A recent occurrence in my own diocese serves as an example. Allegations of moral lapses on the part of a brother priest were circulated by interlinked blogs, magnifying the actual facts of the case being investigated, and layering on multiple rumors that featured a colorful variety of imagined illicit behaviors—all before anything was proven. While a ministry was seriously (perhaps fatally) compromised, no allowance was given for the political conflicts existing within the parish or the motives of those who spread the stories. What were little more than assumptions took on a life of their own when a chain of bloggers spread them within minutes throughout the diocese and well beyond.

Bloggers of such a mindset ignore a basic precept of morality: evil means may never be employed to achieve a good end (perhaps their skewed thinking can be compared to that of people who believe it's moral to kill abortion doctors in order to end the horror of abortion).

The Rev. Michael Orsi of Camden, New Jersey, in 2003 offered a defense of old-fashioned clericalism. He saw no reason that criminal priests should be subject to the state, invoking Thomas a Becket's quarrel with Henry II: 'There are numerous stories in every chancery office of recalcitrant clergy who have been released to their bishop by the police or district attorney with confidence that the problem would be handled for the benefit and satisfaction of all involved.' He admitted that bishops "became negligent" but maintained that this procedure "helped maintain the integrity of the Church" and "protected the good name of the clergy in general." Orsi claimed that "it has always been accepted that certain crimes should be addressed internally by the Church," and that efforts at reformation "with suspension and laicization as final penalties satisfied everyone."

Orsi forthrightly defended "clerical privilege" because the "clergy represents, at least theoretically, the best and most virtuous members of a community." By turning over accusations of child molestation to the state, "the bishops have encouraged the state to further degrade society by diminishing its regard for religion since the Church is often identified by its clergy" [emphasis by Podles]. Orsi disagreed with exemptions from the statute of limitations (although such statues often serve to protect criminals who victimize children) and condemned Megan's Law (upheld by the Supreme Court). Orsi thought that bishops should have refused to hand over the names of accused priests and risked jail.

Orsi's conception of the clerical status has little to do with the New Testament priesthood; it is instead a last relic of the Ancien Regime, in which members of society had unequal status before the law. Such inequality is always irritating, and is often used to protect privileged malefactors - and Orsi resents the loss of privilege. The atmosphere of clericalism is not good even for a sincere man. Power, privilege, and secrecy are not good for the soul, and neither is unearned deference.

It is a rambling essay of more than five hundred pages on a potpourri of items picked up from the public media and the blogosphere, including, along with the kitchen sink, stomach-turning details of abuse, mainly with boys, and a scathing, if familiar, indictment from a conservative perspective of liberal depredations that brought things to this sorry pass. Regrettably, the tone is shrill, and even righteous anger does not justify the author's suspension of caution and charity in attributing motives.

I am afraid that Fr. Neuhaus, a man I find genuinely likeable and for whom I have the highest regard, has not done himself proud with this little screed. Particularly irritating is failure to mention that the major source of Podles' information on clerical malefactors was court recordshardly the kind of sources he wishes his readers to believe were used.

The laity have also bought into the poisonous clericalism that infects the Church. The "traditional" laity have participated in the corporate narcissism of Catholicism. They, like the bishops who protected abusers and neglected victims, embody what George Orwell called "nationalism," which he defined as "the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good or evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests." The nationalist is hypersensitive: "the smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organization, fills him with uneasiness which he can only relieve by making some sharp retort." The reaction of bishops and much of the Catholic laity to criticism has been to point to the faults of other organizations rather than to admit to and repent of their own faults. This religious nationalism or political Catholicism is one of the major roots of clericalism.