Well, Jim, I usually don't use screaming as a tactic for dealing with problems. I find it ineffective. Screaming helps the people on "your side" know that you're one of them, but it does very little to resolve the problem that the people on the "other side" are causing.

There have been apologies - lots of them, some directly from the pope to victims, in face-to-face meetings. There have been huge reparation payments that have made almost all of the U.S. victims into millionaires, and I suppose the same will happen in Europe. But no amount of apology and no amount of monetary reparation will ever be adequate, will ever undo the harm that was done.

I admit that I was appalled at the spate of denials and blame-shifting that several Vatican and European bishops attempted this Easter. It was very embarrassing, and one would think these bishops would have learned by now that blame-shifting is no longer believable. I did note that the Pope did not take part in this silliness; and that he did say words of apology on a number of occasions at Easter, while his minions were still desperately trying to shift the blame.

One would think that the European hierarchy would have learned a lesson from the experience of the American bishops, but apparently they didn't.

So, Jim, what is it that I am supposed to do about all this? I work in the day-to-day operations of a Catholic parish, mostly as a religion teacher. I have always spoken the truth in classes I have taught; and I have regularly challenged speakers in classes I have attended, when I believe they are not speaking the truth. I haven't whitewashed the child abuse and molestation scandal in any way - in classes I teach, or in messages I post here. You may disagree and say that my messages join in the coverup, but take another look and I think you'll see that I have always tried to be truthful and fair.

So, Jim, what is it I am supposed to do? Stop teaching religion and serving the poor and change my entire religious focus to the abuse crisis?

This sort of thing goes on in the politics of every community, not just the Catholic Church. Crime is a horrible thing, and every community has far too much crime. Some people seem to focus their entire lives on the horror of crime, and they condemn anyone who does not seem to share that horror at what they consider to be an adequate level. Accusing opponents of being "soft on crime" seems to be a mantra of the far right in the United States.

What is an appropriate response to crime? If I don't demand that every criminal dies a horrible death, am I "soft on crime"? I live in a community where some people think I'm evil because I vocally oppose capital punishment. Get this straight: I think criminals should be prosecuted and punished, and religious people who molest or abuse children are most certainly criminals. I think reasonable measures should be taken to prevent crime, as long as those measures are not so severe that they paralyze the actions of people who are not criminals.

Crime is a bad thing, and dealing with it is a difficult problem. If we become obsessed with it, we allow crime and the fear of crime to destroy us. Somehow, we have to develop rational methods of dealing with crime without allowing those very methods to paralyze us as a society.

And yes, crime exists in the Catholic Church, and has existed in the Catholic Church through all of history. Catholics have to deal with it and control it without allowing themselves to be destroyed by their own controls.

-Joe-