Of all the groups in public life, accusations against the Catholic priest get heavier media attention, wider public discussion and immediate rush to judgment of guilt, than any comparable group in the United States. Public school teachers who are accused ten times more often of sexual molestation than, for example, priests of the Archdiocese of New York, politicians who abet crime, commit adultery and dip into the public till, “celebrities of the entertainment world who flaunt basic indecencies, almost trade in illicit drugs, all, for the most part, are excused with benign, bemused, understanding slaps on the wrist. The big liberal newspapers and television outlets do note these indiscretions but situate them in a relatively obscure spot in the dissemination of the “news.” Non-priest negatives are allowed to dissipate while priests’ failings, actual or otherwise, are quickly, almost gleefully, fuelled.
One can wonder whether or not the eagerness to destroy a priest is really an intent to destroy the Catholic Church. The most pivotal point of the Catholic Church is the priesthood and hence can become the target area for non-objective and agenda driven reporting. One notes that clergymen of other denominations who, though married, have proportionally equal sexual failure rates, are not highlighted the way Catholic priests are. Why is this? Is it that these priests, as special and public articulators of God’s holiness, should be held to a higher moral standard than politicians, teachers, rock singers and even other clergymen? Perhaps, so! But is that the whole story?
Is all this true? Is this some kind of paranoia on the part of Catholics? Is this mere hypersensitivity? Dr. Philip Jenkins of Penn State University wrote a formidable book THE NEW ANTI-CATHOLICISM, The last Acceptable Prejudice, exposing the reality of the powerful prejudice behind the movement to discredit Catholicism. Tammy Bruce, a fair-minded, lesbian author and media personality, exposes much of the force in back of what we are calling unfairness in her unsettling book, The Death of Right and Wrong. Why is this? Why is there such a volcanic reaction to alleged misconduct of a priest? There are surely many possible motivational dynamics in back of the attacks on priests. Some have more cogency and truth than others but all should be examined.
First of all, the allegations might be true. If this is so, then, we congratulate the media. It is crucial that not only our children but our youth be protected from vicious destructive adults of any and all professions. We enthuse that a wayward priest is immediately dismissed and punished like any other criminal. The Church benefits from such a move as do all Catholic members and most especially do the male teen age members who will then be protected from that priest with his (statistically probable) same sex compulsions.[1] It is alleged that “All the Media is doing is to contribute to a healthier and more honest society…” While this sounds plausible (and probably is, in the case of unfaithful priests), the implied universal judgment of guilt and suspicion applied to all priests is clearly unfair and untrue. It simply isn’t so. All studies rate the sexual failure rate in the priesthood, as an average around 3%. Over 60 years this becomes devastating but it must be seen in perspective. (cf Applewhite; below).
Unless one wears intellectual blinders of ignorance or prejudice, there is clear and authenticated evidence of anti-Catholic animus. Bluntly stated, sheer prejudice and dislike of the Catholic Church may be driving editors, publishers, journalists, anchor persons and educators to such unmitigated slanted reporting. Clearly, there is always the possibility that these “driven” zealots might be (only) unconsciously bigoted. They, when challenged, indignantly insist that they are only telling the public what the public needs[2] to know with all the frills one learns in the liberal Columbia School of J. However, we have witnessed somewhat startling revelations from courageous reporters who tell the truth about the Media from the inside. Bernie Goldberg, a long time reporter from CBS wrote two shocking books about what really happens in Newsrooms. In his #1 New York Times bestseller, Bias, he created a national firestorm when he exposed the biases of the mainstream media. His second book, Arrogance, tells of the assumptions of Media which lead to biased reporting and slanted news. Objective news reporting seems far away from today’s reality. One must consider the agenda which begin to become obvious.
The article in America (Sept.25, 2006) by Monica Applewhite of Praesidium, Inc. called “Putting Abuse in Context” gives an interesting perspective. The problem of sexual abuse occurs in a much wider context than one can glean from the standard press reports. It occurs far more frequently than the homosexual Catholic priest scandal. She presents tested data through which guidelines for dealing with sexual offenders have been clearly articulated. However, these guidelines are presented for every situation—not only the Catholic Church. Boy Scouts, Big Brothers, YMCA, the Episcopal Church among others have all acted appropriately in incorporating guidelines into their structures. Percentage wise, there is not a great deal of difference relative to failure rates. However, all should be treated equally and there ought to be a level playing field here! Why accent one over any other?
One possibility for the “agenda” focusing on Catholic priests might stem from the contemporary insistence on what is called “sexual rights.” This insistence usually means that the modern wishes to separate sexual activity from the possibility of procreating a child. This position is fairly obvious when one dialogues with that segment of our society jocosely called “the Second Avenue bar crowd” where boy meets girl after a hard day’s work with implication of “fun and games.”. The Witness of Chastity in Catholic priests and religious is largely maintained as advertised but does evoke criticism from the “moderns” who loudly proclaim that chastity (or celibacy as they see it) is impossible to achieve. Therefore those who live allegedly chaste lives are either lying or are very sick.[3] So when an accusation against a priest is made, shouts of triumph and exaltation make the headlines. It is as if sexual weakness in the homosexual priest validates the free life style of the critics. This point simply suggests that the chastity of priests is a rebuke to the champions of the New Way of Life!
There is always the possibility that the critics were offended by some arrogant Pastor of their childhood and they have never gotten over it! But who of us was not slighted or pushed around or belted by a parochial school teacher? Is destroying a religious life by calumny[4] justified?[5] It is for no small reason that the eighth Commandment FROM GOD states “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” In effect, this is what the Church labels a mortal sin objectively greasing the slide into an eternal Hell.
A case in point is a recent situation where an elderly priest, suffering from cancer, has been accused by “some one” that this priest molested him[6] almost 50 years ago. The priest was notified that he cannot function as a priest publicly unless and until the charge is fully examined. The priest was given no further information. The priest, totally stunned, thought this was a “practical joke.” He asked when did this allegedly happen? The reply” “We are not sure.” He asked where did this allegedly happen? The reply: “We are not sure.” He asked how often did this allegedly happen? The reply” “We are not sure.” He asked what was the nature of the alleged offense? The reply: “We are not sure.” Who is the accuser? Reply: Some one.
In effect, without any proof, authorities acted completely on the word of someone, who suddenly surfaces to defame a priest with an honorable career in the priesthood. The priest, well known by many colleagues (including this writer for 50 years), has no inclination or interest in homosexual matters, has clear devotion to the Lord and Our Lady and has been rightfully trusted by anyone who has crossed his priestly path. One must ask again the hard questions. Why would anyone engage in such despicable, unrighteous behavior?
For the streetwise, of course, the first thought is money. In my own experience of serving for five years on a Diocesan committee for reviewing clerical sexual misconduct, I have seen several flimsy allegations from money seeking people. Unwisely, sometimes Church authorities tried to buy off” accusers with what really amounted to Hush Money. The obvious occurred. The accuser asked for (or pleaded for) more money in the light of the rising cost of living (or “unanticipated expenses”). Interestingly, in the initial stage of accusation, the accuser would often pointedly state that “I am not interested in money—only in justice and protection of others from this priest…” However, in a surprisingly short period of time, somehow, the matter of money crept into the investigation. Subtly, quietly, suddenly we are talking about significant sums of money.
One lawyer, interested in this sphere of practice, noted during the height of the scandal that a “lot money can be made off the Church.” Another, in the state of New Jersey, who specializes in suing the Catholic Church notes that he needs only one or two such cases per year to live very comfortably. One person who was molested by both a priest and a public school teacher said that he would sue the priest over the teacher because there was more money to be made from the Church than the Board of Ed. One cannot easily dismiss this factor in probing for the truth of this whole problem. However, it is not the only or even dominant factor involved.
It is also most interesting that when an American Bishop announced that his Diocese would not “dole” out large cash palliatives to persons allegedly molested by priests. Henceforth, he said that all accusations will go to trial. No concessions. No settlements. Court trials only! How does one then explain the sudden plummeting and decline of accusations--- after his announcement. Is it cynical or realistic to note that Dollar signs are flashing in greedy eyes?
The infamous Tiwana Brawley case of some years ago was a glaring example of calumny and its heart breaking consequences for so many persons falsely accused. Broken marriages, bankruptcies, emotional breakdowns, came on the heels of an absurd charge which was encouraged and supported by prominent persons. At present (Jan. 2007) there is possibly another glaring case of false accusation in the Duke University lacrosse situation wherein several young men have been accused of sexual molestation. These young men may be innocent but have suffered enormous losses of time, money and reputation. These are not examples of persecuting the Catholic Church but they do illustrate the evil of false accusations.
In the Catholic experience there is the notorious case of Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago in which a homosexual man claimed through the dubious mode of dream recall[7] that he was molested by Bernadin years before. The man recanted his claim and the Cardinal was totally exonerated. His Eminence, however, did publicly reveal the suffering he endured from this falsehood as he was dying from cancer. Was this man’s accusation for the hope of money? Was it to embarrass the Catholics for the Church’s stance on the evil of homosexual behavior? Was he encouraged by activist Gay groups in their campaign to break down basic morals, as has been suggested?
Is it possible that the accuser mis-identifies? Is he a psychotic ranting against some demon in his fantasy-life which torments his psyche? Is he just hopping on the Catholic bashing band wagon? Any of these possibilities is preferable to the sheer evil of a deliberate false accusation. Whatever the reality, the innocent priest is a Victim. The guilty priest is obviously another story. Telling the Truth wherever it may lead is still the “way to go.” The Scriptures clearly teach that the Truth does make one free. However, Lies and calumnies have a way of catching up. Beware, ye ones who wish evil on innocents!
________________________________________
[1] The priest scandal largely involved homosexual behaviors, not pederastic ones. The media continues to refer to the problem as if it were about pre-pubescent children,. It was largely about teen aged males, not females and not children of either sex. Homosexual priests were responsible for approximately 4 out of every 5 cases of molestation reported over a period of 60 years. This, in itself is non-objective reporting.
[2] “needs” are defined by the superior intelligence of Media.
[3] There are certain radical groups within the Catholic Church, including some “with it” priests and religious who, finding chaste celibacy too difficult, lobby for sexual “rights”
[4] calumny means outright lies about another human being thereby ruining that person’s good name and possibly career.
[5] Obviously, this is in reference to FALSE charges. Homosexual (or otherwise) priests who molest others are liable themselves before God.
[6] One can use the masculine gender in al most every case since there have been, up to now Zero allegations of priests molesting, for example, altar girls who are now serving at the altar for about 12 years. The clear inference is that priest molesters are usually not interested in females.
[7] Dream recall is highly criticized for its unscientific and unreliable procedure. Cf APA position on this matter.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Saturday, February 10, 2007
How Can I Be to Blame? It’s Not MY Fault!
Judith Regan, one of the chief architects of the revolting plan to air OJ Simpson’s “theoretical” confession, revealed, during the fracas following her PR announcement, that part of her life’s problem stemmed from her Catholic background. By some kind of weird convolution, she blamed her experience in what she called the “spooky” confessional Box to justify her intent to publish a book and do a Television interview. This intent was so involuntarily disgusting that a huge public ground swell forced cancellation. Obviously, the meaning and purpose of the television presentation and book publishing can be crudely reduced to a bottom line called Money. But Regan, a collapsed Catholic, offered weak justification that her intent was not to make dinero but to force male molesters (in her residual Catholic language) to confession, penance and a firm purpose of amendment of life! This is clearly an example of the very human escape mechanism, called rationalization[i]. But perhaps more repulsive was her immature displacement of responsibility. By using the mechanism of displacement, she could hope that the following implicit claim might be made. If there was any distortion in her plan, one must blame, at least in part, the Catholic Church, not Regan.[ii]
Such displacement is as old as Genesis wherein we read that Adam, when confronted by the Lord for his disobedience, immediately replies that the woman made him do it. It was not his fault. Some one else made him do it. The some one else called Eve when confronted likewise by the Lord, rejects any kind of personal responsibility and claims someone else, the serpent, made her do it. It was not her fault. Don’t blame her. Like the theme of the popular Television show featuring Flip Wilson, the way out is to say “The devil made me do it.” Such a practice is as old as the aboriginal calamity (original sin) whereby the human being has tried (for eons and eons) to avert personal responsibility when faced with the painful consequences of his own making. Blame someone else.
I understand (from personal experience) that Shakespeare is not immediately beautiful and instructive and that usually he takes work. Yet, what can justify such work is the idea that some great thing awaits the one who does it successfully. If one were to glean only one relevant thought from this genius, it would be invaluable. One of my own favorite mantras, based on his work, is from Julius Caesar wherein the lead character verbalizes a fundamental truth of life: “The fault, my dear Brutus, is not in the stars but in ourselves…” This message of the Bard is apparently epiphanic to some people. Namely, not only does one waste valuable energy by shifting responsibility from self to others but one stultifies personal growth and character expansion. To place the blame for my failures or unhappiness on my parents or my teachers or my Church or the Government or the environment is to shriek that I am unbelievably immature. Why not blame George Bush for Katrina? That would take a lot of people “off the hook.” Human history is loaded with examples of shifting blame onto others. We all can recall Nero with his fiddle and his cry that the Christians did it! On the contrary, the adult takes personal responsibility for his own life.
It is not sufficiently justifying to say “I was drunk.” Or “I was sick”. Or “It was my other self. I have multiple personalities” “It was not my fault. You can’t blame me.” It is adult and Christian to say “I did it. It was my fault. It was I, no one else.” When he can say: “I take the responsibility for my life. I accept the consequences of my own behavior”, he is growing up. This is more maturational than learning how to blow one’s own nose without Mama’s help!
Even the great Dante in his Divine Comedy reserves some of the lowest forms of Hell for “blamers” by situating them in such a way that they have no one to blame! Imagine that for all eternity they have to take the blame themselves! In the December issue of First Things, Joseph Bottum notes how feverishly New Yorkers (especially at Christmas time) work to avoid taking any kind of responsibility for the sorrow and evil right under their noses in the supreme City of Man. He notes the ever present cell-phone talkers who speak loudly, blotting out all presence around them. He notes the deliberately unfocused stare of the smoker who comes out into the cold for the fix, seeing no one, caring for no one.
It is the same stare one meets invariably on the New York subway. There is no one really around them. They don’t want to see anything unpleasant. For them there is no loneliness or hunger or sadness. Blamers would rather not see the hollowed-eyed, toothless, dirty “man of the street” who despairingly shakes his crummy paper cup in one’s face. Why should he have to notice, he asks, the muggings and the cheating and incivilities and the vulgarities of the City? He is not responsible, he says, for the violence and the drugs and the booze and the porno and the like! He believes since it is someone else’s fault, the ugliness of human despair should be blunted for him! He didn’t cause it! It was not his fault! He has a right to “look the other way.” “That’s just the way things are; there’s nothing I can do; I wasn’t the one who started the fight; it’s not my fault.” In effect, this is self-centeredness and probably nascent narcissism.
However, on other levels, he is right. It was not his fault that Pogroms brutalized Jews in Eastern Europe. It was not his fault that Nazis murdered priests, Gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, Poles. It was not his fault that wealthy Plantation owners in Virginia and South Carolina bought human beings as if they were cattle, enslaved them and at the same time ostentatiously carried Bibles to their Sunday morning services. It was not his fault that authorities trampled on the Catholic Faith in the Inquisition. It was not his fault that crazed fanatics terrified our country on 9/11.
Yet, I wonder how John Donne’s phrase “No man is an island” would factor in here?
If we are all called to help make Christ’s Kingdom come, are we not “blamable” if we do nothing? If we turn away our faces and have cold hearts? Did not St. James castigate those who ignore the needs of others, needs which are not only food and clothing but which also beg for encouragement and acknowledgment and forgiveness and compassion? Wasn’t it he who said “Faith without good works is dead”? It is clear that within the Catholic spiritual system there is no real spiritual life without the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Talk is cheap. I must do something for some one. Some how. Some where. The old Bert Williams song of vaudeville “I ain’t gonna’ do nothin’ for nobody ‘cause nobody does nothin’ for me” belongs on the stage. It has no place in a sophisticated Catholic spiritual life.
Don’t we have enough experience now with distortion and unhappiness to understand the old dictum: “All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing”?
In the words of the street, let’s get to the bottom line! That line is simple. “Whenever you did for one of these, my least brethren, you did it to Me” Perhaps I am to blame if I can’t see the Lord in all the crummy unpleasant things around me. Perhaps I am to blame for being too self involved. Perhaps I am to blame because I failed to pray for the tawdry dimensions of my City. Perhaps I could smile at the angry man mentioned on Bottum’s article. Perhaps I could hail the cab for that tired looking girl with all the packages. Perhaps I could drop a few bob into that guy’s paper cup as he sprawls on the sidewalk. Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps, if I can remember the words of my Master even if it is all not my fault. “You did it to me……..”
________________________________________
[i] The imputation of a noble motive to an ignoble action is the core of rationalization.
[ii] Laura Ingram, Constitutional lawyer and Media personality, was mystified, as a Catholic of 3 or more years, at the notion of “spooky”. She experienced no such reaction from her own confessional life.
Such displacement is as old as Genesis wherein we read that Adam, when confronted by the Lord for his disobedience, immediately replies that the woman made him do it. It was not his fault. Some one else made him do it. The some one else called Eve when confronted likewise by the Lord, rejects any kind of personal responsibility and claims someone else, the serpent, made her do it. It was not her fault. Don’t blame her. Like the theme of the popular Television show featuring Flip Wilson, the way out is to say “The devil made me do it.” Such a practice is as old as the aboriginal calamity (original sin) whereby the human being has tried (for eons and eons) to avert personal responsibility when faced with the painful consequences of his own making. Blame someone else.
I understand (from personal experience) that Shakespeare is not immediately beautiful and instructive and that usually he takes work. Yet, what can justify such work is the idea that some great thing awaits the one who does it successfully. If one were to glean only one relevant thought from this genius, it would be invaluable. One of my own favorite mantras, based on his work, is from Julius Caesar wherein the lead character verbalizes a fundamental truth of life: “The fault, my dear Brutus, is not in the stars but in ourselves…” This message of the Bard is apparently epiphanic to some people. Namely, not only does one waste valuable energy by shifting responsibility from self to others but one stultifies personal growth and character expansion. To place the blame for my failures or unhappiness on my parents or my teachers or my Church or the Government or the environment is to shriek that I am unbelievably immature. Why not blame George Bush for Katrina? That would take a lot of people “off the hook.” Human history is loaded with examples of shifting blame onto others. We all can recall Nero with his fiddle and his cry that the Christians did it! On the contrary, the adult takes personal responsibility for his own life.
It is not sufficiently justifying to say “I was drunk.” Or “I was sick”. Or “It was my other self. I have multiple personalities” “It was not my fault. You can’t blame me.” It is adult and Christian to say “I did it. It was my fault. It was I, no one else.” When he can say: “I take the responsibility for my life. I accept the consequences of my own behavior”, he is growing up. This is more maturational than learning how to blow one’s own nose without Mama’s help!
Even the great Dante in his Divine Comedy reserves some of the lowest forms of Hell for “blamers” by situating them in such a way that they have no one to blame! Imagine that for all eternity they have to take the blame themselves! In the December issue of First Things, Joseph Bottum notes how feverishly New Yorkers (especially at Christmas time) work to avoid taking any kind of responsibility for the sorrow and evil right under their noses in the supreme City of Man. He notes the ever present cell-phone talkers who speak loudly, blotting out all presence around them. He notes the deliberately unfocused stare of the smoker who comes out into the cold for the fix, seeing no one, caring for no one.
It is the same stare one meets invariably on the New York subway. There is no one really around them. They don’t want to see anything unpleasant. For them there is no loneliness or hunger or sadness. Blamers would rather not see the hollowed-eyed, toothless, dirty “man of the street” who despairingly shakes his crummy paper cup in one’s face. Why should he have to notice, he asks, the muggings and the cheating and incivilities and the vulgarities of the City? He is not responsible, he says, for the violence and the drugs and the booze and the porno and the like! He believes since it is someone else’s fault, the ugliness of human despair should be blunted for him! He didn’t cause it! It was not his fault! He has a right to “look the other way.” “That’s just the way things are; there’s nothing I can do; I wasn’t the one who started the fight; it’s not my fault.” In effect, this is self-centeredness and probably nascent narcissism.
However, on other levels, he is right. It was not his fault that Pogroms brutalized Jews in Eastern Europe. It was not his fault that Nazis murdered priests, Gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, Poles. It was not his fault that wealthy Plantation owners in Virginia and South Carolina bought human beings as if they were cattle, enslaved them and at the same time ostentatiously carried Bibles to their Sunday morning services. It was not his fault that authorities trampled on the Catholic Faith in the Inquisition. It was not his fault that crazed fanatics terrified our country on 9/11.
Yet, I wonder how John Donne’s phrase “No man is an island” would factor in here?
If we are all called to help make Christ’s Kingdom come, are we not “blamable” if we do nothing? If we turn away our faces and have cold hearts? Did not St. James castigate those who ignore the needs of others, needs which are not only food and clothing but which also beg for encouragement and acknowledgment and forgiveness and compassion? Wasn’t it he who said “Faith without good works is dead”? It is clear that within the Catholic spiritual system there is no real spiritual life without the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Talk is cheap. I must do something for some one. Some how. Some where. The old Bert Williams song of vaudeville “I ain’t gonna’ do nothin’ for nobody ‘cause nobody does nothin’ for me” belongs on the stage. It has no place in a sophisticated Catholic spiritual life.
Don’t we have enough experience now with distortion and unhappiness to understand the old dictum: “All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing”?
In the words of the street, let’s get to the bottom line! That line is simple. “Whenever you did for one of these, my least brethren, you did it to Me” Perhaps I am to blame if I can’t see the Lord in all the crummy unpleasant things around me. Perhaps I am to blame for being too self involved. Perhaps I am to blame because I failed to pray for the tawdry dimensions of my City. Perhaps I could smile at the angry man mentioned on Bottum’s article. Perhaps I could hail the cab for that tired looking girl with all the packages. Perhaps I could drop a few bob into that guy’s paper cup as he sprawls on the sidewalk. Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps, if I can remember the words of my Master even if it is all not my fault. “You did it to me……..”
________________________________________
[i] The imputation of a noble motive to an ignoble action is the core of rationalization.
[ii] Laura Ingram, Constitutional lawyer and Media personality, was mystified, as a Catholic of 3 or more years, at the notion of “spooky”. She experienced no such reaction from her own confessional life.
Thursday, November 2, 2006
Jim McGreavey and Infantilism
As a healing aid after surgery or a serious illness, a perceptive physician might recommend the traditional “sea cruise” cure wherein the patient might retreat temporarily into a pleasant, relaxing fantasy land, breathing the clear sea air and relishing gourmet meals. One might (as recently I did myself on such a trip) read mindless mystery novels where the bad guy always seems to be called something like “Mendoza” who wears a black slouch hat pulled way down over his scary eyes. Of course, the good guy, the hero-white knight, always escapes from impossible situations by daring exploits which would make Superman look juvenile. Such “retreat”, temporary in nature, can be healthy and innocuous. Knowing that the voyage is for a very short period of time, no one believes the daring tales or seriously swallows the glitter of shipboard experience. It is escapist and meant to be such.
However, on my sea cruise, I happened to catch an interview with the out-of-the-closet homosexual former governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreavey. He was hosted by the liberal CNN through Larry King and his slightly nauseating softball questions. The “interview” with its massive falsity and infantilism, almost made me want to “frowup” which the cruise ship did not. Obviously, everyone, at times, needs to “retreat” from the occasional harshness of reality. However, mental health protocols insist that one’s “emotional feet” be planted relatively firmly—for the most part—in that which is real. To live in the Make Believe is to court emotional disaster. The McGreavey interview was classic for its LaLa land dimensions and infantilisms. It was far beyond the boundaries of common sense reality.
McGreavey, (cosily called “Jim” by King), twice married and (possibly) twice divorced with a daughter from each marriage, often pursued his insatiable need for same sex at Highway rest stops, anonymously, while he was married and sitting as Chief Executive of the State. There was no problem with back seats for his lust even while he was Governor. Nor was he hesitant to appoint his then lover (who had no credentials) to a sensitive post in Homeland Security. This particular same sex relationship is currently seen (ex post facto) quite differently. His ex-lover says that he was pressured into same sex behavior by gubernatorial power while Jim somewhat airily dismisses “it” as “……..it just happened…”
The group watching this fiasco with me all got the impression that McGreavey believes (or tries to convince himself) that his behavior is “normal.” And this in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the human experience of at least 3,000 years. He seems to see himself as some kind of prophet sent (by whom is unclear) to illuminate the unenlightened masses. He speaks as if his Irish Catholic mother approves of his life style—with the abandonment of two wives and two children. He fantasizes that any negative impact on his children will be minimal or zero. And that his Marine drill instructor father will be quite accepting of his only son’s homosexual behavior.[1] He speaks of his recent ex-wife as a “class lady” as she sends him off with love and kisses to his new life with his current lover whom he met at a “Gay” bar. His facile description of her graciously stepping aside for his new love is too implausible to believe. As Bill O’Reilly would say “Come on.” To the experienced psychologist’s nose, this doesn’t merely smell. It reeks of classic rationalization, fantasy and infantilism. Self delusion has been practiced by the human animal in every century. In ours it is fast becoming a favorite pastime. To expect reasonably objective observers to buy into this particular delusion is a “bit much.” Is it that Jim McG hopes that, by persuading others of his “happiness”, he might really believe it himself? He even inserts into his pitch that he spent some time in retreat in a Benedictine Monastery where he sorted all this out. One was left with the impression that this was a Catholic Benedictine monastery until he “slipped in” its location. It is not Catholic but Episcopalian where he would more likely find some approval of his sexual behavior.
There is no obvious malfunction in McGreavey’s cognitive levels. He was apparently quite capable in politics, the art of compromise. Human beings can have skills in certain areas and be seriously deficient in others. There are psychological histories of persons (as in the case of the Idiot Savant) having enormous talent in s single area but being practically illiterate in others. McGreavey is certainly not I.S. but he is clearly underdeveloped or arrested in his sexuality. This is not a question of intellectual ability but one of an emotional or visceral reaction stemming from some unconscious conflict of earlier years.
Elementary insight into human behavior indicates a significant residual of infantile desire in all adults which, with maturity, is acceptably absorbed in adult ways of resolving life’s problems. The infant wants what he wants instantly/now. Doesn’t every parent know this? Any kind of delay might cause him to scream ear splitting yells, hold his breath, turn blue or stomp his little feet with great vigor. He might try to wound or manipulate his “nasty” parents (because of their constant “Don’ts) by using his ultimate weapon: “I hate you.”
Every family counselor of any significant experience has first hand data on such behavior. And every professional obviously understands the need for what is called “Tough love.” This translates into the need to help children grown up as responsible adults and to support them healthily lest they get mired in the perpetual and driven narcissism we find in the active homosexual. The all permissive and allegedly all loving parent is, in fact, an unconsciously hostile parent. This is also partially true of the well meaning “tolerant” straight with his misplaced compassion. The former Anglican Bishop of Atlanta, Bishop Bennett Simms rightly stated: “compassion does not mean endorsement.” This resonates the spirit of Jesus who certainly forgave the public sinner but reminded her, in effect, “Don’t do it again.” Forgiveness more than implies reformation of life. It requires it.
McGreavey’s performance almost shouted out that he (emotionally) is practically on the level of the high school freshman who wants what he wants regardless of anything or anyone. Implicit in his presentation is the politically correct idiocy[2] that if one really desires anything, it is unhealthy to deny such urges. There is no indication here of any adult delay of libidinous “wants.” Yet, the mature adult accepts the reality that sometimes life simply cannot be what one wants. His impassioned insistence that he “tried” so hard sounds more like the airy verbiage meant both to elicit sympathy from the uninformed and to mask his continuing self destructive behavior. Hopefully, the driven toxic lifestyle of his past is under some kind of self control. However, does his previous promiscuity suddenly vanish with the appearance of the out-of-the closet lover? One has to wonder! If emotional constancy is expected in same sex “unions”, sexual fidelity is not.
His constant response-----the teenaged “yeah” as compared with an adult “yes”----told much about him. He wants to be seen on some level as a little boy—to be cared for and loved. One viewer noted (I think accurately) that he came across as “syrupy.” Indeed, his current lover described him, on the air, as “cute”, a word used extensively in the homosexual community. This current Lover was finally brought onto the set with a big defiant big smack on the lips of his Jim. They semi-cuddled, flapped their eyes at each other and flashed love sick swain-like smiles. Those of us watching experienced spontaneous revulsion. But why?
Gay activists would probably---- in their characteristically knee-jerk fashion—scream the awkward shibboleth Homophobia. This is usually meant to silence any criticism of same sex behavior. But as difficult as it may be for activists to understand, the average citizen’s spontaneous revulsion stems not from fear or hatred of homosexual persons but rather from an instinctive sense of fundamental disorder. Many critics (like myself who has spent the last 12 years working extensively with and for same sex attracted people) have affection and compassion for those afflicted with this anomaly. We do not fear or hate the same sex afflicted person. On the contrary, I and other Catholic counselors dearly wish that our SSA brethren have peaceful and meaningful lives. We have seen too much depression and seriatim sexual liaisons with their painful breakups to believe the falsehoods perpetuated by the activists.
Even an elementary study of human anatomy and physiology will illustrate the magnificent plan and design of the Creator wherein the Order of things is actually rooted. In fact, the very chromosomes of the human race trumpet what the French so colorfully champion “Vive la Difference.” Men and women, while similar in some ways, are profoundly different in others. Jesus clearly teaches in Mark (ch.10) that the Creator made them male and female. There is an ordered system in the sexual framework. Even granting the occasional anomalies, there is a design from God Himself indicating how things ought to be. Lynn Boughton, one of this generation’s classic Scripture scholars, points out as an example, the force of “Design” when she notes that Cross Dressing or Transvestism is abnormal and unnatural since it violates God’s design (Deut. 22:5). What is revolting about cross dressing? Does it hurt anyone? Why is it wrong? Because, it, like same sex behavior, fetishes and the like, seriously contravene God’s Plan. This is not homophobia. This is insistence on basic Order.
There is nothing in Sacred Scripture which tolerates same sex relationships[3]. Nor a third sex. Nor paraphilic behavior. Any Biblical reference to the homosexual dimension is always pejorative. Scripture sees males and females complementing each other in fundamental ways impossible for same sex “lovers.” This is unequivocal. Same sex “lovers” simply cannot procreate.[4] This is utterly foundational for society’s welfare and survival.[5] Even beyond the sexual dimension, however, it is commonly accepted that the sexes relate differently on emotional and other levels. These different modes of relating are largely conditioned by the mysteries of biology. For example, Dr. Judy Bardwick, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, claimed in a television interview with me that males and females are wired differently. Neural grooving in males and females is simply different. Many people believe she very well might be right.
The often repeated claim that hetero and homosexual marriages are just the same is clearly absurd--- and patently so! To hold such an unreal position would seem to be a case of either ignorance or quasi-psychosis or deliberate distortion. Or do activists really know the truth but mask the reality by manipulating people’s minds by lies? On the other hand, it might be that those involved in same sex living which they so desperately want, simply have their minds clouded. They simply cannot see the facts. Is it really a matter of psychology and not truth?
The Catholic Church believes that sexual activity is good and holy only between a man and woman in lawful marriage. Again, this is neither “homophobia” nor injustice. This is Order which also strongly requires that homosexual persons be treated with dignity and respect. There is no Catholic toleration[6] of discrimination against these afflicted ones for whom Christ also truly died and who are clearly God’s own children as well as any other baptized child of Adam.[7] And it is within this framework that real identity is clarified. People cannot be classified or defined in terms of sexuality. We are all defined fundamentally as children of God. This is what gives value and true self awareness. Definition by sexual terms is degrading, insulting and narrowing for the human being.
The former Bishop of Brooklyn and Palm Beach, Bishop James Dailey, has said that one of the best kept secrets within Catholicism, is the support group called Courage, founded in New York City to assist SSA persons in their struggles. This group, totally in sync with our best Traditions, offers not only spiritual and psychological support but clarifies the meaning of one’s basic identity as God’s child. Through Courage, countless men and women have achieved peace of soul, a realization of their own true identity and the meaning of friendship without the use of illicit genitality. They have released punishing angers, even rages. They have learned to forgive. In effect, they have learned the Catholic truth that even though they did not really choose to be homosexual, there are ways of managing their sexual drives besides indulgence. Without necessarily changing their orientation, they have found the key to living happily as chaste celibates. It becomes apparent that the wild and nearly insatiable sexual needs of people like McGreavey are really symptoms of problems far deeper than gonads.
Ultimately, all human beings are bound by God’s law of chastity, whether married or not. When McGreavey breaks up with his current lover, his P.R. people will couch the “end” as friendly and cordial. But unless Jim has a real breakthrough, he will go on to the unending futile search for the non-existent Mr. Right. He hopes and hopes. Perhaps this time. Or the next. Or the next. The search is not the answer. The grace of the good God is. I cite the Courage group to compare an approach to life (for SSA persons) which is healthy and holy. In essence, it works. Courage works if one works Courage. Infantilism is no answer. Remaining an emotional teenager is no answer. Acting “silly”[8] as campy Gays often do, is no answer. Raging sarcasm and sophomoric demonstrations are no answer. And obviously acting out infantile fantasies leads nowhere. It is only with the Lord’s grace that one can become free.
The Courage members manfully carry their Crosses like Him Who went before them to show the real way to freedom and peace. In chastity they have found the masculinity which has eluded them for so long. I pray for all the misled Jim McGreaveys of this world. Would that they could take the word of Jesus as it is!
________________________________________
[1] There was a subtle insinuation that his early relationship with his father was less than enthusiastic. This can give a clue as to much of Jim’s ”problem.”
[2] That is from a psychological point of view
[3] The term “relationship” in homosexual circles usually means sexual (genital) behavior
[4] The notion of adoption of children by gays is seriously questioned by many researchers. There is great concern about the potential psychic harm which can occur for these children. US Cong. (Calif) Tim Leslie has extensive material on this point
[5] It was noted last summer in Provincetown on Cape Cod that “straight” visitors to this beautiful town run the risk of being called “breeders” by some flamboyant summer residents. Years ago this same homosexual group pleaded for acceptance into the town on the basis of needed diversity.
As the Population proportion has changed, so has the “tolerance” level.
[6] There have been nominal Catholics acting in discriminatory ways against SSA people. They act contrary to Catholic teaching.
[7] Catholic teaching sees all human beings of Good Will who follow their consciences, hopefully enlightened, to be part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Cf. Encyclical of PPius XII, Mystici Corporis.
[8] A liberated” SSA person recently gave as an example of typical “ silly” behavior, the oft used gay remark “I have my high heels on today.”
However, on my sea cruise, I happened to catch an interview with the out-of-the-closet homosexual former governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreavey. He was hosted by the liberal CNN through Larry King and his slightly nauseating softball questions. The “interview” with its massive falsity and infantilism, almost made me want to “frowup” which the cruise ship did not. Obviously, everyone, at times, needs to “retreat” from the occasional harshness of reality. However, mental health protocols insist that one’s “emotional feet” be planted relatively firmly—for the most part—in that which is real. To live in the Make Believe is to court emotional disaster. The McGreavey interview was classic for its LaLa land dimensions and infantilisms. It was far beyond the boundaries of common sense reality.
McGreavey, (cosily called “Jim” by King), twice married and (possibly) twice divorced with a daughter from each marriage, often pursued his insatiable need for same sex at Highway rest stops, anonymously, while he was married and sitting as Chief Executive of the State. There was no problem with back seats for his lust even while he was Governor. Nor was he hesitant to appoint his then lover (who had no credentials) to a sensitive post in Homeland Security. This particular same sex relationship is currently seen (ex post facto) quite differently. His ex-lover says that he was pressured into same sex behavior by gubernatorial power while Jim somewhat airily dismisses “it” as “……..it just happened…”
The group watching this fiasco with me all got the impression that McGreavey believes (or tries to convince himself) that his behavior is “normal.” And this in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the human experience of at least 3,000 years. He seems to see himself as some kind of prophet sent (by whom is unclear) to illuminate the unenlightened masses. He speaks as if his Irish Catholic mother approves of his life style—with the abandonment of two wives and two children. He fantasizes that any negative impact on his children will be minimal or zero. And that his Marine drill instructor father will be quite accepting of his only son’s homosexual behavior.[1] He speaks of his recent ex-wife as a “class lady” as she sends him off with love and kisses to his new life with his current lover whom he met at a “Gay” bar. His facile description of her graciously stepping aside for his new love is too implausible to believe. As Bill O’Reilly would say “Come on.” To the experienced psychologist’s nose, this doesn’t merely smell. It reeks of classic rationalization, fantasy and infantilism. Self delusion has been practiced by the human animal in every century. In ours it is fast becoming a favorite pastime. To expect reasonably objective observers to buy into this particular delusion is a “bit much.” Is it that Jim McG hopes that, by persuading others of his “happiness”, he might really believe it himself? He even inserts into his pitch that he spent some time in retreat in a Benedictine Monastery where he sorted all this out. One was left with the impression that this was a Catholic Benedictine monastery until he “slipped in” its location. It is not Catholic but Episcopalian where he would more likely find some approval of his sexual behavior.
There is no obvious malfunction in McGreavey’s cognitive levels. He was apparently quite capable in politics, the art of compromise. Human beings can have skills in certain areas and be seriously deficient in others. There are psychological histories of persons (as in the case of the Idiot Savant) having enormous talent in s single area but being practically illiterate in others. McGreavey is certainly not I.S. but he is clearly underdeveloped or arrested in his sexuality. This is not a question of intellectual ability but one of an emotional or visceral reaction stemming from some unconscious conflict of earlier years.
Elementary insight into human behavior indicates a significant residual of infantile desire in all adults which, with maturity, is acceptably absorbed in adult ways of resolving life’s problems. The infant wants what he wants instantly/now. Doesn’t every parent know this? Any kind of delay might cause him to scream ear splitting yells, hold his breath, turn blue or stomp his little feet with great vigor. He might try to wound or manipulate his “nasty” parents (because of their constant “Don’ts) by using his ultimate weapon: “I hate you.”
Every family counselor of any significant experience has first hand data on such behavior. And every professional obviously understands the need for what is called “Tough love.” This translates into the need to help children grown up as responsible adults and to support them healthily lest they get mired in the perpetual and driven narcissism we find in the active homosexual. The all permissive and allegedly all loving parent is, in fact, an unconsciously hostile parent. This is also partially true of the well meaning “tolerant” straight with his misplaced compassion. The former Anglican Bishop of Atlanta, Bishop Bennett Simms rightly stated: “compassion does not mean endorsement.” This resonates the spirit of Jesus who certainly forgave the public sinner but reminded her, in effect, “Don’t do it again.” Forgiveness more than implies reformation of life. It requires it.
McGreavey’s performance almost shouted out that he (emotionally) is practically on the level of the high school freshman who wants what he wants regardless of anything or anyone. Implicit in his presentation is the politically correct idiocy[2] that if one really desires anything, it is unhealthy to deny such urges. There is no indication here of any adult delay of libidinous “wants.” Yet, the mature adult accepts the reality that sometimes life simply cannot be what one wants. His impassioned insistence that he “tried” so hard sounds more like the airy verbiage meant both to elicit sympathy from the uninformed and to mask his continuing self destructive behavior. Hopefully, the driven toxic lifestyle of his past is under some kind of self control. However, does his previous promiscuity suddenly vanish with the appearance of the out-of-the closet lover? One has to wonder! If emotional constancy is expected in same sex “unions”, sexual fidelity is not.
His constant response-----the teenaged “yeah” as compared with an adult “yes”----told much about him. He wants to be seen on some level as a little boy—to be cared for and loved. One viewer noted (I think accurately) that he came across as “syrupy.” Indeed, his current lover described him, on the air, as “cute”, a word used extensively in the homosexual community. This current Lover was finally brought onto the set with a big defiant big smack on the lips of his Jim. They semi-cuddled, flapped their eyes at each other and flashed love sick swain-like smiles. Those of us watching experienced spontaneous revulsion. But why?
Gay activists would probably---- in their characteristically knee-jerk fashion—scream the awkward shibboleth Homophobia. This is usually meant to silence any criticism of same sex behavior. But as difficult as it may be for activists to understand, the average citizen’s spontaneous revulsion stems not from fear or hatred of homosexual persons but rather from an instinctive sense of fundamental disorder. Many critics (like myself who has spent the last 12 years working extensively with and for same sex attracted people) have affection and compassion for those afflicted with this anomaly. We do not fear or hate the same sex afflicted person. On the contrary, I and other Catholic counselors dearly wish that our SSA brethren have peaceful and meaningful lives. We have seen too much depression and seriatim sexual liaisons with their painful breakups to believe the falsehoods perpetuated by the activists.
Even an elementary study of human anatomy and physiology will illustrate the magnificent plan and design of the Creator wherein the Order of things is actually rooted. In fact, the very chromosomes of the human race trumpet what the French so colorfully champion “Vive la Difference.” Men and women, while similar in some ways, are profoundly different in others. Jesus clearly teaches in Mark (ch.10) that the Creator made them male and female. There is an ordered system in the sexual framework. Even granting the occasional anomalies, there is a design from God Himself indicating how things ought to be. Lynn Boughton, one of this generation’s classic Scripture scholars, points out as an example, the force of “Design” when she notes that Cross Dressing or Transvestism is abnormal and unnatural since it violates God’s design (Deut. 22:5). What is revolting about cross dressing? Does it hurt anyone? Why is it wrong? Because, it, like same sex behavior, fetishes and the like, seriously contravene God’s Plan. This is not homophobia. This is insistence on basic Order.
There is nothing in Sacred Scripture which tolerates same sex relationships[3]. Nor a third sex. Nor paraphilic behavior. Any Biblical reference to the homosexual dimension is always pejorative. Scripture sees males and females complementing each other in fundamental ways impossible for same sex “lovers.” This is unequivocal. Same sex “lovers” simply cannot procreate.[4] This is utterly foundational for society’s welfare and survival.[5] Even beyond the sexual dimension, however, it is commonly accepted that the sexes relate differently on emotional and other levels. These different modes of relating are largely conditioned by the mysteries of biology. For example, Dr. Judy Bardwick, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, claimed in a television interview with me that males and females are wired differently. Neural grooving in males and females is simply different. Many people believe she very well might be right.
The often repeated claim that hetero and homosexual marriages are just the same is clearly absurd--- and patently so! To hold such an unreal position would seem to be a case of either ignorance or quasi-psychosis or deliberate distortion. Or do activists really know the truth but mask the reality by manipulating people’s minds by lies? On the other hand, it might be that those involved in same sex living which they so desperately want, simply have their minds clouded. They simply cannot see the facts. Is it really a matter of psychology and not truth?
The Catholic Church believes that sexual activity is good and holy only between a man and woman in lawful marriage. Again, this is neither “homophobia” nor injustice. This is Order which also strongly requires that homosexual persons be treated with dignity and respect. There is no Catholic toleration[6] of discrimination against these afflicted ones for whom Christ also truly died and who are clearly God’s own children as well as any other baptized child of Adam.[7] And it is within this framework that real identity is clarified. People cannot be classified or defined in terms of sexuality. We are all defined fundamentally as children of God. This is what gives value and true self awareness. Definition by sexual terms is degrading, insulting and narrowing for the human being.
The former Bishop of Brooklyn and Palm Beach, Bishop James Dailey, has said that one of the best kept secrets within Catholicism, is the support group called Courage, founded in New York City to assist SSA persons in their struggles. This group, totally in sync with our best Traditions, offers not only spiritual and psychological support but clarifies the meaning of one’s basic identity as God’s child. Through Courage, countless men and women have achieved peace of soul, a realization of their own true identity and the meaning of friendship without the use of illicit genitality. They have released punishing angers, even rages. They have learned to forgive. In effect, they have learned the Catholic truth that even though they did not really choose to be homosexual, there are ways of managing their sexual drives besides indulgence. Without necessarily changing their orientation, they have found the key to living happily as chaste celibates. It becomes apparent that the wild and nearly insatiable sexual needs of people like McGreavey are really symptoms of problems far deeper than gonads.
Ultimately, all human beings are bound by God’s law of chastity, whether married or not. When McGreavey breaks up with his current lover, his P.R. people will couch the “end” as friendly and cordial. But unless Jim has a real breakthrough, he will go on to the unending futile search for the non-existent Mr. Right. He hopes and hopes. Perhaps this time. Or the next. Or the next. The search is not the answer. The grace of the good God is. I cite the Courage group to compare an approach to life (for SSA persons) which is healthy and holy. In essence, it works. Courage works if one works Courage. Infantilism is no answer. Remaining an emotional teenager is no answer. Acting “silly”[8] as campy Gays often do, is no answer. Raging sarcasm and sophomoric demonstrations are no answer. And obviously acting out infantile fantasies leads nowhere. It is only with the Lord’s grace that one can become free.
The Courage members manfully carry their Crosses like Him Who went before them to show the real way to freedom and peace. In chastity they have found the masculinity which has eluded them for so long. I pray for all the misled Jim McGreaveys of this world. Would that they could take the word of Jesus as it is!
________________________________________
[1] There was a subtle insinuation that his early relationship with his father was less than enthusiastic. This can give a clue as to much of Jim’s ”problem.”
[2] That is from a psychological point of view
[3] The term “relationship” in homosexual circles usually means sexual (genital) behavior
[4] The notion of adoption of children by gays is seriously questioned by many researchers. There is great concern about the potential psychic harm which can occur for these children. US Cong. (Calif) Tim Leslie has extensive material on this point
[5] It was noted last summer in Provincetown on Cape Cod that “straight” visitors to this beautiful town run the risk of being called “breeders” by some flamboyant summer residents. Years ago this same homosexual group pleaded for acceptance into the town on the basis of needed diversity.
As the Population proportion has changed, so has the “tolerance” level.
[6] There have been nominal Catholics acting in discriminatory ways against SSA people. They act contrary to Catholic teaching.
[7] Catholic teaching sees all human beings of Good Will who follow their consciences, hopefully enlightened, to be part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Cf. Encyclical of PPius XII, Mystici Corporis.
[8] A liberated” SSA person recently gave as an example of typical “ silly” behavior, the oft used gay remark “I have my high heels on today.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)