Wacky
- A statement attributed to Al Qaeda threatened more attacks in New York and Washington unless America stops supporting Israel and converts to Islam, an Arab TV reporter who received the unsigned document said Saturday.
Oh, well, in that case, can someone direct me to the nearest mosque? What are these people smoking? I know they’re fanatical crazies and all, but how can someone capable of two coherent thoughts seriously think that’s going to happen. It just reinforces the implacability of our foe, their lack of a grasp on reality, and the fact that this war will continue until every terrorist is dead or in jail. In other words, the war will go on for a long, long time.
At least when you’re at war with a state, there is usually someone, somewhere who is willing to surrender eventually. Sure, Hitler wouldn’t do it himself, but of all the Nazis at least there was someone who knew when to quit. But these fanatics are even worse than the Nazis because they won’t quit until they’re dead. They don’t have a realistic chance in hell of accomplishing their goals, yet they won’t… can’t face that fact. And so they’re willing to kill and die for their ridiculous goals.
I remember an old Steve Martin stand-up bit. He says something like, “If I were a bank robber, I would demand $1 million, a jet plane to fly me out of the country, and the letter ‘M” stricken from alphabet. You have to ask for one crazy thing so you can plead insanity if you’re caught. I mean, come on, a jet plane?!“
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Grand jury
A grand jury is investigating whether New Hampshire bishops violated the law by covering up abuse. This is a very serious situation. Will we see bishops going to jail? What will happen to the Church; will we see dioceses closed and property seized? American Catholics need to begin seriously to consider the possibilities. The worst may not be over yet.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Red meat for “reformers”
It’s a story because of its apparent rarity. A priest was involuntarily laicized by the Pope after he allegedly molested kids and refused to abide by restrictions on his activities. It’s a strange case. Anthony Cipolla was suspended in 1988, but accusations against him date back to 1978 when he was investigated about molesting a boy. The case was dropped when the mother refused to press charges; she says she was pressured by her parish and the then-bishop.
So when Bishop Donald Wuerl became bishop in 1988, he suspended the guy, but Cipolla appealed to the Vatican—and the Vatican ordered him reinstated. Wuerl, to his credit, refused and traveled to Rome with the case file, including the 1978 arrest report. In a rare reversal, the Vatican in 1995 ordered Cipolla impeded from ministry. But the diocese kept receiving reports Cipolla was acting as a priest, including a 1994 Mass on TV on EWTN, a 1995 pilgrimage to Medjugorje, and leading other pilgrimages and celebrating Masses around the country and the world. And now Pope John Paul has involuntarily laicized him, a very rare action.
There are some bizarre incidents in this case. In September, Cipolla called the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, complained he was never contacted for comment on stories, and didn’t leave any contact information. In a voice mail, he said:
- “I have never, not once, admitted to abusing any child 9 years old, yet you continue to put this in your paper. You have never consulted me once. You always consult Bishop Wuerl or his agents. You stop, or else I will have to take some legal action against you,“ he said.
Having been educated in parsing the statements of Bill Clinton, I note that Cipolla says he never admitted to abusing a 9 year old—not that he didn’t actually do it or that he didn’t abuse a child not 9 years old.
That Cipolla was apparently “conservative” (I base that on his EWTN appearance and Medjugorje pilgrimages) may be enough for some people to reject the accusations made against him. But let us not forget that the Scandal knows no ideological bounds—remember Fr. John Bertolucci, a charismatic (in both senses of the term) speaker tangentially connected to Franciscan University of Steubenville, and Fr. Ken Roberts, another priest with strong connections to the Medjugorje phenomenon.
In the end, the evidence—at least what I see in this newspaper article—lends credence to his suspension. That he was unwilling to be obedient to legitimate authority even as he protested his own innocence—contrast that with St. Padre Pio and St. John Vianney—does not help his case. A sad story, overall.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Man-haters
A New York Times article examines the bishops’ response to the Scandal. The theme of the piece is that the bishops look to the past, to tradition and ancient teachings, not change as the the answer to the Scandal. While I have no problem with that per se, the tone of the article is that this is somehow a bad thing. But I also found the following paragraph interesting:
- While the scandal raged, Catholics of diverse cultures and ages often said the same thing in interviews. If bishops and priests could be parents or women, they would have pilloried priests who they knew were molesting children, not reassigned them to parishes where they could have access to more victims.
In other words, the argument is that men untempered by women—that is, single men—will tolerate any old horrific act. Only women would not stand for such things. What a load of ... horsepucky. For one thing, there are plenty of cases of women who have stood by as their men committed unspeakable acts. There are even women who have participated. Look at the accusations of sexual abuse starting to come out against nuns.
The fact is that identity politics—whether based on sex, race, orientation, or whatever—is not the answer. The answer is accountability, responsibility, and holiness. You don’t need women priests or married priests for that. To say otherwise smacks of prejudice, bias, and discrimination.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Grahmann cracked
The Dallas Morning News has come out with an editorial demaning that Bishop Charles Grahmann resign and let his coadjutor Bishop Galante take over. The editorial lists Grahmann’s alleged misdeeds from ignoring complaints about Father Rudy Kos (whose abuses led to a $117 million legal judgment against the diocese, later reduced to $31 million) to the accusations against the cathedral rector:
Bishop Grahmann allowed the rector to continue in ministry even though the rector acknowledged “inappropriate contact” with the man and resumed psychological counseling about “boundary issues,“ according to a diocesan spokesman. He allowed him to continue even though a policy that he installed to prevent and to manage such scandals, and that he touts as a model, declares that sexual misconduct “will not be tolerated under any circumstances” and defines sexual misconduct as “any kind of sexual interaction between a celibate cleric and an adult, whether initiated by one or the other, and whether or not consensual.“
But that’s not all. Bishop Grahmann allowed his representatives to publicly assign to the man impure motives for his accusation, thereby possibly discouraging other possible victims from coming forward. He did not ask lay and personnel review boards to review his handling of the matter. And he did not consult with co-adjutor Bishop Joseph Galante, who has criticized his handling of the matter.
So Bishop Galante has publicly criticized Grahmann. There’s a loud silence coming from the rest of his brother bishops. Perhaps, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If they call for Grahmann’s resignation, what happens when their own misdeeds come to light?
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
It’s simple, isn’t it?
There are no new pro-life arguments in this op-ed, but what makes it noteworthy is that it appears in a major San Francisco area newspaper and that it offers such a clear-eyed, logical argument against abortion. Not once does the young woman—who became pro-life after going through her own unplanned pregnancy crisis—have to make an appeal to a specifically religious argument, since as we know, beng pro-life is not specific to a particular religion, but is a natural law moral issue.
It’s a short piece and easy to read. I urge you to check it out.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
The media is unfair to the bishops?
Peter Steinfels, one of two laypeople chosen to address the bishops conference in Dallas last June, says the media is distorting the truth and being unfair to the bishops. Gee, I wonder if there is a connection between the fact that Peter and Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, who aren’t exactly known for being conservative, were selected apart from all others to address the conference, and then months later they both come out with defenses of the bishops.
Peter Steinfels stretches credulity with his comment, “a small number of priests and bishops have done wrong.“ As Phil Lawler said in the blog I mention below, a small minority of priests may have committed abuse, but perhaps two-thirds of bishops shuffled pedophiles around and covered for their sins. See that blog below for a fuller take on the bishops’ responsibility.
- Steinfels said the media were right to take the story on, but generally too often have been imprecise in specifying that incidents and allegations were years old, handled when the church and society as a whole had different views and laws on the crimes involved.
So the Church and society ten, 20, 30 years ago thought sexual abuse of minors wasn’t a horrible act? Yes, we’ve heard the whole “we-thought-it-could-be-cured” argument, but it doesn’t hold water. Even if that were the case, they would yanked the guy the first time he exhibited the tendency after his first trip to treatment. But they didn’t—they moved the pervs from place to place and then acted to obscure their abuse and actively ignored those who would complain.
I’m not saying that the media isn’t hostile to Catholicism and that some in the media aren’t happy to attack the Church. But the fact is that the bishops themselves provided the opportunity and means for them to do so and avoiding responsibility for their actions—and us helping them to do so—will not fix the problem. In psychological parlance, we can’t be enablers for their bad behavior.
Correction: I had a brain cramp when I wrote this. It was Margaret Steinfels and Scott Appleby who addressed the bishops, not Peter Steinfels. But it is still interesting that both Steinfels are now trying very hard to excuse some bishops’ misconduct.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Bishops Fail to Take Responsibility
My boss, Philip Lawler, writes an op-ed in Newsday today. In it, he says that the new Charter is fine as far as it goes, but it really does not address the root of the problem. Sure it defines the sin and speaks of rights and remedies, but it doesn’t really get to the heart of why we’re in the fix we’re in.
- But sexual abuse by priests could not have continued without the tacit acquiescence of their bishops. And while only a tiny minority of American priests have molested children, a clear majority of American bishops - two-thirds, according to The Dallas Morning News - have covered up the abuse, or shuffled the offending priests from parish to parish to avoid complaints.
- When Omaha’s Archbishop Elden Curtiss suggested that the bishops’ conference should be prepared to censure those prelates who cover up sexual abuse, his proposal was quickly voted down.
In all the cases of perverts being shuffled around, not one bishop has resigned. Okay, some have resigned because of their own sexual misconduct, but even then they are lauded for their service to the Church, just as Cardinal Law lauded the pedophiles in his charge as they left the ministry. And not one bishop has admitted to misconduct that has not already been made public. Not one has come clean with the public. Not one has acted to come clean before the scandal hit the courtrooms and the airwaves.
As Phil says, the new charter is fine as far as it goes, “but a new set of policy guidelines is no substitute for a willingness to exercise authority. And a new set of promises will not be enough to restore the bishops’ shattered credibility. The crisis in American Catholicism will not end until the U.S. bishops recognize their own side of the scandal.“
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Hmmm…
I wonder how people would react if the Archdiocese of Boston declared bankruptcy. There’d certainly be howls of protest from all around. Settlements might not get paid. Would the courts order liquidation of property? Could they even do so, considering the First Amendment? That would certainly be a sticky situation.
People are asking some strange questions…
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Not fair
It’s not fair. I’m the first one in blogdom to post this piece on Planned Parenthood’s odd contest rules, but the Opinion Journal’s Best of the Web column gives credit to someone else.
- You’d better sit down before you read this item, that’s how shocking it is. An anonymous blogger called “The Mighty Barrister” reports that SaveRoe.com, a Planned Parenthood Web site, is running an “artwork and poster contest” in honor of next year’s 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Entrants are invited to submit “an original piece of artwork or poster that celebrates 30 years of choice and illustrates the concept that ‘Behind Every Choice is a Story.‘ “ So far, so good. But scroll down to “terms and conditions” and you find this: Children under age 18 must have a parent or legal guardian’s permission to submit their designs and for us to publish it along with their name.
Okay, I have to admit that The Mighty Barrister does give me some credit (by the way, it’s Domenico, not Domenica; I’m not a woman).
Ah well, fame is a fleeting and dangerous courtesan.
Seriously, I’m just glad that Planned Parenthood’s hypocrisy gets a wide audience. Besides it was LifeSite News that actually broke the story.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Faith shaken, not stirred
Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan, notorious for her heterodox views, profiles a Catholic woman who is beginning to abandon the Church. See, this woman is disturbed by the bishops’ actions in the Scandal (who isn’t?) and while she still prays with her son every day, she doesn’t go to Mass anymore. Oh, by the way, her husband is a lawyer for 70 alleged victims of pervert priests.
So, as I was saying, this woman doesn’t want to go to her parish anymore because she’s afraid her pastor won’t want to discuss the role of gay priests in the Church.
Note: Eagan makes a bizarre comment (not unusual for her):
- She works with her husband, Carmen Durso, a lawyer representing 70 alleged victims of predator priests. Not one of these men, by the way, could pursue his case under the bishops’ 10-year statute of limitations proposal.
Wrong! For one thing, the statute does not prevent any action in civil court which is where they’re pursuing the case anyway. For another, the norms provide a very specific mandate that the bishop shall seek an extension of the statute in notorious cases.
The thesis of the column is that because some Church leaders did abominable things, that somehow validates their reasons for wanting to throw out the Church’s teachings.
- Rosanne Zuffante says she can’t reconcile so much of the church’s actions anymore. Her husband, divorced before he married her, cannot receive communion for the “sin” of remarrying. “But who are these people to tell me how to live my married life?“ Or how to live anything else?
They are the successors of the apostles. And it’s not their words and teachings that you’re rejecting, it’s God’s. If you don’t believe in the moral authority of your bishop or priest, then who will you listen to? Are you truly seeking Truth and God’s will? Or are you just going to abandon the search altogether? And note how the two women make the primary mistake of confusuing the Church and the bishops: “...she can’t reconcile so much of the church’s actions anymore.“ The Church is not the bishops, it is the Bride of Christ, His Body, and it is the Voice of the Holy Spirit and it is the expression of the Love and Will of God in the world.
My question for anyone thinking of leaving the Church because of the Scandal: Are you sure you’re leaving out of a conviction that the Church is not the Kingdom of God or is it just a convenient excuse to abandon that which has become inconvenient or embarrassing?
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
The dissenters
Among the 7 bishops who voted against approving the news Vatican-revised norms was Bishop Gerald Gettlfinger of Evansville, Indiana. His stated reason for opposition was that the policy doesn’t give a bishop discretion to reinstate a priest who had one offense and rehabilitated. As Cardinal Francis George correctly points out, the bishops have lost that discretion.
Besides, how does one know that a person has been “rehabilitated.“ Haven’t we learned over the past 11 months that the experts agree that a man prone to having sex with children is not easily cured through therapy. Never mind the fact that many of the therapy programs that diocese send priests to acutally undermine the ability to overcome such proclivities by giving the OK to immoral behavior.
So who were the other six No votes and the single abstention? I’d love to hear their reasons.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
The norms approved
The Vatican-revised norms were approved yesterday, which wasn’t exactly a surprise. Still, some of the reactions are interesting. The media still doesn’t understand that the Church only has so much power to actually stop someone from abusing another person; it can act retroactively after bad conduct and it can try to weed out unsuitable candidates for the priesthood, but other than that there’s not a lot it can do.
- “The church doesn’t have police powers. The church doesn’t have jailing powers. The church can do what she can do,“ [Cardinal Bernard Law] told the Herald. But he declined to comment on what should be done about priests stripped of their ministry whose cases are not prosecutable by civil authorities.
What can be done? You can’t brand them on the forehead with a scarlet letter.
This statement seemed a bit odd:
- Archbishop Francis Hurley, the former head of the Archdiocese of Anchorage, opposed the norms because priests were not included in the deliberations. “We have not invited the priests to come in and be part of what we are doing here,“ he said, adding that lay Catholics also should have been part of the process.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
The solution is…
A nun was placed on leave after being accused of molesting a girl 40 years ago. Yes, it’s still only an accusation about a single event 40 years ago, but in answer to all those who said women priests is the answer to the Scandal: women are just as prone to sin as men. The answer is holiness, not feminist ideology.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Wonderful
Michelle Malkin reports that an alleged Hezbollah terrorist was granted US citizenship. The FBI’s terrorism task force failed to respond to the INS’ request for information on the guy’s background, so the INs, under normal operating procedure, approved him anyway. Sounds like three people involved were placed on administrative leave.
Bureaucrats and liberals are more concerned with quotas and increasing the numbers of minorities (who generally vote Democrat) than they are with national security, evidently.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Copyright © 2002-2006
Domenico Bettinelli, Jr.
All Rights Reserved.