Slowly but surely....

I am going to close down the other thread on the topic of the day and start several threads on various aspects of the situation.

First, in this thread, the purpose of the piece. I will start off with a comment that's near the end of the other thread:

...but I do think this piece was out of line, and here's why: I can see why negative information should be presented about someone as part of some argument. Say "Mr. Brown has a weakness for young girls, and therefore he should not be hired as a high school teacher.", or maybe "Mr Smith has embezzeled before, and therefore he should not get the benefit of the doubt when the books don't balance."

With this story I just don't see the therefore. The writer doesn't seem to have any point he is trying to make, other than "Deal Hudson should not try to get people fired, because that's not very nice." I suppose the story from his past butresses the point that Mr. Hudson is sometimes prone to doing things that are not nice at all, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion of whether trying to get people fired is one of those things.

The writer seems to be trying to avoid having this discussion by destroying Mr. Hudson on other grounds, and I think that's bad behavior as well as bad rhetoric.

And then, apart from whatever motivations of the publication in question, what purpose does our knowledge serve?

Comments

[Justin Dziowgo]

I agree that ad hominem attacks should not be made unless it is somehow relevant to the argument of the issue. I am not sure that such can be justified here.

Regardless of what you think of Hudson's political or personal behavior, he has done good things for the Church in America and called many bishops out in a respectful manner.

Does his conduct at Fordham inhibit him in doing this job? I don't know. Nevertheless, to use the argument that Hudson himself said "a person's private conduct makes no difference in the execution of their public responsibilities" in order to slam him is to err. First, just because Hudson said it does not make it true. I happen to believe it is a true principle, but then one must distinguish between past and present behavior. Also, simply because it is false that private conduct makes NO difference in public responsibilities, it does not follow that private conduct makes ALL the difference in public responsibilities.

I am neither a Deal Hudson supporter or detractor, but I do sense dirty pool being played on the side of the NCR.

[Fr. Rob Johansen]

...what purpose does our knowledge serve?

None that I can see, save to underscore for the Left that Deal Hudson is a meany and a bad guy, just like all those other conservatives.

I wrote in another thread that it's a little too convenient that that the very people taking Hudson to task for his failure to live up to the Catholic moral standard in the past are those whose whole agenda lies in the rejection and denial of that teaching, and advocacy of a radically opposed alternative.

Mark my words, this incident with Hudson will very soon, in the commentary of the Catholic Left, become another trope amongst those whose refrain is "traditional Catholic moral teaching is outmoded and irrelevant to Us Modern Enlightened Americans. No one can live according it, not even those awful conservatives who are always harping on it."

[Gerard E.]

Strong whiff of payback for NCR. Might not be as jolly if another publication- say, Crisis- digs up skeletons in their closets. Some would even call it mean-spirited. Funny how they throw around that expression, too.

[Jim]

Fr. Rob:

For some strange reason, people who are being preached at like to have some reasonable assurance that the preacher is not a hypocrite and that his words are not just bluster, or even worse bullying.

Deal Hudson, if the NCR story is true, should not have been thundering against Bill Clinton when his own recent past included a far more egregious sexual incident. His words about Ono Ekeh choosing to play in the sandbox have proven to be his only intersection with the prophetic tradition.

[Loudon is a Fool]

Jim,

At least consider the possibility that you unwittingly prove Fr. Rob's point. If what is right and what is wrong can be objectively determined, then someone who does wrong could, presumably, know what is right even if he fails to do it. And if he shares that knowledge of right and wrong with you, is it any less true if he fails to meet his own standards?

Fr. Rob is absolutely right when he says the Hudson issue will be used to suggest that moral recitude is outmoded because even those who believe in it can't live up to it. Which thesis seems implicit in your comment. If only self-proclaimed saints can call us to reject sin I doubt it's a call we'll hear too much of.

[Liam]

To briefly tease apart the problems with the ad hominem argument.

First, it IS illogical. Just because someone is a hypocrite does not mean the proposition he advocates is wrong. Or right, for that matter (it is just as illogical to use someone's virtue as a proof of a proposition he advocates).

Properly speaking, the revelation of hypocrisy calls into question the emotion and strenuousness with which the hypocrite argues his proposition, not the substance of his proposition. Hypocrisy is unseemly. And unseemliness is likely to be inversely correlated with persuasion. Therefore, if the hypocrite truly wants his proposition to carry the day, he should be more seemly, as it were.

[Victor Morton]

"If only self-proclaimed saints can call us to reject sin I doubt it's a call we'll hear too much of."

Actually, given the lives of some of the saints (whom I'm not comparing Hudson to) -- I don't think that statement goes nearly far enough. I think it's something we'll hardly ever hear. Which ... yes Father Rob ... is the point.

[Fr. Rob Johansen]

Just because someone is a hypocrite does not mean the proposition he advocates is wrong.

Not to mention the fact that Jim misuses the term "hypocrite". If I do something wrong in the past, repent of it, and then speak out against similarly wrong things, that does not in fact make me a hypocrite. It is only such in the minds of those who desire at all costs to dismiss the message by discrediting the messenger.

Jim's tactic (and that of the Catholic left) is rather like that of the teenager who, when punished by his parents for underage drinking, says "but you partied when you were my age."

Deal Hudson's misdeed illustrates not that he is a hypocrite, but a sinner. Something, as yet, he has not attempted to deny.

[PM]

I think Gilbert Meilaender offers some pertinent reflections in First Things:

Beginning perhaps with the generous thought that we should not "impose" on others standards that we ourselves do not meet, we end with a morality that demands less even of ourselves than we ought. The norms to which I adhere are not those I can keep or do keep; they are those to which I hold myself accountable. I do not see how I could manage that if there were not ways to recognize my accountability-if, that is, I were not part of a community that regularly confesses its sin and seeks to begin anew. Only from such a perspective, I suspect, could I have the courage to set forth an ideal of which I myself may often fall short.

[Cornelius]

I agree with Father Rob that Hudson, whatever his faults and sins, is not a hypocrite. But I also don't think (as contemporary culture seems to think) that hyprocrisy is the worst thing you can accuse someone of. I'd rather have a hypocrite as my leader than someone who revels in his sins. To quote François duc de la Rochefoucauld, "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."

[Jim]

Until caught, I can't recall Deal Hudson proclaiming too loudly his own sinfulness. From what I've seen of his book, his "admissions" were pretty evasive.

Deal Hudson is, in my opinion, not so much about Catholic tradition as he is about a certain kind of fundamentalism that has found refuge in the extreme right flank of the Church, a kind of evangelical fundamentalism combined with the only thing that fundamentalism lacks to reach theocracy: infallible and unchallengeable authority. Contrary to the Church that Deal Hudson would have, the Catholic Church is a universal Church, big enough to make room for even the nutty right.

[Zane]

Well, Crisis did not do due diligence. We can complain all we want about pervert priests getting transferred to unwitting bishops - but here is one purely lay setup. Beauraucrats - same - everywhere.

Fr. Rob, when Paul and Augustine preached Christ, they repented publicly. The public knwe what they did in the past while they did the preaching.(In fact when my mother first described Augsutine to me, it was all about the sinner becoming a saint) The problem here, is that Deal, who was going on as if a saint, is now seen to be a sinner.

There is a significant difference between a sinner, known to be a sinner, converting and preaching Christ and between a semmingly upright man shown to have been a sinner all along.

There was one thing Deal could have done - in the beginning, he could have publicly disclosed what he had done, and then done the work of Christ. He would have been laughed at, spit on and been subject to much ridicule. But in the end he would have been closer to being a saint, and his words would have carried as much weight. as time passed, his repentance would have been seen so.

The problem is not whether Deal is a saint, sinner or repented sinner. The problem is that he gave reason for people to think of him as an upright man, as saintly as possible, and he let it go by. That deception is the error of Deal Hudson.

As for NCR, if you follow Christ, the world's going to do it - even if you are much saintlier than this. Nothing unexpected there.

[Cornelius]

Zane, since you are reproaching Hudson and thereby holding yourself out (at least as much as he was)( as an upright man, please practice what you preach. Please publicly disclose all of your worst sins, so you to can be ridiculed.

I know of no requirement in the Bible or Catholic teaching that requires one to disclose one's sins publicly. We have no idea what sort of private mortification Hudson has gone through in dealing with this sin.

[Zane]

Ha, thats beside the point.
Whatever makes you think, that I'm upright and sinless?

I'm just stating that as a Crisis reader, I
feel decieved. I dont care what Deal did or
did not do 10 years back. But surely deceiving me is an error against me.

I guess I need to know whether someone whom I look on for guidance has a chequered past?. I do. Because I prefer to use my prudence. Perhaps I have the wrong expectations from people who lead?.

[Jeff Culbreath]

Deal Hudson is a public man. Right or wrong, his transgression (if true) is now public, and his penance should be public as well. Let him step away from public life, at least for a time, and seek the conversion that is his heart's desire.

Besides, we Catholics are desperate for an example of genuine sackcloth-and-ashes humility and repentance in the face of scandal.

[Fr. Rob Johansen]

Zane:

Failure to disclose that which you have no right to know is not deception.

Deal Hudson's past sins are between himself, God, and his confessor. We have no right to know about them. If his sins were present and impacted his public stance as an advocate of orthodoxy, one could argue the relevance of making them public.

Not even the girl who was wronged sought to make this incident public. The NCR used her story in order to score their own points.

There was one thing Deal could have done - in the beginning, he could have publicly disclosed what he had done, and then done the work of Christ.

So, then, by this reasoning, is every priest required to publicly confess all of his sins (regardless of the fact that they were already sacramentally confessed and absolved) to the people of his diocese before he is ordained? Is every religion teacher in a Catholic school required to publicly confess all his/her sins before taking on his post?

How about parents? Are they required to confess all of their misdeeds to their children before they can presume to teach them right and wrong?

[Jeff Culbreath]

What Deal Hudson should have said (if the allegations are true):

"Perhaps I should be angry about the detraction committed against me by a liberal Catholic publication in an effort to undermine my perceived political influence. Perhaps I should attempt to spin and sanitize the facts in order to lessen the shame of it all. But I am not angry, and I will not pick apart the story, which apart from a few minor inaccuracies is substantially true. This disclosure needed to happen. Just as Solzhenitsyn could say "Bless you, prison!", I can say "Bless you, National Catholic Reporter!', because though you intended evil, you have been the hand of God.

I am resigning from all of my public and political responsibilities, including my position at Crisis magazine. I will be moving with my family to an undisclosed location in an attempt to restore the relationships I have undermined by my shameful infidelities. I beg the forgiveness and prayers of all those who have been injured by my reprehensible actions, all those whom I have betrayed by my double life, and all those who have been mislead by my example. I pray that the excellent causes of Catholic orthodoxy and social policy, which I have long championed, recover from the damage I have inflicted upon them.

I ask that you continue to fight the good fight, but that no one return evil for evil in an attempt to 'settle the score' against those who love detraction. God bless you, and please pray for the Hudson family."

[Kevin Miller]

I think that it is presumptuous to assert that Hudson has not done what he should to repair his relationships with God and his family, and that it is gratuitious to assert that there is in principle any other reason for him to, e.g., step down at Crisis.

[Joseph R. Wilson]

"what purpose does our knowledge serve?"

Fordham - New York City's Jesuit university, had a married philosophy professor who allegedly drank alcohol to intoxication with his students and engaged in mutual genital sexual stimulation with one. This old tale of temptation and the fall is now detailed in a national Catholic publication. The story of this sad tragedy serves the purpose of highlighting the depravity of our current culture. Assuming that the alleged events between the professor and the student are true, should we be surprised? And are we to be shocked at the possible motivation for publication of the story in this particular newspaper?

I believe in redemption, and anxiously await the response of Dr. Hudson and the staff of the National Catholic Reporter to the abundant commentary and criticism. We are called to conversion and to holiness, and I pray for all of us.

[Loudon is a Fool]

Not that I think we should be devising the mortification and penance of others, particularly if the charges aren't true, but, having said that, your recommendations, Jeff, are very, very sweet.

[Jim]

Fr. Rob wrote:

"Failure to disclose that which you have no right to know is not deception."

Fr. Rob, you're probably destined to go far if the present style of hierarchy stays in place.

This kind of thinking took Cdl. Law on an upward track, until he was no longer able to sit on the truth. Ditto Bp. O'Connell (who accepted a new diocese after paying his victims off, and just didn't mention it to the nuncio). Ditto Bp. Dupre. Ditto Bp.Williams. Ditto Bp. McCarthy.

We just weren't entitled to know that our bishops were perverts, that they were coddling perverts, hiding perverts from the law. Our even thinking about these hidden sins of the clergy may border on detraction. We should just keep quiet and follow.

Fr. Rob, if we followed your advice, numerous conservative Catholics would still look up to Deal Hudson today as an upright crusader for the truth. His slinking off, unable to face the truth, says it all.

[Kathleen]

This is ridculous. Deal never said he was the spotless lamb. He had an opportunity to bring Catholic positions to light with those in political power and he did so. When I subscribed to Crisis Magazine I did so because I found their articles illuminating, not because I chose Deal Hudson as my personal pure representative. When he became advisor to the adminstration I did not choose him, he took advantage of an opportunity to give illumination to the Truth in an influential sphere. He said in his own NRO piece that he and Theresa knew what they were risking. He has stepped down from that position as a result of the outing of his past sins. It seems to me that some on this blog will have nothing else but complete ruin of he and his family. This is very disturbing to me.

[Charles R. Williams]

Suppose I occupy some position of trust and I violate that trust in some profound way. What do I do? Four things: I resign, I repair the damage I did if possible, I find some useful work that will not put me in a position to violate that trust again, I do penance.

Should Hudson have donned sackcloth and ashes and hung a sign around his neck with a red letter "A"? Think of the impact on his family.

Perhaps he should have mentioned to his Board of Directors that he was vulnerable on this score. That's between him and them.

There is no excuse for the NCR article. It is obviously motivated by a desire to harm Hudson. It is time for the NCR editor to do the honorable thing and resign.

[PMC]

Mr. Wilson: You left out only that these events are 10 years old, and Deal hasn't been at Fordham in that time, having lost his job due to his acts. Surely the passage of time and the price he paid makes our alleged need to know less compelling.

Jim: Deal's not a bishop. Further, just who are those Catholics idolize Deal Hudson as an upright crusader for the truth? That sounds like a hefty dose of NCR power-envy.

Kathleen: Amen.

[Jeff Culbreath]

Professor Miller,

Dr. Hudson's relationships with his family will be threatened for as long as this episode is discussed and remains in the public consciousness. If he stays on at Crisis, that will be the case for many months -- perhaps years -- to come.

If the NCR piece never came out, perhaps he could have continued to do much good at Crisis. But like it or not, Crisis magazine now has a scandal on its hands, and its message is compromised with Dr. Hudson as editor.

[Meep]

Yeah, we should stop holding up those murderers and fornicators as representatives of the faith. How dare we call that second person a Doctor of the Church - someone who had fathered a child outside of marriage (and then abandoned mother and child)! What horrible people.

Remember that most people are not required to go to Confession in public or perform penance in public. I understand Hudson dropping his public positions, but I definitely don't require him to air his dirty laundry. I don't want to hear the tawdry details of goings-on in my own family -- why the heck would I want to hear his? Thanks, NCR, for becoming a gossip rag.

[amy]

Somehow, I did not envision this thread taking the turn of "What Hudson should do" or "How much Repentance is Enough." That's beyond the ken of any of us here. I may be appalled at this revelation, but I don't assume anything about the present because of it. Crisis is not an official arm of the Church. What the board and Hudson decide to do about his role there is up to them. It's their magazine. Demands for pounds of flesh make no sense. If you want to cancel your subscription, go ahead.

[chris K]

Fr. Rob, when Paul and Augustine preached Christ, they repented publicly. The public knwe what they did in the past while they did the preaching.

Somehow I don't think we still know quite the type of sordid details in their exactness about these saints and great conversion stories as we now know about Mr. Hudson's escapades. Perhaps because there wasn't an NCR around. If we knew such details we may find it hard not to picture such past activities while listening to some converted itinerant preaching priest who is trying to further convert us! The others live in some distant past and have been generalized into a before/after scenario. Perhaps if we had heard of Paul cutting out the tongue of a Christian preacher and still insisting he had the right to the use of his own, mere public repentence might not have been enough. There's greater ick factor in the details.

[PMC]

To answer Amy's question: I suppose we had some reason for knowing these allegations while Hudson served in a semi-official capacity as the de facto Catholic advisor to the President. They are arguably marginally relevant to whatever duties he carried out in that capacity.

But once he pre-emptively resigned that position, I don't see what purpose the NCR story served. Once he stepped down, we have NCR detailing horrible decade-old allegations about a prominent layman. And if that is fair game, then on what basis does NCR or any other journal not mount a similar hit on any other prominent layman.

[Kevin Miller]

Jeff,

Okay, fair enough. But then that (i.e., especially the point about his family - also the one about Crisis) is all the more reason the thing shouldn't have been published, and Hudson shouldn't thank NCR for having done so, and he shouldn't imply that the reason for leaving Crisis is anything other than the damage caused by the article.

[Fr. Rob Johansen]

Jim wrote:

Fr. Rob, you're probably destined to go far if the present style of hierarchy stays in place.

I know you were trying to insult me by connecting me with Cdl. Law, who has acquired almost talismanic status as a symbol of evil, and the other abuser-shufflers.

But I thank you for what is in fact a compliment. For the "present style" of hierarchy is exemplified by the likes of Bishops Vigneron of Oakland, Vasa of Oregon, Burke of St. Louis, Morlino of Madison and DiLorenzo of Richmond. I would consider myself honored indeed to be numbered among them, though I could hardly consider myself worthy.

Cardinal Law, Bp. Dupre, Abp. Weakland, et al., represent nothing other than an outmoded and outdated "style" of hierarch, coming out of the "Collegiality-At-All-Costs" model of the 70's. That model dictates, above all, that one must never say anything challenging or confrontational to anyone. They were irrelevant dinosaurs.

Their fall, and the rise of zealous and courageous priests and bishops as those I mentioned, illustrates that the only future the Church will have lies in uncompromising fidelity to Apostolic teaching.

[Rich Leonardi]

"Fr. Rob, you're probably destined to go far if the present style of hierarchy stays in place."

Jim, cut the crap. All Fr. Johansen is doing is giving Mr. Hudson the benefit of the doubt in a 36-hour-old scandal.

Give Mr. Hudson some time before you harrumph that he is "slinking off."

[Jeff Culbreath]

Meep, I don't like what NCR did any more than you do. So a leftist rag has done another dirty deed without regard for basic Catholic morality. Who is surprised? But Dr. Hudson needs to realize that HE provided them with the ammunition in the first place. We might blame the NCR, but Hudson should thank them. Instead he is lashing out at his enemies, which proves that he is still deceiving himself and has not come to terms with reality.

Thomas Jefferson, himself a notorious sinner, said that a man should do nothing he wouldn't want to read about on the front page of a newspaper. A good rule of life if you ask me.

(All of my comments, of course, depend upon the truth of what has been published, since it seems to have been generally affirmed by Deal Hudson himself.)

[Christopher]

A decade -- 10 long years -- has passed since that incident at Fordham. In that time, I presume that he has likely confessed, done penance, and sought to amend his life, as any Catholic does, or ought to do, after committing grievious sin.

I fail to see how this invalidates Deal's work at Crisis magazine, or his justifiable criticism of zealous supporters of pro-abortion politicians -- it reeks of revenge, or as another commentator put it, a "pre-emptive strike" against a voice of conservative Catholic influence to the Bush administration.

[amy]

I think one of the points I am very slowly trying to work to is this: Deal Hudson owes *me* nothing, nor does he owe anyone else except those he has directly harmed anything. I don't know if this makes sense, except to explain why I am exceedingly uncomfortable with the "What Hudson Should Do" tone of some comments here and on other threads. I don't "need to see" repentance or even hear an explanation. I've said on another thread that I *think* the story is legit because of Hudson's position in the Bush administration (not because of his position as a writer or an editor), but that said...I am not his keeper, nor are any of us. I may be surprised by other points of his biography that I didn't know, especially since I read his recent account of his conversion rather closely, for review (favorable), but I would defend his right to reveal what he chooses to in whatever context. The Fordham story saddens and disgusts me, but that doesn't mean that in his capacity as a commentor or even as an activist, any of us need or deserve Hudson to do anything for our benefit. It may affect how we hear him, but that's just the way it goes. I hope that makes sense. I doubt it does, because it's late.

[al]

Amy,
That seems a bit, well, individualistic. I mean it is a matter of interest to us, as members of the mystical body of Christ, whether another member of our communion is right with God.

I agree entirely that DH really has no need to apologize or atone vis a vis the public--even if he is a political figure. He might need to recuse himself from politics for bad judgement or scandal, but that's a matter of prudence not atonement.

That said, to go back to the question of did we need to know this, even if DH was a political advisor to the president, or is it simply detraction, and therefore immoral.

If you look at the Washington Post's coverage today, you find again a lurid rehash of the worst details of the scandal, slanted to put him in the worst possible light.

If the headline was "Bush Religion Advisor Commits Affair 10 years Ago!!" He might well have had to resign. But all this additional information seems just designed to disclose his clay feet.

Why do we need to know this? Sure it generates outrage and pathos, but is it necessary to double secret cancel our crisis subscriptions??

[Colleen]

"Not even the girl who was wronged sought to make this incident public. The NCR used her story in order to score their own points."

Good point. I hope the woman doesn't mind because since she has been named publicly by a Catholic weekly magazine, people who now know about this story - which could include her husband, inlaws, children, co-workers, bosses, perspective employers, neighbors, etc., will be looking at her with a mixture of pity and who knows what else - and they are all now privy to something very private and possibly embarrassing, which she has kept silent about all these years.

I am still stunned that a Catholic publication would publish something with the level of soft porno detail that NCR used. But maybe anything in less detail wouldn't have accomplished what they wanted to do.

[Mary Jane]

Who of us could stand to have everything they've done investigated and printed on the front page of the newspaper? From many people's comments, there are far more spotless lambs than I have thought possible.

While I'm not thrilled with Deal Hudson's behavior in the past, I'm not very thrilled with my own either. But what many of these comments show me is a level of Schadenfreude and self-righteousness that is truly distressing.

The moral I'm drawing from both the NCR and the commenters on the blogs (with some notable exceptions) is this: If you want to stand up for something, watch out! We will find some dirt in your past and report on it in prurient detail. And you will not only be publicly disgraced, you will then be savaged by your own.

I find this aspect of the matter much more painful than the incident in question.

[Barbara]

"Not thrilled" with Deal Hudson's behavior should be (and probably is, I hope) an understatement. It was considered important enough at the time to lead to the loss of tenure, which, as others have opined, is an extreme step taken by universities almost always in response to extreme misconduct.

Who among us is spotless? Not me -- but then, you didn't go on to say, who among us, knowing the depth of our own sins works so tirelessly to shape the public debate about what is sinful and who is a good Catholic? What was so infuriating to many people about the Situation was the sheer effrontery, if I may say so, of being preached the sexual gospel by men who couldn't or in some cases wouldn't even try to stop the grossest and most destructive kind of sexual impropriety among their peers. Being right in matters of doctrine is a good thing, but it is not everything.

I am not among those who thinks that redemption should be impossible after sexual misconduct, far from it, but no one is going to get a free ride when they so clearly deviate from their own version of the straight and narrow. It's just too much to ask.

[thomas tucker]

Amy I think you are right that Mr. Hudson doesn't have to do anything for any of us. But there is a difference between what he has to do, and what it would be good for him to do. I, for one, think it would be good for him to come clean (without the salacious details) and to make a public repentance and re-affirmation of his faith. Does he have to? No. Does he owe it to us? No. But would it be a good example for people, a good testimony, and a way for him to regain people's trust? I think so.

[catholic]

"So, then, by this reasoning, is every priest required to publicly confess all of his sins (regardless of the fact that they were already sacramentally confessed and absolved) to the people of his diocese before he is ordained?"

Would this be a bad thing? We need more publicans and fewer Pharisees.

[Mike Duke]

--- Who of us could stand to have everything they've done investigated and printed on the front page of the newspaper? ---

Not many, and certainly not I, but SOME of us could. Importantly, most of us are not trying to promote ourselves on the second page of the newspaper. Deal Hudson was doing just that!

Despite paying $30,000 to the 18 year old student in compensation back in 1995 (with a silence clause) he THEN went on to write articles like this. The man has more front than Buckingham Palace.

http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/collegesurvey.html

entitled (wait for it). Are Your Kids Safe In A Catholic College?

(Evidently not with you Deal).

Note; he wrote multiple articles on Bud MacFarlane Jr's Catholicity website. The same Bud MacFarlane who is divorcing his Catholic wife and four kids. Birds of a feather...

Is it the "power" lay-apostolates offer in our age of 24 hour media and the Internet that attracts spiritually weak and deeply flawed people as these? Perhaps these people secretly hope that by instructing others how to grow in their faith they can overcome their own weaknesses?

In the past the Church would have dominated the Internet and taken it over as a brilliant tool for global evangelization. Excellent Catholic websites would have been built by techno savvy Monks and Nuns, the Jesuits would have been spiritual kings of the dot.org world. We have 1 such media savvy and wonderful nun today, Mother Angelica, but V2 has destroyed the clergy and what is left is so wishy washy and pathetic they don't have the guts or gumption to do much more than pick up their e-mails. The laity has stepped in, to fill the gap, (nature abhores a vacuum) but therein lies the danger because they are not spiritually prepared to make a career out of an apostolate and when they go wrong there is nothing to curb their excess.

Whereas the clergy in the past were answerable to some temporal power, the laity are not. Today any convert or revert with a penny catechism and a web-connection is suddenly a theologian or moralist. This gives religious cynics plenty of ammunition when these people fall in the spectacular way that both Bud and Deal have.

Do the pros of lay-apostolates outweigh the cons?

The surprise is not so much that a 44 year old thrice married (twice annuled) American Catholic is tempted to have sex with vunerable students under his care. The surprise is WHY THE HECK CAN WE NOT FIND SOMEONE WITH A BETTER PEDIGREE THAN HIS TO ACT AS A PUBLIC CATHOLIC FIGURE.

Yes I am a sinner too, the difference is that I have just enough prudence and humility to not step up to the plate (or into the Sandbox) and become a public figure.