Canadian bishops being too self-flattering over Lahey scandal?

I read this article in the Globe and Mail today entitled "Church vocal in face of scandal".  Here are some quotes that caught my attention.   

This time – with the disgrace of former bishop Raymond Lahey drenching the news media – the hierarchy of Canada's Roman Catholic Church has not stayed silent.

In what one senior church official on Thursday called a light-years' shift from a generation ago, bishops have preached in their cathedrals and written open letters about their anger and disgust with Rev. Lahey and the child pornography charges he faces.

The national Catholic television station Salt and Light TV has devoted much of its blog to the story. And the Pope's representative in Canada this week told theology students in Toronto that the Canadian church had been wounded.

(...)

The Canadian bishops were the first in the world to institute protocols, Father Rosica said. It placed them far ahead of the U.S. church and fostered a climate of transparency, rigorous investigation and instant suspension for suspected wrongdoing. Except, as the papal nuncio told theology students, the destructive power of sin can't be underestimated.

First of all, I'm very happy that the Canadian bishops have been so vocal in denouncing Archbishop Lahey's actions.  This is another sad episode in the history of our Church, but the truth must be known and dealt with. There would have been no point in denying it or minimizing it.

What bugs me is that the bishops have started patting themselves on the back over how awesomely they have dealt with this issue.  Their tone is quite triumphalist, at a time when there is nothing to be triumphant about.  We just caught an Archbishop using child porn!  Not to mention that it wasn't the bishops who brought this man to justice, but rather the police who did an excellent job.  I think the bishops' attitude is severely misplaced and very premature.  New facts about this case are still emerging.  This is a time of repentance, investigation and accountability, not a time for self-flattery. 

This is particularly true in light of the new revelations that Lahey's child pornography behaviour was known by another priest and bishop 20 years ago! 

Indeed, in the National Post, we read that Father Kevin Molloy learned about Lahey's behaviour in 1989.  He confronted Lahey and told him to stop these sinful deeds.  He also alerted Archbishop Alphonsus Penney, who was the proper ecclesiastical authority at the time.  Archbishop Penney has not spoken to the media yet concerning the Lahey scandal, so we don't know exactly what measures, if any, were taken against Lahey in 1989.  But one thing is certain: Lahey's child pornography habits were obviously not overcome at that time and it would have been horribly imprudent to let him continue his ministry in that condition.  Archbishop Penney owes us a darn good explanation.  Until then, the bishops would be advised to hold off on their self-congratulation. 

The same article in the National Post says that Lahey allegedly was in the habit of bringing some boys into his home on weekends, back in the 1980s.  That's where some boys found the child pornography.

This raises the obvious question:  why was Lahey allowed to continue in his functions for another 20 years after being exposed?  

Keep in mind that 1989 was not so long ago.  Our understanding of sexual deviancy had improved a lot since the 1950s or 1960s.  Disciplinary actions for sexual deviancy in the clergy should have been stronger.

So while normal Catholics are still in shock and seeking accountability, the bishops are congratulating themselves in one of Canada's national newspapers.  How does that make you feel?  I'm concerned that the Canadian bishops are more worried about their public appearance over this scandal than in addressing the substance of the issue.  Dealing with the issue of sexual deviancy in the clergy is difficult and requires great sacrifice.  It's a lot easier to focus on the PR.  But we can't let them be content with a PR campaign.  We need some answers and accountability. 

Reading the quote from Fr. Rosica above, you'd almost think that the Canadian Church has it all figured out and that sexual scandals are a thing of the past.  Well, no.  The fact that an Archbishop can still fall through the cracks tells me that there is much work left to do.  We need the bishops to tell us what concrete measures they will implement to prevent this from happening again. 

Is this a sign of more things to come from the CCCB's revamped communications strategy?  I sure hope not. 

Please pray for our bishops.

Exclusive: Father Rosica approval rating under 20%

Many of you are aware of the Father Rosica scandal that erupted over the past month.  You can read about it here.

Catholic Dialogue was interested in getting a broader sense of how Internet-literate Catholics were reacting to Fr. Rosica's unexplainable outburst.  To do this, we conducted extensive research on the Internet in order to see which way the wind was blowing.  Today, we are presenting these exclusive results.

Clearly, Fr. Rosica is facing serious headwinds in the court of public opinion.

The research revealed that 80.5% of all the articles that expressed an opinion on the controversy were opposed to Fr. Rosica's position, while only 19.5% supported him.  The methodology encompasses all online articles published on the Fr. Rosica controversy, but excludes "comments" posted on blogs, since these can easily be manipulated.

In case you're wondering, articles by LifeSiteNews represented a very small fraction of the articles published on this issue.  Excluding articles from LifeSiteNews, the disapproval rating for Fr. Rosica is still 79.8%.  

The disapproval of Fr. Rosica is widespread and broad-based.  It includes both men and women, laity and clergy.  They quote Church documents and Doctors of the Church.  They refer to authoritative statements by Vatican officials.  By all accounts, these are educated Catholics, well-versed in Scripture and the Catechism.  They do not seek personal glory or satisfaction.  They do not have any axe to grind.  They are merely seeking to denounce errors and injustices so that the Church in Canada may once again submit to Rome's authority.    

In theological terms, we'd say that the sensus fidelium is enabling the faithful to participate in Christ's prophetic office by denouncing error.  In layman's terms, we'd say that Fr. Rosica's behaviour doesn't pass the sniff test.

This doesn't bode well for Salt and Light's ratings.  But it is certainly good news in the battle for the soul of the Church, since the Internet reaches such a broader audience than a satellite cable network.  

The winds of change are blowing.  There is a growing sense that too many clergymen are lukewarm or outright dissenters.  The discontent among the faithful will be a powerful instrument to help the Church return to authentic Magisterial teaching in union with the Vatican.

Please pray for Fr. Rosica and all clergy. 

Vatican Archbishop clarifies Catholic teachings on life-issues, politicians and witnessing to Truth

Archbishop Raymond Burke is the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. This is a position analogous to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. After the Pope, Burke holds the highest judicial office in the Roman Catholic Church. His statements carry a lot of weight. We should pay attention.

Please read his thought provoking piece here.  Some interesting quotes (but you should read the whole article):

One of the ironies of the present situation is that the person who experiences scandal at the gravely sinful public actions of a fellow Catholic is accused of a lack of charity and of causing division within the unity of the Church.

 (...)

A unity which is not founded on the truth of the moral law is not the unity of the Church. The Church's unity is founded on speaking the truth with love. The person who experiences scandal at public actions of Catholics, which are gravely contrary to the moral law, not only does not destroy unity but invites the Church to repair what is clearly a serious breach in Her life. Were he not to experience scandal at the public support of attacks on human life and the family, his conscience would be uninformed or dulled about the most sacred realities.

(...)

For Christians, the acceptance of others who are not of the Christian faith is not a matter of tolerance, but of love which adheres to the truths of the faith while respecting the beliefs of those who are not Christian, as long as those beliefs are coherent with the natural moral law, that is, coherent with the respect for the "inalienable rights" with which God has endowed every man. Christian love does not have its foundation in blind tolerance of others and of what they think and say and do, but rather in the profound knowledge of others and their beliefs, and the honest acknowledgment of differences of belief, especially in what may compromise the life of the nation.

(...)

We find self-professed Catholics, for example, who sustain and support the right of a woman to procure the death of the infant in her womb, or the right of two persons of the same sex to the recognition which the State gives to a man and a woman who have entered into marriage. It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself politically in this manner.

(...)

But there is also true scandal, that is, the leading of others, by our words, actions and failures to act, into confusion and error, and, therefore, into sin. Our Lord was unequivocal in his condemnation of those who would confuse or lead others into sin by their actions. In teaching His disciples about temptations, He declared:

Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin (Lk 17:1-2).

It is clear that Our Lord taught as a primary responsibility, with the gravest of consequences, the avoidance of scandal, namely, of any act or failure to act which could lead another into sin. Our Lord's words are nothing less than vehement.

(...)

The perennial discipline of the Church, for that reason among other reasons, has prohibited the giving of Holy Communion and the granting of a Church funeral to those who persist, after admonition, in the grave violation of the moral law (Code of Canon Law, cann. 915; and 1184, § 1, 3º). It is said that these disciplines which the Church has consistently observed down the centuries presume to pass a judgment on the eternal salvation of a soul, which belongs to God alone, and, therefore, should be abandoned. On the contrary, these disciplines are not a judgment on the eternal salvation of the soul in question. They are simply the acknowledgment of an objective truth, namely, that the public actions of the soul are in violation of the moral law, to his own grave harm and to the grave harm of all who are confused or led into error by his actions. The Church confides every soul to the mercy of God, which is great beyond all our imagining, but that does not excuse her from proclaiming the truth of the moral law, also by applying her age-old disciplines, for the sake of the salvation of all.

The Catholic Church's Salvation: Tell it Like it Is

A great article by Suzanne Fortin highlighting the core of the problem with the Catholic Church in Canada and our bishops. Here is a key excerpt:

But the modernistic dissent doesn’t end at abortion. The weak response on the pro-life issue is symptomatic of the widespread reluctance to abide by and preach rudimentary Catholic philosophical beliefs, such as:

  • The ends do not justify the means.
  • The order of creation (e.g. men and women are complementary).
  • The hierarchy of truths.
  • The principal of non-contradiction.
  • Natural Truth can be known by reason alone.
  • The intrinsic evil of certain acts, and how they must always be rejected.

This has resulted in church elites distorting Catholic moral doctrine and sanctioning things like:

  • Inductions for post-viability fetuses who are terminally ill.
  • Legal recognition for same-sex unions.
  • Leaving the issue of contraception up to “one’s own conscience.”
  • Treating issues like the environment and poverty as equally important
    to fetal rights.

Read the whole article here.

.

Follow up on Fr. Rosica's claims

Something bothered me about Fr. Rosica's most recent lambasting of pro-lifers on Catholic Channel of Sirius Radio.  Let me quote from the transcript:

"I had many people wishing my death, my demise, destruction and everything else. And I said to myself “And you are talking about life.” It has been a real lesson for all of us. We were floored at the hundreds of messages that breathed hate and wished death and also people delighting that Senator Kennedy would be in hell. I think that says something about we have more education to do."

First of all, if there really were people out there threatening Fr. Rosica or his staff, you should smarten up and repent!.  That type of behaviour is despicable and totally unacceptable.  No matter how profound our disagreement with Fr. Rosica, violence is not a solution.

That being said, I question the authenticity of Fr. Rosica's claim.  You see, he didn't provide any evidence.  He said there were "hundreds of messages".  Surely he could publish a few to illustrate his point?  I would be the first to condemn any threats against him.  In fact, the police could use IP addresses to track down these people and prosecute them for death threats, which is a serious crime.  But Fr. Rosica presents no evidence.  (John Pacheco and LifeSite always present concrete evidence before they make any claims).


Also, during the same interview on the Catholic Channel, he said this about LifeSite:

"I will say very publicly to those listening - it is not credible, it does not speak for the Church, it is not ethical, it is not honest... For the 1/10 of kernel of truth that they purport to uncover (and there is truth in what they do) 9/10 is exaggeration." 

That's a very personal attack.  Yet once again, he presents no evidence.  If 90% of the LifeSite coverage is exaggeration and is not honest, surely he could find plenty of examples, right?  So where's the evidence, Father?

Lack of evidence... Hmmm... Those words sound familiar...  Ah yes, we witnessed the same chronic illness this summer with the CCCB's denials of the Development and Peace (D&P) scandal.  The bishops' report just stated that they were innocent, without addressing a single item of the mountain of evidence presented against D&P's partners. That doesn't make for a very convincing argument. Without evidence, it's just a lot of hot air.

In fact, making such bold accusations against LifeSite, without any facts to back it up, could very well constitute defamation and libel. Father Rosica is lucky that LifeSite will not engage in a lawsuit against another member of the Church, out of obedience to the wise advice of St. Paul to avoid taking Church disputes before secular authorites (see1 Cor 6: 1-11).

Lastly, Fr. Rosica accuses LifeSite of doing the work of Satan.  LifeSite has good company, because that's what the scribes and Pharisees used to say of Jesus:  

"But some of them said, 'He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons.'" (Luke 11:15)

Jesus had a good comeback for the scribes:  

"If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore will they be your judges."  (Luke 11:19)

To paraphrase:  If LifeSite is doing the work of Satan, then what is Salt and Light doing?

That settles it.  Let me pull out my cheque book and make a donation to LifeSite right away.


.

The Father Rosica controversy

Rather Thomas Rosica, who heads the TV network Salt and Light, has recently caused quite a stir in the pro-life community.  Here is a brief summary of what happened.

Following the funeral of Ted Kennedy, in which the former senator was portrayed as a hero and a faithful Catholic despite his pro-abortion and anti-family views, many pro-lifers felt outraged that such an ardent promoter of the culture of death would receive such a glorious public Catholic funeral.  Some people (unwisely) contacted Salt and Light asking them to provide negative coverage of the event.
Instead, they got a series of aggressive and vitriolic attacks from Fr. Rosica against the pro-life movement in general and LifeSiteNews.com in particular. Father Rosica took exception to the idea that pro-life Catholics could use strong language to criticize other Catholics. Father Rosica presented these criticisms as being uncharitable, divisive, unmerciful and non-Christian.

To illustrate, I've compiled the insults that have been hurled at pro-lifers by Father Rosica in person or through his website.  Note: these criticisms are not solely addressed to LifeSite; the vast majority are directed towards the pro-life movement in general.

• [LifeSite] is doing "the work of Satan" 
• "something is terribly wrong in the pro-life movement." 
• "Civility, charity, mercy and politeness seem to have dropped out of the pro-life lexicon."
• "Their words and actions vitiate their efforts in favor of life." 
• "not agents of life, but of division, destruction, hatred, vitriol, judgment and violence." 
• "I question whether or not they belong to the Catholic Church. Are such people Catholic?"
  
• "make the Church and our efforts for life look ridiculous and terribly anti-Christian."
• "deep-seated anger and hostility"
• "Through vicious attacks launched on blogs, a new form of self-righteousness, condemnation and gnosticism reveals authors who behave as little children bullying one another around in schoolyards- casting stones, calling names, and wreaking havoc in the Church today!"
• "Sowing seeds of hatred and division are not the work of those who wish to build a culture of life."
• "contribute to the misery and division within the world and the Church"
• "destroy and kill others along the way."
• "very strong, antagonist approach"
• "hostility towards women who would choose abortion"
• "pushing their ideals onto the rest of society"
• "judgmental instead of helpful and supportive"
• "radical" 
• "cruel and hateful individuals"
• "so shrill, so angry and judgmental"
• "ugly and threatening" 
• "this is how the devil triumphs"
• "character assassination"
• "[LifeSite] is not credible, it does not speak for the Church, it is not ethical, it is not honest"
• "wreaking division and havoc"
• [LifeSite] is not an authentic instrument at the service of unity and at the service of the Church. It is causing division. For the 1/10 of kernel of truth that they purport to uncover (and there is truth in what they do) 9/10 is exaggeration."
• "[LifeSite] is bombastic, it is derisive and it is divisive."
• "pit people against each other"
• "wanting to set up a parallel Church"
• "cast aspersions or to dismiss or discredit what the bishops are trying to do" 

I feel so despised, disdained and derided.

Read here for the Vatican's view of how the Kennedy funeral should have been handled.  You'll see that it confirms everything that pro-lifers have been saying and contradicts what Fr. Rosica has been saying.

The oddest thing about this episode, is that Father Rosica did exactly what he was reproaching pro-lifers:  he openly criticized his fellow Catholics and he used such seething and inflammatory language as I have never seen used against pro-lifers, not even by the pro-abortion lobby.

This proves an important point:  his criticism of criticism is a hoax, a smoke-screen.  He himself realizes that constructive criticism is an integral part of Catholicism.  It's technically called "admonishing the sinner" and it is essential for the salvation of souls that have gone astray.

Unfortunately, Fr. Rosica has a distorted view of Catholicism.  But you will rarely hear him saying something overtly anti-Catholic.  He has a history of saying the right things (e.g. "I am pro-life"), but he tends to be unwilling to "take up his cross" by putting his reputation on the line in defending Church teachings.  For example, when he interviewed Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, an infamous pro-abortion "Catholic", he remained silent while McGuinty expressed his disagreement with Church teaching on same-sex marriage. All this was broadcast on Salt and Light TV.  Is that Fr. Rosica's idea of good Catholic programming?  Contrast this to the beautiful witness of John Pacheco and David MacDonald who, in the last two elections, ran against Dalton McGuinty and publicly rebuked him for his anti-family positions.  Now that's heroic virtue.

To read more about the Fr. Rosica controversy, please visit Socon or Bust here and here. 

I agree with Fr. Rosica on one important point:  the Church is indeed divided.  The fracture is between those who want to follow the Vatican and those who have invented a lovey-dovey Catholicism (such as Fr. Rosica) where the primary goal is to never contradict anybody, even if they're dead wrong and rotting in mortal sin. Passivity can lead to complacency, which is often abused by ill-willed politicians and others.

This isn't about pro-lifers being self-righteous.  Just open up the Bible or the Catechism, or listen to the Vatican's statements.  We're simply trying to obey the Truth as it was handed down over the centuries, not invent our own path.

Please pray for Fr. Rosica. 

Fearing for our freedom of speech

As you know, Father Rosica has spent the better part of the last two weeks doing a tour of Catholic media outlets in order to criticize pro-lifers and discredit Internet news sources and blogs. I don't claim to know what he or the CCCB are thinking. Nor will I attempt to make a judgment of their intentions. However, I am entitled to express my feelings.

I feel scared. Very scared. And you should too. I feel that our freedom of expression is at risk.

We've just learned that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has hired two former MPs and two communications experts in order to revamp their communications strategy. At the same time, we've learned that the plenary assembly of the CCCB, which will take place in October, includes a session to discuss Internet news services and blogs. All this comes on the heels of the Development and Peace (D&P) scandal, which was a source of great embarrassment for the bishops and in which Internet news services and blogs played a pivotal role in revealing D&P’s support for about 40 pro-abortion groups throughout the developing world.

Are you seeing a connection?

While Father Rosica was vehemently criticizing us bloggers, I felt rejected. I felt as though our presence was not wanted. I felt most unwelcome to express any views that opposed the actions or statements of the bishops or of Father Rosica himself. I felt like I was something despised or base.

Justifiable outrage

In recent weeks, Father Thomas Rosica, Director of Salt&Light TV, has been pointing his guns in the wrong direction.  He has been aggressively attacking pro-lifers for using language that he deems to be too strong.  He advocates a soft, wishy-washy, lovey-dovey Christianity who's first commandment is "Thou shalt not ruffle any feathers".  (I'll have more info on Fr. Rosica in another post). 

Well, Fr. Rosica, I encourage you to watch the video posted here.  Once you've seen who we're up against, I hope you'll excuse us if sometimes we get a little upset.  In fact, we must get upset, as we read in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica (quotes were ascribed to St. John Chrysostom):

"He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong." 

"He that is angry without cause, shall be in danger; but he that is angry with cause, shall not be in danger: for without anger, teaching will be useless, judgments unstable, crimes unchecked."  Therefore to be angry is not always an evil.  (Source)