"Zero Tolerance idiocy is a heavy cross to bear for all the normal people who have to go through endless training and scrutiny because bishops did not have the sense God gave a goose when some serial pervert was reassigned to a fresh field of victims multiple times by these numbskulls."

-I have heard no more eloquent description than that. Well said!

Several priests ordained in 2002 and before have described to me the degree to which they as seminarians were subjected to scrutiny of a psychological nature, presumably to "weed out" undesireable traits. It made me uncomfortable to imagine myself in their position. It would be a test of committment, to be sure. All this before the "scandal" broke.

It has always seemed to me that the attention paid by the media was due in part to the salacious nature of the whole affair, and more importantly, as a way to blunt the Church's teaching on moral issues. Imagine Talking Head: "The Church cannot keep its own house in order..sniggers..."

Last, and perhaps least, the case can be made that Zero Tolerance is a mighty fine way of inculcating intolerance.

Cheers...charles

How do we know that the Holy Father (or the bishop's confessors, because they do have them!) has not imparted spiritual penance or obligations on them?

it's Pope John Paul II. He had the one luxury that most popes don't have: TIME. He had 27 years. He knew about the scandal before most of the public. He did nothing. He waited until it broke and still did nothing. It was always his way or the highway, but whenever it came time to actually do something, he did nothing. Talk, no action.

By the way, Benedict is the one with the "most Eastern conception of the Papacy in a thousand years," not John Paul.

There were a lot of good comments in this article but the ending betrayed the lack of grasp of the overall issue. In the end, I really did not like the article for its repeated, demeaning use of the word vengeance at the end. That completely misrepresents what is in fact a desire for justice and true public repentance to undo the great damage to the faith. There still remains a lot of rot in Catholic institutions and I for one would NOT trust to leave my children with what I know are still many corrupt individuals in positions of authority. Of course there are also very many faithful clergy and religious who we can trust.

Yes there has been a lot of progress but a significant amount of it is to some degree window dressing and some very bad people have simply become far more careful. They are still there.

Things are much improved but there is a long way to go, despite reassuring appearances. Sackcloth and ashes (strong acts of public, personal repentance by seriously negligent or downright corrupt bishops) must still occur and be demanded. That necessary part of the process has barely been started. Passing on the $2 billion given by the faithful in the collection plate for the works of the church to lawyers and legal settlements has NOT been an act of repentance for the guilty. It has been an act of theft from the innocent.

There are still many severely miscreant bishops in power who must be removed for the safety of others and for the spiritual health of the Church. Who will do it? That is the question, but if it is not done I fear the crushing of the Church will intensify - and rightly so. It isn't over yet - by a long shot.

I agree with Steve that the use of vengeance vs. mercy weakens an article that begins with great success (exposing the the contradictory stance of Rod Dreher).

It is not mercy which is being practiced by BXVI in his not "axing" those without the good sense God gives a goose, but rather prudence.

Ending the article a little differently would have exhibited that very same virtue.

Hello,

I agree with much of what Steve said. The scandal basically has two components: pedophile priests AND bad bishops.

There has been a fair amount of movement in protecting youths from perverts, but the bishops responsible have still not fully owned up to their errors. This was allowed to happen because of one or more of the following reasons:

1. The bishops were poor managers or generally incompetent.
2. Maliciousness on their the part of the bishops.
3. Not taking their pastoral duties seriously enough.
4. Being too far removed from events on the ground.
5. Bishops being silenced due to sins they themselves had committed.

While I do not think the second option is very credible for most bishops, the other options seem to have played a part.

While Mark may be right in saying there is not much more Pope Benedict can do that does not mean that more should be done. The bishops are obviously not giving enough thought on their own culpability for these events. The question then is what the laity can do. I do not think the laity can do much at this point.

Greg, you forgot something on your list: The bishops got bad advice - and plenty of it.

For a long time, pedophilia was not understood as an incurable disease. Professionals believed perpetrators could be treated, cured, and sent back on their merry way, and this is the advice the bishops got when consulting the experts. It was placed in the category of "sexual sin" and treated as a moral problem that could be repented of and overcome.

Predatory and abusive homosexual (and heterosexual) behavior is another matter and there are many reasons this wasn't stamped out earlier, which include your list...

Without wanting to address whether the Pope can or should remove any bishop(s) with the stroke of a pen, I detect another misconception in Mark's post which some others have already hinted at as well:

I think what people expect is for bishops who failed in their task to be dismissed as bishops.

This has nothing to do with either punishment or vengenace.

Bishops are called to be spiritual leaders, and by virtue of necessity, also managers of what are, after all, fairly large organizations.

When they prove incapable to provide that spiritual leadership and dismally fail as managers, it is not a matter of either punishment or vengeance to remove them, but one of common sense and of the greater good of the flock they were supposed to shepherd.

Dear Mark,

A long time ago I heard a fable about an overly compassionate and naive girl who in the midst of winter found a snake that was frozen and docile. She pitied the snake and took it home to warm it. Once its internal temp warmed, the snake turned and bit her.

The moral of the story is "what did you expect? It's a snake."

When Benedict chided the culture of the country, I believe he was accurate. He rightly made us all mindful of the effects of our sins. General judgement can be laid at our feet too in the way we corporately comport ourselves and our fellows.

"What they mean is that they do not have the sense that sufficient vengeance has been wreaked on bishops."

Well said. Very well said. I weary of what is essentially rage against bishops, Catholic bishops in particular, not rage against abuse or concern for victims.

I'm afraid that — in a few quarters, at least — the most genial face of anti-Catholicism today prances about as anger about the abuse crisis. And sometimes, it's not all that genial.

Tom

While I agree with Mark in his assesment that he Pope's authority is more likened to "first among equals" than autocratic CEO who can dismiss his brother bishops at will, the problem I have with his article is that he seems to think that, because we, the laity, have failed to act legally against these bishops, therefore we have no right to expect the Pope to do so. This unfairly lays the burden at the feet of those who can't really do much about it.

Assuming, arguendo, that these bishops were not abusers and the extent of their guilt was knowingly moving these predatory priests around, what criminal act - strictly speaking - can we indict them for? Their decisions were wrong-headed, naive, callous and protectionist, but not malicious. So there IS no legal remedy. And we don't have the authority to "throw the bums out", Many of us are doing what we can by refusing to give the financial support we once did, but even that is undermined by our fellow loyal Catholics who say that it's wrong for us to withhold our contributions to our annual diocesan appeals. Whatever.

the point is, maybe our Pope DOES have the authority to throw some ecclesiastic weight around and force the bad bishops out - if he doesn't no one does. But he certainy has the moral authority to chastise them and he has failed to do so. Hence the ongoing frustration of the laity, especially the victims, who were expecting a lot more. The fact that BXVI has not done this seems to fail to satisfy justice, and the fact that Cardinal law still enjoys his title and position of prestige is pathetic. If the Ppe took the scandal as seriously as we do, he'd be doing something to satisfy justice, not just show mercy.

I must be terribly naive. It is clear that the bishops have handled the abuse situation poorly.

The part I don't understand is why we never hear of the abuse victims or their parents calling the cops.

I mean if my kid told me she was being abused by the parrish priest my first call would be to the cops, not a lawyer. The clergy aren't exempt from the secular law are they?

A fair question. No, clergy are certainly not exempt from the secular law, but Catholics tend to be loathe to press criminal charges or testify against priests. Especially when they have been assured by te chancery that the problem has been taken care of.

Let's go after the abusers....let's defrock them...let's punish them forever......never forget the abused, but kill the peervs....my what a nice church we have, full of compassion for everyone...let's change canon law and go for them...who bisops who plead: well, I trusted others to make decisions...you can bet your life priests will be hounded but not one bishop will every pay the price...and we wonder why the church is losing members.

It is difficult to understand why Pope Benedict continues to define the abuse scandal as a scandal of pedophilia when all of the research demonstrates that it was a scandal of homosexual priests involved in the sexual abuse of post-pubescent males. While this sexual abuse is certainly deviant behavior--an abuse of power involving immoral acts, it is not pedophilia.

<i>The scandal basically has two components: pedophile priests AND bad bishops.</i>

You forget the treatment of the day. Ah yes, hindsight is usually 20/20. Jason has been the most realistic - where's the crime? People forget that diagnosis/treatment and then "freedom" was and still is the usual track taken. The "people on the street" were much more savvy than the ecclesial authorities of that time and THEY did nothing. Does anyone know the number of predators who HAVE gone through the secular system, received "treatment", and then have been allowed out into the free world? Sound familiar? Apparently they are everywhere and WITHOUT supervision. Instead the answer is "put the burden for protection on the children". And...if the media that has been so applauded for bringing the mess to the public would ever have the guts to report accurately instead of protecting the very lifestyle that gets anointed by them in their "style" sections and condemned under the disguise that they are only hatched by one institution's failures, that also would go a long way to cleaning up the entire culture. I think this whole big scene was what the Pope spoke to - pornography/entertainment/media, etc. It would appear that the recommendations that certain Church authorities followed at the time are the same today and living well in our schools, social work institutions, entertainment, courts and recreation clubs. Now, why don't the mayors and governors just de-badge the cops, dis-bar the attorneys, dismiss the judges, and take medical licenses away from the mental health doctors and their assistants? I suppose they too learn an awful lot through their now 20/20 hindsight errors but just don't know what to do about it...even with all their laws.

Reflecting on Jason's suggestion, I wonder how not funding the Bishops Appeal hurts Bishops. Beyond the thought that the man who handles the funds is flawed, the main issue with withholding funds is how it hurts those who are already hungry, naked, homeless, sick, and hurt. How can causing more harm be honorable?

Kris makes an important point. While the media took delight in helping to expose the scandal, when the initial horror had worn off (with tremendous damage to Church credibility) there was a strange turn, in that the media began to parse the stories it ran and sat on other key information. Paedophilia is something most can agree to abhor, but as the stats turned to reveal more homosexuality that paedophilia, the motives of the media became murkier.

I believe it serves their interest to have "fellow travelers" in the clergy who will not avidly promote the sexual teachings of the Church, and to continue to allow their regular chummy access on all the social programs. To "out" those who are more likely to be in tune with the liberal press doesn't help the cause, which in the end is either to destroy the Church, or to bend it to their will (same thing in the end).

The Rock-Succesor of Peter has the power to do a reassignment (in posts to 'do reflection' in the Vatican, or Third world REAL challenges) of the culprit-bishops.

Just form a group of concerned lay organizations and go to Rome (that action proved effective in closing the pro-abortion funding in Georgetown, early 90's).

Don't need to be a rocket scientist or inquisitor to mark them: Are those responsible for, after forcing the Vicar of Christ to eat their excrement (the cover up of pederasts) in a rejoicing media circus to, coldly prepare him... this extra-fresh-scandal heavy cross:

Lining up, in prominent row positions, to receive the Eucharist, the pro-abortion defiant politicians, and shaming us Catholics worldwide with that horrendous sacrilege.

When 85% of the cases are against post-pubescent boys - this is NOT pedophilia.

It's homosexual priests preying on teenage boys.

The "pedophilia" scandal is a cover for the real issue - a homosexual problem in the clergy that has been left unchecked for decades and supported by many bishops who are homosexual (or sympathetic to the orientation) themselves.

Does anybody really think, that for years and years and years, hundreds of homosexuals have been getting ordained to the priesthood, but none raised to the level of bishop? C'mon! Of course they have.

This is a homosexual scandal in the Church, committed by homosexual priests who have been winked and nodded through by homosexual or homosexually sympathetic bishops, some of whom may have a great deal to hide themselves in the area of homosexuality.

This whole "we just followed the advice of the professionals therapists" excuse has worn old.

Exactly how many times does a pederast priest have to rape a teenagers for a bell to go off that maybe the advice os wrong?

Additionally, many of the "professionals" giving the advice are known homosexuals or sympathizers themselves.

It's a safe bet, that in many cases, the reason the American episcopcy did not respond to this isn't because they were "given bad advice". It's because they were going to the same "well" their fellow gay clerics were and blackmail is a pretty effective weapon when you need to buy silence.

It's the gay culture in the clerical ranks that Benedict needs to purge. Pedophilia is a smoke screen for the real issue.

When 85% of the cases are against post-pubescent boys - this is NOT pedophilia.

It's homosexual priests preying on teenage boys.

The "pedophilia" scandal is a cover for the real issue - a homosexual problem in the clergy that has been left unchecked for decades and supported by many bishops who are homosexual (or sympathetic to the orientation) themselves.

Does anybody really think, that for years and years and years, hundreds of homosexuals have been getting ordained to the priesthood, but none raised to the level of bishop? C'mon! Of course they have.

This is a homosexual scandal in the Church, committed by homosexual priests who have been winked and nodded through by homosexual or homosexually sympathetic bishops, some of whom may have a great deal to hide themselves in the area of homosexuality.

This whole "we just followed the advice of the professionals therapists" excuse has worn old.

Exactly how many times does a pederast priest have to rape a teenagers for a bell to go off that maybe the advice os wrong?

Additionally, many of the "professionals" giving the advice are known homosexuals or sympathizers themselves.

It's a safe bet, that in many cases, the reason the American episcopcy did not respond to this isn't because they were "given bad advice". It's because they were going to the same "well" their fellow gay clerics were and blackmail is a pretty effective weapon when you need to buy silence.

It's the gay culture in the clerical ranks that Benedict needs to purge. Pedophilia is a smoke screen for the real issue.

I have done several radio and TV shows lately where the issue of firing bishops has come up, and invariably I am asked about Cardinal Law. The interviewers are always surprised when I tell them that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has had more abuse cases and paid out more money that Boston. And Cardinal Mahoney, of course, is still in charge.

I'm sorry for not going ga ga over the pope's trip here. Mahoney is still in charge. I can name so many others. Who appointed Levada ? What did he do in San Fran to get this post ? What a joke ! How about his buddy Niederaurer ? What's he doing now in San Fran ? Who appointed him ? The real problem is a homosexualized priesthood which Benedict did not even mention ! Don't fall for what he says , watch what he does !

But how come that doesn't seem to apply in civil suits where $$ are involved?

Is it about justice or money? The huge settlemts only hurt the memebers of the parrishes involved not the ones guilty of the abuse.

James-

I'm not sure the situation was much different. For years, we didn't even see any civil suits, precisely, I think, for the same reason. Also, omplainants were likely offered a settlement to forestall the suits before they got started. It was only after the story broke and people realized just how many victims / plaintiffs there that both the lawsuits and criminal charges began to increase. Knowing that the problem was endemic and that there were many other victims strengthened those who would otherwise have been willing to just let it go.

Just my $.02

1) It hurts bishops by showing them that their faithful are mad enough to refuse to support them. They have lost credibility and moral authority, and rather than simply telling them so, I think it entirely appropriate to withdraw my financial support as well, for however long.(Note: I do not advocate this approach for "good" bishops, only those who have participated in the cover-up behavior).
2) These real needs are being met by other groups and people, including at the parish level. We should continue to support these.
3) Failing to support something good does not equal causing harm.

What's wrong with the abuse scandal? Lots of thing, but it seems to me that the Church, especially in America has lost its identity and mission. Do we trust in Divine Providence - why buy insurance? It is a temptation -ie, deep pockets. Secondly,where's the pasteral? Both the offender and the offended are Christians and Children of God. Lawyer do not reconcile - the
Church does. So, if the bishop find some priest that is sinning, call him in and have him confess. The call in the victim and have him forgive the priest. (He can't, then he better not pray the Our Father because it contains a formula "forgive as we forgive those who trespass against." So by measure you measure you will be measured

Once the priest is forgiven by the victime, the bishop should ask how should the priest be punished? Jail?
A fine, bonth? Or should he spend to a monaster where he could do penanace for his sin and his cime?

Of course this is all without lawyers and the big money makers in the business.

In any case, this is the pastoral way, the way of reconciliation and forgiveness.


Without that Spirit we just become a corporate entity which in our culture is a target - it is not human, much less divine.

I think that love and forgiveness we are nowhwere. And, when the victime wants money, to some how heal his wounds, he should see how a church has to be sold to cover the cost. In this way both priest and victim will become aware of the role of harming the Church.