Well, yes and no.
In the review Alex Murphy posted by Neuhaus of a book about this mess, Neuhaus says Chrysostom said the road to hell is paved with bishops' skulls, and the old joke is that the specific "operation" of the Holy Ghost which makes a bishop is "removal of the spine."
It is not on the holiness of the clergy that the Catholic Church bases its claim to be holy. We are well aware of corrupt and vicious clergy. Dante put lots of popes in his Inferno.
The recent cover-ups (as opposed to those decades old) really are inexplicable. But while there are some bishops of quite remarkable piety, there are too many who are cowardly. And I think some of the more "executive" bishops probably don't have a very deep self-understanding -- something I've seen in other executive and management types. And no doubt many are reasonably good bureaucrats especially skilled at keeping their heads down and looking busy. I doubt that many thoughtful Catholics would give me a lot of grief over these remarks.
All this is meant to say that it has been settled pretty much since Augustine that the moral character of the cleric does not touch the efficacy of the sacraments he may administer. Of COURSE Bishops usually try to find men of good character and Popes, with the lousy information available to them try to appoint men of good character to the episcopacy. But I think few (though still too many) of the Catholic laity confuse the holiness of the office with the sanctity of the man holding the office. For us, the first is undeniable, the second dubious.
But I think the complaints of unfairness are somewhat justified. It's not that the guilty priests and bishops should be let off. But it does seem that people go from "5% or fewer of the clergy are involved with these abominations," to "The Catholic Church is bunk," a little more eagerly than the situation warrants.
Part of this is, I suspect, the lingering myth that the Catholic Church is this marvellously intricate and smooth-functioning bureaucracy where some Vatican Intelligence Service will know tomorrow of a heretical statement made today. Part is the mistaken notion that everyone below the Pope answers to the Pope immediately and obediently, while the reality is that each holder of some chunk o' turf or other jealously guards his prerogatives, while the laity pick and choose what they will obey and what they won't. Part is failing to appreciate what it means for the Church to be so large. Thinking for a minute what "a billion members on the books" means would suggest the natural conclusion that controlling this outfit is virtually impossible.
Sorry for verbosity. I just want to add that I don't delegate my spiritual life to the clergy in a way that leads me to think that they are all far more moral, pious, or holy than the laity. It's harder to forgive them when they are jerks or vicious sinners, but it's just as important as any forgiveness is.
Worthy points, I think.
Thx.
Jesus direction to Peter to “feed my sheep” three times in response to Peter's proclaiming his love for Jesus, is often quoted by Catholics to show how that charge devolved upon the Popes in the particular and the Catholic church in the general. O.K., then that solemn charge absolutely must be accomplished or the unproductive tree will be cut down.
“Thinking for a minute what “a billion members on the books” means would suggest the natural conclusion that controlling this outfit is virtually impossible.”
For all the reasons that you enumerated before this.
The exact structure of the New Testament Church is not set forward in the Scriptures other that the various necessary functions had men appointed to fulfill them and it was apparently a form that could be expanded upon as Jesus also commissioned his followers (not just a clerical class) to make disciples and teach in all the nations.
In Matthew he said that the gospel or good news would, in fact, be preached in all the inhabited earth.
Whatever organizational structure that attempts to copy or professes to be that Christian church admits that it is under Jesus’ charge also and must accomplish the work.
So if Jesus asks Peter if Peter did feed the sheep and Peter says there was just too many to care for, that the under shepherds were too busy because not enough men were entering the seminaries and those that did lost the respect of the sheep and were involved in turf wars and the whole organization was just too unwieldy to get the job done?
I don't think that would fly, I really don't. It sounds like Ford Motors saying the company structure didn't lend its self to safety and so Pintos should be expected. Other than that it does well on safety.
Given a choice, if that is the choice, between a long established structure of reverends, cardinals, eminences, nuncios, prelates, on and on, And...and accomplishing the feeding and shepherding of Jesus’ sheep....no contest.
“It's harder to forgive them when they are jerks or vicious sinners, but it's just as important as any forgiveness is.”
In 1 Cor. 5:1-5 Paul tells the congregation to deal with what was apparently an incestuous relationship and further advises the removal of the wicked from the congregation.
The moral cleanness and protection of the congregation was the priority but even as Paul reports in his second letter this same man evidently repented and was restored.
Forgiveness followed the repentance.
So yes, perhaps unfair but unjustified? maybe not so much.