The following was added to the comments box at Mark Shea's Blog:
Certainly, there can be no defense of Law's leadership of the Archdiocese of Boston. And this is not a defense.
But while we're busy pointing out the beam in Law's eye, we should also acknowledge the log in our own eyes. That is, I argue that the culture is an influence in the (continued) formation of our leaders.
I am no great leader of men. Of my years as a petty officer in the Navy, I wish I could brag about a spotless performance. The truth is, in those things where I felt strongly about the right and the wrong, I held my ground; and where I was more morally ambiguous, sometimes I did not. I did not enjoy the pressures of my shipmates when I did the right yet unpopular thing, and I did not enjoy my conscience when I did not.
Not that anyone should care about the petty issues that I was responsible for, but I thought I would need a preface for the controversial statement I'm about to make. I empathize with Cardinal Law. There but for the grace of God go I.
The point that the decadence of Britney Spears did not influence the decision making of the cardinals is silly one. Of course her shaking money maker did not create the atmosphere where the cardinals could act as weather vanes. The point is not whether Britney Spears is symbol of a decadent culture, but whether a culture is capable of identifying right or wrong. A culture, which highly values tolerance, and which pooh-poohs any comments that suggest Spears' shaking money maker is harmful (however slightly) to our culture, is one that creates leaders who are Sergeant Shultz clones. No, the tocsin is not Britney Spears' money maker, but Alison Hornstein's ability to identify evil (see Michael Kelly).
I am a crunchy conservative, but not in the sense of Rod Dreher's crunchiness. I am crunchy in the way that his mate, John Derbyshire, describes (by way of Nico Colchester -- see Crunchy or Soggy).
For example, I can't see the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile. I've tried, but I can't see my way to it. I'm sure I'm going to get stamped by some as a hateful intolerant bastard. So be it. I've been lectured enough on the need to be tolerant. I've never had to make the decision of friendship with a homosexual, but since the issue is a dominant one in our culture, I've pondered the hypothetical. And since I was already with a hypothetical, I've also asked myself if I could be friends with a pedophile. I know what Political Correctness demands for answers, but I doubt that Orthodoxy gives the same answers.
Before the scandal, such was my pessimism, I was convinced that the Boyscouts would eventually have homosexual scoutmasters. We are still in a soggy society, even though for the moment it is unlikely that scoutmasters will be able to openly declare their homosexuality. In so far as the question of sexually deviant priests, I admire those who see the wide chasm between pedophiles and homosexuals, for I only see a thin blurry line. Yes, I understand the words "consenting" and "adult", yet the scandal seems to confirm my view of things.
How does a crunchy person survive in a soggy society? They probably are like Derbyshire and me: crunchy in principle, soggy in action. However, I find that soggy actions cloud the mind. I don't care if it's a cliche, the slope is slippery. I have chosen to avoid situations where soggy actions are expected. I don't think that leaders are afforded that luxury.
I don't know if Cardinal Law was ever crunchy once, but I see him as a product of a soggy culture -- an almost too perfect example. When Mark Shea tagged Law as Segeant Shultz, he was spot on. But the loveable sergeant was a fictional character. Cardinal Law is not. So for all the correct assessments by the armchair cardinals that judge Cardinal Law to be spiritually myopic and wanting in courage, I do not rejoice in Law's departure. I pity him.