:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Friday, February 25, 2005 ::

Points to Ponder:
(On The Vatican vs. "Americanism" --Part III: The Sex Abuse Crisis)

This is a continuation of the musings located HERE. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE.

[John Allen's] chronology of the sex abuse crisis, unfortunately, stops well short of the release of the report of the National Review Board in February 2004. He does provide page upon page of what was actually said by curial officials, sundry cardinals, and other leaders. Only snippets of these texts appeared in news stories, and it is good to have them in context. The fuller documentation is frequently embarrassing, as when it is alleged that sex abuse is a distinctly American problem, or that the firestorm of publicity was motivated simply by anti-Catholicism or was orchestrated by a conspiracy of Masons working together with Jews who control the media and are repaying the Church for its pro-Palestinian sympathies. In Rome, and in Europe more generally, the frequent allusion to the Masons often puzzles Americans, for whom the Masonic Lodge is as sinister as the Rotary Club, although a good deal less influential.

It is not only the French but Europeans more generally who are inclined to think that an inveterately puritanical American culture has a hard time being sensible about sex. That more "sophisticated" European stance was reflected in European bemusement at the brouhaha attending President Clinton's dalliances, and was not absent from the reaction to the media outrage in the sex abuse crisis. When will these Americans grow up? Things happen.

Understanding Frailty

Roman officials were much and rightly concerned about the norms adopted by the U.S. bishops in their panicked meeting of Dallas 2002, including "zero tolerance" for any cleric who was at any time in his entire life accused of sex abuse—with "sex abuse" being defined so loosely as to make possible the conviction of almost any normal adult. The abovementioned populist dimension of curial culture came into play as Rome modified those norms to ensure that the accused got at least a measure of due process. Allen understands that it is not only the so-called Puritan factor that makes America different. Ours is a more legalistic culture. Some attribute that, too, to Puritanism or, as Francis Cardinal George of Chicago prefers, Calvinism. For most Europeans, and notably for Italians, the law is an ideal, it being understood that all mortals fall short of the ideal. For Americans, the law is there to be enforced. In addition, other countries do not have our system of tort law by which huge financial damages can be exacted from institutions. Finally, in many countries the age of sexual consent is lower—often sixteen or fourteen, and in a few places as low as twelve. In such societies, it is thought that young people bear a greater measure of responsibility for what they do, also sexually. This obviously reflects very different cultural attitudes toward children and childhood.

Early on in the crisis, curial officials learned to express the mandatory outrage at the damage done to victims of sexual abuse but, although Allen does not come out and say so, sometimes it seemed their hearts were not in it. The general attitude seemed to be this: Yes, of course the Pope was right when he said that there is no place in the Church's ministry for anyone who might harm children. But then, in the Church as elsewhere, we are all sinners, and sometimes even priests do evil things. Surely they should be punished, and strictly so. The Church has centuries of canon law—canon law which the American bishops did not use—specifically designed to deal with such offenses. And surely those who are hurt should be helped as much as possible. But please, perspective is required, and patience, and a sympathetic appreciation of human frailty. Let there be no rush to judgment and, above all, let us not play into the hands of those who wish the Church nothing but ill. Such was and is the widespread, if not dominant, view within the Curia.

Then we come to the Vatican and the Iraq war...[Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus]

To be Continued...

:: Shawn 4:26 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Some Possible Threads of Interest for Lidless Eye Readers:
(Courtesy of Rerum Novarum)


More on Terri Schiavo and the Fundamental Rights of Man (circa February 18, 2005)

More on Terri Schiavo, an Activist Blogosphere Effort on Her Behalf, Etc. (circa February 22, 2005)

On the Terri Schiavo Situation and the Culture War in General (circa February 23, 2005)

Miscellaneous Bits on the Terri Schiavo Situation (circa February 24, 2005)

:: Shawn 8:27 AM [+] | ::

************************************

Points to Ponder:
(On The Vatican vs. "Americanism" --Part II: The Curial Mind)

This is a continuation of the musings located HERE.

Under "the psychology of the Vatican," [John Allen] proposes words indicative of the operative values: Authority, bella figura, Cosmopolitanism, Loyalty, Objectivity, Populism, Realism, Rule of Law, Time, and Tradition. Most of those may seem self-evident. Objectivity, Time, and Tradition are summed up in the maxim that Rome thinks in terms of centuries. By bella figura is meant that direct confrontations are, whenever possible, avoided; losers are given a chance to save face, and the hope is that everybody comes away from a difficult decision "looking good." Surprising to many readers will be Allen's treatment of "populism." Rome is the final court of appeal for people in the Church who have been treated shabbily, and is generally on the side of the underdogs, notably when they, whether clerical or lay, have suffered at the hands of arbitrary or tyrannical prelates. Moreover, the Curia is populist in the sense that Rome is serious about the faithful having a right to the faith taught and practiced faithfully. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is often called the Church's doctrinal "enforcer" and depicted as the oppressor of theologians, but Allen helps the reader to understand that he may more accurately be seen as the protector of the Catholic people from the malfeasance of academic elites.

With respect to the "sociology" of the Vatican, Allen says that curial officials, from top to bottom, are shaped by what might be called the constructions of reality within several everyday circles of experience: the Vatican itself, the city of Rome (ecclesiastical and secular), Italy (ecclesiastical and secular), and Europe. Whether an official is from the U.S., Ukraine, Brazil, or Nigeria, he becomes, in due course, curial, Roman, Italian, and European. That formation of thought, priorities, disposition, and personality is, one gathers, pretty much inevitable; and Allen is appropriately skeptical about the success of "reforms," such as those proposed by retired Archbishop John Quinn, for making the governance of the Church more "representative," perhaps by having a more or less permanent synod of bishops act as a kind of parliamentary check on executive authority. The Vatican-Roman-Italian-European formation has everything to do with Rome's response to the American sexual abuse crisis and the Iraq war, to which Allen devotes half of his book. [Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus]

To be Continued...

:: Shawn 5:51 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Points to Ponder:
(On The Vatican vs. "Americanism" --Part I: On the Myth of Monolithic Curial Outlooks)

Prologue: Though this is actually a book review for a recent book, I found the review itself as containing a lot of points for pondering; ergo I will post it in several parts of bite size musings for your consideration. - ISM]

John Allen has written an exceedingly valuable book. It is titled All the Pope's Men: The Inside Story of How the Vatican Really Thinks (Doubleday, 392 pp., $24.95). Never mind that he speaks dismissively of those who write "instabooks" on matters Catholic, while admitting that he pulled this one together in less than a month. John Allen has a lot that is worth pulling together. Never mind that book-size length is achieved by a lot of padding from his earlier reporting from Rome, such as more than a hundred and fifty pages of chronological accounts of the sex abuse crisis and the Vatican's response to the war in Iraq. It is very useful material to have all in one place. The book also provides a thoughtful summary of what Allen has learned about the Holy See over his years of trying to be assiduously fair while reporting for the decidedly leftist National Catholic Reporter. Had the title not been taken by a recent and less interesting volume, Allen might well have called his book Inside the Vatican.

There are analytically descriptive sections on the structure, psychology, and sociology of the Vatican, along with a treatment of "myths" about the Vatican. The Holy See is of course the see of Peter, and the Vatican is the city-state where Peter presides surrounded by his administrative apparatus, the Curia. Allen offers a brief account of the development of papal governance, as well as an intelligent consideration of the arguments, pro and con, for the "centralization" of Petrine authority. He describes the division of labor, and sometime conflicts, between the curial dicasteries—congregations, pontifical councils, and assorted subordinate offices—and is generally sympathetic toward the people who work in them. The skeptical reader may wonder how much Allen is pulling his punches, since these are the people he needs as sources in order to do his work, but I am inclined to think his expressed respect is genuine. In part because, in my much more limited experience of the Vatican, his evaluations tend to ring true.

The chief "myths" include the notion that the Vatican has a monolithic view on everything. Without slipping into gossip, Allen does a fine job of indicating the ways in which personalities, dispositions, alliances, and turf wars keep many viewpoints in play, all within the bounds of a shared understanding that every person and every office is in the service of the pope. Similarly, the myth of Vatican secrecy is, he suggests, much exaggerated, as his own reporting demonstrates. As with any organization, some things are confidential, and there is of course the sacramental seal, but over lunches and dinners, at diplomatic receptions and in formal interviews, the Curia sometimes seems like a perpetual talk shop. Curial officers are often depicted as grasping careerists, and no doubt some are, but Allen suggests that the norm is that of people making considerable sacrifices, financial and otherwise, to serve the Church. As for the myth of the Vatican's wealth, he notes that it operates with a regular deficit and, while it owns artistic and other properties that are of inestimable value, none of them can be sold or used as security. In fact, being steward of these properties is a huge financial liability. [Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus]

To be Continued...

:: Shawn 5:48 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Sister Lucia of Fatima,
Ora Pro Terri Schiavo

Merciful Father, you blessed Sr. Lucia of Fatima as a child with a vision of the Virgin Mary, and granted her the grace to live a life of holiness and heroic obedience to Holy Mother Church. By her life she bore witness to the glory of God. Grant, in this hour of need for your daughter Terri Schiavo, that by Sr. Lucia's intercession, those souls hardened by the culture of death may come to believe in the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and be moved to revere and protect her life and all innocent human life. Amen.

:: Pete Vere 5:22 AM [+] | ::

************************************

Bishop Bruskewitz on Reconciling Traditionlists

:: Greg Mockeridge 1:26 AM [+] | ::

************************************

Apparently there is an Antistrophe to Kevin Tierney's Strophe:
(A Lidless Eye Inquisition Observation Thread)

I was attuned courtesy of Dominico Bettinelli's BLOG to a rather interesting (at least in the abstract) new weblog project. Dom's reference to "the Lidless Eye" in the link caught my interest (for obvious reasons) and he linked to the following (apparently serious) attempt by a self-styled "progressivist" weblogger to try to have his own kind of "Inquisition." Here is the link for those who are interested:

Index Blogorum Prohibitorum

I trust that even those with the rustiest Latin knowledge can figure out what the title itself means so let us move from that point to considerations of what this intended project is supposed to achieve. As I see it, this can be viewed in one of at least three ways. The first is that this person believes that they are somehow the sole purveyor of what is and is not acceptable -their personal opinions are what is and is not correct or orthodox.{1} The second I suppose is that they are trying to spoof Catholic Culture (formerly Petersnet) which would be interesting -particularly in light of what appears to be a significant problem with Catholic Culture in some of their recent ratings of sites.{2}

Nonetheless, as the webmaster of this site identifies themselves on their other weblog as a progressive Catholic, I think we can ascertain what his major bugaboos would happen to be.{3} And that he runs a social commentary group weblog which appears to be directly opposed in purpose to the one run by Kevin Tierney{4} is yet another example of how this person is literally antistrophe to Kevin's strophe. They are also both about the same age and also both converts -this other individual as recently as a year ago. And in light of the latter, consistency demands that I make a similar note of the latter's neophyte status as I have of certain self-styled "traditionalists" in years gone by{5} since what is good for the goose is good for the gander if you know what I mean.

And with this in mind, I have (at times) been critical of certain neophytes from the so-called "traditionalists" who attempt to pontificate on issues when they do not remotely grasp many of the strands of the overall mosaic of complex arguments before.{6} In it must also be noted (for the sake of a proper concern for accuracy) that I have made the same criticisms of so-called "progressivists" who act in like manner -expressing it on several occasions in sundry ways and in divers forums.{7} And much as Dom expressed a hope for an Offensive rating for [his] blog in light of what the judging criteria of this so-called "progressivists" would probably entail,{8} it is highly likely that both Lidless Eye Inquisition and Rerum Novarum would receive at least a "questionable" rating if not worse. And the same would be the case for Kevin Tierney's weblogs (Restore the Church, Iceman's Random Thoughts) as well -presuming of course that this person even knew of the existence of any of those weblogs of course. So anyway, for those who think that there is always a kind of ballad of east and west scenario with regards to myself and Kevin, that neither of us would find our weblogs -personal or group ones- being rated favourably by this particular polemical pundit is a significant proof to discredit that theory wholesale.


Notes:

{1} This is something that is common among pundits of various viewpoints -be they self-styled "progressivists, self-styled "traditionalists", or etc. It is also occasionally something that a few critics have erroneously asserted about what We at The Lidless Eye Inquisition actually do too. (Something I have covered in other places and do not want to rehash again at this time.)

{2} I am not going to note at this time what it is but suffice to say, a friend alerted me to a very suspicious rating that they gave to a site that was (at the time) less than two weeks old. But that is all I will say on the matter at the present time.

{3} To quote from Dom's accurate summation on the matter:

A self-identified liberal … I mean … progressive Catholic blogger has set up a new web site called the Index Blogorum Prohibitorum, on which he will list, in his words, “those Catholic weblogs and websites whose content is objectionable.” By objectionable he evidently means that they are loyal and profess to the Catholic Church’s immutable and publicly proclaimed teachings on a variety of topics. Based on his first two listings, it seems he’s most concerned about the Church’s teachings on sexuality...

...I am a bit offended that Bill and Phatmass got listed first. Surely I have been solidly on the forefront of saying that homosexuality is a root cause of the Scandal, that same-sex marriage is a bad joke, that the Church’s teachings on sexuality are unassailable, and that Howard Dean and John Kerry are weenies. (Don’t ask me why, but I suspect that the latter is a criterion for inclusion.) [Excerpt from Bettnet.com (circa February 14, 2005)]

{4] A cultural/social weblog which happens to meet with the overall approval of this writer lest anyone wonder.

{5} Though for the sake of keeping this focused on issues and not personalities, I will not reveal the particular persons involved at the time.

{6} You see, there are others who cannot even claim a certain time onboard the ship before falling over the side; indeed there are those who fell off the gangplank getting on board the ship in a manner of speaking. These are the neophytes who are still dripping wet from the water of their baptism or the oil of their confirmation chrism and yet they feel they can pontificate on theological issues which are not lacking in complexity. (And where their knowledge is so pathetically anemic that it would give any moderately informed individual a hearty belly laugh.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 2, 2002)]

{7} The first section of this thread dealt with the Galileo subject (the one about the sun), the unbaptized babies subject, the idea that the popes claimed to rule the whole world (meaning temporal as well as spiritual), and the subject of interest taking. The last section of this thread dealt indirectly with the persecution of heretics and judicial torture sections. However, these are so obviously not matters of doctrine that it goes to show that Tierney was basically throwing into the kettle anything that he thinks remotely supports his case.

Frankly, comments about "judicial torture" coming from liberals is rather annoying because these are the same kinds of people who are court martialling a certain Colonel West for seeking to extract information from Iraqi seditionists using intimidation tactics. Such people should be ashamed of themselves because when one is at war, such niceties -while commendable at other times- are not commendable at wartime. And the war against the Albigensians -whose beliefs and practices were more dangerous to the society of their day than the terrorism of Al Queda and others are to our own day- likewise niceties back then were not infrequently set aside. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 31, 2003)]

Btw, the Tierney referred to in this footnote was NOT Kevin Tierney lest readers of this weblog wonder to whom I refer: and they can see the link itself for details if they are interested.

{8} His new weblog is only a day old but he has already deigned to pass judgment on two weblogs in the blogosphere and -judging by his complaints against them- his kvetching has a pattern to it which is glaringly evident.

:: Shawn 11:15 AM [+] | ::

************************************

Sancta Lucia, Ora Pro Nobis!

Normally I would be saddened by the news someone passed away, but given her life of extraordinary holiness, her close relationship to the Blessed Mother, and her perpetual obedience to Holy Mother Church, I cannot help but rejoice at thought of Sister Lucia returning to the side of the Blessed Mother to intercede for us poor sinners here on earth.

Perpetual light shine upon her, O Lord, and may her soul and the soul of all the faithfully departed, through the mercy of Christ, rest in peace. Amen.

:: Pete Vere 5:20 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Update on Latin in the Mass, Ad Orientem Posture, Etc.:
(Courtesy of Jason)

One of the contributors to the comments boxes at this humble weblog has weighed in with an authoritative word on this subject from Cardinal Francis Arinze -Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship on the subject of Latin in the Revised Missal. Here is what Jason noted on the matter:

Cardinal Arinze just told Raymond Arroyo that a priest is at liberty to say Mass in Latin, EXCEPT WHEN the Bishop (or Pastor) has scheduled a particular Mass to be said in the vernacular.

He also said that the Church only requires the altar to be built so that it is possible to say mass Ad Populum; She does not require the priest to actually say it Ad Populum. (Assumably, also unless the Bishop establishes a particular mass otherwise.)

This is an example of what I spoke of in several comments box threads to Kevin Tierney on. My point on the subject of Latin in the mass was that any priest in good standing can celebrate the Revised Missal in the vernacular, Latin, or any hybrid thereof without the permission of the local ordinaries. And of course it is always nice to see one's own position confirmed by the Holy See -particularly on the Latin issue since this is an issue which is so commonly misrepresented at the parish level today -either out of ignorance or (perhaps in some cases) actual malice against the usage of the Latin language in the celebration of the liturgical mysteries.

:: Shawn 3:48 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Some Links of Possible Interest For Lidless Eye Readers:
(Via Envoy Encore)

Responding to Common Canards of Extreme So-Called "Traditionalists"

Briefly on the Russia Consecration Subject

Question For Mark Downey's About His Recent Correspondence With Ecclesia Dei

Response From Mark Downey

:: Shawn 5:03 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Points to Ponder:

This installment is for those who find Great Facade style polemics against Vatican II and the Post-Council popes to be convincing. The intention is to show how this cuts both ways with a very early example (sixteenth century) of a theologian treating the Council of Trent with the same disdain as The Remnant crowd does Vatican II:

Much of Chemnitz’ profound theological impact was achieved through the written word. His first work of major importance is his Examen Concilii Tridentini, which appeared in four volumes between 1565 and 1573. This book was a critical study of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent in the light of Biblical theology and of history. The interpretations of such commentators of Trent as Hosius and Andradius were also subjected to Chemnitz’ penetrating judgment. In this definitive analysis Chemnitz was never bombastic or polemical in a vicious or unkind way. Herein Chemnitz reveals his skill in Biblical exegesis, his thorough familiarity with ancient and medieval philosophy, and his knowledge of church history. The book made a tremendous impact, and for generations Roman Catholic controversialists made it their business to refute Chemnitz’ charges and conclusions that the theology of Trent was a rupture from the theology of the apostolic church and the church catholic. [David Jay Webber's site on Martin Chemnitz]

There truly is nothing new under the sun my friends...

:: Shawn 4:47 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Ahem...Kevin and Jacob

How come neither of you have posted a review of Tomorrow Christendom?

:: Pete Vere 6:24 AM [+] | ::

************************************

Looks like everyone is getting into the debate trend...

Traditionalist Debate of the Nanosecond!

Mark Cameron vs. Kevin Tierney

December 1st, 2005
Frozen Ghost, Yukon

"Should Traditional Catholics Drink Lager or Ale?"
Mark will affirm Lager, while Kevin affirms Ale

Guest Moderator: Mrs. Betsy-Mae O'Blivion
Half-Time Entertainment: Super Mario and the Papal Pretenders

Advanced ticket: 3 dried fish
At-the-door: 4 dried fish

Cariboo sausage accepted at par.
Bring your own heater.

:: Pete Vere 6:12 AM [+] | ::

************************************