Seasonal
Reflections
Whatever
Happened to Easter?
Part II
3 August 2010
(Click here for Part I)
Is it truly the one holy and
apostolic Catholic Church that Benedict heads?
Here lies the crux of the matter,
which the latest scandals help to put in perspective. How can
any valid pope of the true Church say and do what Benedict does
regarding these? Take the shocking words quoted in April by
the official Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano and
repeated throughout the world: Jeffrey Brown echoed them in
introducing the NewsHour segment that featured Gwyn Green.
While celebrating his fifth anniversary as “pope” at a private lunch
with the cardinals, Brown reported, Benedict in reference to the
current scandals called the church a “wounded sinner.”
The Vatican daily itself said the
“pope” spoke to his followers about the “sins of the church,
reminding them that it, wounded and sinner, is experiencing, ever
more, the consolation of God.”
Do we dare ask how the defiled church
that Ratzinger leads can be the same Immaculate Spouse of Christ we
heard about as kids in catechism class? Does not such holiness
endure forever? There is indeed a discrepancy here, and in
noting it, we are not totally alone. While the media in
general avoids dogmatic detail, there are a few hints here and
there. Writing for the Times Online in late April,
Catherine Nixey, the child of former religious, a monk and a nun,
for instance, tells how the congregation for a recent Sunday morning
Mass at the Brompton Oratory in Kensington, recited the Nicene
Creed in unison. For her, however, this “statement of
belief” now presents a problem because of the clerical sex abuses
and Benedict’s reaction. How, she asks, can the faithful be
convinced that their “wounded, sinner Church” is “still, as the
creed calls it, the ‘holy Church’ for which one can, in the literal
and the metaphorical sense, stand?”
Exactly how the Church turned bad she
does not say; nor how the current state of affairs can be reconciled
with Christ’s saying He would be with us forever. But then,
Nixey does not seem to be well-versed in dogma. Her own
Catholic upbringing was, as she puts it, “mild and non-doctrinal.”
Her brother, she says, became “an atheist and devoted apostle” of
Richard Dawkins, who, along with the equally notorious Christopher
Hitchens has called for Benedict’s arrest should he dare come to
England. Noting how Catholic attendance there has dwindled
from about two million in 1979 to one million today, Nixey cites
surveys that blame the clerical stand on contraception –– and the
handling of the sex scandals. At the same time, however, she
notes Benedict’s many defenders and “fans” –– over 120,000 on his
Facebook page alone –– as well as those who actually view the
current situation in a positive light. Oddly enough, her own
father, the former monk who is now a non-believer, also appears
optimistic, seeing in the crisis “an excellent chance for the Church
to open its windows, to cleanse itself.”
You don’t say!
Haven’t we heard that song before?
Wasn’t Vatican II all about “opening windows” to the world?
Look where that led us! Traditionally the Church has espoused
the strictest code of sexual morality on record. Sure, there
were offenders, even among the clergy, high and low, but nobody, but
nobody, had the gall to justify his own sinfulness in theory or in
principle. Deny culpability for individual acts, and whitewash
an overall record, yes, many did that. What no cleric in good
standing dared do was change the ground rules by trying to redefine
what was a sin and what was not. That started only after the
modernists at Vatican II started opening all those windows.
Before they took over, the Church had
always accepted sodomy as one of the four sins that cry out to
heaven for vengeance, reserving the harshest of penalties for those
who solicited for such purposes. In his book Vatican II,
Homosexuality & Pedophilia,
Atila Sinke Guimaraes notes how St. Basil, back in the fourth
century, wrote:
The cleric or monk who molests youths or
boys, or is caught kissing or committing some depravity with
them, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown
(tonsure) and, after having his head shaved, let his face be
covered with spittle and let him be bound in iron chains,
condemned to six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread
once a day in the evening three times per week. After
these six months of living in a separate cell under the custody
of a wise elder advanced in the spiritual life, let him make
prayers, vigils and manual work, always under the watch of two
spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any
relationship . . . with young people.”
Other severe strictures against the
practice of sodomy were passed on down through the ages, from the
time of Saints Augustine and John Chrysostom in the fifth and sixth
centuries to that of St. Peter Damian in the eleventh century to
Pope St. Pius V in the sixteenth. In The Rite of Sodomy,
her tome on the topic,
Randy Engel notes how the latter pontiff ruled that sodomites of all
classes, including clerics, should be stripped of their posts,
dignities and income, handed over to secular authorities –– and
executed according to the law. Even the 1917 Code of Canon
Law, which was technically in force until 1983, ordered that
deacons, priests and bishops found guilty of sodomy, debauchery,
bestiality, incest, or of engaging in sins against the Sixth
Commandment with a minor be “declared infamous and deprived of any
office, benefice, dignity, responsibility, if they have such,
whatsoever, and in more serious cases, they are to be deposed.”
(can. 2359).
Contrast all this with the mild
approach of Vatican II, which in an effort to adapt to the modern
word, paid homage in its texts to modern psychology and psychiatry,
fields dominated by anti-Christian atheists who view the human soul
as being a mass of crude desires. For them eternal life does
not enter the picture. Yet, the Constitution Gaudium et
spes dares to give credence to these so-called sciences.
In his book Guimaraes cites the following excerpts:
Advances in…psychology and the social
sciences not only lead man to greater self-awareness but provide
him with the technical means of molding the lives of whole
peoples as well.” (5b)
Recent psychological advances furnish
deeper insights into human behavior. (54a)
Let the faithful incorporate the findings
of new sciences and teachings and the understanding of the most
recent discoveries with Christian morality and thought, so that
their practice of religion and their moral behavior may keep
abreast of their acquaintance with science and of the relentless
progress of technology. (62f)
In pastoral care, sufficient use should be
made, not only of theological principles, but also of the
findings of secular sciences, especially psychology and
sociology. (62b)
To be sure, such a conciliatory
approach departs from that of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, who as
recently as 1949 had challenged a book published two years
previously by Dr. Joshua Liebman. In his essay “Archbishop
Fulton J. Sheen—Author, Orator and Missionary,” Fr. John Hardon
tells how Rabbi Liebman in Peace of Mind had extolled the
virtues of Freudianism, which holds an incestuous form of sex to be
the main human motivator. Sin, guilt and any mention of God
are seen as the primitive relics of a bygone era. All religion
does is cause anxiety. Thus spake the rabbi, who, having
abandoned the Bible, believed the modern age could find salvation in
Marx and Einstein, as well as in Freud. The fact that the
latter might have grossly misinterpreted an ancient Greek play, with
his theory regarding the Oedipus complex, was apparently beyond him.
But not to Bishop Sheen, whose own
book, Peace of Soul, not only renounced Freud, but also
argued there could be “no world peace” without “soul peace.”
As Father Hardon notes, Sheen attributed the various tensions
treated by psychology to a “deeper metaphysical tension, inherent in
every human being, between his contingent and limited being and the
Infinite and Absolute Being” of God.” The basic cause of our
anxiety, he said is a “restlessness within time, which comes because
we are made for eternity.” And if you think Sheen’s words are too profound for the general public,
let us note that this book of his became a best seller and led to
the production of his popular television series Life is Worth
Living. Of this Hardon writes:
On Tuesday evenings, from 6 to 6:30, an
estimated audience of two to five million heard and saw a Roman
Catholic Bishop, chalk in hand, in front of a blackboard,
explain the purpose of man’s life in this world; how because of
the fall of Adam, sin and concupiscence have entered into our
lives; how through the help of God’s grace and the use of our
reason, we may resist the drag of concupiscence and avoid the
pitfalls of sin; and how if we are faithful in resisting
temptation until death, we shall be happy with God for all
eternity.
Conversions attributed to Sheen
include those of violinist Fritz Kreisler, author and ambassador
Clare Booth Luce, columnist and freethinker Heywood Broun,
industrialist Henry Ford II, and communist activists Elizabeth
Bentley and Louis Budenz. But did the conciliar Church take
heed and strive to imitate Sheen’s method of presenting the faith to
individuals or massive audiences? No, defying tradition, they
instead adopted a new approach to morality that focused on the
dictates of psychiatrists and social scientists in such a way as to
downplay those of the ancient Church.
Thus the document Persona Humana,
a “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics,”
issued by Cardinal Franjo Seper with Paul VI’s approval in December,
1976, begins as follows:
According to contemporary scientific
research, the human person is so profoundly affected by
sexuality that it must be considered as one of the factors which
give to each individual’s life the principal traits that
distinguish it. In fact it is from sex that the human person
receives the characteristics which, on the biological,
psychological and spiritual levels, make that persona a man or a
woman, and thereby largely condition his or her progress towards
maturity and insertion into society. Hence sexual matters, as is
obvious to everyone, today constitute a theme frequently and
openly dealt with in books, reviews, magazines and other means
of social communication.
There is nothing here that would
offend a Freudian—or a Pavlovian, for that matter. Missing is
any mention of a soul, sin, or grace, much less of divinity.
None of that stuff is important enough for the first paragraph.
To be sure, the text goes on to decry the “corruption of morals” and
note that at the same time “certain educators, teachers and
moralists have been able to contribute to a better understanding and
integration into life of the values proper to each of the sexes.”
Who these experts are, however, and how they operate it doesn’t say.
We are left to wonder: Are they Catholics? Protestants?
Psychotherapists? Behaviorists?
Ambiguity abounds.
What emerges in this Declaration is a
hodgepodge of psychobabble interspersed with dollops of Catholic
dogma. Thus we read next how people today try to discover by
themselves the “values innate in their own nature” in order to
achieve an ever greater development.” In moral matters,
however, we are told that “man cannot make value judgments according
to his personal whim.” No, he should detect in his conscience
“a law written by God.” According to this he will be judged.
The next paragraph goes on to note how God has made known to
Christians His plan of salvation through Christ, whose teaching is
our “supreme and immutable Law of life.” How non-Christians,
or Protestants, for that matter, fit into the picture is not
explained. Nor are there any strong imperatives to convert.
Instead, after a brief episode of theological orthodoxy, we are
thrust back into modernist lingo:
Therefore there can be no true promotion
of man’s dignity unless the essential order of his nature is
respected. Of course, in the history of civilization many
of the concrete conditions and needs of human life have changed
and will continue to change. But all evolution of morals
and every type of life must be kept within the limits imposed by
the immutable principles based upon every human person’s
constitutive elements and essential relations — elements and
relations which transcend historical contingency.
The key words here are “evolution of
morals”, for putting such a radical notion in context we have a kind
of “relative evolution.” Darwin would love it! According
to this, the evolutionists, relativists and religionists of a
modernist bent are all correct! Morals do in fact evolve,
though only relatively, within limits imposed by immutable
principles that vary according to each person’s limits and
circumstances. Or something like that. To be sure, it’s a
masterpiece of absolute relativism — or relative absolutism.
Take your pick.
The next paragraph says the
aforementioned “fundamental principles” are to be found in “the Divine
Law — eternal, objective and universal — whereby God orders, directs
and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human
community, by a plan conceived in wisdom and love.” The exact
nature and limits of this community, however, are not given.
Reading on, we learn that “man has been made by God to participate
in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of
Divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever increasingly the
unchanging truth.”
Talk about convoluted!
If man in general participates in
producing this law, does that mean he can, under divine guidance, of
course, alter it ever so gradually as circumstances change and he
comes “increasingly” to discern the truth? Does it mean we
collectively become wiser as time passes? If so, who gets to
define the particulars, especially as things change? There is
no mention of the Church here, nor of any governmental body.
So who decides? Who has the authority? Is it a matter of
decisions being made behind the scenes? Or does it all happen
automatically?
It is all very confusing, and reading
on we find Section VIII of the Declaration to be more so. The
topic prior to this has been that of sexual ethics for
heterosexuals; now we turn to homosexuals. The old term
“sodomy”, along with strong words like “depraved” and “deposed”
associated with clerics who indulge in such a sin under the 1917
Code of Canon Law, is not to be found. Instead we learn
that there are two kinds of “homosexuals,” one whose tendency is
transitory and not incurable, the other who is “definitively such
because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological
constitution judged to be incurable.” In regard to the latter,
the text says, “some people conclude that their tendency is so
natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within
a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so
far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.”
While not going so far as to agree
with the latter view, neither does the text see fit to condemn those
who indulge in homosexual acts. Instead it insists “these
homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and
sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and
their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be
judged with prudence.” While admitting that Sacred Scripture
depicts their actions as depraved, this “does not of course permit
us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are
personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that
homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be
approved of.”
Here we have the basis for a new
diagnosis. Homosexual acts no longer signify moral depravity,
but, rather, a disorder. It’s like an illness, or handicap.
The poor people simply can’t help it. Overlooked in the
process is the fact that the old moral code forbids not only sinful
acts, but also willful assent to such thoughts and desires. If
a person indulges in these to the extent that they erode his sexual
identity, can he still be said not to be culpable?
While the 1976 Declaration did not
get into the matter, it was hinted at ten years later in a letter
put out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under
then-Cardinal Ratzinger. Significantly this notes how
“increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church are
bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the
homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone
homosexual activity.” Some of these groups actually claim that
homosexuality is completely harmless, even good, and that any
criticism of such a lifestyle constitutes a form of unjust
discrimination.
While calling it “deplorable that
homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in
speech or action,” the letter goes on to call their condition
“disordered.” It further challenges the argument that because
the “homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of
deliberate choice,” such a “homosexual person” would have “no choice
but to behave in a homosexual fashion,” meaning if he were to engage
in homosexual activity, he would not be “culpable.”
Warning against such “generalizations
in judging individual cases,” the letter states that “while
circumstances may exist which reduce or remove the culpability of
the individual in a given instance, other circumstances may increase
it.” Consequently it cannot be assumed that the “sexual
behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and
therefore inculpable.”
In other words, they might be guilty
of sin, but not necessarily.
In reference to the “homosexual”
identity, the Letter says: “Although the particular inclination of
the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong
tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the
inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
Further on it notes that the human person, “made in the image and
likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a
reductionists reference to his or her sexual orientation.”
Consequently the Church today “provides a badly needed context for
the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person
as a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’, but insists instead on his
fundamental identity as a child of God.”
If this be the case, is it wrong to
take on a deviant orientation? Does a person have no choice in
the matter? The Letter does not say. While questioning
to some extent the notion of “homosexual identity,” or
“orientation”, it does not go so far as to forbid this outright.
In condemning homosexual acts, it continues to call the orientation
a “disorder” but not immoral. It discusses the culpability of
homosexual acts but ignores the significance of sinful thoughts and
desires. But would not these be involved in assuming the
homosexual orientation? Could not willful assent ever be
implied, even if the person goes public? And what about the
mannerisms, dress or vocalisms associated with the role? Has a
“gay” person no control over these? Elsewhere in a document
published in 1992, Cardinal Ratzinger defends the rights of
homosexuals against violence and unjust discrimination, but . . .
How far should this go? He notes their rights to work and
housing, for instance. How should we interpret this?
Should I feel obliged to rent rooms to a man who goes around in drag
with his friends — or lovers?
All in all, Ratzinger’s documents,
signed by John Paul II, while continuing to fault “homosexual acts,”
fail to refute the modernist approach towards the problem that was
initiated by Vatican II and articulated in more detail by Cardinal
Seper during Paul VI’s pontificate. Considering Ratzinger’s
history, this is not surprising. Readers of our essay Sense
and Nonsense will recall how the future prelate — and “pope” ––
was exposed to modernist theologians during his seminary training in
post-war Germany and was at one point accused of promoting “a
subjectivist concept of revelation” wherein tradition is seen as a
“living process.” According to this, truth is in the eyes of
the beholder; it changes, or evolves in time. And if this be
the case, should not morals change accordingly, if psychologists and
sociologists so rule?
With them in charge, who needs the Church?
For a commentary on the basis for
such ideas, let us return to the essay by Fr. John Hardon, who
quotes Bishops Sheen as saying:
Modern philosophy has seen the birth of a
new notion of God. It is God in evolution. God is
not, He becomes. In the beginning was not the Lord, but in
the beginning was Movement. From this movement God is born
by successive creations. As the world progresses, He
progresses; as the world acquires perfection, He acquires
perfection.
While Sheen fought the trend,
modernist theologians did not. They promoted a subtle change
in outlook, and given their predominance during Vatican II, no
wonder gullible Catholics went wild. Thinking like them, even
a priest or nun could pay lip service to the old dogmas while
experimenting with new ways. While two-faced in a sense, this
outlook, being oh-so sophisticated in its duplicity, had endorsement
from Rome, so it had to be legitimate. Or so most assumed.
To be sure, the new morals, sexual and otherwise, that proliferated
after two world wars posed problems. Ordinarily Catholics,
clerics especially, faced with such challenges at a time of crisis
would be told to withdraw from secular life and contemplate the
eternal truths, but not now.
No, the new Vatican Council had
called for the opening of windows to the world with all the latest
fads, and for most there was no going back. So what if
thousands of priests decided to renounce their vows and marry?
Wasn’t that their right? And if others chose to read and heed
the research of renowned sexologists like Alfred Kinsey, why be
surprised that a number of those living in communities, all of the
same sex, of course, partook in sensitivity training and found they
were truly gay? And if some of the more rabid of these
went on to recruit among the young, well. . .
Kinsey indulged in such deviancy and
he is held up as an icon!
Not all went along with the trend,
however. In his essay Pop psychology and the Gospel, Father
Andrew Greeley derides the rage for pseudo science that engulfed the
Catholic world during the 1960s. Even for that liberal author
and sociologist in clerical garb it was all too much. He
writes:
We are no longer told that something is
sinful but that it will impede our growth, that it is a turning
in on ourselves, that it is a flawed encounter. We don’t
do penance anymore, rather we “understand what we are doing”; we
are not reborn again through the grace of the Holy Spirit, we
rather renew our commitment to our life project.
“Authenticity” substitutes for justification, we “confront” one
another or “respect one another’s freedom”; we “respond” to
interpersonal needs, we “nurture” or “stroke” one another
instead of loving one another. Therapy groups replace
worship, encounter weekends substitute for retreats, sensitivity
training replaces contemplation; and in some of the prayer
houses of Catholic Pentecostalism, the techniques of behavior
modification replace the holy rule and canon law as the glue
that holds the community together. Freud has not
substituted for Jesus, but Jesus begins to sound very much like
Freud.
A priest with a mission who did balk
at such nonsense was Father Gerald Fitzgerald. Back in 1947 he
started the Paracletes, an order dedicated to rehabilitating wayward
priests. At the time the main thing was alcoholism, but soon
he began to encounter a new one: priests with sexual problems,
including those who abused the young. Of these he wrote in a
1952 letter to Bishop Dwyer of Reno:
“As a class they expect to bounce back
like tennis balls on to the court of priestly activity. I
myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest,
upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the
young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to
the Mystical Body should take precedence to the individual and
when a man has so fallen away from the purpose of the priesthood
the very best that should be offered him is Mass in the
seclusion of a monastery. Moreover, in practice, real
conversions will be extremely rare. . .
By 1957 his opinion of abusive
priests had sunk further. In a letter to an unnamed archbishop
quoted in an article posted on AOL News, he said: “These men,
Your Excellency, are devils and the wrath of God is upon them and if
I were a bishop I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome
for involuntary laicization.” Rather than keep them at his
retreat he proposed isolating them on a Caribbean island where there
would be no danger of their harming children.
“It is for this class of rattlesnake
I have always wished the island retreat — but even an island is too
good for these vipers of whom the Gentle Master said it were better
they had not been born — this is an indirect way of saying damned,
is it not?” Fitzgerald also wrote.
In 1963 he met with Paul VI, whom he
warned that pedophile priests were generally incorrigible and should
be removed from active duty, if not defrocked. The following
year he wrote to another prelate in Rome a letter in which he
analyzes in detail the growing problem. Posted online recently
by the New York Times, this tells how when he became a priest
43 years ago “homosexuality was a practically unknown rarity.
Today it is — in the wake of World War II — rampant among men.”
Even 17 years ago (i.e., in 1946), 8 out of 10 problems among
priests were related to alcohol, but now the growing problem centers
on sex. While some of these involve women, twice as many
center on what he calls “aberrations involving homosexuality.”
It is especially alarming to him that two out of three of these
cases have involved younger priests. He goes on to say:
I mention this because it would seem in
America at least this type of problem is more devastating to the
good standing of the priesthood than anything else. It is very
infectious and the prognosis for recovery is extremely
unfavorable.
Bishop, do not quote me because this is
given you in strictest confidence, but we know of several
seminaries that have been deeply infected and this of course
leads to a wide infection. Therefore there should be a very
strict discipline of dismissal and a very clear and printed
teaching in the moral theology. . .
Although Father Fitzgerald put money
down on the island, his plans for the Caribbean retreat never fully
materialized. After his bishop died, the latter’s replacement
put an end to it. Indeed, Fitzgerald’s religious order was in
due course taken over by those pushing the soft psychological
approach he had opposed. In an article in the National
Catholic Reporter, Tom Roberts cites Msgr. Stephen J. Rossetti,
President and CEO of St. Luke Institute, a facility that treats
problem priests, as saying Fitzgerald was ignored because his
reaction to the abuse was “emotional,” not “scientifically sound.”
At the time, Rossetti says, the bishops were listening to the
psychologists.
And, we might add, to the politically
correct. A 2002 article by Toby Westerman posted on World
Net Daily cites the testimony of the late Rev. Charles Fiore,
another priest involved in the fight to expose the true issues.
Originally ordained a Dominican, he taught at various Catholic
institutions in the U.S., as well as at the Angelicum in
Rome. Later, with clinical training at Menninger’s and the
State Hospital at Topeka, Kan., he came to witness the results of
homosexual abuse by priests. He highly condemned these, while
counseling the victims.
In the article Fiore also criticizes
the way the problem is publicized, noting that it is not a matter of
clerical “pedophilia” but, rather, of “homosexuality.” Whereas
the former term refers to the abuse of pre-pubescent children of
either sex, “the overriding problem” of the day “is the abuse of
older children from 12 to 18.” While true “pedophilia” is
practiced by “an aberrant few,” more than “90 percent of the cases”
that actually occur “involve the clerical molestation of teenage
young men.”
The term for this is “pederasty.”
The trouble with such reporting,
however, is that, as Fiore put it, “the grand taboo in U.S. culture
is to focus on homosexuality.” Society today likes to think of
“homosexuality as an alternate way of life,” not an aberration.
Thus the problem of reporting the truth about clerical abuse.
Whoever reports the whole story in context risks being called
“homophobic,” because it is not cool, i.e., politically correct to
cast aspersions on the gay agenda.
Hence the post-conciliar
proliferation of homosexuality in the Church at all levels, from
seminary to parish rectory to the bishops’ palace — even to the
Vatican. Considering this, is it surprising that poor Father
Fitzgerald made such little headway with Paul VI, whom, you will
recall, he visited in Rome? From Franco Bellegrandi, a former
member of the Vatican Noble Guard, and correspondent for
L’Osservatore Romano, whose shocker Nichitaroncalli —
Controvita di un Papa was published in 1994, we learn many
revealing, if sordid, details. The book exposes Montini as a
clandestine pervert with a nasty habit of soliciting young male
prostitutes that led to his being picked up one night by the police
in Milan. As the word spread he became increasingly vulnerable
to blackmail. Bellegrandi says that when he became Paul VI the
Freemasons were able to pressure him into doing away with the
Church’s condemnation of cremation.
But that wasn’t all. Readers
may recall a previous essay wherein we reported Dr. Alice von
Hildebrand’s story about Don Luigi Villa. As directed by Padre
Pio, he had investigated the infiltration of Freemasons and
Communists into the Church. In his book Villa tells about the
discovery of a Red mole, Alighiero Tondi, S.J., who had betrayed to
Stalin the names of priests working clandestinely behind the Iron
Curtain. All these were consequently arrested and executed or
sent to the gulag. It seems Tondi was a “close advisor” to
Bishop Montini, then Secretary of State to Pius XII. According
to von Hildebrand, the incident caused a “rift” between the Pope and
Montini.
A later story in the September, 15,
1984 edition of the Italian newsletter Sě Sě No No, however,
asserts that Montini himself was the prime contact with Stalin,
Tondi being his underling. Although Pius XII had forbidden
overtures to the Communists, Montini made them, even during World
War II. After the Lutheran bishop of Uppsala informed Pius XII
of the situation, Montini lost his position as Secretary of State,
while Tondi was laicized.
Towards the end of her tome The Rite
of Sodomy, Randy Engel reports that “an elderly gentleman from
Paris who worked as an official interpreter for high-level clerics
at the Vatican in the early 1950s” told her that the Soviets had
blackmailed Montini into revealing the names of the priests who were
subsequently killed or imprisoned. Given his “affinity for the
Left,” however, she thinks it difficult to determine to what extent,
if any, blackmail had to be used on him.
And this was the so-called “pope” who
promulgated the revolutionary changes in the Mass –– and the new
invalid rites of ordination and consecration of priests and bishops!
To be sure, this is significant. It stands to reason that
priests who say invalid masses will not receive the graces necessary
to maintain their celibate state. And the shrinking number of
validly ordained priests only compounds the problem. Given the
depleting supply of sanctifying grace, is it any wonder that so many
of those who depend on it should sink into sin?
“By their fruits shall ye know them.
. .”
Thus Randy Engel notes that “Pope
Paul VI played a decisive role in the selection and advancement of
many homosexual members of the American hierarchy including Joseph
Cardinal Bernardin, Terence Cardinal Cooke, John Cardinal Wright and
Archbishop Rembert Weakland and Bishops George H. Guilfoyle, Francis
Mugavero, Joseph Hart, Joseph Ferrario, James Rausch and their
heirs.”
Let us also note that this group as a
whole was, to put it mildly, theologically liberal. Indeed, as
Michael Rose reports in Goodbye Good Men, orthodoxy tends to
be suppressed in those seminaries where sexual permissiveness,
especially in its homosexual form, is promoted. There is an
inverse relationship between the two. Considering the old
moral strictures regarding sex, of course, such a trend is hardly
surprising. Nor should we be shocked to hear how so many
normal men of a traditional bent have been pressured — indeed forced
— out of studying for the priesthood.
Not that such an analysis is given in
public by either Novus Ordo prelates or the liberal media. No,
when asked about the clerical scandals on the PBS NewsHour
this past April, Cardinal Levada gave answers that were both evasive
and downright lame, if not dishonest. For one thing, he said
that before 1983, when he became a bishop, he had never heard of a
“priest abusing a child.” Secondly, he traced the causes of
the crisis to “changes in society that the church and priests were
not prepared for, particularly changes involving how to be a
celibate person in a time of sexual revolution. . .”
Here he reveals the modernist tinge
that also affects his boss, the former Cardinal Ratzinger, whose
formal letters — and other writings –– upheld the mode of thought
that prevailed under both John XXIII and Paul VI, as well as their
successors. This was of course revolutionary in than it
undermined the foundations of Catholic thought. Those who put
up with the lies without exposing them only help to perpetrate the
fraud. For the clues are out there. When Benedict says
he heads a “sinner church” he is, oddly enough, giving us a hint
that in a roundabout way can lead us to the truth. For the
organization he heads does abound in sin; the fact that it does,
however, means it cannot be what it pretends to be, the true
Catholic Church. By definition that Church is the pure
immaculate Spouse of Christ.
As Pius XII wrote in Mystici
Corporis:
13. If we would define and describe
this true Church of Jesus Christ — which is the One, Holy,
Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church — we shall find nothing
more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression
“the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” — an expression which
springs from and is as it were, the fair flowering of the
repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy
Fathers.
And:
…if at times there appears in the
Church something that indicates the weakness of our human
nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical
constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to
evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder
permits even at times in the most exalted members of His
Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the
shepherds no less than of the flocks. . .
Elsewhere the encyclical does say
that schism, heresy or apostasy do in fact cause one to be cut off
from the Mystical Body. So can we help but wonder about the
organization that passes as the Church today? Is it really an
apostate fraud? Does it not preach a perverted theology and
persecute orthodoxy? Are its rites not depleted in substance?
If so, how can it dare try to pass as a valid institution in the
Catholic sense? Moreover, is it not corrupt to the core in
more ways than one? Has this condition indeed caused such an
overwhelming rot and severing of parts that only a remnant is left,
hidden and remote, though still alive, still visible? To be
sure it is a difficult question. Without modern prophets to
pave the way, all we can do is wonder, while attending to those
words from the gospel:
“By their fruits shall ye know them.”
Copyright by Judith M.
Gordon 2010