Cardinal Pell freed

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-07/george-pell-wins-high-court-appeal-child-sex-abuse-convictions/12048726

https://www.smh.com.au/national/pell-to-walk-free-after-high-court-overturns-conviction-20200407-p54hqe.html

Principled opposition to Roman Catholicism shouldn't blind us to injustice. Seems like a fair, and overdue, outcome to me.

Thoughts on clerical celibacy

https://arturovasquez.wordpress.com/2020/01/22/thoughts-on-clerical-celibacy/

His position, as a lapsed Catholic, is ambivalent but interesting.

Ecclesiastical coverup

The task [Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster] Heenan gave me, however, was an embarrassing one. He had heard that the Nazis in Germany had ransacked the archives of dioceses to find papers that could be published to discredit the Church. He was anxious to prevent anything of the kind happening in England, so he asked me to go through the records and get rid of any stories of clerical misdeed that were capable of being used for propaganda purposes. I could not refuse point blank an order from my archbishop, but it seemed to me wrong for an archivist to destroy, on such a partisan basis, material of historical interest. I compromised by separating embarrassing material into a special section which could, in the unlikely event of a hostile raid on the archives by some anti-clerical group, easily be destroyed.

The Second Vatican Council was a turning point in Heenan's life. Forever loyal to successive popes, he found uncongenial the direction in which many of the Council fathers wished to take the Church. His distaste for academic theology found expression in speeches attacking the experts, or periti, who came from monasteries, seminaries or universities: he saw them as ignorant of "the real world". For him, theology consisted in an unquestioning acceptance of Vatican dictates, even if that meant–as in the case of the morality of contraception–a reversal of his own considered opinion on the topic. And for him, the worst sin was "giving scandal"–that meant doing anything that showed the Church in a bad light, even if it was a true light. A. Kenny, Brief Encounters (SPCI 2018), 30, 32.

Pell loses on appeal

I don't have much to add to what I already said about his original conviction. As an outside observer, it looks to me like Pell was railroaded. I think he was convicted because the allegation plays into such a well-established narrative, where the allegation is usually true, and because the authorities were looking for a scapegoat. 

Despite my unyielding opposition to Roman Catholicism, we must never let that blind us to uniform standards of justice and evidence. We should judge allegations on a case-by-case basis. It's wrong to convict an innocent man to set an example. Admittedly, he's complicit in the indirect sense that he works for a corrupt organization, but that's a different charge.

Playing church

Now, of the anti-Catholic Protestants blogs out there, they all seem to attack the Church from different angles.  Steve seems to like to constantly beat the drum of modernism in the church.  With Taylor Marshall’s book out(which I reviewed on my last post), he naturally used this as an opportunity to bring up the liberal and sodomite control of large portions of the Church.

But why do I stay when my church is full of liberal and sodomite clergy?  Let me use a Biblical analogy since you’re a believer in Sola Scriptura.  In the Old Testament, we read about the Kingdom of Israel in the time of Elijah.  We know that at one point there were only 7,000 of the Israelites who kept the faith.  

Can you imagine an Egyptian passing through the land and talking to one of these 7,000?  He would probably ask the Israelite why he continues to follow the religion of Moses since 99.9% of the nation didn’t believe in it anymore.  Well Steve, I should point out that the Israelite and I would have the same answer for why we stay in our respective faiths.  I’m sure that Israelite didn’t like the corruption and false teachings floating around his faith anymore than I do.  I think you’ve figured out the reason by now.

http://allanruhl.com/an-open-letter-to-steve-of-triablogue-why-i-stay-catholic/

Several issues:

i) Catholicism is a target-rich environment. There are so many defeaters for Catholicism. I myself critique the Catholic church from multiple angles. 

ii) To judge by his recommending reading list, as well as his glowing review of Taylor Marshall's Infiltrated, Ruhl is a RadTrad or sedevacantist:

http://allanruhl.com/recommended-reading/

Look at how retrograde his recommended books are. Nothing by modern popes, modern Catholic theologians or mainstream Catholic Bible scholars. One recent book by Pitre, which relies heavily on Protestant schlarship.  He's out of step with where his denomination is. He's clinging to a defunct version of Catholicism. 

iii) Before we get to his analogy, there are principles that are much more directly germane to evaluating his denomination than OT analogies. For instance, consider what the Pastoral Epistles have to say about the moral and theological qualifications for church office. By that standard, priests and prelates who fail to meet the moral and theological qualifications for church office are thereby disqualified. If so, where does that leave most of the contemporary priesthood and hierarchy?

iv) In Rev 2-4, Jesus threatens the remove the light, the Menorah, from churches that stray too far. If you study the descriptions of the threatened churches, they are certainly no worse that the contemporary Catholic church.

v) What about his OT analogy? If, on the one hand you have a denomination dominated by liberals and sodomites while, on the other hand, you have one or more denominations that don't suffer from that pernicious dominance, you'd naturally regard the 7,000 faithful as members of the denominations that don't suffer from that pernicious dominance rather than the denomination which does. So his comparison backfires. 

vi) In OT times, the Mosaic Covenant was the touchstone. And the Mosaic Covenant was unalterable. By contrast, Catholic dogma/doctrine and ethics don't exist in airtight containers hermeneutically sealed off from the theology and lifestyle of the hierarchy. To the contrary, the members of the magisterium are moral and doctrinal policymakers. If you have a denomination that's increasingly controlled by liberals and sodomites in key leadership positions, they will change church teaching to realign it with their theology and lifestyle. And that process has been going on for about 80 years in the Catholic church, beginning with the pontificate of Pius XII. 

What are the faithful supposed to be faithful to? In Catholicism, the magisterium is the final arbiter of moral and doctrinal fidelity. The laity can't routinely act in defiance of the pope and episcopate.  In Catholicism, the laity aren't supposed to be autonomous. The hierarchy occupies the driver's seat while the laity occupy the back seat. They go whoever they are driven. If they open the door and jump out because they disapprove of the direction the hierarchy is taking the church in, they've abandoned the institutional church. In Catholicism, you can't be independent of the institutional church and still be a good Catholic. The hierarchy is the ultimate interpreter of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. 

vii) Like many RadTrad or sedevacantists, he's smitten by the mystique of Catholicism rather than the reality–like neo-Confederates who pine for the Antebellum South. The cult of the "noble lost cause". The cult of Robert E. Lee. RadTrads are playacting in a period piece, like dressing up in Confederate uniforms and reciting hortations by Jefferson Davis. 

Abuse of papal altar boys

Goes from bad to worse:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-vigano-testimony-vatican-covered-up-allegations-of-sexual-abuse-of-popes-altar-boys

Papal mixed signals

http://vaticanfiles.org/en/2019/04/vf161/

Is it time to end the seal of the confessional?

I'll comment on Michael Bird's recent article:

https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/04/its-time-to-end-the-seal-of-the-confessional-the-religious-case/

I've discussed this before:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-seal-of-confession.html

Despite my relentless opposition to Roman Catholicism, I can't get on the bandwagon of this particular movement:

However, even an advocate for religious freedom like myself understands and accepts the arguments for requiring Catholic clergy to break the seal of confession and to provide mandatory reporting of child sex abuse. Religious freedom is an intrinsic human right, a key index for gauging freedom in any state, but it is not absolute and can be limited in instances of public safety.

There are several distinct issues:

i) Should a priest be free to break the seal of the confessional without fear of excommunication, under extreme circumstances? In a sense, I agree with that. However, passing a law won't change Roman Catholic policy. That's governed by canon law, not civil/criminal law. 

In addition, I reject the whole paradigm of auricular confession and absolution. So this is a solution within a flawed paradigm. The "sacrament" of penance needs to be scrapped. 

ii) Over and above the case of Catholic clergy, there's the issue of confidential information generally. And there's a crucial distinction between freedom to divulge confidential information and mandatory reporting laws. I don't concede that the state has the right to make private citizens agents of the state who are required to spy on each other and report back to the authorities. I don't think there should be an exception for clergy. Rather, I think private citizens in general should be exempt from mandatory reporting laws. Just think of totalitarian regimes, past and present, which enjoin citizens to rat out their neighbors. Bird's solution creates a different problem. 

Thus, within the New Testament, there is dominical tradition and apostolic precedent for prioritizing the safety of congregational members from sexual abuse and exploitation.

Second, there is an ethical argument that protecting children from sexual abuse is the greater good to be pursued. Most ethical dilemmas are usually on account of two valid ethical imperatives coming into conflict. For instance, one should not lie, but lying to the Gestapo to save a Jewish family hiding in your basement is the greater good. Similarly, protecting the penitent in confession is good. If a woman confesses to a priest her adultery and seeks absolution, then the priest shouldn’t blab to her husband or gossip to her friends since it would cause her harm and make her the subject of punishment after she has already shown contrition. So, protection of the penitent is a genuine good … but a greater good still is protecting children from harmful and repeated abuse. 

I agree with Bird that there's a prima facie duty not to violate information shared in confidence, but there are situations where that can be overridden by a higher obligation. That isn't unique to the confession of sin, but applies to information shared in confidence generally: say, between close friends. 

This is particularly persuasive if we consider that the degree of harm done to the victims by a penitent abuser is greater than the harm that would be done to the penitent abuser if he or she were reported to authorities. What is more, reporting a penitent abuser might actually be a form of protection for the abuser, protecting them from committing further crimes (dehumanizing themselves further), protecting them from suicide (which is common among sexual abusers), and from vigilante justice (also, not unheard of). The greater good of protecting vulnerable children exceeds the good of protecting the penitent from judicial punishment in this particular instance. It can also be regarded as being in the interest of the penitent to be prevented from committing further sexual abuse and beginning the journey towards psychological and pastoral treatment.

You have to wonder how Bird can be so blind to the obvious. The primary source of the problem isn't lay Catholic abusers confessing to a priest, but abusive priests (bishops, and cardinals). An abusive priest isn't going to volunteer incriminating information about himself. Breaking the seal of the confessional is beside the point, since the source of the problem is the confessor, not the penitent. An abusive priest isn't going to turn himself into the authorities. The solution is to have a screening process that filters out homosexual applicants to the priesthood (and their evangelical counterparts). 

Third, Catholic faith requires both organic development of its doctrine and resourcement of its ancient tradition to effectively address the problem of abusive priests. The origins of penance and the seal of the confession are developments from the medieval and counter-reformation periods. Just as the seal of the confessional was a necessary development to ensure the confidentiality of the confessional and to prevent the exploitation of the contrite, so too is it now necessary to develop a theology and practice to protect the victims of the penitent in the case of sexual violence.

Actually, I suspect the justification is mainly pragmatic: few Catholics will confess their sins to a priest if they think that will be become a topic of gossip or be used against them. 

Fourth, there is a valid legal argument for government interfering in the sanctity of the confessional. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights § 18.3, concerning religious freedom: “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” Religious freedom is invaluable in a secular and pluralistic democracy, but it is not absolute. A person’s religious freedom can be curtailed if it burdens the rights of other persons, like the right to life and the right to safety from harm. That is why governments can limit religious freedom when and only when it is necessary to ensure someone’s safety. One could sensibly argue that the seal of the confessional, insofar that it protects abusers and perpetuates abuse; causes harm to members of the public and therefore can be legitimately curtailed. Now, the limitation of religious freedom should not be deployed in illegitimate circumstances (see the Siracusa principles on the limitation and derogation of provisions), and nothing here illegitimates the seal of the confessional in normal circumstances. However, international law on religious freedom provides legal grounds for limiting religious freedom in order to defend the rights and lives of others.

i) One problem is with the generic category of "religion". I agree that religious freedom isn't absolute, but all religions weren't created equal. There's a problem when, for instance, you chain the fortunes of Christianity to Islam when it comes to religious freedom. 

ii) And, once again, the seal of the confessional doesn't usually protect abusers since the abusers were usually homosexual priests rather than laymen. Why can't Bird make that elementary connection? 

Fifth, Catholics may also wish to consider a missional reason for changing their practice of confession and the seal of the confessional. The sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church all over the world have tarnished, perhaps irreparably, the reputation of the church for a whole generation. 

The abuse, its cover up, the refusal to address its underlying causes, the failure to listen to victims, and the unwillingness to make reporting mandatory, has led to an exodus of people from the church, and represents an insurmountable barrier for the Catholic church to connect with the unchurched public. I fear that a haemorrhaging of the laity will continue for Catholics and their mission to make Christ known will prove ineffective until a comprehensive pastoral review of its clerical standards and sacramental theology is undertaken.

i) It's a good thing that the Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It's a good thing that this represents an insurmountable barrier for the Catholic church to connect with the unchurched public. It's a good thing that this scandal has brought the Catholic church into disrepute.

ii) But the problem runs deeper than the clerical seduction of boys. Consensual homosexual conduct by members of the Catholic clergy is also discreditable, from the standpoint of Christian ethics. Homosexual activity is the fundamental problem, of which pederasty is just one expression and symptom. 

Dereliction of duty

Benedict XVI has released what amounts to an informal encyclical: 

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-church-and-the-scandal-of-sexual-abuse

He confirms the sodomite establishment in Catholic clerical circles. More damning evidence from an insider who occupied the highest echelons of the Catholic church. 

Yet the problem with his lament is that he writes like a spectator witnessing an accident scene, while first responders intervene. But in addition to his admittedly brief pontificate, he was Prefect for the CDF from 1982-2005. He was JP2's righthand man. So where was the church discipline from the top down? Why does he act like a helpless bystander? 

Decorated sepulchers

This is interesting on several levels:

http://mindspirit.com/the-root-cause-of-the-catholic-sex-abuse-scandal-part-3-of-5/

i) Nowadays, most Catholic apologists parachute in from Evangelicalism. So they see Catholicism from the outside before they see it from the inside. And even after conversion, their experience is quite limited compared to cradle Catholics educated at Catholic institutions. So this presents an insider perspective you rarely get from Catholic apologists.

ii) It's a devastating exposé of the sodomite subculture in the Catholic priesthood and hierarchy, both from sociological studies as well as the author's anecdotal experience.

iii) It illustrates the duplicity of Michael Liccione. He used to be a regular contributor to Called to Communion. Although he wasn't formally affiliated, since the official members are converts from Calvinism, whereas he's a cradle Catholic, he used to write very long comments interacting with other commenters. Along with Bryan Cross, he provided most of the intellectual heft. Yet here he presents a side of Catholicism I never saw him detail when he was shilling for Catholicism. But to present only half the evidence, the more sales-worthy have, is devious. Like selling a house without informing prospective buyers that the house is infested with termites. 

iv) Finally, he says: 

Specifically, I was the victim who was blamed even as he was being recruited. Fear that such a sick game would continue is why, a few years after my reversion, I stopped exploring a priestly vocation and decided soon thereafter to marry. Apparently solid and reputable priests had given me good reason to believe that I would undergo a similar experience in seminary or novitiate. That was why it took me decades to realize that I had had no such vocation regardless. I wanted to blamegay priests rather than get real about myself...

It doesn't seem to occur to him that this is a dilemma confronting many straight, idealistic novitiates. They take vows that commit them to forego a normal family life, yet that's premature. After the youthful idealism rubs off and unforgiving experience kicks in, they belatedly realize that they never were cut out for that life. 

Do Catholic apologists speak for Catholics?

In Christian apologetics, the debate over Catholicism is conducted by and between theology junkies. Most Catholic apologists are converts to Catholicism. They converted because they found the traditional arguments for Catholicism convincing. So the debate typical revolves around arguments and counterarguments, prima facie evidence and counterevidence. Both sides approach it from an intellectualist perspective.

There's nothing wrong with that. Ideally, that's the proper way to assess religious truth-claims. And that approach is largely unavoidable.

However, it can also be misleading since most Catholic probably don't operate at that level. It's too elitist to be representative of how many Catholics think. A debate between members of the Catholic and evangelical intelligentsia. But most Catholics are Catholic for sociological reasons, so spokesmen like Scott Hahn, Trent Horn, Bryan Cross, Ed Feser, Michael Liccione, Thomas Joseph White et al. are quite unrepresentative of cradle Catholics. To some degree, they may be the public face of Catholicism, but they don't speak for Catholics in general. 

That's why the abuse scandal is so damaging. Catholic apologists have their escape clauses. They can say they're not Donatists or Novatianists. And you can render any belief-system unfalsifiable if you introduce enough escape clauses. So Catholic apologists can argue that any amount of corruption is consistent with the claims of Rome.

But for Catholics who don't think in such abstract terms, it's down-to-earth issues like the abuse scandal that can be the deal-breaker. To illustrate the difference:

Simon K 

Trent Horn is the kind of Roman Catholic who is a Roman Catholic because he is convinced it is the most correct church, and the only one specially approved by God.

There is another kind of Roman Catholic, a kind I am more familiar with, the kind of Roman Catholic that I am. I'm not convinced the Roman Catholic Church is the most correct church, nor that God has given it some special approval which the others lack. Catholics like me are Catholics fundamentally for cultural and pragmatic reasons – it is the faith of our parents, our grandparents, the faith we were raised in. I went to Catholic schools as a child, and now my children are going to Catholic schools too. Following in the religious footsteps of my ancestors makes me feel connected to them.

I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect my kind of Catholic is a lot more numerous than Trent's.

That's not to say I don't think the Roman Catholic church is more right about some things than Protestants, I really do – e.g. the Biblical canon, purgatory and prayer for the dead, intercession of the Saints, the rejection of sola scriptura – but, I think the Catholic church just happens to be right about those things, as opposed to thinking the Catholic church is right about these things because it possesses some special divine guarantee of correctness.

https://randalrauser.com/2019/03/a-conversation-with-catholic-apologist-trent-horn-part-2-is-there-one-true-church/#comment-4364519090    

In that respect, support for Roman Catholicism among the laity may be quite soft. 

Confused comparisons

Any Southern Baptist congregation members care to comment on this? pic.twitter.com/M3Ia4iNWYU

— Dean Murphy (@DeanModified) February 10, 2019

Normally I wouldn't comment on anything this stupid. Atheists say so many dumb things that there's not enough time to comment on even a fraction of their thoughtless output. However, this was retweeted by Jeff Lowder at The Secular Outpost, so he evidently thinks there's something insightful about the comparison. And that reveals something about the level at which the average atheist thinks.

i) I guess the implication of the juxtaposed images is that lay Southern Baptists are hypocritical because they protest homosexual marriage but they don't protest child molestation by priests. Really? How much thought did atheist Dean Murphy put into that comparison?

ii) To begin with, SBC clergy are overwhelmingly straight, so there's no parallel with the RCC.

iii) Likewise, it's not as if SBC laymen have any direct influence over the selection process or behavior of the Catholic priesthood.

iv) The Supreme Court is directly germane to homosexual marriage because 5 justices invented an imaginary Constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other.

How is that comparable to child molestation by Catholic priests? What is the role of the Supreme Court in that situation?

vi) On the other side is a pic of French demonstrators protesting against homosexual marriage, with a scene of the same street empty.

On the one hand, church attendance in France is about 5%. On the other hand, France has a 10% Muslim population. So what's the imagined connection between Christianity and protesting homosexual marriage in France?

What are we supposed to think about the Roman Catholic Church?

I haven’t commented much about Roman Catholicism lately, although that has always been the primary thing that I have written about. There is a saying attributed to Napoleon that I find useful at times like these: “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”.

The official Roman Catholic Church has been making a number of them … the “official” “Church” being heavily constituted by that hierarchy which, according to Vatican II, is integral to “the Church that Christ Founded”:

Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body [emphasis added].

In other words, “the ”visible hierarchy” is to the Roman Catholic Church what Christ’s flesh was to the person of Christ”: a strong analogy to the flesh, the “assumed nature”, of “the divine Word”. In the same way, this “visible hierarchy” is (IS!) “vivified” by the Spirit of Christ.

There is no way any Protestant apologist could do more damage to Rome, than Rome is inflicting on itself these days.

Catholic membership cratering

https://news.gallup.com/poll/247571/catholics-question-membership-amid-scandal.aspx

Is there a correlation between sodomy and clerical abuse?

http://www.ruthinstitute.org/ruth-speaks-out/study-shows-high-correlation-between-homosexual-priests-clerical-abuse

http://www.ruthinstitute.org/press/ruth-institute-releases-study-on-role-of-sexual-orientation-in-catholic-clerical-sex-abuse-scandal

We're not Donatists!

I recently read a comment thread about Andrew Sullivan's review of Martel's bombshell expose:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/andrew-sullivan-the-vaticans-corruption-has-been-exposed.html

In fairness, Sullivan has his own ax to grind. He uses the book to push his own agenda. So does Martel. But that doesn't change the facts.

In the comment thread, Catholics pushed back by taking refuge in the claim that Catholics aren't Donatists. As such, scandal can never discredit the Catholic church. They accused Protestants who cite endemic clerical sodomy of strawmanning the Catholic position. Here's some background info:

During the persecutions, any Christian who renounced Christianity, made offerings to the Roman state gods and/or the Imperial divine cult, and who burned any sacred Christian texts they may have had, were spared. Those who refused — especially those caught with Christian texts that they refused to hand over or destroy — were usually killed. That texts were often used to determine who was Christian and who wasn’t, meant that the clergy — those Christians most likely to have such things — were particularly vulnerable to the persecution.

While some Christian clergy resisted and were martyred, many did not. They renounced Christianity, allowed their books to be burned, and were spared.

Donatus and his faction declared the lapsed clergy ineligible to perform the sacraments, and that any which they may have performed, were invalid. The opposing party declared, again, that lapsed clergy could be restored to full authority — including the performance of sacraments — after having performed appropriate penance. They based this idea on the concept of forgiveness for all.

http://www.earlychristianhistory.net/donatus.html

Novatianism was similar to Donatism. That counter raises several issues:

1. There are generally two ways to evaluate a position. One way is to assess the position on its own terms. Is the position internally consistent?

Even if a position is internally inconsistent, that doesn't necessarily falsify the entire position. But it means the proponent needs to modify or surrender some element of his position to relieve the self-contradiction and restore inner consistency. 

2. Another way is to assess the position in reference to criteria external to the position. Is the position factually erroneous? Is the position unethical? Is the position evidentially unsupported? 

Suppose Gnosticism is internally consistent. Suppose Mary Baker Eddy's idealism is internally consistent. That doesn't make the position immune to refutation. It just means you must evaluate the position by criteria independent of the position. But that's something we do all the time.

Likewise, Islam has a doctrine of abrogation to harmonize contradictory statements in the Quran. But even if that's coherent, it doesn't render Islam unfalsifiable from other lines of attack. 

It's not a straw man to say a position is demonstrably false even assuming that it's internally consistent. A purported prophet might have a message that's logically coherent, but if he makes erroneous predictions, that falsifies his position. 

3. If the truth of Rome's exclusive claims is in dispute, then appealing to Rome's position on Donatism is circular. That presumes the authority of Rome to condemn Donatism (and Novatianism). But what if certain kinds of scandal call into question the authority of Rome? It begs the question to appeal to Rome's ex opere operato position if the legitimacy of the Magisterium is the very question at issue. 

What if Rome's ex opere operato position is an ad hoc face-saving device to shield its claims from possible falsification? To revert to my earlier comparison, even if Mary Baker Eddy's idealism is hard to disprove directly, that doesn't make it credible. Idealism is a very convenient way to shield your position from empirical disconfirmation, but what if that's the problem? What if the fact that Christian Science is unaccountable that regard is blatant special pleading? 

4. Catholic apologists erect an absolute dichotomy between saying and doing, where nothing Rome does can falsify its claims. Only if Rome says the wrong things can that falsify its claims. And even that's in the highly qualified sense that Rome is divinely protected from dogmatic error. 

But why should we accept the radical dichotomy between saying and doing? Why should we believe God created a religious institution to which we owe our unconditional allegiance, where no quality or quantity of evil can possibly discredit that institution? Is God so limited that that's the best he can do?

Suppose the pope mandates homosexual orgies at Mass all around the world. He isn't teaching anything. He isn't make that a de fide belief. It's just a directive. But according to Catholic apologists, that wouldn't discredit Roman Catholicism. 

5. Finally, the position on Donatism is a red herring. For low churchmen like myself, the objection is not that a dominant homosexual subculture in the Catholic hierarchy and priesthood invalidates Catholic sacraments. The objection isn't framed in sacramental terms. The objection doesn't operate within a paradigm of valid or invalid sacraments.

The question raised by systematic scandal, pervasive institutional corruption, is why that has to be the One True Church? Is a dominant homosexual subculture in the clergy a necessary condition for the One True Church to exist? What makes that better than denominations which don't suffer from that problem?

Meet the in-laws

In light of all the controversies and scandals that rocked the Church in 2018, many Catholics attempted to answer the question “why are you still Catholic?”  There is every indication that these controversies and scandals will continue and increase in 2019, so the question remains.  While it is good for Catholics to answer this question, it is also good for us to consider how strong those answers are. Are they really getting at the crux of the matter?

We should also remember that love is messy in that we stick with those who we love, even when nothing makes sense. Even when we might be angry with them. Find me someone who has not expressed outrage towards God because of this crisis, and I will show you someone who isn’t being real about their love. Find me someone who thinks all of this makes sense, and I will show you a stoic, not a Christian. Love doesn’t say we have all the answers. Love doesn’t even say we’re happy at that moment. Love says we give somebody a chance.  

https://catholicexchange.com/choose-to-remain-spiritual-heirs-even-in-crisis

Years ago I lived within walking distance of a strip mall that a corner store selling Star Trek memorabilia. I'm not enough of a Trekkie to take an interest in Star Trek memorabilia, but out of curiosity I went inside and poked around. He did have bookmarks with photos of cast members. I was interested in bookmarks with Deanna Troi, but unfortunately those were out of stock. 

However, we got into a conversation. Turns out, he belonged to one of New York mafia families. However, he had no interest in the family business. He did his best to keep his distance from his mob connections. Sometimes, even in the case of family, you need to disassociate yourself from some of the relatives. 

Draining the Tiber swamp

The Vatican just wrapped up a sex summit in Rome. It won't change anything. The hierachy will not and cannot solve this problem. One reason is because the leadership is a large part of the problem. To drain the swamp, the hierarchy would have to do the following:

i) Rescind the policy of mandatory clerical celibacy 

ii) Put a moratorium on homosexuals in holy orders

iii) Defrock all known homosexuals in the priesthood and hierarchy 

Essentially, start from scratch. Do a reset. But that's not going to happen.

There's no intrinsic reason why the Catholic church can't drop the requirement of mandatory clerical celibacy. But it's very pigheaded about that. 

One reason it won't put a moratorium on homosexual entrants to the priesthood is because many bishops don't think homosexuality per se is wrong. At best, some of them think homosexual activity is wrong. And many don't think consensual homosexual activity between adults is wrong. 

They won't clean house in part because that would require many members of the hierarchy to step down. In addition, there aren't enough straight replacements if all the homosexual monks, priests, monsignors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, cardinal archbishops (and popes) were to resign en masse. 

If the Catholic church revoked the failed policy of mandatory clerical celibacy, that might deepen the recruiting pool of straight men. But it's not clear if that would be enough. For modernism is another factor in the death spiral of contemporary Catholicism. Many men are not inspired by liberal theology. That's not a cause to live for or die for. They need something more inspirational (heroic, idealistic) to aspire to. 

On another front, most erstwhile Catholic institutions of higher learning have become militantly secular and progressive. Those use to be a pipeline and support service for Catholicism, by training the next generation. Not only is the Catholic church in disarray, but the scaffolding is gone. 

Within the foreseeable future, the Catholic church will remain a malarial swamp. And there's a lot more bad news to come. 

The seal of confession

https://sd13.senate.ca.gov/news/2019-02-20-catholic-priests-would-have-report-child-sex-abuse-under-proposed-california-law

That raises a nest issues:

i) It diverts attention away from the source of the problem. It's not Catholic laymen who are the molesters but (many) Catholic priests (and bishops). That's primarily a homosexual crime, and I doubt Catholic laymen are homosexual at higher rates than men generally. So this law has it backwards. The problem isn't laymen confessing child abuse to priests, but abusive priests.  

ii) The law is too sweeping since this is primarily a Catholic problem. I don't mean sexual abuse is primarily a Catholic problem, but homosexual abuse of minors. 

iii) It would essentially make Catholicism illegal. While I'm opposed to Catholicism, I don't think it should be against the law to be Catholic. 

Admittedly, I'm not a religious freedom absolutist. I'm much less tolerant of Islam. But Islam is dangerous in a way that Catholicism is not.

iv) If you accept the principle of the mandated reporter law, why draw the line with suspected child abuse/neglect? Why not require clergy to refer any crime to the authorities which is confided to them? 

v) In general, I'm opposed to turning private citizens into domestic spies. It's one thing for a private citizen to voluntarily report a crime, quite another to make private citizens agents of the state who have an obligation, under penalty of law, to be snitches for the government. That's a classic police state mentality which existed in the Soviet Union.

vi) Although this can protect kids in some situations, it can easily be abused. "Suspected" cases reported to authorities. CPS swoops in, removes the kids from their home, then innocent parents have to fight an expensive uphill legal battle to get them back. So it cuts both ways. Consider how this can be weaponized against Jewish or Christian parents by progressive public school employees who disapprove of how parents are raising their kids. Think how it could be extended to the LGBT agenda. 

vii) And this invites overreporting to shift the blame. The mandated reporter avoids legal liability for failing to report suspected cases by automatically referring a case to the authorities on the filmiest grounds.  

viii) Mind you, I think the seal of confession is fanatical. There are extreme situations in which, even if something is shared in confidence, we have a moral duty to report that to the authorities. But that's an extreme situation, and a moral duty is different from a legal duty. And even in that case, there's such a thing as anonymous tips. 

Laws like this can be indexed to anyone who's licensed by the state, which ties into the problem of overregulation. A runaway proliferation of occupations that require licensing. 

ix) How can this even enforceable? If a crime is confided in private, there's no record of who said what to whom unless that's written down. The mandated reporter can simply deny that the perp confided in him. Where's the evidence to the contrary?  

x) BTW, are lawmakers exempt from mandatory reporter laws? 

Compartmentalized theology

Before I do another post critical of Roman Catholicism, it's important to note that we can't use what's wrong as a basis of comparison. There's a danger in taking satisfaction from the fact that I'm not like that! But I could still be bad in a different way. 

i) One way Catholics rationalize remaining in such a corrupt denomination is to compartmentalize morality and theology. They put the morality of Catholic clergy in one container, and Catholic theology in a separate container. But one problem with that strategy is that in Catholicism, the true faith is inseparable from its institutional expression. In Catholicism, you can't detach true religion from institutional religion. There's a one-to-one correspondence. They can't be pried apart. The faith is mediated by the guys in funny hats. They embody the faith. They are the official spokesmen. 

ii) But here's another issue: the Protestant faith has a static rule of faith–the Bible. The Bible isn't going to change. It's frozen in place. There may be some tweaking if we discover new ancient MSS, but what we have is pretty much all we're going to have. So in that respect, clerical misconduct has absolutely no impact on Bible-based theology. 

By contrast, Catholicism has a fluid rule of faith. Living tradition. The development of doctrine. The pope as the voice of God. A living oracle. 

This means the personal mores of Vatican and diocesan policymakers may rewrite theology, where the sexual morality of popes, cardinals, and bishops is the locomotive pulling the theological caboose. In the past, homosexual clerical hypocrisy was necessary because sodomy was stigmatized, but nowadays, not only is sodomy fashionable in the general culture, many lay Catholics are social liberals. Given such a welcoming climate, what's to prevent Vatican and diocesan policymakers from changing traditional theology to sanctify their homosexual lifestyle? What's to hinder them from following the same well-worn path as mainline Protestant denominations? Indeed, that's well underway.