Benedict admonishes the bishops

"Benedict suggested that the crisis has occurred at a time when society devalues human dignity and distorts the role of sexuality through pornography and violence."

How out of touch is Benedict to think that society at large condones molesting children?
I actually have faith that most common people of our society wouldn't have had a second thought in turning over child molesters to authorities. They're not burdened with the idols of tradition and pomp.
Until the church stops saying society made them do it, it's quite hard to take them serious.

Rod,

Here is the Vatican site that seems to be updated fairly soon after the events themselves (I will post the link as text because the last time I posted a link, the whole post turned red):

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/travels/2008/documents/trav_ben-xvi_usa-program_20080415_en.html

I agree with Bugg. Another great Catholic lawyer (who should have his own Red Mass) is Frank Keating. Keating had the coglioni (to use the official curial terminology) to call the actions of some of the bishops criminal, and more characteristic of the Mafia than the Church. It was Mahony that forced him from the oversight committee investigating clerical criminals.

Come to think of it, is there any reason Keating shouldn't be McCain's running mate? Then again, is there any reason he'd want to be?

"How out of touch is Benedict to think that society at large condones molesting children?"

Brian, how on Earth did you get that from this?:

"Benedict suggested that the crisis has occurred at a time when society devalues human dignity and distorts the role of sexuality through pornography and violence."

I don't see anywhere in the quote you pulled up anything about Benedict thinking society actually condones molestation.

And now we know why the prophet of Hollywood, Bill Maher, hates the Catholic Church. It brings light onto the pedophile issue. The catholic Church is going to irradicate it. That is a complete afront and denigration of the soul of Hollywood which is pederasty and pedophilia. Maher is a great example of the demononically deluded freak screaming out against that which affects him. He sees in the catholic Church repenting and working to rid evil from its ranks as an attack on his very essence as the protector of Hollywood licentiousness. What Benedict is doing, will lead straight to the doorstep of most of Hollywood's elites. Once the log is removed from the Church's eyes, all of Hollywood's immense pedophiliac and pederast community will be exposed. How many millions and millions and millions of "young" lives have been corrupted by Hollywood's lascivious producers? Corrupting young people is cliche in Hollywood and certainly not repented of. It is celebrated and applauded. Watch and listen to people like Maher and the typical Liberal/Progessive voices in Hollywood and you will see the very perpetrators of great evil writhing and screaming about pedophiles, while all the time desiring nothing more than the light to not be shined on their corrupting of the young every moment of every day.

Donny

I wish I could say "You're wrong, Rod." But I can't. This was his great opportunity, and he squandered it. It is all very well to talk of healing, but it cannot take place until the nature of the problem is honestly faced and the Church does the right thing about the many (not "some") bishops who shuffled and covered, evaded and lied, and ignored or even threatened the victims. Any "reaching out" to the victims that doesn't involve those blackguards being brought to book is a joke and a further insult. I'm sick at heart.

"Who knows what private communications have occurred between these bishops and the Vatican? What benefit would it be for the Holy Father to excoriate the bishops? So lay people who are upset would feel better? Is that what its going to take to make people feel better again? Public admonishment? Would that make you feel better? What does such an exercise of scolding do in the end? Nothing really."

For many of them, public admonishment would be just. It's not like that is a tool we as Catholics preclude in other areas. This is particularly true in the case of bishops who used threatening legal tactics or, as in the case Rod mentioned, blackmail using information from the confessional.

>>>
Cannot emphasize this enough-the first time a bishop or cardinal is removed, defrocked and advised that he will not be legally indemnified for misconduct, this all stops. The image of a 60+ man with no home and no pension facing lawsuits and prosecution would end this.Posted by: Bugg | April 17, 2008 7:41 AM
>>>

You are correct, sir.

However, the Church Hierarchy seems to be more about protecting the Priesthood than about ministering to the laity.

I don't think this was the time and place for the riot act. Some of them have made mistakes and said they're sorry. Others have gone to greater, more criminal lengths along the lines of the examples that you cite--but I think those are by far a small minority and, consequently, such a rebuke would have been inappropriate but also unjust. If you read the full text, I think his words were quite strong (albeit, they were no "riot act"), and the next generation of bishops seem to be more solid and up to the task imho.

I hope you checked off the "Nasty Comment" box in your dayplanner, Gerry. I, for one, am not happy he left. But I certainly understand those who do.

No, the speech was not strong enough. And as long as the status quo persists, it the child rape scandals will not be over. I have a lot of questions about the "Wait'll They're 75" approach to episcopal reform taken by Rome.

Since I can't say something nice about Bishop Brown...

Brian Horan writes: "Benedict suggested that the crisis has occurred at a time when society devalues human dignity and distorts the role of sexuality through pornography and violence. How out of touch is Benedict to think that society at large condones molesting children?"

Brian, I think you're out of touch with what the Pope said. He didn't say that society condones molesting children. That's not fair to him. He has repeatedly apologized for what happened and his speech late yesterday made clear his unhappiness with how many of the bishops had handled their responsibilities. What he did point out is that our media culture is a toxic environment for children

The gospels give us a clear idea of what Christ would say about religion hacks who protect and enable those who one day will be wishing their problem was merely millstones around their necks while they sit on the bottom of the sea. Benedict should have used such words if he was truly serious, then followed it up with ACTION. What he said sounded like competent PR rather than the salty words of Christ and his apostles.

So which bishops are getting defrocked? Anyone? Anyone? Too little, too late. Pity.

"Benedict should have used such words if he was truly serious, then followed it up with ACTION. What he said sounded like competent PR rather than the salty words of Christ and his apostles."

Well--just to play devil's advocate here, his actions with regard to the late Fr. Maciel were a heck of a lot more than most have done. Some may not think it was enough (and they have good arguments)--but it's not as if no action has been taken.

>>>
Regarding your comment John E, I am curious to ask, "Are you Catholic?"
>>>

Clearly, you haven't been paying attention...

>>>
When making the comment you made above, are you speaking from direct experience with any leaders of the church, or are you merely parotting the media?
Posted by: Mel | April 17, 2008 10:13 AM
>>>

Neither, I'm commenting on the observable historical record.

Maybe this is just a start. Give Benedict a little more time. At least he's directly facing the issue. Maybe it's not PR. Maybe he's trying to restore hope. Bring about renewal of the Church in America.

I'd say, let God work. Sins confessed. Healing starting. The church family's on the right track. But more does need to be said and more importantly done. The heirarchy needs some more straightening out. Getting it's actions in line with it's faith.

pax

gerry -- from a perspective of "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (which is still magisterial teaching, ecumenical pablum aside) that's a pretty horrid thing to say.

>>>
You're right, John E., I wasn't paying attention. But you still haven't answered my question.
Posted by: Mel | April 17, 2008 10:55 AM
>>>

Fair enough - I'm an agnostic who distrusts all hierarchial based authority.

>>>>
(As much as I'd like to see him send all the bishops and other high-level bureaucrats off to a monastery somewhere to pray for forgiveness and replace them with the humblest parish priests he can find, that's not really practical--and we can't afford to lose those good low-level priests.)
Posted by: Mhoram | April 17, 2008 10:21 AM
>>>>

Why is it impractical to do that? It seems to me that the humble parish priests might do a better job of making the Church be about ministering to the laity.

>>>>
The gospels give us a clear idea of what Christ would say about religion hacks who protect and enable those who one day will be wishing their problem was merely millstones around their necks while they sit on the bottom of the sea.
Posted by: James P. | April 17, 2008 10:33 AM
>>>

Bingo. James has summed up nicely a fine example of why I say that the hiearchy is about protecting the priesthood. The purported words of Jesus condemn in the strongest possible terms the actions of these scoundrels who Bishops have protected and moved to other parishes or have been allowed to retire quietly to Rome.

Rod,
What that the bishops could do would satisfy you? I'm guessing, nothing. I'd like to see the worst offenders resign, as Law did, but without getting new positions. But that wouldn't make SNAP happy. They'd take it as a sign to complain more about celibacy and no priestesses. I think a vast majority of our bishops are good men trying hard to do the right thing. And the church has endured plenty of bad bishops in the past - it can survive the Tod Browns of the world, and plenty of steps have been taken to prevent this abuse from happening again, although I don't think you can prevent it completely. And priests need to be protected against false accusations, which do happen. So people can call for justice, and it's understandable, especially among those who are injured. But I'm cautious about demanding justice too strongly, lest we all receive what we justly deserve for our sins.

Zak, Dreher does not care about that! He wants to use any event to justify his defection from the Catholic Church . In his eyes all Popes and Bishops are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

Zak, Dreher does not care about that! He wants to use any event to justify his defection from the Catholic Church. In his eyes all Popes and Bishops are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

Rod didn't defect from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church defected from the Gospel. And, yes, if the Bishops DO these nefarious things, they are damned; and if they DON'T expose and correct and punish them, they are damned. And that's in God's eyes, not Rod's.

First, I wouldn't put any stock in anything Bishop Brown says. I wouldn't even bother to interview him. I think it would be better to hear from one of the bishops who is taking this seriously and has always tried to do the right thing, like Bishop Vasa. Of course, he's too "new" and in too remote of a location (Oregon) for anybody in the media to care.

Second, no one speech is going to produce the effects that Rod or anybody else needs to see. It is a wound that is deep and long, and it takes a lot more than words or policies to correct it. It will take YEARS for the Church to earn back the trust of people like Rod -- who were not directly abused. Imagine how long it will take for the victims and their families.

So it's stupid that anybody would expect "results" from the pope's address. And if one was expecting the pope to lambast the bishops who have really mucked this whole thing up, that was equally unrealistic. It would be inappropriate for the pope to discipline any person -- bishop or not -- publicly. It's not the Catholic way and it's not the biblical way.

It would be inappropriate for the pope to discipline any person -- bishop or not -- publicly. It's not the Catholic way and it's not the biblical way.

So, Jesus erred in PUBLICLY cleansing the Temple, and PUBLICLY rebuking the scribes and pharisees, and St. Paul erred in PUBLICLY rebuking St. Peter at Antioch?

What is your definition of "the biblical way"?

I really wonder how the church can continue to exist. Does anyone doubt that if a chain of daycare centers had had this sort of mass abuse take place, coverups and all the rest, do you really think they'd still be in business? Not a chance. Everybody from the CEO down to the janitors would be in jail.

How out of touch is Benedict to think that society at large condones molesting children?

Oh I don't know, I don't remember much of an outcry when Roman Polanski won an Oscar for best director a few years ago. Our moral superiors the French are shielding him from prosecution. The general drift from the film community is that he is an important "artist" who may have made a "mistake".

And pray tell what is that mistake? He used his celebrity to entice a single mother to let him take pictures of her 13 year old daughter. He took the girl to Jack Nicholson and Angelica Huston's home where he plied her with champagne and drugged her before raping her orally, vaginally and anally.

Now he's toasted by Hollywood and and Paris and continues to make films that are reasonably well attended by the serious film crowd. Sounds like condoning child molesting to me.

The quote from Pope Benedict that struck me:

"Benedict suggested that the crisis has occurred at a time when society devalues human dignity and distorts the role of sexuality through pornography and violence.

Children, he said, must be taught "authentic moral values" and spared "the degrading manifestations and the rude manipulation of sexuality so prevalent today.""

Pardon me, but this seems like Benedict is trying to shift responsiblity for the corrupt behavior of the U.S. bishops onto "the times we live in" and in a way, onto the victims. Arrgh! Seriously, the problem is as old as the hills - "Power corrupts".

So, Jesus erred in PUBLICLY cleansing the Temple, and PUBLICLY rebuking the scribes and pharisees, and St. Paul erred in PUBLICLY rebuking St. Peter at Antioch?

First, Jesus is God and He can do whatever He wants.

Second, Jesus didn't cleanse the Temple on international television -- it was only the people who either guilty of the sin or victims of the sin who witnessed the actual cleansing of the temple. The rest of us got an abbreviated report of the event later.

Likewise with the scribes and pharisees -- He wasn't making an international event of the dressing down. He spoke to them with His apostles around, and the rest of us got a report later.

Same goes for Paul.

What is your definition of "the biblical way"?

Matthew 18:15ff. You're supposed to approach the person privately. If they don't listen, you go to them with one or two others. And then you go to the Church with it. There is never any provision for a public dressing down broadcast live around the world.

We don't know where the Holy Father is in this biblically prescribed process. Is he still doing one-on-ones? Or has he gathered a tribunal to go with him? I don't know. I don't know how YOU can know.

I figured you would cite Matthew 18:15. As textual variants support, this is most likely about dealing with personal offenses - i.e., if a brother sins against you. In these instances, it would thus be applicable to the molested confronting their molesters. But Jesus's and St. Paul's acts are valid instances of how a public rebuke of these sinful bishops would not be wrong. Trying to deflect or dismiss this by saying that "Jesus is God and He can do whatever He wants" ignores the admonition that we are to imitate Christ, and St. Paul told people to imitate him as he imitated Christ.

But if you have your head and heart set on defending the bishops and keeping the scandal private in order to save and protect the Church and not embarrass it publicly, well go ahead. After all, you have all the hierarchy of the Church supporting that position, too. So, if you prefer to imitate the enablers instead of Jesus and St. Paul, that is your right.

Here we go again.

So "the bishops" are a lousy bunch of evil incompetents. "The bishops" should have been yelled at by the Holy Father. "The bishops" should be defrocked and sent away. Let's get "the bishops!"

Okay. Which ones?

Well, you could start with Michael McAuliffe, who turned a blind eye while three priests at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (my high school) in Hannibal, MO, molested a handful of boys over a couple decades. Except that he died a couple years ago, so it's too late to get him. Yes, I'm still bitter.

One reason I can't get too caught up in what the Pope does or doesn't do is that we, as a society, won't even admit what happened. We call it a "sex scandal" and yell "hate speech" at any suggestion that homosexuality was involved. That leaves us incorrectly calling it pedophilia, or blaming the moral permissiveness of the late 60s (even though most of the priests involved came through seminary well before that). If we won't even recognize the symptoms, there's not much chance of curing the disease, no matter how much Benedict dresses down the bishops.

But if you have your head and heart set on defending the bishops

To the contrary. I have frequently stated that they are culpable in the crimes and I wish the law would prosecute them properly. I have no idea why this has not been done. I myself have no evidence because I was fortunate enough not to be touched by the abuse, nor to witness it in any way. If I had evidence, though, I'd be sitting in the D.A.'s office until the civil law was upheld.

...and keeping the scandal private in order to save and protect the Church and not embarrass it publicly, well go ahead.

Wrong again. It's too late to keep the scandal private. I do think the victim's names should be held private to protect them from public scrutiny, but I have no interest in attempting the impossible task of taking public information and making it private.

So, if you prefer to imitate the enablers instead of Jesus and St. Paul, that is your right.

Wrong again. Dude, you don't know me. I have no intention of enabling child abuse in any form in any institution.

I simply recognize that it was unrealistic to expect the pope to handle the entire crisis in one little speech, which was broadcast live around the world. It wasn't going to happen. I didn't expect it to happen. I am mystified that anybody would expect it to happen.

Alicia,
I think what the pope meant is that tomorrow's priests grow up amidst today's culture, and to prevent them from having disordered sexual attraction, they need to be brought up with sexuality situated correctly. He's not blaming the victims, he's trying to understand why priests would commit such horrible acts in the first place, so that we can try to ensure that the men called to priesthood in the future do not do so.

Mhoran,

"We call it a "sex scandal" and yell "hate speech" at any suggestion that homosexuality was involved. That leaves us incorrectly calling it pedophilia"

Heterosexuality was involved too. Ask any raped girl/woman/abused nun.

The Pope very correctly called it what it is - pedophilia (aka child molestation). And he was, himself, very clear that the two - homosexuality and pedophilia - are NOT the same. I guess that at least makes Benedict smarter than you.

anonymous poster of April 17, 2008 2:26 PM

"were the Pontiff and his staff to start calling it what it in large part is - i.e., homosexual rape by homosexual priests who in violation of the Church's own rules and their own vows engaged in proscribed sinful homosexual activities - then the msm would scream ''homophobia'' "

And rightly so, since there were many, many female victims. I don't see you castigating the heterosexual rape by heterosexual priests who in violation of the Church's own rules and their own vows engaged in proscribed sinful heterosexual activities. It would add a modicum of believability to your post. Its absence invites the homophobia charge.

And rightly so, since there were many, many female victims.

But what was the percentage?

"And rightly so, since there were many, many female victims.

But what was the percentage?"

The Jay study only tracked abuse of minors--not all cases of clergy sex abuse by any means.

Of minors, the percentage of females was 20%.

Of those abused who were not minors, I suspect the vast majority were women.

SNAP's membership of abuse victims is about 50/50 male/ female...evidence that clergy abuse of female adults is a serious and overlooked problem.

One reason I can't get too caught up in what the Pope does or doesn't do is that we, as a society, won't even admit what happened. We call it a "sex scandal" and yell "hate speech" at any suggestion that homosexuality was involved. That leaves us incorrectly calling it pedophilia, or blaming the moral permissiveness of the late 60s (even though most of the priests involved came through seminary well before that). If we won't even recognize the symptoms, there's not much chance of curing the disease, no matter how much Benedict dresses down the bishops.

Bingo. I love this Pope, and I loved the last one too. But when I see them toeing the politically correct party line, refusing to name the elephant in the living room, it makes me wonder, why?

Erin Manning: "So if anyone has failed to do what it takes to 'get rid of the bishops,' it's us."

Erin, I suggest you visit www.rcf.org, the Web site for "Roman Catholic Faithful" (not to be confused with "Voice of the Faithful"), which has brought the enabling bishop of Springfield, Ill. to the attention of the Papal Nuncio in Washington, who did nothing!

I also suggest you consider the following: In any centralized, bureaucratic hierarchy whose self-benighted leaders demand blind deference, discourage accountability at every turn and are isolated from the people they claim to serve, corruption will be rife. If you take the bishops and their bureaucratic subordinates and the Soviet apparatchiki of the Cold War, have them exchange places and even exchange ideologies, you'll see that the behavior won't substancially change.

That doesn't mean that Catholicism = Marxism. But on many levels, human behavior trumps ideology or theology.

Sparki: "'So, Jesus erred in PUBLICLY cleansing the Temple, and PUBLICLY rebuking the scribes and pharisees, and St. Paul erred in PUBLICLY rebuking St. Peter at Antioch?'

"First, Jesus is God and He can do whatever He wants."

True but you miss the fundamental meaning of his actions: God holds to a higher standard whomever has authority in His name. Those who misuse their position to ingratiate themselves or abuse others will face His judgement.

At the time of the Temple cleansing, the moneychangers were charging foreign Jews visiting the Temple exhorbitant exchange rates, since only Temple currency could be used for the monetary sacrifices proscribed in the Torah. Also, any Jews who brought their own sacrificial to the Temple would have those animals automatically determined to be unclean by the chief priests. The visitors then would have to buy "acceptable" animals (at exploitive rates, obviously).

IOW, the chief priests were exploiting the devout for their own gain. What the enabling bishops and their clerical perverts did was far worse.

"Second, Jesus didn't cleanse the Temple on international television -- it was only the people who either guilty of the sin or victims of the sin who witnessed the actual cleansing of the temple. The rest of us got an abbreviated report of the event later."

"Likewise with the scribes and pharisees -- He wasn't making an international event of the dressing down. He spoke to them with His apostles around, and the rest of us got a report later.

"Same goes for Paul."

So what? What do you think newspaper and Internet reports are, anyway, but "abbreviated"? Besides, unlike the preaching against the scribes and Pharisees, the clerical sex-abuse crisis was an international event! It's a major reason why the faith in traditionally Catholic Ireland has declined precipitously. Besides, Mariscal Marisel was Mexican, not American, and the Pope disciplined him severely.

Your whole comparison of today's media with the "media" of 2000 years ago is patently absurd. Any Pope who faces the clerical sex-abuse crisis has a choice: to support the victims or the perpetrators and enablers. Given the Pope's status, the universal nature of the Church and the nature of this worldwide epidemic, public upbrading is the only credible choice.

Mr Dreher has been Silent about the Scandals that are happening in his new Church---OCA !!! It's a Small Church so it doesn't get the Press that the Catholic's get . It involves theihBishops, Priests ,Nuns and Lay folk !!! Percentage wise the OCA Scandal is Much Larger than the Catholic's. There is a Web Site that Post's daily to keep everyone informed .If Mr Dreher wasn't so Obnoxuis with his comments I would not even bring this up!! But he makes my blood boil !!!

You know, most of the people who bring up Rod's supposed hypocracy concerning the OCA are Catholics who can't face the fact that the ecclesiastical bureaucrats whom they admire have utterly disgraced themselves (and confused with the Church, right Erin Manning?) and dragged God's name through the filth.

If such people spent as much time and energy demanding accountability instead of finding fault with the messengers, perhaps this crisis would abate.

Maybe such Catholics are Egyptians, since they have a fondness for the Nile (if you know what I mean).

Per Rod: "I'm thinking of the bishop I know of personally who told a woman who had been compelled into a sexual affair by her confessor, who threatened to tell her sins to her husband if she didn't submit. The woman finally had a nervous breakdown from all the guilt and shame. When she, her lawyer and her psychologist (a faithful Catholic) met with their bishop to discuss the matter, the bishop told her that if she filed suit or went public, he'd ruin her because 'I have to protect the people of God.'"

So what's happening in this case? It's not like you to drop a stink bomb and then say nothing more. Nor does it seem fair. Are you being silent because the woman got a few million dollars for agreeing to keep her mouth shut? Did it turn out to be a scam? What?

"So, Jesus erred in PUBLICLY cleansing the Temple, and PUBLICLY rebuking the scribes and pharisees"

The scribes and Pharisees weren't his disciples or bishops.

According to one Gospel Peter not only denied Jesus but was also the one to cut off the servant's ear. Jesus healed the man's ear and lectured Peter, but Peter remains an Apostle after all this. I don't even think Judas was fired or horse-whipped. Judas died in disgrace, but they weren't the ones to kill him.

You're thinking the Pope can wield power on a level no Orthodox patriarch could ever manage and do so without major consequences. However it took several years for Cardinal Milingo to get taken out for personally marrying in a Moonie ceremony and there's been a pretty big blow-back. A defrocked bishop can claim that accusations are hearsay and create a schismatic Church with those who still believe him. And that's an element that is perhaps just as hard to deal with. Many Catholics have stayed loyal to the specific priests convicted of abuse. Bishops thrown out for "stuff I saw as a reporter to people who don't wish to be named" would likely retain a much larger following.

Not that I particularly care what happens to them for their own sake. The American bishops are full of crackpots and penny-pinching bureaucrats. Still I think a case can be made that the most effective thing for reducing abuse wouldn't be upbraiding and defrockings. Although I would support a few of them being kicked out.

"So what's happening in this case? It's not like you to drop a stink bomb and then say nothing more. Nor does it seem fair. Are you being silent because the woman got a few million dollars for agreeing to keep her mouth shut? Did it turn out to be a scam? What?"

Maybe it's because he doesn't want to royally screw up the woman's marriage--the same reason she didn't disclose it to the whole world in the first place. Seems the most logical conclusion to me.

Erin, like the vast majority of today's Christians, you do not understand that God not only is all-merciful and all-loving, but also all-just and all-righteous. Since he's also all-powerful, then he can balance all these traits and apply them appropriately to the correct situation.

God's views on what happened in this Church are easy to ascertain. Just look at what Christ said in St. John's Gospel by washing the feet of his disciples -- an act that only the lowest slave would perform -- or in St. Matthew's Gospel about service as the ultimate duty of an apostle, as well as what he said about "little ones" and "millstones."

If the bishops publicly repent and perform public penance, then any Pope would be obliged to be merciful. But not before and not until. Some of them (like Mahony, George and Law) should be made to resign theif ecclesiastical positions as a consequence of their malfeasance.

I assure you, Erin, God will hold such men (as well as JPII) accountable for their failure to act to protect the innocent and vulnerable.

Remember what St. John Chrysostom said: "The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

2ND TRY AT POSTING THIS:

Dennis, you are one mixed up Dude. Bishop Gumbleton was/is an open supporter of homosexualism in the Church AND a Communist.

To say that "... Bishop Gumbleton stepped forward to protect and assist the victims of sexual abuse and they immediately retired him since he was 77y/o" is a calumny. He was kept on for two years after he should have been retired at the usual retirement age of 75. He never should have been ordained in the first place--THAT is "what-is-what."