Intellectual Tyranny

Recent articles on the Pistrina Liturgica website have been dealing with case histories detailing misbehavior by derelict priests.  One case involves a group of priests who attempt to steal money donated for a specific cause (a shrine to the Infant of Prague).  When the lay coordinator of the chapel asks them what they did with the money, they ban him from the property.  Eventually, after a court battle, he and his fellow parishioners get the money (and their chapel) back from the derelict priests, after which, they turn the chapel over to the local diocese as an indult Mass center (now operated by the FSSP). .  [For full article, click here.]

The second case involves an even more derelict priest -- one who commits two criminal acts.  First, he loses control of his car (while speeding) and kills a six-year old girl; then, after serving a prison sentence for that, he fornicates with (and impregnates) a female parish member (who later gets an abortion).  The woman subsequently sues the priest and the parish.  The parish settles out of court (for $90,000), and the priest settles for $100,000 – but the priest declares bankruptcy and skips town.  [For full article, click here.]

Both articles received numerous comments from readers.  In the first article (involving the “shrine money”), an “anonymous” respondent chose to ignore the article’s main point (the priests’ thievery) and instead seized on the article’s mention of the parishioners “going Novus Ordo,” and used that “opening” to start a protracted argument about the validity of “traditional” vs. “Novus Ordo” priestly orders.  It seemed to matter little to this “commenter” that the priests were liars and thieves who unjustly (and unsuccessfully) tried to defraud their parshioners and dismiss those who dissented – and that a civil court sided with the parishioners against this obvious injustice.  What mattered to him was that the parish was “turned over” to the (Novus Ordo) diocese.  It also didn’t seem to matter to him that the priests’ thievery was the cause of the parishioners “going Novus Ordo” – that it was this thievery that “drove them into their arms.”

The commenter kept on his peripheral detour, until the original point of the article was totally lost in the tangential discussion -- a cheap debating trick often used by hacks whose own positions are themselves indefensible.  He tried (in vain) to discredit both the article and its author; but the only thing that he succeeded in doing was to 1) enable the author to prove his point several times, 2) make it embarrassingly clear to everyone that he was on a witch hunt, and 3) thoroughly embarrass and discredit both himself and the cult-masters whom he was trying to defend.  Like all those who seek to destroy others, he destroyed himself.

The commenter on the second article fared even worse.  He, too, ignored the article’s subject (a derelict priest’s criminal acts, including manslaughter and fornication) and instead accused the article’s author of writing “a bunch of feminist crap” (thereby betraying his own obvious gender bias).  He made no reference whatsoever to the priest’s vehicular manslaughter, but instead concentrated on the “fornication” part – to preemptively introduce his “feminism” allegation.  He tried to put the priest’s victim on trial, insinuating that she was as much to blame as the priest.  The fact that the priest, a man of the cloth, broke his vow of chastity didn’t seem to matter, nor did his vehicular manslaughter of an innocent six-year-old -- or his intentionally fraudulent bankruptcy maneuver (and skipping town) to avoid his legal and moral obligations.  By all accounts, the man is a moral leper.

These “anonymous” commenters (and, actually, it was most probably the same commenter in both articles) epitomize the all-too-typical traddie mindset: dodge the real issue, change the subject, and “do whatever it takes” to explain away the misdeeds of derelict clergy -- simply because they are clergy.  It also underscores the traddie preoccupation with appearances, with cosmetics, and with avoiding the truth (especially when one wants to conceal wrongdoing).  And it is also a measure of the irrational hypocrisy of “Anonymous” (not to mention, his stupidity), who thinks that, if a priest does wrong, it should be covered up, not cured.  Indeed, “Anonymous” commented: “If the big shots in the sede universe read this blog, please realize that it's stories of misbehavior and unaccountability that has sandbagged your cause and hampered it.”

According to sick minds like this, derelict clergy who engage in such acts are to be excused (or even exonerated), simply because -- if that sort of thing gets out -- “it looks bad for the cause.”  In their minds, bad priests should be “protected” simply because they are priests – and those who expose their evil are to be condemned.  This, unfortunately, is all-too-typical traddie thinking: “Don’t remove the dung heap, cover it up”; and, “shield the guilty,” and “crucify those who un-shield it.”  This mindset is not new.  It is as old as the Pharisees, who excused Barabbas but crucified our Lord – God Himself, Innocence Personified – for exposing their evil. 

And the Pharisees’ modern-day counterparts – today’s double standard, truth-twisting traddies – are following in their footsteps.  If this, then, is “traditional” Catholicism, it is not a tree bearing good fruit, but a cancer to be cut out.  It needs to be discarded, because it is not Catholic.  It is false. It is hypocritical.  It is Pharisaic.  It is evil.  Until traddieland’s all-too-prevalent mindset changes -- until it rids itself of its phoniness and hypocrisy – it will founder.  It must rid itself of that, and start embracing humility and charity.  Then, and only then, will real Catholicism take root and flourish once again.