Stardate 20020424.1446

(On Screen): US Cardinals are wrapping up their emergency meeting with the Pope, and have issued a letter to American priests.

It's full of beautiful verbiage that says nothing. Shorn of all the flowery language, it says: "We have a really big problem right now. We're working on it, and we'd appreciate it if you'd all hang tough while we do." It's just a pep talk. There isn't any substance.

But there has been a policy announced, and it is sordid in the extreme:

The American church leaders said they would recommend a special process to defrock any priest who has become "notorious and is guilty of the serial, predatory sexual abuse of minors." In cases that are "not notorious" they would leave it up to the local bishop to decide if such a priest is a threat to children and should be defrocked.

That word notorious is the key. What this means is that if the local bishop can somehow keep cases of abuse quiet, then the priest in question gets to stay in the Church. But if it hits the newspapers, then he's out on his ear.

Which is, in fact, the policy the Church has been following for the last twenty years which got them into this mess.

Not acceptable, if by that it is meant that the church will continue to try to cover up evidence of criminal behavior and try to avoid involvement of civil law enforcement authorities. Priests of the church are not above the law, and if bishops try to cover up the crimes of priests then the bishops are committing a felony.

I can't make any sense of this policy either from a legal perspective or from a religious one. Why should notoriety be a factor in a decision of whether a priest has committed a mortal sin, or violated a law?

Where notoriety comes into play is within the context of PR, and also of the 11th commandment. And if that is the case, then this is a deeply cynical decision.

Is it really based on the 11th commandment? That may be part of it, but there's also another factor: there's already a shortage of priests in the US. They don't have any to spare; they can't afford to boot any out the door if it can be avoided. And if there's a wholesale dismissal of priests for this, it could demoralize the rest and lead to a substantial number of voluntary resignations, diminishing the ranks of the priesthood even further, not to mention the possibility of causing a decline in the recruitment of new priests.

I'm afraid that this decision does not reflect well on the Church.