Replies

No, I was in the seminary back in the late 80s and quit in disgust. It turned out to have been one of the least spiritual experiences of my life. I'm now married with a family. I agree that the excuses, as you say, are nonsense. People find it difficult to understand why the Pope doesn't act, so they ascribe to him all sorts of benign reasons for his do-nothing attitude. But look at how he handled the priest sex abuse crisis. He made a perfunctory speech and then invited the cardinals to lunch--a public relations exercise after decades of corruption. No anger over ineptitude, no firing of anybody, no expression of compassion for the young victims. It was business as usual. That was disgraceful but typical. Some say it must be because he's old and sick. But he reacted forcefully just before the Iraq war and took issue with Bush on it. He moved on the geopolitical front very swiftly, accepting strategic visits from foreign ministers and making known his displeasure in speeches widely publicized. There was plenty of fight left in him for something like that.

I wish I could have a greater insight into why Rome does not do more. I do not intend to pope bash. I do not understand in this day and age with so much technology why greater control can't be exercised over the Church. The bishops are always clamoring for more local control. They have too much control now in my opinion.

I also would like to know why some of the orthodox intelligentsia do not ask more of Rome both privately and publicly. I read all types of dissent that goes unpunished. Why not more firm questions, with charity, from folks like Fr. Neuhaus, EWTN, Deal Hudson, Karl Keating, etc. They all accept Church teaching, yet not one seems to question why Rome does not act more to restore order.