THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2018 VOLUME XIV • NO. 4 THE CATHOLIC TABLE OF CONTENTS RESPONSE Duc in Altum— Put Out into the Deep VOLUME XIV • NO. 4 REVEREND PETER M.J. Publisher & Editor: STRAVINSKAS 1 The Reverend Peter M. J. Stravinskas The Truth about Mary: Managing Editor: Part XIII REVEREND NICHOLAS L. The Reverend Nicholas L. Gregoris GREGORIS, S.T.D. 7 (ISSN 1553-0221) Copyright © 2018. The Catholic Breaking New Ground Response is published bi-monthly MICHAEL WARD 19 by the Priestly Society of the Blessed John Henry Car- The Face of Capraesque dinal Newman. Editorial Of- fices: 601 Buhler Court, Pine Capitalism Beach, New Jersey 08741. Pub- GILBERT COLON 33 lishing/Subscription Office: P.O. Box 10, New Hope, KY 40052. Questions & Answers 39 Subscription rates in U.S. and Possessions: one year, $30.00; Short Reviews two years, $55; three years, $70. by the Editor 52 Outside the U.S.: one year, $35; two years, $65; three years, $85. For bulk rates, call 732-914-1222. Amoris Laetitia and Periodicals postage PAID at New the Nature Of Mercy Haven, Kentucky and additional MOST REVEREND mailing offices.Postmaster: Send CHARLES J. CHAPUT, O.F.M. CAP 54 address changes to The Catholic Response, P.O. Box 10, New Hope, KY 40052 Duc in Altum— Put Out into the Deep With the new year comes our annual “Duc in Altum” campaign. If not already, very soon, you will be receiving an invitation to participate in that endeavor, which is so necessary for the financial security of The Catholic Response. Anticipating your usual gener- ous response, I thank you for your support. Unless you have been living under a rock, you have been bom- barded in recent weeks by daily reporting of the sexploits of the rich and famous – which disclosures coincide with the fifteenth anniversary of similar reporting about the clergy sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. Permit me to reflect on both phenomena. As clergy sex abuse revelations were emerging with nerve- wracking regularity during what the late Father Richard John Neuhaus dubbed “the long Lent” of 2002, several elements formed what might be called a composite picture. With the older priests, it was generally a case of a formation which took no account of one’s sexuality, assuming that priests were as asexual as angels. With the younger brethren, it was almost universally a case of bad (no, let’s call it by its right name, “heretical”) moral theology taught in the seminaries of the sixties and seventies (to which theology I was subjected). The vast majority of the accused lived alone or were “loners”. In the cohort of younger priests, again, heretical views in ecclesiology had been presented, as well as little to no exposure to the meaning and dignity of the priesthood, so that one would never want to bring shame to the Church or one’s holy voca- tion (once more, I lived through such “formation” or lack thereof). In other words, sinful and shameful behavior was inevitable; the great miracle is that so few men actually succumbed – a fact rarely if ever acknowledged by the media. Consult the John Jay study for further documentation. Presently we have the media darling, Jesuit Father James Martin, serving as the spokesman for the very positions that got us into the mess, to begin with. Now, as to how bishops handled the problem. In short order, it became eminently clear that the cases coming to the fore were not instances of pedophilia; rather, they were homosexual acts engaged in by priests with young men (post-pubescent teens). I The Catholic Response 1 advised numerous bishops not to refer to these acts as pedophilia – because, in the vast majority of cases, they were not. Calling them by a wrong name was inaccurate, misleading and bound to reap the whirlwind. Truth be told, if they had been labeled as homosexual, most media outlets would have buried the stories, lest they be accused of “gay bashing.” It is certainly true that the main source of public anger stemmed from the fact that bishops shuttled abusing priests from assignment to assignment. And here, I have some degree of sympathy for bishops. Why? Because they were told by “profes- sionals,” that is, psychologists and psychiatrists, that these men had been rehabilitated and were apt candidates for reintegration into active ministry. Bishops were caught between a rock and a hard spot. Many of them doubted that true rehabilitation had oc- curred or was even possible; their instinct told them not to return such offenders to public ministry. On the other hand, had they not followed the counsel of the “professionals,” they would have been pilloried in the media as prime examples of a backward, medieval, science-denying institution. Where bishops cannot be excused is how so many priests were treated. All too often, an accusation was treated as fact. In not a few cases, priests exonerated by civil authorities were nonethe- less declared guilty by bishops and/or diocesan review boards. Many bishops threw priests under the bus by agreeing to financial settlements without the knowledge and consent of the priests in question, thus exposing these men to the appearance of guilt (why else dole out thousands or even millions of dollars?). Yet again, such episcopal behavior came about due to the advice of lawyers and insurance companies – with the result that the reputation of clergy and the patrimony of a diocese were wrecked. Violating the legal axiom of “testis unus, testis nullus” (one witness is no wit- ness), a simple accusation of a single individual was deemed valid. Equally problematic was the refusal of the hierarchy as a whole to fight fire with fire by suing those who had made false accusa- tions – and even forbidding priests from suing to vindicate their own good name. Likewise, eliminating the statute of limitations in church law was an egregious error; ironically, though, dioceses fought tooth and nail against eliminating the statute of limitations in civil law! In short, hysteria prevailed. I am writing this editorial a day after the death of Cardinal Bernard Law, an outstanding churchman who, unfortunately, is totally identified with missteps of his in regard to clergy abuse. He was a leader in the civil rights struggle, a promoter of ecumenical 2 The Catholic Response and interreligious dialogue, the man most responsible for Pope John Paul’s decision to commission a catechism, a staunch defender of Catholic orthodoxy. Truth be told, Cardinal Law did nothing different from any other bishop in the country; he was merely the scapegoat. As a matter of fact, he did nothing different from every other entity in society. I hope that God’s judgment of him is more just than that of so many human beings. Now a new round of hysteria is in evidence. Not a few of the current accusations in society-at-large border on the absurd. A media mogul invites you to his hotel room at ten o’clock at night to discuss your bright future. Did you really think you were going to be praying the rosary there? A congressman opens his office door in his underwear. Did you really think he wanted you to pick up his slacks at the cleaner’s? The legitimate accusations, on the other hand, should come as no surprise. The current drama of Hollywood stars, media types, athletes and politicians is the fruit of the hyper-sexualization of society as a whole for decades at every level. As I have written before, when the Catholic Church of the fifties and sixties coun- seled against suggestive language and jokes or “dirty” books and magazines and movies, the Church was ruthlessly mocked as be- ing grossly out of step with modernity. In the present moment, a puritanism is surfacing which will make the Catholic approach of an earlier era look permissive. Further, when Blessed Paul VI in Humanae Vitae warned that a contraceptive mentality would bring in its wake the degradation of women, along with a rise in fornication and adultery, he was classified as a Cassandra. In 1981, St. John Paul II, in his landmark document, Familiaris Consortio, offered the antidote: “… husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae Vitae as indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality and they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observ- ing that norm” (n. 34). It is perversely humorous to recall that clerical sex abuse was blamed on celibacy. How many of the current crop of the accused are celibate or even know what that means? When priests sought legal assistance from their dioceses, they were told it would be unseemly for the diocese to assist them; they were on their own. We now discover that the Congress of the United States has had a slush fund all along to provide funding on behalf of accused members of Congress both for legal assistance and compensation for accusers. The Catholic Response 3 Self-righteous Hollywooders currently express amazement and disgust at what has been uncovered. Really? Hollywood has had a reputation for licentiousness as far back as my boyhood – and they have certainly produced every kind of filth imaginable for decades. The advertising industry has also promoted smut for years on end. As I write, Dolce & Gabbana has a commercial in which a woman is undressing a man. Is this not dehumanizing? Is this not making someone an object of one’s passions? A new film, a winner at the Cannes film festival, “Call Me by My Name,” glorifies a relationship between an adult male and a teenage boy.