The Wolf In Sheep's Clothing Gets The Last Word

Cardinal Schonborn is the only Cardinal who had the guts to take on the wolf in sheep's clothing otherwise known as Cardinal Angelo Sodano.  He deserves serious consideration for Pope just for that act.

Old energy dies hard.  Old corrupt Vatican energy dies harder. It never seems to stop.  It takes a licking and keeps on ticking.  It is currently epitomized by Cardinal 'Angelo' Sodano and now he gets the last word.  He 'celebrates' the Mass and gives the homily which will open the Conclave because he has somehow retained his position as Dean of the College of Cardinals.  I am at a loss as to why Sodano wasn't forced into retirement along with his patron Marciel Macial.  Well, maybe I'm not.  

Sodano surely has some serious patronage somewhere.  Serious enough that Sodano is still a 'king' maker and still capable of swinging a papal election.  In fact, so serious he has apparently convinced his supposed nemesis Cardinal Bertone to cave into his machinations to keep the Secretary of State appointment in Italian curial hands.  What is that about I wonder?  Well, maybe I don't wonder.

Peter Isley of SNAP gives a rundown on some of 'Angelo's' finer actions:

 
......Sodano has the distinction of occupying during the past 23 years the two senior most positions of power after the Pope, at one time simultaneously, of Vatican Secretary of State and Dean of the College of Cardinals, where he either enabled or ignored clergy child sex crime worldwide.

It was Sodano, according to knowledgeable sources, who blocked the investigation of the notorious Austrian pedophile Cardinal Hermann Groer. (For which Austria's Cardinal Schonborn publicly rebuked Sodano and then was himself in turn rebuked by Benedict's Vatican.)

It was Sodano who fiercely and publically defended another of the church’s most high profile sex offenders, Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Just as with Groer, Sodano deliberately obstructed the investigation into Marcial in 1998, and then publically defended Marcial right up until 2005, even though the evidence of Marcial’s guilt, in spite of Sodano’s efforts to prevent justice, was absolutely incontrovertible. (Sodano's puppet in this process was papal candidate Cardinal Leonardo Sandri whose entire career has been shepherded by Sodano.)

But perhaps the saddest of the known actions committed by Sodano concerns yet another infamous child sex predator, Fr. Lawrence Murphy, who operated a boarding school for deaf children in Wisconsin. By 1995, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and other Vatican officials knew Murphy had sexually assaulted at least 200 deaf children, according to Murphy’s own archbishop. That same year, one of Murphy’s victims wrote a heart wrenching letter to Sodano, detailing Murphy’s assaults against him and other classmates. It’s bad enough that Sodano ignored the pleas of deaf survivors of Murphy while he was well aware that Murphy was a serial child molester of disabled children.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_04_22_Johnson_FatherMurphy.htm

But when the Murphy case was finally receiving worldwide attention, Sodano, who had known about Murphy’s guilt for years and the Vatican’s knowledge of it, used the Easter Sunday mass in St. Peter’s Square to call the abuse crisis, the Murphy case and the awful plight of his victims “petty gossip.”

For his fellow Cardinals to allow Sadono to occupy the highest and most visible position of honor during their selection of a new leader signals that they have little if any intention to usher in a new and desperately needed era of institutional responsibility, accountability and transparency. And while this group of Cardinals seems hardly the management team to put in charge of protecting children worldwide, surely there must be a more fitting individual than Sodano.


Isley is reporting only on the clerical abuse coverups instigated by Sodano.  There are just as many financial dealings that merit his dismissal, many involving the Legion, but also schemes entered into by his nephew with his support,  that resulted in charges of fraud in New York and a full FBI investigation.  Sodano's nephew avoided US prosecution by staying in Italy, but his partner Raffaello Follieri was convicted of fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy in Federal Court and given a 54 month sentence.  According to Jason Berry reporting for the National Catholic Reporter, while he was still JPII's Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano sent Follieri a letter distancing himself, the Vatican, and his nephew from Follieri just after the scheme began to make international headlines.

And then there is Sodano's record as Nuncio to Chile where was an very ardent support of Augusto Pinochet and was highly instrumental in getting the Legion into Chile in spite of the objections of Chilean Archbishops.  

In short, 'Angelo' Sodano is about as far from his namesake as it gets, and yet he will have the last word before his fellow cardinals vote on Benedict's successor.  This is incomprehensible to me, and yet it is so typical of this group of men who are so far out of touch, for whom no rules apply, that I suppose it is fitting. If Catholicism gets more of the same with this next pope, we can probably all thank Cardinal Diablo Sodano and his Legion.
 

The Problem With Sheep In Shepherds Clothing.....

I got to thinking this morning about why there doesn't seem to be a real front runner amongst the cardinals and why they spent so much of their time in their daily meetings listening to canned speeches and not debating the issues.  I had this quiet stray thought suddenly pop in my head:  "Maybe it's because they were all trained to be sheep".  At first I laughed, thinking it was just another of my off the wall thoughts, but then I really thought about this and can see there is real truth in the observation.

I started to think back on my own childhood, raised in Catholic schools until I was twelve, and I too have to admit I was trained to be a respectful sheep.  None of us who went through this early formation were remotely trained to be effective leaders, unless that meant following the rules of climbing a leadership ladder and giving respectful obedience to those further up the ladder.  Which is why eventually, conditioned sheep who play the game well, wind up the shepherd.  The vast majority do not function well in this leadership role.  Pope Benedict was no exception.  What one usually finds, is these kinds of shepherds revert to their most competent level and lead from one perspective unable to see any other.

Right now Catholicism has a flock of cardinals without a shepherd, and they are acting like it.  They are all over the map unable to tell the wolves from true leadership.  They speak about issues that need addressing and hope to find the solutions in one man.  My fear is when they are all done running around in circles they will do what sheep do, and revert to a fall back position and we will have more of the same.  I don't find this at all surprising since the qualities they are looking for would be very hard to find in men who are where they are because of their qualities as obedient sheep.  Leadership is not a skill that is easy to learn on the job because it takes time for honest personal reflection.  This is the kind of reflection that identifies personal weaknesses so they can be compensated for in subordinate collaborators.  Pope Benedict doesn't seem to have done too much of this kind of reflection because he substituted personal loyalty for competence and created a reflection of his deficits and not a solution for them.

One way to circumvent early training as sheep is to have a life changing event that transcends the training.  Dom Jao Braz de Aviz is one such man. He still carries the buckshot.  Another way is to be raised in circumstances in which you are not seen as a sheep, Cardinal Schonborn, coming from the family he does, epitomizes that path.  And yet another path is to be unconcerned with the whole ego trip and just be what you profess as your faith, and that seems to be Cardinal Tagle.  These three men, in my opinion, would be the best choices for the papacy because they have the potential to be true leaders:  they have vision, they walk their talk, they value dialogue, they are not demagogues, and they don't seem to relish confrontation for the sake of confrontation--a cheap strategy frequently used by men who are really sheep.  People would follow leaders like these men because they are leaders.  They wouldn't have to rely on the mystique of the papacy, which really does seem to exist to prop up the authority of men who are really sheep.

My fear is that the cardinal wolves--those types who substitute predation for leadership-- will control the outcome for the other cardinal sheep and my hopes for the papacy will not be fulfilled.  However, there is always hope and one just never knows.  I do know that my three hopes are still in the running and the Holy Spirit can intervene in spite of the best laid plans of clerical wolves.  I'll keep praying and meditating and wishing and thinking, because the choice has yet to be made, and if enough of us do this praying meditating thing, it can have an effect on the outcome.  Why we might even wind up with a courageous wolf hunter in shepherd's clothing
  

How Does One Reform A Two Headed Monster Without Chopping Off One Head?

This two headed monster is the real issue facing the Conclave.  They can't be reconciled unless the Cardinals agree compromise with the direct teachings of Jesus is the work of the Holy Spirit.  Unfortunately I've seen even stranger logic from some of these guys.

The Papal Conclave is now set to begin in the afternoon of Tuesday, March 12th.  This gives the cardinal electors another two and a half days to sort priorities and settle on the man they personally think can best fulfill those priorities. The priority most often cited as primary--after the obligatory 'holiness'-- is governance.  Here's John Allen's take on the issue of governance from an extract of an article posted to NCR. 

If it wasn’t already, it’s become abundantly clear in the week since Benedict’s papacy ended and the sede vacante began that governance -- or, if one prefers, business management -- is a titanic concern.
Yet if the 115 cardinals who will soon file into the Sistine Chapel seem in basic agreement about the question facing them, they don’t appear to have an equally clear answer about who the right man is to be that governor.

Well before Benedict’s surprise resignation announcement on Feb. 11, many cardinals were convinced that something was rotten in the Vatican bureaucracy. Speaking on background, many cardinals have grumbled that when bombs go off in Rome, they’re the ones left to pick up the pieces in their dioceses and with their local and national media......

.......Just in the past few days, the cardinals have had additional reminders of the point. They arrived in Rome last week to be greeted by explosive reports of a supposed “gay lobby” within the Vatican, allegedly based on a secret report prepared for Benedict XVI on the leaks scandal by three retired cardinals. While cardinals may be inclined to chalk those reports up to media sensationalism, they also realize it wouldn’t have happened if somebody had prevented the leaks in the first place.

They’ve also watched as press briefings delivered by American cardinals were cancelled after concerns about leaks in the Italian papers. It struck many as the wrong solution, since the leaks weren’t coming from those briefings, and it also made some Americans -- the second largest bloc in the conclave, with 11 votes -- even more inclined to support a shake-up.
The net effect has been to make “reform of the Roman curia” the shibboleth of the 2013 papal election, much like “continuity” was in 2005.
What do the cardinals mean by “reform”? Listening to them over the past week, both on and off the record, their version of reform seems to rest on three pillars.

• Transparency: Internally, they want a curia that’s clearer about the logic for its decisions and about who’s making them; externally, they want the Vatican to do a better job of communicating with the outside world, including greater savvy about how to engage the media.
• Accountability: Cardinals want to see the right people put into the right jobs, and then held accountable for poor performance. (Privately, many cardinals would concede that this wasn’t Benedict’s strong point, noting that he stuck with his Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, well after many of them were convinced his sell-by date had passed.)
• Modernization: Cardinals want a curia that’s more in tune with 21^st century standards of business management, including a capacity to process business in a timely fashion. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, for instance, said in an NCR interview that the church can no longer afford the Vatican’s traditionally glacial pace, because “we’re less patient, and the world moves faster than it once did.”

The problem is that a conclave can’t stop with diagnosis. It also has to find a cure, meaning it has to figure out which candidate is most likely to deliver this sort of reform. 


*****************************************

The problem inherent through out Allen's article is he is giving the wrong diagnosis.  The real diagnosis is the Vatican is not just a business, it's a nation/state.  Governance is not just an issue of updating internal business practices, it's about getting to the root of the corruption and that corruption comes precisely from the fact the Holy See is a nation/state.  Unlike international corporations, the Holy See has diplomatic prerogatives which place it above international accountability.  Diplomatic immunity is just one such prerogative.  In other words, the Holy See is an autocratic monarchical government and not a corporation.  Corporations don't have embassies and ambassadors.  The Holy See is not Taco Bell, nor is it treated as if it were Taco Bell. 

I can not forget that upon elevation to the position of Cardinal these men receive Vatican citizenship and the diplomatic immunity that goes with it.  This is important because of what it says in the oath Cardinals take upon receiving their red berreta:

I [name and surname], Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear to be faithful henceforth and forever, while I live, to Christ and his Gospel, being constantly obedient to the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme Pontiff _______, and of his canonically elected Successors; to maintain communion with the Catholic Church always, in word and deed; not to reveal to any one what is confided to me in secret, nor to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church; to carry out with great diligence and faithfulness those tasks to which I am called by my service to the Church, in accord with the norms of the law.

Note that they pledge 'faithfulness' to Jesus Christ and the Gospels, but total OBEDIENCE to the Church and it's pontiff.  They also pledge 'not to reveal to anyone what is confided in secret',  not to divulge what may harm or dishonor the 'Holy Church', and to carry out with great diligence and faithfulness those tasks to which they are called by the Church in accord with the norms of the law.  Because 'norms of the law' is not defined, it's a safe assumption this means Canon Law.   Taken in it's full meaning, a Cardinal is no longer a loyal citizen of where he might live, but a loyal administrator of the directives of the Holy See and it's Secretary of State.

It is not at all surprising to me that Cardinals who have tasted the power politics of the Secretary of State's Office, participated in JPII's agenda of global domination, and enjoyed the 'fruits' of this participation, are loathe to let go of their control of this bizarre nation/state. Let the non Europeans have the Papacy, the Italian curia is focused on keeping the Secretary of State position securely in their own hands.  Obviously the Sodano's and Bertone's of the curia world know where the real power lies and that doesn't seem to be in Jesus Christ.  They also know how this power operates and protecting that knowledge has to be another driving force in keeping entrenched Italians in charge of the Holy See.

It's unfortunate that most Catholics don't seem to be able to see that the Vatican represents two entirely different institutions with two entirely different agendas.  One agenda is representing the spiritual and religious patrimony of Catholic Christianity, the other is functioning as a global power player.  I fail to see how any man can serve both Churches.  JPII came close, but the spiritual and theological development of the Church was crucified in service of his geo political ambitions.  Benedict tried to emphasize the other Church and the curia crucified him.  I don't see a papal candidate that can serve both these masters.  I do see a couple that might see through to the problem inherent in trying to run a nation/state and a global religious enterprise. Trouble is  I don't know that such a pope would be elected much less obeyed if it came to dismantling the nation/state.  Assuming such a man was allowed to rule.

John Allen and other commentators can keep defining the real problems in the curia as those of 'bad business' practices.  It plays into the hands of the Sodano crowd and other individuals and organizations who really want to see the Holy See continue as usual and who need the Church's spiritual mission subordinated to theirs and others political agendas. I'm sure these men would have no problem with some 'reform' of the business practices, especially in terms of efficiency because that would give the Secretary of State's Office even more centralized control. Sodano and his followers represent the governments, men, and organizations whose agendas need liberation theology crushed, need heterosexual male dominance preached, need gays as scapegoats and women as subordinate, and love the opportunities inherent in a corrupt Vatican bank and the global presence of obedient Catholics in all corners of the globe. All of this has made them wealthy and powerful men, papal kingmakers whose presence is always tolerated and never disciplined and this, in and of itself,  is a very powerful message to any reforming Cardinal who might be elected pope sometime next week.
 

The First Reform Is To End The Corruption And The Hypocrisy

Maybe if Lucifer had thrown in a helicopter and a vacation castle Jesus would have given in.

I might be experiencing information overload when it comes to the Vatican and the upcoming Conclave.  I'm finding it difficult to even put coherent thoughts together on what I truly would like to see from the next Pope.  I think part of my problem has to do with what I am currently seeing from the Cardinals, most of which I absolutely do not want to see carried forward.

First off is the prominent place of Angelo Sodano as Dean of the College of Cardinals.  It is incomprehensible to me that this man is anywhere near this conclave.  I still have no idea why Pope Benedict didn't retire him the exact same way he 'retired' Sodano's pet project Marcial Maciel.  In the last 10 years Sodano has brought more controversy to the Vatican than he has competence and so in typical Vatican fashion he is given a prominent place in the selection of the next Pope.  Italian papers are floating the story that he and his old time Secretary of State cronies are proposing Cardinal Shero of Brazil for the papacy with Cardinal Sandri who is technically from Argentina but really from the Vatican City States or the Italian Cardinal Piacenza as Secretary of State.  This would be a combination of Ratzinger II and Sodano II, but it would give the South the papacy.  And yet as far as Sodano and company are concerned the real power is in the Vatican State Department, and that would be kept safely in the hands of the old guard.  Sodano is not a dummy.  He doesn't care about the papacy, he cares about the power inherent in the Office of the Secretary of State.  That's where the big boys play and Sodano got to play very big games under JPII.  As JPII's health incapacitated him, Sodano got to play big games with very little supervision, and that included  no supervision for the Vatican Bank.  On this score, I pray the other Cardinals have had enough of Sodano and his ego and his games.

Another thing I do not want to see is anymore preference for 'the new movements' like Opus Dei, Communion and Liberation, Focolare, or the Neo Catechumenate.  Elitist Catholicism is an oxymoron and a very real danger to the Church.  That was another lesson Cardinals should have taken from the Legion of Christ mess, but the lesson they have taken seems to be the more money and priests a movement generates the more Catholic it is.  They may be more Catholic, but they are not more Christlike---which I thought was supposed to be the end goal of the Catholic spiritual quest.  Perhaps I misunderstood something along the way.  OD is right where it wants to be with AB Ganswein the slated doorkeeper for the new pope.  That has got to change.  Global Catholicism does not need Opus Dei, more of a parallel church than anything, becoming the source of power in the main Church.  I'm sure lots of other organizations that trade in secrecy and fascism would prefer the OD influence stay right where it is, but I do not.

I do not want to see Catholic teaching used a bartering chip for political preference, right, left or center. Just as I do not want to see collegiality reduced to a loyalty oath, or Catholic spirituality used to marginalize whole groups of people. I do not want to see the CDF turn itself into Big Brother so Catholicism becomes nothing more than corporate group think with an imprimatur.  I do not want to see Catholic Identity promoted like Catholicism is nothing more than a commodity like Coca Cola or the New York Yankees.  Finally, I do not want to see regimented Catholic ritual substituted for the hard work of bringing the Kingdom to Earth.  I do not want to see anymore clerical abuse scandals and that will continue to happen if the clerical culture isn't completely reworked and that absolutely means Catholic sexual morality must be reconfigured on the basis of 'right relationship' and not biological procreation.

I have only one thing I do want the Cardinal electors to reflect on.  That would be the temptations in the desert.  I want them to think very deeply about this story and then ask themselves if they truly reflect the world view Jesus was trying to teach because it's very hard for me to see this world view when Emeritus Pope Benedict takes a helicopter on a 10 mile flight to the papal vacation castle. Like a lot of other things about Catholicism juxtaposed against the actual teachings of Jesus,  it just doesn't compute.

A Deeper Look At The Issues Invovled In The Cardinal O'Brien Case

I fail to see why this is so hard to understand for the Church.  If the Church ever get this maybe the gay bashing will stop and we will never have to deal with anymore Cardinal Keith O'Brien stories

The following piece from the Guardian/The Observer UK is by Kevin McKenna.  It's a hard hitting op ed on the Cardinal O'Brien case.  I'm not intending to kick O'Brien when he's down, but I'm not unaware of the fact he is not an exception--other than in the sense he's been exposed and he's a Cardinal.  McKenna's piece deals with the fact that there are a lot more priests where Cardinal O'Brien came from and it's critical Catholics get serious about this issue.  It's critical because there are thousands more young gay men who may think they can fix their gay issue in a clerical collar.  They can't and it's time we give them honest alternatives and a great deal of support if they do in fact determine they want to pursue the priesthood.

I have also not lost sight of the fact that Cardinal Keith O'Brien is not the victim in this story.  The now four priests and one ex priest who brought forth their charges are facing their own ordeal.  One does not break ranks in the black line.  I encourage readers to read this link, also from The Observer written by Catherine Deveney.  She was the reporter who originally broke this story, and like Kevin McKenna, she pulls no punches in telling the story of O'Brien's victims and what they've been through in the last week.

Unfit for purpose and in denial: a church that has lost all authority

Kevin McKenna - The Observer - 3/2/2013
Of all the theories advanced explaining why the Catholic priesthood attracts so many young gay men, this is the most valid: it is a direct consequence of the church's official attitude to homosexuality and the way that this has insinuated itself into the fabric of what we might call a traditional Catholic family with its roots in Ireland.

In such an upbringing homosexuality is still treated as the sum of all sins. Catholic families long ago found a way of dealing with abortion, extramarital sex and divorce, the other three horsemen of the Catholic apocalypse, whenever they occurred close to home, but not homosexuality. (This is so true it hurts.)

The others could all be processed and interpreted as very human failings stemming from the powerful instinct of physical desire and our need for affection and love. The Christian virtues of understanding, compassion and forgiveness are built to outlast initial shock and hurt in these "acceptable" moral failings. Not so homosexuality.

For how many Catholic parents have secretly prayed that their son "does not turn out gay" or obsess about their response if the eldest boy shows no interest in football and insists on taking a shower every day and buying all his own clothes? The church's pastoral care and guidance for its own gay community is nonexistent. Catholic gays are non-people in my church; they are "los desaparecidos" and one day many of us will be called to account for how we have treated them.

The church has nothing to say to a child reared in these circumstances and who is beginning to encounter issues with his sexual identity. And so, by a perverse irony, the Catholic priesthood becomes a viable option for him. For what better way to submerge your "problem sexuality" than by committing yourself to a life of celibacy and a lifetime of reflection on the burden that God has deemed you must bear for your redemption and his glory?

Neither of these, though, explains why a church which has become a haven for homosexual men has become so obsessive about warning the rest of us about the dangers of gay sex.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Britain's most senior Catholic cleric, has been accused of "inappropriate behaviour" towards four priests, stretching back 30-odd years. Thus far he has refused to "deny" the claims, merely to "contest" them. The press office for the Catholic church in Scotland, by way of explanation, lamely insists that the cardinal does not know the identity of his accusers, nor the details of which he is being accused.

Has such behaviour occurred so many times that the cardinal simply has trouble recalling specific instances? Or might he genuinely think that what the priests describe as "inappropriate behaviour" was merely a misunderstanding arising from an encounter with an over-affectionate and tactile boss?

The sullen "no comments" and "I can't help you" are curious, too. This is an organisation that has become the church's de facto witchfinder-generals, ever vigilant for examples of anti-Catholicism and never missing an opportunity to portray this country as bigoted and backward.

Like the entire hierarchy of the global Catholic church, they are in complete denial about a culture of sexual dysfunction that has been operating at its core for several decades. Hardly a year passes without an example of grotesque sexual behaviour, both homosexual and heterosexual, by a priest or bishop in the church.

The damage to the church is incalculable. In response to last week's Observer story, the historian Tom Devine, a Catholic, described it as the church's biggest crisis since the Reformation. It means that the Scottish Catholic church has lost all authority to speak on matters of human relationships until it at least recognises the root of the problem. Quite simply, the Catholic hierarchy in Scotland is no longer fit for purpose. It hasn't been for a long time now: its default position is denial and concealment before accusing its critics of being motivated by bigotry. (There's probably a big dollop of unexamined self hate and denial as well.)

The Vatican says it will investigate the complaints of the cardinal's accusers. I have very little faith that an inquiry conducted in another country and of indeterminate legal structure and under the authority of another old man in Rome – identity, as yet, unknown – will deliver anything resembling a just outcome.

Nothing less than a full-scale investigation into the structure and leadership of the Scottish Catholic church will suffice to begin the task of recovering its lost authority. The commission to oversee this must be headed by an overseas cardinal of impeccable character and must comprise clergy and lay people in equal measure.

As a matter of urgency, the new pope must extend the gift of marriage to all priesthood candidates. Failure to do that will mean, in less than a generation, a priesthood comprised solely of social misfits and emotionally damaged refugees from reality. Ordinary Catholics have been incessantly grossly betrayed by the Catholic hierarchy. It is time we ignored the weekly collection plate until we receive some answers.

**********************************************

Roman Catholicism has to come to grips with the truth of homosexuality.  It has to come to grips with the truth of human sexuality.  It can not base it's entire thinking about sexuality on the book of Genesis.  It's time the Church grew up.  It can no longer afford to wallow in the hypocrisy and self serving clap trap of it's hierarchical class.  Intransigence in this area serves no purpose for the laity and is utterly undermining the credibility of the bishops.  This is not the end of this kind of story. It's just another opening chapter.  Wait until Africa is placed under a similar spotlight.  O'Brien was utterly contemptible on the gay issue, but that didn't stop him from being right on the married priest issue.  The next Pope has more than one big ugly mess to clean up.  Pope Benedict has left the stage just in time, but then I bet he knew that.

Cardinal O'Brien Admits To Sexual Impropriety

Cardinal O'Brien will slink off into his retirement all alone.  Not so the other man in this photo. 

This just in from NCR's Joshua McElwee:


Scottish cardinal admits improper sexual conduct
Rome

Cardinal Keith Patrick O'Brien, a Scottish archbishop who resigned last week following accusations of improper sexual conduct with priests, has admitted that "my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal."

O'Brien, who as a cardinal is entitled to take part in the secret vote to determine the next leader of the Roman Catholic Church, had previously announced he would recuse himself from the vote so as to not attract media attention.

The archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh in Scotland until the Vatican announced his retirement Feb. 25, O'Brien has been accused of improper sexual contact with three priests and one former priest in incidents over the last three decades. (Also by another priest for conduct in 2001.  It was this accusation which prompted the other four to come forward.)

O'Brien had previously denied the allegations through his spokesman. On Saturday, he released a statement acknowledging improper acts and asking forgiveness.
"In recent days certain allegations which have been made against me have become public," O'Brien said in the statement.

"Initially, their anonymous and non-specific nature led me to contest them. However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal."
"To those I have offended, I apologise and ask forgiveness," wrote O'Brien. "To the Catholic Church and people of Scotland, I also apologise."
"I will now spend the rest of my life in retirement. I will play no further part in the public life of the Catholic Church in Scotland."

*****************************************

I really wish Catholicism would get over the sexual purity expectations and get some perspective.  Perhaps then we wouldn't have closeted sexually active men exposing themselves as either utter hypocrites or lonely men with a sex drive or both.  If any of the publicity about these allegations are true, it turns out it's the usual combination of alcohol and loneliness.  Been there had that attempted.  I guess I didn't react the same way because I wasn't terribly surprised, and maybe quite a bit more sophisticated about these kinds of impropriety.  That these are gay sexual advances is meaningless to me because I don't buy into the whole idea that somehow improper gay sex is somehow worse than improper straight advances.  The impropriety with Cardinal O'Brien is the use of his position over his subordinates for access.  That's what makes this abusive.

I can only wonder how many of his fellow Cardinals are sheepishly ignoring this story out of guilt about their own past indiscretions.  I can imagine a very large number of them.  Perhaps by not attending the Conclave Cardinal O'Brien might indeed have some impact on the deliberations because right now there is probably more than one victim out amongst the sheep who are getting the courage to take on their own particular wolf in Cardinal red.  I would imagine the Cardinals would not want their new Pope to be exposed to the Cardinal O'Brien phenomenon---and have it be true.  We most certainly live in interesting times.  

Benedict's Legacy Was All About Identity At The Expense Of 'Scapegoating'

No question Benedict's successor is left dealing with all the issues all the scapegoating failed to address.

Ross Douthat has an interesting perspective on the legacy of Pope Benedict in an op ed in NY Times.  The first thing that struck me is that Douthat trivializes, when he mentions it at all, the cost born by targeted groups in the JPII/Ratzinger campaign to save the Church from the 'disastrous' seventies and the 'progressive excesses of Vatican II'.  He fails to note that gays and women bore the brunt of the Catholic Identity campaign. This is an omission I find old and tedious.

The following is an extensive excerpt which begins about a third of the way through Douthat's piece.

....In America, the ’70s were defined by not just a weakening in the institutional life of the church but a wholesale collapse. Thousands of priests and nuns left their holy orders each year. Mass attendance had fallen by a third in a generation. The church faced a rebellion from Latin Mass traditionalists, even as progressive theologians confidently planned for a third Vatican Council. Along with institutional instability there was moral laxity, and worse: revelations of sex abuse and cover-up were years away, but the rate of abuse was at its peak. (What Douthat fails to mention is Paul VI retaining clerical celibacy which had a huge impact on priestly attrition, and of course, the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, an act which defined collegiality as a non starter--amongst other things.)

Beneath these trends was a pervasive sense that Catholic identity was entirely up for grabs — that having dispensed with Latin Mass and meatless Fridays, the church might be poised for further revolutions, a major schism, or both. When Walker Percy’s novel “Love in the Ruins” imagined Catholicism in the United States splitting in three — a progressive church modeled on liberal Protestantism, a right-wing “American Catholic Church” that plays the “Star-Spangled Banner” during Mass, and a tiny remnant loyal to Rome — it seemed more like prophecy than fiction. (The USCCB certainly bought into option number two.)

It was the work of Ratzinger’s subsequent career, first as John Paul II’s doctrinal policeman and then as his successor, to re-establish where Catholicism actually stood. This was mostly a project of reassertion: yes, the church still believes in the Resurrection, the Trinity and the Virgin birth. Yes, the church still opposes abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage. Yes, the church still considers itself the one true faith. And yes — this above all, for a man whose chief gifts were intellectual — the church believes that its doctrines are compatible with reason, scholarship and science. (The Church under Ratzinger believed that its doctrines were compatible with the Church's version of scholarship and science, and there was very little action on the dogmatic aspects of Catholicism and plenty of action on the pelvic and clerical issues.)

It was understandable that this project made Ratzinger many enemies. It turned him into a traitor to his class, since it involved disciplining theologians who had been colleagues, peers and rivals. It disappointed or wounded the many Catholics who couldn’t reconcile the church’s teachings with their post-sexual-revolution lives. And it obviously did not solve the broad cultural challenges facing institutional Christianity in the West.

But it did stabilize Catholicism, especially in America, to an extent that was far from inevitable 40 years ago. The church’s civil wars continued, but without producing major schisms. Mass attendance stopped its plunge and gradually leveled off, holding up even during some of the worst sex abuse revelations. Vocations likewise stabilized, and both ordinations and interest in religious life have actually risen modestly over the last decade. Today’s American Catholics, while deeply divided, are more favorably disposed to both the pope emeritus and the current direction of the church than press coverage sometimes suggests. (Douthat is leaving out the fact that none of his demographics hold amongst whites of European descent.)

This stabilization was not the kind of sweeping revival that some conservative Catholics claimed to see happening, and it did nothing to prevent the church’s reputation from suffering, deservedly, once the abuse epidemic came to light.

But for all of Catholicism’s problems, the Christian denominations that did not have a Ratzinger — those churches that persisted in the spirit of the 1970s and didn’t reassert a doctrinal core — have generally fared worse. There are millions of lapsed Catholics, but the church still has a higher retention rate by far than most mainline Protestant denominations. Indeed, it is difficult to pick out a major religious body where the progressive course urged by so many of Ratzinger’s critics has increased vitality and growth. (The 'nones' or the non aligned maybe disorganized, but they are a rapidly growing religious group.)

This doesn’t mean there isn’t some further version of reform, some unexpected synthesis of tradition and innovation, that would serve Catholicism well. And if such a path exists, Pope Benedict was probably not the leader to find it.

But he helped ensure that something recognizable as Catholic Christianity would survive into the third millennium. For one man, one lifetime, that was enough. (The birth rate in Africa and South East Asia have a whole lot more to do with maintaining the Church in the twenty first century than BXVI)

*************************************************

Most of the above is spin.  It leaves out way too much and optimistically ascribes to Benedict credit for trends for which Benedict had nothing to do.  Hispanic immigration into the US was not the result of some motu proprio of Benedict's.  I will grant this immigration boom could have been accelerated by conservative hierarchy meddling in the political affairs of Central American governments on behalf of rich right wing interests.  I doubt Benedict would want to take too much credit for that though, although come to think of it, he should be given much credit for that particular relocation fact.

Douthat also pens that millions of Anglo Catholics leaving the Church is nothing in comparison to the Catholic retention rate vs mainline protestants.  Really? I feel so much better knowing that we could lose millions more and still have a slightly better retention rate.  What I don't get is why retention rate is so important in this context, but is no where to be seen when conservatives like  Douthat go on about the vocations to conservative convents and seminaries.  Maybe it's because in these cases the retention rate is exactly the same as it is for progressive vocations.  No bragging rights I guess.

I'm not too surprised conservative commentators are spinning Benedict's papacy different from progressives or reality for the matter.  Pope Benedict has had almost forty years to instill his vision of Catholic identity and it has resulted in the acceleration of first world Catholics and South American Catholics right out the door.  It seems to my jaundiced eyes that the Catholic identity that was set in stone by Benedict's crusade against secularism and progressive Catholicism has resulted in an identity that is at war with post modern culture. His successor is left with hard choices.  Does he continue the pelvic wars at the expense of social justice or does he finally grant that continuing the pelvic wars is disastrous for women and children in the areas in which Catholicism is growing and is in fact, counter productive to social justice concerns in these regions.  What makes this choice even more difficult is that the celibate clerical priesthood and other religious vocations have always found large families and the attendant poverty fruitful ground for their vocations.  There's something wrong about perpetuating poverty to perpetuate vocations.

I guess it doesn't matter what Ross Douthat or I think about the past.  The real question is whither the future?  I do take some hope in one trend commented on by numerous Vatican correspondents this morning and that is giving equal consideration to the office of Secretary of State as well as the papacy.  I've maintained this position ever since Benedict's resignation.  It would be a much more honest situation to separate out the Holy See as a nation/state government from the activities of the papacy.  One man can not possibly do justice to both entities.  However, since this idea is being pushed by Sodano and Bertone, in this case it's about self preservation for the curia.  It's a good idea being promoted by the wrong people for the wrong reasons.  Hopefully other minds will see it's potential and promote it for the right reasons.

Heart Burn And Hope Lead To Zero TV

I strongly suspect this time around the old men are in for a long drawn out Conclave.

I have such mixed feeling about this current period in Catholicism.  So mixed in fact, that I have not watched one second of television coverage at all, zero, zilch. My TV has not been on in three weeks.  I'm not really sure I can articulate all these jumbled up feelings.  

I can identify a few,  one in particular.  Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger has given me heart burn on more than one occasion.  I don't mean heart burn in the TUMS sense.  I mean heart burn in the painful sense. The one that triggers burning anger in my heart.  Benedict managed to do it again with the Georg Ganswein situation.  I don't particularly care what the specifics of Ratzinger's and Ganswein's relationship are, I care about the impunity with which Benedict has promoted Ganswein's career and furthered their relationship.  I get that Benedict is hugely conflicted about his own sexuality, but he has not given a particularly worthy witness as to how one deals with such conflict. It is not done by promoting the object of your heart and creating positions for that object to stay in your presence.  The fact that Ganswein is still to be the Prefect of the Papal Household absolutely undermines any statement of Benedict's that he will be 'obedient' to the next Pope.  Right..  I can't name one other retiring head of a government who took his personal secretary into his household and also had that same secretary slotted to be the gatekeeper for his replacement.  Maybe somewhere in some totally nepotistic company such a thing has occurred.  That it will occur in Roman Catholicism is a huge statement about clerical nepotism and political infighting and just exactly why Benedict's ideas of loyalty are an insane way to run a global entity like the Church.  Benedict's successor should assign Ganswein to a diocese right after he chooses his papal name.  We would then see how far Benedict's vow of 'obedience' really goes.

On the other hand, I do truly believe that Pope Benedict has done a very necessary and culture changing thing.  Resigning the papacy returns it to what it was intended to be, an office as first among equals, not another ontological magic step in which one personally receives the charism of infallibility. It's not true and never has been that the papacy is a personal coronation of one man to divine rule.  I would hope the next Pope could further this truth by involving more of the People of God in his pronouncements and not acting as if he and he alone has the authority to make sweeping statements about topics for which Scripture has no answer nor any advice.  No more JPII statements like Ordinatio Sarcedotalis which was purposely intended to tie the hands of any future Pope who might see the need to increase the priestly ranks by adding women. 
So in the end I think Pope Benedict has done a very revolutionary thing by resigning, but I also think he has done a very retrogressive self absorbed silly thing with Georg Ganswein.

I do have some advice for the Cardinals about to go into Conclave and elect Benedict's successor.  End Catholicism as the 'show me the money' religion.  The younger generations are not swayed by the pomp and ceremony the 'show me the money' church has historically substituted for the real works of Faith.  They want a 'show me the spiritual works" kind of church in which the personal discipline the Church teaches make some sense to the ears of twenty first century humanity.  This is the core message of Jesus, love makes things happen, starting with love of God and love of self and extending that kind of healthy love out to others to change their circumstances.  That kind of love sees others as we see ourselves.  It does not condemn.  It does not judge.  It shows the Way by example.  That example must transcend the usual ways we separate ourselves from each other.  Sometimes that kind of love really does bend reality for the better.  If our Cardinals continue to insist that traditional ritual practices buttressed with all the accoutrements money can buy is going to convert people, they do not have their fingers on the pulse of post modern consciousness.

I have no idea who the next Pope will be.  Like everyone else I have my favorites, but I also know I am not the Author of the story of Catholicism.  I'm only another of a billion+ of bit players.  I do however believe that this is an interactive story and that the Author listens to his characters.  I trust that this time around the Author will write some change into how the main characters conduct their roles in the plot line and at minimum the next Pope will work to end the corruption and put some accountability in the hierarchy.  It is possible for a leader to set completely different expectations for collective behavior and that these expectations will stick.  It does take time and a firm will, but in the end it is doable.  

My feeling is that this Conclave is going to be longer than the talking heads think it will be and when all is said and done there are going to be some bruised feelings and more than one derailed career.  Much of the needed battle between the old guard and the reformers will happen inside the Conclave and really, that's where it should play out. After all these guys all agreed this is the way the system should work.  They need to play the game by the rules they all agreed to and not whine to badly if they come out on the losing side.  I strongly suspect there will be major whining if the Sodano curia group or the Bertone curia group both wind up on the outside looking in.  That would potentially be a spiritual work of epic proportions.  Let the games begin.


I also want to send congratulations to Bill Lyndsey for his excellent blog Bilgrimage which has been selected by the Library of Congress for inclusion in it's internet archive on this period of transition between Pope Benedict and his successor.  This is a well earned accolade.  Congratulations Bill.

Conservatives Circle The Wagons Now That Another Of Their Champions Has Fallen On His Crozier

Cardinal O'Brien in the much happier days of Pope Benedict's visit to Scotland.

Damian Thompson is a conservative Catholic who writes for Britian's Telegraph.  He is a High Church kind of conservative Catholic and not necessarily an American type Catholic neocon.  He is beside himself over the sudden resignation of Scotland's culture warrior Cardinal Keith O'Brien.  Here is his take on O'Brien's resignation:

Cardinal O'Brien resigns after gay allegations – and won't vote for next Pope. This is a shocking crisis for the Church

Damian Thompson - The Telegraph - 2/25/2012   

 Let's spell this out bluntly. The most senior Catholic cleric in Britain, Cardinal Keith O'Brien of St Andrews and Edinburgh, has been forced to resign ahead of schedule following allegations that he made homosexual advances to younger clergy in his diocese – and isn't now expected to attend the conclave to elect the next Pope. There will now be no Briton in the Sistine Chapel when voting takes place. O'Brien's early resignation is believed to have been at the personal insistence of Benedict XVI, in one of his last acts as Pope.

The Cardinal denies the allegations, whose publication has been carefully timed – but his decision will remind the cardinals meeting in Rome next month that allegations against its clergy have now permeated the entire institution.
The next Pope's first priority must be to restore confidence in the sexual probity of the Church. Who on earth is going to be able to do that?
Watch out for real fireworks in Scotland, where tribal Catholicism is dying off. Cardinal O'Brien was a firebrand on the subject of gay sex and the unsuitability of homosexuals for clerical office; his counterpart in Glasgow, Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, is even more outspoken, recently suggesting that a Scottish MP's death was hastened by his homosexuality.
If the charges against O'Brien have any substance to them, then the public credibility of the Scottish Catholic Church will collapse. And the rejoicing of the enemies of conservative Catholicism, who are especially vocal in Scotland, will be deafening.

***********************************************

I spent a part of my life working for a gold mine in which I had to baby sit what were essentially huge pressure cookers. There was an optimum amount of pressure at which the extraction of gold from the concentrate worked best.  Part of my job was to monitor that pressure.  If the pressure got too high a 'pop off' valve would burst and we would have a huge mess.  The only thing we could do was shut down the pumps and wait for the pressure to blow off.  Since part of the process involved cyanide, depending on where the condensed steam dropped, we would have to evacuate the plant which in turn meant shutting down the mills.  Needless to say, no body appreciated it when one of us working that part of the plant lost control of our pressure cookers.  It seems to me the Vatican under the last two popes have created a monstrous pressure cooker and have lost control, the pop off valve has blown, and the evacuations are commencing.

I can appreciate that a conservative like Damian Thompson is truly afraid of what Cardinal O'Brien's resignation portends for conservative Catholicism.  I don't think he begins to understand how much pressure conservative Catholicism places on it's clergy.  The biggest forces driving this pressure are sexual purity codes and a concept of priesthood that demands perfection from imperfect men.  Eventually something had to blow because when the expectations don't meet performance, and those same expectations mitigate against personal honesty, the pressure keeps building and building.  Powerful blocked forces will always seek an outlet for expression.  It is almost impossible to reverse this process once it has begun.  It's time the Church step back and assess the sources of the pressure.  It's time to turn off the pumps, let the pressure expend itself, and start over.

Ironically Cardinal O'Brien gave an interview last week in which he correctly targeted one of the sources of excess pressure and that is the celibate nature of the priesthood.  If it's true the God writes straight with crooked lines, then God truly has his hand on Cardinal O'Brien's. Enforced celibacy does not work well at all for most priests, and neither does the emphasis on sexual purity for laity, gay or straight.  It's one thing to teach that sexuality is a gift from God and should be treated as such, it's another thing entirely to mandate conformance to the minutia of Catholic sexual teaching on secular societies.  Cardinal O'Brien was a very outspoken agitator in the Church's crusade to bring secular culture in line with Catholic sexual teaching. Unfortunately for him, the time for this kind of pressure is long past.  It's no longer a time for legislating rules, it's a time for modeling and mentoring a more evolved sexual ethic which places the dignity of the other in the place of prominence.  This is where society is moving and this is why his alleged behavior would have been severely punished in secular society.  Sexually harassing supervisors are no longer tolerated in secular society.  Sexual encounters based in power differentials are no longer tolerated in secular society.  Whatever one might want to say about the sexual mores between consenting adults, sex as an exercise of power is now taboo.  To me this is real progress up the sexual evolutionary ladder, but it's a concept almost totally foreign to a sexual ethic based solely in biological procreation.  This is another lesson in the Cardinal O'Brien story, and one I think he himself actually understands.

When one's Catholicism demands perfection from others while compartmenalizing one's own imperfection there is eventually going to be serious problems.  These problems may not manifest in the individual themselves, but they will most certainly manifest in any organization that person belongs to and feels the right to critique.  Both of the recent popes have allowed one small minority of very conservative Catholics to twist the Church to their own needs.  I don't doubt for one second that those needs corresponded on some level with the needs of both popes, but this isn't a healthy direction for most of the Church.  Catholicism needs to step back and do some serious evaluation.  The 'reform of the reform' set a series of expectations in motion that have finally over pressured the entire Catholic system.  That seriously needs to be looked at because our priesthood is paying the heaviest price.  

We are not done with the revelations.  Once this phenomenon starts it can't be stopped.  In the end this will be a good thing for the Church, but right now it is utterly disheartening.  Exactly as it was for me when one day I came out of the control room to see a monstrous cloud of cyanide steam enveloping my area.  I thank God that in three + years it only happened once.  I learned to keep a very close eye on the pressure gauges.

Another Cardinal, Another Abuse Story

The following story brings up memories of the George Reker mess, or Marcial Maciel for that matter.  The story is believable if one ascribes to Richard Sipe's theories of clerical grooming, and unfortunately most likely true, given there are four accusers.  It will be interesting to see how Pope Benedict handles this or if he pushes it off on his successor.  Cardinal O'Brien did not attend the mornings Mass at his cathedral.  He was supposed to give a farewell homily for Pope Benedict.  The UK's Guardian Observer broke this story yesterday and it has gone viral.

UK's top cardinal accused of 'inappropriate acts' by priests

• The Observer, Saturday 23 February 2013 16.31 EST

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Britain's most senior Catholic clergyman. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

 

 

Three priests and a former priest in Scotland have reported the most senior Catholic clergyman in Britain, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, to the Vatican over allegations of inappropriate behaviour stretching back 30 years.
The four, from the diocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh, have complained to nuncio Antonio Mennini, the Vatican's ambassador to Britain, and demanded O'Brien's immediate resignation. A spokesman for the cardinal said that the claims were contested.

O'Brien, who is due to retire next month, has been an outspoken opponent of gay rights, condemning homosexuality as immoral, opposing gay adoption, and most recently arguing that same-sex marriages would be "harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of those involved". Last year he was named "bigot of the year" by the gay rights charity Stonewall. (Hypocrite of the year may be more accurate.

One of the complainants, it is understood, alleges that the cardinal developed an inappropriate relationship with him, resulting in a need for long-term psychological counselling.
The four submitted statements containing their claims to the nuncio's office the week before Pope Benedict's resignation on 11 February. They fear that, if O'Brien travels to the forthcoming papal conclave to elect a new pope, the church will not fully address their complaints.
"It tends to cover up and protect the system at all costs," said one of the complainants. "The church is beautiful, but it has a dark side and that has to do with accountability. If the system is to be improved, maybe it needs to be dismantled a bit."

The revelation of the priests' complaints will be met with consternation in the Vatican. Allegations of sexual abuse by members of the church have dogged the papacy of Benedict XVI, who is to step down as pope at the end of this month. Following the announcement, rumours have swirled in Rome that Benedict's shock move may be connected to further scandals to come.
The four priests asked a senior figure in the diocese to act as their representative to the nuncio's office. Through this representative, the nuncio replied, in emails seen by the Observer, that he appreciated their courage.

It is understood that the first allegation against the cardinal dates back to 1980. The complainant, who is now married, was then a 20-year-old seminarian at St Andrew's College, Drygrange, where O'Brien was his "spiritual director". The Observer understands that the statement claims O'Brien made an inappropriate approach after night prayers.
The seminarian says he was too frightened to report the incident, but says his personality changed afterwards, and his teachers regularly noted that he seemed depressed. He was ordained, but he told the nuncio in his statement that he resigned when O'Brien was promoted to bishop. "I knew then he would always have power over me. It was assumed I left the priesthood to get married. I did not. I left to preserve my integrity." (Integrity, there's another word that apparently has no Latin translation.)

In a second statement, "Priest A" describes being happily settled in a parish when he claims he was visited by O'Brien and inappropriate contact between the two took place.

In a third statement, "Priest B" claims that he was starting his ministry in the 1980s when he was invited to spend a week "getting to know" O'Brien at the archbishop's residence. His statement alleges that he found himself dealing with what he describes as unwanted behaviour by the cardinal after a late-night drinking session.

"Priest C" was a young priest the cardinal was counselling over personal problems. Priest C's statement claims that O'Brien used night prayers as an excuse for inappropriate contact.
The cardinal maintained contact with Priest C over a period of time, and the statement to the nuncio's office alleges that he engineered at least one other intimate situation. O'Brien is, says Priest C, very charismatic, and being sought out by the superior who was supposed to be guiding him was both troubling and flattering.
Those involved believe the cardinal abused his position. "You have to understand," explains the ex-priest, "the relationship between a bishop and a priest. At your ordination, you take a vow to be obedient to him.
"He's more than your boss, more than the CEO of your company. He has immense power over you. He can move you, freeze you out, bring you into the fold … he controls every aspect of your life. You can't just kick him in the balls."

All four have been reluctant to raise their concerns. They are, though, concerned that the church will ignore their complaints, and want the conclave electing the new pope to be "clean". According to canon law, no cardinal who is eligible to vote can be prevented from doing so.

**********************************************

I'm beginning to think Robert Mickens observation that if all Cardinals who had allegations of covering up abuse, financial shenanigans, or sexual misdeeds were barred from the Conclave, it really could be held in a broom closet.

Richard Sipe has long maintained this is how business is done.  Bishops and Archbishops trolling the waters amongst the newly ordained or amongst seminarians to find appropriate candidates for 'personal secretaries' and other chancellery positions.  In 2008 he submitted a letter to Pope Benedict about another American Cardinal credibly accused of the same behavior as Cardinal Keith O'Brien. To this point the Vatican has not responded to any of the numerous reports about the behavior of this Cardinal and he too is eligible to vote in this upcoming Conclave.

I have read many many right wing comments that ascribe this kind of thing to the 'evil gays'.  In reality it's not about the evil gays so much as it is about the evil system that allows for and essentially promotes this kind of abusive activity by purposefully ignoring it.  And it is first and formost abusive because it is a willful exercise of supervisory power against a helpless subordinate.  Call it the Catholic Clerical form of the kind of sexual harassment many many female workers have endured under their own male bosses.  The major difference is this is occurring in an all male environment and by definition has to be homosexual.  Same sort of thing happens in prisons all the time.  It's predatory abusive sexuality that has a homosexual expression. In the Catholic clerical culture there are many other real pressures on these young men not to divulge what has happened so they know there is very little that will ever be officially done to their abusers.  It took 50 years for Maciel's abuse victims to finally be acknowledged.

I guess I think there is Karmic justice in these allegations against Cardinal O'Brien. His stunningly ignorant take on GLBT issues deserved a Karmic reply, very much like George Rekers got his own Karmic send up.  I personally am so glad GLBT people have made so many strides in the last twenty five years, because my hope is this kind of 'gay lobby' will no longer find a place to operate in a secret clerical system.  Gay men now have far more options than they had when being a priest was one of the few.  As much as conservatives want to rant and rant about the 'gay agenda' in society, I hope someday they understand that it is just this 'gay agenda' that will have been most responsible for stopping the abuse endemic to the clerical system.

UPDATE:**************************

 Cardinal O'Brien has resigned and will not be attending the Conclave.  His stated reason is not to distract from Pope Benedict XVI or the election of Benedict's successor.  He has not specifically responded to the allegations by the four men, but apologized for any wrongs he may have committed.  I have to wonder if American Cardinals Mahony and Rigali will take note.  At least Cardinal O'Brien got real about celibate clergy before his own alleged indiscretions underlined his point.