Damn! Here I was, sizing Steve up for a bullseye on his jugular, and he goes and makes a reasonable statement. Golly, what am I to do now?

Well, I could question Raggytash. He titles the thread, "Another year, same old story." I might propose that the title should be "Another year, same thirty-year-old story." That's the problem with most of these threads. The offenses are not new, and present no evidence of ongoing misconduct. But yet, I have less confidence in the current generation of priests, than I have in those who were ordained with my seminary classmates forty-five years ago. Those who were ordained 40-50 years ago, were "Vatican II priests." Many of them at least tried to fit into the real world. Those who were ordained during the era of John Paul II are a different breed. John Paul II was Pope from 1978 to 2005, but I think his anti-progressive influence is still stronger than the attempts of Pope Francis to bring back the progressive and generous spirit of Vatican II. The John Paul II priests have brought forth a new clericalism, and many of them seem to be in love with all the pomp and circumstance, and with their power and popularity. They seem to have a weakness for teenage girls - I'm not sure that's an improvement over earlier priests' preference for teenage boys. I will say, however, that dioceses are now far less tolerant of "sexual indiscretions" by priests. Most dioceses in the U.S. have "no tolerance" rules, and I think that's becoming the standard throughout the world. Priests tell me that those rules can often be unfair and unreasonable, but dioceses are running scared now and tend to honor even the most unreasonable complaints. So, priests tend to feel suspect simply because they are priests. I don't think I'd like to live like that - to be in a position where I'm automatically suspect, even though I may never have done anything wrong.

Churches are in a difficult position. Of all employers, churches seem to be the ones most likely to be held liable for the sexual indiscretions of their employees, because their clerical employees are held to be acting in the name of their employer 24 hours a day. Lots of other employers have employees who commit sexual offenses, but those employers are far less likely to be held liable for the offenses of their employees. That may be changing in the wake of the offenses of Harvey Weinstein and so many others. It breaks my heart that even Garrison Keillor has met his downfall in this. As a result of Keillor's sins, all the memorable performances on his program will disappear - and that includes a great number of really significant performances by folk musicians.

But that's the deal with all this. The conduct of these sexual predators is truly deplorable - but in the response, the truly good efforts of so many innocent people are brought down with them. I wish there were another way to respond, a way that doesn't affect so many innocent people.

-Joe-