Pulling the Plug
As the recent “pedophile summit” in Rome demonstrates, the decadent Novus Ordo establishment cannot and will not reform itself. Catholics should simply allow the thing to die.
By Christopher A. Ferrara
Part One
Reprinted with the gracious permission of editor Michael J. Matt of The Remnant.
The international press corps that gathered in Rome to attend the
"little synod" on the homosexual priest scandal (persistently
mischaracterized as the "pedophile summit") was full of cynicism about the
event. And why not? Cynicism is the only reasonable attitude toward the
American hierarchy's professed rationale for the cardinals' "emergency" trip
to Rome. To quote Cardinal Stafford: "The American bishops indicated it
would be helpful to have the wisdom of the Holy Father, so the response was,
'Let's have a conversation'..." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 19, 2002)
Oh sure. After forty years of ordaining homosexuals in defiance of the
Vatican's never-enforced instruction that "those affected by the perverse
inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious
vows and ordination," the American bishops suddenly yearn to sit at the feet
of the Holy Father to receive his wise prescription for all the crimes
committed by all the homosexual priests they illicitly ordained. Let us
examine this amazingly disingenuous claim.
A Roman Luncheon
What "wisdom" did the cardinal representatives receive from the Holy Father
in Rome? As Bishop Wilton Gregory (head of the USCCB) reported, he and the
cardinals had "a wonderful conversation" with the Pope. A wonderful
conversation about an entirely preventable epidemic of homosexual
molestation by priests. After this wonderful conversation, "His Holiness
invited the American Cardinals and Bishops to lunch, to continue their
discussion of some of the themes raised at the meeting." (Final Communiqué,
April 24, 2002)
A wonderful conversation. Lunch with the Pope. A discussion of themes. And
what theme, exactly, did the Holy Father settle upon for dealing with the
homosexual infiltration of the clergy and the resulting explosion of
indictable sex crimes against altar boys and countless other innocent
victims? Apparently the theme adopted was the old familiar one: "Let the
bishops handle it." It's their problem, not the Pope's. In fact, at the
disastrous press conference of March 21, Cardinal Castrillón sniffed that
the Pope could hardly be expected to spend time issuing statements
condemning the scandal because "The Pope is worried over peace in the
world." (New York Times, March 22, 2002)
But God has made the Pope custodian
of the Catholic Church, not the world. What about peace in the Church?
During the "little synod" the Pope condemned the sexual abuse of children as
a "crime," but avoided even the slightest rebuke or discipline of the
bishops and cardinals who allowed these crimes to occur and then attempted
to hide the evidence. Instead, he invited the cardinals to lunch to discuss
"themes."
The wisdom of the Holy Father, then, was to leave the matter right where it
had been before the Roman luncheon: in the laps of the same feckless
hierarchs who have presided over the scandal and tried to cover it up for
decades. The Pope would not even mandate the token gesture of an apostolic
visitation of American seminaries. The Final Communiqué merely states that
at the USCCB meeting in June "we [the cardinals] will propose an Apostolic
Visitation of seminaries and religious houses of formation, giving special
attention to their admission requirements and the need for them to teach
Catholic moral doctrine in its integrity." After forty years of scandal,
heresy, corruption and cover-up, the cardinals now propose that the bishops
vote on whether to invite Rome to investigate the moral and doctrinal
integrity of American seminaries. But since when do the bishops propose to
Rome an apostolic visitation, as opposed to being ordered by Rome to submit
to one? Yet again we see how the conciliar notion of "collegiality" has
turned the Catholic Church upside down: the bishops propose and the Pope
disposes.
The Real Point of the Roman Junket
For this the cardinals were "summoned" to Rome? The same non-result could
have been achieved at a "little synod" anywhere in the United States. What,
really, was the point of the "emergency" trip to Rome? In a word, the point
was drama - drama for the delectation of the press. If you were there, as I
was, you would know this to a certainty.
For the bishops, you see, the real crisis in this matter has never been the
profusion of sex crimes committed by homosexual priests, or the irreparable
harm done to thousands of victims and their families, or even the multiple
RICO suits alleging an interstate episcopal conspiracy to obstruct justice
by covering up the evidence of the crimes and spiriting off the perpetrators
to new assignments. The bishops had no problem hard-balling their way
through all that stuff, litigating and approving payouts and confidentiality
agreements that (so they hoped) would ensure perpetual silence. Sex-scandal
management is just part of the job description for bishops of the conciliar
renewal. No, it was one thing and one thing only that drove the cardinals
to Rome: the recent unrelenting press coverage of the scandal. From the
bishops' perspective, the real crisis was the continuing public exposure of
their revolting misdeeds.
Thus, the whole Roman junket - the wonderful conversation with the Pope, the
papal luncheon, the "themes" for discussion, the "working group" with its
"work sessions", the daily press briefings at the North American College and
the Vatican Press Office, the unveiling of the laughable "Final Communiqué"
to a room packed with reporters - all of it was intended to sate the media
beast with a moment of high drama, a fitting conclusion to the long story
arc of the scandal. Perhaps if the bishops could shovel enough audio and
visual drama bites into the satellite dishes, video lenses and
tape-recorders gathered together in Rome like so many hungry maws, the
many-headed beast would eat its fill, push away the plate and move on to the
next feast of scandal.
Is this too cynical an assessment even where cynicism is warranted? Not at
all. Consider that the momentous deliberations of the "little synod"
produced exactly one semi-specific proposal for actually dealing with all
the homosexual predators the bishops have loosed upon the Church. To quote
the Final Communiqué:
We will propose that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
recommend a special process for the dismissal from the clerical state of a
priest who has become notorious and is guilty of the serial, predatory,
sexual abuse of minors.
In other words, these princes of the Church propose that the
bishops vote on whether to recommend a process to expel child molesters from
the priesthood - but only if the molestation is notorious, serial and
predatory. A three-pronged test! Shades of law school and bluebook exams in
criminal law! Do I detect a lawyer at work? Indeed, with all the pending
RICO suits, both the Vatican and the North American hierarchy have to be
careful about the wording of any statements that could constitute a binding
institutional obligation or an admission of wrongdoing. It has come to this.
And what do the bishops propose to do about the seedbed of the
whole scandal - the "gay subculture" they have allowed to flourish in the
seminaries, chanceries and parishes? Why, absolutely nothing. The
cardinals would not even float a proposal to exclude homosexuals from the
seminaries and the sacred priesthood. Yet in answer to my question at the
first press briefing, Bishop Gregory admitted that "it is an ongoing
struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by
homosexual men." Despite this devastating admission by the very head of
United States bishops' conference, the Vatican instruction will continue to
be ignored. Thus, a new bumper crop of homosexual ordinands is
guaranteed - and with it a new harvest of scandal for the Church.
After his return from the "little synod", Cardinal Bernard Law
gave an interview in which he protested that "We were not there to make
decisions." There were not even any decisions about what to do in the
future with predators like John Geoghan and Paul Shanley, both of whom Law
coddled and protected for years. As I write this column, Shanley, who
molested dozens upon dozens of boys and publicly advocated "man-boy love" at
a homosexual convention, has finally been arrested in San Diego for the rape
of a minor - in the confessional. As the whole world knows (thanks only to the
press coverage and plaintiffs' lawyers), instead of turning Shanley over to
the police, Law reassigned him and gave him favorable recommendations to the
Diocese of San Bernadino and the Archdiocese of New York, knowing full well
that Shanley was a monster. The Archdiocesan files Law fought so
ferociously to keep secret contain many damning documents among the 800
produced so far. These include not only the letters of recommendation for
Shanley, but Archdiocesan correspondence with the Vatican itself about
Shanley's history, including his advocacy of "man-boy love." The Vatican,
like Law, did nothing.
No, Law never intended to make any decisions in Rome. Neither did the other
cardinals. And neither did the Vatican apparatus, which keeps traditionalist
priests firmly under its thumb while doing nothing to prevent the crimes of
homosexual priests on every continent - that is, until the press got into the
act. But all the press scrutiny has produced so far is a dramatic production
entitled "The Pope Summons the Cardinals to the Vatican"- a summons solicited
by the bishops themselves, as Cardinal Stafford revealed. The Vatican was
merely the stage set for this little production, and a rapidly fading,
ineffectual pope the principal prop. No one from the Vatican apparatus even
appeared on stage during the two press briefings, except the papal press
agent, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, and Cardinal Stafford (an American), who heads
the completely irrelevant Pontifical Council for the Laity. (I sat there
and listened in disgust as Stafford truckled to John Allen of the National
Catholic Reporter, assuring him that yes, John, of course we want to see
more involvement of the laity in Church governance, John.)
Cardinal Castrillón and Cardinal Ratzinger, the two prelates whose
dicasteries actually have jurisdiction over the scandal, would have nothing
to do with the briefings. They knew a flop production when they saw one.
So did the American cardinals, who left the final briefing to the crafty
McCarrick and the clueless Stafford. When members of the press asked why
none of the other cardinals, especially Law, was present at the final
briefing, they were told that all the other cardinals had unbreakable prior
engagements - at 10:00 p.m., when the only reason they had come to Rome in
the first place was to attend this very event. Even in Rome, with the whole
world watching, the dissembling continued. It seems these men cannot help
themselves.
For Law, there was more dramaturgy back in Boston. During a "special Mass
for hope and healing" on April 28, Law had the astounding gall to preach
that "These are not easy days to serve in the pastoral role that is mine.
All of us are wounded healers." (LA Times, April 30, 2002) Law is a
criminally negligent obstructer of justice, who has harbored no fewer than
80 sex criminals in his Archdiocese, according to the list he himself turned
over to the police. Between Geoghan and Shanley alone there are at least
500-600 victims. That Law would even attempt to make himself an object of
pity - instead of resigning and begging forgiveness from all the victims of
his steely determination to conceal criminal activity - is an indictment not
only of Law, but the whole Novus Ordo establishment, of which Law is
supposed to represent the most "conservative" element.
No one has more eloquently expressed the righteous contempt the victims have
for this establishment than Arthur Austin, who as a boy was abused for years
by Shanley. After the court-ordered production of the Archdiocesan files
that revealed what Law knew about Shanley and when he knew it, Austin issued
this anguished plea for justice:
And you Bernard, my cardinal, my prince of the church, my shepherd, my
father in Christ, how long have I hungered at your indifferent door for a
crumb of compassion, justice, or mercy? Or even a crumb of simple honesty?
You are a liar; your own documents condemn you. You are a criminal, a
murderer of children; you degrade the office you hold in the church; you are
an affront to Jesus Christ; and I call on Almighty God to bear witness to
the foulness and treachery of your behavior, the evil you have nurtured and
condoned, and the minds, hearts, and souls you have destroyed. I call on
Almighty God to bear witness for those who could no longer shoulder the
unbearable cross of their crucified innocence and trust, and took their own
lives, because of men like you, the power-brokers of the Roman Catholic
Church... (Boston Globe, April 9, 2002)
Next Tuesday: Part two Defending the Regime of Novelty
For past articles in the archives of Traditional Thoughts, see ARCHIVED ARTICLES
|