Gerald T. Slevin, Philly Abuse Trial: More HBO Than MSNBC?

Jerry Slevin has sent another strong statement about the situation in Philadelphia, where, as he notes, the ongoing seamy revelations in the trial of Msgr. Lynn have become more HBO than MSNBC–though as Jerry notes, the American mainstream media appear to a great extent to remain reluctant to deal with the abuse story, even as they give the U.S. Catholic bishops extensive face-time to spread talk about their “religious liberty” crusade. 

National Catholic Reporter Sanctions Reconciliation between SSPX and the Catholic Church

Open Tabernacle/Bilgrimage blogger, Dr. William Lindsey, has done exemplary – as well as solitary and underappreciated – work in establishing that the so-called “liberal” Catholic media such as National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal and America, are barely centrist. The NCR’s top two reporters proved today just how astute Dr. Lindsey has been.

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX for short or “Lefebvrists” after their founder) is an openly racist organization. The Southern Poverty Law Center considers the Society of St. Pius X to be a hate group “characterized by open anti-Semitism and blames Jews for conspiring to destroy the Catholic Church and a number of other iniquities.”

Yet reacting to today’s news that the Superior of the Lefebvrians, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has agreed “to a condition which the Holy See had presented last September as a condition for the Society to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church and secure canonical regularization,” NPR reporter Sean Michael Winters declared “Welcome Back Lefebvrists!” “It is entirely a good thing when someone, anyone, returns to the fold,” wrote Winters. [emphasis mine] The paper’s senior correspondent, John L. Allen Jr., also wrote a column on the same subject without acknowledging there could be any reason why the Vatican should reject a group which Allen suggests is known primarily for “their distinctive spirituality.”

Gerald T. Slevin, Update–Criminal Charges of Vatican Child Abuse Cover-Up

Jerry Slevin continues to be vigilant about what’s happening with Catholic church officials and the child abuse cover-up, from a legal standpoint.  He has just sent another outstanding statement, this one about SNAP’s filing last week of new charges updating their previous filing of criminal charges against the Vatican with the International Criminal Court, for the Vatican’s internationally orchestrated cover-up of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy.

“Apostolic Journeys” or Trade Junkets?

(as posted on DailyKos.com)

After Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to both countries, Mexican President Felipe Calderon met this past week with Cuban President Raul Castro and Havana Cardinal Jaime Ortega to “discuss possible business ventures, including oil deals.” Mexico is considering leasing exploration blocks in Cuban territorial waters which are part of the Gulf of Mexico. A consortium led by Spanish oil giant Repsol YPF is drilling the first of a series of wells which officials say may hold 20 billion barrels of oil.

Before the pope’s “apostolic journey”, as the Vatican calls it, to Mexico and Cuba on March 23, Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti accompanied Benedict to Rome’s Fiumicino airport. Monti, an international adviser to Goldman Sachs, resigned as European chairman of the Trilateral Commission upon assuming his current position.

Gerald T. Slevin, Philly Priest Child Abuse Trial and U.S. Bishops Standard Operating Procedures

Jerry Slevin has sent another excellent statement about the abuse trial involving the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia.  The following text is Jerry’s latest commentary on the Philadelphia trial:

Gerald Slevin, Open Appeal To Philadelphia Inquirer Reporters II: The Philadelphia Archdiocese Priests Child Abuse Trial, the Pope, Secrecy, Santorum and the Upcoming Pennsylvania Primary

Jerry Slevin has now shared a supplement to his open letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer that I posted on his behalf two days ago.  As the trial of Philadelphia Catholic archdiocesan officials continues, Jerry continues to monitor the litigation and news about it, and this is his latest response to what’s now unfolding in Philadelphia:

Gerald T. Slevin, Open Appeal to Reporters at the Philadelphia Inquirer: A Time of Truth About Child Abuse

Jerry Slevin, a retired Wall Street lawyer who frequently comments at Catholic blog sites about the abuse situation in the American Catholic church, has sent me a copy of an open letter he wrote yesterday calling on the Philadelphia Inquirer to keep light shining as brightly as possible on the case now going on in Philadelphia, as well as on the abuse situation in the archdiocese of Philadelphia.  I’m very happy to post Jerry’s open letter here and at Open Tabernacle.  It’s well-written, powerfully stated, and full of valuable information–as with everything he writes.  It also fits right in with what I just posted about E.J. Dionne’s article critiquing centrist complicity in the extremist strategies of the far right.

Rick Santorum’s Opus Dei Catholicism

Originally posted at Talk to Action.

In a recent post I explored the influence of the teachings of  Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer on GOP Presidential contender Rick Santorum. I warned that circumstantial evidence and the candidate’s own past statements suggested a strong identification with the secretive, ultra-traditionalist sect, Opus Dei, which Escriva founded.

The Washington Post now confirms much – and a great deal more – of what many of us have suspected all along.

I recently posted about Santorum’s connection to Opus Dei and some of Escriva’s teachings.  He is apparently not a member, but a “cooperator” — a designation for someone who supports the secretive organization’s goals of a more theocratic society built upon a foundation of ultra-orthodox Catholic notions of morality.  I wondered, how far does Santorum’s admiration for Opus Dei’s founder extend to his vision for America?

The Post suggests that the answer is very far indeed. The paper reported, for example, that Opus Dei paid for Santorum’s 2002 trip to Rome for a celebration of Escriva’s 100th birthday. He was accompanied by none other than Opus Dei evangelist, Rev. C. John McCloskey.  The future presidential contender used the occasion to launch his first attack on JFK’s 1960 campaign speech on the separation of church and state.

The Post also surfaces other important aspects of McCloskey’s relationship with the ambitious pol.  For example, “McCloskey enlisted Santorum’s help in converting then-Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) to Catholicism.”   The relationship has continued, as Santorum also met with McCloskey the day before last week’s Illinois presidential primary.

In a previous post (here and in The Public Eye , I’ve discussed McCloskey’s divisive nature. He pines for a Church that has eliminated moderate and liberal faithful, who would be replaced by former conservative protestant converts. He further envisions a United States torn asunder by a secessionist movement bent on creating a separate theocracy.

The Post portrays a man who is deeply influenced by the Opus Dei founder:

During Senate debates about abortion, Santorum told the audience in Rome, he hears Escriva telling him that “it is not true that there is opposition between being a good Catholic and serving civil society faithfully.” In his public fight to uphold “absolute truths,” Santorum said, “blessed Josemaria guides my way.”

“‘As long as you are making straight for your goal, head and heart intoxicated with God, why worry… ?’” Santorum said, quoting Escriva, according to a transcript of the speech.

In my last post on this subject, I reviewed several of Escriva’s more troubling teachings – his condescending view of public education; his distrust of liberty and his call for his followers to be secretive about their dealings with Opus Dei.  Perhaps of greatest concern was his admonition that his followers should “Get rid of those scruples that deprive you of peace” – especially in light of Santorum’s gross mischaracterizations of President Obama’s call for Americans to pursue some form of higher education. And then there are Santorum’s repeated attempts to disingenuously paint JFK as a president who had no tolerance for people of faith in the public square.

Santorum is not stupid. He had to have known that president wasn’t being “a snob” about higher education or that the first Catholic president did want to exclude religious principles from public debate.

These are acts of demagoguery, perhaps  made in accordance with Escriva’s admonition to “put aside those scruples.”

Now the Good News

The New York Times reports that Santorum is losing the Republican Catholic vote to the more ideologically amorphous Mitt Romney.

Mr. Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, has trailed Mr. Romney among Catholics in 10 of the 12 states in which Edison Research conducted exit polls that asked about religion.

With two exceptions, he has lost the Catholic vote by a minimum of 7 percentage points (in Michigan, where Mr. Romney grew up) and by as much as 53 percentage points in Massachusetts, where Mr. Romney was governor. He has even lost among Catholics in the South, although he was nearly tied with Mr. Romney among Catholics in Tennessee and won decisively among Catholics in Louisiana.

Why is that? I suspect that even many socially conservative Catholics are put off by Santorum’s often-strident tone. As one Maryland primary voter told Times  reporter Katherine Seelye, “I feel Governor Romney is more willing to tolerate different views and values, and the president of the United States has to accept and respect the right of every American to believe as they will.”  Perhaps some are put off by Santorum’s rejection of certain Catholic principles. Santorum embraces, for example,  the evangelical notion of creationism, a teaching that the Vatican rejects in favor of evolution.

But while Santorum’s path to the Republican presidential nomination is questionable, he may gain enough support to land a spot on the GOP ticket, or play a role in a Romney administration.

It is, therefore, more than reasonable for voters to ask themselves if they want an Opus Dei cooperator to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Apparently, most Republican Catholic voters, the Catholics who know Santorum and Opus Dei best, have already answered that question for themselves. How the conservative evangelical element of the electorate answers the question, may be different.

The Mightiest SupePAC of All

There is a non-profit political action group with affiliates in every state and metropolitan area which campaigns for ballot initiatives, legislation and indirectly for political candidates which can promise complete secrecy for foreign and domestic donors, uncontestable tax deductions, no restrictions on the amounts contributed with no accountability or oversight as to how their tax exempt money gets spent. Yet its lobbyists are treated with deference and respect as nonpartisan proponents of the common good although their vitriol and hyperbole against President Obama is markedly absent for those who have the worst records for executing prisoners, killing thousands of pregnant women and babies under false pretenses, implementing torture as American policy, impoverishing 99% of the population, and persecuting gays and immigrants. This is, of course, about the Roman Catholic Church and the U.S. episcopate.

Rick Santorum’s Opus Dei Vision for America

Originally posted at Talk to Action.

The deeper into the GOP primary season we get, the more  former Sen. Rick Santorum (PA) class and culture war rhetoric abandons all pretense of moderation.  More concerning, he has become more heated, snide and resentful as his popularity has grown.

He has demonstrated that he is willing to reach blue-collar voters by fear-mongering. But more importantly, he has shown us how Opus Dei’s teachings inform his vision for society.

When Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as the president of a disuniting nation, he attempted to calm the anxieties of his Southern brethren by asking them to appeal to “the better angels of our nature.” One hundred and fifty years later Rick Santorum is headed in the opposite direction.

He is attempting to stoke blue-collar sentiments of feeling ignored — some of which is legitimate — into a frenzy.  But the candidate is not directing that anger and resentment toward oligarchs who do not believe in involuntary unemployment — folks such as the Koch brothers.  Instead, he is misdirecting it towards straw-man educated elites, personified by President Obama.  As The Daily Howler’s Bob Somerby explained, Santorum is doing nothing more than playing off two constant conservative memes:  Big government never did anything right.  Liberal elites think they’re better than you are.

At the same time, the prospective GOP candidate for president is being dishonest about himself and his opponents.  Since this past January, for example, Santorum has claimed:  ”Obama says he wants everyone to go to college.”  He pauses and then exclaims:  ”What a snob!”  Santorum then begins a diatribe about how the president supposedly looks down on blue-collar work.

Never mind that President Obama never said any such thing.  Indeed, the President was emphasizing any form of higher education to prepare for a wider choice of possible employment, including trade and technical schools.

In an interview with Glenn Beck, the candidate doubled-down with another divisive broadside aimed at the higher educated. This time claimed that a college education encourages anti-religious behavior and that the President is encouraging higher education because college essentially brainwashes the youth of America into becoming neo-atheistic liberals.

Santorum committed the sins of omission by failing to note how various wealthy conservatives are practically buying ideological influence at colleges and universities by their endowments.  And as an example of his own hypocrisy, he did not mention his own efforts at encouraging college attendance.

As Fred Clarkson wrote, Santorum’s latest outrage concerns President Kennedy 1960 assurance to Protestant ministers that he would not impose his personal religious beliefs on non-Catholic citizens. That is a far different thing than his characterization that “…faith is not allowed in the public square.”

But where does a Catholic find the authority to use such mendacity in pursuit of political power?  Perhaps the answer lies in the writings of Opus Dei founder, Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer.

Santorum is what is known as an Opus Dei cooperator. While not officially a member, being a cooperator offers plausible deniability to those who support the secretive organization’s goals of a more theocratic society built upon a foundation of ultra-orthodox Catholic notions of morality.  It is no accident that Santorum’s first public condemnation of JFK’s Houston speech came in 2002 when the then-junior U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania was at the Vatican attending a Vatican celebration of the birth of Escrivá.  It was while attending that event that Santorum told The National Catholic Reporter that he was “an admirer” of Escrivá.

It was Escrivá who famously said, “Have you ever bothered to think how absurd it is to leave one’s Catholicism aside on entering a university, or a professional association, or a scholarly meeting, or a congress, as if you were checking your hat at the door?”

Santorum has embraced that view, going as far as to comment, that JFK’s promise not take orders from the Vatican as president has caused “much harm in America.”  Indeed, many of the candidate’s more inflammatory comments echo Escrivá.

Many of Santorum’s culture war pronouncements also echo Escrivá.  In the Opus Dei founder’s two primary works, The Way and In Love with the Church, he urged secrecy in his apostolate (The Way, No. 839); condemned modern notions of equality as “injustice” (The Way, No. 46); defines compromise as laziness and weakness (The Way, No. 54) demands blind obedience to Church teachings (The Way, No. 617); calls non-Catholic schools, “pagan schools” (The Way, No. 866); mocks Voltaire (The Way, No. 849). His book In Love with the Church cites such questionable authorities such as the openly anti-democratic Pope Pius IX.  (This was the same Pius IX who ordered a young Jewish child kidnapped from his parents in Bologna and raised him in the Vatican to become a priest, all against his family’s will).

There are also two passages in The Way that may offer Santorum a justification for his conduct. In No. 258, Escriva preached, “Get rid of those scruples that deprive you of peace. What robs you of your peace of soul cannot come from God.”

“In No. 259, Escriva continues, writing, “Still those scruples!  Talk simply and clearly with your director.  Obey… and don’t belittle the most loving heart of our Lord.”

Oxford Dictionaries Online defines “scruples” as follows:

noun
     1 (usually scruples) a feeling of doubt or hesitation with regard to the morality or propriety of a course of action:
     I had no scruples about eavesdropping
     [mass noun]:
without scruple, politicians use fear as a persuasion weapon

It is it possible that Santorum has “gotten rid of those scruples” — or at least those that would restrain a more reasonable candidate from angrily mischaracterizing the president’s true intent on higher education?

Santorum who has enjoyed the benefits of elite higher education, is playing a highly cynical political game.  Santorum has an undergraduate degree from Penn State, an MBA from the University of Pittsburgh and a law degree from the Dickinson School of Law — better known as Penn State Law.

Santorum’s other personal philosophy, neo-conservatism also comes into play.  This theory of governance is awash in the concept of neo-platonic society, one where everyone knows “his or her place,” and is likewise at war with modernity. It is also a system where “philosopher-kings” rule over the more “vulgar” members of society.  Such a worldview dovetails neatly with an Opus Dei vision for society.

And what of Opus Dei itself?  Apparently, the lay organization’s history is rife with elitism.”  The organization’s founder was witnessed making statements dismissive of more open-minded popes such as John XXIII and Paul VI.  Indeed, Escriva’s former personal secretary, Maria del Carmen Tapia, described how the organization, “… set its eye on the intellectual elite, the well-to-do, and the socially prominent.”

In a 1997 National Catholic Reporter review of Tapia’s book about her time with the secretive organization, Sister Kaye Ashe wrote, “If they had reason to wonder at the speedy beatification of its founder in 1992, 17 years after his death, their mystification will double as they see him through Tapia’s eyes: a self-preoccupied, authoritarian man given to loud and angry tantrums.”

While it seems that the teachings of Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer have left their mark on candidate Santorum, the question to which we deserve an answer is just how far does Santorum’s admiration for Opus Dei’s founder extend to his vision for America?