A Catholic reader writes about the USCCB’s meeting, calling it “utterly pathetic and depressing.” More:
The lecture from [retired L.A. Cardinal Roger] Mahony is simply beyond belief. The fact that he had the temerity to speak at all is bad enough; the fact that no one rose to challenge him shows the depth of the clericalism you diagnose.
Has the word “homosexuality” even been uttered apart from the squishy remark by [San Francisco Bishop Salvatore] Cordileone and the indirect reference to [pro-gay celebrity Jesuit] James Martin? Even then, it’s only in a ‘sociological’ or empirical way, whether they should commission a new study to determine whether homosexuality is a causal factor in the abuse. Must we await a pronouncement from “science” in order to know or say anything about this?
This completely misses the more basic point and the deep root of people’s anger. It is not that homosexuality necessarily inclines one disproportionately toward abuse, though I have seen this charge invoked from the left as a way to de-legitimate those who are raising questions about homosexuality in the priesthood. Still to my knowledge, no one who is serious is making this claim, despite the fact that the instances of abuse are overwhelmingly homosexual.
It is rather that the open secret of pervasive, barely acknowledged homosexuality in the priesthood and among the bishops imposes a double life and compulsory dishonesty on the entire Church, making it all but impossible to think deeply or speak truly about the crisis of faith at the root of this thing, not to mention the more proximate causes of abuse.
If we were at all serious even about the diagnosis of clericalism, we would take a hard look at the connection between pervasive homosexuality among the clergy, the pervasive dishonesty which necessarily accompanies it, the self-referentiality of the bishop’s deliberations and the apparently irresistible temptation to substitute procedural and managerial thinking for real theological introspection. What relationship might there be between this open secret and the superficiality of our responses? In other words, we ought to think about the deep relationship between homosexuality and clericalism. They are not the opposites that they are made out to be.
It has become a public mantra (and one hears this from both sides), that we shouldn’t “use” the abuse crisis to advance a theological agenda. And I agree if by “theological” what you really mean is “political”, which is, sadly, most often the case — especially on the left. But this is the quintessence of managerial thinking: to reduce the abuse crisis as a brute fact and treat it as a discrete problem admitting of a discrete fix–if only we can get the right policies and structures in place. Whereas I maintain that we cannot even really understand the crisis of abuse if we treat it “merely” as a crisis of abuse and refuse to understand it theologically. We have to look inward (and upward), and I don’t know whether we remember how to do that.
Yes. The problem is not homosexuality or clericalism, but the way the two depend on each other. Even the “good” bishops who perfectly well see the problem of unchaste gay priests (and perhaps bishops) can’t bring themselves to talk about how it is killing the Church, because their clericalism is such that they won’t speak ill of each other.
Meanwhile, yesterday in Mississippi, the Department of Homeland Security raided the Diocese of Jackson’s offices in connection with an investigation of an allegedly HIV-positive priest who is suspected of bilking parishioners. The claim is that Father Lenin Vargas (really, that’s his name) told parishioners that he had a rare form of cancer, and was being sent by the diocese to Canada for specialized treatment. He set up a Go Fund Me to help pay his bills. In fact, he was being sent to Canada for psychological treatment of some sort. From the newspaper account:
One of the informants said Vargas actually went to Southdown Institute of Toronto, Canada, which among other things, is a sexual addiction facility for priests.
In March 2015, the Diocese of Jackson furthered Vargas’ cancer story by sending out email to priests in the diocese. Two informants said they believe the diocese was aware of Vargas’ diagnosis when he was sent to Canada.
“The Diocesan email stated that Vargas would be leaving for extensive treatment in the near future, and that he would be gone for a few months. What the email failed to state was that Vargas was not going away for cancer treatment. As a result, Vargas continued to raise money for his supposed cancer treatment. Your affiant (Agent Childers) believes the email was sent in order to perpetuate the cancer story, to hide Vargas’ HIV condition and protect the Diocese of Jackson from negative publicity,” the affidavit said.
In addition to the GoFundMe account money, St. Joseph parishioners and others donated more than $33,000 to Vargas and most of the money was spent on personal expenses. Two informants said that as of this year, Vargas was still claiming he had cancer.
If this account proves true, then the Diocese of Jackson not only let this creep con parishioners with his fake cancer story, they also let an HIV-positive, sex-addicted priest minister to people. Some spiritual father he is!
This is why many Catholics don’t trust bishops. Can you blame them?
UPDATE: Meanwhile, Father Martin praises Pope Francis for queering the Church. Excerpt:
The Jesuit priest noted that Francis’ words and actions show the pope’s commitment to advancing homosexuality within the Church. “What Pope Francis says and does, right?” he said. “What he says about LGBT people and what he does in terms of who he appoints,” he added.
Martin’s statements about Pope Francis deliberately appointing “gay-friendly” bishops and cardinals — such as Joseph Tobin — become all the more significant when read alongside statements made by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in August about Pope Francis going around normal processes to make such appointments.
About this, Viganò wrote: “The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.”
There’s video of Father Martin’s entire presentation at the link.Source Article: Why Catholic Bishops Can’t Solve The Crisis