Hell's greatest hits

What "obvious" anti-Catholic bias? How can either of us evaluate the bias of the filmmaker without having seen the film? Well, you can, because you have your mind made up about anything critical of the Catholic Church before you step out of bed in the morning.>

The question that arises is, how does one talk about how those things can happen in the Church without being somewhat critical of the system that enabled those things to happen?

Pointing out that something is rotten in Denmark doesn't mean that one is "anti-Denmark" so much as "anti-rotten.">

I don't have much sympathy for Cardinals Mahony or Law. IMO, they didn't so much enable the rape and molestation of children, they actually facilitated it.

From what I have read, they were well aware of the personal character and past histories of the pedophile priests whose abuses they covered up for so many years. Is it any wonder that the public is revolted by this degree of corruption in the Catholic Church?

My view has always been the more damage is done to the reputation and structure of the RC church, the better, because only an extreme situation may actually lead the Church to change its ways.>

Hi, Jonathan,

My problem is related to the adage, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Don't snore.)

I believe it is the corrupting effects of being part of a hierarchy in which priests and bishops are shown an excessive amount of deference by dint of their priestly role.

I think that amount of deference should be shown only to God, not to human beings. I think human beings are corrupted and warped when they are treated like demi-Gods. I am well aware that many wonderful human beings in the priesthood.

To me, the problem is the structure and the traditional deference shown to those in the higher positions within that structure.>

I understand that abosolute powers corrupts and we should criticize people like Cardinal Mahony et. al.
What has bothered me about Mr. Dreher and his associates is that he lacks a balance in his columns. This lack of balance has become worse with each passing year. It enables whether he likes it or not, the rise of latent Anti-Catholicism in this society. If you want to see an example of what I am referring to read Thomas Thigpen's book. It is titled: Shaken by Scandals: Catholics Speak Out About Priests' Sexual Abuse. He hits the same notes Mr. Dreher does without his pronouced edge.>

Jonathan Carpenter writes:
It enables whether he likes it or not, the rise of latent Anti-Catholicism in this society.

Get used to it! While it is certainly no credit to the Catholic church to be rightly criticized, there is going to be "latent anti-Catholicism" regardless. For an example, see the news story "Vatican worried about positions on family". Quote:

"We worry especially that, with current laws, speaking in defense of life and the rights of families is becoming in some societies sort of a crime against the state," Lopez Trujillo told the Catholic news magazine Famiglia Cristiana for its issue scheduled to hit the stands Thursday. The remarks were posted online on Wednesday.

"The church is at risk of being brought before some international court if the debate becomes any tenser, if the more radical requests get heard"

It's only going to get worse, for all orthodox Christians.>

More interesting perspectives on this piece are available on "Open Book" -- from sex abuse victims who don't like seeing the media give this monster a public voice, and who say so in no uncertain terms.>

gitv,

You mean like how Ruth Bader Ginsburg's work for the ACLU meant she was partisan & unfit?

Wait, she was confirmed. Hmmm.>

Jonathan, in your anger at Rod, you forget one thing: the faithful have rights under canon law. As a Catholic who lives in Metropolitan Los Angeles (though not in Mahony's diocese), I suggest that the Catholics in L.A. get a canon lawyer, file a class-action suit against Mahony for episcopal malfeasance and take that suit to Rome. Mahony has put the faith into ill repute and if that's not cause for stripping him of his episcopal title, let alone supervision of Los Angeles, then what is?

Rod, I suggest you write about this concerning the Catholics in Dallas regarding Grahmann. Yes, he's 75 but that doesn't mean he's going to leave any time soon. Given the nature of his service, plenty of evidence exists for a class-action canonical suit charging episcopal malfeasance. Even if he retires from Dallas, he still has his episcopal title. The goal of the plaintiffs would be to strip him of that title through canonical due process.>

Yes, Joseph, you are right Catholic layity have rights under Canon law. Your strategy might work. What bothers me about Mr. Dreher is his lack of balance. Read Thomas Paul Thigpen's book: Shaken by Scandals: Catholics Speak Out About Priests' Sexual Abuse. He hits the same notes that Mr. Dreher does without the "Self-Hating Catholic" edge that is so pronouced in Mr. Dreher's columns.>

This comment from Monsignor Cain takes the cake:
Certainly I knew the one in '76 took place but didn't put the two together One was a girl -- inappropriate touching, the other was a boy. So I just didn't hook them up in my own mind.
This genius monsignor needed to "hook them up in my own mind" to see that what O'Grady did was evil, immoral and abusive of the innocent?
How far has the Catholic hierarchy sunk when an educated monsignor makes such a moronic comment to protect one of his own (or, more likely, himself)?
Alicia is dead on when she describes the pervasive corruption within our isolated hierarchy. What she might not know, unfortunately, is that the Catholic Establishment has effectively ceased being concerned for the innocent (unless the innocent fit one of the "politically correct" categories that the Church Establishment exploits in its quest for political power and secular prestige).
I, for one, am sick and tired of legitimate criticism about the Church being described as "anti-Catholic" by a bunch of self-serving episcopocrats.
That phrase is nothing but propaganda designed to arouse a reflexive, unthinking defense from Catholics and distract them from the real issue: the infernal corruption of an arrogant hierarchy that brings itself closer to God's wrathful judgement with each passing day.>

Should we use the old business standy of the "feedback sandwich" where we say a nice thing, then give criticism and then follow up with a nice thing again so as not to offend the delicate?

Can't we all just agree as given that every organization has its good points, and that pointing at the bad points in order to solve them is neither an attack nor a discouting of the good?

Pointing out that priests molested children, for example does not negate the fact that the RCC has fabulous soup kitchens.

There's no zero-sum game that needs to be played, becuase there's no one (besides you) paying attention to the non-existent "score."{>

Nothing they do will make you happy Joseph. You use the legitimate corruption and sheer ineptness of some Cardinals and Bishops to tar the whole church. It is like me saying; What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the river? A good start.>

Jonathan, if Rome were more vigilant and forthcoming -- and less flaccid -- about discipling malfeasant bishops and priests, my attitude would change. One can find incompetent subordinates in every endeavor, religious or secular. However, how those in authority confront such incompetence or malfeasance reveals that authority's true moral direction and values.

I don't expect the Vatican to be the moral equivalent of Enron. No Catholic does or should. Unfortunately, that's what Rome has become.

That's why it's imperative for lay Catholics to take matters into their own hands through canonically legal channels, as I've suggested before. Rome must feel so much pressure from below that it has no choice but to do its duty -- a duty in which Rome has been abysmally negligent.>