Why Rome scorns resignations, and a great week for wonks

One of the best columns you've written in ages, John. Thanks and yes -- complimenti!

can't believe or understand what Allen is trying to say re b16 not accepting resignations..... these guys have to go period !

John: A very good summary as to why the Vatican has protected the failed bishops (as the failed bishops protected the failed priests). I think the most important reason is what I call "The Cardinal Law Justification." This states that "We can't punish this bishop for that moral/legal lapse as we did the same thing ourselves, or at the least we knew it was going on and did nothing to stop it." It's really just a variation on the old "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

The downside of that is that many of us no longer trust the bishops.

Survey says: while the church should not respond to public opinion, it is clear that Catholics know what their only recourse is to a church that protects its own, and is corrupt in the truest sense. With malice toward women, and indifference to its own victims the church is presiding over its own demise by hunkering down and becoming even more elist and insular. It is the Holy Spirit who is leading the exodus. And Jesus wept.

If any of the reasons, stated by the Vatican supporter Allen, were ever said out loud, I think it would cause many to re-think their loyalty to a church, whose thinking can be so wrong and hurtful.
One, gets the impression, however, that Allen "gets it" and agrees with the damaging logic of the hierarchy he so staunchly defends.
There comes a time, when even a reporter, even if only pretending to be objective, like Allen, must speak the truth, and state, after reporting the alleged reasons, that any thinking individual would find the reasons, not only inadequate but harmful and un-Christian.
He might not be invited to the next pallium ceremony at the Vatican, but at least it would do his soul good.

As a priest, working in a very Latino context, I find no surprise in the Hispanics in America survey. It is even more striking, the distinctions of association in the younger people among themselves.Young adults born of Mexican immigrants, and raised in America, may be bi lingual, but are not necessarily comfortable with the Spanish speaking Mexican young adult migrants of their own age.Puerto Rican youth on the island are not comfortable with Newyourricanos...Puerto Ricans born in the States. The issues are complex and least we panic, a general survey while measuring trends, does not convey subtleties.

If they want to let the errent bishop stew... assign him to work on a rock pile, or the church equivalent of one. Don't leave him in a supposedly position of honor where he can continue to screw the people.

Thanks, John Allen, for all of this wonk work. But the resignation analysis just seems to be the tip of the iceberg. Down deep there's much more, weighing of unknown, secret factors, I suspect. But then again, maybe you're right. So thanks.

Bishops, especially the Pope, are not only used to being deferred to but also expect it. In part, this is due to their deeply held conviction that they are obligated to hand on the beliefs and practices that trace their roots back to the teaching of Jesus and the faith of the apostles. But one of the practices they pass on is rooted not in the apostolic era but in the era of the medieval court. In that system any sense among the hierarchy of following the injunction of Christ's teaching to exercise authority by becoming the servant of all was abandoned. Being a bishop or priest entitled one to the support of those they governed. The "governors" controlled access to God through the administration of the sacraments and held the awesome power of holding people fast in their sins.

In the present era when secular leaders become thought of as "lording it over their subjects" they are subject to being hounded out of office. If they act as if they are entitled to all kinds of privileges and favors, the media become merciless in their scrutiny. How can the Bishops possibly suppose they can maintain a system of deference and privilege in the midst of this vast social change? They can do it because the Catholic culture encourages silent compliance. No one is supposed to question the local priest, much less the diocesan bishop.

One glaring example of this cultural dissonance is the burgeoning policy of consolidating and closing parishes because of the declining number of priests and seminarians. It is the bishops alone--and in particular the Pope--who determine the qualifications for priestly ordination. On their own authority, without any input whatsoever from the 99% of Catholics who do not enjoy the prerogatives that come with Holy Orders, they have declared that only men willing to promise life-long celibacy are eligible to be ordained. This claim is made despite the fact that we have thousands of mature married men who serve the church faithfully as deacons and whose ministries are enormously well received. By what stretch of the imagination would Catholic people not prefer the ministry of a married deacon who has been ordained a priest to a closed or consolidated parish? Therein lies the rub: Imagination is not allowed when it flies in the face of what we have always done. The only options questioning Catholics have is to grin and bear it, or just walk away. Too many are hooked on the system they have always known to even have conversations about what they might do to bring about any change.

So, we don't fire bishops and we don't pressure them to step down. Nor do Popes rush to accept the resignations of bishops except when they are perceived to have strayed from orthodox beliefs and practices.

There are some people who would resign, even if their bosses said No. They felt called upon to do so for reasons of morality and conscience, to say nothing of personal honor.

Presumably such reasons, while they are part of Catholic morality, are not part of Romanità; and when Roman-ness finds itself in conflict with the demands of Christian morality, the former wins.

The three sections of this week's blog once again prove that John Allen is the best person to turn to for a reliable interpretation of what's happening in global Catholicism and for trying to help Americans understand that they are but a small part of the world church.

Those grousing at the first part of the article should, instead, be grateful that he is interpreting Vatican behavior in this fraught area. He's not supporting the Vatican but telling us how it (as a complex entity of competing points of view) sees and reacts to these issues. I detect no defense of it, though I suspect he'd like us to realize they see areas of gray where the grousers see black and white.

The second two parts of the article give us inisght into: (a) Italian Catholicism's relative health in relation to European Catholicism in general, as well as the clouds that hang over it in the form of the alienation of youth; and (b) an insight into some of the cultural differences between Hispanic Catholics and the dominant-but-not-for-long hegemonic attitudes of whites.

I learned something in all three parts of the blog. Thanks, John.

This guy will go down in history as Benedict the Clueless. He has no idea--or doesn't care--how disaffected we laity have become at the insular, privileged status the clergy have graced themselves with: arrogant, insulated, accountable to no one, indifferent to the effect their decisions have on the people of God.

Allen seems to have cognitive difficulty properly labeling the evidence he marshalls as Rome's "explanations" for reluctance to remove bishops. The four reasons combine metaphors, e.g, "avalanches", "clearing desks," or "feed impressions," but doesn't elucidate the connection between these excuses and the crises. It seems reportorially irresponsible to lay out these Vatican views as nothing more than: "I'm just reporting how the Vatican sees things."

This putative "analysis" of why the Vatican doesn't dismiss the culpable bishops escapes the underlying issue of adult men committing sins against children. Allen should have been honest and identified what he was doing as an exercise in deciphering Vatican-speak. That is hardly a great need when it's apparent that these are intellectual constructions designed to shield egos from the moral mire for which they're responsible.

The depth of the betrayal of the Roman Catholic people at the hands of our hierarchs is immeasurable. None of them
show any sign of having the faintest ability to "clean off their desks." I find these mockers of God repugnant.

Mr. Allen gives 4 reasons why “the Vatican is always reluctant to see a bishop resign under fire.”
As to his first point(s) – He insinuates that the Vatican rightly presumes the Irish bishops’ situation is the result of mere public opinion and media hostility, when it was rather, the result of substantiated charges in a professional report. He also insinuates the Vatican rightly sees the bishops’ response to the abuse of minors as doing something “unpopular” rather than something wrong. Then, he insinuates that the Vatican rightly equates the righteous public demand for their resignations as a pressure campaign seeming to run them out of town on a rail. Lastly, he insinuates that the Vatican rightly equates the now global pressure via new communications networks as a new industry of outrage generation.
As to his second point, he is absolutely correct, if one guilty bishop is allowed to fall, the rest will. So many are implicated, the damage will be unimaginable. That is why, as the Spaniards did to the Germans recently in South Africa, the other side must never be allowed to possess the ball.
As to his third point regarding the view that self-correction is preferable to dismissal, I would assert that bishops guilty of public wrongdoing are not dismissed for any other reason than that the church views itself as the perfect society, exempt from civil penalties of any kind. The Vatican will especially not dismiss a civilly convicted or accused leader. That is why it never allowed for the dismissal of a pedophile. Do we know any slowly self-correcting women priests who have not been excommunicated?
Fourth, the analogy of paternity and the issue of sacramental bond again goes to, more than anything else, the issue of absolute power rather holy familial duty or consecration. A thinly disguised argument, since if the office were truly holy, none would be allowed to desecrate it without being ousted.
Lastly, Mr. Allen unbelievably suggests these points support that the Vatican’s reasons are other than motivated by denial and arrogance. In summary, Mr. Allen has himself drunk deep of the fountains of Roman narcissism to such a degree that he can no longer be counted an objective reporter of fact.

I prefer my reporters just to tell the story - not to insert their views (which far too many of them do these days).
For 1 thing, I want them to continue going to those hierarchical events. How ekse will we know what's going on?

Protecting the clerical structure, benefits, authority and power is more important than doing the right thing on behalf of and in the eyes of the Poor Little Sheep in the pews. Fie on them, including the Biggest Cleric.

JA's 2nd point makes no sense to me.

Point #3 misses the point. Who is talking about retiring them? We are talking about FIRING them.

As an older priest, I have observed that leaving behind the medieval trappings of much of Mexican Catholicism sometimes is a part of "becoming American". As Pentecostals the people can "become priests" in effect, and leaders in their small Christian communities. I can understand the appeal. The American Catholic Church ought to come up with similar opportunities for them, as well as for Anglo Catholics.

When I read John Allen's words I must remind myself that I am reading the Reporter and not the Register. Oh, for the days of Michael Farrell.

Pedophile priests run around the globe doing their thing and the pope is concerned with exerting his authority over the bishops, even to the extent of keeping corrupt pedophile enabling bishops in place, and putting Bishop Diarmud Martin in his.

One can only hope and pray that these ridiculous men of the Vatican and all their apologists have to spend lots of time looking over their shoulders in fear. We have still only seen the tip of this iceberg.

AW

I recalled the time(s) when my boss gave me a second (and third and fourth, etc.) chance when I erred.

Allen is the only columnist worth reading in this publication. One can toss all other opinions into the garbage can from whence they came.

To understand what someone is saying or trying to explain, you don't only need to hear the words they've said but you need to understand "where they're coming from." In fact, sometimes knowing "where they're coming from" is more important than attention to the exact words.

John Allen sees his reporting job as providing us not just with what has been said or what statement has been issued, but also with the mindset behind the words. The Vatican especially is notorious for assuming a lot of "where they're coming from" and issuing pretty clunky or insensitive statements. We should be grateful that John provides us with information on the mindset behind the words. As I said above, without this, we are not really getting the communication at all. We are lucky to have John on the staff of NCReporter and reporting for us on these things.

Since John seems to see his job this way, I believe that he would give conscientious treatment to whomever he interviews or reports on. He presents us the ideas of whomever he is reporting on better than they might have said themselves. This is the right way to do things. You may agree or disagree with the messages he is reporting on, but you do want to base your opinion on the best possible presentation of the ideas including, as I've said, the all-important "where they're coming from."

Because John's beat happens to be the Vatican, this frequently puts him in the position of appearing to be an apologist for the hierarchy. To think this is really unfair. He is, I feel, doing an exemplary job being honest and presenting the ideas as well and as strongly as he can. He certainly seems to take more care over presenting the ideas than the originators of the statements typically do.

Do many of the statements from the Vatican still seem unconvincing or clueless or inconsistent or just plain wrongheaded? To me, yes, they do. But thanks to John's reporting, I feel confident that I've heard these ideas reported on and reexpressed eloquently, and now it is my opportunity to think about them.

We do need an appreciation day for John and the rest of the great staff NCReporter has engaged.

John,

The portion of this column dealing with the episcopal resignation unfortunately prompts the reaction, "Please don't tell me it's raining when they're peeing on my leg."

The problem is precisely that, because the Church has so long ignored the marital model for episcopal governance by allowing what amounts to divorce and remarriage in the form of transfers far afield, it itself long ago set up a corporate model for episcopal governance. When Rome decides to start hewing more closely to the ancient canons forbidding the transferral of sees, then it might become more credible in this regard.

More to the point, Rome has made it impossible for fellow bishops to discipline each other via organs of synodal, primatial or metropolitan governance, so that the only way to discipline errant bishops is have them resign. It was not always thus so. Responsibility is congruent with power: where Rome has arrogated to itself all power of discipline over bishops, so it necessarily carries to itself all responsibility and accountability in that regard. Rome cannot choose to have the one and not the other, but it's pretending it can.

Also, it’s not as if Popes have not demanded the resignations of bishops they really want out when they want them out. Consider the not so distant case of Jacques Gaillot, formerly Bishop of Évreux in France, now titular bishop of a swath of sand called Partenia…

Finally, I can think of few better ways for Pope Benedict XVI to torpedo his Grail of the re-evangelisation of secular Europe than to refuse to remove bishops who cooperated in the coverup of sexual abuse of minors and other crimes. Those who support that quest for that grail should mourn this development, not cooperate in defending it.

This is, perhaps, a low point in this pontificate, and no amount of whitewash nor incense can disguise it.

Anger and angry, hope-filled prayers, are very appropriate responses.

Doesn't the Pope & the Vatican Curia get the difference between standing by a Hierarch who is upholding morality and Catholic teachings & supporting & sustaining a morally weak & cowardly criminal, who happens to be a Hierarch??

It doesn't take a graduate degree in Canon Law to be able to see this distinction.

We expect even our young children from the age of reason onwards to be able to theoretically know the dangers of associating primarily with weak or evil characters, who will drag them down & bring them grief...

Are the Pope & the Curia suffering from the first stages of collective Alzheimers???

I feel that John Allen needs to do more research on the feelings of the Irish public at the rejection of the resignations of the two Dublin auxiliary bishops, even if, as I believe, they were good pastors.
It continues the pattern of the long drawn out struggle of former Vatican insider, Bishop Magee, to hang on as bishop of Cloyne until he was finally "promoted" to a meaningless post in Rome, just as Cardinal Law was. Both were viewed as consequences of cover-ups of clerical abusers..The public perception is that Rome has run out of such "offices".
Moreover it is seen as a slap on the face for Archbishop Martin, who was described to me by one Irishman as "the only one of them I'd trust since Willie Walsh is gone."
Please check your sources more carefully. I was disappointed by this.

Good article, John. "All the Pope's Men" has certainly inspired you.

It is this NEED for bureaucracy that makes the grand majority of young Latinos living in the U.S. to feel disgust at the catholic church and join other christian denominations. The catholic church has to change.

When our Bishop shows up for a confirmation now and then, I'll try to get a picture of my child with "the man with big hat". Its fun.

Other than that, I know little of my Bishop, and pay no attention to what he does or says. In my view, this is the only way to stay Catholic. If I thought much about this current crop of hierarchs, there is no doubt I'd soon be an Episcopalian.

Its sad to say, but for the time being, when it comes to the Vatican, ignorance is definitely bliss.

For spiritual sustenance, I read books by any theologian currently on the outs with the Vatican. These days, that's like an imprimatur.

henry broer - Perhaps the reason you might not "understand" what John is trying to say is because you don't want to understand but rather be quick to condemn the Holy Father?

Why won't the Pope accept their resignations?

Because HE obviously doesn't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

SNAP isn't in with all the knowledge as to whom is responsible for exactly what. For all they know these bishops could have been in on getting rid of the abusers, whatever the cost, even if it meant their jobs. And Irish people are the fightingest people on the face of the earth. I know because I'm Irish.

I used to wonder why the Irish put a big rock on a chieftain's grave. My Dad's attitude taught me why. My Dad was Irish and I used to tell him, each time he got up after a major surgery that'd kill most men, "Dad when you finally do die, we'll have to put a mighty big rock on your grave to keep you under."

I'm not a demographer, but there is one ray of hope in all these surveys that point to less religiosity among the young. Within a generation, today's young will be tomorrow's old, and the old (at least in the past) have had a tendency to become more religious. So maybe it's not a generational thing, but a stage-of-life thing.

What a marked contrast between the local Catholic Church delivering it's services so well and ranking so high in the esteem of the laity--proof again the local church is alive and well. While Pope Benedict and his Court of Buffoons in Rome daily embarrasses itself, and is attaining such low levels of public esteem. Something has to give and give soon.

Vatican III beckons.

I find Allen's defence of the Vatican to be absolutely reprehensible. Is he kidding? I am so humiliated to be with my Protestant friends who think that I am insane to stay in a Church that is capable of this kind of behavior. I will not waste my time reading his column in the future.

A fine and fascinating column, John!

Removing bishops implicated in the sexual abuse scandal is not capitulating to media pressure or public opinion. It's outrageous that these bishops remain in office. If a large number of bishops are forced to resign because they covered up abuse by priests or others employed in their dioceses, so what. The local church can function without a bishop for the length of time necessary to select a worthy successor. I think John Allen may be correct about the thinking within the Vatican, but what does any of this have to do with being disciples of Jesus? I have thought that Benedict is far more concerned about sexual abuse than John Paul ever was. Now, I wonder.

This whole child-abuse crisis and the hierarchy's handling of it has reduced the moral credibility of said hierachy to zero. And now they are headed into negative numbers!

One Irish Bishop's resignation was based upon his awareness and maturity that he could have done more to resist the prevailing attitudes and culture of abuse. This is a profound witness of humility of a "father" of the diocese "laying down his life" for the sheep. This shifts the focus from one person to a community/family profoundly affected by the abuse, longing for healing and willing to make the tough decisions required for this to happen.

The Vatican certainly has no problem in removing the "father" of a diocese who has been "brought down" by those with a differing opinion about how to run said diocese. With persistent hostility, they simply had to write to Rome for his removal.

Leadership is required, leadership that is not modeled on a "corporate CEO or a football coach's leadership." Take the high ground gentlemen, and for the sake of the flock, take up your cross.

I think it necessary to stop trying to rationalize the irrational, however well-intended.

on the other hand those fascinaed by the abortion question do well to consider these cases:

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/estados/77294.html

http://www.diario.com.mx/nota.php?notaid=578ca2bce48514be9305db9bb9381ac3

What protocol would Sister McBride follow?

In the first a young women with minimal education is forced to sign papers implicating herself in murder with the threat of never seeing her older child again. The murder being the spontaneous miscarriage of her next child. FOr this she received a 29 year sentence.

In the second the head of El Paso´s Ethics Commission makes pregnant his fifteen year old niece after years of continual abuse.

What moral decisions fit the official CHurch positions?

hey
just asking, ok?

It is all so obvious: the reasons you cite for why the Pope won't accept the resignations have everything to do with maintaining power and nothing to do with pastoral care for the wounded, both the direct victims and to all Catholics. Is it any wonder then that affiliation with the church is dropping precipitously even among groups considered the bedrock of the future church. These two phenomena are directly related, and certainly do not show a Christ-like church. These men have become the Pharisees themselves, concerned with their own power at the expense of justice, love, and fulfilling Jesus teachings. They are on the wrong side of so many issues that of course they are loosing the flock entrusted to them, but they care not so long as they maintain position and power--so long as they can huddle in secret and reassure themselves that they are the righteous, but they are only fooling themselves.

Dear John, your reporting is excellent and objective. I think the reasons you give for Rome's not accepting the resignations of the Irish bishops are accurate - though I think it was also a deliberate dissing of the outspoken Archbishop Martin. You have come to understand Vatican culture and values well. Unfortunately it is a subculture more and more out of touch with the culture now dominant, for better or worse, in the West. And a new dicastery on evangelization is no solution, especially if it's just another part of that ancient clerical subculture.

NCR is full of comments from aging post-Vatican II Catholics of the right and left, each hoping the others will die off soon. But most, whether left or right, were "formed" as children in the pre-Vatican II church and remain deeply attached to it. But survey after survey, as you note, say most of those under 40 have no such emotional attachment and that the church is precipitously dying in the West, even in Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Poland, all of which escaped the Reformation. Nor is the Church likely to be saved by Africa or Latin America or Asia, all of which, in this globalized world, are rapidly adopting the culture and values of the dominant West. (One reason hundreds of new African and Indian priests take the first plane available to serve in the US.)

We have a pope who really believes Jesus was a god who descended from the skies (see his book on Jesus) and, after leaving for heaven, left the pope in charge to judge and pontificate on all things human to "sheep" who are obliged to obey lest they "lose their souls." In short, a pope who preaches self-serving nonsense. No wonder the church is dying. And perhaps just as well. God is truth, not nonsense filtered through an outdated clerical culture of power.

I have a lot of respect for John Allen, but as to the reasons for the rejection of the Irish bishops' resignations, I think this article in the Irish Times more persuasive:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0814/1224276813028.html

There are many reasons why an organization might want to keep a crooked accountant in place despite two convictions--all of them bad.

Keeping an abusive father in a position to harm his family is indefensible.

Encouraging Bishops to think they will be backed by Rome no matter what they do obviously has serious downsides as a management technique.

An avalanche of resignations among the hierarchy might be a very good thing for the church at the present moment, given the manner in which Bishops have been chosen since JPII.

And why should the "rank' of retired bishop have any special privileges or benefits? What kind of retirement reward do ordinary good priests get?

Try again, Mr. Allen.

I, too, wish to join in the applause for this column.
I'd read about the Vatican's keeping a man in his job when he's screwed up. It is really counter-culture to our own old West justice of hanging the horse thief on the spot.
One issue about bishops who do wrong in their jobs is what to do with such a person. You can't just throw such a person out on the street. It might sound like the proper thing to do, but would certainly be un-Christian. Additionally, once a bishop, always a bishop no matter where he might be. As unsavory as it may be, it's better to keep him in the fold where some control might be exerted than to send him to some homeless shelter where who knows what he might do. This might just be what Benedict is attempting with these two Irish auxiliaries. They can't do much to rehab themselves in such a position, and with proper oversight, won't do what they had done.

The striking feature common to the Vatican rationales you report so clearly is the blatant lack of regard for the Faithful, what they need, and what they are owed. The most powerful move the Pope (or those acting on his authority, unbeknownst to him) could make to restore moral credibility to the Church would be to fire promptly the 1000 bishops and cardinals most obviously associated with preserving her sexual abuse traditions. Jesus spoke - millstones should be delivered to the most flagrant (Luke 17:2). Haggling over two Irish bishops more or less is petty distraction, whether by design or by accident. Claimed ignorance is no longer an excuse, given the wisdom available in the Church from Peter Damian (1049), Pius V (1568), and Father Fitzgerald (1960s), to name a few well-known older sources.

John Allen writes " Rome wants bishops to be willing to say and do unpopular things, on matters ranging from abortion to immigrant rights, and it would obviously be a deterrent if the bishop has to worry that Rome might capitulate to pressure campaigns seeking to run him out of town on a rail." What kind of logic is this for both the Church and Mr. Allen? If any bishop said and did "unpopular" things on any matter that the Church believed in, what would "pressure campaigns" have to do with it? This logic clearly shows the number one reason why Pope Benedict didn't accept the resignation of two Irish bishops: Pope Benedict believes the two Bishops did nothing worthy of leaving their posts. This clashes mightly with Pope Benedict's touted and saluted declaration that "everything possible" should be done to end the crisis.

This article shows yet again why the boys at the Vatican are absolutely clueless. By their "logic," all clerical misfits should be appointed bishops. Unfortunately, it is the People of God who suffer under Vatican logic.

Whenever I want to read vicious, uncharitable and un-Christian comments toward the Catholic Church, I read the comments after John Allen's columns. Don't people realize the irony at pointing the finger at the Catholic Church, claiming it is un-Christian in its attitudes, given the fact that they, the comment authors themselves are so vicious and hateful. I am a Catholic and I am not ashamed of the peace and joy I find at the Masses, and the encounters with Jesus I find in the Church and the saints I greatly admire and the martyrs for the faith. The Catholic Church has changed my life. Yes I know people are always going to bash us for being Catholic. I hope the bashers understand they certainly are not making themselves taller in anyone's eyes and they certainly don't appear Christian in their attitudes. Yes, I will protect the unborn. I almost lost two wonderful and loving children to abortion during my liberal days (and my wild past). I will celebrate the miracle of the Mass with the male priesthood that I am proud to know have unbroken apostolic succession. And I will continue to appreciate John Allen's insightful columns. I care about this church and I am not cowardly enough to want to destroy it from the inside and bash the heroic Catholics who hold their faith in this Church founded by Christ even though they are insulted in and day out, often in front-page news items, by misinformed and agenda-driven people.

"The Episcopacy... is a sacramental bond akin to marriage..."This appears somewhat vague, to +put it mildly
The Council of Trent(1545-63)was much clearer about the "episcopacy" as the doctrine that there is an order superior to the priesthood, that of bishops, whose special duty is to govern their flocks, both clergy and laity, to consecrate kings, churches, altars, etc., to ordain priests and to confirm.That there is such an order is an article of faith(Session 23, canon 7).
Furthermore. bishops govern their flocks in the name of God as representatives of Christ; they are not delegates of the Holy See, and they exercise their own powers by virtue of their office. The Holy Father knows very well that bishops have to be handled very carefully.

Re: "There comes a time, when even a reporter, even if only pretending to be objective, like Allen, must speak the truth..."

Personally, I prefer reporting and editorial comment to be clearly distinguishable, not blurred together. With John Allen it's always clear - he's telling it as he thinks it is, not as he thinks it should be. Telling things as he thinks they are is "speaking the truth", just as clearly stating his personal opinion on an issue would be.

Different people have different roles. Good on John Allen for sticking to the role of reporter.

Donald Mac

Very good article, Mr. Allen.

Dear John Allen,

You should have stuck to your first intuitions about BXVI. Since your conversion, your socio-logical defense has become increasingly boring;
enough of the surveys! There are no surprises ... so taunted by his electors!
This Pope is an easy spiritual read ... NO ONE RESIGNS ... AS A BISHOP!

Thanks for all your good intentions, but the defense is a little too much ...
no matter the place or culture. As even, the devil himself deserves an advocate, there comes a time when ... defense of the institution seems to our hearts and minds ... truely inappropriate.

In ashes,

John Sewell

Second, allowing a bishop to resign, even if it's entirely merited, can create an avalanche which buries other bishops who don't share the same level of responsibility. If that happens, a good chunk of a country's episcopacy could be wiped out -- further destabilizing an already volatile situation,

Okay--- so be it. Better that than to have no consequences for aiding and abetting the rape of children.

The episcopacy deserves--- no, needs a crisis where as a culture it suffers the consequences of its culturally-based moral bankruptcy.

To suggest that "stability" is more important than accountability for the rape of children is really no different than what the bishops did---- cooperate with evil in order to avoid "scandal."

It is an outrageous notion, and suggests that we really haven't learned as much as the PR suggests.

not to mention creating pressure to find replacements quickly and perhaps without sufficient thought.

As if "sufficient thought" was put into the appointment of these weasels?

If these reasons are true, I do not think Rome has good reasons - except for the fourth one.

Personally, I am in favour of leaving the bishop there to "clean up his own mess" and force him to "man up" and make things right. However, I would only favour this if the bishops were forced to do ongoing periodic public penance throughout the remainder of their time as bishop, and truly face the music (ie. meetings with victims of abuse and other advocacy groups and similar groups whenever they so request, with press invited). Plus, they should be closely watched and put on a short leash - any more incompetence or misuse of authority and they should be forced to resign (and not moved to a post in Rome like Cardinal Law).

In Germany two bishops recently accepted responsibility for minor faults and stepped down. They won great respect in society both inside and outside the church.

But they both were female and protestant.
You can´t expect this from the old boys in the Roman part of the church.

You all might want to read the reasons why the Pope did not accept the resignations in Catholic World Report. Sometimes facts get in the way of what the populace wants.

http://catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...

IT IS HARD TO SEE anything good in Mr. Allen's various summary reports, even the compliment for Catholic hospitals has to be viewed as a fleeting thing. The hospitals are closing rapidly. Moreover the widing gap between the older Catholics and younger, former Catholics, has been blurred in recent years by the growing number of older Catholics who are no longer active. Catholics from Italy to Ireland to the U.S. increasingly think of the church as an anachronism.

That is for good reason, too. The church acts like an anachronism.

John Allen provides all these "fears" as to why the Vatican won't accept the resignation of a bishop, even when it is the only way to clean house. Thus, one can see the Vatican is about maintenance of power and not about what the church needs to do to reform itself. Mr. Allen didn't mention the AP report about the Vatican's criticism of Dublin Archbiship Martin for being too reform minded and critical of the way the church ran things. It is pure arrogance that the Vatican won't even explained itself.

Anonymous,

I'm not sure I understand your subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) comments against the journalist.

I truly believe that John Allen is one of the best analysts in and of the Catholic Church. Just as a good sports reporter has a love for the game, Mr. Allen has learned just about all there is to know about the Catholic Church and can translate his expertise well. But a good analysis does not mean that he is a "Vatican supporter" or that he "staunchly defends" their actions.

I find it somewhat disingenuous of you to suggest on one hand that he is not objective, and then call him out on the other hand for not "speak[ing] the truth" as you would like it proclaimed. If, indeed, "any thinking person" can articulate what you wish to be said, then we don't need a journalist to project that opinion. His objectivity serves us well.

I suspect he sleeps just fine at night; I, for one, am grateful that he has applied his considerable talents to helping the rest of us better understand our "home office."

That's the Italian DEHONIAN (not Dehnonian) Fathers and Brothers publication Il Regno:
http://www.ilregno.it/php/view_pdf.php?md5=21e076bb7c41554cf82168b6c8b5e465

One single word! FEAR... Fear is behind all the manipulations and blue laws + regulations of the Vatican and dioceses world wide!

Fear of losing control. And this FEAR boomerangs. The result is a worse demise of institutional Catholicism than if the FEAR were faced head on.

Fear prevents a person from even understanding reality. Fear works to its own disadvantage. As we read in the Book of Psalms: NO INSTITUTION IS FREE FROM THE INDISIDIOUS ARM OF CORRUPTION!

Pax. Aristophilos

In the ancient church, bishops were not appointed by Rome, but elected by the local faithful. If this were still the case, the bishops in question would have retired to the monastic life to do penance. They still should.