There are lots of Cardinal McCarricks in the Church

For a long time the sins of Cardinal McCarrick were an open secret. See the book Good-bye Good Men. Yet nothing could be done about it. His position was unassailable. Why?

I think that, when a person has a position of leadership in the Church, gained over the course of many years, a large number of Catholic leaders must have worked with that person. They helped him rise to a position of leadership. They helped him in his role as a leader. They were associated with him closely for so long that they are not willing to believe that he is guilty of gravely immoral acts. If so, then they would also be guilty by cooperation.

And this is why, when an evildoer has power in politics, or religion, or the corporate world, it is so hard to remove him (or her). There are just too many other persons with power who realize that it will reflect badly on them, if he or she is found guilty in the court of public opinion (or an actual court of law). They have a strong bias against believing any accusations. They automatically tend toward distrusting the accusers. They have a vested interest in making the accusations go away.

This is why it took so long to remove Cardinal McCarrick. This is why the Honduran Bishops did not act appropriately when grave sins were disclosed at their seminary [Source]. This is why the many teachers of heresy and grave moral errors in the conservative wing of the Catholic Church are just as unassailable as McCarrick was. They openly teach heresy and grave errors on faith and morals. In some cases, their errors are severe and manifest. They are openly approving of acts of grave depravity, various forms of abortion, and patently heretical doctrine. And yet they cannot be removed or even rebuked.

The Catholic news and magazine outlets that have published their writings for so many years are not going to admit that they published the writings of heretics. The priests and bishops who associated with them are not going to admit that they have been cooperating with heretics. The people who gave them teaching positions are not going to admit that they hired persons whose work harms body and soul. The whole conservative Catholic subculture is not going to admit its own sins and weaknesses by rebuking them. And so they are able to openly teach grave errors, including heresy, while still maintaining teaching positions and the ability to publish in conservative Catholic sources. They are able to publicly commit formal schism, and yet continue to be seen as if they were orthodox and faithful teachers of Catholicism.

And a special case is found in the falsified and perverted version of the theology of the body, which is like a monster attacking the Church today. It preaches blatant sexual idolatry and idolatry of the body. It supports the grave sexual sins of the laity, and they, in turn, support this idolatrous sexualized version of Christianity. Few persons speak out against it. They are afraid of the monster. It has too much support. Very many diocese and parishes use this wicked version of theology of the body (not the version from our holy Pope-Saint). Priests are afraid to speak against it. It has many supporters among the laity.

And so Christopher West is permitted to utter pornographic blasphemy again and again, especially at The Cor Project, and no one speaks a word against him. Think about that. A very prominent Catholic teacher utters the most extreme type of sexualized blasphemy that could be imagined, on a daily or weekly basis, and out of the billion Catholics in the world only a select few say a word about it. Christopher West is worse that former Cardinal McCarrick, since West harms millions of souls with his perverted version of theology of the body, whereas McCarrick’s harm is limited to a small set of persons (who nevertheless suffered very greatly).

So the situation today really has reached a point of utter absurdity.

Now, once it was clear that McCarrick had lost his power, many bloggers and authors started piling on the condemnations — well-deserved but too late to be of any consequence. They were not being brave. They were seeking approval from their audience and seeking a larger audience.

Why don’t they speak out against the McCarricks of today? Why don’t they speak out against those conservative Catholics who have publicly committed formal schism, or publicly taught heresy, or publicly taught grave moral errors? Instead, persons who have repeatedly approved of the killing of unborn innocents, via abortifacient contraception, are permitted to teach about Humanae Vitae — the encyclical that condemns contraception and abortion as intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral! What an extreme hypocrisy.

By comparison, McCarrick is guilty of sexual abuse of children and of sexual harassment of seminarians, while these other persons are guilty of different offenses. They have not sexually abused anyone. Or have they? By promoting the use of acts of grave depravity within the Sacrament of holy Matrimony they have, in a sense, committed sexual abuse. For they encourage spouses to abuse one another. They are formally cooperating in these exceedingly wicked acts, the use of unnatural sexual acts in marriage.

McCarrick is not a murderer. But they have killed the unborn by telling Catholic spouses that they may remain sexually active while using abortifacient contraception, as long as they have a good purpose in mind (such as reducing pain, regulating the monthly cycle, or clearing up acne). They have harmed souls by teaching grave errors along with the claim that these errors are Church teaching or sound theology. In many ways, they have done more harm than McCarrick. And then the harm done by the perverse version of the theology of the body is inestimable.

Am I comparing these teachers of grave error to McCarrick? Yes. They each have (or had) unassailable positions of leadership, while they openly harmed body and soul. They each have so many persons in positions of power cooperating with them, for so long, that few are willing to oppose them. They are afraid of the backlash. And this is particularly true of conservative Catholic teachers who have approved of popular grave sins. They obtain much support from sinners in this way.

What can be done? Hell if I know.

— Ronald L. Conte Jr.

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to There are lots of Cardinal McCarricks in the Church

  1. King Robert the Bruce says:

    I think it will take the warning to clear up this whole unholy mess up I don’t think mere men can solve this it goes too deep it will have to be divine intervention too many secrets too much damage has been done. god will have to clear the decks we will need root and branch reform. in my part of the world clerical child abuse is used as a stick to beat catholics with its a huge problem for us all

  2. Matt says:

    A few quick questions, pick which you want to answer.

    1. Rank these sins: non-abortificant contraception (withdraw or condoms), unnatural sexual acts within marriage, homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, priestly sexual abuse, sexual assault? Abuse obviously violates other dimensions of morality, but is it say worse than homosexuality? Is there an additional sin against the sacrement of marriage (so unnatural sex acts are worse than adultery)?

    2. Is inducing labor a direct abortion? What if the placenta became infected, and there was no chance of saving the baby (and death of the mother was likely), would it be moral to evacuate the uterus, justifying it as an inherently therapeutic treatment of the infection? What about inducing labor in a case where the pregnancy was instead aggregating hypertension, to such a degree that treatment couldn’t save the mother. So both the mother and her baby would likely die. Would inducing labor in this case be murdering the baby?

    3. What is the minimum procreative type act required to validly consummate a marriage for an impotent individual? Is it merely contact between the penis and vagina, regardless of an erection, or is semen required to be transmitted to the vagina (and if so, how much… think the perforated condom debate. Further, must that “seed” contain sperm)?

    4. What is the distinction between lust and expressing desire? Is it immoral to say “I want to do … to you” or is that merely expressing desire (aww I really want to do this but I can’t type of a thing). Is it moral to simply talk about the type of sex that you would like after married (fast/ slow, ect), not to cause arousal, but to test sexual compatibility? Alice Von Hildebrand says sex should be talked about without vulgar language. Would talking about sex in a vulgar way be merely the sin of profanity (if not accompanied by lust), or is there another sin for not talking about sex with the dignity that it deseves?

    IMPORTANT: answer question 4 if you only want to answer 1 question!!!

    • Ron Conte says:

      “1. Rank these sins:
      pre-marital sex (natural, no contraception)
      non-abortificant contraception (withdraw or condoms) in marriage
      non-abortificant contraception (withdraw or condoms) with premarital sex
      adultery (natural, no contraception)
      unnatural sexual acts within marriage
      homosexual sexual acts
      sexual assault of an adult
      priestly sexual abuse of a child

      “2. Is inducing labor a direct abortion? What if the placenta became infected, and there was no chance of saving the baby (and death of the mother was likely), would it be moral to evacuate the uterus, justifying it as an inherently therapeutic treatment of the infection? What about inducing labor in a case where the pregnancy was instead aggregating hypertension, to such a degree that treatment couldn’t save the mother. So both the mother and her baby would likely die. Would inducing labor in this case be murdering the baby?”

      Inducing labor before viability is direct abortion. If the placenta is infected, with no chance of saving the baby, it can be removed, indirectly killing the prenatal. Inducing labor to end a pregnancy that is burdening the health of the mother is direct abortion; the mother’s health is helped only indirectly, by means of the termination of the pregnancy.

      “3. What is the minimum procreative type act required to validly consummate a marriage for an impotent individual? Is it merely contact between the penis and vagina, regardless of an erection, or is semen required to be transmitted to the vagina (and if so, how much… think the perforated condom debate. Further, must that “seed” contain sperm)?”

      Insertion into the vagina (not merely partial insertion) and ejaculation with deposit of semen. If the man is infertile, the marriage is still consummated and valid, so presence of sperm is not strictly speaking necessary. In my opinion, any use of contraception makes the act unsuitable for consummation under Canon Law and natural law.

      “4. What is the distinction between lust and expressing desire?”
      Lust is desire for sex without regard for love or morality; it is treating the other person as a sex object.

      “Is it immoral to say “I want to do … to you” or is that merely expressing desire (aww I really want to do this but I can’t type of a thing).”
      I don’t know what you mean. A man can express sexual desire toward his wife, but it must be ordinate.

      “Is it moral to simply talk about the type of sex that you would like after married (fast/ slow, ect), not to cause arousal, but to test sexual compatibility?”
      Yes, that is moral, as long as you place love and morality above sexual desire.

      “Alice Von Hildebrand says sex should be talked about without vulgar language. Would talking about sex in a vulgar way be merely the sin of profanity (if not accompanied by lust), or is there another sin for not talking about sex with the dignity that it deseves?”
      If not accompanied by lust, it would be the sin of profanity, I think.

  3. Is the use of hallucinogens intrinsically immoral? If so, which font? If so, is it mortal?

  4. Dora says:

    This is a very helpful article because it humanizes the “enemy.” On the other hand, The Church has become like the phone company, a faceless bureaucratic monopoly that from day-to-day doesn’t seem to care about its customers. Only it is worse, more like a mother who doesn’t care about her children. Surely, the gates of hell will not prevail, but the church is hanging out right outside them, with its own set of sexual perverts. Do you think God will show great mercy to the throngs of Catholics who have left? Mike Pence just came to mind. He was Catholic but became an Evangelical.

  5. Dora says:

    I look forward to reading this blog every day. There are no other blogs like it.

  6. Dora says:

    1) What do you think of http://reginamag.com/thats-my-money-your-excellency-archive/? They are suggesting the laity “close their wallets” to diocesan causes. They plan for laity to storm the Baltimore bishops conference in November and demand the resignations of the “Lavender Mafia,” which would include a LOT of bishops.
    2) It sickens me every time I hear Catholics pray for the so-called “refugees” — I am the granddaughter of a Czech immigrant. At Mass, I have to get up and walk around because I can’t just sit there and listen to it. We live a stone’s throw from the US Mexican border.
    3) I asked the priest for a “divorce care” group for some women I know. He was very excited, but they started an LGBT group instead.
    I have joined a Protestant prayer group In hopes of finding like-minded people.
    Not sure if any of these topics are right for your blog.

Comments are closed.