From Mahound's Paradise
 |
| Chicago Auxiliary Bishop Mark Bartosic |
If you would like to skip the relatively long and arguably tedious background and commentary, scroll down close to the bottom for the text, and all the way to the bottom for the video of the interview.
Last Sunday, September 23rd, after the 8:00 AM Mass at Resurrection Parish, I interviewed new Chicago Auxiliary Bishop Mark Bartosic. Bartosic had been presiding in the absence of Pastor Paul Kalchik who had left the previous day, allegedly under threat of arrest. Fr. Kalchik is now in self-described hiding.
At the beginning of Mass, Bp. Bartosic read a short statement about Kalchik's departure to the relatively small number of parishioners. I assume many if not most of them were already aware of what had happened. The Mass went on as normal, and the parishioners were outwardly quiet and polite.
Bp. Bartosic professed sympathy for, and even friendship with, Fr. Kalchik - "we all want what's best for him", etc. - and even stated that he and Fr. Kalchik had been part of the same book club.
After Mass, outside the main doorway, Bp. Bartosic greeted parishioners and answered some questions. There seemed to be only three media people there - a young reporter from one of the local TV stations, an unidentified man with a recording device and myself. We spoke with Bp. Bartosic and the parishioners relatively informally.
The unidentified man with the recorder asked Bp. Bartosic what books he had read in that book club with Fr. Kalchik. As I recall, Bp. Bartosic claimed not to remember or sort of evaded the question.
One of the most interesting bits of news from a parishioner (which the TV reporter seemed very interested in) was that someone had been placing or tossing little rainbow flags against the wall of the church - items that had been meticulously gathered up and removed by a parishioner or maintenance person.
Someone had also planted small rainbow flags across the street on the sidewalk grass. Catty-corner from the church there was a house that had a full-size rainbow flag hanging from its second story porch.
******
A word on the interview, namely, that part of it where I asked Bp. Bartosic the question -
"Are you a homosexual?"
One might ask, isn't it, well, a bit impolite, just a tad bit, to walk up to a bishop, point a videocamera in his face and ask him whether or not he's gay?
I'll let the reader decide that. But I will say this: in Chicago it's usually redundant.
The Chicago archdiocese is gay.
It's very gay.
It's gayer than a rainbow flag dipped in Chanel Antaeus.
Every Chicago Catholic knows this.
Admittedly, this knowledge is often personal or anecdotal.
One goes church shopping (a dubious practice, but one I engaged in while in the transitional stage before converting to the Faith). And one discovers of each pastor:
Gay.
Gay.
Probably gay.
Straight (perhaps) but acts gay.
Gay.
Straight (what happened?)
Gay.
Flaming.
Though, admittedly, many parishioners seem perfectly fine with it. He's our sweet Fr. Frump and we love him. Isn't he darling?
And of course we all have our stories: One bumps into one's pastor at a gay bar (no, that's not my story - I just heard about it). Or one's heterosexual pastor is ostracized and denied promotion. Or (this is my story), one's heterosexual catechism instructor tells one that in his first attempt to go through seminary he was hit on repeatedly and then, after he reported it, was labeled a "homophobe" and given mandatory counseling - where he was then hit on by his male psychiatrist!
Then there's the one about the middle-aged pastor who was found dead in his mirror-lined rectory bedroom, naked and hooked up to a sex machine. I think you've heard that one before.
Isn't he darling?
In 2005, incoming Pope Benedict tried to do something about the situation in Chicago and other dioceses. The Congregation for Catholic Education issued an Instruction that included this stipulation:
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
I should be pointed out that the Instruction didn't really say anything new but merely reiterated (as it itself references at a number of points in the text) the longstanding position of the Catholic Church.
But as might be expected, just as the longstanding position of the Church had not been taken seriously for many years, the Instruction itself was in practice ignored, at least at suburban Chicago's Mundelein and other similar seminaries. The non-gay seminaries did perhaps attempt to apply it, though of course it wasn't really intended for them - they had been following it anyway.
Interestingly, Pope Francis himself reportedly re-endorsed the Instruction, though this, too, had little practical effect.
There are a few things that shouldn't need to be said but I'll say them.
I know there have been and continue to be some good priests, religious and candidates to the same who are homosexuals, at least as they might define themselves. I am certain of this.
Nevertheless, the "homosexual network" within the Chicago archdiocese has been a plague. This is not because all homosexual clerics are sex-abusers or bad priests, but partly because the mix of loyalty and fear sustained by the network has a tendency to compromise all. That probably 50% plus of seminarians, priests and bishops in Chicago are homosexuals while at the same time the Church in some sense officially claims they should not be there (if their condition is deep-seated) and that homosexual attraction is a "disorder" is a frankly untenable position.
Among other things, it pretty much puts at least half of all Chicago priests in silent or open conflict with the teachings of the current Catholic Church, even the official teachings of the current "FrancisChurch", at least the official teachings.
In fairness, this is why Fr. James Martin and other homosexual and homosexual-friendly prelates want to change those teachings.
Of course a large proportion of Chicago's homosexual priests are sexually active. One of them was sexually active in a car not too long ago.
And homosexuals make up the vast majority of sex-abusing priests as well as a good share of those guilty of covering up for abuse. As for those homosexual priests not in these categories, unfortunately the dynamic of the network is such that it in some way compromises all. Are you going to enthusiastically expose the gay sex-abuser who happened to be in your seminary class, the same one who knows your little "secret"?
Bp. Bartosic didn't.
As I reported last week, the fact that the three new auxiliary bishops for Chicago, including Bp. Bartosic, all graduated from the same "Pink Palace" Mundelein Seminary class of 1994 - a time when active homosexual behavior among students was public and pervasive and many good heterosexual candidates were in one way or another driven out of seminary - is extremely troubling. Indeed, Fr. Kalchik himself proposed that their ordinations be put on hold - a claim that was no doubt one factor in Cardinal Cupich's decision to remove him.
Fr. Kalchik wrote in a letter:
In Chicago, when you bring a letter, they bring a gun.
On the most charitable interpretation, Bp. Bartosic is a nice gay man who loves God and His Church (albeit a God and a Church whose character and commands he may somewhat misunderstand), loves serving his flock (if one interprets "serving" partly as political activism concerning immigration and racism, etc.) and has kept his clerical vows of celibacy.
But this (by assumption) nice gay man has now, willingly or not, found himself in the position of being an enforcer for the Chicago priestly gay mafia.
Or, perhaps, given what happened to Fr. Kalchik, "gay gestapo" is a better term.
I have great sympathy for Fr. Kalchik. I have little for Bp. Bartosic.
And I think many Chicago Catholics are tired of being polite.
Here is the interview.
I was one of two or three "media" people asking Bp. Bartosic questions. At first I somewhat continued with the topic at hand, the circumstances of the departure of Fr. Kalchik. This part of the conversation was recorded only in audio:
But as might be expected, just as the longstanding position of the Church had not been taken seriously for many years, the Instruction itself was in practice ignored, at least at suburban Chicago's Mundelein and other similar seminaries. The non-gay seminaries did perhaps attempt to apply it, though of course it wasn't really intended for them - they had been following it anyway.
Interestingly, Pope Francis himself reportedly re-endorsed the Instruction, though this, too, had little practical effect.
There are a few things that shouldn't need to be said but I'll say them.
I know there have been and continue to be some good priests, religious and candidates to the same who are homosexuals, at least as they might define themselves. I am certain of this.
Nevertheless, the "homosexual network" within the Chicago archdiocese has been a plague. This is not because all homosexual clerics are sex-abusers or bad priests, but partly because the mix of loyalty and fear sustained by the network has a tendency to compromise all. That probably 50% plus of seminarians, priests and bishops in Chicago are homosexuals while at the same time the Church in some sense officially claims they should not be there (if their condition is deep-seated) and that homosexual attraction is a "disorder" is a frankly untenable position.
Among other things, it pretty much puts at least half of all Chicago priests in silent or open conflict with the teachings of the current Catholic Church, even the official teachings of the current "FrancisChurch", at least the official teachings.
In fairness, this is why Fr. James Martin and other homosexual and homosexual-friendly prelates want to change those teachings.
Of course a large proportion of Chicago's homosexual priests are sexually active. One of them was sexually active in a car not too long ago.
And homosexuals make up the vast majority of sex-abusing priests as well as a good share of those guilty of covering up for abuse. As for those homosexual priests not in these categories, unfortunately the dynamic of the network is such that it in some way compromises all. Are you going to enthusiastically expose the gay sex-abuser who happened to be in your seminary class, the same one who knows your little "secret"?
Bp. Bartosic didn't.
As I reported last week, the fact that the three new auxiliary bishops for Chicago, including Bp. Bartosic, all graduated from the same "Pink Palace" Mundelein Seminary class of 1994 - a time when active homosexual behavior among students was public and pervasive and many good heterosexual candidates were in one way or another driven out of seminary - is extremely troubling. Indeed, Fr. Kalchik himself proposed that their ordinations be put on hold - a claim that was no doubt one factor in Cardinal Cupich's decision to remove him.
Fr. Kalchik wrote in a letter:
Another recent development that needs mention: The three priests slated to be elevated to the rank of bishop this coming month are all from the very same ordination class as former Fr. Daniel McCormack, Chicago's very worst, most notorious gay predator priest. I met Fr. McCormack once in 1995 right after he was ordained, and that very day I reported to seminary officials how off Fr. McCormack was!
At this point in time, it is all a matter of public record, Fr. McCormack was convicted and sent to jail. My question today is how could these three men live with a man like McCormack for four years, day in and day out, and not know or at least be suspicious of his character? Are they not already compromised if they knew or suspected what he was and did not say a thing? To say the least, I have serious reservations about these three classmates of McCormack all being raised to the episcopacy here in Chicago.Now, just a few days later, one of those classmates permanently kicked Fr. Kalchik out of his parish.
In Chicago, when you bring a letter, they bring a gun.
On the most charitable interpretation, Bp. Bartosic is a nice gay man who loves God and His Church (albeit a God and a Church whose character and commands he may somewhat misunderstand), loves serving his flock (if one interprets "serving" partly as political activism concerning immigration and racism, etc.) and has kept his clerical vows of celibacy.
But this (by assumption) nice gay man has now, willingly or not, found himself in the position of being an enforcer for the Chicago priestly gay mafia.
Or, perhaps, given what happened to Fr. Kalchik, "gay gestapo" is a better term.
I have great sympathy for Fr. Kalchik. I have little for Bp. Bartosic.
And I think many Chicago Catholics are tired of being polite.
******
Here is the interview.
I was one of two or three "media" people asking Bp. Bartosic questions. At first I somewhat continued with the topic at hand, the circumstances of the departure of Fr. Kalchik. This part of the conversation was recorded only in audio:
Mahound's Paradise: You were here yesterday when he left (Fr. Kalchik). Can you tell us about the circumstances of his leaving?
Bishop Bartosic: Uh, he left voluntarily. Uh, I will not...
MP: Did you threaten to call the police if he didn't leave?
B: No.
MP: You didn't?
B: No.
MP: Was there a threat that the police would be called at all by anyone?
B: Uh, not from me.
MP: Did you arrive alone yesterday? What did you tell him when you arrived yesterday?
B: We had a conversation that was...
MP: Can you tell us a bit more about the conversation?
B: Well, we talked about, uh, uh, you know, what was, um, best for the people and best for Paul. And he decided to step away.I should here note that Bp. Bartosic's statements pertaining to the alleged threat to call the police seems to be in contradiction to Fr. Kalchik's earlier account, though Church Militant later tweeted that the threat was made by two other clerics. Bp. Bartosic's answer - "Not from me" - may have been technically true.
After a few more questions from another person, I identified myself:
MP: Oakes Spalding from Mahound's Paradise. I'm going to ask you for the record, are you a homosexual?
(Long silence)
B: Who are you?
MP: Oakes Spalding from Mahound's Paradise...
B: From what?
MP: It's a Catholic blog. I think the Cardinal is probably aware of it. [He is, but that was more me being annoying.] Can you answer the question, are you a homosexual?
(Long silence)
B: I can't believe you would ask that.
MP: Well, according to the current rule of Pope Francis. If someone has deep-seated homosexual tendencies, they're not admitted to the priesthood. Now you won't say whether you're a homosexual or not?
(Silence)
MP: Can you just answer the question?
B: I won't answer the question.
MP: Because?
(Silence. At this point I turned on the video recorder.)
MP: Can you answer the question as to whether or not you are a homosexual?
(Silence)
MP: Can you answer why you won't answer the question?
B: Uh... (silence)
MP: Do you think that priests with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or (rather) seminarians, should be admitted to the priesthood?
B: I'm not going to engage this conversation that you're having with me.
MP: So even though that's the rule of the current Catholic Church, supported by Pope Francis, you're not going to go on the record supporting that?
B: Yeah, I'm, uh, I'm uh . . . I'm not going to talk to you about this.
MP: Are you a supporter of the "rainbow flag"?
B: I'm not going to go here with you. Sorry.
MP: Do you have anything else you want to say to the readers of Mahound's Paradise?
B: No.
MP: Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.