What's next on McCarrick?

Wow. What a one-two punch day for RCC news.

If B16 is considering wacking Lugo canonically, then B16 has not been out to lunch regarding the conduct of his bishops worldwide, and is not loathe to move against them.

So, why the kid gloves with the complicit bishops in the USA regarding the pedo-thingee? Because it is less visible than Lugo? How could it be "less visible"? Because it is "more understandable"? How could hiding child molesters be "more understandable" than running for a civic job?

This whole schtick about B16 and his "great shame" about the pedo-thing just failed the smell test.

Rod:

A fellow Louisianan here, who posts sometimes, and most recently I perhaps questioned the need to rehash the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church here. I posted formerly under St. Domenic and was the one who raised the question of why is it the Catholic Church is always the one getting covered, well, I guess because it is the Catholic Church with over 1 Billion members and an office such as the Bishop of Rome (Pope) gives it an important moral force and voice for all Christendom, which I think you correctly pointed out even if 1 is not Catholic.

So, I guess I have to thankyou for keeping this on the agenda as perhaps shining the "ligh of Christ on this moral evil" is what it will take to totally clean this up. With respect to Pope Benedict using canon law to defrock a Bishop, and some Catholic writers implying that if Rome pushes to hard, a major schism could entail, perhaps should go back and read St. Augustine, who is the theological force behind Pope Benedict (e.g., his first Graduate Thesis used St. Augustine's ecclesiology).

The argument by some Catholics that defrocking a Bishop and potentially causing a schism if those defrocked Bishops go on and ordain men to the priesthood with the approval of Rome rests in the Thomistic formulation of if the ordainations followed the proper form it would be valid, but illicit, according to Thomistic theology. While I was educated by Domenicans and thus was formed by Thomistic thought, and Augustinian might say that an ordination done by a schimsmatic Bishop may in fact be "invalid". The reason, from what I can gather, is something called "The Bound Powers Theory", which states that any attempt to exercise the powers given to a Bishop extra ecclesia, outside the manifest authority of the Church, would be invalid. According to the Eastern Catholic Priest (Eastern in Communion with Rome) bloger named Priestly Puglist, this theory was used in the Eastern Church during the middle ages before St. Thomas Aquinas and its roots are found with St. Augustine.

Thus, since by all accounts Pope Benedict is grounded in the theology of St. Augustine, it appears that Pope Benedict's reintroduction of St. Augustine to the Catholic Church will serve him well in cases where he may decide to defrock a Bishop. I note for example, that Abp Milingo's ordinations were ruled "invalid", which is what caused the "Priestly Puglist" to write about this quetion of "Bound Powers" and how it can be used to handle cases when a Bishop gets defrocked and goes on and decides he is going to form a schismatic Church apart from Rome.

In summary, if there is a move to have Cardinal McCarrick defrocked, assuming the allegations prove true, don't be surprised if you see this "Bound Powers Theory" used by Pope Benedict to state that if a Bishop gets defrocked and goes into schism, any ordinations done by a schismatic Bishop would "not be valid".

Sorry about the long post but I can forsee lots of questions about the implications of such as move by Pope Benedict.

God Bless, regards, and I enjoyed your review of your trip back home to Baton Rouge last week.

As a former RC'er who swam the Thames and joined the Episcopal church: we have a way to remove a bishop for malfeasance, and we DO it!

(...and ref. the tired whine about anyone who disagrees with the RCC being an anti-Catholic bigot...the victimology schtick is getting old...please drop it, CT...no one buys it anymore...)

"...to the effect that bishops exist in some special mystical state that the Pope shouldn't threaten by merely removing them from office when they've failed spectacularly as shepherds?"

All due respect, of course, Rod, but I don't think that's what Mark is arguing.

Bear in mind that Bp. Lugo, deciding to run for public office, asked the Vatican to accept his resignation back in 2005--which resignation was accepted without comment. Lugo then attempted last year to resign from the priesthood, which he had to do in order for his presidential candidacy to be legal by his country's laws; Pope Benedict XVI initially rejected that resignation, and from what I understood urged Lugo to reconsider such a rash action.

As of this past Sunday, though, Lugo has won the election in Paraguay and is the president-elect. Since Church law absolutely forbids an ordained priest to hold such an office, the Church no longer has any options but to proceed with laicization, an action, it must be born in mind, which Lugo himself wants and has already requested!

How is this the exact same thing as the Pope swooping in to remove bad shepherds? Lugo's own actions over the course of more than a decade, and his own desires which have been made public, are triggering this extremely uncommon event.

In the case of McCarrick, again, should the Holy Father move to investigate it will be because specific crimes (in the ecclesiastical sense, of course, since no civil authority would consider the actions in question criminal) about which the evidence and testimony of people either involved in or witnesses to those crimes are made available to the Holy See. I have always said, and continue to say, that in any case where such evidence is possible to produce there should be an investigation and appropriate canonical penalties up to and including not only the defrocking of those guilty but also excommunication; however, there must be evidence.

The bishops do not exist in some special mystical state. But they do exist as human beings and as Catholics whose rights under Church law ought not to include the notion that they can be removed from their office on suspicion of wrongdoing, no matter how grounded or weighty that suspicion is.

Erin, it would of course be wrong to remove a bishop only on suspicion of wrongdoing. But is there not one bishop whose actions in the scandal -- Mahony is the one who comes easiest to mind -- merit the attention of the Holy See, such that he is placed under some kind of investigation? Whose job is it to police the bishops? Not mine. Not yours. In Mahony's case, and in others, the malfeasance has been public for some time. Is it really the case that a bishop has to have had the intent to cause harm to merit his reassignment?

Mark often says that it's "our" fault for not punishing these bishops for wrongdoing, and expecting Rome to do so. In some cases, the statute of limitations expired on criminal law. But in most cases, I'd say, it's pretty sad to think that nothing a bishop does in office short of violating the criminal code can get him reassigned to Partenia by the Holy Father.

Look, it's not my church anymore, but as I've said, for the West, where I live, having a strong, spiritually robust Catholic Church is absolutely vital. To paraphrase Belloc, the West is the faith, the faith is the West. And that faith is, at its root, Roman Catholic. I think Rome's failure to move against a single bishop for malfeasance in office in the scandal does not strengthen the Church, but weakens it. Reassign one to Partenia, teach a hundred.

Aaron, who said it was Pope Benedict's job to clean up Las Vegas?

Oh, wait...never mind. :)

I don't care whether a guilty bishop can be un-bishopped or not. There are other disciplinary measures, like those used with Fr. Maciel. If Pope Benedict investigates and finds that a bishop has disgraced his office, let the pope say so publicly and "invite" the bishop to live out his life in prayer and penance. If that bishop refuses to retire at that point (if not already retired), the pope can publish the evidence so that brother bishops and diocesan clergy and laity can play their proper roles.

In my opinion, Erin Manning proposes too high a standard, requiring that the failing must be deliberate, malevolent, and the result of provable intentions, with an airtight chain of causal connections. What about culpable negligence, or obstinate denial of crimes, or obstinate failure to learn from mistakes, or repeated false assurances to victims' families, or failure to follow the civil law in regard to reporting abuse? What about facilitating illegal flight of accused persons? Are these not sufficient for a considered moral (not legal or canonical) judgment to be made, and disciplinary action taken by the one individual who has the authority and responsibility to do so? Since the bishops have either abandoned their role of fraternal correction, or have failed to have any meaningful effect, the pope is the only one left who can take action.

"Hey, how about this: it turns out that the (troubled, conflicted, irresolute, usually dithering) Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America, my own communion, has just effectively removed the screwball Bishop of Alaska,..."

They effectively removed him? OR weighing all the options he opted not to fight and realized the resources were not there for a legal battle? For a time the questions was did the "Screwball bishop" have the wherewithall to hold his ground and/or pull out of the OCA and keep his people with him...

"To consider validity as a self-contained principle leads to a magical understanding of the Church and to a dangerous distortion of ecclesiology."

Personally I think that ship has already sailed with the total embrace of autocephalous polyarchy and the current realities of ethno-nations states in the Greco-Slavic world feeling a compelling need to have their own self ruling churches. The process for ataining self-rule has been straightfoward enough in more recent cases - declare it! And then wait for everyone who says you are uncanonical to come around and later accept the act as legitimate insasmuch as the self-ruling status is then recognized, all are in communion, and things tidily move on.

When the day comes for the Macedonian Orthodox to be recognized (and yes, that day will come!) It will simply happen and all these decades of canonical isolation will be wiped away like the thin layer of dust on my PC's monitor and their will be acceptance that outside of the communion of Greco-Slavic national churches (and now inside) the Macedonians possessed validity.

Erin,

I think a superabundance of proof against any number of U.S. bishops is readily available at bishopaccountability.org. Your persistence in warning against witch hunts and innuendo begins to seem like a straw man, in the face of ample evidence of the incompetence and unambiguous, glaring, scandalous moral failures of particular bishops. Also, I love you and appreciate your balanced approach.

After submitting my earlier comment, I started fantasizing about the investigative panel I would nominate to Pope Benedict. No bishops need apply. It would report directly to the pope. Cardinal Levada would be briefed on the findings after they were presented to the pope. Fr. Joseph Wilson would be the convener and report author. Dr. Ed Peters would be the advisor on canon law. A survivor and a survivor's mother. Richard Sipe. Author Jason Berry. Anne Burke, former head of the U.S. National Lay Review Board. Lee Podles. Sylvia Demarest of BishopAccountability.org and two of their staffers. Phil Lawler, author of "The Faithful Departed." Diogenes. Get this group together in a room with wi-fi, a variety of takeout menus, and plenty of printer paper and highlighters. Give them one month for research. Have them start every day with Holy Mass, pray the rosary at noon, and end the day with sacramental confession to address sins of excessive anger. Give another month for writing and revisions. Have Erin read it to cull out any innuendo. Spend half a day presenting the material to the pope. Have him send for any diocesan records they were unable to obtain. Then publish the report. Let the chips fall where they may.

Well Maplewood, I don't see the Episcopal Church doing much of anything except moving towards Unitarianism, which is ultimately much more dangerous than anything going on in Rome, and running off orthodox Anglican Christians who believe in the historic Creeds of the Church. With that, to argue that Anti-Catholicism does not only occur, it is actually the one group the secular left can publicy attack without any consequences. Bernie Goldberg, who is a Jewish-Liberal himself, point blank stated as much when refering to the Bill Maher comments about the Pope being a Nazi.

And as for you being a former Catholic, I can respect that, and quite frankly, I would love to trade all the Catholics Like Richard McBrien and the entire National Catholic Reporter staff (save John Allen) for all the faithful Anglican Christians who are being run out of their Church. But, I am not in position to do so, and in God's providence, that is not my job. However, despite the sinful behavior of certain priests and Bishops here in the U.S., I will never let the sins of some of the Catholic Church's members (for I can look in the mirror and see a sinful person), no matter how grave those sins are, cause me to lose faith in Christ and the Church that he founded.

Pax Domine Christi

The problem with the previous post, at least as I see it, is that if I follow your suggestion, it follows that I am going to withhold money used to fund homeless shelters, soup kitchens, the local St. Vincent DePaul ministry, etc, etc, etc, because some Bishop is a not doing what he is called to do. What about the consequences of those actions? So, if all Catholics do what you (the previous poster) suggested, lots of "innocent people" who rely on the Catholic Church to provide health care servies and educational services will get hurt (i.e. the poor and weak at the margins of socities across the world) as I will remind our non-Catholic freinds???? on this forum that the Catholic Church is the largest provider of those "corporal woks of mercy" across the globe.

God Bless

As Mark Shea correctly points out, the Lugo case is radically different from the malfeasance of various American bishops.

Lugo has violated what in law school we called a "bright line rule" (like running a traffic light, as opposed to a flexible standard, such as being negligent). Either Lugo is the President of Paraguay, or he isn't. As a cleric, he is obligated not to be the President of Paraguay. No investigation is necessary here, there is no need to evaluate all the facts in ligth of various circumstances, and no judgment is involved. And, as Mark Shea rightly notes, even in this situation the Pope has done everything possible to avoid laicizing Bishop Lugo.

To a great extent, demands for papal disciplinary action against inept or prevaricating bishops stem from an ecclesiology that sees the Pope as CEO of Catholic Church Global and the bishops as his local representatives heading up branch offices. That's not how the Church or the Papacy understands itself, which is why bishops will never be removed with the "stroke of a pen."

Ed Peters' headline is "AFTER DECADES OF DISINTEREST, suddenly two Canon 1405 cases." Perhaps the law has remained on the books, but it has not been invoked, and perhaps this is due an effort to promote a more "Orthodox" ecclesiology, as Mark Shea suggests. (Notice the two "perhapses.")

If the Vatican's hands off approach to these matters is the result of V-II experimentation with a new ecclesiology, then I hope that the Holy Father rethinks the experiment, because we need some sane guidance. The USCCB by itself isn't doing much of a job, no matter how much they tell us about their vibrant wonderfulness.

Ed Peters seems to suggest someone has to lay out the case before canon 1405 can be applied, and this makes sense: the Holy Father isn't going to punish someone on the basis of allegations made in the media. Ed Peters adds: "I do think, however, that in conscience, (though not by canon law given the abrogation of 1917 CIC 1935.2), Sipe is bound to send to the Holy See all the information he has about these matters, and not wait to be asked for it." I would second that thought. If Sipe has documentation, he should present it to the appropriate authorities in the Vatican.

Whatever the explanation, I doubt that either Mark or I can offer it. (Sorry Mark, you're excellent on theology and apologetics but you're no Canon Lawyer. I most certainly am not.) If you are really interested in the mechanics of this I'd consult someone like Ed Peters (whom I don't know from Adam, by the way).

As a Catholic, let me "testify" for a moment to my non-romish brothers and sisters. Some of the most amazing people I've met in my life have been Catholic priests and nuns. Most of the Catholic priests I've met have been more impressive than your average schlub. I've met one or two priests about whom I've had doubts, and most of the Bishops I've met have struck me as dull and uninspired administrators. However, my life as a Catholic is not in any way impacted by malfeasant priests or bureaucratics bishops. If you have the impression that Catholic life resembles Fellini's Satyricon you are mistaken. If you're considering full communion, please base your decision on a real engagement with the Church.

Mark, on this subject you and I are like the Wolf and the Hound in the old Warner Bros cartoon, who punch the clock before the go about their business, until it's time to knock off.

To cut to the chase, let me refer readers to this 2002 story from the Boston Globe, showing how successive cardinal archbishops of Boston coddled Fr. John Geoghan, the serial molester -- and how their clericalism showed itself in repeated concern for his well-being, but little or nothing for the children he was screwing.

Now, read this letter that Margaret Gallant, a Catholic laywoman, wrote to Cardinal Medeiros of Boston in 1982, telling him that seven boys -- seven boys! -- in her extended family had been molested by Geoghan. Excerpt:

[begin]
Our family is deeply rooted in the Catholic Church, our great-grandparents and parents suffered hardship and persecution for love of the Church. Our desire is to protect the dignity of the Holy Orders, even in the midst of our tears and agony over the seven boys in our family who have been violated. We cannot undo that, but we are obligated to protect others from this abuse to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

It was suggested that we keep silent to protect the boys -- that is absurd since minors are protected under law, and I do not wish to hear that remark again, since it is insulting to our intelligence.

I have a tremendous love and respect for you Cardinal, and regret now for not writing to...(at this point in letter, part of text is cut off)...humility and holiness, but I am very angry with you now, and do not understand this.

While it is true that a layman in the same situation would only be confined for observation for a limited time -- he would also be exposed (word "exposed" is underlined twice). Parents would know then not to allow children near this type person. In this case, not only do they not know, but by virtue of his office he gains access quite easily, which compounds our responsibility! His actions are not only destructive to the emotional well-being of the children, but hits the very core of our being in our love for the church -- he would not gain access to homes of fallen away Catholics.

Regardless of what he says, or the doctor who treated him, I do not believe he is cured; his actions strongly suggest that he is not, and there is no guarantee that persons with these obsessions are ever cured.

Truly, my heart aches for him and I pray for him, because I know this must tear him apart too; but I cannot allow my compassion for him to cloud my judgment on acting for the people of God, and the children in the church.

My own children were not directly...(at this point in letter, part of text is cut off)...sensitive to my nephews and grandnephews who were involved; I am far enough removed to be slightly more objective. I have not told my sister or my niece that that priest is still functioning -- I fear the consequences of telling them. I have told my brother, and he and I will take this case to the Holy Father if need be.

We did not question the Authority of the Church two years ago, but left it entirely in your hands. Now, we will not settle for this, but must insist on knowing what action is taken -- where he is sent, etc. I will not allow this Temple of God to be overshadowed by a sin of omission. We, our family and all of us who look to the Authority of the Church -- (word illegible) the Church -- and have the right to expect service from the Ordained.

My two sisters and my niece never as much as received an apology from the church, much less any offer for counseling for the boys. It embarrasses me that the Church is so negligent.
[end]

Of course Mrs. Gallant got the back of the cardinal's hand, and Fr. Geoghan plowed his way through the Catholic boys of Boston. When Geoghan finally retired, Cardinal Law wrote him, ''Yours has been an effective life of ministry, sadly impaired by illness . . .God bless you, Jack.''

One of the boys Jack molested was Patrick McSorley, whose father had just committed suicide. This priest of God came to the projects to comfort him. Patrick's mother was mentally ill. Geoghan took him out for ice cream, then masturbated him, and then himself. McSorley had a hard young life after that, and was found dead in 2004. As I recall, it was, or may have been, a suicide. McSorley was one of the 130 or so children Geoghan is believed to have molested during his clerical career.

Where is Cardinal Law now? In charge of a major Rome basilica. Where are other bishops who allowed this sort of thing to go on in full knowledge of what was happening? Still in charge of their sees, unless they reached mandatory retirement age, or got caught buggering someone.

Now: call me a Marxist, but an ecclesiology that allows a bishop to treat ordinary Catholic children and their families like Medeiros treated Margaret Gallant, and the whole shooting match, and face no penalty, and no accountability, for it, is deeply unjust, and even wicked. It is a structure of sin that calls out to heaven for justice. It might be the sort of thing I have to live with, but I will still call it what it is: a racket to protect the clerical class from accountability to the wider church. I believe the Lord ordained the episcopate. I do not believe the Lord intends for it to act like a feudal lord, with droit de seigneur and all that.

Mornin' Ralph (punches in):

And my point, Rod, is that what you call an "abstract theory" may in fact be something constitutive of the sacrament of Holy Orders as it was established by Jesus Christ, which the Pope does not regard himself as competent to just breeze past with the stroke of a pen. Until that possibility has really been grappled with, the actions of the Pope will continue, I think, to be enigmatic and perverse to you, just as his "refusal" to ordain women continues to completely baffle certain folk who simply regard it as his personal sexism and not as having anything at all to do with the nature of the sacrament.

I repeat: this does not mean that "bishops exist in some special mystical state that the Pope shouldn't threaten". Bishop can be and have been removed. But it does mean that such actions are not going to happen at "the stroke of pen". Not even when the bishop is begging for it and demanding it. Some other explanation the "circling the wagons" has to be found to account for the Pope's actions. And I would start with the nature of the sacramental office the bishop has and his *real* relationship with the Papal office, not the Innocent III fantasy that seems to dominate so many people's minds. The Constantinian papacy is loooooong gone. You will not make any headway at all analyzing the actions of either Benedict or John Paul so long as you continue to do so politically first and do not take *seriously* into account their understanding of the theology of the sacrament of Holy Orders. For the matter of that, you won't understand many of the actions of your own bishops till then either.

(Sorry Mark, you're excellent on theology and apologetics but you're no Canon Lawyer. I most certainly am not.)

Nothing to be sorry for. You're completely right. That's why I stay away from the topic. I agree with you that one of the principal problems with Rod's approach is that it boils down to "Why doesn't the Pope do something about all this scuttlebutt I've heard?"

Well, because canonical procedures don't run on scuttlebutt. If there's something documentable, then bring it. But "Matt Abbott said..." is not going to cut it.

I hope Sipes brings whatever he has to the Church for actual examination and, if the facts are against McCarrick, that he goes.

But I am also cognizant of the hysteria. I remember a few years ago when people on Amy's blog where having conniptions because the Dominicans in Oakland were not "restricting the movements" of some priest who lived there who had been a pervert. The law had not jailed him, so the mobbox wanted the Domincans to force him to stay only on the grounds of the House of Formation. But instead the damned Dominicans let him walk around just like a regular person with civil rights!

Well, here's the thing: private citizens aren't *allowed* to jail other citizens in the basement. That's for the State to do. When we do it, it's called "kidnapping" and other unpleasant terms. But the mobbox folk wanted their pound of flesh and weren't going to let abstractions like the rule of law or common sense get in the way. This weird impulse that demands the Church be more merciless than the state is something I don't get.

All of which is to say, I think you are right, TRP and that no small part of this is canon law, about which I know little, but which I do know is ordered toward the Church's tradition and not toward cathartic gusts of anger based on the latest scuttlebutt in Matt Abbott's column.

Of course, things are also easier when a bishop is found guilty of a crime by civil authorities. It's true that the pope can remove a bishop even when he has not been found guilty of a crime or violated a principle of canon law, but that would be perceived as a far more authoritarian move.

Someone mentioned above the past immunity of clerics from civil prosecution. Well in those days church courts would judge cases of crimes committed by clerics, and often the church courts were (at least in theory) stricter than the civil ones. Now, unfortunately, the church relies on the state to crimes committed by clergy. In many ways this has been a step back in the church.

Mark, it requires no special understanding of the sacrament of holy orders for a pope to transfer a bad bishop to a see where he can do no harm (see Gaillot to Partenia), any more than it takes a special understanding of same for a pope to transfer a good bishop to a see where he can do more good.

Nor is Cardinal Mahony's record in the matter "hearsay." You know that as well as I do. That not one American bishop has been relieved of his see over his performance in this very grave matter (with the possible exception of Cardinal Law), says more than any purported theory of ecclesiology can about Rome's state of mind. I am unfamiliar with a theory of ecclesiology that holds almost no degree of misgovernment -- and remember, a bishop's role is to teach, govern and sanctify -- justifies the pontiff removing a bishop from his see. If that really is what Roman ecclesiology teaches -- and again, I am not convinced of that fact -- then Rome sets itself up to be fairly accused of encouraging cynicism about truth and morality in the Church, and of seeing the Church's mission being not primarily about the Gospel, but about maintaining its leadership class in the manner to which it has become accustomed.

On evidence of action, Rome is largely unconcerned by the dismay at the misconduct of some American bishops. I think, Mark, that your theory of Roman ecclesiology is far less persuasive a theory for inaction against the worst offenders (Mahony leading the pack) than simple clericalism.

Mark, that your theory of Roman ecclesiology is far less persuasive a theory for inaction against the worst offenders (Mahony leading the pack) than simple clericalism.

There is a key difference between your approaches. Mark's is grounded in charity, and yours is not.

Veterans of debates with Mr. Dreher on this topic are familiar with this tactic. When cornered that he is asking the Holy Father to act in a way that no previous pope ever has, he pulls out a first-hand account from an abuse victim, and essentially accuses those who disagree with him of spitting in the victim's face.

Reading the linked story, and the family's (understandable) rebuffing of Busop Gerber'sefforts to meet with them, I'm unconvinced that any sort of discipline against Bishop Gerson would have done much to heal the family either, and I think the notion that all it would take to heal a family from their son's suicide is a bishop's head on a pike is also insulting to victims.

--

How could the Blessed Mother watch her Only Son be tortured and killed and believe it was part of God's plan of salvation?

I'm not saying that moving around pervert priests is on the same order as Jesus' Crucifixion, nor to diminish the reality suffering but that something causes suffering does not mean it is incorrect.

--

Honoring the sacramental bond of Holy Orders is beyond "clericalism" -- it is a fulfillment of a promise the Church has made to these men. That the Church will not back out of this promise even in the face of sinfulness strengthens its promise to the rest of us.

It would be the simple PR move for the Church to kick its more notorious clerics to the curb. But as Mark keeps saying, that's not how the Church works, and as a fellow sinner, I am thankful that it doesn't.

You're right, it is spitting in those families' faces.

How could the Blessed Mother watch her Only Son be tortured and killed and believe it was part of God's plan of salvation?

Right, so if your son or daughter is raped by a priest, and the bishop is seriously culpable, be sure to comfort the child by telling him or her not to raise a finger of accountability or discipline against either, because to do so would be to violate God's plan of salvation. Good Lord.

If my son or daughter were raped by a priest, and it caused her to commit suicide, I don't think there is anything that could console me. My point is that that a policy causes suffering (and it's not at all clear from that account that anything Benedict would do at this point would ease the Patterson's suffering) is not in itself a condemnation of that policy.

God's plan for salvation resulted in great suffering for the completely innocent Jeusus and Mary. Does that mean God is callous to suffering? Does that mean God's plan for salvation needs to change?

And did I say anywhere that Fr. Larison does not belong in jail? He does. But somehow I am saying not raise a finger of accountability against the priest. Go on believing that.

I think we have reached the point that Ramesh has reached with Derbyshire. Constructive dialogue is impossible. Anyone who sees any reason for the hierarchy's actions (or inactions) other than clericalism and lack of care for the victims is kidding themselves.

And in your response we have the key problem with your approach: replacing the central call of the Christian (charity) with emotion, and flinging it back in my face with a call to anger.

Charity to whom? Can we have a little charity to the families of the faithful whose children were molested? Can we have a little charity to the laymen who are seeing their churches and other parish assets sold off to pay the buggery bill because the bishops failed? Can we have a little charity to the good priests and laymen who are now put under onerous suspicion, "Safe Touch" programs and all that, while the bishops, who are chiefly responsible for this disaster, suffer nothing?

Clericalism is not the same thing as charity.

"...and the bishop is seriously culpable..."

If I were a lawyer, Rod, I'd probably say that you're assuming a fact not in evidence.

I've seen some letters from victims' families. It's amazing that often they write something about the psychological treatment the priest-abuser is undergoing or has undergone. Granted, we know now that the psychological rehabilitation of pedophiles (and ephebophiles? Do we know?) is an extremely chancy business with almost no success rate to speak of, but to pretend that everybody, especially bishops, knew that in the past is not a sound thing to do.

I tend to think that the bishops, in a rather misguided and certainly dangerous way, made assumptions about abuser-priests based on what they knew of similar situations involving heterosexually active priests, and acted accordingly. Unfortunately while it may make perfect sense to send a priest who has behaved unchastely with an adult and consenting woman to a parish away from her (should he seek repentance instead of asking to be released from his vows, that is) it makes no sense at all to do the same thing for a priest who has abused minors. But we know a lot more about child molesters now than we did even five or ten years ago.

In a way, insisting that bishops *should* have known what we do now is a bit like the rather ugly attitude I've sometimes seen, which says that parents who were "stupid" enough to let their children stay the night at a rectory in the company of a priest were culpable in their own child's abuse. Yes, we know NOW that letting one's sons go on sleepovers with Father was a really, really bad idea, but would any of us look a victim's parents in the face today and say, "It's your fault. You should have known better. What kind of healthy adult man spends so much time, money and attention on a teenage boy if he *isn't* a pervert?" Of course we wouldn't--but aren't we doing the same thing to the bishops, demanding that they be held accountable for behavior that we know NOW was always ineffectual and usually stupid, but that people even ten years ago may have believed, however shortsightedly, was the right course of action to take?

If some of the bishops were evil, we have to prove it. That most of them were more or less stupid about this is pretty apparent. But if bishops ought to be removed on the grounds of stupidity, we won't have very many left.

One final thought, Rod--why is it a good idea to move a bishop to a smaller see as punishment? How is that fair to the Catholics in the smaller diocese, who probably rely more on their bishop than Catholics in huge archdioceses with auxiliary bishops? I know a lot of people in small-town Texas would be pretty disgusted if the usual way of dealing with incompetent DISD officials, for example, was to send them to rural towns to run their schools as "punishment" for their alleged misdeeds. Why should the people of the small town (or small diocese) be the ones being punished?

I have raised the question before as to why is the Catholic Church the only one that gets to be the one who is always the subject of 1) TV Media, 2) Blogs, 3) talk Radio, 4) Print media etc, etc. and thus the only Church that ever gets a headline in blogsphere. In a previous thread on this matter, I cited an artice from Christianity today posted on 4/4/2008 which stated, and I quote

"In the last three years, a 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, judgements 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."

Now, based on my calculations (23 a day * 365 days * 3 years), this results in 25,185 sexual abuse allegations among Protestant confessions. Now, I am aware that Protestantism is split among hundreds of groups in the U.S., but even if you use a conservative number of say 600 distinct Protestant church communities, that is an average of 42 allegations per group. Furthermore, since the largest Protestant confession in this country is the Southern Baptist, with about 15 million members, the per capita numbers for the majority of Protestant confessions may be larger than the Catholic Church. For those of you interested, I have posted the link from Christianity Today (an evangelical Protestant publication), who ran the story.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/childrensministry/articles/sexualabuseinthechurch.html

In summary, I leave with the question I posed last week. Why is it that this story is not covered in the major TV media (CBS, CNN, MSNBC, ABC) and major national Print Media (New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc)? I have my beliefs as to why it is the case, but if I post my thoughts, it becomes basically a rhetorical question, and I am interested in what non-Catholics (friendly or anti-Catholic types) have to say. I will give Fox News some credit, as Bill O'Reilly has routinely outed Judges who have failed to even sentence individuals who have "sexually assaulted minors" and given them probation. So on this issue, I give Fox news some credit for covering the story for what it is, a moral crisis in the country, that is impacting americans in every sector of society.

God Bless and regards

Wow! First the excuse for malfeasant bishops was " We believed the psychologists who thought the bad priests could be rehabbed". Then it was " We didn't know child abuse was that bad" (!). Now Mark Shea wants us to believe that church ecclesiology prevents the Pope from acting against bishops , even where there is direct evidence that they knowingly moved perpetrators around. Some things never change, and many Catholics still want to defend the Church regardless.

Sigalaris was right when he commented above : "They just don't care!".
That pretty much sums it up for me.

One final thought, Rod--why is it a good idea to move a bishop to a smaller see as punishment?

I should clarify: that's not what I meant. Move them to a *titular* see. When John Paul got fed up with Bp Jacques Gaillot, he transferred him to the (no longer existing) diocese of Partenia. He got to remain a bishop, but his see was only titular.

Erin,
He wasn't assigned to a smaller diocese, but to a titular diocese typically reserved for auxilary bishops (probably somewhere in Algeria or Lybia where there isn't an actual church presence).

I personally think it would behoove a large percentage of the US bishops to submit their resignations to the Holy Father, and it would be of great benefit to the church if they were accepted. I understand the hesitancy - the concern of scandal - the undermining of the faith of Catholics in the ecclesiology of the church (ie. the bishops are the successors to the apostles) if multiple cardinals, numerous archbishops, and a multitude of bishops resigned. And who would replace them? They're taking a long time to appoint bishops now, supposedly because they are having trouble finding good candidates.

And I don't blame them. My best parish priest, who was orthodox theologically, a great homilist, good confessor and counselor, good organizer of the campus ministry at my grad school, turned out to have had a relationship with at least one seminarian years before and then had to resign. Before that happened, I thought, "surely this man will be a bishop." Ou whole parish was shocked when the local newspaper broke the story about his past, and was very sympathetic towards him while disapproving of his previous conduct. When he resigned, he said that he had undergone treatment after the past incident (which the diocese was aware of and for which it had removed him from the seminary) and had been celibate since then. Was he telling the truth? I think so. But how should his case be dealt with? And how many more people like this are in the priesthood, potential bishops who are also potential blackmail candidates?

Rick,

I appreciate the possible explanations in your 2:11 post. The problem is, how are we supposed to believe the priorities have changed, when the U.S. bishops elected Cardinal Francis George their president, so closely following his having facilitated four more raped children by ignoring the bishops' own policy, and the advice of his own diocesan review board that the priest should not continue in ministry? Regardless of what talents and faithfulness the cardinal brings to the position, what signal does it send to elect him national president?

"Tell X to the parent whose child was molested by a priest and just committed suicide," could be used to discredit just about any "X." That the explanations offered for the hierarchy's past and present behavior are among the X's that would be unsatisfying to a family torn apart by clerical sexual abuse is not in itself proof that those explanations are invalid.

Diane:

The notion that "This whole thing comes down to SOUR GRAPES, period." is unutterably stupid. The suggestion that Rod thought to himself, "Damn that Pope for having a successful visit to the US! I hate his popularity because I'm jealous! I must do something to destroy him because *my* bishop was not standing on that White House lawn and celebrating those big Masses! Ah! I know! I will exploit the suffering of abused children! That will even the score!" is beyond contemptible. You should be ashamed or yourself for saying it and you should be even more ashamed of yourself for actually believing it.

God knows I think Rod is mistaken in much of his take on the Scandal. But I don't believe for a second that his motivation here is some sort of demented Orthodox point-scoring game prompted by the success of Benedict's visit. The fact that you do suggests that, really, you need to take a long rest from Dreher-hatred and recover yourself.

There's also the Archbishop Paetz case. He resigned, but there the pressure came from the local Church. This, I think, is how the new ecclesiology mentioned by Mark Shea is supposed to work, with the local church (in particular, the national bishops' conference) taking the lead. I know that there has some effort, by those determined to see no good in the current Church, to explain away the Paetz case with the very speculative and ad hoc claim that JPII really didn't want to acept Paetz's resignation, and that some close friend had to intervene, etc.; but the important fact is that, in the end, Paetz was removed. The USCCB, which is the brainchild of enthusiasts of the new ecclesiology, on the other hand, has created a system and an ecclesial culture that is, structurally speaking, far worse than what existed even in the days when bishops were immune to civil prosecution. Their standard now is: if a bishop hasn't been found guilty of a crime (as was the vile Bishop O'Brien, for example), he is not to be removed. The Church simply cannot rely on the state to investigate accusations of criminal activity against bishops.

I'm glad to hear that things are working out well in the OCA. The removal of a bad bishop is a blessing to the OCA. However, the Orthodox system doesn't work as effectively everywhere in the world. And even the current Catholic system has worked out better elsewhere in the world--e.g., Poland. I agree with you that something must change because bishops like Mahony continue to disgrace the Catholic Church.

There is a stench of sulphur to the pedophilia scandal. The priests and bishops responsible were not operating in persona diaboli. It's not surprising that the Church established by Christ should be the main target of His vanquished adversary.

Thanks for the clarification re: titular sees, but let's be honest, here: 1. How many are there, anyway? Enough to get rid of all the bishops we think ought to be thrown out? and 2. Wouldn't the outcry then be, a la Law, "Oh, sure, send Bishop Bad Guy to a cushy retirement! Meanwhile the victims are still suffering!" etc.

Satisfying as it might be to envision row after row of pleading, groveling bishops and cardinals being summarily stripped of their offices and clerical states for not having done what in hindsight it seems obvious in hindsight they ought to have done, I'm more than a little afraid that the spirit behind this is one very much at odds with Hebrews 10:26-31.

This, I think, is how the new ecclesiology mentioned by Mark Shea is supposed to work

Except, of coure, that it's not very new. To hear the Orthodox tell it, it's the old ecclesiology.

See you at the bar for a beer -- it's Miller time!

Not to literal-minded: Rod's in Dallas, I'm in Seattle.

G'night, Ralph. (Ka-chunk).

aaron, WWJD? I foresee whips, tables, temple, and money.

Erin, Aaron, who said it was Pope Benedict's job to clean up Las Vegas?

Erin, that's good. Too good!

I think you need to take your own advice about daring to opine on Rod's Catholic posts. Look what it's doing to you already :-)!

Mdavid, do you think, in a rough analogy to the evolutionary advantage of a patriarchy, that a gay lavender mafia of bishops and cardinals has a built in advantage to take over and dominate the Catholic Church?

"Then again, that would work for any group wishing to exploit a such an isolated, bureaucratic system to promote its own ideological agenda or take it over completely. Can you please make some more connections specific to the alleged evolutionary advantage of patriarchy?"

I wasn't kidding when I wrote "rough analogy". No, I can't make any more connections specific to the alleged evolutionary advantage of patriarchy. The evolutionary advantage of a patriarchy is mdavid's speciality, that's why I addressed the question as such to him. Here is an mdavid post from the following thread on "Modernity is a virus":
######################################################################
"Berlinski said nobody really understands why fertility falls off a cliff when people fully embrace modernity."

I agree with a lot of what David said, but would add:

1) We know what causes modernity to stop breeding: lack of patrarchy and lack of religion. Compare people from any tribe in the world, say TFR=1 versus TFR=4, and the difference will always be religion and feminism. This is a no-brainer, and I'm constantly amazed at how white Europeans are so conceited they can't get past the fact not everyone is going to follow them down the memory hole.

2) We cannot look at the past to predict the future, but we can look to science for how things work. Fact: genetic diversity and low TFRs amongst ample resources is a violation of natural selection. It can not happen for long. Somebody will soon find a way to breed and fill the environment to capacity. Natural law, baby. And we see it going on right now, with pockets of high fertility all over the place, always following the same pattern of religion and patriarchy.

3) An example here: the (very smart) blogger Epigone took the Pew Religious Survey data and backed out the demographic data to show how religion effects one's odds of having children. Each received a "propagation score":

(Rank) (Religion) (Score)
1. Mormon 16.1
2. Muslim 5.0
3. Catholic 3.6
7. Greek Orthodox 0.6
8. Protestant (Evangelical) 0.5

(Really negative, death ahead!)
14. Atheist -2.3)
15. Non-Greek Orthodox -2.7
16. Agnostic -3.4
17. Secular (Unaffiliated) -3.8
20. New Age -5.1

So it's foolish to look at an overal TFR=2 and assume it will stay that way. Over ten or so generations, the TFR will start to creep up. God is clever, but not malicious.

Posted by: mdavid | April 23, 2008 8:08 PM
#######################################################################

Rod,

We can find the answer to your "what's next on McCarrick" question in the wikipedia article on the good cardinal:

"On May 16, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI accepted the resignation of Cardinal McCarrick as Archbishop of Washington, DC, upon the latter's reaching the customary age limit...On 12 March 2007 it was announced that Cardinal McCarrick will become a Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The Pope does not have authority over the CSIS, which means that the petition for McCarrick's removal from office has been sent to the wrong address.