Church Sex-Abuse Scandals: The Hypocrisy of it All

What would life be like without a little sarcasm?? I intend to "vent" a little here after having to listen, through the past few months, to the polemics directed toward the Church.

It has not failed to amaze me of the extent of the hypocrisy and circular logic of all those that criticize---and thereafter suggest the supposed "remedies" for---the so-called "institutional Church" as a result of the numerous sex-abuse scandals that have come to light since the beginning of this year (2002).

It is interesting to note that the groups within (and also without) the Church that have been the most vocal about allowing things such as women’s ordination and the marriage of already-ordained Priests [they are free presently to marry---they are free to get laicized so they can then fulfill an undivided commitment to their wife and any children that will result (or have resulted)] also seem to have very lax views about things such as divorce and remarriage, abortion and contraception, and acceptance as normal of the gay lifestyle. There are, however, some major complications associated with all that.

For example, can you imagine how upset Father so-and-so’s wife would be if someone called, in the middle of a "ride" (so to speak) late at night, asking Father to instead come immediately to perform the final sacraments to someone, or hear a confession?? What about the offspring that results should such "rides" be fortunate enough to make it to completion??? Don’t you think those little ones will be somewhat put out as a result of all the promises, to do this or that with them, that are habitually broken, more often than not at the spur of the moment??? You will have one sexually frustrated wife who may seek "relief" through other means/people, you will probably see the use of contraceptives and, when such contraceptives fail (as they frequently do---click HERE for further discussion on this), you will then probably see some abortions along the way (in order to hide the shame, as well as get rid of the related complications and "inconvenience" associated with such adulterous conceptions), and finally, some divorces. The "fruits" of such situations will probably increase the chances of homosexuality---or at least a negative sexual self-image---in the kids (the biggest victims in such "affairs" and subsequent divorces). The girls will grow up possibly learning to bash men, and the boys will somehow get the notion that they made the mistake of being born as a boy (and soon to be man).

All of that will tend toward the kind of self-serving, cowardly effeminacy in both males and females that has wreaked havoc on our culture though the ages. Given that all this will seemingly have been the result of their father being a "Father," they will no doubt also come to have a negative perception of Whom and what the Church--"institutional" or otherwise---is, as well as Who our Merciful Father and His Son Are. You will continue to see a progressively effeminate "face" of God (as opposed to a feminine face of God, which is His Mercy---refer to Footnote 52 of Dives in Misericordia). You will thus continue to progressively see an image of God as either an androgynous being devoid of any human characteristic, or God as Mother (and never, Heaven forbid, as Father). This will irrevocably confuse everything because, then, it means that "Goddess" had some kind of lesbian relationship with "her" Church and "humankind" (defined solely as a woman, of course). And, if Jesus is the Son of "Goddess," why did he need the womb of a woman from which to be born?? Attempts will then be made to show that Jesus was either a gay man masquerading as a celibate (as many insinuate is the case for any unmarried man seemingly "crazy" enough to enter the Priesthood as it’s presently constituted) who actually had the hots for the Beloved Disciple, or as someone who had several discreet affairs with "loose" women and thus fathered several children through them. The whole thing starts to smack of bizarre fables of the worst kind (cf Galatians 1:7; 1 Timothy1:4; 4:7; 2 Peter 1:16).

So then, you say, we would be better off if women could be ordained. The logistical problems alone (not to mention the theological ones) associated with all of this is several-fold. Can you imagine attempting the Sacrament of Penance with a woman during her "time of the month"?? If she’s married, then all the complications described previously come into play. What happens if she needs maternity leave, or decides thereafter to take the "mommy track" and take a few years off? The Church would have to pay for all that, since justice requires it. Of course, you may contend that the monetary savings (as a result of all these "improvements" in the Church) from not having to pay for all the sex-abuse lawsuits could pay for all that instead. Oh, REALLY??? Let’s look at that premise.

First of all it’s interesting to note that the groups clamoring the loudest for the previously-mentioned changes also have aligned themselves with groups that want the Church to change its Eternal, Natural-Law based teachings on the illicitness of the homosexual acts and lifestyles. This also includes the ordination of individuals that practice such things. It’s also interesting to note that the women’s ordination movement has strong lesbian undertones. The only way to validate that is to also justify (and be aligned with) groups and individuals that want men who practice the homosexual lifestyle to be ordained. And the only way to justify that is to say that such tendencies (and hence behaviors), being "natural"---since homosexuality and other aberrations indeed do occur in the natural world---are unavoidable and thus are somehow perfectly acceptable, along with, eventually (as that line of thought evolves down the "slippery slope"), all other kinds of deviant practices such as S&M, bondage, bestiality, not to mention pedophilia (think of how the "Gay Pride" parades around the world invariably degenerate into a showcase of the vilest of acts). Sure, certain conditions do occur in nature. True, certain tendencies in individuals are in-born. However, to allow those tendencies to be expressed, with neither restraint nor impunity, nor with the encouragement to deal with this "cross" within the sacramental life of the Church as it presently exists, would be to allow the Church (and hence the world) to degenerate to the lowest common denominator of incivility and lawlessness.

So, the Church (and hence the world) would be better off with the "remedies" suggested by so many of the critics inside and outside the Church??? I think not. The crimes (both secular and eclessial) would continue. And the lawsuits would continue, with uneven and inconsistent enforcement. Lawlessness would remain (and increase), even if (or perhaps especially if) the Archdiocese of Boston becomes (Cardinal) "Law"-less.

Like I said, what would life be like without a little sarcasm??? No doubt, the Latin Rite has taken on a very bad stench of moral rot in much of the Western world (and especially the United States) as a result of some very bad attitudes, philosophies, and behaviors of some of its members. Indeed, many of the seminaries in the United States are so badly infected with this rot that they probably need to be shut down. Of course, most of them, barring a major intervention by the Vatican and John Paul II [a guy who has balls (even if he doesn’t use them---perhaps a True example of the "virile asceticism" alluded to by Paul VI in element 78 of Sacerdotalis Caelibatus)], will probably implode by their own volition, since the really bad ones, in the really "bad" Dioceses, have very few seminarians, while those good ones in the "good" Dioceses (meaning those who adhere to Church teachings and directives) are thriving. As an example, I can think of several friends and acquaintances who went to seminaries outside of this Archdiocese (San Antonio), and it wasn’t because of a lack of space here. In fact, they went out of their way to go elsewhere. As a few examples, a friend of mine went to two different seminaries in different parts of the country between 1997 and 1999 before he finally found a seminary, sponsored by the Byzantine Rite, that had neither heterodoxy nor a homosexual sub-culture/agenda. Another friend of mine went to another Diocese in order to attend the seminary sponsored by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, which is led by one of the few American Cardinals with the balls to make no excuses for supporting the Vatican’s ongoing ruling that homosexuals are inherently unacceptable candidates for the priesthood. Another former seminarian (left because he got fed up with all the non-spirtual "psychobabble" being taught as "theology" in the San Antonio Archdiocese), mentioned to me briefly at the 1998 San Antonio Marian Conference that he was hoping to speak with Father Benedict Groeschel (one of the Conference speakers) in order to enter the seminary sponsored by his Order, because it was one of the few he felt he could trust. These stories are not at all uncommon; nevertheless, people might just be interested to have some small idea just how serious the problem is.


Please visit Poisoned Waters, in order to find out more about the threat to an Authentic Human Ecology (cf Centessimus Annus, element 38) posed by CORPUS, Catholics for A Free Choice, Call To Action (CTA), and other groups and individuals with similar attitudes and motives
Other links of interest include:
A Play On Words: A Look at Peter, the Papacy, and the Magisterium;
Sodom and Gomorrah: A Lack of Social Justice
Call To Action: Lies About Church Teachings;
Call To Action and Married Priests;
Women Priests: The Goal of Call to Action