It seems hard to argue that, if Benedict XVI were at the head of some American institution, his resignation or discharge or impeachment or whatever would be clamored for on a bi/non-partisan basis. The priests who preyed on boys were at least the victims (by today’s thinking) of unmanageable drives. Cardinal Ratzinger’s only concern was to keep the brass nameplate on the door untarnished. In the Anglophone world, that’s definitive, unpardonable hypocrisy.

Not in the Roman world, though — not in the profoundly patriarchal mind-set of law that prevails on the European Continent, most of it a by-product of ecclesiastical practice. Father Knows Best may be a short-run sitcom in the early history of American television, but the maxim is the essence of Roman, or “civil,” law theory. When terrible things happen, the institution must be protected from its misbehaving exponents. Certainly no one will argue that the Roman Catholic  Church has ever supported any kind of sexual abuse, much less the abuse of children and teenagers.

But why does the Church support celibacy? Sadly, the best answer is that it painted itself into a corner, or was painted into a corner by revolutionary overreaching in the 1790s. When the Church dusted itself off after the Jacobin and Napoleonic turmoils, it was so reactionary that the word “reactionary” was invented to describe it. Reactionary it remains, and that is why the Church stands for celibate priests. There is no better reason, and don’t let anybody fool you into thinking that there is one.

Never mind about history, though. Both Joe Jervis and Choire Sicha are asking the question Lénine: What is to be done?

I have two suggestions, based not so much on my familiarity with Roman Catholic institutions as on my readings in the history of upsets. First: don’t count on the Church to fix this. As it happens, the Church has only the most paltry and technical mechanisms for coping with a bad pope. That’s where there were all those schisms and antipopes in the Middle Ages. And even if there were impeachment procedures (repeat: there are not), it would be dim to expect them to be imposed upon Benedict. After several decades of John Paul II, the College of Cardinals in particular and the episcopate generally are at least as rear-guard as our Supreme Court. Que — zut alors — faire?

To some extent, this is strictly Catholic business. Smart people who grew up Catholic but “lost their faith” don’t really have a say in how Benedict is dealt with. The Pope (Cardinal as he then was) is right to put faith ahead of circumstances. Cafeteria Catholicism ought to be as objectionable to sophisticates as it is to dogmatics. If you believe in transubtantiaion, then you’ve got to believe in (the far more recent doctrine of ) papal infallibility. End of discussion.

Here, then, is my advice for American Catholics who want to do something without risking anathema. Just stop giving money. Correction: continue giving money to any of the fantastic charities that American nuns have been running, under the radar, for the last thirty years, and be especially generous to any sister who complains about the latest visitation from Rome’s wolfhounds. But stop putting money in the basket on Sunday, and — especially — cut off donations to Peters Pence.

This is your chance to play Grover Norquist: starve the beast. Let Rome figure out what to do next

Drop me a line at rjk@dailyblague.com
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 25th, 2010 at 11:59 pm. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.