THE DANGER TO THE CHURCH

THE DANGER TO THE CHURCH
Chicago Tribune: Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is worried about vulnerable individuals who are being exploited for the selfish purposes of others. Last week, he warned that "even among the baptized, there are those at extremes within the church who have chosen to exploit the vulnerability of the bishops in this moment to advance their own agendas."
That's right: Bishop Gregory is anxious about the vulnerability of the bishops. He says the controversy over sexual abuse by clerics has emboldened people inside and outside the church who want to make drastic changes that are at odds with Catholic teaching. He detects "the call of the false prophet, 'Let us strike the shepherd and scatter the flock."'
It's true that when scandal envelops the church, its critics, within and without, stand to gain. But Bishop Gregory ought to place the blame for that opportunity where it belongs: on the priests who used children for sexual gratification, and on the bishops who not only protected many of those priests but granted them more opportunities for molestation.
If the flock is scattering, it's because many members no longer trust the shepherd. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, and it is fully entitled not to be. But it can hardly afford to ignore the feelings of millions of the faithful who believe they have been betrayed -- and who can respond by staying away from mass, by withholding donations, or by abandoning the church entirely.
In June, to their credit, the American bishops proposed tough new rules requiring each diocese to report allegations of abuse of a minor to law enforcement authorities. They also approved a "zero tolerance" rule, mandating removal of priests found to have ever molested children. But they declined to adopt a tough policy that would hold bishops accountable for concealing or facilitating the crimes of their subordinates.
Vatican's position
Rome, too, is reluctant to do everything necessary to protect the innocent and punish all of the guilty. The Vatican evidently rejected notifying civil authorities of all accusations, so the compromise version of the new policy says that the bishops "will comply with all applicable civil laws," which in many states don't require such reporting.
Actions like these undermine the church's standing, not only with Catholics but with society at large. One of the serious issues where the church has traditionally exercised leadership is war and peace. But when the bishops convened a debate last week on whether an invasion of Iraq would qualify as a "just war" according to Catholic moral teachings, the presiding officer was Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston -- who has become infamous for quietly transferring and even promoting priests who were known pedophiles.
For its pronouncements on "just war" to have any force, the church needs its moral authority in secular as well as religious realms. But thanks to Law and others, it has lost much of that authority in this scandal. If people don't trust the church to enforce its own moral standards on the clergy and the hierarchy alike, why would they heed its advice on national security?
By its tardy, inadequate and often grudging response to a pattern of crimes, the church is endangering important parts of its mission in the world. If it fails to avert that threat, it is not only the church that will lose, but the world as well.
CONGRESS OWES FEDERAL JUDGES FAIR RAISE
Detroit Free Press: In what is either an oversight or an insult, Congress has excluded federal judges from a 3.1 percent cost-of-living pay raise due Jan. 1 for other federal employees, including members of the House and Senate. This wrong ought to be righted before the lame-duck session limps to a close.
Congress saw to its own last week when the Senate voted to accept a raise that will take annual congressional salaries up by $4,700 to $154,700 in 2003. The House gave its assent back in July. But neither chamber took a specific step required under a 1981 law to extend the COLA to federal judges.
Congress has failed to heed repeated pleas from the federal court system to repeal this provision. If the judicial salaries remain unchanged, the new year will mark the first time in modern history that U.S. District Court judges, who are paid $150,000 a year, earn less than members of Congress.
Top-caliber talent
Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist warned earlier this year that the federal judiciary was having a harder time attracting top-caliber talent, partly because of its politically tortuous confirmation process, but also because of the relatively low pay compared to practicing law. Federal judges are appointed and salaried for life, but their outside sources of income are extremely limited, and their jobs do not provide survivors' benefits. The jobs do, however, come with enormous potential power, which is why they must be filled with top-flight legal minds who are insulated from politics.
The present system of compensating the judges fails on both counts. The salaries should be set by an independent commission, and COLA for judges should be awarded on the same basis it is for other federal employees. But that's a long-term solution. To fix the immediate problem, Congress has to take a much simpler step -- now.