Friday, April 2, 2010

An alternative, if crazier than usual, conspiracy theory

The Vatican is claiming that they're being attacked by a Witch Hunt from the New York Times. Well, after reading a few rad-trad Catholic sites and doing my own reading of the NYT's so-called document trail, I think it might go deeper than that, at least if you're schizophrenic, paranoid, and off your meds:

In 1963, the Masonic Pope John XIII convened Vatican II to get the Roman Catholic Church to change it's teaching about God in a very fundamental way. God was no longer the wrathful judge and strict father figure we had grown to love, no, suddenly he's smokin' ganga and handing out mercy to any sinner who asks.

Fast forward 10 years, and a priest in Wisconsin by the Name of Fr. Murphy has been hiding in the confessional, molesting deaf boys during the infamous American Hippie Summer of Love (well, he ended in the Summer of Love, he'd really been doing it for a lot longer before that, but he's clearly a dirty hippie and a member of the vast Masonic Conspiracy against the Church). The families complain to the secular police, but, this being 1974 as the hit TV Drama "Life on Mars" (either American or British Version) would remind us, the secular police figure deaf boys are not credible witnesses and do nothing. The Archbishop removes Fr. Murphy from his post to protect deaf boys in the future, and sends him home to live with his mother for the next 20 years.

Fast Forward to 1996- the Gay and Active Homosexual Archbishop Weakland finds out about the sins of Fr. Murphy- which stopped in 1974. Playing with deaf boys is apparently too much for Archbishop Weakwrist- so he writes to Cardinal Ratzinger for help. After badgering Cardinal Ratzinger for 8 months, the CDF gives in and orders a defrocking trial for Fr. Murphy- who hasn't said a Mass in public in 22 years anyway.

Fast forward another 2 years, and Fr. Murphy is near death. He writes out his confession and sends it to the CDF- claiming to be repentant for his past sins and begging for Mercy (remember, that's what the liberals wanted for the Church- preaching a more merciful God, back in Vatican II). He gets his mercy- the CDF stops the trial- and dies two days later, still a priest (despite the fact that the trial would have ended in his defrocking, had it continued and had he not died before the Prosecution had finished interviewing witnesses).

Fast forward 12 more years- Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope, and the liberal New York Times suddenly, 12 years after the fact, breaks this story. But apparently times have changed, and the liberals are no longer for Mercy- so they're suddenly asking the Pope why he gave Fr. Murphy mercy on his death bed.

No, I don't believe the above conspiracy theory either- but Fucking Dirty Hippies seem to have caused *both* the scandal in the first place (after all, Fr. Murphy's sins took place, at the end, during the "Summer of Love" when we were supposed to free ourselves here in America from all sexual morality), and the response (Mercy for past sins! Forgiveness for all!), and the response to the response (The Pope must resign for his coverup! He didn't defrock this priest!). Which leaves Pope Benedict XVI, not a perpetrator, but a VICTIM!


ConceptJunkie said...

There are so many level of sarcasm in this post I might have to go have a lie-down, but you have pointed out, I think, the core truths.

The Holy Father clearly has no direct culpability in this particular matter and I believe he is working hard to correct the problems and prevent them from happening again. The real villains here, are the molesting priests themselves, obviously, enabled and encouraged by the tolerance for practicing homosexuals in our seminaries and dioceses, as well as those Bishops who play politics better than they play being shepherds to their flocks. The unfortunate strategy, so popular in the 70's and 80's, of attempting to rehabilitate molesters made things that much worse. The intentions were good, the psychological science was supposedly good, but it just made things that much worse.

Although I hate to criticize him, I really have to wonder about many of the choices of John Paul II for bishops over his tenure, especially in the U.S.. I think the Holy See has become too insulated from its own lieutenants in the field, and while properly concerned with the larger picture, has failed to exercise the discipline needed to rein in these errant bishops and allowed too much heterodoxy to grow and spread unchecked.

After the scandal first broke, I read a conjecture that the Holy See might consider returning the American Church back to a missionary state, which would entail closer supervision and control. I think that would have been a good thing, and still could be. We hardly have the need for Protestants any more because for any disagreement you might have with Orthodoxy, you can find an outspoken, often prominent, prelate who tolerates or even supports that view, all the while remaining, in theory, in full communion with Rome.

In retrospect, and not to absolve any culpability on my part, I truly think a large reason for my abandoning the Church for several years in the 1980s can be traced to post-Vatican II wishy-washiness, and had I grown up in preconciliar times I suspect wouldn't have had such feelings of "there is no point to this" for so many years. The more I learn about Church history and the more I study its philosophies, the more impressed I am with Catholic belief and thinking and the more firm my faith has become that this belief comes from nowhere other than the Good Lord Himself, all the while the more firm my belief has become that this richness and depth is not being properly passed on to current generations.

As someone who leans towards the Aspie spectrum (although I do not consider myself an Aspie, I do have a lot in common with them, especially since I see that my Aspie son and I are so close in personalities and traits, and my wife has pointed this out as well), the kind of structure and clarity of the Church pre-V2 is much more appealing to me and much more something that "works" for me. I am not against such things as Mass in the vernacular or modern music (the latter in moderation) or things like that, but the whole touchy-feely vibe of the 70s when I was a child was very off-putting to me, and remains so to this day.

ConceptJunkie said...


A loving and forgiving God is central to our faith, but so is an angry and punishing God. And it remains as crucial as ever that it is incumbent upon each of us to make the choice to avoid the latter in order to experience the former, and not pretend His holy and just wrath doesn't exist.

A most amazing thing happened several years ago because of a couple of very holy and orthodox priests who regularly admonished their congregations to seek regularly the Sacrament of Reconciliation, my children started asking us to take them to confession. This is not something I ever experienced as a child or expected as a parent. I went when I was told, but my oldest son in particular regularly asks to be taken to Confession and given the opportunity has sought it out on his own when he feels he needs it. My second-oldest son, the Aspie, used to as well, but he has developed a severe anxiety about it, and while I haven't forced him to go, I was successful with gentle and persistent encouragement, with the help of our wonderful and understanding pastor. Aside of this anxiety, my children have never resisted or complained about the idea, and frankly I think it's almost weird when a child does _not_ demonstrate reluctance to go to Confession, which I take as nothing other than a tremendous gift of Grace that has been encouraged and nurtured by some wonderful priests as well as my wife and me (i.e., we must be doing something right!), because these priests have not watered down Jesus' commands but in fact have consistently echoed the perpetual and unequivocal call of the prophets throughout the ages for repentance.

Creative Commons License
Oustside The Asylum by Ted Seeber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at