B-
I agree that polls are pretty much useless.

From that statistic though, I take a different lesson (warning, sweeping generalization incoming): that Americans are still wary of trusting the authority and decision-making capability of a church that failed to hold Cardinal Bernard Law and others like him accountable - they were let off with what was barely a wrist-slap from the Vatican.

Just my thoughts.

That was my first response re: the Church abuse scandals as well...until I got to thinking more.

I really do have *zero* clue as to what actually happened to 'responsible' priests. It appears, from across the pond, that not much happened--but I have to stop myself and say that I can't judge because I simply don't know. It's not western politics, so we're not privy to any sort of public justice in these cases. So, I've reserved my judgement on that.

I just fail to think that God-fearing and God-loving men who dedicate their lives to Him would sit idly by in the face of these scandals.

I just think we have no idea, that's all :)

I'm not sure I agree with you. It seems to be a fairly clear example of a time where leadership was needed, and a line in the sand against evil and wrong could clearly be drawn - and it wasn't.

I'm not sure so much that it's that there are no/less responsible priests - more along the lines of some ir-responsible (or perhaps less-responsible) priests have been put in the times and places where they weren't up to the task.

I mean, when Cardinal Law gave his mass for John Paul II on April 11th, 10 of the 11 American cardinals were notably absent - a silent but strong protest. An interesting article on that: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/john_grogan/11428328.htm

The crime in Law's case is that he chose to protect the name and reputation of the church over the protection of his flock. I can understand the forgiveness the Pope spoke of in handling this. Isolated incidents can be forgiven, but when there's a long-running pattern of deception and inaction - those take active human intervention - and that should be not be so easily forgiven or absolved.

i certainly don't intend an argument, and i know you don't either. i fully respect your view, and the fact that we probably won't agree.

the one thing i can't see yet in your model is that you're trying to force religion into an political context. you expect retrobution in a political sense, and in the process negate the spiritual realm. i know it takes a great leap of faith to believe that true judgement, true penitance will not occur on this earth, but i firmly believe it. it isn't a cop out, either.

and to say that someone should "not be so easily forgiven" -- if those men are penitant...then forgiveness is granted. that is a cornerstone of my religion, and i respect whatever confessions transpired between them, God, and their confessors.

b-
it's not about retribution or vengeance or anything like that. It's about responsibility.

I agree with you that true forgiveness can only come from God. But I don't think someone should be allowed to remain in a position of that much responsibility when they have shown an inability to meet that burden.

I understand that mistakes are made, but when someone like John Geoghan abuses approximately 130 children (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/23/geoghan.chronology/index.html), that isn't a mistake - that's a sickness. After a while, you know that person's not going to get better. And someone (Law) who continues to cover for men like this, I have serious concerns about their ability to perceive right and wrong.

What I'm saying is that the Vatican should have removed Law from his duties as archbishop of Boston - instead of his parishioners having to protest until he finally resigned. Heck, they could even have reassigned him to some duties in the Vatican or something, but don't leave him in the position of power he's been shown to have abused.

By leaving Law in the same position, it sent a message, that in my opinion, that said the church would rather turn a blind eye to evil rather than confront it. It speaks too closely to the church's inaction during the Holocaust.

Remember, the Vatican IS a fully sovereign state (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vt.html). The Pope is a sovereign monarch with all the rights and responsibilities - including the ability to hold his people accountable according to whatever laws the Vatican has.

I guess we'll never agree on this :)

Much as I don't speak out against American politics...because I feel I'm unqualified to judge/critique/etc policies, I feel even more so for the Church.

While their innaction in the case of Law may confuse me, I feel the same way. Who am I to know what was right/acceptable? I have theories (like you), but the quote that comes to mind in all of this is, from Hamlet:

"Therefore, as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven & earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I dunno, just my 2 pennies.