit of his sins. How typical that those who prate of justice lift not a finger to work for what is just in their own case, but expect society at large to pay up.)

Not a Pervert Priest, Deo gratias

Investigations having determined there is no substance to the allegations raised by Abp Hepworth of the T.A.C. against Monsignor Dempsey of the Archdiocese of Adelaide, I wish to make it plain that the latter has been cleared of all imputation of criminal acts.  I have corrected my earlier post about this sad story accordingly.

The only good to be drawn out of this mess is that, Deo gratias! no filthy crime was committed, according to the result of this investigation, and instead the memory of one man (troubled by other sufferings inflicted by perverts) proved inaccurate, the actions of another intemperate, and the trials of a third issued in a declaration of innocence.  I suppose that is something for which to be grateful.

Pervert Priest?

1999:

"The Vicar-General of the Adelaide Archdiocese, Monsignor Ian Dempsey, was also quoted in The Advertiser. He noted the concern expressed at the falling number of seminarians and commented that the Church's "restrictive understanding and interpretation of sex within the whole category of love and intimacy" followed a history of male supremacy and patriarchy." (AD2000 Vol 12 No 4 (May 1999), p. 4)

2011:

Monsignor Ian Dempsey, now parish priest of Brighton, is named by Senator Xenophon as the alleged rapist of Archbishop Hepworth of the T.A.C., when the latter was a young Catholic priest.  Senator Xenophon told the Senate : ''The people of the Brighton parish have the right to know that for four years allegations have been outstanding that the priest, Ian Dempsey, raped John Hepworth and that church leadership has failed to make appropriate inquiries into this matter and that church leadership had failed to stand this priest down as a matter of course while inquiries take place. Sexual abuse flourishes because people keep secrets. For the people of South Australia this was a secret that in good conscience I did not feel I could, or should, keep.''

******

UPDATE: These allegations have now been investigated, and it has been determined that there is no substance to them.

******

[I delete two sentences, that speculated about a possible link between the quoted remarks above and the allegations made, and also predicted the Monsignor wouldn't be a parish priest much longer – for clearly these thoughts were incorrect.]

Recall that Cardinal Pell "stood aside" as Archbishop of Sydney while allegations against him – allegations found to be false – were made; so, if that was done in his high-profile case, why not in this?

[I still wonder about this last point, but perhaps the allegations were even to begin with considered to have so little substance as not to warrant such a treatment.]

Changes to the Sacred Heart Litany - in response to Clerical Sexual Abuse?

At the Papal Vigil for John Henry Newman's Beatification, the Litany of the Sacred Heart will be recited before the Blessed Sacrament exposed.  However, leaving aside the particular translation used, I was intrigued to note that half a dozen or so of the traditional invocations have been omitted, and likewise new ones inserted.  Herewith, the changes:

1.  After "Heart of Jesus, well-spring of all virtue" (in the Latin original, Cor Jesu, virtutum omnium abyssus), the next seven invocations are left out – so no "most worthy of all praise... king and centre of all hearts... in which are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge... in which dwelleth all the fulness of the divinity... in which the Father is well pleased... of whose fulness we have all received... desire of the eternal hills";

2.  After "Heart of Jesus, fountain of life and holiness" (Cor Jesu, fons vitæ et sanctitatis), nine new invocations are inserted:

• Heart of Jesus, source of healing,
• Heart of Jesus, sharer in our sorrow,
• Heart of Jesus, safe-guarder of the vulnerable,
• Heart of Jesus, friend of the betrayed,
• Heart of Jesus, companion of the ignored,
• Heart of Jesus, face of the misjudged,
• Heart of Jesus, wounded by our failings,
• Heart of Jesus, bearer of our sufferings,
• Heart of Jesus, acquainted with grief,

(then the expected invocation, "Heart of Jesus, atonement for our sins", in Latin, Cor Jesu, propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, and so through to the end).

These inserted phrases sound to me awfully like allusions to the sufferings of those members of Christ subjected to clerical sexual abuse, and therefore as implicit supplications to the Sacred Heart of Our Lord to grant healing to those poor victims so shamefully and evilly mistreated, then rejected and ignored for too long...

A New Gregorian Reform

There is so much filth in the Church; how often is Jesus received into cold and empty hearts – thus the terrible words spoken by Pope Benedict just before his elevation to the Papacy, words so terrible because so true.

The filth and scandals of the Church indeed make the Bride of Christ appear more like the Whore of Babylon.  This but hastens the loss of faith that characterises the West – with more and more loss of faith comes more and more laxity of morals, the two compounding and speeding the rush into the abyss.

What is needed is a new Gregorian Reform.  Just as the mediæval Church was swept clean of clerical concubinage and all manner of compromise with the secular world of its day, so the same is very much needed now.

After all, what does the ongoing exposure of cases of clerical sexual abuse reveal, but that much that should have been resolutely punished and purged was instead indulgently covered up, to the terrible harm of the little ones of Christ?

There are priests living in open concubinage: in that Austrian diocese where the appointment of a new bishop was aborted, for example – a priest there openly boasted in the media of this shame.  There are priests who have not kept their vows, but have wallowed in the mire.  I speak not here of those who have gone so far beyond all decency as to commit crimes, but of those who have followed the way of the world.

The Catholic laity cannot be excused, for it were hypocrisy to condemn priests for being unchaste, when their flocks are full of fornicators, lovers of self-abuse and pornography, sodomites, those who have abandoned their spouses to take up with new partners, and the multitudes who contracept and abort.

A simple principle: if a doctrine or precept be not preached, it is not believed.

When was the last time, gentle reader, you heard a sermon or any other instruction that warned against these sins?

This principle is so frightening!  Yet I more and more believe it to be true.

Many bishops and their clergy are not so much dumb dogs that do not bark, as quite satisfied with the way modern mores promote all manner of immorality: they do not speak out against any vices, because they do not consider them wrongful, and in some cases wink at them, and even indulge in them themselves.

What the medicine for this gangrene?  In some cases, the diseased limb must be cut off: if more clergy were suspended, defrocked, or even excommunicated for their moral turpitude, it would be a salutary lesson for all.

Given the ongoing scandal of clerical sexual abuse, and the culture of wilful blindness if not culpable negligence, and even of actual cooperation in evil that it reveals, it will not be long before bishops not just priests go to prison, and rightly so.

Which local episcopate will be the first to thus fall; which local episcopate will be the first to be dismissed en masse?  One fears it may come to that soon enough.  The current goings-on in Belgium presage this.  Ireland will not be the only land needing an Apostolic Visitation, and not a smiling whitewash either, but a thoroughgoing exposure and rooting out of all perversion.

But of course, the true, lasting remedy is sound preaching that leads to conversion, a conversion expressed by repentance and confession, with the intention to go and sin no more.  For this, all orthodox priests must labour yet the more.  The example that truly converts is that of personal holiness.

All glory be to God for raising up Pope Benedict to begin the cleansing of the Augean stables; may the Lord inspire him and his successors to be new Gregories, that the Church may be restored to purity, for the salvation of all.

Shitten Shepherds

For if a preest be foul, on whom we truste,
No wonder is a lewed man to ruste;
And shame it is, if a prest take keep,
A shiten shepherde and a clene sheep.
Wel oghte a preest ensample for to yive,
By his clennesse, how that his sheep sholde lyve.

— The Canterbury Tales, The General Prologue, ll. 503-8

Chaucer indeed put it best: there is something wrong in the Church when there are "shitten shepherds and clean sheep".  I was very pleased, therefore, to read over at The Anglo Catholic, that Pope Benedict is, it seems, now making clear his intention to clear out the corrupt episcopate, riddled with mediocrity and malfeasance, with incompetence and bad will.  All power to him!

Allowing matters to slide, Popes since Paul VI have lamely presided over the most atrocious collapse in standards.  A bishop ought be an example of holiness and orthodoxy (the two being inseparable), and, moreover, possessed of a sure grasp of good order.  Where are the bishop-saints of old?  Too many bishops are a joke.  And guess what happens when fools are promoted above their station?  Now all the chickens have come home to roost: in many places gross maladministration, complicity even in crimes, has reached such a pitch as to be intolerable.

How comes it, by the way, that such a deviant as Rembert Weakland, emeritus Archbishop of Milwaukee, has not long since been degraded from the episcopate, ever since it became known that he paid off his male lover (catamite? or sodomite?) with diocesan funds?  He covered up for other evil priests who committed sexual abuse too.  Unblushingly, now he openly declares his perversion.  Quite rightly Pope Benedict has spoken about the need to purge out all such filth in the Church.

As the then Cardinal Ratzinger said when leading the Stations of the Cross on Good Friday 2005, just before his election, when reflecting upon the third Fall, at the 9th Station:

...Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church? How often is the holy sacrament of his Presence abused, how often must he enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! What little respect we pay to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where he waits for us, ready to raise us up whenever we fall!...

What a herculean task is before our agèd Supreme Pontiff: to wash the Augean stables clean... as he prayed then, leading us in prayer, let us all pray now:

Lord, your Church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side. In your field we see more weeds than wheat. The soiled garments and face of your Church throw us into confusion. Yet it is we ourselves who have soiled them! It is we who betray you time and time again, after all our lofty words and grand gestures. Have mercy on your Church; within her too, Adam continues to fall. When we fall, we drag you down to earth, and Satan laughs, for he hopes that you will not be able to rise from that fall; he hopes that being dragged down in the fall of your Church, you will remain prostrate and overpowered. But you will rise again. You stood up, you arose and you can also raise us up. Save and sanctify your Church. Save and sanctify us all.

When Good Men Do Nothing

Now is the time for all good men to... stand up for what is right, and oppose what is wrong, while all the crowd goes mad, baying for blood.

Whose blood?  That of "a leering old villain in a frock".

I never thought to see the day when on the radio I would hear that most respondents to a survey agreed that the Pope should be arrested!  I felt sick.

The servant is no better than his Master; the crowd will always choose Barabbas.

We are in the midst of a moral panic; while priests by percentages both relative and absolute are less likely than other categories to abuse children, they (being different than other men) are the ones always singled out.  We seem to forget that a like, or even a larger percentage, of non-Catholic ministers, despite notoriously being married (and therefore "normal"), abuse children also; and that if one wanted to stamp out child abuse, one would rigorously guard minors against de facto partners and the like, who are the commonest and likeliest practitioners of such evils.

Is the sexual abuse of children by priests and religious a horror?  Of course.  Is it the case that the Church is rotten to the core, and deserving of every punishment for colluding in such crimes?  Of course not.  These crimes, dreadful though they are, are the acts of a repellent minority, acting clean contrary to every teaching of God and His Church.  It would be ludicrous as well as offensive to claim that the Pope (or his predecessors) ordered priests to commit wicked acts, or laughed evilheartedly at their commission.

From the outside, the Church appears monolithic: but in reality, authority is quite decentralized; indeed, since 1968 and all that, most laity and many priests have been anything but obedient to the teachings of the Church, and for priests it is only their bishop to whom they are answerable in all practical matters.  Bishops are the ones who ought bear blame for negligence in applying due process to accusations against their errant priests.

It was the naivete and in some cases the outright negligence of bishops that permitted a tiny minority of priests to get away with pedophile crimes.  Yet I know of not one bishop who has come before any secular court, let alone been justly punished for complicity in such offences.  Bishops have resigned for comprehensively stuffing up the administration of their dioceses in these matters, yes; good riddance to such shitten shepherds (as Chaucer would say); but it was not the entire episcopate that failed, no more than did the vast majority of the presbyterate.

Even now, more priests and religious keep their vows than do married couples: check out the divorce statistics!  People would like to believe that spooky men in cassocks are all child abusers - when step-fathers and other relatives are far more dangerous.

Given the neglect of canon law, not to mention adhesion to the traditional moral and doctrinal teachings of the Church by so many since Vatican II, while societal morals have extraordinarily loosened, it is easy to appreciate how sinful men turned from praying to preying, and escaped for a time the punishment they deserved.  The centrifugal tendencies in the Church since the Council are to blame for this, not the centre, whose authority has crumbled, and is only slowly being restored.

Furthermore, the crimes of sinful priests that have been successively uncovered and finally punished occurred decades ago: if Supreme Pontiffs are to be tasked with why such wickedness was not stamped out, then Paul VI and, ahem, even John Paul II would be the ones whose decisions need examining by an unbiassed investigation (I strongly suspect that it would be found that the crimes and mixups occurred at a lower level).

There have been vile Popes down the ages, scandalous sinners completely unworthily of their most holy office (which they defiled): men such as Alexander VI, the Borgia Pope, or the horrendous tenth and eleventh century Popes, John XII and Benedict IX.  But no one but an ignorant fool - or a malicious one - would rank the current Pope with them.

Attempts to drag up cases that are somehow associated with Benedict XVI, and to misreport them so as to make him appear culpable, are repellent and have been comprehensively rebutted.  The truth is clean contrary: Benedict is part of the solution, not the problem!

The media conspicuously has not reported the unfolding scandal about Fr Marcial Maciel, disgraced founder of the Legionaries of Christ, who turns out to have been a drug abuser, an abuser of seminarians,  the father of many children, and an expert at bribery: what a conman!  (See the NCR's exposé, parts 1 and 2.)  He died unrepentant in a horrible scene reminiscent of the death of Judas.  Yet the then Cardinal Ratzinger was unable to purge out this filth until he assumed the Petrine Throne as Benedict XVI.  He could not effect the needed tightening of Church discipline that he advocated until he gained the plenary power.  Since then, the Legionaries have been under investigation - ought not they (at least their senior leadership, who must have known something of the Founder's mendacity) be suppressed?

Yet we have that notorious arch-atheist Dawkins (whose attacks on religion betray his utter inability to comprehend this topic - however great he may be in his own field of study, his embarrassingly mediocre antireligious writings demonstrate that he is out of his field and out of his depth, betraying his lack of any philosophical training: I write as a B.Sc.(Hons) and a B.Theol.) now crying out that the Pope ought be arrested - arrested! - when he comes to visit Scotland and England later this year.

(This press release from Catholic legal organizations explains how wrongheaded, how detrimental to public order and safety, is this ridiculous proposal, bereft of any foundation in law or reason.)

A creature named Ellis has written what I can only protest, complain about and condemn as a hate-filled diatribe and incitement to violence against the Church in general, and priests and above all the Pope.  What an utter disgrace that the ABC should permit such hate speech!

It is evident that the secular elite, such as it is, is milking the scandal and, most inexcusably, using it as a pretext to attack him whose teachings they hate: Pope Benedict himself.  God preserve him!

Thus say the wicked:

"But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth.  Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life.  He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the [vicar of the] son of God.  He is become a censurer of our thoughts.  He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different.  

"We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.  Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.  For if he be the true [vicar of the] son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.  Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience.  Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words."

These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. 

(Wisdom iii, 12-21)

Who are our age's real criminals, I wonder?  In centuries to come the abortion of hundreds of millions will be considered the irreparable stain upon our dark age.  Who are our very own genocidaires, openly going unpunished, nay, lauded?  With Nietzsche our Western civilization declares, "Evil, be thou my good".

I do fear that the rising tide of irrational hatred against the Church, priests and His Holiness will issue soon enough in violence.  When will the first church be vandalized or burnt down, the first innocent priest attacked?

I suspect that if Pope Benedict is assaulted or worse - which God avert! - his enemies would be delighted.

Anti-Catholic persecution is growing.  When will we wake up to the danger we are in?  We've been asleep, dumb dogs that will not bark, not living as witnesses to truth; as is notorious (and unsayable), followers of a certain other religion are not backward about protesting in a violent, literally un-christian manner, when their beliefs are attacked...

No wonder anti-Catholicism is the new anti-Semitism.

But in all this, good, being ever stronger than evil, will have the triumph.  Napoleon imprisoned the Pope and dreamt he would destroy the Church; who won?  Diocletian had a similar plan; he but sent countless martyr-saints to heaven.  St Sixtus II was dragged from the altar to his execution, but reigns with Christ in heaven, while his pagan foes went down to hell; Rome became Christian, and the old gods were abandoned.

It is no coincidence that the Devil prompted attacks upon the Church, raging in furious malice at the most holy season of Easter: but Christ defeated death at Easter, and His is the Victory.  It is for us to put our house in order, for the time of reckoning is with us.

As a friend once said, Catholics would be more faithful if the enemies of Christ "were burning priests on Bourke Street" (central Melbourne, leading up to Parliament House).

Perhaps we shall soon find out.

The Pope Writes to Ireland

His Holiness Benedict XVI has just issued a Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, a letter whose contents are of interest worldwide, given the ongoing emergence of scandals deriving from vile incidents of sexual abuse of children by priests:

Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Church in Ireland, it is with great concern that I write to you as Pastor of the universal Church. Like yourselves, I have been deeply disturbed by the information which has come to light regarding the abuse of children and vulnerable young people by members of the Church in Ireland, particularly by priests and religious. I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way Church authorities in Ireland dealt with them.

Note that last phrase: the Pope and all Catholics are dismayed by these acts, "and the way Church authorities in Ireland dealt with them".

He well details the causes (n.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.

Only by examining carefully the many elements that gave rise to the present crisis can a clear-sighted diagnosis of its causes be undertaken and effective remedies be found. Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include: inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life; insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates; a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures; and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person. Urgent action is needed to address these factors, which have had such tragic consequences in the lives of victims and their families, and have obscured the light of the Gospel to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing.

The Pope does not shrink from directly addressing those priests and religious who have abused children, laying before them the terrible truth (n.7):

You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres. Those of you who are priests violated the sanctity of the sacrament of Holy Orders in which Christ makes himself present in us and in our actions. Together with the immense harm done to victims, great damage has been done to the Church and to the public perception of the priesthood and religious life.

I urge you to examine your conscience, take responsibility for the sins you have committed, and humbly express your sorrow. Sincere repentance opens the door to God’s forgiveness and the grace of true amendment. By offering prayers and penances for those you have wronged, you should seek to atone personally for your actions. Christ’s redeeming sacrifice has the power to forgive even the gravest of sins, and to bring forth good from even the most terrible evil. At the same time, God’s justice summons us to give an account of our actions and to conceal nothing. Openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God’s mercy.

He addresses stern words to the Irish hierarchy (n.11):

It cannot be denied that some of you and your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse. Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations. I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness. I appreciate the efforts you have made to remedy past mistakes and to guarantee that they do not happen again. Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence. Clearly, religious superiors should do likewise. They too have taken part in recent discussions here in Rome with a view to establishing a clear and consistent approach to these matters. It is imperative that the child safety norms of the Church in Ireland be continually revised and updated and that they be applied fully and impartially in conformity with canon law.

Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people towards the Church to which we have consecrated our lives. This must arise, first and foremost, from your own self-examination, inner purification and spiritual renewal. The Irish people rightly expect you to be men of God, to be holy, to live simply, to pursue personal conversion daily. For them, in the words of Saint Augustine, you are a bishop; yet with them you are called to be a follower of Christ (cf. Sermon 340, 1). I therefore exhort you to renew your sense of accountability before God, to grow in solidarity with your people and to deepen your pastoral concern for all the members of your flock. In particular, I ask you to be attentive to the spiritual and moral lives of each one of your priests. Set them an example by your own lives, be close to them, listen to their concerns, offer them encouragement at this difficult time and stir up the flame of their love for Christ and their commitment to the service of their brothers and sisters.

The lay faithful, too, should be encouraged to play their proper part in the life of the Church. See that they are formed in such a way that they can offer an articulate and convincing account of the Gospel in the midst of modern society (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) and cooperate more fully in the Church’s life and mission. This in turn will help you once again become credible leaders and witnesses to the redeeming truth of Christ.

Benedict next recommends (n.14) that the Church do penance:

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.

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 loath to criticise the Pope, but it ought not be the laity to do penance, but the clergy whom they trusted!  I can too clearly see that some will take scandal at this.)

Most importantly, I think, the Pope announces a forthcoming Apostolic Visitation of certain dioceses, seminaries and religious orders, to get to the bottom of all these murky goings-on:

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.

Rather than here and now demanding wholesale resignations of prelates and religious superiors, he is to have a thorough investigation made, and no doubt will then decide exactly what ought be done with individuals, once the full responsibility of each is found out.

He ends by proposing the following prayer:

Prayer for the Church in Ireland

God of our fathers,
renew us in the faith which is our life and salvation,
the hope which promises forgiveness and interior renewal,
the charity which purifies and opens our hearts
to love you, and in you, each of our brothers and sisters.

Lord Jesus Christ,
may the Church in Ireland renew her age-old commitment
to the education of our young people
in the way of truth and goodness, holiness and generous service to society.

Holy Spirit, comforter, advocate and guide,
inspire a new springtime of holiness and apostolic zeal
for the Church in Ireland.

May our sorrow and our tears,
our sincere effort to redress past wrongs,
and our firm purpose of amendment
bear an abundant harvest of grace
for the deepening of the faith
in our families, parishes, schools and communities,
for the spiritual progress of Irish society,
and the growth of charity, justice, joy and peace
within the whole human family.

To you, Triune God,
confident in the loving protection of Mary,
Queen of Ireland, our Mother,
and of Saint Patrick, Saint Brigid and all the saints,
do we entrust ourselves, our children,
and the needs of the Church in Ireland.

Amen.