I recall 20 years ago when one of Philly's secondary bishops made a "state visit" to our high school. From the principal to the choir, everything HAD to be PERFECT.

Behind his back he was referred to as "His Auxiliary Eminence", nothing but a glorified monsignor to help out with confirmation.

Did he teach anything of substance? Did he do anything of permanent value to the Archdiocese? Did he step in and shield the raped boys when the Police Department was directed to keep out of it? (The Philly DA has yet to release a report on her findings.)

He got a big ass-kissing party when he was installed, he got his ass kissed when he made his visits, and he got a big ass-kissing party when he retired.

Luxury clothed in sactity.
cs | 05.30.03 - 6:56 am | #

Make that Luxury Clothed in Sanctity.

Makes me wonder if the approved role-model for bishops is the fictional Ralph de Briccasart.
cs | 05.30.03 - 7:17 am | #

Peace, cs.

At least the fictional Ralph struggled with his conscience. I have to wonder about the outwardly eminent.

It speaks of preconciliar trappings of the office. If only the bishops could truly reform themselves in accord with Vatican II.
Todd | 05.30.03 - 8:16 am | #

Mark, I believe your argument here is somewhat disingenuous. You get no argument from me that the American laity are, in many important ways, decadent. I would agree with your stance if the scandal were about a failure to teach the fullness of the Catholic faith, or to speak out on important public issues. This child-abuse scandal, though, is in another category entirely. Liberal bishops have aided and abetted it. Conservative bishops have aided and abetted it. Cardinal John O'Connor was a reasonably orthodox and outspoken prelate in a city where you don't get many points from the public for being faithful to Catholic doctrine in public. He did it too. There's something else going on here.

Look, I know lots of Catholics who dissent from the Church on its teachings regarding contraception, abortion, divorce and other important moral issues. I'd bet my paycheck that not one of them would have reassigned John Geoghan or Paul Shanley, if they had the same knowledge of what those men had done as the Archbishops of Boston did.

To restate: if one could make an ironclad case that a failure of Catholic orthodoxy is the primary cause of the scandal, then you'd be on more solid ground, Mark. But you can't, except in a broad, meaningless sense (i.e., if priests and bishops were wholly obedient to Catholic teaching, we wouldn't have the scandal; this is true, but unhelpful, for you could say the same thing about any aberrant social phenomenon, from war to crime to drug abuse). A wise orthodox priest, a vocations director, told me over a year ago not to fall into the trap of thinking that this scandal was chiefly a problem of liberalism in clerical ranks. "I've seen too many messed-up priests hiding behind orthodoxy," he told me.
Rod Dreher | 05.30.03 - 8:38 am | #

Rod:

. "I'd bet my paycheck that not one of them would have reassigned John Geoghan or Paul Shanley, if they had the same knowledge of what those men had done as the Archbishops of Boston did."

Rod, Mark isn't saying that the bishops are without guilt. No, no, no! But rather...many people have knowledge - at least as many facts as bishops had - of the activities of perpetrators: relatives, friends, colleagues, social workers (boy do we see that today in reports) but like most observers of an ongoing mugging right before their eyes, people do not want to get involved - as a whole! I've seen this over and over in court cases that never went anywhere because family won't get involved...or neighbors...or authorities. It's culture wide = laity!! I think Mark is saying that it's easy to be some cheerleader from the bleachers yelling with the crowd and pointing fingers from some birds' eye view at a few of the stand out players as if one's own emotions and past mistakes are not somehow involved in all this mess. As I've said elsewhere, some parish majorities of laity have literally run out those who report on offending pastors - not because of clericalism...but because of the charismatic personality of the offender that has them bamboozled into believing he could never do such a thing and because he so soothingly blesses their wayward consciences!
Chris K. | 05.30.03 - 9:08 am | #

Rod writes wisely:

"Cardinal John O'Connor was a reasonably orthodox and outspoken prelate in a city where you don't get many points from the public for being faithful to Catholic doctrine in public. He did it too. There's something else going on here."

Yes! I totally agree with you, Rod. (Must be the Novena to the Holy Spirit).

If the "best" such as John O'Connor are "guilty" of the same - well, perhaps more is going on than sheer evil and malfaisance of office.

I think R J Neuhaus has spoken the wisest words about all of this that I have encountered.
Gerard Serafin | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 9:19 am | #

I think too many people are mixing up two separate issues- one is the issue of the Scandal, and the other is the issue of dissenting from authentic Catholic teaching. If we mix them up together, we lose sight of what we should be doing. Which is, doing the right thing in all circumstances whether we be clerical or lay.
thomas tucker | 05.30.03 - 9:32 am | #

Back to the roots of the scandal: clericalism, an arrogant belief that it would never be made public, and I believe in the dark side: conspiracy and blackmail of people who would otherwise have acted to protect children and teens from the predators.

My advice was never solicited for the appointment of a bishop, priest, or deacon. So don't blame me. I blame Jadot, Laghi, Cacciavillan, and Montalvo, for starters.

The principle is the each person's sin is spiritual injury to all of humanity -- but I don't translate that to the impairing deliberations of the selection committees.
Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 9:44 am | #

Totally agree with Rod. It's not a matter of whether the average lay Catholic likes bishops who won't hassle him about birth control. The Situation is a separate moral and spiritual universe, where almost a mass psychosis (or groupthink) seems to have taken hold of an entire class of people--the American hierarchy.
Larry | 05.30.03 - 10:15 am | #

Chris K., I'd buy that explanation more if not for the evidence of church officials telling the families of the abused "the Church is handling it; don't worry". A better analogy than yours, of people witnessing a mugging, would be that of people witnessing police brutality. If Internal Affairs Division is corrupt, who polices the police?
Craig | 05.30.03 - 10:42 am | #

Rod,

Your post above is interesting, but leaves more questions than answers. What exactly was this vocations director getting at? I'm inclined to think that, in a very general way, a failure of orthodoxy is really what happened over the past years (decades). I don't see that as a so broad as to be meaningless. Yes, there are things that specifically need to be done (as in making catechisis more complete, returning seminaries to orthodoxy, etc), but don't each of these things end up back at the same point: a general and overall failure of orthodoxy within the church itself?

If it's true that things are messed up for other reasons, then do tell, what are those reasons and how do they not relate back to a failure of orthodoxy?
Mark Windsor | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 11:01 am | #

So, Mark, why was there child molesting and cover-ups of same before 1968, back in the decades when we were all supposedly orthodox, laity and clergy alike? Clerical obsessions with face-saving and avoiding scandal at all cost--even expecting city police to cooperate--was operative Way Back When. And no lay Catholic has had a say in the appointment of bishops. Plenty have complained to Rome about both doctrinal and moral lapses and gotten nowhere. Are "we" responsible for Rome's inaction, too?
Sandra Miesel | 05.30.03 - 11:11 am | #

Mr. Windsor,
I suspect (though I cannot, of course know for sure) that the Vocations meant the appearance of orthodoxy -- visible things, like good liturgy, lip service to Humanae Vitae, etc., while ignoring other aspects of their duty -- confronting those who need confronting, for instance. Thus, you would be correct in asserting that they are failing in their orthodoxy, and yet they could seem perfectly orthodox to the casual observer.

I do have a question for Mark Shea: first of all, don't you think this latest post is a tad shrill? But more importantly: what would you have us do in addition to criticizing the Bishops? I mean, if one of us works in his parish, tries to live a life of visible personal orthodoxy, makes waves from time to time when necessary, etc, and yet still has a bad Bishop and can trace many of the troubles that he personally has in practicing his faith to that Bishop's free actions, what should he do? Quit his job and drive around the diocese, advocating for regime change? Wait in patient silence for the Holy Spirit to act through the Church? Or if he carefully balanced his remarks about his Bishop something like this: though the Bishop has forbidden the celebration of the Tridentine Mass to this group of worshipers who have humbly asked it of him (or), though the Bishop has failed to ask his priests to discontinue General Absolution (or) though the Bishop has, in the past, followed the advice of "experts" and reassigned serial sexual offenders, I also recognize that he has been largely popular with my sometimes-attender fellow Catholics, and recognize that he has a large number of women and men applauding him when he does things of a similar stripe, and therefore do not wish him to feel insulted by my comments, since I recognize that I cannot reasonably expect him to change, despite whatever vows he made upon becoming Bishop, until we are all converted to radical orthodoxy, at which time his job will become easy. Would that mollify you? What do you picture being the right response?

Don't think think that most of us who criticise our lord Bishops know that their job's hard, that good ones can get shellacked (though, I do believe Bp. Bruskewitz and, say, the Bp. of Denver (name?) are pretty popular in their home Dioceses), and are taking that as a given? And if so, shouldn't you address us, rather than the nuttier folks (the D'Hippolito types) who really think of the problem in absurdly simple terms? Wouldn't that be more helpful?
Mark Wyman | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 11:23 am | #

To Mark Windsor: The point is that declaring the scandal to be the fault of a failure of Catholic orthodoxy is true, but so broad as to be useless in adequately explaining what has happened. It's the same thing as blaming a rash of burglaries on failure to observe the Tenth Commandment. Well, yeah, that's true, but so what? If a lack of fidelity to Church teaching were a sufficient explanation for the scandal, then we would expect to see less priestly sex crimes in dioceses led by more conservative bishops. I don't see that that's happened.

Something else is going on, and I'm not exactly sure what it is, though I know it has something to do with making a false idol of the institutional Church, which is to say, clericalism. A priest friend of mine told me that he's seen holy, orthodox priest friends of his join the diocesan bureaucracy, and lose their sense of discernment so thoroughly that they've advanced seminarians with all kinds of sexual problems, including in one case a fixation on child pornography, toward ordination. This wasn't done by flagrant dissenters; this was done by orthodox priests. This, I think, is what the vocations director was getting at in his warning to me. A veil of orthodoxy -- and not necessarily an insincere one -- can be used to cover a multitude of terrible sins and failures of judgment.
Rod Dreher | 05.30.03 - 11:26 am | #

These arguments just seem to go 'round and 'round. It seems to me like when I'm at work, and someone has a problem that resulted from a mistake, and people try to figure out who made the mistake before correcting the problem. The blame lies everywhere, which is the way that I take Mark's statements. Yes, some bishops suck. I have a decent one in KCMO, and he still ticks me off every now and then. But that is not the end of it.

Sin does not exist in a vacuum. If I sin, it affects everyone around me.

Why not turn this situation around? I recently joined a parish with a Monsignor whom I love. He actually talks about confession from the pulpit, and you can tell that when he hears about people falling away, it tears at him immensely. How tough must it have been for him in his many (at least 50 I know) years of ministry, to hear people say "I don't care what the Church says or how it is trying to guide me, I'm going to use the Pill" or something like that? I can't imagine having to hear that all the time, yet many of our priests do, and unfortunately many take the easy way out and tell the parishoners what they want to hear. If a priest does that enough, it is easy then to say to a "messed-up priest" that they can have another chance. Wimpiness begets more wimpiness, just as sin begets sin. We are all to blame, not just the Bishops, and not just the laity.

Catherine
Catherine L. | 05.30.03 - 11:53 am | #

I agree with Catherine L that this seems to be going in endless circles. We are all to blame to one degree or another. Having said that, now what?

I also see Rod's eventual point. It would be good to know what caused this problem. How can you cure a disease if you don't know what disease you're curing? I'm half-way thinking out loud here, so sorry if it doesn’t make sense...but at what point does the search for a cause become self-defeating? Sandra points out that this existed long ago. If clericalism is THE problem, then we could probably go back to Charlemagne or Constantine to find the source.

If the root problem really is clericalism, then how can it be fixed? I’m assuming you won’t let me get away with the answer: “A return to genuinely orthodox Catholic beliefs in conjunction with a strengthened clergy and hierarchy.” But short of that answer, I don’t have an action plan on how to help the church heal. With that answer, I at least have a shot. Otherwise, I go back and sit in my pew and wait for someone else to kiss it and make better.

The problem is certainly more than just clericalism or a failure of orthodoxy or Vatican II or [insert name of chosen fault here]. We may never be able to pinpoint a single cause, or even a group of root causes. It’s like a forest with trees that are dead, dying or ill. To search for the first tree that got sick may be wise to a certain extent and helpful in finding an overall cure, but should we not attempt a some manner of treatment in the meantime? The danger is simple: By the time we find that first tree the entire forest may be dead.

Rod, maybe it’s best to look at this from a couple of different angles. You keep looking for those first trees that got sick, and let me know when you find them. I’ll help you chop them down (with great glee and gusto). In the meantime, I’m gonna try to keep the rest of the forest from dying. Between the two approaches, maybe we’ll find both the answers and the cures. I doubt we’ll find a way through this mess without trying both approaches simultaneously.
Mark Windsor | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 12:42 pm | #

I would agree with Mark that American culture, decadent, materialistic, hedonistic, impatient of delay, certainly does not deserve the sort of holy bishops and priests who could turn the situation around.

But did the Church of the 11th century deserve Gregory VII? Did the people of Ars, almost pagan due to the effects of the Revolution, deserve Vianney? No. They received them as gifts of God's grace. In the same way, despite our sinfulness, we still need the Divine Grace to operate for us in much the same way, though perhaps on a larger scale.

Cardinal Arinze spoke truth to the decadent and was mocked for it. Nevertheles it is those places where the truth is mocked the most that it is needed the most. Christ, after all, did not come to heal the healthy, but the sick.

So it would not surprise me if a generation of prophets and saints who will testify for the Faith against the world is even now germinating somewhere, perhaps among us in the structured environment of the homeschool, perhaps among men now in the Third World who will one day end up here as missionaries. We may not recognize them as such for many years. Some may lose heart along the way. Though we certainly don't deserve them, we could sure use them.
Tom Fitzpatrick | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 12:54 pm | #

I thinks Mark's on to something here. After all the laity was pretty supine (with a few notable exceptions) with all the abuses of the liturgy, and the similar doctinal abuses (contraception, pro-life) which attended the implosion which slightly predated, but certainly flourished after Vatican II. Sure a few people got up and walked out (some to never come back) and the Wanderer carried the torch, but there was nothing resembling the indignation so prevalent now.

And I believe the luxury and decadence of the 50's and 60's, and the culture that produced it is to blame. If people weren't so busy Ice Storming it up, they might have noticed Father Flapdoodle had gotten a little light in the loafers, or perhaps cared. But as Walker Percy amply charactures in The Thanatos Syndrome and Love in the Ruins (with his Father Kev) the fine upstanding citizens were a bit preoccupied.
al | 05.30.03 - 1:13 pm | #

I would also like to point out that child molesting is not exclusively an American problem (though some in Rome take it to be). It was going on in Ireland and Canada Way Back When, for instance. And pederasty was observed even in the deserts of Patristic Egypt.
To get a bit of a handle on the clericalism part, may I suggest looking at Russell Shaw's two excellent books, TO HUNT, TO SHOOT, TO ENTERTAIN and UNDERSTANDING YOUR RIGHTS. You'd think with Shaw's status, he would have generated some discussion but there was nada.
Sandra Miesel | 05.30.03 - 1:19 pm | #

Percy paints a pretty scathing picture of the nincompoopery which characterized American Catholic life from the 50's to the 60's (including and especially that of the Laity), and if you read the Last Gentleman to Lancelot, to the Second Coming to Thanatos Syndrome, he presciently predicts (or perhaps prophetically, relying on Genesis 19, and the Letters of Sts. Paul, Peter and Jude) that it ends up with the molestation of the young.
al | 05.30.03 - 1:28 pm | #

People! People!

I'm not saying "There was never clerical abuse and cover up before 35 years ago." I'm not saying, "It's all the laity's fault". I'm not saying we don't have an amazingly insular clerical culture. I'm saying that we laypeople are kidding ourselves if we think that the vast bulk of the laity aren't basically content with what we've got and would not fight tooth and nail against more Arinzes, Bruskewitz' or Ambroses, Augustines and Chrysostoms. We laity cannot directly affect the administrative machinery of the Church for the most part. The part we *can* affect is to strongly encourage good clergy and strongly discourage bad ones. That can, as I know from experience here in Seattle with Bp. Wuerl, have a powerful effect. We don't do either and it's our fault. Indeed, we often encourage lousy clergy (cuz he's got Personality!) and discourage good one (because they threaten our sex lives). Then we're shocked because a generation of sexual derangement results in massive sexual scandal. Who are we kidding?
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 1:34 pm | #

Orthodoxy doesn't confer humility and empathy for families.

Clericalism with a cancerous growth of arrogance and detachment from parish and family life.

Dellusion and denial -- that the scandal could be pereptually suppressed.

Cheap forgiveness. Lite repentance.

Deceit, conspiracy, secrecy, careerism, blackmail, underground gay networks round out the picture.
Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 1:36 pm | #

I still have an errie feeling that, as Rod has said, that there is something more to this issue. I'm really not a black helicopter type but the reaction of the Vatican and others whom I would not expect it from (media conspiracy, anti-catholicism, etc. (Groeschel specifically)) makes me wonder what the heck is going on.
The lack of cooperation with authorities (Mahoney and McCormick), and the lack of follow through on seminary visits (as far as I know) makes me wonder if the heirarchy is waiting for this to blow over and be forgotten. That's extremely unrealistic but I get the impression that's what is happening.

Yes I agree, we get the bishops we deserve in that a majority of Catholics are not faithful and we all are sinners. But I don't get any indication that these guys are moved by anything. The scrutiny of the media is far worse than anything faithful, complaining Catholics could muster up. It seems to me the bishops would just ignore us.

I personally think it's in the formation of the priest. Rather than starting with "it is a special gift to be called by God to be a priest" it begins with "because you are special, you are called to be a priest". I've argued with some of the wonderful clergy who read this forum who say that this is not true. Yet I even see it now in a very orthodox environment with a young man I know who is discerning. Thank God he has a good spiritual director.

If you start off on that foot it's easy to make excuses for sin.

I'm sure there are other factors but I believe that is one of them.

I'm sticking with prayer. The heirarchy is not going to listen to us no matter how faithful we are. I can examine my own lifem try to be more faithful and pray. That's it.

I do feel we have many more ugly details to learn though. Very sad.
Kathleen | 05.30.03 - 1:37 pm | #

Mark, the Wanderer had the proof in black and white that letters of complaint about the inaction of bishops with respect to the scandalous and criminal activity of priests sent to the nuncios were sent back to the bishops -- with the result that the priest or lay author would be identified and retailiated against.
Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 1:40 pm | #

So if luxuria and vainglory (in the form of clerical ambition and "professionalism") preoccupied the clergy, and sparked the sodomitic plague (following Sts. Peter, Paul and Jude), certainly they had their effects in the laity as well (perhaps that's the torpor Paul VI was talking about. . .)
al | 05.30.03 - 1:43 pm | #

Patrick:

We're talking past each other. I'm not saying that a small group of switched on laity (Wanderer readers, comments box writers, etc.) don't exist and don't do anything. I'm saying that the vast bulk of Catholic laity--the mainstream upon whom cardinals who hire public relations firms keep their eye--don't much care and are more or less content. That's the sociological reality. Because that's the sociological reality, comfortable bureaucrats feel pretty much at ease doing Business as Usual. And the vast bulk of Catholics feel pretty much comfortable with letting them. Concupiscence and social sin at its finest.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 1:54 pm | #

I have to disagree with part of Rod's original point.

"Cardinal O'Connor did it too." Well, Cardinal O'Connor definitely did not reassign Goeghan or Shanley. In fact, he wouldn't permit Shanley into his diocese.

There is a huge gap between Shanley and some other abusers. Shanley openly boasted of the wonders of pederasty. Many others sinned, and then [as far as I can tell] sincerely repented and felt bad, and then ended up doing it again. A bishop who spoke to this person during his era of repentance might have honestly believed that this person was reformed.

Remember, the idea that pedophilia is a hard-wired character trait and not a choice is itself a very recent idea. The idea that pederasty/ephebophilia or adult homosexuality is hard-wired is still disbelieved by many (including many orthodox Catholics). The idea that it is always wrong to keep an abuser in ministry is based on this view -- and while this view might be right, it's not the traditional Christian view, and it's absurd to assume that bishops born in the 1920's should all accept this hard-wired view that orthodox Catholics themselves were contesting until recently.

Go back and re-read Fr Shaugnessy's The Gay Priest Problem (scroll down Mark's blog for the link). He clearly does not accept that homosexuality is hard-wired. Well, if pederastic behaviour is a choice, why shouldn't a Christian believe that a past abuser can repent and stop?

I personally don't know if it is a choice. But it's absurd for orthodox Catholics to criticize the Left for claiming it's not a choice, and simultaneously criticize the bishops for acting as if it is a choice.
Lawrence King | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 1:56 pm | #

And Patrick, the laity doesn't come off smelling so rosy in the pages of the Wanderer either. . .
al | 05.30.03 - 1:56 pm | #

After all just dumping on the clericalism of the institutional Church has a distinct air of deja vu to it. And to paraphrase Trinity from the Matrix, We've been down that road before, "we know where that road leads and its not a place we want to be. . ."
al | 05.30.03 - 2:04 pm | #

Anyone making the Novena to the Holy Spirit (for oneself)?
Gerard Serafin | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 2:17 pm | #

Catherine L. and Mark Windsor give me "Hope for the Flowers"! It's gonna take decades to houseclean the Church. Yet, I agree that there are signs rumbling just beneath the earth of a future springtime. There is the movement of those beginning neocatechumenate groups (that the pope feels hold such promise) from which the new crop of seminarians and even orders are just beginning to emerge. It's a new refreshing approach - perhaps that of the Spirit finally blowing through the open windows that was envisioned. The Spirit can't move when there is still such attachment to the old structures. These beginnings are where the simple, brave, and humble souls are moving. And don't be surprised that such an unambiguous movement won't have to come through the blood of martyrs. It'll probably get worse (persecution) before it gets better. Sorry.
Chris K. | 05.30.03 - 2:18 pm | #

Three more points, lest I be misunderstood:

First, my point about Bp. Wuerl was not that he was "bad clergy" driven out by righteous laity. He was actually a good guy. But the People of God[TM] made life hell for him and he finally begged to go. So I don't buy the "laity are powerless" thing. There are other forms of power beside the Political.

Second, I in no way mean to say that people who mouth orthodoxy are automatically going to be holy. Abp. Curtiss shows that bishop with reputation for doctrinal orthodoxy can still be an imbecile who put dangerous priests near children and then threatens critics. *But those critics show that by their courage they can effect change*.

Finally, I note, but don't much care about, the fact that, of course, corrupt bureaucrats will defend their turf. Duh. The gospel will always find opposition.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 2:27 pm | #

Kathleen: "Rather than starting with "it is a special gift to be called by God to be a priest" it begins with "because you are special, you are called to be a priest"."

I think you're on to something, Kathleen. The question is: what motivates a young man to be a priest? Is it a genuine love of humble service or a desire for the esteem of others? And I would modify your statement: it is not a "special gift" to be called to be a priest, it is a special *cross*. Not too many of the young men I meet discerning a vocation understand this. I once wondered why the priest who preached my first Mass, a former vocation director - amongst the most holy and orthodox priests I know, used to *discourage* men from pursuing a vocation. Now I no longer wonder.

Clericalism is the root of the problem. But clericalism is hard to define. Is it a sense of entitlement, position, prestige? I guess the bottom line is that, given what I've been through and the sacrifices I've made, I *presume* the good will of my fellow priests. I trust them, implicitly. I *want* to trust them. Problem is, I've learned that I can't. I've seen embezzlers, swindlers, abusers, active homosexuals, drunks, heretics, and just about everything under the sun. And when we all get together, it's all smiles and handshakes and compliments. A true mutual admiration society.

A priest friend of mine calls it the "culture of denial". And here it is perfectly illustrated: Fr. Louis Miller was just sentenced to twenty years for decades of abuse of dozens of children. And what did he have to say? Here's an excerpt:

-- Miller recalled how (Bishop) Floersh told him: "`Father, you will always be a good priest.' He treated me as a spiritual shepherd, and at the same time warned me against such conduct."

-- Assessing his work as a priest, Miller said: "I did a very excellent job, except for the damn abuse."

That's what we're up against. You're an excellent priest just because you received ordination and if you commit crimes, you get a finger-wagging. Anything to protect the fraternity.
Fr. Paul | 05.30.03 - 2:38 pm | #

Novak unwittingly made Mark's exact point just a few months ago. In some screed calling for someone's head (can't remember if it was Law or Martino) he recounted how some despondent priest had come up to him a while back and begged him to expose the predatory homosexual network. Novak lamented that he hadn't done anything, and then when on to describe why that didn't disqualify him from indignantly calling for mass resignations. . .
al | 05.30.03 - 2:39 pm | #

Mark Wyman writes:

do have a question for Mark Shea: first of all, don't you think this latest post is a tad shrill? But more importantly: what would you have us do in addition to criticizing the Bishops?

1. Of course it was shrill. When people are deaf, you shout. We've been slowly moving from saying, "the problem is in the clerical office" (true) to saying "the problem is only in the clerical office" (utterly false and self-serving for us morally deranged laity).

2. Surprisingly, I think the things that will help the most are small and pedestrian, much as the things that have gotten us where we were were small and pedestrian. A few words spoken rather than not. Tiny encouragements. Little affirmations of right doing, little discouragements of chickenhood. Most of us don't have much traffic with our bishops. But we can encourage our priests when they do the right thing. We can foster a culture of holiness in the people around us (especially ourselves). We can make a point of complimenting a bishop or priest when he not only *says* the right thing but, more importantly, does the right thing. Small but concrete steps. Catch more flies with honey. That sort of thing. Letters of protest will have to be written too, of course. But the D'Hippolitan approach, which essentially is a form of self-medication for ones own inner demons of rage, results in nothing but tuning out.

Mostly though, we need to focus *being apostles ourselves*. The trouble with pointing out that the vast bulk of Catholics live at room temperature is that the ones who try to live responsibly react, as Mark does, with the feeling that you are criticizing them for not doing enough. No. I'm simply saying that the vast bulk of our brethren live their faith at room temperature and that our first task, as laymen, is not to imagine that we will have a huge impact in directly altering the machinery of the bureacracy, but rather to focus on what we *can* affect: the culture of the laity in which we actually live. The priest presides at the altar. In the world, we preside. So I believe we will be most effective in healing the Church by attending to our proper sphere: the culture which is, after all, 99.9% our creation, not the creation of the clergy. Laity aren't helpless.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 3:06 pm | #

I have to admit that this gave me a bit of a shudder: "D'Hippolitan"
Mark Windsor | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 3:19 pm | #

Yes Mark you are right in saying we must do what we can. But is that going to matter really, if the problem within the priesthood isn't being adequately addressed within the priesthood? This is why I so strongly support what Rod Dreher is doing. Some people have accused him of not being deferential enough to the heirarchy when he criticizes the Pope or consistently reports on abusive dioceses (I'm not saying you do).

But it still seems to me that with the stonewalling going on, no one really knows what's being done with the seminaries, no one really knows if the Vatican is leaning on errant bishops, etc. Matters are entirely out of hand. My own 82 year old spiritual director, a very holy and orthodox priest, even believes that not much is being done after the intial purge. He believes that the Church in America is done for in the long run. I hope he's wrong. And maybe your right, encouragement and objections can help. But the rot is at the root of the problem here, with the institution of the priesthood. It seems to me that we were all told to essentially shut up when cries were issued questioning the Vatican's actions here.

Believe me Mark, I come here and read this site every day because it and you encourage me, and I'm going along with Windsor to pray novenas and whatnot. But things look pretty bleak to me. And if something is really being moved on I think we have a right to know as members of the Body of Christ.

Fr. Paul: the illustration you give illuminates what I was saying. Do you think that bishop or priest would be moved by any letters of protest? It seems to me that Wuerl only moved when the media hung him, not when lay Catholics protested. If so, why wasn't the Vatican or other American bishops already leaning on him? By his own accounts, noone objected to his lifestyle. Another example: a priest in my archdiosese was reprimanded by our bishop for confronting a parishoner who had a Gore/Leiberman bumper sticker on her car during the last election and asked her about whether or not she was supporting political positions that were in opposition to Church teaching. This is the kind of priest that gives me hope.

Mark believe me I will do all of the things you suggest. And miracles do happen with prayer. I can be rightly accused of being impatient and wanting to see change with the snap of the fingers. But while I see laity praying and examining in books the causes of the Situation, I don't see much changing within the priesthood. And at times, most times actually, it just makes me want to pray my rosary and not think about this any more, because it doesn't seem like anything we can do, without Divine intervention can help!

Sorry I'm such a bummer.
Kathleen | 05.30.03 - 3:32 pm | #

Kathleen:

For what it's worth, Rod is a living illustration of my point. He's a layman who, without having any direct hand in the machinery of Church bureaucracy, has had a decided impact on the corruption in the Church.

I think it's important for people fretting about the Situation to remember the wisdom of actors (yes, they do have some wisdom): "You're neither as good or as lousy as they say you are." Translation: The Church is never in as rosy or as horrible a place as our moods tend to put it. Yeah, things are in a bad place. It's not in as bad a place as it was in the 8th Century and she pulled through. If you are inclined to despair, pray for Hope and soldier on. If you are inclined to presumption, see the prescription for despair.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 3:40 pm | #

I have to my bad here. I was confusing Wuerl with Weakland. Mea culpa.
Kathleen | 05.30.03 - 3:48 pm | #

By the way, you're perfectly right, Kathleen. Nothing we do without divine intervention can help. But that's only a problem if you think the Divine has no intention of intervening. I have it from a good Friend, however, that if we ask in his Name, he will act, particularly when it is according to his will. I have it from that same Friend that he wants his Bride to be holy, without wrinkle, or spot or any such thing. So I think Divine Intervention is a distinct possibility--if we have the faith to take him at his word. But that may call for some sacrifices on our part, which is the tough thing for comfy Americans.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 3:56 pm | #

Thanks for the encouragement. I will certainly keep up the prayers.

Maybe Cardinal Arinze will keep coming around a shaking things up to keep us on our toes as well!
Kathleen | 05.30.03 - 4:02 pm | #

Seems to me that the bottom line is ever and again the sexual morality taught by the Magisterium.

Those opposed to that moralityi, will never ever let up until the morality is dumbed down to justify what they want to and will do anyway.

Once those who hated that morality just plain left and did their thing. Now they stay in and demand change. Why? To justify themselves? What is this big need to have a religious authority justify the behavior one is bent on and perhaps believes sincerely is correct? This I can't understand.
What attraction is there in staying in a Church whose moral teachings one opposes?

I hope to be gone from this earth before the church trashes its moral teachings.
caroline | 05.30.03 - 4:19 pm | #

Kathleen...

Take heart... Mark's right. It's never as bad (or as good) as it seems.

I'll tell ya a story - When the Villaroya thing broke (he's the priest in Frisco, TX that started The Scandal in Dallas all over again...Frisco is the next suburb northeast of me), I have to confess that I despaired - BIG. It was enough of a funk that I asked for help. That's when the first novena with St. Jude started. The results were remarkable. Maybe I'm just on a high from that, but I honestly believe - yes, with every fiber of my being (some cliches are worth every penny you pay for them) - that things will be better in the next few years. To everyone reading this: While there is breath in us, there is hope.

St. Jude is my patron. Fighting for lost causes is almost second nature for me now. Nobody says it will be easy - we're in for a rough ride in the next few years. Sacrifice? Sure. But just imagine what it will be like when we're done...

Besides, it seems like Mark (Shea) has friends in high places too.

Remember: Be Not Afraid

Pax Vobiscum
Mark Windsor | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 4:22 pm | #

I seem to remember about a year ago hearing that there was to be a major look at the seminaries in America.

What has happened to this?

Also, I have recently heard Archbishop Dolan of Milwakee on EWTN. He did a series of 6 programmes on Lent called "St. Peter: Icon for Lent". They are brilliant programmes, really worth listening to.

In my opinion, he is one of the great hopes for the Church in America. I think he will be a Cardinal someday.

Yours in Christ

Simon
Simon Russell | 05.30.03 - 5:25 pm | #

Kathleen: "Do you think that bishop or priest would be moved by any letters of protest?"

Before Boston, an emphatic NO. Afterwards, a qualified MAYBE. I was the one who shared with Rod about the fellow with a child-porn addiction who was a month from priestly ordination. Before Boston, three pastors had written the Chancery to complain (meaning, he was caught using church computers in three different parishes to access child porn thousands of times over several years). Nothing happened, and on he proceeded to ordination. After Boston, the bishop found a way to remove him: the child-porn addict had falsified his application (he neglected to tell the diocese that he had been kicked out of a seminary for accessing child porn). IOW, he was not kicked out for being a child-porn addict. He was kicked out because he had falsified his application.

That same month, the bishop ordained a fellow who had requested diocesan funds to attend an ACT-UP conference. I suppose that since he had not technically done anything wrong (except for being a heretic), there was nothing the bishop felt he could do. And this in a diocese often cited as being among the most conservative and "vocation-rich" in the US.

Beautiful, isn't it?
Fr. Paul | 05.30.03 - 5:27 pm | #

This is a depressing thread, but a satisfying one, because it has thoughtful Catholics struggling with each other to make sense of this damn thing that's been with us for almost a year and a half now, and which will be with us in some serious degree for years to come.

Fr. Paul's item a few posts ago about the mutual admiration society that is the Catholic clergy reminded me of a prayer I heard last year at mass in my hometown. This was six or eight months into the scandal, and the priest had the nerve, in the prayers of the people, to thank God "for the good job our bishops do." This was the same priest who on another occasion denied the miracle of the loaves and fishes. I confronted him politely but insistently after mass for denying that miracle, and he clearly had no idea what to think. He simply turned away from me. A very faithful parishioner saw all this happening, and whispered in my ear, "You have moral courage." I appreciated her words, but I don't have moral courage. I'm just sick to death of what these men are doing to the Body of Christ, and I'm not going to take it anymore.

I realize that this is a great illustration of Mark's point about the laity getting the priests we deserve. If not one soul in that parish dared to confront the pastor for denying a miracle in the Bible, one gets an idea of how the pastor would think he's doing just fine. I was there last weekend, and the bishop was in attendance at mass. He praised Father to the hilt in his homily. One wants to say, "You *idiots*, can't you see the world's on fire?! Don't you see what's happening?!" But if nobody in the congregation dares to speak out...

Anyway, for all that, I still don't think the laity deserve this hapless bench of bishops. Heresy, sloth, vanity, self-satisfaction -- they're all sins, and all deadly. But even prisoners who have committed murder know that raping children is about the vilest thing you can do. So why don't bishops?
Rod Dreher | 05.30.03 - 7:25 pm | #

Rod,

The answer lies in Fr. Paul's "mutual admiration society" observation and in my own crude yet heartfelt first post on this thread.

I actually feel that the Church is due for a definate turnaround in about 20 years when the recently ordained priests move up the ranks.

Just in Philly, there are a number of priests who gave up this year, for the obvious reasons of stress, dissatisfaction, and just plain fed up with it all.

Cardinal Bevilaqua did do something noteworthy 10 years ago. He requires his seminarians to attend a year-long retreat.

Something to think about. Thanks for letting us vent and have a constructive conversation, Mark.
cs | 05.30.03 - 8:07 pm | #

But CS, who will decide which of these young priests are moved into positions of episcopal authority? The Fr. Pauls of the Church won't be made bishops, I bet. You've got to play the game, it seems. I'm not hopeful for serious renewal in my lifetime, barring an abrupt catastrophe of some sort -- something as traumatic as the Reformation -- that forces the Church government to act forcefully for the sake of truly godly reform and renewal. I am sort of haunted by something an old priest from the Midwest told me a year or so ago: "The Church in America will have to lose all its property before she will be renewed." It may take that, yes.
Rod Dreher | 05.31.03 - 1:20 am | #

A no risk bet, Rod, that's for sure. Hehe.

Actually, what I see is a return to trusteeism, for good or ill. This has already started in a diocese (can't recall which) that put all its assets under its parishes to protect it from sex-abuse settlements. I actually don't have a problem with this, because the people who donated and built up various parishes and dioceses had no intention of seeing their hard-earned and generously-given properties wasted for the malfeasance of bishops. And I have no intention of seeing this happen (and you know, Rod, that I have a particular interest in this).

Should the Church pay? Yes, as much as reasonable. But perhaps the best payment is the "pound of flesh", which to me means seeing bishops in liturgical prison orange.
Fr. Paul | 05.31.03 - 1:52 am | #

Well I will say this. Back to the what can we do issue, it's clear from all of this posting that we've got to write encouraging letters when warranted, complain when needed, be brave enough to say something when the wrong things are being homilized from the pulpit, and pray. Now that I've created a check list for myself I think I'll go pray some novenas before finally being able to mow my lawn (25 days of rain this month).

The other thing I definitely wanted to say is thank God for the internet and blogs like these. It's like a nice community to check in with every day.

Kathleen
Kathleen | 05.31.03 - 11:04 am | #

Here's something I want to throw out there. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it's worth talking about. Fr. Paul says he believes things won't really straighten out for the Church until bishops are wearing liturgical orange (i.e., imprisoned for their roles in the scandal). I agree with this. But: Fr. Neuhaus has expressed concern from the beginning of the scandal that public outrage over the crimes of priests and bishops will lead to the state grabbing a dangerous amount of power over the workings of the Church. My first concern is that children and families be protected to the extent that that is possible. The bishops and the institutional Church have proved themselves incapable of this. Therefore, Caesar has to step in. As regrettable as this is, it's better than the "trust us" alternative, which only leads to more lies, cover-ups, and suffering.

So, what do we do about this at the practical level? If state legislatures consider legislation that would put more restrictions on the Church (and churches) with the intention of holding churches accountable for child abuse, the legislation would stand a greater chance of passing if lay Catholics publicly spoke out in favor of it. I generally support this, within bounds of reason (e.g., I would strenuously oppose legislation intended to take away the sanctity of the confessional). But bishops would oppose *any* of it as a dangerous encroachment of the state upon the affairs of religion. To this, I say it wasn't the state that raped those children, nor was it state legislators who knew what was being done to kids by evil priests, and sent those priests back into parishes.

What do you all think?
Rod Dreher | 05.31.03 - 2:42 pm | #

Rod, the only worries I see in that regard are imposing mandated PC-laws on the Church. E.g. non-discrimination laws that would prevent me from, say, firing an organist because he lives in an open homosexual relationship; or laws mandating that we perform abortions and prescribe contraception in Catholic hospitals; or worse yet, laws requiring the breaking of the seal of confession. But these attacks on the Church were already happening long before the scandal (except maybe the seal).

The major issue is mandated reporting, which I don't have a problem with, so long as it stays away from the seal. Most states, like mine, already require clergy to be mandated reporters.

I'd also have a problem with the general opening of personnel files for fishing expeditions. Individual releases for specific alleged crimes are fine.

We already have to follow labor, property, tax, and liability laws, as well as fire codes and the like. It's when the law encroaches on the faith where we have to worry.
Fr. Paul | 05.31.03 - 3:47 pm | #

Isn't it peculiar that the litmus test for being made a Bishop under JP2 is unquestioning loyalty concerning contraception, abortion, marriage and priestly celibacy? Then the scandal of clergy corrupting innocence occurs. Then we get a beautiful letter on the Eucharist with no reference to the diminishing number of ordained celibates. What kind of disconnect do you see here? And why will he make papal visit #100 soon to Bosnia? What does showing the flag mean in times like these?
Having cloned the world-wide episcopacy into a mass of servile followers and having stifled all debate, we all sit quietly while he goes on show. There is no denying his sanctity and accomplishments, but it is a leap of faith to believe and act as though he could do no wrong. He needs someone to stand up to him and scold him until the corrective of a Vatican Council is planned free of the machinations of a self perpetuating, sycophantic bureaucracy, a real challenge to the Holy Spirit. Yagotta believe in something!
Tom Kelty | 05.31.03 - 3:58 pm | #

Tom:

Right. The problem with the bishops is that they are too obedient to the Holy Father.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.31.03 - 6:02 pm | #

In regards to Rod's question I believe any and all charges made that a priest may be guilty of this type of thing has to be turned over to the police for objective investigation. If states legislated that, not only for the Catholic Church but all relgions, I'd support it. I understand that it is probably more likely that someone would falsely accuse a priest (I read a horrible post on a petersvoice digest about a women whos young daughter overheard a group saying they could falsly accuse a priest of sexual abuse to get in on the money damages) but what other way can this be handled? We've already heard stories about laity up in arms when Fr. so and so was dismissed after it was revealed he had a history of this type so I'm not sure lay boards do well on deciding what are credible charges either.

If good legislation was offerred and Catholic lawyers examined it from a canonical and not breaking the seal perspective and gave it the thumbs up, I'd write in support.

Things seem pretty stagnate right now and what I fear most is another scathing expose about how the Catholic Church didn't police it's own again, 10 years from now. If the nail isn't already in the coffin, that most certainly would do it for the Church in America I think.
Kathleen | 05.31.03 - 7:05 pm | #

Another point to consider, though, is do we want the state to build a moat around the Church only, and specifically, the Catholic Church (there are many other shepherds outside this fold)?? I know we're concentrating here naturally on the Church, but what about the state placing itself under the same microscope like in the radically unsupervised welfare system where abuse unto death takes place or....the very deep pockets of Planned Parenthood and the other abortion industrial agency?? Is the country REALLY out to protect kids in this uncontrolled society? Let some of the attention be shared in other directions. This was somewhat brought up in the Forbes article...but we've yet to see the emphasis to the same extent placed on much worse situations that are taking place TODAY and not 30 or 40 years ago! Would the mainstream media dare indict the societal powers of the day?
Chris K. | 05.31.03 - 8:43 pm | #

Simon, thanks for your kind words about Abp. Dolan; it was such a cause for rejoicing when we received a new bishop who was at least as holy and devoted as his predecessor, some of us wondered if we could really expect two like that in our lifetimes. He is great, but he's unlikely to be a cardinal, Milwaukee's just not a cardinalate see, and we're only about 90 miles up the road from Chicago, which is. The only place in the Americas where cardinals are that close together is Baltimore/Washington DC, but that's a special case, Baltimore being primatial and DC the national capital.

Granted, twice before archbishops of Milwaukee were taken away to be cardinals elsewhere, every time I go to Cathedral I see their smiling faces in the clerestory. But now with modern communications and the strength of the faith here, there'd be an uproar if +Timothy gets taken. Where will they find a _third_ bishop of that rare cloth for us, when it seems so many places cannot remember even one holy, diligent, and devoted bishop? [Raid the monasteries again, like Pope Paul did in 1977?.....]

karen marie
karen marie knapp | Homepage | 05.31.03 - 9:08 pm | #