The Homo-erotic Clericalism of Maciel and McCarrick

Ironic, painfully ironic! Pope John Paul II in his life and work was the embodiment of holy virility and wholesome paternity: courageous, sober, generous, chaste, intelligent. But under his pontificate there flourished an ecclesiastical under-culture of corruption and predatory perversion...the infamous "lavender mafia." We now know that two titans of this underworld were Marcial Maciel and Theodore McCarrick.

The two were opposites theologically and politically. McCarrick was a closet liberal coming up the ranks under the conservative John Paul pontificate but he hit is stride when he got his red hat and became chaplain to the Biden-Pelosi-Kennedy Catholic wing of American liberalism. Even later, in his 80s, he was an important player in the Obama Iran deal and Pope Francis's regrettable submission to Chinese Communism. Apparently he continued to influence choice of American bishops as he remained in favor with Francis despite his informal silencing under Benedict.

Maciel was the opposite. He grew up in Mexico in the 1930s during the Cristero Revolution where his uncles were honored leaders: one a saintly bishop who has been beatified for his work with the poor, another an honored and heroic general in the revolt (Think the Andy Garcia character in the movie "For Greater Glory.") He internalized a fierce, militant anti-modernist. late Tridentine Catholicism. He loved Franco and hated Communism. He showed a genius in reviving elements of pre-Vatican II Catholicism and showing their vibrancy: marian, Eucharistic, enamoured of the religious and clerical states.

Under the theological and politcal contrasts, however, they are identical twins spiritually, morally, psychologically. ...in their homo-erotic clericalism. Each lived double lives: pious, Catholic prelates on the one hand; on the other villians of diabolic proportions. Each was an accomplished deceiver who could have tutored Bernie Madoff. Each had an uncanny ability to attract large sums of money and to form alliances with powerful figures in the Church and society.

Each exhibited a striking clericalism that was essentially perverse and homo-erotic. My memory of Archbishop McCarrick: intelligent, super-energetic, clever, charming...and obseesed with recruiting young men...especially the handsome, lean, intelligent type...into the priesthood. He invited my own son, an altar boy,  to consider the priesthood...knowing nothing about him except his appearance. Both seemed to have a fetish about priesthood...and to an extent the consecrated life...but with a masked homosexual passion underneath. Strangely, there seems to be something about the Catholic clerical state that lends itself to be eroticized. This is evident, for example in the striking obsession of the Legionnaires with grooming and good looks. This contrasts sharply with more traditional Catholic religious (eg. Franciscan) tendencies to downplay sexual attractiveness.

Both achieved power in the mysterious corridors of the Curia by large flows of money to important people. Two stand out:  Cardinal Solano, then Secretary of State and Dean of the College of Cardinals, seems to have been a protector of both, as well as other homosexual predators. Even more saddening is the fact that John Paul's personal secretary and "spiritual son", Stanislaw Dziwisz, also received large sums of money from Maciel and McCarrick and apparently funneled it to the freedom fighters in communist Poland. It is probable that he was influential also in "protecting" John Paul from the horrendous allegations about both prelates.

Each flourished under John Paul by showing him what he wanted, but each represented a theological alternative to his vision. Maciel was smart enough to pay homage to Vatican II and downplay his obeisance to an earlier version of Catholicism. But he pleased John Paul becaus of his fidelity to elements of the faith: Eucharist, consecrated life, prayer and so forth. McCarrick finally became an opponent of the John Paul - Benedict agenda as Cardinal of Washington DC. He infamously changed the meaning of a letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger regarding communion for politicians who publically support abortion. McCarrick was an accomadationist where Benedict and John Paul were both unflinching culture warriors regarding the value of innocent human life and human sexuality.

If John Paul (and, in his own modest key, Benedict) was a hero of epic proportions, Maciel and McCarrick are themselves fiends of comparable gravity. Indeed, McCarrick himself strongly resembles Senator-Emperor Palpatine (a.k.a. Darth Sidius) of Star Wars and rivals him in cunning, power, deceit and evil. Regnum Christi and the Legionnaires of Christ, the legacy of Maciel, seems to contain a treasure of spiritual riches in many of the people involved. It is hoped that the evil of that movement will be exorcized and the good strengthened. That of McCarrick is more troubling as he seems to have had strong influence on the Curia and choice of bishops. The "lavender mafia" under Francis has emerged with new strength and largely come out into the open even as Catholics around the world are sickened by the pestilence of pedastry. A poll by the L.A. Times of 15 years ago reported that 20% of priests are homosexual and half of that (10%) are practicing (or "gay"). That strikes me as about right.

The legacy of Maciel/McCarrick continues in our Church, alongside of that of John Paul II. Unfortunately, long-standing Catholic traditions of clerical silence and loyalty, which once made sense, now seem to serve to shield a pervasive culture of perversion. Clearly we are entering a period of profound purification. We need a smaller Church, organizationally, with less money and power. We need to recreate our clerical culture: more humble, chaste, transparent. We need more lay oversight and involvement of women.

We need to resist the effort of liberals to advance the very moral/theological agenda that fueled the surge of predatory behavior after the Council: the tearing of sexuality from fruitfulness, the separation of gender from spousality, chastity and paternity/maternity, Likewise we must resist the urge to destroy the clerical state. Catholic religion centers on the sacrality of the Eucharist and confession of sins. The clerical state serves THAT! The dissolution of the clergy and all that feeds into that (women, married priests, etc.) would create a low-church, iconoclastic protestantism void of the holiness that defines Catholicism.

In the face of a modern world that is both ppromising and threatening, the figutes of Maciel a, McCarrick and John Paul exemplify the three paths forward for Catholicism. Maciel is militant in defiance of modernity: phobic, cult-like, defensive, regressive, controlling, and allergic to anything not enclosed within a pious "regnum."  McCarrick presents the opposite: uncritical, submissive accomadation ("accompaniment") to the West's Cultural Revolution, Iranian militancy, and Communist Chinese totalitarianism. John Paul (and Benedict and their view of Vatican II) remains the inspired, happy balance of embracing all that is good and resisting all that is bad in the broader culture, with firmness and clarity.

If the Church is the Body of Christ, then it is afflicted with a number of vicious infections, particularly homo-erotic clericalism, aggravated by an ecclesial culture of loyalty/silence; and a bloated, cancerous bureaucracy of institutions. In the midst of this, Francis is a confusing figure. He speaks clearly about the scourge of militant homosexuality even as his governance shows a consistency and fervor in advancing that agenda. He criticizes clericalism even as his cavalier dismissal of the dubia and the allegations of Vigano suggest a distance, indifference and arrogance and he pontificates on political/policy issues in a way that implicitly disparages lay competence.

Let us pray for the purification of the Church!

Sad, and yet Happy, about the Class of 1969

Happily I look forward to the 50 year reunion with my classmates of Maryknoll College Seminary, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 1969. There is an extraordinary chemistry of warmth and comradarie among us as we were pretty much sequestered for those four dramatic years on a small campus where we worked, studied, prayed, played sports, horsed around and formed enduring, dear friendship as we inhaled, from a safe place (free of drugs, sex, rebellion, etc.), the powerful fumes of the exploding Cultural Revolution and the "Spirit of Vatican II." I recall the exhilaration and and excitement, especially the last few years, as we eagerly read and argued all the new views and ideas that were rushing at us. I was in a persistent state of dionysian, intellectual inebriation as I imbibed one expansive idea after another. It was an extraordinary time: the change that occurred in our Church and country in those years can hardly be equaled by any other. We were an unusual group (if I may boast!): we left our homes in 1965 at the age of 18 to give our lives as Maryknoll Missioners and bring our Catholic faith to the less fortunate in Asia, Africa and Latin America. We were altruistic, idealistic, adventurous, bright, curious, generous and pious. Four years later, 1969 at the age of 22, we were all of that still...but not pious. The majority of us (I estimate) were firmly on a path away from the faith that led us there. Now, a half a century later, it is probable that most of us, our children and now our grandchildren, are no longer practicing the Catholic sacramental life in which we were raised. This is, for me, a great sadness: my abiding and deepest passion is to share the faith we received with the coming generations. This is a great loss! And yet there is an immense irony and ambivalence for me:  these are my dearest friends! As always, to a man, they are radiant with generous energy, intellectual curiosity, personal integrity, kindness, good humor and (even more 50 years later) gentle wisdom. Their children are just as good! I enjoy them, cherish them, admire them...even as I grieve the loss of faith! What happened?

For the most part, in the 1950-65 American Church we were all moralized, liturgized and dogmatized. I mean this in a good sense: we believed in the sacraments, doctrines and the sexual and social justice ethos of Catholicism. In a mysterious manner that cannot be measured, we had a prayer life and a vague but real sense of God as Father and Source of all the goodness we had received. But we were not evangelized: we had not been clearly, persuasively invited into a concrete, personal relationship with the Person of Jesus Christ. Without that Personal Encounter, of course, the dogmas, morals and sacraments...especially removed from the supportive late-Tridintine cultural context... lack any coherence or power. In that 1965-9 period, we were not evangelized, although we were planned to be evangelizers, by the Catholic gospel; but we were proselytized by the powerful  currents of cultural liberalism.

Even in the relative safety and isolation of the seminary, we were indoctrinated in an alternate value/belief system: personal autonomy as absolute, an ethos that tore apart the harmony of sex-fruition-romance-fidelity-family, a disconnect from authority and tradition, a political liberalism, a minimization of the sacramental life, a redefinition of Evil in terms of psychological wholeness, political liberation and education, and a diminished sense of the holy and the sacred.

There are exceptions, of course! There are those who rode through the storm, untroubled, with an effortless immunity that preserved them in the faith of their youth. There are some who later experienced the "Encounter" and surrendered to a more intelligent, passionate version of their childhood faith.  And of course there are many (maybe most?) somewhere on a scale between ardent Catholic and committed Cultural Liberal.

How do I resolve the tension? I cannot deny my sadness...a soft, gentle sadness...but nevertheless a sadness...that can only be suffered. On the other hand, I see in my classmates so much of the Truth, the Good and the Beauty that we have always shared. So I will always cherish and respect them.

And I ponder the nature of faith: Faith is, first of all, a gift from above. It would be a sin to "demand" faith from one who has not received it. Faith is also a profound, mysterious reality that cannot be reduced to propositional agreement and sacramental attendance. Faith is the interior conversation of each of us with God; it is inaccessible to the outsider; it takes strange and beautiful paths. Indeed, the secular and the atheist may have deeper and truer faith, in the eyes of God, than the "practitioner" and the "believer."

And so I look forward to the delight of seeing my old friends and marveling at the good, the true and the beauty of their lives. Hopefully, we all have and are and will fulfill, with God's grace, the urgent longings that brought us together 54 years ago! But you cannot blame me for praying quietly, for them and their families, to come into the full Joy of our Catholic Faith!

Pollyanna Catholicism

The first and second little pigs who built their homes of straw and sticks, singing:  "We're not afraid of the big bad wolf, the big bad wolf, the big bad wolf! We're not afraid of the big bad wolf! Ha ha ha ha ha!

The third pig who build his house of solid stone and brick, soberly, realistically, vigilantly: "I will work hard and build a solid house that the wicked wolf cannot destroy!"

The Big Bad Wolf:  "I'll huff and puff and I'll blow your house down! And then eat you up!"

At least since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has been like the two silly little pigs: naive, happy, trusting, presumptive and oblivious of the threatening Dark Kingdom. The "null curriculum" of the Vatican II Church: EVIL! Real, raw, actual evil is the "elephant in the room" that smells horrible, is breaking everything and crushing everyone but is not to be mentioned.

About a year ago I attended a workshop on "dealing with difficult people" (psychopaths, borderlines, etc.) and then read a book that changed my view of reality:  The Sociopath Next Door by Harvard psychologist Martha Stout. About 4% (1 of every 25), she states, of us fit this description. Even if this number is inflated (as I hope) the problem is that they are not diagnosed and not recognizable (unless you marry , befriend or work closely with one.) If you lump these with borderlines, criminals, predators and badly addicted you realize that we are dealing with a LOT of bad, dangerous people. Stout emphasizes that we are unprepared for this. I asked myself: who is least prepared to recognize and deal with such? Precisely those of us who are raised in stable, happy families and are relatively wholesome, generous and trusting...the very best of us are least competent in dealing with the very worst!

This gave me a new window into the "cover-up" of the priest sex scandal. A piece of the puzzle of this horrific reality is that at least some of the vicars, bishops and authorities in charge were trusting and naive and deceived by the predators who were outstanding con artists. It was a mismatch!

This naivete has pervaded the Catholic Church since Vatican II. Granted: late Tridentine Catholicism was afflicted with exaggerated suspicion and antipathy to Protestantism, Judaism, the separation of church/state, and modernity in general. But it retained, to its credit, a robust sense of evil: the world, the flesh, the devil, This hard realism vanished in the wake of the Council and was replaced by a contagious presumption, a false assurance that everyone is basically okay, that a combination of good psychology and education and policy can remove evil, and that a loving God surely accepts everyone into heaven.

In a refreshing and illuminating new look at the Council (The Disputed Teachings of Vatican II) Seton Hall's Tom Guarino identifies the positive perspective of "analogy" as underlying the entire Council. The Fathers looked outward to see "similarity within dissimilarity" and chose to emphasize the positive dimensions that the Church shared with other religions and the broader society. He is correct: this was an inspired and fruitful approach. He is clear, however, that no document or council can give the entire picture. My thesis here is that the Council blatantly ignored the realities of Evil and that it requires correction for an accurate view of modern life.

The Council infamously avoided the word "communism"...this at the height of the Cold War, the aggressive expansion of the Soviet empire, and the catastrophe of China's cultural revolution. The Council was enthusiastically open to Western culture just as it was about to explode into the Cultural Revolution that liberated sexuality, targeted the helpless and unborn, and renounced tradition and authority. The Church was entirely unprepared for what hit it after that Council!

I would compare this to raising your children in a tough urban neighborhood and telling them: the people here are really nice, you can trust them and help them...all of them! The problem is: the kids are not prepared for the drug dealers and users at the corner, the pedophile club around the corner, the gang violence that is rampant. Better that we tell the kids the truth!

We need to talk about spiritual warfare! We need to learn about the strategies of Satan (obsession, oppression, temptation, deception, possession) and how to overcome them (confession, accountability, deliverance, constant praise and thanksgiving.)

Let us keep our hearts and minds open to all that is True and Good and Beautiful in our world even as we fortify ourselves and pray "deliver us from evil."

Paths of American Catholicism

Post-war American Catholicism...homogeneous, miraculously expansive and prosperous, and (we know in hindsight) shallow in its intellectual and spiritual roots...fell apart immediately and catastrophically after 1965 as the Church "opened its doors" to a world that was turning away from its Christian heritage. The result was a diverse, fascinating Catholic universe of distinct, often conflicting pathways. It may be helpful to identify six major paths and six minor ones.

1.  Generic, moderate,  parish-based Catholicism is the direct heir of the ethnic "ghetto" parish. It is a congenial "co-habitation" of the faith with contemporary, mostly middle-class life. Due to a seminary system that is generally uniform, steady, moderate, tolerant but conservative in a mellow way, the contemporary parish is largely predictable in inviting participants to communion with a loving God in a life of prayer, sacraments, and generous, virtuous living. It's genius is the catholic, maternal impulse to include and embrace all. Normally non-partisan, it welcomes those from all points on the political spectrum. It largely avoids the heated issues of the day: neither endorsing nor condemning contested issues. The pro-life movement is tolerated but not vigorously engaged by most clergy. The same applies to other movements: the Latin mass, charismatic prayer meetings, social activism and so forth. Contraception, pornography/masturbation, and LGBT concerns are not mentioned. To be sure, wholesome families and even holy lives flourish here, but there is a weakness. While it succeeds in offering a respite from the political battlefield, it tries to ignore the Culture War that exploded in 1965 and so leaves the young open to the attractions and temptations of the three competing liberalisms (described below) so that there is a powerful tendency to become NONEs or anemic, assimilated Catholics without heart or fire or backbone or a distinctive intelligence.

2.  Political Liberalism is a continuation of an earlier Catholic social heritage that supported labor unions, state assistance for the poor and neglected, and a strong government that regulates the market and distributes wealth and power in an equitable manner while rejecting socialism and allowing for free enterprise. It maintains a strong sense of social solidarity and political compassion. It largely lost the tradition of subsidiarity as it accepted the reality of large corporations which it contravailed with strong unions and an expansive federal government. Philosophically, this "solidarity" liberalism has less in common with cultural liberalism than does the more individualistic, economic liberalism of the right. But through a strange and striking quirk of history...and mostly because Catholic liberals were so feeble, inarticulate and indeed clueless in defense of their sexual and family ethos...plitical liberalism found an impure alliance with the cultural liberalism that came to dominate the DNC and elite culture after 1965.

3.  Cultural Liberalism is a celebration of the Sexual Revolution and specifically an embrace of contraception,  the disconnect of sexuality from child-bearing,  and so a rejection of St. Paul VI's historic Humanae Vitae. The embrace of sterile, non-uniting sexuality leads inexorably to co-habitation, abortion, gay sex, pornography, and easy divorce. By 1973 (Roe) Cultural Liberalism was firmly in charge of all elite institutions: entertainment, higher education, media, law, medicine. It enlisted the support of Catholic political liberals, feeble and confused about their own sexual ethos, against the Republican right. Catholic Cultural Liberals were already energized in the 1970s in their demands for women priests, approval of contraception, and a "new paradigm" for sex, family and gender. They were the resistance against John Paul and Benedict but have been given new hope and energy by Francis.

4.  Economic Liberalism is what we would call political conservatism: enthusiasm for free markets, low taxes, enterprise, and a minimally intrusive state. It can be associated with a strong nationalism and a hawkish attitude towards enemies such as communism and Islam extremism. Under Ronald Reagan, it experienced a surge of energy especially in so far as he was seen as partnering with John Paul in the downfall of Communism. In its purest form, it is currently in decline in the face of a surging Trumpism that accepts only portions of its ideology.

5.  Traditionalism is the concerted effort to strengthen or restore late-Tridentine (1950s) Catholicism in its clarity, confidence, and continuity. This faction, seen in the Latin Mass community in a pure form, was entirely marginalized in the aftermath of the Council but found encouragement for a while under Benedict. It seems to be strengthened by young people who know a chaotic, disorderly world and cherish the structure, certainty and safety of dogma, ritual, authority and tradition. An inordinate number of our younger priests come from this relatively small community. Some of the newer, flourishing religious orders also exemplify this movement. While small, its vitality, natality and love for priesthood and religious life lend it a hope going forward.

6.  Evangelical, Renewal Catholicism is the most vigorous, hopeful current in the Church. (Disclosure: I am an avid participant!) It is evangelical in its simple, profound focus upon the personal relationship with the (divine-human) person of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. All elements of tradition...liturgy, dogma, moral law, etc...find their meaning and purpose in Jesus and Jesus alone. This pathway finds expression in the lay renewal movements: cursillo, marriage encounter, charismatic renewal, Communion and Liberation, the Neo-catechumenal Way and others. It is communal in that it builds small, intimate groups for support, prayer and accountability. It carries no specific political ideology but is open to moderate expressions of political and economic liberalism as well as anarchism.  It is articulate and fervent in its advocacy of a revived Catholic ethos of sexuality, family and "state of life" (religious, ordained and married) as it draws from John Paul's Theology of the Body, tradition and contemporary scholarship and it fiercely resists Cultural Liberalism and the culture of abortion. It is energetically ecumenical as it partners with evangelical and pentecostal Churches and benefits from the riches of those traditions. It comfortably allies itself with Catholic Traditionalism but differs in focus and emphasis: for example, the flood of non-practicing Catholics in Latin America into the evangelical Churches would be perceived in a more positive manner by the evangelical Catholic. It found a profound, fruitful expression in the theology of John Paul and Benedict.

This list is hardly exhaustive and could be expanded. However, six smaller, significant movements deserve attention.

1.  Catholic Anarchism or Localism can be understood as a rejection of both dominant political ideologies: the Left's confidence in large government and the Right's trust in free, globalized markets. This group prefers small, local, concrete communities of support. A classical, radial expression is Dorothy Day's Catholic Worker. Current discussion largely revolves around Rod Dreher's Benedict Option. A philosophical rooting is provided by the Communion school of theology of David Schindler in DC.

2.  12-Step Spirituality is hidden, modest and anonymous but immensely fruitful and promising. It distances itself from any specific piety but is congenial with the most rigorous religions as well as the many who resent established religion and favor of a more vague 'spirituality.'

3.  Zen-Therapeutic Catholicism is a search for personal integrity and serenity by a relative retreat from the passions and conflicts of the political, theological and cultural wars in favor of non-traditional practices of meditation, natural wholeness, and private therapy. Typically, there is interest in yoga, Zen, alternate diets and exercise programs. This approach is not congenial with the enthusiasms of traditional and evangelical Catholicism as it prefers the relative solitude of "spirituality" to the bonds of "religion."  It is compatible with moderate forms of political and cultural liberalism, generic Catholicism and 12-step rehabilitation.

4.  Pro-life Movement. The most spiritually energized event since Martin Luther King, this has engaged a coalition of generic, traditional and evangelical Catholics, with others, in a life-and-death struggle with Cultural Liberalism. The Kavanaugh hearings highlighted: for better or worse, this cause is allied in the Republican Party with Economic Liberalism and its Trumpist distortion; there is a desperate, apocalyptic hysteria on the part of the Left; and slowly, incrementally the right of the unborn is prevailing. When eventually, the draconian Roe decision is overturned, this culture war (THE defining moral issue of our time) will decline in intensity and be taken up locally and legislatively, by each state and the binary (red/blue) structure of our nation will be all the more pronounced.

5.  Intimacy with the Poor. The towering heroes and great saints of our time all achieved close, concrete intimacy with the poor: St. Theresa of Calcutta, Dorothy Day, Catherine de Hueck Dougherty, Jean Vanier, and Kiko Arguello with his gypsies. The dramatic kenosis of these exceptional figures is a special grace not granted to all, but surely each of us can identify in some manner including prayer, alms and social advocacy.  It is classic Catholic holiness in practice. It is more desperately needed now as our society is more polarized between "winners" and "losers." The redeeming feature of our current papacy is his heartfelt call to move our of our comfort to be with those who suffer.

6. Eccentrics and Oddballs. Our litany would be incomplete without mention of the delightful, serendipitous and creative ones who defy and shatter typology. My daughter reminded me of Eve Tusnet,  who confidently idenifies as lesbian as she is fiercely faithful to orthodox Catholicism in her practice of celibacy. Ivan Illich, the hero of my young adulthood, was recklessly anarchistic in his rejection of bureaucracy, technology and modernity as he practiced a profound, ancient Catholic asceticism. My dear, dear friend John Rapinich was a 50s beatnik who converted to Catholicism in Mexico: he told Alan Ginsburg who flew into demonic rage; he told Jack Kerouac who hugged him and sadly said "I cannot go to Church with you; I am dirty." When I met him he was a fanatic pro-lifer and an obnoxiouly loud charismatic but also an artist, a mystic, and an intuitive, brilliant, widely-read auto-dictat.

I myself am a fervent evangelical-renewal Catholic with strong sympathies with tradition, the poor, anarchism, and the 12-steps. I have strong interest in psychology but none in the meditative traditions of the East. I have problems with political and economic liberalism but am fiercely against cultural liberalism.  My children, for the most part, have their own distinctive mixtures of evangelical and generic Catholicism with an aversion to Cultural Liberalism.

My two brothers are strong economic liberals, adverse to both political and cultural liberalisms, with sympathies for traditional and evangelical Catholicism. My mother is a profoundly pious, traditional in an open and non-nostalgic manner,  but fiercely liberal (political, Democratic) with the strongest working class aversion to economic liberalism and a puzzling tolerance for cultural liberalism. Five of my sisters mirror that strong Catholic social ethic with a fierce political liberalism that despises the economic form and anything that smacks of arrogance, privilege and indifference to the poor. Two of the five are Cultural Liberals. My sixth sister is different: she shares the social compassion even as she seamlessly merges the instincts of the generic, evangelical and traditional Catholic. We were a paradigmatic Catholic family of nine in the 1950s: Irish, liberal, Democrat. Today we reflect all the diversity, antagonisms, chaos and dynamisms of Catholicism! James Joyce said it: "Here comes everyone!"

Pope Francis is a complicated and puzzling case. He is traditional in many ways but despises any rigidity, moralism, exclusion, indifference, superiority, exclusion or indifference to the poor. He can be dismissive of dogma and law. He is certainly generic Catholic in his passion to include and invite, especially those who are away from the Church or at the margins of society. His enthusiasms seem to be with a political liberalism that works for open borders, climate control, wealth distribution and an end to the death penalty. He despises economic liberalism but seems to have allied himself with ecclesial cultural liberals in so far as they support his political agenda and his outreach to those distant from the Church.

These are, of course, ideal types and in real life each of us is a combination of at least two even as we oppose one or more.Any genuine Catholic is at least partially a generic, parish Catholic as we realize that our own preferences are particular and finite and the Mystery of Christ that binds us together vastly exceeds our own limited convictions and passions. In this unusual time of conflict and polarization, Truth demands that we wage a fierce culture war but Love requires that this occur with deepest mutual respect, empathy and admiration. The marvelous De Lubac spoke of "The Man of the Church" as one whose heart and intellect opens out infinitely to the Splendor of the Church in all its depth, dimensions, tensions, and Mystery. May we all break out of any confining models and be captivated by the Beauty, Truth and Goodness of the Church!

The Catholicism of Brett Kavanaugh

I was immediately charmed by Judge Kavanaugh and his family and especially by his proud, vigorous  Catholicism. Happily he spoke of CYO basketball, Jesuit education, serving meals to the poor, mass on Sunday and prayer. Rarely in public life do we see such an unabashed, genuine expression of  our faith. Subsequent revelations amplified the depth and richness of his faith: his respect and advocacy for women, rigorous work ethic, happy family life, exceptional judicial record, and especially his reputation for valuing input from liberal as well as conservative clerks. This last especially  impressed me a an important and rare Catholic virtue: a strong moral framework that welcomes a diversity of viewpoints on prudential issues that are complex, ambiguous and multi-faceted. He is an almost ideal candidate! I have been, and still am, delighted and thrilled with the thought of him on our Court.

But he is not perfect. His testimony is rightly criticized because he presented himself as almost perfect, a "choir boy."

His yearbook was an embarrassment for all of us. That the faculty allowed such a celebration of teenage inebriation shows a profound blindness. He redeemed himself by his expression of sincere sorrow for the hurt to his female friend from the implied contempt and misogyny even as he denied the most obvious interpretation of that odious attempt at humor.

His "yes I like beers bravado" can be understood at different levels. As Irish Catholic myself, I heard an echo of our ancient culture war against the puritan prohibition and its contemporary refiguration as political correctness and liberal righteousness. With him I silently boasted: "Yes, I like beers too, three or four a year in my case. Do you have a problem with that?" Clearly, in adolescence he was a jock, a drinker, a "frat boy!" In my own youth I did not like the type. But I don't hold it against him because, happily, we have both outgrown our male insecurities.

I see a deeper, more subtle problem, however, related to the Catholic and especially Jesuit education he received in the 1980s. Just before that time, the widespread motto became: "Man for others." This proposed a high moral ideal: that of a man who cares for others generously, even sacrificially; one who serves those around him and reaches out to the least, the poor, the marginalized and suffering. This is, of course, the ideal offered by Jesus in the Gospel. However, less happily, this message came also with a high optimism about our capacity to be such and a implied, if not articulated, neglect of traditional understanding of our sinfulness, weakness and need for God's mercy. There was little attention to sin, concupiscence and the need for confession, repentance and absolution. The ultimate result of this, of course, is an unrecognized but oppressive guilt as the student (if he is conscientious) expects and strives for moral heroism but is, at least semi-consciously, aware of his weakness and (often camouflaged) failings.

Hidden in this ethos of altruism and generosity is a subtle but toxic pelagianism (heresy that denies depth of original sin and need for grace) which expects moral heroism without explicit awareness of sin and weakness, without contrition, without dependence upon grace from above. Missing here is the traditional Catholic sense of sin, the 12-step experience of powerlessness, the evangelical longing for a Savior. Imagine this scenario: A Catholic school conference is dealing with the pressures upon our youth (internet, social media, peer culture, bullying, pornography, etc.) when a talented young educator recommends access to the sacrament of confession as a valuable resource; he is basically dismissed and even shamed. This incident unveils the hidden pelagianism prevalent in Catholic education.

And so we witnessed the good judge vigorously affirming his moral righteousness: family life, volunteer activities, and impeccable record with women. This was understandable and largely appropriate. First of all, it was a job interview and we customarily present our strengths, not weaknesses in such a forum. Secondly, the Democrats were out to destroy him at any cost so  acknowledgement of weakness of any sort would have been disastrous for him. He did, after all, admit to drinking too much and expressed regret. He denied any black out or loss of memory but not drinking to excess.

Nevertheless: we all would have benefited from a sense of contrition; a sense of himself as flawed and sinful even as he is a basically good man and exceptional jurist; and even some empathy for his accuser in her evident distress, even if it is a false accusation.

He is only human. He showed us his vulnerability and fragility. He stands, alongside of all of us, at the foot of the cross as a sinner in need of Mercy! We all of us need to surrender our pelagian ideals, our oppressive moral idealism; and fully own our own need for Mercy. God bless Brett and his family and God bless Dr. Ford and hers and God bless America!

The Hysteria of the Left

The defining crisis of our age is the failure of masculinity as: paternity, quiet strength, commitment and fidelity, courage, chastity and protection. The disordered male psyche moves in two opposite directions: violence, rage, lust, egotism, assault or weakness, indecision, discouragement and impotence. You end up with Donald Trump or Woody Allen! The understandable feminine reaction is anxiety, hysteria, and suspicion of men.

The "Me-Too Movement" is, on the whole, a just and reasoned response to men as aggressors. But the liberal response to the Kavanaugh hearings is something else:  hysteria!

Hysteria (a recklessly non-PC-term) is the tendency of the feminine psyche in its essential openness, receptivity, and vulnerability (to invasion or hostile penetration), to a pervasive, internal, diffuse and profound anxiety. Undefined, crippling anxiety is the consequence of a woman being unprotected...by father, husband, etc...and therefore vulnerable to assault.

For example, in my line of work, (boarding home) I cannot mention the b-word to most women ("b-d b-g") because it immediately elicits spasms of hysteria; by contrast, the male response is to crush, exterminate, and annihilate because of the underlying anatomical structure of protrusion, extension, donation. Men are, of course, capable of anxiety and women of aggression but fundamentally they differ in their psychic dynamics.

And so we see that the left's response to the new justice is entirely disordered and reflective of a deeper, primal suspicion of virility itself. We know that the Supreme Court is all about the right to a legal abortion. The "right to chose" is itself rooted in distrust of men: the anxious conviction that the father (of the child, of the mother) will not provide for mother-with-child but having violated the woman will abandon her and the new life.

I challenge anyone to find another accomplished man who equals Brett Kavanaugh in his tenderness and reverence for his mother, wife, daughters, basketball players, clerks, woman friends and co-workers! He is a paragon of masculine virtue in regard to women...except for the alleged assault.

Unfortunately, the hysteria of the left is fueled by the opposite pathology: our President's infantile machismo, bravado, bullying, egotism, and crudeness. We have the worst of both worlds: a caricature of vile, belligerent, narcissistic, dysfunctional masculinity; and anxious, frightened, irrational femininity at the other end.

The narrative presented by the accuser, Dr. Ford, is (to my mind) entirely probable as an event, not of deliberate sexual assault, but of intoxicated, immature male stupidity and insensitivity: some kind of crude, mindless and heartless prank or horseplay. It is typical of the adolescent male propensity for idiotic, aggressive discharge of libido, anxiety and hormonal energy. Unknown to the aggressors, the attack had a grave and lasting impact on the sensitive, fragile 15-year-old girl. The incident is iconic of male crudeness and female sensitivity! It is a tragedy about which the assailant had and has no clue! Somehow, I suspect that if anyone understood the entire Drama it was his wife Ashley, sitting behind him during the hearing...sad, somber, pensive. It was Ashley who prayed with their daughter for Dr. Ford. It is probably Ashley...almost a modern Pieta...who understands the real suffering of the victim even as she loves the assailant precisely in his own masculine weakness.

For me, the real take-away is not political but moral-spiritual: we men have failed our women...violated them in our lust, selfishness, insensitivity...in our rage and aggression...in our impotence, infidelity, and cowardice. We men desperately need to admit our sins against women, repent, seek God's grace and mercy, support each other in our tender care and reverence for our women!

A Church in Crisis

A few months ago I dismissed as alarmist voices that claimed our Catholic Church was in deep crisis. The events of this past summer have convinced me that I was wrong: that we are possibly facing the deepest ecclesial catastrophe since the French Revolution or perhaps the Reformation. It is not one scandal but a "perfect storm"...a convergence of at least 10 crises which have infused each other in a synergy of evil.

1.  The basic priest scandal was an epidemic of primarily homosexual predatory abuse of adolescent boys and erupted in the specific time frame of 1965-85 immediately following the sexual revolution.

2.  The episcopal cover-up whereby these abusers were protected and moved from place to place and so allowed to molest more victims. This scandal infuriated many Catholics more than the first.

3.  A new wave of abuse was unveiled this summer: that by bishops and even cardinals. McCarrick is one of many but he is a blatant example because he was not just protected by a coalition of ranking hierarchs, but he was promoted to Cardinal, disciplined (albeit informally it seems) by Benedict, and then rehabilitated under Francis. It is now undeniable that at the highest levels of the Church there is an alliance of power-brokers who protect homosexual predators.

4.  The financial crisis in the Vatican continues. Vigano found $50 million in hidden funds during his short tenure at Vatican City and was then removed to the USA lest he find more. The thorough audit ordered by Francis was aborted for reasons unexplained. Clearly the financial corruption at the heart of the Vatican is untouchable.

5.  The China pact of this summer between the Vatican and Peking effectively gave control of the Church there to the communist, atheistic, totalitarian regime. The contrast is startling: if John Paul undermined the Soviet Empire, Francis is giving the Church over the the Party!

6.  Institutionally the Church is in trouble. It is clear that bishops and pope are really not accountable to anyone so that they can do what they want. The Vatican has remained largely silent and not felt obliged to offer the slightest explanation for the McCarrick debacle. Clearly we need something like constitutional controls within the Church to check abuse by papacy and episcopacy. More profoundly, however, it is clear that the non-essential Church institutions...schools, hospitals, social agencies...have expanded into huge bureaucracies such that their maintenance has become a priority and threatens the primary Church mission: holiness, worship, truth. For 50 years I have been resisting Ivan Illich's proposal that the Church de-institutionalize itself in order to preserve itself. This summer I have finally surrendered: the ministerial Church must surrender to the laity the secular enterprises that are essential but complex and demanding. Part of the reason McCarrick was promoted was surely that he was a sharp administrator and an outstanding fundraiser. EWTN, our own little Magnificat Home, and the many initiatives coming out of the ecclesial movements are all examples of the wave of the future: all are independent of pope and bishop.

7.  A grave crisis of Truth is apparent in the theological confusion and incoherence flowing from the Vatican. A blatant example is the "death penalty  correction" to the Catechism in which a prudential, actually sentimental and emotional, subjective judgment has been elevated into a allegedly-permanent moral absolute, casually dismissing tradition and natural law and without any consultation with the broader Church. In general there is an emotivism, a sentimentality and an anti-intellectualism operative at the highest levels that dismisses the brilliant retrieval, under the previous two popes, of a "Splendor of Truth" that yearns to unveil to faith-and-reason.

8. Politicization of the hierarchy has compromised the Church as specific political, ideological agendas (climate control, immigration, death penalty, equality) have become the primary concerns of our current leaders. We as a people become polarized and divided as the Church mimics a political party. Under current leadership our Church is mimicking Trump-era American politics in which rage and resent reign and we demonize and despise each other. In living memory we have never seen cardinals and bishops insulting each other!

9. Acceptance of evil has become fashionable as some of our leaders explicitly reject the simple but profound adage "hate the sin, love the sinner" in favor of an "accompaniment" that makes everyone feel accepted and cherished and eschews a harsh, demanding, paternal love.

10. The crisis of the papacy is the hard reality that Pope Francis, an admirable and gifted man in many ways, himself embodies and intensifies all of these problems, except the first. He is impulsive, incoherent, emotional and basically incompetent as Pope. He clearly is listening to the wrong people as he is intensifying all of the deplorable dynamics identified above.

The always-underlying crisis is that of holiness: we are not close to God the Trinity; we do not trust; we do not surrender and obey. This is the ultimate, defining crisis or drama for each of us...every day of our lives. So we can relax and breathe easy: despite the problems, God is with us. We are His bride and He is our groom. We can rest in this. We can commit ourselves to seek Truth, humbly, as we love each other, even and especially in conflict. We can allow Him to fill us with His mercy and love!

The Kavanaugh Controversy is Simple: It is All About Abortion!

The redeeming moment of the Kavanaugh judicial hearings was when the Judge tearfully spoke of his wife and daughter praying for Dr. Ford, his alleged-victim. That single act of a child-and-mother more than overcame the character assassination, the obnoxious circus antics, the narcissistic hystrionics of Cory-Sparticus-Booker and the cruelty of leaking and outing Dr. Ford.

It helps to recall that all this activity is about a single issue: abortion! Everything else is small potatoes! I was reminded: if your defining and consuming cause is legalized destruction of the fragile, powerless human person than why would you hesitate, for a single second, in destroying man's reputation and family as well as violating the privacy of a previously abused woman? The moral rot at the core of the Democratic Party has corrupted so deeply over half a century that it contaminates even the very best and worthwhile elements of the Party. Consider the hypocricy: Bill, almost certainly a habitual abuser, and his enabler-protector Hillary, continue to be luminaries of the Left solely because they are pro-choice! Me-too, identity politics, health care, economic equality, immigration and even dump-Trump all bow to the god, constitution, the soul of the Party:  abortion!

If you love legalized abortion, you will hate Kavanaugh! If you hate legalized abortion, you will love Kavanaugh. It really is that simple!

Dr. Ford, by virtue of her sincerity, sweetness, fragility, precision, intelligence, and modest certainty was captivating, endearing, and absolutely convincing. It is, to me, inconceivable that she is lying. It is, to me, overwhelmingly probable that she experienced what she related. During her testimony my lawyer-son texted me: "The nation is literally weeping!" I know that I was. Her narrative was entirely credible: specific, clear, internally consistent and entirely coherent with what we know of 17-year-old Brett.

Her credibility, the seriousness of the matter, the sensitivity of the abuse of women in our society today, and the high bar we set for Supreme Court justices all make a reasoned case against the Judge.

Those considerations, however, do not overcome the case for him. The allegation, albeit convincing,  is entirely uncorraborated. The event, as described by her, with the alcohol and laughter, seems not to be a deliberate rape but some kind of prank or horseplay on the part of the alleged attacker. But we will probably never know the full truth. Most importantly, the alleged event is not part of pattern of abuse of women: if it happened, it is an anomaly, an exception, an aberration; an impulsive, intoxicated, adolescent stupidity, albeit with horrendous consequences upon this delicate 15-year-old. By all accounts, he reveres and advances women and is a man of exceptional character and enormous competence.

I am proud that Dr. Ford was given a respectful, gentle hearing. Even Donald behaved (relatively) well! I am glad there is an FBI investigation although I think it will be far less thorough than what has already been done by the media and investigators for the abortion lobby. Unless there is a serious revelation, he should be confirmed. And we would all do well to join mother Ashley and daughter in prayers for the Ford and Kavanaugh families as well as for the good of our country!

The Francis Agenda

Five years into his pontificate and coming out of the "summer of shame" (McCarrick, Pennsylvania report, death penalty, Vigano, China) the agenda of Pope Francis has become crystal clear. It is not from what he says that this pattern emerges: in what he says he is complex, contradictory, impulsive, incoherent and irrational. It is in what he does that a logic emerges: his decisions and especially his appointments. His priorities are:

1.  The politicization of the papacy and episcopacy on behalf of a liberal program, especially welcome to immigrants and protection of the earth. These are the heart of his papacy. They are worthwhile goals,  befitting of a politician, social activist or policy advocate. Not a pope! In this he accommodates to the ideology of secular Western elites and it is why he is their darling. Previous popes offered a framework of moral teachings to use in evaluating specific policies and practices without becoming partisan. Francis is the hero of the secular, liberal West. He is also the Anti-Trump!

2.  Communion-for-the-divorced (and remarried without annulment) is the signature initiative by which he has polarized the Church. When his behind-the-stage maneuvers at the Synod were decisively rejected by the bishops he defiantly endorsed it in regard to the Argentine bishops' interpretation of Laetitiae Amoris and then slipped this into the official Church records. In one swap, he dismissed the clear teaching of St. John Paul of just a few years previous, the tradition of millennia, and the explicit will of the synod of bishops. To be sure Francis is no sexual libertarian or gay militant; he himself seems to be of two minds and has at times disappointed his progressive collaborators.  But he lacks the stomach, fortitude or intellect to engage, in confident conflict, Cultural Liberation in the manner of his two predecessors. Instead he has clearly accommodated himself to the gay lobby and distanced himself from his predecessors in favor of a soft, welcoming, uncritical "accompaniment" approach to sexual license.

3.  In China, he hopes to expand the reach of the Church by subservience to the Communist Party through giving them veto power over the choice of bishops. This is probably the single most catastrophic decision he will make. China will only have pro-abortion bishops who are devoid of any capacity speak Truth or to confront that dreadful government, overtly or covertly. Again we see the spirit of accommodation. And again, we see an indifference to Truth.

4.  Elected to clean up the mess in the Vatican, he has now been exposed by the McCarrick/Vigano revelations to be the prime protector of the curia's web of financial irresponsibility, gay sexual immorality, and a heterodox theology of sexual liberation. John Paul seems to have been given over to his mission and blissfully unaware of the culture of sin that was growing around him. Benedict apparently recognized it, attempted to discipline McCarrick, but found himself without the personal stamina and social capital to confront it and so resigned with dignity. Francis has befriended this network because it helps him with his agenda: a progressive internationalism, a softening on sexuality, and normalization in China. McCarrick may be seen as iconic of all these concerns.

5. Accommodation is the substance of his agenda: accommodation to progressive politics, sexual liberation, Chinese communism, and the lavender mafia of the Curia. With his customary verbal flourish, he prefers the expression "accompaniment" which lends a cherubic glow to all he does as welcoming, warm, and nurturing. The underlying spirit of this pontificate is an emotivism that disdains objective Truth in favor of sentiment and a mercy without justice. He clearly has internalized the secular West's stereotypical view of the Catholic Church as rigid, regressive, heartless. Reactive against that, he distances himself from demands, theology, authority, tradition, dogma, and law. Everything with him is feeling, passion, sentiment. When he is mad (at capitalist, clerics, mafia) he spews venom and resentment, demonizing his enemy even as he cloaks himself in righteousness. Entirely lacking is judicial sobriety, temperance, or the patient correction of a confident father.

There seems to be a "splitting" in the dense, strange personality of this Pope: the good Francis and the bad Francis. Clearly, the good Francis is welcoming, merciful, kind, and sweet. The bad Francis is cold, calculating, Machiavellian and brutal in use of power. Like his counterpart, Trump, his dictatorial instincts equip him to remake the Church in his own image without regard to protocol, tradition, or due process. His manipulation of the Synod was quite grotesque. His appointments to the college of cardinals have discarded normal procedures and favored those closest to him in ideology. Liberal Thomas Reese S.J. admitted that had John Paul or Benedict been so subjective and partisan in their appointments that he and other liberals would have been enraged. He has steadily eliminated opposition from within the Vatican (Burke, Mueller,) and surrounded himself with fellow-travelers. John Paul and Benedict were academics, comfortable in the give-and-take of intellectual debate and confrontation; both confronted the repression of Nazism and Communism; both valued freedom even as they protected the Truth entrusted to their care. Francis is instinctively a Peronist in that he weilds power to eliminate his foes and achieve his political goals.

The Church is now in a full-scaled civil war about this pontificate. It is a cold war, a quiet war, a behind-the-scenes war. It is no longer possible to see continuity  between Pope Francis and his predecessors: the contradictions are glaring!  It is hardly possible to be loyal to the Tradition and the past and to this pope. It is like being in Spain in the 1930s! The moderates and mediators (Dolan, O'Malley ) will have to decide, in ways dramatic and hidden. Every thinking Catholic will have to decide!

Our President, Our Pope, and the Flight from Truth into Emotivism

If my father is diabetic, schizophrenic or alcoholic, it is neither reverence nor charity to deny, ignore or dismiss it. The first step towards health for a dysfunctional family or community is recognition of the underlying pathology. Genuine respect, compassion and justice...informed by Truth rather than unthinking obeisance or pious, saccharine sentimentality...require sober, clear-minded scrutiny and evaluation, of a President and even more importantly of a Pope. It is worth considering Ross Douthat's suggestion about the similarities between President Trump and Pope Francis.

The most significant, astonishing characteristic of our President is his absolute, relentless disregard for truth. His pathology is much deeper than that of a compulsive liar because the concept of "lying" implies a truth or objectivity that is distorted, deliberately, for gain. And so a lie-detector test probably detects the mind's dissonant awareness of incongruity between the truth and the lie. Trump might well pass every lie detector test because he is oblivious of a Reality exterior to his preferences, needs, impulses.   Developmentally, he is about 2-years old. His is a pathology that (to my knowledge) has not to date been identified (as in the DSM IV).  It resembles the psychopath or sociopath who lacks any conscience (regard for good and evil) and empathy (for the suffering of another) but it is distinct: he is indifferent to Truth.  If we understand "intellect" classically as the ability of the human mind to receive, grasp or understand Reality or Being, we might name him an:  intellectopath, one who is unaware of and indifferent to Reality and thereby inclined to deceive and manipulate facts for his own purposes.  In the case of Donald Trump, this pathology exceeds, in moral gravity, even as it informs all his blatant defects of character:  boundless narcissism,   incompetence, incoherence regarding policy, inconsistency,  disrespect for women, and the vile contempt for those who resist him in any way.

His intellectual pathology has catastrophic consequences for our society: it is not only his followers who mimic his disregard for facts, but his adversaries on the left by an inverted imitation increasingly demonstrate that same emotionalism, irrationality, and will to power (witness the histrionics at the recent hearings for Judge Kavanaugh!)  Our society is polarized now even more than during the Vietnam War and the crises of the 1960s. We would probably have to go back to the Civil War to find such division but even that conflict had about it a dignity and honor that is entirely lacking in our body politic today.

Trump did not create this condition, but he is a prime symptom and a vast inflamation of it. Alasdair MacIntyre, in After Virtue, notes the rise of "emotivism" as the basis for ethics in modernity as there has been a loss of tradition and of the cultivation of intelligence as the apprehension of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. Trump can be viewed as the final and absolute embodiment of this trend: almost an Anti-Christ of Untruth. The ultimate expression of Pilate's skepticism: "What is Truth?"

Pope Francis has a much milder form of this malady, to be sure, but it is more significant because of his office and mission: he is The Custodian of Truth. Like Trump, his pontificate has been characterized by impulsiveness, inconsistency, incoherence, polarization, emotionalism, and an extraordinary disinterest in Truth and facts. He has an aversion to dogma, rules, and tradition. He is at pains to set himself against the past, rather than develop in continuity with it. He is sentimental, histrionic and wholly unpredictable. Like our President, he has around him those who would restrain his impulses: his Kelly/Matis is Mueller/Sarah/Burke.

He is a people-pleaser who responds sympathetically to whoever is close to him. When mad at the mafia, he tells them they are going to hell; when talking with an aging agnostic, he assures him God sends none to hell. He supports conscientious objector Kim Davis and a few days latter has Fr. Lombardy peddeling furiously away from that posture. He brutally castigates the Chilians who alleged sex abuse only to apologize later and blame bad information.  He has attacked gay marriage as an artifice of the devil and then he surrounds himself in the curia with the gay mafia.  There are increasing suspicions of mental or emotional disorder. (http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/09/12/francis-a-pope-who-says-one-thing-and-the-opposite/ ). As with Trump, his is not a conventional psychological disorder but a profound character pathology which makes him incapable of a coherent, intelligent vision of reality. Actually, he is lucid and steadfast in his political ideology but that is not what we look for in our pope. As a Jesuit he hardly embodies the rich intellectual legacy started by St. Ignatius in favor of an emotionalism and sentimentality. Perhaps that explains that he chose for his papal name that of the least intellectual of our saints: Francis of Assis.

The Pope's response...actually, complete lack of response...to the dubia presented by a group of Cardinals for clarification is significant. He offers no answer, no rebuttal, no clarification. He does not operate in the world of theological discourse. He prefers to be left free to follow his feelings, impulses, and passions. His "pastoral approach" of "accompaniment" would allow priests and ministers to follow sentiments of empathy and kindness, unrestrained by objective truths, dogmas, rules or by the moral order.

Worst of all is his response to the Vigano testimony. A simple yes, no or clarification on the allegations is all that is required. He dances around that question with a breath-taking contempt for facts and truth. "You make your mind up" he tells the journalists. And he ends with:  "It is a matter of faith." He can only be saying by this:  "If you are against me and my papacy, you will believe these allegations with my right wing enemies. If you are with me and my agenda (global warming, immigration, death penalty, etc.) you will care about Vigano's testimony as much as I cared about the sex life of Fr. McCarrick, a marvelous ally in my political crusade." Just recently he speaks in his daily homily about the strategy of the Accuser (Satan) in unveiling the sins of bishops so as to scandalize the faithful. Again: disdain for Truth. He has forgotten that Satan is the father of lies; that Jesus is the Truth; that the "truth will make you free." He proclaims a mercy that is cheap: depleted of justice, truth, contrition.

In a startlingly narcissistic, self-regarding twist, Pope Francis, in his daily homilies, has cloaked his silence before the dubia and Vigano in a robe of prayer and profundity,  identifying himself and his McCarrickian cadre with the silence of Christ before Pilate as he slanders the whistle-blowers as agents of The Accuser! The subtlelity and depth of this self-deception is something the crude and superficial Trump could only envy.

John Paul was the great prophet of Mercy but this message was enriched, also by Benedict, through the retrieval of "The Splendor of Truth." This dual pontificate recovered the ancient reverence for reason as complimentary of faith as reception, wonder and grasping of Reality in all its Beauty. At the same time, they incorporated all that is best in contemporary science and philosophy. Francis appears to lack the slightest appreciation for this priceless legacy. He is a man of emotion, heart, spirit, and impulse. As The Theologian of the World, he is the endearing scarecrow of the Wizard of Oz.

His absolute condemnation of the death penalty follows this pattern: his feeling is all prisons systems present and future will be adequate; his sentiment is that capital punishment offends haman dignity. He offers no philosophical argument; nor any exhaustive social science research. He dismisses the tradition of natural law that has always seen that the state must protect innocent life and the common good, if necessary by use of lethal force (military, police, execution.) He neglects to consult with bishops around the world but inserts his opinion into the Catechism in a dictatorial fashion.

He is referred to as a "Peronist" for his tyrannical impulses and in this again resembles our President and the regrettable worldwide strengthening of dictatorships. When he was rebuked by the Synod of Bishops (notably the Africans) on communion for the divorced, he high-handedly approved the Argentinian interpretation of Amoris Laetitiae and installed his letter and their document into the official Church record. Thereby, he covertly and tyranically elevated his sentimental view, even as he pays lip service to diversity, collegiality and decentralization.

Both pope and president present as populists but are brazenly elitist in important, but contrasting ways. Trump is a wealthy celebrity whose tax and tariff initiatives are seen as promising for lower income folks by only the most optimistic (possibly delusional) Trumpistas. Pope Francis is a sharp contrast. He is champion of the poor, immigrants and the environment. In this he has emerged as the symbolic world-leader of Western liberalism: darling of our media and all democrats. He faces off against Trump-Putin-et.al who represent the opposing emergent ideology of nationalism, zenophobia fear and rage. Strangely (and painfully, for many of us) the Trump-Putin axis is more protective of innocent life, traditional marriage/family, and religious liberty than is Pope Francis who is contradictory but mostly guided by the lavender mafia surrounding him.

With both pope and president, we have left the cosmos of objective truth, moral order, stability and tradition and been thrust into the chaos of unending marxist-nietzchian conflict: one interest group against the other, the clash of wills and interest, the triumph of dionysian passion and feeling. To be sure, Francis is different as he practices a sentimentality of kindness and compassion for the victimized even as he expresses hatred for those he perceives as oppressors.

Jorge Bergoglio is an admirable man and priest in many ways. He would be a superb counselor-therapist; chaplain for prisons, youth, hospitals or military; spiritual director or retreat leader; social worker; community organizer or political activist. He is simply a very bad pope. A person might be a saint but a bad teacher or mechanic or CEO. Bergoglio is a catastrophe as a pope because he is theologically-challenged. The first job of pope (in my mind) is to teach; the second is to govern the Church. His two immediate predecessors were splendid in the first task but not strong in the administration of a Church bureaucracy that has grown beyond bounds. Pope Francis is a failure in the first task of teaching but worse in the second of governing: he has not just lost control (the way Benedict apparently realized so that he retired) but surrounded himself with a corrupt, secretive network that covertly propagates a culture of perversion and publicly advocates the agenda of Western, elite liberalism.

I am told that in Rome he is disliked by conservatives but also by liberals since he has failed to deliver them their agenda. He is unpredictable and unreliable. Does this remind you of someone who is despised by liberals and by many (economic and moral) conservatives as well?

In the wake of this Summer of Shame (McCarrick, death penalty, Pennsylvania report, Vigano) we now know the the hierarchical Church is corrupted beyond what most of us would have guessed even months ago. A drastic cleansing is required. It is vastly improbable that this Pope, curia and college of cardinals are capable of it. We will probably need a drastic reduction of the Church in its bureaucracy, property, and organizational reach. Until this cleansing is underway, many of us will be diverting our resources away from "the Church" ...that is to say the institutional Church, not the Church our Mother, the body and bride of Christ, the servant of the poor and herald of the Gospel. To do differently would be to enable our dysfunctional pope and hierarchy. Meanwhile,  Pope Francis and his lieutenants are tightening their veil of silence and conspiracy with the fierceness of a Mafia family under attack.

We need to practice a kind of detachment from our hierarchy, renouncing patterns of co-dependence and enabling. Something like Al-Anon for families of alcoholics, we might call it "cleric/bishop/pope-anon." We remind ourselves that we belong not to Peter or Paul, not to John Paul or Benedict or Francis but to Christ even as we cherish, protect and develop the legacy of Mercy-in-Truth that is being squandered by the current pontificate.

This grieving process involves working through unavoidable feelings of hurt, disappointment and anger and has a particular twinge for those of us who have enjoyed such a tender, ennobling intimacy with St. John Paul and our Pope Emeritus. But this sober, lucid scrutiny of our leadership can serve to deepen and purify us in filial loyalty to Pope Francis and truthful charity for Jorge Bergoglio, like ourselves, a poor sinner and brother-in-Christ who has consistently asked for our prayers.

Slowly but surely, the Truth will be manifest. The civil authorities will help. The Church is pathetic, embarrassing, and even tragic! But the Holy Spirit is at work and will prevail. This crisis of moral corruption, financial wrongdoing, and politicization of the Church, nevertheless, in no way inhibits our own growth in holiness but can be a stimulus for it. We can wait patiently and observe as Christ purifies His Bride and Body. And so, we continue to hope,  pray, support each other and all our good priests and bishops in our shared life with the Holy Trinity, our Blessed Mother and the Communion of Saints.

It Is All About Homosexuality

It is not hard to connect the dots:

1.  The Church sex scandal overwhelmingly (81%) involves neither pedophilia nor women but young adolescent men. It is a homosexual problem. Married and women priests have nothing to do with it.

2.  There was a surge of this activity in 1965-85 when there was an invasion of homosexual, especially actively gay, men into the priesthood. (Why I do not know.) Relatively few allegations outside of that time immediately after the sexual revolution. The good news:  we are 30 years out of the storm!

3. The compulsive obsession with young men has been prevalent in gay culture and lifestyle since the Greeks. It is part of the condition.

4.  Those gay men who came into the priesthood in that period are now in late adulthood (60s and 70s) and many are in high positions in the Church. They compose the Vatican's "lavender mafia" that protected McCarrick and provoked the Vigano testimony.

5. Pope Francis is probably not homosexual (by attraction) and certainly not gay (by lifestyle or ideology); he is ambiguous and confused as he has spoken on both sides of this polarizing issue. He is, however, zealous about his own agenda: climate change, immigrants, death penalty, and a softer and more people-pleasing Church. Therefore, he has accepted as his allies and advisors  McCarrick and his mafia comrades. He befriends the gay lobby the way we pro-lifers in the USA are partnered with the conservatives (economically, diplomatically, etc.) and social-justice Catholics align with legalized abortion, gay marriage, embryo destruction and compulsive contraception taxation.

You cannot make this stuff up:  this summer, as the McCarrick, Pennsylvania, and Vigano bombs all exploded,  our Pope had Fr. James Martin and Cardinal Farrell in Dublin proclaiming, to the Conference on the Family (!!!!!) the values of homosexuality.

The big relief from the Vigano revelation is that now we know what is happening! Now we have, if not a cure, an accurate diagnosis! At the highest levels and widely beyond Rome, our Church is in the hands of a corrupt, secretive, pedarist network which has aligned its hidden, shameful intentions with the progressive political agenda of Pope Francis.

There is not much we can do about it. It is highly unlikely that our Pope will unveil the truth, clean up the mess, or resign from the papacy. The Vatican is clammed up like the very best of the "good fellows." To their credit, a critical mass of American bishops and leaders have demanded transparency but the pontiff retains monarchical powers and is unlikely to authorize a real investigation. The civil authorities, as in Pennsylvania, will chip away at the truth.

McCarrick and his cronies remind me of the 85-year-old mafia boss, feeble and senile and sickly, who is given a 50-year prison sentence and pleads "Your honor:  I will never make it!" and is reassured by the judge "Just do your best!" This cadre of cardinals are now old and in decline. They have done immense damage to victims and to the entire Church. But they are pathetic: secretive, sterile, and depleted of virility, generosity, fruitfulness, and hope.

On our part, we are to wait, pray, hope, suffer, and do the good that is offered to us. A wise young man, when I had confided a tormenting situation, once told me: "Some things must be suffered." This curia and this pontificate must be suffered...patiently, peacefully, hopefully. This is all about the weeds and the wheat!

Pope Francis on the Death Penalty

The 1992 Catholic Catechism on the death penalty: 2267 "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor," 

Pope Francis has replaced that paragraph: 2267 "Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."

Is this a change in teaching"?  A "development of doctrine?" No and No! The Pope cannot just change, by fiat, the moral law:  what was good for millennia cannot become evil in July 2018! Nor is it an authentic development of doctrine:  it is not organicaly, coherently, logically and inherently flowing from Truth as already revealed. This change is best understood as the insertion, into the Catechism, of a temporary, prudential judgment. The language is key: "increasing awareness"..."new understanding"..."more effective systems of detention have been developed." In other words, changes in attitude and organizational effectiveness...in the judgment of the Pontiff...make executions unnecessary. This means further changes in attitude or institutions may again change this practical judgment: an outbreak of kidnappings, or of terror and child-molestation, or a breakdown in penal systems could reverse the judgment. The operative word is "inadmissible"... a weak, indecisive word, hardly adequate for the expression of the moral good and evil. The Pope is not teaching a moral truth,an absolute...as in "thou shall not commit adultery"...that pertains always and everywhere; he is not defining an inherent evil like torture or targeting of civilians...but making a situational calculation: right now we don't need the death penalty.

I agree that in the USA in 2018, for a host of contingent, practical reasons, we can do away with executions. But this kind of judgment doesn't belong in the Catechism. It is not an eternal truth that pertains in all circumstances. I can imagine that in Afghanistan or in Mexico,  intelligent, good Catholics might consider the death penalty a necessity. If I were commander of paratroopers who were raping, torturing and killing innocent women and children I would have no moral reservation about executing them, legally and with due process, to protect innocent life; nor would I hesitate to approve the death penalty for the ISIS warriors who viciously abused women and children.

Punishment traditionally has four purposes: protection, deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. Contemporary discussion strangely ignores the last three. But let us consider each of them.

Regarding protection, it is widely assumed that the strength of contemporary prisons ensure the prisoner cannot do more damage. This is patently false. Consider: the horrific power waged by gangs within prisons; the escape of drug lords from prisons in Mexico; the weakness of penal systems in much of the world; the murder of priest-pedophile Geohgan in a prison near Boston. Just last week the news reported two murders within prisons, one of a guard, by convicted murderers.

As a deterrent, capital punishment is useless, in the USA, because it is so rarely used. Studies show that it not the gravity so much as the certainty of punishment that deters. American juries are disinclined to use execution so it is worthless as a deterrent. This is not to say, however that it would not be helpful, even necessary, in another environment.

The third purpose, retribution, is widely confused with revenge. They are completely different, almost opposites. Revenge is a form of resentment or hatred in which a person passionately, emotionally violates the other in reaction to a received violation. It is violence responding to violence. Retribution, by contrast, is a sober exercise of restoration or reparation that corrects the wrong and reestablishes justice and order. For example, the moment after death, at the particular judgment when we encounter Christ in all his mercy, justice, and suffering in relation to our own sins, we will (I believe) beg for purgatory, we will  insist upon doing our restitution or retribution before receiving the glory and joy of heaven. It is arguable that a Timothy McVeigh or another terrorist who deliberately kills thousands, a serial murderer or rapist, a molester of children... that such a person has a debt to pay that must be more than life in prison, but certainly less than torture which is a real violation of the person's dignity. We might differ on this question, some favoring mercy and others a stricter justice. But it is clearly a worthy discussion, not to be dismissed by a paragraph inserted into the catechism.

Rehabilitation means more than restoration to a positive role in society; ultimately, we hope for the salvation of the soul of the criminal. Avery Dulles, surely the premier American Catholic theologian of the past century, pointed out that the certainty of one's imminent execution could provoke a conversion. This again, like retribution, is an area of mystery and uncertainty but a conversation worth having rather than foreclosing by a simplistic ultimatum.

The Pope has closed down all conversation about these dimensions with an appeal to "human dignity." It is not clear to me (nor to generations of saints, popes, doctors, thinkers, councils) that human dignity, properly understood, rules out the death penalty. The prevalent, fashionable view of human dignity advocated by our papacy/episcopacy draws from a secular perspective that denies or downplays the two deepest human realities: Evil in its profundity and power; and the holy, the transcendent, the supernatural as the source of all human authority.

The longstanding teaching of the Church is that some cases of evil are so grave that the death penalty is required. But secularism and Pope Francis have a more sentimental view: that natural death is a final, rather than a relative evil and that execution by the state is an absolute violation of human dignity. Today's popes and bishops are possibly the least qualified to deal firmly and justly with real Evil: with psychopaths, serial killers, sexual predators, power-hungry dictators, borderline personalities and criminals. This is because by nature and background they are mostly: privileged, innocent, protected, wholesome, generous and merciful. Who would you rather confront Hitler: Dorothy Day, Pius XII, or Winston Churchill? We need the non-saint, the last of the three to protect civilization! By a perverse irony, just now when it is clear that our hierarchy has been catastrophically incapable of protecting our young and weak from its own predators, our pontiff condescends to dictate to the secular state how to protect our innocent. Robert Royal is right: the pope might take a moratorium, abstain from pontificating, and lead a penitential movement for all in authority who have violated or covered up.

Perhaps more important is the divine origin (as St. Paul says) of all human authority. The father/mother, policeman, lifeguard, and judge all derive their power from God. It is a sacred trust. It is not just a  utilitarian function of protection against aggression. The aversion to execution assumes a leveled, democratic, disenchanted view of authority as force of a human will against another. In a sacred cosmos, the necessary, just, paternal, authorized use of lethal force is a hallowed, honorable task. Contrast the swat member with the sniper: they are opposites as the later is violating innocents, the former is protecting them. The material act is the same, pulling a trigger; the purpose, the form, the final end of one is an absolute contradiction of the other. Similarly with the death penalty, where needed.  The trajectory of Pope Francis' emotionalism and theological confusion is towards a vague pacifism (he does not approve of life in prison either) that draws from a secular sentimentality rather than a hard-edged, classic grasp of sin and evil, of the supernatural and the diabolic.

Aware that we will be confronting violence until the coming of Christ... that it could become worse...and skeptical of the efficacy of penal technology...we need to honor and even consecrate those entrusted with the holy use of lethal force. I propose a quasi-sacramental anointing of all who are legitimately authorized to take aggressive human life: police, soldiers, executioners, prosecutors and so forth. We would implore the Holy Spirit to descend with gifts of restrain, prudence, courage, justice and mercy. This could include a penitential, purifying rite for those forced to use such force as their spirit, inevitably, should be repulsed by their dreadful but necessary duty. The executioner or officer will need a healing himself as he, in his flesh, participates in a tragedy, however necessary and just.

Additionally, this change to the Catechism is a kind of cultural imperialism: insisting upon a viewpoint that has come to dominate the secular West. Has he consulted with African bishops? What Council approved this? What happened to collegiality? What happened to decentralization of power? How about Yasidee and Christian women in Iraq who have been kidnapped, tortured, raped, shamed and killed? How about victims of drug violence in Mexico and Columbia where the prisons are weak? How about the poor and weak in Yemen, Sudan and Rwanda? What about humility before Tradition? Or respect for diversity?

The fervent papal crusade to abolish the death penalty is futile. Executions are now eliminated across Europe and in all Catholic-majority countries. Most occur in China, Pakistan, Iran and other Muslim countries:  Does Pope Francis think the communists and Muslims care what he thinks? They have become rare in the US: we haven't had one in NJ in over 50 years. Over 50% of American Catholics favor use of it in some circumstances. These, probably many Trump supporters, despised by liberal elites as ignorant, fearful, and bigoted, may actually be more deeply in touch with moral realities such as vulnerability to Evil, need for restitution, and mortal sin as worse than physical death. Pope Francis, heralded as the populist pope, is not only indifferent to these concrete, valid concerns but moralistic and judgmental against them.

This correction also displays the subtle clericalism, the arrogance so common on the left: the assumption that we lay people need specific directions from our clergy about practical  policies regarding walls, immigration, death penalty and the environment. Clergy are trained in theology not social policy; the Church's infallibility applies to faith and morals, not to partisan political decisions. The propensity of the liberal cleric is to correct us laity  and dictate our politics. The implication is that the clergy as an elite have superior insight while the laity are ignorant and incapable without explicit directives on policy. As noted above, however, the clergy themselves are severely challenged in regard to the secular, brutal confrontation with raw Evil.

Our papacy and the emergent Francis episcopacy are in a serious crisis. In their weakened state, prone to ideologies of the left, they offer a feeble, emasculated Magisterium as they advocate a cheap mercy, depleted of virile qualities of truth, holiness, justice, accountability. We need to look elsewhere, at least for now, for spiritual guidance: to the bishops of Africa (Cardinal Sarah) where the Church is flourishing and orthodox;  to the lay leaders raised up by the Holy Spirit (Kiko, Ralph Martin and the lay movements; D.L. Schindler and his Communio comrades; Reno and the First Things crowd; Scott Hahn and the new-Oxford influx of converts;  Gil Baile, Neal Lozano, Robert Royal, Phil Gleason, Ross Douthat,  Raymond Arroyo, and even Wild Bill Donohue!); and of course to the precious, profound legacy of Popes John Paul and Benedict.

I remain loyal to the traditional Church teaching on the death penalty, even as I oppose it's use in current circumstances. In this I follow luminaries like Cardian Dulles and Archbishop (Why is he not a Cardinal?) Chaput! I understand the Catechism correction in light of tradition as a pragmatic suggestion.  Respectfully, with a serene, confident conscience,  I reject the apparent elevation of this judgment into an absolute.  I would encourage Catholic judges, prosecutors, legislators, governors, soldiers and others responsibility for protection, order and justice to exercise their God-given, lay intelligence, expertise, conscience, charism and responsibility in the light of the tradition and accept this correction to the Catechism for what it is:  a tentative, prudential suggestion, masquerading as a moral absolute.

The McCarrick Scandal

I am saddened but hardly shocked by the revelations of the pedastry of Cardinal McCarrick, who was our talented, energetic, charming and intelligent shepherd here in Newark for many years. He was admirable in his competence and I appreciated his loyalty to the Magisterium of Pope John Paul.  However, when he got his red hat he turned to the dark side and became chaplain to the Biden-Pelosi Congregation of Catholics-who-despise-Catholicism. Now it makes sense: the personal is always political and theological! How could he fight for the Church, in D.C., the political epicenter of  the Culture War, when he was already captive of his own concupiscence and disordered cravings? That he was influential in the choice of many American, especially NJ,  bishops places a dark cloud over our episcopacy. It is not to assert guilt by association nor that they knew or colluded in his wrong-doing. Rather, the travesty is that, with Francis, he jprefers as bishops kindred spirits who for whatever reason lack the wisdom,  heart and courage to defend the sacredness of innocent life, sexuality and marriage. Some at least are weak on basic Catholic values but invest immense spiritual energy in the standard leftist causes: immigration, environment and the death penalty. Pope Francis himself is erratic and unreliable in confronting elite culture but autocratic in imposing his own political preferences.  Viewed in the context of Church history this and related incidents are not surprising and are best evaluated with from a place of serenity.

I myself was happily, effectively inoculated against "scandal at the Church" at the age of 16 at Seton Hall Prep by a marvelous Catholic catechesis when a priest asked us:  "How would you react if you learned that your mother was a whore?" Creepy question from a priest! But he led us through a simple logic: You would be, of course. shocked, confused, ashamed, and angry...and more shock, confusion, anger, shame! But, at the end of the day...think about it:  She is your mother. You love her, your mother the whore. Than he paused and said. You must know that your Mother the Catholic Church is a whore! She is the Bride of Christ and your Holy Mother, but she is also, in her human dimension, sinful and unfaithful in all her members, including priests, bishops and cardinals (excepting our Blessed Mother of course.) From then I was immunized against scandal:  If I were to learn today that the Pope and his cardinals were a cabal of psychotic, sadistic terrorists I would think:  "The regrettable, unavoidable sinful side of the Church! Thank God the Holy Spirit watches over us in all of this!"

Coming of age in the 50s and early 60s I was aware of the problem with alcoholic priests: the pastor of my childhood parish was rarely present to the parish and when he was behaved in a strange, eccentric manner. Clearly he suffered from alcoholism or perhaps an emotional disability.  Miraculously, the parish flourished despite him. This seemed, to me, to be normal Catholicism. As an adolescent this sensibility was strengthened by reading about the endearing "whiskey priests" of The Edge of Sadness and the Power and the Glory.

And so, the moral weakness and corruption of the clergy is, for me as a cradle Catholic, a "given." Nor am I indignant that "everyone knew" and insistent that we uncover "who knew what when."  Everyone knew...but what did they know? There was no clear testimony but rumors about a strange pattern of sleeping with seminarians without real sexual interaction: it entailed adults, consent (although an egregious inequality of power), and seemed to be less than a clear violation of celibacy. This seemed  weird but less than shocking in the world-post-sexual-revolution. Understandably, none of the young men were willing to publicly testify out of fear of retaliation and possibly out of a sense of guilt and responsibility for having complied. As Rod Dreher pointed out: conservatives avoided it because it was a cardinal; liberals avoided it because it involved homosexuality. Only in the last few weeks have we learned that he is alleged to have violated, over the years, at least two adolescent boys and also to have crossed the line into actual sexual acts with at least some seminarians. We know that sexual predators and compulsives are expert in hiding their activity: they precisely target as victims those who are insecure and timid, desperately avoiding the confident and assertive. We are instructed, within the Church, by St Ignatius of Loyola (whose feast day is today) among others to always put the best interpretation upon the actions of others, especially the clergy. This entails a reluctance to rush to rash judgment. I am inclined to give the culprit here full credit for fooling those around him. The post-Council Church is a culture of mercy...probably to a fault...clearly our mercy needs to be tempered by truth, justice and wisdom...although our pontiff and his lieutenants seem not to see this. It helps also to remember that clergy, to the degree that they themselves are wholesome, chaste and innocent are perhaps the least competent when it comes to detecting and confronting sociopaths, criminals, sexual predators, and borderline personalities. A prime example: Saint John Paul is widely criticized for his handling of the priest sex crisis but I see it as a sign of his personal sanctity and integrity that he simply could not fathom such a thing and that he was less than an outstanding bureaucrat. And so it is hardly surprising that a cleric of such talent, charm, energy and drive would rise to the top of the organization: he would have risen this way in the army, business, politics or any large institution.

Nor am I anxious that gay cabals have secretly taken over the entire Church. I am satisfied, from my own experience with priests, that most are substantially faithful to their vow of celibacy by abstaining from sexual intercourse (pornography and masturbation are, no doubt, pervasive as in the broader society of men.) Many of our finest priests, I am sure, experience homosexual attractions but control them and live  quiet, chaste, holy and fatherly lives. Surely there are circles (seminaries, orders, dioceses) that are infiltrated by active gay men but the fact that they are so well hidden and out of sight is a positive sign that the Church maintains overall a culture of sexual continence and fidelity.

There is also a chronological catastrophe at work here: just as AA did not exist prior to the 1930s so that alcoholics, until then,  were hopeless cases, so the recovery programs for sexual compulsives (Sexaholics Anonymous, Courage for homosexuals within the Church, etc.) were nonexistent until the 1980s. And so, the bumper crop of sexual predators, pedarists, pedophiles and compulsives that exploded, covertly, on the scene in the 1970s, in the wake of the Sexual Revolution, faced even deeper despair, shame and self-hatred than did the drunk pre-1940. Imagine the interior tension, guilt and conflict that must have afflicted these casualtes of the Sexual Revolution.

One wonders: did he not have a confessor, a spiritual director, a counselor or support group to encourage him, correct him, and hold him accountable? Probably not: we knew him as a workaholic, a super-high-achiever, a careerist. He probably did not know how to take care of himself in his own neediness. He is emblematic of American achievement and activism and the incapacity for genuine rest, contemplation and receptivity.  While fully conscious of the gravity of the violation, I for one am not without compassion for the violator.

It is good to review the findings of the John Jay Study:  over 80% of priest abuses were against adolescent males. Only 6% involved pedophilia; surprisingly few females involved. Most violators were homosexual; but not all homosexuals are violators. Nevertheless, the craving for young, masculine flesh is widespread in gay culture and should give pause to Pope Francis as he empowers James Martin SJ and his like to crusade for gay liberation. There is nothing "gay" about homosexuality: it is a sadness, a suffering, an affliction; like all crosses it bears abundant fruit, in in lives of countless priests and religious, when endured patiently, humbly, prayerfully, chastely.

The bulk of violations occurred between 1965-85: there was an explosion of Lust from Hell that swept our society off its feet. There were almost none in the 1950s and we seem to be returning towards that as normal. Now we are mostly dealing with the "perfect storm" of chaotic, contagious concupiscence that infected an entire generation...us Boomers and pre-Boomers! It is calming to know, although sin is always with us, we are out of the hurricane!

I think that it is good that the truth is out. I agree that the Church probably needs something like an "internal affairs" institution to investigate allegations even against bishops and cardinals. Perhaps this requires a board of lay prosecutors, soldiers, policemen, accountants, lawyers and investigators with full powers to uncover financial arrangements and access all paperwork.

But the organization fix is never enough. This revelation comes as an opportunity for Father McCarrick (he is still a priest but no longer a Cardinal at this time) to "repent and pray" as the Vatican directed him. May he experience the gravity of his sin: the immense power he yielded over these men whose entire clerical life depended upon him;  but even more the sacrilege that this "father of fathers" whose mission was to strengthen young priests in their paternal role as fathers was systematically emasculating them out of his own disordered craving of masculine affection.  Worse, of course than the seminarians is the younger men he violated! Victimized also are many Catholics, especially the young and innocent, who are scandalized that the Church, great herald of chastity and fidelity is so filthy.

McCarrick is a whore! The entire Church, including the episcopacy, is a whore! I am a whore myself! Let us pray: for abusers and all the victims. May our Savior embrace His unfaithful Bride and breathe his Holy Spirit on us: healing the wounded and cleansing the impure!