Mark & I argue about bishops again

Maybe so, Caroline, but defense of the indefensible is, well, indefensible.

Part of the difficulty, it seems to me, is that Mark is not being entirely straightforward in acknowledging that while the popes CAN do as you, Rod, would seem to wish, they nonetheless choose not to--though they could choose to do otherwise. The fact that they have infrequently done so, while commendable in ecumenical and ecclesiological terms, does not prevent them from doing so whenever and wherever they want. Therein, it seems to me, lies Rod's frustration: they DO have this power (and nobody can deny it, and if they do they are lying), but they CHOOSE not to use it for reasons that few of us can understand and that seem, frankly, borderline perverse. Either surrender the power, or use it; fish or cut bait. That, it seems to me, is the source of much frustration for many.

Part of the reason Rome won't fish or cut bait is that there is a huge and hugely problematic lacuna in Catholic ecclesiology whereby the four key terms of *Pastor Aeternus* of Vatican I have never been given adequate theological and canonical explication: what does full, supreme, universal and ordinary jurisdiction and primacy mean? Nobody has ever said: the Church has never officially and authoritatively taught what these terms mean; no theologian, to my knowledge, has ever adequately explained what they mean. As a result, the Vatican seems alternately leery of using undefined powers, and yet happy to do so in the most unhelpfully covert of ways, of which the monopoly on episcopal appointments is surely the most egregiously unjustifiable on any grounds, whether historical, canonical, or certainly theological--to get away with whatever it feels like doing. (The monopoly on the appointment of bishops is tacitly allowed as a manifestation of papal primacy, when in fact it is a practice less than a hundred years old, first making an appearance only in the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.)

I am glad the neither Lee Podles and especially not Rod are the pope.

Constant obsession with all this makes me wonder if there are hidden issues or maybe another agenda like so many others who ride this thing for the wrong reasons.

Homesexuality is now almost mainstreamed. That is NOT GOING to change anytime soon. Where you have homosexuality you will have a chunk of pederesty. Yes, we try to weed out the weeds and the chaff, but there will always be some chaff with the wheat and some goats with the sheep. How and when the separation of chaff/wheat and goats/sheep is done must consider not harming too much of the wheat and sheep. Jesus said that as much.

And those who shout "for the children" or "let's err on the side of the children" are only singing Big Brother's song and Big Brother can not trusted with children.

Bishops come and go. Good ones can be found and the selection can be improved without Big Brother's help.

we Americans "get the bishops we deserve." Which to me sounds like, "Daddy beats you because you're bad."

That's it! That's exactly what I've been trying to put my finger on for about 3 years now. That is what has PO'd me every time I've heard people use this line.

Just so.

Hippo writes "So you think that constant obsession over the Church's fundamental moral credibility is a bad thing?"

You missed the point. I implicitly (and now explicitly) question if this constant obsession over sex with youths may indicate some hidden hang-up or unresolved issue with the person or persons doing the obsessing. Kinda like the notion, sometimes correct, that the biggest homophobes may be closeted homosexuals. I know this is harsh, but this discounting of clearly positive actions taken makes me wonder.

Concerning married priests, I say I do not know for sure about this. We have a growing married permanent diaconate and this is quite good. Maybe something could come out of this but I do not know. However, there should be ways to suffocate any homosexual sub-culture without having to ordain married men. It may take some time with seminary reform.

As far as the appointment of O'Malley to replace Bernard Law, I do not think O'Malley is a Franciscan "friar" (or brother?). I assume he is fully ordained to the presbyterate. I as a Catholic do not understand what you are saying as far as this being an "indictment of the Church's episcopal (bishopic) formation system. Can not members of religious orders or congregations get appointed to the episcopate? I can not follow you here.

You missed the point. I implicitly (and now explicitly) question if this constant obsession over sex with youths may indicate some hidden hang-up or unresolved issue with the person or persons doing the obsessing.

Exactly. When confronted with information and facts you don't like and cannot respond to, start making insinuations about Rod and the people who brought them forth.

Where have we seen this before?

Constant obsession with all this makes me wonder if there are hidden issues or maybe another agenda like so many others who ride this thing for the wrong reasons.

Translation: "Why are you so worked up about priests screwing children and bishops letting them get away with it? Are you some kind of homo?"

And those who shout "for the children" or "let's err on the side of the children" are only singing Big Brother's song and Big Brother can not trusted with children.

Wonderful. Those who draw attention to this problem and demand reform are implicit totalitarians.

Look, as for this "constant obsession," I've only been talking about it recently because Pope Benedict came to this country and brought it up several times. In the case of this post, I'm only answering Mark. It's what commentators on all sides do. If it troubles you, then just be troubled.

I have the highest respect for both you and Mark Shea, and found your last sentence so heartbreaking, I had to respond.

You said, "Mark has said many times, and not only in disputes with me over this, that we Americans "get the bishops we deserve." Which to me sounds like, "Daddy beats you because you're bad." "

If you really believe this then perhaps this is one of the things at the root of the problem. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that what Mark is saying is not that these bishops are imposed on us by the hand of an angry God, so intent on punishing the wicked that He doesn't care how many innocent suffer along with them, but that these bishops are, for the most part, men raised in the United States, steeped in our culture, our mores, our unfortunate corporate mentality and the belief in excessive collegiality and the power of psychology. Our Catholic bishops have failed us in part because they are of us, with all that that entails.

The phrasing of that last sentence of yours is one that deliberately evokes both guilt and shame. It is disgusting in that it deliberately denigrates and dismisses the reasoned arguments of someone who is trying to reach past your anger and outrage to show you something you may not have understood. You don't have to agree. In fact, your comments regarding Mark at the beginning of your post are fair and charitable. But to end in the manner in which you do does nothing to further your own ideas. Please reconsider that last sentence. Please give Mr. Shea the benefit of the doubt on this one thing -- that he could never believe that any innocent could "deserve" a beating -- but that a society does produce its own leaders.

God bless you and yours.

Mark has said many times, and not only in disputes with me over this, that we Americans "get the bishops we deserve."

That only works if bishops are elected. They're not. They're appointed, and appointed by other men all living in the same bubble.

And from whence did this "fundamental right not to be easily exposed to the ridicule of public opinion" come from? Individuals, much less public figures, certainly do not have this right. That's utterly ridiculous. Act like a jerk, the public is gonna think you're a jerk, and, in a free society, they're gonna say so loudly, clearly and often.

Talk about shameless -- we have a Pope claiming that the bishops are above shame?!? Whoa! Well, here's a clue, boys-in-the-Vatican: act shamefully in your dealings with the public, and the public is gonna shame you! Here's another clue: you have roofs over your heads, clothes on your back, and food on your table because of the public from which y'all think you have a "fundamental right" to be protected. Oh, yeah, and one more thing: here, in the USA, if you're a criminal, you're not only not protected from public opinion, you're SUBJECT to it! We get to scrutinize the evidence and find you guilty or not. Your fundamental American right to a public trial where you face your accusers and they you means exactly that -- do something shameful, and you're treated accordingly by the PUBLIC. And one MORE thing -- if you think what individual members of the public are saying is libelous in some way, you can take THEM to court and sue them. Only thing is, the onus is on YOU to prove you're NOT what they're saying. Good luck tryin'.

A large number of Israelites, though chosen by God, were overthrown in the wilderness, and their example was held forth to the church as a warning. Later on, the entire nation was destroyed and scattered.

Jesus threatened to remove the candlesticks from churches that didn't obey Him.

Despite its claims of permanency because of identifying a single statement of Jesus's with Peter and his successors, if the Catholic Church has lost its way, there is no reason to believe in its permanency or continuation, either.

Between European atheism, Pentecostalism, Islam, and lawsuits, it may already be on life support, if not already dead, despite its members' efforts to make it look as if it's alive and well.

Leon Podles' "The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity" is excellent. Absolutely essential reading for all those concerned about the direction of Western Christianity.

"Is there anyone more modernly American than Cardinal Roger Mahony and his attitudes?"

Covering up for gay pedophiles is the American way? Wha?

I favor Rod's outrage on the topic of Vatican inertia over Shea's defense of papal impotency in the face of Vatican protocol.

Rod's post at 8:26AM is great.

Shea's stance that our bishops are merely a reflection of American-on-the-whole is pretty accurate. There are a number of bishops and cardinals who have equivalently American beliefs and attitudes.
Cardinal Roger Mahony
Bishop Thomas O'Brien
Bishop Matthew Clark
Bishop Todd Brown

I myself do not subscribe to the Americanized view of Catholicism. However, a contra-American attitude is the province of a vanishingly small minority of American Catholics.

With all the commentary on this subject between Rod and Shea, I have to say I more or less sympathize with Rod more. The problem with Shea's "we get what we deserve" is that the issue is much more complex and multifaceted than the sins or apathy of Catholics in the United States. Certainly, the moral corruption in the seminaries was a big part of it, but undoubtedly an excessive clericalism accounts for much of the move arounds (as does sexual blackmail I am convinced). When one approaches all questions through the lenses of apologetics, as I think Shea does, you get overly simplistic and naive explanations for complex problems. To use an old liberal canard that I don't like very much: "pray, pay, and obey."

That said--I do have a great deal of admiration for both Benedict and John Paul. Someday, it would be interesting to engage in some sort of overview of the dynamics that went on leading up to the scandal. A few thoughts--

-Moral and sexual corruption in the clergy
-Clericalism
-The view of the church as a "family" rather than corporate structure (h/t John Allen).
-The age of the bishops (ie. Did they always appreciate what sexual abuse does to someone. Did they have a firm understanding of it?)
-John Paul's experience under communism (protectionism of clergy, the Party making homosexual allegations against clergy they disliked).
-Legal systems of the Church and other countries in earlier times.

Papal inaction has nothing to do with inertia or impotence. The papacy is a political post par excellence. No pope willingly creates a schism. If a modern pope appears heavy-handed in dealing with bishops, the hoped-for healing of the rift between East and West will not occur. Hence, since V2, the concept of "collegiality." This is not merely a manifestation of benign papal restraint; it is shrewd political foresight focused on the greater historical goal.

The corruption of today's bishops doesn't really amount to a hill of beans in the larger scheme of things.

Freddy: The phrasing of that last sentence of yours is one that deliberately evokes both guilt and shame. It is disgusting in that it deliberately denigrates and dismisses the reasoned arguments of someone who is trying to reach past your anger and outrage to show you something you may not have understood. You don't have to agree. In fact, your comments regarding Mark at the beginning of your post are fair and charitable. But to end in the manner in which you do does nothing to further your own ideas. Please reconsider that last sentence. Please give Mr. Shea the benefit of the doubt on this one thing -- that he could never believe that any innocent could "deserve" a beating -- but that a society does produce its own leaders.

Freddy, Mark and I have been around on this for years. I know what he's getting at, and to a certain extent I share the general critique. As an old friend of mine who's a Catholic priest once said to me, "Where do people think priests come from?"

But I do think the concept, as Mark deploys it, is a way of defending the indefensible. The Vatican appoints bishops. As someone says above, we do not elect bishops. If the people of the Diocese of Anytown love their bishop, or despise him, that doesn't matter: Rome chooses the bishop. I'm not arguing against that system, but if Rome asserts the right to appoint bishops, it cannot avoid the responsibility for the quality of the bishops it appoints.

How do you suppose a man gets to be a bishop? He is vetted by his colleagues in the episcopal class. Ideally it ought to work such that only priests of exceptional spiritual and moral quality, and proven effectivness in leadership, become bishops. Sometimes you get that. But for some reason or series of reasons, in this country over the past 40 years or so, bishops appear to have been selected for their unwillingness to be confrontational. Again, the (recent) book to read on this is Phil Lawler's "The Faithful Departed," which draws connections between a Sacrament Factory ethos among the US bishops, the sex-abuse scandal (which came about not because bishops wanted to see children abused, but because they concluded that the good of the company demanded turning a blind eye), and the loss of Catholic identity over the past generation.

I certainly don't think Mark believes abused children "deserve" what they got. I do think that this general line of thinking, though, goes a long way toward shifting blame away from the truly blameworthy. If everybody is guilty, then nobody is.

Think of it this way: if you discovered that senior officers in your city's police force were allowing crooked cops to carry on criminal schemes, and turning a blind eye to it, would you be tempted to say, "They shouldn't be punished or relieved of command. We get the kind of cops we deserve"? Of course not, because aside from the demands of simple justice, you would understand that to give the senior police department leadership a pass under those circumstances is to invite contempt for the law. You wouldn't stand for it at all.

How much more important, then, is it to maintain integrity in the church, which is not the guardian of public order, but the shepherd of eternal souls? You see?

A number of the comments here have dealt with the impact of "American" attitudes on the behavior of Catholic prelates in this country. It strikes me as ONE promising way of looking at this.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that one of the notions which influenced the behavior of bishops (back in the 70s and 80s) was the belief that pedophilia and pederasty were "treatable" behaviors. As a society, we NOW believe that this understanding is invalid ... but that wasn't always the case. Perhaps this now outdated notion was part of the "therapeutic" mentality in our society. The attitude was: "Yup, Father Joe has disordered behaviors, but if we send him to a treatment center for a year and get him 'fixed' and 'patched up' then we can get him back out there to do some useful work."

The point is that many bishops were operating on what a lot of the social sciences were saying back then about these "diseased" sexual behaviors. Outside of the church, it appears that a lot of judges (and even legislators in some states) are STILL operating with this mindset in terms of how they are handling child sex abuse cases (in the case of judges) and writing child sex abuse laws (in the case of state legislatures).

And, of course, on top of that we have the permissive attitude towards sexually disordered behavior in Hollywood (Hollyweird), the academy and on daytime TV (e.g., "The View," "Oprah", "Ellen," "Springer", etc.). We also have the "pornification of the culture" which Laura Ingraham and others commentators have discussed. Rod's recent post regarding the weird photo shoot for Vanity Fair involving Billy Ray Cyrus' daughter (Hannah Montana?) is a symptom of this.

BTW, about six months ago the Associated Press published a series of stories on child sex abuse in PUBLIC SCHOOLS. It didn't get much play, but it was clear from the AP investigation that the level of abuse was just as high as was the case in the Catholic schools. Of course, the law prevents punitive lawsuits against PUBLIC school districts and PUBLIC school superintendents (unlike the case with Catholic institutions), so there are no targets of opportunity for profit here by trial lawyers. And, of course, the NEA and their allies in the political world are more interested in preserving the ossified and sclerotic institution of public education than they are in actually helping kids ... but that's a whole 'nother topic, isn't it?

We are not going to solve this problem just by attacking the Church. That may provide perverse delight for some ... but it doesn't treat the broader problem in society. That, too, was part of the Holy Father's comments in his speech to the Bishops in Washington on April 17.

Roland:

They are neither facile nor generalizations.

If the Vatican is "hoping for" this, then they are deluding themselves. Which would suggest that they are thus possibly deluding themselves about the topic of this thread.

I have no vested interest in this, either, just stating some facts.

"And it's all a big gay problem, too, right?"

There is definitely a homosexual element to it. After all it wasn't, in the main, girls that were being abused but boys. And the boys tended to be adolescents, not "little" boys. The correct term is actually ephebophilia, not pedophilia. But we've been through this before.

This, of course, is not to say that all homosexual men are ephebophiles, only that male homosexuality does carry a certain amount of that along with it.

Nina,

Let's do without the "ad hominem" attack and your characterization of my comment as "whiny" or "incredibly stupid" or "nitwit." This is not The Daily Kos, OK?

I was not defendeng the belief that these disordered sexual behaviors are "treatable." Just suggesting that this belief was until recently prevalent and acceptable by social scientists. Sadly, many judges and state legislators are still influenced by this erroneous thinking. To its credit, no one in the Church in America buys that.

As for the the transfer of serial abusers, is there any evidence that this occurred if more than a few cases? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think so.

Yes, of course, this problem was linked to homosexuality and the tragic embrace of this disordered sexual tendency by the culture. The overwhelming majority of the victims were male. 100% of the perpetrators were, by definition, male. Nina, just do the math.

If attacking the Church will alleviate whatever "issues" you have with the world, that's one thing. But attacking the Church will not allevaite the broader problem in the society (and specifically the filth in the public schools, Hollywood, the universities, daytime TV, the internet, etc., etc., etc.).

Nina,

In fairness to you, one aspect of your reply of 12:07 PM I found quite interesting: "If anything, this hyper-sexualized, free-to-be-me society is the biggest protection the Catholic Church has against predators making their way into the priesthood [in the future]. Heck, why put up with cold, drafty digs, lousy food and those annoying parishioners when you can be ...."

Nina, there's much to value in your ironic comment. I appreciate that you and many other commenters (and Rod) are asking the Church to live up to the truth of Christ. Absolutely! We can not be a credible witness otherwise. It was Nietzsche who wrote (I believe): "if Christians want me to believe in their Redeemer, then they need to look more redeemed."

Your comment also reminds us that the "uncorking" of society during the past 50+ years will only exacerbate the problems of pedophilia/pederasty and other ills in the broader society. All the more reason, I agree, to insist on reform of the Church in order to sanctify it (and thus make it stronger) as preparation for the cultural battles ahead of us.

Rod, you said:

"Think of it this way: if you discovered that senior officers in your city's police force were allowing crooked cops to carry on criminal schemes, and turning a blind eye to it, would you be tempted to say, "They shouldn't be punished or relieved of command. We get the kind of cops we deserve"? Of course not, because aside from the demands of simple justice, you would understand that to give the senior police department leadership a pass under those circumstances is to invite contempt for the law. You wouldn't stand for it at all."

But what if the "senior officials" were protected by flunkies from realizing the full extent of the problem?

But what if the "senior officials" told me they'd turned the problem over to Internal Affairs, who were dealing with it?

But what if the "senior officials" knew that some of the "crooked cops" would immediately commit suicide if they lost their jobs?

Look, I've never said that our bishops were poor misunderstood saintly men doing the best they could under difficult times. As I understand it, NOBODY is saying that. But the reality is that Rome has historically allowed her bishops a certain autonomy, and it's hard to excite the juggernaut of a 2000 year old political animal. Whether it's necessary or not has yet to be decided. You've given the Pope his due for beginning to reach beyond the borders of Roman politics. Is it time to wait and see, or is it time to push harder for more action? I don't know. I'll just keep praying.

BTW, I found your analogy above interesting, especially in light of the fact that it's even possible that the reason there are no American bishops facing prison time is a certain "Good Ol' Boy network" among city leaders, bishops & cops.

Finally, I still find your last sentence passes the bounds of charity in this discussion. Sorry.

God bless.

As I've said before, I'm on Mark's side on this.

In the comments, Rod writes the following: "Think of it this way: if you discovered that senior officers in your city's police force were allowing crooked cops to carry on criminal schemes, and turning a blind eye to it, would you be tempted to say, "They shouldn't be punished or relieved of command. We get the kind of cops we deserve"? Of course not, because aside from the demands of simple justice, you would understand that to give the senior police department leadership a pass under those circumstances is to invite contempt for the law. You wouldn't stand for it at all...How much more important, then, is it to maintain integrity in the church, which is not the guardian of public order, but the shepherd of eternal souls? You see?"

Here's the crux of the misunderstanding, as I see it. Rod seems to be equating a lack of mob rule, of institutionalized outrage (for lack of a better word) with complaisance or even acquiescence in the malfeasance of bishops, as if the failure of the hypothetical citizens in the "crooked cop" example above to write lots of angry letters to the D.A., various judges, and the media meant that the whole city was fine not only with the crooked cops, but, presumably, the crooked Chief of Police (bishop?) as well, who while taking no part in the crimes himself combined an overly insulated management style with a willingness to treat cop-offenders lightly and to place a much heavier burden of proof on their accusers than was warranted, given the pattern of crookedness that had already turned up.

The problem is that just because the average citizen isn't marching in protest around police headquarters demanding the instant removal of the Chief, or just because the daily newspaper isn't being flooded with eloquent demands for the city to clean things up, doesn't at all mean that the people aren't angry and working behind the scenes for change. And just because the D.A. says, regretfully, that he doesn't have enough evidence to charge the Chief with a crime, though he's successfully prosecuted and removed all the crooked cops, it doesn't mean that the D.A. doesn't "care" about the people of our fictional city, or that various people aren't sitting in all-night meetings to discuss their options (wait for the Chief to retire? try to pressure him to resign? Fire him, and have him sue the city for unjust termination? etc.).

Of course, the analogy does break down--it's a lot simpler to remove a Chief of Police who may have been a stupid tool of the corrupt as opposed to actually being corrupt himself than it is to remove a bishop who is similarly circumstanced. But we have to reflect on the notion, I think, that just because our fictional D.A. doesn't do every single thing the citizens demand, in the order and to the degree they demand it, DOES NOT MEAN that the D.A. doesn't care, is comfortable with corruption, is more interested in preserving the status quo of the city's police institution than protecting the innocent, etc. ad infinitum. It could mean those things, of course, though it's an act of rash judgment to jump immediately to that conclusion in the absence of further information. But what it could also mean is that the D.A. is a slow, cautious person who is privy to much more information about the likely ramifications of the wholesale clean sweeping of the city's police precincts than Mr. Average Citizen is, and that in reality since Mr. Citizen has already decided that a) he's right about the corruption, b) the D.A. couldn't possibly have any good motives NOT to take each and every specific action against each and every specific person involved in the mess that Mr. Citizen wants him to take, thus proving either the D.A.'s sad incapacity or his sinister involvement, and c) that the police, and law enforcement generally, are so institutionally corrupt anyway that it would be better to have no law enforcement at all, just small groups of people like Mr. Citizen running everything, then there's little point in the D.A. paying much attention to Mr. Citizen at all.

In a sense, this is what the critics of the last two popes are saying. They've already decided that "the bishops" as a body are as guilty or more guilty than the pedophile priests; having appointed themselves judge and jury they now demand that the pope act like the Lord High Executioner to carry out the sentence which they've decided is the only right and proper way to act; when the pope fails to do any such thing it can *only* be evidence that His Holiness is acting in bad faith, being complicit in the corruption, or otherwise deserving the scorn of those who know beyond any shadow of doubt that the pope could do much more than he's doing and chooses not to.

But to decide all of this is to forget quite a few things about the Church, and about how the pope sees himself in relation to the bishops--points Mark has made repeatedly, and with a much greater grasp of the subject than I will ever have myself. In my limited understanding I would say that there's a big difference between the pope acting like a monarch and the pope acting like the first among equals, and that the direction the Church's hierarchy has been taking for some time now (think centuries) favors the latter.

This is not to say that the pope will do nothing, or even that he has done nothing. But it is to be realistic about the fact that the pope is unlikely to come storming in to various American dioceses Vader-like and start throttling the American bishops, however emotionally satisfying such an action would be for us (or even, dare one suspect, for him).

Ya know, there are those who are so deluded to the shenanigans that went on the RCC, and willing to go to any length to defend it, that if they caught Fr. Murphy with his hands plunged into the open fly of Little Johnnie's pants, they'd swear that Fr. Murphy was only helping the kid look for his milk money.

Nina,

Thanks for the clarifications. As they say here in the Big Apple, "it works for me."

I like your commonsense approach. Congratulations on having "raised a bunch of kids to adulthood" and, presumably, maintaining your sanity in the process :-) A Major Accomplishment in this whackadoodle world we inhabit.

Agree with your sad conclusion that we have lost credibility (in our own eyes, at least -- never mind the eyes of the world!). A leaner, holier Church will be far more valuable to the world (and in the coming cultural battles) than a fat, corrupt one. The loss of the Papal States in 1870, for example, turned out to be an extraordinary blessing because it allowed the Papacy to focus on moral leadership (and not be burdened by having to worry about things like municipal government that are beyond its competence).

Yes, the attacks by the media and the religious bigots have indeed been unfair -- as many have rightly commented here. Nevertheless, these attacks are a reminder that we simply have to always try to be better, smarter AND HOLIER ... in everything we do. Prayer, hard work and cooperation with the Holy Spirit (including an openness to sincere penitence for past offenses, as you mentioned) -- these are the keys to success.

Yours in Christ,
"Reaganite in NYC"

Yuck !!!!!

Just when I'm starting to feel good about the quality of the conversation that's been going on here, we get:
-- "RJohnson" who compares the RCC with the TUCC under the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. (which is like comparing the original Mona Lisa painting with a tenth generation black-and-white xerox copy of an illustration of that painting in a faded pre-WWII art history textbook.); and,
-- "Maplewood" who entertains us with an analogy that more properly belongs on the weblog of some x-rated men's magazine. Shame on you!!!

Sorry for being uncharitable ... but I'm on a one-day fast and I get a little ornery with the inexcusable when that happens. Something to add to my list of sins to report for this coming Saturday afternoon I suppose :-)

Speaking of the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. ... during the Holy Father's recent journey to the US, he twice uttered the phrase, "God Bless America." The first time was on the South Lawn at the White House. The second time was at the deparure ceremony at JFK Airport. Each time Pope Benedict XVI said "God Bless America" I couldn't help but recall Wright's notorious and contrary reworking of that noble and prayerful request. I wonder how many other voters were similarly affected in this way.

Meh. (Sorry for taking your name in vain, "meh," but it's a useful expression.) The institutional Church does not care. They don't care. They won't do anything. Except push the blame off on the laity, who are powerless to act in this matter, or to get themselves better bishops, or to be heard in any way.

I would not even have bothered to post again on this topic, but we just got a fat little envelope in the mail from the RC parish we formerly attended, with our "stewardship packet" in it--i.e. fundraising for this year. We haven't attended Mass in two years now. The old pastor has retired and a new one has come. No one has seen hide nor hair of us in two years. No one has called to inquire about that, or to invite us to any gatherings. People with whom we thought we were friendly in the parish have not called. However, the weekly offering envelopes and the demands for financial pledges keep coming. Even though we never send them back.

Meanwhile, at the tiny Lutheran church Mr. Sig attends now, if they don't see him for a couple of weeks, the pastor will call to see if he's okay. Even though he hasn't officially joined up.

Catholic church . . . meh . . . .

The bishops are free to not give a rat's rear end, and to suffer no consequences. Rome will not hold them accountable. Nor will their brother bishops. And laypeople have no mechanism for doing so.

There is one possible mechanism that laypeople have for registering their disapproval, if they choose to use it: withholding contributions. Of course, the problem with that is that it would be likely to affect the local parish more than the diocese, which would probably insist on getting its "cut" even if that would impoverish the local parish. I'm not sure there is any way of giving money earmarked for the local parish in a way that would legally prevent the diocese from getting its hands on it.

Joseph D'Hippolito :

First, I am not Mark Shea. I'm a tired, cranky, midwestern housewife getting ready to take her passel o'kids to the Extraordinary Form Mass this eve. for Ascension Thursday. The fact that you've confused my ham-handed explanation with his far more elegant and trenchant style is flattering, but leads me to believe that you might need to make an appointment with your optometrist.

Second; sauce, goose, gander. The so-called "sexual revolution" and it's corollary, the "psychological salvation of society" have permeated to the far corners of the galaxy. It's no wonder that some bishop on Mars is faced with his own personal hellish version of the Scandal. I don't get your "ha-ha, gotcha" moment there. The only thing your stats prove is that sin spreads faster than virtue. Big surprise.

For many of us Catholics, the fact that the Church is still around after over 2000 years, her sacraments and teachings intact, from which still so many saints arise -- in spite of being led by a bunch of bumbling self absorped fishermen (read the gospels & Acts sometime) is more compelling than your dark and sinister doomsday club you seem to see squatting in the Vatican.

Anyway, God bless you. I'm out of time here!

"There is definitely a homosexual element to it. After all it wasn't, in the main, girls that were being abused but boys."

Um, that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that, 'in the main', little girls aren't allowed to help out in the Church the way little boys are. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if girls were to be found in equal numbers (say, as altar girls) then there'd ahve been just as many girls molested as boys.

The very culture and heirarchy of the RCC places males in close proximity mainly to other males. And, it has insisted that policy forbid even reporting the molestations to police, let alone to higher-ups within the Church.

Seems to me that what the Church needs to deal with THIS problem which is one of ecclesiology is theologians whom we, the laity, employ through our various forms of contribution to be the cutting edge of thinking, not the apologists who bring up the rear end defending the status quo. A discussion of the proper roles of the theologians versus the apologists and how the work of the latter can sabotage the work of the former to the detriment of the whole Church might be in order.

"We did/do not see or hear about this every week in Church, unlike the event of Rev Wright. Believe it or not this sex abuse thing is hardly a subject at all, largely invisible in everyday Church and parish life. Church life is not "Fellini Satyricon" by a country mile."

Speak for yourself.

The priests that :

1. baptized two of my three children
2. conducted the funeral mass for my spouse
3. performed my second wedding year later
4. heard my sons' First Reconcilation
5. administered my sons' First Communion
6. served as pricipals of the catholich high schools my sons attended

have all been removed from ministry for "transgressing the boundaries of a youth."

Maybe I could say I just have bad luck--but there are about 10,000 victims of clergy sex abuse outthere whose luck was a lot worse than mine.

Why, for example, is Cardinal Mahony still Archbishop of LA? Because he has the support of the vast majority of LA Catholics. Why was there zero chance that McCarrick might be removed? Because people--including people in the secular media, BTW--liked the very liberal archbishop. Note, however, that, as soon as McCarrick was required by Church law to submit his resignation, it was accepted by the Pope. It's kind of hard to have McCarrick removed from office now, given that he retired in 2006.

Um, that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that, 'in the main', little girls aren't allowed to help out in the Church the way little boys are. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if girls were to be found in equal numbers (say, as altar girls) then there'd ahve been just as many girls molested as boys.

Oh pooh! Young girls went to the confessionals just as often...probably more so than boys. And young pre-teen and teen girls at all girls schools were also taught by priests who were in their schools daily. And we used to witness young girls flirting and practically, naively, throwing themselves at "Father". There was ample opportunity there. A miracle that more didn't happen. And for decades now little girls probably outnumber little boys as altar servers. And that's too bad!

"In fact, it is hard to explain why bishops almost always followed the same policy of transferring rather than punishing abusive priests unless they had been so instructed by the Vatican...."

This may sound flippant, but I genuinely believe it to be a likelier explanation than what Podles implies: Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.

A number of facts should be born in mind when evaluating the crisis:

1) The pope is one man who cannot reasonably be expected to personally oversee and approve every decision made by every bishop throughout the world, much less so decisions the bishops themselves are keeping as quiet as possible for both good and bad reasons. The layers of administrative delay and bureaucracy between even an Archbishop and the Pope are not insignificant, and the entire reason bishops are appointed in the first place is so that the Pope can rely upon their individual judgement without having to micromanage them. With this level of bureaucratic separation and dissociation on matters that were most likely under the seal of confessional in many, many instances, you do not need assumptions of malice or venality on the part of a Pope to explain how long it took the true scope of the crisis to become clear.

2) An accusation of abuse is not proof of abuse. Among the many guilty men were no doubt at least a few innocent ones - but sexual abuse, like rape, is a crime the mere public accusation of which can destroy even a normal layman regardless of his legally determined innocence, and which can make a priest in particular utterly incapable of performing his ministerial function. Episcopal reluctance to destroy the vocation of a possibly-innocent priest is understandable - and from an institution whose entire philosophy is founded on the idea of forgiveness and second chances, demanding a "zero-tolerance" policy can be harder and more counterproductive than it might appear at first glance.

3) The psychiatric afflictions that drove these men to abuse were still not understood well in the 1970s or 80s by even qualified professionals, and were not likely to be understood at all as irremediable illnesses by bishops not trained in psychiatry (nor, for that matter, was the true scope of the mental damage caused by such abuse). The possibility that the abuses represented individual failures unique to a particular other person or situation - as "normal" breaches of celibacy with adult women often were on the part of other priests - can very easily lead desperate, frightened men to hope that if the sinning priest could simply be moved away from the occasion of his sin he would not need to repeat it. And like all stopgap solutions, this measure proved very easy to repeat when it was revealed as inadequate - the urge to postpone a problem in the hope it will go away on its own is hardly something unique to bishops.

I would suggest that the proper word for this kind of speculation is not so much a "rationalization" of papal inaction and episcopal error as simply an explanation for it, an explanation founded not on a single consistent selfishness or conscious institutional callousness but on an accumulation of independent and separate errors and misunderstandings compounded by the fear of backlash from a public who *would* assume precisely that institutional callousness (and which would have that assumption helped along gleefully not just by the victims deprived of justice but by a hostile media and secular movement glad of any excuse to rob the Church of influence and respect).

The end result is still a horrific evil that the Church must purge from its own bosom and for which the Church does bear responsibility - but there *is* a difference between an evil that is the product of a single great sin and an evil that is the product of a thousand smaller ones, if in nothing else in how that evil can be properly diagnosed and prevented from ever happening again. We must never excuse it, but we must attempt to understand how it happened without giving in to the temptation for easy scapegoats.

I am one who is not particularly interested is seeing bishops pilloried, although I would be happy to see Roger Mahoney out of action before his 75th birthday.

So what about reforms that everyone screams about? Perhaps it is the quiet, not noticed things that are happening that are the mustard seeds. Take the diaconate; during the Eucharists by Pope Benedict in Washington there were no Eucharistic ministers as I could see. So many people complain that the distribution was done by priests. This is not the case; these men are deacons. When wearing vestments they may LOOK LIKE PRIESTS but they are not.

My parish has a deacon who is almost full time and he is well liked.
You hear very little about Catholic deacons from the media, and this fact is probably a sign that something very good is going on.

God Bless to All

Oh pooh! Young girls went to the confessionals just as often...probably more so than boys. And young pre-teen and teen girls at all girls schools were also taught by priests who were in their schools daily. And we used to witness young girls flirting and practically, naively, throwing themselves at "Father". There was ample opportunity there. A miracle that more didn't happen. And for decades now little girls probably outnumber little boys as altar servers. And that's too bad!

CK, you surely must have posted this thoughtlessly, and so failed to notice just how bad it sounds. When you talk of girls "throwing themselves" at someone, the clear implication is that they were offering themselves for sex. Did you really mean to imply that young girls showing the friendly and eager to please demeanor they've been taught to exercise toward authority figures were indicating that they would welcome sexual activity? You describe the fact that priests didn't molest more girls as "a miracle." Really? It takes a miracle for a priest to resist the "opportunity" to rape a little girl? I would have considered that common decency. I would have expected that the idea of molesting a child of either sex would never even enter a good man's mind as a temptation to be resisted.

There are many terrible stories of young girls' lives ruined by priests, as well as the boys. The language you used here has an ugly sound as it appears to blame the victims.

CK, you surely must have posted this thoughtlessly, and so failed to notice just how bad it sounds.

Well, hurrummph!

When you talk of girls "throwing themselves" at someone, the clear implication is that they were offering themselves for sex.

Now, now, I said "naively". Don't skip words for your own convenient reactions of horror. Back in those days sheltered girls didn't realize always just how their suggestive open gestures of invitation could invite certain reactions. By today's standards, only the age of the so called "come ons" can save individuals from actually being accused of consenting. And...with the treeemendous number of priests who have left their vocations, there certainly were a lot of those early invites that went on to full bloom. If you didn't witness such during the turbulent years you were probably not seeing with eyes open...sound familiar? And there definitely were cases where priests clandestinely "carried on" once the teen became of age with permission...not "rape" as the extreme you place your own words for mine. There certainly were loads of lots of forms of "touching" in the complaints of the situation so you can bring your tone down now. Next time take a breath and consider that with flirtations on the gay side of things made someone almost a certain target. Yet, not so, apparently on girls. And, in Latin American cultures, esp. with the very poor, I know of missionaries who say yes, teens would practically offer themselves because "Father" was the only help around and the culture was of such. The men drink away their earnings, beat the wives or daughters, get them pregnant, force them to have abortions, all the while with several "others" on the side.

Did you really mean to imply that young girls showing the friendly and eager to please demeanor they've been taught to exercise toward authority figures were indicating that they would welcome sexual activity?

Please, teens asking Father for special help in "holiness", or one on one instruction, with the same needs that little boys with troubles at home have, somehow didn't result in the same statistics and THAT was the original question - why there weren't the same number of young girls abused IF it wasn't a question of primarily homosexual aggressive intentions...all things being equal.

It takes a miracle for a priest to resist the "opportunity" to rape a little girl?

No, once again, to bring you back from hysteria, the question was comparing the incidences given the same opportunities for both sexes, and with those same openings, IF the priests had been similarly corrupt, the stats should have been different, and if these had been just as corrupt toward "needy" young girls only a miracle would have kept the same from happening. Remember, I was responding to someone who believed that there just wasn't the same opportunity for the abuse of young girls when there certainly was.

May I take my cue from Sigaliris and repost my thread comments from "Catholic and Enjoying it" (which I am and do) under Mark's partner post on this topic

"BenYachov:"My suggestion. Catholics stop posting on his blog. Ignore him & pray for him. Arguing with him will do nothing he doesn't WANT to listen."

May I respectfully decline your abundant wisdom.. I enjoy posting over there because I sense a sober inquisitiveness that some inebriated 'triumphalists' sorely lack this side of the Tiber.

Temperance surely is a question of personal taste right, do you men favor juvenile Mary-Poppins-esque spoonful'o'sugar "There is a Balm in Gilead" remediation that can end in the hectoring nagging in the voice of a exasperated spinsterish School Principle; or a more adult, masculine examination of the facts on the ground?

Eight years after the GOP was elected on a pro-life platform with the help of snake oil salesmen Santorum (declining to assist his fellow Penna Catholic Tuohy against his fellow Philly snakeoil salesman Spectre) we have the travesty of Guiliani prancing proudly up the aisle broadcast on TV cameras "The World Over Live" to desecrate our Lord and humiliate the Popes very own envoy AB Sambi?

Which one of you failed to tell Mr. Guiliani of the error of his ways?

Over the Delaware from my home turf, even before he horrified his family and friends with his scurrilous treatment of his wife, the RC Bishop publically excoriated McGreevy for voting for state funding of embryo research, such that I found myself defending the Bishop's stance at my husbands Mennonite Church (they of Amish ancestors, great fans themselves of "shunning" the unrepentant scandalers)...

Clare Krishan | 05.02.08 - 8:28 pm |

>Which one ...?

I reply: Guiliani used to respectfully decline to go to communion. He decided to go against that & miracle of miracles for one brief shining moment Cardinal Egan transformed into the second coming of Cardinal Cook. Cool!

>...the RC Bishop publically excoriated...

I reply: Sounds like your bishop is a good guy. Hey if he doesn't kick ya off then my dear give Dreher heck!

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 05.03.08 - 2:15 am |

No he wasn't my Bishop (we've got a cardinal, here in Philly, a holy man Rigali) he's Camden's bishop. My point is he was outspoken enough for it to be carried 24-7 on thenews media in the tri-state area such that all Catholics had to know it and take a stand on it -- for the bishop or for McGreevey?

Yooze guys neuter the debate ... mommy says "stop teasing your wee brother..."

well this is my last vent on the matter for now. I'll post this quotation from today's news for you to stew over -

"Misplaced loyalty, fear or self-deception allow all kinds of women – from battered wives to partners of paedophiles – to suspend disbelief. In effect, not to question."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/1922110/Austria-The-horror-of-being-Frau-Fritzl.html

Is Mater Ecclesia a Mrs-Fritzl-esque partner of paedepophiles? Then Rod Dreher is justified in asking her some tough questions...

Or is she just Jesus's battered wife? Then y'all here are more on the mark... and we should just shut up to make sure Daddy doesn't beat her some more...

Sorry for the very warped metaphor, but as I posted to Amy last week:
_____"God made me for Himself, and
_____ He made all other things to get me to Him “" amywelborn.wordpress.com/...s/#comment- 5432

"all other things" then includes a certain complicity in parental negligence that may be parsed to get a clearer understanding of the awesome responsibility of the clerical state... pray for the men whose "burden is light" if they carry it with Christ, whose "burden is beastly" if the rely on their own light to guide themselves...

Clare Krishan | 05.03.08 - 6:51 am |

excerpted from

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/chezami/5040230527114373606/?a=45320#924948

Jesu ufam tobie!

For many of us Catholics, the fact that the Church is still around after over 2000 years, her sacraments and teachings intact, from which still so many saints arise -- in spite of being led by a bunch of bumbling self absorped fishermen (read the gospels & Acts sometime) is more compelling than your dark and sinister doomsday club you seem to see squatting in the Vatican.

Mark Shea: "(Dreher) mistakenly claims I say we have the shepherds we deserve. More precisely, I'd say we have the shepherds we want."

Considering that the laity and lower clergy have little (if any) imput as to the selection of bishops, I would love to see Mark try to support this lie -- and it is a lie, people. Anybody who has had the "pleasure" of dealing with Mark knows that he will contort himself like a rubber gymnast to justify his positions.

Unfortunately, Catholics like Mark (and freddy and Kathleen and too many others to name) are in heavy denial when it comes to the moral failures of the episcopocracy. They have so wedded themselves to the ecclesiastical institution, instead of to the Triune God, that they effectively confuse one for the other.

But when, instead, they are given protection or real help by those "Father" figures in most cases, it proves my point about the real reason for the statistics when those opportunities were there for all.

The intended meaning of this sentence, if any, is impenetrable to me. You will have to learn to write comprehensible English before getting an appropriate response.

However, I do understand your continued linking to tales of young girls who, in your fantasy world, eagerly offer themselves for exploitation, rather than being prostituted and victimized by the loathsome men you cite as examples. You spend way too much time thinking about this. Perhaps you should turn your thoughts, instead, to understanding that a Church that cannot offer "protection or real help" to its most vulnerable members is not worthy of the name of Jesus.

CK--hmm, I think you used the word "hysterical" in 3 out of 3 posts. I think that means . . . you lose. ; ) Have a nice day.

You know, whenever I hear people being "armchair popes", I always remember that Jesus Himself chose Judas as one of his original bishops.