BishopAccountability.org
	Moral Authority, Moral Relativism, Forgiveness, Privilege, and the Roman Catholic Church By Vinnie Nauheimer Voice from the Desert May 8, 2010 http://reform-network.net/?p=4653 Here is another slam-dunk, absolute-must-read essay by Vinnie Nauheimer, a prophet in our midst. Thanks for this wonderful essay, Vinnie, and please continue to analyze, write, and share your gifts with all of us. * * * Moral Authority, Moral Relativism, Forgiveness, Privilege and the Roman Catholic Church By Vinnie Nauheimer © They are trying to undermine our moral authority, create a campaign of hate and gossip scream such luminary cardinals as Bertoni, Sodano and Lajolo; who by any standards are accredited Vatican heavyweights. What we might ask of these Johnnies-come-lately to the clerical abuse table is: Where were you when this scandal was brewing and when did you find out that there is a global sexual abuse epidemic among your clergy?" On the issue of moral authority, the answer is simple. The Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican are bankrupt in the moral authority account. Whatever they once might have had was squandered when, in losing their moral compass, they decided that the reputation of the church was far more sacrosanct than the body and soul of a child; not just a child, countless thousands of children around the globe. Like Adam hiding from God in Eden, the church hierarchy turned away from God and put their church above God, his laws and the lives of children. Having done that, they still have the unmitigated gall to lay claim to moral authority. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds! Jesus told us that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and if we correctly understand what he was saying, we know today's church, in its current state of governance, is not bearing good fruit. When Benedict took office, he railed at what he called the "Moral Relativism" endemic throughout Europe and the world. Although the church cannot claim moral authority anymore, they can certainly lay claim to moral relativism. Moral relativism is the concept that the moral standard is set by the times or the culture. It is the pope's contention that there are moral absolutes that hold true for all time. I.e. Sex is only for procreation, using contraceptives of any kind and of course, abortion. However, humanity has some moral absolutes too. I.e. The raping, sodomizing and molesting of children are universally considered taboo. There are laws against it in countries all around the globe and have been since man began making laws. Further underscoring the moral absolute is the U.N. Through its UNICEF organization, it has put together "The Convention on the Rights of the Child." The Vatican was one of the last countries to sign it. Sexually abusing children is a moral absolute by every standard except for those of the Catholic Church. Either the act of sexually abusing a child is a crime or it isn't. In the document Crimens Sollicitationis issued by the Vatican in 1962 and reaffirmed in 2001 by Benedict's own hand, the sexual abuse of children by clerics under Title V of that document is called "The Worst Crime." Therefore, any priest sexually abusing a child is guilty of the "Worst Crime" validating it as a moral absolute. However, the church hierarchy, the bastion of moral absolutes, became the bastion of moral relativism when it came to the sexual abuse of children by the clergy because they did not treat it as a crime. Another global moral absolute or taboo is incest. Either parent having sex with their children is another ancient taboo. Spiritual incest, Father having sex with his spiritual children, belongs in the same category. Yet neither of the above has been considered a moral absolute for the priests of the Roman Catholic Church. The question then arises, how can the church consider the sexual abuse of children a crime if there is no penalty for the crime and the offender is not labeled a criminal? Likewise, there is no penalty for the enabler of the abusing priest. Who is more guilty, the animal that seeks prey or the handler who unleashes him upon unsuspecting children? Enter moral relativism. Well, because he's a priest, he's not really a criminal, but a sinner and it is our duty as Christians to hate the sin and love the sinner because we are the church of forgiveness. Here is where the church thinking became sick, convoluted, twisted and wandered astray. At the crucifixion, Jesus didn't save the repented thief from his legal fate, crucifixion. He said, "This day you will be with me in heaven." He forgave the thief his sins, but he did not stop the prescribed legal punishment for his crimes. Ignoring this truth is the cornerstone of the foul thinking that has permeated the church hierarchy: Forgiveness does not equate to no consequences for the crime. In the eyes of God and man, the sin can be forgiven as Jesus did, but there still has to be a consequence for the crime. If the crime didn't deserve a consequence, Jesus would have spared the good thief his execution. This is a point lost on a hierarchy determined to save their own at any cost. Along with the above, the church has forgotten a second truth. The priesthood is a privilege. When privileges are violated, they need to be taken away. A driver's license is a privilege for those who can pass the written and road test. If that privilege "the right to drive a car" is abused by speeding or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the privilege to drive is revoked. If a gun owner uses his gun in a reckless manner, his right to gun ownership ceases. His right to freedom in all probability will cease too. The priesthood is a privilege and when that privilege is used to commit crimes as it is when sexually abusing children, it needs to be revoked. The same holds true for the hierarchy. Becoming a bishop or a cardinal is a privilege given to only a few men of each generation. When that privilege is violated in such a criminal and heinous way as has happened with permitting the sexual abuse of children and then protecting the criminals involved, the privilege of being a bishop or cardinal needs to be revoked. Anything less is moral relativism. Coincidentally, it was Pope Benedict XIV's Degradatio ab ordine pontificali (Degradation of a bishop) that created the means to remove a bishop. Hopefully, Benedict XVI will consider using the rite created by his predecessor to excise the existing cancer in the hierarchy. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia had this to say about Benedict XIV who wrote these procedures for getting rid of errant bishops: "Benedict XIV is best known to history as a student and a scholar… his enormous application coupled with more than ordinary cleverness of mind made him one of the most erudite men of his time and gave him the distinction of being perhaps the greatest scholar among the popes." The greatest scholar among popes recognized that it was possible for evil to infiltrate the highest reaches of the church and wrote the prescription for removing it. It takes a man of courage and conviction to stand up to evil. Benedict XVI needs to come to this same conclusion. He needs to clean house starting with the infamous Cardinal Bernie Law, a pubic eyesore as well as monument to moral relativism. The sooner he does this, the sooner he will be able salvage any scraps of moral authority the Roman Catholic Church may still have.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.