"One of the goals of religions is to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears."
-Albert EinsteinFor the religious, it is not often that religion and perceived morality collide. Finding itself treading murky waters in what is perhaps the biggest scandal ever faced by the Roman Catholic Church, this most powerful religious institution has, for the present, resorted to a policy of damage control.

Fading the lines between pastors and politicians, it has become clear that the Catholic Church has found itself in unfamiliar territory. Select dioceses around the country have sought out public relations firms to help word speeches and briefings. Meetings with the press are full of carefully assessed statements, presented in the classically defensive passive voice. As the accusations have affected churches in all but four states, the papacy is trying desperately to reduce the damage done to its reputation.

Last Wednesday, American cardinals wrote, in a letter to priests around the country "that episcopal oversight has not been able to preserve the Church from this scandal." It seems from statements such as these that the Church is forgetting about the most important people involved in this ordeal, and the ones who are not here by choice: The victims.

At the center of these scandals is the assessment by the papacy of whether or not to enact a "one strike" policy for priests who engage in sexually abusive activities. For many, this issue seems crystal clear. Any priest who engages in sexually abusive behavior should be permanently extracted from the Church. To be sure, the Western outlook on pedophilia is certainly as a harsh moral transgression, punishable by immediate isolation from society. Opinions from within the priesthood, however, have greatly varied on the necessary consequences for these actions.

At the root of the church's internal variance of opinion is the canon itself. First codified in 1917, "The Code of Canon Law" sets the policies for Catholic bishops as they run dioceses, and for superiors of religious orders. Experts on this canon law have generally agreed that it views sexual activity with adult woman as worse than molestation of minors. The code's canon 1395:2 explains that sex between priests and minors is an "ecclesiastical" crime. Yet, the commentary clarifies that an initial charge of molesting "is not viewed as seriously" as "concubinage" (cohabiting with a woman) or "attempted marriage" (a priest's civil marriage, which the church does not recognize).
When asked his opinion on the matter, Cardinal George who said "A little more wiggle room enables you to be more just." Should, then, members of other powerful institutions be exempt from accountability for morally reprehensible actions? Can teachers in public schools enact a three-strike policy in dealing with student molestation?

In his first address since returning from the Vatican summit, the centrally controversial Cardinal Bernard Law stated that nothing would be determined on the volatile issue of "policy" until the bishops' conference in June. At this conference in Dallas, the Catholic clergy of America will try desperately to pick up some of the pieces of what seems to be a shattered church.
At the beginning of mass at Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Law told parishioners "We will do what we can in June." But, in the name of every child who has been molested by their "fathers" in the past millennia, I would have him say "They will do what they can in June."

--Yoni Goodman '05 submits a column to the Justice