The lesson I would take from this incident (and it applies to all of us) is that our seeming ideological allies are not always our true friends.
Or to put it another way, political and ideological similarities are not a solid foundation in and of themselves for friendships and alliances.

Until the Vatican takes corruption as seriously as Canada/New Zealand/the Nordics/ etc., it will not be taken seriously as a moral force. And even though I am not Catholic, I view that as a loss for the world.

Check out Jody Bottum’s post on this: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/04/maciel–money
I find it rich for him to crticize Berry given that his magazine trashed the reputations of Berry and Renner when they were right and First Things was shilling for Maciel.

“People who think Benedict’s resignation would help resolve scandal matters had better seriously reconsider.”
As has so often been the case in this Scandal, there is likely more to this story. Pope Benedict is indeed to be commended for his actions regarding Maciel and his enablers.
Let’s see what the coming weeks bring.

I find it rich for him to crticize Berry given that his magazine trashed the reputations of Berry and Renner when they were right and First Things was shilling for Maciel.
True. FT owes Berry and the late Renner a big apology.

For example, it looks like the next wave in this tsunami storm is hitting, this time from Africa.
http://www.sacbc.org.za/Site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=422:archbishop-tlhagale-makes-a-major-statement-on-priest-abuse&catid=1:latest&Itemid=100
“t simply means that the misbehaviour of priests in Africa has not been exposed to the same glare of the media as in other parts of the world. We must therefore take responsibility for the hurt, the scandals, the pain and the suffering caused by ourselves who claim to be models of good behaviour. The image of the Catholic church is virtually in ruins because of the bad behaviour of its priests, wolves wearing sheep’s skin, preying on unsuspecting victims, inflicting irreparable harm, and continuing to do so with impunity. We are slowly but surely bent on destroying the church of God by undermining and tearing apart the faith of lay believers. Ironically, priests have become a stumbling block to the promotion of vocations.
Bad news spreads like wild fire. I wish I could say that there are only a few bad apples. But the outrage around us suggests that there are more than just a few bad apples.”
This coming from an Archbishop in an area where the Catholic Church is experiencing tremendous growth.

May I recommend the GetReligion take on this?
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=30617

“For the next six years, Maciel had the staunch support of three pivotal figures: Sodano; Cardinal Eduardo Martínez Somalo, prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life; and Msgr. Stanislaw Dziwisz, the Polish secretary of John Paul. During those years, Sodano pressured Ratzinger not to prosecute Maciel, as NCR previously reported. Ratzinger told a Mexican bishop that the Maciel case was a “delicate” matter and questioned whether it would be “prudent” to prosecute at that time.”
If Bendict ever decides to get serious about clerical corruption, he will demand the resignations of these three individuals and accept theire retirements when offered.
Until then, the corruption is on his watch.
I don’t give anybody a gold star for turning down a bribe.

If Ratzinger refused the money, does it imply he knew what was going on? If so, what should he have done with that knowledge? Should large sums of cash being offered have spurred him to investigate? Suppose you found out that your boss or a co-worker were doing something immoral. Should you wait until you are in charge to change things? Should I tell my son that if sees others doing wrong, he should just look the other way? I realize that challenging this behavior would probably have cost him his career, so it must have been a difficult choice.
Steve

steve2,
What do you propose Ratzinger should have done? As soon as he could, in any practical sense, he moved against Maciel and removed him from his ministry. The Berry piece demonstrates the tremendous influence that Maciel bought in the Vatican. The Pope and many other influential Cardinals were enthusiastic backers of the LCs.
Unapologetic Catholic demands the resignation of Maciel’s three powerful backers but fails to realize that they have already resigned. I actually don’t know about Msgr. Stanislaw Dziwisz, but assume that because he was John Paul II’s personal secretary that he is gone as well.
If anything, the facts behind the unfolding scandal should inspire confidence in the current Pontiff. The coming months will, I’m afraid, not be pretty. The Church as a whole must take its medicine after decades of inaction. That being said, it would appear that the Pope is serious about removing what he has referred to as “filth” from the Church. I, for one, am glad someone who appears to have a backbone is currently running things.

I am prepared to cut JP11 some slack, on the basis that he was old and senile. B16 on the other hand knew from day 1 of his papacy, and did nothing other than send Maciel off to do his prayer and penance. Meanwhile, who knows what was happening in those seminaries, and how many young people were being indoctrinated into the cult.

Am I supposed to be impressed that Ratzinger “ordered to a life of prayer and penitence” a serial child rapist who ought to have died in a maximum security prison?

“I actually don’t know about Msgr. Stanislaw Dziwisz, but assume that because he was John Paul II’s personal secretary that he is gone as well.”
Punished by being elevated to Cardinal:
http://catinfor.com/en/zenit/es/Monsignor-Dziwisz-secretary-of-Pope-John-Paul-II-took-possession-of-the-Krakow-archdiocese/
Cardinal Sodano is still in power.

“What do you propose Ratzinger should have done? As soon as he could, in any practical sense, he moved against Maciel and removed him from his ministry.”
I propose that the Cardinal, head of Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, coudl have either resigned in public protest over the widespread corruption, abuse of power and the inability of the institutional Vatican to address widespread clercial sexual abuse or he could have publcily denounced the indivduals involved.
His legacy and the curent condition of the Churhc woudl both havebeen far better.

So why didn’t Benedict fire the sorry **es of these three Cardinals who took bribes, as soon as he became Pope? If he doesn’t have the authority to do it, no one does!

“What do you propose Ratzinger should have done? As soon as he could, in any practical sense, he moved against Maciel and removed him from his ministry.”
Which took years. I would propose that if you know someone is passing out huge bribes in order to keep quiet serial sex abuse, that you act on that immediately. If the Pope was unwilling to move on it, then you go public and bring in the police where the abuse is taking place. If one is to be a spiritual leader, one should act like one. I do not think a wait until you are in charge approach is appropriate. How many crimes and tragedies have been perpetuated because people turned their heads or were not willing to risk speaking out?
The Church exists as a strict authoritarian organization. Authority flows from the top down, with the top most figure, the Pope, having near total authority. Such an organization can function with moral authority only if those in a position to speak out, are willing to do so. They must be willing to do so even if it means loss of their career. This is true in other fairly rigid top down organizations. Read McMaster’s Dereliction Of Duty. There must be some method to stop those operating against the interests of the organization from having undue influence upon those at the top. You simply cannot wait to replace people, if you wish to remain a legitimate organization.
Steve

If a priest or bishop or cardinal were to preside over a gay wedding, or ordain a woman, what do you think would happen to them?
And how long would it take?

Likewise, what would be their fate if in their spare time they went to medical school, became doctors, and personally performed abortions while publicly attesting to the moral right of abortion?

Priest abuse scandal hits Memphis. Weird case, too. The guy in question was kicked out of the Franciscan order in his native Bolivia for molesting a boy. Then he joined the Dominicans and worked in Panama, Miami, and St. Louis. In St. Louis, he was accused of molesting more boys, and is moved to Memphis to work with the growing Hispanic population, where he molested yet another boy.
His superior priest here in Memphis actually tried to shuffle him off to yet another diocese:
“His superior, Father Alberto Rodriguez, told Pope John Paul II by letter that he had been trying to find another assignment for Duran despite his sexual misconduct with minors in Memphis, St. Louis, Panama and Bolivia.”
…
Smith: “Did you lie to the Pope?”
Rodriguez: “Yes.”
Smith: “You did lie to the Pope?”
Rodriquez: “Yes.”
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/apr/08/troubled-traveler-abusive-priest-reassigned-than/

steve2,
There is no such authority invested in the Pope. As ceremonial head of a college of equals, he can only request resignations and hope for the best.
Beth,
No one does have the authority to fire bishops. Unfortunate, but that’s how it is. Despite the Pope’s “supreme authority on earth,” the mechanisms for such exercise of this authority just don’t exist.

I would like (as a non-Christian) some answers to these questions that have been raised on RC internal governance and theology. Occasionally I may use a loaded word or phrase. I do not mean to be snarky, I just don’t know how to phrase it concisely.
As I understand it:
1. With the doctrine of transsubstantiation, the priest can change the Host into the body of Christ. This is not a magical power given him through ordination, which is a human creation. This power, or rather the channeling of God’s power, is from God. Ordination merely identifies, as best as humans can do, such people who have the calling.
2. Because of this, priests are fundamentally different from Protestant ministers, who are just some people with a divinity degree.
3. Therefore, to defrock or laicize a priest calls into serious question God’s judgement, or at least the RC authorities interpretation of God’s judgement, and is not to be taken lightly or done wholesale.
4. The bishops, per canon law are leaders of the flock. Archbishops and other members of the heirarchy are more administrators than true leaders. The pope is the pope because he is the bishop of Rome.
5. Because of Apostolic Succession, bishops are like priests in that they are anointed by God, not man. Again, to fire or demote a bishop calls into question the church’s judgement.
I am just curious if I am understanding the situation correctly.

I see no limitation on the Pope’s authority to fire bishops:
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.
§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

La Cosa Nostra. Frank Keating was right!

“There is no such authority invested in the Pope. As ceremonial head of a college of equals, he can only request resignations and hope for the best.”
So Cardinals cannot be removed? Bishops either? Cardinals can defy the Pope?
Steve

Okay. Let’s say the Pope has no authority to remove a bishop or a cardinal, or even to defrock a priest.
One thing he can do is speak the truth. Disclose. Don’t let influence peddling stories like this outragous story come out by way of investigative reporters. Publicly denouce, in scathing terms, misbehaving clergy. Speak the truth.
Disclosure would require courage. Right now, it does not look like anyone in the Vatican has that courage.
As an aside, I didn’t really see Benedict looking all that good in this story from NCR. “He didn’t take bribes” is damning with faint praise and setting the bar pretty low, don’t you think.
And in terms of Benedict moving against Maciel — really moving against Maciel would have meant, among other things, publicly disclosing in detail all of Maciel’s wrongdoing. Again, was anything dosclosed by the Vatican? Or did we learn about Maciel’s evil from an investigative reporter?

Perhaps the pope cannot unilaterally retire or depose a cardinal or other prelate, but SURELY he can bring a formal accusation of moral turpitude against such a person resulting in a trial in a spiritual court. Surely there are canons in the Roman Catholic Church prohibiting clerical pederasty, right? (Anyone?) If there’s no way for a synod of bishops to police itself, or more likely if it simply refuses to police itself, then that’s seriously messed up and dangerous. Perhaps bishops get to be bishops precisely because they are discreet, compromised, and very much wish to be bishops, ensuring that everyone looks the other way in a mutual-assured-destruction pact…sort of like the mafia. Or maybe the good guys despair that they are too few to succeed in cleaning up a gargantuan, centuries-old, systemic mess, so they stick to their knitting…or play their cards VERY carefully.

The Pope can remove a bishop but it is not always easy. They can be changed upon retirement much easier. As an example the early Appointment of Archbishop Gomez to Los Angeles is a direct message to Cardinal Roger Mahoney that on his 75th birthday (the day all bishop have to submit their resignation to the Holy See, this resignation will be accepted).
Peope you need to understand that there is no dramatic action but action none the same. It works in the long run.
Remember the parables about the wheat and the weeds. Sometimes they are allowed to grow together for a while.
Now the Vatican in past centuries has sent out fire-man like investigators to get the goods on bishops, especially those appointed by secular rulers. But you need to keep remembering process, process, process, process, process, process- that is how things are done here. It has worked for many centuries.

Stu writes “If anything, the facts behind the unfolding scandal should inspire confidence in the current Pontiff. The coming months will, I’m afraid, not be pretty. The Church as a whole must take its medicine after decades of inaction. That being said, it would appear that the Pope is serious about removing what he has referred to as “filth” from the Church. I, for one, am glad someone who appears to have a backbone is currently running things.”
Good post! It is all about having the facts. That may sound simple but it is not always the case. Generalizations and cliches will not work.
But remember, there are huge numbers of other wise well meaning people who just can not take this Pope thing. So for them he will always be personna non grata even if he could walks on water and multipys loaves of bread.

When a corrupt bishop retires at 75 do all the corrupt people he appointed and promoted retire at the same time?

Peter writes “When a corrupt bishop retires at 75 do all the corrupt people he appointed and promoted retire at the same time?”
I do not know but I think not. The new bishop makes any changes in personnel appointments and puts his style in place I would suppose.

We live in a sound byte world today with a lot of babble and confusion.
The Church and the Vatican are not moved easiy by all this. Maybe that is good, maybe that is bad. Many simply do not like the pope, Vatican and the way the proceedings go. Changes are made however in process, not revolution or media driven response.
I see Pope Benedict being vindicated greatly here. Other people see something else. Depends upon how you look at it. If you do not accept the methodology of the Church and how it deals with its own problems and corruption and prefer the way others do it, then it will always be anathema to you.
As an example the Conclave election of the pope is the most politically incorrect thing in the world. Newsmen are angry they can not attend.
I have no problem at all accepting something very significant that is vastly different in is methods than the sound-byte media driven systems.

“Your Name” said Cardinal Sodano is still in power. This is not true, he retired in 2006, replaced by Cardinal Bertone.
Catholic-hierarchy.org will quickly tell you the current and former assignments of every living and deceased Catholic Bishop for the past 200+ years.
Others are also assuming that because Ratzinger was offered a bribe and refused, that he would have knowledge of who else was offered a bribe and accepted it. That doesn’t logically follow.

“Process, process, process, process” is not working now. Maybe it’s because the church is too big and the staff in Rome hopelessly small. Looks like there has to be serious and explicit delegation to the dioceses. Also, the claim that there was never an obstacle to reporting cases to the authorities is called into question by Jason Berry’s article (politicsdaily) about how then Archbishop Leveda (now the head of CDF)
disciplined a priest who did call the police about another priest. There are fine words from above now and countless contradictions on the ground.

Scorcese could do the film, but only if he can have a scene where Joe Pesci beats the holy spirit out of Frank Vincent with a crucifix.

“”Your Name” said Cardinal Sodano is still in power. This is not true, he retired in 2006, replaced by Cardinal Bertone. ”
Well, yes and no. He was replaced by Cardinal Bertone as the Secretary of State. Sodano remains as the Dean of the College of Cardinals.

In December of 2008, I was part of a pilgrimage group staying at the
Legion’s Notre Dame Center in Jerusalem. The facility was tasteful, the Legionaires charasmatic and the liturgy reverent. It is understandable that Catholics could be easily deceived by these outward appearances. Yet even then the Center’s book shop was hawking the works of Marciel.

Goodguy
Cdl Mahony requested that his successor be appointed via a coadjutorship, given the size and scope of the LA archdiocese.