Scott Johnston

Well, I don’t want to pile on here. But here are some remarks that hopefully aren’t merely that.

I attended a vocations weekend with LC at their formation house in CT back around 1997. They happened to be preparing for a visit from Maciel who was scheduled to arrive later that week. It was very evident that they had an extremely ardent devotion to “nuestro padre” (“our father”—what LC members called him). One thing I found odd, more so in hindsight now than at the time, is that the LC seminarians did not seem to know much of anything personal about “nuestro padre.” He was more like a mythical figure than a flesh-and-blood person that they actually knew. Almost like an ancient emperor figure in the East whose person would be built up in tales of his greatness. To an outsider he seemed more a living myth in their eyes than real person.

By contrast, other Catholic persons who are renowned for sanctity during their lifetimes (think Mother Theresa and JPII) are much more publicly known in that the personal actions underlying their reputation for sanctity are directly evident and verified by many. I always sort of wondered to myself before the scandal came out, “what has Maciel actually done that makes him saintly? His personal life seems shrouded in complete mystery. Who is this man?” The personal integrity, holiness, and great faith of Mother Theresa and JPII were without doubt—evident by direct observation. Whereas the way in which Maciel was known seemed always to be filtered and mediated through others. No direct observation. The only thing to inspire about him were stories as told by others. The only thing that the average LC seminarian seemed to know about Maciel was his official history, concentrated especially on the earliest days of the founding of LC. Who the man was since the founding days did not seem to be known with any depth. In comparison to the history of religious orders founded by genuine Saints, this is strange.

It is also quite a contrast to how real saints treat the rumors of their own sanctity among their community. They typically despise such, and do whatever they can to suppress their brethren from talking about them in hushed, reverent tones. They want to be seen as less than spectacular persons, sinners, striving for holiness like others, failing God many times like others, stressing that even if they have been given special graces, they often do not respond adequately to them. Fr. Groeschel, for example, hates being doted on like he is someone worthy of special regard. This is how truly holy people act to an incipient cult of their own person. By contrast, Maciel must have known how the cult of his persona was fostered by the LC. I do not recall ever hearing about him trying to suppress this cult surrounding his personality. To me, this should be seen in any context as a very big warning sign. It seems that genuine saints never approve of cultivating their reputation for holiness.

Wow. Great quote by Havel, Jules. Thanks! It seems he was a person with great insight and perspective into human nature and culture.

I pretty much agree, Katie. At first I too hoped it would be truly beneficial for the Iraqi people over the long haul. They have certainly benefited in the short term.

But, I do think that we Americans are being a bit foolish not to respect how singular and special, and unlikely, was the foundation and preservation of the United States. There was a special coalescence of many things in place that permitted our Constitution with its form of representative democracy and its high emphasis on individual freedoms and limited powers of government to take shape. This context included an essentially Christian view of the world and of human persons.

I seriously doubt whether a representative democracy similar to ours could survive on its own for other than a short time in any culture in which a Christian (or Jewish) mindset was foreign to the large majority of people. Surely, at the least, the fundamental values expressed in our Declaration of Independence (equality of rights and dignity derived not from any human entity but from the the Creator; right to representation) are that without which a free democratic republic could not survive long term. And I think these values must be present in some significant segment of the people or else a free representative democracy could not be sustained from within.

Yes, as an encouragement to more prayer and penance on behalf of those leading the Church is a good reason for public comment.

I wish Fr. Amorth had made a specific remark about prayer. Perhaps he did and Owen did not report it.

I am puzzled why a priest would say such things publicly. What is there to be gained?

Fr. Amorth’s statements as reported in this article seem a little odd to me.

Of the following I am sure:

1. Satan always tries to attack those in the Curia and the Vatican. Just as he especially targets priests in general, he certainly targets priests who are in the Vatican even more as it is the earthly headquarters of his enemy. Of course he will be trying to cause problems. Until this world comes to an end, this is a given.

2. There is a difference between causing havoc however Satan can, and actually possessing someone. Fr. Amorth does not go so far in what this article presents as to claim certain people in the Vatican are actually possessed (depending on what he means by “bishops who are linked to the Demon”). So, it seems that what he says is actually a version of no. 1, aside from claims about Cardinals not believing in Jesus.

Isn’t it odd that the article does not give the context for these quotes? Did Richard Owen interview Fr. Amorth? Or is he quoting from his new book? Both?

And I don’t find the accusation of a cover-up in the horrible case of the 1998 multiple murder substantive—what is the evidence of a cover-up? None is given. The only thing mentioned is “unconfirmed reports.” Huh??? This is really bad journalism. How swift is “remarkably swift”? What was the evidence the Vatican investigators had? Perhaps all the evidence indeed pointed to the conclusion they reached and any other law enforcement team would have come to the same conclusion.

I have no doubt Satan tries to “infiltrate” the Vatican. But I am also highly suspect of the motives of a journalist who would be so unprofessional as to report as evidence of a cover-up, mere “unconfirmed reports.” Give me a break. It is newsworthy that Fr. Amorth claims there was a cover-up. But a responsible journalist would go on to ask the obvious question, What evidence was there of a cover-up? On what basis did you reach that conclusion? If Owen asked such questions, we do not know what the answers were. Either Owen did not bother to ask these basic follow-ups, or he did and did not report the answers. In any case, this is shoddy journalism.

In any case, it is never permissible to do evil (such as intentionally, directly killing another human being) for a good end. The reason does not matter when it comes to actions which are in themselves intrinsically evil. One cannot intend to do an inherently evil thing without sinning. No matter what.

“Innocent” in the moral context referred to when abortion is analyzed means a person who has not been found guilty of a capital offense through a due process of justice. In other words, an innocent person is not deserving of a punishment of death meted out by other human beings in a position of authority to do so on behalf of the common good, and so should not be deliberately killed.

The scenarios above seem like red herrings. Small pox and a mad gun wielder would not require taking their lives in order to protect others. And the life boat thing—I mean no offense—but this hypothetical is a rather useless academic exercise. In actual life, I can’t imagine the choice being so stark between life and death. For example, the extra person could stay in the water but hold onto the side of the boat. Then, people could rotate. Each person takes a turn in the water for one hour. In such way, each person gets 12 hours in the boat, and one hour in the water holding the boat. Creating artificially stark options (death or life) when in fact such a stark choice would not be present does not accomplish much that is truly beneficial intellectually or in the living of live.

Thanks, point well taken. I suppose it is a sign of the success of a more modern outlook of having a certain right to intimacy with one’s spouse that the very idea of marrying mainly for socio-economic reasons sounds so foreign. Sure, one hears jokes about this and such, but it seems very rare to hear someone actually using this as a serious basis for considering marriage, especially among younger people.

Currently, it seems to me, a very large problem is young people mistaking what is really a pseudo-intimacy for the genuine thing. It’s amazing to me to observe teenage couples in public who are obviously dating act like they have deep levels of intimacy between them when in all likelihood the basis for what they think to be intimacy is shallow and self-absorbed. (This is not to say I think all teens by definition are incapable of intimacy—quite the contrary—but our culture sets them up to chase a sham in place of the real thing.)

Feminists are certainly right in objecting to marriages in which love is not a primary consideration.

In light of all this, it is very interesting to bring to mind how tender some of the language in the Old Testament is where God speaks of Israel in spousal terms. To me, one of the most hope-filled and amazing elements found in the context of the old covenant is God’s promise to give His people, “a new heart,” replacing their hearts of stone with hearts of flesh. (see Ezek 36:26) And then when confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus tells them that Moses only allowed divorce because of the hardness of the people’s hearts (see Mt 19).

I feel I should also acknowledge for the sake of balance that in the case of spouses who suffer from a serious dearth of intimacy in their marriage, their suffering is very real.

I would like to add a little background to my above remarks. I know from my past personal closeness to the ministry of priests that sometimes married women can have unreasonable expectations of their husbands in regard to providing perfect intimacy that are simply unattainable by anyone this side of heaven. This is an injustice on the part of the woman and a guaranteed source of ongoing personal turmoil for her as well as tension in the marriage.

Now, don’t get me wrong! I do not imply in this that men have no responsibility to pursue and improve in the area of intimacy. They do and they should. But there has to be a realism here on the part of both parties of the unavoidable gap in this life, even as progress is being made, between fallen earthly life and the ideal. Mr’s remark about justice and mercy both being needed in abundance is very on point.

Interesting discussion. Although, the pioneer subject while also interesting was a tangent.

Mr commented,

The woman I know who “love” these authors and the “truths” they communicate hardly have an easy time loving men. There’s something about being in possession of merely natural truth that hardens the spirit. Supernatural truth, God willing we ever get to it, is another thing. As Aquinas reminds: mercy without justice is disillusionment; but justice without mercy is cruelty. This is something your radicals are yet to discover, and this is why their truths absolutely need to be qualified, supplemented, completed.

I agree with this. And I don’t see this as necessarily in opposition to anything Katie said. I also agree with Katie that much can be learned from modernist authors to help understand our times better. Much discrimination is needed to separate out the helpful from the unhelpful.

On the topic of this thread may I offer the following. I see two scenarios that are especially relevant. First, the case of a couple who have indeed attained some degree of real intimacy on the natural plane (perhaps an example of the highest peak of this might be Van and Davy in A Severe Mercy, in their pre-conversion relationship). But, they are not married.

Second, the case of a couple (married or unmarried) who each believe they have a fairly high level of intimacy, but, in fact, they do not realize that they do not have a very high degree of authentic intimacy. What they do have is a mixture of true intimacy (in a small proportion) along with a hard-to-detect-especially-by-the-young pretender to intimacy which is a personal experience of the emotional thrill of the idea of being in love (i.e. in love with being in love). They go through the motions of being a close, intimate couple, and think they are. But, individually, when they kiss or hold hands, or gaze into each others eyes, each is more taken up by their own self being in the midst of the thrill of the experience than they are truly engaged in the goodness and depth of the other person before them.

Katie, I know, does not mean this when she speaks of intimacy. She means the real thing, which at the very least reaches out in humble earnestness and eagerness to know and respond to the deepest core of the other.

I do wonder, though, whether the early feminists, while pointing out a genuine element (intimacy) that should indeed be present in marriage, perhaps themselves would have been unclear or poorly equipped to discern in their own lives a false form of intimacy (which is more of a subtle self-absorption) from the real thing.

And (here I think is the line of thinking that mr. was tapping into) there is another datum that must always be present in the midst of Christians talking about relationships in a fallen world: we are fallen creatures and cannot attain relationships that approach what the man-and-woman dynamic is meant to be without grace. Even with grace, God does not promise us perfection (i.e. perfect intimacy with a spouse) in this life. He assures us that the life killed by grave sin can be restored, but the tentacles pulling us down into selfishness and strife remain, and only gradually and with grace and effort are cut away one at a time. In the meantime, even well-intentioned, Churchgoing, Jesus-loving couples are going to fall short of what God calls them to be for each other ideally.

So, I guess I want to say that while it is very important (and something appropriately given a new emphasis in modern/post-modern society) to look for and desire true intimacy in a marriage relationship, this has to be tempered by the reality that no spouse (even with grace) is capable of entirely fulfilling the total depth of the emotional needs of the human heart in this life. For that we await the life of heaven. And it is this important datum that I wonder if, by not knowing, secular feminists who do not have the benefit of a Christian understanding of man could never be satisfied in this life with any measure of intimacy whether false or genuine.