I introduced myself to our Pastor via e-mail. I like to do this to establish a relationship. It was about his homily. I wrote:
“Albert Camus once wrote, “One moment of weakness, and everything is lost, theory and practice.”
This is one of the guiding principles of my life. Very difficult to be strong all the time. But one moment of weakness, and you do lose everything. Even Jesus was weak when he asked that the cup pass over him in the garden before they arrested him…but only if it was his Father’s will, not His. So we know weakness exists.”
I went on to tell him that the “Catholic Church has had, however, many weak moments revealed recently, and many more I’m sure to come. They are in my opinion about to lose everything, and I don’t know how to stop it. Or even if it should be stopped.”
I was referring of course to what’s going with the charges of paedophilia. Simply Google the topic and you’ll get your fill of the news. I continued.
“That puts you in a tough spot. New pastor, new flock, and now all this. How do you regain reliability?
This situation actually puts all of you – and us — in a bad position. I was listening to Cardinal Dolan talk on the Catholic Channel today. He sounded lame. It’s hard to talk about this with words. Even words like “horrible” or “disgust” or whatever don’t fit the feelings, do they?
When I taught English, they had a concept called the reliability of the narrator. You see in literature, there are only two points of view possible: first person (individual in the story talking to us the readers) and third person (Omniscient God-Like narrator outside the story talking to us readers). If you lost your reliability as a first-person narrator (got caught in a lie), then you can never be believed again. That’s because the reader never would really know if he was hearing the truth from the first-person narrator.
The third-person narrator, however, never lost his reliability. He has to always be believed, otherwise, the story never makes sense. “Job was a good man.” If you don’t believe that, the story doesn’t make sense.
The bad news is we have always thought of priests as third-person narrators. God like. Truthful. Moral.
The really bad news is we’re all first-person narrators. And worse news is, priests have lost their reliability. I just don’t know how any of them can ever be believed again.
What makes this really bad is that when something like this happens, it shakes the foundation of morality for all of us, not just priests. It’s bad enough in the world today, but religion was always supposed to be comforting. A place to communicate with the Almighty.
And that’s not going to change. What is going to change is God’s representatives here on earth. They are like us: first person narrators. Capable of good – and evil.
Sad.
I think that’s the hardest thing to swallow for me. Maybe I’m just letting out my deep sadness out in this e-mail, because I actually wept at Mass when I was thinking about this situation. It’s so, so bad.
Dostoevsky wrote once in one of his novels that about all we can do is kneel on the ground and beg forgiveness. Joseph Conrad once wrote that who knows the depths can bring out from a man. It’s hard to forgive something like this. But I guess I now realize that the depths exist in everyone, including men of God.
Life is difficult. Very difficult.
Perhaps that is really what we should really think about in this crisis, the difficulty of leading a good life. Not about issuing press releases. Not about empty promises to investigate further. Because that’s all B.S. pretty much and very empty when it comes to the deep emotional torture caused by your brothers to the innocent, isn’t it?
Rather, let’s do what Saint Francis of Assisi said – but not just say it, but really really show it in our actions.
Will you pray with me?”
I then wrote out my favorite prayer:
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace:
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy.
O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
Amen.
His response was interesting, and demonstrates the kind of convoluted thinking going on in the Church these days. I always say you can judge people by the words they use (besides actions, of course). The Pope’s dissertations are no exception, and neither was the Pastor’s. Here is the response, along with my analysis.
Pastor: Your processing is quite significant, thank you for reaching out and sharing. I appreciate the connections you have drawn and I too am given to pause at the magnitude of this crisis! I have been under this cloud since I entered seminary in 2003, it will characterize my lifelong priestly work.
Analysis. “Given to pause” is an interesting expression. Some accuse me of overanalyzing things. Perhaps this is one of those cases; however, when confronted by the Church crisis we were discussing, I should imagine that you should do more than pause.
Pastor: My interpretation is less through literary wisdom and more constitutive of soteriological threads of connectivity and parallel. I wish I was more well-versed in literature to run down the same paths that you have cut in your sharing.
Analysis. Who talks like this? What does “constitutive of soteriological threads of connectivity and parallel” mean? Is he trying to show off intellectually? He calls what I wrote “interpretation through literary wisdom” but it’s not; it’s life’s wisdom.
Pastor: “We know that even the smallest act against God in humanity is a fantastic injustice. Aristotle unfolds this in his moral exposition on justice. Now the most grave sins against one’s neighbor in opposition to the natural law of adults being the protectors of children and not their aggressors is magnificently abhorrent. You’re right, words are not powerful enough to communicate the reality of these crimes. The clergy today are feeling that we are certainly not our own, we today are living the social/communal disgust, angst and pain caused by the faults of those perpetrators of the past seven decades (as in the case of PA).”
Analysis. In May, 2019, I published Benedict Emeritus or Benedict Arnold? on my personal website. I was stunned, after I found out the ex-Pope even wrote a letter, by its content. It underscores the Pastor’s own lack of understanding about the situation.
Note, for example, describing the act of pedophilia as an act “magnificently abhorrent.” There is nothing magnificent about it. He explains that today’s clergy is living the faults of perpetrators of the past seven decades. Respectfully, it probably goes back farther than that. Regardless, the Pastor is apparently unaware of the Dostoevsky premise that we are all responsible not only for what we do, but what others do – one of the most difficult ideas to understand in the world.[1]
Pastor. “Though we as individuals may have lost credibility of voice, we are not speaking for ourselves. We speak as shepherds on behalf of the perfect Good Shepherd to grant some direction, focus and peace to the lives that have been entrusted to us so that you all may not become to fatigued and beleaguered in your gift of faith during this most tumultuous storm. “
Analysis. But this is always the typical ploy: they speak “on behalf of the perfect Good Shepherd.” But then, these are the same shepherds who spoke for the perfect Good Shepherd that committed the violations on children. The top Shepherd is the guy writing about marriage and making so many erroneous statements. Credibility is lost like this, and again, as Dostoevsky says we should just kiss the ground and beg forgiveness.
Pastor. “God is good. He has provided the Church a great stability and strength within the life of the Petrine Office of the Pope for the last century, plus. From Pius X refreshing the Church in her priority of the Eucharist at the turn of the 20th century to ready so many souls of faith during the darkest years or global conflict. Benedict XV, Pius XI, XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI & Francis. Each has played a role in their time but the magisterial heritage has been enriched and deepened by their efforts and sacrifices. This depth is a stability that bishops and priests can anchor into as we weather the gusts of our time amid our own efforts to lead well, on Christ’s behalf, those under our care..”
“St Paul would challenge Camus, for he identifies his weakness as an attribute, a fertile opportunity for Christ to thrive more fully in him. In his weakness Paul recognizes that he cannot depend on himself, throwing his hope more fully on Christ, for his pride is not as enabled to trust in self on account of the weakness.”
“Poor Cardinal Dolan, he’s trying to appease too many at once, as you observed, doing so dilutes his words so much that he sounds lame. I think of our Lord’s own preaching in these moments. Those present ask, “who is this one who preaches with authority?” Imagine how tepid/lame the voices were to which they were accustomed.”
“Dostoevsky endured some deep darkness. Maybe that’s why his words seems so applicable in this time of darkness. Forgive me, though, as I am a raging optimist…maybe it’s my Irish roots. There are many gifts and strengths in the Church of today. The people have so much faith. So many faithful are zeroed in on the Eucharist. I know many faithful clergy who have an ardent love for Christ and His flock. These attributes, among others, are signs of true vitality in the Church. That is, God’s life in us, well! Hang in there Jim! Thank you for your prayers. Know of mine as well. These words of St. Francis are amazing, leads one to wonder the nature of his crucible to bear such insightful fruit.”
I took the time to answer him, but I never heard back from him after that response. Here is what I said.
Good Morning, Father.
Thank you for your e-mail.
I hope the cloud you have lived under for all this time passes. But then, clouds most always give way to the light, don’t they?
You have given me some things to think about, and that is always good. Here’s a quick counter point.
You said Paul would challenge Camus. But that challenge is easily answered and Camus’ point maintained from your own interpretation; that is, you argue that Paul identifies his weakness as “an attribute, a fertile opportunity for Christ to thrive more fully in him.” So I imagine you argue this negates Camus’ line of thinking of everything being lost because of moment of weakness since it’s not really weakness but a “fertile opportunity” for Christ to thrive. That is, Paul’s “weakness” allowed Christ to emerge. So all “weakness” must be that, an opportunity for Christ to emerge. Therefore, all sin is an opportunity to do good…to do the right thing?
Right? I get it. But it’s not true in this case we’re talking about. I’ll explain.
Sin is a mistake. But sin, real sin, is knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway. So when you sin, all is lost. Until you are forgiven. But you have to feel you’ve done wrong for that to happen, which means you felt wrong before you sinned and did it anyway. Your argument is that Paul, perhaps, didn’t know he was sinning? Or did he? I don’t think he did until the light hit him. Then he spent the rest of his life trying to make up for what he had did before the light. I don’t think you are saying that people sin to give Christ a chance to come into their life, are you? In that case, we’d all be running around sinning, which I guess is kinda true in a way, isn’t it?
Pope Francis in his first interview when he became Pope said, when asked to describe himself, “I am a sinner.” I thought, hmm, there’s an interesting guy. Even though he turned out not to be so interesting (another story for another time), if we accept the fact that we are all sinners, the object of the game is to avoid sin, and especially evil. In fact, if you believe in good, there must be evil; good can’t exist without it, agree?
So I don’t believe that your interpretation of Paul and Camus is true in the case with abusers of children, whether they are priests or not, but especially priests who as you said, “speak as shepherds on behalf of the perfect Good Shepherd to grant some direction.” Just what are those shepherds telling us as they abuse a child? That their “weakness” is the opportunity for Christ to “thrive more fully in them?” Do you really believe (and I believe we are all in His hands) that He arranges things like this? That He would actually allow the abuse of a child to create the conditions for He Himself to thrive more?
Impossible.
No, the decision to abuse a child is evil. God has nothing to do with such a decision, but the person doing it does. And knowing it and doing it is evil incarnate. And evil must be destroyed.
Even God didn’t forgive Lucifer.
Boy, did I get carried away!
In any case, thanks for sharing your thoughts, Father. Believe it or not, like you, I’m an optimist too. Just not raging one. 😊
p.s. I majored in English, Philosophy and Theology so literature is inherent in my thinking. But so is the Bible, which is great literature!
His silence was deafening.
_____________________________________________
[1] “Because everyone is guilty for everyone else. For all the ‘wee ones,’ because there are little children and big children. All people are ‘wee ones.’ And I’ll go for all of them, because there must be someone who will go for all of them.” This is from the Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky.