“The Church’s reform disaster: No one wants to see the causes of the abuse scandal. Yet they can be clearly identified”: Martin Mosebach

Rorate Caeli ^ | July 24, 2023 | Martin Mosebach

[ebb tide]

“The Church’s reform disaster: No one wants to see the causes of the abuse scandal. Yet they can be clearly identified”: Martin Mosebach

This article by Martin Mosebach was published on February 10, 2022 in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. As far as I am aware, it was not translated into English at the time—but its message is more relevant than ever, with the elevation, as prefect of Doctrine of the Faith, of a bishop widely regarded as guilty of mishandling abuse cases.—PAK
 

The Church’s reform disaster: No one wants to see the causes of the abuse scandal. Yet they can be clearly identified

Martin Mosebach

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

February 10, 2022

(source)

No stone was left unturned: the Second Vatican Council also redefined the priests’ understanding of their ministry.

In the course of the dragging on abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, questions are being asked anew about the causes: Pope Francis wishes to have a fatal “clericalism” identified as the trigger; some bishops are convinced that the abuse of children and young people by priests is favoured by the “system” of the Church; others want to hold celibacy in particular responsible.

The Church as a whole must be completely renewed, “no stone should be left unturned,” they say, which seems somewhat exaggerated in view of the fact that the delinquents of the last sixty years are no more than three percent of the priests active during this period. It is apparently forgotten that the Church of the present day is by no means the encrusted and fossilised monster that it appears to be in these statements. Rather, it has undergone a revolution that is unparalleled in the entire history of the Church.

The Second Vatican Council, which ended sixty years ago, confirmed the outward form of the hierarchy, the leadership of the Church by the Pope and the bishops, as well as the traditional faith of the Church, but at the same time it set in motion a development that really “left no stone unturned”—the face of the Church has changed beyond recognition in these sixty years. And these changes have not come to an end—the truth is that this process has long since become uncontrollable, since the obedience structures of the post-conciliar Church have largely collapsed.

The years after the “new Pentecost”

Rome can still publish a catechism of Catholic doctrine that is very much in line with the tradition of two millennia, but it can no longer cause this catechism to even be considered in official academic theology, let alone in seminaries and religious education. Sixty years is a very short period of time in the history of the Church. During this time, the Church, which had survived the most severe upheavals up to that point, has crumbled in many places with unstoppable steadiness.

If the data are not mistaken, however, a high proportion of the cases of abuse can be recorded precisely in the decades following the Council. Anyone who seriously asks about the causes of this then swelling catastrophe will also have to take into account its “when”: the years that followed the “new Pentecost” of the Second Vatican Council.

One cannot expect such a questioning from the hierarchy—the Council itself has only just been canonised by the canonisation of the two Council Popes, John XXIII and Paul VI. Benedict XVI, who spoke about the abuse scandals from his resting place, also did not dare to touch on the role that post-conciliar developments had contributed. He only recalled that this period had coincided with the ‘68 revolt—with what was called “sexual liberation”, when intellectuals who are still highly respected today debated whether paedophilia should continue to be considered a crime. What he did not mention was the state of disarray the clergy found itself in as a result of the phenomena of post-conciliar disintegration, when the influence of the political revolt began to work within it.

The priest becomes invisible

In retrospect, however, this was precisely the undoing. The undermining of all authority and the sexual revolution came up against a priesthood that had been stripped of all the elements required to maintain its discipline. Literally from one day to the next, the order that had hitherto characterised the daily life of a priest was overturned.

The cassock and priest’s collar disappeared—the priest became invisible in public. The obligation to celebrate daily Mass was dropped—only those familiar with Catholic tradition can appreciate the disciplinary support this daily practice, combined with the obligation to make frequent confessions, is capable of providing. In theology and in priestly training, the sacramental character of the priesthood was, if not downright denied, then at least questioned. The “Depositum Fidei”, the actual tradition of faith, was tattered anyway. Obligations were considered obsolete.

The Christian religion’s claim to truth was now suspected of being totalitarian, violent and intolerant—by theologians, mind you, who interpreted the ominous Council motto of “aggiornamento” as a demand to constantly subject church doctrine to the prevailing mood. The idea of the sacrality of the priesthood was particularly outlawed. According to the traditional Catholic view, the priest acts at the altar “in persona Christi”: he embodies Christ during the rite, so he is by no means the “chairman” of a “liturgical celebration,” as it is called today, as if it were a party meeting.

Discipline and temptation

Anyone who would advocate this Catholic and orthodox view of the priesthood in a seminary today could at best expect to be laughed at. The liturgy of the Roman Mass, which had been handed down from ancient Christianity for more than 1,500 years, was replaced by a Mass Ordo written in subversive haste, which pushed back the sacredness of the rite as far as possible and reduced it to such an extent that a Protestant could hardly take offence at it any more. To this day, one can hear in the seminaries that celibacy will soon be dropped. A theologian who supports the teaching of recent popes that the Church cannot ordain women has no chance of a theological chair today [in Europe].

None of the last popes has resisted this erosion of the Catholic priesthood, even if they proclaimed otherwise from their chair. Of course one must not claim that a priest in the classical tradition cannot become a perpetrator of a sexual offence—there have been such cases at all times, even under the strictest observance—but it is certainly the case that it is easier for a priest who is integrated into the traditional discipline to master his temptations.

In this respect, the Roman assumption that paedophile crimes are a consequence of “clericalism” is downright grotesque; the opposite is the case. It is an inner-church, post-conciliar anti-clerical mentality, one that denies the special sacramental position of the priesthood, that has taken away important supports for priests to remain faithful to their obligations.

The bishops’ handling of the post-conciliar abuse scandal is incomprehensible if one sees only an evil esprit de corps at work, which does not want to cast a shadow over the Church’s works. Good will is also involved in many disasters. In this case, the good will sprang from a change of mentality that had gripped the entire Western world—a very general unease with the word punishment.

The mercy trap

Modern society no longer feels legitimised to punish—with some justification, because nowadays a generally binding morality is at least punctuated with a question mark. In today’s view, punishment is diametrically opposed to mercy. And the Church is merciful… what else?

For centuries, however, mercy, this indisputable quality of the Church, was understood differently. Punishment and mercy were an inseparable pair. Punishment was an important instrument of mercy. It opened the way to repentance and atonement for the sinner—and only this opened the way to mercy, which culminated in the forgiveness of guilt—in heaven, mind you, not on earth.

In the post-conciliar period, the Church very quickly slipped out of such thinking. Canonical criminal law was toned down; the Church’s own jurisdiction, which had been its pride for centuries—there are even martyrs for this own jurisdiction, such as St. Thomas Beckett—fell asleep.

The bishops saw the lamentable culprit sitting weeping before them and wanted to be human—merciful—even though Christian mercy remains incomplete without the struggle for the endangered soul. Those who are outraged today about this certainly misguided practice complain that mercy was shown to the perpetrators but not to the victims. They forget that the victims do not need mercy. They can demand the opposite: justice.

What reform should mean

It is not surprising that in view of the increasing number of cases of abuse, there are calls for a reform of the Church. But we must not forget what the term “reform,” well anchored in the history of the Church, meant until Vatican II: a restoration of discipline, a tightening of the reins, an end to profligacy and a return to the traditional order.

The “reforms” of the Second Vatican Council are the first in the entire history of the Church to deviate from this view; they no longer trusted the tradition to reach the people of the present and therefore relied on a general softening of practice and doctrine, although without successfully keeping people in the Church as a result of this pastoral relativism.

It is not a Church that is ossified in its rites and fossilised in its doctrines that has been losing the faithful in a steadily increasing stream since Vatican II, but rather, a Church that has softened in doctrine and become liturgically formless. It is not priests who have broken under the yoke of a rule alien to life and thereby become abusers, but those who have been released from clear spiritual supervision for decades.

Now that the “reform” disaster of sixty post-conciliar years is before everyone’s eyes in all its shameful extent, the Pope and many bishops, especially the German bishops, can think of nothing else than that they have not yet gone far enough in the radical dismantling of all that is proper to Catholicism. This is reminiscent of the short-sighted tailor who looks at a pair of mismatched trousers, tilts his head, and still wonders: “I’ve cut them three times, and they’re still too short!” 

[ebb tide]

Now that the “reform” disaster of sixty post-conciliar years is before everyone’s eyes in all its shameful extent, the Pope and many bishops, especially the German bishops, can think of nothing else than that they have not yet gone far enough in the radical dismantling of all that is proper to Catholicism. This is reminiscent of the short-sighted tailor who looks at a pair of mismatched trousers, tilts his head, and still wonders: “I’ve cut them three times, and they’re still too short!” 

[ebb tide]

Ping

[karnage]

I think this article makes many good points.

[texas booster]

BTTT

[Jim Noble]

It's easy to see that V II "liberated"or "set free" homosexual priests to be "out", or at least to change the door on the closet to something transparent.

But it's also true that the greatest monsters, the ones with hundreds of victims who profaned the eucharist and the confessional to abuse their victims and to cover up their crimes, were formed in the pre-V II church, a lot of them in America of the 1940s and 1950s when the Catholic Church was "strong".

Paul Shanley was ordained in 1960
John Geoghan was ordained in 1962
Joseph Birmimgham was ordained in 1960
Theodore Cardinal McCarrick was ordained in 1958
James Porter was ordained in 1959

This list could be made quite extensive. My point is, something was seriously wrong already BEFORE V II was convened.

St. Peter Damian wrote his book Libor Gomorrhianus, about priest homosexuality and abuse of children in 1050, that's 973 years ago!

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Thilly Thailor]

Great post. The problem in my opinion is the celibacy rule for parish priests. While I believe that there is clearly a celibate charism for monks, just as clearly celibacy for those priests most entrusted with the care of Catholic families has proven itself to be horribly destructive.

Why? Because it's a honey pot for young homosexual men. I spent a couple of years in seminary late 70s, and I believe that I was the only straight guy in there. They were basically all queer. It turns out that Catholic cultures like the Irish, Italians and Mexicans send their gay sons to the priesthood because it's a socially acceptable way not to have to deal with their organic inability to marry and form a family. They must be kept away from the life of families.

Like the Orthodox, I believe that we should keep the celibacy rule for monks and hierarchy (bishops and upward from there) but it should be abolished for any priests on the parish level or that regularly deals with Catholic families.

Gay men will, by their nature, tend to pervert the life of Catholic families.

[ebb tide]

... a lot of them in America of the 1940s and 1950s when the Catholic Church was "strong".

Yet the earliest ordination date of the notorious homo pedophiles you listed is only 1959, the same year Roncalli called for a Second Vatican Council.

Got any earlier examples? From the '40s for instance?

[Jim Noble]

I don’t think the case against “Franny” is strong enough to post about it.

[ebb tide]

I’m sorry; earliest ordination date you listed was Uncle Teddy’s in 1958, not 1959.

[ebb tide]

I don’t think the case against “Franny” is strong enough to post about it.

Bergoglio wasn't ordained a priest until 1969.

[Jim Noble]

All those ordained 1958-1962 were in seminary from early 1950s, which people often point to as a Golden Age for the Catholic Church in America.

[Jim Noble]

“Franny” is Francis Cardinal Spellman.

[Antoninus]

a lot of them in America of the 1940s and 1950s when the Catholic Church was "strong".

It is also about that time when the communist infiltration of the Church was in full swing. THAT's what was seriously wrong. We now know that the political Left's strategy called for infiltration and auto-demolition of all Western institutions. The Church was (and is) no exception. Leftists have no morals, so lying about who they are and what they're doing presents no problems for them. Until these evil-doers and those who enable them are washed out of the Church, things will continue to deteriorate.

[ebb tide]

Do you think the seminaries in the 1940s and 1950s were accepting the same kind and number of candidates as the ones post VC II are accepting?

Have you read, "Goodbye, Good Men"?

I'm still waiting to see your list of 1940's abusers.

[Jim Noble]

Well, how about St. Peter Damian’s extensive exposition of the problem 973 years ago?

I don’t have the knowledge or the skills to discuss the 1940s, someone else will have to do that.

[ebb tide]

Spellman was ordained in 1916.

I do not disagree with you that Church has always been plagued by homosexuals; e.g. Spellman; but I will disagree with you that the problem has not increased dramatically since VC II.

Unlike St Peter Damian, we now have a pope who throws up his hands and states, “Who am I to judge?”

[fr_freak]

Like the Orthodox, I believe that we should keep the celibacy rule for monks and hierarchy (bishops and upward from there) but it should be abolished for any priests on the parish level or that regularly deals with Catholic families.

How in the world would abolishing the celibacy requirement for priests relieve the homosexual problem? Heterosexual men who join the priesthood don't turn gay, and gay priests aren't going to stop molesting children just because their heterosexual colleagues can now have families. The only way to relieve the homosexual problem in the Church is to rid the Church of homosexuals in the clergy. Aggressively.

[Thilly Thailor]

How in the world would abolishing the celibacy requirement for priests relieve the homosexual problem? Heterosexual men who join the priesthood don't turn gay, and gay priests aren't going to stop molesting children just because their heterosexual colleagues can now have families. The only way to relieve the homosexual problem in the Church is to rid the Church of homosexuals in the clergy. Aggressively.

I believe I can answer your very fair question. It's this. The fact that the clergy is overwhelmingly gay is a terrible deterrent to straight men entering the seminary. I can tell you that I wasn't happy in my "pink palace" 45 years ago. It's a real turn off knowing that the men you would rely upon for support and companionship achieving celibacy can't fill that role since they're psychologically abnormal (by definition - in practice they all had identity issues are just weren't capable of true friendship with another man) and besides most of them weren't striving for celibacy in the first place. Nowadays they're on Grindr etc. So, no straight man in his right mind would want to associate with them.

Another reason is that the hierarchy is all so thoroughly gay that in practice straight men are pressured to accept their identities and lifestyle. It's really against the basics of the Christian life and no good man would want anything to do with it.

And you can't "aggressively" purge the clergy of gays for exactly that reason - the hierarchy is basically 100% queer and they'd never allow that unless they meet some other force in the clergy.

So, by ending the celibacy requirement we would create, with time, a cohort of straight men who would then vie with them for control of the hierarchy.

The problem we have as conservatives is that we operate in the private sphere and we really don't understand how bureaucracy works like Democrats do instinctively. This was Trump's great failing - he never understood the Deep State. If he had he would have fired Fauci day one.

Stalin understood bureaucracy. His slogan was, by the way, "the cadres determine everything." As the CPSU's Party Secretary (HR Director, in effect) created a Deep State by putting his men in all positions and once he accomplished that he turned around and exterminated his opposition.

We must do the same thing, except we don't need to exterminate them, we just need to purge them from the ranks of the clergy.

The only way to do that is to take over the Church's bureaucracy. When we do that we will sweep them from our lives.

And the only way to do that in practice is to end the celibacy rule, create a generation cohort of straight, married priests, and then let them start the struggle to wrest Church worldly power from the queers.

[fr_freak]

The fact that the clergy is overwhelmingly gay is a terrible deterrent to straight men entering the seminary...It's a real turn off knowing that the men you would rely upon for support and companionship achieving celibacy can't fill that role since they're psychologically abnormal (by definition - in practice they all had identity issues are just weren't capable of true friendship with another man) and besides most of them weren't striving for celibacy in the first place. Nowadays they're on Grindr etc. So, no straight man in his right mind would want to associate with them.

And not a single bit of that would change if you allowed priests to marry. They would still have to go through these homo-filled seminaries and be around an overwhelmingly high number of sodomites.

Yeah, the homosexuals have largely taken over the clergy in the Church, and that is a HUGE problem, but unraveling other sacred traditions isn't going to fix anything. Only removing the cancer will.

[Thilly Thailor]

But you don't answer the question of exactly how we "remove the cancer." We agree that the problem is that we have a lavender clergy that is destroying Catholic families. This homosexual clergy is so entrenched in the hierarchy that straight men will never be allowed into their Pink Palace Seminaries. So, how do you propose we "remove the cancer" under those circumstances?

I think that we first need to stop financing this nonsense. I never, never contribute to anything diocesan, perhaps with rare exceptions. What we need to do is set up a parallel church structure that is free of fags and then once we reach critical mass we move to capture the existing hierarchy. Admittedly, that's an enormous task. Something akin to a world war.

One suggestion is to set up non-gay training programs for young married men. This would have to be outside the structure of the hierarchy. How to accomplish that? Maybe it could be done with small groups of young, dedicated family men affiliated with conservative parishes and interconnected for theological study study online.

I'd like to hear your ideas for how we "remove the cancer."