One simple way to tell if your child should participate

Can we stop being naïve now?

So, word from the German Bishops’ Conference is that Cardinal Hollerich is to lead pilgrimage of 50,000 altar servers to Rome.*

How is a parent to tell if this (or something like it near you) is a good idea? How would one discern whether to send one’s altar serving son or daughter** along?

One simple way is to know that Cardinal Hollerich doesn’t agree with the Church’s teaching on sodomy. (A tip of the hat to Catholic Culture for including that information along with the press release.) He thinks that teaching is outdated and that it’s “time for a fundamental revision” — and not even because he can overlook that it’s gross and unnatural and harmful, not to mention a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance (Gn 18:20-21), not that he mentions it, but because, loopily, “in the past… it was thought that the whole child was contained in the sperm of the man, and that was simply transferred to homosexual men.”

He goes on:

But there is no homosexuality in the New Testament. There is only the mention of homosexual acts, which were partly pagan ritual acts. That was, of course, forbidden. I think it is time for a fundamental revision of the doctrine."

That’s enough for me. (Even with his pristine concern for true worship, primly expressed in that “of course.” And even given his subsequent remarks walking the doctrine comment back.)

Can we stop being culpably naïve?

It’s up to people to demonstrate that they are not pedophiles or pedophile-adjacent. It is not up to parents to assume the best and put their children in harm’s way. Duty to child trumps any sort of misguided impulse to charitable interpretation of frankly, shocking, statements made by anyone, but especially a prelate.

It should horrify a normal person to think someone saying what Hollerich said would be put in charge of anything at all, much less a youth event. Yet strangely, we have arrived at a point where we have been taught to create an artificial barrier between a man’s statements and his integrity, and to act as if there’s nothing more legitimate in the world than someone saying he’s okay with sodomy while also organizing children to go off, away from home.

Hollerich sees that the world isn’t much concerned about sodomy, so he finds he isn’t either — and note, he’s all for being ready for the next new thing:

The church has always moved with the times and has always adapted. But there has also always been much more time to do so. Today we have to be faster. Otherwise we will lose touch and will no longer be understood.

You yourself might be squirming a little to think that I am singling him out by name to associate him with moral danger. But suppose he came out with the news that he thinks the Church’s teaching on theft is wrong. Would you hand the key to your safe deposit box over to him?

Even if you’re not used to finding (but you should cultivate the talent) the logical, common-sense connection between someone rejecting a moral precept and approving/actually doing the immoral acts related to that precept, the evidence should tip you off, that that’s exactly how it happens, as with the sex abuse scandal made known in 2002 and the increasing normalization of a whole spectrum of deviance, including involving children. We were told in 2002 that it was outrageous to associate the political movement known as gayness (now LGBTQ+) with pedophilia, but in 2024 even the most compliant among us must have noticed something.

My husband wrote an important book about that scandal called The Faithful Departed (affiliate link), and I can’t tell you how many stories we read and heard in the course of his preparation that started out, “We thought it was wonderful that Fr. So-and-So showed an interest in our child. We did think he was a bit odd and often preached and spoke about his dissent from Church teaching, and partied, and wore flamboyant civvies…” And then came the “surprise” that he turned out to be an abuser or overlooked abuse by others.

Do those who do not proclaim their dissent from the moral law commit immoral acts? Yes. Of course.

But the chances that something bad will happen exponentially increase and track closely with the abandonment of even the appearance of adherence to moral standards. For one thing, laxity as to those norms of avoiding “near occasion of sin” makes sin more likely, as one might predict.

Every parent should be vigilant in all cases, because the proliferation of pornography and acceptance of sexual disorder means children are greatly at risk. But I find it hard to believe the necessity of warning about the particular case of an authority figure disavowing a moral precept being put in charge of children, and yet, here we are.

Aren’t there protocols in place to prevent abuse? Maybe. Are you prepared to stake your child’s innocence on them?

And what about formational abuse, abuse of the developing mind? What about the conversations that come up with young people, in those moments when they ask questions?

How is Cardinal Hollerich forming those to whom he delegates the guidance of these young people, given his timidity on this question? Is it likely that he urges them to give reasons for what is good and inspires fortitude in the face of human respect?

He himself seems motivated, at least on the surface, by not wishing to cause any hurt feelings to those who don’t live according to God’s law, though experience shows there is often more to such an attitude — usually there is unseemly obeisance to superiors, and often there are personal reasons why a stand won’t be taken.

As a “leading organizer of the Vatican's newly revamped process for the 2021-23 Synod of Bishops” he seems to take cover under the animating spirit of synodality as far as we can discern what that is: “He wants to help build a church ‘where everybody can feel at home… If we close the door on people, we push some people into despair and that is something we do not want.’”

As accommodating as that sounds, the truth is that responsible people ought to have the habit of judging conduct, however much society’s self-interest constrains them.

But this is especially so when the person, such as Cardinal Hollerich, in charge of children, exhibits one or more of I will call signs. Signs alone are cause for judgement, and rightly so. Why should parents wait for something to go badly wrong (sometimes not finding out for years), when the warnings were there?

If the person proposing to act as role model for your child or take him somewhere or interact with him in any way enters one’s personal space without invitation, exhibits effeminate or macho behavior/dress/styles/mannerisms, seems narcissistic, overlooks others’ inappropriateness, proclaims his dissent from the moral law on anything but especially marriage, divorce, cohabitation, premarital sex, abortion, contraception, and/or sodomy/gay relations, or can’t bring himself to use his authority for the good of others, then… it’s off.

The burden is on people to restrain themselves, not on the parent to trust and not judge in spite of what is manifest. If Hollerich is going to say he is fine with sodomy, then he should also be fine with — must accept, in fact — the suspicion that declaration naturally engenders.

I have a precept I call Auntie Leila’s Law, which I discovered when my overly conscientious attempts to refrain from judging failed. The law is called You Made Me Judge You. It comes into play when the person makes me judge him — he’s just that overt about it all. I can’t help it if he manifests his disorder. Next time, he should think before he acts like he can’t be trusted. And if he says, in so many words, that he can’t be trusted because he has lost faith in God’s moral law, believe him and keep your child away.

---

*(I have no idea how this will be accomplished — sounds like a lot of boys and girls to me.)

**One’s daughter should not, in any case, serve at the altar. Doing so harms her vocational formation as she approaches womanhood and represents a lack of charity to boys.