After Dallas: Disappointment and Hope

After months of buildup to the bishops' conference, it seems strange that it has already come and gone so quickly. The best that can be said of the Dallas meeting is that it was a first step. Zero tolerance is a tough policy, and it was adopted against the counsel of no less than Cardinal Avery Dulles. But most Catholics remain dissatisfied! Why?

The Washington Post printed a poll of American Catholics on Wednesday, asking for their opinion of the conference, and two-thirds thought the bishops hadn't gone far enough in their actions against offending priests. The problem is that the bishops have a very deep hole to crawl out of.

For example, it strikes me as odd--and a bit depressing, really--that the message from the bishops' conference is that they have made the Church safe for our children. Aside from the obvious irony that the Church should have ALWAYS been safe for our children, it still doesn't address the problem of why it wasn't safe in the first place. As for me, I'm wondering why no one wanted to explore the possible causes of this mess: the problem of homosexuality in the priesthood, or the corruption of the seminary system since the 1960s, or the clericalism that is running rampant in the Church, or the bishops' responsibility in all of this, or... Well, you get the idea.

But fear not! All is not lost--not yet, anyway. For all of the disappointment in Dallas, there were at least two bright spots at the conference that give me hope for the future.

One of these luminaries is Governor Frank Keating from Oklahoma. As the chairman of the newly formed national review board to oversee handling of sex-abuse cases in the Church, his job will be to keep the bishops honest, and I have every faith that he will. He has a strong pro-family record, and his fresh face will be a welcome relief from what is rapidly becoming a tired scandal. I think we can trust him to be vigilant in his post: He has already promised that if he discovers a bishop shielding an abusive priest, he will ask the pope to remove that bishop from his office. Bravo, Governor Keating!

The other bright light at the conference was Cardinal Francis George of Chicago. While other bishops quibbled about the language of the charter, Cardinal George stood up and cut straight to the heart of the matter. He referred to a culture today of "secularized Protestantism...[one] which is both self-righteous and decadent," allowing people to act as they will with no fear of ramifications so long as they feel good about it. It is, as he described it, a kind of secularized simul justus et peccator (justified and sinner at the same time).

And isn't that really where the trouble lies? Hasn't this whole scandal come about because too many people are so busy justifying their actions that they've become blind to the real moral turpitude of them? It's this "do whatever feels right" attitude that has led to the decay of our seminaries and mass dissension in the ranks of lay Catholics. No charter from the bishops is going to fix that.

But the fact that Cardinal George was honest enough to admit it should give us all hope for the future. The many issues that fall under "self-righteous decadence" may not have been addressed in the small space of time available last weekend, but I think we can rest assured that they will not be ignored in the future.

With a seminary visitation and evaluation plan in the works, questions such as the suitability of homosexuals in the priesthood, the health of the seminaries, and the problem of clericalism will be forced to our reluctant bishops' attention. And with the likes of Governor Keating and Cardinal George pushing for total honesty, I think it will be sooner rather than later.

Good observations. He called attention to something that has puzzled me, which is, as he put it, "rampant clericalism." This is certainly true, and to some extent, clericalism has always been a problem in the Church.

But why, when the destruction of clericalism was proclaimed as one of the big goals of the post-Vatican II "reforms," have we ended up with even more of it?

The autocratic pastor and the distant, unconcerned bishop have always been features of Church life. But now we have a group who, although they perform fewer and fewer of the traditional priestly functions, regard themselves as somehow being the "real" Church, while the rest of us are just here to pay their salaries, buy off their boyfriends, etc.

I think part of it has to do with the gay mafia, since any profession that has a large number of gay men tends to a cliquishness that is almost unbelievable. If anybody here has ever worked in the arts, they'll understand what I'm saying!

But I think much of it is also attributable to confusion in these priests' minds over their real role. The laity does all sorts of things the priests used to do: visits the sick, brings Communion, distributes Communion, "plans the Liturgy"(whatever that means), does the readings, etc. The only thing marginally left to the priest is the actual saying of the words of the Mass (half the time accompanied by the congregation!).

And the silly Vatican II changes made saying Mass yet another occasion for confusion, as Father goes and sits on his throne behind the altar and gazes out, thinking that all those people there have come to see - HIM! The priest has somehow become the centerpiece in current liturgical practice, and I think this has been a terrible mistake.

At the same time, actual lay power has declined. Remember all the parish organizations, who at least exerted some power because they raised money? Remember the sodalities and mens'clubs, etc? Well, those folks were told they weren't quite right for the "new" Church.

I remember one parish where the (very gay) pastor disbanded the men's club because they - gasp! - sold beer as a fundraiser at the parish carnival. I think this was a little too macho for him. He said it was old-fashioned and inappropriate - and he ended up with virtually no (straight) men involved in the parish, and a little nest of the type of women who like weak men and wanted to devote themselves to fawning over him and carrying books around on their heads in their "liturgical processions."

So you have a situation now where lay people have no real power, but on the other hand, laypeople, mostly women, are doing many things that are not really their job. In the meantime, Father gets to sit on his throne, and in his now abundant free time (since he doesn't have to bother with tiresome things like visiting the sick), get into trouble.

Sorry for the length of this post. It's never a good thing when one's post is longer than the original article.

But it's something that puzzles me. Any thoughts on this? Anybody else puzzled?

"As for me, I'm wondering why no one wanted to explore the possible causes of this mess: the problem of homosexuality in the priesthood, or the corruption of the seminary system since the 1960s, or the clericalism that is running rampant in the Church, or the bishops' responsibility in all of this, or... Well, you get the idea."

As one can learn in Western Civilization 101, multiple causation is always a good guess. Some bishops are afraid of the Lavender mafia. And no wonder. Others are liberals or homosexual sympathizers most likely. They have adopted PC concepts of human sexuality. Some might be gay themselves.

What's becoming clear is that the post-Vatican II internal collapse of Catholic orthodoxy is becoming a widescale cultural disaster. Some of us have been ranting and raving about these problems for decades. The dioceses, religious communities, and institutions which will survive with any degree of moral and spiritual integrity are those which will resist the liberal and PC temptations which have possessed large factions of AmChurch. The moral relativism which has gripped some bishops and clergy is a recipe for yet more disaster. What we need is moral clarity in this age of decadence.

Either new spiritual leaders of great integrity and personal character will emerge from this crisis or AmChurch will become the Sodomite Las Vegas of a deranged post-Christian pseudo-religion scarcely much different from left-wing secular humanism. Sincere Catholics can cast their vote by NOT giving any more money to those fomenting dissent and deviancy. Bishops who take their advice from the Scott Applebys, Margaret Steinfels, and Commonweal liberal cultist types do not serve Christ, His Church, or His people. They make a mockery of Catholicism. We might as well have Rosie O'Donnell as president of the USCCB if this is the way they want to go. It should be clear that institutions of the American Church have been captured by some of the worst elements wihin the Catholic community - those suffering from abnormal psychology, sexual deviancy, and other emotional disorders. No sensible person would want any corporation or normal organization under that kind of abnormal control. The irregular types must be purged. We can't have lunatics running the asylum any longer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.