We fell for it

We heirs of the Christian West fell for the modern progressive notion that any condemnation, or even criticism, of an 'other' is tantamount to Nazism.  No matter what Muslims do, we can't criticize.  No matter what blacks do.  Gays do.  Chinese do.  Mongols do.  Aztecs do.  Women do.  Transgenders do.  If anyone not in those groups were to criticize anything about those groups - Nazi.  Heck, sometimes if anyone in those and similar groups criticize those groups they get smacked down.  We might be able to condemn an action but never, ever the actor.  

Therefore the only real way to express any notion of trying to fix a world we're supposed to save was through this strange demographic masochism that has defined our modern age.  Condemn others in our own demographic group, if not our entire demographic group.  

So men, spew hatred and vitriol on all men throughout all time as the misogynist rapists that they are.  Whites, it's the white race that alone is a racist pox on humanity.  Heterosexuals, just admit how superior those in the LGBTQ community are to us boorish birthing people.  Americans?  Let's not even start with any other country's evils but the United Sates.  Europeans, is there any other civilization as vile as ours?  I think not.  And on and on.

It was easy.  It gave a little dose of the pharisee's prayer (for behind any such condemnation always seems to lurk that subtle 'thank you Lord, that you didn't make me like all the other sinners in my demographic).  Plus, as often as not, much of the condemnation was based on lies, stupidity and all out BS.  So after 9/11, you could beat up on evil Christians as the real source of death and terror in the world, safe in the unspoken knowledge that you weren't likely to be beheaded for your efforts. 

Eventually it became so engrained that even those supposedly not buying into this, bought into it. Liberals ate it up, but non-liberals fell into line just the same.  Conservatives would preface any statement with variations on 'I'm not like those other uncompassionate  conservatives.'  Or white conservatives would begin by conceding the racism of most [not me] whites in our racist country.  Or men would bow before feminists and concede that history has been a giant sexist conspiracy against women, but I'm feeling much better now. 

It was a piece of cake.  Far easier than saying the black community is off the rails and doesn't seem to care enough to fix it as long as they can blame white people.  That women putting themselves above anything else, including family or human life, is selfish and wrong.  That there is probably a reason why a vast number of AIDS deaths in America are men who have sex with men.  That the Islamic world may not have given up on its age old desire to subjugate Europe to the Muslim way.  Nope.  Say any of those things and you might actually get push back. They might say mean things to you.  Heck, it could get worse than that. 

That's why it was so easy, so cheap, so safe.  We could pat ourselves on the back, revel in our righteousness and bravery, knowing that we had virtually nothing to lose.  This was especially true if we aimed our holy wrath at those in our demographics who were long dead and unable to defend themselves.  Bravo I tell you. 

So on we went, building our righteousness on the capstone of demographic self hate.  So now, as the best of the transgender community sanctified the Nashville school shooter as a bona fide victim, others made the murderer the only real victim, and not a few even mocked and celebrated the deaths of the victims including the children, us not-trans people shuffled our feet and looked the other way.

Not the Catholic bishops, not most Protestant faith leaders, few Republicans, only a handful of conservative pundits, and virtually nobody else called out the trans community, called out the horrific evil of the worst of the trans community's vitriol, or chastised the whole of the trans community for trying to equate the murderer to the murder victims. Imagine if, after the Buffalo market shooting, someone came forth and pointed out that middle aged white men are now a big suicide demographic, and even subtly suggested there might be a connection to that, our modern approach to race, and the shooting.  Imagine how fast such a person would be skinned.  But the trans movement did just that - and experienced cricket chirps for its troubles. 

For those who have said anything at all other than Guns!, it's been like my old classmate Russell Moore.  A man who has basked in the limelight given him for throwing under the bus evangelicals, men, whites, and Americans as the sexist, racist, white supremacist extremists that they are.  As it is?  It's a vague and generic 'Why can't we all get along?  Why is there so much hate?'  No real zeroing in on the obvious this time. 

But in fairness, at least he has said something.  Many have left it at Guns! or simply dropped it like the hot potato it is.  There is no way we can condemn an 'other'.  At least if the other is not white, male, heterosexual, Christian, American, European or conservative.  Those not in one of these groups can always condemn everyone in these groups, as we're seeing now.  And as we watch nobody do anything about it, we realize we are now along the next step in the path.  We're dealing with traditional Christians murdered, with few actually caring enough to state the obvious - including 'traditional' Christians.  So if you thought if it came to murder then boy that would change everything, once again you were wrong. 

We lost the war for the just the and good because we raised a generation devoid of character, convictions and courage.  They chose the easy way of beating up on little old blue haired ladies among our ancestors to avoid standing up to the threats and evils of our lifetime. We accepted that the slavery of the first civilization to abolish slavery is the only slavery worth condemning.  That's why we can see emerging a movement as bad as the Hitler Youth, that defends slaughter, promotes harm, and rejoices in its superiority with no fear of being stopped.  All we can do is count the losses of this dodge, knowing it will be our posterity who has to cash in the chips. 

I think she means Fr. James Martin

I could be wrong, because she mentions no names.  But Simcha Fisher is pretty upset about those trying to sweep the problems with Bishop Weakland under the carpet.  

Now, I had never heard of the fellow. RIP.  Apparently he was heavily linked to the cover ups in the sex abuse scandal.  That, remember, is what really made the Church look bad.  Only anti-Catholic bigots would fry the Church over the sinful actions of some priests.  But it was the systemic cover ups that sent the reputation over the edge. 

I've seen Fr. James Martin's response to his death criticized in multiple venues .  Donald McClarey's The American Catholic is just one site that looked aghast at Fr. Martin's all but ignoring the real problems with Bishop Weakland.  To see Fr. Martin's response, you'd think the baddies were the ones who had a problem with the bishop paying for gay sex.  He mentions nothing at all about Bishop Weakland's links to the sex abuse scandal.  Which, per Ms. Fisher, is a no-no and fails to account for the ongoing pain from the abuse scandal.  Though, again, she mentions nobody by name. 

Ms. Fisher does bring in Covid and links her point to those who questioned various approaches to the Covid pandemic.  Personally I don't see a connection between those questioning the ever evolving responses to the Covid pandemic and those who enabled and defended the sex abuse scandal.  But that's just me.  Ms. Fisher and I obviously disagree. 

UPDATE:

It looks like Fr. Martin apologized.  

He apologized for ignoring the abuse scandal aspect of Bishop Weakland's legacy.  More importantly he apologized for making one sin sound like all the others in order to defend him.  This is an argument, it's worth noting, he has used before about those who indulge in the sins to the left of center.  So that was actually not at all out of step for him.  Does that mean he is retracting that line of reasoning where participants in the sins of the Left are concerned?  We'll see.  If so, then that is definitely a step in the right direction.  As it is, he apologized and that should be good enough for any Christian. 

Letting the World win again and again

 Over at The American Catholic, Donald McClarey posted this little gem:

Heh.  As one can expect, his claim is false.  Even though it's a favorite scapegoat for leftwing Catholics, we all know the growing demographic of 'former Catholic' is not due to some post-Trump phenomenon.  The Catholic Church has been bleeding numbers for decades.  As have so many historical religions.  Generally, the more religious traditions try to accommodate modern, progressive ideologies, the faster they die.  Ross Douthat pointed that out some years ago.  He noted that every attempt by a monotheistic religion to accommodate modern liberalism results in that religion's demise.  In this helpful little post from a couple years ago, Brandon Vogt goes to the trouble of laying out the numbers. 

Douthat is right.  That's because while we thought we were compromising and accommodating in order to evangelize the World, the World was zealously evangelizing the faithful.  Even when I was in school (c. 1980s), we learned Christianity was a religion started by Jesus, much in the same way Islam was started by Muhammad, or Buddhism by the Buddha.  That is, a secular anthropological spin on religion where religion is inspired, not revealed.  An enormous difference.

This last semester my son took a Classical Mythology course in college.  The same course that was offered when I went to OSU.  Back then, most of the Bible was taught as historically grounded fiction.  That is, no doubt there was a King David, likely an Abraham, and certainly a Jesus of Nazareth.  But the majority of events in their lives were made up fairy tales and fiction just like all religions.  After all, science has debunked the spiritual and miraculous, and scholarship has long shown all religions were simply invented by ancient man in lieu of modern research.  

Today, however, my son learned that most of the Bible likely never happened at all.  Perhaps there were shadowy kings of ancient kingdoms, but no David or Solomon.  Those were fictional creations no different than Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker.  Jesus?  They weren't so radical as to take the new atheist spin that no such  person existed.  Sure there was some obscure religious figure at that time, but later generations invented the whole 'you'll call His name Jesus' story along with all the rest.  Again, pure myth, fairy tales and fiction.  The next step in the World's great mission.   

And this has been in more than our schools and colleges..  Our media and popular culture have been indoctrinating against the teachings of Christianity for decades.  By the time I came along, Christianity usually scored about a .350 in American society.  That is, about one third of the time a pop culture reference would allude to Christianity in at least a non-negative way.  The rest of the time?  Almost exclusively negative. 

Should we be surprised, therefore that, contrary to Mark's silliness above, the main reason people are leaving the Catholic Church is THEY NO LONGER BELIEVE ITS TEACHINGS?  That is, they're apostates.  They're rejecting the Gospel and rejecting the existence of God Almighty.  They say in their hearts now that there is no God.  They have taken the Gospel and rejected it.  They believe the Bible no more than they believe The Hobbit.  They no longer believe there was a baby in a manger, a man walking on water, or a Messiah crucified by Rome.  THEY DON'T BELIEVE IT.  

It has nothing to do with politics.  Look at how little the abuse scandal has to do with their rejection of the Church.  Less so the Church being vaguely 'too political.'  It's because they have been converted by the World, have rejected the Gospel and God, and are now believers in a godless, Christless reality.  That's why. 

I can't help but think a big part of this is because the Church, and Christianity in general, has spent many generations meeting this Wordily evangelism with compromise, acquiesce, retreat or even surrender.  And that has done nothing but affirm what these modern generations have been taught: That all religion is made up stories and rules by people who make it up as they go for their own interests.  

They might be happy to see the Church declare that it's open to nothing but pleasure beneath the waistline where transgenderism or gay sex is concerned.  But they also know the Church isn't doing this because a bunch of Catholic sages just emerged from years of pouring over ancient tomes and concluded a new development in understanding the Scriptures is warranted.  They know it's because the World stood up like a colossus, smacked the Church, the Church immediately soiled itself and then scurried to change yet another teaching or doctrine because the World said so.  That is why they are leaving.  

To sum up: The generations in which Christians have accepted the World as right, and changed the Faith accordingly, haven't worked.  That's because it was never done in some objective vacuum of non-agendas, with the World just innocently seeking the truth.  The World all along (dare I say, Satan) was feverishly working to convert God's children away from Him, using whatever latest tools were available.  Each time the World demanded change and was met with a willingness to do so, it fed into the World's claims that religion has never been anything but made up tales and rules to begin with. 

As one young wag asked, if religions are willing to admit how wrong they have been about everything visible in this world - human nature, sexuality, justice, social ethics - why would any sane person believe what they had to say about some God or Spirit or Afterlife in the invisible other world?  It's a fair question.  And one the Church had best start pondering before it and it alone ushers any more disciples of Christ out the door and into the outer darkness.  

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils  1 Timothy 4.1  

A difference between Catholics and Protestants

We Protestants had our own versions of Fred Phelps to be sure.  But once we learned about them, we didn't invite them to be keynote speakers at our churches about things like homosexuality - or anything for that matter:

In today's world it takes nothing to find out what someone is about online.  That Mark continues to be lauded by endless Catholic clergy, publishers, schools, parishes and other outlets, despite what he does and how he does it, shows a glaring problem in oversight that seems worse in Catholic circles than I've seen in either Protestant or even Orthodox circles. 

Fighting to reclaim the family

So a suit has been filed against the constitutionality of No Fault Divorce.  In the annals of history, NFD will go down as one of the sledgehammers that crushed the Christian West and brought forth the misery and suffering we are witnessing.  

Sadly, Christians went along with the trend, and by the time I was in ministry, most had conceded that marriage is about good sex and focusing on what I can get out of it as a first priority.  After all, Oprah Winfrey said so, and Dr. Phil agreed, so it must be true.

In fairness, by the time I left ministry to enter the Catholic Church in 2005, there was some grumbling in the Protestant world that we had dropped the ball where divorce is concerned.  Given the overwhelming evidence demonstrating the problems that divorce imposes on children and, hence, society, perhaps Christians were too quick to accept it as just the natural development of an ever evolving enlightenment. 

Gay marriage activists are quick to point out the divorce rates among traditional marriage.  What they fail to grasp is that it was the Church that fought against divorce, and turned out to be correct in doing so.  It's just that by the time it was fighting divorce, it had already conceded so much of an atheist universe with material problems and material solutions.  Except you shouldn't be divorced.

It didn't work.  Whether this lawsuit will work I don't know.  But we had best start walking it backward and trying to find out when the Church went off the rails with the world.  It wasn't when we threw in the towel on no fault divorce.  It wasn't when we conceded that sex should be whatever two consenting adults want.  It wasn't even when we said women should put their interests first and build the family around it later.  Somewhere before all that, the Church was bedazzled by the railroads and medicines and bridges and  factories and concluded that's where the answers are.  As we're watching it collapse, it might be time to admit where we were wrong, and remind the world of where Christianity was so right. 

Bishop John Stowe is ashamed of the Covington Students

Not the day the story broke.  Not within hours of the lies and falsehoods that have been walked back by all but the most hardcore leftist outlets.  But on January 23, when we knew virtually nothing that the students were accused of was true.

I am ashamed that the actions of Kentucky Catholic high school students have become a contradiction of the very reverence for human life that the march is supposed to manifest.

I have no idea if he means the things they were falsely accused of.  But, as the good bishop says, they had Trump hats.  And that's sort of the big hangup in his piece.  Because, you see, the Catholic Church condemns the racism and slavery and bigotry that defines America's history.  And apparently Trump means those things. And apparently the students who wore Trump hats in some way exemplified these things.  Even if what they were accused of was false.   They had those hats.

He naturally assumes much about the students because of those hats, their belief in Jesus being of no real matter in the piece.  He also seems to have little to say about anyone else, but I guess that's fair.  The black racists and the Indians trying to break up the Mass and getting in the teenagers' faces aren't under his jurisdiction.

File this under 'with friends like this...'.  Thanks dad.  Way to throw your spiritual children under the bus in order to appease the forces aligned against the Faith and the Faithful.  Hopefully they'll still keep giving to the Bishops' Annual Appeal.  Because I have a feeling those seeking to destroy the students won't be giving a damn thing.

Why the Catholic abuse scandal will likely continue

Because of this:

I no longer visit Patheos or that cesspool of hypocrisy and sin that is CAEI, and the sun shines all the brighter because of it.  But I saw this referenced.  CAEI is a bastion of modern Leftist propaganda, falsehoods, misrepresentations, character assassination, calumny, personal attacks and rank partisanship in defense of political and moral forces diametrically opposed to the Christian Faith.

In its comments section, all manner of mortal sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance and intrinsic evils are openly advocated: late term abortion, assisted suicide, homosexuality, anti-Catholicism, anti-Christianity, blasphemy, Marxism, euthanasia - why the list is endless.  The only coinage required on the ferryman's toll is that you hate traditional Christians, the USA, and all conservatives who still blaspheme the true saving gospel of liberalism.

As long as that sort of thing continues to find acceptance and affirmation among Catholic schools, parishes, clergy, and Catholic ministries, it shows something about the greater culture of Catholicism.  It shows a willingness to turn a blind eye to sin within the ranks since, well, let's raise a beer and celebrate because - Catholic!  And if it is done in this case, it will likely be done in others, up to and including sexual abuse and sexual immorality.

UPDATE:  As if to illustrate my point about the true darkness of CAEI, I was given this:

Yep, that's a reader saying the solution to the scandal is to return to the whole of the Church's teaching.  Mark responds by falsely accusing him and standing firmly on the pro-choice movement's narrative and modern liberal deflection from personal responsibility.  When a paid apologist attacks people for invoking Church teaching to solve a problem in deference to the heresies of a movement based on abortion rights, it's probably time to pull the ripcord. 

Why I wouldn't read anything posted there now if I had to.  Though notice he will continue to be lauded and praised by Catholic clergy, ministries, publications and institutions.  My point.

Archbishop Vigano: 1, Pope Francis: 0

So Pope Francis has moved from 'please, say no more' to 'silence is golden when you're accused by partisan hacks'.  That's the old 'appeal to hatred of conservatives' tactic.  See if the media jumps on that one.  It's starting to look bleak.  Especially since almost ever other day Archbishop Vigano appears to be vindicated one way or another.

Most Catholics are centering on the scandal, and that's good.  A goodly amount are appealing to prayer and fasting, reform and return to the fundamentals of the Faith.  All good.  A few are still trying to join Pope Francis's example of kill the messenger, but I think that's wearing thin.

A few will no doubt try to deflect.  I'm surprised more progressive/New Prolife/Seamless Garment Catholics haven't dragged Trump out of the closet for a good thrashing to take attention away from the ongoing train wreck that is Pope Francis's and his supporters' handling of the scandal.

We'll see.  With every passing day, Pope Francis goes a long way toward suggesting we have seen the problem, and it is him.  I'm willing to wait for evidence, but as it appears Pope Francis and his supporters are the ones who have all the cards evidence-wise, that's getting tougher and tougher to hold onto.

Not pertinent

The Archbishop Vigano drama continues to unfold as defenders of Pope Francis keep trying to make Archbishop Vigano the issue.  Neither of the videos produced in this story mean anything. The first was edited, and that eliminates credibility right there.  The second is when Vigano was just starting out in his office, when one wouldn't be expected to know everything about the job in question.  Even if they both somehow slam down Vigano's credibility, or prove he's a liar, they don't take away from the crucial question: What did Pope Francis know, do, and when did he know and do it?  Each day that Catholics act more concerned about defending gay rights or Pope Francis than seeking the truth is a day that they tell the world they agree with the modern way: human suffering only matters insofar as it's convenient to matter. 

Sitcom actress schools Villanova professor

In an embarrassing attempt to put the established order over the concerns of the Gospel witness and the least of these, a Villanova University professor waves the 'Alt-Right' banner in the direction of those wanting more information about Pope Francis.  Of course Alt-Right means Nazi, racist, racism (the unforgivable sin), irredeemable deplorable, and all that.  A desperate attempt to smear and threaten anyone who dares raise a finger to point in the direction of Pope Francis or the always precious LGBT movement within the Church.

Patricia Heaton, of Everybody Loves Raymond and The Middle fame, and nowhere close to being a radical right winger, steps in and smacks him down.  Rod Dreher, who has been doing serious heavy lifting on this latest scandal outbreak, unpacks that and the growing calls for at least someone to do something in light of these charges.

More on the sex abuse scandal latest

Rod Dreher takes a more mature and balanced look.  At the end of the day, it's looking ugly.  Pope Francis is still innocent.  But there is certainly reason for a full investigation.  Not an investigation that promises to drag anyone and everyone over ten miles of broken glass if they dare point to Pope Francis.  But one that seeks the Truth.  Most I hear are in two camps: they want the truth, or they're desperately trying to protect homosexuality, Pope Francis, and the status quo when convenient.  I'm going with the first camp.

It's almost like the Catholic Church isn't in the middle of a horrible crisis

The San Jose Diocese buys a retirement home for its Bishop.  Price tag?  A whopping 2.3 million dollars.  Yep.  I believe the term is 'Bad Optics.'  Seldom in my life have I met an institution where so many in it go out of their way to live up to as many negative stereotypes as possible. 

Prayers for the Church, and the broader Christian Faith, are in order.

The Pope's letter to the Faithful

Is looked at here, and here, and here.

Bottom line: It was big on fluff and emotions, low on accountability, solutions and wanting to look at the hard questions.  Even the press - which has been a pretty big part of the Francis Fan Club - noted a particular vacancy in the hard solutions department.

Some Catholics are trying to circle the wagons, blaming anyone and everyone else under the sun.  Others are busy defending homosexuality or other liberal influences in the Church.  Some clergy appear desperate to keep things as close to the way they've been, despite the disastrous results.

On the whole, however, it seems Catholics - and their brothers and sisters in other Christian traditions - are willing to look beyond the agendas or job security and are willing to ask the hard questions, seek the hard answers, and do what it takes for the sake of the actual Gospel.

No, they don't want to purge all bishops, guilty or innocent.  That sort of thing smacks of nothing more than a sensational scorched earth reaction for the cameras, while not really addressing the deeper issues.  Many who are advocating that are also the ones desperately trying to keep our eyes off of the homosexual elephant in the sacristy.

Nonetheless, I'm somewhat optimistic.  Seeing such a catastrophic train wreck, and seeing the obvious lack of desire for the world to say 'Ah shucks, who are we to judge', it might be time to realize the problems didn't start with Pope Francis, or Vatican II, or even the 20th century.   It might be that the Church, like so much of the Christian Faith, has been off the rails for some time.

BTW, I should add that, like most sane people, I don't think homosexuality is the only cause of the problems.  Like others, however, I am aghast at how many in our world and in the press simply will not look at that issue.  As I said here, it's strange that there is no end to the suffering and death we're willing to tolerate rather than walk back the modern ideals of the sexual revolution.

Defending liberalism in the wake of the abuse scandal

Mark Shea does the important work here.  His first flaw is the notion that those who are wanting to look at the question of homosexuality are somehow using it to deflect from the Bishops. I'm sure there are some who are.  But I have heard plenty of people wanting both to hold the Bishops accountable and look at such things as the modernist/progressive trends within the last few generations of Catholicism. 

Just yesterday, many decidedly conservative Catholics made a great deal about the daily readings, with the emphasis on holding the shepherds of Israel's flock accountable.  Mark, on the other hand, does what he says not to do.  He portrays it as an either/or.  You must either go after the Bishops or you can try to investigate the role of homosexuality or feminism or other liberal influences in this longstanding affront to the Gospel.

Fact is, you can - and should - do both.  Mark's dogged defense of Catholicism's recent moves toward liberalism is no different than any who would try to deflect to something like homosexuality to avoid going after the Bishops.  His willingness to defend even the rather unChristian notion that a person should be labeled according to his sexuality because it's what the world nowadays says to do shows how far he will go in circling the wagon.

Right now the Church is at a crossroads.  Will Catholics go beyond the divisions to find the solution?  Or are they so entrenched that they will erect barbed wire fences around this or that pet priority?  Only by looking at all - and I mean all - of the factors behind this terrible scandal can the Church hope to recover and move forward.

It should be noted that by looking at all of the problems, perhaps the Church will lose its place among the privileged and the beautiful people who get invited to all the best parties.  I hope that's a price that Catholics are willing to pay.  The good news is that most, contrary to what Mark suggests, are looking at all of the parts that have played out in this sad tragedy.  And least so far.

Unfortunately, as Mark demonstrates all too well, there is a concerted effort by not a few Catholics to insist that no matter how egregious the sins of this horrific scandal, and no matter how many are hurt, there are some questions they simply will not allow to be asked.

BTW, I won't discuss the comments section on Mark's post, which is made up of folks cheering the usual pro-gay, or anti-JPII or similar ideals that are a staple on his blog.  There comes a time when I might as well go back to the Friendly Atheist for all it's worth. 

The war for the Catholic soul

Rod Dreher looks at one little skirmish. 

That is the crux, the essence, of what the Church - and I could also say the Christian Faith as a whole - is dealing with.  Must the Church continue to conform to the world, or is it time to insist the world conform to the Faith?

Much of the Catholic approach in recent years, even decades (no, it didn't begin with Pope Francis, or even Vatican II), has been to accept the premises of the latest the world has to offer.  Do we try to  be like the world?  After all, everything we call traditional was new once, or so the argument goes.  Or is it more difficult than that?

They say the fasted growing denomination in America is former Catholic.  We certainly haven't been following the 'hold fast and return to what worked' approach during this time.  Perhaps it's worth looking at the results - or the fruits, to use Biblespeak - of what has happened.  Just a thought.

If the Catholic Church is going to change we must get rid of that lousy Bible rubbish

That thought kept going through my mind as I read this.  I must say, having lost almost everything we had to become Catholic, I'm shocked and a bit nauseated to see how quickly it is crumbling before the post-modernist, leftist assault.

Granted, I'm a little sympathetic.  The Church is being assaulted like it has never been assaulted before.  From almost every side, every aspect of Church teaching is being challenged and attacked.  The Church's understanding of the cosmos, of the world, of history, the worth and accuracy of the Holy Scriptures; the Faith's teachings on humanity, the nature of human beings, human relations and morality, the family and its role in society; human sexuality and procreation; the ideals of the faithful living in the material world; the nature of revelation, salvation, redemption; the importance of eternity vs. the primacy of the material existence, the superiority of the individual vs. community; the Truth of the Incarnation, Resurrection, the exclusive claims of the Gospel - why the list goes on and on.

It reminds me of that scene at the end of The Empire Strikes Back.  Luke is fighting Darth Vader in the climatic duel, when suddenly Vader begins using a little bit of the ol'telekinesis against him.  One huge piece of metal after another is hurled at Luke who, at first, defends himself against the pieces, but soon begins to succumb to being hit from one side here, the other side there.  Eventually, out the window he goes.  That's what I think of as I watch the Church, and the Faith in general, seem to wobble at the knees as they attempt to stand their ground against multiple attacks from all sides.

What's worse, the attacks don't just come from without, but from within.  As I said here, there are now Catholic blogs on Patheos that are playgrounds for those who wish to advocate for late term abortions, gay marriage, gender obscurity, sex, drugs, Communism, Marxism, anti-Catholicism, radical feminism, anti-white racism, Hitler's Pope theories, and just about anything else, all without too much worry about being called out by the Catholic bloggers in question.  And those are just the blogs on Patheos. It can get crazier as we move on.

Nonetheless, much of this is far beyond where all but the most radical liberal Protestant denominations I knew of were back in the day.  Instead of the Barq of Peter, the Church increasingly acts like the Titanic.  It's as if it's going down fast, and Catholics - and Catholic leaders - are scrambling to find whatever convenient life boat happens to be available.  And the best ship they have found is the good ship S.S. Secular Marxism with a drug induced porn party on board.

It makes you wonder if the Church has gone through this in the past, and we just never really read it that way.  After all, there wasn't much in Jesus' teachings that suggested torturing and launching crusades was the better way to make disciples of the nations.  And yet there was a time - a significant period of time - when the Church did just that.

Could it be we're heading into another period that will require endless counter reformations and councils to get things right?  Are we going into an era over which future Catholics will hang their heads in shame?  I don't know.  I'm no prophet.  I can just tell a train wreck when I see it.  And the unraveling of the Church before this sustained assault, and the growing number of Catholics who seem absolutely delighted at the developments, however understandable, makes me sometimes lament the decision we made.

But then I look at the same problem across Evangelicalism and Protestantism and am reminded that the Church is not alone, either in giving way before the storm, or having those brave souls willing to sound the alarms and stand firm on the Rock once and for all.  It's just that the Church, above all other Christian traditions, is supposed to be the Rock against which the storms of the latest are bound to break, not the other way around.

The sort of thing that gives the Church a bad reputation

I'm sure there's a reason for this.  I'm sure it's one of those things that makes sense in back room, inside baseball sort of meetings.  But to the casual headline reader strolling by on the way to work or the movies, it stinks to high heaven. 

I can't help but notice, however, that there has been an uptick in clergy abuse stories in the last month or so.  For a while, it was as if there never had been a clergy abuse scandal.  Last year, when Pope Francis came to the US, except for mentioning his outreach and attempts to bring healing, there was nothing discussed.  When Pope Benedict did the same, I was treated to days and weeks of stories about the entire scandalous episode. 

I don't know why.  Perhaps there wasn't any new juicy scandal news for the media to report.  Or perhaps, since Pope Francis appears to be standing firm on the Church's actual teaching regarding homosexuality and abortion, no matter how merciful he is trying to be, the media has realized what Catholics all knew: Pope Francis might be able to reimagine how we apply and live out Church teaching, but he can't change it.  He won't change it.

The charitable in me wants to believe it's just cosmic coincidence, or a slow news cycle with nothing other than presidential politics, Russian aggression, threats from ISIS, nuclear North Korea, the Zika endemic, and the Immigration crisis to talk about.  But a little voice in me can't help but wonder if the press is letting a few more stories run now since it might be that Pope Francis isn't going to play its game by its rules.

Uh oh

Some new revelations about what Pope Benedict XVI knew about the abuse scandal.  Or maybe not.  We'll see.  The problem the Church has that sets it apart from all other groups in terms of abuse is that it is so systemic.  Nobody but an anti-Catholic bigot would say the Church is responsible for the sins of  some of its members.  But unlike most institutions, there seems to be a never-ending stream of massive, intertwined, institutionalized conspiracies behind it all. 

Sometimes you might here of a teacher accused of rape or assault, and perhaps a principal shut it up.  That used to be the way to handle it.  In my college days, when I transferred to the school of Education, that was a hot topic: what to do with teachers who have abused kids.  Really.  So it's not as if the Church was alone.

But there is something widespread, something that suggests problems beyond a simple church or diocese.  And the cover ups often involve multiple people on multiple levels.  That is the guilty part.  That is what sets the Church apart from most other cases where abuse has happened.  Not that it never involves multiple individuals accused of being part of elaborate cover-ups in other institutions.  But with the Church, it seems that as often as not, that is the order of the day. 

Hopefully this turns out to be nothing.  We'll have to wait and see.  Lord deliver the Church from this darkest of hours. 

A Catholic problem

In the Christian world, Catholicism is unique in its demands for obedience to the Church beyond all other things.  When we went through RCIA, mention of a relationship with Jesus was barely dwelt upon.  But our confession that we would obey the teachings of the Church was hammered in.  Not that any denomination or tradition doesn't expect some fealty to its particular interpretations and understandings and faith confessions.  But that 'obey the Church' just isn't there.

So we have this little dialogue.  It's over the issue of usury, something that has long been a thorn in the side of the faith, that we often forget about in our post-enlightenment, capitalistic societies.  Forbidding usury plays a big part in Medieval history.  It's come back into the forefront in light of the Church's movement away from capitalism, and starting to warm up to more socialist leaning solutions for economic woes.

Note the final point by Kirt Higdon.  What the Church is saying appears to be change rather than development of teaching.  It also appears to have contradictions.  So be it.  I am called to obey.  However it is worth noting that we shouldn't impugn the heart and soul of the person who has questions.  But here's the point.  If obedience is the core of the faith, then when the Church does something like change its teachings, or say things that appear to contradict themselves or reality, you can either do what Kirk did, and just say it doesn't make sense.  Or you can impugn the character of those who threaten your acceptance of the situation by pointing out the obvious.

The Crusades and the Inquisition.  They are uniquely Catholic for a reason.  Terrible things have been done in the name of any religion or belief system.  But never so clearly defined with such an officially declared seal of approval.  Reread the link for understanding.

The Pro Life Inquisition

Is on display.  Torture is bad.  Got it.  I was shocked at how many conservatives jumped on board that bandwagon.  I understood.  It was clear that many were more concerned with scoring points against Bush than protecting America, and I think in desperation and fear many embraced what they never would have embraced.  But desperation and fear make bad reasons for embracing moral stances.

The A-Bombs were bad.  Got it.  I don't know another way, given the knowledge we now have that suggests Japan's post-war take on events wasn't always the most accurate.  Apart from pacifism and 'just let'm die', don't know what we could have done.  But I've never imagined it was a wonderful thing to cheer about.

War is bad.  Of course.  Who wants war?  Though some of the bygone attitudes surrounding war: sacrifice, honor, loyalty, duty (words seldom used in modern discourse) are quite good.  And again, pacifism or war?

The death penalty is bad.  In that I wish there were no crimes that deserved it, yeah.  And I like mercy over execution.  But historically the Church has understood the need to protect the innocent in a fallen world.  Now that the Church is wanting to change, I can understand the debate.

Some, however, can't. So we have a reminder why the Catholic Church has the dubious distinction of being the only major world religion with its own official Inquisition.  As one who has been accused by the author of the piece of wanting to increase human slaughter, simply because I question the Church's reasoning for suddenly wishing to abolish the death penalty, I can understand a little better how some of those moments in Church history took place.