I am happy to hear that this matter has fizzled out. It was always such a conceptual stretch to think that the current Pope, grimly intellectual and reservedly edified, would have approved of any of the whole mess. And that the former fanatical character would have reacted in anything but horror is also a stretch. One can imagine horrified attempts to avoid scandal, but a conspiracy to continue their own self-destruction is just a paranoid fantasy on the part of people who might not like this Church (perhaps for other good reasons!) Anyways, I am happy it has fizzled because it did not serve the cause of a reasonable resolution to the problems which this ancient organization has caused.

That was already settled in the Sixth Circuit in February of last year. I guess they finally understood the futility of their strategy.

Doesn't it bother anyone that this so called religion gets the protection of also being a sovereign state? I read a novel called On This Rock by Dave Leonard that paints a pretty chilling picture of the Vatican and the type of mischief they could get into with the right man as pope. It sounded a little out there but once you look into the history of this church nothing seems out there. Murderers and cutthroats for 2000 years.

Dear Mark Erickson,

My opinion is that it is more worthy to stick to real histories if one is interested in this complicated topic. Yes, you can find cutthroats a plenty in the history of Vatican, but a lot of brilliant leaders too. More importantly you find again and again attempts at reform coming from outside and enveloped with varying enthusiasm from inside. So it is really varied and complex to say the least.

On a simpler note there is one distinction that can be made with surety, and it is a useful way of understanding what is going on now. Most do not realize that, in comparison with Church governance today, much of that governance was different before the First Vatican Council. Here is the striking fact: It would be fair to say that for most of the Church's history 90% of daily governing decisions and critical appointments were made through the influence of secular authorities, both official and de facto. In a world without quick means of communication, and where royal power was really powerful things were different. Also that royal power often existed in counterbalance with powerful secular nobles who themselves sought influence over ecclesiastical appointments, or owned benefices which were farmed out to younger sons. (Primogeniture meant that older sons inherited most of the family wealth strongly since around the eleventh century) .

This situation was starting to change in the 18th century, but by the First Vatican Council in the 19th it changed utterly. The Vatican gained control of Church governance in a way UTTERLY UNLIKE before. The famous enunciation of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility should be informed by this understanding. So the what this means is that the type of control they have now has only existed for a century and a half. It is relatively new. Previously the very real power of the Pope in the Papal States, and his very real exhortative power outside them, was counterbalanced in a million ways.

The pressing issue is that now there are more Catholics than ever. And the governance with instant means of communication is even greater. I think it is utterly fair to judge just how they have done with this increased power over worldwide decisions with such a massive and influential organization. Can any reasonable person argue that their performance has been anything but poor?? This is precisely the point at which Catholic apologists really misunderstand the nature of much criticism. To say that the Church would be wise and that societies would be wise to accept some sort of counterbalance on their decision- making is not anti-Catholic. The suggestion is that in some creative way they move back to the position that obtained for most of their history. Ironically, the real "experiment" was not the Second Vatican Council, but the first one. They are welcome to their own doctrines of infallibility and such, but the type of governance that grew out of that period, and is not set into the stone of their doctrine in any way, has been an utter failure. More importantly, it is a danger to the civilized world.

Let's keep in mind that the Vatican State is smaller than the farm I grew up on and has less citizens than my High School had students (110 acres 800 people).

Let's put this in proper perspective gentlemen.

Dana,

I get your point, don't make a mountain out of Janiculum Hill. But the size of the state is hardly that important, the fact that it has a huge phalanx of diplomats is. And that said phalanx represents an in turn utterly societally unaccountable hierarchy. The situation is analogous to, say, if Christian Scientists were to announce that they wanted to open a number of spiritual hospitals where only prayer would be dispensed. Would society allow that? Similarly, what the abuse case shows is not that Catholicism is wrong, but that its governance is manifestly incompetent. The reform measures put into place are fine, but don't cover the incompetence issue. If this is not agreed to then I have to ask: What would constitute incompetence for them? If not that, then what? Or is there in fact nothing that would negate the temporal manifestation of the Church in some people's eyes. Why this should be is strange because governing in a particular way cannot be said to be part of the Catholic Church self-knowledge as a saving institution. As I have said elsewhere, is Fr. So-an-So's control over the parish funds and hiring why Jesus died on the Cross? Is Bishop So-and-So's clandestine decision making about priest's lives why the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost.? Of course not. So that societies might want to re-envision how the Church runs itself as a matter of public safety should not be treated as an incursion into religious liberty. If there had never been any problem maybe it would be. But in the face of even a scandal half as big as this one, it hardly seems oppressive.

“If Christian Scientists were to announce that they wanted to open a number of spiritual hospitals where only prayer would be dispensed” I would be all for it. More people have died from shoddy care from doctors and nurses than have died from prayer.

Of course you are right that society would not tolerate it. The pharmaceutical lobby would fight it tooth and nail.

You are beginning more like an activist than an historian.

Dana,

Well, you are clever! You swerved the discussion into something I totally agree with you on. Parenthetically, more people die from preventable medical mistakes (which includes germs from unwashed doctors' hands, etc. Yuck!) than a lot diseases that are hyped constantly. Does anything change, no. So I concede you got me on that one. But you must be aware that is not the point.

Everyone is for freedom of religion, at least everyone sane. But societies have a right to protect its citizenry from the worst aspects of either incompetence or fanaticism associated with religion.

And by the way, what else would I be doing here if not activism?

I don't think you can make a good argument for state interference in church business, whether it is “Fr. So-an-So's control over the parish funds and hiring” or “Bishop So-and-So's clandestine decision making about priest's lives.” You couldn't do that with a private business, much less a church. The state has no business telling me how to use my money or who to hire whether I run a corner liquor store or a corner chapel. Similarly the state has no business inquiring about my internal personnel decisions. It's private. Clandestine is an awful sounding word for what is simply private, as in “none of your business.”

Maybe you would like to change the constitution from:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....”

To:

“Congress shall make some laws respecting an establishment of religion in order to prohibit the free exercise thereof....”

Dana,

I don't dispute your basic point, or that solid arguments cannot be made that justify real interference in Church affairs. But the state does step in in extraordinary cases when matters of public safety are involved. The argument then is, have we passed that threshold? In my view we are way past it. If people don't think so, then again, what would constitute passing that threshold?

Beliefs are not the issue, safety is. This is part of why I am against the attempts at prosecuting the Pope. It implies that they had such a well-oiled machine that they could actually run a grand conspiracy of such a nefarious character, Not only is it unlikely given the many good people in the Church. But it is also practically unlikely given how poorly they have run all sorts of things. For instance if they cannot keep so many priests from embezzling funds from parishes that says something more than just about bookkeeping. It speaks to the basic incompetence generally. As I said before, 90% of their decisions were, for most of their history, not made by them. For the last century and a half they have been going it alone. Again, can anyone doubt the simple evidence that they are not up to it?

p.s. Not to get too far into specifics, but the simple fix is to require that parishes have vestries, and that dioceses be run to some extent by executive committees. The unaccountable prelate both in parish or diocese is simply not be be trusted at this point as a societally safe idea. And let me say again, these are my assessments, and no one else's.

What legislative body do you think will “require that parishes have vestries, and that dioceses be run to some extent by executive committees,” pray tell?

If by public safety you mean there be unobstructed fire exits and disability access we can agree. But if you seriously think the state has a role in telling the church, or indeed any private enterprise, how to run its affairs you are dreaming.

And post scriptum again, Dana

I think our society is still in a state of shock about this whole Catholic abuse scandal. Catholics had a pretty high status in public esteem since the Fulton Sheen era. So people are really in shock outside of the Church, as they now behold a formerly esteemed member of the community . But those of us who actually were inside of the Church for a while are not in shock. We experienced enough of the clandestine dealings, which really did go beyond mere privacy to deserve that word.. (And it realistically would be puerile to think all things clandestine are bad, depends what the goal is.) That coupled with the sexual nuttiness of many priests, and the let-'s-try-to-destroy-him-on-the-way-out strategy by which they dealt with all that wouldn't play along. Thus, for those who had been inside there was no shock, only confirmation. But even there the scale is shocking. And great sadness for the many, many fine and serious types who get tarred with a very broad brush.

So I believe when our society recovers from the great shock it has received it will see the Roman Catholic Church as an institution in need of help. And many times in life you cannot do it alone.

With The Vatican being a sovereign state, perhaps those operating in this country on behalf of the foreign leader of that state, should be forced to register as an agent of a foreign nation. After all, Billy Carter had to register as such because he took a loan from Lybia, so then, every priest and nun in this country better get down to the proper office and get their paperwork in order, or prepare for the mandated punishment for non-compliance.

Good point Robert!

Dear Dana,

"But if you seriously think the state has a role in telling the church, or indeed any private enterprise, how to run its affairs you are dreaming."

Since you have brought "private enterprise" into the discussion as a correlative, I guess I have to make the inexorable observation: that we already appear to be in the dreamworld you allude to given the news and decisions of legislative bodies. Somehow I think this makes my point, perhaps unintentionally.

Sorry Robert, but the law is not on your side. Title 22, Chapter II, Subchapter II, Section 613 (e) of the United States Code specifically exempts from registration as a foreign agent:

“Any person engaging or agreeing to engage only in activities in furtherance of bona fide religious, scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits or of the fine arts....”

Littel - Billy Carter are you serious? You had to go back that far to try and make a point which as it turns out is wrong. Wow you must really hate the catholic church to make such a fool of yourself.

Senor rino,

I have seen Mr. Littel taken to task on this blog for being overly literal and hyper- serious. So the one time he makes a really funny point, and his tongue is cleverly planted in his cheek no one seems to get it. Why this should be is kind of amazing. Billy Carter's name is almost a prima facie indication of humor. As it is, Mr. Littel's comic point had a serious message. It is hardly hatred to point out that if the Catholic ethos is to become one of routinely picking and choosing which aspects of a our long-standing democracy they feel like respecting, as if they were not truly citizens of this nation, then one might begin to feel their allegiances are elsewhere. If they are constantly questioning the ascertained rights of American citizens, and yet are militating for de facto granting of rights immigrants without question, then their notion of citizenship is questionable. I am pro-gay rights, and pro-immigrant decency, and against the Arizona law. But having the Catholic Church defending one and fighting another really is about on the level of seriousness of Billy Carter as to general coherence.

Cultural Historian - You give Littel far to much credit. Having witnessed his hate laced tirades countless times and been the target of abusive personal attacks simply for disagreeing with him myself I stand by my post. You let your own views cloud your objectivity when looking at his posts.

In the house of mirrors that is this blog, or to my mind any other really, I myself have been on the other end of Mr. Littel's energy too. But ask yourself is there any point to such discussions if we cannot recognize simply the occasional point well made? Blogs may have the element of a social experiment. And anyone who participates without that sense really is hobbled. But I still believe somehow in the intersubjectivity of dialogue even if kitsched-up with blog bullshit. I guess what I am saying, if you cannot recognize that Mr. Littel sometimes makes real
sense then there seems to be some basic
restriction going on. Because he seems to be a liberal, but a very prickly one.

Of course you are correct Mr. Historian that a point well made should always be welcome regardless of the source. That said, Mr. Littel's point was not well made. There is no conceivable reason under the law that “every priest and nun in this country” (as Littel puts it) should register as a foreign agent. They simply are not engaged in the kinds of activities that the Foreign Agents Registration Act governs. And, as I said earlier, religious activity is specifically exempted. So even if they did represent the Holy See, which is a ridiculous notion from the outset, they would be exempt.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires very few to register. A quick look at the number of registrants from our top five trading partners comes up with a total of eighty five (85) registered agents. Worldwide the total is 531.

If you would like to point out how Mr. Littel's comment “makes real sense,” I would appreciate it.

Dear Dana,

Please don't take offense, hon, but in the house of mirrors, and with an over- literalness, you seem to be momentarily channeling Mr. Littel.

This is not North Korea, no one is going require religions to serve the State.......unless Sarah Palin gets elected.

Then why, nominal historian, do you think it makes "real sense" to register 41,489 priests and 60,719 nuns as foreign agents increasing the total number of FARA registrants for our counterintelligence services to keep track of from 531 to 102,739?

I don't take offense. I just want you to explain how it makes sense, since you said that it does.

Cultural Historian - I never meant to imply Littel never makes sense. Every one in a while he manages to make a point in between verbal abuse and ridicule. As Dana pointed out this isn't one of those times. he is most definetly a liberal with no tolerance for anyone who isn't out in his area of left field.

"most definetly a liberal with no tolerance for anyone who isn't out in his area of left field.'

Well, I really chuckled with that one. That is a definite type isn't it. Sigh, there is no perfect way to be in life, we've all got problems.

Cultural Historian - Glad I could at least brighten your day with a good laugh. I agree we do have problems which is why it would be nice if all of us, myself included, could learn to be more understanding and tolerant and discuss and debate without the need for abusive personal insults.

rino - That you would consider that any disparaging comments made about religion is a personal attack against you, leaves little wiggle room for discussion, unless what is said by both sides agrees with YOUR position. That isn't going to happen and your enveloping paranoia, that allows you to make such a ridiculous assertions is transparent and will not be allowed to get by without exposing them for the way you are using the discussion to paint anyone who does not subscribe to any of the currently popular god concepts, as being a hateful bigot. We just don't swallow the BS you seem to need, and that is not our fault. Speaking here is our right, so get used to it.

Bobbles, Mr. Rino has made never painted anyone here as a “hateful bigot.” Others have painted themselves as bigots, through their own words and foul language. Rino can not be held responsible for allowing fools to behave like fools and idiots to behave like idiots.

As far as speaking here being a "right," it isn't. Our posts are at the pleasure of the blog owner who is not obligated to accept them. You seem to confuse “right” with “privilege.”

I'm not sure who you mean when you say “We just don't swallow the BS you seem to need....”

Who is the “we” you are talking about?

Littel - You did far more than simply attack religion inour past exchanges. To say otherwise is a total lie on your part. Your opinion on any topic religion, politics or any other lacks any logic and is fueled by your own left wing extremist views. Deny that all you like the only person you are fooling is yourself. No one spouts more BS that you on this board Littel.

Dana - Littel has delusions that he represents some larger body of enlightened people.

Dana - Somehow I doubt Robert will ever comprehend what you just said. He is too caught up in his own dogma to stop and consider the difference between speaking and insulting.