A priest speaks out.
Last week, Fr. James Connell, vice chancellor of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, stood on the steps of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist and called on his bishop to release documents related to the local sexual-abuse crisis: “I am absolutely convinced that we need the truth. Justice requires that the truth be known.” His appearance was a surprise to SNAP, which organized the press conference. According to Milwaukee News Buzz:
SNAP called the press conference Tuesday after learning that lawyers for the archdiocese and Auxiliary Bishop Richard Sklba have asked a judge to seal a sworn statement given by Sklba in a local court case regarding priest sex abuse cases.
(…)
There is some irony in Connell linking arms with Isely. About a year ago, Connell was the subject of another press conference in which Isely called on the priest to step down from the internal church board that hears sex abuse allegations. Isely pointed out that Connell had investigated allegations against Father Lawrence Murphy, a priest who abused scores of deaf children, according to church records.
(…)
Connell added that he had undergone a conversion of sorts after he began wondering what his life would have been like if he had been abused. Connell has since organized a group of other priests who hold monthly candlelight vigils for those who have been abused. He also began to challenge the hierarchy of the church as to whether officials were living up the Dallas Charter, the 2002 document adopted by the bishops to deal with sex abuse allegations.
Today, Connell released an open letter to priests [PDF] “regarding the need for the revelation of truth concerning the priest sexual abuse scandal.” It’s a remarkable document, one that deserves to be read by Catholics lay and ordained alike. I’ve reproduced it in full after the jump.
An Open Letter from One Catholic Priest to All Other Catholic Priests Regarding the Need for the Revelation of Truth Concerning the Priest Sexual Abuse Scandal
December 6, 2010
Dear Brother Priests,
Soon after Christmas 2009 a group of priests here in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee met to begin what has become an effort to provide some pastoral outreach to victim/survivors of sexual abuse of minors by priests. Quickly we expanded our group to include some victim/survivors and others who support them. Together we initiated an ongoing series of simple candle vigil services for prayer and talking. The effort is making a difference.
A question that is asked by some victim/survivors is where have all the good priests been? No doubt our presence now is warmly appreciated, but this challenging question has caused me to reflect on my own accountability. During my homily on the weekend of November 13 & 14, I explained that I had not been where I should have been. I was not standing with people in pain who needed the public presence of a priest. I had been inattentive when I should have noticed. I apologized. Of course, I cannot reverse time, I told my parishioners, but I can be different going forward, especially by standing publicly with those who seek the revelation of the complete truth regarding the priest sexual abuse scandal in the Church. The reaction of my parishioners has been powerfully supportive.
Surely, everyone wishes that this crisis would be resolved for the good of all. Unfortunately, however, I find that some people are saying that the victim/survivors should simply forgive and move on with life. Yet such an expectation overlooks what seems to me to be the necessary sequence of events for forgiveness and peace to happen: (1) knowing and understanding the whole truth; (2) doing justice based on the whole truth; (3) allowing healing to blossom over time; (4) then granting forgiveness that releases one from bondage; and (5) finally welcoming the peace that comes from healing and forgiveness.
What has caused me to be more attentive now to this scandal and crisis? Listening to and being moved by the stories that I hear. These stories can be discomforting but they are part of the truth needing to be revealed and understood. Here is some of what I hear.
1. Sexual assault is violent, at times causing bleeding. The word blood captures me. However, what is more captivating is to hear victim/survivors say that as agonizing as the assault was, the reaction of the Church has been more traumatic. They loved the Church and were involved in the Church (which probably is why they were available to be preyed upon), but the Church wasn’t there for them in their need.
2. Many people, from victim / survivors to parishioners in the pews, have left the Church because of the priest sexual abuse crisis, and that is true scandal. Moreover, some of these people who are disconnected from the Church would like to be reconnected, but the absence of truthfulness and accountability stops them.
3. Many victim/survivors “lost their voice” and can’t speak about what happened. They depend on others to speak for them and to cry out on their behalf.
4. Some victim / survivors and their families not only were not believed they were tormented by some clergy and laity such that the families decided to move to a different parish (if they remained in the Church), or even to a different city.
5. A prevailing question is why is it so difficult for the Church to reveal the truth?
I see four positive results coming from the complete truth being available to all people.
1. The truth would complete the puzzle so that the picture can be seen clearly, both validating the stories of the victim/survivors while also clearing the names of the innocent.
2. The truth would help create accountability for what happened.
3. The truth would empower the laity and the clergy alike to become the seedbed from which can come forth justice, healing, forgiveness, and peace. This effort needs the people in the pews but first they need to know the truth.
4. The truth would provide the energy to generate necessary changes in the Church.
My brother priests, obviously the revelation of the truth is not forthcoming easily, but we can be the catalyst for change. We have been sent into the Lord’s vineyard with a mission to provide voice and witness to all that Jesus Christ is about. I trust that you will do all that you can to help bring about a grace-filled resolution to this crisis and scandal. And, as I say, we need to do this in a vocal and public way.
I suggest that this Christmas season we raise our united voices in calling for the necessary sequence of truth, justice, healing, forgiveness, and peace, regarding this most difficult challenge in the Church. Indeed, doing so in this season of peace would provide a route to peace for all who suffer in any way because of sexual abuse of minors by priests.
Let us always embrace the words of the Lord: fear not; the truth will set you free.
Sincerely in Christ,
Rev. James Connell
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
God bless this courageous and holy man. I predict that the response from other priests will be powerful and positive.
I applaud Fr. Connell and strongly agree with him that the Church needs to be as honest and transparent as possible.
I don’t claim to know the mind of the Lord on whether the Church should be more rigorous or more merciful with fallen priests, or whether victims should or should not be ready to forgive. I hope we all can separate our strong feelings on those issues from the larger issue of the need for honesty and transparency. I hope we can agree on this latter issue, however we look at the scandals overall.
Pax,
Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB
I predict that the response from other priests will be powerful and positive.
Jim,
Didn’t priests know what was going on at the time? (Maybe not. I am just asking.) Once a priest was assigned to our parish, and he preached the most bizarre sermons. And understandably so. He was schizophrenic. A friend of the family who was a Christian Brother told us that they didn’t know what to do with the guy, so they moved him around. Isn’t there a “grapevine” through which priests know what is going on?
Hi, David, I honestly don’t know the extent to which priests knew what was going on. But regardless – it appears that serious and extensive reflection and engagement has engendered a change of heart in Fr. Connell, and my belief is that the lucid quality of this letter may help bring about the same sort of thing in his brother priests.
Serious reflection and engagement, right. I bet somebody died and left him a wad.
Good letter.
whether the Church should be more rigorous or more merciful with fallen priests,
– that’s independent. There must be transparency. I have mixed feelings about whether fallen priests must be laicized. If it leads to the clergy saying: “we now carefully screen seminarians and we have kicked out our fallen priests, therefore we are all pure and trustworthy and you can follow us blindly”, it’s a big mistake.
Bravo! Fr. James Connell – Bravo! You have heard the Spirit and responded.
May God bless you, fortify you, and arm you with The Truth in the battle you have taken on. And may your brother Priests and Bishops also heed to call of the Spirit.
Bravo!!!
Commend Fr. Connell – takes courage to stand up for what you believe in the face of clericalism; status quo; authority; fellow priests. His story is eloquent; moving; an actual dying/rising experience. Nothing like grace building on nature.
My hope is that his example will move his colleagues or, at least, open some minds and hearts.
I hope that Father Connell’s honesty and compassion inspires more priests to speak truth to
the corruption of our bishops and ultimately heals this corruption. We’ve been limping badly.
Thank you Father.
Now this is the kind of many who should be raised to the episcopacy.
Any bets on THAT happening?
As I understand it—priests do have their own little grapevines. But that doesn’t necessarily reach into the “towers of power—diocesan offices.” Once upon a time—some senior priests used to be able to talk to bishops (on a friendly basis—and let him know what the ‘guys were saying’.
But that was some decades and decades ago. After JP II and now with Benedict—Bishops are perceived (and there are a few that are considered pastoral and open to their priests—but I use the word FEW with caution) as Control and Power men. They are viewed as Ecclesiastical CEOs. If a priest is called to come to the Chancery on an individual basis (and I not talking about priests who committed any crime), but who are just called in—they often ask, if they should come with their lawyers. They will call the priests on their grapevine and tell them that they are being called into the Chancery—and the priests will advise each other.
Therefore, I pray for Fr. Connell—and hope that his Chancery doesn’t figure out a way to trip him up—in some nefarious manner.
“Now this is the kind of many who should be raised to the episcopacy.”
Even if he isn’t promoted – his letter contains good advice that every bishop should be encouraged to follow.
FWIW – I’m particuarly pleased that this moves the conversation away from legal battles and legal remedies to healing relationships. That movement is also very good for bishops, if they care to embrace it.
Historically, it’s the ones running the cover-up who are promoted, (e.g., John McCormack, right-hand man to Law, now has his own see in NH. Murphy also. Basically the entire Boston hierarchy at the time of the cover-up was promoted, if you count Law’s being archpriest of one of the major churches in Rome, with $5000 a month paycheck, as a promotion. Looks like one to me.) The priests calling for accountability, transparency and openness are punished (Doyle, e.g.) Here’s hoping it’ll be different this time. Let’s definitely follow this situation.
First Bourgeois, now Connell–both cases of priests calling on other priests to heed the voice of conscience, (yes, in very different situations.) God bless ‘em!
Obviously this is wonderful and a step in the right direction. One of Fr. Connell’s bullet points struck me –
4. Some victim / survivors and their families not only were not believed they were tormented by some clergy and laity such that the families decided to move to a different parish (if they remained in the Church), or even to a different city.
The problem here is clearly one of arrogance by the clergy, and the laity, as usual, has little say in anything. The attitude is typical of the Church in general, the clergy decide everything and the laity has very little say. This is very apparrent when priests change in a parish, the ministries started by long time church members can be eliminated in a second, simply by the decree of the new pastor, and they often are.
In the case of child abuse, the complaints of abused laity simply fell on the predictably deaf ears of the clergy – why? Arrogance. The church hierarchy knew what was best – simply move the offending priest around, noone will find out.
However, due to an active campaign by the press, the Catholic Church has been so embarrassed that it is often taking a similar, although opposite course. Now many accused, but likely innocent priests, are removed from their assignmnets, rectories, and incomes and are simply left to fend for themselves whether they are guilty or not. The arrogance directed toward the laity has simply increased its scope, now it is arrogance directed at the clergy itself – the lower clergy, of course.
It is time that we understand the problem – it is arrogance. A little humility will go a long way in this effort, it will help us identify the true offenders, take immediate action for the safety of our children, while protecting the rights of our priests who sacrifice so much for every one of us.
Felapton:
You wrote,
I don’t understand. Can I ask why you think that?
Also: what would the connection be between someone dying and leaving him a wad, and his decision to write the open letter and to say and do the things he’s been saying and doing? (see the news story linked to in the post).
Among other things, the news story says that Connell “had undergone a conversion of sorts after he began wondering what his life would have been like if he had been abused.” I’m not saying that you have to take everyone at their word, but what would be the reason for doubting what he said? During the civil war here (El Salvador, where I live), I saw other people go through that “wondering” process, and saw them change as a result. One example is Jean Donovan, the Maryknoll lay missioner who was murdered along with three nuns in December, 1980 (see what I wrote about her in the piece that was reprinted on this blog last week). Another example would be Archbishop Oscar Romero. Much has been said about how he changed during the final six years of his life. I think it’s fair to say that that change resulted, in large part, from a process of “wondering” triggered by the suffering – the torture and killing of so many Salvadorans – that was going on all around him. That’s why I don’t find it surprising that Fr. Connell’s own process of wondering could have led him to change.
Mr. Di Mauro’s plea for humility on all sides seems appropriate to this story. The Milwaukee Magazine’s News Buzz article suggests a nefarious motive in the legal move taken by attorneys representing the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and Bishop Sklba. Is this mere conjecture by the author, Marie Rhode? Her story may plausibly connect these events, but is this the only way to arrange these dots? Will Rhode’s narrative sell more magazines than another drawn from the same facts? In reporting a recent high profile case involving embezzlement and corporate governance, Milwaukee Magazine muddled some things. Here in Buzz piece, Rhode a religion reporter with the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, refers to the Archdiocesan Cathedral, a prominent building only a few blocks from offices of the newspaper and the magazine, as St. John the Baptist…it’s St. John the Evangelist. Hmmm.
Thanks, Gene. I too wondered about Felapton’s comment, which seemed to cynically suggest that financial independence would be a factor in whether or not to speak. Why such cynicism? Oddly enough, the assumption beneath such a suggestion must be that others do not speak because they are dependent financially. This isn’t strictly true, however. The diocesan clergy is paid only a pittance, but their retirement cannot be revoked. They are hardly moderating their responses for fear of financial reprisals.
If one were afraid of being sent to a different assignment or publicly rebuked or something, that’s perhaps the sort of punishment one could get. But “inheriting a wad” wouldn’t protect anyone against that.
So, this raises the question: why don’t more priests speak up? If I may speculate, I think the reason is two-fold. First, they don’t want to be disloyal or appear to be disloyal. Clerical culture is very strong on that, and I think it’s often a virtue (similar to the military), though sometimes it can also lead to moral failing. Second, they don’t reflect empathically. In other words, they haven’t gone through the process which Fr. Connell describes and which Gene reminds us had such a big effect in encouraging courageous responses from church people in El Salvador. Here again, clerical culture does a disservice by not encouraging priests to reflect empathically very much. Their lifestyle and training in the seminary — especially when it accentuates their role as one “set apart” and existing “above” their people — contributes to a constriction of imagination, and/or reflection.
For the record, I would imagine Dennis has put this a bit too simply, when he describes the problem as rooted in the arrogance of priests. We all have read about plenty of lay people and religious, and parents, who colluded with the system which perpetuated abuse. Arrogance is not absent from these accounts either.
I am all for what Fr. Connell is doing, and I credit him with the sincerity of motive that he expresses.
Hi Dr. Palumbo,
This guy doesn’t seem too worried about losing his pension does he? Or worried he’s going to be made a prison or hospital chaplain? Or get stuck staying back and looking after things during the next archdiocesan “retreat” in the Bahamas?
Maybe he won the lottery. It is vastly more probably that a Catholic priest would win the lottery, than that he would suddenly grow a spine after thirty years or so in the job. IMHO.
“The problem here is clearly one of arrogance by the clergy, and the laity, as usual, has little say in anything. The attitude is typical of the Church in general, the clergy decide everything and the laity has very little say. This is very apparrent when priests change in a parish, the ministries started by long time church members can be eliminated in a second, simply by the decree of the new pastor, and they often are.”
But the sleeping giant is awakening. See the following: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_54cd8b16-7d79-11df-bda4-001cc4c002e0.html
And here we have the giant using the best weapon that it has: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_1b804b84-e86b-11df-9abf-001cc4c03286.html
As my parents used to say, a word to the wise should be sufficient.
Hi Rita,
The “pittance” is fairly well supplemented by things like free rent, health insurance, big fat retirement pension. Mondays off, to compensate for a two-hour workday on Sunday. Never have to treat anybody civilly or listen to an opinion you disagree with.
That’s why docility is called “sucking up” in the secular world.
” I saw other people go through that “wondering” process, and saw them change as a result. ”
Gene –
I saw many,many Southerners change during the 50s and 60s. Martin Luther King and his followers especially change many, many hearts and minds. With the grace of God all is possible.
On the other hand –
I taught many seminarians, and while I think it is true that a relative few were by nature arrogant power-seekers (bossy kids who were full of themselves), I think it is also true that the priesthood attracts, among others, a goodly number of men who are peace-loving and particularly gentle. They are fairly often on the shy side to boot. This doesn’t make for self-assertion.
Jimmy Mac,
Why are you proving my point so clearly when you are trying to defend the power of the laity? I loved this quote from the article:
‘Changes the priests have made, including barring girls from being altar servers, led to a petition last month signed by 469 of the church’s approximately 1,200 members asking Morlino to immediately remove the priests. In a response letter to the parish last week, Morlino said the priests have his full support and will stay. He chastised parishioners for conduct he called “gravely sinful.” ‘
That’s the ticket! When the laity disagrees with your arrogant pronouncement call ‘em a bunch of sinners!
Please don’t hold your breath that any of their efforts will come to anything. This bishop is the kind of guy who will not listen to one word they are saying, even if the vote was 1200 out of 1200.
Felapton,
I do not understand a word of what you are saying. The average priest lives a life of sacrifice: no married life, loneliness, a tiny salary, and often mistreatment by his superiors, not to mention an often thankless laity. They deserve everthing they get times 100.
This stuff about hitting the lottery is nonsense.
Fr. Connell is the vice chancellor of the archdiocese, a position of responsibility and trust. He is also a canon lawyer. The picture I get of him is of a person of ability and accomplishment, and one who is deeply embedded within the archdiocesan bureaucratic apparatus. One is not appointed vice chancellor without demonstrating that he can work effectively with the bishops and other diocesan officials. It would be difficult to think of a person less likely to speak out, on his own, in the media.
It seems clear to me that Fr. Connell has gone through a conversion experience. What a wonderful story for Advent. He is, in his way, preparing the way of the Lord.
Lisa,
Bernard Cardinal Law ran a large Archdiocese with several Bishops under him and a separate Clergy Deployment office. Stacks of documents were presented to him on a daily basis by functionaries whose job it was to get them signed. IF there was organized cover-up of clergy abuse, I suspect that it was a long time before he got the full story – at which point, the CEO of well over 900 clergy was, I am certain, blindsided.
Given the directives from Rome (Ratzinger et al) in Solicitationes Crimens, the good Cardinal, who was being crucified daily in the Globe, followed the instructions from Rome (again, Ratzinger). Was he culpable in the whole affair – or was it a story of ‘the buck stops here’ and he got stuck with an avalanche of abuse suits which happened over decades under both Cardinal Medeiros and Cardinal Cushing?
Regardless of whether or nor Cardinal Law participated in any of the scandal himself is something that we will never know.
As a Cardinal, he was a Diplomat with dual-citizenship in the US and Vatican City. Pope John Paul II called him home after the hell he went through in Boston and gave him a sinicure – Archpriest of Santa Maria Maggiore. If nothing else, it was a small gesture compared to what he went through at the Vatican’s behest.
To continue the Boston Globe’s personal crucufixion of a man who may have been the first American Pope is not only small, it is based on facts not in evidence.
What did Cardinal Law know? When did Cardinal Law know it? What did Cardinal Law do or not do? I wonder if the ‘truth’ will ever be known. Meanwhile, his retirement to Rome is hardly a ‘golden umbrella’.
Needless to say, I have always respected this man and still respect him.
The blame for the problem with clergy abuse remains, in my mind at least, firmly rooted in the Kremlin of Catholicism, Vatican City. The whole hierarchical system with its rules and rewards, the complete lack of transparency, and the antiquated system of keeping the faithful dumb and obedient are to blame. And since the Opus Deists that I know and the Lefebvrists and the Legionnaires are all bent on returning us to THAT church, I reject the whole concept that these men are even doing God’s work.
Please do not excoriate a man who was being told to do one thing at the risk of being excommunicated – which threat, for a man whose life was leading him to much better things than Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, was a very real threat.
I may be ignorant about a lot of things, but I am certain that there’s a lot of blame to go around, and we ought to save our comments and condemnations for those Priests and Bishops who knowingly moved troublesome clergy, knowingly allowed them to continue their ministries in other places and in other countries, and who accepted troublesome priest from other places and other countries to work in their Dioceses.
PS – for what it is worth, the Priest in charge of the Clergy Deployment Office for Boston back then was himself arrested for the very crime that he covered up for his fellow priests. We need a new system – married clergy, ordained women and a laity that is in control.
Jonathan, I would expect church officials to be cognizant of the saying “With great power comes great responsibility.”
I am tired of leaders who want all the say-so (and perks) and none of the consequences. We have it in the corporate world and in the financial industry but at least those people never claimed to be any better than they are. If Law was the supervisor and chose people under him who committed wrongs, then they are his responsibility.
If this Milwaukee story shows us anything it is that there are men out there who can put the interests of the People of God ahead of the habits of their clerical cronies.
By the same token, you are absolutely correct that the real responsibility resides in Rome.
Thank you, Dorothy, and I do agree with you wholeheartedly – my earlier post about Fr. Connell is above too. I would question, however, power/responsibility since any administrator walks into a position with a certain quantity of embedded ‘bureaucracy’ which, only over time, reveals itself to be either competent or not. Law is a hot-button for me since (because of the nature of his position) he was railroaded out of office and vilified without the benefit of a trial – judged guilty with no chance of proving innocence. When, all these years later the cry is again taken up, I feel as though he continues to be hammered as ‘guilty’-by-consensus rather than fait accompli. Vigilanti justice was never true justuce.
Felapton: get a handle on your snide asides. I don’t like having to remove comments.
P.S. Not sure a person sniping from behind a nom de net is in a position to judge the motives of a whistleblowing priest.
I think Rita, as she often does, hits the nail on the head.
Emapthy has fallen off the charts in clergy training.
Like the Abp. of New York who is THE teacher, we will continue to have answermen, and I kep thinking of Gertrude Lawrence in the King and I:
“It’s a very ancient saying, bu ta true and honest thought:
that when you become a teacher,
by your pupils you’ll be taught.”
Grant,
OK, I’m trying.
That last one was not a snide anything; it was a compliment. The intention was to acknowledge O’Leary’s rather exceptional integrity.
Felapton wrote “The “pittance” is fairly well supplemented by things like free rent, health insurance, big fat retirement pension. Mondays off, to compensate for a two-hour workday on Sunday. Never have to treat anybody civilly or listen to an opinion you disagree with.”
I don’t know what world you’re living in, but in my parish I receive about $600 per week from which I get to pay for travel, continuing education, 15% self-employment tax (plus Federal and state income, Medicare, and local taxes), pension contribution, clergy dues, retirement fund, vehicle, ongoing psychotherapy/spiritual direction/retreats/supervision (the closest place for direction and therapy is 200 miles from me), food, clothing, and all the rest. I do get a 1000 sq ft apartment. For this I am in the office or in the school or in the nursing homes or in the hospitals or in the church 10 hours per day, six days a week. The bishop just gave us permission for 1 extra day off per month (so 5-6 total).
I also get to give up all sex outside marriage, which would be ALL sex, separation from family and life-long friends. I also get to endure anonymous letters and phone calls (almost always critical) which get handed back from supervisors, staff, parishioners, and the public through the media. Further, any contact with a child is automatically suspect. Plus, I have the responsibility of raising money not only for myself, but for the needs of the parish and school (some $4M in all). When people don’t like something I’ve done, I see it the next Sunday in the collection basket.
And more.
And yet, I REALLY like the ministry. I like the personal contact. I like the constantly changing events and schedule. People who have shadowed me for a day or more don’t know how I get it all done. I constantly marvel at how parents and teachers get all their stuff done; I’m pretty sure I couldn’t do their jobs for more than a few days.
Again, I don’t know what world you’re living in, but it has no relation to my life, or any of the priests I work with.
Have you been paying for decades on your student loans and still owe? I do.
Can you afford to heat your home in winter? I can’t.
How many (unpaid) hours a day do you ride trains to get to work? Never less than three here.
How much did your employer raise your health insurance premiums this year? I’m afraid to even look.
How often does somebody tell you you’re an brainless idiot? Most days, for me.
Do you come to work every Thursday wondering if there’s a pink slip on your desk? Half of America does.
But you don’t care, do you? Concern for others is so unbecoming to the clerical state. Because the others, who don’t put enough in your basket, are just relativist-materialist-nihilist-Darwinists, that’s why, isn’t it?
How much do you expect to pocket from the Christmas collection? I’m just hoping no Christmas-and-Easter drunk barfs on me this year.
“I also get to endure anonymous letters . . .”
———–
A collection of those would make an interesting book, imho.
Yes, a welcome statement from Fr Connell. And an interesting side commentary on Cardinal Law. Some of his detractors probably also lament he wasn’t on trial. The purpose of a trial in this context, after all, would be to determine criminal liability. No doubt some would have liked to see him in prison garb rooming with Mr Geoghan.
It is true that public opinion sometimes forces people out of jobs. And sometimes it’s unfair. It would seem that Cardinal Law lost the credibility a bishop needs to deal with his priests. Given how VOTF is on the outs with the institution, and the cardinal in question has his semi-retirement post, it would seem that the hierarchy has delivered payback in return. Time to concede Catholics were behaving badly on many fronts?
That said, the Church has certain teachings about for bishops regarding their relationship with clergy. If Cardinal Law was unable to fulfill his responsibilities (as distinct from his moral culpability) then one of two things: he never should have been made an archbishop, or two, large sees need to be broken up into manageable segments. Bernard Law, Bishop of Cambridge and Francis George, Bishop of Evanston–maybe that’s the way to go.
“Francis George, Bishop of Evanston”
That would be like “Fabian Bruskiewicz, bishop of the Upper West Side” – can’t you find him a more congenial see? :-)
John Farley, thank you for your realistic account. I am glad you like your ministry; I bet your people sense this in you and appreciate it too.
Todd, are you saying that VOF deserved to be expelled from the Archdiocese of Boston for not having supported Cardinal Law? That seems rather screwy to me, so I’m sure it’s a misreading, but I’m at a loss how to interpret what you meant by “Time to concede Catholics were behaving badly on many fronts?”
Jim P., I’d be interested to hear what portion of Chicago you would cede to Francis George, if you were in charge. :) Hmm. (You don’t have to answer that!) But your Bruskiewicz analogy certainly made this New Yorker gasp. Oh my, is it THAT bad?
Fr. Farley,
Bravo! I know many priests like you who live on little and of whom much is expected. They cover multiple parishes and missions and mount up numbers of daily Masses that would make a canon lawyer flinch. One friend of mine celebrated 25 Masses in one week, with two weekend schedules joined to the Feast of the Assumption with three funerals thrown in for good measure. In between the Masses he was running 25 miles in either direction to two hospitals, and helping three grieving families plan funerals for their loved ones. The story is told many times over. Like you they revel in their ministry without whining and feeling sorry for themselves. Despite the recent scandals we all know of the the priests who serve, just like you, and we are eternally grateful. Thank you.
Fr. Farley,
What Rita Ferrone and Alan Mitchell said.
Thank you.
On Cardinal Law, there’s just too much documentary evidence to assert that he was just a clueless overlord. Can you really sign a letter congratulating a priest on a fine life of service “sadly marred by illness,” and send it to Geoghan, molester of hundreds of little kids, and known by Law at least to have been a serial molester? Can you really say you didn’t know anything when people confront you at Mass saying “Father Geoghan is at it again?” Law’s attacks against the media when the story broke are stomach-churning in retrospect. And that’s before the hard-ball tactics of his legal team, who, among other moves, sought to blame parents of victims for their children’s abuse on grounds that they should have known better than to trust their child with a priest.
Or go see “Sin: A Cardinal Deposed,” a stage play taken primarily from Law’s own testimony under oath. Or read the summary of the Globe’s reporting, published as “Betrayal. The Crisis in the Catholic Church.”
I do see Law as a tragic case, a man who did good work for civil rights in his youth, but seems to have become too enamored of his own power later on. And I agree with your assessment of the situation overall. But Law was–and, in his cozy spot in Rome, remains–part of the problem, not merely a man caught up in the tide.
There is some kind of paradox going on here. Felapton chose a strange time to express his criticism of priests in general at a time when we are lauding a brave act of a chancery priest. Also worthy of praise is Farley’s life. At the same time much of what Felapton says is true, that is, priests in general, have no idea what the ordinary person goes through.
Hopefully, we can take from this that more and more the clergy will speak out because the times are absolutely changing. Google shocked the advertising media world by insisting that the user was more important than the advertiser. What is becoming increasingly clear is that that user in the church, the laity, is now relentless in demanding a transparent church. Newspapers, networks, record producers et alii were slow to recognize, what Google preached, that if the customer got a right to choose people would have more useful and better products. The Vatican becomes more laughable every day as it insists on customs which have no legs and which the people see as dominating rather than service. Significant that Google adopted a slogan of “Do no evil” which is unmatched in the history of big business. Can Rome put that on its coat of arms.
John Farley, I’m afraid your problems are the least of my concerns. I’m suprised that you neglected to mention anything about all the problems the Catholic Church is having. Apparently your finding it rough.
Do you have any comments about the more than 60% of your bishops that have secretely protected abusive priests?
Do you have any comments about the thousands of abusive priest that have left the ministry without having to register as sex offenders?
Do you have anything to say about the more than 3 billion dollars the bishops have used of church funds to protect these sex abusers and their own asses?
Do you have anything to say regarding the fact that the pope has not punished, not even one of these criminal bishops?
Dio you have anything to say about the fact that these same criminal bishops are still in complete control of all church money and propery?
Can you explain why, less than a handfull of priests ever reported knowing an abusive priest?
I have left the church because of all of the above. I wouldn’t be able too look myself in a mirroe if I continue to be a member of an organization where the bishops are allowed to commit crimes and still take up collections.
That reminds me of one other point. How do the bishops expect to control the millions of dollars stolen from the collections every week, when the security procedures they sent out to all parishes ARE NOT MANDATORY ? How about that.
Would you care to reply?
Dominic Tomasso
Advocate for Bishops Accountability
tomassotucson@cox.net
Lisa, you make very powerful and true statements.
Whether power corrupts, or overwhelms, I don’t know. But, I intend to find out and will let you know my impressions after having done so.
I guess that, in some ways, one could make a comparison to the Nazi officers who were ‘following orders’. We do not know what threats, real or imagined, caused them to
participate in one of history’s most horrific crimes against humanity.
The threat that the Bishops were under, however, is documented. Plus, within the ‘system’ of the church, one does not disobey. The morality of the whole affair, worldwide, is clearly evil. (As was the genocide of millions of people.) That the culture of the church hierarchy is disfunctional is undisputed. That it is to blame for the coverup instead of acknowledging the problem and cooperating with civil authorities to punish the guilty, exonerate the innocent, and help with healing and compensating the victims is an even greater evil.
The ‘culture of arrogance’ within the church, even on the pastoral level, has always taken my breath away – and I have worked within the system as a lay person for 45 years. That culture is still alive and as virulent as ever. I have always suspected that ‘Institutional Arrogance 101′ is a required course for seminarians, and the higher the grade, the more likely the ‘preferement’.
We have just, here in South Carolina, been given a new Bishop. I have met and spoken with him on more than one occasion, and I have watched his actions as Bishop closely. I have expressed to him some of my concerns for the Church and he has answered those concerns with some of his own. This Bishop is down-to-earth, approachable, and has taken on a diocese plagued by years of disfunctional leadership… So far, I am very heartened with what I am seeing and hearing. And I am looking forward to the years ahead as he carefully, thoughtfully and prayerfully works to turn this Diocese around. I do not feel that he is a man who will automatically kowtow to whatever whim comes from Rome.
However, back to the reason for my comments, I never found that ‘Culture of Arrogance’ in the person of the Cardinal.
Many others in the church have deep wounds because of the failure of the Church. This is perhaps why more ‘Catholics’ are now ‘Ex-Catholics’.
Until the Pope and Cardinals stop ‘playing’ church and wake up to the reality of the 21st century, and then go back to the early Church Fathers and learn why the early church succeeded, we will have no relief. For the ‘Culture of Arrogance’ and the “Call to Orthodoxy” are falling on deaf ears.
I will add, here, that though I am clearly not a learned person and cannot compete intellectually with the musings of many of the august writers above, I do appreciate that someone usually, and patiently answers my comments with items that help me to grow in understanding and, hopefully, will make me a better-informed Catholic. I admire all of you and thank you!
JD
Fr, Farley –
Thank you for all your hard work. You sound like my pastor. He’s a whirlwind of activity, so much so I do wish he had an assistant pastor. He really is too busy to function as well as he could with help.
Things would undoubtedly be greatly improved if the bishops would allow married men to be priests (not to mention women). Or don’t you agree? And it would help if all you hard-working priests would join with us laity and tell the bishops so. I’m sure there are bishops who see the problem for what it is, and they would no doubt like some back up from you over-worked priests. Rome might start to listen if you all were unified..
Thanks again.
When I read Father Connell’s open letter on the “need for the revelation of truth” about the sexual abuse scandal, I was reminded of the position taken by the church here (in El Salvador) on the need for the revelation of truth about what happened during the country’s civil war (1980-1992).
Fr. Connell says that “Unfortunately . . . some people are saying that the victim/survivors should simply forgive and move on with life. Yet such an expectation overlooks what seems to me to be the necessary sequence of events for forgiveness and peace to happen.” Here, too, some have insisted that the victims simply “forgive and forget;” remember, we are talking here about people who were – and/or whose loved ones were — tortured, disappeared and murdered. The “forgive and forget” approach was explicitly rejected by Archbishop Romero’s successor, Arturo Rivera Damas. Instead, said Archbishop Rivera, the “formula” had to be truth, justice, and forgiveness; that is, first, the truth (about what happened to the victims) needed to be revealed; then, justice had to be done; and then – and only then – genuine forgiveness could take place. Fr. Connell is saying something very similar.
For political reasons, it has never been possible to apply Archbishop Rivera’s formula here. But – and this is what is so desperately needed — Fr. Connell’s prescription could be implemented in full, if there were sufficient religious and political will. I’m reminded of the final words of “The Unbeliever and Christians,” Albert Camus’s post-World War II talk at the Dominican monastery at Latour Maubourg:
One more thing: I was again reminded of El Salvador — specifically, of Archbishop Romero — when Fr. Connell wrote,
That is what Archbishop Romero did on behalf of those who had been terrified into silence. Denouncing human rights violations week after week from the pulpit of the cathedral, and crying out, on the day before he was murdered, to “stop the repression!”, he tried to be – as was so often said about him — a voice for the voiceless: “la voz de los sin voz.”
I suggest that you read these excerpts from Tina Rosenberg’s excellent article about postwar El Salvador, and compare the situation of victims of human rights abuses there with the situation of the sexual abuse victims referred to by Fr. Connell.
I have largely abandoned commenting on the scandal, so dispiriting and draining is the struggle to communicate the facts about bishop culpability.
But I cannot let pass the apologias here for Bernard Law, despite being 1,500 miles away from home without the back-up links to original documents in my files.
For starters, people may refresh memories or learn new material at the Boston Globe’s website.
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/scandal/ “Far from being unaware of abusive behavior, Cardinal Law and his deputies had detailed information on many of the archdiocese’s most serious molesters.”
May 30, 2002
Spotlight: Records show Law reassigned Paquin after settlements
By Stephen Kurkjian, Globe Staff
Cardinal Bernard Law reinstated the Rev. Ronald Paquin to priestly duties as recently as 1998, despite numerous detailed complaints of molestation against the priest.
May 15, 2002
Spotlight: Law recommended fired dean for college teaching position
By Stephen Kurkjian, Globe Staff
Cardinal Bernard Law recommended the former dean of St. John’s Seminary for a college teaching job in 1997, less than two years after Law dismissed him for improper contact with a seminarian.
May 18, 2002
Cardinal promoted alleged sex abuser
By Michael Rezendes and Sacha Pfeiffer, Globe Staff
Cardinal Bernard Law promoted a Quincy pastor to the position of area vicar with oversight of 19 parishes in 1996, after the pastor had admitted to an allegation of sexual misconduct.
June 5, 2002
On defensive, Law pleaded ignorance
By Walter V. Robinson, Globe Staff
It was an awkward moment for Cardinal Bernard Law in 1993: How to explain why he transferred a priest to New Jersey in 1985 after the priest pleaded guilty to raping an Arlington altar boy.
More links here.
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/extras/coverups_archive.htm
Without access to my home computer, I cannot link to documents that show aide John McCormack asking Law if he considered a FL or a CA diocese better for stashing one perpetrator.
Nor can I link to McCormack’s handwritten notes of a meeting with Law where Law’s first concern when a victim died was “scandal.” Never mind that the perpetrator found the body and abandoned her, nor that he had had children with her whose welfare were at stake. The priest had been reassigned by Law after repeated abuse.
The record is clear: “The beginning of the end may have been Nov. 25, when Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney declared that the archdiocese’s records contradicted Law’s sworn testimony that he and his aides did not return some abusive priests to parish work without first determining that they posed no risk to children. Not only did the judge suggest the cardinal was lying, she ordered the release of 11,000 pages of church documents about the abusive actions of priests, and the actions of the cardinal and others to hide those crimes from public view.” Globe 12-14-02
Nothing like hints of perjury to get attention. That statutes of limitation and weak laws (since tightened) prevented indictments is an injustice. Maybe someday a participant will write the complete story, including a lawyer’s confidential warning to the archdiocese that they had “better get him out of here.”
IMHO, the removal of Law had nothing to do with the 51 priests or VOTF. Law left for Rome the morning of the day that a grand jury subpoena was issued against him. He had begged Battista Re before for help in resigning, and now no one could hazard that a sitting cardinal just might be indicted. It would have been a scorched earth defense, with endless motions, counter motions and appeals, more on procedure than substance. A five-year case maybe?
By this time Law had also lost the support of vital major donors, the needed extra nail in the coffin. It was protection of the institution and money concerns that finally brought him down.
Only courts and legislature, combined with media, have the power to compel hierarchical response. The rest of us are wasting our time.
Please, no more about Law’s lack of culpability, or how “the system made him do it.”
Eugene Kennedy wrote an insightful analysis of Law’s career, “Gaining Power/Losing Authority”. I hope it is available online:
“I have known Bernard Cardinal Law for over thirty years and it was easy to see that, courteous, handsome, and ambitious, he would “make a career,” as the Roman clergymen put it, “in the Church.” That saying describes a man who devotes himself to good works and self promotion in about the ratio of vermouth to gin in a James Bond Martini.”
Bill Mazzella said: “At the same time much of what Felapton says is true, that is, priests in general, have no idea what the ordinary person goes through.”
Bill, thanks for the support. But that was only half of my point. The rest is that I’m paying for all this, their free graduate educations, their opulent rectories, their “retreats” at resorts, and all I ever hear at Sunday mass is what a bad, dirty, rotten, secularist-materialist-Darwinist-relativist I am for not coughing up more for the basket, not kowtowing low enough, not voting for the right candidates, blah, blah, blah.
This idea that laymen are withholding money because they’re trying to punish the pastor for something is just a figment of Father Farley’s narcissistic imagination. I am not putting less in the basket because of anything you did; I am putting less in the basket because my income is half what it was three years ago. And I’m one of the lucky people who still have a job (assuming there’s not a pink slip on my desk this morning.)
I hate this subject too. This public complaining is degrading to us all, clergy and laity alike. Nothing makes real secularists as happy as watching us make asses of ourselves like this.
I’m going to revise my now-deleted comment from yesterday and then get out of here, because I know Grant is getting POed.
Father Joseph O’Leary,
We both know that in Anglo-Saxon discourse, direct compliments are not comme il faut; if one wishes to praise somebody, it is polite to couch it as a snide aside, or at least ironical criticism. So I apologize but I don’t know any way to put this that won’t make us both puke.
You comment here on all sorts of subjects, but you sort of zero in on some of the most neuralgic. And every time, we get your complete, honest opinion, no flattery, no equivocation, no BS. And if anybody slams you, you just bounce back louder and more verbose than ever. You can be annoying on occasion, but I can’t remember your ever having used the power of your collar to insult or humiliate anybody. You have more courage, honor and integrity than just about anybody I know, at least twice as much as any other Catholic priest I have ever met. And those of us who frequent the fouler precincts of Catholic Blogistan know, as Christ does, how unjustly you sometimes pay for it.
This does NOT mean I agree with everything, or even anything, you say in the comboxes.
Juvenal does not apply. All I can think of that seems relevant is Horace’s Ode 1.22:
Integer vitae scelerisque purus
non eget Mauris iaculis neque arcu
nec venenatis grauida sagittis pharetra
Rita, fair question.
I was attempting to meet Mr Davis part-way on his point. If Bernard Law was really a clueless klutz, then he should never have been a bishop. In his own protests, he trotted out the classical notion that a bishop is married to his diocese. I guess that makes Springfield, Missouri a starter wife of sorts. Shades of Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole.
I didn’t follow the Boston story very closely; I was dealing with another old episode of sex abuse in my parish at the time. Others above have ably related the record on Cardinal Law.
As for my comment about VOTF, my clumsy point was that Mr Davis should be including that group as another example of people who have been damaged by public opinion. If he wants to lobby his bishops to utter a word of appreciation for VOTF, SNAP, and others, I’m game to listen.
“Time to concede Catholics were behaving badly on many fronts”
This is true. The Congregation of Bishops for supporting careerism that promotes institutional loyalty to the exclusion of management skills, let alone pastoral abilities. Many bishops for the self-interested twisting of mystagogical metaphors. Opportunists in the laity who have used the sex abuse cover-up crisis to puff up their personal soap box. Clergy who placed the clerical culture ahead of their reponsibilities to the truth.
As for the question of my liberal bona fides, my opinions on the competence of large-city archbishops past and present are either well-known or easy enough to find.
PS Thanks to Lisa and Carolyn for reminding us of the truth of the situation. Looks like the dunce cap stays in Santa Maria Maggiore.
“Despite the fact that approximately one million dollars of church funds disappeared under Cody’s tenure,[7] and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops lost more than four million dollars in a single year while Cody was treasurer of that organization, all investigations were suspended upon Cody’s death.[8]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cody
Just muchissimas gracias for Gene’s continuing insightful analogi and to Ms. Disco on Bernard Law.
Not only is he culpable, IMO , but also the main destroyer of movement toward comon ground -surely a Defender of the Faith (see Mrs. Steinfels in the current Commonweal.)
I think the Bond analogy on target as well.
“Jim P., I’d be interested to hear what portion of Chicago you would cede to Francis George, if you were in charge. :) Hmm. (You don’t have to answer that!) But your Bruskiewicz analogy certainly made this New Yorker gasp. Oh my, is it THAT bad?”
Hi, Rita, luckily, such decisions aren’t mine to make, but if I had to pick an area for Cardinal George, it might not be Evanston :-). He’s a Chicago lad himself – grew up on the Northwest Side, in a parish located on Irving Park Rd near Central and Austin Aves. That might be as good as any other place.
In all seriousness – there are certain dioceses where I wouldn’t want to live because of who the bishop is, but Chicago is not one of them. Cardinal George has a good relationship with his priests, an excellent relationship with his deacons (at least in part because our wives alternately charm and terrify him :-)) and is in good stead with the diocese as a whole. He hasn’t banned any organizations from the diocese that I can recall, as Bruskiewicz had done a number of years ago. He hasn’t forbidden any politicians from receiving communion that I know of – in a state with a train carload full of Catholic pro-choice pols. Probably he will never be a darling of progressives within the church, but as a former academic, he seems comfortable with them, and at least some of the ones who get to know him (like Rev. Greeley) seem to warm to him.
Jim, I appreciate the good word on your cardinal, but he’s always struck me (from a distance, admittedly) as a little arrogant and dense for his good-guy reputation. Have Chicago Catholics forgiven him for blundering with whats-his-name and his own review board?
Let’s give him Arlington Heights, and extend a little redistricted pseudopod into the old neighborhood.
I’m also grateful for Gene Palumbo’s justice, peace and forgiveness analogy between sexual abuse in the church and human rights abuse in El Salvador.
Hi, Todd – all I can say about Chicago Catholics is that, by and large, they don’t seem to hold what’s-his-name against the Cardinal. Of course, victims advocates are an exception, but they aren’t very numerous, and for some reason, they’ve never been able to get much purchase in Chicago. It’s kind of hard to explain, because all of the elements seem to be in place: victims, a sympathetic media, lots of progressives.
About Cardinal Law’s “semi-retirement” ==
Anybody who is a member of 5 curial dicasteries, including the one that vets and recommends candidates for bishop to the pope, is not in “semi-retirement”. The latter alone is a position with tremendous ecclesiastical power, and Law still has it.
This is a continuing scandal in itself.
Jim,
I am puzzled and angered by the passivity and deference of Catholic laity everywhere, but more so in Chicago. George is a local boy who made good, a member of the cultural tribe; an agreeable, nice person, so he gets a pass, it seems. But as a Benedictine scholar rteminded me, “nice is not a moral category.” (Tough about the victims, but, hey, he sees the light now,)
No prosecutor had the cojones to indict him for failure to report under the law. I researched IL statutes (can’t remember specific citations now) but got the brush off spin. Helpful to understand cardinals are above the law.
Apparently, only IL Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke has his accurate number.
Here is an exchange: “Anne Burke will always remember one session out-of-town with a nationally famous bishop who gave her complete assurance that all instances of sexual hanky-panky were brought to a dead halt in his diocese.
The next morning she opened a newspaper and found that the bishop was on the front page, having welcomed a priest-sexual predator as a house guest. (See http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2003_03_01_ChicagoSunTimes_Georg
eDidnt_Kenneth_J_Martin_1.htm, where the bishop is identified as George)
She called the bishop. “Yesterday you assured me that all matters involving the diocese had been cleaned up,” she said. “You know, you lied to me, didn’t you?”
He said the priest was being used for a theological research job.
She continued, “You lied to me, didn’t you.”
“No, I didn’t.”
“Well, the priest you hired was convicted.”
“No he wasn’t.”
“Really?”
“He pled guilty. That’s what happened.”
“Same thing.”
“Well, not exactly-pleading guilty is not the same as being tried and found guilty.”
Burke smiled at that effort, at the futile attempt to apply theological hair-splitting to the law. It may make it in a university theological seminar but not in a courtroom.
“Why did he try to snow me?” she said to this reporter. “Did he think he could get away with it because – well, he didn’t.” (See full text of three interviews that appeared in The Wanderer as posted on http://www.tomroeser.com in August 2006.)
Why is George’s deposition immaterial to his reputation? http://www.bishop-accountability.org/depo/2008_01_30_Cardinal_Francis_George/
Time for me to re-retire from blogging.
Carolyn –
Thank you yet again. Please don’t retire from blogging. Church history needs you. Without people like you to remember for the Church, there is no real Church history.
Who is the patron saint of historians? I checked Wikipedia and couldn’t find any. I wouldn’t be surprised it if there is none. In the meantime, you’ll do fine :-)
“Given the directives from Rome (Ratzinger et al) in Solicitationes Crimens, the good Cardinal, who was being crucified daily in the Globe, followed the instructions from Rome (again, Ratzinger.)”
Sorry, that excuse has been tried in the past and found wanting. Nurenberg, you know.
“Things would undoubtedly be greatly improved if the bishops would allow married men to be priests (not to mention women).”
More’s the pity, but desperation fosters creativity: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/article_a1652bae-9f69-5f64-87af-79ebaf90457e.html
Jimmy Mac, would things really be greaty improvly if priest were allowed to be married? I’m not sure that allowing piests to be married would greatly improve the way the church is being run by over 60% of the bishops in this country. With these criminal bishops still in control of everything Catholic, there is no chance in hell that anything will improve. I haven’t left the church because priest can’t get married. I left the church because the bishops are still in power when in reality, they should be in jail. The pope has not not seen fit to punish even one bishop. Can you overlook, just the fact, that the bishops hve allowed sexually abusive priest to leave the ministry with out having to regisater as sex offenders, That is but one fact that I can’t live with.
Dominic Tomasso
Advocate for Bishops Accountability
tomassotucson@cox.net
See Belgium report today -they really didn’t want to know -scandal, you know, or worse.
And Cardinal Law?
I think Jimmy Mac is right – he “was just following orders.”
To offer an addendum, it was not so much Law following orders, reluctantly or not, as it was Law ascertaining what the most politically advantaged position was. The strategy took real initiative on his part to gain influence and power, not a passive acquiescence.
Eugene Kennedy again:
“He made his first trip to visit Boston in the company of a member of Opus Dei, an organization of devout Catholics that is a favorite of the Pope’s.
Law was named a Cardinal a year later and, after a few missteps, such as losing six elections for offices in the National Conference of Bishops in 1986, he aligned himself firmly with the policies of Pope John Paul II and soon, as Chicago’s Joseph Cardinal Bernardin told me at the time, became the most influential prelate in America.
He gained his influence by committing himself to the great papal project of diminishing the influence of Vatican II, especially the collegiality of bishops, and the restoration of the top down hierarchical model to the Church.
He gained further papal approval by making himself into a strong defender of what he considered orthodox positions… he led the movement to weaken the National Conference of Bishops by accepting the idea that everything they proposed needed to be unanimous and sent for Rome for approval.”
Before it became clear that comprehensively addressing the sexual abuse scandal was an impolitic move, Law personally donated $1,000 to Tom Doyle, Ray Mouton and Dr. Peterson to cover postage to mail their prescient report to every bishop on how to respond effectively to allegations.
It didn’t hurt to be associated with someone at the Vatican embassy. He even invited Tom to head a Catholic theological institute he wanted to start in Boston. Then the powers that be got scared and went protectionist, so Law was nowhere in sight on the abuse issue.
Today Law is routinely hailed at receptions with eager (fawning?) seminarians, posing brightly in photos with him (photos are at home). Such a role model, who still holds those powerful positions on curial dicasteries.
How comforting to know that Law, Justin Rigali and William Levada are three of the four Americans with great influence on the Congregation for Bishops regarding US appointments — each with a record here of parsing skilled cover-ups. Search http://www.BishopAccountability.org for details.
@ Jonathan Davis
You wrote on 12/7/10 for this blog something that I believe is in the long run even more disturbing than the complicity of the bishops in the rape and sodomy of children by priests:
“Bernard Cardinal Law ran a large Archdiocese with several Bishops under him and a separate Clergy Deployment office. Stacks of documents were presented to him on a daily basis by functionaries whose job it was to get them signed. IF there was organized cover-up of clergy abuse, I suspect that it was a long time before he got the full story – at which point, the CEO of well over 900 clergy was, I am certain, blindsided.
“Given the directives from Rome (Ratzinger et al) in Solicitationes Crimens, the good Cardinal, who was being crucified daily in the Globe, followed the instructions from Rome (again, Ratzinger). Was he culpable in the whole affair – or was it a story of ‘the buck stops here’ and he got stuck with an avalanche of abuse suits which happened over decades under both Cardinal Medeiros and Cardinal Cushing?
Regardless of whether or nor Cardinal Law participated in any of the scandal himself is something that we will never know.
As a Cardinal, he was a Diplomat with dual-citizenship in the US and Vatican City. Pope John Paul II called him home after the hell he went through in Boston and gave him a sinicure – Archpriest of Santa Maria Maggiore. If nothing else, it was a small gesture compared to what he went through at the Vatican’s behest.
To continue the Boston Globe’s personal crucufixion of a man who may have been the first American Pope is not only small, it is based on facts not in evidence.
What did Cardinal Law know? When did Cardinal Law know it? What did Cardinal Law do or not do? I wonder if the ‘truth’ will ever be known. Meanwhile, his retirement to Rome is hardly a ‘golden umbrella’.
Needless to say, I have always respected this man and still respect him.”
What is it that compels you to continue the enabling of rape and sodomy of children by priests by offering excuses for this morally degenerate behavior?
What public humiliation that Bernard Law suffered he brought on himself because he could never swear on a Bible in a court of law to tell the simple truth. What shame and humiliation Law has brought on the Catholic community who have always protected and referred their priests and bishops.
It is a calumny on the suffering of Jesus to liken what Law experienced as a “crucifixion.”
This the same clap-trap we heard from Archbishop Timothy Dolan when he said that B16 was being “scourged at the pillar” when Germans tried to hold Ratzinger accountable for his role in allowing priests to continue in ministry after it was known they were risks to children.
Our Catholic Church will never recover this calamity if Catholics don’t first accept and speak out about the reality of the abject corruption and betrayal of the hierarchy and too many of our priests.
Bernard Law has corrupted his priesthood and his high office in the church. And he will remain so until he comes out of hiding in the Vatican and does real meaningful public penance before survivors and the people of Boston.
Father James Connell has it just about pitch perfect. Only the full embrace of the truth will begin to unlock the church from the tangle of knots that is our shame and anger.
James Connell knows, as do all Catholics, that the words of Jesus burn in our hearts: “I have come to bring you the Truth. And the Truth will set you free.
Thank you, Jim Jenkins!
Felapton,
I paid off my student loans in 10 years, with interest.
It’s not my home. I am required to live in the duplex or pay for my own quarters.
Out west we don’t have mass transit, but I do have to cross icy mountain passes to get to parishioners and church. I don’t get paid for traveling to the bishop’s offices (a 12 hour, 600 mile round trip)
My premiums didn’t go up, but I do have a $2000 personal deductible.
I have someone tell me I don’t know how to do my job, that I’m a commie/socialist Obama-loving treehugger, most every day in some version or another.
Before the recent regime change, anytime the bishop or vicar called was an anxiety attack based on secret testimony (“I know things I can’t tell you.”). I had the foresight to find a job with high demand and low replacement supply.
I care deeply, and have personally assisted, families who’ve lost jobs, homes, vehicles.
I know people aren’t putting money in the collection basket because they write me notes telling me so, and I can verify it from the parish records. Not because they’re some cartoon but because they deeply disagree with a decision I made, and action I took.
I expect to pocket the same $600 for Christmas week and I do any other week of the year. I expect to welcome almost 6000 people that weekend, preside at 6 Masses, and share the ministry with 2 retired priests whose contributions are valued and necessary (they’ll be handling the other 6 Masses).
Dominic,
Since you’re not my parishioner, I don’t expect to be any concern of yours whatsoever.
I’m not finding it rough, though my pay cut last year (in solidarity with my staff) was tougher than I thought it would be.
The “problems” of the Church universal are WAY beyond my pay grade. I pray about them. I discuss them with people who may be able to do something.
My recently retired bishop did not secretly protect abusive priests. When situations crossed his desk, he dealt with them. His predecessor, unfortunately, was not very different from his contemporaries of the 60s and 70s, and the people and parishes paid for his mistakes.
Registering as a sex offender is a legal category which depends on the power of the state (which can’t even handle public school sex abuse problems). I’m not surprised states don’t inflict penalties on people who’ve never been convicted.
I have no comment on what other bishops and dioceses paid. I know that my former bishop sold his home and moved into a rectory as part of the settlement.
Criminal bishops? According to the court of public opinion? When bishops are hauled into criminal courts, they will receive criminal penalties. Clergy claiming “benefit of clergy” when faced with secular problems has only been a problem for 1500 years.
Bishops are not in complete control of all church money and property.
I cannot explain why fewer than five priests ever reported knowing an abusive priest, except that I’m sure it was more than a handful.
I can’t answer for other parishes, but we’ve instituted an audit with a special focus on internal controls and follow all the recommendations of our audit, security, and finance teams.
I’m confused that you’ve left the church because of your concerns, yet are so vexed by its problems. I see the good we accomplish: helping the poor, educating the young, visiting the homebound, anointing the sick, comforting the sad, sharing hope for the present, and so much more.
Doubts? I’m full of them. But nothing you have written has corroded my ministry.
As for Fr Connell’s article, I find it insightful and moving. I understand the process of conversion he articulates. I also understand that the Church is a of glass house. Nonetheless, this has been (continues to be) a learning curve for most of society.
To John Farley, I don’t know what you mean when you say the problems of the Church are way beyond your pay grade. You don’t believe that bishops are not in complete control of all money and propery.Your sure that more than a handfull of priests reported knowing an abusive priest an I’ll bet there has not been a report of any money taken since you instituted internal controls. How long have you been a priest? You say you know things you can’t tell me.
You do know that the bishops name is on every deed to every piece of property in your diocese. You do know that your pastor or you can request money from whover is in charge of parish finances and you’ll get it or else. I believe that I asked you if you knew any priest that reportet an abusive priest, not how may priest you knew, knew an abusive priest. As far as the record goes, I’m sure most every priest knew an abusive preiest but only a hand full, if that many reported them.
Nothing I said has corroded you ministry. The fact that I think more than 60% of the bishops in this country have secretly moved abusive priests from parish to parish. The fact that the bishops have used billions of dollars of Church funds with out any accountability. The fact that these bishops allowed sex abusers to leave the ministry without having to register as sex offenders. The fact that the pope has not seen fit to hold any bishop accountable for their criminal behavior . the fact that procedures to protect collection money is not made mandatory. This and much more has not corroded your ministry. Your amazing. If I were to believe you I would have to conclude that you became a priest just to get a job for life without any care in the world.
Don’t tell me about all the help you have given the needy and poor, most of this help comes from pople working in your parish, church contributions and money grants from your state ,county, medicare etc.
Don’t be confused as to why I left the Church, it was because I could not continue to be part of an organization that is run by people that have failed their sheep and have not been held sccountable for their crimes. Yes crimes, not just motal sins as you and the pope may refer to what has been going on.
I can find God everywhere. I don’t have to go to Church to find Him. I’m now a Christian. Only until bishops are held accountable will I return to the Catholic Church. You are a priest and I’m amazed that you can stay a priest knowing but not caring to remove youself from the things you say you know but can’t tell me. Not to worry, your job is safe.
Dominic Tomasso
Advocate for Bishops Accountability
tomassotucson@cox.net.
Dominic –
Given that it was a small percentage of priests who were abusers it is unlikely that even a majority of priests, much less most of them, knew of the abusers actions, especially since the abusers didn’t abuse in public. So I think your inditement of the whole priesthood doesn’t hold water.
It happens that I knew the first priest (Fr. James Tarantino) who turned in a brother priest. He was my pastor. Yes, he was a particularly fine man, but I would be very surprised if many of the other priests I’ve known would have countenanced such abuse. Were there some who did? No doubt. But it’s quite a leap from some to all.
@ Ann Olivier:
Fair enough. Maybe what you say is true. Believe what you must.
Just excuse us, if there are some who can’t wrap our minds around the implications of the facts we do know about priests and bishops sexually abusing and exploiting children and vulnerable adults.
From my experience on a review board investigating allegations against priests, Dominic Tomasso is closer to right than is comfortable for most of us to believe.
The majority of assaults on children that I investigated as part of a review board took place either in the rectory or on church/school property. A good number of the assaults were perpetrated at the priest-owned second or vacation homes that the perpetrator priest shared with other priests. Another repeated pattern in the abuse was that it was discovered by housekeepers, parish staff or sisters working at rectories or schools.
Although there should have been plenty of witnesses available, at every turn my investigations met with a conspiracy of silence: “I don’t remember or recall,” “I’m unsure because it was so long ago,” “Father had a strange way of showing his love for the children,” “She would throw herself at almost anybody,” on and on and on.
You get the picture. Shame will do that to you.
Are we to assume that most of the other priests in the rectory were totally unaware of the assaults that were going on around them, many times in the next room, on a regular basis? No one heard to the noises and tumult of the assaults?
Most survivors reported that they left the site of the assault bleeding, with blood on their clothes and underwear. It’s hard to believe that the assaults were totally invisible to all the folks who hang around parishes and schools.
How did priests explain to other priests the constant traffic of children in and out of the private apartments of the perpetrator in the rectories?
During my investigations I can only recall one priest (John Conly) who came forward to report rapes and assaults on children by his pastor (James Aylward) to the police authorities. [By-the-way, Conly discovered Aylward in his underwear sexually assaulting a young boy in the rectory when he, Conly, returned home unexpectedly.] For his actions in reporting the crime to authorities instead of keeping it “in-house” (a phrase taken from the actual court transcripts), the now Cardinal William Levada suspended Conly from all priestly ministry and terminated all financial support. Cut him off completely and set Conly adrift.
Conly sued Levada in civil court for defamation, and in order to avoid testifying in court, Levada settled with Conly for a handsome amount of money, in the hundreds of thousands. Conly, a former federal prosecutor, now lives in retirement in San Francisco. Levada, of course, now lives along the banks of the Tiber and heads the Inquisition in Rome. I don’t know what finally happened for Aylward.
The point being is that the reality of the sexual abuse and exploitation by priests, and of the corruption of the priesthood and hierarchy is most likely much worse than what is generally known to the public, even now.
Most US bishops pay out huge consulting fees to public relations firms to try to mitigate the bad publicity. Levada apparently has brought American public relationship firms to the Vatican to help shape their media push-back campaigns against the scandal. (Very helpful when even the pope is linked to protecting perpetrator priests during his days as archbishop in Munich!)
Let’s not try to minimize the depth of the corruption, conceit, and complicity by practicing a very convenient form of cognitive dissonance and double standards.
The rape and sodomy of children by thousands of priests and bishops world-wide is what it is: the greatest calamity to befall the church since the crusades and the holocausts of the Inquisition.
Thank you Jim Jenkins My comments ARE very critical of Priest & Bishops. I’m afraid that farley forgets, that just one priest sexually abusing a child in my mind, is unforgivable. I know as well as my name is Dominic, if that happened to my child I would want to kill that priest and to know that hundreds and hundreds of these sex abusers were allowed to leave the ministry by their bishops without having to register as sex offenders is just as unforgiveable. With these criminals still in charge of everything Catholic, keeps me away from the Catholic Church.
I wonder if Faley ever reviewed the information on the ,”Bishops Accountability,” web site. It makes me sick whenever I check that site. Just to read how many priest molested not one not two not three, but twenty or more children is disgusting.And their bishops secretly moved these scum without blinking. That in itself tells you how bad soooo many bishops have been. One priest told me, I know there are a few bad apples in the church but only a few. He couldn’t even say sex abusers. He refered to them as bad apples.I don’t believe all priest are bad, but I do believe most priests have remained silent. They too have failed us.
Never once have I heard a priest at Mass ,mention, no less discuse the sexual abuse scandal. They must honestly think that parishioners never heard about the sex scandal or they are just stupid enough to forget it and if you don’t mention it will go away. What idiots.
I could go on and on as to why I don’t go to Mass anymore but I won’t. I’ll just concentrate on my mission, Bishops Accountability. As long as the criminals are running the Church, I will be on the outside, not trying to get in, but getting the bishops out.
Dominic Tomasso
Advocate For Bishops Accountability’
tomassotucson@cox.net
Jim Jenkins –
My problem is I don’t see why “there SHOULD HAVE BEEN” witnesses at every turn (emphasis mine). That seems to imply that you have no evidence ofsuch witnesses.
Did the abusers typically abuse the children before others or within earshot? Did the children sometimes appear in common rooms in tears or visibly very upset? What *evidence* did you have that such things occurred? Did the children themselves tell you so? Did the children say they told the other priests but were ignored?
In other words, if the priests say they didn’t remember any such indications of wrong-doing, what evidence makes you think they’re lying?
What I’m saying is that you seem to be asserting as true actions for which you offer not actual evidence.
I don’t doubt there were some non-abusing priests who suspected wrong-doing, even strongly strongly suspected it, but did nothing to take the children’s part, and that is detestable.. I just find it difficult to believe that people indulging in criminal activities do so in circumstances in which they’re likely to be caught. Perverts aren’t generally stupid, are they? Or am I wrong about that.
Mr. Jenkins –
I apologize abjectly. I responded before reading your whole post.
I had no idea that the culprits were so open about it. Your post is the first I’ve read of just how open they were.
@ Ann Olivier:
Thank you for your re-consideration.
Let’s make sure we all keep our eye on the ball: the suffering of the survivors and the abject corruption of the hierarchy.
Here is an excerpt from Abp. Martin’s homily from last Sunday. That man calls a spade a spade.
I came here this morning to renew my apologies to the people of this parish for the facts that this week have emerged one step more clearly about the abuse of children in Ballyfermot by the former priest Tony Walsh and about the way this abuse was hushed-up by people with responsibility in the parish and in the diocese.
I come to bring my apology to a parish to which I owe much. I grew up here. [...]
How do I explain to a community marked by such honesty, good neighbourliness and hard work that the Church failed many children of this parish? How do I explain to those who were abused? How do I explain to parents and family members, especially to those who had courage to come forward and denounce what was happening? Many of those who came forward did not want to damage the Church they loved; they simply wanted abuse to be stopped effectively and definitively. Their love of the Church was betrayed by leadership in the Church.
@ Claire:
I agree. Abp. Martin’s words are appropriate to the situation in Ballyfermot. I can only imagine how effective they would have been coming from the Irish primate years ago instead of trail of betrayal the Irish people have endured.
As my sainted sixth-grade teacher, Sister Mary Adelaide, always told us: True contrition are actions, not words.
Abp. Martin has begun a long journey back from the abyss. Let’s hope he is up to the task. St. Patrick would expect nothing less.
Ann,
The details Jim Jenkins recounts help clarify what happened. Such information comes from secret archives, and is unfortunately, quickly forgotten in too many cases — pace Jonathan Davis’ views about Bernard Law.
NH archives show priests doing all they can not to divulge information to authorities, hiring lawyers to keep their knowledge out of court. Also, Bishop John McCormack, whose memory losses are simply unbelievable, in contrast to direct survivor testimony of his presence and actions.
One bishop quoted in NCR had a couple hundred Jesuits in side-splitting humor by telling how he recited to himself as he took the stand: “I’m sorry, Your Honor, but I do not remember.” http://ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/surely-rome-can-do-better
A compelling corrective is the book “Sacrilege” by Leon Podles. He had to self-publish because the details were so damning, but it is available on Amazon. The level of corruption and silence by clergy was well beyond a few bad apples.
I guess you can call me ,”The Doubting Tomasso.”
As far as I’m concerned, I still find it difficult to wholly be convinced that any Priest, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal or even the Pope is being truly honest with their apologies.
I will only be covinced when they include the following statements.” There must be accountabiliy.” “Crimes have been committed and to overlook the fact that these crimes have not been punished is compounding these crimes.” “Anyone that has been involved in the sexual abuse scandal should not be allowed to remain as part of the Catholic Church.” It is unacceptable to believe that to allow these people (and I’m beiing kind by not calling them what they really are) to still be in control of the Church.”
This is another category of abuse.
So you’l have to excuse me for not jumping on the band wagon of any cleric that gives out with any apologies. Think about it. Has any of these apologist, included, even one of the statements I’m looking for? If you know of one, please, please let me know, I will opologize to that cleric on bended knees.
Dominic Tomasso
Advocate For Bishops (any clerics) Accountability
tomassotucson@cox.net
Carolyn and Dominic –
I think the world is aware by now that there were many bishops (I keep seeing the figure ‘over 60%) who covered up cases of abuse. But I don’t think that it is widely known that many priests were also aware of abuse and kept silent.
And I continue to wonder what the proportion must have been. Let’s say that as much as 5% of priests were abusers and that for each of them there were on average as many as 3 other priests each who were aware of the abuse or had suspicions. That would mean a total of 20% were either abusers or aware of abuse or suspicious. That is far from even 50% of the priests, and I think we have to be very careful about what we say, whether “most”, “a majority of”, “many” or just “some” or “a notable percentage” priests were either abusers or cover=uppers.
Also, since there were many more abuses in some dioceses than in others (due no doubt to the individual bishops’ laxity) we need to be careful about surmising what went went on in any given diocese or parish. The awfulness of some priests’ behavior does not cancel out the right of innocent priests to their good reputations.
Ann Oliver, If you’ve read a couple of my comments above you know how I feel and what I believe. Putting the persentages aside ( I’m not going to try and convince you that all the fine priests have let us down by their silence.) You defend them I find them putting loyalty to their bishops above the good of all children and parishioners) If you want me to give you my reasons just say so.
Do you have any comments about the other statements, relative to accountability, that I made? I think they’re more important.
Have you ever visited ,”Bishops Accountability,” web site?
Dominic Tomasso
Advocate for Bishops Accountabilty
tomassotucson@cox.net
Dominic –
Yes, I’d like to hear your reasons for putting all the rest of the priests among those who don’t care about the children.
Yes, I’ve read a good bit of bishopsaccountability. Sadly, I found one of my former students there as an abuser. I don’t doubt that there are many bad priests. I do doubt that they all colluded in the cover-ups.
AnnOliver, you still have not commented on my insistence regarding the accountability measures that must be taken befor this doubting Tomasso will consister reterning to the Catholic Church.
Did you read the Letter above, from one Catholic Priest to all other Catholic Priests regarding ETC. Dec, 6, where he says, a question that is asked by some victims/survivors is, where have all the good priests been? three sentences down he says, I explained that I had not been where I should have been. I was not standing with people in pain who needed the public presence of a priests.
This is 2010 and finally, a priest gets the message. Indeed, where in the hell have they been. In fact, most of them have still not reached that conclusion.
Ann, I honestly wish that you could show my comments to a priest or your Bishop and ask him what he has to say about them. Ask him directly how he feels about bishops all over the country, allowing priests that sexually molested a child or children, to leave the ministry without having to register as sex offenders. Did these bishops think that by allowing these sex abusers to leave the ministry that they wopuld not abuse again, that they were cured? Did these bishops believe that they no longer had any responsibility for the safeguard of other children from their predatory behavior? Did they care?
I’m 88 years old. Went to Catholic school. Was a member of the Tucson Catholic Social Srvices for 4 years and then President for 2 more years. Donated to the bldg funds of 3 parishes and a Catholic Seminary. Do you realize how much thought I gave about leaving the Church.
If I thought for one minute that Jesus will condem me, if I’m fortunate enought to still go to heaven, it would kill me. My wife of 69 years believes that I am wrong in not going to church, and I have to live with that. I’ve believe I am justified in losing my faith and trust in the hierachy of the Catholic Church.
Dominic Tomasso
Advocate For Bishops Accountability
tomassotucson@cox.net
“Anyone that has been involved in the sexual abuse scandal should not be allowed to remain as part of the Catholic Church.”
Dominic, this is one sentence I disagree with. First, they remain baptized; but I assume that you meant that they should be laicized. Instead, I wonder if it might not be better to leave fallen priests and bishops in the priesthood (but away from any position of responsibility of course), to serve as a public reminder that priests are not better than, nor purer then, nor superior to lay people. I worry that the current black-and-white tendency to ignore some problems (basically, the cover-ups) and kick out perpretators of other problems (basically, the cases of abuse, once they are made public) will result in the clergy claiming that by getting rid of the black sheep, they have guaranteed that priests have a right to our blind trust.
Claire, you say that anyone that has been involved in the sexual abuse scandal should not be allowed to remain as part of the Catholic church. I agree with that one hundred percent.
Then Claire , how do you feel knowing that other than the priest that the bishops allowed to leave the ministry without having to register as sex offenders, they , the bishops that secretly moved these sex abusers from parist to parish, are still in control. They are also guilty of a crime and they have not been held accountable. YES, CRIMES.
Since the Pope, has not removed any of these bishops and he still is allowing some to retire with all the perks and great fanfare, what does that tell you. You don’t have to be any smarter than a third grader to realize that he will never hold any of them accountable because he too, is involved. If you don’t believe that, I’m not going to try to convince you.
So where does that leave us. As far as I’m concerned, EVEN IF THERE WERE ONLY FIFTY BISHOPS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN MOVING THESE ABUSIVE PRIEST FROM PARISH TO PARIS AND ONLY FIFTY BISHOPS THAT USED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF CHURCH FUNDS TO PROTECT THESE ABUSERS BY MAKING FINANCIAL SETTLEMENTS, AND THERE WERE ONLY FIFTY OF THESE BISHOPS ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES THAT KEEP USING CHURCH FUNDS, TO FIGHT TO KEEP THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FROM BEING CHANGED BECAUSE IT WILL COST THE CHURCH MORE MONEY IN SEXUAL ABUSE CASES EVEN THOUGHT THE SOL HAS PROVEN OVER THE YEARS THAT IT PROTECTS SEX CRIMINALS AT THE EXPENSE OF CHILDREN, I WOULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE CONTINUING TO BE A MEMEBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EVEN IF THERE WERE ONLY 10 BISHOPS INVOLVED, KNOWING THAT THE POPE IS NOT GOING TO HOLD THE 10 RESPONSIBLE OR ACCOUNTABLE.
I AM NOT A SHEEP ANY MORE THAN THEY ARE MY SHEEPHERDs. I CAN NOT CLOSE MY EYES TO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND WHAT THEY ARE CONTINUING TO DO. THE MAJORITY OF THEIR SHEEP CAN NOT BELIEVE OR ARE AFRAID THAT THEY WILL GO TO HELL IF THEY FAIL TO PRAY, PAY AND OBEY. tHESE BISHOPS ARE NOT DESERVING OF OUR TRUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ACCOUNABLE FOR THEIR CRIMES. yES, MY BROTHER AND SISTERS, THEY HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES AND IF YOU CAN NOT SEE THAT THEN THERE ISN’T ANYTHING I CAN SAY THAT WILL CONVINCE YOU. BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT I AM TRYING TO HURT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHEN IN FACT, EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID IS NOT ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUT THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE. NOT THE CHURCH.
You may not believe me but I find God in all the strangest places. I feel comfortable that God supports me , my thinking, and my efforts to achieve Bishops Accountability. Ask yourself if God believes that what I am saying about the bishops are just lies. Ask your pastor, your bishop, your, parish priest. I know what they will tell you. They would say, we have to pray for Dominic he has lost his faith and trust in bishops. That’s what I have been told by a member of our diocese. They are all praying for me. That’s the truth. What they won’t discuss with you are the merits of what I am saying.
DOMINIC TOMASSO,
Advocate for Bishops Accountability
tomassotucson@cox.net.
Dominic, I personally have little difficulty belonging to the church in spite of the corruption in some places. I think of “The power and the glory” by Graham Greene: the people in the villages visited by the priest are aware that he is an alcoholic, and may have heard that he fathered a child, but it does not make them leave the church. They know that priests are no better than other people, but they don’t let that prevent them from coming to reconciliation and to Mass.
Claire, if you feel comfortable with your life and Church, that’s all that matters. I don’t but it’s not because of priests. Sure, I believe they have let us down, all those that have abused children and the silent ones. It is the bishops that control everything Catholic yet refuse to be held accountable that keeps me away.
Dominic Tomasso
Advocate for Bishops Accountability
tomassotucson@cox.net