DESTROYING THE CHURCH IN ORDER TO SAVE IT

4/10/10

Today’s papers carry the story of Stephen Kiesle, who was defrocked in 1987, six years after his diocese, Oakland, recommended his removal and two years after then Cardinal Joseph Rat zinger, who was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, counseled caution, for reasons including “the good of the universal Church,” in proceeding against then Father (It almost hurts to use this title in connection with such chunk of figurative excrement.) Kiesle. During the two years between Ratzinger’s letter and Kiesle’s removal, Kiesle did volunteer work with children for the Church.

The Church argues, effectively, no harm, no foul, because Kiesle, as far as anyone knows, did no harm during those two years. One could counter that argument by pointing out that lots of people drive drunk, and text while driving, with no negative ramifications, but a run of good luck does not justify putting one’s self, and other people, in serious jeopardy. But countering this latest ludicrous Vatican argument is not the purpose of this post. There is something more profound at work here.

Doubtless many of the horribles committed by the Church in covering up priestly pedophilia over the years were done in the interest of protecting the universal Church. If one does enough twisting and turning, and goes through especially arduous moral contortions, one can almost justify the argument, though those making it sound much more like the high priest Caiaphas than they do priests of Christ’s Church, to wit:

“You know nothing, nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish.”
John 11: 49-50 (New American (Official Catholic) Bible)

I realize that some Vatican drone will argue, with a straight face, that citing that passage from John somehow violates “Church tradition,” but it is worth contemplating.

Even more worthy of contemplation is the following question: Even if the celibate old men who run the Church really think that covering up such horrific conduct was justified to protect the universal Church, how much faith does such an attitude display? Don’t these moral paragons believe that Jesus is capable of protecting his Church, or at least sufficiently capable of protecting it that ghastly deeds don’t have to be committed in order to help Him with this task? I am quite familiar with, and sympathetic to, St. Francis’s admonition to “pray as if everything depended on God and work as if everything depended on you,” but I don’t think that the work St. Francis had in mind extended to such moral turpitude as covering up such a horrendous sin as pedophilia.

Trust God and don’t be afraid. Great advice, don’t you think? Jesus apparently thought enough of it to repeat it again and again and again and again and again. Here’s hoping it doesn’t somehow violate “Church tradition.”