Benedict's retrograde problem with a neo-Nazi bishop

Father Tom Reese is a well-spoken man and well trained in theology, but an objective critic he is not. His first loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church has blinded him to the atrocious behavior that is being condoned by lifting the excommunication of neo-Nazi Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Pius X. He states the problem with Benedict’s papacy is that his organization does not have a modern PR office that would break the news of rehabilitating four Pius X bishops, including Williamson, to the world, the liberals in his own church and the worldwide Jewish community. No PR Vatican Secretariat, no matter how up to date and informed, could ever make a case for this blunder.

Any self-respecting PR person would say, Benedict, you are the Pope, damn-it, and you have chosen the wrong issue and the wrong message. Emphasize the core mission of your organization and make that the centerpiece of your actions. The backward looking vision of the Society of Pius X has a man like Williamson in charge of their priestly formation. It is a distorted faith that does real harm to people who struggle to alleviate the suffering in the world. Jesus did not say, go to the Pharisee and try to make peace before he goes off and starts a rival sect. He began condemnations of their theology with the words: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees!”

I understand the awkward position in which Benedict finds himself, perhaps not to the extent that Reese understands it, but I can follow an argument. The Roman Church has argued that it is the form of the consecration that insures that its bishops inherit their authority from the original 12 Apostles of Jesus. And by “form” Roman Catholics mean that the correct words, prayers, and ritual actions for consecrating a new bishop are uttered and performed by a bishop who has been initiated, or ordained, in the same manner. So the Pius X bishops are really bishops according to the doctrine, as are, I might add all of the bishops of the old Catholic Church who are still quite numerous in Germany and have at least four bishops in the US. I met one. The problem, according Reese, is what is Benedict to do with these bishops so that they do not become loose cannons (my words).

I would bet pennies to dollars that not one in a thousand Catholics knows or cares about the doctrine of the apostolic succession as understood by the hierarchy, and by extension only one in thousand would pay any attention to the Pius X bishops when they opened their mouths. These intricacies only interest an extremely small group of scholars, liturgists, linguists and cannon lawyers, and are absolute trivia to most faithful Christians who look to their bishops, and especially the bishop of Rome, to be faithful servants of the Word of God and the Teaching of Jesus. For example, according the rite that was composed under Pius XII, the consecrating bishop has to use these words, “Complete in Your priest the fullness of Your ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.” I am not going to dispute the beauty of the language, but the fact that this prayer was uttered when the excommunicated bishops were consecrated somehow necessitated a bow to the position that the Nazis did not murder more than 6 million Jews, dissidents, gypsies, homosexuals and disabled is a horrendous distortion of the values that people should expect from any religious authority.

Is there a way that Benedict could have rid himself and the Church of these troublesome bishops? Of course. He could have simply let their movement die off or become a small fringe group of fanatics—a sensible option. Or if he felt that he had to take some action, following Fr. Reese’s argument, he could have declared them heretics and schismatics. But I fear that he has far too much sympathy for their position. And that is the danger. The conditions on our small planet are far too fragile to allow any hate mongers the publicity they crave.

And so I am still left with the question: where did Benedict get this dumb idea in the first place? I say it is because the leadership of the Church has lost sight of its mission. It has become so remote and isolated that its main concern has become defending and legitimizing its authority, and not spreading the message that Jesus taught. Sadly this is the result of Benedict’s looking back to Pius IX and the 1st Vatican Council, and burdening the message of the Gospel with distracting arguments about liturgical propriety, the validity of holy orders, and ordination of bishops. That view will just focus our attention on the human weaknesses and failings of the followers of Jesus rather than the simple and direct way that He spoke to us.

No Sackcloth and Ashes for these Guys!

The Truth needs cleaning up.

originally posted May 24th, 2010; revised July 12th, 2021

"I would just say this. The most important thing is to clean up the truth. And the truth is I have never said anything." —Edward Cardinal Eagan

A truly welcoming smile

This head spinning statement by the Archbishop of New York, Edward Cardinal Eagan was read by the rector of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Monsignor Eugene Clark, in 2002. Standing in for the embattled Cardinal Egan, Clark blamed the sex abuse scandal on gays, railed against homosexuality as an “intrinsic disorder" and said it was a "grave mistake" to allow gays into the priesthood.

Clark would later be forced to resign after his affair with his secretary, a woman 30 years his junior, came to light in 2005. The king of outing high level hypocrites, Michelangelo Signorile, had a blast with this. “Now here is Monsignor Clark, three years later, at the age of 79, exposed as engaging in an adulterous affair with a married women 30 years younger, proving that the greatest threat to marriage is in fact pompous, hypocritical, heterosexual men who can't keep their dicks to themselves even as they become octogenarians.” A Monsignor's Closet, 2005-08-24

I’ve had at least a few things to say about the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church. I also had personal experience with the cloak of secrecy that gay priests are forced to wear. It didn't fit me well. I wrote “Don't Ask, Don't Tell—A Jesuit Strategy” when I revisited a conversation that I had with my friend Avery Dulles (who by the way did not much like wearing his cardinal attire). I did not mention Avery by name when he was alive out of respect for his position and our friendship. Though I think that he might have endorsed what I said, I didn’t want to expose my version of his words to lurkers on the Internet who love bits of gossip that they can distort.

I will not just make a statement and then stand back. It’s time to keep up the pressure.

So let’s try a little humor. Among gay clergy a lot of dark humor floats from one pink rectory to another. The main characters here are John 23, Francis “Fanny” Cardinal Spellman, and John Joseph Cardinal Wright of Pittsburg and the Vatican. (Even though Wright wasn’t yet a cardinal during Vatican II, I think I am allowed the conflation for humor’s sake).

Even if gay as suspected, John 23 and Wright, were straight arrows. “Fanny” Spellman, however, was notorious for his liaisons with any number of New York chorus boys and hustlers, so much so that it seems he had a member of his staff dedicated to quelling rumors and preventing them from reaching the pages of the tabloids. In New York gay bars of the 60’s there was always someone who swore that they heard directly from his lips: “If you threaten to go public, who’ll believe you? You’re a nobody, and I’m the Cardinal Archbishop of New York.”

And now after that long preamble, finally the joke:

When John 23 sent out the official announcement to the opening of the Second Vatican Council, he included a private note to all the cardinals, archbishops, and bishops asking them to tone down their dress. It was to be a solemn occasion, yes, but given that he as Pope was striving for reform, remaking the image of the Church in the modern world, simple clerical garb would be enough. Leave the cappae magnae home.

The day of the opening of the Council rolled around and the US prelates were gathered together inside St. Peters, dressed down as requested. Drum roll and trumpets, the doors swung open, and there was John 23, sporting a Triregnum, carried on his sedia gestatoria by 12 hunky guys in red, surrounded by fans of white feathers (a boa would not have seemed out of place).

Spellman turns to Wright and says, “Bitch” sotto voce.

I am reminded of E. M. Forester’s misquoting Henry Thoreau (quite a jump from Walden Pond to Room with a View), “Mistrust all enterprises that require new clothes.”

No Sackcloth and ashes! God forbid!

Pope Benedict called for penance to atone for the sins of the Church, one presumes for not reprimanding pedophile priests and allowing them access to children even after their crimes had been reported. But Benedict’s penance doesn’t call for sackcloth and ashes. Oh no, quite the contrary.

 

He’s taken the papal throne out of the Vatican Museum where it has been in mothballs since Paul VI's reign. The Pope’s little red slippers which John Paul 2 put in the closet are out and polished—you have to have shoes to match.

Even lowly bishops have taken to the 60 foot cappa magna once again. A reliable Jesuit source reported that more than 50 years ago, Pius XII officially cut its length to 12’, but here’s a photograph of Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception taken on April 26th 2010. That’s 60’ if it’s an inch.

Pius VIII riding high in 1828

And there are rumors that Benedict wanted to dust off the sedia gestatoria “for security reasons.” This certainly doesn't look like penance, or maybe that's how old queens do penance.

I had friends who really did molest teenagers. Two are now dead; one served time in jail; one lives anonymously in a trailer park, but at least they are hopefully no longer under Vatican protection.

The truth does need cleaning up--by you. It’s so easy to make fun of the hypocrisy. Why do you guys leave yourselves so open to this kind of abuse? Because you’re caught in an untenable position and are forced to defend it. I’ve had some experience trying to be honest. It’s tough, but it’s not the truth that needs cleaning up. For the record, y'all did say something, actually many things. And you lied.

Penance my ass.

Gratias á Lulu, Esta Noche y Monica Naranjo

In 2010 I began to exchange emails with several men about Latin music and gay Madrid. I hope to learn a lot about Latin music and my new correspondents were great resources. But there is one Latina star I already admire enormously.

When I took visiting friends out for a night on the town in San Francisco, I tended to end the festivities at Esta Noche on 16th St.

This Latin gay club had been in that once-seedy neighborhood for more than 20 years. Now it’s gone. The neighborhood became hip, and the new neighbors are not the kind to patronize Latin drag shows, but Esta Noche was welcoming and lively. 

But I’ve seen more than a few very memorable moments at Esta Noche during my San Francisco days: it was there that Ken MacDonald was kissed in the bathroom by the most handsome man within miles–a high compliment—this is San Francisco after all. It was there—at the bar, not the bathroom—that Miguel Pou taught me to distinguish between the popular music of Spain, and Mexico, Central America plus Colombia and Argentina and a few other countries in the Southern Hemisphere. I usually can pick up that distinctive Brazilian samba-like beat, and of course the lyrics are in a different language though that is not easy to distinguish when you know only a few words in Spanish and Portuguese, fiesta, siesta, libertad, y “Et tu mama tambien”—just because I saw the movie and loved it.

But it was “Lulu” who introduced me to Monica Naranjo. Lulu was definitely not a gorgeous drag queen (by design), but she was one hell of a performer and knew her divas. During her show, I heard this voice that felt like a combination of Madonna, Bette Midler and Janis Joplin, with a touch of Maria Callas. “Who’s that?” I asked the bartender. “Monica,” he said, “THE star of gay Madrid.” I have since learned that she is much more than that. Monica moved to Miami so now I won’t be able to hear her live though I still plan a Madrid expedition soon. I’ve socked away enough dinero.

OK, OK, here is her iconic Sobrevivire. Sometimes her staging and orchestration is a bit cheesy but listen to the quality and strength of that voice! Music unleashes the animal!

I am planning that trip to Spain and hope to hear some great music. Monica is still performing but this year only in Mexico. Hope to find some other great Spanish divas!

I’m on the lookout! Suggestions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xErS7G3-tCQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYvqf2ws_cU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1Oc3oZv_QA

TV advertising and the “Truth”

 Originally posted December 11th, 2011

From my friend, Ken MacDonald, a wonderful musician and zennist in Canada (it’s not America but an economic superpower, so it counts).

In Canada they are airing a Brita TV ad. On screen there is a drinking glass on the counter which the camera fixes on the whole time. We see what we assume to be a bathroom door in the background. We hear the toilet flush and at the same time we see the water in the glass ‘flushing’ down and refilling. A woman then comes out to drink her water out of the ‘flushed’ glass (and by the way she didn't wash her hands, which is certainly more of a health hazard than drinking municipal water), visually indicating, you get it, that she’s drinking out of the toilet. If we didn’t get it, the voiceover says, ‘Water from the tap and the toilet come from the same source’.

The ad's been altered twice since its first airing. The first time (as noted in the letters between various water and health agency people, and Brita) was to put a legal caveat on the ad to indicate that municipal water has been treated to make it safe for drinking. Then, recently, they added a four-second insert at the end of the ad visually demonstrating a Brita filter change, while the voice-over tells us for best results to change the filter regularly.

The copy reads:

BRITA.

It’s Tasteless!

Nearly 40% of the developing world’s population lacks clean drinking water and about 2 million die each year because of it.1 By 2025 nearly ⅔ will live in water-stressed countries.2

In the developed world we take our supply for granted, flushing it away mindlessly. But BRITA’s latest ads seem to imply that since the water we use for all our purposes “comes from the same source,” it’s as if we are drinking sewer water. Do you think that’s tasteless?

But if you do buy a BRITA filter, don’t expect it to protect you from anything…it doesn’t filter bacteria,

Notes

1 World Health Organization.

2 Morris BL, Lawrence ARL, Chilton PJC, Adams B, Calow RC, Klinck BA. Groundwater and its susceptibility to degradation: a global assessment of the problem and options for management. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Programme, 2003

This Culture Jamming ad is the opinion of the author. Brita is a trademark of Clorox Corp.

What’s really at stake here is that we have a limited amount of potable water on the planet. Pretty soon we’ll all be buying water. What will we do with all those damn plastic bottles?

Yes, we still need to clean up the bullshit of political advertising. But how will we do that drinking vodka instead of water (and NO, that is not a solution even if it looks like the only way out).