Thoughts on the McCarrick Scandal

I apologize for the super-long post, but it’s been simmering in my head for a while. Anyway, I’m sure you’ve heard in the news about (former) Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who resigned from his high post in the Catholic hierarchy because he allegedly abused seminarians. When the sordid news came to light (again), it didn’t surprise me, but I was once again disappointed and disgusted by the abuse of power.

Obviously, something is wrong in the hierarchy if this kind of thing keeps happening over and over. I guess it is difficult for those in power to hold others in power accountable because they all have power, and as the saying goes, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I’ve read several articles saying that we, the lay Catholics, need to be the ones to hold our leaders accountable, which is difficult when there isn’t much transparency. It’s even more difficult when most lay Catholics are Catholic in name only or go to church only on Christmas and Easter, so they don’t seem to have much of an opinion on what goes on in the Church as a whole. In the end, if the laypeople do succeed in overturning this corruption, it will be a victory by the few, the proud, and the extremely devout.

This whole business makes me distrust church authorities. My diocese recently got a new bishop, so I know very little about him beyond what was said in the press releases when he was installed. I don’t know if he is a “good guy” or a “bad guy” in this. The author of another article I read stated that he would no longer be contributing to the annual bishop’s appeal in his diocese, but I’m not sure I agree with that because a lot of that money supposedly goes to charities, Catholic schools, and practical causes, not to line the pockets of the bishop himself. But again, there is little transparency, and for all we know, the money could go somewhere else entirely. I know for a fact that my particular parish does not contribute anywhere near the “suggested” amount for the annual appeal anyway because we’re not particularly “wealthy.” It is ridiculously hard to get people to donate money to a church/religious organization nowadays, and most of the time, appeals to donate more money only lead to a withdrawal of even the small amount the people had already been donating.

At this rate, the only authorities I really follow in terms of the Church are God, Mary, the saints, and my parish priest, whom I know fairly well and who is not a diocesan priest but a missionary from the Philippines.* To be honest, I don’t follow what Pope Francis does unless he makes an ex cathedra statement. Sometimes I feel like he crafts his words to be applicable and relevant to the majority of people everywhere and to keep up with the times, whether it is in agreement with Church teaching or not, and Jesus surely didn’t do that. I don’t pay that much attention to what the bishop does unless it’s going to affect me directly. Sure, that probably makes me a “bad Catholic” to some degree.

But I didn’t join or stay in the Church for the pope, the bishops, or a particular priest. The pope, bishops, or priests won’t make me leave the Church either. I don’t join their cults of personality. We typically get a new priest in our parish every 10 years or so, and I have never wanted to stop going to church because my favorite priest is now being transferred to Arlington or wherever. I don’t even stay for typical sentimental reasons like “this is the Church I grew up in” or “my entire family was Catholic.” I stay in the Church because of the truths it stands for and still seeks to uphold, even in the midst of all this earthly drama and corruption.

The role of the Church hierarchy has never changed in all the 2,000 years the Church has been around. It is ultimately to enforce and share the teachings of the Church as laid out in Scripture and the catechism. That is a hard task in today’s world, especially when it seems like hardly anyone goes to church anymore. Many of them sit back in glee and rub their hands together. “Oh, how the mighty have fallen! Those rules were so ludicrously difficult to follow that not even the bishops and archbishops can be chaste! Why should lay people bother?”

Nevertheless, the Church has had a great deal of influence in the world over the years (and still does), and it is a grave error to underestimate that influence. When the last objective standard of truth goes, we’ll all be cast into confusion with no real authority to look to. How can God possibly be an authority to guide people as a whole when anyone can interpret “God” however they like? Maybe people don’t need to be guided as a whole because we are all so “diverse” that what applies to you has no relevance at all to me. Or maybe people don’t need to be guided as a whole because scandalous stuff happens when great power is abused. But overall, we are social animals, “no man is an island” and all that, so we do need some kind of binding force, and what better force than the natural law as laid out by God himself? No human being is exempt from natural law, although we often try to convince ourselves otherwise.

These are truths that are being diluted in the eyes of the faithful (and even those who don’t trust the Church but hold the same kind of beliefs nonetheless) because of the sins of a comparative few. So the real question is… how do we excise these poisonous roots from the hierarchy once and for all? Honestly, I believe at this rate, the answer lies with the faithful laity.

As for the punishment of these crooked cardinals, bishops, and so on, I don’t agree with the typical approach: reassign them to other unsuspecting parishes and/or send them to retreat facilities to be “rehabilitated.” They did criminal deeds and should be treated as criminals, so if that means time in prison, then so be it. If you choose to abuse your power and act like a lowlife, then a punishment fitting a lowlife is your lot.

*I’m sure that doesn’t mean anything, as the scandal is not restricted to just diocesan officials. And sadly, I don’t believe I would allow my child to spend time alone with any priest beyond, of course, the confessional.

At the Mercy of Children

SPOILER ALERT!

So I finally got around to reading Stephen King’s Under the Dome. (Yes, I know there was a TV mini-series, but I don’t think I’ll ever watch it.) In short, I liked the premise of the book and enjoyed the experience of rushing through it to see how Mr. King would wrap up all the craziness he’d created, but the ending was sort of a bummer.

Big Jim Rennie was probably one of the best King villains I’ve read about in a while. He’s your (stereo)typical slimy used car dealer, and to make matters worse, a hypocrite of the highest order. I wanted so badly for him to have a much more gruesome death than he actually did. Having him die alone haunted by the “ghosts” of the people he killed did not in any way justify the hell he unleashed upon the other characters, as if actually being under the dome wasn’t bad enough for them.

I didn’t like the idea of alien “leatherhead” children using the dome as a kind of experiment just to get their kicks, the same way that human children would burn ants under a magnifying glass.* Because the town of Chester’s Mill was basically a huge meth lab, I wanted the dome to be some kind of byproduct of all those chemicals. Wouldn’t that have been a positive anti-drug message? Yes, but that’s not what we got. Instead, we got a sermon on how we should treat ants and those smaller than us with respect because you never know: they might have quite complex lives after all, just like us. (I mean, it wasn’t a bad message, but it wasn’t quite big enough and loud enough to match the bigness and loudness of the book. I suppose it was too “literary” for mainstream horror/sci-fi.)

King also tried to be charitable toward Republicans by making one of the heroines a Republican journalist. However, he was not in the least charitable toward Christians, whom he often portrays as a bunch of mindless sheep who can be very cruel and unaware of how hypocritical they are acting. I find it somewhat unfair, but hey… everyone has their bias, right? King also uses his typical tactic of having a young kid save the day—or at least prove himself to be smarter than most of the adults. I like that trope of his because it is nice to see an underdog pull through and have a victory.

The best parts of the book were the fast pace and the interesting characters. There was literally never any downtime. It was one death right after another, and just when you thought the carnage would be over for a few pages, it started right back up again in the next paragraph, which of course made the book nearly impossible to put down. I kept comparing it to my favorite Stephen King book, Needful Things, mostly because it centered on the destruction of one small town and followed a multitude of raucous characters. However, Needful Things had the satisfying ending that Under the Dome did not.

I’d recommend Under the Dome if you want a big, juicy book to keep you turning the pages on a boring car ride or maybe on the beach. It’s so gory at times that you almost feel like a sick person for enjoying it so much… then you wonder about the author’s sanity.

*As much as I disliked the ending, it was incredibly accurate because when I was much younger, I used to pull the legs and wings off Japanese beetles, mostly because there were so darn many of them and they destroyed my mother’s rosebushes, so they were basically Public Enemy Number 1. At one point when I got a bit older, I realized that as gross and destructive as the bugs were, they were living creatures that felt pain and had lives, no matter how short and seemingly useless. When I realized that, I let all the Japanese beetles out from the glass jar where I kept them… under the dome. So I was one of those creepy leatherhead alien kids after all. So reassuring.

Brief Book Reviews

Sadly, I haven’t written in a long time. That includes this blog, my stories, and even my poor neglected paper journal. The only things I’ve written of any substance in the past few months have been grocery lists and emails related to work. However, I did read a bunch of books:

  1. Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. A sci-fi/dystopian/literary novel that I got from a book sale because I had heard good things about it. The entire time I was reading, the images in my head were in black and white or in muted shades of gray. The book was adapted into a movie, too, but I’m not sure I want to see the movie if it’s as depressing as the book. It almost reminded me of The Giver but without the sense of hope conveyed at the end of that book. I would call Never Let Me Go a warning to society: let’s not let technology get so far that it calls into question the intrinsic worth of human beings. (Oh, wait! We’re already there!)
  2. Confessions of a Mega Church Pastor by Allen Hunt. Super short, super easy-to-read memoir about a man’s journey to the Catholic Church. I like these stories because they remind me of how grateful I should be to have my faith, and how much I take it for granted because I grew up with it and didn’t discover it later in life, as the author did.
  3. A People Adrift by Peter Steinfels. A Catholic journalist’s sociological commentary on the state of the Church circa 2003 (i.e., right after the sexual abuse scandal came to light). Unfortunately, the same negative trends in the Church as a whole seem to be persisting with no real end in sight. I liked reading the book because it wasn’t nonstop statistics, and the author did propose some solutions that seemed viable. However, he did have a slightly more liberal take on the faith that I didn’t always agree with.
  4.  Jesus Land by Julia Scheeres. A memoir by a woman who grew up in a tough Christian household and was sent to a hellish Christian military-style “school” for discipline after she was found “fornicating” with her boyfriend (among other infractions). Honestly, I think the problem with the author’s upbringing was not fundamentalist Christianity itself but the fact that her parents, especially her mother, were totally uninvolved (and even neglectful) and seemed to care only about putting on the faces of good, charitable Christian neighbors. The book was also a commentary on race relations, as the author’s adopted brother was black and she was white.
  5. The Outsider by Stephen King. Ah, Stephen King. I love your books, but your politics and your Twitter page sicken me. Anyway, feelings about the author aside, The Outsider is probably one of the better books King has published recently. It’s not a sequel to Mr. Mercedes et al., but one of the characters does make a cameo appearance, and it is always a pleasure to read about her. The book will scare the crap out of you and leave you questioning the boundaries between the natural and the supernatural.
  6. How to Build a Girl by Caitlin Moran. I checked this book out of the library only because it takes place in the early 1990s and it mentions the Smashing Pumpkins. Normally, it’s not the kind of thing I would read because (1) every other word is the f-word (with the c-word thrown in every now and then), (2) way too many graphic descriptions of sex, and (3) I got the feeling the author was trying to push an agenda. Aside from that, this is a hilarious coming-of-age story, and the author writes very well. Her descriptions of what it’s like to be a teenage girl are spot on.

My favorite out of these? Probably Jesus Land because it was one of those books that has you marveling at the fact that truth really is stranger than fiction.