Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lucy Schemel's avatar

So Cardinal Fernandez published an erotic narrative given to him by a 16 year old girl??? I run a parish religious ed program. If he did that here, I’d first call the state abuse hotline, then the diocese, ASAP.

He needs to be removed from contact with minors, and just about everyone else, until a full investigation can be made.

I can’t tell you how angry this makes me.

Expand full comment
Patricius Clevelandensis's avatar

The whole "Mystical Passion" story is really frustrating to read, because it sets off all my alarms that say "DANGER WILL ROBINSON" regarding sexual abuse. Granted, it may not be the sexual abuse of human persons in this case, but I'd argue it's the sexual abuse of theology.

As time goes by and I learn more, I'm worried that I get a bit more jaded about theology that talks about sex in terms other than moral/ethical terms. A few years back I was reading a book by [the now disgraced] Jean Vanier, whom I still regarded as a living saint, titled "Man and Woman He Made Them." At the time I was impressed with the book, particularly the way that something published in 1985 had so much overlap with JPII's Theology of the Body. As it turned out, there was something deeply wrong in it all and the sexualized theology that undergirded Vanier's abuse was hidden in plain sight. Then, reading more and more reports on abuse, such as Marko Rupnik's case, it has become more clear how fraught the intersection of theology/mysticism/sexuality really is. TOB is legitimate, but let's also be honest that there are some bad actors who have used it as cover, and that sometimes when otherwise solid TOB commentators take things too far (i.e. Christopher West's idea that the Easter Candle is totally a phallus and its immersion in the baptismal font at Easter Vigil is a symbolic insemination) it provides additional confusion that can be exploited.

All that to say, this makes me even more uneasy with anything sexuality related that is coming from the DDF under Fernández. I could understand if it was presented as misguided juvenilia which prompted correction and a pronounced shift in approach afterwards. The problem is that there was an attempt to bury it, and Fernández's later work makes it questionable how much he has actually left those ideas behind. It also makes his more recent work much more suspect. Ugh...

Lord, have mercy on Your Church.

Expand full comment
58 more comments...
Latest

No posts