Pope focused on scandal

According to Cardinal George

"I went up to him after he was elected, we kiss his hand, and I started speaking in my kind of halting German about promising obedience and love and asking for his prayers in return," George said Wednesday. "And he immediately responded in English -- much better English than I speak German -- that he remembered our conversation and that he would attend to that. So immediately he zeroed in on our last conversation, which was about the sexual abuse scandal."

Not long before the 115 cardinals entered the conclave to elect a new pope on Monday, George said he had had a conversation with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger about the sexual abuse scandal, the new laws that were instated several years ago governing the handling of such cases by the church in the United States, and, as he put it, "the need to maintain the canonical structures that we have used to address the scandal."

The new church laws, which require, among other things, that any Catholic clergyman with even one legitimate accusation of sexual abuse against him be removed from ministry, have to be renewed on a yearly basis.

"I wanted to be sure that I could respond to any questions he might have," George said. "We had a good conversation about that and he understood the need to do that, and he understood where we were coming from. He had followed the discussions by reading the minutes, not by being present, and had a good grasp of the situation. It was a very reassuring conversation."

Chicago's cardinal said he hoped news of the new pope's apparent keen awareness of the significance of the clergy sex abuse scandal to the life of the American church would be reassuring to victims of abuse and their supporters.

Comments

[Grant Gallicho]

This is very, very encouraging.

[Gerard E.]

He's making a list-
And checking it twice-
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice-
B-XVI's coming to town.

He's sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake-
He knows when you commit sexual assault crimes punishable by 20 years to life in prison and ulltimately cost your diocese six-to-seven-figure settlements and besmirch the integrity of the majority of holy and dedicated priests....

So be good for goodness sake.....

[Rich Leonardi]

Bob (not Bill) Bennett indicated on Hardball the other night that the Cardinal took page after page of detailed notes during his meeting with the NRB.

[Rod Dreher]

That is very encouraging, Grant. I was told last year by a contact in Rome that the CDF was staggered by the number of new cases that were pouring into its office from the US -- two or three new ones every single day.

The CDF is not a big office. Ratzinger knows better than anybody else how bad the situation is. I think -- I hope -- this is what was behind his Good Friday lamentation about the "filth" in the clergy.

In Kwitny's biography of John Paul, "Man of the Century," he quotes the (then) pope as telling the American bishops in the mid-1990s that he was not going to have priests removed summarily from ministry. He reportedly told them that he'd lived through that kind of mentality in communist Poland, and wasn't going to bring it into the Church. We see where John Paul's naively optimistic view of things got us. I have hope that the new pope is more realistic.

A great thing for him to do right away is to do what his predecessor never could bring himself to do: meet publicly with victims.

The Sun-Times story says that abuse victim groups were upset with Ratzinger in the past for blocking the investigation of Maciel. But in November of last year, the CDF reopened that investigation -- this just days after John Paul had publicly praised Maciel, to whom he was personally close.

It was speculated that reopening the investigation is why Maciel decided to step down in January as head of the Legionaries. The LCs denied the connection, but it's pretty clear If that's true, it suggests to me that either Cdl. Ratzinger had a change of heart, or that someone who was protecting Maciel weakened. In any case, given the papal praise and the CDF's change of heart, it's pretty clear that there was a power struggle here. I'm betting that Ratzinger is on the right side of this issue. Hope so, anyway. That is not to convict Maciel, I hasten to say, but only to say that the investigation should proceed.

[Kevin Miller]

"We see where John Paul's naively optimistic view of things got us. I have hope that the new pope is more realistic."

What's the evidence that JPII was being "optimistic" rather than, say, "cautious" about the rights of the accused and so on?

[Cheeky Lawyer]

I love this comment from Cardinal George:

"There's a certain clarity of teaching that has been associated with him. Fine. I think clarity helps us all. If that's a problem, well then the problem isn't with this particular pope or man or his predecessor, the problem is with the Catholic faith itself and then people should ask, well, where am I? If I don't hold the Catholic faith, where does that leave me? It's a personal question."

[Kevin Miller]

Put differently: See Tom's point.

[Nancy]

I'm hugely reassured by this news, and I hope for more good news to follow.

It's been said for many years that JPII was not a very good administrator. "Spiritual" types tend to think that maybe being a good administrator is, well, one of those qualities we can do without (I've thought that myself), but that's not precisely true.

It strikes me that perhaps JPII was not uncaring for the victims of abuse (as I have accused him of here more than once) but that he simply.....wasn't a very good administrator.

Even people who don't like Pope Benedict much will have to concede that he's one of the smartest human beings who ever came off the line. If he adds to that being alert and being a good administrator, brighter days may well be ahead on this front.

[Eileen R]

Nancy:
It strikes me that perhaps JPII was not uncaring for the victims of abuse (as I have accused him of here more than once) but that he simply.....wasn't a very good administrator.

I'm heartened to hear you say that. I'm not entirely sure what my opinion is on the issue, but it's driven me nuts that a lot of people insist that any mishandling of "The Scandal" is a result of the Pope's callousness towards children.

Hmm... On that topic, is there a better word we could come up with rather than "The Scandal" or "The Crisis." Both terms sound to me like a political problem, like embezzling funds or robbing your opponents' headquarters. I think the horror of what happened is diminished. Raping children calls for stronger language.

But "The Atrocities" might be thought a little too strong, and after all, it is true that this is a scandal and a crisis.

[Kevin Miller]

Nancy: See Tom's point.

[Rod Dreher]

What's the evidence that JPII was being "optimistic" rather than, say, "cautious" about the rights of the accused and so on?

Because he came up with no alternative plan, and showed no apparent willingness to hold the bishops accountable for their failure to deal with this crisis. The man is dead, so let's not waste our time rehashing this old fight. I think we can all hope that the new pope is more engaged and active on this issue than his predecessor.

[daniel duffy]

Talk is cheap. Let B16 prove his sincerity by getting rid of Cardinal Law, ending his cozy little sinecure, and returning him to the States for prosecution.

Remember, this is the guy who said: "I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offences among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower... One comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the church".

So I'll believe it when I see it.

[Grant Gallicho]

Yes, Rod, you raise an interesting issue. Part of why I was surprised by his attentiveness to the sexual-abuse issue is his 2002 quote about the crisis: "I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offences among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower.... In the United States, there is constant news on this topic, but less than 1 percent of priests are guilty of acts of this type.... The constant presence of these news items does not correspond to the objectivity of the information nor to the statistical objectivity of the facts. Therefore, one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the church. It is a logical and well-founded conclusion." This was before we had the NRB and OCYP reports, and the 4-percent figure. Bennett and Anne Burke have repeatedly praised Ratzinger for the genuine concern he showed in his meetings with them in Rome (a concern Burke has said has been disturbingly absent among many U.S. bishops). It seems Ratzinger took their reports to heart, and is not in denial about the fact of clergy sexual abuse. How fascinating it would be if he was responsible for moving the church closer to reconciliation with victims, who have felt so alienated by the hierarchy.

[Jim in Chicago]

Somewhat off topic, but related to Cardinal George:

The AP is reporting that he is being considered to head the CDF.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/POPE?SITE=FLMYR&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Jim in Chicago]

Ah I should have read the post below first . . .

[SiliconValleySteve]

Grant,

I don't think there is much of a contradiction in Benedict XVI's statements. The church through its inaction on the abuse crisis handed its enemies in secular culture a sword. They have used the sword to slander the whole of the church.

But... it was a very real sword and the inaction and lack of sympathy for victims is a true scandal that hasn't been dealt with yet. All signs are that our new Pope is ready to act.

[Paul Pfaffenberger]

Re-opening the case against Fr Maciel was a good sign. Even better would be for Pope B XVI to meet with survivors of abuse.

Meeting survivors would be important both symbolically and for his understanding of the personal damage that these atrocities cause. That damage is largely spiritual, and should speak loudly to a humble and holy man like the pope. During our meeting with the USCCB committee on abuse and with several cardinals, at least 3 of the bishops were visibly moved by the experience of listening to survivors.

Great to hear that this pope understands the importance of this situation, and praying that his actions show that as well.

[Grant Gallicho]

My point is that this is an example of when the church needed to have "the sword" used against it--by "secular culture" or whoever. The then-cardinal's assertion that the incidence of abuse by priests was no higher than in the general population ("less than 1 percent) proved counterfactual. The statement was profoundly insensitive to the victims. But he has clearly shifted from this tone.

[incognito]

Of course, the more disturbing implication is that in the general population, many more adults are likely implicated than 1%. In fact many studies have estimated that 25-30% of young people face some kind of sexual abuse. It would be odd if only 1% of adults were responsible for so many cases of abuse.

But minimizing the problem of sexual abuse is not my point. My point is, there are alot of people out there in need of help.

[Grant Gallicho]

Yes, absolutely, and the church is now in a unique position to shed some light on this horror in the general population as well.

[James Freeman]

Eileen writes:

Hmm... On that topic, is there a better word we could come up with rather than "The Scandal" or "The Crisis." Both terms sound to me like a political problem, like embezzling funds or robbing your opponents' headquarters. I think the horror of what happened is diminished. Raping children calls for stronger language.

The term needs a spiritual dimension. I suggest The Horror, with apologies to Joseph Conrad.

[Colleen]

Eileen: I like B16's naming it 'the filth in the Church' much better than 'the scandal' or 'the crisis' - both of which seem to name something that is in a box and it sure isn't in a box.

Very heartening news... I hope and pray this will be fulfilled because I think many disaffected Catholics will re consider their present stance on the Church. Get over that big hurdle and listen to what the Church really teaches. Sometimes we can get hung up on one huge thing and it blinds us to everything else.

[Rod Dreher]

Henceforth, shall we cease to call it "the Scandal," and instead, following the papal lead, call it "the Filth"?

[James Kabala]

I'm as opposed to the St. Mary Major job as anyone here, but people like Mr. Duffy and others have got to realize: THE MASSACHUSETTS AUTHORITIES HAD ALREADY DECIDED NOT TO PROSECUTE LONG BEFORE CARDINAL LAW BECAME ST. MARY MAJOR'S ARCHPRIEST. Unless new evidence turns up, which is far from unthinkable, the chances of Law's seeing jail time are almost nil regardless of whether he lives in Rome or downtown Boston.

[Colleen]

James: you are correct and any member of the archdiocese of Boston will back you up. In fact, Law retired to a convent on the east coast for one year before he went to Rome. The authorities could not prosecute him and most people here in Boston were calling for Law's head on a pike. If he could have been prosecuted, he would have been. Seems to me that Law couldn't just remove himself to a jail cell and all angst should be directed towards the Massachusetts DA's office.

It is unfortunate that Cardinal Law was placed in a position of some visibility (head priest of a basilica in Rome) although with no 'power' as it has agitated quite a few people. Seeing Law's countenance on television is revealing if you knew what he looked like during his tenure in Boston. He is a broken and sad man at this time, imho. I hope and pray God has as much mercy on Cardinal Law's soul as He will have on mine.

[Pam]

Very encouraging news, what a week!

[John Heavrin]

I wonder if when Benedict XVI (before he was that), referred to "the filth in the priesthood," he was referring to more than clergy sex abuse. And, I wonder if he'll use the word "filth" now that he's the Universal Pastor.

I sincerely hope and pray that all the problems with the priesthood and seminaries in the U.S. can be corrected during this pontificate.

[Nancy]

Since there exist no reliable studies showing the prevalence of sexually abusing adults in the general population (anyone who knows of any, please cite), any statement to the effect that "no more priests are pedophiles than the average in the population" are meaningless.

And even if it were true....what kind of testimony to the holiness of the Church is that? What if it could be proven that "no more priests are murderers [drug addicts] [armed robbers] than the average in the population"? Should we all be glad about that?

And if we have enemies, as we certainly do...should we hand them this kind of weapon? How dumb is that?

Ignoring for the moment the cynical idea that the ruin of a "few" children doesn't matter anyway, many average Catholics are so turned off by the official coverup, as Colleen points out, that this business calls the entire body of teaching of the Church into question in the minds of more people than you might think.

And whyever not? The apostles asked Jesus, hey, how do we tell the genuine leaders from the frauds? And he said, "Look at their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thistles? A good tree bears good fruit."

To get more personal, this Scandal? Filth? Horror? has called many of the substantive teachings of the Church into question in my own mind. For if the bishops, the cardinals, and even the Pope, do not care about raped children, how credible are they on any other issue?

Priest, I do not believe what you say. Because I know what you do.

__________

I am praying that the new Pope inaugurates a new light in this dark place.

[Nancy]

Oh golly, I hope no one brings up the fact that American Catholics are "only" 4% of the Church (hidden message, we don't matter).

First, this problem is hardly confined to the United States, as publicized problems in Canada, Ireland, Austria and other places illustrate, not to mention unpublicized problems elsewhere.

Second, wasn't it one sheep the good shepherd went after? Even by that reasoning, we're four sheep.

[Richard]

Henceforth, shall we cease to call it "the Scandal," and instead, following the papal lead, call it "the Filth"?

Works for me.

[Sarahbellum]

I happen to live in a diocese in Massachusetts where the bishop himself was accused, credibly, of child sexual abuse. (My opinion, by the way: that's redundant--all sexual contact with children is abusive.)Because of the laws of the Commonwealth concerning the statute of limitations in sexual abuse cases, there was nothing the DA could do. The bishop disappeared, literally. (The diocese, and presumably Rome, know where he is, but the press and hence the people don't.)

My point is that often, secular law is even less effective than the church at dealing with these cases, yet I have not seen anybody calling for Alberto Gonzales's head on a platter.(Well, okay, not on the grounds that he didn't do enough about clergy abuse, anyway.)In that regard, Pope Benedict was right--there is a very big element of press frenzy in all this. Hierarchical inaction sells papers. Government inaction doesn't.

The statistics I have read make one interesting point: The approximate rate of child sexual abuse among the general adult population is about 1% and among Catholic priests is 4%. But the rate among the general MALE adult population is--you guessed it--4%.

[Kevin Miller]

Rod: That's a non sequitur. And since you brought the matter up - even though JPII is dead, etc. - I'm going to call you on it. It just doesn't follow from the fact that the pope (allegedly) didn't do anything that he was optimistic that others would fix the problem. It's possible that he thought it'd be wrong for him to do what you wanted him to do - even though the bishops wouldn't solve the problem on their own.

[Kevin Miller]

(I mean, God could have solved the problem by striking dead every priest about to molest a child or every bishop about to allow a priest to molest a child, but He didn't. That hardly means God is naively optimistic.)

[Anne]

Sarahbellum,

Unless I'm missing something, your statistics can't possibly be right. If 4% of the adult male population are abusers, and males are 50% of the adult population, then even if no females are abusers, the overall adult rate must be at least 2%.

[Anthony]

Kevin -

when a cop shoots someone, he's removed from active patrol, with pay, until the brass investigates the shooting and makes sure he was justified. The difference between a cop and an ordinary person is that the cop is entrusted with extraordinary power, and therefore has extraordinary responsibility.

Removing a priest from active ministry if there's a credible accusation of sexual abuse, while the investigation is going on, is reasonable. Defrocking a priest and turning him out into the world without support would not be. The Church has plenty of jobs which can be done by a man who perhaps can't keep his pants zipped around children, and has the resources to support a few more priests in a few months or years of spiritual contemplation, while the heirarchy investigates to determine if the charges are in fact supportable.

[Sarahbellum]

Yes, anne, you are quite right, I misquoted. The statistics included decimals, and were probably more along the lines of 1.8 and 3.6. Unfortunately I can't find the web site where I saw the statistics, so it is probably best to ignore what I said, as I can't confirm it. I think it is true, though, that we shouldn't compare the rate among priests to the rate among the general population, since statistically, men are far more likely to be sexual abusers. (This is not my opinion, this is a readily verifiable fact, BTW.)

[Dave Mueller]

Nancy,
You stated: "To get more personal, this Scandal? Filth? Horror? has called many of the substantive teachings of the Church into question in my own mind. For if the bishops, the cardinals, and even the Pope, do not care about raped children, how credible are they on any other issue?"

If you are following the bishops, cardinals, or the Pope because they are good men, you may as well leave the Church now. There is no particular reason you should listen to old celibate men anyway, *UNLESS* Christ promised that He would speak His will through them.

This is, in simplified terms, the teaching of the Church. The Magisterium is protected from teaching error. You can reference Matthew 16:17-19 and many other passages to see this, as well as the early Church Fathers...Clement, Ignatius, etc.

One of the greatest proofs of the Divine origin and protection of the Catholic Church is that She has survived 2000 years despite the Bishops! I am not kidding.

[Sarahbellum]

What is really difficult is that two things are true though they appear to be mutually exclusive:
1. Some priests did the unthinkable and molested children.
2. The American press loves to create scandals and will make anything to do with the Catholic Church into a circus.

It is incredibly hard to tell which, if any, of the accusations against priests are false, and thus ruining innocent priests' lives. It is incredibly hard to know what could possibly help the victims of clergy abuse see past the violence done to their souls and return to this flawed Church. It is incredibly hard to know what to do to weed out potential abusers from the seminary.

One thing I would venture to say--I don't for one second believe that this is a phenomenon created by Vatican II or that it is only "liberal" priests who are abusers, as has been suggested in some places. Back before Vatican II had taken effect, I was the recipient of some inappropriate attentions from a very conservative priest. I was lucky in that my parents were very observant and very willing to make sure I had no contact with this priest again, before it moved to actual molestation. But the sense of utter revulsion and betrayal is something I will never forget. No doubt there is more reported clergy abuse now, but there is more sexual abuse in general reported now--the taboos against reporting it have largely disappeared.

[Eileen R]

Rod Dreher:
Henceforth, shall we cease to call it "the Scandal," and instead, following the papal lead, call it "the Filth"?

Hear! Hear!

[Nancy]

I've wondered...of course no one can know. (Sarahbellum, unless you can quote studies from peer-reviewed journals, I don't think your figures deserve much notice. People make these numbers up out of their heads, so far as I can tell.)

But....abused boys tend to become abuser men. We have anecdotal evidence of sexual abuse within monastic life and the priesthood going back at least to the 300's.

Just how long has this been going on? I feel reasonably certain that Vatican II has nothing to do with it. Ditto the American press. The latter just brought it to light; they didn't create it.

______________

As for my difficulties with some of the teachings of the Church, on account of the behavior of her representatives...well, what do you expect? Isn't that what Jesus said, when he talked about trees and fruits? I'm supposed to take these guys on their bare assertion, regardless of their behavior? That's kind of hard to find in the gospels. (I would point out that people who assert that they speak for God, or that God speaks through them, are never in short supply.) "Men will know that you are my followers because of the way you love each other."

I really do not think Jesus meant "because of the way you cover up for each other." He probably would include caring for "the least of these."

I'm glad it's easy for most of you to ignore this factor. I'm having quite a bit of personal, and quite painful, trouble with it.

[Eileen R]

Nancy:
As for my difficulties with some of the teachings of the Church, on account of the behavior of her representatives...well, what do you expect? Isn't that what Jesus said, when he talked about trees and fruits? I'm supposed to take these guys on their bare assertion, regardless of their behavior? That's kind of hard to find in the gospels.

Nancy, the reason I find this easy is that I believe deeply in Christ's assertion, "And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

So when *those guys* teach something, I don't see it as them. I see it as God sending *me* a message. The Pope could be a horrible criminal whom I'd demand be sent to jail, but I believe that God won't *let* him destroy the teaching of the Church.

[maura]

I struggle with understanding why God would allow the Church to err through murder, torture, rape, yet not allow it to err in its teaching. Surely the Word and the Truth matter a great deal, but so surely do the hairs on our heads and the fall of the sparrow. A man has free will, and hence the ability to err, or a man does not. And the sins of the Church impede Christians from knowing its truth as surely as the erroneous teachings themselves do.

I see a very good functional use for the doctrine of infallibility: it is, as they say in law school, one of stare decisis so that one avoids letting the "tyranny of the present" separate oneself from the eternal truths that have always been and always been there and that have come down from the days of St. Peter. But seeing the use in a belief isn't the same thing as believing it, and it doesn't prove things to the same degree in a particular instance.

I suppose it's better than nothing.

I am sure I would be a much better Catholic if I could believe it, but being told I am a bad Catholic for not believing it does not seem to help.

Are there writers who used to be heretics and recovered, but do not see their doubts as evil in themselves?

[Sarahbellum]

Maura, I have come to understand that wanting to believe something is good enough. I used to think that I had to "feel" like I believed something. Now I have noticed that it doesn't matter how I feel.

And as somebody else on this thread (I think) said, we're all bad Catholics. Anybody who tells you you're bad and they're good belongs at www.Pharisee.com.

[Sarahbellum]

Forgot to mention: Doubts seem to be the lot of every Catholic. St. Therese was tortured by them, and so was John of the Cross. Somebody told me recently: "Doubt your doubts." If you can't pray, she said, just sit in a chair and let God love you. Best advice I've had in a long time.

[maura]

gracias.

You remind me of my grandma, who passed away a year ago. (Not an age thing, a wiser and more patient than me thing. She's the reason I can't feel right about leaving the Church as much I get tempted--how can the faith that sustained her & made her what she was NOT be true.

Though, even she is dangerously rebellious by some standards; she used to sneak inclusive language into the readings.)

[Joseph D'HIppolito]

Kevin, I see you're up to your old tricks again.

As Nancy accurately points out, the sex-abuse crisis was a worldwide phenomenon. As such, the late Pope had a pastoral and moral responsibility to confront it head-on, rather than issue fancy rhetoric.

You want an example? In the summer of 2002, JPII travelled to Toronto for World Youth Day. While he was in Toronto, several Canadian victims of abuse asked to see him. They were refused.

JPII wasn't too far from Boston, where it was his pastoral responsibility to comfort the afflicted, reprimand the malfeasant and reassure the faithful. Instead, he stuck to his precious itinerary and travelled to Guatemala, where he announced the canonization of two more saints.

This isn't speculation, Kevin. This is fact.

Face it, Kevin, Your hero has feet of rather mucky clay. Deal with it.

[maura]

BTW, this is by way of explanation more than anything, I think it is time to let it go--I can donate to young Bob Casey in good conscience and that will be that. But, when I say bitter things about Senator Santorum on other threads, it has less to do with the famous remarks about gay people--though I do not like those one little bit either--than it does with these remarks:

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

When I read things like that, I get this desperate sense that the Church is trapped in the first scene of King Lear.

[Steve Cavanaugh]

When Nancy turns to Jesus's words about knowing a tree by its fruit, I think she has the right, Catholic instinct. If we are to know how to navigate the difficulties of this life, we need to rely on the Word of God.

However, an important Tradition of the Church is that the Word of God in the Scripture is a whole. We can't pick off verses and apply them as if they stand alone, apart from the other rest of the verses. As a parent, I've had to address this issue with my three teens often, not just regarding the sexual abuse of children, but other abuses by clergy and Christian leaders.

Another verse to keep in mind, in that spirit, is Christ's admonition to the people about the Pharisees and Scribes:

Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. (Matt 23:1-4)

[Tan]

A "fabricated crisis?"

Sure, in Alice in Wonderlandville.

Check this site DAILY and see if this is just a fabrication...

http://www.ncrnews.org/abuse/

[Nancy]

OK, Steve, but your argument is circular. If the hierarchs "sit on Moses' seat" (ie, have divine authority) then we must do as they say, regardless of their own behavior.

But that's the question under dispute. Do they sit on Moses' seat? Or are they just another set of frauds who claim divine authority (of which there has never been a shortage)? That's where trees and fruits come in - at the initial discernment.

It's not cut and dried. After all, however vile their recent behavior, we owe it to this institution that we even have the Bible. On and on. This isn't an easy question, but it's one I and a lot of people are asking.