Jackass for the Hour: Chapter 26 – Revealed religion sacrifices children
By 10:00 A.M., the Paul VI Audience Hall was filled to its capacity of thousands upon thousands. Everyone was on their feet, speaking more loudly even as the din became more deafening.
Cardinal Francisco’s secretary, adept at deescalation, quietly said, “We welcome our visitors here today, representatives of the media, delegations from various religious groups, and others who desire to advance the common good as well as the particular good of the individuals who have a special interest in this case. We will begin with a prayer.” The noise level increased with many of those present asking each other with sarcasm what they were to do with the threat of a prayer being imposed upon them.
The Cardinal thought it best to begin with ‘multi-cultural’ praise, certain that clarity would offend disparate sensitivities. Besides the wide variety of nationalities of those present, there were many Jews and Muslims in the Hall. Ignoring the new artwork framing the stage, the Cardinal lapsed into semi-Pelagianism, saying, “Future Omega Point of the cosmos, we are at one this morning, invigorated by our dialogue and enthused by the common purpose of sharing our lives with each other. We praise you for helping us to be one with the cosmos, one with you, forever and ever…” He didn’t add ‘Amen’, as this was Hebrew, just another language, but one which was likely to be considered non-inclusive. The Cardinal sat down. Most in the crowd stared at him blankly. Others, for whom such nonsense was their usual weekend fare, said ‘Amen’. Everyone sat down, causing a wave of noise to roll up the sloping floor of the cavernous auditorium.
“The proceedings of the trial of Father…” began the Cardinal, unable to finish his sentence. A banner had been unfurled by a group of demonstrators during the opening ‘prayer’. It stretched halfway across one side of the Hall, in the middle of the crowd, behind the reporters. Those holding up the banner had begun to chant the slogan printed upon it in large red letters.
The cameras swept around to get a closeup of the banner: “Revealed Religion Sacrifices Children.” There were smaller words below these proclaiming that the group’s members were abuse survivors. A multitude of guards swept down upon the protestors, but they were kept at bay by multiple rows of people on all sides of the banner, all of them obviously belonging to the same group. Their chanting of the slogan was picked up by many others. Mayhem reigned.
Cardinal Fidèle looked content, but Cardinal Francisco was hitting his gavel on the table, which only annoyed the crowd. Father Alexámenos leaned forward into his microphone and said, “No! Let them stay. Let them hold up their banner. You must let them have a voice.”
The guards looked to Cardinal Francisco for direction. “We are so pleased to have you with us to share your concerns,” he said. The protesters sat down, continuing to hold the banner open. After this, only two sets of two guards remained in the aisles to either side of the group.
“The proceedings of the trial of Father Alexámenos,” Cardinal Francisco repeated, “will now commence. The defendant is accused of heresy, lack of charity to another religion and immorality. It may seem…”
“The defendant is accused of criminal instigation of genocide,” screamed a man in audience, standing up, only to be distracted by three members of the Vatican police, whose instantaneous response was instructive to others tempted to draw attention to themselves.
“It may seem,” continued Cardinal Francisco, “that res ipsa loquitur, that a trial is not needed, that punishment should not be delayed. Yet, a matter does not always speak for itself, for a lack of context can be a pretext for injustice. Questions must be answered prior to any punishment. Finding the truth is in everyone’s interest. We want the world to say that we will have accomplished our purpose accurately and affably. It is peace, the absence of rancour, which we desire. We are happy to be at peace.”
A man dressed in traditional Muslim attire shouted, “Per la pace, dev’essere giustiziato!” meaning that the accused had to be put to death, so as to establish justice and obtain peace.
Cardinal Fidèle signalled to the officers at the ready to descend on the man to ignore him. Consistent with his agnosticism, and thinking that peace merely should be the ‘tranquillity of Truth,’ he said to Cardinal Francisco, “Thank you, your Eminence. Your words are… very nice.” His biting sarcasm won him the crowd’s respect. He had convinced the other prelates to have a relaxed trial. Neither side wished to make an opening statement, so he turned to Cardinal Froben, the Prosecutor for the morning and, usurping authority, said to him, “The floor is yours, your Eminence.”
Cardinal Froben, the President for the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, had always been a showman, and now was his chance to demonstrate his talent. The Cardinal had made sure to be fitted with a radio microphone before the session began, a procedure which the technicians followed afterward for all the Prosecutors. He walked to the very centre of the stage and, turning to Father Alexámenos, said, “Father, would you agree that a trial is too adversarial? Why don’t we just ignore exaggerated oaths and procedural rules. Just think of our time together as a conversation, sharing with each other. After all, it is better that we let you hang yourself with the greatest opportunity to explain yourself, don’t you think? I’ll even dispense reading out the charges against you. Surely you are humiliated enough.” He held up five pieces of paper taped together, which he let unfold until they almost reached the floor.
Father Alexámenos, however, took charge of his own interrogation, saying, “What was written on the banner correctly states the case and sums up all charges against me, for, as I understand it, I am to be interrogated about Revelation, religion and the sacrifice of children…”
“Or is it more accurate to say that you will be questioned about your misunderstanding of Revelation and religion, as well as about the flagrant abuse of children?” asked the Cardinal.
“It all depends,” asserted Father Alexámenos, guiding the conversation.
The Hall was completely quiet, except for the hushed sound of note-taking by the reporters.
Cardinal Froben cautiously took up the challenge, asking, “It all depends… on what?”
Father Alexámenos repeated what he had previously said to both Rabbi Shelomoh and Eliyahu, who were watching the proceedings from backstage. Eliyahu had escaped disciplinary measures in the military, having been subpoenaed in case he was needed. With them was Signora Gagno and Carpe Diem. The health of Cardinal Fidèle had markedly deteriorated in the last month and she needed to be present as an impromptu nurse, medicines in hand.
“It depends on whether you are a faithful or an unfaithful priest,” said Father Alexámenos. “Notice that faithless priests hate to speak of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass…”
“What does that have to do with anything?!” interrupted Cardinal Froben.
Father Alexámenos said, “A faithless priest hates to speak of the Last Supper and Calvary as the Sacrifice of Jesus. God the Father sent Jesus into the world to freely accomplish this very Sacrifice, a Child-Sacrifice if you will – but by laying down His own life – fulfilling the righteousness of justice by which He asked for mercy for us, the faithless priest thinks that this is incriminating instead of it being a Revelation in mercy. There is too much goodness, too much kindness, too much…”
“Just too much! Get to the point!” Cardinal Froben said, not realising the point was made.
“To avoid feeling guilty about his lack of goodness and kindness,” said Father Alexámenos, “the faithless priest attempts to rid himself of revealed religion, for what is revealed points to this Child-Sacrifice of our Heavenly Father, though Jesus layed down His own life to take it up again for us. All that the faithless priest needs to do to reject Revelation is to assert that Faith – the very Tradition by which Scripture was written and by which it must be understood – is unnecessary. For him, Revelation is merely the text of Scripture, full stop: a religion of a book. Despite knowledge of historical circumstances in which the text was written, without knowing and living the same Faith, the same Tradition in which the text was written, he must see in the text only what he wants to see, namely, his own imagination, the ‘preconceptions’ of society that he’s vacuumed into his brain. A faithless priest is self-referentially fundamentalist. He insists on ‘historical’ interpretation, but, in his case, history is reduced to his own anachronistic relativism. He rejects the Living Truth which would open him to the Eternal Word, God Incarnate, Christ Jesus.”
“Don’t tell me that you are going to attack the exegetical community,” said Cardinal Froben, and, with exaggerated confidence, continued: “Even you have a ‘world view’ relative to yourself, Father.”
“Everyone has their own ‘world view’, your Eminence, but sanctifying grace given to us in the supernatural virtue of Faith, of Tradition, establishes our unity with God and each other. This unity with the Lord of History, who is Living Truth, lifts us out of the quagmire of relativity.”
“I’m glad to see, Father, that you identify Faith and Tradition. I understand Tradition as a stream of historically conditioned ‘traditions’, or as a stream of cultural phenomena creating our individual assent to God. The assent of each person should be similar to the assent given by most people for the sake of unity. Faith, individual assent to God, is necessarily relative to the person. However, it is made ‘traditional’ in the sense that the ‘pre-conceptions’ of so many individuals assenting to God in more or less the same way are transferred from one generation to the next as a simple anthropological fact, easily recognised with statistical analysis. It is our assent to the most common expression of assent to God, called ‘faith’, in which one necessarily finds one’s justification, in other words, one’s unity with others and God… though others, falling through the cracks of my historical analysis, are not excluded.”
“Your Eminence, Faith and Tradition are identical, but not because Faith is equated with the historical fluctuations of democratic expedience. If that were the case, even your idea of ‘faith’ and ‘tradition’ could not be equated to prepare for your ‘assent’, but would only follow upon the lowest common denominator of some pre-existing circumstances. You would just be one more dead fish in a river. Coercion of circumstance is not unity. Instead, Faith freely lived is an absolute, regardless of time, regardless of culture, intellectual capacity, or anything else. To repeat, Faith is the supernatural virtue given directly by the Holy Spirit with the grace which sanctifies us, uniting us to God and, indeed, to others. Faith unites all those whom Christ incorporates into His Body by way of His Sacrifice, His obedience, His listening to the Father speak. He is the Father’s Word that He hears, He whom we offer at Holy Mass…”
“No!” interrupted Cardinal Froben. “Tradition is historical. It continues with fluctuations in the circumstances in which different individuals live. Tradition brings the reality of Faith to life.”
“Dialectical reactions do not write the pages of history or Tradition, your Eminence. Christ Jesus is the Lord of History. His Holy Spirit, who inspired the words of the Word to form us into that Incarnate Word, establishes our unity with the Lord and each other. He takes our disparate languages of the tower of Babel and has us speak to all in the one language, the one Word, the one Charity who is God. This Charity is not transcendent because it begins as a material reaction and evolves upward, moves upward, transfers itself upward, becoming something nicely spiritual; instead, God’s Charity is supernatural… above nature. We know it as sanctifying grace, your Eminence, the love of Christ which – huperballousan – proceeds above knowledge…”
“Grace?” scoffed Cardinal Froben. “We do not use that non-ecumenical verbiage anymore.”
“Our human involvement as the centuries roll on,” began Father Alexámenos, “is not that we actually hand on the Faith from one generation to the next, as if human, Magisterial commentary – however infallible – could possibly be equated with handing on the Faith throughout the generations as wrought by the Holy Spirit. Instead, the Holy Spirit so univocally gives the sanctifying grace of the supernatural, infused virtue of Faith to all men in each generation – regardless of their ‘world view’, personal history, culture, nationality, or whatever – that the effect of this one grace of Faith, especially in Magisterial teaching, makes it look as if we men have handed on this supernatural grace of Faith down through the generations, but we do this only quasi per manus, only as if by hand. Faith, having a ‘traditional’ effect, and rightly called Tradition, is wrought by the Holy Spirit. Living Faith is Tradition. Tradition is Living Faith, the sanctifying grace of Charity in Truth. It is this supernatural Tradition, this supernatural Faith, which makes Revelation of the Living Truth to be Revelation. Without Sacred Tradition, without grace, it must be that Sacred Scripture is a dead letter to the reader, who much replace the Faith with what he wants to see. There could be nothing more dead than what we want to see apart from God.”
“What are you talking about?” asked the Cardinal. “Are you trying to turn the clock back to the year Martin Luther died, when Trent promulgated its fourth session on Word, Rule of Faith and Witness? Our world view of unity has changed since then.”
“But your Eminence, Faith, Tradition, lifts us out of time even while we remain in time. With this Faith, this Tradition, we, upon this earth, have a ‘vision’ of God, who is in heaven, a vision seen as if in a dark mirror. The mirror is ‘dark’ only because grace is supernatural and we cannot see its brilliance with our natural brains. Yet, we are members of the Body of Christ, and He, the Word spoken by the Father, sees the Father for us, the members of His Body, even while we are on this earth. In heaven, Faith will fall away, for we will have direct vision through, with and in Christ. What we will then be has not yet been revealed, for we shall see God as He is… But now, seeing the Father through our Eucharistic Lord by the grace He gives…” Father Alexámenos was getting a bit choked up, intensely aware of the presence of Christ Jesus, but before Cardinal Froben could say anything, he continued: “Your Eminence, by grace we have a taste of eternity, of heaven, of appreciating the good of the saints as our good. It is a taste of knowing, however faintly, the saints’ rejoicing in the good in us as their own good. The good we share is the indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity. For us, this Tradition, Living Faith, and for them a vision of Living Truth, has us better understand the Sacred Mysteries which the Holy Spirit has had described with the inspired, written words of God. Those words are about the Word of God, who is spoken by the Father. Scripture only together with Tradition constitute the Revelation of God, whose fulness is Christ Jesus.”
“So, we have established that you are in fact a heretic,” declared Cardinal Froben. “You’re saying that our understanding of Revelation does not develop as the centuries unfold, as Cardinal Newman told us. He’s most blessed. You’re not. Wouldn’t you agree?”
“Our understanding develops, but this is not the same as Tradition, as Faith, your Eminence, as if the sanctifying grace of supernatural Faith itself develops. Refined arguments, for instance, in front of wilful faithlessness are useless. The faithless priest holds that Scripture is the product of dialectic circumstance, not of Faith and inspiration, and, therefore, must be read as Scripture alone. No Faith. No Tradition.” Father Alexámenos waited for a response, but not getting any, continued, saying, “The faithless priest, your Eminence, thinks that without Tradition, your Eminence, without Faith, your Eminence, he is reading God’s Revelation in reading a book, though he is only seeing in the text what he wants to see there, just himself with the pretence of thinking that he is without sin. He is escaping from who he actually is and who he should be in God’s presence. Escape is no development of understanding. It is a regression, an expression of Adam’s sin, the idolatry of attempting to replace God with oneself.”
“It is not replacing God with oneself,” insisted Cardinal Froben. “Today’s philosophies of communication, with much common sense, are simply demanding common ground. God and oneself are already similar enough to each other that a successful dialogue – much like evolution – proceeds dialectically as history marches on to a glorious eschatological conclusion when Christ will be all in all…”
“Your Eminence, if Christ is not All in all now, the Creator and Sustainer of all things, then He never will be. The Word of God is not cold, dialectic, evolutionary dialogue, as if one could, for instance, arbitrarily apply any ‘method’ to Scripture, forcing the text to reflect oneself. Christ, the Word, brings us into communion with the Most Holy Trinity, with grace, which transforms us, but does not transform God. Jesus is the Way, our Way of communication. This communion is personal, where we become one with Him. This communion is not simply a common ground where we ‘confront’ God but are apart from Him, or coldly ‘encounter’ Him, but are apart from Him, where God and man are equals in a dialogue whose continuance is its purpose, and therefore already a fait accompli even as it continues, making Revelation redundant. Dialogue is illegitimate if…”
“Dialogue is good!” exclaimed the Cardinal indignantly.
“Christ is the Word, the Logos, not the dia-logos,” insisted Father Alexámenos.
“What we’re talking about is conversation,” said the Cardinal. “What’s wrong with that?”
“Without Faith, without Tradition, so-called dialogue must reject the One to whom Revelation points,” replied Father Alexámenos. “For instance, when is the last time that you heard the Common Ground Initiative or Catalyst for Renewal or any ‘expert’ in dialogue from Tübingen speak of the Mass as the Sacrifice of a Child? Their dialogue is not dialogue with God or men, but capitulation to the world. The faithless priest has no interest in communion or communication. Their dialogue is an imploding dialectic continually destroying the antithesis, dragging everyone down to what is ou-topos, ‘utopia’, no-place, the lowest common denominator, oneself.”
“What’s wrong with oneself ? Have you no self-esteem?” the Cardinal asked.
“This attempt to conform the world to self with a will-to-power, your Eminence, is nothing less than the source of all violence and abuse, of the sacrifice of children. Ultimately, this conformity, this lowest common denominator, tests the Lord, and shakes one’s fist at God, screaming out, ‘Come down from that Cross, down to us morally, down into our hell of sin, down! Then we will believe! Non serviam! If only we could see that Christ has walked on the lowest streets of hell! You know what Chrysostom said the streets of hell are paved with, don’t you, your Eminence?” As he asked this, Father Alexámenos touched his head. When the Cardinal realised that he was aping Father Alexámenos, answering the question by touching his skull, he threw his arms down, flustered. Father Alexámenos continued, “To sum up about the statement, ‘Revealed Religion Sacrifices Children,’ it is true that the Revelation which religion brings to us is the Sacrifice of Christ, the Child, the Son of our Heavenly Father. But when Revelation is attacked by denying the Faith – that Tradition necessary to assent to truths of Scripture– it is the Sacrifice of Christ, the Mass, which is rejected, for Revelation points to it. The faithless priest thinks of himself as Revelation. He will continue to offer sacrifice, but this time, children will be…”
“We reveal God to each other if we are members of the Body of Christ,” replied the Cardinal.
“If the faithless priest denies the difference between nature and grace, the natural and the supernatural and, ultimately, the created and the Creator,” began Father Alexámenos, “he only reveals that he holds himself to be the lowest common denominator of mankind. But this is not any Revelation of communion, but merely his ‘down to earth’, private interpretation of his own isolated private ‘faith’ alone, his own manipulating and forlorn theology alone. So much for his Scriptura sola and sola fide! It’s all very private and lonely. For him, there is no Family of Faith, no ecclesial interpretation. He is anti-‘ecumenical’, lost to himself. He cannot bring the Sacrifice of the Mass to others. He will continue to offer sacrifice, but this time, children will be…”
“All of your talk about the Sacrifice in the Mass has me thinking that you are saying that God uses religion to reveal that He is pleased with children being offered to Him in sacrifice,” said the Cardinal. “I seem to remember a case in Haïti where children were sacrificed to the whims of…”
“What God the Father is pleased with, your Eminence, is that, in sending God the Son to redeem us in full justice and mercy, God the Son freely laid down His own human nature to take it up again, for us. What God the Son does is not meant to be pleasing to the Father in the sense that the Father’s attitude toward the Son somehow changes. God the Father is always well-pleased with His Son. God the Son did not consider that divinity something to be grasped at, or received. Jesus is the Priest, the Sacrifice, the Altar. He is God. The priest of Faith upholds the Mass as the Sacrifice mandated by our Heavenly Father; he knows that revealed religion does offer a Child in Sacrifice, the Son of God. The faithless priest will not tolerate such talk, but will continue to offer sacrifice, but this time, children will be…”
“But what does this have to do with the statement on the banner – Revealed Religion Sacrifices Children – and with the accusations against you?” asked the Cardinal.
“If you want,” replied Father Alexámenos, “I’ll explain why the faithless priest, in rejecting the Sacrifice of the Mass must continue to offer sacrifice, but this time… sacrificing any children of God, or any would-be children of God that he finds, those who have or could have the Faith.”
“Oh, do so!” exclaimed the Cardinal, thinking this would lead to Haïti.
“Take the example, your Eminence, of the useless homilies of a faithless priest. Since he has already rejected all that the prophets had to say about the fulness of Revelation in the Sacrifice of Jesus, the Suffering Servant of the Father, the words of his homily will effectively slay the prophets of the past and those who have Faith in the present, for he rejects what the prophets spoke about, making sure to replace the Sacrifice of the Mass with rituals of self-affirmation.”
“I’m sure I do not understand what you are saying,” said Cardinal Froben.
“Your Eminence, consider the example of a faithless priest in charge of publishing an edition of the Bible, having it printed ever so nicely, but manipulating the text and notes for his own motives. Since he has already effectively killed off, in himself, the truth of which the prophets wrote, not believing with the Faith by which those Scriptures were first produced, he is, then, in printing that manipulated Bible, doing nothing more than building the tombs of the prophets, effectively murdering them once again. The ancient fathers of today’s faithless priest, the scribes and pharisees of old, had also effectively sacrificed the prophets for their own malicious purposes, for their political correctness: “We wouldn’t have killed them!” they exclaim. The faithless priest would murder Christ the first chance he had, but is content to do away with those made in the image of God, those around himself.”
“Just whom are you accusing?” asked the Cardinal quietly, but with deadly intensity. “We can forget about our conversational sharing… Is that what you want?”
“The faithful priest admits that there but for God’s grace goes he. The faithful priest admits that he would crucify Christ the first chance he had, but he says with this sorrow, begging for forgiveness,” added Father Alexámenos for clarity.
Cardinal Froben would have pushed ahead, but he was distracted that the crowd had become restless because of the unrestrained applause of Eliyahu and Rabbi Shelomoh coming from the room to the side of stage. They were well aware that Cardinal Froben was in charge of providing guidelines for publishing Bibles. Their applause was respectfully shushed by the guards, but was seconded on stage by Cardinal Fidèle, who used the opportunity to boost himself at the expense of Cardinal Froben. He could humiliate Father Alexámenos easily enough later. Father Alexámenos was also distracted with this. He did not know who was backstage, but he could see Cardinal Fidèle clearly. For an instant he saw the “no-conscience” look in the eyes of the Cardinal he had previously seen in Benin as a child-soldier, and then in Rome and Haïti.
Cardinal Froben said, “I think the abuse survivor’s group would want you to say something more specific.” He then turned to the protestors with the banner and asked them to hold up their banner once again. They stood and held it high, wondering if they should have chosen a different slogan. When the cameras had swung around to take in the panorama of the crowd and the banner stretched wide – “Revealed Religion Sacrifices Children” – Cardinal Froben then turned to Father Alexámenos and tauntingly said, “You, who are a world traveller, most recently to a brothel for child-prostitution in a shantytown in Haïti, must have something to say about this.”
“I do,” replied Father Alexámenos. “Religion is rendering to God what He is due in justice, but it should be clear that we, in our sin, without the Revelation coming with grace, cannot do anything righteous, least of all offer the worship, praise and thanksgiving that is due to God in justice. We are all lost to such a lack of integrity, from conception to death, either because of being corrupted by Adam’s sin alone, or because of both that ancient sin and personal sin, so much so that none of us could offer ourselves in vicarious atonement for the rest of mankind. Such a sacrificial offering would be rejected by God as unworthy, for the victim is blemished with sin. This is why Abraham was, in the end, not to offer Isaac as a child-sacrifice. Only God with us, Immanuel, Jesus, the Messiah, innocent, like us in all things but sin, could justly ask for our forgiveness. He, tortured, crucified, dying, said, “Father, forgive them…”
“You really are a sorry case,” said the Cardinal, “always avoiding the…”
“So, to bring the matter right down to child abuse…” began Father Alexámenos.
“Yes. Yes. Go on,” prodded Cardinal Froben. “Hang yourself. I’ve been waiting for this.”
“There are many stages for this abuse,” Father Alexámenos continued, “each of which depends on an increasingly belligerent hatred of the Living Truth. In the first stage, the faithless priest stops praying in a humble manner, if he ever did, meaning that any praying he does do is more of a Pelagian self-congratulations for his own activity rather than a communion with God that is established by God. He is a rationalist-individualist in the line of Descartes. ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ – ‘I think, therefore I am’ is his modus operandi. His life is the definition of self-referential fundamentalism and faithlessness. He must end up relativising all religion to himself. He openly ridicules large Catholic families who practise their Faith with enthusiasm. He has no time for any family, especially the Family of Faith. By virtue of his ‘private’, ‘individual’ interpretation of the Bible, the faithless priest cannot tolerate the Holy Father of the Family of Faith, the Bishop of Rome. He cannot bear to have any children of the Faith around. If someone is living the Faith and taking the teaching of the Church seriously, such a priest will try to stop this with his mockery of doctrine and morality…”
“But what about abuse?” asked the Cardinal impatiently, not realising that this was abuse.
“The faithless priest practises what he preaches, your Eminence. His lack of Faith is reflected with a daily lack of integrity. It doesn’t matter whether those he abuses are young or old, male or female. He simply wants to damage their Faith. Children are the most vulnerable, and are the most symbolic of the priest’s problems with Faith. In them, he is attacking himself as a would-be child of God. He hates himself, God and others. He doesn’t recognise himself as a Father since he doesn’t see himself as being married to the Church. He must despise the children of God.”
“Again… Get to the point, Father.”
“Abuse can be accomplished at a distance,” continued Father Alexámenos, “by those faithless priests, who, due to their passive political correctness, accept an artificial division of Scripture and Tradition which other heretics have advanced. The children in the parish of such a faithless priest are abused by way of omission of the good things which could have been done for them.”
The Cardinal crossed his arms, looked at the floor, and shook his head, impatient for Father Alexámenos to begin speaking more about Haïti.
“If a priest intensifies his faithlessness,” continued Father Alexámenos, “he goes out of his way to prescind from the faith when reading Scripture, mocking the ecclesial interpretation of the Bible. He thinks he can successfully avoid the Truth which the Scriptures would otherwise bring to him about the condemnation he risks if he does not convert. In rejecting the Faith of the Scriptures, which speak of the Sacrifice of the Mass, of Jesus, the Child-Sacrifice of the Father – so to speak – the faithless priest must continue to replace this Sacrifice of the Mass with his attempt to kill off the Faith of God’s children. He does this by attempting to substitute the Sacrifice of the Mass with the ‘tolerant and understanding’ counsel he provides for ‘the rare but safe’ abortion and, more commonly, for the ‘morning after’ pills that he is happy to say are found at the emergency rooms of ‘Catholic’ hospitals. It is demonically ironic. He is happy to become involved in ‘difficult decisions’ favouring euthanasia. He counsels married couples, one of whom has AIDS, to continue having marital relations by using condoms, a deadly Russian Roulette whereby the spouse without AIDS will soon die of AIDS, making the priest a conspirator in the murder of soul and body. A faithless priest will not tolerate mention of the Sacrifice of the Mass to which Tradition and Scripture point because he cannot. He is sacrificing the children of God in his daily life because he has made the revealed religion of Jesus’ Sacrifice relative only to himself.”
At this point, Cardinal Froben seemed to be able to start putting the pieces together, making him hesitate for some seconds, but then it struck him that he should not let himself be side-tracked from Haïti. “Surely you have more to tell us than that, do you not?” he insisted.
“Saint Paul described this final corruption of the faithless priest in his letter to the Romans, chapter one. Such a priest, who kills the prophets and cuts children out of their mother’s wombs, must understand the sexual act to be merely flesh meeting flesh, or latex for that matter; being male or female means nothing. A man, a woman and children are, for him, not made in the image of God as described in Genesis. When the faithless priest denies grace, he also denies nature. The faithless priest sets about, with predatory inversion, to ‘prove’ that he is in the right by sinning. For him, there is no bodily sin, since, for him, the body is merely a mass of feelings and emotions he himself enjoys. ‘Tradition’, for him, is relativistic feelings and emotions, and all the preconceptions going with them, that are ‘transferred’ from one person to another, from one generation to the next. Scripture, the body, so to speak, of Tradition, is manipulated by him with the ‘private’ interpretation of his inversion, which his suppression of Tradition, of Faith, brought about. He is anti-ecclesial, anti-family. The grace of Faith, of Tradition, must not be replaced in this way.”
“What is the sin of which you speak?” asked Cardinal Froben.
“The sins against children carried out by the faithless priest, your Eminence, “may be sins of violence, verbal or physical or even, most horrifically – in his mockery of God – sexual.”
“Now you are getting to the point,” said Cardinal Froben. “Give some examples.”
“Pornography and sex-slavery,” replied Father Alexámenos. “Institutionalised pedophilia, moreover, can include, I repeat, pornographic ‘sex-education’ and pornographic so-called ‘child-protection’ programmes. The faithless priest preys on children and attacks parents if they insist on instructing their children in the Faith, morally, as is their God-given right.”
Some in the crowd applauded, but only momentarily, realising that they might be encouraging an abuser, for they had all seen the images from Haïti countless times. Yet, doubts were being raised in their minds. They wondered if the images could possibly be interpreted differently.
“You ignore the fact that well over eighty percent of the children who are abused by faithless priests are male,” said Cardinal Froben. “Everything else you say about revealed religion must be wrong.”
“In destroying revealed religion by replacing Sacred Tradition with his own life,” replied Father Alexámenos, “the faithless priest, rejecting the Sacrifice of the Suffering Servant spoken of by the Scriptures, must attack those for whom that Sacrifice was offered. In his tyrannical, self-referentially fundamentalistic relativism, his marauding, anti-family individualism, he must attempt to obliterate anyone with a family spirit, attempting to strip them of their identity before God and others by trying to give them what he imagines to be his own identity. He tries to conform them to the lowest common denominator he considers himself to be. Such a priest is essentially and necessarily a predator, lusting to conform others to himself, an effort which is essentially the advancement of sameness on his own terms. This inversion, this cowardice before others, expresses itself by what the faithless priest thinks are the control and power of sameness.”
“When you say ‘sameness’, what do you mean to say?” asked the Cardinal impatiently.
“Your Eminence, the word for ‘sameness’ is homo, which means ‘same.’ Faithless priests necessarily suffer from inversion, whether or not they act out sexually with men or women, or much worse, boys or girls. Sex outside of marriage is not accompanied by true sexual attraction, but only selfish lust, inversion, egotistical self-affirmation, a suppression of the truth, a despising of God’s presence, an affirmation of one’s same, homo self to the destruction of self and others, leaving the faithless priest open to falling into homosexual attractions and actions, opportunistic cowardice…”
“Are you saying that mostly boys were molested by faithless priests because these faithless priests have fallen into homosexuality?” asked the Cardinal. “Many bishops and Cardinals are trying to avoid speaking in this fashion. Are you sure that…”
“Let me put it to you in practical terms,” interrupted Father Alexámenos. “Priestly celibacy is directed to the priest’s witness to revealed religion, to his offering of the Sacrifice of the Son of the Father, Christ Jesus, during Holy Mass. Priestly celibacy flourishes in the priest’s marriage to the Church through the Wedding Banquet of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by which the one Priest, Christ Jesus, is wed to the Church, making the priest a Father of the Family of Faith. The priest says those wedding vows of Jesus, this is my body given for you in sacrifice, my blood poured out for you in sacrifice. It is impossible on physical, emotional and spiritual levels for an invert to be any kind of father. Speaking of ‘chaste homosexuality’ as making one worthy to be ordained misunderstands both inversion and what is entirely contrary and contradictory to it, priestly celibacy. An invert, though he avoids sinful behaviour, has no capacity to rejoice in fatherhood. He is not to be ordained. His life would be a lie. He is dangerous, even if he does live chastely. He is already suppressing the Faith by being a priest who thinks deeply rooted homosexual tendencies are not contradictory to the priesthood. He continually suppresses his identity as an alter-Christus. He doesn’t stop with suppression, but attacks what he hates. He is almost bound to abuse children, and this will almost always be with boys, especially altar boys, for the rape of altar boys becomes the perfect symbol of the faithless priest conforming others to his faithless self. In raping a boy who wants to serve the altar, to serve Christ Himself, the faithless priest is attempting to rape Christ. It is a sin which cries to heaven for vengeance. What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah is nothing compared to what such a priest deserves.”
“So, you’re saying that the priesthood, as a profession, is dangerous to children,” judged Cardinal Froben.
“Priesthood isn’t a ‘homosexual profession’ as some call it, so hurt are they,” replied Father Alexámenos, “but it can become a haven for the faithless, the inverted and predators. Bishops and Cardinals who have asserted ad nauseam that ‘homosexual’ seminarians should stay in the seminary and be ordained should be punished, not excluding laicisation. They think there is no occasion of sin for such seminarians as long as they proclaim they are homosexual and proclaim they are chaste. This disrespects revealed religion, for it rejects what Scripture and Tradition speak about, the Mass as the Sacrifice of Christ by which God is wed to His Bride, the Church, and by which Sacrifice the priest himself, acting in Persona Christi, in the Person of Christ, is wed to the Church, becoming a Father.”
Cardinal Froben, thinking he was preemptive, asked, “Isn’t it true that all priests sin, Father?”
“Certainly. For instance, when our Lord told Peter to walk on the water, he did, until he stopped looking to our Lord and started looking at his own meagre strength, frightened of the waves and the wind. Under stress, Peter had more ‘faith’ in himself than in Jesus. Looking to himself, he sank down in sin. His ‘little Faith’ – as described by our Lord – was drowned. With this rejection of Faith, of Tradition, Peter was unable to interpret the Word of God, who was in front of him on the waves. Peter wasn’t witnessing to revealed religion for the apostles, but, for that split second, the example he was giving was how to sink into hell. It was as if he was saying, ‘Come, follow me!’ All sin attacks revealed religion in favour of oneself, of inversion, and, in some way, attacks others. Priests sin, but not all deny revealed religion by rejecting the Tradition by which Scripture was written. Not all sin, not all inversion expresses homosexual tendencies. Inversion is simply the structure in which sin is made possible, and which opens the faithless priest up to homosexual tendencies. Again, priests who lose the Faith and remain priests open themselves up to homosexual tendencies, effectively affirming that they are militant homosexuals, however they act out their heresy. With men or women, boys or girls, it is the self-affirmation of inversion. Such priests will work against the Faith, especially against the Mass. True priests know they are married to the Church through the Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s own wedding with the Church, and go out of their way to encourage wholesome marriage and family life.”
“So, what do you say is to be done?” asked Cardinal Froben, ignoring everything that Father Alexámenos was saying.
“Your Eminence, heretics must be removed from the priesthood to end the abuse.”
“Is that all you have to say?” asked the Cardinal. “You’re leaving out something, aren’t you?”
“What is it you want to know?” countered Father Alexámenos.
“Are you purposely pushing me to make a fool of you, Father? I’ve let you have your say, to make your defence. You didn’t take it. What I’m going to do now is all your fault.” The Cardinal descended the massive staircase and went up the main aisle of the Hall. The cameras followed his movements.
Up next: Chapter 27 – You will burn, burn, I say!
© International 2005-2018 – George David Byers