By Michael H. Brown
Spirit Daily
October 17, 2007
http://spiritdaily.com/purgebishops.htm
Two events converged last week to tell us it's time for the Vatican to begin a major review of Church hierarchy, and if necessary, a purge.
One was in the U.S., where an archbishop in San Francisco gave Communion to two congregants dressed in drag. They were part of a homosexual outfit that annually mocks nuns — and usually does so in a church hall rented to them by nuns. Obscenely, they call themselves "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence."
It was Archbishop George Niederauer, and in his defense (he is being pilloried right and left), the bishop is an older man, and seemed to have been taken by surprise. There isn't much time to think up there when someone is suddenly in front of you for Communion (as were these two men dressed in clown-like feminine makeup).
Indeed, in a video of the Mass, the archbishop seems first reluctant to give Communion, motioning as if he will only bless the first of the transvestites. Then he gives in — apparently after asking if the first person is a Catholic — and glances at one with what seemed like befuddlement as they walk away.
Many bishops go out of their way not to offend.
But the questions linger.
 |
How could the archbishop not have noted their strangeness during Mass in the relatively small church (they were attired in white-paste make-up faces, colored wreath-like hair, and an actual habit)? And why wasn't he on his guard in light of the history of that wayward parish?
For years, we have linked to articles about how the hall had been rented to the homosexual group for mock bingo and similar travesties, until finally pressure forced the parish to halt the obscene annual event.
That was one instance: we know that priests and bishops are often tolerant in their charity and love (or simply afraid of public pressure), but this went beyond tolerance.
Our bishops must stand up. They must stop worrying about what the secular press — and tiny interest groups — will think about them. Let us pray for Archbishop Niederauer. He is no doubt, in heart, a good man. A complaint should be filed with the city's prosecutor's office and those who disrupted Mass charged as trespassers. If the gay rights movement is only about protecting a new "minority," one may ask, why does it hurl such vitriol at the Church and why do so many "gays" mock Christ?
The second event was in Rome itself: there, a hidden video showed a monsignor in the Holy See meeting with a man who had posed as a homosexual in a chat room looking for a tryst.
 |
The official, Monsignor Tommaso Stenico, was allegedly invited to have sado-masochistic sex and arrangements were made for a meeting at the monsignor's office in St. Peter's Square. Unknown to Monsignor Stenico, the other man, who said he wanted to expose the hypocrisy of the Catholic church, arrived equipped with concealed video and audio recording equipment.
It was bad enough that it was a Vatican priest. Worse still, Monsignor Stenico was the capo ufficio, or section head, at the Vatican ministry responsible for the clergy! (He says he was only pretending to be gay.)
Then there was Connecticut: In an extraordinary move, the bishops there gave into the state and will allow Catholic hospitals to administer what is known as "Plan B": emergency contraception for rape victims.
This is more serious than what occurred in either San Francisco or Rome. For the contraceptive is potentially an "abortifacient"; it can prevent a newly conceived life from attaching to the womb.
And thus what the bishops in Connecticut did was an extraordinary break with the Vatican — which expressly forbids such contraception, in any circumstances — and while the bishops were under fantastic pressure (the hospitals could be seriously disciplined by the state), it still stands as a fantastic breach in the Catholic opposition to abortion; a crack in the dike; a serious one.
Such events, coupled with the abuse scandals, are more than enough to underscore a crisis within the hierarchy, especially in Canada and the U.S. In our hopefully-respectful opinion, Rome must immediately begin a review of bishops in those two countries.
In Minneapolis, a priest is sending out e-mails inviting the faithful to a talk by a lesbian who has a domestic partner and a child and will speak — with her father — from a pulpit.
The event is scheduled [according to a blog] for October 22 at St. Frances Cabrini Catholic Church in Minneapolis and features Carol and Robert Curoe, who have co-authored, Are There Closets in Heaven? A Catholic Father and Lesbian Daughter Share Their Story.
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, a former auxiliary in Detroit, has written of the book: "From within the context of a traditional Catholic family, Bob Curoe and his daughter, Carol, share their journey together from denial and suffering to full rejoicing in the gifted life of Carol as one of the Moms in a two-Mom family. Their willingness to share their journey will help to break down many barriers of prejudice and discrimination facing the homosexual."
Prejudice? How about "concern"?
Meanwhile, a group called Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays will hold its ninth annual Service of Remembrance "in memory of our children who have died violently simply because they were gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex" at St. Francis of Assisi church in Sacramento on October 21.
That's all fine and even good: remembering the deceased and accenting any form of violence as evil. But how about also accenting the evil in such extraordinarily bizarre manifestations as transsexuality?
No matter what, we respect all priests and bishops. By "respect," we mean that we respect their consecration in the order of the Apostles, and maintain obedience. Let us all recall that St. Padre Pio remained obedient despite the persecution by a homosexual archbishop who even prohibited the holy man from hearing confessions and celebrating public Mass.
But we can also maintain our "concern" and express the cry that all these things — and hundreds of abuse cases — could not have occurred if the hierarchy had been on top of the situation. We can also — respectfully — pose questions.
Who let the problem bishops in? How many are homosexual? Why the antipathy toward devotions that are at the very foundation of Catholicism? The current weakness in the hierarchy is a key reason why there are so few vocations. It is also a reason why so many men don't go to Mass. In plain language, devout heterosexual men are discouraged from the priesthood — as well as the pews.
We are called to have compassion. We are also called to remain obedient. But is it compassion to tolerate something like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, or, if this was a case of tolerance, and not just surprise, is such a tacit endorsement of lifestyles directly contrary to the teaching of Christianity? Meanwhile, why are so many bishops in the United States, Canada, and other Western nations so hostile to deep devotions encouraged by historic saints but so tolerant of politicians who are pro-choice and congregants who are homosexual?
Why are good, devout priests often shoved away from population centers and given the least populated parishes (as in one Upstate New York diocese where a priest even was caught by a newspaper camera dressed as a woman in a supermarket)?
These are questions for Rome.
How the statues weep! We now know why.
As pointed out by another website, the "mistake" in San Francisco — for which the archbishop has apologized — is not an isolated event. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle last year the archbishop lauded a pro-homosexual film, Brokeback Mountain, which was widely and loudly condemned by pro-family groups as a dangerous gay propaganda film. The prelate acknowledged seeing the film and called it "very powerful." Was it caving in to the culture?
"In 2004, Archbishop Niederauer publicly opposed a Utah ballot initiative that constitutionally banned same-sex marriage because it included a ban on civil unions," the website points out. "In 1996, as bishop of Salt Lake City, he helped form a coalition of religious leaders opposing the ban on high-school 'gay-straight alliances' proposed by the Utah legislature."
One must ask why a bishop would take such a stance.
We will remain obedient. One must stay obedient no matter how much one disagrees with a local bishop.
But the time for a review of errant bishops, not just abuse priests, is overdue. It is urgent. It should be initiated with the speed of an ambulance.
We won't make a judgment on Archbishop Niederauer. We don't know what was going through his mind. We are not qualified to judge him. We are not qualified to judge any bishop. That's up to the Vatican.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.