The cause of our joy. And the sure sign that evil cannot prevail.

“Will the Church survive this? Yes. How? The Holy Spirit. I wouldn’t give you five bucks for the whole operation if it weren’t for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We can’t keep this up on our own.”

I paraphrase from memory, but so said Father Benedict Groeschel in a conference I heard years back shortly after the sex abuse scandal began to break.

Episodes like what has gone down of late in Kansas City-St. Joseph make you wonder how God will bring good out of this evil, but there is nothing for us to do but to trust that He will, and will provide for the victims.

Another conference I heard, this by Archabbot Lambert Reilly of St. Meinrad’s in Indiana, included a story he told about a previous conference he gave. Again, I’ll paraphrase, but he said he was giving a retreat to a group of bishops and after the first couple of days of impressing each other—because that’s what people do when they first come together—they had more or less gelled. And at the start of a particular conference he said, “Before I begin my remarks I have two comments. One has to do with me and the other has to do with you. The one that has to do with me is, ‘God can work through any jackass he chooses.’ And the one that has to do with you is, ‘He only has jackasses to choose from.’ And so then I gave my remarks and after that conference one of the cardinals on retreat came up to me and said, ‘Father archabbot, I think that’s the first time I’ve been called a jackass publicly.’ And I said to the cardinal, ‘I think what you mean is “outloud.”‘”

At the conclusion of that story and the ensuing laughter Archabbot Lambert went on to thunder, “THE CHURCH DOESN’T GO ON BECAUSE YOU’RE GOOD, OR I’M GOOD.”

The Church goes on because Christ said it would go on until the end of time.

End of story.

Awful things like this indictment are most definitely not the end of the story. Nor, unfortunately, are they the end of men and women who represent and lead the Church in various capacities doing very bad things.

God help us if we do not do everything we can to prevent such evil and eradicate it if we come to know about it.

Zenit news service’s six editors resigned their positions Oct. 7, citing their disagreement with the Legionaries of Christ’s plans to increase the outlet’s ties to the order.

In a statement signed by the six editors, and addressed to Zenit readers, the editors state, “After years of fruitful collaboration with the Legionaries of Christ, we disagree with the decision of the congregation to underline the institutional dependence of the agency on the Legion.

“The initial vision of ZENIT was never to make it a service of a particular congregation, but rather of the universal Church. This has been the spirit with which we have worked throughout the years, and the spirit we could not betray.” (EWTN)

For the other side of the story, OSV editor John Norton talked to Legionary of Christ Fr. Thomas Williams who served as the publisher of Zenit until recently.

I remember being uneasy about how many organizations the Legion supported or controlled (such as the National Catholic Register) without making that association fully public — or at least not making any particular effort to make the association better known among their Catholic readers and those they served.

On the news outlet front, in January of this year the Legion sold the National Catholic Register (to EWTN) after running it for over 15 years. They also have sold Faith and Family Magazine.

The fact that the Legion controlled several important news outlets made it more difficult, I believe, for accurate news about Fr. Maciel to be made public once his transgressions were known, which is one of the reasons I took an active role in reporting what other Catholic outlets were not keeping up with the news.

Evidently the former editor of Zenit, Jesus Colina agreed about this:

OSV: One of the reasons Colina cites for his loss of trust [in the Legion] is “the manner in which the Legion of Christ hid the information about Father Marcial Maciel,” and he cites particularly the homily at a Legion Mass a month after Father Maciel’s death in which the homilist (whom he doesn’t name) continued to hold out the Legion founder as a role model, despite the fact that at that point, Legion leadership surely knew about his double-life and moral depravity.

I could see how that episode would particularly sting a reporter and editor. If memory serves, reporters at the National Catholic Register were also not given the news about Maciel directly and promptly, undermining their ability to work as informed journalists (I should add that since the Legion relinquished control of the National Catholic Register I have been impressed and continue to rely on their reporting).

Nonetheless, I am glad to see that the Legion is becoming more transparent about their involvement in Zenit, even if it clearly prompted their entire editorial staff to sever ties. Transparency is a good thing. Aside from Legion-related stories, I’ve found Zenit reporting to be useful and fair over the years. But of course I am also concerned about the future quality of Zenit coverage now that its entire editorial staff has resigned.

The original founder of Zenit, Jesus Colina, is starting a new Catholic media venture, and some of his former editors are following him (I’ll post more details about that new venture when I find them).

We need good Catholic media, especially to counter the efforts of heterodox Catholic publications (such as the National Catholic Reporter) to confuse the faithful — so please continue to pray for Zenit and whatever new Catholic media ventures are launched in the future by its former editors, that they remain faithful to their mission to be reliable and transparent sources of Catholic news.

[UPDATE, Fri Sep 16: "Why the “Free Father Frank” Movement is Misplaced and Counter-Productive"]

I’ve observed the dispute between Fr. Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life and his bishop, Patrick Zurek of Amarillo, with sadness. I suppose it was unavoidable that the dispute would become public but these disagreements always cause harm to Catholic unity and it would have been better if it could have been resolved privately.

Already Catholics are “picking sides” — those who know Fr. Pavone from his pro-life work are prone to support him and those who understand the good reasons for clerical obedience are more prone to support his bishop.

Joan Frawley Desmond at the National Catholic Register has published (as always) an excellent summary of what is happening and my father, canon lawyer Ed Peters, has posted expert observations about what is happening canonically over at CanonLaw.info.

The mainstream media, of course, has already decided to frame this dispute as one over financial improprieties and Fr. Pavone overstepping his bounds. The Associated Press reports:

A Roman Catholic priest nationally known for his anti-abortion activism has been ordered back to his diocese for “prayer and reflection” amid questions about whether he properly accounted for millions of dollars in donations.

I believe that making all of this about money is misleading. I think the main thing here isn’t about whether Fr. Pavone/Priests for Life is mishandling finances or overstepping his bounds, it’s about how Fr. Pavone/PFL is responding to Bishop Zurek’s demands for transparency.

A Catholic priest is solemnly bound to be obedient to his bishop. Fr. Pavone’s comment that “Bishop Zurek is quite aware that my heart is in pro-life work; it is a commitment I made to God” ignores the fact that Fr. Pavone has also made a commitment to God to be obedient to his bishop. Furthermore, Catholics believe that God is the primary actor in history, so whatever someone’s personal actions on behalf of the unborn are –and Fr. Pavone’s have been extraordinary– God will only bless and make those actions fruitful if His commandments are kept, and His commandment for priests is to be obedient to the legitimate authority placed over them, in this case, Bishop Zurek. So Fr. Pavone’s passion to protect the unborn is actually fulfilled through his priestly obedience, in addition to his tangible pro-life work.

Why do I bring this up? Because otherwise Catholics will be tempted to see Bishop Zurek’s actions vis-a-vis Fr. Pavone as an impediment to Fr. Pavone’s pro-life work, and that’s just not how the Church sees it, or what good theology tells us is this case. Fr. Pavone ought to humbly submit to this process, appeal his case using the legitimate canonical means at his disposal, and minimize the scandal caused by appearing to be and acting fully and joyfully cooperative with Bishop Zurek’s requests.

All of this is not to pick sides –I’m not saying Bishop Zurek is in the right by any means– I’m saying only through humble obedience will this matter be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Bishop Zurek is also bound by the same standards to have the true and objective good of Fr. Pavone’s priestly ministry at heart. Egoism has no place here, and sadly the public nature of this dispute makes me think egoism is in play.

It is my prayer that Catholics will prayerfully support both Fr. Pavone and Bp. Zurek, and that they might resolve this matter promptly through a renewal of their priestly and episcopal vows and duties.

First, Bishop Aquila is clearly referencing Matthew 18:15-18:

“If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Caravaggio's depiction of the calling of Matthew, a tax collector, to be one of the Twelve.

But if the wayward brother remains at odds even after all these reasonable steps have been taken, then the wayward brother, by his own actions or beliefs, has put himself outside the community, and thus is rightly regarded as the Jews regarded gentiles and tax collectors: outside the covenant community.

In this context, the power to bind and loose which Christ gives to the Apostles follows on the tradition of rabbinical Judaism. The rabbi’s power to bind and loose included the authority to establish membership in the community: to excommunicate and to restore to membership. By including binding and loosing in the discussion of how unrepentant dissenters are to be treated, Christ clearly indicates the Apootles’ (and thereby their successors’) authority to do likewise in such cases. (For more, see pages 210, 230-233 of Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri’s volume on the Gospel of Matthew from the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series.)

And this has a pastoral, not punitive, purpose. For one, it prevents further scandal of the faithful who may use the unrepentant dissenter’s dissent as cover or justification for their own heterodoxy. “If the bishops do not publicly rebuke public dissenters, then they must not disapprove of the heterodox position—qui tacet consentire videtur—therefore I am justified in my dissent.” Second, it demonstrates to the unrepentant dissenter the gravity of their dissent more sharply and thus gives a greater chance of public repentance. Third, if Communion is withheld (which it ought to be, since one who is not in communion ought not receive Communion), it is withheld for the dissenter’s own good, since to receive Communion unworthily is a sacrilege and therefore mortally harmful to one’s soul.

Or, as Rob put it, “Oh look, you’ve doused yourself with gasoline. Let’s get you cleaned up. But if you persist in remaining doused in gasoline, then—don’t take this unkindly—I’m going to withhold lit matches from you. No offense.”

None taken. I hope.

Christ did personally minister to public sinners, but He did so to call them out of their sin. Christ did send the Apostles to preach to all nations—gentiles and tax collectors included—and St. Paul certainly preached to the gentiles. But the point of all that was to bring the whole world into actual communion with the body of Christ and not the other way around. The one flock of Christ is shepherded by the Apostles and their successors, primarily Peter and the popes, who hold the keys.

I hope that helps people understand a little more what Bishop Aquila was saying.

It's a target. The Roman collar proclaims to the world, "JESUS IS LORD. And I will live and die by that credo."

So the Irish prime minister, and now some Australian legislator, is working on a bill that, if passed into law, would ostensibly compel, under penalty of jail time, priests to break the seal of confession and tell the civil authorities if child abuse is confessed.

Let’s look at some of the problems with this proposal.

1) If the penitent stays “behind the screen,” the priest cannot possibly credibly identify the person. Face-to-face confession is great in its place, but it is not required. If the priest does break the seal of confession, all he can say is, “someone confessed pedophilia today, but I have no way of knowing whom.” Sure, in some places a priest will know many people by their voice and vocal ticks and speech patterns and vocabulary, etc., but then the penitent who wants to confess pedophilia will simply travel to a parish where the priest cannot possibly know him by voice. And then he can disguise his voice. Law thwarted.

2) How many hardened pedophiles actually go to confession? I’d wager not many. And the priest pedophiles, if they are the sort to still feel the need to confess their pedophilia, are smart enough to get around this law by doing what I mention above: go behind the screen, in a place where they will not be recognized by voice. So whom is the law targeting: the pedophiles? Or the non-pedophile priests?

3) If the penitent has a reasonable assumption that the priest will divulge his pedophilia, he is far less likely to actually confess his pedophilia, even if his conscience tells him it was a sin and he ought to confess it. He may simply not go to confession at all, or leave that item out of his list—neither option is at all good. In this case the law has managed to keep the penitent from getting any good counsel at all (let alone the assistance of the grace of the sacrament). Further, considering that the vaaaast majority of priests are neither pedophiles themselves nor involved in the cover-ups that enabled so many of the pedophile priests, they would undoubtedly steer the pedophile in the right direction and possibly encourage the pedophile to confess his crime to the civil authorities. So then the law was counter-productive.

4) It would put the priest in the position of having to choose between a civil penalty or an excommunication(a priest incurs automatic excommunication upon himself if he breaks the seal of confession). Simple choice, really: five years in prison is a small price to pay for refusal to separate oneself from God’s Church. Priests have died rather than break the seal of confession through the years. Either way the priest is in a tough position, but the cost incurred as per the previous points in dissuading most pedophiles from seeking any help at all would be awful. Plus, since the vaaaaast majority of priests have no been guilty of any of the crimes, the priests who would be most consistently put in this tough position would be those who have been unfairly tarnished by the despicable actions of a few.

5) What if a person who was not guilty of pedophilia confesses pedophilia to the priest in a mock confession, knowing that they could not be convicted of the crime since they had not committed it, and guessing that the priest would not report it, just to get the priest in trouble for not reporting what he had every reason to believe was a true confession of pedophilia. Think that’s crazy? There are people who hate the Catholic Church enough to try it. Would the law specifically protect priests from such a ruse? I would hope so, but doubt.

6) And perhaps most tellingly, why only pedophilia? What if murder is confessed? Rape? Theft? Arson? Why target confessions of pedophilia? Why not force priests to divulge all crimes that are confessed, even up to running a stop sign? Of course, the answer can be speculated, from motives of virulent anti-Catholicism to simple stupidity. But no matter how you slice it, it is a terribly misguided approach to undoing the harm of the sex scandals and preventing future such cases.

Yes, unimaginable damage was done to many people by the unconscionable actions of a few powerful people, resulting in a whole lot of evil and awfulness, but such laws would compound the problem without solving anything.

Bottom line remains, at least here in the States: since the Church began in earnest her response to the scandal, no institution is more safe for youth than the Catholic Church.

Are those vessels glass and clay?! Good thing it's just bread and wine and not really Jesus.

But with the example of Abby Johnson still fresh and current, I was pleased to see another example pop up on Zenit: Norma Jean Coon.

In 2007, Coon attempted ordination to the diaconate at the hands of a German “bishop” of the international organization known as Roman Catholic Women Priests.

Earlier this month she officially repudiated all association with that organization, and just yesterday posted her full message of renunciation of Orders, public confession, and repentance for the scandal caused.

She says, in part:

I withdrew from the program within two weeks of the ceremony because I realized that I had made a mistake in studying for the priesthood. I confess to the truth of Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. I confess the authority of the Holy Father on these issues of ordination and recognize that Christ founded the ordination only for men.

Formally, I relinquish all connection to the program of Roman Catholic Women Priests and I disclaim the alleged ordination publicly with apologies to those whose lives I have offended or scandalized by my actions. I ask God’s blessings upon each of these folks and their families.

The specific mention of her recognition of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is significant because it is perhaps one of the most misunderstood papal writings of recent memory (though far outpaced by Humanae Vitae). In OS Pope John Paul II discussed the nature of the priesthood, noted that some thought the male-only priesthood was a matter of discipline rather than doctrine, and ended with:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Supporters of women’s ordination read that and, rather than seeing a “definitive” declaration, saw a lack of ex cathedra definition of the matter. They would cite a later statement by JPII that in OS he did not intend to make a dogmatic definition, and conclude that, despite the fairly clear language of OS, the matter was still open to debate.

Norma Jean Coon got it right, through the grace of God and the prayers of many people.

Coon ended her statement with a beautiful prayer of thanksgiving, praying for unity, forgiveness, wisdom, and continued growth.

Hopefully her example of courage and humility, and her prayers for greater unity and openness to the Spirit, will help others who persist in public dissent from Church teaching to see the error of their ways and return home to the Father in humility.

Andrew Sullivan, a well-known gay activist and columnist was invited to Georgetown University last night by Catholics For Equality to conduct a “Catholic Family Conversation on LGBT Issues” with Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage.

The problem is, despite his claiming to have tried his best to be a good Catholic and understand the Church’s teachings, right down to understanding the meaning of the term “transubstantiation”, Andrew actually doesn’t know the first thing about his Catholic faith, or about the arguments of the Church for its positions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Catholic moderator E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post was a hapless referee, using words like “exegetical” and tossing in quotations from St. Paul while admitting that he now dissents from the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

When facing the level of ignorance, malice and internal incoherence displayed by Andrew, it’s truly useless to attempt to engage him in a debate, because a debate requires logic.

The low-point of the evening (or high-point, if you were waiting for one outrageous statement to be topped by another) was when Andrew claimed, in response to a question I posed, that Jesus didn’t care much about families, that Jesus abandoned his own family, in fact, and that homosexual persons care more about marriage and family than Jesus did.

Seriously.

Allow me to rattle through a few more of the things Andrew said (I’m paraphrasing from memory but the video recording, should it ever be released, will corroborate my claims):

The Church believes homosexuals are intrinsically disordered. In 1986, Ratzinger wrote a document which implied that if gays stand up for themselves they deserve violence. The reason for the Church’s anti-gay activity is because a disproportionate number of bishops and priests are closeted gays. The only time I have experienced hostility hatred and discrimination is from celibate priests who think their power is dependent upon stigmatizing gays. Life without being able to have a romantic relationship with the one you love isn’t worth living. I was an alter boy, and there must have been something unattractive about me because I was never molested {to audience laughter and applause}. Cardinal Ratzinger covered up for a priest who he knew was a child rapist and sent that priest to go rape other children. The Church’s mistreatment of gays is the greatest scandal and threat to the Church in its entire history. I came out as gay because of my Catholic faith. I don’t believe in infallibility. Jesus was unconcerned about the family and marriage, in fact incredibly hostile to the family, he abandoned his own family, and asked every disciple to dump his wife and children.

… it’s not hard to see how it’s difficult to have a “Catholic” debate with someone who holds to these views and says these things. For the record, not a single one of Andrew’s claims about the Church or figures in the Church is true.

The audience, who were overwhelmingly gay and/or supporters of gay-marriage (though there was a respectable showing of those who support the Church’s teaching) were little better informed. One woman stood up and said, “Because my parents weren’t married when I was born the Church says I’m an illegitimate person.”

Again, this is an example of someone who is angry with a caricature of the Church.

I’m searching for access to video from the event so people can see with their own eyes what happened. I believe it is eye-opening for anyone who has not seen how the debate over homosexuality and same-sex marriage is being conducted these days.

I believe it’s imperative that faithful Catholics continue to offer up prayers and prepare themselves for the inevitable questions they will encounter about these issues.

And pray for Andrew Sullivan, who has clearly benefitted so little from his failed attempts to understand the teachings of Christ as conveyed and explained by the Church.

These men were appointed by the disgraced founder of the order – Marcial Maciel – and are refusing to relinquish their power even as it becomes more evident that they knew about and covered up Maciel’s egregious sins. Magister reproduces a letter from Cardinal-designate Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, who has been appointed by Pope Benedict to salvage what remains of the Legionaries of Christ:

[Archbishop] De Paolis dedicates numerous passages and one entire paragraph of the letter to the need for superiors to change the way in which they act. For the first time in an official Church document, he states in black and white the thesis according to which “the current superiors could not have been unaware of the offenses of the founder,” and so “by remaining silent about them, they would have been lying.” He does not endorse this thesis, but he also does not rule it out. In conjecturing that their knowledge of the outrages of the founder would have come about “late and gradually,” he does not say how or when. And in effect it is now common opinion, even among the Vatican authorities, that Garza and the other ultra-faithful of Maciel knew of and covered up his double life as early as the early 1990′s, long before his denunciation in 2006 and his death in 2008. [Continue reading...]

As I wrote when I first began commenting upon and exposing this scandal, only a firm recourse to the truth will save the Legion now. For the best good of the order, those who directly served under Maciel ought to step aside immediately and relinquish all control of it. By continuing to lead it, they only compound the hurt caused by Maciel’s offenses.

For those of you interested in this topic, I urge you to read Magister’s entire column and Archbishop De Paolis’ letter to the Legion leadership.

The head of the Vatican bank has formally been placed under investigation in an inquiry into a suspected violation of Italy’s money-laundering laws, judicial sources said today. At the same time, a judge in Rome ordered a freeze on €23m (£19.5m) held in an account opened by the Vatican bank, the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), at another financial institution in the Italian capital. It was thought to be the first time such action had been authorised against the IOR in Italy. (UK Guardian)

The Vatican is standing behind the two men under investigation:

The Vatican expressed its full confidence in Mr Gotti Tedeschi. In a statement it expressed surprise at the investigation and said it remained committed to financial transparency. (Financial Times)

This morning’s Vatican Informative Service bulletin echoed the above. This isn’t the first time the people charged with handling the Vatican’s finances have come under suspicion.

The visible religious community known as the Home of the Mother will be leaving Ave Maria University’s campus this week after allegations surfaced that the nun supervising the school’s program to help women discern a religious vocation “was responsible for immoral conduct” last academic year, and was removed from her post in the spring, the university announced Tuesday.

The religious group, which is based in Spain and known also by its Spanish name Hogar de la Madre, recalled the nun, Sister Maria Elena, last year after learning of accusations that she had an inappropriate relationship with a female student in the program, but the group did not report the incident to the university. Nor, according to the university, did superiors at the Home of the Mother follow Vatican-prescribed procedures for reporting such incidents.