Catholics: Don't Believe CNA's Spin on Bishop Barros and the Situation in Chile

A scene from the Riot in the Cathedral, where protesters attempted to stop the appointment of Juan Barros as bishop of Osorno.

Conservatives are rightly angry at liberal bias in the media.  There's a lot of it.

But the game works both ways.  There's a huge conservative bias as well, and it follows a pattern.

The pattern is typically this.  Someone in the Church does something horrifically awful and outrageously embarrassing, something that can't possibly be defending or excused.  For several days the truth is out there and none of my DC (Defensive Catholic) friends comment on it either here or on Facebook or elsewhere.  An awkward silence falls and the truth is simply ignored.

Then (typically) the Catholic Defense League or an organization like Catholic News Agency pipes up with a defense of the situation that is a real stretch of the imagination, but that provides a handy template for the reactionaries to use, and suddenly comboxes are filled everywhere with the rank and file DCs who have swallowed the template whole, who run with it and who don't look back.

With Bishop Finn, the lie that was being promulgated was that the priest's crime at the center of the scandal was not child pornography at all, that the priest in question was utterly innocent, and that Finn did all he could in the situation, that he was being persecuted for being a vocally orthodox bishop who was firm on pro life issues, and that this is why folks in Kansas City were out to crucify him, the whole case against Finn being trumped up.

But the truth was just the opposite.  In fact, not only (in that case) were the pictures in question child porn, but the perpetrator priest was sentenced to fifty years in prison for producing the hundreds of images, using his own parishioners as victims, some under the age of three. And for years prior, Finn not only refused to look into or even acknowledge any of the many complaints about this priest's behavior, some of which came directly from the principal of the school that most of the victims attended, he also stonewalled once the child porn came to light, failed to inform or warn any of the families of the victims, gave the priest continued access to children, was complicit in the destruction of evidence, spent $1.4 million of diocesan money defending himself against two misdemeanor charges in court, only alerted the police when forced to, and, in short, put children at risk and failed to get the offending priest any serious help or counseling.

The Defensive Template bore no relation at all to the real situation.

And now we have Catholic News Agency doing the same thing, albeit with more subtlety, but in a way that's just as clumsy and heavy handed.  Several days after the original reports of the Riot in the Cathedral in Osorno, Chile surfaced - several days after right wing Catholics have been studiously ignoring them - a template has been handed down.  And now this is what the DCs (Defensive Catholics) will use to defend the episcopacy and to see-no-evil, hear-no-evil.

So, since that is bound to happen, let me address the CNA "report" and counter its most egregious errors.

I'll quote from CNA's biased spin on the story with my own comments (in red, a la Father Z), which are closer to the truth ...

***

1.    Who is Fernando Karadima Farina?

Fr. Karadima fostered the vocation of some 40 priests (What CNA leaves out: Fr. Karadima sexually abused altar boys for fifty years - according to court documents.  He led a kind of cult-within-the-church, feeding his own lust while appealing to wealthy right-wing Catholics with his ostensible orthodoxy, after the pattern of Fr. Maciel of the Legion of Christ), including Bishop Juan Barros, who decades ago belonged to Karadima’s closest circle of friends (and was, according to some, Karadima's gay lover - which, I suppose counts as belonging to Karadima's "closest circle of friends".) When reports of sexual abuse and other scandal surrounding Karadima surfaced, Bishop Barros, like a number of other prelates, at first did not believe the accusations. (Not only did they not believe them, they stonewalled and prevented the allegations from being seriously considered.  Against their own diocesan policies regarding the protection of children, allegations against Karadima were never presented to any committee.  Barros himself is said to have angrily torn up a letter to the bishop by one of Karadima's victims.)

The judge in the civil case dismissed the charges because the alleged abuse was too far in the past. (It was not alleged abuse, it was actual abuse, as the judge acknowledged in her ruling, and as the Vatican eventually confirmed.  It was not "too far in the past", it was simply not covered by the statute of limitations.  The phrasing of this sentence alone tells you all you need to know about CNA's agenda in this bit of "reporting".)  Nevertheless, in February 2011, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican completed its own investigation and declared 84-year-old Karadima guilty. He was sent to a life of solitude and prayer (a sentence he is reportedly flouting).

The news of the sentence surprised bishops, priests and lay people who viewed the priest as a role model and considered the initial accusations as an attack on the Church (and therefore refused seriously to consider them - EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE TRUE ALL ALONG).

2.    Juan Carolos Cruz and the accusers

Three of Karadima’s reported victims are accusing Bishop Barros of covering up the priest’s abuses. The accusations do not agree with the investigation carried out by the Vatican.  (Here we have a simple lie at worst, and an utterly strange assertion at best.  All we know of the Vatican's investigation is the upshot, the sentence.  The accusations were part of the evidence the Vatican considered.  If the accusations led to the sentence - which was guilty - how can CNA claim that the accusations "do not agree" with the "investigation carried out by the Vatican"?  This assertion crosses the line from biased reporting with a pro-episcopal slant to simple falsehood).  Juan Carlos Cruz is the most well known of the accusers. He lives in the United States and is often asked by national and international news media for comments on what is happening in the Chilean Church.

After Bishop Juan Barros was appointed as Bishop of Orsono, Cruz told CNN Chile that the Chilean Episcopal Conference and Pope Francis were giving Karadima’s victims “a slap in the face.” This has created international media attention.  (CNA is deliberately leaving out a crucial fact.  Cruz and the other accusers are claiming that Barros both protected Karadima and participated in the abuse by watching it take place as a voyeur.  If that's true, isn't Barros' appointment a "slap in the face"?  And even if it's not true, is not Pope Francis' appointment of a bishop who was part of the inner-inner circle of a cannonically convicted abuser a "slap in the face"?  Is it wrong that this phrase has generated media attention, as CNA implies?)

3.    Bishop Barros’ Defense

Bishop Juan Barros and three other bishops close to Karadima supported the decision of the Holy See in April of 2011 and denied having known about his double life. They declared in a statement that “with great sorrow we have accepted the sentence declaring him guilty of serious offences condemned by the Church. Like so many, we learned about this situation and its diverse and multiple effects with deep astonishment and pain.”

In a letter addressed to the faithful of the Osorno diocese days before his installation, Bishop Barros reiterated that “I never had any knowledge of any accusation concerning Father Karadima when I was the Secretary for Cardinal Juan Francisco Fresno and I never had any knowledge nor did I even imagine such grave abuses as this priest committed against his victims. I neither approved nor participated in those actions.”

“The deep pain that continues to affect the victims for long years profoundly hurts me. And I reiterate along with the whole Church that there is no place in the priesthood for those that commit those abuses,” he added.

Before taking up his responsibility as the Bishop of Osorno on March 21, 2015, the prelate reiterated that he was not linked to the priest’s abuses.

“I am telling you, before God who is listening to us, it did not cross my mind that these things were going on. I would not have accepted it for any reason, and I am not a friend of Fernando Karadima,” he stated.  (As Bill Clinton would say, "That depends on what the definition of 'am' is."  While Barros says "I am not a friend of Fernando Karadima," he certainly was.  Read on.)

He added that before the Vatican convicted him in 2011, “I was already becoming distant from him. Of course I had been close, but I was already becoming distant from him, not because I knew about these questions of the accusations but because he became ill tempered.  I never knew about these very tragic things. The pain of the victims hurts me enormously, I pray for those that carry this pain with them today.”  (So Barros was indeed at one time "close" to Karadima, which is glossed over in his denials and in CNA's reporting.  

Barros may be telling the truth here.  He may be innocent of any cover-up of Karadima's actions, of any collusion with Karadima's bishop who covered for him, of any sexual contact with Karadima and with any vicarious participation in the abuse.

But here's what makes me skeptical.  

1. The three public accusers of Barros are three of the victims of Karadima.  They were not believed for many years.  They were ostracized and criticized and belittled.  But they were telling the truth.  Both a judge in Chile and the Vatican admit that, all along, they were telling the truth about Karadima.  So why are they now, all of a sudden, beginning to lie about one of Karadima's intimates?  Why stop telling the truth about how they were abused - a truth that was never believed - and start lying at this point?

2. If these accusers are lying, if they are trying to destroy Barros, why are they not accusing him of sexual abuse?  Why are they adamant that Barros did not directly abuse them, that he merely "watched" as they were abused, engaged in sexual contact with Karadima, and ran interference for him, preventing their eventual complaints from being heard?  Why are these accusers deliberately limiting their accusations against Barros if they're lying and if their goal is to destroy him?)

Before being the bishop of Osorno, Bishop Barros was the bishop for the Chilean military for almost 11 years, Bishop of Iquique for four years and Auxiliary Bishop of Valparaiso for five years. During all this time, his ministry had not been questioned. (This riot was caused not by Barros' previous episcopal positions, but by his being appointed by Francis as bishop of Osorno, the first appointment of Barros since his mentor Karadima was convicted.  It's obvious why this appointment caused a furor, while Barros's appointment as bishop of the military a decade ago was not on anyone's radar.  To imply that this indicates some sort of shadowy agenda on the part of the rioters is typical of this whole article, which reads more like a pro-Barros press release than a news report.)

4.    The Protests in Osorno

On the day Bishop Barros was installed, dozens of people (no, hundreds of people inside the cathedral and about 4,000 outside the cathedral), including non-Catholics, (what evidence does CNA have that non-Catholics were involved in the protests?  What difference would it make even if they were?  Are non-Catholics not allowed to enter a cathedral?  Are non-Catholics not allowed to protest?) entered the Cathedral of Osorno with banners and black balloons to protest against the prelate. Large groups inside the church held white balloons and banners in support of the bishop.

The media has publicized a letter signed by priests and deacons, as well as a letter from the Congregation of the Sacred Heart signed by their provincial Father Alex Vigueras, demanding the resignation of the prelate.

In response, the Permanent Committee of the Chilean Episcopal Conference issued a March 18 statement expressing their “support, in a spirit of faith and obedience, for Pope Francis who has nominated Bishop Barros as bishop of the Diocese of Osorno.”

5 . Other interests?

The media coverage on Bishop Barros’ appointment as Bishop of Oserno is taking place in the midst of the debate on legalizing abortion as well as bills on euthanasia and homosexual unions in Chile. The Church is one of the few voices that is speaking out against these proposals.

In this context, 51 congressional representatives sent a letter to the Vatican questioning the appointment, some of whom are close to Cruz. This has led to some speculation that those advocating legal and social changes are using the Karadima case and his former friendship with Bishop Barro to discredit the Church in this debate.

(Is it possible that the protests against Barros are politically motivated, and that the pro-abortion / pro-"gay marriage" crowd is trying to capitalize on this situation?  Certainly!  In fact, I can't imagine that those with a liberal political agenda are not trying to capitalize on this.

But that's not the point.  

Fellow Catholics, we are not always persecuted because of our beliefs.  We are not always persecuted because we're trying to do good.  

In fact, when it comes to the Abuse Scandal, we are criticized and persecuted because of the evil the bishops have condoned and facilitated.  

And until we acknowledge that, and as long as we buy the PR-spin that organizations like CNA pass off as "reporting", we'll never make progress on issues like abortion and marriage.  In buying the Great Lie that CNA is selling here, we become anti-evangelists, witnessing against truth and goodness, witnessing against Our Lord Himself.)

***

ADDENDUM - There are reports that the Chilean Bishops' Conference forced Barros and three other bishops publicly to apologize for supporting Karadima.  Barros is not the "aw, shucks, what did I know?" former pal of Karadima that he claims to be.  He was his protege and one of his most adamant supporters (at the very least).  And remember, Karadima sexually abused altar boys for over fifty years, with bishops stonewalling and covering up for him during that time.

Chileans Won't Chill

Protesters attempting to stop Juan Barros from being officially installed as their bishop.

Click here to see a BBC video of the near riot that erupted at the cathedral at Osorno, Chile where protesters tried to stop the ordination of their new bishop, Juan Barros.

Barros is implicated in a cover up of sexual abuse.

The background is this.  In a situation that's very similar to that of Fr. Maciel of the Legion of Christ, a Chilean priest, Fernando Karadima, played up to the wealthy conservative elements in Chilean Catholic society and established a kind of parallel Church, cultivating a group of followers, some of whom became priests - and one of whom is now the bishop of Osorno.  And all the while this Fr. Karadima was sexually abusing boys and young men.

He had trained five bishops and dozens of priests, acting as a spiritual leader and father figure for young men who later accused him of molesting them. (The New York Times, Feb. 18, 2011)

Complaints and red flags popped up for many years, but Karadima's bishop ignored them, covered for Karadima, and in effect facilitated his crimes.  The Vatican eventually sentenced Karadima to a "life or prayer and penance".

Karadima was not only the "mentor" of the new Bishop Barros, but Barros himself has been implicated in Karadima's crimes ...

While Barros himself is not accused of molestation, at least three credible victims say he was present when they were sexually molested by powerful Fr. Fernando Karadima in the 1980s and 90s.

 ***

I am becoming increasingly convinced that "a little leaven leavens the whole loaf", and that a "leaven of malice" and perversion, a self-serving evil that holds God and neighbor in contempt, has infected the Church.  Think about this.  How can stricter procedures on the administrative level reform the Church?  What sort of bureaucratic alterations will change the heart of a bishop who facilitates sex abuse, making this bishop suddenly realize that's the kind of thing a Christian should not be doing?

If you knew that someone under your authority and control was sexually abusing minors, would you aid and abet him, only changing your ways if new procedures forced you to?  And if you (sinful reader) would not do such a thing, why do your bishops?

The noisy chaos in the cathedral of Osorno was simply a glimpse into the silent chaos that's taken hold of our Church.

Fin de Finn?

MO--First Catholic official calls for Bishop Finn’s removal

For immediate release: Thursday, March 19

Statement by David Clohessy of St. Louis, Director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, 314 566 9790, SNAPclohessy@aol.com

A member of Pope Francis’ new child sex abuse panel is calling for the removal of Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn. It’s the first time a Catholic official is publicly and explicitly pushing for Finn’s ouster.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/17/pope-francis-sexual-abuse-allegations-chile-bishop-barros   

Peter Saunders of London was tapped by Pope Francis to be on the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors . He founded and heads a charity for abuse victims called NAPAC (The National Association for People Abused in Childhood).

“If we don’t see real change, if we don’t see the likes of Bishop Finn removed immediately . . .then the committee will be a pointless exercise,” Saunders told The Guardian.

Many pundits, journalists, abuse victims and concerned Catholics have advocated for Finn’s removal. But this is the first time a church official has explicitly done so. It’s especially significant that Saunders has met with Pope Francis and was appointed to the Vatican abuse panel by Francis.

***

For those of you out there who have swallowed the spin that Bishop Finn has been railroaded and unjustly targeted because of his orthodoxy, feel free to read my series of posts on Bishop Finn and Father Ratigan.

Or better yet, read the following as a handy summary, first published on Sept. 6, 2012.  ...

***

There's something about Christ and how we fail Him that we can learn from Kansas City / St. Joseph Bishop Finn.


Here's what Bishop Finn did  -

• He was informed by letter by a Catholic School Principal at St. Patrick's Parish in Kansas City that parents and teachers were concerned about the behavior of their pastor, Fr. Ratigan, who was trying to spend time alone with students, who insisted on giving a little girl a massage at a church event, who was taking a lot of pictures of  little girls, and in whose garden a pair of little girl's underwear was discovered.  Bishop Finn ignored the letter.

• A year later, a computer technician finds hundreds of photos on Fr. Ratigan's computer - photos of little girl students at the parish school, and one of a sleeping two year old, with her diaper moved to the side to reveal her genitalia - all taken by Fr. Ratigan.  In fact, the photos of the students were taken surreptitiously on the playground, at the cafeteria and elsewhere, and included close-ups of girls' crotches, and some where their underwear or genitals were showing.  Also on the computer were links to sites that sell spy cameras.  The computer is taken to Msgr. Murphy, the vicar general, who before seeing the photos, (that's right, before seeing the photos) calls an off-duty police officer and asks him if a few photos of a mostly-clothed children could be pornographic.  The off-duty police officer says, "Maybe."  This is the only contact the diocese makes with the police, until they are forced to contact them again six months later.  Some of the photos are downloaded from the computer by the chancery, but Bishop Finn gives the computer to a relative of Fr. Ratigan's, who then promptly destroys it.

• Fr. Ratigan attempts suicide but survives.  He is sent to a counselor in Pennsylvania for a very brief evaluation.  The counselor says, "This man is fine.  He just needs the principal of the school to stop picking on him."  Bishop Finn does not allow the parishioners to know what has happened; they are only told of the suicide attempt.  No effort is made to determine who the victims were.  No effort is made to contact their families, to see if the children were physically assaulted as well as photographed.  No counseling or outreach or intervention of any kind is offered.  The victims and their families are kept entirely in the dark.

• Bishop Finn assigns Fr. Ratigan to a retreat center in Kansas City where Catholic School students are regularly sent on retreat.  Bishop Finn tells no one at the retreat house that Ratigan is dangerous.  He is given full access to students and even says Mass for school groups.  Fr. Ratigan is discovered taking inappropriate pictures of a little girl at this retreat center on Easter Sunday, 2011.

• Meanwhile, Fr. Ratigan makes contact with some of his former parishioners and complains that he has been railroaded and treated unfairly by being removed as pastor after his suicide attempt -which, he says, was caused by the principal, who is out to get him (though he had left a letter confessing all his crimes the day he tried to kill himself - a letter the contents of which were not revealed to the families involved).  The parishioners take pity on him and invite him to their homes, including to birthday parties for their young girls.  Parishioners are doing this because Bishop Finn has refused to let them know that they've already been victimized and that this man is dangerous.

• When the off-duty cop finds out that the computer (criminal evidence now destroyed due to Bishop Finn's actions) contained not a few but hundreds of pictures, some of them clearly pornographic, he tells Msgr. Murphy that if Murphy won't make a report, he himself will.  At this point, six months after the photos were discovered, the police are contacted and Fr. Ratigan is arrested.

• Bishop Finn holds "listening sessions" at the parish, where the victims' families are asked to "share" how they "feel" about something the diocese hid from them and only revealed to them when they were forced to.

• The diocese commissions an independent report of this matter, which you can read by clicking here.  It is far more damning than anything I've put in this blog post.

• Bishop Finn is charged for failure to report suspected child abuse by two Missouri counties.  He cops a plea with Clay County, in which he lets the secular government have an active hand in how the Church is run.

• Just today Bishop Finn is convicted in Jackson County in a non-jury trial.  He receives probation and a suspended imposition of sentence.  The diocese admits to spending $1.4 million dollars to defend him, money that comes from Catholic parishes and Catholic Schools in the diocese of Kansas City - St. Joseph.

Got all that?  There's a lot more, but that gives a brief overview of what Bishop Finn did.

Here's what Bishop Finn should have done -

• Put the needs of the children and families of his diocese above those of covering his backside.

• Once charged, admit he failed to do his duty, repent in sackcloth and ashes, plea bargain with both counties, resign, and save the diocese $1.4 million dollars, money which could fund either Catholic education or counseling for the victims.

Now I'm not saying I'm perfect.  I'm not saying I'm better than Bishop Finn.  I'm not saying we should judge the state of his soul.  In fact, I just wrote an earnest post on how we're all sinners, including me.

But I am saying this -

What we are seeing in Bishop Finn is what we see all around us.  Instead of successors to the Apostles (bishops) behaving like successors to the Apostles - willing to risk everything and follow Christ - we get middle-management bureaucrats.  A priest has abused children?  Don't tell the families!  We'll get sued!  Cover everything up.  "What would Jesus do? "  Hell, no!    Forget Christian charity, forget even human compassion, this is a corporation whose assets we've got to protect - though over a million of those assets will be used to keep my own sorry asset out of jail (even though jail time is inconceivable in a plea bargain over misdemeanors and I've really got nothing to fear).  And if I get a light sentence after all is said and done?  Well, my buddy Bishop Joe over in KC, Kansas will write another article claiming that's it's all the fault of the pro-abortion anti-Catholic media!  He'll back me up!  So will that Donohue guy who spun the whole thing last year so that everybody was at fault but me!  I'll come off smelling like a rose while Fr. Shawn Ratigan beats off to pictures of your eight-year-old daughter's crotch and panties that I refuse to tell you he took, just in case you might want to invite him over with his spy cam for her next birthday party.  And if the cops force us to tell you about it (they'll never get all the evidence, I saw to that), well, I'll hold a listening session and have you fill out a card telling me how the visual violation of your daughter and our enabling of it makes you feel.  Yeah, that's the ticket!

The lesson? 

The time has come.  The Kingdom of God is at hand.

REPENT and believe.

***

ADDENDUM: Here's a helpful timeline the Kansas City Star has put together on this case.

***

ADDENDUM 2: As I wrote this week, this circling the wagons trick to defend our own, whether right or wrong, is precisely why we aren't effective evangelists.

Sex, Symbols, Sacraments and So Forth

Here's a repeat of a post from December of 2013 ...

***

C. G. Jung

One of the games Carl Jung and his followers used to play was this.  They would claim that they were not obsessed with sex the way the Freudians were, that they (the Jungians) wouldn't say that

Paschal Candle = Penis  (Freud would say this, and Christopher West does say this)

but instead they would claim

Paschal Candle = Penis = Creative Power of God = the Self = Individuation

("Individuation", by the way, is a three-dollar word for, "Do whatever you want to do").

"The Paschal Candle does not simply symbolize the penis!" they would exclaim (though they'd say phallus instead).  "Because the phallus itself symbolizes creative energy, which symbolizes God, and God is the archetype for the Self - that thing beneath the ego that we must cultivate through the process of Individuation."

But here's the problem - where do you choose the symbol to stop?  Even if Candle = phallus = God = Self = Individuation ... well, what does individuation symbolize?  Could we not go further?  Could we not say ...

Individuation = Rebirth = Baptism = Death to Self and Life in Christ?

This is how bad symbolism, bad mythological analysis, and bad literary criticism works.  It becomes utterly arbitrary.

***

But more than that.  It begs a very big philosophical question.

Paul Stilwell has a long and complex post on the relation between analogy and reality.

I'm not sure I completely understand what Paul is saying, but I think it comes down to this.  If everything is analogous, then we must eventually ask analogous to what?  There must be some ultimate reality that the thing is analogous to.  Indeed, there must be two things in this equation - the thing that serves as a symbol must be real and the reality it indicates must be real.  But which is more important?

Stilwell points out that marriage, for example, is a real thing with a concrete embodiment - love, sex, babies, diapers, mortgage payments, arguments, forgiveness, and the thousand daily things that make it up.  It is also analogous to the Second Coming of Christ, the great Nuptial Feast in which Christ, the Bridegroom, unites with His bride, the Church.  The latter, in Stilwell's terminology, is the "analogous sense" and the former is the "vital sense".  Stilwell writes ...

He [West] will then take marriage in its "vital" sense and cut it down at the ankles as limited and analogous, while forcing the analogical and subjective into the "vital" plane that is reserved for poopy screaming children and spaghetti on the stove (or in other words, reserved for our becoming sacraments), replacing it as the paramount significance of marriage - that is to say, making the analogical and limited to take that place of marriage which is not limited and analogical. Forcing an analogical sense down thus, we can "rocket-pack" towards our target - to the stars. To the unending celestial orgasm.

 The man who does this, who sees everything as pointing towards something else, suddenly becomes free to see a bogeyman in every bush, or more likely he will

see vaginas around every corner he turns, awaiting the decoding of this saint-in-the-making who is learning to read the sign language of God the alien who left us ineffectual esoteric signs and not Sacraments.

A Sacrament differs from a sign as much as a flower differs from a "reproductive organ".   It is real both as a symbol that points to something else and as a thing we experience and participate in that actually conveys grace.  In other words, it has both an analogous sense and a vital sense - and that vital sense actually communicates what God intends it to (given proper matter and proper disposition on our part).

In other words, is it more appropriate to say that a flower symbolizes female genitalia or that female genitalia symbolizes a flower?  There is an analogous connection - and it is certainly real - but it is not "vital", as Stilwell would say.  Both things are beautiful and proper in their own way - each has its analogical sense and also its full and thoroughly valid "vital sense" - so much so that it is not appropriate to say that one stands for the other, without ignoring the question which stands for which?  To ignore the quiddity or the "vitality" of any thing in and of itself is, ultimately, to deny the Incarnation, and simply to play games.  For what this all comes to psychologically is using one reality as a mere vehicle to get to another reality that interests you more.

And what interests us more?  Well, there is a certain kind of mind that is thrilled by sexual imagery: I would characterize it as a middle school mentality.  There is also a certain kind of mind that is thrilled by esoteric nonsense.  Indeed, we see this even in literary circles with Shakespeare scholars who read the plays as if they were merely coded means of conveying messages that a secret spy ring in a Cracker Jack box could decipher.  In doing so they (as Paul Stilwell would say) cut the plays off "at the ankles".

But the Theology of the Body rises above the ankles.  And, though you wouldn't hear tell of it in pop-Catholic circles, it actually rises above the belt.

For our lives are not mere pointers.  The Sacraments are not mere symbols.  Marriage is not merely a sign of the Eschaton.  And the Paschal Candle is not merely a phallus.  (In fact, it's not a phallus at all).

***

However, what I mean to say here goes beyond any goofy games with symbols.  What I mean to say is this.

God operates in our lives in ways that are more real and more "vital" than we care to notice.  He is not content to be the distant God that things point to; He is a God who shares our joys and sufferings, our very suchness, our very vitality, and the things that exist are not a mere prelude to the Kingdom: they have a dignity - an ontological dignity - all on their own, though it is a fallen and broken one, needing badly to be redeemed.

And anyone who participates in the Sacrament of Matrimony - that is to say anyone who is married - knows the funny mixture of "poopy screaming children, spaghetti on the stove" and a profound and sacrificial love that hints at the Coming of Christ Himself.  It is very tempting for us married men to turn from this, to seek cheap thrills elsewhere - either through adultery in deed or adultery in our hearts - or even to waste our Eros on a kind of dreamy dead end mulling over "what if" - to think that the grass is greener in the other lawn, or that our happiness is not really to be found in bed beside us, overweight, snoring, and mad at us for something we did that day.

But this is life.  This is vital.  And this great mess, frustrating as all get out, is - like the manger (with "poopy lowing animals and nothing on the stove") - the silent herald of a great and rich and wonderful joy to come.