Thursday, April 17, 2008

"In the Shoes of Peter"

Commentator James posted a good remark to Rod Dreher's latest bishop bash.

I think you too easily put yourself in the shoes of Peter without any thought to the responsibilities that the Holy Father has for all the souls placed in his care and that includes the souls of the victims as well as the offending priests and bishops. We would be foolish to think that one should not feel anger at such injustices committed against the innocent young men and women of the Catholic Church. We have a right to be angry, but the ultimate question comes down to what would rectify such injustices. Revenge is hardly a helpful motive in these times. One must tread carefully and patiently as the Lord Jesus himself no doubt would do. Who knows what private communications have occurred between these bishops and the Vatican? What benefit would it be for the Holy Father to excoriate the bishops? So lay people who are upset would feel better? Is that what its going to take to make people feel better again? Public admonishment? Would that make you feel better? What does such an exercise of scolding do in the end? Nothing really. For those who are hardened of heart, it does nothing.

Emphasis mine. well, exactly. Rod's rants often remind me of my grandfather's insistence that the Steelers were not practicing because he didn't see it on the news. "That's why they lost the Superbowl to the Cowboys! And I watch a lot of TV, believe me." If I was a lawyer, maybe I could have put together a class-action for Steeler fans. But I doubt that would have satisfied my grandfather, may he rest in peace.

When Bishop Wuerl traveled to Rome to ensure a bad priest would be defrocked, it wasn't big news. The situation was handled perfectly. When things go right, it's the opposite of news and credit is not assigned where it's due.

Likewise whenever Bishop Pilla was basically asked to resign by the Vatican it wasn't big news. But it was taken care of. Everybody knew he'd screwed up. Nobody I knew — least of all practicing orthodox Catholics — wanted him to be dragged out and pilloried publicly any more than he had already been in the courts. Of course, to anti-Catholics who had left the Church it might have been another matter entirely, and that's who we're often dealing with in the complaint department.

Were Bishops to blame in the clergy scandal? You bet. Did it deserve news coverage? Of course. But it seems media elites like Dreher will never think this is getting enough coverage, ever, and they'll never accept that any discipline is being done by the Pope unless it is done publicly with lots of press passes handed out.

74 comments:

  1. dreher's problem is that the catholic public doesn't want to hear about the scandal today. they just want to welcome the pope to the US and celebrate mass. when i went to see the pope motorcade there was not one person with an obnoxious sign who was there to demonstrate displeasure. of course dreher believes this is because we are more callous than he is ... but he is the one who continues to obsess over catholic pedophilia in front of his computer even after his sick wife has told him she wishes he wouldn't blog. so who's callous?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am sure that he blames JPII for his having to leave the church.

    Perhaps if the Pope went on the Bill Maher show, and they both spent an hour condemning the church hierarchy Rod would be content. And at the end of the show perhaps the Holy Father can present Bill with a copy of his saturno. Everyone has a laugh and a warm feeling.

    A better idea could be Bill Maher, Penn and teller, Christopher Hitchens, and of course His Holiness up there on stage in a panel setting, while Rod, Dr. Phil, Paula, and Simon pose questions to the panelists about the Bishops and their handling of the scandal.

    I think that would be a uniquely American solution to our American problem.

    With each new encounter with people who feel other people's pain, I grow more cynical and distrusting of their motives. Especially when their reaction to whatever is to broadly condemn and attack the entity which is the perceived causer of the injustice. I stop listening. Screaming and shouting does not make it any less unjust or make the punishment any more severe.

    I don't dislike Rod or his work like some of you here. There is a lot on which we agree. What I think is going to happen is he is going to look back on his work at this time of his life and see how hysterical he was and regret it. Especially when he realizes that there is boundary beyond which empathy and justice becomes theatrics.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well put Cubeland!! The problem with Dreher is because of his media status it deigns him with a sense of near infallability when he writes. He is unaccountable. It would be one thing if Beliefnet had a Catholic blogger instead of this disenchanted malcontent they have.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Especially when he realizes that there is boundary beyond which empathy and justice becomes theatrics.

    Well put. I think that ongoing narrative -- the "story-with-legs" -- is a huge occupational hazard for news industry company men. Kathleen called it "Dianification" one time, that's a good characterization to use here. You see the obsession when Chris Matthews brings up Terry Schiavo at the first Republican Presidential debate.

    Another good example was the mishandling of Katrina. The question driving the narrative became "Does the administration really care about these black people?" with the goofy Bush sound-bite "heckuva job, Brownie" instead of "How could local authorities not be prepared for this?" The truth is everyone knew that the local authorities and the governor were incompetent and wildnly corrupt. So that wasn't a story, even though Governor Blanco knew she was toast and started packing immediately afterward. Such is the state of the liberal media of which Dreher is a typical member.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Meanwhile, Rod's church, the Incredible Shrinking OCA, has a big stinking scandal on its hands about which its hierarchs are doing exactly NOTHING.

    Rod's outrage is not only obsessive and over the top. It is extremely selective.

    ReplyDelete
  6. With each new encounter with people who feel other people's pain, I grow more cynical and distrusting of their motives.

    Rod apparently does not feel Eric Ifill's pan. Eric was the OCA seminaran who was serially abused by a priest-professor at Saint Vlad's, the flagship OCA seminary. As a direct result of the abuse, Eric committed suicide. Neither then nor at any other time has Rod peeped about this (to the best of my knowledge). Apparently he feels the victims' pain only when the victims are victims of Catholic abusers. Onlt their pain counts, I guess. Call it selective empathy, if you will.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Diane, to be fair, I think that Rod has commented on some of the OCA scandal stuff. I particularly remember something about that suicide.

    Also, Rod praised Pope Benedict for meeting with the abuse survivors yesterday, 4/17.

    To your point, and in a more general sense, I think Rod should take a sabbatical on the entire church-sex scandal topic. It's warping him further. His recent adamant requests to everyone to "please read Lawler's book" (which is about Boston) sounds more and more like "I'm not crazy!!"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Point taken, Pauli. Rod is not absolute;y silent re the OCA Scandal. Just mostly silent. ;)

    Jonathan: I think you are giving Rod more importance than he warrants. A syndicated columnist with a nationwide following he's not. I have to remind myself, also: No use getting all het up about someone whose influence is virtually nil. When he bashes the Catholic Church, he's like a gnat biting an elephant--the elephant doesn't even feel it.

    In fact, that may be why he has pitched his latest bishop-bashing hissy-fit: He probably didn't get invited to cover the pope's visit...no press pass to the White House lawn, etc. These things rankle. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. "[Dreher] probably didn't get invited to cover the pope's visit...no press pass to the White House lawn, etc. These things rankle. ;)"

    Great point Diane. It's interesting to see who was and was not invited by the Church/media to comment on, or otherwise partake in, the pope's visit. Welborn 1, Shea 0, Dreher 0. you know that old saying, "You don't know who's swimming naked until the tide goes out"....?

    ReplyDelete
  10. LOL, yes indeedy. I didn't realize Welborn was invited...that makes sense. She keeps her nose pretty clean, and she doesn't have a chip on her shoulder the size of Hagia Sofia.

    BTW, I hear the pope prayed for victims of sex abuse at Saint Pat's today. Does Dreher have another "it's not enough!" rant up about that? If so, someone please ask him whether Abp. "Gandalf" Dmitri has ever publicly prayed for the victims of Fr. Rayburn, the notorious serial pedophile whom Dmitri harbored and protected. Not to mention the victims of the pedophiles at the Miami monastery which Dmitri accepted into the OCA right after one of the young monks there brutally raped and murdered a nun--while the trial for this crime was just getting underway.

    This pope has done a thousand times more to resolve our sex-abuse crisis than Abp. Gandalf (or any other OCA hierarch) has done to resolve the OCA Scandal. Which may be why he (the pope) is making such a positive impression on the vast majority of people--even the media!-during this U.S. trip. He disarms his critics at every turn.

    Except for the whackjobs, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  11. oy, the "that's not enough" update was entirely too predictable, wasn't it?! if Benedict picked up a samurai sword and committed sepuku at a press conference (leaving aside the fact that he wouldn't) dreher woud be hopping up and down pointing out how this really doesn't help the victims at all.

    come to think of it, dreher's incessant baying for supernatural justice indicates Shintoism might be the next stop on his magical mystery tour of world faiths. i mean, there's East and then there's EAST.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You're kidding--there really was one? Predictable is the word.

    Did anyone take Dreher to task for this? Or do his comboxers consist exclusively of his brainwashed acolytes these days?

    How he can turn such a blind eye to his own communion's sins while fixating on ours like a dog worrying a bone is beyond me. Man, is he ever in for a rude awakening, if he's not too deranged by that time to even recognize it when it hits him. But then, as you say, there's always Shintoism. I love that: "There's East--and then there's EAST." LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  13. well, to be precise it wasn't a "that's not enough" update, it was "let's not get carried away" update. comboxers like erin manning called him on it but she seems very interested in his kissing his ass whilst calling dreher out on things, so that doesnt' really count. joe d'hipp chimed in, agreeing with rod. shea pounded joe d'hipp whilst also kissing rod's ass. and the dish ran away with the spoon.

    ReplyDelete
  14. diane, can't you just hear the men rolling their eyes at us the 2 harpies letting loose? estrogen seems to encourage a certain uncouthness ...

    (sorry men, diane and i amuse each other)

    ReplyDelete
  15. and the dish ran away with the spoon

    OK, I actually did laugh out loud at that. D

    I agree re the men--but do the guys in question read this blog? If they do, I hope they enjoy our mutual amusement. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Actually my wife and I cracked up at Kathleen's remark about the naked swimmers.

    I was glad to see Erin M taking some issue with Rod since she's usually nodding he head at everything he says. Don Altabello said something I agreed with about it's going to far to say JPII was a coward with no understanding of the scandal. Duh.

    I'm too unconcerned to visit that post again to point out specifics. Suffice to say it's funny to me that Mark Shea has to march over there to bitch-slap JD'H when JD'H agrees more with Rod on the scandal. I guess JD'H attacked Erin, but Rod supposedly only deleted part of his post and kept the part he liked. Like I say, funny. Just like my 4-year-old only eats the middle of the PB&J and leaves the crusts.

    Call me bizarre but I think the song that goes best with the comedy that Dreher's blog has become is "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen. Try it on sometime. Adds perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  17. LOL!

    Y'all...can you provide links to the posts taking Dreher to task? I went to hisd blog last night (late!), but I couldn't find anything except a dumb post about abortions outnumbering baptisms in Boston (and of course that's the pope's fault--no mention of the fact that hurricanes in the Yukon just about outnumber baptisms in Rod's minuscule [and shrinking] jurisdiction).

    I also saw a post protesting that elitists really aren't elistist, just prophetic. (Gag me with the proverbial spoon.)

    But I couldn't find the post wherein Mark Shea took Joe D. and by extension the Rod-Man to task. I don't particularly want to see the post, but I'd love to see the Shea response. Even an ass-kissing Shea response would be nice to see, if it really does nail the pope-bashers for their hypocrisy.

    I( am getting the distinct impression that even Mark Shea has about had his fill of Rod's relentless, selective, hypocritical, double-standard-y Catholic-Bashing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. sorry for typos in that last post--chalk it up to a sticky keyboard. (A poor work-person always blames his/her tools, LOL.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here's the post we're talking about now.

    Here's the page with all the comments so you can view the Punch & Judy routine starring the usual suspects.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Diane: "I am getting the distinct impression that even Mark Shea has about had his fill of Rod's relentless, selective, hypocritical, double-standard-y Catholic-Bashing."

    Well, it's a little hazardous -- as I learned -- to speculate what Mark S is or is not thinking/feeling, but he mentions the "old argument" here, and is really on. Here's my fave paragraph:

    "And the crowning paradox of Rod's position is that, having headed East, he is now in communion with bishops who would take it *very* ill if the Pope were to do what Rod so much wants him to do. It's one of the most puzzling aspects of Rod's position and I hope that one of these days he will articulate for me how he can simultaneously hold an Orthodox ecclesiology and still want Benedict (or any Pope) to act like Innocent III. I honestly don't get it."

    I think the truth is that Rod is making up his whole position on the scandal as he goes along, fully informed by gut feelings and fueled by righteous anger. He doesn't understand Eastern ecclesiology any more than Western, and doesn't care to either.

    ReplyDelete
  21. While y'all are bashing Rod, I suggest you read the following post from Lee Podles on Rod's blog:

    As is evident from the internal correspondence of bishops, the Vatican did not want even the worst abusers removed from the priesthood. The American bishops, in letting abusers continue in the priesthood, were responding to the signals that they were getting from the Vatican.

    Notorious abusers like Maciel and Brother Gino were protected by the Vatican under John Paul II, but Benedict disciplined them immediately after becoming pope. I presume that Benedict thinks it unjust to discipline bishops for only doing what the Vatican under his predecessors wanted them to do.

    The deeper question is why the Vatican did not want abusers removed. Was it the Italian desire to make a bella figura, not to show any faults in public? Or is it something far worse? As Peter Damian discovered, pederasty was widespread in the medieval clergy. Mediterranean pagan pederasty had found a home in the clergy, and when Justinian made pederasty a capital crime, two bishops were immediately executed as an example to the rest of the clergy.


    These are serious questions raised by a man who wrote a book about the situation recently.

    If there's a reason people "obsess" over pedophilia, it's because it's an issue that the Church has never really dealt with adequately on a massive basis. Sure, Absp. Wuerl's going to Rome to get a priest defrocked is good news but do his actions represent the hierarchy as a whole? I believe not.

    Until bishops like Mahony are brought to Rome to face canonical charges, many Catholics will have no trust in the Church to police itself.

    ReplyDelete
  22. As far as Mark Shea "bitch slapping" me goes (an appropriate remark if there ever was one, given who and what Shea is), remember that Mark never said "boo" about the subject until he started to attack me -- and even when he attacked me he never mentioned the subject but kept it personal, as is Shea's style.

    Mark has the jones to renew the five-year feud we had. I refuse. He is not worth anyone's time, energy or thought.

    Now regarding the "hypocracy" of the "pope-bashers" (and I emphacize the plural, here, not Rod per se), the people who criticize the "pope bashers" are even more hypocritical because they claim to be "orthodox" Catholics while ignoring the obvious: JPII failed miserably in dealing with the issue, despite his great accomplishments, and a man who heads any centralized, bureaucratic hierarchy is ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates.

    All of these bishops and clerics will be judged by God for their failure to act.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Joe, I'll criticize "pope-bashers" if/when they make silly blanket remarks about his character or about the papacy/church as a whole (e.g., Douthat's company of serpents remark, Dreher's claim of JPII's courage and compassion deficits).

    When you write JPII "failed miserably in dealing with the issue" that's an opinion that's understandable, albeit superlative. I know a priest who said that he was hoping the pope take the opportunity to "clean house" in regards to the US Bishops, but then he added "the pope has more prudence and understanding than I" so he deferred to his judgment. That was his opinion, understandable and I don't think it's hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Joe, your criticism is fine. What bothers me about you and some of your colleagues(Mark, Rod etc.) is the generalities and opinions you use in the place of evidence. An example of this was when Dreher said The bishops where guilty of aiding and abbeting these perverts. I am no lawyer but I know when someone aids and abbets a criminal act, they can be charged with a crime. Why hasn't Mr. Dreher et. al. brought charges against the bishops or asked the DAs to charge the offending Bishops? The answer is they do not have evidence that would stand up in court. Does that mean the Bishops are blameless? No, but being inept and buffonic is not a crime. If it was, their would hundreds of Doctors, DAs and Cops in jail with those bishops. If you have evidence that disproves it Joseph; follow the example of Christopher Hitchens. You and I do not agree with his views, but when he had problems with what Henry Kissinger did he made his case in his book: The Trial of Henry Kissinger.

    http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Henry-Kissinger-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/1859843980

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joe--please ask Rod why he is not similarly exercised about his own allegedly Gandalfian archbishop, Dmitri, who harbored and protected the notorious pedophile Fr. Rayburn. Dmitri has never even acknowledged the Rayburn affair, let alone publicly repented of it or met with the victims or **anything.** (Sharp contrast with B16!!)

    Dmitri also accepted into the OCA a monastery full of serial pedophiles---right as the Catholic Church was cracking down on said monastery and the civil authorities were busting one of the monks for raping and brutally murdering a nun. To this day, Dmitri has not done Thing One about this situation. The monastery (with the same pedophile monks) still exists under Dmitri's omiphor; it has relocated to Weaverville, NC. (Gee, thanks, Dmitri. [I live in NC.])

    Then there's Dmitri's infamous missions trips to Mexico, where (reportedly) some of Dmitri's more flamboyant clerical buds solicited the services of impoverished Mexican boys. I am NOT making this up, and I have it on good authority.

    The OCA Diocese of the South is rotten, cult-like, and ridden with abuse and corruption. Yet Rod barely peeps about it.

    Don't you find his indignation rather selective? And doesn't that make you wonder, just a bit, about his sincerity?

    I fully agree with you that sex abuse is a heinous, horrible crime that must be stopped, period. But, if that's the case in the Catholic Church, shouldn't it be the case in the OCA, too? If Rod truly cares about the victims, shouldn't he care about the victims of Father Rayburn and the victims of the Miami monastery? If he's truly disgusted at coverups, shouldn't he be just as disgusted at Dmitri's coverups of Rayburn et al.? Or former Bishop Tikhon's coverups of the pedophilia cases at the OCA cathedral in San Fran? (According to the parents of the victims, these coverups continue under the current OCA bishop of the West, Benjamin.)

    If Rod is truly motivated by righteous indignation, shouldn't he extend that indignation toward the perps in his own OCA church, where he has a moral obligatiion as a layman to take a stand?

    Is sin only sin, worthy of Rod's jeremiads, if it is Catholic sin? Is abuse only abuse if it's Catholic abuse? Do victims "count," do they have a claim on Rod's compassion, only if they are victims of Catholic abusers?

    When Rod displays his moral indignation this selectively, it's really hard for me to take it seriously. If he really cared about the victims, he'd care about *all* victims, not just Catholic ones. Especially now that he's not even Catholic anymore! Maybe he could make a case for his selective indignation and his glaring double standard when he was still Catholic. But now he's in another communion--one that's rotten with corruption and which is doing a far *worse* job of handling abuse than we RCs are currently doing. Yet he makes lame excuses for not addressing his own communion's problems while he continues to fixate on ours.

    Who can take this guy seriously? His credibility and integrity are in the toilet.

    Diane

    ReplyDelete
  26. Man, Pauli, I just read that combox.

    I'm sorry, but what a hypocritial little turd Rod is.

    I hope the OCA scandals blow right up in his snotty little face.

    God forgive me.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Joe, you should have some care for who the messengers are who deliver your message. as diane points out, dreher's selectivity alone diminishes his arguments. but also, he's just not a very serious thinker. indignation expressed at a fever pitch for years on end is just not persuasive. Dreher's hysteria is unmatched even by victims of abuse themselves (see the CNN interview with those who spoke with Benedict). His dog and pony show is a distraction and as such represents the opposite of progress.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yeah, at best it's over-zealous. At worst it has the makings of lynch mob mentality.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Also... anyone who thinks I and other serious Catholics don't care enough about justice, the victims of abuse, etc. deserves all the scorn, ridicule and dismissive laughter that they receive.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Pauli: "I know a priest who said that he was hoping the pope take the opportunity to "clean house" in regards to the US Bishops, but then he added 'the pope has more prudence and understanding than I' so he deferred to his judgment."

    This is from a recent Lee Podles post on Dreher's blog:

    I spoke with a Cardinal who had read my book. He said he had personally pled with John Paul to make a forceful statement about the abusers. The pope replied that he would love to, but "they wouldn't let me."

    Huh? Who is "they"? This was the Vicar of Christ and he allowed others to make decisions for him regarding a fundamentally heinous crime that threatens to destroy the Church's moral credibility?

    If Podles' story is true, then JPII was a far greater coward on this issue than anybody could imagine -- and the Vatican is more nefarious than anybody will care to admit.

    Jonathan Carpenter: "I am no lawyer but I know when someone aids and abbets a criminal act, they can be charged with a crime. Why hasn't Mr. Dreher et. al. brought charges against the bishops or asked the DAs to charge the offending Bishops? The answer is they do not have evidence that would stand up in court. Does that mean the Bishops are blameless? No, but being inept and buffonic is not a crime."

    First, a lot of these bishops (such as Mahony) are very powerful people with very powerful connections (and very powerful lawyers). They'll use those connections (and lawyers) to try to avoid trouble as much as they can. The politicians whom these bishops favor (such as Mayor Villaraigosa in L.A.) don't want to see their allies in trouble. If such politicians want to put the kibosh on criminal proceedings, they can.

    You don't think this is possible? Google the name "Mike Carona" (former sheriff of Orange County, Calif.) and see what you come up with (and, no, this has nothing to do with clerical sex-abuse).

    ReplyDelete
  31. Diane, I will concede your points about Dreher's selectivity. But please be honest with yourself: If Dreher stayed in the Church, you will still be criticizing him for his assertions w/o any reference to the Orthodox scandals. The fact is that you don't like his assertions about the Church, period; his Orthodoxy is a separate issue.

    I'm going to take a wild guess as to why Dreher is so angry. The Church cultivates and encourages a sense of blind deference to its leaders as part of proclaiming Christ (see Pauli's comments about the priest who wanted JPII to clean house but added that the pope probably has better things to do). Dreher bought into this nonsense (and it is nonsense, people). When he found out what many of these bishops were doing (especially in his own diocese), his sense of betrayal became white-hot. Betrayal is one of the most powerful emotions on the planet, as Shakespeare wrote ("Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.")

    I'll give a perfect example from someone who has far more credibility than Dreher: Fr. Richard Neuhaus, the editor of First Things. This is part of his review of Podles' book on the crisis:

    It is a rambling essay of more than five hundred pages on a potpourri of items picked up from the public media and the ­blogosphere, including, along with the kitchen sink, stomach-turning details of abuse, mainly with boys, and a scathing, if familiar, indictment from a conservative perspective of liberal depredations that brought things to this sorry pass. Regrettably, the tone is shrill, and even righteous anger does not justify the author’s suspension of caution and charity in attributing motives.

    Neuhaus never took the clerical sex-abuse crisis seriously until it was too late. His critique is nothing but an attempt to cover his own backside regarding his earlier positions.

    Besides, what does this comment about "even righteous anger does not justify the author’s suspension of caution and charity in attributing motives" mean? Since when do ecclesiastical bureaucrats who allow the innocent to be molested (thereby violating Christ's words in Matthew 25 about doing to him what has been done to the least of his brothers) deserve the "suspension of caution and charity" if the evidence dictates otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Joseph, if you have evidence this is occuring; bring it foward and let the chips fall where they may. As for Bishops being all powerful and avoiding being charged; look at the following post from Beliefnet regarding America's worst bishops.
    http://www.beliefnet.com/story/108/story_10820_1.html#index
    They also show the good bishops who have handled the scandal well.

    Joseph, don't you think the lawyers who made millions from the church would be frothing at the mouth to charge Bishops with crimes? Of course they would. They do not because their is not enough evidence to make a case. Bishops do get convicted of crimes. Ask the former Bishop of Phoenix about that. He was convicted of killing a man with his car. Remember Joseph, justice may be slow at times, but it comes to us all eventually. Ask the Nazi war criminals about that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. JDH: "....his [Dreher's] Orthodoxy is a separate issue."

    Joe, I agree with you on this; this is something that I disagree with Diane about, and we've had arguments about it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Joe, your entire persona on the net is one of unmitigated, prolonged, unceasing rage at clerics and certain bishops. You're the same as Dreher. You labor under the misimpression that your rage and its expression is productive. It is not. It is self-aggrandizing and apparently serves as a distraction from other, more pressing, less morally obvious issues. The Scandal provides an excuse for your blustering and your rage. It feeds your ego because you allow the relative serenity of others to means they are morally inferior to yourself.

    Frankly, I'm tired of you and Dreher to the point where I don't want to hear anything more about the scandal. this is a disservice to those who were geniunely wronged. if you really care about the victims, you will recollect yourself and ask yourself, sincerely, what can *actually be done* to help these victims. Because your feud with Shea and your internet effusions accomplish nothing meaningful. Instead they are quite ridiculous.

    There are seven deadly sins. your posturing about the Scandal suggest your are indulging in at least 5 of them, possibly 6. You need to be a lot more careful.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Kathleen, I agree that my feud with Shea is counter-productive. Talk to him about that; he's the one who wants to renew it (as he illustrated on Dreher's blog).

    As far as helping the victims goes, what can be done except for intense psychological and spiritual counseling, in neither of which I am trained?

    You say that my (and others') constant badgering on this issue accomplishes nothing. Far from it; it keeps the bishops involved from getting too comfortable with their lack of accountability. Rod and I aren't the only ones; ask Lee Podles, Jason Berry and Fr. Thomas Doyle, each of whom has far more credibility than Rod and I combined.

    Kathleen, you'd like this scandal to go away. It won't. It certainly won't in God's eyes -- and his are the only ones that matter. In the meantime, people have the obligation to follow Edmund Burke's dictum -- "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" -- regardless of where it leads.

    Pope Benedict addressed the issue as forthrightly as possible during his U.S. visit. Do you think he would have done that if it weren't for the constant "badgering" from people who were infuriated with it?

    One more thing: By mentioning it constantly, Benedict was also sending a message to the Curia and its subordinates. That message: The crisis will be a priority with me; don't mess with me on this. We've seen that Benedict will dismiss people (Cdl. Sodano, for example) who do not conform to his wishes. I hope I'm right in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Pope Benedict addressed the issue as forthrightly as possible during his U.S. visit. Do you think he would have done that if it weren't for the constant "badgering" from people who were infuriated with it?

    Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Pope Benedict addressed the issue as forthrightly as possible during his U.S. visit. Do you think he would have done that if it weren't for the constant 'badgering' from people who were infuriated with it?"

    You actually believe that Benedict is such a moral idiot that he relies on people like you and Dreher to indicate what he should or should not be infuriated about? come on.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Kathleen, read my last post. I said, "...ask Lee Podles, Jason Berry and Fr. Thomas Doyle, each of whom has far more credibility than Rod and I combined."

    I frankly doubt that Benedict has heard of either me or Rod. He might have heard of Podles, Berry or Doyle but that's not the point. The fact is that the clerical sex-abuse crisis is a legitimate moral crisis regardless of who raises it.

    The fact remains that Benedict had a fundamentally different view of the problem than JPII did; that's why he disciplined Maciel.

    The fact remains the Benedict had an up close and personal view of how JPII handled the situation and, fortunately, took a decidedly and radically different approach.

    The fact also remains that you don't want to hear unpleasant truths, so you attack the messengers to compensate for your own anger and disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
  39. JD: "Pope Benedict addressed the issue as forthrightly as possible during his U.S. visit. Do you think he would have done that if it weren't for the constant 'badgering' from people who were infuriated with it?"

    Pauli: "Yes."

    Very well, Pauli (and, by extention, Kathleen). Catholics were badgering about clerical-sex abuse for the last years of JPII's tenure. What did JPII do about it?

    Don't take my word for it. Here's a portion of a blog from Carrie Tomko, a lifelong Catholic who is neither liberal nor sedevacantist:

    For me JPII's failure to confront the scandal in such a forthright manner as Benedict has done with this statement has damaged my ability to believe in and trust the contemporary Church and completely undermined my confidence in the papacy. I still believe in the archetype of Roman Catholicism. I am painfully doubtful of its present earthly manifestation.

    If JPII had made the sort of statement early in the scandal that Benedict has made from his airplane, I would be able to recover my trust in the Church and her leaders. As it is, they all appear suspect to me and have to prove themselves before I will consider trusting them. Even then a shadow of suspicion remains. For me, Benedict's statement is at least a first step toward rebuilding trust. There are many, many more steps to go, and every incident like the ones Neiderauer presents in San Francisco and the one Father presented last Sunday at Mass are a step back.

    ReplyDelete
  40. you know, Joe, life on earth is a freaking "legitimate moral crisis". i've never had a great deal of confidence in either clerics or the papacy. every generation of my catholic family is rife with almost comical stories of abuse or quasi-abuse at the hands of nutcase priests, nuns, deacons, lay people, you name it.

    but when the pope travels to my country and presents a legitimate face of moral leadership and spiritual hope i'm going to allow myself to be inspired by it instead of sieze the opportunity to bitch and moan about how the papacy isn't perfect. time to grow up, dude. what the hell are you waiting for?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Maybe it's best that many Catholics remain woefully ignorant of church history. Their faith obviously isn't up to it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Kathleen, you are obviously angry at what has happened to your family in the past. Perhaps that's why you're angry at those who bring the sex-abuse crisis up now; maybe you wonder where were these people for your family members.

    If that truly is the case, please get some counseling, for your own sake.

    Also, please realize that I have never criticized Benedict on this thread. In fact, I commended him for what he was doing.

    Pauli, I understand that true faith lies in God and in Christ, beyond the church as an institution. But when Catholics have been brainwashed to put that kind of faith in their ecclesiastical leaders and to view them with blind deference, how do you expect them do behave when those leaders commit egregious moral malfeasance?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jonathan Carpenter, regarding your legitimate question about whether enough evidence exists to try bishops for criminal offenses, I'll let you read the grand jury accounts and reports from attornies general found in this link and decide for yourself (whichi means that I could be wrong):

    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/reports.html

    If the bishops aren't criminally liable, they might be liable for malfeasance in canon law (like you, I'm not a lawyer). Allowing a sexual predator to continue in ministry without the knowledge or consent of a pastor and his congregation are certainly malfeasance, regardless of anybody's definition.

    ReplyDelete
  44. To clarify re Dreher and Orthodoxy: It's not Dreher's lame conversion that gets my goat. It's his egregious double standard.

    Double standards make me puke. Especially when they're transparently self-serving and utterly dishonest. Then they are beyond puke-worthy. They are evil.

    ReplyDelete
  45. As far as helping the victims goes, what can be done except for intense psychological and spiritual counseling, in neither of which I am trained?

    Prayer, fasting, and, if the opportunity presents itself, presence.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Kathleen, you are obviously angry at what has happened to your family in the past. Perhaps that's why you're angry at those who bring the sex-abuse crisis up now; maybe you wonder where were these people for your family members."

    Joe, you sound ridiculous. now i need counseling. that's a nice effort at deflection but it's transparent.

    meantime, an 81 year old man who clearly would rather be doing other things allows himself to be paraded around cities like a sideshow so he can share the gospel with us. because priest A is a lazy bastard doesn't mean Benedict is. so when presented with a great example of the clergy like Benedict, why can't you and dreher pipe down? but of course, that's precisely when you CAN'T pipe down: you want to believe, and you want everyone else to believe, that the Church and clergy are thoroughly compromised from top to bottom. we're not buying it Joe. time for another hobbyhorse.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I understand that 60,000 people attended Pope Benedict's Mass in Yankee Stadium. That's substantially more than the entire membership of Rod's OCA.

    Sometimes I wonder whether Dreher keeps on with the Catholic-Bashing because he's pissed that he's now so irrelevant, religiously. Reportedly, conversion to Orthodoxy ain't even chic anymore, the way it was 5-10 years ago.

    In the immortal words of Lenny Bruce, "There is only one 'The Church.'" I suspect Dreher knows it, too, and that's partly why he can't let up with the Catholic-Bashing. We attack what we fear.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Joseph, I have read the Grand Jury transcripts and you are right saying the conduct by the bishops is deplorable. Doesn't it raise questions for you if the DAs paneled all of these Grand Juries why they returned no indictments? It is not the Grand Jury is hard to convince. You have heard the expression, "The DAs can get the Grand Juries to indict Ham sandwhiches" haven't you? Of course you have. There is not enough evidence to convict people. Perhaps in a Court of Canon Law there is; but not in a secular one. The Canon Law Courts is where the victims should pursue justice at. That and in Civil law suits. That would be a step in the fight direction.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "You know, Rod, that you're going to get sarcastic comments from Pauli, Kathleen (especially Kathleen) and Diane about this. And if anybody tries to criticize the credibility of those who defend the malfeasant, you're going to get Mark Shea swooping in to try to relaunch his feud with me.

    Nevertheless, keep up the good work! Only public exposure is going to keep these episcopal bastards feet to the fire.

    Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito | April 22, 2008 11:16 PM"

    ReplyDelete
  50. LOL, Kathleen. Does that mean Dreher has yet another Catholic-Bash posted?

    I've run out of words to express how obsessed, monomaniacal, fixated, insane, and just plain nuts he is.

    That lad needs meds.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Richard Barrett just commented:

    "What good is the episcopal structure? Well, as the joke goes, the problem with any church is that there are people in it. There are going to be stinkers with mitres wherever you go -- that really can't be useful as a metric. You can't reject the entire flock because of the misbehavior of the shepherd.

    Without the Eucharist, it's dysfunctional club. With the Eucharist (that is, with Christ), it might still be a dysfunctional club, but the Eucharist transforms it into far more than it could ever be on its own, just as Christ transformed a bunch of not-terribly-bright, petty, and fearful guys into the Apostles who changed the world."


    Poor Richard -- doesn't he realize that he is just enabling the systemic pederasty in the institution Roman church?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Rod has jumped the shark. It is getting beyond ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  53. And if anybody tries to criticize the credibility of those who defend the malfeasant, you're going to get Mark Shea swooping in to try to re-launch his feud with me.

    Mark's "swoop" on Joe was over Erin Manning who I don't recall ever defending the malfeasant. Shea might exhibit the manners of an oaf, but he's right on regarding Dreher's obsessive "disappointment".

    Sure, Rod isn't going to listen to Di, K or me, but Erin and Mark are both friends with Rod and they are trying to talk sense to the working boy about his continued descent toward comic Hitler Channel-rivaling myopia.

    ReplyDelete
  54. diane, did you see where dreher accuses *you* of "monomania"? lol.

    If you ever want to know what's bothering Ray Dreher about himself and how he thinks other people see him, look at what he reflexively and repeatedly calls other people out on.

    ReplyDelete
  55. What were the 2 words?

    Anyway, Iranauseous (sic) said Rod "repeatedly" discussed OCA scandals and I think that's an exaggeration. Maybe 3 times, at least.

    Anyway, goodguyex (who's that?) wrote something and I guy I call "Mad Mel" responded:

    Goodguyex, I wish it was that easy. I'm a loyal Catholic (I love our faith) but I believe that McCarrick is NOT REALLY "gone." He may be retired but he is alive and remains powerful within the church. His influence over future apostolic appointments REMAINS. If what Rod and others have uncovered is true (and we have NO REASON to disbelieve them), then McCarrick violated his vows as a priest and abused his authority and privileges as a bishop. It is a simple matter of justice that he be exposed. This filth must be removed from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Body of Christ. The culture of the apostolic hierarchy in America is corrupted by this filth, and it must thoroughly removed!!

    Oooooh! NOT REALLY GONE! Cue the scary violins.

    Let us pray for our bishops and for the Holy Father for courage and wisdom on this matter. Let us pray really hard.

    Yeah, pray hard and leave comments in CAPITAL LETTERS. At least he's 50% right on the perscription.

    ReplyDelete
  56. LOL, I love that old Dreherian ploy of impugning the sanity of comboxers he doesn't agree with. Seriously, how does this jerk keep a jpb?

    I can just imagine what my employer would say if I did nothing but blog all day. :o

    Diane

    ReplyDelete
  57. Pauli, Kathleen and Diane, there's a serious disconnectwith you all. You claim to support Benedict's confrontation of the clerical sex-abuse crisis yet you trash Dreher for linking to Sipe's allegations about McCarrick?

    You do realize, of course, that Benedict immediately accepted McCarrick's pro forma resignation? Why do you think the Pope did that? Do you think he was unaware of what was going on in D.C., sexually or otherwise?

    (I would think that McCarrick's "enthusiastic" support for the USCCB's abolitionist campaign against capital punishment played a role in the Pope accepting McCarrick's resignation so quickly).

    I mean, really, people, you contradict yourselves big time. Whatever his faults, Dreher isn't the ultimate problem -- unless you want to include Sipe, Jason Berry, Lee Podles and Fr. Thomas Doyle as part of the problem, as well. If that's the case, then you're more deranged than you claim Dreher is.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Joe---as many people have apparently pointed out: If Dreher has evidence, why does he not produce it? If he can't put his money where his mouth is, then he's a yellow-journalist Maria Monkesque liar.

    And again, the double standard. Why is it so important to expose RCC scandals but somehow it's low-priority to expose equally egregious OCA scandals?

    I do not get that.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Joe, where did I "trash Dreher" for linking to Sipe's allegations about McCarrick?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Rod's not "part of the problem" -- when did I say that? Rod has got problems. There's nothing wrong with reporting on the scandal, but where the scandal is concerned he's "got a fever and the only perscription is more cowbell" to borrow from the famous SNL skit.

    People on the net have speculated all kinds of things about Rod -- that is going to convert to Islam, for instance, and that he is a homosexual. People have talked about whether or not he put on weight, something I really don't care about. Who doesn't put on weight? My opinion is that these tidbits are either counter-productive or ephemeral. I strive to base my criticisms of Rod on the substance of his writing or from evidence culled from his choice of material. I understand that I may fail at this from time to time, but examples, please.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "You do realize, of course, that Benedict immediately accepted McCarrick's pro forma resignation?"

    soooooo, where is the problem here, exactly? talk about a disconnect... or am i supposed to be newly scandalized at this late date that there are homo priests and cardinals!?

    oh no, diane and pauli, there are priests and cardinals taking it up the gary glitter! someone fetch me my smelling salts. quick. quick.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "[Sipe] was quite open and blunt about his research into how homosexual networks form in some US seminaries, and work to advance the careers of priests who play ball, and thwart the careers of priests who don't."
    -- Ray Dreher, 4/26/08

    gee, for a minute there i thought dreher was talking about the world of classical music. or the fine arts. or journalism. or academia. or ...

    ReplyDelete
  63. Yes, sadder when it happens in seminaries, but not really news.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Kathleen, is it the 26th where you're at already??

    ReplyDelete
  65. "[Sipe] was quite open and blunt about his research into how homosexual networks form in some US seminaries, and work to advance the careers of priests who play ball, and thwart the careers of priests who don't."

    Like that's unique to the Catholic Church? Earth to Rod: Met. "Twinkle-Toes" Theodosius.

    I'm still waiting to see Rod's proof re McCarrick. Or does evidence not matter in journalism these days?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Diane, Rod never cared about having proof before making charges. Just remember the hatchet job his paper did to Fr. Benedict Groeschel and his silence towards the damage his paper did to Fr. Benedict.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Jonathan, I know nothing about that. What did he and the DMN say about Father Benedict? Did they accuse him of being a homosexual pedophile? If so, what utter creeps.

    I no longer think Rod is fueled just by rage. He's also motivated by sheer, insane hate -- hate that comes from the very depths of Hell.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Diane, you should really take it easy lest you fall into the same trap of being swift to judge.

    Maybe Jonathan can specify the incident to which he refers. It sounds vaguely familiar.

    I remember the article Fr. Groeschel wrote in response to Rod, it's right here. Coincidentally, or maybe not so, Father mentions Richard Sipe as an unreliable source. I've often said that when it comes to bashing the church, Dreher dedicates himself to using any means necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The Catholic League wrote an article exposing what a hatchet job the DMN did to Father Groeschel. Thehttp://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2003&month=May&read=1583 address is

    ReplyDelete
  70. Pauli, you are right. I am just so sick of this stuff.

    Jonathan, thanks for that Catholic League link. It definitely sets the record straight.

    DMN: Liars, liars, pants on fire.

    Man.

    ReplyDelete