Daily Archives: November 18, 2012

Hidden Motives

John Martin, “Sodom and Gomorrah”

I have often written on these pages that I regularly suspect all those “alternative” priests and bishops unable to accept Church teaching of having hidden motives for doing so; in other words, I have the persistent suspicion that at least in a great number of cases, a priest of bishop “dissenting” from Church teaching has a mistress, or is a homosexual, or a paedophile, or such like.

Infallible Church teaching is immutable and granitic, and traditional Church teaching like priest celibacy extremely well-rooted; to complain about it should be, besides being sinful in many cases, a bit like complaining for the existence of winter.

If, therefore – my thinking goes – a Christian is opposed to Christian Truths, his opposition must originate from a deep hatred inside of him for the rules he is supposed to follow. This must be even more true, if this Christian has in the past even decided to become a Catholic priest, with all this implies.

Consequently, if a priest suddenly expresses himself against Male Priesthood I can’t avoid thinking that he feels a female; if he opposes priest celibacy after having accepted it at his ordination I can’t avoid thinking he has a woman on the side and lives his celibacy as an “injustice” (or, perhaps, his mistress does…); if his teaching his obsessively based on the Church having to be more “open” and “accepting”, I can’t avoid thinking he has in his life “accepted” a lot he shouldn’t have, and is more “open” than is good for him.

And thinking of it: why should a normal priest, without perversions or mistresses or other grave failings, suddenly start to “dissent”? Is this not the life he chose? Is this not the institution he decided to belong to, with the rules he promised to obey? Why on earth should a priest or bishop suddenly become a “dissident”, unless it be because his inner dimension has put him in utter conflict with the Church?

More often, though, our “dissident” will not attack the direct source of his own conflict. Firstly, there is a clear issue of giving oneself away: start thundering against male priesthood and the pewsitters will start thinking very hard about why father always had a strangely pitched voice and weird mannerisms, or if he suddenly discovers a problem with male celibacy predictable questions will be – overtly or covertly – posed about why in all the years in seminary (and on the job afterwards) the problem didn’t seem so pressing. Cui prodest?

Secondly, by attacking the Church indirectly Father Lover Man (or Father Faggot, as the case may be) will appear modern and beautiful, daringly innovative and committed to “justice”; thus softening the blow if something should come up about Lara, or – even – Jim.

This is, I think, the reason why so many priests lean so much out of the window to criticise the – already shamelessly populistic – position of the Church on issues of “poverty”, “immigration”, “inclusion”, and all those conveniently popular words, and show themselves at the same time so “committed” to “social issues” rather than to the priesthood. Their aim is to attack the authority of the Church in a way that makes them popular without exposing them to direct suspicion, and to soften the blow if they are outed because they are oh so “engaged” in “social work”. Jimmy Savile did it with great success, apparently, and I am sure he wasn’t the only one.  We should ask the BBC about that, though. They must know a lot…

An example – admittedly, an extreme one; but it gives the idea – is the one of the former Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland.

The former Archbishop was long known for his very advanced “social” ideas and theology; what was less known of him was his penchant for sodomy, a habit he could enjoy with impunity for long years of, erm, “social commitment”.  So loving of the poor was the Archbishop, that he came to the point of paying hundreds of thousands of dollar in hush-money to the poor lover “queen” who was threatening to expose him. Talk about commitment, solidarity,and “preferential option for the poor”. He was found out and, if unfortunately never officially prosecuted and jailed for embezzlement of pewsitters’ cash, at least kicked out of his position.
He still lives at the expense of the faithful, I am informed, instead of being defrocked and unceremoniously kicked out. This must be because the Church is lacking in charity.

If you think such an utter disgrace would at least have the decency to shut up, I must disappoint you.  Only a very few days ago he was making himself beautiful at the Church’s expenses again, softly lamenting Her lack of decisive action for the downtrodden etc.

In a twist that gives you truly the idea of how similar journalism has become to bad entertainment, the newspaper reporting the news merely mentions that “Weakland was archbishop of Milwaukee from 1977 to 2002”. That he had to go for being a homo who paid $450,000 of Diocesan funds to his male lover hasn’t been considered worth of a mention. Strange, this, because these liberal newspapers always have their keyboards full of the Church’s faults, when it suits them…

But then again, you see the mechanism: “social justice” is a very convenient way for those graving contravening to their wovs – or to natural justice – to a) make themselves beautiful, and b) make the Church look bad. The more discredited the Church is, the less discredited they will be.

Next time you read of some “dissenting” priest or bishop, remember Archbishop Weakland.


%d bloggers like this: