Showing posts with label corrupt clergy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corrupt clergy. Show all posts

Saturday, May 18, 2013

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!

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Philistines and Mockery

Too many are rather cruelly contrasting the simplicity of Pope Francis – especially his sartorial restraint – with what they caricature as the frippery of Pope Benedict's wardrobe: my ears had the nasty experience of hearing the latter described on SBS News this evening as a sort of ecclesiastical Barbie doll by their SBS Rome correspondent, who went on to mock poor Mgr Marini, a learned, devout and dedicated M.C., by claiming that, when Marini offered him the Papal mozzetta to wear for his first appearance, Francis replied (supposedly) "No more carnival attire".

Such a cruel remark would surely be unworthy of our new Supreme Pontiff, who by all accounts is humble, not rude; the offending phrase rather reveals more about those who delight to repeat it (I mention it in anger and sorrow only).

Australians of all nations are given to Philistinism, and scoffing at the appropriate and traditional vesture proper to officials of all sorts.

It is the sin of Judas to say "such and such should have been given to the poor", whereas it was for Christ Himself rightly to testify that the costly nard expended upon the veneration of His Sacred Body was a kindly and justified act given the special circumstances. The latter-day Judases who would celebrate the sacraments in rags tend not to be similarly self-denying in their secular lives; too often, they are self-satisfied middle-class liberals posing at playing poverty, and care not enough about God to expend much if anything when adoring Him.

Holy Church requires that the chalice and paten, as also other items used in divine worship, be of a certain quality, despite the cost thereof: for in determinate circumstances, it is justified and no sin to spend money on sacred things (and similarly in all the circumstances of everyday life).  St Francis, far from despising money spent on the upkeep of churches and on the liturgy, insisted upon careful regard for those things – while always serving the needs of the poor. One can – one ought – do both.

There is no absolute duty always and everywhere to give every last cent away to those needier than oneself – but in certain circumstances, there is indeed a duty to spend very much to help others, even at great cost to oneself: prudential judgement comes into play here. In general, it would be madness to sell all the goods of the Church, so that they fall into private hands and are never more seen by the public, in the false belief that to do so would (for a time) raise funds to advantage the poor, but – when prudence dictates – the sale even of the most valuable treasures may indeed be justified in particular circumstances, so as to satisfy pressing needs.

St Lawrence gave away the treasures of the Church to the poor, lest the pagans seize them; St Chrysostom reminds us to give alms to the poor, lest in giving a costly chalice we forget the beggar at church door; but neither the one nor the other would claim that the Church cannot morally possess good things, nor accept even precious vessels, provided the needy be rightly and fairly helped and aided.

But for a truly insulting display of mockery and hypocrisy, one need only glance (once is enough, I will not reproduce them here) at the twitterings of horrid Cardinal Mahony (how has he escaped prison?) – who maladministered his former archdiocese by sheltering pedo-priests, and thus occasioned payouts of hundreds of millions of dollars to their many victims (as fulsome online documentation reveals), rather than stop those evildoers before they molested, and with the money saved help the poor – a smug prelate who yet unblushingly affects joy at the "low church" arriving in place of the "high church" (the use of Anglican terminology is revealing in itself), and prophesies the disappearance of lace et al. 

If only such asinine whited sepulchres as himself would disappear! Hopefully the rumours about such proud and lying prelates being ordered to do penance in a strict monastery prove true.

Meanwhile, to attempt to "worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness" is but to do as Pope Francis himself has said: it is to promote through the media of vesture and music, precious metalwork and rich tapestry the True, the Good, and the Beautiful – since God is all these in Himself, to try and reflect such is evangelical and God-pleasing, be it done unselfconsciously, without conceited self-regard or odious self-love. It would be vile to accuse the recently-retired Benedict XVI of falling into such traps.

Dear Holy Father, please justly punish all ecclesiastics who have by deed or negligence gravely harmed the little ones of Christ, and don't worry too much if your M.C. lays out vestments not entirely to your taste (though of course you may properly insist upon sobriety in their style). I am sure you would agree that the latter trial, if fault it be, is but an imperfection easily to be borne, whereas the former  duty incumbent upon you is most pressing, given the grave scandal it occasions, let alone the demands of justice that compels it.

Friday, February 22, 2013

"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.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Self-Hating Catholics

A Lutheran Pastor of my acquaintance has told me of his discomfit when engaged in official ecumenical dialogue with Catholics – because the Catholic representatives all too often can't wait to bad-mouth and criticise the Catholic Church, the Pope, Cardinal Pell, and so forth, and are only too glad to proclaim their love for Bp Morris, while ostentatiously rejecting Catholic doctrine and morals.

I hear of a similar sorry incident that occurred only the other day.

Thank God, there are Catholics who love the Church and her teachings as being those of Christ, rather than hating Sancta Mater Ecclesia, setting up their own imagined Christ as an idol in place of Our Lord, and eagerly following, not the truth, the way and the life, but a lie that is sterile and leads out into the waterless waste.

I think of one ex-priest who in my hearing opined that the relics of St Thérèse (then being brought on a visit to Tasmania) were fit only for boiling up to make soup.  What a nasty blasphemer!

Or again, I recall a fellow who went to try his vocation in the Melbourne seminary back in the bad old days of the eighties: he left after a week or so, because every night the staff and students were drunk, and there wasn't even daily Mass.  In a seminary!  (When the future Cardinal Pell was Rector there for a few years way back then, he had a tremendous fight against staff and seminarians when he tried to reintroduce daily Mass, in Corpus Christi College if you please.)

Far too many of the clergy and religious are parasites, happy to suck the sap while spreading false teachings.  Were they to cease the pretense of playing Catholics, and set up their own church in which they might freely do as they list, no one would go to it: hence their determination to benefit from the perquisites of power.  Personally, I would prefer to see them honest men, who would either depart or repent: but they are blind and see not.

It takes little consideration to realize that, in a clerical and religious culture that winks at doctrinal dissent, there is place also for moral turpitude.  How can X, who preaches quite other than the Catholic faith, reprimand Y, who has suspiciously close relations with parishioners?  Both are guilty of differing forms of disobedience: it was only the employment of the secular courts in recent times that caused abusers to be removed and punished.  Perhaps a "truth in advertising" test case could be mounted against a priest who pretends to teach the Catholic religion, yet in fact propagates alien beliefs?

As Chesterton said, it must be so hard for those without moral principles to know how to act.

******

P.S. I was feeling rather angry and disillusioned when I wrote this.