The Virtue of Patience

Patience is long forgotten in our time.  The era of television, bad public education, sexual deviancy, and quick gratification has been followed by the epoch of pornography, the internet, mental insanity, and instant gratification.  In current man’s and woman’s desire to have everything they want and once there is little thought given to those affected by their rushing.  The scene of the public highways are a demonstrable illustration of this, where everyone believes they need to get where they are going before everyone else.

Sometimes, I see this spill over into our spiritual life as well.  Some chase shallow emotionalism and sensationalism in religion (see the Taize and Charismatic movements or those who chase any “apparition” that pops up), others want distractions like children banned from the church building lest their silent prayer is disturbed (“If only children were not making noise, we could float like Giuseppe of Cupertino or have ecstasies like Teresa of Avila!”), and others like myself are often angry and frustrated whenever we fall into the same sin that haunts us over and over again (“Why am I so sinful?! Why cannot I be like Anthony of the Desert or Theophan the Recluse?!”).  Ultimately, all three of these have the same cause: the desire for immediate results.  They also have the same painful cure: looking upon and admitting our own failings, realizing that sanctification is a long process, and years of consistent perseverance in fighting our personal sins.  Occasionally failing at this, as impossible as it is to ignore, should not be cause for discouragement but should be expected with the understanding that we will be working to reduce the occurrences.

Lent and a taste of monasticism are excellent weapons against this virus of selfish impatience.  A peaceful afternoon in a remote location where there is only a monastery, the monks, you, the other guests, and some animals is a welcome break from the noise and superficial fun of a metropolitan area.  Closing the hatches and diving for forty days without pleasures we take for granted (meat, alcohol, tobacco, elaborate meals, modern entertainment, etc.) can show us how unhealthily attached we are to these things and how little we really need them.

My own return to mead-making has reminded me of this.  It is beautiful to watch the honey, fruit, and other ingredients ferment with the knowledge that they will one day become something delicious, but it is aggravating to know that the process will take many months, several rackings, and several-week infusion of oak spirals before this happens.  Tom’s post on the Divine Office is applicable to this and many other things.

In conclusion, let’s all look at how badly we practice patience this Lent and work on doing something about it.

“For looking is the food of the eyes, but if this be such as is unlawful or forbidden, it mars the fast; and upsets the whole safety of the soul; but if it be lawful and safe, it adorns fasting. For it would be among things the most absurd to abstain from lawful food because of the fast, but with the eyes to touch even what is forbidden. Dost thou not eat flesh? Feed not upon lasciviousness by means of the eyes.
Let the ear fast also. The fasting of the ear consists in refusing to receive evil speakings and calumnies. “Thou shalt not receive a false report,” it says.
Let the mouth too fast from disgraceful speeches and railing. For what doth it profit if we abstain from birds and fishes; and yet bite and devour our brethren? The evil speaker eateth the flesh of his brother, and biteth the body of his neighbor.”

-St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the statutes

Advertisements

Pre-Lent, The Time of Preparation

138.Jonah Preaches to the Ninevites.jpg

Two days into no meat and I am already dreading the long fast ahead.  But I would not wish to give up this week of Meat-Fare even if the Church abolished it.  To jump from no fast to forty days of total fast would be an act of sheer madness.

One of the great shocks when growing up to learn what was in the spooky “Novus Ordo” was learning of the abolition of Septuagesima season.  These three weeks had always been (for the Vigilante anyway) a necessary part of the Lenten package, with the faster dipping into his penance gradually before Ash Wednesday arrived.  Similarly, the Byzantine Rite has the four week stretch of Pharisee and Publican Sunday, Prodigal Son Sunday, Meat-Fare, and Cheese-Fare which stress:

  1. Repentance and a warning against worthless fasting
  2. Repentance and a reminder of God’s infinite mercy
  3. The Last Judgement and the beginning of some fasting
  4. Forgiveness, lest we enter Lent without Charity, and the plunge into the Fast

The Orientals and Non-Chalcedonian have their own tradition as well: a three day “Fast of Nineveh” a few weeks from the start of the Fast to remind them of its approach.

Having never spent this time of the liturgical season in the New Roman Rite, I cannot imagine what a lack of Septuagesima must have done.  Could this be part of the reason the Roman Church only has two required days of fast and abstinence?  Is it just another part of the long process of softening traditions and fasts that has been underway since the legalistic aftermath of Trent?  Or is it just another bout of American laziness and aversion to suffering?

Image result for life liberty pursuit of happiness

Notably absent: Pursuit of truth, virtue, or anything beyond this life

I am glad to have  a preparation before the fast and genuinely feel sorry or those who lack it.

The Disaster Part II: Sources for Postmortem

“It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed.”

— St. Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel

Here, I will give brief thoughts on three pieces that directly or indirectly addressed the scandals.  Each piece has its merits, but two of them have their limitations.

Conservative Catholic Attack:  Goodbye, Good Men

Image result for goodbye good men

As scandals emerged but before the levy broke, Michael Rose released his bombshell ‘Goodbye, Good Men’.  This book was huge at the time, finding a common audience with traditionalist and conservative Catholics alike.  Finally, someone was addressing the “pink palace” culture and heterodox inquisitions in seminaries like Holy Trinity in Dallas (once an epicenter of gay seminary activity) head on and taking no prisoners.

The book is excellent and diving into the rot in seminaries and giving specific examples.  Where the book falls short is that it really doesn’t address the roots of the problem.  Like most conservatives, Rose can point to the pre-Vatican II days as a time when seminaries were full and blame the implementation of changes in the mid-1960s for the decline.  Little to no mention or acknowledgement is made that the state of things before then was already rotting, with rings of pedophiles in places like El Paso or Davenport taking advantage of a clericalist faithful.  Furthermore, later developments have made this book obsolete in some regards.  Pedophilia is barely touched upon as it was originally published in 2002 before the full scope of the scandals could have been known.

Useful for its time but outdated, ‘Goodbye Good Men’ will break little new ground for a Catholic aware of the scandals aside from giving an insight to the corruption of seminary culture.

Hollywood Expose: Spotlight

Image result for spotlight film

I will not lie, I turned this movie on thinking it would be an all-out assault on the Catholic Church.  For the 5 total minutes where characters who are non-practising Catholics (notably the one played by Mark Ruffalo) vent their frustrations at the Church it is.  Beyond that, it is a very accurate retelling of how the Boston Globe’s “Spotlight” story of Catholic sex abuse scandals in the archdiocese developed.

The film follows the pattern of an investigative thriller, with new developments being discovered at every turn and myriad legal obstacles to overcome to get the information required.  There are pressures to stop pursuing the story, legal technicalities, a culture of “good old boy” networks to overcome  (as someone unfamiliar with the culture of Boston I cannot speak to the accuracy of this element and will defer to anyone who lived in Boston during that time), and the culminating fact that the characters presented had what they needed for the story years ago.  With a little tweaking and clever editing, large chunks of this film could be retooled into a Mafia film.  As is, the movie is gripping, interesting, and masterfully made.

Even more to the movie’s credit is how much they get right.  The methods used by perps like Geoghan, the fact that most of the predators were found to be psychologically stunted at the level of a 12-14 year-old,  the devastating effects of the abuse on the victims, the hard work done by many Catholics running the ineffectual treatment centers to warn of the problem, the deafening and shameful silence of much of the laity who were in the know, and the efforts of the auxiliary bishop to stop the abuse only for him to be transferred out, all of these are detailed in a way that shows just how rampant and deep the corruption went.  All of it matches up perfectly with the other sources that tackle the subject (like the one below).

The single greatest flaw of the film is how it treats (or rather fails to treat) the role of homosexuality in the abuse.  The approach taken is to start with Geoghan, a known “true pedophile” who was heterosexual and targeted vulnerable fatherless young boys, and then accurately point out that homosexuality had nothing to do with it.  The topic of homosexuality is never brought up again except during the interview of a very effete gay victim of abuse.  The issue with this is that it deceptively tries to lead the audience to believe that homosexuality had nothing to do with any of the abuse, which is simply not true.  If Geoghan of the Boston Archdiocese is the prime example of the “true pedophile”, an opportunistic sexual predator with a preference for females and the feminine attributes of small children of both sexes, then the Diocese of Dallas had Rudy Kos, a textbook example of a homosexual ephebophile pursuing post-pubescent young men for their youthful male features.  To tackle so accurately one category of predator while ignoring the other category shows that the negligent filmmakers were either terrified of angering the “gay community”or were not interested in portraying anything that could cast a negative light on that particular subculture.

Overall, Spotlight is worth a watch for those genuinely interested in what went wrong so they can ensure it never happens again.  It does have one or two shortcomings, but if the viewer goes into the film knowing of them then those flaws can be overlooked in favor of the many more raw facts and insights the film has to offer.

Expert Analysis of a Betrayed Catholic: Sacrilege

Image result for podles sacrilege

Leon Podles authored The Church Impotent: Feminization of Christianity to positive-to-mixed reviews.  While I mostly agreed with his analysis, I found his purported link between scholasticism and the feminization to be the weakest point (and this is from someone who thinks the Western Church became too obsessed with scholasticism after Trent).  I might reread it sometime to pick up on things I may have missed.

He then dropped this bomb which I believe every Catholic with the stomach for it should read.  Even i one does not have the stomach to do so, the information contained here is too important to not know.  One need not know the lurid horror stories of priests in Davenport taking children to look at corpses as a means of corruption to be educated on the profile of predators.  The quality of information here is so vital that it makes me wonder if there is a way an edited and distilled version could be made from parts of the book to result in “The Profiles and Methods of Child Abusers”.

One admirable point of the book is the unwillingness of the author to try to lump all the criminals into one basket or stick to any narratives.  Think you that priests who do the Old Mass are safer?  He gives an example of a predator who said it.  Think you that a more liberal church will result in less abuse?  He gives an example of a priest who used his “rad approach” to build a cult in his parish that defended him even when his guilt was clear.  Think you that a rare instance of an unusually masculine priest can’t be a predator?  He gives an example of one such priest in rural Louisiana.  Think you that pedophiles are an aberration of the post-Vatican II Church?  He details the 1940s-50s rings of abusers in Davenport, Iowa and El Paso, Texas. And so on, and so on…

Pick up this book if you want to know the truth and if you think knowing the truth will be of any use.  I cannot give it justice in this measly blog post, so I ask that you pick it up yourself.

Onto less depressing topics!  Hopefully…

Related image

Dang it…

The Disaster: Part I

A series of scandals rocked the Catholic world in the beginning of the 21st century.  The publicity started in Boston and spread until pedophilia “jokes” about priests became as commonplace as the cold.  The most appalling aspect to the affair was not that rapists had infiltrated the Catholic Church at every level (any position that has access to minors the way priesthood does will invariable attract those who seek to exploit this fact… the American public education system is reportedly full of such issues), but the systematic cover-up of the affair.  Bishops – rather than denounce, defrock, and excommunicate priests who had committed such acts to children and minors – chose instead to shuffle them to other parishes, send them on sick leave to treatment centers, or “donate” them to dioceses that were hard pressed for pastors.  Payments, hush money, assurances to victims that this would never happen again were the order of the day.  Long forgotten was the statement of Christ about millstones around the necks of those who would hurt the little ones.

How was this allowed to happen?

Everyone had their own explanation.  Conservatives blamed homosexuality, others proclaimed that this was the end result of mandatory celibacy, heretics jumped at the chance to push for female “priests”, and traditionalists considered the affair further proof of the decadence and failings of the “conciliar church” (the Society of St. John and their scandal in Scranton notwithstanding).  On inspection, none of these tell the whole story or paint a complete picture.  I would claim that the factors that led to this debacle included:

  1. Clericalism. Because priests were held to absurd and unrealistic levels, the laity became too comfortable in trusting men of the cloth without condition.  Long forgotten were Chrysostom’s sermons on his own frailty.  Priests were the elect and the laity were lowly sheep who were to listen to their every word.  To be in the presence of a priest was an honor akin to receiving Christ.
  2. The bureaucratic structure of the Post-Tridentine Church.  The end result of 500 years of centralization, opposing Protestantism, putting down Gallicanism and Jansenism, defeating Febronianism, opposition to Vatican I forming a schismatic group of churches that crumbled, Eastern Catholics being pushed proverbially out of sight, and separation from larger Orthodox Eastern Churches was a monolithic Roman Church where everything went to and through Rome.  Or, rather, everything went through some institute in Rome.  Many bishops lacked any sense of leadership as they had been picked for their low likelihood of causing trouble.  In this environment, there was no room for a potential spiritual successor to St. Nicholas.  Bishops were more concerned with avoiding problems than fixing them.
  3. Wrong ideas of sexuality and emotion.  The Pre-Vatican II Church had a large problem at times with prudish avoidance of sexual topics or of openness with emotions.  This led to a degree of stunting, self-repression, and fear of the very things God gave us to moderate and master.  On the other hand, the Post-Vatican II Church erred in the other direction.  Shallow and meaningless emotionalism was reflected in both liturgy and theology, dangerous modern theories in psychology were experimented with, and emphasis on self denial was heavily retracted.  This was at its worst in the sixties and seventies when the new errors were fresh and appealing while the old ones were still firmly entrenched in the minds of many laity.
  4.   Lack of awareness.  It was not until relatively recently that abuse of minors by adults has become a concern, as the true scope of it was unimaginable to those in “more innocent” times (and is still not fully known, as rumors abound of it being widespread in public schools, the entertainment industry, and among the wealthy western elite).  The tactics employed by predators were not known, the number of them was far higher than was thought, and there was a degree of trust put in those in exalted positions (see point 1 above).

The idea that abuse by priests started in the 1960’s is a notion that should be killed before it can begin to form.  Instances of priests committing sexual sins is well documented in Church History (with medieval councils prohibiting priests from visiting convents too frequently or demanding that any priests with concubines turn them out immediately) and occasional scandals with children is known to have happened at least a few times (as happened to the Piarists when a group of abusers decided to infiltrate them due to their mission of educating impoverished children).  There are statistics and testimonies backing up that rings of these clerical child-rapists goes back to the 1940’s and beyond.  There was a rise in the 1950′, a steep rise in the 1960’s, and the apex in the 1970’s and 1980’s. As scandals came to light and people became more aware, the opportunities for these crimes decreased.  Eventually, Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope and was able to put into effect many reforms that he had been unable to previously.

Now, any who work with children and minors in dioceses (like the Vigilante himself) are required to be trained in “Safe Environment” classes.  In the current environment children of Catholics are likely far safer than they were 40 years ago.  However, it is essential we never relax our watch and never take anything for granted.  It is also essential to understand the modus operandi of predators and what drives them.  As I have researched the issue more, I have come to realize that these people cannot be detected as easily as popular perception would have us believe.  They come in many shapes, sizes, sexual “orientations”, mannerisms, and backgrounds.

Next, a few works that deal with the issue…

Prelude to Disaster: Twists in Human Sexuality

This is where I will be diving into some unpleasant topics.  Please stop reading now and come back after the next and final post if you don’t want to read the ugliness.

The question of why certain human beings lust after those of their own sex or minors is an uncomfortable one.  In modern times the very questioning of homosexuality as something other than normal or something to be celebrated will get one labelled as a “homophobe” (a real term horrendously misused, it actually means someone who is unnecessarily grossed out by any show of love or tenderness between males… see the “Are Frodo and Sam gay?” crowd) or a “bigot” (ironically, meaning someone who is so intolerant of another opinion that they reject it without consideration).  Some perverts have even tried to push incest and pedophilia as acceptable, though fortunately such sickness has not been accepted yet by even our decrepit society.

This may surprise some readers but the condition of homosexuality is not an impediment to being Catholic or to achieving salvation.  If a homosexual were to live a chaste life (perhaps sinning alone on occasion and confessing his sins when it happened), attend Liturgy, and genuinely try to grow in holiness, then why would God not accept him as his child?  The Vigilante himself is a heterosexual who lives or tries to live practically such a life (with both marriage and Holy Orders not currently viable options) so what is the real difference?  Aside from the fact that my inclinations make me more likely to pursue matrimony or to enjoy it, the life of me as a bachelor and the the life of a homosexual Catholic bachelor would not have many substantial differences.  Indeed, Leon Podles has even stated that a chaste homosexual who is masculine and gives little indication of his condition unless necessary can be a great boon to the Church.

Where does homosexuality come from though?  What causes it?

There is certainly scientific evidence that indicates certain things may happen in the womb to give the baby abnormality of hormones.  These studies were pursued by the scientific community for a time but abandoned since there was no way to spin it to show homosexuality was as “normal” as heterosexuality.  This does not tell the full story, as these indicators are not a 100% guarantee that a child will be homosexual even though they seem to predict far higher probability.

The other side of the issue, in Vigilante’s opinion and in others’, is in the development of the individual during puberty.  It is well known and obvious from simple observation that homosexuals can largely be grouped into two camps: hyperfeminine and soft, or hypermasculine and often aggressively sexual.  There is a very plausible and quite politically incorrect explanation for this phenomenon and that is the psychological stunting and arrested development at some point during puberty.  Many of us can look back and remember that when we were little boys we were often closer to our mothers than our fathers (the Vigilante was not, but that is beside the point).  As we developed and grew older we often sought validation from other males, including our fathers, which resulted in a brief point where we underwent an extremely hormonal hypermasculine phase but did not yet like girls.  At some point we discovered an affinity for girls and our hormones eventually petered out as we grew into adults.

At least, that is how the unarrested heterosexual male develops. The theory goes, and I have every reason to believe it, that the hyperfeminine homosexuals never broke free of attachment and identification with their mother while the aggressive homosexuals are forever stuck in their 12 and 13 year-old selves, glorifying parodies of masculinity and extending that to an attraction towards the male physique.  Not all who are stuck in these stages of arrested development turn homosexual, as there are certainly heterosexual “mama’s boys” and hypermasculine meatheads.  A holistic combination of looking into nature and nurture may one day explain the phenomenon of homosexuality, but there has yet to be an unbiased study backed by no political agenda.

But like I have mentioned before, either of those inclinations are not necessarily impediments to salvation.  Does every heterosexual male try to hook up with every female he sees?  Are all heterosexual males even sexually active?  A long line of chaste monastics, priests, bishops, and even celibate laity say otherwise.  The same is true for a homosexual male should he choose to grow into a more full and holier person in Christ.

So, if sexual attraction to adult males can be thus explained then what of the attraction to minors that results in some of the most hideous crimes conceivable?  From whence do these originate?

There is no one answer to this.  The types of people who do such acts can be divided into three categories:

  • Heterosexual ephebophiles.  In other words, those who target females from puberty to early adulthood.  Obviously, these are heterosexuals attracted to girls who are developed enough to be recognizably similar or similar-ish to adult women.  Keep in mind that marrying girls as young as fourteen was once not looked down on with the disdain it is now, but girls of fourteen were also generally more emotionally mature in those days.  This sort of thing is rightly punished since girls of that age are often not in a position to make a mature decision when an adult makes advances.  That said, I personally find this group easier to comprehend than the two below.
  • Homosexual ephebophiles.  See above, but the target is now boys of that age.  When we hear stories of a 15 or 16 year-old boy being abused there is no question that the abuser is homosexual.  By that point the boy has acquired recognizable masculine features and has developed traits that will stay with him into manhood.  To deny homosexuality as a driving force in such cases is delusional pure and simple, as we will see in the final post on this series.
  • The “true pedophiles”, those who target prepubescent children.  These are the darkest of the bunch and occupy a personal and private hell within their souls.  These men look for children who are undeveloped, groom them, feed on their innocence, gain the trust of them and their parents, and then strike when they believe they have an opportune moment.  These last ones are predators; and though many of a conservative bent may be uncomfortable with this fact, these men are predominately if not exclusively heterosexual if given the option of an adult partner.  There will be more on this bunch later as well.

Rejecting the latest trends in sexual psychology is a necessity if we are to ever discover what forces drive the sexual desires of men.  I think that if one can cast aside the mountains of psychobabble then the answers are plain before our faces and deductable through the underrated thing named common sense.

Human nature is fallen in all regards including sexuality.  Understanding the true scope is a prerequisite to the finale in this series of posts.  May better topics lie ahead when we are finished.

Prelude to Disaster: Bureaucracy

The priesthood is generally not seen as a path for masculine men.  Part of clericalism creating an artificial chasm between the priests and the laity was the mental image of priests as sexless eunuchs.  Either they were holy and “above sex” or they were freaks who apparently lacked interest in it.  In many cases, this assumption turned out to be as far from the truth as humanly imaginable.  That did not stop it from fermenting and proliferating for the better part of five hundred years.

The masculinity within masculine men despises bureaucracy.  If something can be done, why must we dot all the “i’s” and cross the “t’s”?  Why should we care that our pants are soiled when the enemy is charging bayonets drawn?  If the house is on fire, why is it important that I exit through the door instead of the window?

In short, we tend to like things straightforward and have no use for pettifoggery.  A man obsessed with tiny details and with no concept of the big picture can be looked down upon as one who is not a “Man of Action”.  Mind you, taken to extremes, this mentality and lead to hero-worship of abominable hypermasculine “idols” whether fictional or real.

Image result for james bond sean connery

Image result for hulk hogan

Unrelated Images

A bureaucrat, as we think of him, is the antithesis of this.  He is one whose entire job seemingly prevents things from getting done.  He lacks the brilliance of a scientist or mathematician, the wit of a good writer, the strength of a brave soldier, or the grit of – say – an Alaskan fisherman.

Look at the Church as it stands, with the Vatican full of various cliques, intrigues, and secret factions. Can the average Catholic even name what each office in the Vatican actually does without looking it up?  When you think of your bishop do you think of a fiery heretic-punching St. Nicholas or a passive soft-spoken bank clerk?

And we wonder why vocations are low and interest in the priesthood is nonexistent among many men.

It is not the place of this post to discuss how and why it happened.  Podles (I recommend you all read his “The Church Impotent”), Hull, and others have documented that quite well.   It is another point to keep in mind as I continue to post towards the disaster we all know too well.

I will leave you with a quote from Louis Bouyer’s “The Catholic Church in Crisis”.

This excellent Archbishop Lefebvre gave the name of “Saint Pius X” to his seminary and to the pious association on which it depends. Confronted by such innocence one finds oneself repeating the famous words “O Sancta simplicitas!” I used to be good friends with one of the most distinguished (though under a yokel’s exterior) Church historians—I even succeeded to him in his chair—and who used to say, inter pocula of course:“Pius X took advantage of the unhoped-for opportunity provided by the separation of Church and State to reduce the French clergy to a state of impoverishment, and of the opportunity provided by Modernism to condemn it to ignorance, and of both to have imbeciles govern it! All of this because he feared, with what verged on obsession, that Gallicanism might return! Some day, which is perhaps not far off, we’ll see how much this will cost us, and then Rome will be the first to kick itself for it!” . . . This of course was only a quip. But a French bishop to whom no one would apply that quip’s last and harshest part, and who knew it first-hand just as I did, recently told me: “That old fox was sharper than he looked, and he put his big fat finger right on the sore spot! . . .”

It is well known that Gallicanism, which had been traditional in France until the end of the Ancien Régime, condemned itself to death when it produced the Civil Constitution of the Clergy as a kind of swansong . . . . Mind you, it didn’t only contain abominations, whatever the nineteenth century Ultramontanist historians may have said. For instance, if the prescription that the bishop should also be the cathedral’s pastor and effectively fulfill that function had ever been implemented, it might have kept us from reaching the point where we are today! Whatever the case may be in this instance as in a few others, the reaction was inevitable, and there arose an overcompensating exaltation of pontifical sovereignty. Once again, the French were its principle artisans—although the most “intransigent” of them all, Lamennais, was not long getting hit by its first and hardest aftershocks. One may think, along with Newman, that under such conditions it was a signal proof of Providence guiding the Church that the 1870 definition of Papal infallibility was nevertheless set in such relatively prudent and moderate terms. But after that a wave of unthinking enthusiasm, which was nowhere as swollen as it was in France, lifted up to the heavens the Popes’ authority with such overdone toadyism that even such solid heads as those of Leo XIII or Pius XI, to mention only them, had some excuse for appearing a little intoxicated by it. As the great liberal historian Lord Acton used to say: “All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” After all that, the Holy Ghost must truly have “assisted”, as we say, the Popes in a very special way for them not to have completely yielded to the vertigo that had turned the divinized Caesars into such pitiful idols. But, in France especially, we have only ourselves to blame if an all too human prudence led the popes to such perhaps exaggerated precautions for such a fickle people, which had raised them to the Capitol after thinking that it had permanently dethroned them, not to run the risk at its next turnabout of flinging them off the Tarpeian rock . . . In any event, the results are there for all to see.

At the end of the day, our bishops, who endlessly whine about Archbishop Lefebvre and his “Lefebvrists,” do just what is needed to insure his recruitment and prestige . . . simply by doing nothing at all of what the good People of God expects of its bishops. And they do nothing of the sort because they were formed (?) and chosen for precisely that purpose . . . .

Afterword:  The Anglicans have had at least as bad of an image problem as the Roman Church even with married clergy.  Watch enough BBC miniseries and you’ll see what I mean.