Fr. John McCloskey (whose website is
here) has a letter in response to Rod Dreher's piece in today's WSJ. It's not online, of course, but it reads in part:
Mr. Dreher, as a convert to the Catholic Church, does not seem to realize that the church in this world is made up of a [sic] 100% fallible sinners from the pope on down. The church exists to forgive our sins and to give us the supernatural help to become saints. The Holy Father (John Paul II) has repeatedly spoken out strongly against and about the proportion of the minuscule proportion of [sic] Catholic priests and bishops in this in this [sic] disgusting matter of sexual abuse in the US. The remedies are already being put into effect. I would hope that Mr. Dreher would be more patient in terms of the remedy. The church has a pretty good track record. Check in again in about another thousand years.
Here's Rod's response:
How dare Fr. McCloskey condescend to me as a convert (read: second-rate Catholic), as if my respectful questioning of the Pope's handling of the sex-abuse scandal were a sign of naivete. He is trivializing a very serious matter with these smarmy remarks. What does recognizing the theological truth that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God have to do with the fact that the Pope can be faulted for the way he's governed the Church? It seems apparent to me that Fr. McCloskey takes the failure of the hierarchy, up to the Pope, to have reacted with a proper sense of outrage in the face of this evil as just another garden-variety sin, a sign of our fallen human nature. Could he possibly be more out of touch with the people in the pews, most particularly the victims and their families? This is the kind of failure of compassion and indeed common human decency that makes people lose their faith in the Catholic Church.
In point of fact, John Paul has not spoken out much at all about the crisis, and when he has done so, it's usually in the context of worrying about how the scandal affects other priests. I have good priest friends who are suffering greatly in this crisis, but I'd wager that every one of them believes that the victims of clerical sex abuse deserve the most attention. I appreciate what the Pope has had to say about the crisis, and wish he had said more, but aside from that, I wish he would *do something* about it. I'll quote C.S. Lewis again: "A long face is not a moral disinfectant."
I have no idea what Fr. McCloskey means about "remedies ... already being put into effect." Is he talking about the Dallas norms? Those are likely to be rejected by Rome, and from what I understand, with good reason. If he's not talking about the Dallas norms, then what is he talking about?
Fr. McCloskey's invitation to "check in again in about another thousand years" is insulting to those faithful Catholics who are sick and tired of the Church hierarchy knowing precisely the extent of the problem, and continuing to do nothing but lie, evade, reward clerical wrongdoers, and punish victims. If we have another 17 years like the time since 1985, when the sex-abuse crisis in the US Catholic Church broke into the public's consciousness, there won't be a Church here. Christ promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church; he did not promise that the Church would survive in the United States. Clerical attitudes such as Fr. McCloskey's only make things worse for the Church.
Back in January, when I first began to write critically about the Boston scandal, Fr. McCloskey wrote to me to advise me to shut up about the scandal, to let "secular journalists" work on the matter. As if being silent in the face of child-rape and a cover-up by the Church hierarchy were the duty of good Catholics. I'm grateful to God that those days are over, and good Catholic men and women who love their Church and are faithful to her are no longer going to be silenced by the smug opinions of clericalists who appear more interested in the image of the Church than in the protection of children, and justice for victims of the clergy. There is too much at stake here. Fr. McCloskey recommends patience; as I've said elsewhere, if you seek a monument to the patience of the Catholic laity with the bishops, read the daily papers.
I have much to do, so I don't have time to adequately respond right this second, except for two points:
This condescension to converts has got to stop.
It reminds me of the scene in the Sean Pean - Robert DeNiro masterpiece We're No Angels in which, as I recall, a presiding bishop or abbot or something is informed that the two men who had been masquerading as monks were really convicts. He mishears. "Converts?" he responds, horrified. No, he is assured - convicts. Oh, well then, that's all right.
It's absurd. Anyone with a sense of church history would know the life and energy that flows from converts. Of course, at the beginning, everyone was a convert, which sort of proves my point on its own, but moving ahead a few centuries, all it takes is a quick look to see what wisdom our Church gains from converts from Newman to Chesterton to Merton to Dorothy Day to our slew of modern-day converts who are at the foundation of contemporary apologetics...it's hard to think of many twentieth century "great Catholics" who weren't converts in some sense - either from another religion or Christian denomination, or from nominal Catholicism.
Secondly, focus, focus, focus...once again. What's the problem with wondering, in a faithful-I-really-dig-the-Pope-but-still kind of way.. what in the hell's going on? Surveys show that most Catholics can deal with the sin of the individual priest. It's the institutional nonsense that's beyond them, and rightly so. What's going on with these bishops who've priest-shuffled - Catholics want to know. What price are they paying? Our schools and other institutions might get shut down. Our kids and the poor might suffer. What price are the bishops paying beyond their good reputation? And more importantly, what's being done to prevent such dealings again? the Vatican apparently doesn't like the Dallas norms, as many predicted...so....what's the alternative? What's going on?
And as someone commented several scores of comments ago - enough with the mystery. If something is indeed beind done, out with it. Let us know. There's no reason for us to be left guessing on this.
And no.. I don't have more of the letter. If you have it, either post it in the comments or email me, and I'll supplement.
And on those converts?.....take a look at Dave Armstrong's convert page for some edification and education.
Update: I'm told that is the entire text of the letter, typos and all...does the WSJ need new copy editors or does Fr. McCloskey?
Update: As a reader points out in the comments, Fr. McCloskey's initial comments about converts is very odd, given his role in the conversion of many people, both famous and not-famous.