Deo gratias, and thank you, Benedict

Honesty and humility are two virtues that bring freedom. I am glad Pope Benedict has embraced these virtues and is doing something - personally - to address these horrible CRIMES against children. It is a long road back, but he is making a difference.

Thanks Rod for writing about this...today!

Whoa whoa whoa....Look at this story again. The VICTIM is pleading for forgiveness from the (in the macro sense) offender?! And this is supposed to be reassuring?

Yes, I'm glad that the pope spoke with the victims. But shouldn't that story have been about the pope kneeling before the victims and begging THEIR forgiveness for the way they've been treated?

I think that suggesting that JP2 "couldn't bring himself" to meet with victims is a little unfair. He was an old and very sick man by 2002 when the Boston scandals burst into painful prominence. Moving him here to meet with victims when he could barely speak or control his hands would have unkind and logistically impossible.

What I do see here is that Benedict met with these victims: has every bishop done the same, and with the same compassion? If they haven't, they damn well better do it NOW.

God bless B16!

To "treebeard and "anonyomous" (what else) who posted at 10:20 AM:

Give it a break already!!! Who are you to be criticizing the victim for apologizing. He wasn't apologizing for any role he might have played in the vile act of pederasty that was perpetrated upon him. Rather, he was apologizing for any anger he felt in his heart towards the priest who victimized them, or the Holy Father or even Christ. It was a sublimely Christian act on this victim's part.

Can we not just appreciate the majesty in this victim's heart? And not use it as another opportunity by you and others to bash the Pope and the church?

Anonymous: "The VICTIM is pleading for forgiveness from the ... offender?! And this is supposed to be reassuring?"

Maybe if you came from a family that has been hurt by the scandal you would understand. Anger and hatred are major stumbling blocks that victims and their families have to get over if they are to ever to be reconciled with God and his people (such that they are).

I could identify with the guy and was deeply moved. He spoke to my condition.

The Pope opened with an apology to the victims:

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/04/he-apologized-he-understood.html

I'm not Catholic, (maybe getting there, as it's very impressive to see a bishop actually being a bishop) but it seems to me that any reference to John Paul II as "creepy" tells me more about the one making the comments than about John Paul II. And believe me, there are many Americans who despise Benedict XVI. They are not getting a lot of press at the moment, but they're out there.

Mel, no I won't give it a rest. It's good for him to get over his anger, but I don't believe that apologizing for his anger is justified. The Bible itself says, "Be angry, but do not sin." It was not sinful for him to be full of anger for what happened to him. His anger needs to be healed, but he has nothing to apologize for.

That said, it's his life, not mine, so anything that helps him heal and move forward is a wonderful thing. The reason I react so strongly is that the Catholic church has not done near enough to deal with the scandal. Maybe Benedict can change that. But where are all the bishops being defrocked and fired? Where is the proclamation that everyone involved, in either molestation, or in covering it up, or in moving the abusers from one place to another, will be dealt with severly? Where are the "fruits of repentance"? I don't see them yet.

A man who was abused by a priest does not need to apologize for his anger. But my guess is that there are a lot of priests who are guilty of abuse, who remain in their positions because the heirarchy is still for the most part impentetrable.

Treebeard,

Of course you continue to have your problems with the Church ... but you were unjustified in dumping your anger on this victim. Can't you just admire the nobility of this person ... instead of using it as another opportunity by you to take another whack at the Church.

As to handling your own anger, perhaps you can draw a lesson from this victim.

Of course the Church -- at every level -- has to do more to deal with this. Do you not think that the various statements (and the meeting yesterday) by this Pope regarding this matter on this trip are not sending a STRONG MESSAGE to the Church in America? You bet they are!!
What we're seeing in public from him is undoubtedly a benign version of what he and the Vatican officials are telling the American bishops in private. The Holy Father is clearly not happy with the filth among the American hierarchy. I think you will see housecleaning in the months and years ahead.

I'm very encouraged by this news, the more so because the Pope apparently realizes that it wasn't a problem involving the priests alone. More importantly, from what we've seen of him I believe the Pope regards it as a beginning and not just a way to punch the ticket and then forget it.
As for JPII, Rod is right, and was right at the time. Far from disparaging JPII's achievement as a whole, his explanation (and Peggy Noonan, one of JPII's most ardent admirers, said much the same) seems an attempt to to put his performance in the best possible light. And it's as good and charitable a theory as I've heard or can imagine: The horror was so great that he sank into denial and catatonic shock. Other theories to explain his failure in this matter will no doubt appear. But that he did fail cannot be reasonably denied.

Mel, my problem is not with the Church, per se, but the individual perpetrators. I do believe, however, that the Church as a whole needs to set things straight. This is a very good beginning. My apologies if I have offended you.

Someone in my family was molested by a religious leader (Lutheran). I know the damage that occurs. It ruined her entire life.

Maybe the priests should have just married the children they abused. I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that (as in the polygamist compound).

But, Alexandra, so many of the children abused were *boys* and there aren't too many juridictions that allow even monogamous same-sex marriage.

I love my Church, but it will never really deal with us until it is willing to admit that a big part of the problem is *unchaste homosexuals* in the clergy.

Treebeard:

Dittos to what Mel said. It's wicked what happened to the member of your family who was harmed in this way. My prayers with you and this young woman.

As a Catholic, I am VERY happy about the Pope's visiting the US, and heartened by what he has said and done.

HOWEVER, your post emphasizes the importance that our churches must continue to place on the tragedy of child molestation, an issue that B16 has raised already several times on this trip. All of us who work in the church, especially with the young (in my case, as a volunteer catechist), must try harder to attain personal holiness in our lives (in our heart and actions) and do a better job of modeling Christ in every way.

Thanks for sharing, treebeard. Takes guts to do what you did.

"And by the way: Re-hashing this old chestnut? Catholics "worshipping" the Pope? From an Orthodox convert, no less?

Please, Rod. You usually mask your anger more subtly than that."

Not that I expect that it will, but Rod's conversion to Orthodox needs to stop being used as a bat to hit him over the head whenever criticizes Catholic clergy.

Pope worshipping is not an "old chestnut." It is a very common problem among some conservative Catholics, and was especially so with regard to JPII. I deplore the dissent in the Catholic church among our theologians (especially), but all too often, even on very minute and prudential matters, I have been privy to long rantings about how anything below complete adulation and affirmation of every non-doctrinal papal decision is tantamount to not being a Catholic. That's a dangerous mentality to have in some contexts.

Erin Manning--you may have somewhat of a point. Many of the folks pointing out the sex abuse problems early on did nearly discredit themselves because they seemed to too closely associate an agenda with their reporting. I think that even many laypeople rolled their eyes for quite some time when this stuff was going on. That said, I don't think this is by any means the only facet of the Vatican's hesitancy. The Fr. Maciel incident comes to mind, as do other incidents of the Vatican being notified of the problems in the seminaries especially.

I am glad that Benedict met with the victims. I must say, though, while continuing steps need to be made to handle sex abuse (a certain amount which is going to occur in any institution) properly, I think some folks need to stop with the mob justice, the Roman Catholic Faithful included and stop imputing inhuman and unabashedly evil motives to any conciliatory action the Pope makes.

Mel and Reaganite, thank you very much for your kind words, and for your prayers.

Papist Tom,

I like your point. Yes, JPII was courageous, but I believe his mission (in the global sense) was to fight the greatest threat to freedom in his time: Communism. He did indeed demonstrate great courage in that regard.

But for some reason, after the victory over Communism he failed to adequately face the problem "at home" so to speak. I'm of the mind that this need not be because of a lack of courage. Perhaps he simply didn't know what course to choose. The Sword of Damocles comes to mind here. I hope and pray that God has given us a pope with the skills and courage to fight the current threats that face us more clearly now. I have faith that our current pope is that man.

Mr. Dreher, hopefully the Holy Father has a new message to deliver to Cardinal Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has suggested that the pontiff's words do not implicate the bishops in wrongdoing and that no bishops will face sanctions.
David Wilson has the story elsewhere in Beliefnet.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/benedictions/2008/04/the-successorcardinal-levada-o.html

Pope Benedict XVI has been a blessing for the Church in so many ways that Catholics could not have predicted in 2005.

I posted something similar on Amy Welboln's NYT blog, so I want to state that up front if some of you have been over there.

I am thankful to Pope Benedict whose writings and clear teachings are refreshing in this world of as he puts it, one that embraces “a dictatorship of relativsm.”. Furtheremore, I appreciate the Pope for meeting with those who have been the victims of “sexual abuse” by Priests. I pray that this might be the first step toward the beginning of healing.

Still, I have some concerns as to why is it that sexual abuse of minors seems to be portrayed in the TV media as a “Catholic Problem”. I would like to point out a recent article from the Protesant/Evangelical magazine Christianity Today. The online version of the article posted on 4/10/2008 states:

“In the last three years, an average of 23 new articles each day have appeared in secular media sources revealing sexual abuse allegations arising in Protestant churches in the United States. Protestant denominations have been tempted to call sexual abuse a “Catholic Problem”; this simply is not true. within the past eight years, verdicts, judgments, or settlements exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars have been levied against Protestant churches for sexual abuse allegations arising from children participating in minstry programs.”

So, from my calculation, that is 25,185 allegations of sexual abuse of minors that happened in Protestant churches. In addition, there have been stories of huge abuse in American public schools, although I don't have the figures to cite.

So again I have some questions, 1)Why has the TV media not covered this story, 2) Why is it that non-Catholics use the sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic Church, which is a serious moral failure on the part of the individual priests who perpetrated this crimes, and the Seminaries who ordained these men and Bishops who failed to address the warning signs.

I think part of the reason is the secular-media, driven by the spirit of the evil one, knows who in the end is the real McCoy, and that is the Catholic Church. It is an institution that goes gack to antiquity and is one that can’t be forced by the secular-media’s agenda to conform to the spirit of the age in terms of abortion, euthansia, embroynic stem cell research, and sexual morality, etc.

In summary, as Pope Benedict alluded to, there is a dictatorship of relativism in U.S. culture that has contributed to a break down of absolutes in terms of what is right and what is wrong, which in turn is impacting the moral foundation of all America, not just Catholics and the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the TV media (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC) does not seem to care about sexual abuse of minors. I will exclude Fox News as Bill O’Reily on his show has helped hold judges, who don’t sentence individuals who sexual abuse minors, feet to the fire on this issue. Finally, again, I am grateful that Pope Benedict is addressing it, but it seems there are some here who will never give the man credit. It makes one wonder, if many use the failings of the Church at the human level (Catholic Theology views the Church as the Body of Christ, so just as Christ had a Divine and human nature, the Church is a visible sign of a spiritual Communion of God and Humanity), to justify not wanting to confront the moral failures in their own lives, rather than seeking reconciliation and conversion to Christ.

God Bless and Regards

— Posted by CTrent1564

Just to weigh in on a couple of points:

(1) I was not a admirer of many of JP2's stunts in the course of his jaunts about the globe. But I would never have accused him of lacking in courage or empathy.

(2) Benedict's meeting with the Boston victims was a much needed gesture of simple pastoral compassion and he should be unequivocally commended for it.

(3) He should follow up on the good will arising from this trip and yank Bernie Law from his cushy sinecure (another Wojtyła faux pas). I would suggest a sojourn to bone up on the Egyptian fathers in their native habitat, or a dunking in the Tiber (OK, with an inflatable millstone), or maybe just being "reduced" (canon law argot for drummed out of the clergy.)

(4) Benedict's meeting with religious leaders at the JP2 Cultural Center was very well handled. Judging by the facial expressions of the participants greeting the pope, it was a very friendly session. I am not sure what tome was presented by the young Moslem woman, but Benedict took the time to glance at a page or two and, to his credit, resisted the urge to plant a papal osculation on the cover.

(5) It should be pointed out to Benedict that the frequent visits to synagogues gives implicit credence to the heresy of universal salvation, not to mention playing into the hands of the calumniators of Pius XII and his purported complicity in the Nazi genocide of the Jews. Oecumenism should be restricted to neutral ground, as it was at the JP2 center. While there can be some concession in the wording of the Good Friday prayer (and this Benedict has done so that the modern translations do not suffer from connotations not in the original Latin), it is not within the pope's authority to discourage the evangelization of Jews; the Christian command to teach all nations does not exclude the nation that founded the Christian religion. And it devalues those Jews who have converted, Rabbi Israel Eugenio Zolli, Cardinal Aaron Jean-Marie Lustiger, St. Edith Stein, not to mention Jews for Jesus and Messianic Jews.

(6) Oremus ut satis longe vivat ut huc aliquot plura itinera faciat et ubique Missam veram restituat. (let us pray he lives long enough to make a few more trips here and to restore the true Mass everywhere)

FYI, I took out Joseph's personal insult to Erin, who is, among other things, this blog's substitute Your Working Boy. Er, Girl. Also, you who are using my criticism of either pope as an opportunity to trash my character or my conversion are wasting your time. I'm going to unpublish anything you write. Deal with the accuracy or the fairness of my ideas, and leave the personal attack on me, or others who post in this community, out of it.

John Paul II understood Naziism and Soviet Communism extremely well and his esteemed historical role is built on that. He picked a position on the Vatican II outcome and stuck with it- but its level of wisdom is yet to be decided. It's not easy to make the case that he understood most other challenges or dilemmas very well- the way he botched things with the Latin American church because he wrongly construed the Left priests who sided with their poor parishioners to be Communists, for example.

So, from my calculation, that is 25,185 allegations of sexual abuse of minors that happened in Protestant churches. In addition, there have been stories of huge abuse in American public schools, although I don't have the figures to cite.

That may be, but those were and are handled inside those denominations and organizations in various ways, with individual failure more in evidence than any particular institutional failure.

The Roman Catholic Church is greater in numbers and power as an organization than just about any of those you wish to generate a comparison to. It evidently had/has a systematic problem of approach and response to the problem, constructed on some deliberate but unclearly explained or concealed policy, that goes beyond the particulars and scope of sexual abuse problems itself and doesn't lend itself to an interpretation of mere incompetence. The institution has made itself- its internal policies- the issue.

Thanks, Rod.

Roland, et tu? Did you actually say "the true Mass"???
I was just getting to be a fan of yours...
And I've been trying not to ask this, but can no longer resist. What is with the exaggerated chivalry toward Erin Manning's posts? I've seen this before on your blog. Joseph d.H certainly doesn't speak for me but he had insightful comments about the tone, if not the motivation, of her support for the Church's 'handling' of clerical abuse.

Speaking only for myself, the motivation is simply this: Joe's loutish and entirely gratuitous bullying of Erin pissed me off, so I complained. If he gratuitously bashes Erin or some other reasonable person again, I will complain again. Call that "exaggerated chivalry" if you like. I call it common courtesy.

SusanF, I can't speak for Rod, of course, but I don't think the actions on this thread have as much to do with me personally as they do with the fact that Rod works very hard to maintain a civil environment on this blog, and that he's quick to delete or edit any comments that cross the line into personal attack.

I'm far from being the only target of that sort of thing--plenty of regular commenters from widely divergent viewpoints have been on the receiving end of personal attacks before. If Rod moved rather quickly today, I suspect that it has to do with a very recent anonymous comment aimed in my direction the politest phrase of which was "shrewish prude" and which degenerated into rude speculations about my anatomy which I won't repeat. Anyway, whether I'm the one in the crosshairs, or any of the others who come out here daily or weekly to participate in the conversations, is beside the point, which is that these sorts of things when left unchecked tend to shut down all conversation and stifle the free exchange of ideas which is such a unique and positive feature of this blog.

I'd be glad to discuss my tone and motivations re: clerical sex abuse with you; I tend to see this issue as more complex than many believe it is. As I said on the earlier thread on this topic, it's all very well to shout "Throw the bums out!" but you need to be able to name the bums and provide just cause for them to be thrown out. Very little of what is out there rises to the level of proof of specific criminal acts by specific bishops; if the proof is out there, then never mind the Pope--why aren't the attorneys general of the various states in question moving to prosecute?

"Very little of what is out there rises to the level of proof of specific criminal acts by specific bishops; if the proof is out there, then never mind the Pope--why aren't the attorneys general of the various states in question moving to prosecute?"

Well, there have been more than a few prosecutions of individual priests and one of the main issues in this controversy has been the actions of the church hierarchy (or, to be more precise, certain members of the church hierarchy) which helped cover up the crimes after the fact by transferring abusive priests to other dioceses or silencing of witnesses or complainants. Child molestation cases are very hard to prosecute and win if there is an absence of direct physical evidence or a lot of time has elapsed since the crime, and that is doubly the case for proving the existence of after-the-fact coverups of the offenses by others. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, particularly in matters like this.

Rod, while I think it's good to keep the comboxes at least somewhat civil, Joseph's insult wasn't all that harsh. It wasn't profane or some sort of gratuitously vicious comment. And to be quite frank, I've seen Erin make comments to and about others that were similar in tone and level of offensiveness (if one were on the receiving end of them) as the insult in question. But, it's your blog, so do what you see fit.

"Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, particularly in matters like this."

What you write is absolutely true, Mark, and therein lies the problem for the Pope.

Is he to march in and remove bishops based on hearsay? We'd protest loudly if our legal system allowed hearsay testimony, but so many seem to want the Pope to do exactly that--decide based on uncorroborated statements from victims or observers that a particular bishop really was, and really is, heinously guilty of criminal acts or criminal negligence. Add to the problem the fact that many of the bishops about whom even that much could be assembled are now dead, and that you would, in effect, be "going after" their successors for not taking the kind of direct action that *nobody* was taking up until the recent past (and here I'm speaking also of the secular world, which to this day seems to have no problem releasing child abusers back into society after rather short prison terms), and the problem begins to look way more complicated than a "Throw them out! All of them!" mantra recognizes.

Does this mean that our choices are to do nothing? Not really. But recognizing that in many cases bishops who were in fact and to some degree guilty of cover-ups may never face any earthly consequences for this isn't defeatism--it's reality.

Now, if evidence that would prove the guilt of one bishop or another exists, and the people who could provide that evidence haven't stepped forward out of fear, shame, misguided protectionism, or perhaps their own complicity which they fear will be used against them, this is obviously not a good thing. But the Pope isn't Perry Mason--it's not his job to go around grilling the bishops and hoping to come up with evidence that can be used in a trial, church or secular. So blaming the Pope for not producing such evidence and then acting on it, again, seems unrealistic to me.

See, Mark, this is where it gets interesting.

Canonically, the bishops have rights. So do priests, for that matter--did you know that once a priest is made a pastor of a parish, for instance, he can't be "demoted" from that level of responsibility without cause until he reaches retirement age? (At least, that's how it was explained to me--if a canon lawyer can offer correction please do.)

So what is true for a pastor is true, or even more so, for a bishop. The bishops are seen as the successors of the Apostles from the standpoint of their offices, so removing a bad one gets tricky.

It might be technically possible for the pope to act like a despot, removing any bishop he didn't personally like or against whom suspicions of wrongdoing existed. But this pope has shown his desire *not* to act like a tyrant, perhaps in light of his expressed wish to work towards reunification with the Eastern Church, a unification which would never be possible if a unilaterally strong pope who had little respect for the principles of collegiality were at the center of it.

Mark in Houston: "Rod, while I think it's good to keep the comboxes at least somewhat civil, Joseph's insult wasn't all that harsh. It wasn't profane or some sort of gratuitously vicious comment. And to be quite frank, I've seen Erin make comments to and about others that were similar in tone and level of offensiveness (if one were on the receiving end of them) as the insult in question. But, it's your blog, so do what you see fit."

Thank you, Mark in Houston.

Gentle readers, you will note that, until his post, Mr. Shea had nothing to say (worthwhile or otherwise) on this thread about the subject at hand (Benedict and sex abuse). He only chimes in when he sees me posting so he can construct his self-righteous facade.

The fact is that from 2002-2007, Mr. Shea and I have engaged in a long feud throughout the Catholic Blog Asylum. Part of that feud involved his going to every Catholic blog on which I commented and trying to get me into flame wars which would get me banned. All too often, I took the bait. No more.

To those (like Mr. Shea) who wish to deny this, I have a copy of a post from Victor Morton, an editor at the Washington Times, who wrote the following on Dale Price's blog in 2004:

This will come in a few parts:

I swore I would never again acknowledge Mr. Shea's existence, but this thread is a perfect example of why Joseph is right that he is pursuing a persecutionist vendetta.

The reader will note above that the thread, prior to Joseph's first post, had not involved Mr. Shea. Further, it had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, nuclear weapons or just war, the state of Islam or anything else remotely related to Joseph's comments. Further, that Joseph's comments did not introduce those topics.
Victor Morton | Email | Homepage | 03.22.04 - 4:37 pm | #

Let us stipulate that Joseph's comments about nuking Mecca et al are something less than orthodox (they are not insane or Satanic, because, as I once repeatedly and without answer pointed out to Mr. Shea, the Church does not condemn any possession of nuclear weapons as a sin, which means SOME uses of them have to be moral despite the unquestionable fact they kill civilians en masse). Joseph did not attempt to engage Mr. Shea, did not attempt to hijack his blog, did not refer to him. So it's rather unconvincing to hear "I've spent a great deal of time avoiding you. You're like a bad penny. ... I keep running into your obnoxious and abusive crap on blogs I regularly read." Everybody has some people they don't like, or can't imagine engaging even for the sake of collegial disagreement, someone at St. Blogs whose orthodoxy they question. Tough titty. (See me engaging Suspicious Severity or whateverhisnameis.)
Victor Morton | Email | Homepage | 03.22.04 - 4:38 pm | #

Mr. Shea's disagreement (he is not a bishop and has no real authority in these matters, so nothing he says can ever rise above that) is not an excuse to try to destroy somebody's reputation by repetitively injecting himself wherever Joseph may go, talking about whatever subject Joseph may, and calling him Osama bin Laden or a mass murder advocate. This was NOT disagreement with somebody, but an attempt to demonize a human being, to make him anathema as such, to pursue him like a stalkign siren. And Joseph is right to protest it.

Victor Morton | Email | Homepage | 03.22.04 - 4:38 pm |

It is truly ironic that a blogger (Shea) who distinguishes himself by misrepresenting others' arguments, ignoring contradictory evidence, constructing rhetorical straw men and engaging in personal insults when all else fails should have the temerity to pose as a knight in shining armor.

"Your comment is nothing but a smoke screen to deflect blame from where it truly lies: worldly bishops who have placed their egos and material holdings over their commitments to God and Christ, let alone to the Church."

Have you been gifted with the great gift of reading souls, Joseph? This comment would suggest so; otherwise, how could you possibly speak so positively about the interior dispositions of men you don't even know?

The evidence presented in courts dealt with priests, who were sometimes convicted and sent to jail. If I have somehow overlooked the trial of a bishop, please share a link to the news reports of such an event.

It's not up to me whether malfeasant bishops continue in their positions. It's up to the Church, and I trust the Church. You do not, and that is the sum of our differences

There's a proverb I've heard before: "The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small." Not one of us will escape justice, Joseph, not even the bishops. But demanding that the Church do whatever we demand in regard to this or any other situation means that you no longer believe that the Divine has any hand in the matter; it also means that you're not afraid in the least to tell God that His plan isn't working, and that He should step aside so that you can throw bishops in jail, or hang them in St. Peter's Square, or do whatever it takes to satisfy your desire, not for justice, but for vengeance.

Have you been gifted with the great gift of reading souls, Joseph? This comment would suggest so; otherwise, how could you possibly speak so positively about the interior dispositions of men you don't even know?

Again, Erin, you resort to lame cliches. It's not a matter of special knowledge. Christ Himself said, "You shall know them by their fruits." Can you seriously say that the fruits of Mahony, George, Law and others in their place regarding clerical sex-abuse bear any resemblance to Christ-like behavior?

The evidence presented in courts dealt with priests, who were sometimes convicted and sent to jail. If I have somehow overlooked the trial of a bishop, please share a link to the news reports of such an event.

The district attorney of Los Angeles is investigating whether to bring charges against Mahony. Besides, how were these priests tranferred from parish to parish without the consent of pastors or their congregations if the bishops did not know about and approve those transfers?

It's not up to me whether malfeasant bishops continue in their positions. It's up to the Church, and I trust the Church. You do not, and that is the sum of our differences.

I do not trust the Church because, up until Benedict disciplined Maciel and made his remarks and meet with victims this week, the Church did not deserve trust on this issue. Like almost all Catholics who think like you regarding this issue, you refuse to see that centralized, bureaucratic hierarchies that isolate self-benighted leaders from accountability and demand blind deference (which you seem to give in spades) form an incubator for corruption.

The difference is that you effectively worship the institutionalized Church as God. I worship God as God.

But demanding that the Church do whatever we demand in regard to this or any other situation means that you no longer believe that the Divine has any hand in the matter; it also means that you're not afraid in the least to tell God that His plan isn't working, and that He should step aside so that you can throw bishops in jail, or hang them in St. Peter's Square, or do whatever it takes to satisfy your desire, not for justice, but for vengeance.

Erin, the Divine gives us minds. He reveals to us His moral standards. He gives us the power to choose. He demands moral responsibility from us. Do you think it is too much to ask for a Church that brags about its connection to the truth -- and its leader as the apostolic descendant of Peter -- to remove malfeasant bishops from office so they can prevent further damage to the Church's moral credibility?

Canon law exists for cases such as Mahony, George, Law, et al. But the Church does not want to enforce canon law because the "leadership" has become infatuated with and addicted to power, arrogance, material wealth and secular prestige.

I'm not the only Catholic who believes this. Read anything written by Leon Podles.

Besides, if Christ Himself said that it would be better for those who harmed his "little ones" to be thrown into the sea with millstones around their necks, then my "solutions" are rather tame by comparison.

Mark Shea himself just repudiated me!

Susan:

Huh? I thought I merely answered your question. What in my reply constituted a repudiation? I don't get it. The only thing I repudiate is Joe's everlasting obnoxious bullying and self-pity.

Mr. Dreher, perhaps you could ask a canon lawyer like Ed Peters to write about what can be done canonically re: bishops.

There will always be problems like sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic priesthood as in any defined group. However the singular wave of problems that was something of a tsunami in the 1960-70's and continued to cause toxic flooding for several decades is not over, it fact it was more or less subsided 10-15 years ago.

There were/are two characterists of abuse/abusers of minors: pediphilia and pederesty. The first is statistically very rare and is not all but non-existant in the American church. The latter, pedersty is about an order of magnitude more common amongst the priests but still involves only a few percent of them.

It is much harder to stop and root out because usually we have two consenting (maybe not "legally" consenting, but consenting all the same) sexually active males here. But in this something also has to be done. Homosexuals seeking the priesthood have to be screened from the seminary or made to clear a high bar.

NOW I wonder how this action could be a model for how to deal with the problems with

Well, the coulda's, woulda's, and shoulda's are interesting when talking about others. Maybe it is time to consider it for ourselves.

I listened to MORE of what Pope B16 said besides the priest abuse thing which took up all of 8% of what he talked about but captured 92% of the media attention. Quite interesting and uplifting.

Thanks for the sermonette, goodguyex. I know I'm a sinner. What that has to do with the issue at hand, though, I'm not certain.
The Washington Post had some very nice photos, and an editorial by E.J. Dionne yesterday focusing on the Pope's message. Even the horrible "Style" section of the WaPo had a piece by one of its snarkmeisters showing just a glimmer of understanding. If you read carefully, you sense a longing and a question, "What is it with this Christ our hope stuff? What if there's a 'there', there?"
I've been pleasantly surprised to find more than 8% of media attention focused on the Pope's ultimate message.

Although I don't want to interpose myself in the spirited exchange among various posters regarding the penalties, canonical or criminal, to be visited upon the heads of miscreant bishops, I will just make the a couple of observations.

(1) Thomas Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, found that there was insufficient evidence to proceed criminally against Bernard Law; he expressed his regret about the lack of evidence but chastised the former archbishop severely. The Boston Globe has an archive full of past coverage for those interested.

(2) Pope John Paul II deserves to be denounced for having elevated Law to the archipresbyterate of the ancient Roman basilica of St. Mary Major. I cannot disagree with those who saw this as rubbing salt into the wounds of those abused. Further, Law occupies some half-dozen or so curial positions, including one in which he advises on the appointment of bishops. That this continues is an unmitigated disgrace for the Church.

Sorry, I got distracted and forgot to close the comments earlier this morning. They should be closed now.