Centerfield

Let me preface my comments by explicitly stating that what follows is pure speculation, not anything that I have any knowledge of, or evidence for...

It strikes me as likely that pedophilia (and other sexual dysfunctions) among priests is an issue that the catholic church has been aware of for a long time, and which they have discussed at length over many generations, behind closed doors. Celibacy is not easy, and it's the catholic church, if anyone, that is likely to have a wealth of knowedge of the range of side effects of it.

Given this, it is very possible that the way Cardinal Law handled things in Boston both prior to and during the airing of the scandal was the way the church wanted it handled. So it may be the case that Law is being treated as a good and loyal soldier and not an incompetent or a pariah. Law may well have told others in meetings that he was willing to handle things however the church wanted, but that he wasn't willing to fall on his sword. He might have even gone as far as saying that if he got hung out to dry, he'd sing like a canary about his knowledge of the history of church policy.

My prediction is that the church continues to protect Law, give him a decent posting, and just stonewall the critics. The catholic church is experienced at stonewalling, it's a tried and true policy for them.

Posted by: bk at April 22, 2005 09:38 AM

I read a quote by the new Pope about cleaning up "filth" within the church. I had taken that to refer to pedophile priests, but this harsh editorial argues that it does not refer to that.

His dark and disturbing vision was on display in a sermon he delivered last month. "How much filth there is in the church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to Him [Christ]," Ratzinger preached, according to an account in the National Catholic Reporter. "Lord, your church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side." And if you think that perhaps Ratzinger was blasting pedophile priests, you’re sadly mistaken.

I hope I'm not mistaken on this count. Given his position on homosexuality as intrinsically evil, I can't see him tolerated homosexual priests, pedophile or not. I'm sure "filth" refers to more than that, but I would think it would include them.

Posted by: rickheller at April 22, 2005 09:53 AM

I would interpret his comments on "filth in the church" to mean those Catholics who support gay rights and abortion rights. Remember that Pope Ben was a major player in wanting to deny communion to "Kerry Catholics."

As far as Cardinal Law. Let's just recognize the reality...they aren't going to do a damn thing about him. Brian is absolutely right IMHO...he did EXACTLY what the church wanted him to do. They shuttled him away to the Vatican to protect him, and that's where he will live out the remainder of his days. The church just wants the scandals to go away...AND IT IS. People are talking less and less about it, the lawsuits are being settled, and within a couple of years all will likely be forgotten AND THE CHURCH WON'T HAVE HAD TO DO ANYTHING DRASTIC (Other than bankrupt themselves, but IMO they view that as a rather small price to pay.)

Celibacy is unrealistic in its purest form. Maybe for a select few, but on such a wide scale it just totally denies Mother Nature. The church is well aware of this. Their transgressions have been documented for centuries...just do some research. It's not going to change anytime soon. Hell, if you've been denying you have a problem for 2000 years, what's a few lawsuits?

Posted by: AH at April 22, 2005 10:09 AM

Clinical pedophilia refers to those who desire pre-pubescent children, which does not describe this situation.

The overwhelming majority of victims in these scandals, were post-pubescent boys -- teenage boys.

Those who assault prepubescents children of either sex are either homosexual or heterosexual, but those who sexually assault teenage boys, as in these cases, are almost always homosexual. Some in the catholic church have concluded they have a homosexual problem. Not every homosexual priest commits sexual assault, but nearly every priest who has committed sexual assault in these scandals was homosexual.

In the 1960's, certain American seminaries (jesuit, etc..) had a changed attitude of permissiveness towards homosexuality, sometimes even looking the other way at still practicing ones. Some in the church have concluded that this has borne bad fruit, is the source of the problem, and should be the focus of the solution -- stamp out tolerance for homosexual priests in the seminaries. The church is addressing the problem, just not in the way some would like.

I personally believe lifetime vows of celibacy in the priesthood are good for some, but there should be an option for married men to become priests as well. This is how it was for centuries in both the western and eastern church, and how it continued through the centuries to this day in the Eastern Orthodox church -- both celibate and married priests.

Posted by: Susan at April 22, 2005 04:34 PM

Oddball Trivia--it is still technically possible to be a married Catholic priest, in completely good graces with the Vatican, and there actually are some. Not many. The exemption is for married clergy who convert to Catholicism.

If you start out Catholic, you can't be a priest and be married. If you start out as a married non-Catholic, achieve the equivalent of the priesthood and then convert, it's possible.

Posted by: Tully at April 23, 2005 02:31 PM