**More thoughts & questions on the Fr. Escalante Saga
Parishioners at St. Francis de Sales include a number of astute observers with investigative instincts. In an email exchange, one parishioner wrote that, “Claims involving minors are what trigger automatic removal of the priest and referral to the police department per [the bishops’] policy. A boundary violation allegation from an adult potentially would not…. They could potentially have been investigated internally without removing Father and definitely not involving the police. If that claim involving the minor was falsified, it was surely because the person knew that [it] was needed to trigger the abuse of minors policy and would guarantee Father's immediate removal.” [Good point!]
***While discussing boundary violations consider this:
Different cultures view “personal space” very differently. Go to an international event and notice how people act when they engage each other. Watch Americans back up while Latins and Arabs move in. Notice those who lean forward and touch while they converse. The way people treat “personal space” differs significantly from culture to culture. In the West, eye contact shows interest and attention, but in Asia it may be seen as rude and aggressive. Germans are notorious non-touchers unlike their Italian neighbors. In a recent article on the Psychology Today blog, Lawrence T. White wrote:
In 1966, anthropologist Edward T. Hall presented his classic analysis of human spatial behavior in a slim volume titled The Hidden Dimension. Hall posited that cultural norms are the most important factor in determining preferred social distances between people. Gender and social setting are also important, wrote Hall, but cultural practices are most important. Hall grouped societies into two categories--contact cultures (Latin Americans and Arabs, for example) and non-contact cultures (Northern Europeans and Japanese, for example). According to Hall, contact cultures prefer closer interpersonal distances and engage in more touching.
Is making someone uncomfortable a boundary violation? If someone hates to be touched and a cultural toucher pats her arm is she harassed? What if he stands too close to her? Does she interpret that as aggressive or “coming on to her?” Or is she just guilty of interpreting her cultural bias as the norm for the entire world?
***Exactly what are cultural norms in the Philippines?
Fr. Escalante is Filipino. He spent his early formative years immersed in a cultural environment very different from ours. An international education group that specializes in foreign student exchange, the American Field Service (AFS-USA), writes this about Filipino cultural norms: “In general, the concept of personal space in Filipino culture is small, crowded or limited and so students feel more accepted if personal space is closer (closer than Americans are typically comfortable with). If the space is distant, and probably just appropriate by American concepts, this may be interpreted as rejection or distrust. Filipinos demonstrate acceptance and connection by touch that might seem excessive to Americans, such as hugging, back tapping, and literally rubbing shoulders and elbows often with family and close or trusted friends.” Like, for example the parish family? How much of the Fr. Escalante saga is based on cross-cultural ignorance and unwitting discrimination?
***Bransfield’s West Virginia Scandal Gets Monetized!
Those familiar with Michael Bransfield from his days at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception where he was notorious for his homo-friendly parties and lavish lifestyle are NOT surprised by the latest Washington Post story about his financial excesses. Sex abuse scandals frequently coexist with embezzlement and fraud. Bransfield used the Wheeling diocese as his personal ATM. A few details: Lusting for promotion, Bransfield spent diocesan money ($350,000 plus) on lavish gifts to those in powerful positions like the heads of important Roman congregations and U.S. nuncios. (Just peanuts compared to the $2.4 mil he spent on himself!) U.S. Archbishop William Lori, who’s heading the investigation of Bransfield’s malfeasance, also received Bransfield’s largesse. Wouldn’t you expect him to recuse himself in view of possible conflict of interest? Instead, in the Vatican report about the financial scandal, he had 11 names of highly placed clerics removed including his own. Other priests who got big bucks were Bransfield’s nephew and a cousin, also priests. Here’s what the Post reported. “Checks totaling $9,175 were sent to his nephew the Rev. Sean Bransfield, vice chancellor of the Philadelphia Archdiocese….His cousin Monsignor Brian Bransfield, general-secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, received $1,350, the records show.” (The Church seems to be the Bransfield family “business.”)
***And now from the Twilight before the dawn file…
When the Illinois legislature passed the Reproductive Health Act, a bill described by Live Action News as more extreme than New York’s, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Illinois took swift action to ban from Communion Catholic politicians in his diocese who voted for the bill. Catholic News Agency reported his decree:
“I declare that Catholic legislators of the Illinois General Assembly who have cooperated in evil and committed grave sin by voting for any legislation that promotes abortion are not to present themselves to receive Holy Communion without first being reconciled to Christ and the Church in accord with canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law,” Paprocki wrote.
In a statement issued June 6, the bishop said that “in issuing this decree, I anticipate that some will point out the Church’s own failings with regard to the abuse of children. The same justifiable anger we feel toward the abuse of innocent children, however, should prompt an outcry of resistance against legalizing the murder of innocent children. The failings of the Church do not change the objective reality that the murder of a defenseless baby is an utterly evil act.
“We also understand many unplanned pregnancies come with fear and difficulty,” Paprocki acknowledged. “It is our obligation, as a society, to be there for these pregnant mothers, help them in any way possible, and empower them to make life affirming decisions. This also includes continued support for the mother and her child after birth. We must acknowledge a child in the womb is not a problem. He or she is a gift from God.”
Paprocki’s statement recognized the Illinois lawmakers who had opposed the Reproductive Health Act. “I want to thank lawmakers who stood up to these barbaric pieces of legislation and voted ‘no,’ and I applaud their courage to speak the truth that the most basic right we should all enjoy, is the right to life.”
This isn’t the first time Bishop Paprocki took the road less travelled. He previously banned Sen. Dick Durbin from Communion. Thank you, Your Excellency!
***Pray that other bishops imitate Bishop Paprocki!
In an interview with the Catholic Register in early June, Bishop Paprocki said this:
The chairman of our bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City [KS], just this past February, made a statement that politicians who support abortion should not present themselves to receive Holy Communion…..The majority of the bishops elected him. We elected someone because he stands for certain values. And so, when he is saying this, he’s speaking as our leader on pro-life issues. And so I hope other bishops will take a cue from him. I think we are at a point now where we simply have to be more vocal and we have to be more clear about what the Church teaches in this regard and how this affects politicians and the consequences when they do, so very persistently and obstinately, reject Church teaching on abortion. [Pope Francis could take a lesson in straightforward, clear thinking from Bishop Paprocki!]
***Vatican Dicastery Decimates French Congregation!
Why are the Little Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Redeemer, being cast into the outer darkness? They pray too much and their charism is offensive to “modern sensibilities.” Really, is this the French Revolution redux?
classical’ in their thinking, and being ‘unmoving’ in their adherence to the charism of their institute. They also say the commissioners tried to turn the sisters against each other, offering prestigious positions in the order if they would conform to the commissioner’s authority, but their tactics failed. When the nuns refused to admit the commissioners, they were threatened with excommunication and requested to be relieved of their vows to avoid that outcome.” Only five sisters remain of the 39 professed.
Who was behind the persecution? Again, according to LifeSiteNews: “Sr. Geneviève Médevielle, the principal apostolic commissioner named by the Vatican…is a religious sister who dresses in lay clothing and wears a short haircut without a head covering. She is a professor of ethics at the Catholic Institute of Paris and the author of the recently published book Migrants, Francis, and us. Médevielle writes in defense of Amoris Laetitia against ‘conservatives and traditionalists’ who criticize it. The nuns were also reportedly under attack by the archbishop of Toulouse, Robert Le Gall, who prohibited one of the nuns’ houses from attending their more traditional form of Mass in their community chapel, apparently following their refusal to participate in Le Gall’s mass at the nursing home chapel due to their rejection of his liturgical practices.”
***Satanic Attack on Faithful Clerics and Religious!
How painful to see the persecution and destruction of faithful Catholics, particularly the clergy and religious, while modernist heretics thrive. It’s the Arian Heresy on steroids. And it’s happening in many places. What can we do? Pray and fight for the truth even if we don’t “win” in the eyes of the world. The world does not see things as God does. Let us embrace the cross uniting our sufferings to His!