We have a priest, in our area, who has outright told parishioners that if they are concerned as to where their donations are going they should specify XXXChurch Building Fund, or St. Vincent de Paul, or School, you get the idea. Those then become donor allocated funds that are not part of the general collection.

But to separate oneself from the One True Church because 1.7% of the priests made poor choices - that is sooo sad!

"poor choices"--is that what we're calling rape these days?

Baggott's struggle is simply that of a weak, gullible person who is swayed from her faith in Christ by the blandishments, enticements, vice or propoganda of the age in which she lives. Her specific reasons may be different, but her story is certainly not a new one.

Baggott's faith appears not to have been faith at all. How can an educated person confuse the misdeeds of a few with the Catholic Church proper? A mere glance at church history informs us that there have been many, many persons who failed miserably in their obligations to Christ and His Church--dare I say, including Judas who betrayed Christ Himself. Of course the answer is in the type of education she received. She never knew or was taught about the authentic Catholic Church. She was force-fed a cardboard manifestation of the fantasies of her renegade teachers, who had also lost their faith. And like her teachers before her, she has retreated into a church of her own making. Hmmm, it almost seems that the Modernism she was taught is the synthesis of all errors.

Yes, Graham. We believe in human free will. We therefore call every deliberate sin a "poor choice" -- rape, as well as apostasy.

Hey now, where's the charity? We can surely agree on the horror of sex-related abuse in all its forms without calling the 1.7% (which is bad enough, God knows) rapists. Yes, 'poor choices' is understatement but is still true. Calamitous choices for all concerned might have said it better, but those choices do not detract from the saving message and teaching of the Church, just as the calamitous choices of priests and popes - see Dante - did not detract in the past. Or, for that matter, that the abuse perpetrated by schoolteachers should rock one's faith in education. That said, it seems a bit harsh to call Julianna Baggott weak and gullible; the thought that one's Church, one's home, has somehow, in its institutional structure and practice, protected and/or propagated such abuses is surely a grave challenge to any of us.

(By way of full disclosure, I am an Episcopalian and the question of abuse within the Church is one I face on the path to conversion).

It is important to note that only 1.7% of priests were (are) pedophiles, but more important to know if an even smaller % of Vatican bishops protected those pedophiles, and the power they perverted to do so.
I was close to conversion into the Catholic Church at one time. It breaks my heart to see how it is suffering.

It's strange. When I returned to the Catholic Church at age 38 (I departed at age 11) I was told by the pastor that I had to do a year of "remembering" before I would be allowed to receive Eucharist. And the process began, once a week for two hours being enlightened on how the Church had changed:

From the Pastor: "Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception are superstitious nonsense."

From the gay Prior: "Unlike many Christians, God does not discriminate. To not embrace the gay community violates God's commandment of love."

The liturgist: "Abortion is not murder, and do not embrace that vile epithet that is used to torture women in difficult situations who make difficult choices."

It was the last one who refused to allow my daughter to be baptized because she viewed me as unfit as a parent in offering spiritual counsel to a little girl.

Ms. Scalia got it right: "The bureaucracy of the Catholic Church—for better or for worse—is comprised of mortals, who are passing. The Eucharist upon which we feed remains ever the same." And during the time of "remembering" when I wasn't allowed to receive Eucharist, every Sunday when I kneeled during communion tears of joy would pour from my eyes. The mere fact that I was allowed to return to the Church and was embraced by the Church, regardless how many persons in the Church found me vile was the greatest blessing of my life.

Although we hold divergent views on many things, I am in agreement with the Anchoress on this- that the Church clergy are mortals like us- cutting ourself off from the family because of the crimes of others is self-defeating.

But further- we aren't a cult of personality- We don't revolve around the Pope or Bishops like bleating sheep. Clergy come and go, and even if the entire College of Cardinals were to vanish tomorrow, the Church would go on with barely a ripple.

Which is also why the faithful need to be firm and consistent in demanding accountability and truthfulness- there isn't any need for defensiveness or evasion.

If the Gospels teach us anything, it is that good and evil always coesxist in the same person- the Rock of the Church, Peter, was also the shameful coward who denied Christ while he was on trial for His life.
That ambivalence, that people can be both good and evil by turns, is a difficult one for us to hold- which is why the dialogue veers wildly between demonizing the clergy, and sanctifying them.

I live in Austria, where, as also in Germany, members of certain churches pay a "church contribution" (also called "church tax") enforced by the government as part of the concordat with the Vatican (and as part of treating the established Protestant churches the same). In these countries, therefore, church affiliation is part of your legal civil status which determines whether you are required to pay these taxes.

The question arose whether legally changing your affiliation (so as not to have to pay this tax) has any theological consequences, and a Catholic university prof in Germany decided to put this to the test. He got a Vatican ruling that legal dis-affiliation had no theological consequence.

So it seems to me that one could legally separate oneself from the hierarchy/bureaucracy of the Roman Catholic Church while still attending mass and receiving the sacraments. Of course you might have to find a parish where you are not known to the priest, but that should not be too difficult unless you are out in the boondocks somewhere.

But I think, as some have pointed out, that Ms. Baggott's take on the matter is that the behaviour of priests and bishops, and as the press is trying to tell us, even the pope, makes it very hard for her to believe in the validity of anything these men have taught her; so that whatever her continuing belief in God she certainly has no appreciation for the sacraments of the church, including the Eucharist.

"Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of your faith" has always been a most difficult thing in the face of scandalous behaviour by His disciples.

Everyone who goes to a Liberal Catholic church is more likely to leave, since their parishes are being sued into banktrupcy over abuse. Instead of admitting a serious lack of fidelity, they scapegoat the wrong people. We need a return to Orthodoxy.

I was groped by a track and field coach - oh, about 4 decades ago. Is there any chance that with a very honest and caring lawyer, I can put together some badly needed dough?

Surely I was traumatized (to be honest, at the time I was sorta excited and confused). Like most of the church abuse cases, we mustn't think of Spartans getting their revenge on the vanquished enemy or prison rapes, but cooing, caressing and sweet-talk in the spirit of Nambla. Bad, yes, very bad, but not paedophilia... just old fashioned, Acme Incorporated sin, aggravated by the fact that the perpetrators were men of the cloth.

Now leave it to the Enlightenment press (when convenient, as square and moralizing as Norman Rockwell hicks) to blow this whole stuff out of proportion with big money settlements (a fine American tradition), makebelieve traumas, breast-beating and ruination of the world's only (despite everything) good institution.

How much of it all - on the level at which it is presented, is real, and how much is just normal, lurid, kinky, steamy humanity mixed with hype and drizzled in easy-money sauce?

Back about - oh 4 decades ago, I told my mother and she told the school, and the school (a NY Westchester County school) did nothing except have a talk with the faggot teacher. A very smart and likeable man, Latin and French teacher and track coach. Okay, he had a homo compulsion problem. Many many many homos do.

Thanks to today's enlightenment he would be Tum-ta-dum a PAEDOPHILE (everybody run), but back then he remained a human being and imaginably was chastised.

Damn, too bad it wasn't a Catholic school, I'm running low on cash and with the help of an honest and caring lawyer, I could probably clean up, at least enough to settle my mortgage.

I forgave Mr. (Name withheld out of human compassion) ages ago and today I'd buy him a drink and pull his leg about it.

Well this is just to say, I don't believe all the hype. My guess is that 1% of those cases dating back decades and decades were honestly traumatized. And most of the queer priests were not rapists or violent. Just sinful, deserving of being defrocked, socked in the jaw by dads and slapped by moms, but not turned into monsters.

I sense the heavy presence of another religion in this imbroglio: Judeo-Calvino-Americanismo. Lawyers and money, and an agenda-driven press gone wild.

Let's face it, no one really cares either about the truth or the kiddies. In fact we're hardly making kiddies anymore and those that are made come to the world to unmarried mothers. Now THAT'S serious trauma, much more serious - in the grand scheme of things - than Father O'Faggoty's twink-diddling.

The "truth" is that the Church should've set aside the ivory tower (and low-budget) sociology and just refused queers. Chastity and gaydom are opposites. Only scholars, professors and nobel laureates can make a successful mix of such deviltry and holy water... (only on paper of course).

The "truth" is also that the Church has got the problem surrounded. So there's no need to become a Protestant and hear mass said by some old divorced Lesbian.

The real picture of this scandal - the "truth" is the IHEU, International Humanist and Ethical Society denouncing Vatican immorality to the United Nations (no less!) when their ex-president, the late Vern Bullough, was a heavy and steady contributor to the Pro-paedophile movement: Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) whose very purpose was to promote the normalization of pedophilia.

The "truth" is the church has got a very serious homo problem, which is just a subset of a bigger Gramscian takeover problem. Pluck the homos away from the altars and place them back in the pews (if they really feel the compulsion of churchdom).

And then discreetly remind all those worried about traumatized kids, about Divorce. And while they're at it, discreetly remind all those worried about healthcare, that the real healthcare problem is neither private nor social, but cultural. If they don't believe you, pretend to swoon out in the middle of the street and watch all the indignant people walk by without hardly a one stopping to ask: "Are you all right, Mister?"

I like the idea of voting with your dollars. Insist on knowing where your money goes. Groups in parishes can organize and keep an escrow account of acculmulated money that they want to give to the church but won't until they get more transparency and even say in where it goes.

Apart from the abuse scandal, Catholic laity have to tolerate Priests they don't like because they are not direct enough participants in the hiring and firing process for their Parish. If they were, they'd be demanding access to info about the past performance of the Priests that Bishops want to assign to them, and that would have prevented a lot of the harm that has been done. I was prevented from going to my kids' baptism by a Priest who took my ex-wife's word for it when she told him I didn't want to be there. My ex told me the wrong day and I showed up all dressed up to an empty church! He knew me too and that I did care about these matters! If i knew that such poor choices would be on his record and follow him as he sought assignments in the church, I'd have felt more hope that such accountability would protect me from further heartache.

Mr. Chase, I don't agree with that proposal, as in my hometown parish the parishioners attempted (and succeeded once) in chasing orthodox priests out. The openly adulterous woman and the co-habitating unmarried couple were not just receiving the Eucharist but giving it out as extraordinary ministers, and an agnostic and a man who believed in reincarnation were teaching catechism. (I accidentally stumped the latter by asking, "So who was Jesus a reincarnation of?") They were among a minority, but they made up for it by being among the wealthiest of our town's residents and our church's school and improvement projects literally hung on their donations.

As for your personal experience, I must say that it really does tie into Elizabeth's message, if inadvertently. You wish to hold a priest accountable for the sins of your ex-wife. Perhaps, knowing much better than he that was she was a vindictive liar, you should have called the parish office to check the date and time. (I know that's not what you want to read, but there it is.)

"Baggott's faith appears not to have been faith at all."
Maybe, but maybe not. Try not to judge another's interior state - you don't have the qualifications!
There's a reason "causing scandal" is such a serious sin. When faced with evil in our shepherds (and not "a few" of them), it can literally become impossible to hear anything the Church without feeling that it is all a sham. I can't tell you how often, when I hear of how the abusers were let off, I think of having it drummed into me as a child that we should do penance now because the agony of purgatory is thousands of times worse - did our teachers believe that, or was this just something for the masses, not for the clergy? And so forth.
Also, there can be a perfectly good case for questioning the divine credentials of any church when such abuses come to light - didn't Christ say "by their fruits you shall know them?"
I'm not saying either of these responses are correct, but they are not stupid, nor necessarily an indication of shallow faith.

True enough. I could have called the Parish and made sure. I was naive to think my ex might not pull a fast one.

I have observed, and it is apparent from what I have read in many of these comments that serious Catholics are much more reluctant to judge clergy than they are to judge themselves or each other. Ms Scalia is very hard on herself. She is also hard on priests who are abusive. But what about the small stuff? Small leaks sink ships. I think it just feels very awkward for Catholics to confront clergy. It feels sinful I guess. But it dehumanizes Priests (and Bishops and Popes) not to call them out on the small and big stuff. My story may seem like small stuff to some, but I think that this Priest was lazy at best, and at worst biased towards my wife's perspective as she was less ambivalent about her Catholicsm than he knew I was. Meanwhile, the pain of my kids and I is permanent. One baptism forever - no second chances for me to be there.

What grade would you give him in terms of job performance in this situation?

Who among the folks who hire and fire him would care what you thought if you dared issue a judgement?

In my case, I wrote to the Diocese and did not get any response.

I believe a call to accountability in all things is necessary here, a culture of feedback needs to be fostered. My kids are being raised Catholic, so I have a stake in this still.

Mr. Chase, I agree that a culture of feedback is good. However, we don't need to import the "feedback" from culture-at-large, which turns teachers into substitute parental figures and public servants into personal ones. If everyone were hard on themselves, perhaps they would be a little more merciful to others. And the small stuff? Thank God that He is merciful, because we sure aren't.

What grade would I give your priest? I don't know. Perhaps you could tell me what else he was doing the month leading up to your child's baptism. How many weddings did he perform? How many funerals? How many days did he spend traveling to diocese events or meetings? Was there any parishioner hospitalized in the week leading up to your child's baptism? How much time did he spend reading the Gospel? How much time did he spend writing homilies? How much time did he spend on dealing with parish finances or church groups?

As for the once-in-a-lifetime event of baptism, I can only say that it's only a beginning and if you are there for the formation of your children's faith, you haven't missed the important part. It's as my sister-in-law noted on her marriage to my brother: "The wedding isn't the most important day of a bride's life. It's every single day of her marriage."