The best kind of article: intrigue, disgust, scandal, but still some hope.
I am tired of the constant embarrassment at Vatican misteps, and even more perplexed that the many good steps towards addressing the many abuses seems to be constantly undermined. It is weirdly at a point that as long as the abuse was of adults it is somewhat acceptable. I hate it, I detest it, and it leads me often to despair which I had only just started to recover from.
It is unfortunate that still the Church suffers from secret backroom dealing, we have never seemed to be able to let in the light. I suppose such is the way with any seat of power.
I sit on the edge of my seat, waiting for what surely will soon be a new pope. But most of all I wait for the day that the stain of what the predominantly Western boomer priests/laity have done to the beauty of the Church (as that generation has done elsewhere in the wider culture of things) will be repaired.
This papacy began with promises of mercy toward the laity and strict justice and accountability for clerical abusers. It has delivered the precise opposite. Meanwhile pouring forth an ongoing flood of boomeresque NGO-level babble. “Stain” is the right word. A huge, clown-shaped stain.
My hope has long been that the Spirit will work through those cardinals chosen “from the margins” Damian refers to. They are far more likely to be led by the Spirit than our dismal American or European hippy sociologist cardinals.
A superbly thorough, wide-ranging yet depressing essay. This pontificate will go down as one of the worst since the 10th century nadir of the church. Even Borgia was less destructive than this petty, arrogant nonce-defending pope.
John Murray
12 days ago
“encouraged young women to engage in sexual threesomes that . . . would illustrate the workings of the Holy Trinity”
I’d swear that was a Ken Russell movie with Oliver Reed as the priest.
‘The new pope must be a holy man who relies on lieutenants who have no dirt on him and on whom he has no dirt — and it’s a shocking fact that this would represent a departure from recent precedent. The pope must be above reproach. That is far more important than whether he’s “liberal” or “conservative”.’
Good luck with that! (Cynical I know, but I do hope your faith is not misplaced, and stability and sanity will resume. If only because I never wish to see an elderly woman masterbating at the doors of the Roman pantheon ever again).
Billy Bob
12 days ago
People still donate money to this cabal of nonces and abusers? It baffles me
I’ve always thought that the RC Church is no different from any other multinational; it’s all about self-preservation at any cost; but if this article is correct, it is evidently far, far worse in the church than you could imagine anywhere else.
Yes, and as Hilaire Belloc once observed, given its history of corruption occasionally illuminated by sanctity, the Catholic Church has surely been protected by the Holy Spirit from dying a thousand times.
Seeing as the developing world tends to be more corrupt than the developed one, I’d wager it probably applies to more of them than in richer countries as their position in poorer ones would be much more powerful and influential, with much less chance of reproach
There is direct persecution – from Islamists, corrupt politicians – in the developing world – so being a cardinal or bishop isn’t as cushy as it is in the West.
Hence the general level of sincerity, even holiness, is higher.
btw What makes you think that corruption is worse in the developing world than it is in the West ?
Here in the West, corruption is merely more discreet. The West’s public service ethos is now in ruins, alas.
Yeah, that kiss by Judas really got it off to a good start. Oh wait…
Arkadian Arkadian
12 days ago
It has been a while since I last saw an article penned by Damian on his favourite topic, and now comes a TWENTY minute exposé.
I ask people with more strength than me, is it worth a read or is it his usual anti-Francis rant? (Note, I am not a fan of Francis’s, but Damian’s output has become somewhat predictable)
You’ll be sorry. Damian’s usual stuff, but ever more hysterical. The Catholic Church is always interesting to we alumni, but could we please have the topic covered by a more disinterested writer? Damian should be sent off to watch some Fellini films, for historical background.
It is difficult to be disinterested about this papacy. For me, the Bishop of Trondheim, Erik Varden, is a candidate for the future. I hope he will eventually be made a cardinal: he is brilliant, a linguist, a superb writer – and amazingly enough, actively concerned with the idea of holiness.
Occurred to me on reading this article, it’s possible the College of Cardinals might look outside rather than within (though you have to go back centuries for the last instant). If that’s the case, they could well go to Trondheim.
BTW, I have been following the whole Rupnik saga with disgust for the past few years. I don’t have enough evidence to convict Francis, but it is clear he is being protected by someone very senior.
Was this even though he obtained an agreement with the Lutherans on Justification by Faith. No previous pope had done so much. His annual seminar on scripture was full of Lutheran scholars.
Jos Haynes
12 days ago
So this is what Christianity is all about? I am constantly amazed that apparently intelligent people support the established institutions. If you do believe in God, why not just worship in your own home and live according to your beliefs? The institutions are more awful even than elected governments.
No. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and sharing His message of peace and love. Whatever this is isn’t Christianity. The Vatican has always been a cesspool of filth and corruption, which is why Martin Luther penned his 95 theses. The only decent pope in my lifetime was John Paul II.
But I think you’re right about worshipping outside of these untrustworthy institutions. Many no longer serve their original purposes, and some actively undermine societies they are meant to uphold. The Congregational Church of my childhood, with its remarkable choir and inspiring sermons delivered by brilliant ministers, now tries congregants patience with whiny harangues about climate change and social issues. Our church was so large, the average Sunday required five services. Now, even on Easter, the meeting house isn’t full for one.
It seems the Southern Baptists are going strong, though. I think that’s because they never lost sight of what their job was and continues to be: reaching out and bringing others to the beauty and love of Christ.
As with other comments below the votes surpise me…are there really loads of left footers reading Unherd? I’d always assumed if there were a sectarian bias its more Billy than Tim? Maybe its because the article is about papism?
Because if you’re a Christian, you believe that Christ founded a Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail, that He gave specific commissions to the apostles and their successors, and Peter chief among these. That He instituted Sacraments including the Eucharist, for which you have to be in a specific place. Fundamental to Christianity is that it is an incarnate faith, which means customs, times, and yes, places and institutions matter. Unfortunately that means we have to put up with quite a lot, but such is life, and such is human nature – if anything it helps us to understand the doctrine of original sin.
Hillaire Belloc famously wrote: “ The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine — but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”
Peter B
12 days ago
And yet they still pretend that these Popes are infallible ! Yes, someone will pop up and say “that’s only about doctrine”. But if someone’s judgement and conduct are so awful in general, why would they be any better for some doctrinal subset ?
The author is surely wrong to suggest that simply picking a better candidate would eliminate the problems. Something about the structure and secrecy of the organisation means that these sort of experiences are not unusual and will recur.
“Ecrasez l’infame” as Voltaire wrote.
Ya know, there is a reason why the Book of Acts quotes Peter as saying on Pentecost “We can’t be drunk because it’s only nine o’clock in the morning!”
Nicholas Coulson
12 days ago
No “santo subito” I think?
AC Harper
12 days ago
They do say that if you like sausages you shouldn’t watch them being made. Perhaps that applies to Popes too?
Jonathan Story
12 days ago
Good article. Two things about Francis:
1. He’s obviously touched by Peronismo.This is an Argentinian disease which makes strait thinking impossible.
2. The Papacy is flawed; the Protestants were right. A hyper-centralised system like that lends itself to intrigue and abuse.
And a decentralised system like Protestantism leads to chaos, anarchy and incoherence.
Marsha D
12 days ago
Another refreshing round-up of the consequential situation in Rome. The Vatican is under-covered elsewhere by critical thinkers.
Pip G
11 days ago
If 10% of the allegations in this article are true, it is shocking. For decades/ centuries the corruption in the Curia has been known, but no-one ends it. Now we have been drawn into the ‘Gay rights’ arguments: knowing the grief it causes the Anglican Church, and for no conceivable advantage. It is proof of God’s benevolence that so many Christians remain in the Church despite its failings.
The next Pope must bring change. Jesus took on the Sanhedrin, and we need similar clarity of purpose. A clear statement that everyone found guilty of sexual abuse or fraud will automatically be removed from office back to the laity would be a good start. Cardinals and Bishops who dare to speak out the tenets of scripture and tradition would be wonderful.
For years I have read the daily Bible commentaries by Cardinal William Goh of Singapore. He is orthodox but kind in his application.
As a female Anglican priest I venture to suggest thar the Catholic church might be less corrupt and secret at the Centre if you ordained women. Might not work, power seems to corrupt most of us.. Following our Lord faithfully might also be a help, for all of us, we all despair of our hierarchies, the local and the lowly are the best companions on the journey.
Thanks, Alison. I am neutral on women priests I.e. I do not know. I believe it has led to splits in the worldwide Anglican communion, not that this means it is wrong. I hope more women in the RC will take positions of influence.
However, women priests do not (at least directly) address the far more important issues: sex crimes and the failure to implement the main issue – to explain Christianity and ‘preach Christ crucified’. Whatever you may think of him, Joseph Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI was a remarkable theologian who did this: his writings are remarkably clear and reasoned.
On a slightly more serious note, I have always though that if Jesus came back to Earth now, and looked at the Church created in his name, he’d say “You idiots, you misunderstood everything I said”.
UnHerd Reader
11 days ago
Didn’t Peter say… “Upon this rock I shall build my church”? Or something like that. I was raised Catholic and always wondered why the priests, Bishops and Cardinals – weren’t like Jesus – poor, holy, loving, nurturing and good. Didn’t read anything about Jesus having a precious stone ring and making people kiss it. My priests always took the little boys on vacation (at the time I didn’t understand) and the nuns were basically unhappy. My parish priests retired to play golf and live a nice life, while the nuns had to work until they died. My mother tried to get me into a nunnery and I ran away.
Although this article is shocking, discouraging and unbelievable, I am not surprised. Amen
Well, you could say the same about Judaism, since Simon Peter is the Moses of the New Covenant.
But as Christianity (unlike Judaism and Islam) isn’t a political religion, there is no Power in Christianity – only Authority.
And that Authority isn’t Simon Peter’s or that of the Catholic hierarchy past or present – it is solely that of God and the message “He”* has revealed through the New Testament and its interpretation by Catholic doctrine.
You can accept that Authority or reject it. You’re entirely free – not even slightly oppressed – in the matter.
What you can’t do, is what Feminists like you desperately want to do: which is redefine Christianity in a feminist and liberal direction.
Complete with OK’s for abortion, contraception, divorce, fornication etc.
Truth is, as a modern liberal and feminist, you’re vastly over-optimistic about human nature, politics and society. The next few years are likely to cure you of that.
* “He” because God is neither male or female. Though at a symbolic level, it is right for us to refer to God as masculine.
Where do you come to the conclusion that she is a “feminists… desperately wanting to” “: which is redefine Christianity in a feminist and liberal direction.
Complete with OK’s for abortion, contraception, divorce, fornication etc.” ?
I just read criticism on some percieved difference in the RC church between a golfing retired (ie. male) priest and never retiring (ie. female) nuns.
And that as a personal choice she preferred to run away from home than to become a nun according to the wishes of her mother.
Quite a big leap in perception….
If it’s the insinuation she made about the priests and young boys, that triggers your response, I sooner expect that to be a stark comment against a specific form of “fornication” than an approval of it.
Bad as he may be, Francis doesn’t come close to cracking the top ten of the worst popes. Number One has to go to Benedict IX (1012-1056), described as a demon from hell. He was said to have murdered, raped, and sodomized victims wherever he went. He was accused of bestiality and of hosting orgies. Due to this, um, lifestyle, he was forced out and a new pope elected. But Benedict lived for two comebacks before he was done. Stephen VI (d. 897) is best known for putting his dead predecessor on trial. This was not a symbolic trial; the body was dug up and brought before the court. The deceased Pope Formosus, unable to speak for himself, was represented by a deacon and found guilty of accepting the papacy while also holding the office of bishop. The corpse was stripped of its vestments, dressed as a pauper, and thrown into a shallow grave, but not before three of his fingers were cut off. This did not seem enough of a punishment upon reflection, so the corpse was dug up again and thrown into the Tiber. The so-called Cadaver Synod of 897 led directly to the demise of Stephen VI. He was stripped of his title and strangled to death a year later. If Francis is to gain notoriety equal to his Dark Age predecessors, he is must shake a leg.
I’m not so sure. I venture to say that on Judgment Day a pope’s personal sins, as egregious as they might be, will be dismissed as peccadilloes against his doctrinal error and equivocation and the scandal caused thereby across Christendom.
Tim Quinlan
11 days ago
I don’t get this article: Agony Aunt column?; Daily Mail gossip-style article? (DM, by the way, communicates the message in far fewer words); the real-politik of the Catholic church? It certainly affirms my stance that there is no need for a priest/church to stand between me and God. So the Catholic church is an international Corporation -and embodies all the sins and travails of such entities. Does this matter for those who have faith?
Jeff Cunningham
11 days ago
What was that book? The Bad Popes, I believe? By Chamberlin – back in the seventies. Maybe he was inspired reading that.
This is the second time I have come across ‘strait thinking’ in the comments of unherd. Is this an aberration or is ‘straight thinking’ non-grata these days.
Arkadian Arkadian
11 days ago
My previous comment has been pulled? WTF UnHerd, I just made a comment about Thomson’s fixation on Francis. [Edit: it has now reappeared]
Anyway, I have now read the article, but I had to skip a few passages as the vitriol coming out of screen was about to hit me in the face.
Anyway, for Vatican commentary I would recommend readers to peruse the Pillar, at least it is less… vitriolic.
It is not the inaccuracies, but the vitriolic style which I find grating. He pretty much churns out always the same article.
As I said, I recommend The Pillar.
It is not so much the inaccuracies, but the sheer vitriol that exudes. That is why I prefer the pillar. Let’s face it, his output has become quite predictable.
UnHerd should ask someone with a different opinion to write a piece.
The current pope’s actions and beliefs deserve the vitriol..
Martin M
11 days ago
“As a result, even devout Catholics don’t know that the first Jesuit pope has tried to shield several repulsive sex abusers from justice, for reasons never satisfactorily explained“.
The Catholic Church has spent huge amounts of time and energy for (at the very least) hundreds of years shielding repulsive sex abusers from justice. Why would anyone think they would stop now?
Pedophilia may have not been illegal then, but it certainly wasn’t morally proper or ethical. I would think you would expect a little more from your priests.
Why single out the Catholic Church? Because not only are large numbers of their clergy rampant sex abusers (which would be bad enough), but they are smug hypocrites as well, preaching a moral code that their clergy wilfully and wantonly ignore.
You should take a quick peek into the American public school system. Around 350 educators were arrested and charged with sex crimes in 2022. The district we fled had 7 such instances in the past 8 years.
They are only hypocrites if they are complicit in that sex abuse (eg by covering it up).
The vast majority of priests are innocent both of sexual abuse and complicity in it.
But the media ignore that !
In any case, your comment is irrelevant – the job of the clergy is to preach (among other things) the moral code they believe God has entrusted to the Church.
If people don’t obey that code, the worse for them – not for the moral code.
And that moral code is as strait-laced about money and power as it is about sex.
I would say that for every priest that has committed sexual abuse, there are three that have assisted in covering it up, and six who have turned a blind eye to it.
JR Hartley
11 days ago
It would help if the senior cleracy of both Catholic and Anglican Churches were actually Christian. It is plain that neither the Pope or the current Archbishop believe a word.
We should pray for all those who write about church politics.
Alan Hawkes
10 days ago
Look on the bright side: they make the British Government look acceptable.
UnHerd Reader
10 days ago
Sounds ghastly
Wayne Kitcat
10 days ago
The St Galen Mafia wanted someone corruptible , and who would carry out their agenda, then Latin America was the place to go, not a region noted for honesty amongst its leading lights!!. ( I say this having worked in Latin America for 12 years ). One point from an excellent synopsis , which Damian omitted – ” Why is it that Bergolio has never returned to Argentina during his papacy??” This in itself when contrasted with JP II’s rapturous return to Poland in particular, is strange to say the least??
Fafa Fafa
10 days ago
Looks that not much has improved since Rousseau wrote his Confessions
Julia M
10 days ago
Great article, really interesting to get that insider overview, brilliant!
Tom D
10 days ago
“His [Francis’s] number one priority, overriding everything else, is that he should be inscrutable.”
He’s not the Antichrist, he’s the Antiyoda!
Frances Mann
9 days ago
Watch the film “Pope Francis a Man of his Word” directed by Wim Wenders (on Youtube). It tells more about Pope Francis.
Ernesto Candelabra
9 days ago
Thank you for that. ‘The Two Popes’ is also a good account on film of the contrasts between the two men, Francis and Benedict. Humane rather than journalistic.
The best kind of article: intrigue, disgust, scandal, but still some hope.
I am tired of the constant embarrassment at Vatican misteps, and even more perplexed that the many good steps towards addressing the many abuses seems to be constantly undermined. It is weirdly at a point that as long as the abuse was of adults it is somewhat acceptable. I hate it, I detest it, and it leads me often to despair which I had only just started to recover from.
It is unfortunate that still the Church suffers from secret backroom dealing, we have never seemed to be able to let in the light. I suppose such is the way with any seat of power.
I sit on the edge of my seat, waiting for what surely will soon be a new pope. But most of all I wait for the day that the stain of what the predominantly Western boomer priests/laity have done to the beauty of the Church (as that generation has done elsewhere in the wider culture of things) will be repaired.
This papacy began with promises of mercy toward the laity and strict justice and accountability for clerical abusers. It has delivered the precise opposite. Meanwhile pouring forth an ongoing flood of boomeresque NGO-level babble. “Stain” is the right word. A huge, clown-shaped stain.
My hope has long been that the Spirit will work through those cardinals chosen “from the margins” Damian refers to. They are far more likely to be led by the Spirit than our dismal American or European hippy sociologist cardinals.
Kyrie eleison.
Make the Papacy Great Again.
A superbly thorough, wide-ranging yet depressing essay. This pontificate will go down as one of the worst since the 10th century nadir of the church. Even Borgia was less destructive than this petty, arrogant nonce-defending pope.
“encouraged young women to engage in sexual threesomes that . . . would illustrate the workings of the Holy Trinity”
I’d swear that was a Ken Russell movie with Oliver Reed as the priest.
And Georgina Hale would have been one of the women.
Ah, but would you swear it on the “Holy Bible”?
There’s “God the Father” and “God the Son”, so presumably “the Holy Spirit” is female, or possibly trans.
Perhaps a member of the Catholic clergy would like to clarify; or more likely, provide the latest update from Vatican central.
The Devils?
Maybe you’re thinking of The Devils (of Loudin)?
‘The new pope must be a holy man who relies on lieutenants who have no dirt on him and on whom he has no dirt — and it’s a shocking fact that this would represent a departure from recent precedent. The pope must be above reproach. That is far more important than whether he’s “liberal” or “conservative”.’
Good luck with that! (Cynical I know, but I do hope your faith is not misplaced, and stability and sanity will resume. If only because I never wish to see an elderly woman masterbating at the doors of the Roman pantheon ever again).
People still donate money to this cabal of nonces and abusers? It baffles me
I’ve always thought that the RC Church is no different from any other multinational; it’s all about self-preservation at any cost; but if this article is correct, it is evidently far, far worse in the church than you could imagine anywhere else.
Yes, and as Hilaire Belloc once observed, given its history of corruption occasionally illuminated by sanctity, the Catholic Church has surely been protected by the Holy Spirit from dying a thousand times.
It may be a “church”, but it isn’t Christ’s church.
Far, far worse than the Parliamentary Conservative Party or Post Office management ?
But yes – a good spring cleaning of the Church is needed.
How many of the developing world cardinals and bishops does that description apply to ?
Very few, if any.
Btw the Church is more than its hierarchy . They die, the Church continues.
Seeing as the developing world tends to be more corrupt than the developed one, I’d wager it probably applies to more of them than in richer countries as their position in poorer ones would be much more powerful and influential, with much less chance of reproach
There is direct persecution – from Islamists, corrupt politicians – in the developing world – so being a cardinal or bishop isn’t as cushy as it is in the West.
Hence the general level of sincerity, even holiness, is higher.
btw What makes you think that corruption is worse in the developing world than it is in the West ?
Here in the West, corruption is merely more discreet. The West’s public service ethos is now in ruins, alas.
Yeah, that kiss by Judas really got it off to a good start. Oh wait…
It has been a while since I last saw an article penned by Damian on his favourite topic, and now comes a TWENTY minute exposé.
I ask people with more strength than me, is it worth a read or is it his usual anti-Francis rant? (Note, I am not a fan of Francis’s, but Damian’s output has become somewhat predictable)
It is most definitely worth 20 minutes of your time. It’s surprisingly optimistic about the future.
So, he is not planning is funeral just yet?
I shall try it, then.
You’ll be sorry. Damian’s usual stuff, but ever more hysterical. The Catholic Church is always interesting to we alumni, but could we please have the topic covered by a more disinterested writer? Damian should be sent off to watch some Fellini films, for historical background.
Hahahahaha
It is difficult to be disinterested about this papacy. For me, the Bishop of Trondheim, Erik Varden, is a candidate for the future. I hope he will eventually be made a cardinal: he is brilliant, a linguist, a superb writer – and amazingly enough, actively concerned with the idea of holiness.
Occurred to me on reading this article, it’s possible the College of Cardinals might look outside rather than within (though you have to go back centuries for the last instant). If that’s the case, they could well go to Trondheim.
BTW, I have been following the whole Rupnik saga with disgust for the past few years. I don’t have enough evidence to convict Francis, but it is clear he is being protected by someone very senior.
Yes. Francis cannot possibily be more mean spirited than this article
It’s OK
I’d give it a 68.5% star-rating, if that helps
Well at least Pope Francis has cured many Catholics of pope worship.
All this goes to prove that the church of Rome is a deeply flawed, human institution, led by the anti-Christ.
Vicar = in place of
Popular rhetorical questions:
“Does a bear sh!t in the woods?”
“Is water wet?”
“Is the Pope an idiot?”
His predecessor did a bit of that too!
Benedict was a great scholar and theologian and while realising the limits of his office was a humble man.
Plus, Benedict didn’t want to be Pope and tried to derail his candidacy with his eulogy at JP2’s funeral. It backfired.
When he was elected, the response from all my German relatives was “Ratzinger? You must be joking?” Mind you, they are all Lutheran.
Was this even though he obtained an agreement with the Lutherans on Justification by Faith. No previous pope had done so much. His annual seminar on scripture was full of Lutheran scholars.
So this is what Christianity is all about? I am constantly amazed that apparently intelligent people support the established institutions. If you do believe in God, why not just worship in your own home and live according to your beliefs? The institutions are more awful even than elected governments.
No. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and sharing His message of peace and love. Whatever this is isn’t Christianity. The Vatican has always been a cesspool of filth and corruption, which is why Martin Luther penned his 95 theses. The only decent pope in my lifetime was John Paul II.
But I think you’re right about worshipping outside of these untrustworthy institutions. Many no longer serve their original purposes, and some actively undermine societies they are meant to uphold. The Congregational Church of my childhood, with its remarkable choir and inspiring sermons delivered by brilliant ministers, now tries congregants patience with whiny harangues about climate change and social issues. Our church was so large, the average Sunday required five services. Now, even on Easter, the meeting house isn’t full for one.
It seems the Southern Baptists are going strong, though. I think that’s because they never lost sight of what their job was and continues to be: reaching out and bringing others to the beauty and love of Christ.
The church of Rome is nothing to do with Christianity.
As with other comments below the votes surpise me…are there really loads of left footers reading Unherd? I’d always assumed if there were a sectarian bias its more Billy than Tim? Maybe its because the article is about papism?
The early gnostic Christians tried this, they died out. It turns out that a worshipping community is better suited to survival than a lone worshipper.
And that is it in a nutshell.
There’s far more to Christianity than the RC church, or the bishop of Rome, thank the Lord.
There’s far more to Christianity than the chaos, incoherence and scandalous divisions of Protestantism, thank the Lord.
Because if you’re a Christian, you believe that Christ founded a Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail, that He gave specific commissions to the apostles and their successors, and Peter chief among these. That He instituted Sacraments including the Eucharist, for which you have to be in a specific place. Fundamental to Christianity is that it is an incarnate faith, which means customs, times, and yes, places and institutions matter. Unfortunately that means we have to put up with quite a lot, but such is life, and such is human nature – if anything it helps us to understand the doctrine of original sin.
Hillaire Belloc famously wrote: “ The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine — but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”
And yet they still pretend that these Popes are infallible ! Yes, someone will pop up and say “that’s only about doctrine”. But if someone’s judgement and conduct are so awful in general, why would they be any better for some doctrinal subset ?
The author is surely wrong to suggest that simply picking a better candidate would eliminate the problems. Something about the structure and secrecy of the organisation means that these sort of experiences are not unusual and will recur.
“Ecrasez l’infame” as Voltaire wrote.
Voltaire is dead and the Catholic Church remains alive. An interesting conundrum.
Popes are only considered infallible in a very narrow sense. You misunderstand how this term is applied.
It’s just a complete nonsense. However it’s applied. Humans are fallible.
Not when inspired by God.
Your misunderstanding is far greater. You’re being scammed, in the full glare of all.
We’re not being scammed, since we believe in the Catholic Faith – and in the Catholic Church as an ideal, not merely an institution.
You don’t understand faith, and you don’t know what your talking about.
Bland boomer conspiracist secular atheist piffle
Ya know, there is a reason why the Book of Acts quotes Peter as saying on Pentecost “We can’t be drunk because it’s only nine o’clock in the morning!”
No “santo subito” I think?
They do say that if you like sausages you shouldn’t watch them being made. Perhaps that applies to Popes too?
Good article. Two things about Francis:
1. He’s obviously touched by Peronismo.This is an Argentinian disease which makes strait thinking impossible.
2. The Papacy is flawed; the Protestants were right. A hyper-centralised system like that lends itself to intrigue and abuse.
And a decentralised system like Protestantism leads to chaos, anarchy and incoherence.
Another refreshing round-up of the consequential situation in Rome. The Vatican is under-covered elsewhere by critical thinkers.
If 10% of the allegations in this article are true, it is shocking. For decades/ centuries the corruption in the Curia has been known, but no-one ends it. Now we have been drawn into the ‘Gay rights’ arguments: knowing the grief it causes the Anglican Church, and for no conceivable advantage. It is proof of God’s benevolence that so many Christians remain in the Church despite its failings.
The next Pope must bring change. Jesus took on the Sanhedrin, and we need similar clarity of purpose. A clear statement that everyone found guilty of sexual abuse or fraud will automatically be removed from office back to the laity would be a good start. Cardinals and Bishops who dare to speak out the tenets of scripture and tradition would be wonderful.
For years I have read the daily Bible commentaries by Cardinal William Goh of Singapore. He is orthodox but kind in his application.
As a female Anglican priest I venture to suggest thar the Catholic church might be less corrupt and secret at the Centre if you ordained women. Might not work, power seems to corrupt most of us.. Following our Lord faithfully might also be a help, for all of us, we all despair of our hierarchies, the local and the lowly are the best companions on the journey.
How would ordaining women render the Catholic church “less corrupt and sec ret at the Centre”? I am intrigued …
Thanks, Alison. I am neutral on women priests I.e. I do not know. I believe it has led to splits in the worldwide Anglican communion, not that this means it is wrong. I hope more women in the RC will take positions of influence.
However, women priests do not (at least directly) address the far more important issues: sex crimes and the failure to implement the main issue – to explain Christianity and ‘preach Christ crucified’. Whatever you may think of him, Joseph Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI was a remarkable theologian who did this: his writings are remarkably clear and reasoned.
Please expand on your intriguing proposal. Would married clergy also be a step in right direction?
The Vatican. Makes the Mafia look like a law-abiding community group.
I’m sure if God were alive now, He’d be an atheist.
A logically incoherent sentence that consequently means nothing, but who cares about that when you’ve got cheap rhetoric
On a slightly more serious note, I have always though that if Jesus came back to Earth now, and looked at the Church created in his name, he’d say “You idiots, you misunderstood everything I said”.
Didn’t Peter say… “Upon this rock I shall build my church”? Or something like that. I was raised Catholic and always wondered why the priests, Bishops and Cardinals – weren’t like Jesus – poor, holy, loving, nurturing and good. Didn’t read anything about Jesus having a precious stone ring and making people kiss it. My priests always took the little boys on vacation (at the time I didn’t understand) and the nuns were basically unhappy. My parish priests retired to play golf and live a nice life, while the nuns had to work until they died. My mother tried to get me into a nunnery and I ran away.
Although this article is shocking, discouraging and unbelievable, I am not surprised. Amen
Never kissed a bishop’s ring.
“The Church” is more than the hierarchy – it’s mainly the laity, in fact.
It’s also an ideal – a Divine Mystery.
No, no it’s never been about the Laity. ALL meaningful power has always been with the Clergy from day one starting with Peter.
Well, you could say the same about Judaism, since Simon Peter is the Moses of the New Covenant.
But as Christianity (unlike Judaism and Islam) isn’t a political religion, there is no Power in Christianity – only Authority.
And that Authority isn’t Simon Peter’s or that of the Catholic hierarchy past or present – it is solely that of God and the message “He”* has revealed through the New Testament and its interpretation by Catholic doctrine.
You can accept that Authority or reject it. You’re entirely free – not even slightly oppressed – in the matter.
What you can’t do, is what Feminists like you desperately want to do: which is redefine Christianity in a feminist and liberal direction.
Complete with OK’s for abortion, contraception, divorce, fornication etc.
Truth is, as a modern liberal and feminist, you’re vastly over-optimistic about human nature, politics and society. The next few years are likely to cure you of that.
* “He” because God is neither male or female. Though at a symbolic level, it is right for us to refer to God as masculine.
Where do you come to the conclusion that she is a “feminists… desperately wanting to” “: which is redefine Christianity in a feminist and liberal direction.
Complete with OK’s for abortion, contraception, divorce, fornication etc.” ?
I just read criticism on some percieved difference in the RC church between a golfing retired (ie. male) priest and never retiring (ie. female) nuns.
And that as a personal choice she preferred to run away from home than to become a nun according to the wishes of her mother.
Quite a big leap in perception….
If it’s the insinuation she made about the priests and young boys, that triggers your response, I sooner expect that to be a stark comment against a specific form of “fornication” than an approval of it.
How many UnHerd Readers are there ?
Peter didn’t say that, Jesus did.
Bad as he may be, Francis doesn’t come close to cracking the top ten of the worst popes. Number One has to go to Benedict IX (1012-1056), described as a demon from hell. He was said to have murdered, raped, and sodomized victims wherever he went. He was accused of bestiality and of hosting orgies. Due to this, um, lifestyle, he was forced out and a new pope elected. But Benedict lived for two comebacks before he was done. Stephen VI (d. 897) is best known for putting his dead predecessor on trial. This was not a symbolic trial; the body was dug up and brought before the court. The deceased Pope Formosus, unable to speak for himself, was represented by a deacon and found guilty of accepting the papacy while also holding the office of bishop. The corpse was stripped of its vestments, dressed as a pauper, and thrown into a shallow grave, but not before three of his fingers were cut off. This did not seem enough of a punishment upon reflection, so the corpse was dug up again and thrown into the Tiber. The so-called Cadaver Synod of 897 led directly to the demise of Stephen VI. He was stripped of his title and strangled to death a year later. If Francis is to gain notoriety equal to his Dark Age predecessors, he is must shake a leg.
I know, the history of the papacy is as interesting as it is colorful. You just couldn’t make some of the stories up.
I’m not so sure. I venture to say that on Judgment Day a pope’s personal sins, as egregious as they might be, will be dismissed as peccadilloes against his doctrinal error and equivocation and the scandal caused thereby across Christendom.
I don’t get this article: Agony Aunt column?; Daily Mail gossip-style article? (DM, by the way, communicates the message in far fewer words); the real-politik of the Catholic church? It certainly affirms my stance that there is no need for a priest/church to stand between me and God. So the Catholic church is an international Corporation -and embodies all the sins and travails of such entities. Does this matter for those who have faith?
What was that book? The Bad Popes, I believe? By Chamberlin – back in the seventies. Maybe he was inspired reading that.
Excellent book!
This is the second time I have come across ‘strait thinking’ in the comments of unherd. Is this an aberration or is ‘straight thinking’ non-grata these days.
My previous comment has been pulled? WTF UnHerd, I just made a comment about Thomson’s fixation on Francis. [Edit: it has now reappeared]
Anyway, I have now read the article, but I had to skip a few passages as the vitriol coming out of screen was about to hit me in the face.
Anyway, for Vatican commentary I would recommend readers to peruse the Pillar, at least it is less… vitriolic.
It might be better for your case if you pointed out what inaccuracies you’ve detected in the article.
It is not the inaccuracies, but the vitriolic style which I find grating. He pretty much churns out always the same article.
As I said, I recommend The Pillar.
It is not so much the inaccuracies, but the sheer vitriol that exudes. That is why I prefer the pillar. Let’s face it, his output has become quite predictable.
UnHerd should ask someone with a different opinion to write a piece.
The current pope’s actions and beliefs deserve the vitriol..
“As a result, even devout Catholics don’t know that the first Jesuit pope has tried to shield several repulsive sex abusers from justice, for reasons never satisfactorily explained“.
The Catholic Church has spent huge amounts of time and energy for (at the very least) hundreds of years shielding repulsive sex abusers from justice. Why would anyone think they would stop now?
Decades, yes. Centuries,. no.
As for justice, in the UK, paedophilia was legal until about 1880.
There were many child prostitutes in Britain until then.
So why single out the Catholic Church for criticism ?
Answer: because you hate Catholic Christianity.
Pedophilia may have not been illegal then, but it certainly wasn’t morally proper or ethical. I would think you would expect a little more from your priests.
We do – and in 99% of cases, we receive it.
Why single out the Catholic Church? Because not only are large numbers of their clergy rampant sex abusers (which would be bad enough), but they are smug hypocrites as well, preaching a moral code that their clergy wilfully and wantonly ignore.
You should take a quick peek into the American public school system. Around 350 educators were arrested and charged with sex crimes in 2022. The district we fled had 7 such instances in the past 8 years.
Did the senior administrators in that District try to cover up those crimes like the Catholic Church does?
They sure do; it’s a feature.
They are only hypocrites if they are complicit in that sex abuse (eg by covering it up).
The vast majority of priests are innocent both of sexual abuse and complicity in it.
But the media ignore that !
In any case, your comment is irrelevant – the job of the clergy is to preach (among other things) the moral code they believe God has entrusted to the Church.
If people don’t obey that code, the worse for them – not for the moral code.
And that moral code is as strait-laced about money and power as it is about sex.
I would say that for every priest that has committed sexual abuse, there are three that have assisted in covering it up, and six who have turned a blind eye to it.
It would help if the senior cleracy of both Catholic and Anglican Churches were actually Christian. It is plain that neither the Pope or the current Archbishop believe a word.
It is difficult to believe all that “Son of God, died on the Cross and Rose from the Dead” stuff nowadays.
It was just as difficult to believe in Rising from the dead, two thousand years ago.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
If you trust in Jesus the Christ, you trust that He is God as well as human – and therefore did Rise from the dead.
Yeah, I get it. I just don’t trust in Jesus the Christ. I’m not saying he was a bad bloke, mind you. I just can’t do all that “Christian” stuff.
Based on all the information here, I hope the new Pope will be You
Me ?
You!
We should pray for all those who write about church politics.
Look on the bright side: they make the British Government look acceptable.
Sounds ghastly
The St Galen Mafia wanted someone corruptible , and who would carry out their agenda, then Latin America was the place to go, not a region noted for honesty amongst its leading lights!!. ( I say this having worked in Latin America for 12 years ). One point from an excellent synopsis , which Damian omitted – ” Why is it that Bergolio has never returned to Argentina during his papacy??” This in itself when contrasted with JP II’s rapturous return to Poland in particular, is strange to say the least??
Looks that not much has improved since Rousseau wrote his Confessions
Great article, really interesting to get that insider overview, brilliant!
“His [Francis’s] number one priority, overriding everything else, is that he should be inscrutable.”
He’s not the Antichrist, he’s the Antiyoda!
Watch the film “Pope Francis a Man of his Word” directed by Wim Wenders (on Youtube). It tells more about Pope Francis.
Thank you for that. ‘The Two Popes’ is also a good account on film of the contrasts between the two men, Francis and Benedict. Humane rather than journalistic.
So Father Ted was really a documentary …
Hmmm