The actual, de facto values and priorities of the institutional Roman Catholic Church are on full display this week.
We learned in a piece in this morning’s Globe that the Roman Catholic Church acted decisively and quickly to fully cooperate with secular authorities in investigating and prosecuting a criminal act by a high-ranking official (emphasis mine):
The former top financial officer of St. John’s Preparatory High School was charged yesterday with stealing more than $80,000 from the Catholic school, including about $45,000 to pay for two automobiles.
(snipped)
Dalphonse worked as the school’s chief financial officer for 19 years before resigning in October.After Dalphonse’s departure, the school conducted an audit and contacted the Essex district attorney, St. John’s Headmaster Albert J. Shannon said in a statement.
(snipped)
“St. John’s Prep has cooperated fully with the DA’s office and will continue to do so as we remain focused on our educational mission and the daily life of the school,” Shannon said in the statement.
This perfectly appropriate handling of a venal crime stands in stark contrast to the treatment of priests who abuse children, highlighted by reports such as this published in yesterday’s New York Times (emphasis mine):
The German archdiocese led by the future Pope Benedict XVI ignored repeated warnings in the early 1980s by a psychiatrist treating a priest accused of sexually abusing boys that he should not be allowed to work with children, the psychiatrist said Thursday.
(snipped)
In 1980, after abuse complaints from parents in Essen that the priest did not deny, Archbishop Ratzinger approved a decision to move the priest to Munich for therapy.Despite the psychiatrist’s warnings, Father Hullermann was allowed to return to parish work almost immediately after his therapy began, interacting with children as well as adults. Less than five years later, he was accused of molesting other boys, and in 1986 he was convicted of sexual abuse in Bavaria.
The previously-secret 1962 “INSTRUCTION On the manner of proceeding in cases of the crime of solicitation” persuades me that the conspiracy to block these crimes from secular authorities is a formal policy that has been in place for nearly five decades.
I am not making any assertion about individual Catholics. In my view, this evidence does, however, clearly demonstrate that the institutional Roman Catholic Church is a dangerously corrupt and sick organization. It certainly strikes me as fitting precisely into the “criminal enterprise” language of federal RICO statutes.
Whether or not various officials can or cannot be prosecuted should not distract us from this clear evidence of who does and — more importantly who does not — matter to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church.
…but somehow not terribly surprising, at least in terms of the extent to which they still adhere to a 1962 policy. Wikipedia says this about RICO against the Church:
<
p>
<
p>I’m not sure why higher-ups would be otherwise untouchable if they violated mandatory reporting requirements. The original intent of RICO seems to be to target organizations whose raison d’etre is criminal activity, which doesn’t describe the Church. I assume any prosecution would have to be diocese by diocese since the church as a whole is an international organization.
<
p>The Church certainly seems to not do itself any favors in these cases sometimes.
The organization isn’t shy about calling in secular authorities to prosecute perpetrators who steal money from them.
<
p>It looks to me as though the theft of $80,000 is a far more serious offense, in this institution’s twisted value system, then the sexual abuse of tens of thousands of adolescents. Brian Dalphonse was not transferred to a position of financial authority in another Catholic school. His accusers were not sworn to secrecy. No hush money was offered to keep his case hidden from secular authorities.
<
p>If priests who abused adolescent boys and girls in their care were summarily dismissed and reported to secular authorities like Brian Dalphonse was, would there be a clergy sex scandal? I don’t think so. If Joseph Ratzinger had known about Brian Dalphonse’s criminal acts and moved him to another school anyway, would there be any reluctance to prosecute Joseph Ratzinger as an accessory (by the Church or by secular authorities)?
<
p>Whether or not they are prosecuted under RICO, it seems to me that the deeply-rooted moral decay that permeates this international organization is plainly evident.
<
p>I think it’s past time that we treat this criminal enterprise with the contempt that their behavior shows they deserve. Let the legal beagles work out how to prosecute them — the rest of us shouldn’t allow them anywhere near our teenagers.
Tom,
<
p>Great points. I would add another point. The sex scandal involved priests while this case involved a lay person. I may be cynical in this view, but I do not think the archdiocese would have been so quick to involve the authorities had the thief been a member of the clergy.
While, without data, we can only speculate, I think you raise an interesting question that might be worth exploring — were any lay (as opposed to ordained) staff of the institutional Roman Catholic Church accused of sex abuse, and how were those complaints handled by Church officials? Were secular authorities notified as they were in Brian Dalphonse’s case?
<
p>I don’t know if anyone has explored this, but it might shed light on the institutional context of this systemic cover-up.
hierarchy ran an underground railroad for pedophiles.
<
p>Here in the Springfield diocese Bishop Maguire and the DA Matty Ryan (who played handball weekly with now deceased mob-boss Al Bruno) stopped an investigation into the murder of altar boy Danny Croteau.
<
p>The only suspect, Father Richard Lavigne, was never indicted or even seriously investigated, though he gave every sign of his guilt (except his confession). He was later convicted for molesting boys in a Shelburne Falls parish. Lavigne was defrocked after East Longmeadow’s St. Michael’s Parish refused to send the diocese its share of collections.
<
p>Later, the Bishop Dupre fled to a Catholic hospital known for treating pedophile priests, when allegations of his own sexual abuse came to light.
<
p>There are a lot of reasons I am not a practicing Catholic anymore, but the main reason is the moral and intellectual bankruptcy and clericalism of the Church hierarchy. There arewere a lot of good priests and nuns out there, but the hierarchy’s hypocrisy, orthodoxy, and reactionary authoritarianism make me feel like it’s not my church anymore. It’s theirs.
I would say that yes, even if the Church did everything correctly regarding the abusing priests there would still be something of a scandal due to the higher standards of trust and morality to which priests are rightfully held.
<
p>Unless I’m misinterpreting something I wouldn’t go as far as your last line. You make it sound like you’re applying it to all priests and bishops, the vast majority of whom are perfectly trustworthy around teenagers. I also object to the “criminal enterprise” label. Institutions that commit some criminal activity are not criminal enterprises. Another example would be Enron, which engaged in criminal activity as an institution, but is not a criminal enterprise. I’d save that label for the mafia which basically exists to do things illegally.
“All”? Come on, Christopher. You are attempting to peddle the line that the entire scandal was the fault of a few miscreants. It doesn’t take “all priests and bishops” to make the organization corrupt. There were thousands of priests and tens of thousands of victims.
<
p>Each one of these perpetrators was under the authority of at least one bishop. Each of these perpetrators worked in a community of priests. We have formal written orders, dating from 1962, that direct those bishops to do the following (“Preliminaries”, emphasis mine):
<
p>I’m saying, again, that this directive is an order to obstruct justice. This directive explicitly authorizes the transfer of known abusers from one place to another.
<
p>In my view, any priest or bishop who keeps silent about his knowledge of ongoing abuse of an adolescent for whatever reason (including this policy) is not at all trustworthy around teenagers. I appreciate that this seems hard for you to acknowledge — these were not isolated cases. The single man at the top of this pyramid of authority while this conspiracy of silence unfolded was none other than Joseph Ratzinger, and he was subsequently elevated to Pope — after the scandal had broken wide open! Bernard Law resigned in 2002. Joseph Ratzinger became Pope in 2005. And now he — together with defenders like you — declares himself covered by sovereign immunity? How much more corrupt can an authority figure be?
<
p>What more would a religious (or any other organization) have to do in order to meet your criteria of “corrupt”?
<
p>As far as I know, neither of us are attorneys. Nevertheless, since you’ve offered your own lay understanding that the RICO statutes somehow don’t apply here, let me offer you my reasons for suggesting that they do.
<
p>I call your attention to the text of RICO — CHAPTER 92–RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS.
<
p>First, here is the RICO definition of “racketeering activity” (emphasis mine):
<
p>Let me try translating those to plain English:
<
p>”Racketeering Activity” means:
<
p>I hope you’re with me so far. I know I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on television, but it looks to me as though the formal policy and practices of the worldwide Catholic Church (as an organization) provides an ample supply of examples of each and every one of the above six “racketeering activities”.
<
p>I now call your attention to Section 1962(c) “Prohibited activities” of the same RICO statutes (emphasis mine):
<
p>It seems to me that if the Catholic Church has in fact done what the compelling and widely-published evidence clearly indicates that it has done, then the Catholic Church most certainly is a criminal enterprise under section 1962(c) of the RICO statutes.
<
p>Your attempt to say “but it’s not as bad as the Mafia” is an exceedingly weak defense of an institution that claims sole moral leadership in the world, is it not?
Reuters covers it pretty well. A link to the letter – what do you think?
In my view, secular authorities should be aggressively investigating and prosecuting whoever has participated in the criminal conspiracy to protect and enable clergy sex abusers. I seek phrases like “wherever the evidence” leads from federal and state prosecutors in the US, and their counterparts in many other nations violated by this Medusa.
<
p>I have about as much interest in this letter as I do an analogous communication from a Mafia boss to his underlings or family after his arrest — approximately zero.
<
p>In my view, these criminals forfeited whatever respect, forgiveness, or tolerance might have otherwise benefited them when they kept their silence after the first abuser repeated his violations after his crimes were brought to their attention.
<
p>I view them as common criminals and enablers of dangerous predators. I think Joseph Ratzinger has more in common with Whitey Bulger than any spiritual leader who comes to mind.
…you go too far in the other direction. Your argument basically seems to be: All priests are untrustworthy; Father X is a priest; therefore Father X is untrustworthy. Never mind that just maybe Father X would never dream of touching a child inappropriately, maybe was never aware of a colleague doing so (though now we may be treading on confessional issues which, for better or worse, the law does recognize). THAT is the stereotype that I’m seeing that is bothering me. I am not in a position to know what percentage of priests engaged in these acts or which dioceses mishandled these cases, but I am reminded of Abraham’s plea to God that Sodom be spared even if only five innocent men were found. I don’t know how many more ways I can say it. I am absolutely for applicable prosecutions. I just don’t like the prejudicial labels cast on the entire Church, which BTW is certainly NOT the SOLE moral authority on the planet.
You are egregiously misstating my argument, either because I haven’t been clear enough or because you choose to respond to a straw-man rather than what I actually said.
<
p>Therefore, let’s try taking this in baby steps.
<
p>Here’s a sequence of questions, for which the possible choices are:
<
p>
I argue that the answer appears to be “Some”.
I argue that the answer is somewhere between “Some” and “Many”
I argue that the answer is “None”
I argue that the answer is at least “Some” or even “Many”.
I argue that the answer is somewhere between “Most” and “All”.
I argue that answer was “None”
I argue that the answer is “All”
I argue that the answer is “Most” or “All”. We know for a fact that Bernard Law was a full participant, and we know for a fact that Bernard Law has full first-hand knowledge of the vast conspiracy to hide these crimes from secular authorities.
<
p>In my view, this sequence of answers leads to something along the lines of the following:
<
p>Feel free to offer the different set of choices that apparently leads you to the conclusion that this is anything other than a corrupt organization.
<
p>I note that you haven’t addressed the substance of my argument that the institutional Catholic Church does, in fact, appear to be a “criminal enterprise” as specified in the RICO statutes quoted above.
<
p>I’ve been explicit and clear that I target the institutional Roman Catholic Church, which, BTW, claims for itself the role of sole moral authority on the planet. The facts are what they are, whether you like them or not.
<
p>Finally, I note that none of the concerns we’ve gone on at length about appeared to play any role whatsoever when $80,000 of institutional money was risk. When this relatively small amount of money was apparently taken by Brian Dalphonse, secular authorities were immediately informed.
<
p>In my view, this in itself demonstrates the corruption I allege — money matters, children don’t.
The question isn’t whether Father X can be trusted around children to not rape them –in terms of his “trustworthiness” — those are pretty low standards, Christopher, are they not? The question is if Father X can be trusted report to the police when he finds out Father Y abused children, first and foremost, or if he reports to the Bishop. So far, Father X has universally chosen to report to the Bishop and then shut up about it, unless told to do otherwise. THAT’S why the church, as an institution, has engaged in criminal behavior, and that’s why Father X honestly shouldn’t be trusted near children either. No one’s accused the Cardinal of Ireland of molesting children… but sitting in the room while they were forced to sign an oath of silence isn’t exactly keeping the best interests of the children in mind, either, is it?
<
p>
<
p>You cannot use the bible to justify what’s gone on. We live in a secular society. At some level, the Church has to be held accountable for the thousands upon thousands of children the Church allowed to be raped and molested through its actions. You cannot simply go after a few scapegoats in the church — LEADERSHIP, who allowed and propagated the molestations by hiding them and shuffling priests around (so they could find new victims), needs to be held accountable, too.
…when words like “universally” are used. We have NO way of knowing if every single priest has knowledge of illegal activity on the part of a fellow priest. As for the Bible, I wasn’t using it to justify legal action, just attitude. If you’d prefer a non-Biblical example, fine. When I was young I was pretty well behaved if I do say so myself. However, I sometimes found myself in a position where I lost recess because most of the class was misbehaving. Even a six-year-old can see the fundamental unfairness in this situation and as a teacher myself I have never issued a collective consequence.
As Brookline quoted and linked, the policy was for priests who were aware of it to go to the bishop, not the police. Reported cases went to the bishops, who kept these cases from becoming public knowledge. That’s what was universal. The average priest was probably blissfully unaware of the bulk of abuse going on, but that doesn’t mean the church wasn’t a corrupt and secret organization.
<
p>Trying to make this about individual priests and what they did or didn’t know is a straw man. The Bishops, Cardinals and, now, the Pope, all knew. Not only did those people do nothing, but they covered it up. That’s what makes the Church, as an institution, massively corrupt. And until those people are removed from power and, when appropriate, reported to the authorities, the church, as an institution, is corrupt — because the same people who allowed this scandal to become so horrific and huge are still the people in charge.
…for trying to separate institutional from individual malfeasance, which is what I’ve been trying to get at all along. When mandatory reporting laws are in place there is really no excuse to not report. This isn’t medieval Europe; the Church is not a law unto itself with the exception of inside Vatican City. I really don’t think I set up the strawman, though. I was responding to what appeared to be an attitude (not from you) of no priest can ever be trusted to be alone with a minor. The Church and its members I think would be well served to conduct CORI checks on its priests and psycological evaluations on those seeking ordaination like my church does, if they don’t already. What’s basically needed is a “trust, but verify” regime.
I really don’t understand your logic.
<
p>When an organization fails repeatedly for decades to take responsibility for the immoral and criminal behavior of its workers, then it’s not unreasonable for people to view the entire organization as suspect. The fallout from the Catholic church’s inaction is that innocent priests, because of their continued and voluntary association with that organization, are increasingly viewed with suspicion. If one decides to continue to work for such an organization, then that’s, unfortunately, the price one must pay. No one is forcing these men to remain with the church. Besides, pedophiles don’t wear signs that say, “I’m a priest pedophile. Don’t let me near your children.” Often these priests are the most charming and respected until people begin to speak up. Consequently, priests are suspect given their decisions to remain with the church, in my view.
<
p>As well, smart people will continue to be increasingly suspicious of priests these days–and for good reason. The Catholic church, by its continued enabling, coddling, and covering up, has forced people to view it and its priests as possible sex offenders. And I would urge people to continue to view Catholic church representatives in just that way until the Church accepts responsibility for the atrocities it has committed and enacts meaningful reform making the church utterly inhospitable to its sexual deviants. But that is never going to happen, so it is inevitable that confidence in the integrity of the church’s priests, at least among thinking people, will continue to erode at an accelerating rate.
…like you’re justifying stereotypes and that it is the fault of those being stereotyped. It’s no more appropriate for priests than for lawyers, politicians, or used car salesmen, all of which of course have their own issues of trust in the popular imagination.
the lawyers, used car salesmen and even politicians are not a part of organizations that have covered-up and shipped around child molesters once found out. Let’s not forget that Representative Massa just resigned over accusations of sexual harassment. Foley was forced out after targeting interns. There are countless other cases. As for lawyers and used car salesmen, when they’re found out, they’re reported to the police, fired and go to prison.
<
p>Only the Catholic Church is an institution with hundreds of millions of members, with employees who obtained instant status and access to members of the community, including children, that covered-up and shipped around child molestation cases, directly resulting in thousands of additional children being abused by institutionally-known repeat offenders.
My larger point has always been opposition to stereotypes and broad-brushing. I think you’re correct about the differences in institutional context, but it was starting to sound like some wanted to treat every priest as a potential suspect based on his chosen vocation.
<
p>”It was starting to sound….”
<
p>You are exactly the sort of apologist and relativist that the Catholic church depends upon for its continued advantage in this heinous organizational scandal. As long as there are people unwilling to hold the church morally if not criminally responsible and to demand accountability in any meaningful sense, then they will continue to enjoy their privileged status in the world–and continue their storied history of child rape and abuse with impunity.
<
p>If I worked for a private school that:
<
p>1. systematically failed to properly screen its teachers for suitability,
2. that paid families hush money to silence them after their children had been abused,
3. that systematically covered up rape and abuse of children for decades even after its crimes were revealed to the public,
4. that refused to make changes in a culture that enabled sexual deviants to flourish,
5. that provided opportunities to move abusive teachers to other private schools through a network of collusion,
6. and then openly refused to cooperate with law enforcement when criminal activity was exposed,
<
p>wouldn’t you find ANY individual who voluntarily worked at such a place suspect? Anyone with a shred of decency and integrity would walk away, and certainly no one in their right mind would seek employment at such a place. Consequently, those who stay behind raise eyebrows–as they should.
…absolutely not. I would judge each individual on his/her own contribution to the situation you describe in the six line items above. There are PLENTY of good priests out there. We hear about the bad ones. The other difference is that you refer to a single school, which is a lot easier to just quit a particular job, possibly to simply apply to teach at a different particular school because the person is still a teacher. I’ve never argued against holding accountable those who need to be held accountable. If I were a prosecuter I would certainly act on evidence brought to me against certain priests and bishops, but I would not commence a fishing expedition. If a Catholic feels called to ordained ministry the rest of us have absolutely no moral right to hold that against him. I must admantly disagree with your rationale in this regard. It is your prejudice that I find inexcusable.
as well as their inactions. Anyone who chooses to associate with an organization with a history like that of the Catholic church does so of their own free will. That action is absolutely open for scrutiny. And your contention that it is easier to quite a job at a school versus quitting being a priest for the Catholic church is bogus. A priest who feels a calling to serve the Christian god can find plenty of places to do so that don’t have the ethically and morally bankrupt history of his current association. Those who choose to stay with the church given everything that is known about its disregard for children and its high regard for raping priests are ethically and morally challenged in my view.
I would just mention that being a priest isn’t just a job, even a contracted one; it’s more like a marriage where the idea is you take vows for life. Elsewhere Brookline Tom mentioned Martin Luther and if a priest wanted to take on that role in this context I’d be cheering him on. If we were talking about an individual parish with a problem then the priest could ask for a transfer, but of course we are talking about a larger institution. There’s also emotional loyalty involved with the church that doesn’t come into play with most private sector or even public sector jobs, which I think needs to be respected to some extent. I can understand using one’s choice of work as ONE aspect, but I was responding to what I interpreted as automatic suspicion that every priest is himself a likely abuser, which certainly isn’t true. There should be youth protection policies in place to guard against that anyway. My church and scouts I know both have rules that say one adult can never be alone with one child; this guards against not only abuse, but also false accusations thereof. Consider this a response to the comment below as well.
Your interpretation is skewed. Nobody here has said or implied that automatic suspicion. At worst, concern has been expressed that priests are part of an organization that enables pederasts. That does not equal an assumption that they are all pederasts.
<
p>Your response looks like bending over backwards to give the RCC the benefit of the doubt. The institution does not deserve that benefit. Through its actions and documented policies, it has demonstrated a callous disregard for the welfare of its most vulnerable members. Bishops were all informed of the secrecy policies, so it does definitely reflect on them.
Once again, the complexity and nuance of the criticism of the Church gets reduced to a claim that absolutely no one has made.
Sorry, but I wasn’t hearing a lot of nuance in some people’s comments and that’s what I was trying to inject.
…I plead guilty, or at least nolo contendere. Just my nature I guess.
…someone (namely Brookline Tom) did say the following:
<
p>”I think it’s past time that we treat this criminal enterprise with the contempt that their behavior shows they deserve. Let the legal beagles work out how to prosecute them – the rest of us shouldn’t allow them anywhere near our teenagers.”
<
p>The last sentence of this paragraph is what I’m refering to. That is what to me sounded like a call to not trust any priest with any teenagers. This was in the context of indicting the whole institution under RICO. Since he’s talking about the whole “criminal enterprise” in the first line I assumed that was the antecedent for “them” in the last line. If he meant by “them” only those directly abusing then of course I agree with him and apologize for my misinterpretation. Of course, lightiris then proceeded to defend holding anyone in that position in lower regard for not bailing at once, a position with which I’m still not completely comfortable.
There are other institutions which many of us would agree have engaged in illegal/unethical practices as institutions. Wal-Mart, Enron, any number of Wall Street firms, come to mind. Would you say that every employee of these institutions is suspect if they don’t leave? I certainly wouldn’t. I would understand if you take your business elsewhere just as I understand that Catholics might separate themselves from the Church. I’d certainly be embarrassed and upset at this if I were a Catholic, but I would not judge my individual priest based on guilt by association alone anymore than I would the teller at my local Bank of America branch.
everything we do in life admits to certain moral and ethical beliefs we hold. Yes, I hold people accountable for where they shop and work as part of my calculus in gauging one’s character. I would refine your “guilt by association” suggestion a bit and replace “guilt” with “lack of integrity and/or lazy.” I respect people who refuse to shop at Walmart. I respect Catholics who walked away in disgust from the the church. I respect employees of any company who walk away rather than be associated with corruption. So yes, if I worked for a financial institution that ripped off people and left them ruined, in many cases, for life, I would seek employment elsewhere and I would expect every other person who worked there who had integrity to do the same. Sorry, but paychecks funded by the ruin of innocent investors are tainted. Not cool. I don’t find the people who do take those paychecks to be admirable or of high integrity.
<
p>If more people voted with their pocketbooks and their skilled services we’d be a better nation.
…but especially in this job climate I would not leave a teller position at Bank of America unless I had another job waiting for me first. Sorry if that makes me a bad person.
Nothing that I said precludes COMMON SENSE. If a person makes a commitment to leave an organization that is criminal and corrupt at the first viable opportunity, that is an ethical and reasoned decision. Quitting jobs without another employment opportunity is irresponsible and foolish. Good grief. Since when does ethical and moral decision making require risky, irresponsible, or downright self-destructive action?
<
p>Again, you demonstrate a tendency to argue dramatic straw man arguments. Absolutely nothing in my comments requires someone to abruptly quit a job without having a job to go to.
Rather than attempting to reign in pedophiles, the Church has aggressively moved against homosexual priests, along with throwing money and support to fighting gay marriage and gay rights. So there’s a witch hunt, but not against the molesters.
This isn’t “some.” This is thousands and thousands of cases of RAPE and MOLESTATION. And the entire leadership of the church was dedicated to COVERING IT UP. At some point in time, I really hope you can learn that it’s better to be honest and accurate than submissively kind. No one should bow to child-abusers or those who would cover them up, far from it. It is time for the RCC’s remaining laypeople to rise up and take charge of running that church — it’s the only thing, at this point, which could possibly save it, because the priests and bishops (including the Pope) have made it clear that they’re only interested in watching out for themselves.
people back then thought it was perfectly safe to put a pedophile in position to abuse again after therapy and prayer. Oh, wait, that was just jconway rationalizing…
<
p>I’m sorry, my still-practicing Catholic friends, this Pope has no excuse for what he’s done, no excuse for his actions regarding what happened in Ireland (how the Cardinal there could still be a Cardinal after it was found out he sat in the meeting where the young victim boys were forced to sign an oath of silence by the church is well beyond me, but apparently Pope Ratzie’s perfectly fine with it) and no excuses for why he, himself, has not resigned.
<
p>If I still considered myself a Catholic, I would absolutely, positively demand all these Cardinals and the Pope resigned and that the lay people were put in charge of running the actual church, not the priests, and that the new Pope was only a ‘spiritual leader’ at most. Catholic church leaders need their Magna Carta moment, or the church will never get better, and church leadership will continually push policies that keep turning people away from the church, often running. If the people were the ones in charge, the church would be a vastly better place, both as an institution and for the world.
…I’d probably join “Voice of the Faithful”. (Are they even still around? I haven’t heard from them in a while.) As it is I am quite happy being a member of a denomination governed at every level largely by laity.
who did join, and they were good people who wanted good things, but I think most people in that organization gave up and either accepted the church as a corrupt institution or, more likely, left like I did. I was never a member of the Voice of the Faithful, but I struggled along with them, just like them, for about two years before I made it clear to my family and friends that I no longer considered myself Catholic (a point of consternation for some, but a point of agreement for most others).
<
p>The greater point is, though, that aside from throwing out a few tokens to a group like Voice of the Faithful, the people who were responsible for the cover-ups are the people in charge of the church. They’re not going to go until and unless there’s no choice. The point at which the church can be truly reformed is only going to be the point at which it will either reform or die — it was that very realization that made me leave the church.
<
p>By staying a member and by the church being able to ‘count’ me in their enrollment, it helped the church, and therefore the leaders, skate on by without being held accountable. So, for those who wish to remain Catholic, but can’t tolerate the current corruption, my best advice is to leave and tell people why, encouraging them to follow. If enough do leave, the Church will have no choice but to reform and allow the lay people to take charge of managing the church and deciding policy, thus making priests on up only leaders in spirituality. Like I’ve said on numerous occasions, the church needs its Manga Carta moment, or it really will become meaningless or die as an institution. If people think it can be a force for good in the world, which it surely is not at this time, then they need to force the institution they care about to change in the best, most powerful way possible: leaving until it changes.
I enthusiastically agree with all you’ve written here.
<
p>I’d like to call our attention to the striking resemblance (to my eyes) between the much-needed leap you propose and Martin Luther’s decision, in 1517, to initiate a similar revolt against a similarly-corrupt Catholic hierarchy.
<
p>There is a very good reason why the resulting faith tradition is called “Protestant”.