My readership has increased exponentially in the past couple weeks, so much that I’ve already discussed needs discussing again for you new folks. For example, one reader writes to ask the question that has perplexed so many of us:

How can the Roman Catholic Church keep Cardinal Law in place in light of the recent scandals?

It seems clear that on at least 2 occasions he wrote letters helping priests get transfers stating that they had good records, knowing that they had engaged in misconduct. Besides his bad judgment and coverup, isn’t it obvious that he is not a particularly honest man?

In answer, I direct you here, here, and especially here. Bottom line: if we want to understand what JPII is thinking we have to begin with the realization that he is thinking with the Tradition, not politically.

Another reader writes:

Have you seen the 5/17 AP article by Tom Rachman “Vatican Official Says Priests Solely Responsible for Abuse” from an article in the Jesuit magazine Civilta Cattolica by Rev. Gianfranco Ghirlanda a canon lawyer?

I’ve heard about it, but haven’t seen it. My own take is similar to Amy Welborn’s. I am loathe to try to make too much of this piece without know more facts. Incredible as it may seem to Americans who have more in common with Robert Sungenis than they realize, the universe does not orbit around them and the formulations of canon law sometimes take into account more than simply the American experience (such as the experience of Christians in Iron Curtain countries who routinely had bogus charges hurled at them by Authorities who want to clap them in irons. Until I knew more, I would not, like Progressive Catholic, assume that Rome was saying “Screw You” to us. I will readily believe (because so many of them have taught me to believe) that the American ecclesiats say “Screw You” to us on a regular basis. They also say “Screw You” to Rome (as when they spinelessly allowed men like Paul Shanley to be the Voice of Cutting Edge Progressiveness for 20 Years while Rome asked them to please clean up the American Church). There’s a common thread there that subtle minds might pick up, but it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that more Progressive defiance of the Faith is the solution to our ills, nor that the Holy Father doesn’t care about what’s happening here.

Another reader sends me more happy news about our empty suits in Congress being asked to make Solomonic Judgments using only one volt battery powered brains. “I tremble for our nation when I remember that God is just.” – Thomas Jefferson

Well, this is different, especially for Australia!

Somebody write to ask me why I have a link to “Enemy of the Church?” and then adds:

You ask us to write various presidents of Catholic Colleges because they host speakers who support abortion on demand. Yet you have a link (which is a tacit recommendation) to “Relapsed Catholic” who has recently been vilifying the lumpenproletariat who, she claims, are the core constituency of the pro-life movement. I welcome and enjoy different points of view in venues of Catholic thought and discussion. But scurrility and elitism should have has no place in these forums.

Point 1: I have a link to Enemy of the Church because I argue with Mike from time to time and it’s somehow not sporting to argue with him without making his site available to my readers. Sorry. Personal idiosyncratic code of honor (hmmm… have I put up a link to Progressive Catholic? I argue with him too. Must check.)

Point 2: I think Kathy’s take on prolifers was rather unfair. Just by way of example, I thought the cheap shot about prolifers being ugly was lame. Most men I know would find Ann Coulter definitely easier on the eyes than Bella Abzug was. But, of course, looks aren’t the issue, ideas are. And what I find troubling is that my reader did not really reflect very deeply on what Kathy was saying. For nowhere does she argue for a pro-abort position. She’s a Catholic. What she does argue for is the idea that prolifers need to make their case better. I think some of her characterizations were more like caricatures, but I think her aim is to help prolifers promote their cause better. Jeremy Lott thinks so too.

Finally, a note: I do not believe the purpose of my blog is to maintain ritual purity from contact with people of opinions different from mine. I think Fortress Catholicism is as dumb as Uncritical Catholicism. You may take a link as a “recommendation”. I don’t necessary do so. You may also think that people reading my blog are so stupid that they can’t tell an opinion on another blog to be sharply at variance with mine, or the Church’s, or their own and so might be “ensnared by error”. I don’t think my readers are that stupid. And, I take no alumni’s support money or tuition to link to sites which attack the Church. Nor when they differ from me or the Church, do I try to pretend that they don’t. These are significant variations between my policy and that of your average Jesuit college.