Finally, a Rapid Response

Opinion Journal ^ | March 7, 2003 | Rod Dreher

[ultima ratio]

Finally, a Rapid Response: Why didn't sex-abuse scandals stir Vatican action the way war has?

The Vatican's monumental efforts, both diplomatic and pastoral, to avert war with Iraq have focused the attention of the Holy See and summoned its energies behind a cause like no crisis in living memory. Hardly a day goes by without Pope John Paul II denouncing the march to war, meeting personally with world leaders or dispatching high-level diplomats--such as Cardinal Pio Laghi, who came to Washington this week--to beseech the belligerents to stand down.

[ultima ratio]

It figures. The Pope tilts ideologically leftward in most matters--except for his conservative stands on the sinfulness of abortion and homosexuality. Otherwise he is a liberal right down the line: he believes in the sovereignty of the UN, pushes for a one-world religion that homogenizes disparate religous beliefs, and is indifferent to the destruction of authentic Catholic beliefs and practices. It is not at all surprising that issues like this--as well as his animus against capital punishment--arouse his fierce attention in ways that the scandals and apostasies inside his own Church clearly do not.

[Conservative til I die]

BTW, next time, please put a disclaimer noting your status as a schismatic Traditionalist (i.e., you aren't a member of the Catholic Church) so that people know where you're coming from.

[drstevej]

***There is even talk that the pope could win the Nobel Peace Prize***

Jimmy Carter made it clear what it takes to win the "Peace" Prize, criticize the United States.

[ultima ratio]

No disclaimer necessary. Not only do I deny being a schismatic, I deny any schism ever occurred. By the way, how does this refute Dreyer's indictment of the Vatican? Cat got your tongue?

[sinkspur]

In that spirit, it is appalling to watch President Bush, who has responsibility for safeguarding 280 million of us from terrorists and terror states, being lectured on his duties in that regard by a church that would not even protect children from its own rogue priests and the bishops who enabled them.

Got to agree with Dreher here. In fact, the Church is still covering up for abusive priests. And these power-hungry bishops are an embarrassment.

Yep, the Church's moral authority has been compromised, perhaps beyond repair, for a very long time.

[ultima ratio]

The Vatican bureaucracy has publicly remarked that the US was acting against Iraq "to get its oil." This is typically mindless liberal-speak. It is France and Germany and Russia who have Iraqi oil interests, not us. What this does show, however, is what US conservative Catholics have been denying for years: that there is no daylight between the American bishops and the Vatican. It is in sync with the bishops on most issues.

[Pyro7480]

Now, Catholics are not obliged to agree with the pope on this issue. The rightness or wrongness of this or any particular war is a matter of opinion. Even just-war teaching recognizes that, in the words of the catechism, "the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." The 50% of America's Catholics who stand by their president, and not their pope, in this matter do not thereby diminish their standing as Catholics.

But the Catholic Church isn't just any institution. It was founded by a man who commanded his followers to remove the plank from their own eye before removing the speck from their neighbor's. In that spirit, it is appalling to watch President Bush, who has responsibility for safeguarding 280 million of us from terrorists and terror states, being lectured on his duties in that regard by a church that would not even protect children from its own rogue priests and the bishops who enabled them.

Finally, this is something we agree on ultima! Rod Dreher is one of my favorite contemporary writers. He has it right on the money on this issue. While I disagree with your assessment that the Pope is pushing for a one-world religion, and I admire his uncompromising stand against communism and abortion, and his spread of the Divine Mercy devotion, the Pope must realize that Christ's Church is suffering from a credibility issue now.

[royalcello]

Good article. However, it does seem that many, perhaps even most, of your fellow traditionalists--Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Thomas Drolesky, Thomas Woods, the SSPX's Fr. Peter Scott, just to name a few examples--agree with the Pope on the war.

I've been struck by the irony that when it comes to the war, the neoconservative neo-Catholics are suddenly discovering the limits of papal infallibility, while so many of those "schismatic," "Pope-bashing" traditionalists are agreeing with John Paul II! I don't think the Pope's opposition to the war can be labeled as "tilting leftward" as there are many right-wingers who oppose this war, and have good reasons for doing so.

[ultima ratio]

I must agree with you. Many traditionalists, in my view, exceed traditionalism itself on certain issues. The war is one of these. On this, honest men can differ. I would include in this certain other issues as well. Christopher Ferrara had an article recently in Catholic Family News which makes much of the wearing of some sort of headress by women while in church--treating this custom as if it were a major dogma of the faith, the violation of which was exceedingly unCatholic. This is an exaggerated posture and gives the traditionalist movement in general a reputation for narrow-mindedness. Catholicism historically had always been marked by common sense, balance and societal adjustment. On these peripheral matters--war, politics, customs--traditionalists are as subject to error as anybody else.

[Maximilian]

The Church's moral authority has been compromised, perhaps beyond repair, for a very long time.

This is a simple fact on which we can all agree, no matter what our opinion of the war or other issues. And it's a sad fact that when there is a real crisis, the bishops have absolutely no moral authority to call on. What if they happen to be right this time about the war? It really doesn't make any difference because absolutely no one listens to them in any case. Traditionalists and conservatives agree on one thing at least: they both despise the US bishops. And liberals aren't listening to anyone about anything. They might agree with the bishops most of the time, but they have not trouble blithely ignoring them whenever they disagree.

[dennisw]

The Vatican is getting spanked here. This is not the Pope speaking but his inner circle of aged in oak barrels Vatican bureaucrats. Many of them junior to the Pope by only 5 years or so. But much more functional because they weren't shot in the stomach by a Muslim terrorist 20 years ago.

I don't have much love for the present day Vatican but I hold (here comes disclaimer) Catholics in the US in high regard.

[dennisw]

Rod Dreher is one of my favorite contemporary writers.

He is one of the best and not an arrogant bone in his body. How come liberal writers are so condescending? Holier than thou? Go see Ron Dreher here

[ultima ratio]

Don't buy it. The whole point of this article is that the Pope himself gets fully engaged when he's interested in an issue. He's simply not interested in the sexual abuse issue nor in the failure of bishops to protect their flocks. He showed this last summer with his p.r. ploy calling the cardinals to Rome. He delivered a routine speech, then invited everybody to lunch. Business as usual.

This needs to be put in perspective in evaluating his whole papacy. He has shown plenty of spunk, for instance, when it came to opposing traditionalists such as Archbishop Lefebvre, bullet in the stomach or no bullet. He has been in charge for twenty-five years--but so far has fired nobody in the New Church for either malfeasance or apostasy. And he allows the seminaries to stew in their multiple corruptions.

[Danny Cent]

Papal Infallibility plays no part in what the pope is saying. Papal infallibility only refers to Dogma on Faith & Morals and has not been used since 1950 on any issue. If you are a Catholic theologian or canon lawyer and can tell me different, I would love to hear where it says that this is infallible teaching.

[royalcello]

I am perfectly aware, despite not being a Catholic myself, that papal infallibity is limited to binding declarations on faith and morals. My point was that "neo-Catholics" often seem to (incorrectly) exaggerate papal infallibility on other issues, but (correctly) see that it does not apply to the war. I find it ironic that many of those who freely and irresponsibly denounce their fellow Catholics as "schismatics" for disagreeing with the Pope on liturgy, ecumenism, altar girls, etc. are so anxious to point out that they do not have to agree with the Pope on the war.

[WriteOn]

I'd defend the pope but then I'd get banned from FreeRepublic.com:-)

What a hit piece this is. As if averting an imminent war requires the same policy measures as resolving the ongoing battle with evil and the historicity of AmChurch.

UR - you're a schmuck.

[ultima ratio]

Hit piece, my eye. Dreher is a serious Catholic telling the simple truth. People like you can do nothing but bluster and use ad hominem attacks--since you can't refute the reality. This Pope has been all over the place lately, sending envoys hither and yon, and working himself into a lather over Iraq. But he has been absolutely silent for twenty-five years about the scourge of clerical sexual abuse that is systemic in the Church. Those are the facts.

[gcruse]

As if averting an imminent war requires the same policy measures as resolving the ongoing battle with evil and the historicity of AmChurch.

Where does it say the same measures should be applied?  The point, I think, is that very little recognition and certainly miniscule papal exposure has been spent on the sex abuse problem, yet they leap at telling Bush what he should or should not do in protecting his 'flock.'

[RobbyS]

Dreher has been very judicious in his criticism of the bishops. But he is right. The eneregy the Church shows in this matter is in pointed contrast to its lethargy in the matter of the sex scandals.

[Dajjal]

OpinionJounal's Webpage of Readers' Responses to Dreher