No a wholesale bishopectomy will not work because the problems are in the chanceries, and in the hearts of many priests (Fr Paul's comments at Amy's the other day enlightened me to the problem of retention). No, this is our 40 years in the desert, as Americans. We must witness to the Cross, the Holy Father is. We did not cause the problem, but each of us is called to be SOME PART of the solution. If your faith, your practice of it and your prayer life has not changed in some way in the last year and a half, then you must ask yourself why not?
CS | 01.30.03 - 9:08 pm | #

I agree with CS. We can be part of the solution, even if we didn't cause the problem.

In fact, that is almost the heart of the imitation of Christ. Wasn't he the complete solution to the problem that wasn't his fault at all?

Lawrence King | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 9:40 pm | #

I appreciate your words, Mark, and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. If JP2 has to personally do the things Law et alia have done to have gone too far with you, then he'll never get there, because as you know the Holy Father, by the nature of his office, doesn't have that kind of responsibility. For the sake of argument, I'm going to suppose that what you've proposed is exactly the Holy Father's reasoning in devising this strategy (and truth to tell, it's as good an explanation as any, so I tend to believe you've nailed it). At the end of the day, in the service of a theory of ecclesiology and a mystical trust in supernatural grace, he has chosen to allow bad men to remain as bishops in local churches, to the grave harm of the faithful. Look at Bp. Lynch down in Florida, giving sweetheart no-bid contracts to a shady contact, demanding that his spokesman pose for him in Speedos, and squeezing the guy's manly biceps, banning Eucharistic adoration, etc. Bp. Lynch is a disgrace, but Bp. Lynch is a former NCCB secretary, a made man, a member of the boys' club. He stays. It's a sign of decay when a bishop has to have molested children himself, or get caught in a proven and public relationship with a lover, to be forced to resign.
Anyway, I will accept your explanation as to why this good and great man, our pope, has governed the way he has. But I think he has been gravely mistaken, and that he has unwittingly allowed a theory of ecclesiology to be more important than flesh and blood people, especially children. It's tragic. Really and truly tragic. I should make it very clear that I don't for one second think the Pope has done what he's done out of malice or malicious indifference; I think, rather, that he is a victim of his own high ideals of the hierarchy. Alas for us, he's not the only one.
Rod Dreher | 01.30.03 - 9:55 pm | #

If JP2 has to personally do the things Law et alia have done to have gone too far with you, then he'll never get there, because as you know the Holy Father, by the nature of his office, doesn't have that kind of responsibility.

Wait! You've just changed the question. You didn't ask what it would take for the Pope to have "gone too far", you asked, "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". I answered that. His strategy will be a failure if it doesn't work. Unfortunately, we don't know if it's working for quite a while.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 10:22 pm | #

Another thing that Mark had said ages ago was that it would be too easy for the bishops if they were simply allowed to retire, as many thought Cardinal Law was attempting in his visit to Rome several weeks ago. I tend to agree on this one: they should face the music. If jail awaits them then so be it (they can serve some of their 'purgation' period in a cell).

Yet it is also true, as Rod says, that keeping the bishops where they are is a danger to their dioceses.

But perhaps JPII isn't entirely abandoning the sheep to these wolves? While it is true that it is proper to consider how these wolves may reform through the Cross, it is not unlikely for the Pope to have now put several people to work as observers so as to keep a close eye on these wolves.

And in the 21st century, we've already got people who do this for a living: the media. Add to that the increasingly vigilant, and, in some cases, suspicious, laity. Add to that the civil authorities. I tend to think that, with this entire mix of people who will monitor their bishops and priests more closely, wrongdoers will have little reprieve.

Which makes it more urgent for us in the laity, some of whom serve in parish councils, to remain ever-vigilant.

I tend to wonder, though: how would the "get rid of them all" scenario play out? Chaos? Mutiny? The wolves among our clerics running for the hills (never to face the music if they can help it)?

One thing is for sure: this is the perfect opportunity for the Church to show how the Spirit keeps the Bride of Christ. We can all pray that the children will be safe, that wrongdoers will face justice, and for all, that all hearts will turn to God.
Jeff Tan | 01.30.03 - 10:57 pm | #

Wait a minute. Could it be that the answer is staring us in the face? If Mark is correct, and being Polish I know all about their idealism, let us suppose that in letting the bishops right where they are will FORCE US as laypeople, as priests and religious, each in his own way, his own calling to witness to the TRUTH, as we have been doing right here. The wealthy of Dallas have done it; I have done it when I pitted an old newspaper against a Cardinal's spin.

Wouldn't this truely implement Vatican II in making Christ present to the whole world, not just through the clergy and religious, but all of us. We have to stand up for the children; we have to stand up for the deceased priests who cannot defend themselves against libel, slander, and detraction. We need to acknowledge that priests are leaving the ministry not because they are not strong, but too many of us have unrealistic expectations of them, and are frankly to damn lazy to assume the leadership roles that properly belong to the laity. If priests are leaving, after 10 years of study & work, then there is something gravely wrong. If priests are crying themselves to sleep at night and working to overexhaustion and falling over dead (or worse turning to vice for release) then we need to find a away to be a help for them. Priests need to learn to ask for help.

If this is true, then we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work.
CS | 01.30.03 - 11:51 pm | #

The question that opened this discussion calls to mind an anecdote George Weigel relates in The Courage to Be Catholic:

"A distinguished Catholic philosopher who thinks himself extremely orthodox once said, ‘If the Pope said 2+2=5, I’d believe him.’ Another distinguished philosopher, just as committed to the papacy as his colleague, gave the correct and far more orthodox response: ‘If the Pope said 2+2=5, I’d say publicly, *Perhaps I have misunderstood His Holiness’s meaning.* Privately, I would pray for his sanity.’ Popes, in other words, are not men who make things up as they go along. They are the servants, not the masters, of an authoritative tradition."

We live in a time when a humble servant of the Church’s authoritative Tradition is in St. Peter’s chair. He isn’t a perfect servant. But he’s a worthy one. He's also without question one of the greatest evangelists the Church has ever seen. I’m not sure what it profits us -- or a world starving for visible models of authentic, selfless Christian discipleship like John Paul -- to publicly evaluate the various aspects of his performance.

Dave P. | 01.30.03 - 11:52 pm | #

I think it's a mistake to suggest that it's a matter of "a theory of ecclesiology" versus "flesh and blood people." Ultimately, the Church can only serve "flesh and blood people" by ... being the Church. By adhering to a correct ecclesiology. Hence, the pope, I'd say, rightly considers himself morally bound by - among other things - ecclesiological considerations.

Nor is this the same thing as "high ideals of the hierarchy." JPII obviously knows that the hierarchy isn't ideal. The point is that a correct conception of the Church with which he's been entrusted demands that he not pursue an ideal hierarchy - or even, sometimes, a merely competent/non-corrupt one - at just any cost.

Especially since, to repeat another point that's been made ad nauseum, good bishops don't grow on trees. If you cast the demon out without getting at the underlying problem, you'll just get more demons. And sometimes, casting the demon out too soon can actually get in the way of solving the deeper problem.

Pace what I understood Rod to be saying in his FT letter, catechesis, etc., have improved on JPII's watch - have improved because of JPII. That's reform. But if JPII were doing a beyond-Hildebrand and deposing large numbers of bishops, those reforms wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be hoping for their fruit. Not because it's a matter of his only having time for so much - but because in the ensuing turmoil, no one would be listening to him.

And I am confident that the fruit that will come from what JPII has done will be far more abundant than such fruit as might have come from a mass deposing of bishops. Taking into account that it's doubtful that, without underlying reform, the latter option would have produced much reform - e.g., many fewer scandals - at all.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 12:02 am | #

Jeff, you are forgetting a little history here. The idea that the bishops should not be allowed to resign was to make the point that CEO's has accountability to shareholders and directors and can be removed under such pressure.

Bishops, since they have monarchial power, can not be removed by pressure -- merely for errors in judgment.
Simply put, they have a soverign's immunity.

This principle of episcopal stability, to use a technical term, is important but where Mark and I part company is in understanding that this needs to be balanced with the immediacy of the protection of innocents from evil men, who by virtue of the powers of their Holy Orders have claims to authority, trust, and respect from the lay faithful.

Here's a concept that when people in authority abuse that authority can be removed: accountability. A reason a Catholic can accept the idea of the Holy See selecting his or her bishop is that one trusts the Holy See to hold bishops in some way accountable on earth for their actions.

Frankly, I want the Holy See to act in advance of the District Attorney, the media, protest groups, mobs armed with pitchforks, etc. If the one person in a position to act, the Pope, doesn't -- then the scrutiny of the District Attorney, the media, protest groups, and mobs armed with pitchforks, etc. is going to see as a final line of defense.

In Rod's and my diocese the DA says that the diocese lied to him.

It's in my blog.

I'd say removing 50 bishops who have transferred sexual abusive priests is a start. It's a cancer on the Church.

Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 12:26 am | #

I second Patrick's comments. What kind of message is Rome sending to the faithful, and to the wider public, when it doesn't act to remove bishops like Daily, McCormack, Grahmann, et alia? It's saying, "We don't care what you think or how you've suffered, nobody is going to tell us how to run this Church." At least that's how it comes across. Is it unreasonable for the average Catholic to read his newspaper and to learn about the staggeringly perverse things these bishops tolerated from their priests, preying on children, and to see even that is not enough to move the Vatican to request their resignation(s) -- and to thus conclude that Rome really doesn't give a tinker's damn about the just concerns of the laity? I'm not saying that this is true; I am saying only that it's a reasonable conclusion. And I don't think Rome gets that at all. People are right to be cynical and mistrustful.
Rod Dreher | 01.31.03 - 1:11 am | #

Rod,

>

I wouldn't say right but justified. It plays right into those arguments you hear about how the Church would experience the great renewal the Anglicans and the PCUSA are currently enjoying if only she allowed divorce, contraception, women priests, etc.


Brian | 01.31.03 - 8:59 am | #

I'm not saying that this is true; I am saying only that it's a reasonable conclusion. And I don't think Rome gets that at all. People are right to be cynical and mistrustful.

I agree with Rod Dreher, this seems truly to be the case. And it's going to cause a lot of harm to the church here, I fear, for a long time.
John Farrell | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 9:03 am | #

Does any American know more about the mind of the Pope than George Weigel?
If anyone here knows Mr. Weigel, could they ask him what the Pope's strategy is on this matter?
thomas tucker | 01.31.03 - 9:08 am | #

To all of us who write so well and so often:

Repent!

That's the only real "solution."
Gerard Serafin | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 9:23 am | #

I don't think the question is whether the Pope is "wicked" or not. Even good men - even saints - can make big mistakes. I think JPII's holiness is established beyond all reasonable doubt (at least to orthodox Catholics), but it is not out of bounds to ask whether leaving bad bishops in office was a mistake. and I don't it would take mass action. A couple of well-placed kicks would send a signal to the others!
On american culture - you ain't seen nothing yet. When the "benefits" of stem-cell and cloning research are integrated into the warp and woof of the medical system, the cures and treatment of many diseases will be effected by the immoral destruction of human lives and families will be faced with agonizing decisions that will make us look like Jehovah's Witnesses to the population at large: use the treatment, or let junior die.
WRY | 01.31.03 - 9:23 am | #

Let's get concrete with this abstraction:

An official inquiry from a District Attorney gets an official response from a Diocesan Chancery for a priest sought for questioning in the sexual abuse of a 12 year old. Oh - him - he left the country. It is a deliberate lie the priest did not leave the country and the diocese knew it.

Help me with this: In the Theology of the Cross in this example who is being nailed to the Cross and who is doing the nailing?

Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 9:53 am | #

If the pope is "John Paul the Great" and the champion of Catholic orthodoxy, then why has he appointed so many disasterous bishops? Why has he appointed people of dubious orthodoxy like Kasper to high positions in the church?
Steve Jackson | 01.31.03 - 10:12 am | #

My concern is that the Church will linger in the Situation (it is in the prosecutor's hands now) to the detriment of the Renewal. Also, it is incredible that a deceased priests' name should have to be defended at this time.
CS | 01.31.03 - 10:16 am | #

To answer Steve Jackson, the Curia does most of the work. JPII doesn't know each of his 3,500 bishops or the pastors of his 286,000 parishes.
CS | 01.31.03 - 10:18 am | #

My Two Cents

I have a suspicion for reason for inaction in Rome: This is such a cast-iron mess that the Curia can't figure out whats going on, or be sure that its instruction will be followed.

This has resulted in indecision and inaction.

This isn't a comment on the officals in Rome so much as the dublicity and machiavellian actions of our bishops.
AB | 01.31.03 - 10:19 am | #

I'm not saying that this is true; I am saying only that it's a reasonable conclusion. And I don't think Rome gets that at all. People are right to be cynical and mistrustful.


Rod,

And is you agitation against the Holy Father more or less likely to lead people to that conclusion?
John McGuinness | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 10:25 am | #

To make my point another way, I weep for the day when the Holy Father and our Church leadership make decisions based on how they will be perceived, rather than what is consistent with the Tradition. That seems to be what Mr. Dreher is proposing -- people perceive that Rome doesn't care, so Rome must do something different, and the Tradition is a secondary concern.

Seems like that's how we got here in the first place. Bishops covered things up so there wouldn't be a perceived problem of sexual abuse. And we got something even worse.

Mark is right -- there are no shortcuts here. There is no Easter Sunday without Good Friday. For any of us. I am grateful we have a Holy Father who realizes this, and is teaching the American Church this by his example.
John McGuinness | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 10:32 am | #

I for one believe there is merit in Mark's interpretation of the pope's (in)action. The pope is God's/Jesus' represenative on earth. God has given us free will, through which we have had to find our own way to His way, with a lot of pain and sin til we surrender to His will. [Speaking for myself, I'll say.] Not to get into the death penalty, but, eg, God does not make sure murderers are punished on earth, humans do through judicial processes. This is the type of earthly justice we are accustomed to and might instinctively think, however incorrectly, that the pope must act accordingly. God's "punishment" is more of a spiritual nature, being cut off from His grace and the hope of eternal life by our own sins. Arguably, that is the faith underlying Rome's actions. [And practically speaking they may still be trying to get an adequate grasp around the truth, resulting in slow actions.] Maybe it won't work. The danger that concerns Rod is that more children may be harmed while these bishops are in place. Yes, that could happen; even under a new bishop too. No parent should be unwise to the situation today and they should be discussing this with their children (of appropriate age or in potential position to be harmed). It seems to me that evil priests are being identified and put on leave or similar status regularly since last year. Arguably, the "cross" approach has perhaps been employed by bishops themselves in reference to priests, but has been a failure. They were wrong to use their sense of forgiveness to put priests back in positions where they can harm children again and again. They did not understand how absolutely serious the sins and crimes of such priests were, how seriously the moral character of such priests was lacking, and that such men were probably not qualified morally, spiritually, psychologically to be priests in the first instance. Therefore, such priests should be dismissed ASAP. The bishop, seeing his sins associated with allowing such abuse to continue, acknowledges by fully accounting for his actions, even stepping down and allowing God to heal the diocese with new leader? [Is stepping down mandatory if one fully accounts and cleans up his diocese?] [A bishop that has been an abuser should be seen similarly as abusing priest.] That's my 2 cents +.
Peggy | 01.31.03 - 11:28 am | #

With all due respect to Mr. Dreher, whose work at NRO I greatly admire, what other doctrines and theories should the Holy Father toss-out in addition to the "theory of ecclesiology"?

John Paul doesn't have a magic wand that he can waive over the American Church and its 6% of worldwide Catholics. (Some of you may know more than me on this one, but my understanding is that it isn't clear that Sacred Tradition allows John Paul to dismiss wayward bishops--at least not with the speed many suggest.)

In any event, as Catholics, perhaps the best we can do is respond to this crisis with greater fidelity. Mother Theresa once said that Christ doesn't command us to be "successful", but to be faithful.


Rich Leonardi | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 11:30 am | #

CS,

But the pope must have been familiar with Kasper, who was one of Europe's best-known theologians. He was named bishop and then cardinal. Kasper, for example, denies that Paul wrote the pastorals and says that many of the statements attributed to Jesus concerning His passion were made up by the writers of the New Testament.
Steve Jackson | 01.31.03 - 11:49 am | #

Perceptions of Christ that reasonable Jews might have entertained during Christ's public ministry:

1. He claims to be the Messiah, teaches with authority, performs great works of healing, and yet ....
2. He failed to use his powers to relieve the plight of his people suffering oppression under the Roman yoke.
3. When confronted by Jewish leaders, he advocated paying taxes to the unlawful Roman authorities to finance further oppression.
4. He socialized with Roman centurions, actual soldiers of Jewish oppression. (Not to mention other undesirable elements of society.)

Conclusion: The messiah is prophesied in Holy Scripture to save the Jews, not collaborate with their oppressors. Therefore, I cannot believe that Jesus is Messiah.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that from our limited perspective, we can't always see God's plan, which sometimes permits evil so that a greater good may issue. Even Dreher doesn't dispute the holiness of the pontiff, so perhaps we can give him the benefit of the doubt now as the apostles gave to Christ even though they constantly misunderstood him throughout his ministry.

I am not advocating silence in the face of evil, and the manifest sinful actions of the bishops and priests must be condemned. However, we should also be humble enough to know when to trust God's promise to lead the Church into all Truth rather than the absolute assurance of our own fitness in proposing what is right for the universal Church.
Another reasonable conclusion? | 01.31.03 - 3:59 pm | #

Dave P carred out a premptive strike on me as I was just about to post the review I wrote this morning for the book he quotes above. (George Weigel's "The Courage to be Catholic".) Nonetheless, here is a link to the review posted at my weblog within a few minutes of Amazon accepting the text:

Review

Kevin and Mark: good comments.

As for Rod, it is good to see him here in the trenches - not too many columnists would do this. I may not agree with you here but my respect for you increases when I see you not infrequently mingling amongst the people on the blogs.






I. Shawn McElhinney | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 4:11 pm | #

If the Holy Father did get rid of all the bad bishops, where would it stop? And are there enough good candidates to replace them?
Sam Schmitt | 01.31.03 - 9:54 pm | #

AnybodyI certainly understand the angst of Patrick, Rod and those who prefer a swift surgery to remove the cancerous bishops and priests among us. Some realities may not make this the best thing to do, however.

I'm not alone in saying that it's a whole new ballgame for bishops and the clerics. Mark made his point that the renewed vigilance of the laity, civil authorities and the media will make it unlikely that such criminal acts and attempts to hide them will succeed again. And CS made a specific point concerning the laity's opportunity to play the *active* role in cleaning up the clergy -- and keeping it clean. Isn't it entirely possible that such a vigilant laity today is a far more effective means of protecting our children and parishes in general from such criminals in the future?

And I still wonder if perhaps JPII actually have a few tricks up his sleeves?

- perhaps appointing specific "monitors" to watch the bishops, especially those who are already accused of having covered things up;

- perhaps he will remove these bishops AFTER the district attorneys are done with them -- perhaps in conjuction with their jail sentence (I like this idea..)

Another idea I've been musing about is whether or not it is easier for the Church to let civil authorities handle such criminals (including the bishops who hide the offenders). We are a HUGE Church, after all. Not only does this mean that the Pope can not have direct and complete knowledge about the bishops appointed, but it also means that policing them is impossible for the Pope to undertake personally. If the civil authorities can jail the bishops instead, then justice is served, these dangerous men are removed from active duty, and the deterrence factor is higher than if they were simply defrocked. (I really like this idea!)

I know that St. Paul had, in one of his epistles, condemned the idea that Christians sue one another in civil courts. But I think it's possible that he would have made an exception for these bishops and priests.

Does anyone at St. Blog's have a personal line to JPII?
Jeff Tan | 02.01.03 - 1:44 am | #

Yes

his personal secretary, Bishop Stanislaw Dziwisz
CS | 02.01.03 - 2:51 am | #

I constantly hear that the HF is busy,that the Church is so big he cannot be expected to keep track of all the bishops; but yet he manages to keep up on death penaly cases in the USA! How can this be? Dreher is right.
tonymixan | 02.01.03 - 7:41 pm | #

It's much easier to learn about the death penalty being imposed than it is to have actual knowledge about the character, nature and details of each of the bishops assigned in any place in the world. The latter involves so much knowledge that cannot really be gotten except through knowing the candidate personally.

With the death penalty, all the Holy Father needs is to know that they are imposed at a given instance. His response would be almost automatic: restraint on the death penalty.

With bishop-candidates, he has to know their history, must have a basis for trusting the source of this written history (or track record), and as many have intimated in this blog, the Holy Father must know the candidate personally.

I'm not saying that the bishops should stay put. As I'd said before, they should be thoroughly investigated and jailed if proven to be guilty. It just doesn't seem as easy (to facilitate) to me as it may sound.

And I keep hoping that the Holy Father has put something in place that puts tighter scrutiny on the actions of our bishops from now on, something that can make it easier for him to act (personally or through channels.. heck, even through civil authorities). And I think that what the "get-them-all" people want to achieve can be achieved more effectively through the efforts of laity, media and civil authorities.

There is perhaps some restraint on how the Holy Father wishes to exercise his power over other bishops. We don't want to go back to the days of Popes who were political despots as well, sitting on Peter's seat as if it were a throne, laying about him with terrible authority. Set that precedent and who knows if his successor takes it further and further...

Let's just pray for the Holy Father and our bishops, that the Spirit will renew the Church through any means possible -- including us in the laity, and perhaps unintentional instruments in the media and civil authorities. And let us be vigilant. I think there are places and ways where the laity can act freely but where the Holy Father cannot.

My 2 cents..

Jeff Tan | 02.03.03 - 1:57 am | #