McGuire: Jesuits ‘can’t abandon me.’
The convicted sexual abuser Rev. Donald McGuire plans to fight the Jesuits’ decision to dismiss him from the order. No surprise there. “They can’t abandon me,” he told the Chicago Sun-Times. Sure they can. The conviction isn’t going to help his cause when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reviews his case. Note McGuire’s narcissism. “I’m losing friends because people don’t know my side of the story.” Well, no. He had his day in court. He lost.
There is of course a legitimate question about how the church ought to handle convicted or admitted abuser-priests. If the perp is a serial abuser, laicizing him and cutting him loose could put the public at risk. But what is the church to do with a man like McGuire who has been convicted in Wisconsin of molesting two boys, who has been accused of abuse for years, who is now up on federal charges for allegedly traveling internationally to have sex with a minor, who has defied the orders of his Jesuit superiors regarding his contact with minors, and who refuses to admit the abuse of which he has been convicted?
In the Sun-Times article, Fr. Ken Lasch points out that if McGuire isn’t laicized, he could approach “a bishop somewhere around the world who didn’t check him out, [and] he could end up functioning again [as a priest].” Given McGuire’s extensive contacts around the globe (“friends all over the world,” he calls them), that’s not outside the realm of possibility. McGuire says, “I will always be a priest. They can’t take that away from me.”
I suspect they will.
Taking away his portfolio is the thing, with him or anyone else. The collar is their passport to confidence on the victim’s part.
If have no idea of how naive a question this might be, but can’t the Jesuits say, “If you want to remain a Jesuit, you will go to this place (monestary, treatment facility, remote location away from children, or whatever) and stay there”?
What do religious orders do with members with something like Alzheimer’s or schizophrenia?
In fact, the so-called “Devil’s Island” approach is often used, especially in religious orders. There was talk of reinstituing this in a formal way even for secular priest-abusers, a pentinetial monastery. But you can’t force someone to go. Jesuits could order him, but even there it’d be problematic. They too often wind up shuttled around.
We need to understand this rightly. Religious Orders boast that they do not discard priests as the Diocesan Bishops do. Since they are a fraternity (like family) they take care of their own. While this is laudatory it shows the callousness of the dioceses. There is no reason why the diocese should not take care of and administer for these truly lost individuals.
It is a burden for the Religious Orders. Some are still unrepentant. One I know said when talking about the young boy he was involved in: “We are in love.” It is enough to try one’s sanity. For all of us this has been most trying but we cannot excuse the leaders who have covered up.
There is a lot of talk about Benedict going to New York instead of Boston and all of us must address this. The irony is the Cardinal in Boston is doing a lot better while the one in New York is still stonewalling on pedophilia and financing.
I, for one, do not want to hear welcome with all the silly adulation for someone who has not adequately dealt with this crisis. A pope who has put his personal agenda ahead of children. I do not believe we can keep quiet on this one.
I’m interested in understanding how people like McGuire and the rest end up doing what they do. Is it a case of specjfjc “superego lacunae” or a general human condition of unintegrated personalities in which parts can come to the fore (sometimes with alcohol’s help) and take over when temptation arrives? It probably isn’t ignorance so it must be giving in to the impulse. It’s enough to make us understand why earlier folks believed in demons and demonic possession..
I hope I am not being too pedantic, but It is important to point out that while McGuire can certainly be dismissed from the Society of Jesus, which seems appropriate to me, and even invountarily laicized, he will remain a priest by virtue of his having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
As far as the Church having responsibility for child sex offenders, priests who are guilty of what he has been convicted of doing and stands accused of doing should, like all criminals, pay criminal penalties. So, if he is dismissed from St. Ignatius’ band and laicized and, later still, is convicted, he belongs in prison.
Yes, in a theological sense, obviously he remains “always a priest.” If the CDF decides against him, however, he will be returned to the lay state. The thing is, Scott, he has already been convicted.
I am aware he was convicted in Wisconsin and the recent charges are pending.
This sentence, especially the “if,” made me think otherwise:
“So, if he is dismissed from St. Ignatius’ band and laicized and, later still, is convicted, he belongs in prison.”
I have to hope that Fr. McGuire has laid his soul bare to his confessor, but his refusal to accept the secular consequences of the acts for which was convicted seems to tie in to the psychological issues Sidney Callahan has posited. Of course, the fate several years ago of convicted sex abuser Fr. John Geoghan–he was starngled and killed in his Massachusetts prison cell by another inmate–no doubt weighs heavily on Fr. McGuire and fuels his efforts to avoid prison time. Still, there does not seem to be any remorse or regret on Fr. McGuire’s part. His comment about not being able to present his side of the story is shocking and sad. There is no such thing as consensual sexual contact with a child. I’m sure Shakespeare has several pithy descritions apt for the state of denial Fr. McGuire is in, and I truly feel sorry for him, but I feel much more sorrow for his victims, whose anguish and pain he does not seem to fathom or be concerned about.
It is a mystery to me how men can lead this double life for decades: preaching Christianity during the day and sexually abusing children the same night. Abusers’ sacrilegious use of the sacraments (and McGuire is not the worst offender in this regard) is also mysterious. If they are in fact believers, have they no fear of God? Isn’t there any evidence in their public and ordinary life that they are deeply corrupt? One can give the phenomenon various psychological names, and these may be helpful in classifying it, but what is the source of this double personality and how can it be detected? If Mother Teresa’s nuns, who presumably are sensitive spiritually and used to dealing with disturbed people, didn’t detect anything wrong, what chance is there for anyone else noticing it before abuse is reported. Does clerical narcissism prepare the way for and feed this double personality? This is something the bishops’ research into sexual abuse should consider.
“I’m interested in understanding how people like McGuire and the rest end up doing what they do.”
Sydney, welcome to the Blog, if I may so do so. Just the other day you and I were oh so young and you and Dan were rising ‘lay’ stars in the church.
The amount of trust people have in priests and religious (hopefully no more) is scary. I used to warn parents about doing it. Some have called celibate priests a “public temptation.” I know that this happens in other venues but the poor conception of sex in the church, the vows of chastity and the unmitigated trust given pave the way for abuse.
I am not excusing anyone but if there ever was a culture ripe for this abuse we have it or used to.
This is indeed a sad case. I met Father McGuire several years ago. He seemed like a likeable, intelligent, and devout priest.
Lee, the experts say that pedophilia is incurable. The bishops say that previously they were told that therapy could cure those afflicted and therefore the bishops should not be blamed for sending them out again to interact with youth. Bernardine, in the early 90′s said he was coming to the conclusion that pedophiles cannot be sent out to ministry .
There is too much sorrow and sadness all around and the bishops would have had the people with them if they had not stonewalled in the courts and treated victims so badly.
The “Likeability” of a predator is one way in which he can worm his way into the trust of others who then share disbeleif.
Given the position of power a distinguished clergyman has, you can see how easy it is to take advantage.
It was noteworthy that the John jay report in Baltimore this week noted that the incidence of clerical sex abuse was about the same proportionately as the rest of society. The Cardinal at Chicago volunteered that that raised the “speculative” question of whether Church folk should be held to a higher standard, How good of him!
At the same time he blamed the media and was part of a hierarchy fgroup coming out to say the media has treated them unfairly.
A;so, how good of him!
Contrast this with the chicago Sun times story abou tChurch leadership “scripting” the abuse issue to really be about money.
George, Lago , Paprocki and the rest of the Windy City clerroical establishment may wish to avoid the issue of their clericalism, testiness and defensivenes about their parts in wrongdoing, but it doesn’yt seem to be washing too well there. (Of course, that’s the media’s fault,)
So a guy like Maguire can see himself as so special and different he can have “His side of the story” for heinous crimes he’s done/ And the hierarchy will continue to wring its hands and tell us how much it’s not their fault, princes of the Church that they are.
McGuire seems to have abused kids as young as 9 and as old as 17, but the age cited most often was 13/14. Pedophiles do not radiate evil. If they did, no one would let them near children. They are opportunistic and the opposite of what you normally expect a criminal to be like. So what is the profile? Deceptive, narcissistic, immature — things that are not easy to spot in a person, such as a priest, who is not supposed to have intimate relationships with other people. Even psychologists who study pedophiles seem to have a hard time pinning down the pathology, but it’s clear: for many, it’s as compulsive as scratching an itch, and many rationalize their behavior as actually being “good” for their victims. And though we don’t see it as an excuse, many seem to have been abused as children.
The tangential issue of the Bishops’ loss of any moral credibility is going to do grave damage to the Faith for decades, if not centuries. And of course, all of the good priests have to be in a shell-shocked condition; their suffering, coupled with their increasing tendency to distance themselves from children can only bode ill for the future. There is no doubt in my mind that this whole sorry mess will radiate onwards for centuries.
I myself do not trust any priest, in any way, let alone any Bishop. Although I still attend weekly mass, I have all but divorced myself from the Church: If asked, I will only say that I try to practice the Catholic Faith – but of course I am aware of the inner contradictions there.
I certainly don’t want to defend child molesters, and particularly not priests who molest children. But I do think there is a certain irony that we worry about children being molested obviously because we fear they will be harmed by it, and yet so many child molesters were molested as children, suffered that harm, and are regarded as 100 percent monster and 0 percent victim.
In my opinion, the bishops who failed to take appropriate action to stop pedophile priests are more morally culpable than many of the pedophile priests themselves. After all, pedophile priests do what they do because of some distortion in their psyche. Presumably, the average bishop is more clear-headed than the average pedophile priest, so what mitigating factors can the bishops claim for themselves?
The problem with dismissing him from the order is that they can the essentially wash their hands of him.
How very convenient.
If he remains a Jesuit, he remains under his vow of obedience, and dependent upon the Society of Jesus for his food, shelter, and medical care.
Once they dismiss him, the Jesuits have no way of controlling him or monitoring his movements.
Assuming he doesn’t die in jail, which is looking more and more like it will be the ultimate outcome, the Jesuits should take responsibility for him in the mean time. That would be a nice change, now wouldn’t it?
Bob–
This advice may not be worth the server space its occupying, and you won’t offend me by ignoring it, but there are many great priests worthy of trust. I have a number of issues, too, with the Church as an institution, but you owe it to yourself to find a parish with a priest you can relate to, and to then force yourself, if need be, as I did to get involved in the life of the parish from the mundane (e.g., helping out at pancake breakfasts) to the more essential (e.g., parish council, religious education). All politics is supposedly local, and IMO the lifeblood of the Church is at the parish level. There’s a lot that goes on in running a parish, and it’s the place where the laity can have the largest influence and impact. I don’t have the data at hand, but I think there have been several studies that have concluded that the laity relate much more to their own parishes than they do to Rome or even to their dioceses. Shop around until you find a parish that feels right to you. Feel free to include my parish on your list. ;)
I see two basic questions:
1. Should the bishop or religious superior take care of a pervert priest’s needs (food, clothing, shelter, health care)?
2. Should the bishop or religious superior monitor the whereabouts of a pervert priest?
I can’t answer #1, but the state is legally responsible for monitoring a convicted sex offender’s whereabouts (location of residence, compliance with any terms of probation/parole/release).
Let the church deal with care. Let the state deal with compliance.
Let’s not forget that part of his alleged m.o.–according to accusations– has included breaking the seal of confession.
Canon 984: The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent, even when all danger of disclosure is excluded.
Canon 1388: A confessor who directly violated the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
I’m no canon lawyer, but for a cleric this sentence includes automatic suspension as well, no?
For those who are questioning whether this man should be dismissed from the Jesuit order, the Jesuits were simply following church law imposing a mandatory dismissal from a religious order of anybody who sexually abuses a minor. (CIC canons 695 § 1, 1395 § 2).
What I’m interested in is whether he’s been laicized yet or if at least the process is underway. A dismissal of a cleric from a religious order only suspends the exercise of orders, but that can be reactivated if a bishop incardinates the cleric or just gives the cleric faculties. (CIC canon 701). That possibility should be taken care of ASAP.