I must admit I'm having a very difficult time these days when it comes to my own thoughts and views on the sex abuse scandal in the Church. On the one hand I am naturally defensive in favor of the Church on this issue, especially when confronted by people who draw their conclusions based on Boston Globe (or insert any other major media outlet) reporting. On the other hand, I am morally outraged and spiritually disgusted that the men who run the Church have let it get to this point. One issue I find difficult to reconcile in this mess is how priests can remain faithful to the seal of the confessional (should the guilty actually confess) while at the same time ensuring those who are guilty are justly dealt with in this world, and removed from the temptation to further harm themselves and others. It is difficult for me to grapple with how we have to actually discuss topics like zero tolerance regarding sexual abuse when that should have always gone without saying. Then there is a divisive issue like the Frank Keating resignation last week. On the one hand, I did not hold the man in particularly high regard for either the remarks that sparked his resignation, nor those where he suggested Martin Luther as a model for reform. Now I don't know the man personally, so I don't know if he was misquoted or not, or if his words were taken out of context in the National Catholic Register article I blogged about earlier. Yet at the same time, I find it very frustrating that the very man charged with leading an independent panel to help steer the Church out of the crisis, appears not to fully accept the Catholic teaching. This evening I was particularly upset upon reading this Deal Hudson's, Crisis Magazine's Editor, weekly email. Usually, he takes a very tough stance on the abuse crisis, defends the Church and holds the bishops accountable. Yet, this week he gave Keating a pass - actually he presented the other side of Keating's story - without a word about some of the more distressing comments Keating made earlier about Church doctrine. On the one hand I cannot imagine the frustration Keating was dealing with at his level, when every day I see the unfolding disaster in the paper, on TV and over the Internet. Yet, Deal went on in his article to advocate a replacement for Keating who was faithful to the Church, etc., etc., etc. I couldn't agree more, especially since I contended earlier that had Keating been truly faithful to the Church's doctrine, it would have been much more difficult to oust him based only on the mafia's comment. Now to be sure, I'm not so naive to think for one minute that there aren't bishops who are day in and day out trying to thwart this panel's work. Nor am I so adrift as to believe that we, as a Church, are facing anything less than an all out crisis of fidelity (as I've said before) and perhaps more importantly leadership. In fact, I believe firmly, that had solid spiritual leadership, based on fidelity to the Church and Jesus Christ, been the principle motivator for the bishops over the past 50 years, then today this crisis would be nothing but a bad dream. Instead, the crisis looms because we are plagued by a group of tormented souls, all of whom are unable or unwilling to be the spiritual leaders they are called to be. Some are unable or unwilling to get out of the way of the investigation and so continue to obfuscate. Others, are unwilling or unable to demonstrate the Love necessary to call their fellow bishops on the carpet and out them. I suppose this is a tough time for us all, and I make no claim that I am having any harder time than anyone else. I especially know that my frustration with this process can only pale in comparison to those who have been directly affected. I welcome any comments to help bring this into a clearer focus for me.

posted by Michael Lee on 6/26/2003 10:13:00 PM | link |

---

HOME