Is middle ground possible on the Pope?

There may not be a middle ground. The 'progressives' have shown their cards, since it was homosexualist Bishop Rembert Weakland who protected Murphy for 20 years. Yet the case has elicited blind rage - over what sort of canonical procedures should be applied in the case of a dying man. Clearly, the rage needs to be directed at Murphy's protector, the predator Rembert Weakland, who was up to his eyeballs in protecting Murphy and other abusers during his 20 years of disasterous misrule.

The Pope needs to stand tall, and practicing Catholics need to rally to his side against the forces of darkness.

John your writings are clear and concise and I believe very balanced and middle of the road.All you write is excellent and fair. But yes there are extremes in the Church today, primary among them your own newspaper the NCR which is the "rag" of the left and yes extreme, much of what it publishes would make an Episcopalian blush--it is schismatic at worse or at "best" advocating for rupture in the Church and her people, clearly divisive. Sometimes it is hard to separate you from the "rag" that you write for. The NCR is to the left what the Wanderer is to the right. Get my drift?

But there is also "abuse" fatigue out there. Lawyers are exploiting victims and the Church for financial gain. Victims are coming forward not for therapy and healing but now for financial revenge and ruin of dioceses. But no one calls it for what it is all out of a fear of offending or victimizing once again those who have been so terribly harmed. But when victims make unsubstantiated allegations against the Holy Father, spew forth hatred and venom on the Church and anyone who would question their motives, they get a "pass" from "bleeding heart" liberals who can't believe that victims could also victimize--it really is a vicious cycle isn't it and no one seem willing to break that cycle, except maybe William Donohue of the Catholic League.

But more importantly the agenda that now is becoming clear from the secular media and the left leaning NCR is to change and neutralize the Church and exploit this scandal to do it. But in the meantime it also erodes faith in God since Jesus Christ could be accused of the very same things that our Holy Father is being accused of, complicity in forgiving sinners who victimized others without seeking punitive justice. Once again I ask, didn't God create the Archangel Lucifer, knowing full well what would happen and what Lucifer would do? Didn't God create Adam and Eve and give them free will to commit original sin which then God allowed every human being except the Blessed Virgin Mary to inherit, knowing full well that this would lead to all kinds of victimization, murder, sodomy, child sex abuse, rape, violence, terror, war, genocide, the Holocaust and the list goes on.

On this Good Friday, just what are the NCR (not you John) and the New York Times and the liberal medial trying to do to the Catholic Church in general and the priesthood in particular, especially the Church's bishops and pope? What are lawyers trying to do? Like the priests who wrecked havoc on countless innocent teenage boys and some small children and like many bishops who followed the advice of psychiatry rather than canon law and like many others in the hierarchy who fear scandal over bringing light to a scourge in the Church, somehow I think Satan might well be involved in all of this and still I ask the question, shouldn't it all be left at the Foot of God, He created the whole damn mess. Thank God for Easter Sunday! Or blame God for it. Is there middle ground in that?

The Holy Father has said enough and His Holiness should now act like Christ at His trial on Good Friday, saying very little and letting salvation history take its awful course.

WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP?

In a recent press release from the Holy See, "concerning cases of the sexual abuse of minors in ecclesiastical institutions," Director Fr. Federico Lombardi repeats some of the more clichéd responses and predictable excuses to the church's ever widening problems of sexual abuse, particularly the sexual abuse of minor children.

http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=362995

Contrary to what Lombardi says in the press release from the Vatican, the institutional Roman Catholic Church has reacted to the continuing sexual abuse debacle neither rapidly nor decisively and the Vatican continues to distance itself from what has happened in country after country, first categorizing it as an "American problem," then as a "homosexual problem" in the United States in 2002.

The church's response continues to be reactive rather than proactive while minimizing the systemic and endemic abuse of power and authority which enabled and exacerbated it on the one hand while covering it up whenever and wherever possible on the other.

The "wide-ranging context" that Lombardi speaks of is that in countries from the United States, Canada, Australia and Ireland to Austria, the Netherlands and Germany, church authorities have repeatedly and consistently disregarded the institution's own moral and Canon laws as well as the existing laws of the countries' in which these horrific crimes against humanity took place.

The church has lost its way.

If church authorities had done the morally right thing initially, one wonders how many children would have escaped being sexually abused by a particular priest?

As Patrick Wall, a former priest himself, states:

"The Roman Catholic Church has the largest body of knowledge of non-incarcerated sexual offenders in the world."

Who, one has to ask, would have more knowledge of the internal machinations utilized to cover-up and protect sexual predators from public scrutiny than Pope Benedict in his former position as Head of the Holy Office?

While attacks on any individual is regrettable and counter productive, the fact is that Pope Benedict XVI is at the helm of the Barque of Peter. His challenge is to see that current church policy agrees with his statements in something as significant as the recent pastoral letter to Ireland.

What was done by church leadership in the United States, for example, were actions they were forced to take by the pressure of public opinion after records, files and correspondence were forced into the public venue in 2002 by Judge Constance M. Sweeney, a very brave, grounded and principled Catholic woman of Boston, Massachusetts. As the facts show, the bishops of the United States at that time were forced to make the decisions they made even while powerful bishops resisted calls to accountability and transparency every step of the way.

Moreover, while Benedict has accepted two of the proffered resignations from the Irish bishops it is well to recall that not one bishop in the United States was removed from office because of his own complicity and collusion in covering up sexual abuse. Nor has anyone been forced to resign for violating then existing canon law, criminal law or civil law.

Bishops in the United States like Bernard Cardinal Law and his auxiliaries in Boston, who were shown to have been complicit in protecting known sexual predators, should have been removed from office, their resignations tendered instead of being rewarded with a plum position in Rome in the case of Law, or their own dioceses as has been the cases with complicit Boston auxiliary bishops.

Sadly there are also examples of state authorities making deals with bishops that avoided any kind of prosecution, even though some had to admit guilt to get the deal. In a shameless act of pure hubris, the bishops specifically chose not to hold themselves to the same standards of accountability they drew up for ordinary priests.

When are people of good will going to say, enough!

When are state legislators going to change the laws so that justice can be pursued for the thousands upon thousands of victims of childhood sexual abuse who have been unable to access let alone obtain justice?

In most states and probably in most countries, existing criminal as well as civil laws give more protection to sexual predators and their enablers then they do to victims of childhood sexual abuse by anyone. The problems with statutes of limitation which have expired are probably much the same in Germany and other European countries as they have been is in so many jurisdictions in the United States.

This is deplorable and should not be the case.

The removal of all statutes of limitation in regard to the sexual abuse of children is the single, most effective way to hold predators and enabling institutions accountable before the law. More than that, window legislation allows a set time frame for previously time barred cases of sexual abuse by anyone.

It is possible to change the laws in order to give some semblance of justice to those ravaged at so tender an age. What is needed to effect that change is the will to hold all sexual predators of children accountable along with any enabling individuals or institutions.

The state of Delaware is one of a very few number of states in the United States which has removed all criminal and civil statutes of limitation in regard to the sexual abuse of children by anyone. It also legislated a two year civil window for previously time barred cases, again, by anyone. That window closed in July of 2009. Delaware also has a civil registry for those judged responsible under civil statutes.

In a civil suit, unlike a criminal suit, the burden of proof that any sexual abuse took place is on the plaintiff. The burden is not on the accused individual or institution to prove innocence, at least not in the United States.

Every victim of childhood sexual abuse should have a right to the pursuit of justice at the very least!

What people seem to forget is that children’s rights are human rights, that children’s rights are civil rights and that the hierarchy, the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, has violated those children’s rights in the most profane of ways, not only by covering up for sexual abusers, mostly priests, but also by enabling the further abuse of untold numbers of children by these particular individuals who were known to be dangerous predators.

If Delaware can do it other states and other countries should be able to do it as well, and hold sexual predators and any enabling institutions responsible, especially when those institutions choose to ignore their own internal laws.

I was privileged to testify before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in support of the 2007 Child Victims Law in Delaware.

No rules and no laws of any religious organization or denomination should be allowed to trump the laws of a civilized society where the protection of children is concerned.

Not only should the institutional Roman Catholic Church be held to the highest standard as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, it should be leading by example and showing what can and should be done to protect children from sexual exploitation, from what really is another example of trafficking in individuals for purposes of sexual exploitation, nothing less.

By any objective standard the church has grossly violated the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child for decades.

Is it time to formalize those violations as the crimes against humanity they truly are?

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com

The basis for all ethics and morality, whether atheist or believer, is the Golden Rule. So we're talking here about a global institution which claims moral authority over the rest of the human race. Not one of the thousands of leaders (hierarchs) had the fundamental human decency to think "Gee, I wouldn't want to be raped" and act accordingly for fear of losing their jobs which they made meaningless by failing to act. Where's the middle ground, John?

I think that the Church's record on handling sexual abuse is terrible. It's gone from terrible to something better in the last decade, but the Church hasn't adjusted to a world where political entities are expected to be more open and to respond to charges.
Benedict has made great strides in his attempts to correct these problems, both as Pope and when he headed the Congregation on the Doctrines of Faith, but a decade of revelations of cover ups in the Church have put him in a rather deep hole.
Benedict has apologized several times. I don't think his sorrow is in question. What's in question is the Church's ongoing wish to avoid scandal and to protect it's Bishops.
Several Bishops have attempted to use the seal of the Confessional as a way of keeping victims from talking about abuse. When Priests tried to use the Confessional to hide what they'd done it was thought of as horrendous. When Bishops have tried the same thing to smother scandals the act has been ignored by the Vatican.

Benedict should ask for resignations of all cardinals who have been involved in enabling priests to abuse more children.
Bishops who have been likewise involved should either step down or be given apostolic representatives to co-manage their dioceses until their own cases are publicly aired and disposed of by the Vatican.

These bishops have destroyed the faith of thousands of young people and their families. It's not just something for the Church to regret.

Wondering if the Pope will ever take responsibility for the sinful church structures that allowed so many children to be sexually abused by so many deviant priests?....wondering how the Pope can allow the excommunication of women as priests and the excommunication of those who support them publically in their answer to their sacred calling, while only "defrocking" guilty priests and "accepting" resignations of bishops brave enough to take responsibility for their cover up...how is God's name is that sort of moral choice of who and why to excommunicate ever reached? It boggles the mind. Pray this Pope can give due credit to the secular culture which revealed such magisterial hypocrisy claiming to do the will of Christ. One truly wonders, which is more Christian? And is it any wonder we are a divided and wounded Church?

There's a couple of intertwined concepts that might have relevance here. The first is discernment - reflect on underlying motivations, conscious and sub-conscious as well as facts and attempt to weigh their respective influences. The second, is that maturity and much of thought is a process of identification and differentiation of elements and subsequent synthesis.

I suspect that much unresolved conflict arises from either a failure to address these internally in one's own mind and "mutually" in debate, public or private. On the other hand inappropriate opposing of elements that are not corresponding impede resolution or advancement.

The issues of Ratzinger's earlier handeling of abuse within his ambit of episcopal authority is a separate issue from his "pontifical". Shed light, influence, yes, but distinct. It is similar to the distinction between the clerical abuse by clergy and the "management" of that abuse by hierarchy and hierarchical management.Similarly, it is akin to the distinction between and inderdependence of "systematic" and "systemic" dimensions of the abuse issue. Interrelated and mutually reinforcing but distinct.

To my mind, the significance of the Ratzinger role is that it better "differentiates", deliniates the hierarchical role in the scandal and brings it into a perspective of significance and attention and analysis that has been lacking. Similarly, self-rightious attacks on the media as a defence of Benedict and Ratzinger, amounts to "how could you" and obscures the entire issue. Then again, it might be a strategy by the "hierarchy" to put the focus back on the pope after he "stuck it to them" them in the "Pastoral letter" to the church in Ireland.

"Giving up the idea of man's capacity for truth leads first to pure formalism in the use of words and concepts. Again, the loss of content, then and now, leads to a pure formalism of judgment. In many places today, for example, no on bothers any longer to ask what a person thinks. The verdict on someone's thinking is ready at hand as long as you can assign it to its corresponding, formal category: conservative, reactionary, fundamentalist, progressive, revolutionary. Assignment to a formal scheme suffices to render unnecessary coming to terms with the content."

-This is part of a talk entitled "Conscience and Truth" http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

In my mind, it is not the Pope, it is the system. With a system that is oligarchical and patriarchal in structure, and at the same time is incestuous, it is a system that is dysfunctional. When the Pope and the Curia pick the bishops and cardinals that meet their criteria, and then have the power to pick the Bishop of Rome and promise him their obedience and loyalty, then we have a real problem. There is therefore a reluctance to criticize or offer differing opinions publicly; to engage in real debate. When Canon Law gives the absolute authority to the Bishop of Rome, then the other Bishops become regional managers and the pastors become plant managers with all authority centralized at the top and no real voice is heard from the wider community; or at the very least, only a voice that is in agreement with those who have assumed authority and power. The Church as the people of God are not included in the discussions. Only older male clerics who have been educated and formed within the Clerical Culture speak and listen to one another and the Spirit is blocked out. But "You cannot imprison the Word of the Lord". The Spirit works within the entire Church, not just within the few who are for the most part self selected. This is the culture that is being changed, wether we like it or agree with it; or not.

I'm getting tired of writting this to countless Church Leaders.? The 2nd incident that happened to the Pope would never have happened if all the Popes and bishops did their JOBS, THEY SHOULD HAVE DEFROKED all homosexual s and homosexual pedophilist bishops and priests fromCatholicism.AND they are still present in our Religion? The Pope MUST OBEY Church laws and remove the evils of homosexuality and abortion from catholicism. NOW!

I for one have truly appreciated the balanced analysis you have provided of who the pope is, how he has grown, what he is learning. Not to in any way minimize the crisis, for it is truly tragic, but I want to look at Joseph Ratzinger as a man, his probable strengths and weaknesses, and how God is deepening his understanding and using him to bring steps of healing. God works so slowly it can be maddening to me as a human being, but the crisis was not created over the course of a couple of weeks and it has many layers, creating a "perfect storm" of tragedy, and healing will take a very, very long time. The question to me is are we seeing evidence of growth in understanding? I do not see a balanced analysis anywhere else - it is either screaming on one side or screaming on the other. John Allen, please continue to be the committed journalist that you are, not afraid to look at unexpected good or suspected bad, as long as it is real and accurate.

Your treatment of the issue and in depth analysis has been professional and entirely fair. As a convert from the Episcopal Church, I no longer have any faith or trust in the Vatican and am ashamed of my church. The Vatican clerical culture has been rotten and corrupt for decades or else we never would have been subjected to a sexual abuse scandal of this magnitude. That the Vatican continues to point fingers and blame the media shows that they are still in denial as to the great damage they have done to thousands of children. Respect for the papacy can only even begin to be restored if Pope Benedict makes major, not cosmetic changes, and is willing to share most of his power with his bishops, giving them far more input. Priests, the laity, and women need to be consulted as well. It should now be obvious to all that "Papa doesn't know best".

I'm surprised that you've been getting such a negative reaction. At least on the more conservative blogs, which I tend to frequent, your article has been linked repeatedly as a "must read" for getting a fair picture of what's really going on. You tend to be fairly widely respected as someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

John Allen is on target in showing that Cardinal Ratzinger and others made mistakes which need to be addressed but that he as Cardinal and now as Pope has made just and right moves as well.

The real problem seems to be that the hierarchical fellows don't get the concern - whatever you did in the past may have seemed right at the time but it wasn't and addressing it now is not "airing dirty laundry" but acknowledging harm done to children's lives.

People aren't "attacking" because they are anti-Church - they are questioning because of the arrogance of some church leaders who wonder how anyone can question "Father" - they miss the reality that so many stay because of their faith in God; because they know church history and remember that many times in the past the hierarchy made mistakes but that God prevails; because they hope in a better world; because they believe in forgiveness and openness and the redemptive suffering of Good Friday leading to the joy of Easter.

John,

Like so many things in our Church, many insist on reading things in black and white instead of shades of grey. Was the Pope (in his former postings) complicit in a cover-up? Probably no more or less than any other bishop. Does this Pope fail to grasp the full dimensions of this crisis and how it impacts him personally and the Church institutionally? No doubt. Whether he can find it within himself to take responsibility for his personal failures and those of the Church and work for true reconciliation with the victims will determine what history writes about his man. I do find it ironic that Benedict, a man whose theology is so rooted in absolute truth is apparently so clearly annoyed at being judged in an absolutist fashion.

Paul

I would say that I agree with the middle ground you represent. I think that it is difficult to have that middle ground unless you have experienced the clerical Church from the inside.

Is there room for middle ground?

No...not when it involves the health and safety of our children. No.

Sure, John, there's balance out there, but it's being drowned out by the noise on the poles of the controversy.

What most people are seeing is something akin to the Watergate scandal, in which criminal activity was conspiratorially covered up in order to protect a leader. The same case is true here, except there are multiple leaders spanning the globe as well as what might or might be enablers at the very top.

What's important to remember is that lots of folks out here in the parishes are really confused between the terms sin and crime. This confusion has led to anger and loathing toward the institution in equal measure with its defense. Someone out there in authority needs to step up to make that balanced statement between sin and crime--and of course, how it will never be tolerated again.

For what it's worth, John, I thinkyou strike a balance between the two extremes taht are shouting at each other over this issue and other issues. i hope you don't let the crticism get you down.

John - Being a bit picky, I suggest you are asking the wrong question.

Of course Rove is accurate concerning strongly held convictions/beliefs but to suggest it is the Pope's role/duty to consider 'stroking' his strongest constiuency is to say that he is only answerable to the latest poll.

(Yes, I admit I am putting 'words in your mouth' but that seems to me to be what you are suggesting in trying to find the 'correct' middle ground.)

The bishops listened to (some might suggest - 'polled') the lawyers and psychiatrists and made a terrible decision that was wrapped around a desire to hide the truth. A very seductive decision that was expedient at the time .... and somewhat based on a faulty understanding of the relationship between Confession and Pedaphelia

Now Rome argues that the Pope is not 'legally' responsible - and that it was all the fault of those 'nasty bishops' who don't even 'work for' the Holy Father.

Why? Because Church Leadership lacks an understanding of real Faith - especially faith in the Holy Spirit.

Maybe the best question is the most over-used and hackneyed one - WWJD?

Your recent article in the NY Times began, "In light of recent revelations, Pope Benedict XVI now seems to symbolize the tremendous failure by the Catholic Church to crack down on the sexual abuse of children."
Can a Catholic, as yourself, justify living off the blood of your host? Only if your 'heart' is not your true guide or else chronically misdirected... down.

"More and more, I’m wondering if Karl Rove was right"

Karl Rove is WRONG, and so are you for trying to steal a page from his book, WHICH, if you haven't noticed, he is having a VERY difficult time selling. So don't even think about hopping into bed with the GOP, Mr. Allen. Remember, you've got a book to peddle as well.

My grandfather used to say that what lies in the middle of the road (balance?) is horse manure. Is that wisdom from the past?

I think it's a mistake to focus on the pope. He could die tomorrow. All of the underlying issues would remain to be dealt with.

But not to focus on him doesn't mean he and his actions can't be mentioned. They just should not be seen as the make-or-break factor.

John, are you an apologist for the Vatican? Where is the middle ground on the abortion issue, especially for rape victims who are children? Where is the middle ground on the issue of contraception? Where is the middle ground for the role of women in the Church? Where is the middle ground for gays? Where is the middle ground for theologians of liberation theology?

Maybe it's not about being on middle ground, but being grounded in Jesus Christ's teachings and being loyal to Jesus first and foremost.

How can those whose loyalties are to the institution and Papacy find middle ground when they are too busy protecting "their" turf and their "kingdom." and put that ahead of all else?? Anyone who would say anything against them is immediately in conspiracy against the Catholic Church and is not a "true" Catholic, nor considered practicing "the faith." There is no such thing to a fanatic as finding a constituency for balance. Tyrannical leadership does all things to eliminate and/or destroy any room for middle ground. This is what the Catholic Church stands for now. It stands for not just the enabling of sexual abusers, but enabling all kinds of abuse.

This is very insightful. However, there is a culture clash here. The "modern" world expects leaders to be answerable to "the poeple". The Roman Pontiff is elected for life, answerable only to God. That was somewhat visible in a piece o NBC where then Cardinal Ratzinger lightly slapped a reporter's hand for a question asked about Maciel 8 years ago. In Benedict's world, neither the Church nor the Pope is answerable to reporters. This could become atempest in a teapot, or a cataclismic moment like when Pius IX lost the Papal States, declared himself infallible and a "prisoner of the Vatican".
Only time will tell...

8 + 12 = 20

What gets lost in the entire sad saga is that the Church proclaimed herself a moral authority, quite loudly, for so many years that she convinced so many of us of her innocence and integrity.

In other words, the higher you are the longer the fall. And now that her innocence and integrity has been shown and proven to be a sham bolstered by repeated lies and deceit for decades; we have no reason to believe anything she says anymore.

By extension anyone who tries to explain the 'middle road' is bound to be castigated as well since the middle road needs some integrity to be accepted and this has been lost.

The RCC is still clueless as to the damage it has done to its members; its reputation and its ability to be believed. Which if you think of Newton's Law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, then the reaction against the decades long deceit of the Church is still in its early stages.

So far the Vatican is doing step-by-step what Boston did when it found itself the center of the scandal. Is it logical to expect a different outcome? Not likely.

I would like to cut the pope a break, because he has surprisingly done a lot of good. But there was never any middle ground for him when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. I felt that at times he was ruthless, especially when it came to silencing theologians, or at least trying to. Payback is a bitch.

John, I've always been impressed that you are OPEN TO THE FACTS, rather than coming at them from a particular ideology. Keep it up. It's your vocation.

John, I don't know if you read these comments; I hope you do. 'Is there room for a middle ground?' you ask. Let us continue to hope so because if there isn't then rational discourse will have disappeared along with a respectful listening to those with whom one disagrees. True knowledge depends on speaking what we believe to be the truth, listening to others' arguments, revising our opinions, and articulating the next level. In rational discourse, there is no 'final' truth; only increasingly accurate approximations of truth. But, then, there is also no final act of justice, no final loving.
After the Second Vatican Council, the Pope and the papal curia could have moved forward toward decentralization and greater democratization of the church. None of the post conciliar popes have chosen to do that. The present crisis around the pope's possible involvement in the covering up of priestly sex abuse when he was the archbishop of Munich and prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has to do, in part, with the separation of the figure of the pope from the life of the person who becomes pope. The donning of the white apparel from the moment of his election (a 16th century custom); the changing of the name of the person elected (not an ancient custom); the seclusion of the pope as the 'prisoner of the Vatican' up until Woytyla; and the radical separation of the pope from the ordinary life of people all contribute to the mystification of the papacy. Josef Ratzinger, like his predecessors from the middle of the 19th century, has disappeared, has been obliterated by His Holiness, the Holy Father.
The demythologization of the papacy would help us to accept the mistakes in judgment made by the person before his election to the papal office as well as mistakes made in office. 'Papal infallibility' is so carefully proscribed as to be almost non-existent; it certainly does not apply to either ordinary, every day utterances of the pope or even ordinary official statements on faith and morals. Admission of errors made during his administration of the archdiocese of Munich and his prefecture at the CDF would go a long way toward helping us to understand better the man who has been called to the highest office in the largest Christian Church in the world--and to support him with our prayers.

Sadly, I find this to be almost always be the case these days when discussing, well, 'all things Catholic.' Nuance rarely is appreciated. But we have to keep trying, anyway, don't we?

John you load the deck a bit. You could have offered another option--with a weak disjunction. In logic this becomes
either p or q or both. So one can at the same time find great fault with our Pope or one could say he's doing the best he can or both. The key in all of this is his predecessor whose actions can in no way be excused as far as this issue is concerned (of course there's the Communist issue for which he's been over and over justly praised.) But on this issue JPII fails on all accounts. So Benedict is saddled with him. Let's hope he gets out from behind the Oz like curtain and levels with us, let's hope all the Vatican documents concerning Murphy are released and if they incriminate him let's hear a genuine apology instead of blaming the messengers. Secrecy be damned.

"What’s striking about much of the reaction I’ve received, however, is that it’s not focused on the content of what I’ve said but rather my alleged motives for saying it."

EXACTLY!
It's not about you, Mr. Allen. It's not about Benedict XVI. It's not about Joseph Ratzinger. It's not about belated zero tolerance. It's not about liturgy. It's not about language. It's not about nuns in veils.

It's about TRUST. A trust that's been BROKEN again and again and again.
No one cares about CONTENT anymore...yours, or the Vatican's.
NON CREDO!
We don't BELIEVE.

As I've taught my students in countless English classes around the world for more than 30 years:
Q: "What are the FOUR words in English you NEVER want to hear someone say to you?"
A: "I DON'T TRUST YOU."

So to return to your original question:
There's NO MIDDLE GROUND on TRUST. You either have it or you don't.
Benedict XVI has lost it.
Countless hierarchs around the world have lost it.
Hold onto yours while you can...

John,
If you lived here in Ireland you would have learned a long time ago that reasoned, unemotional and even partially unbiased discussion on this topic is not possible. Maybe it will in about ten years time.
Tony

I thoroughly enjoyed Mr Allen's interview with the Australian media. His analysis is succinct and clear on the current crisis facing the Pope and Catholics worldwide. One statement he made struck me as perhaps the reality of what the Pope will do or not do for his Easter homily, specifically that it is not the time nor the place to adress the issue of the Church's responsibilty and subsequent reform. The statement I'm refering to is:

"JOHN ALLEN: No, I think it is radically unlikely you will hear any direct mention of this crisis in his homily for Easter Sunday.

I mean, that is an occasion for the Pope to reflect on the profound mysteries of the faith - you know, the death and resurrection of Christ and what Easter means for the fate of humanity."

What I disagree is that "the death and Resurrection of Christ and what Easter means for the fate of humanity" is the appropiate if not perfect time to speak to the worldwide congregation about human failings and hurt that are healed through honesty and humilty of the cross. The Church can not "roll back the stone from the tomb to see the Risen Christ if they do not speak out. We have learned from day one in Catholic school that Christ died for our sins. The Pope now has an opportunity and obligation to not only followers of Christ but an obdedience to his vows to Christ to seek forgiveness and to move the Church forward- a Resurrection. To me this is what "Easter means fo rthe fate of humanity". For the leader of our church to stand humbly yet with conviction would truly be what Allen aptly refers to as , "the profound mystery of the faith.."
So today on Good Friday I will go through the beautiful and profound ritual
of the Passion and I will pray that come Sunday the stone will be rolled away...

Hi John!

I am still waiting for any media source to quote the psy professionals, it was only in 1984-1985 that the psy professionals started to admit there was no cure for sexual predatory behavior. All the priests who were sent to Catholic hospitals and treatment center were given "a all cured" on discharge. Of course any bishops was going to return the priest to ministry. They were cured.

One is responsible for what was done or not done after 1984-1985 in re-assigning priests.

Cardinal William Levada's article in Catholic San Francisco Online is one of the best, Taking on the Grey Lady.

Fr. David O'Leary, S.T.L., D.Phil.
University Chaplain & Professor
Tufts University

its clear that you desire not to take down the holy father, or hurt the Church (as i understood your use of the word it ought to have been capitalized) however from whatever vantage your material is read, your dissent from one side or the other is clear and magnified on this issue. surely you can see sir, that all of us who support the holy father are far more moderate on this matter than the haters of this man who regularly practice their "right" to condemn him on your article comment sections.
middle ground IS possible, and most of us true-blue's are walking on it. we all share the sentiment that you describe, that is we want some things to be explained more clearly, but with respect for the office of peter, and the holy father who occupies it. he rates the benefit of the doubt in the absence of public knowledge.
also, we need not align ourselves with those outside entities bent on proving the invalidity of our holy Church, which is what i see from so many of your commentators.
lets remain faithfully Catholic in our inquiry of the facts, realizing that whatever were to come out of this, he is still our holy father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, and installed by the Father, to lead us rightly.

...And your point, John, is?

In 1996, Card. Ratzinger chose NOT to answer Archbishop Weakland for many months and when he did, it was through his subordinate. Even if it was an old crime, should he not have answered immediately--within days--because it was the rape and molestation, the robbing of children's innocence.

He shows he is a total bureaucrat, looking over his shoulder to estimate how to deal this problem. This Catholic crisis will equal the Protestant Reformation.

We are forgetting this child abuse issue is rape of the most powerless amoung us.

The best support one can give to any Christian, popes included, is to offer the facts (which are the key underpinning of the truth). I think John Allen does this.

i saw you on Charlie rose and think you did a fair job of presenting both sides.

However, the Pope and the Vatican need to come out from behind their fortress walls and join the rest of us. You said the Pope/Vatican thinks in centuries; well this is the 21st C. and they are still in the 16th...
JESUS WALKED on the earth, dealing directly with people. How in the world did we wind up with a religion/church with so great a removal from HIS intent.

There is so much work to be done in caring for the flocks, AS JESUS INSTRUCTED US TO DO yet the church spends so much time and energy on correctness of rituals, liturgy, canon law, regulations, theology etc. that the Catholic Church, in which i was active for 6o+ years,has become meaningless to me. There's not much Christ in it except in words.

Second Point: as awful as the abuse was/is( the offending priests were 'sick' and I acknowledge that it was not understood at the time that they could be cured,) the GREATER SIN has been the cover up/denial. The bishops and cardinals did see and know that these offenders committed the abuses again; that's why they moved them around. When Cardinal Law was given his sinecure position in Rome, that was the last straw for me.

This and the church's/pope's refusal to follow the role/rules of confession that have been foisted on us sinners is the height of hypocrisy. The first step is to recognize sin, confess, and make restitution through penance. THE CHURCH HAS NOT EVEN FOLLOWED ITS' OWN SYSTEM! Until I see a worldwide day of confession, penance by every priest on his knees (praying, this time) and asking for absolution from us, I am not a Catholic; I'll just try being a good Christian instead.

p.murphy

Anyone who thinks that John Allen is a shameless shill for the Vatican should watch his appearance on Charlie Rose. He fully acknowledges the scope of the sexual abuse problem, the hierarchy's inadequate response to it and the Vatican's dismal PR sense.

Steve

How does one find a job like yours John -- being assigned to write a book with your regular salary, etc.
On this issue, my whole being screams out with the question don't the bishops in Europe ever read a newspaper from North America? Is it possible that they thought they would be immune to the immensity of the scandal, once the media sunk their teeth into it? One thing we've learned is just how disconnected bishops were who thought they could command respect and obedience. It has taken a long time for the North American bishops to learn they can be forgiven for mistakes but willfully misleading will not be tolerated. While one can't be critical of bishops who put bad priests back to work, based on the state of knowledge then, surely, bishops everywhere should have examined their own houses after the scandal blew up in North America. Alas, but they're just bishops. As far as the scandal in Munich when C. Ratzinger was there, it seems pretty benign to me. I think the Milwaukee situation is harder to explain. But when JPII put him in charge of the whole thing, it simply MUST have occurred to him to wonder if things were so bad in North America, would it not be possible it could exist elsewhere -- therefore, wouldn't a discreet inquiry have been prudent?

You ask: Is there room for middle ground? There has to be. It is sorely lacking in American political life, religious
life, cultural life. Right or Left. Right or wrong. No one side or person has all the answers or, conversely, is wrong
all the time. There are grey areas. And St. Ignatius said (and I paraphrase) : give the other the benefit of the
doubt. The result? Civilized discussion and articles like yours where the readers can calmly hear more than one
side to a question and try to come to a rational conclusion. Or maybe, no conclusion at all....let's just wait and see.

I am not sure that what is needed here is so much middle ground - but an ability to listen, think and remain free from being blinded by emotional prejudice, whichever side of the fence one is on.

As a point of disclosure, I will say that I am very much on the right of any middle ground here. The Pope to my mind is a Moral Giant, with a degree of ethical gravitas and compassion which very, very few “democratically accountable” leaders ever come within light years of matching.

However my high esteem for the Holy Father certainly does not lead me to suppose the good Mr Allen is doing anything like a “hatchet job”. (And of course I don't see any whitewash here either.)

Rather, I have been appreciating Mr Allen’s noble quest for sanity and careful attention for years now.

Rather than say more now, I thought I would resurrect some sentences I wrote in 2005 for an Amazon Review of All the Pope’s Men.

They form a certain tribute I would like to pay to this columnist and perhaps can serve as a reminder, that even though we necessarily take sides and stands, we do not need to be suspicious of those who so evidently try to carefully listen, judge and think as John L Allen.

"[Allen’s book] represents exactly what is most needed in the tragic situation of the Catholic Church's communication with our media saturated world. For a heart-rending situation of profound misunderstanding and miscommunication characterises the `dialogue' between a Church rooted in centuries of tradition and rigorous, painstaking thought, yes thought - and a world of media myths and soundbites that cannot hope to do justice to anything needing a significant span of attention ...

There is also a noble, inspired attempt to create fairness and justice, listening and understanding, appreciation of different perspectives and mindsets, amidst the psychic warfare that characterises not only the tragic divisions within the Church, but also between the religion of the Church and the ideology of secular media - ism that washes over our world.

That is to say, there is something profoundly sane and uplifting as Allen cuts through layer upon layer upon layer of prejudice, misperception and mythology.

I have seen traditional Catholics suspicious of Allen's liberal background and I wish they wouldn't be.

I count myself as pretty traditional and feel Allen has done both liberals and conservatives a tremendous service ... by reporting their views fairly and without bias ... so that they can simply be heard.

Simply be heard - for God's sake. This is what is needed. Allen knows it, and is evidently a man who has tried very hard to simply listen himself.

There are many passages in this book [and the writing in this column!]whose inspiration seems to me near angelic.

Widely circulated, [this] kind of material , so lovingly, fairly and articulately expressed, could do both Church and world an enormous power of good. `Blessed are the peacemakers ...'. Blessed be John L. Allen."

Wow the latest bit comes from the Franiscan preacher to the Pope who compared the criticsm of the the Pope and Bishops coverup of the pedophile scandal with the persecution of the Jews! His statement is an insult to the Jews and an insult to those properly concerned with the role of the hierarchy in the pedophile scandal. To compare this with the century's long persecution of the Jews culminating in the Holocaust is to greatly minimize the horror of that persecution. Have these priests taken leave of their senses?

If ever there was a time for a Synod or Council, this is it. How long will it take for the Pope and his advisors to realize this? When you've gotten to the point where attorneys for the Church are preparing to defend the Church by arguing Bishops are independent contractors who don't answer to the Vatican, it's time for a Synod or Council. Agenda: Married priests. Women priests.

John, I don't question your motives. If anything you tend to seek true objectivity. You are one of the few. I respect you even when I don't agree with you. I cannot say that for everyone in this affair. It is unassailable that there are some working to undermine the Church by throwing mud and hoping it sticks. Benedict is not the problem, he has been the solution. They don't care about that. Some within the Church who oppose Benedict are using this to jump on the bandwagon. Have you seen them taking the disgraced Archbishop Weakland to task? They don't care about the truth of the matter either. None of them care about the children or reforming the Church. Destroying it...well that is another question. By doing this they induce people to dismiss the Church's voice without having to debate the issues. They don't even have to prove the Church is wrong. It is an attempt to silence the Church on other issues. It won't work.

I, for one, believe that your reporting on this and other issues facing the Church is eminently fair and balanced. As a "traddie" I don't always agree with your view, but I've never felt you had an ax to grind in favor of one side or the other on any issue. I always look forward to your posts.

At our Good Friday Liturgy yesterday (Australia) I prayed the following

"For the victims of sexual and other abuse by members of the clergy. The Church and its ministers are called to be an image of God’s love and care for all in the community, but this has been so sadly clouded by the evils of sexual and other abuse, especially of children, young adults and women, bringing pain and despair to the victims and to faithful members of the Church. (PAUSE)
May the leaders of the Church - bishops and priests, listen compassionately to these victims and assist them in the many ways that can bring healing and peace and an opportunity for recovery. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. "

Let's have a Forum for Healing, something like the Gathering of Leaders of Religions that Pope John Paul The Great held after 9/11. That forum produced one language change - from the great Pope himself, which to me, is one of the most profound things that sadly, has not been echoing enough around religious halls - in the final communique, Pope John Paul II used the term "believers" to show that there was some unity to be acknowledged and lived amongst and between the many different faiths.

The forum with victims of sexual assaults doesn't have to be a witch hunt, but a legitimate forum to listen to the victims and maybe some professionals speaking about forensic analysis of sexual assaulters, in the view to auditting the Church's regulations about protecting people from such assaults.

The way forward, the way to acknowledge that the past cannot be the future, can get the 'kickstart' that the forum with religious leaders achieved in 2001, building on of course from the previous one in the 1990's.

That is going to be difficult. Given the worldwide nature of the problem, true institutional transparency is needed to earn back trust worldwide. This is not a matter of preferences of worship styles but a matter of protection and safety.

We need a type of institutional democracy with laity involved to clean up the abuse mess. The current closed feudal style government has shown it is incapable of dealing with the issue of sexual abuse.

This needs to be done in a way so that only pedophiles are targeted, not at the GLBT community which is being done now as they are set up as a scapegoat for this mess, the terms homosexual and pedophile are not the same as some make it out to be.

Actions from Rome are the only way to slowly move beyond this. As much as Joseph Cardinal Ratingzer was not directly involved in 2001, but he now holds the highest institutional office and responsibility does go up the chain of command. Ratingzer can move beyond where we are now by doing true reforms and reopening the Church and not continuing the fearful retreat into the past as has been happening for a while. If it is done correctly there will be a new Pentacost in the Church, though it will come from the laity and not the clergy in this period.