Mark, I think your point about whether the pope's approach further endangers children is a crucial one. I agree with you on that point. It's for that reason especially that I reject the criticisms of JPII. In fact, critics don't so much want him to ignore ecclesiology for the protection of children as to ignore ecclesiology to Send A Message. This is what I was hinting at/alluding to in my comment under another recent post of yours, when I said that the pope is taking the approach that, one could argue, will maximize reform of the Church - including the protection of the innocent.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 12:42 pm | #

... follow up: E.g., I honestly don't fully understand Rod's invocation in his FT letter of a group of Wichita molestation cases from the 1980s. It is unspeakably sad that these cases occurred and led to suicides. But it's just not clear to me what bishop the pope should have deposed when in order to prevent this from happening.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 12:57 pm | #

I'm from Wichita, and I forget all the details of the cases against the priest here who is now gone and has been for a while. I do know that the now-retired bishop of Wichita was an excellent bishop. In his case, I would give the benefit of the doubt in not necessarily knowing how to handle pedophiles. I don't want to make it sound like I don't care about the victims - it's tragic. But I can't see the former bishop just trying to have a cover-up to save his own skin or from a clericalist mentality. He and the current bishop both acknowledge their former error and condemn any and all forms of child abuse. They did so in a number of articles in the diocesan paper. Just my $.02.
Blake Butterworth | 01.31.03 - 1:28 pm | #

Mark,

You are right, to a point. It won't be "business as usual" until people start saying the problem is in the past - as you seem to be saying.

Then it will again be business as usual.
Michael Drollman | 01.31.03 - 1:32 pm | #

Michael:

Then we must assume as dogma that the Christian belief in repentance and the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives is simply impossible?

That seems to me to be the assumption at work here. Yes, it *could* be the case that sin will continue. But you are saying (and how you know this I have no idea) that it *must* continue. There's absolutely no hope that God means what he says about conforming Christians to the image of Christ and there's no way sinners can really repent and change.

In what sense is such a presumption Christian? Are we to insist on "reforming" the Church right out of its first principles in our outrage over sins?
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 1:54 pm | #

The presumption I maintain is that there is danger in the current Church environment. When you wrote "I don't buy the 'Children in Peril line'", I felt compelled to respond.
It is not Un-Christian to be concerned for my children (and yours). The danger may have lessened due to the current scrutiny, but it has not gone away.
Michael Drollman | 01.31.03 - 3:06 pm | #

Mark, with all respect, I don't buy your interpretation that JPII is allowing the bishops to wallow in their shame and carry their cross as a form of redemption and healing. To convince me that your interpretation is correct, show me some evidence. It's all hypothesis at this point as the Pope has said nothing about it. In fact, I haven't heard him say a word condemning the behavior of the enablers.

On the contrary, punishments already included in canon law intend exactly the same thing. They are listed as "medicinal and expiatory" (1312) and include excommunication, removal from office, supension, and so on. So your interpretation, despite not having any evidence, would also have us believe that the Pope has come up with a novel way of treating offenders. Again, hard to swallow.

Moreover, canon law is imbued with a pastoral sense of why it may be necessary to punish and or remove clerics. Read 1741: detrimental activity, incompetence, *loss of good reputation*, neglect, and poor administration.

They key here is "loss of good reputation" (all the other problems are there as well, but...) which echos St. Paul's admonition not to scandalize the weak even if the action is legitimate. In the same way, a pastor/bishop may be reformed and repentant, but their very presence may continue to cause scandal. The Cross such a person would carry is not the Cross of remaining in office and suffering the shame, but the Cross of being removed and living out their lives in quiet penance.

Bottom line: your logic excusing the Pope for not excercising his authority to punish and remove is very close to the same logic the offending bishops used to shuffle pedophile priests. Think about it.
Fr. Paul | 01.31.03 - 3:09 pm | #

Sigh.

If I say what I think the Pope is thinking, I'm "excusing" him. Even after I've made it clear that I don't think the strategy he's attempting is likely to work.

And here I thought I was simply trying to say what I think motivates him.

I suppose you could call it "excusing" if I say I don't think his thinking proceeds from an ill will. Nonetheless, I do think that because I see no evidence of ill will, either in positive malice or in negative neglect. Like I say, I think his approach is active, not passive, intentional, not accidental. One can argue whether that approach is likely to succeed (I doubt it.) But I don't see how simply saying what I think the Pope's thinking is constitutes an "excuse."
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 3:34 pm | #

Michael:

There will *always* be danger in the Church. It's populated by sinners. But I don't think it realistic to say that the danger is the dominant fact about the Church. Nor do I think it realistic to say that things will ever be the way they were again. Must most of all, I don't think it just to say that once the coast is clear it "will" be business as usual. This is, in the final analysis, to declare clairvoyantly that all that business about God actually being alive and at work in the Church is not really possible. I can substitute "may" for will and buy what you are saying. But prophecies of despair are simply not Christian.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 5:21 pm | #

OK Mark, let's use the more neutral "explain" his behavior rather than "excuse". I don't believe your reasoning "explains" his behavior. Nor do I believe, like you, that it proceeds from ill-will.

Nevertheless, this behavior is harmful at worst, ineffective at best. What's the source? The simplest explanation I have is "clericalism". Now clericalism is a bit like pornography: hard to define but you know it when you see it. It causes even good priests and bishops (and yes Popes) to tolerate behavior that are good for the system (the clerical system), but bad for the Church and the people.

I'll spare you the stories now, but I've seen priests get away with some things that would make a prostitute blush - all while the hierarchy promoted and defended them. Something's seriously wrong.

I'm reminded of the line from "Armageddon": Mark, it's time to "embrace the horror."
Fr. Paul | 01.31.03 - 8:06 pm | #

Fr Paul,

In all charity, I do not want to embrace the horror, nor do I want to stick my head in the ground.

My concern is that from here on out, priests and the laity will have a mutual distrust of each other.

I don't want a church like that.
CS | 01.31.03 - 9:20 pm | #

CS, in all charity, that's what you've got. Laity can't trust their priests, and vice versa. Priests can't trust their bishops, and vice versa. All because of this dysfunctional system. I've got too many horror stories I could tell you. By "embracing the horror" I mean simply, acknowledge the problems and don't make excuses for it and try to explain it away. The Church hasn't even reached the 1st step of AA: acknowledging it has a problem. When it does, we may be on the path to renewal.
Fr. Paul | 01.31.03 - 9:56 pm | #

Fr. Paul,

I mean this with all respect: be careful. You're going the way of Lammenais. Disappointment with the bishops and especially the pope led a brilliant reformer out of the Church. Remember those for whom you pray nominatim each time you celebrate mass. Can the same tongue curse and bless?
Rob | 02.01.03 - 1:10 am | #

Fr. Paul, isn't there any possibility at all that, with the bishops left where they are, with a more vigilant media and laity, with investigations by civil authority, we might see arrests and jail sentences for offenders and their protectors among the bishops?

I know, it's far-fetched to think that the Pope may have cooked up a scheme to subtly expose the bishops to arrests and so on. But, can we take this further? Can the laity help this idea along so that the civil authorities can take care of removing the dangerous men in the hierarchy?

Fr. Paul, I hear you. The bitterness can't help but creep in. I'm praying for you, for priests and bishops, as I know many of us do. Please keep your hopes up. We're not abandoning our priests, and we are usually the first to know good priests when we have them. And in the absence of any clear sight of some Magic Solution from the Holy Father, I know that we are all praying for the mighty Spirit to clean up the mess we have dug ourselves into. Where the Holy Father may seem ineffective or even passive, we know that the Spirit will always triumph.
Jeff Tan | 02.01.03 - 1:55 am | #

I don't hear bitterness in Fr Paul's comments; just realism. He's describing the situation, and he is right. The Church has not even begun to admit the breadth of our problems. The bishops simply would never have done anything to address even this problem of sexual abuse had they not been forced to -- and that's just one of the crises facing us. During this past week, for example, the Boston Globe reported on newly published depositions which show that the Boston Archdiocese's vaunted 1994 protocol for clergy sexual abuse was a fraud, a facade, and the Archdiocesan Review Board was kept in the dark not just about details but about the full extent of the problem.
I believe that the desire uppermost in the minds of most of the bishops is that everything settle down and things return to 'normal.' I believe that we SHOULD see them operating in crisis mode and candidly addressing the many areas of crisis in our Church, but I do not think I will ever see that happen. That's not bitterness; it isn't even hopelessness. It is realism.
Father Wilson | 02.01.03 - 8:20 am | #

Rod invoked the Wichita cases to make a simple but important point: if you want to understand the horror of the Situation, talk to some people involved. It's too easy for this to remain abstract. Horace and Janet Patterson are not abstractions, but real people. Rod has spoken to them several times, as have I. The tragedy of their son's suicide is compounded by the bitter knowledge that the Church knowingly assigned Robert Larson to their parish despite his past history of abusing boys, and never warned them; even further hurt comes from the fact that even after Eric Patterson's death, they were lied to about what the diocese knew and when, lied to by a priest who was a chancery official. Rod instanced them as a powerful example of the human face of this tragedy, which is not and can never be just another problem in the Church's life.
Father Wilson | 02.01.03 - 8:40 am | #

That would be fine if Rod's point were simply that the Situation is horrible (although if that were his point, his FT letter would be even more unjustly insulting to Neuhaus - as if Neuhaus had questioned that). But in fact, he mentioned Wichita apropos of an argument about what the pope should have done. There's a gap in the logic there.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 02.03.03 - 11:24 pm | #