Before you explore any other pages on our site–
|
August
1997 Roman Catholic Faithful, P.O. Box 109, Petersburg,
IL. 62675
Heavenly Father, we ask Your blessing on our efforts. Show us the way to spread the Truth of the Catholic faith in the midst of error and infidelity. Fill our hearts with authentic love for our priests, bishops and all the clergy, a love that moves us to unceasing prayer for their souls and to constant exhortation to faithfully fulfill their sacred task of preaching the Whole Truth of the Catholic Faith without compromise. Grant us wisdom in our deliberations, courage in promoting the truth, prudence in exposing error, and Charity in all the things we do. Bless our Holy Father the Pope by granting him loyalty and fidelity from the bishops and all the clergy of the church. We ask these
things through the intercession INDEX:
"It's Time For a Little Gathering" In the April 1997 issue of Christ
or Chaos there is an article titled ITS
TIME FOR A LITTLE GATHERING in which Dr.
Droleskey suggests a possible protest of sorts to
take place in Washington, D.C. in November at the
NCCB conference.
How many more souls have to be lost? How much more scandal has to be endured? How much more money has to be paid out in settlements to those who have been abused by priests and bishops? How many more vocations have to be turned away? How many more people have to endure the needless heartbreak of being browbeaten by ecclesiastical authorities because of their steadfast devotion to the fullness of the faith? How many more people are going to be reaffirmed in their sins? How many more people are going to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to vote for candidates of either major political party who support the destruction of Christs innocent ones in the womb? How many more people must die in Catholic hospitals by means of euthanasia? How many more children will never be exposed to the true faith in their educational programs? How much longer can the Mass be profaned? As people of faith, we know we have to stay on board the Ship of Peter. We know Gods grace is sufficient for us to endure these problems. But we also need to act. A gathering in Washington this November, which would start with a candlelight vigil and Rosary rally in front of the Nunciature on Massachusetts Avenue, might be the start of the process of re-taking the Church for Christ and Him Crucified. For such an effort is vital if this country is to know the surety that comes from recognizing Christ as King. Well keep you posted on the response we receive to this suggestion for a little gathering in Washington. After receiving feedback Dr. Droleskey had the following to say: Dear
Subscribers There have been repeated cases in which Archbishop Cacciavillan has dealt with the legitimate concerns of priests and laity about the alleged misconduct of bishops (both personal and doctrinal) by sending documentation provided to him directly to the bishops in question. The nuncio has violated a cardinal principle of confidentiality, has needlessly put the career of priests in jeopardy, and has appeared to care for little other than pleasing the bishops and their apparatchiks. This was especially the case with respect to the Bishop of Springfield, Illinois, the Most Reverend Daniel Ryan. Serious, detailed charges about him were made by a priest (who remains in hiding) in a confidential letter to the nuncio. Archbishop Cacciavillan never contacted the priest. He never asked for further documentation. He did not seek the advice or the counsel of others who could have verified the priest's story. Acting arbitrarily, the nuncio sent the confidential statement back to Ryan, who perfunctorily denied the charges. The nuncio then said the case was closed. Closed without an investigation into serious charges. The nature of these charges were outlined in a news story of mine which appeared in The Wanderer three months ago. They involve allegations that Bishop Ryan sought to importune priests into having sexual relations with him. Serious charges. The nuncio's method of handling this delicate matter led, unfortunately, to the whole matter becoming public. And it was shortly after the story did break (and after a delegation went to the Vatican to discuss the matter) that the Holy See began to undertake its own inquiry into Ryan's conduct. The Springfield case has not been the only one which has seen Archbishop Caccivillian violate the trust of priests and the laity. He sent a videotape containing sensitive material about an explosive situation in another Midwestern diocese back to the bishop who was in the middle of covering up the situation there. Again, there was not a word conveyed by the nuncio to the people who provided him with the videotape and supporting documentation. He dismissed their concerns out of hand. No investigation. No communication. That story also went public, one that detailed how one-fourth of the diocese's priests had been involved in sexual misconduct. Archbishop Caccivillian also gave comfort to the now retired Archbishop of Honolulu, the Most Reverend Joseph Ferrario, who had excommunicated a number of people who he deemed to be troublemakers in his archdiocese. The Signatora overturned the excommunications. But the nuncio told Ferrario that he was well-justified to have attempted to do what he did! He has also shown no interest in the many documented cases of priests being sent to psychiatric facilities as a form of punishment for their orthodoxy. There are numerous other cases. However, the nuncio's behavior in the Ryan case, which involved the safety of a priest and the on-going abuse of episcopal power, was justification enough for me to make the demand that I did in "It's Time For A Little Gathering." The faithful are entitled to a nuncio who will handle sensitive matters with due regard for the rights of the accused, to be sure, but also with full respect for the confidentiality and safety of those making accusations. Cases cannot be closed before impartial visitors are appointed to examine the facts. .... I do want to drive home the point that the pope's representative in this country should be solicitous of the legitimate concerns of Christ's flock, not a company man who wants good relations with the bishops at the cost of doctrinal integrity, liturgical reverence, and a disregard for the unrepentant conduct of bishops intent on abusing their episcopal authority to engage in immorality. I am still eliciting reaction from readers about the gathering. The specific nature of demands actually made at the gathering is subject, as I noted, to examination and modification. I wanted to take this opportunity, however, to address some of the feedback we have received thus far. Please know of my prayers for all of you each day. Our May issue is an expanded one, making up for the fact that we were late in getting the last issue to you. Once again, thanks for your loyalty. Wishing you God's blessings and our Lady's maternal protection, I remain,
Conference in Washington, DC! On Sunday, November 9, 1997, RCF, working with Dr. Thomas Droleskey,will be hosting a day-long conference at the Holiday Inn on The Hill, (415 New Jersey Ave, NW, Washington DC 20001) across the street from where the NCCB will be having its semi-annual meeting. Saturday, November 8th: 7:30 p.m.: Candlelight prayer vigil in front of the Papal Nunciature, 3339 Massachusetts Avenue. All fifteen decades of our Ladys Most Holy Rosary will be prayed for the intentions of the Holy Fatherand that his personal ambassador to the United States will take seriously the legitimate grievances of the faithful against Bishops who are at war with Christ and His Holy Church. Sunday, November 9th will be the day long conference at the Holiday Inn on the Hill. The list of speakers will include: Dr. Thomas Droleskey, Stephanie Block, Joe Scheidler, Dr. William Marra, Stephen Brady & James Bendell of RCF. Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, Nov. 10-12, prayerful protests will be arranged for outside the NCCB meetings. More on this event to be announced. Two Press Conferences will be held, a meeting with the bishops will be sought, and Radio & TV will be contacted.
Address:_____________________________State_____Zip:________ Phone:_______________Fax:______________e-mail:_____________ Mail
registration form and donations to: Statement
of Support What do the Catholic faithful ask of the Church? They ask for shepherds who will teach them her saving truth, provide them with grace through her Sacraments, and enable them to worship in the Sacred Mysteries where Christ Himself becomes the Bread of Life to feed them. These are Divine gifts, precious beyond counting, yet they are what Our Lord promised to provide. Additionally, faithful Catholics expect their spiritual shepherds to defend them from the world's wolves by identifying and condemning the prevalent errors of the day, whether in society or in the Church. Thirty years ago, most of the faithful so deeply trusted their shepherds to fulfill those expectations that, as the Church in America collapsed and disintegrated, many of them followed bad shepherds into chaos, and called it renewal. Scandalized, nominal or apathetic Catholics gradually vanished from the pews, but other sheep remained so docile that they went wherever any religious professional pointed, even if it were off a cliff into the sea. In their blind trust, such Catholics exhibited the simplicity of the dove without the wisdom of the serpent, and so enabled rash and arrogant innovators to dismantle the healthy Catholic subculture that had sustained a flourishing Church. In this they were not following Christ, who said we must be both simple and wise. The saving faith with which Our Lord endowed His Church is transmitted to new generations through culture, liturgy and catechesis. Today, Catholic culture is dead in America. Liturgy is unstable and, in most places, ugly, irreverent and banal. Two generations of Catholics are effectively uncatechized. As a consequence, the Church is in such grave disarray in America that it may never recover. Faithful
Catholics are not mere consumers of religion,
mere subjects owing unexamined obedience to
whichever religious bureaucrats happen to be
directing parishes and dioceses. We are a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a people set apart:
Catholic Christians, loyal to Christ and to His
Vicar,who leads His Church on earth. They command
our faithful and uncompromising obedience, even
if religious authority figures closer to us
should rebel Our present situation is too desperate for us to keep silent out of human respect. When our children are being robbed of their saving heritage, we must stop the robbery and expose the thieves. Immortal souls are being lost. We cannot wait for permission from bureaucrats or intervention by distant authorities. We must exercise our responsibility as adult Catholics to defend the faith now. That is the mission of faithful Catholics, and the reason I support Roman Catholic Faithful. Sincerely in Christ, Donna Steichen I am so proud of what you and RCF are doing. I have been furious for years watching what has been taking place in our Catholic Church, including the Church in my hometown of San Antonio, Texas. Catholic doctrine is either ignored, denigrated or denied- on an ongoing basis. I dont trust the Catholic schools or colleges here anymore to instill Catholic truths and doctrines in their students. This situation provokes anger in me and brings tears to my eyes. RCF, for me, is a beacon of hope- hope that something can be done about this deplorable state of affairs. May the Almighty grant us the grace and strength to carry out His will- for surely the way things are now does not reflect Gods will. I will stop writing now- I could go on for pages. I just wanted to let you know that I and my family are praying for success in the endeavors of RCF and appreciate the efforts of so many people to do something about the most horrible situation surrounding us. God bless you Mr. Brady (San Antonio, Texas) This letter is just one of several hundred received by RCF in the past few months. Can there be any doubt that the time for action is now? AMDG When Do We Speak? Self-interest aside, are there valid reasons for a bishop to ask his laity to silently endure serious clerical abuses? Consider the following example: "Indianapolis Catholic Archbishop Daniel M. Buechlein spoke out in support of Lafayette Diocese Bishop William Higi and suggested that prayers, rather than news stories, are a better way to confront evil." These remarks were part of an archdiocesan rebuttal, carried in The Indianapolis Star, February 18, 1997, after the papers in-depth, three-day series on clerical sexual scandals. "We must resist the temptation to sensationalize the tragic failures of persons who hold positions of trust in government, in civic affairs or in the church," the archbishop continued. "Do investigative reports such as the one recently conducted by The Indianapolis Star concerning cases in the Lafayette Diocese help us better understand and respond to problems of sexual misconduct and child abuse in our society? I think not." The paper countered, in turn, that the unusually high number of priests in the diocese who have been accused of sexual abuse and misconduct -- at least 12% as compared to 2-3% nationally -- merited investigation. Most disturbingly, "Once caught, even the worst predators get off easily and their transgressions are kept under wraps." ("Bishop Will Look to Chicago Archdiocese for Help," Will Higgins, The Indianapolis Star, 2/20/97.) The Star argued further that "Newspapers are predicated on openness, on the belief that the more informed people are, the more knowledgeable and balanced their judgments. The tendency of all institutions, not just religious ones, to safeguard their privacy is understandable. But violations of civil law are not private matters." ("Abuse Among Clergy," Indianapolis Star editorial, 2/23/97.) Who has the more valid argument, Archbishop Buechlein or The Indianapolis Star? The Indianapolis Star articles are brutally graphic. Two incidents of scandal involved close friends of the bishop. At least five cases of clerical abuse involved young children. Nine other cases, all but one of which were homosexual in nature, concerned adults, most who had sought counseling from the offending priest and felt that their emotional vulnerability had been exploited. The articles convey the frustration of the laity to receive adequate redress for their complaints against abusive priests. Although by law, for example, suspicions of child abuse must be disclosed to Child Protective Services or to the police, the County Prosecutor who has covered Lafayette for the past 16 years complained that he has never heard of a case against a priest in that time. ("The Bishops Justice," Linda Graham Caleca and Richard D. Walton, The Indianapolis Star, 2/17/97.) Or, unlike neighboring Chicago, whose review process of abuse cases must involve lay people outside of archdiocesan employ, the Indianapolis review process is run entirely by church officials. ("Chicago Archdiocese Broke Mold with Open Investigation," Judith Cebula, The Indianapolis Star, 12/16/97.) Victims frequently feel betrayed twice -- once by the offending priest and a second time by an offending hierarchy. ("Faith Betrayed," Linda Graham Caleca and Richard D. Walton, The Indianapolis Star, 2/16/97.) From that standpoint, victims welcome the opportunity to bring their stories into the light. They are not seeking vengeance. They are asking for acknowledgment. Father Melvin J. Bennett, an archdiocesan priest, argues that the secrecy around clerical misconduct is a grave mistake. "We keep thinking that this Church is going to be damaged by the Truth No! The Church is set free by the Truth!" Even fellow priests have been kept in the dark about charges against their accused brothers. ("Faith Betrayed," Linda Graham Caleca and Richard D. Walton, The Indianapolis Star, 2/16/97.) The articles make painful reading for a Catholic. They are painful from the perspective of the sympathy they arouse in the reader, who aches for the abused. They are painful from the perspective of the readers faith, which is challenged by the dissonance between spiritual ideals and human failure. They are painful because the reader recoils from having to face the imperfections of beloved priests, who have betrayed that love and abused their authority. It is painful because we are unsteady about our feelings -- which are complicated. We want to forgive the sinner. We want to help the wounded. We want to protect the innocent. We want to avoid exacerbating the scandal. We want to take every reasonable precaution against this happening again. Sometimes these feeling conflict with one another. Justice is out of the question. There can never be justice on this earth for young victims of molestation. No punitive act can reclaim a violated childhood. There can never be justice on this earth for souls lost. The Catholic laity can, however, seek recourse -- assurances that the perpetrator will not be at liberty to repeat his behavior with a new victim, and that the hierarchy will cultivate chastity and discipline in its clergy, weeding out the mentally unstable. What happens when the normal channels of recourse are closed? What is the laity to do when it becomes apparent that their bishop is ineffective, at best, or, at worst, possibly himself compromised? This is a difficult question, because meekness and long-suffering are, rightly, bred into the Catholic bone. Catholicism has a long and venerable history of protecting its clergy. St. Catherine of Siena, recording what God has spoken to her about errant priests, writes in The Dialogues, "Because of the dignity and authority I have given them, it never has nor ever will be my will that the hand of civil law should touch them for any sin of theirs. To do so would be a wretched offense against me." A more contemporary example of the this attitude comes from a small, popular booklet of prayers and devotions, The Pieta. According to Mutter Vogel, in purported revelations occurring between 1929-1939, priests are never to be attacked, even when in error. Mutter Vogel tells the faithful that God says "[R]ather one should pray and do penance that Ill grant him My grace again .When a Priest falls we should extend him a helping hand through prayer and not through attacks! I myself will be his judge, no one but I!" How does one answer such exhortations? Are there ever circumstances when, in addition to prayer, it is appropriate to place a priest in the hands of civil law or to make public outcry against him? There are two such circumstances. The first of these circumstances concerns the criminal cleric. There are no ecclesial courts, complete with dungeons, to handle the felonies of todays criminal cleric as there were in St. Catherines time. Her advice to not report a priest to civil authorities was appropriate when the Church was structured in such a way that it could protect society from its pathological members. It is extremely dangerous advice -- not to mention illegal, in certain cases -- for a Church that has no penal structure to suggest that fellow priests and the laity should remain passive while the sick and sinful molest those who are most defenseless. The second circumstance in which the laity must act, as well as pray, is when heresy is openly preached and the bishop, having been notified, neglects to correct the situation, or possibly himself concurs with it. For the sake of souls, the laity must speak out, expose the error, and promote the truth. Dietrich von Hildebrand has written, "Today, with so many heretical and dangerous and confusing new opinions abroad, the faithful must hope -- and if necessary, they must demand -- that their bishops and others in authority in the Church fulfill their strict obligation to protect their flocks by silencing or suspending those who are spreading heresy and error." (Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Charitable Anathema, Roman Catholic Books, 1993.) Scripture supports this. 1 Timothy 5: 19-20 cautions, "Do not accept an accusation against a priest unless it is supported by two or three witnesses." If such witness is given, we are to then "Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid." These two circumstances make a serious distinction between the personal "flaws" of a weak man and those actions he takes which have public ramifications. They allow for instances when, as a "last resort," the laity must speak up. This is not to be confused with the "We Are Church" cabal, in which the vox populi claims to be the voice of God. The lay faithful ask for nothing that the Church has not asserted for 2000 years. It speaks out only after all other attempts to get the bishop to exercise his authority have failed. The priest who physically harms his flock needs to be stopped. The priest who regularly abuses the faith of his congregation with heresy needs to be stopped. The usual channel to stop him is the bishop. Whether the bishop has abdicated his authority or not, the abusive priest must still be stopped. What is left but the voice of the laity? Stephanie Block
My dear friend, It was with unspeakable sorrow that I received your terse message on the answering machine last night, in which you spoke of your temptation to leave the Church. To say I am "surprised" doesn't begin to express the emotions I feel. You have been one of the Church's strongest defenders. You're the person in the parish who, unintimidated, was willing to confront the principal, and later the school board, about their wretched and impure sex ed program. You're the one who has consistently spoken out at the diocesan pro-life meetings about the need for diocesan oversight of these programs. You've gone up to the state capitol and spoken fearlessly on behalf of the unborn. You've researched and written and prayed and inspired. You've always been one of the leaders in this perpetual battle for the Faith. Why would you, of all people, cast your back on the Church? Even as I write this, I think I know your answer. The few times we've spoken have been sufficient to convey the overwhelming betrayal you feel. I understand how disappointed and frustrated you are by priests and nuns and laity who are obviously cynical, materialistic, and profane people. Their faithlessness has scandalized you. I understand. That acknowledged, why would you willingly add yourself to their ranks? Do you mean to tell me that because the devil is prowling around the Church, seeking souls to devour, you're going to allow him to frighten you away? You're going to give him the power to run you off your own property? To divest you of your inheritance? To keep you from the Sacraments? It's good that you care as strongly as you do. The depth of your temptation reveals the depth of your passion for Christ and His Church. It's better to be "hot or cold" than one of those lukewarm pew-warmers who sleeps through Mass and is content with whatever programs or liturgies his parish provides, so long as no one disturbs his slumber. Passion is not enough, however. I'm familiar with this "other" church you've visited. There are many good Christians there, and you're feeling "fed" on the good-will of their fellowship and the serious, intense Bible-study they offer. You've been attracted to one of the "traditional" Catholic groups around town, too, where there are at least valid -if silent- Sacraments. You're thinking one of these new "homes" may afford you a place to lick your wounds and create a haven in which you can heal from the strain of battle. May I ask you a question? Why are you bothering to fight with your parish priest over his abandonment of one doctrine, while willing to uncritically embrace an entire denomination or schismatic splinter group which has abandoned another? Aren't you picking and choosing which articles of the faith are most important to you like any other cafeteria modernist? Haven't you placed those doctrines into your own private hierarchy of importance, deciding for yourself which ones are all right to put aside and which ones you'll keep? Is it really O.K. for Christendom to work in fragments, so long as the school has a healthy curriculum? This quest for purity is at the very heart of the problem. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that you and I, as individual Christians, ought not to be pure. God forbid! Nor am I suggesting that you and I, as individual Christians, ought to stop fighting for that purity ;in our Church-you know me better than that! What I am saying is that to follow Christ is to accept an entire package, which includes much mystery-not the least of which is an imperfect Church. While that Church struggles on earth, it is inhabited by imperfect people, starting with myself. There's nowhere - in Christ - that you can go to get away from the institutional imperfections and scandals of the Church. Every attempt to cut oneself off from the filth and outrage does worse damage, as if a wholesome finger were to leap off a cancer-riddles body in an effort to escape malignancy. Sadly, the finger can't survive independently for long. So, if we aren't to capitulate to evil, and if we are not to ignore or accept wrongdoing and error, yet are stuck in a corrupt and corrupting institution, what is expected of us? I think we must be metaphorical housewives, called upon to sweep both within our own souls and within the institutional Church today, knowing full well that tomorrow we'll have to sweep again. we must be moral gardeners, with the life-long task of weeding. We must become poor of spirit and persecuted and meek. Blessed the man who is persistent in this work. The Church need you, my friend. She needs people who will accept that being a Christian is difficult and discouraging at times. She needs lovers who will lay down their lives not only for their friends, but also for their enemies. We needs missionaries who are prepared to speak the truth anywhere and everywhere-even within parish walls. She needs saints who will admit their sins and strive toward God despite them. But more than all that, you need the Church. You may find a small society of others outside the Church with whom you are comfortable, but comfort is not what you need. You need the unlimited opportunities to prove your fidelity, and to test your virtue. You need a place to forgive (and to be forgiven). You need the Sacramental life. You need the chance to be the friend where there is no fellowship. You need to carry your cross. I have some practical suggestions. It's one thing to care passionately about the Church's welfare: it's another to allow earthly failures to damage your peace of mind. Maybe you also need to temporarily pull out of the confrontational aspects of the battle for awhile and immerse yourself in prayer and Mass. Read the lives of the saints. Fast. Allow your spiritual fields a sabbatical in which to lie fallow. Then come back into the fray refreshed and renewed and prepared to do the Lord's work. You have no business grumbling about "leaving the Church." You know that's wrong. Yet other once-staunch Catholics have fallen for the subtle lure of soft solutions before. Don't join them! I'll keep you in my prayers.
RCF needs any information, documentation, or paper articles you may have concerning inappropriate sex ed programs or sex scandals involving clergy. We are preparing a report to be sent to every American Bishop. We need mailing labels, for every priest in the following dioceses: Pittsburgh, PA, Santa Fe, NM, and Rochester, NY. Any information, documentation, or articles you may have concerning the following dioceses: Los Angeles, Albany, Pittsburgh, Rochester, Santa Fe. RCF has recently been contacted by several priests and parents concerning sexual abuse taking place in a "Catholic" school, seminary and parish. If you have first hand information regarding such behavior, please contact RCF. No names will be given out or made public. We can help! Roman Catholic Faithful, Attn. Stephen
Brady Wednesday, September 17, 1997, 7:30 PM at the Holiday Inn Pittsburgh South, 164 Fort Couch Rd. Pittsburgh, PA. Sponsored by: Reclaiming Our Catholic Kids (ROCK). Speaker: Stephen Brady. Friday,
September 19, 1997, 7:30 PM at the Oasis Motor
Inn, 340 Chestnut St., Oneonta,
NY 13820-1212. Speaker: Stephen Brady Saturday, September 20, 1997 (All day event) Mass at 8:30 am, program 9:30- 5:00 pm. at the Howard Johnsons Hotel and Conference Center, 1357 Washington Ave. Albany, NY 518-459-3100. Speakers: James Bendell, Washington State trial attorney and RCF board member and Stephen Brady, President RCF. For more information and registration contact: Coalition Of Concerned Catholics, P.O. Box 15-532, Albany, NY 12212-3532 Ph: 518-842-5532 There is a small charge for this conference. Saturday, September 27, 1997, 7:00 PM at the UNM Continuing Education Conference Center Auditorium, 1634 University Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM Speaker: Stephen Brady. For Information call Lorenzo at 505-247-3235. Monday, October 20, 1997 Stephen Brady, RCF will be speaking in Ohio. Details to be announced. Sunday, Nov. 9, 1997 . Registration form in this newsletter. Re-Educating
Catholics: Baltimore, Maryland: In 1995, a remarkable news story broke which concerned Notre Dame Prep, a Catholic girls school located in Baltimore. For ten years the school had been showing its students the video Not A Love Story, a documentary about the pornography industry. The film was made to expose the perversity of pornography, and does that most successfully. The viewer is taken into peep shows and strip tease joints, to watch the gyrations of naked young women and to hear the vulgar remarks of the aroused male audience around them. The women are later interviewed, and they grimly reveal their hatred of men, of sex, and of their own acts. As the film progresses, the sexually explicit shots of human anatomy in action become increasingly grotesque and violent. The film maker skillfully and graphically conveys the brutalizing effects of sexuality used as an object, in and of itself. Interviews with women (and a few men) express a deep awareness of how the body is desecrated and degraded by pornographic exploitation. The film also reveals an intense fury at the silence and the willingness of "good people" to avert their eyes from the licentious and commercial use of women. Therefore, as a deterrent to anyones ever thinking that pornography is an innocent pastime, the film "works." It might, perhaps, be legitimately used as a sort of "aversion therapy" for adults who have developed a pornography addiction. There is nothing attractive or titillating in the films images. It evokes only horror and revulsion. As a educational vehicle, however, even at the high school level, Not a Love Story is a violent assault against any shreds of innocence that there may be in a young adult. Coarse images of copulation and couplings are a bizarre pedagogical tool for teaching virtue. The Church has consistently condemned such approaches, insisting that they are at best unnecessary, and are often themselves an occasion of sin. Further, the young, the unmarried, or the inexperienced risk mistaking the impersonal, joyless, mechanical, and perverse sexual activity they are observing in the film for a loving, conjugal relationship. In fact, this confusion seems to be the response of a number of people interviewed on the film, only one of whom appears to be married, and that single example of a marriage seems a rather "peculiar" one, at that. It is entirely understandable that a young person might to be seriously frightened by the films clips of women being beaten and sexually "used." If these were an insufficient objections to showing Not A Love Story to young people, there is a third. The film does not approach its subject matter from a moral perspective, beyond the obvious condemnation of pornography. Twisted commentary is thrown out by the women who are making the film or who are reflecting on the topic. One woman writer explains that the antidote to pornography is letting people experience more sex, and to have more sexual partners. Another woman writer, weeping, says that a woman has no alternative but to live in pain, and that "to be female and conscious anywhere on this planet is to be in a continual state of rage." As the opinions of these "good" women are contrasted to the unhappy women who are making their living off of pornography, their opinions carry a lot of weight. One striking example of the films peculiar moral perspective occurs during the denouement of the film, which concerns a strip teaser. The feelings of the strip teaser about her work were recorded over a period of several months. During those months, the film-makers began a recorded process in which they "conscientized" the stripper, bringing her to another point of awareness about her "profession." By the end of the film, the stripper had an emotional "epiphany," which the viewer would be expected to sympathetically approve. This approval is wrung from the viewer because of its emotional content, but not because of its moral strength. The stripper explained that she was now able to differentiate between the erotic and the pornographic. However, neither she nor the film appeared to observe or value any difference between the chaste and the impure. It was hardly a surprise that some parents, therefore, once they had viewed Not A Love Story for themselves, were outraged that their high school daughters had been shown this video. Although they had been presented with permission slips, parents had not been informed of the films graphic content, nor of its XXX-rating, which appears on the videos jacket cover. In response to parental complaints and having received a copy of Not A Love Story to critique, Cardinal Keeler called the film "appalling" and "inappropriate" and banned its use at Notre Dame Prep [March 22, 1995, Maryland Sun, "NPS Ordered to Stop using Video on Sex"]. The film was then replaced by a second, equally objectionable video, "The Accused," which contains a brutal, 15 minute bar-scene gang rape. A third film shown to the girls was "The Coming Out of Heidi Lightner." The Cardinal also promised an archdiocesan assessment of the school, which parents eagerly applauded. The school administration, for its part, publicly offered to meet with the troubled parents so that they might air their concerns, which were rapidly spreading beyond distress over the video to include what parents feared were further school-related abuses, including liturgical irregularities, dissident scripture analysis, an incident in which a religion teacher had taught a small class the benefits of female masturbation, the invitation of homosexual and lesbian activists to address Notre Dame Prep students, the showing of homosexual rights documentaries, and the support for lesbian relationships which were articulated by several Notre Dame Prep teachers.. On April 5, 1995 parents were treated to what the school administration considered an appropriate forum for hearing their concerns. Rather than meeting privately with the parents who had collected evidence of impropriety, all 600 parents of Notre Dame Prep were invited to an open assembly led by a six-member panel comprised of school personnel. In what was perceived as an effort to intimidate the "complainers," parents were met at the school doors by four police cars and a paddy wagon. Upon entering the building, they were ushered down a gauntlet of tables and required to give their daughters name and class. In order to speak before the administrators, parents were required to again identify their daughter by name and grade. The administration also maintained a tight control over the question and answer component of the meeting. The concerned parents felt that these tactics were intentionally designed to keep confrontational remarks at a minimum and found that none of the problems they wished to discuss were addressed in a meaningful way. While parents pressed for a private meeting in which to present their evidence, the diocese arranged for an investigation at Notre Dame Prep. In evident preparation for the archdiocesan investigation, students and one teacher observed that the day before the investigative team was to arrive, members of the religion department were hauling boxes of books out of their offices and the school library. When the investigation was concluded in May, the Archdiocesan report gave Notre Dame Prep a clean bill of health. Parents were outraged. Not once had they been contacted by the Archdiocese or its investigative team. The parents testimony was no part of the 15-page report. Charges that Notre Dame Prep had systematically undermined the Catholic faith and morals of its student body were found to be ungrounded, because the evidence behind those charges was left unexamined. Adding insult to injury, when the school year came to a close, the teacher who had shown the Not a Love Story video was presented with a "teacher of the year award" and was profiled in the archdiocesan newspaper. If this were insufficiently surreal, several parents became the object of a million-dollar lawsuit, leveled against them by the chairman of Notre Dame Preps religion department. They were charged with defamation, loss of consortium, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy, among other things. The parents were not dismayed by the suit, but welcomed it as an opportunity to bring their charges against Notre Dame Prep further into the open. To their chagrin, however, they discovered that insurance lawyers had settled the case out of court, awarding the plaintiff money to drop the matter. "It was not at all what we would have done," complained one parent, "and justice has been perverted. We can remove our daughters from the school, but the abuses inside Notre Dame Preps walls will continue, because their perpetrators have been rewarded." After three years of frustration and anger, the parents feel betrayed. "What is most disappointing to me personally, is the willingness of the Archdiocese to sweep this scandal under the rug and to turn its back on the truth and on its Catholic parents. Our faith is under assault from the very persons we once expected to uphold it. The bricks with which I laid the foundation of my daughters religious education and moral instruction were attacked at a so-called Catholic school. I feel that my training and her faith were undermined there." Stephanie Block - Reeducating Catholics: Raising FutureChurch while Razing the Body of Christ Priest
Correspondents
200-300 Roman Catholic Faithful members in Ireland gathered to protest outside a newspapers office in Cork Ireland after a reporter for the Cork Examiner criticized the Pope. The event was covered by newspapers in England and Ireland. Just
maybe we could learn something from our Irish
brothers. RCF needs to hear from Springfield
Catholics who are willing to protest!
Catholics
of Clinton, Iowa:
|
|