The bureaucracy will handle it

"Roman Catholic Faithful is easy to find, eager to help, and it's got all the SSA stuff archived."

Given their serious credibility problems, I would hope that the Bishop would rely on more than these folks. Given your inability to articulate coherent evidence against the priest based on RFR's "information," the Bishop owes the priest and the people of Dallas more than a New York Post approach to the investigation.

I'm all for holding priests accountable and if the priest violated his vows to the church and his parishoners, than he should be removed. But there's no evidence he abused anyone, there's no evidence he violated his vow of celibacy. At best, we know he participated on a website where inappropriate things were taking place.

Now imagine a counter scenario. A heterosexual priest who is buying Playboy at the news stand, or viewing straight pornography on his computer, or even going into chat rooms with women and talking dirty to them. Would you be as outraged? Would you be writing about it in the DMN? Would you be spending time talking about it on your blog?

Because here's the thing. Heterosexual priests violate their vows in similar kinds of ways, they just aren't as New York Post sensationalistic or the kind that attract anti-gay groups. They have affairs, they read porn, they are sexually inappropriate with female parishoners, they probably even go on line and chat up women for sex. From the perspective of the church, those kinds of things are as serious as what this priest has allegedly done.

Yet where is the cyber-vigilante group ferreting out these priests, asking for tips, working with bloggers to get the stories told? Where's the outrage at the Dallas Morning News?

Rod, Thanks for staying on top of this story. There's more to this story, as you've pointed out, than the specifics involving the priest. It's also about THE MANNER in which this is being handled by the diocese and by the priest's bishop.

There's some wisdom on the bishop's part in asking the Review Board to examine the case. It's always a good idea to let a different set of minds review the facts and provide addvice.

AT THE SAME TIME, I hope the bishop is spending time getting to know his priests as persons. That includes getting to know this priest and praying with him and getting to the bottom of this story. This sort of thing can't be entirely delegated to a bureacracy.

In December 2005, Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio, a popular lay theologian in the US, wrote a retrospective on the Second Vatican Council for "This Rock" magazine. It included this insight on the role of bishops in the leadership of diocesan priests:

"The 'communio' ecclesiology of the [Second Vatican] Council has had great impact. Yet, regrettably, the way in which the pastoral structures of the Church function on a day to day basis often appear untouched by this 'communio' vision. One example of this is with regard to the role of bishop in a diocese. The bishop is primarily a father whose role it is to teach, pastor, and sanctify the faithful and in a special way, the brother priests and deacons who assist him in carrying out his pastoral mission. Yet still in many circumstances, the bishop functions more as an administrator than as a father."

"One of the seldom noted causes of the priestly pedophilia scandal, in our view, is that few bishops really know their priests personally. Priests’ training, selection, and assignments are usually delegated to others. In the one of the first pedophilia lawsuits against an American diocese, it emerged that a lengthy letter was written to the bishop from one of his priests which detailed the alarming and inappropriate activity of another priest later convicted of abominable crimes. The jury was shocked to learn that the letter was never even read by the bishop but was rather reviewed by the bishop’s staff."

"There are some things that can and must be delegated to assistants by any leader. But if the church is first and foremost a communion of persons, a family as it were, personal care and communication cannot be totally delegated. If a bishop or pastor becomes inaccessible, barricaded behind various levels of committees, we are dealing with bureaucracy and not 'communio'."

Bishop Farrell, as I understand it, is relatively new on the scene in Dallas. I also believe this is his first experience as a bishop for a diocese. We can pray that he will be the kind of bishop that embraces the 'communio' vision of the Second Vatican Council described by Dr. D'Ambrosio.

Bishops have a very hard job, especially these days. Extremely hard. But nobody should think the job is all about perks.

And hopefully this sort of thing will help disuade actively homosexual men from seeking the priethood. You do not solve "the problem" by checking the ID's to make sure the age is 18 and not 15. That may solve one problem, but not the real problem.

Who cares what RCF's motives are? Let the evidence speak for itself. Reporters have to deal all the time with sources who have agendas. What matters is whether or not the information is valid. I have never heard anyone claim that RCF made up its evidence on SSA. Not even those members of the site who got burned by it claimed RCF made it up -- they went berserk over what they considered to be RCF's invasion of their privacy.

Do you have any reason to believe that the evidence RCF has presented is false? If so, what is it? If not, it seems to me you're trying to dismiss their evidence because you don't like RCF.

Do you have any reason to believe that the evidence RCF has presented is false? If so, what is it? If not, it seems to me you're trying to dismiss their evidence because you don't like RCF.

I have reason to believe that they can't authenticate emails and website shots and that they have a history of going public with allegations without them being properly vetted. Your "smoking gun" email in a previous post couldn't have been more vague and incomplete. It's the kind of evidence that would never make it into court, for instance, although obviously there are lower standards. The Bishop, however, has an obligation to investigate it beyond the fact that Rod Dreher and the DMN vouches for their credibility.

RCF has credibility problems. Because of that, no church official (or, arguably, journalist) should take their word and evidence as the whole story. That's all I'm saying.

Daniel:

I would like to educate you a bit as to how Catholic chanceries work.

A bishop sits in the chancery, surrounded by a staff. some clerical, some lay. Some have been around for a while, all have a vested interest, have turf they are protecting, a turf which includes others in the diocese.

The purpose of the staff is to keep as much information from the bishop as possible.

The bishop, for his part, is usually overwhelmed with the demands of his job, not to speak of the demands that the USCCB puts on him to serve on various useless commissiona and committees. Bishops are also instinctually averse to conflict.

So the bishop is generally fine with knowing as little as possible.

This is why

1) The secular press

2) lawyers

and

3) groups like RCF

are necessary. They are the only forces that can break through this conscious and purposeful non-informed state to get the truth out to the public so that a bishop can no longer ignore it.

And that reason is? How do you know they can't authenticate e-mails and website shots?

I'm not saying the evidence is false. I'm saying a Bishop should not just trust evidence from cyber-vigilante groups like RCF and that they need to have a more thorough picture of what is happening. The people who head RCF have a lot of credibility problems and therefore reliance just on their information is dangerous.

As I said, the kind of evidence RCF would never be admissible in court without a much more thorough vetting to determine if it is authentic; nothing is simpler to alter than electronic data provided in this kind of format.

Hey Rod. Thanks for covering this, and thanks for sticking to your guns with certain of your interlocutors.

Rod,

You're interepreting "credibility" too literally. When Daniel says RCF has credibility problems he doesn't mean that their evidence lacks credibility. He means (1) he doesn't like RCF, and (2) he doesn't like RCF's agenda. But saying "RCF is not credible" sounds better than "RCF has poopy pants."

I'm sure it's true, however, that most Bishops (even orthodox Bishops) would be concerned about openly embracing RCF's investigations because they are a bit of a lighting rod for controversy. It's not unreasonable for Bishops to have prudent concerns about seemingly aligning themselves with controversial groups. I would be concerned, for example, if a Bishop indicated he was utilizing a study prepared by Voices of the Faithful given their agenda to democratize the Church. But if VOF had evidence of wrong doing of priests, of course a Bishop should put that evidence to use regardless of their most heretical and heinous agenda.

My understanding is that RCF is somewhat more centrist than VOTF or SNAP, and that in response to bishops' being slow to give out information, RCF will simultaneously release information to police, media, and dioceses. That way, dioceses can't hide any more.

Daniel,
It looks like St S' Angels are more like Hustler than Playboy, or worse. You're not fooling us with that very flawed analogy.

I think we've figured out that PRACTICING, homosexual Catholic priests aren't a good idea. If RCF is outing them, I'm for that. Is that what you mean by a 'witch hunt'?

You cannot get an accurate picture of this complicated situation if you only rely on your own side for information, I came to believe.

I don't disagree.

In terms of credibility, RCF was involved in the hysterical "Satan worship" allegations against Bernadin. Their allegations in Illinois have included reliance on ex-felons who were accused of perjury in other cases. They were accused of altering e-mails in initially exposing the St. Sebastian website and, while hacking the site, may have altered data.
They were accused of making up allegations in Scranton.

Unquestionably, they've uncovered a lot of damaging information and, as cyber-vigilantes go, they are very successful. Like a "Catch a Predator" segment on NBC's Dateline, what they uncover is riveting. But like "Catch a Predator," what they do is controversial and their motives are suspect. Most people groups like Voice of the Faithful and SNAP want to have nothing to do with them.

I'd like to point out that priests who are found to be betraying their vows with women have been historically dealt with with at least as much severity- in fact, on anecdotal evidence I believe in general more harshly - than priests who have broken them with same sex improprieties.

This is not about the 'orientation' of the compromised priests. Or, if it is, it is only in the sense that there is an apparent conspiracy of priests and bishops with same sex orientations, protecting one another from severe consequences.

To insist that our pastors adhere to their vows is not Donatism. To the contrary. The Church holds all of us to a high standard. When we take a vow- be it baptismal, marriage, priestly or religious. We are all called to sexual integrity and fidelity. When a priest, or anyone else in a position of moral authority, has broken any of those vows, it is a serious matter. Our priests are exemplars, and they have to lead us by their witness. When they fail, especially if in serial or public manner, they must be held to account. Certain sins make one unfit for ministry.

I think participating in a grotesquely pornographic webring, where the members describe their sexual indiscretions and post shockingly obscene material is exactly one of those sorts of sins. Especially now that the matter is one of grave public scandal.

Our Church is collapsing when it comes to pastoral leadership concerning sexual matters. Collapsing along with our culture. Now 90% or more of us ignore the prohibition on contraception. Annulments are granted as a matter of course, since it seems we are all too immature to make a valid vow these days. Our salt loses it's savor.

Given this catastrophe, it is all the more crucial that our priests and bishops set the necessary example, and set an irreproachable example in these matters.

If the Faith means anything, our vows must be true. And public scandal demands public penitence. We are so tepid now, we shirk both our word and penance.

Lo, the sap runs dry. Behold, a faithless generation. Kyrie Eleison.

Not sure it matters if it is a large parish, a small parish, as assoc. pastor, or hospital chaplain... I think a desk job may be in order??? Counting stuff, excel spreadsheets, something along those lines... Well, on 2nd thought, better keep him off the pc...