And Exactly Why Is This a Secret, Your Eminence?

A spokesman for the U.S. Catholic Bishops has accused Catholic News Agency of fabricating comments by Cardinal George criticizing the Catholic Health Association (CHA) for supporting Obamacare. (The cardinal gave a talk on health care at the bishops' recent meeting in Florida.) You can read the story by clicking on the link below.

US bishops' conference, news agency at odds over account of Cardinal George's speech

The question I have is why exactly was Cardinal George's talk a secret in the first place? Was he ashamed of something he was going to say? What was the point of making it secret? Haven't we had enough secrets? Was Cardinal George afraid to directly confront the scandalous actions of Sister Carol Keehan and the CHA and let the flock know it? Why? Shouldn't public scandals be confronted publicly? Has anybody got a good answer?

In his book Nothing to Hide, Russell Shaw, former communications director for the bishops, describes the ill effects of secrecy on the community:

Secrecy, deception, stonewalling, spin, rejection of accountability, repudiation of shared responsibility and consultation -- these are deadly foes of internal communication among members of any group. They subvert and eventually destroy community and "horizontal" communion in the Church. Systematically practiced by leaders at the expense of the led, the abuse of secrecy creates an us-versus-them mentality on both sides of the relationship.

Hmm....Us vs. them -- yes indeed. Unfortunately, the them identified as enemies of the bishops are often those laity who defend the faith with courage and conviction. Preeminent theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand pointed this out in The Devastated Vineyard. Those who should be the bishops' pride and joy are often dismissed as troublemakers.

Shaw says most of what happens at bishops' meetings should be open. "The presumption ought to be in favor of openness, with the burden of proof resting (the seal of confessional excepted) on those who wish to argue for secrecy in particular cases that 'involve the good name of individuals, or that touch upon the rights of people whether singly or collectively'".

But the opposite is actually happening as the bishops close more and more of their sessions to the media. There is still a "circle the wagons" mentality. Put it down, at least in part, to the on-going problem of clericalism in the Church which, as Shaw says, is "something like the pattern in the wallpaper: it's been there so long you don't see it any more". Shaw defines clericalism as:

an elitist mindset, together with structures and patterns of behavior corresponding to it, that takes it for granted that clerics -- in the Catholic context, mainly bishops and priests -- are intrinsically superior to the other members of the Chruch and dexerve automatic deference. Passivity and dependency are the laity's lot. By no means is clericalism confined to clerics themselves. The clericalist mindset is widely shared by Catholic lay people.

Combine the elitist mindset with the attitutude that boatrockers are enemies even when they are loyal to Holy Mother Church and are working feverishly to bail the floundering ship. Wrap it all up in secrecy and you have prescription for a Church leadership out of touch with the flock and indifferent to the damaging impact scandal has had on the faith.

I'm not talking only about the sex abuse scandals, but the inaction in the face of dozens of other scandals: The Vagina Monologues showing on Catholic campuses, heretical speakers at Catholic events, homosexuals and dissenters teaching in Catholic schools at all levels, pastors allowing Church property to be used for homosexual and pro-abortion events, celebrity Catholic dissenters in photo ops with bishops laughing and making nice as though nothing is wrong. The list of scandals goes on and on and on.

The bishops' trust index with the people is so low at this point that one ponders who the average Joe in the marketplace, not to mention the average Jane in the pew, is likely to believe when he or she sees the bishops "at odds" with a news agency or anybody else for that matter? My money, sad to say, is not on the bishops.

The Legion Comes Unglued

The myth of the "saintly" founder of the Legionaries of Christ has completely unravelled with the revelation that Marcial Maciel Degollado fathered one or more children in his latter years. Since his priestly faculties were suspended by Pope Benedict a few years ago, the Legion hasn't been quite as loud in their defense of Maciel, but still released an imprudent statement when he died about the "departure of its dear Father Founder... to the heavenly homeland." He died, they said in a letter to affiliates, "with the peace that always filled his soul." It would have been more to the point to beg for prayers for his salvation instead of this near canonization.

I've never trusted the Legionaries of Christ. Call it a woman's instinct, but I just couldn't stand the worship fest and rule that made "the founder" the center of the universe and shrouded him in secrecy and forbade any criticism. (Pope Benedict nullified those two private vows a few years ago.) Only one man belongs at the center of our faith and he's depicted, not as a man of honor, but humiliated and despised. "There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him. He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, one of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem." (Isaiah 53) That is certainly not the picture of Maciel who always appeared to relish his place of honor and fostered his image of living saint.

What should happen now with the Legionaries? Canon Lawyer Edward Peters says what "must not happen" is "Any more language whatsoever from Legion leadership that tries to spin this disaster." He decried their initial reaction which he felt treated people as "idiot children." He's also made some sensible suggestions that include the possibility of disbanding the Legion and reestablishing it as a new order releasing those who wish to go into the diocesan priesthood or elsewhere. A serious examination and a fresh start may be exactly what's needed, but not with the leadership that circled the wagons and fostered the myth of the saintly persecuted founder for so long. Some of them had to know the truth. And we've seen enough of secrecy and dissembling among churchmen in the past decade to last a lifetime. Those who helped cover up Maciel's secrets belong repenting in a monastery. With all the U.S. bishps who covered up sex abuse there are enough to start an entire order - how about the Order of Atonement. Part of their rule can be two hours a day scrubbing floors and cleaning toilets at a local jail reflecting on where they deserve to be.

For other reactions to the breaking scandal see Phil Lawler of Catholic World News, Rocco Palmo, of Whispers in the Loggia, and Damian Thompson of the UK.