Malfeasance, abuse, victimhood - and the rocky relations between Rome and the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter universalindult
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

universalindult

Guest
Malfeasance, abuse, victimhood - and the rocky relations between Rome and the SSPX
–The Gregorian Rite blog
Monday, June 30, 2008
“And let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to anger. For the anger of man worketh not the justice of God.”
– James 1: 19-20
[snip]

Victimhood

In all the recent discussions about the SSPX and negotiations with Rome, there has been a truly frightening level of vitriol from both SSPX critics and SSPX supporters. The former can be found in the posts and comment boxes of Catholic forums, blogs and websites all over the internet. The latter is limited to a small handful of outlets, most notably Angelqueen.

It is hard to understand the level of anger and outright hatred expressed towards the leaders and supporters of the SSPX – unless one spends a fair amount of time reading the more extreme rantings of some of the leaders and supporters of the SSPX. It is also hard for any Catholics on the outside of the debate to understand the level of anger and outright hatred expressed by some of the leaders and supporters of the SSPX towards Rome – unless one comes to grasp the fact that most SSPX defenders have been liturgically and spiritually molested by the post-conciliar Church itself, and told to shut up about it, for forty years now.

AngelQueen forum itself began as a refuge for members of a conservative political forum, FreeRepublic.com, who had been banned or censored for unapologetically expressing orthodox and/or traditional Catholic views. (I was one of the “founding members” of Angelqueen and served a long time as a moderator, and have always been a prolific contributor.) Though its founder is an attendee at an SSPX chapel, Angelqueen was not then and is not now an “SSPX forum,” though that has become the majority viewpoint.

One of the most anti-Catholic, vitriolic, and hateful posters on the FreeRepublic forum went by the screen name “Chancellor Palpatine.” His level of invective was simply inexplicable. No Catholic discussion on FreeRepublic was left unmolested by his poisoned keyboard. Eventually someone figured out that he was a plaintiff in a priestly molestation case down south. Afterwards, it was easy to understand the source of his rage. But an explanation is not an excuse; I often pointed out to him that being a victim did not confer upon him the right to verbally victimize others.

Victims of abuse often get over the abuse and get on with relatively normal, productive lives. They also, quite often, become bitter, angry and even hate-filled over the injustices done to them. Victims are quite often very unpleasant individuals to deal with on a personal basis. They can be terminally narcissistic, and they often turn their status as a victim into a cudgel with which to attack anyone perceived in any way to be associated with their abuser.

I count many friends among the members of AngelQueen, and I truly admire the contributions the SSPX has made to restoring traditional Catholicism. But after Bishop Fellay mischaracterized this Pope as a “perfect liberal” I knew I had to dissociate myself from their forum. The victim mentality, and the anger and vitriol that goes with it, runs rampant. Even John Grasmeier, the owner, has been posting cynical and sarcastic editorials that go way beyond the pale; abuse seems to be one of those gifts that keep on giving.

Malfeasance

Many of the decent Catholics who have sought sanity, safety and refuge within the SSPX did so because of the sheer lunacy, and often heresy and apostacy, that accompanied the reforms enacted in the name of Vatican II. They were victims of the liturgical abuse that universally accompanied the reforms. They were victims of a new theology so far removed from everything they knew and loved as to be seen as a “new religion” altogether. And they were spiritual victims of the same priests whose personal lives were so intrinsically disordered they could not possibly pass on the Catholic Faith whole and intact. For every altar boy that a homosexual priest molested, entire parishes were robbed of Catholic orthodoxy and orthopraxis. For every bishop who looked the other way, entire dioceses went astray.

The Church has yet to deal justly with those within the hierarchy who coddled the homosexual molesters and advanced their careers, let alone address the true homosexual nature of the abuse crisis. The Church has yet to admit the wholesale and almost universal victimization of the entire laity in the post-Vatican II era. The Faith was diluted and orthodox theology was eclipsed. The liturgy was gutted, and the people left bereft of the consolation and succor that came from traditional pious practices.

If those within the SSPX do not trust Rome to fix the problems, they are not wholly to blame, and they do not deserve much of the scorn heaped upon them of late. If they are still angry, it is often just anger. The Church has not apologized to the millions of scandalized Catholics. The scandal was not due to “pedophilia,” it was due to the widespread malfeasance of its religious, priests, and hierarchy.

Just Anger

There is such a thing as just anger. Victims rightfully experience just anger, and search for justice. Abuse victims were denied justice and therefore sought it in lawsuits. The SSPX is searching for justice and restoration of that which was lost and/or stolen from the Church, and use the court of public opinion to plead their case.

Those who have been scandalized and/or victimized must constantly reflect on their motives. Only the Saints’ motives were pure. Even the SSPX can harbor mixed motives.

We all must recall James 1: 19-20:
“And let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to anger. For the anger of man worketh not the justice of God.”
– James 1: 19-20
The time for words of anger, even just anger, are past. The acts of Archbishop Lefebvre, up till the consecrations of 1988, were those of a just man attempting against all odds to preserve traditional Catholicism. The final arbitration of what happened in 1988 is still to be seen; it could be resolved overnight with the stroke of a pen.

But the anger – just anger – is going to have to be put away now, so that the greatest number of souls can be saved. The culture of victimhood must be rooted out. The Pope does need the SSPX, and the SSPX must realize now that they are nothing without the universal Church. The Church will move forward in its role of saving souls with or without the SSPX. If one must choose between allegiance to Pope Benedict XVI and allegiance to the bishops of the SSPX, there can be only one choice. It is no more “papaolatry” to muster behind this embattled Pope than it is Fallay-olotry or Williamson-olotry to support SSPX bishops.

The Church does not subsist in the SSPX, and the SSPX bishops do not now and will never have the charisms of the Papacy. This is not 1975, nor is it 1988. This is 2008, and this Pope has done what no “perfectly liberal” bishop would ever do: he has freed the Traditional Latin Mass and admitted it was never abrogated. This Pope of 2008 is not the theology student of the 1950’s, nor the Fr. Ratzinger of VII, nor even the Cardinal Ratzinger of Pope John Paul II’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He loved Pope John Paul II, but he is not beholden to nor petrified by the false sense of collegiality that marked his predecessor’s pontificate. He is truly a courageous man who is trying to restore the Faith, and in the process (in my opinion) do reparation for the spiritual malfeasance of the post-conciliar era. He is a man of the VII council, so he will never pose the issue in those terms, but his actions belie that he sees the shipwreck that 40 years of experimentation caused.

The post-Summorum Ponstificum age

Twenty years is long enough. Yes, the SSPX leaders, priests, and supporters have suffered. Yes, they’ve been victimized. Yes, their anger was often just anger.

But the time for that is over:
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child."1 Corinthians 13:11
The SSPX is no longer the child of the 1970’s or the 1980’s; the Church of 2008 is not the Church of the VII Council. The post-conciliar age is past. We are living in the post-Summorum Pontificum era.

Trust in the Lord. Be at Peace. Just as the abuse crisis, in the Time and Providence of God, could no longer be kept quiet, the issues that the SSPX rightfully raises can and will no longer be kept quiet. Summorum Pontificum guaranteed that as nothing else has, including even the valiant efforts of the SSPX itself.

This is God’s Church, not ours. God is in control. Trust him, and come back into full communion with His Church.
 
I am reading a volume of St. Catherine of Siena’s letters and I see some parallels to our time. She writes one letter to a group who were mistreated by bad pastors so they isolated themselves from the rest of the Church and were now leveling attacks against the Pope. They claimed they were not fighting the Church, only bad pastors. She has great compassion and understanding for their position, but at the same time gently rebukes them for their lack of faith–she knows that God permits difficult times and sufferings so the He can bring an even greater good from it. He permits these times often to renew the Church and let the unfaithful and worldly fall away and die. It is patience, humility, obedience, mildness, and above all blazing charity that win out.

But for her, this must always be done in complete union with the key-bearer, Christ on earth and the pastors in union with Him, even if it means bearing insults and mistreatment (and the Pope at that time was much more lax then the current). She bluntly states that to resist the stand apart from the holy father is to spurn the Blood of Christ, since he alone holds the key to it.

She also writes the Pope begging him to treat these straying sheep with the kind love of a gentle father, full of mercy and forgiveness and to do nothing that might further push them away.

I think this is the key here–compassion for the SSPX for how they have been treated, prayers for Christ on earth to deal with them as a good shepherd and loving father, but also frankness concerning what is wrong about the current approach by some associated with the SSPX (as well as what is wrong with those who are not prepared to welcome them back joyously or those pastors who are being a stumbling block). And of course, we need faith in God’s power and providence and the blazing charity of the like that held God bound to a cross.
 
There was a thread about the logic of the SSPX. I would not blame the SSPX for this article, but this is the most blatant example of false logic I have ever read, including Jack Chick pamphlets. The author does nothing to tie the two non sequituers of clergy sexual abuse to the actions of the SSPX. He argues an issue that no one disagrees with. Even the anti-Catholics that railed against celebate priests during the sexual abuse media outbreak had better arguments than this author.

Let’s give a parallel. “Congressmen abused interns, so I should not have to pay taxes or follow US law.”

There
 
When anti-Catholics use the media surrounding sexual abuse cases to rail against priestly celibacy, they have a far better argument than this author. If anyone has ever used this reasoning, it would have to be done because a lame excuse would do as well as a reason.

Here is a parallel non sequiteur: Congressmen have molested interns so we do not have to follow US law or pay taxes.
 
Comparing the anger and outrage of the sex-related scandal to the anger and outrage of the SSPX over Church policies is just plain ludicrous.

How a supporter of the SSPX could claim that alleged injury by the Church regarding Church policies could compare to those scandalized and hurt by the sex-related scandal shows just how sick some people can be in order to forward their agenda.

Sheesh. :mad:
 
To me all of this just shows we are sinners…We all need to forgive, to do better ,and get on with it

I think Pope Benedict is doing his best on all fronts to address these problems

God bless him
 
Comparing the anger and outrage of the sex-related scandal to the anger and outrage of the SSPX over Church policies is just plain ludicrous.

How a supporter of the SSPX could claim that alleged injury by the Church regarding Church policies could compare to those scandalized and hurt by the sex-related scandal shows just how sick some people can be in order to forward their agenda.

Sheesh. :mad:
I suppose this presumptuous opinion is based on some Church teaching? I know people (***non-***Catholics) who are scandalized more by the public opinions/behavior of the last pope than by the sex scandals. One affects the credibility of the priests and/or priestly celibacy, while the other affects the credibility of the Church as a whole. The more serious problem should be obvious.
 
I suppose this presumptuous opinion is based on some Church teaching? **I know people (***non-*****Catholics) who are scandalized more by the public opinions/behavior of the last pope than by the sex scandals. One affects the credibility of the priests and/or priestly celibacy, while the other affects the credibility of the Church as a whole. The more serious problem should be obvious.
I find this opinion more presumptious than the opinion in the article. Who did Pope John Paul II “scandalize”?
 
He didn’t scandalize me, but he ticked off some people because he tried to act like a Christian
 
Comparing the anger and outrage of the sex-related scandal to the anger and outrage of the SSPX over Church policies is just plain ludicrous.

How a supporter of the SSPX could claim that alleged injury by the Church regarding Church policies could compare to those scandalized and hurt by the sex-related scandal shows just how sick some people can be in order to forward their agenda.

Sheesh. :mad:
What do these have to do with each other?
 
I suppose this presumptuous opinion is based on some Church teaching? I know people (***non-***Catholics) who are scandalized more by the public opinions/behavior of the last pope than by the sex scandals. One affects the credibility of the priests and/or priestly celibacy, while the other affects the credibility of the Church as a whole. The more serious problem should be obvious.
Non-Catholics are generally scandalized by Catholic things, usually because they are ignorant of what they are seeing. Everyone knows, however, that sexually victimizing the young is a great evil. Since the old Holy Father didn’t do anything wrong in any of his public actions (unless one is bent, all reason and prudence aside, on thinking otherwise of his motives) and since he taught the Catholic faith with fidelity (unless one is bent, all reason and prudence aside, on thinking otherwise in the face of those teachings), yes, you’re quite right: the more serioius problem should be obvious. That it isn’t to some says more about them than it does anything else.
 
Please permit me to comment on two words:
  1. “Sheesh”. (@ ethelzguy) - an excellent choice. We really don’t use this word enough. 👍
  2. “Victimhood”. …Only my limited opinion, but perhaps it would be more appropriate to substitute the word “victimization” in this instance.
Victimhood is when we bear injustices patiently and if grace so provides also offer this to God for the building up of the kingdom, while praying (if we are able) for our persecutors; striving to follow in the footsteps of Him crucified.

Victimization , on the other hand is screaming “bloody murder!!”, while pointing the finger at everyone else but ourselves.

I cases of abuse, dear fellow readers please note that:
a) Yes…God does heal…and
b) No…no amount of money is going to fix any emotional or spiritual wound.
 
Is this Pope John Paul II you are angry at for acting like a Christian? I do not understand.
I love Pope John Paul II but some are angry because he was inclusive of others, just like Christ was

Why do you think I am mad at him?
:confused:
 
The author does nothing to tie the two non sequituers of clergy sexual abuse to the actions of the SSPX.
I am not “an SSPX supporter.” I have dealt with them extensively, and I am simply trying to help others understand their anger.

As far as tying the two together, that was the main point. The primary objection of the SSPX to the “Five Conditions” is that they were simply one more attempt to silence those who had legitimate concerns about the whole post-VII wreck.

Until 2002, the church was quite able to silence victims of abuse, but that has ended.

Since Summorum Pontificum, and its specific intent to reconcile the SSPX, neither is it possible to continue to silence the concerns of the SSPX in the broader Church. Therefore their primary reason for refusing further attempts at rapproachment are no longer valid.

As far as some of the other more hysterical criticisms on this thread, ironically, they’re not much different from the hysterical criticisms that were posted on AQ forum regarding this same essay.
 
A lot of the abuse occurred pre VC2…so I am not sure the church was in better shape before it was instituted…why weren’t these issues dealt with then?

I don’t feel that VC2 was a major factor in the abuse cases nor the cover ups
 
Comparing the anger and outrage of the sex-related scandal to the anger and outrage of the SSPX over Church policies is just plain ludicrous.

How a supporter of the SSPX could claim that alleged injury by the Church regarding Church policies could compare to those scandalized and hurt by the sex-related scandal shows just how sick some people can be in order to forward their agenda.

Sheesh. :mad:
“Fear not what harms the body. Rather fear what does harm to the soul…” (or something - I paraphrase.)

The last 40 years have seen a palpable falling away from the Faith on a grand scale, particularly among the ranks of the hierarchy.
One of the more unpleasant fruits of this has been the various sex-scandals.
Though, all in all, I regard the vast loss of souls due to Vatican II to be far worse. There’s nothing sick about that.
 
I love Pope John Paul II but some are angry because he was inclusive of others, just like Christ was

Why do you think I am mad at him?
:confused:
I misunderstood. That is why I asked for clarification rather than jumping. Thanks.

This must be one of my better,more lucid days.
 
Since Summorum Pontificum, and its specific intent to reconcile the SSPX,
This is not true. Pope Benedict made it quite clear that the Summorum Pontificum was NOT intended to reconcile any out of communion groups, it was an attempt to allow the faithful who had an attachment to the classic Mass to continue to celebrate it. Hence, the requirement that a “stable group” request it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top