Mark,
Of course your all wet, you live in Seattle!
You're dry as dust, Mark. Pun intended. Your capacity to think with the Church is macroscopic. (The first line's a pun because it also describes your wit. You sure you weren't switched at birth with a Midwesterner?) Would that great hordes of us had your grasp of The Faith and your gift for 'splaining it!
Disputations is wrong, but you knew I'd say that. What alternative does he propose? Business as usual, while a bad bishop drives the Church into the ground? He makes it appear that there's no difference between orthodox laymen working to get rid of a bishop whose leadership has brought rack and ruin to the diocese, and VOTF. Perhaps he doesn't know that when the Allison group first confronted the bishop in private, the Church in Dallas had just suffered a $119 million judgment against it (later reduced) because of child-molesting priests. Worse, the diocese had been humiliated by testimony that showed +Grahmann and his predecessor, +Tschoepe (who is believed by many to have faked Alzheimer's to keep from testifying), didn't give a fig that Fr. Rudy Kos, et alia, were raping altar boys. Does Disputations really believe the only legitimate reaction for faithful orthodox Catholics faced with this kind of prelate is to keep their heads down, not complain, and keep giving? If that $119 million judgment had stood, Grahmann's leadership, or lack thereof, could have cost those people the churches, schools, etc. that they and their ancestors labored to build -- to say nothing of the lost moral credibility of the Church, and the danger to which their male children may be in should Grahmann's policies continue. That's a hell of a price to ask Catholic people to pay so their bishop can keep his office. Their children, and their children's children, will still be trying to live as faithful Catholics in Dallas long after Charles Grahmann has gone on to his reward. These people have a stake in their church too. Enough with this spineless clericalism!
Disputations is aptly named. He and I have gone 'round in a similar way before. He is very good at telling people they are all wet, but no matter how often I ask him, both politely and less so, he never offers his own alternative, or for that matter, his own positively asserted logical argument. Because of this, he has zero credibility in my book. Hopefully you will have better luck than I have had in attempting to draw him out, since all I have managed to do is arouse enough passion in him to get him making coy comments,and wagging his finger.
Disputations, I am with Mark in being only too happy to be shown, logically, the error of my ways, as well as your more prudent alternatives. But how about you put up or shut up already?
Okay Mark - see below to your comments about Bishop Vasa.
Bishop Vasa said, very reasonably, that the atmosphere made him concerned that any excuse would be used to attack the diocese, and he didn't propose to allow any excuses under his watch. The people who were moaning about losing the fun would probably be right there among the people sneering and filing lawsuits "in the name of the children." I'm here in Oregon, 25 miles from Madras and 32 miles from Bend. Fun things for kids really are few and far between, but knowing the circumstances, I'm squarely on Bishop Vasa's side.
Your statement was that what he did was "idiotic "zero tolerance" thinking in insane over-reaction to the sins of clerics." Really? Pretty harsh words for a truly wonderful, faithful, and orthodox bishop.
Kathy:
Fair enough. He's trying to do right by people.
The Holy Father thought Grahmann was resigning. That's why he appointed a co-adjutor, Bishop Galante, who has been sidelined by Grahmann and dissed and treated like a child. Grahmann refuses to go. And there's not much the pope can do about it, it seems.
Dear Mark,
Destroy them all!
Affectionately,
The Brigade
But Mark, by your logic, not even a boy-raping bishop could be removed. The kids would just have to "carry their cross" and endure the raping. As you want dioceses and parishes to endure and let themselves be destroyed so the pope can revel in his precious idealism.
Mark, with respect, I agree with Sandra. You and I have been around about this, and I know that you make your argument in good faith. It just doesn't make sense to me. Where is Sandra wrong? You know -- or I hope you know -- that I am decidedly NOT with the "JP2 is Always and Everywhere Wrong" crowd. I wish I could figure out your logic here. Like I said, we've been around and around about this, so don't feel like you have to answer. I do wonder, though, what would have to happen for you to change your mind, and to see the Pope's strategy as a matter of a serious failure to govern the Church properly, period.
(Please, let's not have a Bash-Mark Fest here! I don't want to be part of that.)
sandra and Rod:
But that's simply not the case. As I've already noted, precisely what appears to distinguish the bishops who were quickly dismissed (like the guy in Palm Beach) from merely idiot incompetents has been whether they were personally guilty of abuse themselves. If a bishop abused, he was summarily dismissed. If he was not personally guilty of abuse, he was compelled to remain until it was absolutely clear he could not govern (like Law). That's the basic pattern JPII is following and I'm convinced it's deliberate and active, not passive and accidental.
I do wonder, though, what would have to happen for you to change your mind, and to see the Pope's strategy as a matter of a serious failure to govern the Church properly, period.
I s'pose I'd have to have a better grasp of ecclesiology to answer that with certainty. As it stands, certain common sense things come to mind of course. If JPII did what Law did, for instance, and deliberately a) endangered children while b) lying to parents about it and c) putting the squeeze on witnesses to shut up, I'd call that bad governance. Likewise, if he deliberately had let O'Connell stay on, endangering kids, that would have been a clear act of bad governance, I think.
What I see with JPII is a deliberate (though counter-intuitive, as he frequently is) attempt to live according to the Tradition, particularly the theology of the Cross and the Church's teaching on the grace of ordination, born out of a deep conviction that *only* fidelity to the Tradition and not secular templates, whether "conservative" or "liberal" hold any hope for the authentic restoration of the Church. Given his track record in asserting the Tradition against eastern forms of secularism a decade and a half ago, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, while recalling all the while that we are talking about prudential judgments and not doctrine. Maybe he's making a bad call here. Humans make mistakes and this is a tough call. What I will *never* believe is that he is being deliberately irresponsible. It's not in the man.
Please note that I prefaced my remarks with "by your logic" and pushed it to the extreme. Bishops with their own longtime lovers weren't removed so speedily, now were they?
Expecting the grace of ordination/consecration to "work" in the Situation is like expecting a miracle cure at Lourdes and not using medical remedies.
Heaven forbid that we get another philosopher as pope anytime soon.
The longer I live the more convinced I am that the Church exists to torment us and to add extra obstacles to our journey toward salvation--but we're supposed to belong nevertheless. I wish I had a chance to ask why it's set it up this way but it's well known that God does not entertain questions.
Dear Mark:
Given the facts in evidence, you have done as well as anyone outside the Vatican could in giving a plausible reason for keeping the negligent Bishops in office. BUT .... what I would hope for (and can't see why it is not given) is an explanation from the Pope on why he is doing what he is doing. If such an explanation were given, it could dispel much doubt about the cuorse of action being taken. And an authoritative explanation from the top would calm things far more than even the best apologists' estimates could do.
Lee
Sandra:
I (and Flannery O'Connor) concur with your guess about (one) of the functions of the Church: to drive us nuts. We need that.
Lee:
I'd love to see the Holy Father explain his motivations. However, he doesn't answer my emails. 
I'm basing this on conversations with people I trust and what I know of the Tradition and John Paul. I'm morally certain I'm right. But I offer it, not in the spirit of apologia, but in the spirit of "If we want to navigate, we had better be responding to what's actually going on and not to something else".
Sandra, Sandra,
I'm going to report you to the American Catholic Philosophical Association. Then you'll sleep with the fishes!! (said in my best DeNiro accent)
You make being a philosopher sound like a bad thing.
The bad thing is to be a bad philosopher (lover of wisdom).
I'm pretty much on Mark's side here, and I get the same reaction from people - "how could you want to allow those evil men to keep on with their evil deeds?"
Kids will just have to "endure the raping?" I think that statement is just plain stupid, as well as mean-spirited. Someone disagrees with you, so let's just paint them as a vicious pervert. A typical political maneuver, but I don't expect to see it here.
Some terrible things will still happen, as they would under any circumstances, but do you really believe it can continue like it has under the intense scrutiny the Bishops and priests are facing? The children are as safe as they can be in the world we have made for them.
I agree with the concept of allowing them to carry their cross, experience their shame, and endure constant challenging of their every act and decision. They can't do any more harm. The damage has been done, to our children, our personal faith, our trust, and our reputation. And we, the people (we ARE the Church, of course,) aided and abetted it all the way. Screaming "off with their heads" doesn't relieve us of that responsibility, although it sure takes the focus off us. The damage is done, the kids are being watched over, the Bishops and priests have lawyers, cops, and reporters watching their every move. John Paul wants the conversion to happen for the Bishops and for us, so just pick up your damn cross and carry it.
For it it's worth, John Allen had an article in the National Catholic Reporter a few months ago saying that some Vatican insiders believed that resignation was the easy way out for Law, and that an Italian Archbishop who had driven his diocese into financial crisis had been forced to stay in office for similar reasons. So whether this theory is right or wrong, it isn't just Mark Shea's Crazy Theory (which commenters elsewhere have often insinuated).
Another problem:
Understand that I pretty much hate the bishops. (I mean, I try not to literally do so, since we have to love even sinners, but you know what I mean.) I believe that two-thirds or more of them should resign. I WANT to be able to call them nasty names. My problem is this: When the critics of the bishops use abusive language toward the bishops or call for withholding funds, more bishop-friendly bloggers (like Kevin Miller, or Rod Dreher's nemesis, the Gasparian) cite canon law which commands respect for the bishops and mandates contributions to the local churhc. I don't see how we can get around this. Isn't canon law supposed to be absolutely binding on all Catholics?
(To be continued...)
Part 2:
I know that Rod Dreher is a good man, but it seems that when he posts a comment, he tries to see if he can come up with an even nastier insult toward the bishops than the last time. I would have no problem with these remarks if they were allowed, but if they are really against canon law, then it seems to me that Mr. Dreher is putting himself above the law of the Church for the sake of a higher good, and that cannot be justified.
Now if I am all wet here, and there is a certain leeway for a sort of "civil disobedience" against canon law in extreme circumstances, then please tell me, and I will apologize. If not, however, then I cannot understand how such remarks can be morally justified.
To be continued...
Part 3
Please, however, don't skirt the main issue and just say, "Since the bishops are guilty of such great evil, I can say and do whatever I want." I am not suggesting that the remarks by Mr. Dreher, Ms. Miesel, et al. are anywhere close to a mortal sin. I myself, before I was aware of the canon law, referred to Cardinal Mahony as a "whited sepulchre" in print (in my college newspaper). There is, however, the verse, "You must be perfect, even as My Father in Heaven is perfect," and I can't think of a good reason why perfection would not include complete obedience to every provision of canon law.
James, I mean you no disrespect, but men like +McCormack allowed child rapists to carry on in ministry, and you're worried about whether I'm calling them names? Really?
Kathy C., I'm sorry, but if you think the damage has been done, and the crisis is over, you're wrong. I could tell you 10 things going on right now in various dioceses, with the bishop's full knowledge, and in one case with his cooperation, that would make your jaw drop. Many in the media have lost interest in this story, in many cases because (it seems to me) the stories are not about child sex abuse, but about adult homosexual promiscuity among the priests. I recently had a column I'd written critical of the shocking actions, re the scandal, of a powerful episcopal figure killed by the well-known publication (NOT National Review or National Review Online) because of orders from higher up in the news organization (whose leadership enjoys a close relationship with the figure, and has killed stories before at his request). And on and on. Shoot, even +Grahmann got caught three weeks or so ago having broken rules to keep a scandal-ridden Hispanic priest in ministry. These guys don't change overnight.
As Fr. Wilson has said elsewhere, this crisis is not just a crisis of the sexual abuse of children. That is its ugliest and most terrible facet, but it goes much deeper than that. I think we all know that. You have a point, Kathy C., in that screaming "off with their heads" relieves us of some responsibility. But have you considered that this "aiding and abetting" of which you accuse the laity consisted mainly of remaining silent and trusting the bishops to do the right thing? Screaming "off with their heads" is not the best thing to do, but better than what we were doing before, which was nothing. Besides, when the world is deaf, you gotta yell!
I will call a bad man a bad man be a bishop or a beekeeper. The Pope's evident personal virtue does not preclude him being wrong in his policies.
Perhaps I was set on the wrong road about the Church's failings when I first heard of the Pornocracy--a far worse time than today--some 40 years ago.
Dear Mr. Dreher:
Thank you for swift reply. However, you did exactly what I told you not to do in part three of my comments: Instead of actually answering my question, you said, "But the bishops are so much worse than I am," and then dismissed my thoughts.
This is not about whether the bishops are really and truly bad men or not. I am not "worried" about Bishop McCormack, or any bishop. If he dies without having repented his deeds, he will undoubtedly burn in Hell, and I will stand by and applaud. The question I asked, and which you ignored, was this: "Why is picking and choosing which provisions of canon law we obey not private judgment and 'cafeteria Catholicism?'" All sorts of things - clerical celibacy, the mandate for yearly Confession, our Easter Eucharistic duty, the circumstances under which a Tridentine Mass can be celebrated, etc., are mandated by Canon Law, not divine law, and can be changed in an instant. As I far as I know, every orthodox theologian has said that a Catholic must obey canon law. If one stone of the edifice is made optional, how can the whole thing be stable? Maybe, since McCormack is an evil man and probably never confessed his pervert-shuffling during his annual confession, I will decide that, since I am so much better than he is , I will only go to confession every two years. Maybe (if I were a priest), since my bishops have shown such bad judgment in other matters, I will celebrate a Tridentine Mass whenever I want (or, on the other side of ideological spectrum, fiddle with the liturgy in an AmChurhcy way), whethe I have permission or not. As far as I can see, "meaning no disrespect," you can't construct a coherent argument that these would be sinful acts without retracting your previous argument. The laws of the Church are the laws of the Church, and it is not our business to rank which ones are important enough to be obeyed or not. (And I don't mean that in a clericalist way - a priest or bishop doesn't have such a right either. The Pope does - maybe.)
I will also remind you: My remarks did not solely address the issue of name-calling, but also the FAR weightier matter of whether or not to give money.
In desperation, I appeal to Mark Shea: Am I just spouting nonsense? If I am, please just reply, "You are spouting nonsense. Shut up." But if I am speaking in an even vaguely coherent fashion, please give me a respectful explanation of why I am right or wrong. I would like nothing better than to be able to dispense with my scruples and call McCormack, Grahmann, et al. every name in the book. Until I am convinced, however, I will let Mr. Dreher or anyone else talk me into the thinking that raising these questions is somehow disrespectful to the victims.
Sandra,
You wrote, "Perhaps I was set on the wrong road about the Church's failings when I first heard of the Pornocracy--a far worse time than today--some 40 years ago."
What's this all about?
Typo alert:
I meant, of course, "not let".
James:
Sorry, but I'm in no position to adjudicate your appeal.
As I understand it, canon law, so far from being "absolutely" binding, is the weakest form of law in the Church. It is typically promulgated with the caveat "in most cases" leaving a big loophole for the vagaries of human experience. Pete Vere is your guy here, not me.
Personally, I would have few qualms making life extremely difficult in the financial department for a bishop like Grahmann and would send my money elsewhere. Indeed, the hard part for me would be finding it conscionable not to make life hard for him. But then again, what do I know?
I don't claim to be one who can answer the question of why JPII leaves these bishops in office. I tend to believe Mark's explanation. Who knows what he really knows about what is going on? Bad news is often not relayed to the top very easily.
In any event, I do know of an instance where a Pope was confronted. St. Catherine of Sienna basically told the Pope he needed to go back to Rome. On the other hand, I'm not as holy as she is. Decisions as to whether or not to criticize a bishop should be made in prayer. I hear a lot of viewpoints, but don't we need to pray about these things and discern if it is really what God wants us to do. Anyway, I think I'll post more on my blog.
It is sad, truly sad to see what is happening today. A pastoral relationship is just that -- a relationship, a two-way street. See what happens, what harm ensues when a pastoral office -- such as that of Bishop -- is held, not as a position of service, but as a position of eminence to which one has attained by talent and right, and to which one will cling no matter what once it has been attained -- even if the trust between oneself and those one "serves" is destroyed.
I have said this elsewhere: every bishop, pastor, provincial tainted by this needs to resign. If one is ordained, there will always be a corner of the Church to which one can go and,by dint of quiet, humble, patient service, rebuild the shattered credibility of one's ministry. Not to realize this is evidence of breathtaking personal impoverishment. It's more important to be a CHRISTIAN than a BISHOP.
Instead, we have good people twisting themselves into pretzels over the rubrics involved in dancing around bishops who should just say, 'I love the Church; I need to get out of the way.'
I'm not saying this is easy for them -- but isn't it clear?
Well, I said I would apologize, and I hereby do (unless I should learn of contrary evidence). It also leads to a logical follow-up, though: What is the point of a law that is only binding in most cases? How do you know when to obey and when not to?
James, it is a sin to tell a lie. But should the Gestapo show up at your door and ask you if you have Jews in the basement, you are morally bound to say "no," even if you do.
The same principle applies in the (vastly) lesser case of a miscreant bishop. A Catholic should never insult a bishop casually. But when a bishop is a bad man and a disgrace and a menace to the Church, it is a sin to be silent in the face of it. That's my view.
Mark, it seems to me you are closer to the spirit of those like Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Hans Urs von Balthasar (and the saints especially), who knew how to criticize - but with love and humility - and who always saw the fragility of their own selves. Some who condemn and criticize seems quite far from this spirit and sound more like Hans Kung, etc. who have raised shrill voices about "the others" and the hierarchy in particular (and most especially this Pope).
However, even you fail, it seems to me, when you keep repeating the phrase "this hapless bench of bishops" - that just isn't fair. I have MANY disagreements with some bishops and consider some quite inadequate to their ordination; but I do not lump them all together and most of the bishops I have met have struck me as good people, good priests, and with good hearts and spirits.
Enough!
God richly bless you and keep you "thinking with the Church" a la Ignatius Loyola.
The Pornocracy, (literally "rule of whores") was a splendidly lurid period in the 10th C when a string of popes were the lovers, sons, grandsons, and puppets of a couple of Greek ladies. The last Pope of the set, John XII, was elected as a teenager and died in the bed of a married woman, possibly coshed by her husband. Matters were straightened out by Holy Roman Emperor Otto the Great and oddly, had no effect on life elsewhere in the Church.
Mark, I too tend to agree with your theory. And, to dismiss this pope as some mere philosopher is really arrogant stuff. Even good Catholics are having their reason twisted by the preponderance of cultural influence. I wouldn't agree that the Church is there to torture us. Rather, it's been the infiltration of the smoke of the old boy from a much greater culture of death, hardening of hearts, etc., that is the sinister influence for all - lay and religious alike. This was the whole purpose of Vat II - to recognize that the Church exists in the worldly culture and to have some effect upon that which Catholics spend 95% of their time absorbing. Instead we have made comfortable little places of sing-a-longs which instead help us to comply with the greater culture instead of witnessing against it. It seems funny to me that those who keep ta-ta-ing the rest about their "clericalism" seem themselves to see the only and final solution to all of this as merely lopping off the heads of who?....why, the clerics of course, because they have such power in their minds that this will solve it all. HA!
I may be alone in this, but to me name-calling always speaks more loudly about the person calling names than the person called a name.It always distracts me from the main issue--whatever it is.It reeks of pride, power, self-righteousness, arrogance and appears to be self-serving. It is entertaining...like: "I can't believe he had the balls to say that!!!---Those guys really are no good #$%#!! %^%%^&#$#!!! @#$#@$%#$^$$!!!"Wow! I feel powerful and right!It is a distraction at the very least.
Rod:
Final word on the subject. I'm sorry, but I still think that you're mischaracterizing my position. I have never said that we should remain silent in the face of evil. I am merely (mildly) criticizing your position, which seems to be (and maybe I'm wrong here) that if one man says, "Bishop X has committed great evil and must go" and a second man says, "That no-good, disguting sleazeball whore Bishop X has committed great evil and must go", that the second man is somehow morally superior because he used stronger language. I think that the two men are morally the same. Rhetorical fireworks are good in small doses, but if taken to excess, I think that they strengthen rather than weaken an argument. We know how concerned and horrified you are - you don't need to prove anew every time.
I need to proofread better!
I meant "weaken rather than strengthen," not "strengthen rather than weaken." Since my climax would have made no sense otherwise, you probably figured that out on your own.
Commenting by HaloScan
