History repeating itself.
March 10, 2011, 1:00 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
“This terrible history recorded here today is history.” –Archbishop Wilton Gregory, then president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in his remarks accompanying the release of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Study on “The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002″ and the National Review Board’s “Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States,” February 27, 2004.
Susan on the Philadelphia thread noted Michael Sean Winters saying the ball is in Rome’s Court to get Rigali to resign.
In the so called “scandal” thread, the work of Abp. Dolan came up. The USCCB( he heads) meeting is this month I beleive. Will Philadelphia come up?
Then there’s the Review Board and its makeup, etc.
By their fruits you will know them: if all we get is more”I’m sorry” statements linked with damage control, Ann’s description of the bishops’ work as ‘horrendous” wil be quite apropos.
Does anyone know how I can check on whether there are any priests with abuse allegations in my parish in the Bronx? Is there an online database?
The Administrative Committee of the USCCB always meets in mid-March. Probably next week. It used to be about fifty-five bishops, but was pared down to about thirty in the reorganization of the conference structures that took place several years ago. But we are beyond further words and statements. Cardinal Rigali should go. Tomorrow. And an administrator apostolic should be appointed. Perhaps Bishop Galante of Camden. And the cardinal’s passport should be cancelled. No more flying to Rome twice a month to attend meetings of the Congregation of Bishops.
Watch for a new John Jay report soon. Not soon enough, but soon…
Also, one of those Philly priests was one of my old pastors. He’s now around 90 and has cancer. He lives in a rectory and has no immediate family. Rumor has it that these guys were all given eight hours to vacate their rectories and were told they can’t be on archdiocesan property.
I must say that I don’t think that it is right to just throw these very elderly people into the street, no matter what they’ve done.
Both Cardinal Law and Cardinal Rigali, the most incredibly insensitive of our bishops, are members of the Congregation of Bishops, the curial group that recommends new bishops to the pope. Both have got to go.
I say it’s time to march. But where? Philadelphia? Before the Papal Nuncio’s in Washington? St. Peter’s square?
All of the above!
As long as the bishops persist in the belief that this is a moral failing of a small minority of priests, Archbishop Gregory’s history will continue to repeat itself.
While I’m not going to argue against most of the solutions given above, I’d say it’s time for a reassessment of how red hats are awarded. Boston and Philadelphia should not have them. Bishops should be moved from see to see far less regularly than they are. Penance by personal example.
Well, pehaps these criminal perpetrators would be better served by being housed in prison.
Although the streets woud be cheaper for the general public to pay than to house them in prison where they should have been put years ago after first reporting to civil authorities for prosecuting of their criminal acticity. Perhaps being made to live like the homeless would be a just punishment? Preying on the young and weak in a community is so low-life, perhaps living in the gutter would help them examine their consciences so as to make amends for their dastardly activities. That is my judgmental side talking – my compassionate side says to pity them treat them with mercy, just as God loves, forgives and cares for me in my own sinfulness.
John – respect your note but Galante would not be a good choice. We had to endure the three ring circus of Galante, Rudy Kos, and Bishop Grahmann for years in Dallas until they were able to get Galante out of town. He doesn’t have the skills necessary in terms of healing vs. directness; too outspoken when careful consideration is necessary; and not sure he would have the archdiocesan priests’ trust.
The assessment of the Exercises by Dominicans and Benedictines is predictable, but they certainly should not be the ones to define what they were then or are now. The rivalry is historic. The caricature simply belies the reality of Ignatian spirituality. The annotations to the Exercises tell of the gradual transformation and conversion that Ignatius knew from his own experience could result from them, especially in the annotation 19 version of the Exercises in daily life.
Julett: we don’t know the facts behind each of these individuals. Serial pedophiles are one thing. Other priests whose failure was limited to a one-time whatever and happend a long time ago simply should NOT be thrown out on the street (the 90 year old cited above, for example) or put in prison. There has to be another way! Bishops, who are nothing more than priests with larger egos and more power, are given more latitude in how their abuses of their office are treated. Their brother priests deserve at least as much.
If all of us who have failings/sins/crimes were treated according to the worst possible scenario, we would ALL be a bit more willing to “consider the facts, ma’am” (as Joe Friday used to say.)
And, NO, I’m not trying to excuse abuses of power, trust and office, but I’m also willing to hold these non-serial predators to the same standards to which I would want to be held in my life.
If you want a quick link to the Michael Sean Winters piece in NCR mentioned by Bob Nunz above, here it is. He really lays it on the line.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/crisis-episcopal-governance-philadelphia
Perhaps we should have realized how the Charter’s norms would be handled by our Bishops when they chose to be led by Cardinal George– who had so egregiously ignored them.
What seems to be required by the rules is a prompt suspension of the party alleged to have offended, a careful investigation, and when a single act of sexual abuse by a priest or deacon, is admitted or established, the offender should be removed from ministry and, if the case so warrants, from the clerical state. It would seem that in Philadelphia this process was not carried out, and is just about to be implemented–under pressure, quite late after the events, and after who knows what damage has been done– to innocent children and even to unfairly accused priests who might be hard put now to defend themselves against allegations laid against them in the past.
One thing that the laity and the faithful clergy and Bishops with nothing to hide have a right to at this point is a thorough investigation–with teeth in it–of the accuracy of the annual reports submitted not only by the Bishop of Philadelphia, but every other Bishop in the country. There should be penalties for Bishops for submitting specious, misleading data and subordinates should not be made to take the fall for failing to investigate abuse charges in depth and in a timely fashion, and especially for violating the seemingly strict rules about removing offenders proven guilty or admitting guilt from ministry. The buck has to stop with their Eminences.
Irene –
I think that the old sick priests are not being investigated, and as I read the reports they are not being thrown out of their houses. No, they shouldn’t be. There is also the fact that the investigations are not cweomplete, nor any relevant trials, so they should be given the benefit of any doubt. And the fact that though we can judge the iniquity of their purported acts it doesn’t follow that those crazy men are fully resposible, or even partially responsible, for what they apparently did.
But the bishops aren’t crazy, so that is why, I think, the fury of the faithful has been directed even more at them than at the perps. It’s also true that we really can’t know how deeply ignorant each bishop was before 2002 — how little they realized how serious the crimes were. But after 2002 it is hard to imagine how anyone of even average intelligence and mental stability could be mistaken about the terrible damage done to the children. So it’s a struggle to give the post-Dallas bishops the benefit of the doubt. At any rate, the most egregious offenders should all be removed from office.
I do not follow these matters very closely so I have two questions to which I do not have an answer but would like some enlightenment:
First, is it clear that these priests are guilty and by what process was this determination made? In other words: does the matter go beyond simple accusation?
Second, is it the case that a determination was made of criminal behavior and, despite that, these priests were left in ministry?
Could some folks without axes to grind one way or another clear up the above? I ask because if there was evidence that the priests in question were guilty and not removed from ministry then it is a really appalling situation and I am not easily appalled.
Larry,
It can vary from diocese to diocese, but usually a diocesan victims assistance coordinator will receive an allegation, pass it on to the diocesan review board, which then conducts an investigation into the complaint. If the board finds the allegation credible, then the priest is usually suspended pending a criminal and/or canonical procedure. Of course, if he admits the abuse then the laicization process begins immediately.
As Nicholas Cafardi shows in his most recent piece, there have been times when review boards have rejected allegations when they shouldn’t have, allowing priests to stay in ministry who were later indicted and/or convicted of molesting minors.
Those are very good questions, Lawrence Cunningham. What people are concerned about at the moment is why Rigali had apparently not followed the procedures the Bishops adopted themselves, requiring prompt, thorough investigation and appropriate action on credible allegations of sexual abuse. Had the procedures been followed, those accused could have been exonerated if found to be innocent, and removed from ministry if not.
Rigali’s initial response when questioned the other day was somewhat misleading, as he claimed there were no admitted or “established” allegations about any of his clergy. The “Charter” speaks of “credible allegations” so he may not have wanted to use that term. The civil authorities in Philadephia thought otherwise, and under that pressure the Bishop is now saying that nothing need be done in eight cases but the rest of the accused have been suspended. Their cases are supposedly being vigorously re-investigated now by the Archdiocese, and we will have to see what they come up with. And, no doubt, what the civil authorities will choose to do. The fact that the Archdiocese now admits it needs to cooperate in a more thorough investigation than it has previously conducted is a step in the right direction, but it does suggest there may have been sufficient evidence against 21 who were left in ministry to warrant that further and more vigorous investigation. And that is , as you say, appalling.
So yes, those accused are to be held innocent until proven guilty, but they also deserved fair and prompt and thorough investigation of any charges made against them, with exoneration if innocent and treatment or other measures if not.
“I ask because if there was evidence that the priests in question were guilty and not removed from ministry then it is a really appalling situation and I am not easily appalled.”
A review of diocesan files and the grand jury reports show that criminal prosecutions are rare for a number of reasons.
It does go beyond mere accusation. The files show that cumulate accusations and admissions of guilt were often identified with respect to many priests. Priests were sent to treatment centers becaue they had self admitted “problems with boys.” The use of euphemisms to disguise and minimize the violent sexual assaults was rampant.
The numerous self admissionof guilt and the referrals to treatmetn centers for sexual disorders seems to be pretty clear evidence of criminal behavior or tolerance of that behavior. Howver, once the priest was either returned from treatment or “promised to sin no more” the priest would then be transferred to a new parish where he could prey upon a new unsuspecting crop of children.
Here is a transcript of the deposition testimony of a now-sitting bishop. Notice the flat out and evil prevarication:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ma-boston/archives/PatternAndPractice/0067-McCormackDepoExcerpts.pdf
He testified that he was aware in 1985 that a particular priest “Father X” had abused children.
He objected in his then official capacity in the Boston Chancery to the priest’s appointment as pastor of another parish.
The priest was appointed as pastor of the new parish anyway.
In 1987, two years, later, he received a letter from a parishioner of the new parish, a father of young boys, inquiring if the pastor was the same “Father X” who had abused children earlier. The name was common so the parent did not want to leap to unfounded conclusions.
The Bishop testified at his deposition that he knew why the parent asked the question:
Q: “So this man is raising a legitimate concern in your view about a man that even you had hesitations about being named pastor in 1985. He wants to know about whether it’s the same Father “X.”
The currently sitting bishop responded to the parent’s concerns by writing a letter telling him he had no “factual basis for his concerns.”
I know a lot of people have not followed this situation closely. If you haven’t, it’s beyond apalling–it is far worse than you could imagine. Think organized crime prostitution and sex slavery rings.
If you have the stomach, I’d recommend reading the deposition transcripts posted at Bishop Accountability and the actual grand jury reports. Don’t rely on those with axes to grind.
The actual documents are chilling.
Yes, history repeats itself and so do blogs, sometimes, if the subject is just right. Think Mollie had a thread on this just yesterday, which itself was a revisit of a recent thread. Why do I get the feeling another thread on Rembert Weakland won’t be coming any time soon though (unless it’s to give him another forum)?
Jimmy Mac–Agreed.
Mr. C–I would respond, but I admit I do have an axe to grind. In fact, there are very few commenters qualified to respond to your request, given the constraint you’ve imposed.
Two more things to Susan’s comment. The entire thread on Rigali below should be read and note Gene Palumbo’s post. It’s hard to think that these allegations and the removal from ministry were done lightly, though Rigali’s manner may be heavy handed now to show he’s bein gserious.
What’s also highly germane is the statement in the latest NCR cocverage that Terry Mckeirnan of Bishop Accountability does not think the Philadelphia approach is unusal in catholic diosceses.
I take him quite seriously and think that the Dallas Charter systenm has not been “the Church doing too much” but a broken one vested in the institution’s protection.
I think maybe Frank Keating was not too far off in his asessment and hence he had to go.
We don’t need more defenders of the heirarchy but more honesty and actiuons in the civil sphere.
“Why do I get the feeling another thread on Rembert Weakland won’t be coming soon?”
Is Weakland a sitting bishop? No.
There probably won’t be any threads on Weakland for the same reason there won’t be any on Bishops Symons and OConnell or Archbishop Sanchez, and sadly, many more.
They’ve all resigned for their own sexual misconduct. Nobody, except you, cares about their “politics.” This isn’t about church politics, it’s about sexual misconduct and episcopal cover-ups.
Lawrence Cunningham –
About the objectivity of the accusations: grand juries are usually chosen from respected people in the community, people from different backgrounds. So I think it probable that the make-up of the Philadelphia juries were therefore about as objective as any such group is likely to be.
The new grand jury report is, as Joe McFaul puts it, beyond appalling. I couldn’t finish it. You can read the official report at:
://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/clergyAbuse2-finalReport.pdf
Those of you who doubt the appalling character of what has been established as fact in courts of law should read some of the testimony at bishopsaccountability.org for Lent.
Joe–
Just so I’m clear, the sitting bishop your earlier comment cited was not Cardinal Rigali, or any Philadelphia bishop, was it?
Irene, the bishop accountability web site has a database and search tool.
I agree that if the rumor is correct that priests have suddenly been thrown out – instead of being courteously suspended from ministry and sent to, say, a monastery where they can wait for their case to be reviewed and prepare their defense – that’s another instance of heartlessness. It sounds as though the Philadelphia archdiocese has gone into panic mode.
The bishop of Trenton wrote: “In the short few months since assuming the role of bishop of Trenton, I have done my best to learn what has transpired in the Diocese of Trenton since the establishment of the 2002 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People by the U.S. bishops. As a result of this inquiry, I am convinced that our diocese has done everything in its power to fulfill the 2002 charter, implementing every possible safety measure, removing abuser priests when identified and bringing them to justice, and reaching out in compassion and support to anyone who has been victimized by a member of the clergy.”
“everything in [the diocese's] power”, “implementing every possible safety measure”: so sweeping as to be meaningless.
The fact that he “has done his best” and “is convinced” means nothing.
If he wants people to be reassured, he needs to show what has been done. The people of Trenton need to see some evidence and verify for themselves that the measures taken are appropriate. They will not defer to the bishop’s judgement, and will not be soothed by mere words… will they?
Mark- One sitting bishop who got a pass, I think, is Bishop Cistone in Michigan. He is reported as having been the assistant to Msgr Lynn in the scandal unfolding now in Philly . But Cistone was an associate to the Administrative Vicar, then later, he was an Asst Archdiocesan Vicar, then later Vicar General & Administrative Vicar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_R._Cistone
I believe that in all of those positions, he would have been superior to Msgr Lynn; Cistone would have been Bevilacqua’s spokesperson. (While in one of those senior jobs, Cistone had a sister evicted from a parish when she reported that she thought a parish priest posed a threat to children. The priest stayed, the sister left; the sister’s charges were true).
I’m not going to shed crocodile tears for Msgr Lynn’s situation, but I do think he might be taking a fall.
Thanks Claire
The notion of abusive priests and complicit bishops being sent to a monastery to end their lives in prayer and penance has a certain appeal, but there are practical difficulties. No such monastery exists. Dioceses don’t maintain monasteries. I recall reading, when this notion was first floated during the Boston episode of this endless series, some abbots of actual monasteries run by religious orders were asked if criminal clergy could be sent to them, and the response – perfectly reasonably and understandably – was ‘we don’t want them’. Who would?
FWIW – at one time, and perhaps still today, abusive priests of my diocese who have been removed from ministry but not (yet) laicized were given rooms at a retreat house on the grounds of the seminary. I attend a retreat there most years (a lot of groups hold retreats there) and we spot one or two of them on occasion. It’s a really big old house in the woods, so it’s kind of quasi-monastic I guess, without the community living or rule to govern their lives. There is a high school across the road from the seminary campus, about a half-mile away from the retreat house itself, and that makes some folks queasy. But they have to be stowed somewhere.
The best thing, or the least bad thing, seems to be to laicize most of these guys as quickly as possible. That means that the institutional church is no longer responsible for them. In essence, society needs to find a way to accommodate them, as it needs to do the same for sexual violators and predators who don’t happen to be Catholic clergy. These guys will be registered as sexual offenders, their names will appear on state websites, and they can try to get a job and support themselves, and find a place to live that is not near a school.
I agree with the various comments made here about older priests; the diocese should continue to care for them. I’m a little foggy as to whether or not my diocese has retirement housing for priests, but if such exists, either there are not enough rooms for everyone or a lot of the priests prefer other options. We have two retirees living in our rectory right now, and there are a number of similar arrangements throughout the diocese. But would parishioners want a retired abuser living in their rectory? That doesn’t sound good for anyone concerned.
Jim,
I find it difficult to believe that the Catholic Church can’t find suitable, out-of-the-way places to send problem priests instead of laicizing them (assuming the priests do not want to be laicized and are willing to live a “quasi-monastic” life). The thinking should not be that it is better, if they are going to continue to offend, that they do it as ex-priests. The thinking should be how to keep them from offending again (assuming they are willing to live obediently as priests).
David – yes, I’m sure a diocese could build a monastery, and maintain it and staff it – or several dioceses could pool their resources and build one that would serve them all. (Would they be like minimum-security prisons?)
If I may ask the question bluntly, though – why should it?
To my understanding, the entire basis for the zero-tolerance Dallas norms is that these priests are deemed to *not* live obediently as priests. Those norms essentially say, “Do one thing – even one thing – that crosses the line, even by a little bit, and you will be yanked from ministry. And if you admit your guilt or are found guilty, you’ll never be a priest again.”
Doesn’t that imply that the church no longer has a responsibility for the welfare of those violators? Those priests broke the deal. They violated the covenant that says, “If I give you a lifetime of faithful service, you’ll provide for me.” The deal is off.
Surely the pattern with many of these violators is that their promises can’t be trusted. I wouldn’t believe anything that any of them told me.
The church is already liable for their past misdeeds. By keeping them within the fold, the church may be making itself liable for their future misdeeds, too. Better for the church to laicize them and spit them out.
You’re right that this won’t stop them from offending. That’s true of offenders in general – short of incarceration, I don’t know that there is a way to stop them from offending. It’s not clear to me that the church’s burden in this regard should be any greater than the burden of society as a whole to figure this out.
But, Jim, if it’s similar to sacramental marriage, then isn’t it, not a “deal”, but a mutual engagement forever? Just because one side broke the covenant does not relieve the other side of its obligations. My understanding is not that abusers “will never be a priest again” but that they’ll never be in ministry again. But they’re still ordained and the institutional church still has the responsibility for the welfare of its criminal priests, doesn’t it?
My impression is that the institution doesn’t want to have in its midst priests who are known to be criminals, mostly because it’s bad for its image.
I think that the clergy will be more humble if they accept the reality that some of their brother priests are public criminals. Keeping abusers in the church (with necessary safeguards of course) and paying for their welfare is good for us. It’s a way for the church to do penance.
The opposite reaction: kicking the bad ones out once their behaviour becomes public is a way to pretend that the clergy can be all pure, can be our trustworthy teachers and leaders. It’s a panicked attempt to regain credibility by eliminating the weakest links. Not healthy.
As I remember priests in the Boston archdiocese were told not to contribute to social security because the church would take care of them in their old age. That kind of commitment, that makes priests totally dependent on the goodwill of the church, is much stronger than a deal that could be called off when one party breaks the deal.
If I may ask the question bluntly, though – why should it?
Jim,
I can speak specifically about the Philadelphia priests, but it seems to me that in many cases the instances of sex abuse happened 10 or 20 years ago, and have not been repeated. I do not think the Church can afford to say, “Well, it was so long ago, and there have been no problems since, so we’ll let it go.” But on the other hand, zero tolerance doesn’t mean to me that if you did something wrong many years ago, didn’t get caught, but repented of it and have spent the rest of your life up until now being a good priest, you should get unceremoniously booted out.
When Benedict XVI was interviewed about the sex-abuse crisis during his trip to Britain, he said, “Secondly there is the problem of those who are guilty. A just penalty must exclude them from all access to young people. We know that this is an illness, that free will does not rule where this illness is present, and that we must protect these persons from themselves and find a way to assist them and to protect them from themselves and exclude them from access to young people.”
That is simply not consistent with laicizing people and sending them on their way.
I do think the assertion that “free will does not rule where this illness is present” should have produced a major debate, but few seemed interested in discussing it at the time. In any case, Benedict certainly didn’t seem, in that response, to endorse the Church giving all offenders the boot and washing its hands of them henceforth.
“If I may ask the question bluntly, though – why should it?”
On the retail sales principle of “You break it, you buy it.”
I see nothing wrong with the retreat house solution. I remember Bishop Ziemann retreated to a monastic setting and nobody demanding a pound of his flesh.
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-patrick-ziemann23-2009oct23,0,1532784.story
Individual facts matter. If an offending priest is criminally charged, then I think that the church can rightfuly assume that society as a whole should be responsible for the priest’s conduct upon the completion of criminal proceedings.
If a priest is not subject to criminal charges because of the statute of limitations and the diocese knew of misconduct but concealed it, allowing a statute to expire, then the diocese “broke it and should buy it” principle should apply.
In the absence of criminal proceedings, if the church promptly laicized a priest upon prompt investigation of a single incident, then I think society can be expected to deal with that individual in the future.
Some are uncotrollable serial predators that representt a potential threat. If, for some reason crimal proceedings are unavailable, then the Church needs to take the best efforts it can to control the individual and follow up until the threat ceases. Such actions could include public warnings, fingerprinting, Social Security numner confirmation, payment of permanent pensions on the condition that the person is readlily available at a comfirmed address and employer and law enforcement notification.
Nobody expects the Church to be a guarantor of priestly good behavior. What is expected, and where the Church institutional structures collapsed, is candid information regarding the scope of the risk and prompt, public, even-handed investigations of reports of misconduct.
To the extent that the Church’s institutional collapse exacerbated the problem, it should bear the costs and the future liability.
Elderly or infirm people who realistically are no threat to children should be cared for with compassion at our (the Church’s) expense.
“The best thing, or the least bad thing, seems to be to laicize most of these guys as quickly as possible. That means that the institutional church is no longer responsible for them. In essence, society needs to find a way to accommodate them, as it needs to do the same for sexual violators and predators who don’t happen to be Catholic clergy.”
Laicize them, yes. But the institutional church no longer being responsible for them? No! The “institutional church” (including the over-trusting laity who never believed anything bad about “Father”) is stuck with the results of the culture it created and the rest of us allowed to be created. Like it or not, we will pay and pay and pay until the aggrieved parties have been treated justly and fairly and whatever psychological and other care has been provided. The larger society should NOT be expected to take over when we allegedly wash our hands of our dirty, filthy, abusive, disgusting laundry.
Will there be claims that are not justified? Probably? Will the “innocent” have to pay and suffer? Yes. Will the church lose even more creditibility with its own members and the communities at large? Absolutely! Will the church recover? Maybe not in the same form that we have taken for granted as being divinely instituted. Will it be a small, sadder church that has finally learned the virtue of humility? One can only hope. Will we all learn that all church is local and the rest can be an unnecessary distraction? I learned that a long time ago. It’s up to the rest of people to decide that for themselves. Should we dismiss the people who have left because of this as being “poor” or “bad” Catholics? Absolutely not.
Maybe they are the brave and honest ones of the entire bunch.
—- that should be “Probably!” No question about it.
“But, Jim, if it’s similar to sacramental marriage, then isn’t it, not a “deal”, but a mutual engagement forever? Just because one side broke the covenant does not relieve the other side of its obligations. My understanding is not that abusers “will never be a priest again” but that they’ll never be in ministry again. But they’re still ordained and the institutional church still has the responsibility for the welfare of its criminal priests, doesn’t it?”
Hi, Claire, I would say that the whole point of laicization in these cases is to sever the connection between the bishop and the priest and the duties that come with that connection. You’re correct that, ontologically, the laicized priest is still a priest. But possessing that ontological status doesn’t obligate that the institutional church to see to the laicized priest’s well-being, any more than a wife needs to permit an adulterous spouse to live with her and the children. When that happens, it’s not the ideal of marriage, but that ideal was violated long ago, and not by the wife.
“Keeping abusers in the church (with necessary safeguards of course) and paying for their welfare is good for us. It’s a way for the church to do penance.”
Laicizing a priest doesn’t kick him out of the church. He can still attend mass and do most of the other things a layperson does.
I don’t trust the church’s ability to erect effective and trustworthy safeguards. The church has proven many times over that it lacks the ability to put reliable safeguards in place. It’s not competent to protect us from predators in our midst, even when it makes a good-faith effort to do so.
The monastery plan also depends upon the cooperation of the penitent. After a month of monastery lilfe, he may decide that it’s not for him, and leave. Then what? The church would still have responsibility and liability for a person who is known to commit horrible crimes, whose whereabouts are unknown, and whom the church lacks the police power to corral.
“But on the other hand, zero tolerance doesn’t mean to me that if you did something wrong many years ago, didn’t get caught, but repented of it and have spent the rest of your life up until now being a good priest, you should get unceremoniously booted out.”
Hi, David, I don’t agree that it’s getting “unceremoniously booted out”. It’s being laicized for just cause.
“If a priest is not subject to criminal charges because of the statute of limitations and the diocese knew of misconduct but concealed it, allowing a statute to expire, then the diocese “broke it and should buy it” principle should apply.”
I don’t understand the logic of the “broke it and should buy it” principle. What we’re talking about here is the institutional church’s obligation to the perpetrator. I would expect that the church’s liability and obligation for the offenses of its clergy is based on the offenses being committed while the clergy were ostensibly fulfilling their clerical office as a representative of the church. I don’t see that the factors you’ve identified – whether or not he is convicted of a crime, whether or not the church covered up and transferred the perpetrator – would somehow increase the obligation to *the perp.*
Naturally, covering up crimes and enablingg additional crimes greatly increases the obligation of the institutional church to the *victims*.
“In the absence of criminal proceedings, if the church promptly laicized a priest upon prompt investigation of a single incident, then I think society can be expected to deal with that individual in the future.”
Yes, I agree – and would add that even if there are criminal proceedings, laicization would end the church’s responsibility to the cleric for any misdeeds from that point forward.
“Some are uncontrollable serial predators that representt a potential threat. If, for some reason crimal proceedings are unavailable, then the Church needs to take the best efforts it can to control the individual and follow up until the threat ceases. Such actions could include public warnings, fingerprinting, Social Security numner confirmation, payment of permanent pensions on the condition that the person is readlily available at a comfirmed address and employer and law enforcement notification.”
Again, I ask – why does the church have any obligation whatever? I would defer to your legal expertise, but my impression that so long as the perpetrator remains listed as a priest, the church as its employer or responsible party is liable for any misdeeds committed.
“Nobody expects the Church to be a guarantor of priestly good behavior. ”
Do legal outcomes bear that statement out? From my legal layperson’s perspective, it seems pretty clear that the church is expected to guarantee its priests’ good behavior – or at least it is massively liable for its priests’ bad behavior.
What is expected, and where the Church institutional structures collapsed, is candid information regarding the scope of the risk and prompt, public, even-handed investigations of reports of misconduct.”
I agree.
“To the extent that the Church’s institutional collapse exacerbated the problem, it should bear the costs and the future liability.”
I agree it is liable for *past* offenses which it exacerbated. I don’t see a compelling reason it should be liable for future offenses if it cuts ties with the offenders.
“Elderly or infirm people who realistically are no threat to children should be cared for with compassion at our (the Church’s) expense.”
I agree 100%.
I’m very reluctant to ask this, but how are victims compensated? Isn’t most of the Church’s money, at its roots, charitable dollars? I’m very sympathetic to the victims, but I don’t want my own donations used for this purpose; I give for programs for poor people. Where is the money coming from to compensate victims?
Bluntly, Jim, your position seems to be no different from that of a corporation severing connections with an employer.
May I seriously suggest that you reflect again on how Jesus dealt with sinners. He ate with them, etc. Are we to assume that he did so because he knew that they would never sin again.
Neither you nor I are so confirmed in goodness that either of us has a good reason to decide that there is any of us who is not entitled to our concern and love.
Jim, for the Christian, there is no such thing as a person who is “undeserving” of our love and care.
The way we express this love and care may at times involve punishing, provided that the punishing has rehabilitation as its ultimate objective. What you say shows no concern for rehabilitation.
Frankly, your approach sounds like that of the scribes etc. who were more concerned with the preservation of institutional values than with the welfare of people, eeven the most sinful of people.
Bernard –
I agree. Many of the abusers are psychotic and thus not completely responsible or even responsible at all. The others not] doubt are more or less resposible,, but still they are our brothers in Christ. However, I do think that particular decisions have to be made on a person by person basis.
Further, if criminal behavior is a reason to throw our fellow Christians in the gutter, then there would be a number of bishops in the gutter with the perps. Not to mention the fact that a number of bishops have been abusers themselves.
“I’m very reluctant to ask this, but how are victims compensated?”
Hi Irene,
Some of the payments would be through insurance. That source has dried up as insurers relaized what a poor risk the church is.
The rest is through the church coffers and, yes, that includes your donations. I’d ask you to reflect a bit. If WE are the Church, the Body of Christ, as we claim we are, then perhaps WE bear some repsonsibility for our own carelessness, our own oversights and our own obsequiousness to underserving bishops and priests and WE played some role in what transpired
That means, to some extent our Church, composed of you and me and bishops and priests– collectively failed. We should be collectively responsible. Individual responsibilty varies greatly but to some extent we have all failed the victims and should all see to it they are compensated.
There is of course another rationale. The Grand Jury reports are available for any Catholic to read. So are the depositons transcripts of bishops and priests. There are victim’s affidavits to read. Thease are beyond appalling and heartbreaking. They describe in very graphic detail sexual assaults that should not be in anybody’s realm of imagination. They show a systematic destruction of individuals’ lives on a scale hard to imagine. Torture is too mild a word to describe what happend and what what knowingly and sytematically covered up by the institution. Nobody can claim ignorance of what destruction has been rendered by the institution of the Catholic Church.
Now that Catholics are aware of what has and still is going on, we have made a conscious and knowing decision to associate ourselves with such people.
And of course, we should pay. If you feel that is unfair, simply disassociate yourself from the organization or don’t give any money to the organization. Then you won’t have to pay.
I’ve already said I’ve stopped contributing. I won’t pay one penny to the Church. Instead I divide the money I used to contribute in three. One third to SNAP (as reparations for my own failures) one third to Project Rachel (because don’t you know it–I must be pro-abortion if I am angry at the bishops) and one third to The Catholic Worker.
David
“I can speak specifically about the Philadelphia priests, but it seems to me that in many cases the instances of sex abuse happened 10 or 20 years ago, and have not been repeated. I do not think the Church can afford to say, “Well, it was so long ago, and there have been no problems since, so we’ll let it go.” But on the other hand, zero tolerance doesn’t mean to me that if you did something wrong many years ago, didn’t get caught, but repented of it and have spent the rest of your life up until now being a good priest, you should get unceremoniously booted out. ”
David, you assume so much. You assume that the perp is indeed sorry and has repented. You also assume that there have been no problems since.
In my experience with sexual assault and perps, the perps are not sorry because they are not wrong. Very simple. It is everyone else who has the problem, not the perps. And from what we can see, the bishops share the perps’ attitude as well. We know 2/3 of children never speak. And of the 1/3 who do choose to speak up, many of them are not believed or supported. A one time offense of sexual assault is sufficient to prove that the man is not fit for the priesthood. End of story.
And for those who feel that a “one time sexual assault” on a priest’s record is not all that bad, spend ONE day, just one day with a child victim and hear his/her stories and I promise you you will not be sympathizing with the poor perpetrator.
These guys getting booted out into the streets? Good. It is the least they can do. Old fashioned penitence. They should wear ashes to boot. We have lost what true penance looks like. Instead we want to have mercy when there is ZERO evidence, ZERO evidence that these priests are sorry. If they are TRULY sorry, let them turn themselves in for their crimes and plead guilty and accept TRUE responsibility for what they have done.
RCM: you speak as if you know a lot about the priests in question. Do you? Can you say with moral certainty that all are/were guilty of crimes against minors? I haven’t read anything that gives the background if each of these cases and would welcome the chance to do so.
All bishopaccountability.org says in each case is: “One of 21 priests placed on administrative leave by Philadelphia archdiocese 3/7/11 PENDING INVESTIGATION FOR CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS involving sexual abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors.”
Pending investigation “FOR” does not seem to be the same as “OF.” Or is that legalese for the same thing?
Rigali’s resignation is already in Rome if Wikipedia is correct that he was born 19 April 1935. All bishops submit a resignation when they turn 75, except the Pope.
As to Prof Cunningham’s questions, Rigali’s initial response was that there were no “admitted or established allegations”, which is probably supposed to mean that none of these people had admitted abusing anyone, nor has it been established that they have. Admitted or established is how the Charter refers to sexual abuse, not allegations.
The problem in Philadelphia is that nothing has been admitted or established. When allegations appear, they should prompt investigations that culminate in admissions or establishing guilt or innocence. The Grand Jury documents allegations against these priests that sure look credible but were not properly investigated. So I think the current suspensions are suspensions while investigating (norm 6 of Charter) rather than suspensions for cause (norm 8).
Just my opinion.
David, you assume so much. You assume that the perp is indeed sorry and has repented. You also assume that there have been no problems since.
Radical Catholic Mom,
It seems to me you are assuming that all accused priests are exactly alike—monsters preying on children who feel no guilt and continue to abuse. Take a look at this from one of the John Jay Reports
I have no doubt that there have been some serial abusers that we would all describe as “monsters,” and they certainly belong in prison. But they should be getting treatment, as well. But surely many of the offenders are not monsters, but people who did something wrong and are capable of feeling sorry for it and not doing it again. I would second what Bernard Dauenhauer says in his message of 03/11/2011 – 8:09 pm.
There is an irony here that I find it difficult to express adequately, but I will try. We know that a great many child abusers were abused themselves as children. Now, we have great sympathy for the children who were abused, but we seem to have little sympathy for the ones that grow up damaged as the result of the abuse and turn into abusers themselves. We find abusers hateful for damaging children, but when abused children grow up and manifest the damage that was done to them, we find them hateful, too. It’s a little bit like the attitude that a woman who is raped is “ruined.” We have sympathy for abused children as long as they are children, but when they grow up damaged, the sympathy evaporates, and they are regarded as monsters themselves. It might be a little more consistent to consider abused children as “ruined,” and shun them from the time they are abused rather than sympathize with them as children but then blame them as adults for the results of what was done to them as children.
As I read the Philadelphia Inquirer report, at least some members of the Philadelphia Archdiocesen review board that was started after Dallas are saying that far from all of the abuse cases were referred to it. As I read it, the board was told only about the less bad cases. If this is true, ten I think the Cardinal belongs in jail too. But maybe I’ve misunderstood the Inquirer.
://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110311_Board_reviewed_just_seven_of_the_21_suspended_priests.html
HEre’s another article from the Inquirer, “Why the accused priests were finally suspended”.
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20110311_Why_accused_priests_were_finally_suspended.html
David N. –
YEs, I’m sure that some of the abusers repented and sinned no more. But having read some of the victims’ accounts at bishopsaccountability.com it seems to me that the zero tolerance rule is necessary. The reason is that abusers’ future behavior is unpredictable, and the damage to a child by even one incident of abuse can ruin the child’s life by causing all sorts of psychological damage. The crime might be equivalent to a robbery superficially, but too often it causes major and permanent changes in a child.
Granted, some of the abusers might not realize this, but who needs more help — the children or the abusers?
Ann,
I think “zero tolerance” is a better slogan than it is a policy, but I would absolutely agree that no priest who has ever been found to be guilty of abuse should ever be allowed to deal with children again.
Granted, some of the abusers might not realize this, but who needs more help — the children or the abusers?
Both need help, and it seems to me too often in the abuse crisis, the Church has tried to help neither.
The latest is a 2003(post charter) document that shows how Philadelphia wanted victims not to contact authorities – so how did Church elaers ther e(and elsewhere?) se they were helping victims?
“Bluntly, Jim, your position seems to be no different from that of a corporation severing connections with an employer. May I seriously suggest that you reflect again on how Jesus dealt with sinners. He ate with them, etc. Are we to assume that he did so because he knew that they would never sin again. Neither you nor I are so confirmed in goodness that either of us has a good reason to decide that there is any of us who is not entitled to our concern and love. Jim, for the Christian, there is no such thing as a person who is “undeserving” of our love and care. The way we express this love and care may at times involve punishing, provided that the punishing has rehabilitation as its ultimate objective. What you say shows no concern for rehabilitation.”
Bernard, you seriously misunderstand me if you interpret what I am saying to indicate that we no longer owe offending priests our love and care.
All I am saying is that offenders should be removed from the priesthood. They are still our brothers in Christ (if they choose to be). They can still join a parish, come to mass, and do whatever registered sex offenders are permitted to do. When they are hungry, we should feed them, when they are naked, we should clothe them, when they are in prison (as many of them deserve to be) we should visit them.
And yes, there are many dimensions to the relationship of a priest to the institutional church, and one of them is indeed employee/employer. The church has a human resources department, maintains personnel records, conducts performance reviews, is subject to employer regulations – they are very much like the organizations that employ you and me in that respect. Liability is a legitimate concern. As Irene’s question illustrates, the money paid to victims has a deleterious impact on the church’s mission – it leads to layoffs and closings of parishes and schools. It would be monumentally irresponsible of any diocese not to steward its resources appropriately.
As for rehabilitation … I don’t know how closely you’ve followed the crisis – you may not be aware of the rehabilitation industry that the church built to try help these guys get to the point that they could return to ministry, and how disastrous that has been for victims and for the church. I believe that both the institutional church and victims groups agree that whatever rehabilitation is possible for sexual offenders needs to happen outside of the priesthood.
“That means, to some extent our Church, composed of you and me and bishops and priests– collectively failed. We should be collectively responsible. Individual responsibilty varies greatly but to some extent we have all failed the victims and should all see to it they are compensated.”
I’ve stated before that I don’t buy this theory of group culpability. Very, very few Catholics were aware of the abuse going on in their midst. They have no moral culpability whatsoever for any of these sins or crimes.
Whether I agree with it or not, though, the legal reality in the United States is that institutions such as corporations and churches are legally liable for injuries inflicted by their employees in the course of carrying out their duties, in part because these legal entities have deep pockets and so are able to pay the amounts that juries or judges deem to be due to victims. While this is not just, it is reality. That puts even more of an onus on bishops, as the financial and risk stewards of their dioceses, to prudently manage the risky behavior of their clergy.
Irene: “I’m very reluctant to ask this, but how are victims compensated?”
Joe: “Some of the payments would be through insurance. That source has dried up as insurers relaized what a poor risk the church is. The rest is through the church coffers and, yes, that includes your donations.”
I just want to add that in a number of cases, dioceses have also paid victims by liquidating assets (i.e. property) and paying victims the proceeds. This is done to shield parishioners and their donations from having to pay victims for crimes for which the donors have no responsibility.
I wrote: “I’ve stated before that I don’t buy this theory of group culpability. Very, very few Catholics were aware of the abuse going on in their midst. They have no moral culpability whatsoever for any of these sins or crimes.”
That could be more adroitly stated: the great majority of Catholics had no awareness of the abuse going on in our midst, and so we have no moral culpability whatsoever. Those few who were clearly aware and did nothing are culpable, in my opinion.
I see Mr. Donhue of the”justice” league is firing away at that greedy lawyer, Mr. Anderson.
But the turmoil in Philadelphia, from all the press there, goes on abated.
I keep wondering what the uSCCB will do this week and will it even come to grips with the “culpable” Jim talks aboiut.
It is quite interesting to me that a number of commenters here apparently are not 100% on board with the policy of zero tolerance – or so I interpret the demurrals to my suggestion (which is not a very imaginative suggestion; the institutional church is or should be doing it already) that guilty sexual-abuse offenders be quickly laicized.
It’s worth considering that for a couple of decades before Dallas (and, tragically, after Dallas in spite of Dallas), the church tried various measures that fell short of zero tolerance and very bad results came about.
I haven’t read in great depth the current stories about what is going on in Philadelphia, but from what I’ve read in posts and comments here, it seems that they are in deep trouble because they have not been stout in enforcing zero tolerance.
Despite my distaste for zero-tolerance policies, I’m not sure that there are any options left for the church.
It seems that the new “Philadelphia Story” has highlighted the multiple, complicated issues in play here on this blog stream with each posting reflecting a personal perspective.
My views have been shaped by my experience as chair of the SF archdiocesan review board from 2000-05.
The “Zero Tolerance” policy was never anything more than a slick public relations ploy used by US bishops to try to get out in front of the tsunami of negative press that engulfed the US church in the wake of reports of priestly sexual abuse and corrupt archdiocesan officials (read Cardinal Law) in the Boston Globe in the winter of 2001.
I chaired the San Francisco review board when now Cardinal William Levada and his canonist Rev. Gregory Ingles, who was on the drafting committee for the “Dallas Charter,” shared an advance copy of the working document with the SF review board.
[Incidentally, this was before Ingles would himself be criminally indicted by a Marin County grand jury for sexual assaults on students while he was a high school religion teacher in the 1970s. Talk about a fox in the henhouse???]
Levada and Ingels both speculated that the Zero-Tolerance policy was “extra canonical” and would have difficulty getting the approbation from Ratzinger and the Inquisition (CDF), who had been charged with managing the church’s response to the burgeoning crisis.
Despite their misgivings, Levada and Ingels agreed that in the media maelstrom that was growing around the priest sex abuse scandal the church had no other choice but to go for Zero-Tolerance, given the threat to the church (read, the power of the hierarchs).
I recall extended conversations on the review board about how Zero-Tolerance would effectively cut loose priests to confront on their own the brunt of the scandal raging over the church.
Levada sanguinely observed that he felt terrible for “his brother priests” who would feel abandoned by the hierarchy. He was right.
Nonetheless, Levada was sending the unvarnished message to priests on the front line in the parishes: You are on your own! We will do what we can for you, but you just may not be “inside” when we close the wagons around the hierarchy.
Besides being conniving corrupt politicians, bishops have also proved to be cowards!
Has the Zero-Tolerance policy increased the safety of children? YES, if only marginally in that it has removed some of the biggest repeat offenders from circulation where they could continue to abuse and exploit children.
Has the Zero-Tolerance policy been an unmitigated success in preventing perpetrators from having access to new victims? NO, mainly because secretly the church hierarchy is still completely mobilized to protect their own political power in the church – nothing else matters to them.
I don’t have much sympathy for concerns (emanating mainly from some clerics and bishops, and their sycophants) that Zero-Tolerance and forced laicization “distorts the theology of the priesthood.”
Try peddling that bizarre notion to the tens of thousands of survivors of rape and sodomy by priests and bishops around the world!
Is it not the real revelation of the abuse scandal beyond the immediate suffering of literally thousands of men and women particularly when they were children, is it not the real scandal that the PRIESTHOOD HAS BEEN CORRUPTED?
Especially BISHOPS have been morally compromised, many times criminally complicit, and bishops have betrayed the confidence and trust of the people, and perverted their high office, all just to continue their political hegemony within the church.
Don’t the new reports coming out of Philadelphia recently indicate that the decay and corruption is deeper, more systemic, more entrenched than we ever dared imagine?
Don’t the very words of Jesus reverberate upon us? “ Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitened sepulchers which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.” (Mt 23:27)
There is no evidence in the scientific literature that would support the suggestion from some that “forgiveness and rehabilitation of the sinning priest” “could protect children and young people.”
There is no known treatment for sexual perversions and sexual deviancy. Recidivism and re-offending rates are just too high. That is why we must imprison rapists, removing their access to the general population.
That is why our first priority must be SAFETY of children, not the rehabilitation of predator perpetrator priests.
Msgr. Stephen Rossetti, it would seem the bishops’ go-to psychologist these days, director of the Maryland treatment center for many of these priest sex offenders, who has treated multiple predator priest perpetrators [we have to assume unsuccessfully], may lament “the justifiable outrage [of “the people”] with this crime blinds us to more rational thinking.”
I’m sorry that we can’t be more “rational” for Rossetti’s tastes. But, Rossetti offers no viable alternatives for ensuring the safety of children and vulnerable adults from sexual exploitation by priests and bishops.
In fact, Rossetti and his brother bishops have been negligent, I would say intentionally so, in creating any meaningful program to alert the public by revealing the names of priests who have been credibly accused of sexual abuse and exploitation.
Nor, have they devised appropriate supervision and after-care of perpetrator priests who have been removed from ministry but continue to be financially supported by the church, and who now have greater opportunity and freedom to menace even more children with abuse.
There seems to be some confusion on this blog about the role of review boards, and what terms like “credibly accused” and “culpability” mean in the context of the priest sex abuse scandal.
Review boards have been from the beginning and still are creatures of the bishop’s authority. Bishops appoint review boards, determine their purview, and control the access to written records and documentation of allegations against priests.
Review boards can only determine, much like a grand jury, if there is “probable cause” to assume that allegations against a priest are “credible” or “insufficient;” and make recommendations to bishops what the course of action concerning an allegation against a priest he should take.
Review boards have no authority to compel the bishop to do anything. The beginning of the end of my time on the SF Review board came when Levada violated his pledge that review board investigations would be independent and free of manipulation.
Writing on this blog, Jim Pauwels raises the issue of “culpability” within the Catholic community for the priest sex abuse scandal. Before we glibly exonerate ourselves, remember that everyone who drops some money in the collection basket at Sunday liturgy continues to underwrite or finance the rape and sodomy of children.
It is our money that makes up the hush funds to silence survivors, our money that priests use to buy their vacation homes or motels rooms where they take children to assault them, it is our money that pays for the rectory residence where most of the assaults occurred, it is our money given to priests that pays for bribe gifts and credit cards for victims, it is our money that supports the phalanx of lawyers and public relations firms that defend the bishops. (I could go on, and on).
Yes, all us Catholics must share in this “culpability.”
The entire Catholic community is convicted by the lives of perpetrator priests and bishops due more to sins of omission than anything else. Who could have intervened and stepped forward to stop the abuse which took place over decades?
The so-called “pattern” of transferring perpetrator priests from parish to parish was certainly at best an uneven practice by bishops, due usually to the political and social capitol the perpetrator priest enjoyed with the bishop and chancellery. [Friends in high places kind-of-thing.] It was really a matter of what the bishops could get away with doing at a minimum.
But we do know that bishops organized elaborate evasion schemes that would entail moving offending priests around the diocese, around the US, even sending them to foreign countries to evade the notoriety of a priest who sexually abuses innocent children. [There is a high degree of shame at work here too, let’s not forget!]
Some bishops did consult mental health professionals and require that perpetrator priests engage in “therapy.” Only problem is that there is no known full-proof “therapeutic cure” for sex abuse offenders. This was true in the 1950’s. It remains so in 2011.
Sad but true, deterring sexual abuse, especially of children, is not a high priority for our society and culture – maybe because most abuse occurs within families or within the family’s social circle – including their parish priest. Perpetrators are usually well known to the child and family.
The best science can do is to try to reduce recidivism as much as possible by isolating the perpetrator from his target population, usually through incarceration and strict probation by trying to restrict access and availability to children.
The best clinical outcome in most circumstances is for the mental health professionals to attempt to stabilize the expression of the pathology (i.e., reduce the rate and re-occurrence of symptoms – in this case, stop or reduce the assaults); and then, return the individual to normative functioning – i.e., return to the home, job, community. For priests, that usually means going back to the parish!
A survivor of a priest’s horrific sexual abuse once said to me: “I’m a drug addict – I’ve gone to prison for drugs. The state of California would never, should never, give me a license to be a pharmacist. Why should priest perpetrators be returned to parishes where there is always a new supply of victims?” That is logic hard to argue with.
I have read many clinical reports of psychiatrists and psychologists regarding perpetrator priests. Many priests, usually the higher-ranking clerics like bishops and monsignors, were treated for “depression,” “anxiety,” “stress” – not antisocial or sociopathic disorders or behavior. Most reports recommended that the priest’s access to children and vulnerable adults be restricted and supervised.
Needless to say, most bishops ignored these clinical recommendations. And now, hierarchs are only looking for scapegoats to explain away their complicity in the rape and sodomy of children by citing the shaky advice they received from mental health professionals.
The drama being played out these days in a Philadelphia courtroom should not be a surprise to anyone if they were the least bit aware and paying attention.
If you could get past all the apocalyptical news coming out of Japan, today’s NY Times (3/15/11) has an account of a charged court appearance in Philadelphia that should be very disturbing to all Catholics.
Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes “in frustrated and furious tones, declared that [accused former priest James Brennan] did not understand what he had done and was not giving her straight answers.”
Apparently, the judge was infuriated to learn that the archdiocese might pay for Mr. Brennan’s legal fees. “[Jude Hughes] told [Brennan] that this gave him a disincentive to negotiate with the prosecutors, because his legal bills would not be paid “if you speak against the archdiocese.””
Later, after revealing that he [Brennan] had used his own money and his brother’s funds to pay for his present lawyer after pleading poverty causing the judge to use taxpayer money for his court-appointed lawyer during the grand jury investigation, Judge Hughes incredulously scolded, “You lied to me. You jerked me around while you played this game and came to me in tears.”
This is typical of the legal shenanigans and deceptions from bishop’s attorneys once they get in front of a court.
I suppose there is a small consolation in that Brennan is a ‘former’ priest.
Wait until Judge Hughes has to deal with Rigali who as a cardinal has been trained to take lying to the level of an art form.
Cardinal Roger Mahony once sent his lawyer to the jailhouse to offer perpetrator priest Desmond O’Grady a sweetheart deal to take care of O’Grady with a large annuity after he got out of prison, if O’Grady would refused to testify in court about his relationship with Mahony who was O’Grady’s bishop in Fresno while O’Grady was assaulting multiple children.
O’Grady refused to testify. Served seven years for rape and sodomy in CA prisons. Today, O’Grady is living the good life back in Dublin.
History will continue to repeat itself until Catholics take matters into their own hands and forever reform the priesthood from parish to pope, as we have known it.
I fear Jim Jenkins’ views an insider wil be swept aside as Keating. burke, and others before him.
We’d rather (or some of us would rather, by conditioning or otherwise) beleiv ethe bishops.
Jim Jenkins, thanks for that comment.
Among much else, you wrote this: “Has the Zero-Tolerance policy been an unmitigated success in preventing perpetrators from having access to new victims? NO, mainly because secretly the church hierarchy is still completely mobilized to protect their own political power in the church – nothing else matters to them.”
Is this as much to say, ‘the Zero-Tolerance policy has not been an unmitigated success because it has not been consistently enforced’ (e.g. because those with clout in the chancery haven’t been subject to zero tolerance)? Or did you have some other thought in mind?
Jim Jenkins, thank you for these reflections. The work of such reflection is sorely lacking in our US bishops. Want to make a couple of neighborly corrections: James Brennan is still a priest and the O’Grady from LA (and Ireland) is Oliver. “Father” Brennan tried to make a case in court yesterday that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia would pay his legal fees if he is “acquitted.” The judge reamed him out for 1. Presenting himself as indigent before the Grand Jury and 2. Jerking her around. She ordered him to pay for the cost of his public defender. Even when you’re a perp, the clerical system still holds great allure and Father Brennan apparently still hopes to be validated by this system. Oh boy! The Archdiocese later made a statement that they would not be paying Father Brennan’s legal fees. Apparently however, they are paying Msgr. Lynn’s legal fees. Just a little more corrupting influence, wouldn’t you agree?
The very term, “Zero-Tolerance” is a marketing, or public relations, ploy recommended to the bishops by their media consultants. In a sense, the bishops pulled this image-making concept right out of their “cassocks.”
Ratzinger complained the Zero-Tolerance adopted in Dallas by US bishops was “extra-canonical.” Levada led a delegation of US bishops for consultations at the CDF to try to “harmonize” the Dallas Charter with canon law.
Modifications that are not generally known or understood by the public, insisted upon by the CDF (read Ratzinger), were that the Charter would only deal with allegations against priests, not bishops, and not religious priests; only those allegations of assaults on minors, not adults, would be covered by the Charter; originally, the CDF wanted to use the canon law definitions of majority age, not the US standard of 18 y.o., but feared the public’s reaction; the CDF removed the expansive definition of “abuse” in the draft which had been employed previously by the Canadian bishops in favor of a much more narrow stipulation of abuse including the “physical stimulation and gratification for the priest,” “fondling,” and “penetration of the victim” among others.
The cumulative effect of these marginal, but critical, changes was to narrow the purview and scope of the investigations by the review boards before the investigations gained any steam. The CDF did not like the idea that lay people would have any “supervisory authority” over clerics.
The CDF especially didn’t like the idea that almost all of the existing US review boards at the time had women serving on them – the CDF didn’t want to appear to endorse the concept of any women holding clerics to account.
The bishops under the direction of the CDF had effectively neutered the one reform that had the potential to effectively address the scandal: the participation of the laity through the review boards.
In other words, the “FIX” was in! And now as in Philadelphia, we see the results of the hierarchy’s machinations.
Sorry, for the lengthy response to Jim Pauwels’ question. In a word, YES: the Zero-Tolerance policy has been less than an unmitigated success because it has not been consistently enforced, and because, through manipulation, was designed to fail.
Thanks to Molly Roach for the “fact-checking” on the Philadelphia story. The name of the Fresno, CA perpetrator is Oliver O’Grady. Sorry, that is what happens when I’m rushing to finish before my next appointment.
I don’t know what her religious affiliation is, but how about that Judge Renee Hughes for the next bishop in Philadelphia!?!
@ Bob Nunz’s comment:
I’m not worried about being “swept aside,” although it never feels good. In fact, as this Philadelphia story attests, I think the hierarchy is on the ropes. They’re desperate old men who are dying-off! The people are one step closer to goals of the Vatican council.
An inexorable evolution toward a “Peoples’ church” has already begun. The evidence is all around us.
Besides, as my sainted sixth-grade teacher, Sister Mary Adelaide, always told us: “The best cornerstones are always first rejected!”
“The CDF especially didn’t like the idea that almost all of the existing US review boards at the time had women serving on them – the CDF didn’t want to appear to endorse the concept of any women holding clerics to account.
“The bishops under the direction of the CDF had effectively neutered the one reform that had the potential to effectively address the scandal: the participation of the laity through the review boards.”
Jim J – I’m open to stand corrected, but I’m pretty sure women have and continue to serve on review boards – are you saying that the CDF doesn’t permit this?
Regarding the participation of laypersons on the review board: According to my archdiocese’s website: “The Board consists of nine members, which include two priests and one deacon of the Archdiocese and five lay Catholics who are not employed by the Archdiocese. The lay members include a parish council member, a parent of a victim/survivor of child sexual abuse by a cleric, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a social worker, and an attorney. ” It doesn’t say anything about women one way or the other.
The more I think about this, the more I see that all aspects of these investigations and proceedings – the independent review boards, the prosecutors, the judges – need to be independent of the diocese and the bishop. Yet the proceedings need to take place in-country, not Rome.
One way would be for national conferences to be empowered to create the investigative, prosecutorial and judicial offices that would serve the member dioceses.
Another would be for Rome to do this, probably via the CDF. But as I say, it must be in-country.
Either way, bishops cannot be exempt from investigation, charges and trials.
@ Jim Pauwels:
Of course, there are women on the review boards. But that doesn’t mean that the hierarchs and the CDF like the idea.
Many of the men and women that sit on these boards have been easily co-opted. Bishops draw from those segments of the Catholic community that are part of the on-going bishop support cadre.
For the most part the men and women who have served on the SF review board are not your “rock-the-boat” kind of people. Most of them have complicated, long histories and relationships, with the archdiocese and its bishops and priests that entwine them into playing a very sycophant role. In professional terms, we would say that they have “dual relationships” with the archdiocese.
I’m sure that Levada now sees my selection to be on the review board as a mistake because I would “not go quietly into that dark good night.” I had never lived in the SF archdiocese, nor had I ever met bishops or priests of the archdiocese, prior to my being named to the review board.
I once suggested to Levada that the only possible way to retrieve the trust and confidence of the people back to the church was to institute a “Peace and Reconciliation Commission” based on the South African model that was used to investigate human rights abuses after apartheid.
Levada, in his most condescending manner, dismissed this suggestion out of hand with “after all, the church has done so much already to address these issues. We have done enough.”
I realized then there would be no independent investigation of these crimes and the complicit hierarchy.
“That could be more adroitly stated: the great majority of Catholics had no awareness of the abuse going on in our midst, and so we have no moral culpability whatsoever. Those few who were clearly aware and did nothing are culpable, in my opinion.”
That would include all Catholics since 2002, correct?