mister victor lams asks "Has it become the case that (with apologies to Pope Pius XI) one cannot at the same time be a sincere Catholic and write for the National Review?"

While NR is (a) a publication that occasionally addresses religion from a more or less political standpoint rather than a religious publication and (b) pretty far off to the left politically*, it's still a much better place for a Catholic to work in good conscience than (1) most hospitals in the US, (2) many OB/GYN practices, (3) a large number of medical supply companies, (4) film and television production companies that promote immoral "lifestyles", (5) businesses that surreptitiously profit from pornography while attempting to publicly distance themselves from it (a la AOL or GM), (6) most public schools, et cetera.

The world today is much like that of the apostles in that society is not amenable to the Christian message. Just as St. Paul had to admonish the nascent Church regarding food offered to idols, today we have to examine what our occupation says about us and how seriously we take our faith. At least NR recognizes that there are people in this society who take the Christian religion seriously and those people aren't nut cases. Compared to most of contemporary media, that's a major step in the right direction. Assailing NR for not being sufficiently deferential to the prudential judgments of the Holy Father seems to be holding NR to an inappropriate standard and the equivalent of throwing the book at a jaywalker while ignoring the nearby street gang.

It should also be remembered that Mr. Dreher has spoken with numerous families that have experienced clergy sexual abuse. He's also spoken with numerous ecclesiastics who seemed more concerned with avoiding bad publicity than with either helping the victims of abuse or preventing future abuse. If I were in his shoes, I couldn't be dispassionate. Also remember that this isn't exactly news. There was a similar, albeit smaller, outbreak of information about clergy sexual abuse in the mid 1980s. Simply put, those in authority have failed to adequately address a problem of incredible magnitude. That's a breeding ground for righteous anger. That's not to say I agree with everything Mr. Dreher has said regarding the pope's handling of the situation, but it does give context that makes it comprehensible.

As to the war, it is the Church's responsibility to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves in this regard. As I've mentioned before, it seems to me that the Church is viewing the coming war with many preconceptions that are no longer accurate, particularly regarding the likelihood of civilian casualties brought about by this war as opposed to the certainty of civilian casualties that would result from the continuance of the Baathist regime. Still, it would be unseemly for the Church to advocate war against Iraq given the context of the past fifty years. If war against Iraq is justified, than is not war against Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah?

*Yes, I meant that NR is quite politically liberal. I speak regarding social issues (for instance NR gives the promotion of homosexuality little more than a wink and a nod) and taking the longer view on other issues (such as the implicit approval of income taxes, subsidies to businesses and the like).