The Reality-Based Community

I'd give credit to Pope Benedict for at least taking a stand. Remember that Maciel, was being pushed by his followers for canonization. following that of the founder of Opus Dei, Josemaría Escrivá: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2004/08/24/vows_of_silence_authors_make_their_case_against_john_paul_ii?pg=full, and see Garry Will's review article on "Vows of Silence" in the NYRB here (behind paywall): http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=17026.

Let's hope or pray that Ratzinger will continue by killing off the longstanding movement by Spanish reactionaries to canonize Isabella of Castile. Not content with expelling the Jews and going back on the promise of toleration for the conquered Muslims, she went along with her husband Ferdinand of Aragon's creation of the Spanish Inquisition. Even ita defenders concede the Inquisition was responsible for the elaborate judicial murder of "only" 3-5,000 innocent victims: http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article4.html ; a mainstream estimate is 32,000 over the whole life of the organisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition .

I live in a conservative, highly Catholic area. Many of my neighbors, lifelong and multi-generational Catholics, have withdrawn from the church over the abuse scandal, and no small number have converted to other forms of Christianity. Not a huge number, but not insignificant either.

Do the Pope and the other high-ups in the Catholic Church even understand that?

Cranky

I'm betting on #4. And I recommend Tuchman's March of Folly chapter on the cardinals scrabbling their way to the top in the period just before the Reformation as a way to think about what may be happening here. And for that matter Tuchman is a real good way to think about General Motors, the national Democratic Party, and the UAW, not to mention the Nassau Republican Party.

#4, and it never changed.

Every organization that achieves any sort of power becomes this way.

From one who has been on the inside (me), there are two things at play here: 1) "The Legion of Christ...... is one of the fastest-growing in the world, with about 600 priests and 2,500 seminarians in 20 countries. Its lay branch, the Regnum Christi Movement, claims tens of thousands of members. Legionaries say they have established or run more than 100 schools." 2) Maciel is 86 years old. If you think you have a grasp on the nature of 'bureaucracy', you haven't got a clue about the bureaucracy that is the Catholic Church. Think in terms of millions and millions of people worldwide who believe in all that the Catholic Church teaches, indeed, for these millions, the Church is the guide to their consciences. The top most levels of that bureaucracy know full well of the responsibility they hold. And they are, for all pratical purposes, consistent. Believe me, for Benedit to censure this old, degenerate animal is momentous. They porobably can't do much more. For the Catholic Church, the Rhythm Method, denial of condom use in Afria, the worldside clergy sexual abuse scandal, and their treatment of homosexuals all stem from the same worldview. That may change (recent word has come out that condom use is being considered) but the Catholic Churh will not cease to exist. Indeed, it is a source for good in more areas than can be listed.

The Church has very little real ability to impose punishments, especially on someone too old to actively work for the church. About the only thing they could do beyond what they have done would be to turn over Fr. Maciel to secular authorities. The problem with that approach is that they likely do not have sufficient evidence to convict him in a fair legal system, while turning him over to an unfair one would result in Maciel's conviction regardless of the actual evidence.

Gee, Anthony, that's kind of lame, isn't it? In that situation why can't they say what you said, and maybe a little more:
(1) We think he did it.
(2) We're really ashamed it took us so long to figure it out.
(3) We can't do any more about it than this [well, they could pay some damages to the victims, maybe?], and we're sorry about that too.
(4) Here's what we're doing to make sure we don't take decades to get on top of the next case like this.

It appears from the news reports that there's actually buckets of direct victim testimony lying around, though. The waffling and obscurity of the church's statements on this remain really shameful. One could interpret these events reasonably as "we protected a villain as long as he was useful to us; when he got old enough to be irrelevant, we threw a bone to public opinion but maintain complete deniability." As long as you don't count the victims, or the future victims of those who infer the wrong incentives, or the further destruction of the church's moral authority, it's the smart play.

Someday, "my god is smaller than your god" may be a functional insult.

Many of my neighbors, lifelong and multi-generational Catholics, have withdrawn from the church over the abuse scandal, and no small number have converted to other forms of Christianity. Not a huge number, but not insignificant either.

Do the Pope and the other high-ups in the Catholic Church even understand that?

I'm not even close to a Catholic, Cranky, but I do live in Latin America. I don't think the Church is set up to care about the opinions of people who have the capacity to switch to another brand of Christianity. In fact, if they were to start pandering to this crowd, it would probably speed their demise -- the illusion of infallability and universality they've cultivated over the millenia is the best thing they've got going for them.

ObT: My mother thinks, and I tend to agree, that public tolerance of homosexuality is going to seal the doom of the Catholic Church. With gay lifestyles increasingly accepted, the priesthood will no longer be the best excuse not to get married.

Michael, are you of the view that the Vatican has dungeons at its disposal? If you are, I hate to correct you. The only more severe punishment that the Vatican could impose would be to defrock him. That, as it happens, isn't a severe penalty for someone guilty of the crimes he's been accused of. We look to the state for determination of whether a crime has been committed, and what the appropriate punishment for a crime should be. That is, we liberals do--I'm not sure where you look.

Defrock would be good if he did it, and nothing if he didn't. What's happened makes no sense. No, I'm not expecting criminal punishment from the Vatican. The church has a very bad record in the US of telling civil authority of crimes by priests, which is the right thing to do and now, I think, obligatory under law for child abuse. It would have been good to drop a dime on this guy to the Mexican authorities a long time ago if they had the goods...but it's the ambiguity of the Vatican's behavior that I'm most upset about.

Michael, are you of the view that the Vatican has dungeons at its disposal? If you are, I hate to correct you. The only more severe punishment that the Vatican could impose would be to defrock him. That, as it happens, isn't a severe penalty for someone guilty of the crimes he's been accused of. We look to the state for determination of whether a crime has been committed, and what the appropriate punishment for a crime should be. That is, we liberals do--I'm not sure where you look.

ringtones free

ringtones free