THE WAY OF THE CROSS: Mark Shea has suggested (and he has always presented it as a possibility, not a certainty) that the Pope’s inaction here is the expression of his Carmelite spirituality, and especially his focus on the Way of the Cross. In essence, this view holds that the Pope is forcing Cardinal Law and the other abuser-shufflers to undergo public humiliation, to take the consequences for the harm they have worked, to take up the cross of public shame. Shea’s reasoning, I think, is based on two pillars: the Pope’s evident holiness, and the pain that, no doubt, Cardinal Law is suffering.

I doubt neither of those pillars. But I think there are simpler explanations: Holy men do not always make good governors of the Church. Sandra Miesel, also in a comment at Shea’s blog, points to the example of St. Pius V’s excommunication of Elizabeth and proclamation that English Catholics needed bear no allegiance to the Queen. And while the Pope is, as far as I or anyone can tell, deeply holy, he is also very far away. We’ve been seeing the up-close effects of clerical “insiderness” and protection-of-the-group here in the US; is it impossible to believe that even a holy man in Rome can succumb to the temptation to imprudently protect clerics at the expense of lay Catholics?

And: OK, so let’s assume that the Pope did in fact refuse Cardinal Law’s offer of resignation [edited to note that I’m not sure that rumor/report was ever actually confirmed], and did not ask for the red caps back from anyone else, because he desired the cardinals to take up the cross and take public responsibility for the mess they made. Like Shea’s, my crystal ball is on the fritz, and so perhaps in the long run this is the best thing to do. I can’t know. But neither can the Pope, folks! It is perfectly acceptable to point out the obvious prudential and spiritual down-sides to this “Carmelite” approach. (In quotes not because I think Carmelite spirituality sucks, or whatever, but just because I am not sure that Shea’s tentative explanation is the accurate one.) Prudential: When the Vatican does not act, does not impose some humiliation itself (since the Carmelite explanation assumes that humiliating bishops is one of the benefits of the Pope’s hands-off approach), many, many lay Catholics and non-Catholics will look at the situation and say, For crying out loud. Do they expect us to do all the work of keeping the clergy from monstrosity? Can’t the Pope pitch in here, or will he leave it all to the Boston Globe? And similarly, it is not hard to imagine that many bishops breathe a sigh, not of pain and humiliation, but of relief, when they see that not even Cardinal Law will suffer removal from office. The spiritual down-side is a direct result of the prudential: People–clergy, laity, and non-Catholics–who look at the Pope’s inaction in the way I have just described may be wrong about what the pope intends, but their reaction is understandable and it presents a major spiritual stumbling block for them. That’s what scandal is. How many people do you know of who have left the Church in part as a result of the sex-abuse crisis? How many of them would have been so comforted, so much more willing to listen to the Church, to trust her, to try to conform themselves to her, if they saw some public action from the Pope–if the worst bishops had been either removed or publicly reprimanded and (say) instructed to cooperate fully with civil authorities? Calling the cardinals to Rome was not enough, I think, to provide real accountability. When major malfeasance has occurred, accountability almost always requires someone to step down. (To quote Dreher on Fr. Johansen’s blog: “The solution is not more rules, I agree. The canons were already in place to have prevented this catastrophe; they were widely ignored by bishops, who rightly figured that there would be no consequences from Rome for allowing these things to slide.”)

Let’s also ask whether Cardinal Law can be a good shepherd right now. His remaining in office is, no doubt, a cross for him to bear. But isn’t it also a cross for pretty much everyone else in the Archdiocese of Boston? That should also be considered, when we are considering the spiritual effects of the Pope’s decisions.

And finally, I do not think any of the things I or Dreher have said so far (and I link our names this way because I agree with his substantive points, not because I would have phrased things the same way) require a view of the Church as a corporation or some other secular model. We can respect the mystical reality of the Church and still say, The Pope has had several opportunities to make prudential judgments. He’s made, as far as we can tell, the wrong choices. He is still the Vicar of Christ. We are still his flock. The Church is still the Bride of Christ. None of that means that the Pope’s prudential judgments in this matter have been right.