August-September 2020
In April 2020, by unanimous decision of seven justices of the Australian High Court, the false conviction and imprisonment of Cardinal George Pell was overturned on appeal. Implausibly accused of abusing two boys [see "An Impossible Verdict", CO, April 2019], the Court ordered his release from jail after 404 days in solitary confinement.
The Cardinal’s framing had been contrived over many years by the neo-Marxist, anti-Catholic institutions of Victoria; a state now notorious for its Stasi-like response to a coronavirus with negligible local impact (barely 700 elderly deaths in a population of 6.5 million! Doubtless far less still after factoring in the usual mountain of spurious death certificates that have defined the Covid scam).
His Eminence being declared innocent of all charges was good news for the rule of law trashed by Victoria's partisan criminal justice system. Behind the good news of this important victory, however, is the bad news; the ongoing degradation of the Church in Australia (to which Cardinal Pell, a semi-Modernist, has sadly contributed down the years).
The demise of the local Church will only accelerate after its long touted, ultra-Modernist Plenary Session in October. Despite its pre-determined outcome, bishops have feigned interest in the "concerns" of the faithful, calling for their input. Undeterred by the disingenuous call, one dutiful layman submitted this response to the hierarchy for their edification.
The Church Is Under Attack and Needs to Defend Itself
The Catholic Church no longer enjoys the respect it once had. Publicity about paedophile priests is a factor, especially since this came to light when there was already a background of anti-religious feeling. But there are other, more complex issues.
Attack from outside
It is not uncommon for Catholics today to question or resent the Church's teaching on reproduction and for them to wish to be free of it. At the same time if they still feel bound by faith (as is likely) they would experience conflict. The anger felt among Catholics over paedophile priests could provide a reason for them feeling justified in disregarding their faith and in defying the Church's teaching. Anger over erring priests would reduce feelings of guilt about their own wishes and behaviour.
This might explain other events in recent times. In Ireland, a "Catholic" country, there was an unexpectedly strong vote to favour abortion. At the same time the anger at paedophile priests was extreme, as was the extraordinary jubilation expressed at the result of the referendum. I suspect that such outpouring of intense emotion was to do with people having found a way (however false) to disregard their faith and feel justified in doing so with guilt assuaged. It is likely that something similar explained the crowd's fury outside the court towards Cardinal Pell and his barrister. Some of that anger was explicable on the basis of an understandable feeling of betrayal, but there were probably deeper issues to do with conflict over faith.
A prominent Italian communist, Antonio Gramsci (1891- 1937), is credited with proposing a policy whereby communists were to penetrate Western institutions covertly. As the USSR gradually deteriorated those still enamoured of communism sought to impose communist ideas from within Western society and proceeded according to Gramsci's instructions.
They were successful – so much so that it would be unusual to find a university humanities department or group of journalists today which is not strongly influenced by communist thought and attitudes euphemistically called "leftist". The ABC, Australia’s state broadcaster, is an excellent example of such penetration, being run by a staff who are communistic in outlook despite receiving extremely high incomes. The administration always fails in any attempt to change that situation, so successfully entrenched is the communist ethos.
The Catholic Church was efficiently infiltrated in South America, many priests and members of religious orders adopting the revolutionary "Liberation Theology", a term introduced subtly by the KGB. (See The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism by John Zmirak, Regnery, 2016, pp 140-1.)
This penetration of communist ideas contributes to the willingness of politicians to support issues unacceptable to Catholics, such as abortion and euthanasia. The premier of Victoria claims to be Catholic but promoted "educational" programs which sexualise little children and are likely to contribute to family breakdown. His agenda appears to be influenced by communism including support for abortion and euthanasia.
The recent Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was instituted by Julia Gillard, a prime minister with a strong association with communist organisations and an attitude adverse to religion.
The terms of reference of the Commission (in constructing which she was likely to have been involved) excluded the main source of child sex abuse today, that in Aboriginal communities. Instead, it was directed to historical child sex abuse – by clergy decades ago. While this recognised appropriately the distress of historical victims of sexual abuse and opened the way to compensate them, it ignored the immediate suffering of the majority of those being sexually abused today.
One cannot exclude the possibility that the real political purpose of the Commission was, in accordance with communist practice, to attack established religion and especially the Catholic Church, rather than to concern itself with an immediate genuine humanitarian matter; but had it publicly examined the suffering of Aboriginal children at the hands of Aboriginals that would have distracted from the attack on religion. These children remain ignored by media and politicians long after the Commission is over. They continue to be abused.
The Catholic Church recognised communist penetration of trade unions in the 1950s as a threat to Australia. Determined communist action took over unions and influenced union policy. Indeed so badly was the Waterside Union infiltrated in the 1940s that it committed many acts of sabotage against allied troops and material such as stealing batteries from aircraft, rendering them un-navigable, or dropping equipment from cranes onto the decks of ships. (Hal Colebatch provides many instances in his book, Australia's Secret War: How Unionists Sabotaged Our Troops in World War II.)
Catholic union members organised by Joseph Santamaria vigorously opposed communist union penetration. They were supported by a Joint Pastoral Letter, signed by thirty-three archbishops and bishops entitled "The Menace of Communism" (see Gerard Henderson: Santamaria, a Most Unusual Man, The Miegunyah Press 2015, pp. 223, 243)
Attack from inside
As noted above, communist ideas have penetrated the Church. I have referred to South America where the Comintern (the USSR's agency to exercise influence in other countries) was effective. It is notable that the Catholic Church does not criticise communism now and refers to it in a benign vague way as "socialism". An article in Sydney’s diocesan Catholic Weekly of 20 January 2019, about the plight of Venezuela, did not once mention communism although it was this which led to the collapse of that country's economy and the oppression and suffering of many of its citizens and its current resistance to accepting outside aid.
On other hand, the Church tends to be critical of free enterprise and sees it as greed, although it was this system which provided the wealth that freed millions of people from poverty. The Church equates free enterprise with capitalism and capitalism with greed, but forgets that it has traditionally supported personal responsibility, private ownership and the rule of law – things which disappear under the communistic regimes which the Church now seems to endorse, if only by silence.
Zmirak (ibid. p. 136) states:
As Catholics and as rational human beings, we believe that freedom is better than coercion, and small-scale solutions are better than ambitious national programs, except in cases where a problem simply cannot be solved by private or local action. Big central governments tend to impose blunt, one size fits all programs that trample on people's rights; ignore real differences between life in, say, New York City and rural Idaho, and empower unaccountable bureaucrats to trample on the rights of citizens.
Statements by the Catholic Church today favour "big government" including massive inefficient poverty programs, which remove personal autonomy and responsibility and make people dependent on the state.
President Obama's background included an association with people with revolutionary ideas. That was consistent with him later forcing employers, regardless of their religious faith, to supply the "morning after pill" (an abortifacient), to their employees as part of Obamacare.
Zmirak notes that some naive religious leaders had earlier seen Obamacare as necessary to correct "injustice" in the supply of healthcare and so they supported it. More conservative Catholics did not see it that way, but pointed out that what President Obama proposed could be done in an administratively simpler and less intrusive way. The president thus successfully tricked naive religious leaders who supported him into having a "healthcare" system which would later deeply contravene their Christian principles.
The Church should again acknowledge publicly that revolutionary ideas, including communism, are against Christian teaching. They have caused millions of deaths, massive suffering and harm, and the Church needs to be clear about that and to draw it to attention as it did in the past. It should not be tricked by rhetoric about "injustice" when such political verbiage is used to justify systems which impose centralised economic and social control and impede people fulfilling their Christian duty to take personal responsibility.
Senior Catholic functionaries need once again to state that they support individual responsibility, private ownership, the rule of law, and the individual. The Church was clear about this earlier.
The Church needs to counter the popular appeal of atheism
The Catholic Church is under determined attack by those seeking to destroy Christianity but the Church does not respond much to this challenge. Instead, it mostly acts as though attacks on religion by authors like Dawkins and Hitchens, and by artists who depict Jesus Christ obscenely, are not happening.
There is an extensive readily available scientific literature describing recent discoveries in physics and astronomy in support of religion, including creation. The Church should study this area and provide qualified experts to speak about it in parishes. It would help allay doubt and strengthen faith.
This literature compares well in quality with the atheist publications. It is reasoned, documented and well argued whereas the atheist publications are little more than polemics, popular because of their sensationalism and aggression. Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion in 2006 and in 2007. Nicolas Lash, formerly Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University, criticised Dawkins’ writing and sought to "address the question of what it is about the climate of the times that enables so ill-informed and badly argued a tirade to be widely welcomed by many apparently well-educated people." (see The Evolution of the West by Nick Spencer, SPCK 2016, p.79)
Attempts by the Church to compromise with communism
The Catholic Church once stated firmly that communism is evil. Pope John Paul II's criticism of communism led to communist-inspired assassins trying to murder him, an attempt which almost succeeded. His following, especially among young people in his native Poland, had attracted the spite of the communist authorities. As a young man he (Karol Wojtyla) had endured the oppression of communism and knew that compromise with such regimes was impossible.
From the inception of communism in Russia the authorities sought to abolish religion. They murdered priests and members of religious orders and sent others to concentration camps (as did Adolf Hitler). They demolished churches and destroyed religious relics such as church bells. In a few remnants of the Orthodox Church they appointed church officials who would (under fear of death or imprisonment) follow the Party line. The communists successfully destroyed organised religion in the USSR.
The Catholic Church challenged the genuineness of these appointments and would not support them. The Church recognised an evil regime and knew that the USSR leaders, practised in deception, cunning and death, would take advantage in any attempt to negotiate a genuine compromise.
The Catholic Church would not compromise then with a regime that was clearly evil; but that does not apply today. Although the Chinese communist government demolishes churches and imprisons priests with whom it does not agree, and replaces them with its own church officials as happened in the USSR, we negotiate with that government in establishing what is likely to be a mockery of Christianity.
It is unfortunate that we are prepared to compromise with a regime which caused the deaths of millions and continues to enslave and imprison (in the hundreds of thousands) those who disagree with it. The present Chinese leaders survived decades of murderous struggle with their colleagues by being cunning and ruthless. They would be equally ruthless and determined in negotiation with the Catholic Church and we must accept that, whatever they say, and however much they smile, any attempt to compromise will be on their terms. The result will certainly not be Christian.
Islam’s challenge to Christianity
In the 7th century Mahomet commenced widespread attacks on civilisation. By the 8th century Islam dominated an area reaching from Spain to India. Conquered Christians were killed or sold into slavery and those remaining were obliged to pay oppressive taxes in an annual ceremony in which they were physically humiliated.
The progress of Islam in Europe was blocked largely by the action of the Catholic Church. The Turkish navy was feared throughout Europe and was likely to provide the means whereby Islam would dominate the West and abolish Christianity, but that did not happen because St Pope Pius V recognised the threat and took appropriate action. He organised a combined naval force led by John of Austria which successfully challenged the Turkish fleet at the Battle of Lepanto on 7 October 1571. (See How the West Won by Rodney Stark. ISI Books, 2014, p. 292.)
Islam still seeks to dominate the world, although there is less emphasis on direct military action and more on terrorism and massive immigration into Western countries and the subsequent imposition of Sharia law in areas dominated by Muslims. Again the problem is largely from within the Western community itself – those who express dissatisfaction are criticised by academics, politicians and inner city residents as being "intolerant" or "Islamophobic".
The Church is silent about the threat of Islam. It instructs Catholics that they should be tolerant of Islamic refugees (as well as the many illegal Islamic newcomers) but provides minimal support to Christians who are persecuted or dispossessed by Islam or whose lives are altered for the worse by a flood of immigrants avowedly determined to displace them. Catholics feel unsupported by their own Church.
We cannot expect Islamic people to be tolerant of Christianity or our Western system of law. Islam has traditionally shown that it is determined to dominate the West and force all people to become Islamic. It has never contradicted that, consistent with the fact that the Islamic imams in Australia refrain from condemning terrorist outrages against Australian people.
The Church should recognise the threat and support its own members and not try to make them feel guilty because they do not like what is happening. Catholics would see that as support, but they do not feel supported by the Church at present.
The Church should not change its teaching on reproduction and sex
The contraceptive pill was developed about 1960, which made contraception easy and effective, although some of the side effects were seriously destructive to the health of the women taking it.
The Church addressed the issue in 1963 when Pope John XXIII called a Commission of clergy, experts and married couples. Pope Paul VI addressed the issues in an encyclical dated 25 July 1968. It was brief but had been prepared carefully over five years. Some people reacted adversely because they had been hoping the Church would "liberate" them to make birth control accessible. The hostile reaction to the encyclical probably so troubled Pope Paul VI that he did not publish another.
The encyclical acknowledged the extraordinary progress of man in dominating the forces of nature "to the point that he is endeavouring to extend his control over every aspect of his own life – over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life".
The Pope warned that there were limits to man's power:
"... we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to do so, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions – limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, we can lawfully exceed...."
He warned that free access to sexuality would reduce the respect of men for women.
The introduction of abortion and contraception was thus of concern to the Pope, who saw their use as having serious adverse consequences. Western Civilisation has utilised to the full the technology to control reproduction. At the same time the birth rate has fallen below replacement rate, there is increased domestic violence, widespread marital breakdown and a preponderance of single mothers, with harm to children by neglect and by abuse committed by their mothers' succession of sexual partners.
There also appears to have been a coarsening of the relations between men and women. Note, for example, the recent program, "Marriage at First Sight", which involves a television producer selecting a young couple (evidently at random and without them having previously seen each other). On the program the couple are shown meeting then participate in an imitation of marriage, which they are then directed to consummate. Hateful noisy quarrels ensue, perhaps a result of the contrived situation in which the couple are placed, although a good deal probably comes from the producer's manipulation. It is a popular show and is a travesty of the loving relationship that should exist between husband and wife.
In paragraph 22 the Pope referred to deterioration in taste and morality as this show demonstrates, and warned against such abuses. He said the Church must be against
"everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men's baser passions and encourages low moral standards, as well as every obscenity in the written word and every form of indecency on the stage and screen, should be condemned publicly and unanimously by all those who have at heart the advance of civilisation and the safeguarding of the outstanding values of the human spirit. It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture or by plesading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities".
There can be little doubt that human life deteriorated following increased sexual activity with the unlimited availability of the contraceptive pill and widespread abortion, exacerbated by pornography and media encouragement to relax standards of decency and engage in more varied sexuality, some of a bizarre kind. It is hardly surprising that a wish for increased sexual and other stimulation was followed by acceptance then promotion of sodomy, and various forms of "marriage" making a mockery of the traditional union. In recent times even bestiality has been mentioned as acceptable.
The situation is unlikely to change for the better of its own accord. It would be worse were the Church, in an effort to secure popularity, better attendance or public approval, to become "progressive" and relax the present standards regarding contraception and abortion.
The same applies to relaxing the Church's attitude to anal intercourse. It would not help the men who practise it were the Church to yield to their entreaties and declare it morally acceptable and emotionally and physically harmless. The sad fact is that sodomy is associated with serious health problems including: decrease in life expectancy by 8-21 years; 4000% increase in the risk of anal cancer, increased risk of anal penetration and infection, 44 times the risk of contracting AIDS, 46 times the likelihood of contracting syphilis. (Reilly pp. 54-57).
Lesbians are not vastly better off. The Gay and Lesbian Association warns that lesbians have an increased risk of breast cancer, are more likely to be obese, to use tobacco and drugs of addiction and have an increased rate of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C. (Reilly p. 218)
Homosexuality was earlier classified by psychiatrists as a disorder and that was generally accepted by the profession. Anal intercourse is dysfunctional and practicing it has a serious adverse effect on health. It can respond to therapy. (In the sense that homosexual activity can be replaced by heterosexual activity.) Psychiatrists once recognised the hazards of male homosexuality but have changed their minds. They now propose that sodomy is normal and they do not classify it as a disorder, having deleted it from the list of psychiatric disorders.
This deletion took place in an unusual manner. The usual practice in classifying psychiatric conditions is to evaluate the clinical picture carefully, apply a satisfactory recognisable name to the constellation of clinical features, and then include the condition in an accepted classification table such as the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) or the ICD (International Classification of Diseases). That did not apply in regard to homosexuality, whose deletion was not the result of careful considered clinical observation and reasoning but a result of political pressure applied by homosexual action groups (see Making Gay OK, Robert Reilly, Ignatius Press, 2014 pp. 117 et seq.)
The political techniques used by homosexual groups to effect this change were derived from the writings of Adolf Hitler. The founder of the militant homosexual organisation ACT-UP/DC, Eric Pollard, stated:
"I have helped to create a truly fascist organisation. We conspired to bring into existence an activist group that... could effectively exploit the media for its own ends, and that would work covertly and break the law with impunity .... [We] subscribed to consciously subversive modes, drawn largely from the voluminous Mein Kampf, which some of us studied as a working model. As ACT-UP grew, we struck intently and surgically into whatever institutions we believed to stand in our way."
In true Nazi fashion agitators disrupted meetings of psychiatrists and demanded that homosexuality no longer be classified as a disorder. Individual practitioners in positions of authority were influenced by threat or inducement. (ibid, p. 121)
The association gave in. In 1973 the president-elect of the American Association of Psychiatrists (APA), Dr John P Spiegel, played a pivotal role in the Association's decision to delete homosexuality from the list of disorders and Spiegel was in consequence regarded as having been courageous and clinically progressive.
That changed when in 1981 he revealed that personal, not clinical or scientific, reasons underlay his action. At a family gathering that year he unexpectedly revealed the presence of a young male lover, then revealed further that he had throughout his marriage been a practicing homosexual with a series of secret young male lovers. Up until this time his family had looked up to him as a clinical pioneer who had, through courage, selflessness and concern for patients, effected positive changes in the classificatory system. (ibid, p. 121)
His granddaughter, journalist Alix Spiegel, noted:
"And so in 1981 the story that my family told about the (changing of the) definition in the DSM changed dramatically. My grandfather was no longer seen as a purely enlightened visionary [responsible for constructively changing a scientific classification of psychiatric disorders] but as a closeted homosexual with a very particular agenda." (ibid, p. 121)
Psychiatrists realised that the application of psychotherapy could alter the sexual behaviour of homosexuals. In 2001, Dr Robert Spitzer, an eminent practitioner (also involved in changing the DSM in 1973 in regard to homosexuality), conducted a study on 200 gay men to see if they might change with therapy. He concluded that "the majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year" (ibid, p. 135-6)
His therapy and research had an unexpected result – instead of earning praise from homosexuals it evoked intense protest from their groups and was even condemned as immoral. He withdrew from the field and eventually recanted, apologising in shame to gay organisations for what he had done. (ibid, p. 137)
When asked later if he would again help homosexuals with therapy he said that he would never touch the subject again because "he had nearly broken down emotionally after terrible personal attacks from militant gays and their supporters". In 2012 the state of California passed legislation banning psychotherapy which might seek to change sexual orientation (towards heterosexuality), thereby making it impossible for young men in doubt about their sexual identity to obtain psychiatric help unless to direct them further into anal intercourse. (ibid, p. 137, 139)
I referred to homosexuality in some detail because I believe it will soon be the focus for political action against the Church by homosexual action groups. They were successful in obtaining political and public support for same sex marriage, and are likely to use current negative attitudes (justified, say, on the basis of Cardinal Pell's [false] conviction). It would be counter-productive both to homosexuals and the community generally, for the Church to give in to this pressure.
It is important for the Church to be aware that homosexuality might be capable of reversal with therapy. Dr Spitzer was pressured into recanting beliefs founded on his clinical practice, but his findings remain. (ibid, p. 137)
The Clergy
Paedophile priests remain an issue, but a problem often becomes most prominent in the public mind when it is declining in importance. The simplest approach now (as it always should have been) is for the Church hierarchy to be prepared to act promptly by notifying police when there is reasonable suspicion of misbehaviour of that kind and requesting that they investigate.
Sexual continence for priests has been an established requirement in Catholicism and I believe that a married priest cannot fully devote himself to his priestly duties. Devotional activity is so intense that it should properly absorb the greater part of the priest's consciousness and that is not possible for a married priest. The sacrifice required is great and some will not be able to meet its demands.
SUMMARY
The Catholic Church is under determined attack by people intent on destroying it. They are hateful, resolute and capable, as shown by the Nazi tactics adopted so effectively against the American Association of Psychiatrists by the homosexual group led by Pollard.
Psychiatrists are possessed of high intelligence and have good understanding of human behaviour, but they caved in. They were not prepared, did not appreciate the threat, did not defend themselves, and their association collapsed like a house of cards.
The Church similarly does not appreciate the determination or ability of those determined to destroy it. It does not appreciate their intense hatred and destructiveness. It does not appreciate that the most effective form of defence is Attack, as Pope St Pius V did in 1571. The Church also seems not to comprehend the destructive forces within itself.
Although the Church has survived two millennia it has never encountered challenges like those it faces now. They spring from intense irrational hatred in people with plenty of time to spare, and will be executed with amazingly effective methods of communication and ruthless skilled social manipulation. The Church, attacked from within and without, could collapse as suddenly and unexpectedly as did the psychiatrists when challenged by homosexual groups prior to 1973. We must acknowledge that possibility and defend against it by any morally acceptable means available. The Church will probably face decreasing popularity; but it should not compromise its teachings.