Thoughts on Benedict’s Essay on Abuse

I hesitate to critique the just released essay from the Pope Emeritus.  For one thing, I respect him so much I do not feel comfortable criticizing him, and, yes, there were some statements in the essay that had me scratching my head.  At the same time, the history he overviews is interesting and instructive.  Instead, I will repeat two relevant axioms I have long propounded:

1. Bad theology leads to bad morals.

Yes, there were purportedly orthodox Roman Catholic clerics who abused youth and children.  But a disproportionate amount of the abuse came from Libchurchers, from the Dioceses of Boston and of Los Angeles, from likes of “Uncle Ted” McCarrick, etc.

The Pope Emeritus is right to link the two as well, although far more tactfully than I do, of course.  By the way, I find his aside about hostility to good theology an interesting barometer of how toxic segments of the church got:

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in not a few seminaries, students caught reading my books were considered unsuitable for the priesthood. My books were hidden away, like bad literature, and only read under the desk.

Speaking of toxic seminaries…

2. A church that doesn’t care enough to discipline doesn’t care enough about truth.

And here I must criticize Popes John Paul II and Benedict. They, good and orthodox men, controlled the papacy for over thirty years.  (Granted, John Paul had debilitating health for the last years of his pontificate.)  And, as R. R. Reno notes, large segments of the Church of Rome were in “quasi-open” rebellion to the Faith and the Pope.  Surely, 30 years was long enough to discipline and defeat those Libchurchers, or at the very least weaken them so they could not elect one of their own as Pope.

Yet not only was little effective discipline applied, liberals continued to be appointed bishops and Cardinals.  And that’s how we got Francis.  

How much modern church history do we have to ignore to not get that cohabiting with Libchurchers is not viable and only enables their predations on the church, on the Faith, and, yes, on children and youth?

[Takes breath.] But us non-papists can hardly point fingers at Rome in this regard. I cannot think of a major Protestant denomination that did not fall into the trap of being nice to Libchurchers, only to be taken over by them later.  (The jury is still out on the Southern Baptist Convention I am sad to say.  And some Anglican provinces are another messy matter.)  And Libchurchers are in their own perverse way so much better at church discipline than the orthodox. Once the orthodox lose a church, the liberals virtually shut them out, except for their contributions, of course.  

This sad history has gotten me to thinking that if one wants to go orthodox, one may now have to go small.  I hope that is too pessimistic.  But that is another post for another day.

But I cannot pound the table enough on these two axioms. As much as we may wish it weren’t so or engage in denial, they are proven by modern church history, including the Post-Vatican II Church of Rome.