A Devilishly Smart Pope

A DEVILISHLY SMART POPE

One of the books I'm reading now is John D. Barrow's 'The Book of Nothing'. The subject is  a look at the concept of 'nothing', the void, emptiness, zero, the vacuum and so on. There's actually quite a bit to say about nothing, and book ranges from a history of the mathematical sign for zero, through the 'philosophic concept' of nothingness, to the idea of the vacuum in physics, its explanation by the 'ether' and the eventual overthrow of that concept. Temperatures (absolute zero) and the place of the vacuum in quantum mechanics, relativity and cosmology come on stage, and the book ends with a return to the philosophic concept itself. Yes, quite complex, and I've barely gotten to chapter 2. Nice to have a roadmap to a blank space. I'll be reviewing the book when done.

But one of the matters that did come up was the story of Pope Sylvester II, one of the few admirable holders of the keys of Peter in the Middle Ages. This is a story appealing enough to shove its way to the front of the 'Molly Line'. Sylvester II was born Gerbert de Aurillac (945 - 1003). He reigned as Pope from 999 to 1003. Yes the Pope in the Chair during the turn of the millennium. The world didn't end, and Gerbert/Sylvester was definitely one of the more capable Popes of the age. A lot of his accomplishments were political and hardly bear mention here. Defending the property of the Church. Playing off one ruler against another though he was usually in alliance with the Holy Roman Emperor of the time.  The politics of Italy at the time were particularly chaotic, and once both he and the Emperor had to flee Rome during one of the revolts. He even tried to reform the Church's organization and reduce abuses such as simony, concubinage and nepotism. This was an Herculean task, and even with the assistance of St. Jude (the patron saint of the impossible) the Church remained just about as corrupt as always. He did, however, succeed in significantly increasing the Church's title holdings. Maybe this goal was in direct contradiction to the idea of making the Church into a more 'Holy' outfit. He also played a major role in the Christianization of Eastern Europe, appointing Metropolitans for both Poland and Hungary, and in the later case naming that country as a 'Kingdom'. Thus the Crown of Hungary became dependent on the Papacy.


His political accomplishments were minor compared to his intellectual contributions to European culture. He had early on spend considerable time as an envoy to the far more civilized Muslim states of southern Spain, and he turned his natural curiosity to good effect there, absorbing much of the culture of Andalucía. When he returned to France he was appointed head of education for the Archdiocese of Rheims, and from there he significantly elevated the clerical level of education throughout the French Kingdom.

 When his patron died he was considered the natural successor, but the Capetan monarchy had other ideas, and a relative of the King was appointed in his stead even though Gerbert was a supporter of Hugh Capet whose reign marked the end of the Carolingian dynasty. Barrow has this matter somewhat confused as he lists this Episcopal position without mentioning that Gerbert's appointment was overthrown. Consistent with the political level of the time the King's appointee was later removed because of suspicion of treason to his sponsor. Gerbert who initially was himself accused of treason to the House of Capet was reappointed, but this was challenged and his appointment declared invalid. When he did finally become Pope he pretty well washed his hands of the matter by declaring his competitor as the legitimate Archbishop. Barrow also confuses another appointment of his, as Archbishop of Ravenna, supposing him to be the 'Abbot' of Ravenna. All this is quite forgivable as the politics of the time, clerical and lay, were by their very nature confusing.

Gerbert was lauded for his scholarly contributions in a number of fields. He became the tutor of both Emperors Otto II and his son Otto III, and, as mentioned above, he was elevated to the Papacy with the support of the latter. Gerbert was a true polymath. He was the accepted authority in the liberal arts in his day and a major influence on theology. He was also something of an engineer, designing a hydraulic organ that didn't require air to continually be pumped in as it played. He is also credited with advances in the art of clock making due to one which he designed for the Cathedral of Magdeburg. Even this is confused. Some sources such as the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' say that he was the inventor of the pendulum clock. Others say that his clock was mechanical but weight driven rather than using a pendulum. Still others say that his clock was actually simply a sundial. It was, however, in the field of science and mathematics that he made his greatest contributions.

Gerbert was credited with a number of innovations. He introduced the abacus to Europe, and also the use of the Arabic/Indian number/decimal system. Both were necessary foundations for the later rise of commercial enterprises in the Renaissance. Hard to do proper accounting with Roman numerals. Not that they were always appreciated. In 1299 the decimal system was outlawed in Florence supposedly because it was more vulnerable to fraud. The worry about this matter delayed the adoption of decimal numbers in northern Europe until the sixteenth century. For Gerbert, however, they were a Godsend, and he was the foremost expert on mathematics, geometry and astronomy of his day. Much of this was based on what he had learned in southern Spain even though he was creative enough in his own right.

He is credited with the reintroduction of the 'armillary sphere' to western Europe. This is a 3D model of the heavens, and fitted with viewing tubes it was an early prototype of the telescope. It should be noted that such a sphere would imply that the Earth itself was a sphere. Not that the idea of a flat Earth was universal in Medieval times, but it was common enough even though the use of spheres such as this proliferated.

Barrow's book corrected a misconception of my own, one that I had held for more than a few years. I knew that Sylvester II was a remarkably educated and knowledgeable man well ahead of his time. I also knew that one of the medieval Popes had been dug up from his grave and the corpse put on trail. I'd always assumed that the uncommunicative defendant was Sylvester. During his lifetime and after his death rumours circulated that he was in league with the Devil, that he had even constructed a bronze head that would answer questions posed to it. Sort of an early robot I guess. I assumed that this was the reason for the exhumation. Wrong I was. The corpse was that of one Pope Formosus, and the charges were much more mundane. After the guilty verdict was pronounced the hapless cadaver was chopped to pieces, burnt and the ashes thrown into the Tiber. That will teach him.

The accusations of witchcraft would certainly be a likely medieval explanation for Sylvester's brilliance, but no - he stayed in the ground. Not that he rested easily though. The legends of his life followed him into the grave, and typically they are also confused. One legend says that when a Pope is due to die that Sylvester's bones rattle in the tomb. Another says that the walls of the crypt weep on the sad occasion. I guess there's no reason they can't both be right.

RELIGION:

PAPAL SINS:

Amazingly enough I finished reading two books on a single day. There are two more rather technical books that I am still reading, but probably few would be interested in them. The first book I finished was the collected fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm. I've already mentioned said book here. The second book is Garry Wills' 'Papal Sin'. You can read it yourself here at Google Books. I hope the referral is right. I often make mistakes in long addresses.

I have to say that the book surprised me. From the title and a brief perusal I expected this book to get into the gritty details of medieval and Renaissance Popes with all the neat stories about simony, nepotism, sexual impropriety and political treachery. Nope. The network of deception that the author heads for began in the 19th century with Pope Pius IX. There is, however, more than enough dogs' dinner in the last 1 1/2 centuries to satisfy the most ardent critic of the Papacy.

Wills is hardly the most ardent. He is still a very devoted Catholic, whatever his heretical opinions. He denies the 1870 Vatican I promulgation of Papal Infallibility from the point of view of Church tradition in addition to the thuggish schemes initiated by Pius to gain the acceptance of his infallibility.

I must say that I enjoyed this book immensely, especially considered the recent death of my Sister Ann who was a nun with heterodox opinions. Wills begins his book with chapters showing the "bad faith" and lies of the Catholic Church. He saves his own reformist opinion for the latter chapters where he contrasts the views of the Church Father Augustine to modern Papal opinion.

Along the way he scatters gems such as the fact that the apostles were married; that there were no priests in the very early times of Christianity and no bishops until even later. He emphasizes the democracy of the early Church and suggests that this should be a model for today's Church.

What can I say here as an ex-Catholic and an atheist for over 45 years ? This book is obviously addressed to other Catholic believers. It makes an appeal to the "winter soldiers" who continue to resist foolish Papal pronouncements.I would recommend it for believers as an eye openers to the fact that there can be dissent in the Catholic Church. Perhaps even unbelievers could profit even more by reading this book. It may allow them to formulate their objections at a higher level.

CURRENT EVENTS:

THE POPE AND THE SEX SCANDALS:

"The big Vatican summit wrapped up, closing ceremonies were Harry Connick Jr. The Vatican is taking a tough stand now, three strikes and you're transferred"

-David Letterman

You know when a story is developing fast when Wikipedia can't keep up with it. Wikipedia entries such as 'Catholic Sex Abuse Cases' and 'Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases By Country' become outdated by the day. Allegations of clerical sex abuse which have been simmering for some time in Europe and Latin America have, in the last few days, reached the same level of public scandal that they have long had in North America and Ireland. Hundreds of victims are coming forward. This is not surprising as it would beggar the imagination to think that the problem was restricted to only a few countries.

A few things should be noted. One is that this is hardly "news". It was common knowledge and a standing joke when I was a kid. According to my dearly departed father it was the subject of jokes when he was young. My father, by the way, was born in 1895. The difference was that it was never published in those days. Trying to do so would have meant serious consequences. I have little doubt that the problem extends as far back as there have been celibate priests. Blame the "reforms" of the Middle Ages that got rid of the priestly "housekeepers".

Another thing is that the problem is hardly restricted to the Catholic clergy, as defenders of same have noted-over and over and over and over. It existed and exists in other religious denominations and in any work situation where adults are given excessive power over children. In actual fact I suspect that the greatest incidence of such things, when all the furore has died down and all the prosecutions have been completed, will be found to have been not just in the Church "orphanages" but also in state run "kid jails". There have certainly been such cases in Canada,a nd there will be others. All this doesn't excuse the Catholic Church, but it does put the scandal in its proper perspective ie where adults have excessive control of children. Beware the "helping professions" and what they help themselves to.

The final thing to note is that the obsession with sexual abuse tends to deflect attention from the much more prevalent problem of physical violence. Trust me, I grew up Catholic, leaving the Church at age 15. Sometimes the violence was indeed associated with sex of the sadistic bent, but I suspect that the will to power rather than the will to pecker had a lot more to do with it. There are lots of personal anecdotes that I could relate such as actually outlasting the sadistic vice principal of the Catholic high school that I attended, as he whipped my hands until they were covered with blood from the deep cuts. To my credit I never flinched and looked at him with hatred the whole time. His hard on faded (yes he was a sexual sadist) and it became a simple power struggle. I won, at the cost of the wounds as he gave up first. The priest who sent me to the office because I was an asshole was all over himself with apologies because he knew damn well what his "brother" was. he thought that I was going to meet the intelligent fascist Principal. Ooops. Father Daniel later left the Jesuits and married the nun who used to meet him in the dead of night in the field between the boys and girls school for decent sex. One of the few decent priests I ever met. There were other incidents, but rather than be personal any more I'll merely note that some of the "techniques" that they used on us were things I later read about as military torture methods.

What has to be noted here is that I was a "white boy" with parents with which I lived and leftist parents at that. Here in Canada there is controversy about how many Indian children were actually "murdered" via the physical abuse that they suffered. So...you can perhaps see why the fixation on "sex" makes me a bit uneasy. Speaking of the Natives (and probably kids in Newfoundland) I think that murder is a greater crime than buggery.

Back to the present. As the revelations, late coming as they may be, sweep across Europe the present Pope Benedict is feeling the heat. His own brother has been linked to at least one abuse case. In his own term as Archbishop of Munich (1977-1981) Ratzinger was himself involved in at least one case of transferring rather than either reporting or disciplining a molester priest. His aide at the time, Gerhard Gruber, "took the rap" for him, claiming that Ratzinger was unaware of the case in question.

That's all fair and good. Maybe true. Maybe not true. What is incontestable is that Ratzinger, before he became Pope, was for many years the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (old name the 'Holy Inquisition'). In that capacity pretty well every case of clerical sexual abuse would pass into his notice as the administrator of Canon Law. His response was pretty plain. In 2001 he sent a circular admonishing the Catholic bishops to "observe Papal secrecy" in relation to sexual abuse allegations against Catholic clergy. This was backed up by the treat of "ecclesiastical sanctions" should the bishops report the cases to civil authorities or make them public in any way. Nothing could be plainer. If there was one person who was most responsible for the cover up it was Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.

Here's what dissident Catholic theologian Hans Kung has to say about Ratzinger's responsibility:

"Arens’s criticism echoes an attack on the church leadership by dissident Swiss theologian Hans Küng.

In an interview published in Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung on Wednesday, Küng said the pope should apologise personally, as "no other person within the church had seen so many cases of abuse pass through their office”.

Joseph Ratzinger [the pope] was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years – an office that has authority over church doctrine and jurisdiction for various matters including sexual misconduct of clergy.

“Protecting their priests seems to have counted more for the bishops than protecting children,” said Küng.

After the scandals in Ireland last month, more reports have emerged over recent months of abuse at church-run schools and institutions in Germany, including one linked to the Regensburg choir run by the pope’s brother, Georg Ratzinger, from 1964 to 1994. Some 300 victims have come forward since January.

Could anything be plainer ? By the way, go over to our sister site Molly's Polls to express your opinion about whether ratzinger will be "caught" in the court of public opinion on this matter and how much it will affact his Papacy.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS:

SHOW US THE GRAVES:

It's not a good time for the Catholic hierarchy in Canada. Just as it seemed that they were putting the sex abuse and residential schools scandal behind them they have once more had to go into damage control mode as the arrest of the ex-Bishop of Antigonish, Raymond Lahey, on charges of importing child pornography brought all the dirty linen into the open once more. Lahey is presently out on bail and is staying at the priests' residence of the Archbishopric of Ottawa. In the wake of the scandal the clergy are pulling out the "we are all in this together", but a growing tide of revelations about Lahey's time as a Newfoundland priest, his tastes in porn even back then and a possible cover-up on the part of Church's authorities give grounds to suspect that the clergy have an inner and outer "we". The inner 'we" seem to have possibly involved in a cover-up concerning his tastes, as alleged by Billy and Shane Earle who, at the time, were boys who had been abused at the Mount Cashel orphanage. It also turns out that at least one priest suspected Lahey, but that the hierarchy did nothing to investigate his suspicions. Meanwhile yet more people who allege that they were abused by priests when they were young are cropping up. To follow this story go to THIS AGGREGATOR.

In this climate Kevin Annett, author of 'Hidden From History' which documented much of Canada's shameful history of native residential schools, is travelling in Europe where he is showing his film 'Unrepentant'. This Sunday (tomorrow) Annett will be holding a memorial service just outside the Vatican for the victims of Roman Catholic run residential schools. This is right under the nose of Pope Rottweiller I. In Europe, outside of Ireland, this story has been slower to develop than in North America. Perhaps this has been because the Church there has been better at cover-up. See this Wikipedia article for a rundown on the scale of the scandal across the Atlantic. In the case of Italy there is no "supposition". It is a fact that the Vatican has been engaged in efforts to keep any such allegations secret. This is aided by the fact that the Vatican and Italy have treaties that transfer authority over such charges to the Church. In 2001 the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger ordered that all sex abuses cases be transferred to the Vatican. They had previously been handled at the level of the Dioceses. said Cardinal, as the Vatican Secretary of State also ordered that there be total secrecy about the proceedings. This was backed up with the threat of excommunication for anyone privy to such things should they they feel a sudden surge of conscience and speak out. Cardinal Ratzinger is, of course, the present Pope Rottweiller I. This is the man who Kevin Annett will be asking to come clean. Here's the story of Annett's pilgrimage from Larry Gambone's Porkupine Blog.

##############

Pope Asked To Identify Children's Grave Sites:
Canadian clergyman to ask Pope to identify grave sites and pray with him for those killed by the Catholic church
A clergyman from Canada who helped to force the Pope to issue an apology for the harm suffered by Indian children in Catholic boarding schools will hold a memorial service for those who died in these schools outside the Vatican on the Via Della Conciliazione at 12 noon on Sunday, October 12. He will also be asking the Pope to tell the world where these children are buried.

Rev. Kevin Annett, an award-winning film maker and activist from Vancouver, Canada, wrote to the Pope in February of 2008 on behalf of hundreds of aboriginal families whose relatives died or were killed in Catholic Indian schools. Annett asked the Pope to surrender the remains of these children and identify those responsible for their deaths. The Pope did not reply.

Annett will be asking for an official response from the Vatican to the letter and has invited the Pope to attend the memorial service, "in memory of those killed in the name of Christendom" .

Rev. Annett will be on a speaking tour of Italy from October 9 to 19. He will screen his award-winning film UNREPENTANT with Italian subtitles at public meetings in Rome, Genoa, Firenze, Milan and Parma. He has asked Italians to boycott the 2010 Olympics in Canada until the residential school children are given a proper burial.

Rev. Annett will also be speaking in England and Ireland during October and November.
For more information, contact Kevin Annett at http://ca.mc1105.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hiddenfromhistory@yahoo.ca .

His website is http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org/ .

RELIGION:

WHO IS TO BE EXCOMMUNICATED ?:

The following is from the School of the Americas Watch. The SOA Watch is dedicated generally to pressuring the USA to observe standards of decency in its dealings with Latin America and specifically to close down the "torture school" formerly known as the School of the Americas. Father Roy Bourgeois has been one of the movers and shakers behind this organization, and he is presently facing the threat of excommunication due to his participation of the ordination of a female priest in contradiction to orthodox Catholic Canon Law. The following tells about his case and asks you to write/fax in solidarity with him.

.........................

Father Roy Bourgeois Update:

Father Roy will be among the SOA Watch activists who will converge in Washington, DC for the SOA Watch Encuentro and the Lobby Days from February 14-17, 2009. Join us!

As many of you know, Father Roy has been threatened with excommunication by the Vatican after he participated in the ordination of former SOA Watch Prisoner of Conscience Janice Sevre-Duszynska. Father Roy is currently waiting for a response to a letter to the Vatican, in which he stated that he can not recant his belief and public statements that support the ordination of women, as the Vatican had requested.

Some of you have asked for addresses to write to in support of Father Roy and to ask that he not be excommunicated. Click here for a list of addresses.

.........................

The list of addresses suggested by the SOAW follows below. Take special note of this. This may be the only chance you will ever get in this life to send a letter of protest to the Pope and also to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also known as the Holy Inquisition.

The move to excommunicate Bourgeois is particularly inopportune for the Vatican given the recent controversy over the lifting of the excommunication of the 4 bishops ordained by the late Marcel Lefebvre. The traditionalist catholic followers of Lefebvre's sect and his front organization The Society of St. Pius X has often been tainted by accusations of neo-fascism and anti-semitism, and one of the "bishops" whose excommunication has been lifted, Richard Williamson of England, is an active and vocal Holocaust denier. The scandal of rapprochement with this sect has led to considerable pressure on and disapproval of the present Pope. The idea that the Vatican should be considering excommunicating someone like Bourgeois while, at the same time, welcoming the likes of these back into the fold is particularly scandalous.

As a point of interest the followers of Lefebvre, who broke away from the Catholic Church in protest over the liberalization of Vatican Council II should never be confused with the 'Old Catholics' who split with Rome after Vatican I in 1870 because they couldn't accept the doctrine of Papal infallibility. The Old Catholics are considerably more liberal than the orthodox Church, and many of their congregations accept the ordination of women- the issue at the heart of the complaint against Bourgeois. There is some controversy over whether women were ordained in the early Church. I am hardly competent to form a firm opinion on this matter, but judging from the example of the Old Catholics such a thing is not totally outside the ideas of at least some on Church tradition.

..........................

Support Father Roy:
Some have asked for addresses to write their support of Fr. Roy and to ask that he not be excommunicated. Petitions are also appropriate.

Please write or fax or email to Pope Benedict XVI, and/or the Pope’s Ambassador to the U.S., the Apostolic Nuncio, and/or the Congregation for Doctrine of Faith, the group that is moving toward excommunication of Fr. Roy Bourgeois, and/or The leaders of the Maryknoll Order.
Their addresses are below.
ADDRESSES TO WRITE:
Pietro Sambi, Apostolic Nuncio

3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W

Washington, DC, 20008

Telephone: (202) 333-7121

Fax: (202) 337-4036
Pope Benedict XVI

00120 Via del Pellegrino

Citta del Vaticano, Europe

The Pope’s email address (for English correspondence) is:
'benedictxvi@vatican.va
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
FAX from USA:

011-39-06698-85378
Congregation for Doctrine of Faith

Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11, 00193 Roma, Italy

Telephone: 06.69.88.33.57; 06.69.88.34.13

Fax: 06.69.88.34.09

Please send a cc of any message or petitions you send to:

Bill Quigley – Attorney for Fr. Roy

7214 St. Charles Avenue, Box 902

New Orleans, LA 70118 or
duprestars@yahoo.com
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it.

HUMAN RIGHTS-USA/VATICAN CITY:

SOCIAL JUSTICE PRIEST THREATENED WITH EXCOMMUNICATION:

Molly has often reported on the activities of the School of the Americas Watch here at this blog. Basically this is a non-violent coalition which aims to close down the "torture school" in Fort Benning, Georgia where Latin American military officers are "trained" by their imperial masters in the fine arts of counter-insurgency ie where to apply the electrodes. One of the founders and leading lights of this movement, Father Roy Bourgeois has been threatened with excommunication by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. To those of you who didn't grow up Catholic (and to many Catholics as well) this curial congregation is better known by its other name- the Holy Inquisition. Fr. Bourgeois has run afoul of the Vatican bureaucracy for his support for the ordination of women to the priesthood. See the story below. The following is from the National Catholic Reporter in the USA.

...........................

Roy Bourgeois threatened with excommunication :


Fr. Roy Bourgeois has been threatened with excommunication by the Vatican's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for his support of women’s ordination, according to a letter made public today.

The letter was written by Bourgeois and addressed to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. It was distributed via e-mail by Bill Quigley, a New Orleans lawyer who represents Bourgeois.

According to Bourgeois’ letter, which is dated Nov. 7, the congregation has given him 30 days to recant his “belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church, or (he) will be excommunicated.”

The letter indicates that Bourgeois received notification from the congregation Oct. 21.
Bourgeois, a priest for 36 years, attended the ordination of Janice Sevre-Duszynska in Lexingon, Ky., Aug. 9 and preached a homily.
If Bourgeois is excommunicated at the end of 30 days, it would come just before the mass rally and protest against the U.S. Army’s School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Ga., that Bourgeois has organized for 19 years. In recent years, more than 15,000 people, many of them Catholic university students, have joined the three daylong rally and demonstration.

Bourgeois was not immediately available for comment. The text of Bourgeois’ letter follows.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Roy Bourgeois, M.M.

PO Box 3330,

Columbus, GA

31903

November 7, 2008
TO THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, THE VATICAN
I was very saddened by your letter dated October 21, 2008, giving me 30 days to recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church, or I will be excommunicated.

I have been a Catholic priest for 36 years and have a deep love for my Church and ministry.
When I was a young man in the military, I felt God was calling me to the priesthood. I entered Maryknoll and was ordained in 1972.

Over the years I have met a number of women in our Church who, like me, feel called by God to the priesthood. You, our Church leaders at the Vatican, tell us that women cannot be ordained.

With all due respect, I believe our Catholic Church’s teaching on this issue is wrong and does not stand up to scrutiny. A 1976 report by the Pontifical Biblical Commission supports the research of Scripture scholars, canon lawyers and many faithful Catholics who have studied and pondered the Scriptures and have concluded that there is no justification in the Bible for excluding women from the priesthood.

As people of faith, we profess that the invitation to the ministry of priesthood comes from God. We profess that God is the Source of life and created men and women of equal stature and dignity. The current Catholic Church doctrine on the ordination of women implies our loving and all-powerful God, Creator of heaven and earth, somehow cannot empower a woman to be a priest.

Women in our Church are telling us that God is calling them to the priesthood. Who are we, as men, to say to women, “Our call is valid, but yours is not.” Who are we to tamper with God’s call?

Sexism, like racism, is a sin. And no matter how hard or how long we may try to justify discrimination, in the end, it is always immoral.

Hundreds of Catholic churches in the U.S. are closing because of a shortage of priests. Yet there are hundreds of committed and prophetic women telling us that God is calling them to serve our Church as priests.

If we are to have a vibrant, healthy Church rooted in the teachings of our Savior, we need the faith, wisdom, experience, compassion and courage of women in the priesthood.

Conscience is very sacred. Conscience gives us a sense of right and wrong and urges us to do the right thing. Conscience is what compelled Franz Jagerstatter, a humble Austrian farmer, husband and father of four young children, to refuse to join Hitler’s army, which led to his execution. Conscience is what compelled Rosa Parks to say she could no longer sit in the back of the bus. Conscience is what compels women in our Church to say they cannot be silent and deny their call from God to the priesthood. Conscience is what compelled my dear mother and father, now 95, to always strive to do the right things as faithful Catholics raising four children. And after much prayer, reflection and discernment, it is my conscience that compels me to do the right thing. I cannot recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church.

Working and struggling for peace and justice are an integral part of our faith. For this reason, I speak out against the war in Iraq. And for the last eighteen years, I have been speaking out against the atrocities and suffering caused by the School of the Americas (SOA). Eight years ago, while in Rome for a conference on peace and justice, I was invited to speak about the SOA on Vatican Radio. During the interview, I stated that I could not address the injustice of the SOA and remain silent about injustice in my Church. I ended the interview by saying, “There will never be justice in the Catholic Church until women can be ordained.” I remain committed to this belief today.

Having an all male clergy implies that men are worthy to be Catholic priests, but women are not.

According to USA TODAY (Feb. 28, 2008) in the United States alone, nearly 5,000 Catholic priests have sexually abused more than 12,000 children. Many bishops, aware of the abuse, remained silent. These priests and bishops were not excommunicated. Yet the women in our Church who are called by God and are ordained to serve God’s people, and the priests and bishops who support them, are excommunicated.

Silence is the voice of complicity. Therefore, I call on all Catholics, fellow priests, bishops, Pope Benedict XVI and all Church leaders at the Vatican, to speak loudly on this grave injustice of excluding women from the priesthood.

Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador was assassinated because of his defense of the oppressed. He said, “Let those who have a voice, speak out for the voiceless.”

Our loving God has given us a voice. Let us speak clearly and boldly and walk in solidarity as Jesus would, with the women in our Church who are being called by God to the priesthood.
In Peace and Justice,

Rev. Roy Bourgeois, M.M.

PO Box 3330,

Columbus, GA

31903

QUEBEC

THE SINS OF THE FATHERS:

NEFAC ON CARDINAL OUELLET:

An introduction is necessary, especially for those readers who are not Canadian (and to a large extent those who are not Quebecois). Marc Cardinal Ouellet is the Archbishop of Quebec City and the Primate of Canada. No monkey business with this primate. As the ranking Catholic cleric in Canada, and a known ultra-conservative, Cardinal Ouellet was considered for the papacy on the death of John Paul II. Over the past few weeks Quebec has been going though a travelling circus, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, known by the shorthand of the "Reasonable Accommodation Commission". This set of hearings set up by Premier Jean Charest has been going from location to location hearing submissions from the public about what sort of "reasonable accommodation" Quebec should make to religious and ethnic minorities and to recent immigrants. The results have been an embarrassment for almost all political parties on the Quebec scene, and the majority of Quebecers as well, as the usual crowd of bigots have crawled out of their holes to acquire their 15 minutes of fame. One "witness", for instance, complained vigorously that 3 out of 9 of the justices on Canada's Supreme Court were Jewish. Not that extreme right wing opinions are more common in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. It's probable that they are less so, but this commission has given them a forum that they lack on the ROC (Rest of Canada).

Just to compound the carnival atmosphere of the hearings it isn't just the tinfoil hat brigade that seem to be doing their best to do embarrassing pratfalls. Regular politicians, and so-called moderates, are lining up to make fools of themselves as well. Cardinal Ouellet was one of these when he testified at the Commission that what Quebec needed was "a renewal of its spiritual identity" ie to return to the bosom of Holy Mother Church. By some alchemy known only to clerics this would promote tolerance for Muslims and Jews- all history of the Catholic Church to the contrary. The Archbishop was particularly opposed to a proposed law that would remove the religious indoctrination, Catholic of course, that still exists in Quebec public schools and replace it with a neutral study of world religions. Molly was actually visiting Montreal when this affair took place, and the public reaction was hardly what the Cardinal might have wished. There was the usual and expected reaction from liberals and leftists who reacted with horror at the idea of dragging Quebec back to what is known as the Grande noirceur, the "Great darkness". What was worse for Ouellet was that he was far more mocked than attacked. He became a laughing stock. To add insult to injury his own attempt to steal the comedy spotlight was shot down on the very same day by a comment from a lawyer who lamented the fact that the Captain of the Montreal Canadians, Saku Koivu, barely spoke French at all after living many years in Quebec. This got far more play in the press, and it must have been rather disconcerting for the good Primate to find out that Quebecois care much more for hockey than for his opinions.

Never one to give up easily Ouellet, like a good Machiavellian, has decided to fire back recently with an 'open-letter' to the Quebec press asking for forgiveness for the past sins of the Church in Quebec. The full text of the letter can be read HERE in English. Cynics have noted that the Cardinal doesn't apologize for any sins that may have occurred after 1960, and that he reiterates his call for a return to the power of the Church in Quebec society. A half-apology at best. Here is the response of the Montreal NEFAC (North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists) on their blog. The original French version can be viewed there.

Cardinal Ouellet Asks for Forgiveness ?

"This morning in the mainstream press the archbishop, cardinal, primate of the Canadian Church (etc...) Mgr. Ouellet, has written a letter in order to ask forgiveness for the past mistakes of the Catholic Church in Quebec. In a letter marked by hypocrisy and false remorse Mr Turcotte (Molly Note: This reference was puzzling. I think it refers to an axe-murderer in BC in 2000. This man, Turcotte, hacked three men to death. Under questioning by the police he told them where to go to find the bodies and even volunteered the information that one of them was still alive when he left them, saying to send an ambulance too. The case became a "point of law" in the Supreme Court over whether "post-offence behavior" was admissible as evidence in a criminal case. The court decided that it was. The reference is probably to the idea that Ouellet's behavior is similar "post-offense behavior") excuses himself for all the horrors committed by the Church before 1960.

""As Archbishop of Quebec and Primate of Canada I recognize that the narrow attitudes of certain Catholics before 1960 favoured anti-Semitism, racism, indifference toward First Nations (Another Molly Note: This is the first time that I have ever heard what the Catholic Church did to the natives described as "indifference". Time to run for the Gravol.) and discrimination against women and homosexuals. The behavior of Catholics and certain episcopal authorities with regards to the right to vote, access to work and promotion of women hasn't always been up to par with society's needs or conformed to the social doctrine of the Church.""

And carrying on further:

""I also recognize that the abuses of power and cover-ups have, for many, tarnished the image of the clergy and its moral authority;mothers have been rebuffed by priests without concern for their family obligations (Yet another Molly Note: This an euphemistic way of referring to the practice of threatening women with hellfire unless they had more and more children. This little piece of "Christian charity" was hardly confined to Quebec. It was once a very conscious and deliberate plan on the part of the Catholic clergy to increase their power by force of demographics. Outbreed them damn Prots basically) , youngsters were subjected to sexual aggression by priests and religious figures, causing great injury and trauma which have broken their lives. these scandals have shaken popular confidence towards religious authorities, and we understand this. Forgive us for all this pain.""

NEFAC then goes on to say:

"The attitude of the clergy concerning the rights of women, homosexuals, the rights of indigenous people, sexuality, immigration,etc. have changed after 1960 ? It is the same institution, but it now utilizes the mass media , of necessity, to give themselves a false good conscience. Moreover, he ended his letter by reiterating his demand for the government to restore religion in the schools. So much hypocrisy in one letter for a simple maneuver of clerical lobbying ? And you believe that we will give him permission again to destroy the brains of new generations with his lies ? 400 years of crime and horror by your institution in Quebec cannot be erased by one letter in the press as well powerful Cardinal...

Ni Dieu, Ni Maitre

After his first public embarrassment Ouellet is even being recognized as something of a loose cannon by other Catholic bishops. His title of "Primate" (Marc of the Jungle ?) of Canada is purely honourary, given because Quebec City is Canada's oldest diocese (the reference to 400 years in NEFAC's statement is to the fact that next year is the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec). Both the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the association of Quebec Bishops issued statements last Wednesday saying that they refused to stand behind Ouellet's opinions. they also refused further comment. Ouellet himself promptly decamped to Rome upon the release of his letter. To lobby against his fellow bishops ? To get his ear twisted about continually making a fool of himself ? Did he plan the trip or was he called to the head office ? Ah, to be a fly on the wall at the Vatican. Ouellet himself undoubtedly feels himself to be a brilliant and masterful politician even as he digs his own hole deeper and deeper. There are many in the hierarchy who will be outraged that he has admitted anything at all. "Deny everything" is still a popular opinion amongst some clerics. Others who are more liberal will be embarrassed by his evasions, lies that are far too obvious for public consumption. In the internal politics of the world's oldest and largest transnational corporation Ouellet has placed himself brilliantly in a position to offend all sides at once. Look for an appointment to the Curia in Rome in his future. They will promote him to a position where he can do no harm by opening his mouth in private, and he will reach his level of incompetence.

Now, Molly is all in favour of those in the Catholic Church who want to truly see a proper reform of their faith. Good luck to them. One thing,however, can be said for sure. The very basis of such reform can be judged by how thoroughly such reformists renounce any and all pretensions to recover lost power for their Church. The political term is "revanchism", whereby nationalists harbour age-old grudges and dream of recovering lost territory for their country. Those who blatantly lobby for privileges for their denomination are not true reformists no matter how much they may bleat of contrition and speak in ways fashionable today of issues now in the public's eye. Their sincerity can be simply judged by their lust for power,and Ouellet is blatantly obvious. As Primate of Canada one can perhaps make a Biblical Canadian joke (bless you-eh) about him and say that he has the whole softwood lumber production in his eyes when he tries to preach morality.

For those of Molly's readers with a touch for the gruesome I urge you to consult the Wikipedia article on the 'Duplessis Orphans'. The basic story is simple. The children of unwed mothers were stolen from them by the Church, but the amount of money to be made from running a simple orphanage was insufficient, particularly as many might be adopted and thereby cease to be a cash-cow for the Church. In connivance with the Quebec provincial government of Maurice Duplessis the Catholic Church succeeded in defining large numbers of these children as "mentally ill" or "mentally retarded" thereby freeing up large amounts of money that flowed to the Church's coffers for their "treatment". The children subjected to extreme abuse, used as slave labour and were even the subject of far too many "medical experiments". Further money flowed to the Church via the latter. This story is, of course, familiar to those who have followed the outing of the Church sponsored residential schools for natives, minus the experiments part. What is most gruesome is the fate of those who died under such "care". The Church even made money off their corpses by selling them to medical schools. This thing continued into the 1960s, ie after the 1960 "cutoff date" cited by Ouellet. Have a look if you want to be grossed.

One final point before I sign off. How much of this is "in the past"? Can I suggest that imperial psychiatry and, much more emphatically imperial social work is doing today what the Catholic Church did in the past ? The object of the game is to expand the entrepreneurial opportunities, to make more and more money off more and more people. Think of the present fad of naming so-called "diseases" with an adjective called "spectrum". This is nothing more than a mendacious fudge that justifies the application of a poultice of government money. At least one of these attempts to psychiatrize the population may be even more absurd than the nonsensical fad of "satanic abuse" (now carefully consigned to the memory hole by social workers) that swept through the so-called helpers a couple of decades ago. Think FASD. The propaganda says that any woman who has a drink of two or ten when she is pregnant will produce babies that need the tender loving care of the state. Time for a common sense observation here. If this nonsense was true then the social workers of North America could quickly become millionaires by relocating to southern Europe where they could "save" the vast majority of the population. Are the social workers of today as violent and vicious as their forebears in the Churches were ? No, they are much too efficient for that. Kill your so-called "client" and you can't make any more money off that one. How much do our social welfare bureaucracies resemble the unlamented powerful Churches that some of us still remember ?

NEW BOOK ON THE ORIGINS OF THE CATHOLIC WORKER MOVEMENT:
A new book on the origins of the Catholic Worker Movement (see the Links section of this blog) has recently been published by Paulist Press. its title is 'The Catholic Worker Movement: The Intellectual and Spiritual Origins' by Mark and Louise Zwick. The authors are the founders of the Houston Catholic Worker House, Casa Juan Diego whose primary goal is to serve immigrants and refugees. Over 50,000 immigrants have stayed at least one night in their houses of hospitality. They have been the recipients of both the pontifical 'Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice Award and the Jefferson Award. They also publish a bimonthly 'Houston catholic Worker'.
The founders of the Christian anarchist movement known as the Catholic Worker Movement, Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin and Ammon Hennassey were influenced by a long tradition of anti-state and anti-capitalist Christian thought. The book goes through a number of these influences, from Dostoevsky, Catherine of Sienna, Teresa of Avila, Francis os Assisi, Theresa of Lisieux, Jacques and Raissa Maritain, the Personalist Movement in the Church and many others.
Hop on over to the CW site and see if you'd like a copy.

Manuel II Palaiologus: Lived 1350- 1425: Byzantine Emperor 1391-1425.
Manuel Palaiologus was the next to last Byzantine Emperor. As such he has had a deservedly obscure place in history, an obscurity only recently disturbed by the ill fated quotation of this Emperor by Pope Benedict XVI, a quotation that has sparked a lot of anger amongst Muslims.
Perhaps it would be good to examine the actual record of Manuel to see exactly how much his actions lived up to his professions against "spreading faith by the sword". What follows here is the actual history of this emperor. Parental guidance is advised as facts tend to disturb the "version of reality" transmitted by good catholics to their children. The following will contain scenes of treachery, double dealing, hypocrisy and "holy falsehood". The reason why "byzantine" has become an adjective in the English language will become apparent. Given Benedict's use of this author perhaps "Benedictine" should become an adjective that refers to something other than chant or liquor.
The house of Palaiologus had been founded by Emperor Michael VIII who, in 1261, had driven the Crusaders from Constantinople which they had conquered during the Fourth crusade in 1204. Speaking of "spreading the faith by the sword" !. Manuel's father, John V(reign 1341-1391), had been a particularly ineffective Emperor. during his watch the Turks had crossed the Hellespont and conquered Thrace, Macedonia and finally Serbia at the battle of Kossovo (1389).
John V was continually casting about for allies to "spread or at least defend his own faith by the sword". In 1365/66 he journeyed to Hungary to seek support. Manuel accompanied him on this trip. In 1369 he travelled to other countries of Europe on a similar mission, but being as he was rather lax in paying his debts he was thrown into debtors' prison in Venice. Manuel paid his debts and ransomed him in 1371. John V was twice deposed, once by his son Andronicus IV and once by his grandson John VII. The Byzantine Empire consumed itself in civil war during this period. John Cantacuzenus was crowned as John VI in 1346 but had to abdicate in 1354. He spent the last 30 years of his life as a monk doing all sorts of holy contemplation and never realizing that the slaughter that brought him temporily to power wasn't the sort of "rational persuasion" that Benedict XVI supposedly advocates.
All well, all was forgiven more or less. The daughter of John VI became the wife of John V and mother of Manuel II. Are you confused yet ? Remember the word "byzantine". Manuel's older brother first rebelled against his father in 1373 and again, with the support of the Turkish Sultan Murad I (1362-1389) in 1376. Manuel and his father were imprisoned in the same tower where they had sent their son/brother to after the first rebellion. In 1379 the pair escaped and fled to the court of the Sultan. They managed to bribe him by the offer of higher tribute than Andronicus was paying, and they were restored to power by this "rational argument". The result of this deal was that Manuel found himself compelled-rationally of course- to confiscate half the property of the monasteries to pay the bills for his soldiers that were allied with the Turks for awhile. Spreading their faith, of course.
The Empire continued to disintegrate. The only success that John V achieved was to recover the Despotate of Morea in the Peloponnesus from the Cantacuzeni family in 1382. this was given to a third son, Theodore, to rule and pillage. From 1382 to 1387 Manuel was co-emperor in Thessalonika. Manuel gave many inspiring speeches about resistance but promptly fled shortly before the city fell in April 1387. The population of the city had no such privilege.
Sultan Bayazid I (1389-1402) skillfully played the "rational defenders" of the faith off against each other and installed John VII (son of Andronicus IV) on the Byzantine throne in April 1390. Manuel "rationally" fought his way into the city and expelled John VII on September 17th, 1390. He re-established his father as Emperor.
The "rational" wheeling and dealing around this event,however, was that Manuel was required to reside at the Sultan's court as a hostage. At that court he met his nephew John VII who was also a "guest" of the Sultan. From this time until February 1391 both pretenders to the imperial purple supported "rationally of course" the military campaigns of the Sultan. It was during this time that the supposed dialogues that Benedict quoted were supposed to have happened. The only proof of their reality is the word of Manuel.
On the death of John V both Manuel and John VII zipped out of the Sultan's care. Manuel won the race, and his solidified his position by marrying (Feb 10th, 1392) Helena Dragash, the daughter of the Serbian Prince Constantine of Serres. Manuel promptly began to "rationally" push his tiny weight around. He convinced the Metropolitan of Russia Cyprian that in the liturgy the Emperor should be named first. This incurred the wrath of Grand Prince Vasili I of Muscovy who said, "Church we have one, but emperor we have none".
The Sultan was, to say the least, not pleased with Manuel's pretensions. He exacted various concessions from Manuel and in 1394 began a siege of Constantinople that lasted until 1402. Before this he had summoned Manuel, John VII and the other brother Theodore as well as Prince Stephan Lazarevic of Serbia to his court. They were all eventually released, and only bother Theodore "rationally" took part in the Sultan's campaigns in Europe. He later escaped and "rationally" rejoined the Byzantine side.
Manuel realized that his little Empire was doomed without Western aid and thus he attempted to "not spread religion by the sword" by appealing for the swords of Pope Boniface IX and King Sigismund of Hungary. The Hungarian King launched a crusade ,"to rationally spread the faith without swords" in 1396. This ended with the defeat of the Hungarians at the battle of Nicopolis on Sept 25th, 1396. Manuel then attempted to sell Byzantium to Venice, but the most serene republic had other plans. Manuel appealed, "rationally" of course, to the Pope, The Doge of Venice, the Kings of France, England and Aragon and the Grand prince of Muscovy. he tried again to sell Byzantium, this time to the French King. he got no takers for this fool's bargain.
He had,however, better success with his bargaining with the Mongol Tamerlane, though Tamerlane hardly needed the alliance with Byzantium in his plans for the conquest of the Sultanate. Sultan Bayazit was defeated the Turks at the Battle of Ankara in 1402. At this time Manuel was touring western European courts in hope of gaining allies for a new crusade to -I suppose- "rationally argue against the Turks without spreading the faith by the sword". The Emperor partly bought his political support by promises and occasional delivery of "sacred relics" from Byzantium. This isn't as irrational as it seems. The "little finger of Saint X" was, at that time a real economic asset. Think early tourist industry.
Manuel responded to the lifting of the siege of Constantinople due to the victory of Tamerlane by composing an imaginative and spiteful drama detailing the plight of the captured Sultan with about as much imaginary dialogue as he put into his supposed dispute when he was the guest of the Sultan. News of this propaganda piece and various presents were sent to Tamerlane. He responded with the laconic demand that the previous tribute paid to the Sultan should now be paid to him.
Meanwhile the God fearing princes of western Europe had persuaded Manuel to make peace with his nephew John VII. This was a stroke of luck as John VII was able to negotiate some very advantageous treaties with the feuding sons of Bayazit who fought over the remains of the Turkish Sultanate. One of them, Suleiman, became a vassal of the Emperor. Manuel responded by agreeing to the treaty arranged by his nephew but insisting that John VII transfer to Thessalonika where he was isolated from the centre of power. Very "rational". Manuel skillfully played one Turkish pretender against the other, and the eventual winner was Mehmet I (1413-1421). This catspaw remained at peace with Byzantium even after the collapse of Timurlane's empire. Manuel later replaced his nephew as Despot of Thessalonika with his son Andronicus in 1408. He also installed his son Theodore II as Despot of Morea and, in1421, crowned his other son John as "Autokrator" ie co-Emperor.
Manuel's negotiations with the West, without which his tiny Empire couldn't exist continued. These were disturbed by the "Conciliar" movement afoot in the West which hoped to limit the pontiff's power and subordinate it to councils of the Church. Manuel supported the Papal party insofar as he was able and also tried to approach the Holy Roman Emperor with a proposal for "union" of the empires. This became a matter of serious "byzantine" intrigue as the Holy Roman Emperor, Sigismund of Luxembourg, was involved with a war against Venice which he expected Byzantium to give support to. It never happened.
By this time the 'Great Schism' was in full bloom within Catholicism. The Council of Constance was supposed to end the antagonism between the three different Popes of the time. It dropped the "Greek question" from its agenda in favour of more pressing matters. The imperial party was deeply disappointed as a strong "regal Papacy" was always much more to the advantage of Byzantium than a democratic council.
Manuel actually did one honourable deed in his double dealing life. In 1421 the Turks were at war with the Hungarians and Sultan Mehmet I requested permission to travel from Asia to Europe via Byzantium. Manuel rejected the plans of his advisers to murder the Sultan during transit. This was opposed by the war party within the byzantine court, led by Manuel's son John VIII. This son later bet on the wrong pretender to the Sultanate, Mustafa as opposed to Murat, now Murat II. Manuel's son John VIII married Sophia of Montferrat and this, along with the betrothal of the other son Theodore II to Cleopa Malatesta (aside to my anarchist comrades-I shit you not) held out the hope of Italian aid to Constantinople.
The latest Turkish siege of Constantinople failed. Manuel suffered a stroke on October 1st, 1422 and handed over the reigns of government to John VIII. Manuel's youngest son Andronicus went to Genoese controlled Pera and from there to to the Turkish court as pretender to the throne. In 1423 he sold Thessalonika to the Venetians who, in turn, lost it to the Turks in 1430. . In 1424 Sultan Murat imposed a treaty that once more required Byzantium to pay tribute. A trip by Manuel's son John to western Europe in 1423 had failed to gain the support of the Holy Roam Emperor who was engaged with the Bohemian Hussites at the time.
Manuel's instructions to his son were indeed truly byzantine. They essentially consisted of advocating delaying tactics vis-a-vis the West so that it might be conned into support without the promise of Church union. This was considerably more "rational" than the present pontiff's quotation of the emperor in support of the Church that Manuel always opposed. Manuel finally died on July 21, 1425. Throughout his reign Manuel exhibited great literary and political talent. his fanciful "Twenty-Six Dialogues with a Persian" are what Pope Benedict quoted. The actual real career of Manuel is, of course, in direct contradiction to his supposed ethics of not spreading the faith by the sword.
The word "byzantine" has to make its final appearance here. The attitude of the present Pontiff is a classic example of the attitude of the man that he quotes. He hopes to expand the range and power of his Church. Because the end justifies the means he will do anything in in pursuit of this goal. In his quotation he got caught with his pants down. He came close to expressing the truth. Since then he has retreated to the usual politics of the Catholic Church, with less credibility than before.
The embarrassment of the papacy gives me great pleasure. I only wish that some advocates of the politics that I espouse-anarchism- who continually disgrace the name by their antics could be caught in their "byzantine" theology as well.
Molly-shortly before vacation.