This dictation is taking place on Sunday, September 2nd, which happens to be a Sabbath in the Christian faith. And so it is that I have a pair of Sabbath thoughts. One is of recent vintage and the other reaches back to, I believe, 1958. Let us take the one of most recent vintage.
Last week, the National Catholic Register had an interview with a prominent theologian of 78 years who offered this thought. His name is Father Benedict Groeschel. He belongs to the conservative Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, which he founded. What Father Groeschel had to say was simply stunning. He contended that relations between priests and male children were heterosexual and that in years past nothing was made of these relationships. Anyone reading what Father Groeschel had to say and preach would be thoroughly shocked. In effect, Father Groeschel contended that in a good many cases, a youngster seduced the priest into having a pedophile relationship.
According to the National Catholic Register, a youngster with a problem would go to a priest and before long a priest would be seduced into anal penetration of the boy. May I suggest that Father Groeschel is showing all of his 78 years by such a thought. Ten-year-old boys want to play games of baseball and basketball; seducing a priest of say 25 or 28 years is the last thing on their minds. But Father Groeschel insisted in his interview with the National Catholic Register that this was the case. It was the children who were at fault in the scandal involving pedophile priests. I have nothing to do with the workings of the Catholic Church, as is widely known. But my thoughts were aroused to the point of anger by Father Groeschel’s attempt to move the debate about pedophile priests from the priests to the children involved.
I have known about Father Groeschel for a good many years. As unlikely as it may seem, on Monday nights at 10 PM I watched a program on the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN). The woman who ran the program was named Mother Angelica. She was a lively sort of person, well into her 70s, and she was a non-stop talker. During her talks, she would even show trinkets and pamphlets or books that might interest the Catholic faithful.
I never knew what Mother Angelica’s proper name was. I am guessing that she was probably of Irish origin. It was quite clear that when you thought of the Eternal Word Television Network, you automatically thought of Mother Angelica. In between selling the trinkets and the pamphlets, she would have a number of guests appearing on her program. Mother Angelica was a glib speaker who wandered from one subject to another but her audience followed right with her. There are some who would say that Mother Angelica was a BS artist. I believe that is an accurate description, and I should know about that because I am one myself.
Unfortunately, in about the year 2004 Mother Angelica suffered a severe stroke that left her unable to speak. Apparently her brain was so damaged that speech became impossible for her. From time to time, one of the EWTN staff would have lunch with Mother Angelica and report on her progress or non-progress.
When Mother Angelica was in full control of her thoughts, she would often have the then Father Groeschel as her guest. In those days, Groeschel talked in moderate terms. Occasionally, responding to Mother Angelica, he would display a flash of humor. So you can see how his remarks to the National Catholic Register would have turned this world upside down when he accused the youths of being the seducers of the pedophile priests.
On Mother Angelica’s program, Groeschel always appeared in a gray robe. I don’t know what the significance of the gray robe might have been, but it was always present when he visited Mother Angelica. I would suggest that when Groeschel had his robe cleaned, he must have taken leave of his reasoning power. I was amazed to see this man who was rational offer such a thought about the boys who were being abused in the pedophile scandal.
Now you may come to ask why a non-believer such as myself was watching the Eternal Word Television Network. I suppose that program offered comedic properties which tended to lighten when Mother Angelica with her glib patter was the hostess. On the other hand, in a more pragmatic manner, I was waiting for the eleven o’clock news. So between those two thoughts with some time to kill, I often came to rest on Monday nights watching the EWTN program. Seriously, since I have become blind, I have not listened to that program in seven years.
When Mother Angelica was hospitalized, her successor was a woman from Sarasota named Johnette. Her last name had its roots in the eastern European culture. Apparently the EWTN program under the new hostess was nothing like the program under Mother Angelica. Johnette was very serious. There was one occasion when she wanted to refer to Hell. Rather than using the word “Hell,” she remained silent and pointed downward. Even I got the message. There was an occasion when her son was killed in an automobile accident in Florida. He had been a soldier during the Vietnamese war and Johnette commented, “We prayed him through that war and now this happens!” It remains a mystery as to whether Johnette was thinking that God was punishing her.
Well, as you can see, I am a veteran of watching the program on Monday nights. I enjoyed being entertained by Mother Angelica. I may assure you that she did not convince me to join the Catholic Church. I have not watched that programming for more than seven years. It may be that Groeschel was temporarily out of his mind when he said that the youngsters were to blame in the priestly pedophile scandal. Groeschel was hit by an automobile a few years ago during which he contended that he was so seriously injured that he was given the last rites of the Catholic Church. It may be that we are talking to the resurrected Groeschel as opposed to the Groeschel who appeared on Mother Angelica’s program.
In any case, after the interview was published, Father Groeschel must have been appalled. He issued an apology which was not really an apology. That man has a facile way of expressing himself. I fully expect that if he had told Mother Angelica that it was the boys who seduced the priests, Mother Angelica would have hit him over the head with one of the sacred lamps that she was attempting to sell.
Well, so much for the Groeschel affair. It was a sordid experience. Perhaps Father Groeschel will think twice in future announcements.
 
Now we turn to another matter having to do with the Catholic Church as well as with the United States Army. In 1958, the vicars in Rome who belonged to the Vatican announced that the mother of Jesus was a “perpetual virgin.” This is a preposterous thought in my estimation. But let us look at the facts.
Mary was the wife of Joseph. During their union, at least two children were born to this couple. There are several references in the Bible to a person named James who was the son of Mary and Joseph. Secondly she gave birth to Jesus. When the vicars in the Vatican say that Mary is a “perpetual virgin” they may not understand that marriage and giving birth to a child destroy all evidence of virginity. The question here is how the cardinals and other high prelates of the Church could make such a blunder. No man with half a brain could ever consider Mary a virgin. As a non-believer, I think of Mary quite warmly in spite of her being a perpetual virgin. I can think of some women who are the epitome of perpetual virginism.
My belief is that the people in the Vatican tried to outdo each other in their devotion to Mary. They took a married woman and began to try to top each other. So it is that in 1958, Mary was named a perpetual virgin. Not only that, but she was physically transferred to Heaven, where she sits presumably near the throne of God.
There is one other case involving adherence to the faith in trying to outdo each other. You may recall that on December 7, 1941, we were attacked by the Japanese. At the War Department, which preceded the Pentagon, someone had the wild idea that we had to distinguish the peacetime army from the one that would be assembled to fight the Japanese and the Germans. The process is very much the same in that one person’s ideas would be topped by someone else’s idea.
With all of this business about the peacetime army versus the newcomers’, the War Department decided with grand fanfare that the peacetime service for December 7, 1941 and earlier would be called the United States Army. After much deliberation, those of us who joined the army after December 7, 1941, were to be called – now get this – the Army of the United States. My service began after December 7, 1941. My discharge and all of my orders say that I was a member of the Army of the United States.
Significantly, the decision to dub Mary a perpetual virgin and the War Department debate about the United States Army versus the Army of the United States were made without female input. My guess is that the decision about Mary being a perpetual virgin and the decision to name soldiers such as myself as members of the Army of the United States might have had a different outcome if a woman had been present.
I know that there are those who look askance at my blending of debate over Mary’s virginity together with the United States brouhaha but that is what you get when you sit down to dictate an essay on a Sabbath morning.
Well, there you have my thoughts on this Sabbath morning. I assume that most of my readers will probably agree with my thoughts on the virginity of Father Groeschel. He deserves no sympathy. As for my thoughts on the perpetual virginity of Mary and the debate about what to call those who enlisted after December 7, I suspect that there may be more controversy. But be that as it may, what you see is what you get. And for better or worse, they are my thoughts on these two important matters. My 90th birthday is behind me, as is my time in puberty. Given those facts, I think it is time for an old geezer like myself to state what he considers to be the unvarnished truth.
Now if you wish to take exception to my thoughts, there is a website which can be reached at www.ezrasessays.com. The editor of Ezra’s Essays will be glad to receive your comments. So I write the essays and give my readers a chance to respond. What could be fairer than that?
E. E. CARR
September 2, 2012
Essay 692
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: Loving the plug at the bottom there! Of course I welcome all commentary on the essays, and often discuss said comments with Pop.  This commentary, other people’s input, and his reactions to both are probably my favorite part of this entire blog.  Unfortunately for the sake of argument I can offer little to disagree with Mr. Carr here; I think he’s spot-on on all counts. Though I definitely didn’t see the latter half of this essay coming.  The thought that they were trying to pin the molestation charges on the children is sickening. And regardless of the existence of Jesus’s brother, I have always been of the opinion that the entire Christian religion has formed itself around a lie about an affair that got WAY out of hand.  Eventually someone will invent a time machine and bring a video camera back to the year of our lord, and we could see for sure. That’d be nice.