THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

Let us pray that there are enough priests with the sense of faith and morals that this priest has compared to the other kind he decries.

A priest says McCarrick’s treason
is ‘damnable abomination,’ but
bishops’ silence is even worse


GREENVILLE, South Carolina, Aug 31, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A U.S. parish priest was planning to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae on the weekend by preaching on the great encyclical, but then the scandal of ex-Cardinal McCarrick made him change his plan.

So instead Fr. Jay Scott Newman gave a must-hear homily blasting priests and bishops who have rejected Humanae Vitae, both by teaching false doctrine and through their own “evil conduct.”

“The treason of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is a damnable abomination,” he said, “but while McCarrick’s sins are appalling, they are merely the crimes of one man…. Worse … is the systemic corruption of priests and bishops who do not believe what the Church teaches but continue to preach anyway.”

McCarrick was recently removed from public ministry over a credible allegation he molested an altar boy 50 years ago. Whistleblowers and victims have come forward to describe McCarrick’s predatory behavior and the disregard they received from Church officials when reporting it. Pope Francis accepted McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals this weekend.

Newman described how, after promising at their ordinations to teach the Gospel as it has been revealed by God and is communicated by the Church, corrupt priests behave rather differently.

“...With a wink and a nudge they encourage cynical disregard for the revealed truth of God’s eternal Word,” Newman continued, “and create a new religion of their own devising, a faith that will not disturb the indulgence of their ambition and lust, and which encourages the people of God to disregard the solemn and sacred truths about love, marriage, sex, and the gift of children.”

Newman reflected that, in all the craziness of 1968, the only reason the media was interested in Humanae Vitae was that many Catholic priests and theologians rejected it, sometimes not even stopping to read it before writing screeds against it.

“Revolution had come, not just to our universities and city streets, but to the Church,” he said. “And the content of Pope Paul’s letter was lost in the storm which was unleashed by the spectacle of priests telling their people to disregard the solemn teaching of the Church, too often with the silent consent of their bishops.”

The homilist found it an “odd coincidence” that the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae had fallen just when the disgraced Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had been “unmasked as a serial predator and abuser.” He spoke bitterly of how McCarrick had managed, despite his evil treatment of boys and men under his care, to rise through the ranks of the Church hierarchy. Newman called the ex-cardinal's behaviour “sickening and almost beyond comprehension”, but he was just as scathing about other, unnamed, bishops:

“..Even worse than this man’s personal atrocities, is the failure of other bishops to decry his sins and the damage he has done. Most bishops simply have not spoken, and too many of those who have, sounded more like liability lawyers or company spokesmen protecting their interests than like the prophets and apostles who denounce unrighteousness and call God’s people to repentance and conversion, contrition, confession, and amendment of life,” he continued.

Saying that he believes that the priesthood is a “beautiful, essential gift to the Church,” Newman nevertheless denounced a clerical culture that is “in many ways diseased and deformed and must be made new by the fire of divine love and the truth of the Word of God.”

The homilist said that he had never been surprised by the world’s rejection of “hard sayings” concerning sexuality, but that the rebellion of pastors, bishops, and the College of Cardinals against them was not something we expected. He said he hoped that McCarrick would be laicized, and that every bishop he promoted “should be scrutinized to make sure this disease does not spread”.

Bishops with significant ties to McCarrick include Cardinal Blase Cupich; Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who is the Prefect of the Dicastery for Family, Laity and Life; Cardinal Joseph Tobin; and Cardinal Donald Wuerl.

However, Newman also told his listeners to remember that the only one who profits from shameful clerical sins is “the father of lies” who wants humanity to reject the Gospel.

“Strike the shepherd, scatter the sheep,” he said. “Discredit the messenger, and you discredit the message. That is the strategy of our ancient enemy, the fallen one who does not want us to hear and heed the will of God.”

He asked his congregation to ponder what they themselves can do to help heal the Church, and offered five suggestions himself: that they read Humanae Vitae and change their lives to live its teaching; to study Part III of the Catechism, which provides training in virtue; to go to Mass at least once a week; to go to Confession regularly, perhaps once a month; and to “pray for all those who stumble and fall, including Ted McCarrick.”

Father Newman, who recently celebrated his 25th anniversary as a priest, has been the pastor at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, South Carolina for 17 years.

Steve Wood, a parishioner at St Mary’s, told LifeSiteNews via email that he was heartened by his pastor’s strong sermon.

“I have been terribly upset by the long string of clergy abuses and even more by the episcopal cover-ups,” Wood wrote.

“After hearing Fr. Newman's homily in Mass on Sunday, I was encouraged that the clergy abuse cover-up was not being swept under the rug in my parish,” he continued. “As I shook Fr. Newman's hand after Mass, I thanked him for a superb homily.”

A theory for the canonical prosecution
of an ‘Uncle Ted’ type of prelate
What does canon law say about the reprehensible conduct alleged against ex-Cardinal-but-still Archbishop Theodore McCarrick?
by Edward N. Peters
August 31, 2018

To the extent that the burgeoning crisis in the Church (one I think scarcely paralleled in Church history) now involves the Roman Pontiff, canon law is of limited — not none, but limited —value in dealing with some of its key aspects, including its most urgent aspect, the credible allegation that Pope Francis knowingly protected and even favored at least one homosexually active prelate and certain of his enablers in the Roman Curia and a national episcopate.

Respectful of the nature of the Church as willed by Christ, no mechanism of canon law provides for the removal of a pope from office. Even the automatic loss of papal office for heresy theorized by some saints and scholars (a theory I basically support) does not envision a process to remove a pope from office but rather declares that the conditions for loss of office have been satisfied.

Because, however, I do not think that Francis has committed an act of heresy (see Canon 751) I speculate no further on this papal loss-of-office scenario and — prescinding from how Francis might eventually choose to respond to allegations against his own actions — I instead turn to what canon law has to say about the reprehensible conduct alleged against former-Cardinal-but-still Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, emeritus of the Archdiocese of Washington.

First, the canonical problem.

Canon law’s alleged inability to take cognizance of sexual relations by clerics between themselves and/or with ‘lay adults’ (a recent euphemism describing seminarians!) supposedly springs from the admittedly narrow wording of Canon 1395 even as broadened by provisions of m.p. Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.

But while I would contest that pessimistic interpretation on other grounds, conceding the inability of Canon 1395 to reach these offenses simply prompts the question as to whether other norms might yet enable a formal penal canonical response against an “Uncle Ted” kind of prelate. I think some other norms might.

Besides the sweeping powers of a pope broadly articulated by Canon 331, etc., powers conferred by Christ such that even a seriously compromised pope could still wield them for the protection of the Church, of more specific relevance to us is, among other norms, Canon 1399, the final penal norm of Book VI of the 1983 Code. Note that, as McCarrick and some others are bishops and often cardinals, the broad papal criminal authority over such figures implicit in Canon 331 is expressly recited in Canon 1405.

To be sure, Canon 1399 must be approached with caution by ecclesiastical leaders but it exists precisely because the Legislator knows that not all grave offenses, though quite deserving of punishment, can be adequately ‘pre-visioned’ in the text of the law. Because the Church sometimes needs a demonstrable way to respond to heinous but unimaginable offenses (the sexual exploitation of seminarians by bishops would be an example) Canon 1399 authorizes a “just penalty” for the “external violation of a divine … law” when the gravity of the offense “demands punishment and there is an urgent need to … repair scandal.”

Now assuming, first, that dismissal from the clerical state (laicization) of an Uncle Ted-type predator, a cleric who apparently long used his ecclesiastical positions to procure sexual victims, would be considered a “just penalty” for such conduct, and assuming, second, that there is “an urgent need to repair scandal” in such cases, nevertheless a third, necessary question remains: whether “divine law” forbids the kind of clerical sexual misconduct alleged against McCarrick. I think it does. The argument runs thus:

Sacrilege is forbidden by divine law and includes “profaning or treating unworthily … persons … consecrated to God.” Catechism of the Catholic Church 2120. Clerics, and a fortiori bishops, as persons consecrated to God, are forbidden to engage in, inter alia, sexual misconduct under pain of committing not only an offense against victims but also a “sacrilege” against themselves, this, even if the sexual relations with another were consensual. )Peters, “Canonical considerations”, esp. pp. 157-167 and numerous sources cited therein). Note, moreover, that obligations arising from divine law, such as a cleric’s obligation to avoid sacrilege against his own person, are not subject to prescription. See, e.g., Canon 199.

Now, bringing these sacramental, moral, and ecclesiological values together — values represented with more or less explicitness in canon law (but which, we see now, are worthy of much better explicitation in the Code) — I think, in brief, that the Roman Pontiff could conclude that: upon achieving moral certainty regarding sacrilege committed by a cleric (let alone a bishop) against his own person, he (the pope) could punish such an offender with penalties up to and including dismissal from the clerical state regardless of when the sexual predation or exploitation was committed and irrespective of when it was discovered.

The pope could, but need not, use a dicastery such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to investigate and assess the evidence in these cases but final judgment in the case remains with him. A pope’s use of, or failure to use, such canonical measures as seem to be available to him would be subject to the judgment of history (and of God), of course, but not to that of any other power.

I am not aware that this ‘clerical sacrilege’ theory for the prosecution of prelates for sexual misconduct under Canons 331 and 1399 has been widely explored yet and, even as I reflect on it, I can anticipate some objections to the theory along with, I hasten to add, some responses to those objections, although obviously a fuller discussion of those matters goes beyond what can be attempted here.

For now, I merely raise this theory of the case for consideration by those who might be called upon to deal with current and future complaints against bishops and, in the meantime, want to suggest to the faithful that, while penal canon law certainly stands in need of several reforms, it might not be, even now, quite as powerless to confront evil in episcopal ranks as some might fear.


Meanwhile, Fr Hunwicke reflects on one already reprehensible and inevitable consequence of Bergoglio's hubristic and capricious rule...


Renewing the Magisterium

August 31, 2018

So, just suppose that PF, faced with increasing calls for his resignation, resigns. What sort of successor do you think a divided College of Cardinals might elect [Which they would, in any case, regardless of whether Bergoglio resigns or dies.]

My guess is that they might elect someone whom the majority thought would at least not increase the divisions in the Church. A Pope whose aim would be, not to reverse the acts of PF, but somehow to draw a divided and sorely wounded Church together again. This would be a timorous but not ignoble aspiration.

But suppose the next Conclave were to elect a vigously orthodox and unambiguously Catholic pope ... let's call him Leo XIV. Suppose, as some commenters on this blog have liked to imagine, this pope were in some way to cancel certain elements of the 'Magisterium' of PF ... or even its entirety. Good. A new start. Yes?

But ... where would that leave us?
It would leave us with a fatally compromised and weakened Magisterium.

Because if Leo XIV can scrub out the Magisterium of Francis I, it is not easy to see upon what grounds the subsequent pope Francis II can be told that he is acting ultra vires if he tries to scrub out the Magisterium of Leo XIV.

It seems to me that by trying to scrub out the Magisterium of S John Paul and of Benedict XVI, PF has created a logical conundrum to which it is not easy to see the answer. He has damaged the ability of any pope, 'liberal' or 'traditional', ever again to use effectively the Petrine Ministry.

The only 'Magisterium' which could 'trump' that of any Roman Pontiff would be that of a Pope sitting in and with an Ecumenical Council. But who wants to go down that path? The conventional assumption that doctrinal definitions of such a Council must rest upon moral unanimity would probably mean that, even in merely prectical terms, such a Council might not deliver its expectations.

Through his wilful behavior, PF has created the inevitability of an eventual (however long it may take) schism, which will be so much the more disastrous than the last great schism of the Latin Church because it will not merely be jurisdictional, but will involve large and fundamental doctrinal elements of discord.

It is likely to take generations before the full effects of the present pontificate are finally visible. [And generations more to reverse all its noxious effects.]