The Tiber runs through Boston
In an intriguing (to me) coda to a September post “Church or Faith?” about the Catholic conversion of Episcopal Bishop Jeffrey Steenson, it turns out that Steenson was received into the Church this past weekend–by Cardinal Bernard Law, no less, and in Law’s Basilica of Saint Mary Major in Rome.
The previous string featured a lively discussion about the reasons (not entirely clear to me, or perhaps too clear) for Steenson’s conversion. What does this choice of Law say about his views? Cardinal Law was for many years the Ecclesiastical Delegate for the Pastoral Provision, the fancy title that says he is charged with overseeing the entry of Episcopalian clergy into communion with Rome, under the auspices of a special loophole overseen by the CDF. (Ah, if only we could all get such loopholes!) But Archbishop Myers succeeded Cardinal Law in that job a couple yars ago, I believe, well before Steenson started on his pilgrimage. So wassup with that?
According to William Oddie’s book “The Roman Option” – if my memory serves me correctly – Steenson and Law had a pre-existing relationship. Both men were part of a group of Catholic and Episcopal clergy who were part of discussions in which a large group of Episcopal clergy were considering going to Rome as a group in the late 80s when Barbara Harris was made an Episcopal bishop. The large group ended up being a very small trickle.
And, even though Law is no longer the Ecclesiastical Delegate, he seems to still have very close ties to the Anglican Use parishes and clergy that dot the landscape. I believe he presided at an Anglican Use evensong at St. Mary Major several months ago, but I’m not quite sure about that one.
My understanding is that Cardinal Law has for many, many decades had an interest and sympathy for Anglo-Catholic Anglicans. So it is not surprising in the slightest that Cardinal Law would welcome Jeffrey Steenson into the Church. I’m very pleased by this story all the way around.
Thanks for the info, Patrick. That does seem to explain much. And the history of Steenson’s interest in converting is intriguing, though perhaps unsettling considering he persisted in becoming an Episcopal bishop amid his apparent doubts.
I still wonder at the choice of Cardinal Law, given that he is part and parcel of one of the darkest chapters in modern church history.
It’s clear that Bishop (Fr.?) Steenson had a prior relationship with members of our hierarchy. Our Archbishop, Sheehan, wrote glowingly in our Dicoesan paper of his pride in the conversion.
It struck me that, even at our parish level, we are overly happy to embrace Episcopal converts, many of whom here strike me as “more Roman than Roman.”
If the issue of gay clergy/marriage/ bishops affected Steenson at all, one wonders what he would think of John Shuster’s piece on “Sexual Politics in the Catholic Church,” which has been making the rounds on VOTF blogs lately.
What matters is what we say and not necessarily behavior…?
That ties into the apologetics blog below where someone noted how important lived example is to underscoring the reasonableness of our faith.
Which brings me back to Cardinal Law.
BXVI (according to a recent Catholic News Service report) will clarify the “american mission,” when he visits next year.
Does he not realize how the continued eminence of the former Cardinal of Boston sticks in the throats of many Catholics here and creates another disconnect to those who watch Church politics?
My question would be whether Steenson chose Law for his being admitted, and, if so, what does that say about him as a leader and observer of things Church American?
David,
I don’t know why his struggles would be unsettling. As someone who once shared Anglican assumptions concerning ecclesiology a long time ago, it is, at least to me, understandable how someone might accept its claims while on the inside, until something(s) -whatever it may be – occurs that causes one to reject them. Newman agonized over these things for years, (recall Charles Kingsley’s aspersions against him?) so its not surprising that Steenson might also. If he were an Anglo-Papalist in sympathy, he must have thought that the cause in ECUSA was not a hopeless one, but in the end changed his mind due to present circumstances.
As to Cardinal Law, I really don’t see why Steenson should be concerned with pharisaical scandal or “what will people (or pundits) think.” Some think that Cardinal Law should be treated as an unclean moral leper, but I do not share that view at all.
Good questions all, David. There are many issues that arise as a result of the Pastoral Provision, not the least of which is the question of orders. To state it (over?) simply, why married do priests from the Anglican Communion, and, in some select instances even clergy from Methodism and Missouri Synod Lutheranism, neither of which, to my knowledge, believe that ordination is a sacrament, which invalidates their rites a priori, but the form of ordination in both ecclesial communions is clearly not valid. Especially given that the validity of Anglican orders has been definitively rejected by the Catholic Church.
Patrick–I have a sense that Cardinal Law is enjoying something of an afterlife in Rome. Steenson aside–and without considering Law as anything approaching a “moral leper”–what accounts for your view of him? Some say, in effect, “he’s done his time.” Others say he was largely a scapegoat in the first place.
Patrick,
It is one thing to be considered a leper and quite another tobe feature in prominent church activity. Law is a scapegoat in the sense that there are bishops presently just as bad as he was. The difference is the Boston Globe is not giving them a daily pounding and at that time there was limping acknowledgment of the coverup.
Now after Dallas all the bishops have taken a course in public relations and apparently with some help to them but not the church. This is why the bishops must be continually challenged. It will be hard while so many Catholics feel that is at least a venial sin.
Isn’t it simple? Many think that Law behaved badly in Boston and was forced by popular demand to retire, but then was rewarded for his “loyalty” to JPII and co. with a position of “honor”, at least from the blinkered perspective of the Vatican. For many this will remain a sore point. Why should it not?
David,
I’ve never met Cardinal Law, and am not sure what my opinion of him would be had I had personal dealings with him. That said, I’m pretty much of the scapegoat opinion when it comes to Cardinal Law. While I can’t think of anyone sanely saying that Law’s return of John Geoghan to parish ministry represented good judgment, it was not a judgment made out of malice or callousness – there was, IIRC, at the time, medical opinion giving the OK for Geoghan to return to parish ministry – an opinion which was tragically wrong – in contrast to those bishops or religious superiors who were actually sexual predators or were part of a plan to either deliberately foster sexual abuse or were grossly indifferent. I am not of the opinion that Law’s misjudgments warrant the removal or resignation of a bishop from his See nor do I see them as sinful. Unfortunately, a moral panic and lynch-mob mentality took over in 2002 that was unwilling to make elementary distinctions between one bishop and another.
And Bill, the unclean moral leper business was only a slight – very slight – hyperbole given the extreme rhetoric that emanated – and sometime continues to emanate – about the Cardinal Law situation – calls for his dismissal from the clergy, calls for his imprisonment even though he committed no crime, even death threats – over or implicit from rather shocking sources. It is safe to say that, by and large, public opinion views Cardinal Law as a monster. In my view, public opinion is quite wrong, though to argue against it is much like pissing against the wind.
Actually, Patrick, it’s not so tidy. While earlier in Geoghan’s career doctors told Goeghan’s superiors that he could be returned to ministry after treatment, in 1984 Bishop D’Arcy wrote Law to protest Geoghan’s assignment to a parish in D’Arcy’s region. D’Arcy argued that Goeghan’s history of sexual involvement with young boys would prove damaging to the parish. You know where D’Arcy ended up. And in 1989, Bishop Banks jotted down some notes from a conversation he had with Dr. Brennan, who apparently said of Geoghan, “You better clip his wings before there is an explosion.”
I wouldn’t say its tidy, but the loose ends that exist aren’t especially damaging. I’m well aware that D’Arcy argued to the contrary, and had Cardinal Law taken his advice history would have been quite different. On the other hand, D’Arcy framed his argument against Geoghan poorly – in terms of homosexuality – and we all know what D’Arcy thinks about even chaste homosexuals in the clergy. I don’t know Cardinal Law’s thought process, but I could see how it is possible that Law might have concluded at the time that D’Arcy’s advice was ill-informed – even though, as we all know, Geoghan molested several boys in one family. When faced with a choice between his auxilliary and a professional who dealt with these issues, Law chose the professional. It was the wrong choice, but not an morally outrageous one given the circumstances.
As for 1989, Brennan’s comments were quite late in the game as he apparently was molesting boys from the parish and a swimming club and he gave several seemingly conflicting opinions. By this time, however, the damage was already done.
There is also the matter of Law collecting money supposedly for a retirement fund for the priests of the diocese and using it for other purposes. One might think the money was collected under false pretenses. Perhaps he was justified under canon law. I do not pretend to know. But most people would not think he was justified under the ordinary principles of ethical conduct.
Talk of moral leprosy is rather strong. It does seem that Law was guilty of bad management and bad judgment in a role in which good judgment and good management are primary requisites. I recognize that in the so-called real world golden parachutes are easily given out. One might have thought that the church had higher standards.
Moral leprosy is a neat semantic for those who think it’s disgraceful for Law to be in a position of honor.
But it is disgraceful and not only that, but that his henchmen have risen in power – McCormack, Lennon and “Mansoion Murphy” to name a few.
Today’s Newsday on Long Island has a piece on the elction of Murphy as the major spokesperson on social justice folk for the Bishop’s conference – and notes the dismay of the locals.
Apologists (there’s that word again) for Law and the others who were major cover up figures continue to do a major disservice to the Church – a Church whose leaders seem to prize loyalty above all else.
Patrick,
I must admit I find your view on this bewildering. Remember it is the cover up that is the problem. No one ever accused Law of directly abusing children. http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/scandal/
The evidence in Law’s case is overwhelming. I agree more bishops should have been removed. In many ways it is a band aid job and the wish of the hierarchy is to save the hierarchy, not the church.
To advocate your opinion in the face of prodigious evidence to the contrary, clearly indicates the burden of proof is on you. By citing general and few incidents the indication seems to be that your wishes are taking over your reason.
Bill,
I’ve read the Boston Globe stuff several times over the past few years. I have reviewed the evidence and come to a different conclusion about the moral culpability of Cardinal Law, among other things, than you and some others – it’s not a matter of “proving” anything. As far as “saving the hierarchy, not the church,” it seemed quite clear, given the realistic prospect of an implosion of the Church of Boston due to hysteria, Cardinal Law had to go even if it was somewhat unfair. On the other hand, a wide sweep of the broom sending much of the 2002 hierarchy packing would have only served the interest of activists and malcontents – particularly of the self-styled “defender of the magisterium” variety – and not the good of the Church as a whole.
“There is also the matter of Law collecting money supposedly for a retirement fund for the priests of the diocese and using it for other purposes. One might think the money was collected under false pretenses.”
This, in fact, is to me the most troubling part of Cardinal Law’s management. There was supposed to be an investigation of the issue, but years later I have not heard what the outcome of it was. Presumably if it was illegal or fraudulent, we would have heard something about it by now. In any event, using Christmastime donations to the clergy retirement fund for benefits to Archdiocesan employees was a disservice to the priests of the Archdiocese.
Patrick,
You argued that Law was receiving medical advice that supported his decision to keep Geoghan in ministry despite many, many requests to suspend him–including from one of his own bishops. As I pointed out, there was at least one doctor who urged another of Law’s bishops to “clip his wings.” You seem to think this doesn’t impinge on your theory because by that time the
“damage was already done.” That doesn’t parse.
In 1990 Geoghan molested Tom Fulchino’s son. Fulchino had been molested by Porter in 1960 at the age of twelve.
This and many other related matters are well documented in Leon Podles’s book Sacrilege.
Forgot to mention, also in Podles’s Sacrilege: the doctors who approved of Geoghan’s return to ministry had no experience dealing with sexual abusers. In fact , Dr. Mullins considered himself Geoghan’s friend–he was a general practitioner without psychiatric expertise. And Brennan also lacked experience treating sexual problems. He was later sued by a patient who claimed he had molested her (the case was settled for $100K). No one could be blamed for wondering whether the archdiocese–that is, Law–did due diligence.
I think Cardinal Law’s situation contributes to a deep cynicism about the relationship between the Church’s actual values and its professed values. Surely there must be forgiveness-for him too.
But to many Catholics, it seems that his life of luxury and privilege in Rome suggest that he and his friends see no wrongdoing whatsoever on his part.
Perhaps many missteps were not be moral failures, but failures of judgment –even after the scandal broke. One can be a good person without good managerial sense. But why, then, keep him in a position where he seems to be giving advice to the Vatican about what courses of action will contribute to the well-being of the American Church. Maybe they don’t think what happened was that bad after all.
I admit to being quite discouraged that the Pope isn’t going to Boston–it seems to me a good shepherd would have reached out to his distressed sheep. But Boston is damaged, and perhaps bitter, and won’t go along with the beautiful picture. So it needs to be invisible. Bella figura, I guess.
The hierarchy doesn’t follow it’s own medicine where Law was concerned:
The Rite of Penance #18 reads: “A penitent who has been the cause of harm or scandal to others is to be led by the priest to resolve to make due restitution.” This is in addition to any individual or private act of penance which might be recommended or imposed.
I don’t think many in the hierarchy have a well-developed sense of sin where their own sins are concerned. If the leaders can’t lead by example, well, you connect the dots …
Getting back to the post, my questions on this reception into Catholicism are these: When a person is received into full communion, are they received by the individual as much as they are received into a particular community? Does the location have any significance? By that I wonder if by going to St Mary Major, is Bishop Steenson planning on serving that particular community? Or do we receive prelates and public figures in a way distinctive from the average joe or jane?
Certainly, individuals, even bishops, facilitate the joining into union with Rome. Would Cardinal Law not have been a better choice for sponsor rather than presider, given his close relationship? And if bishops demur from being sponsors, what does that say about the status of that vital ministry in their eyes?
To Patrick Rothwell:
On “the matter of Law collecting money supposedly for a retirement fund for the priests of the diocese and using it for other purposes,” you wrote,
My question (to you, Patrick, but also to other readers of the blog): is there a solid basis for making that presumption? Given that there’ve been so many cover-ups of so much wrongdoing, isn’t it reasonable to be wondering: are they covering up again on this one? Why would it be more reasonable to “presume,” instead, that this time there was a genuine investigation, and it turned up nothing that was “illegal” or “fraudulent” or seriously wrong in other ways?
Personally I doubt that a visit by the Bishop of Rome to Boston would be of much use. In general I think that the peripatetic papacy was a mistake from the word go. In particular Benedict could do a great for the archdiocese of Boston without leaving the Vatican. He could remand Cardinal Law to the decent obscurity best suited to to His Eminence’s talents.
What the bishops seem not to get it this. Anyone who is in a professional position of trust and abuses that position to betray those who have trusted him/her, ought to be removed from that position permanently. (As someone said recently hereabouts, we cannot have attorneys pilfering their clients escrow money) The issue is not forgiveness, it is betrayal of trust. Any one who retains a person in a position of trust after he/she has betrayed that trust, fails in his/her duty to others, and my fairly be considered complicit in future betrayals by the offender he/she has enabled.
I am at a loss how to respond to Patrick Rothwell, especially since he says he has read much of the Globe coverage about Law. At what point does it become useless to call out conduct that on its face is not only bad judgment but essentially criminal?
Statutes of limitation, and successful lobbying efforts on the part of the church to prevent their reform, or to making clergy mandated reporters of child sexual abuse (finally passed in 2002), deferential law enforcement, purportedly weak statutes for corporate and individual liability, and scorched earth legal tactics all kept Law and company from criminal prosecution. Is that the only yardstick by which to measure culpability?
Judge Constance Sweeney came as close as a judge could to calling Law an outright liar. She said church records contradicted his sworn testimony that he did not return abusive priests to ministry without determining they posed no risk to children. Whereupon she released 11,000 documents that make just that case. Contrary to Law’s position that he knew little from direct experience, his logs showed he met with numerous perpetrators.
As we come up on the fifth anniversary of Law’s resignation being accepted (Dec. 13, 2002), let us remember a few things midst the myths that he was a victim himself enduring “the passion of the church” (clerical narcissism at its worst, or maybe its best); that he has suffered enough; that he was only guilty of bad judgment:
1) When Law learned that Fr. James Foley had left his lover to die of a drug overdose (their child was in a nearby crib), his first concern was “1. scandal” – I repeat, a woman died, and that was the first issue he commented on.
After this, Law put Foley back in ministry, even after initially stating he belonged in a monastery doing penance. Foley had reminded everyone that his two children and the woman’s case would never become public. But Foley’s records were released (what is done in darkness), and his two adult children learned who their father was by watching TV.
2) Law read the Doyle-Mouton-Peterson “manual” shortly after it was written in 1985; the report’s executive summary warned of the compulsive nature of sexual abuse. Law was impressed enough to offer Tom Doyle $1,000 of his own money to help pay for mailing of the report to all bishops; asked Tom later to come to Boston to head up a theological institute he wanted to start; but in depositions had profound memory loss about who Tom was, or the contents of the report.
3) Law was initially supportive of the manual’s recommendations and wanted to take it up himself. But when it became obvious that the subject was a career killer, he dropped it easily.
4) Law and McCormack met with four experts from Harvard and Boston U on sexual abuse in January 1993. The top names in the field offered to help, stressed unequivocally the compulsive nature of sexual abuse, and said they must be reported to civil authorities. When the first sexual abuse policy was written, their recommendations, and those of survivors were ignored. “I felt used,” said one expert.
5) Read a 1993 letter from survivor attorney Eric MacLeish to the archdiocese outlining its negligent handling of numerous priests. Have a strong stomach as you understand what Law knew when http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/documents/macleish_092793n.htm Some priests were FINALLY removed after this letter, but only if everything would be kept secret.
6) Read a filing in a lawsuit against Shanley about how Law handled 25 abusers so as to understand how he endangered children. Sickening. The text is in three parts
* Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence of Practices and Policies of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, a Corporation Sole, Concerning Sexually Abusive Priests Other Than Paul R. Shanley [Gregory Ford, et al. v. Bernard Cardinal Law, et al.] {1} {2} {3}- Cites evidence of negligent management of 25 sexually abusive priests by top officials of the Boston archdiocese, including McCormack. Filed in July 2003, it has been largely overlooked by the news media.
Here are the links to the full document in three sections:
1) http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/courtdocs/Shanley_Plaintiff_memo_1.pdf
2) http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/courtdocs/Shanley_Plaintiff_memo_2.pdf
3) http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/courtdocs/Shanley_Plaintiff_memo_3.pdf
Here is the link to the source documents in the text (invaluable to read as well):
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ma-boston/archives/PatternAndPractice/doc-list-1.html# and succeeding pages of priest files.
I truly believe if anyone reads these pages with an open mind, he or she will find no excuses/ rationalizations for Law. If so, then I just give up. I do wonder if this is really worth it to take the time to track down this documentation.
Law wanted out. In fact, he begged Battista Re (sp?), “Please help me.” In addition, Law left Boston the second time just hours before subpoenas arrived from a grand jury. One lawyer told me that a contact in MA AG’s office cued the archdiocese, “You better get rid of him; he could be indicted.”
I believe it was only the threat of criminal action against a sitting cardinal that resulted in the resignation being accepted. Demonstrators, the Boston priests letter, VOTF – not the reason. In fact between Law’s first trip to Rome in April and his second in December (via financier Peter Lynch’s private plane from NJ, after being driven from Boston), he was making a sort of comeback.
Law’s removal followed document releases forced by the court that meant possible legal action. Rome does not remove bishops because of popular pressure – smacks too much of democratic influence. And look where he landed; hardly a sign of failure.
Here is a gold star for those patient enough to read through all this.
The two recent news articles below aren’t about Cardinal Law, but they are about abuse of positions of trust, and they are demoralizing to me as a Catholic. They must be even more demoralizing to the many excellent priests who strive to honor their vows.
[sigh]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_re_us/chaplain_charged;_ylt=Akb4E3obLTaf7cDpdB5nMi5I2ocA
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-fay1205.artdec05,0,5303752.story
[...] Posted by catholicsensibility under Ministry Interesting chat at dotCommonweal about Cardinal Law receiving an Episcopal bishop, Jeffrey Steenson, into full Communion. Most of the commentary there centered on Law’s unworthiness as a [...]
“I am at a loss how to respond to Patrick Rothwell, especially since he says he has read much of the Globe coverage about Law. At what point does it become useless to call out conduct that on its face is not only bad judgment but essentially criminal?
Statutes of limitation, and successful lobbying efforts on the part of the church to prevent their reform, or to making clergy mandated reporters of child sexual abuse (finally passed in 2002), deferential law enforcement, purportedly weak statutes for corporate and individual liability, and scorched earth legal tactics all kept Law and company from criminal prosecution. Is that the only yardstick by which to measure culpability?”
Yet there was a AG investigation which, while scathing of Cardinal Law’s management and judgment, declined to prosecute him because there was not a single criminal statute that Law violated. And, in that environment, he undoubtedly would have tried to throw Cardinal Law in prison for life if he could have. Ergo, no criminal conduct.
“Read a filing in a lawsuit against Shanley about how Law handled 25 abusers so as to understand how he endangered children. Sickening. The text is in three parts.”
The most interesting thing about the Shanley case is that the Archdiocese was sued (and Shanley convicted of) sex abuse claims that were almost certainly false as they were based on “recovered memories.” Not that Shanley wasn’t a sleazebag. But, when moral panic, hysteria, and Helen Lovyjoyism reign free, you get gross miscarriages of justice such as what happened to Shanley. But, who cares about that.
“Given that there’ve been so many cover-ups of so much wrongdoing, isn’t it reasonable to be wondering: are they covering up again on this one? Why would it be more reasonable to “presume,” instead, that this time there was a genuine investigation, and it turned up nothing that was “illegal” or “fraudulent” or seriously wrong in other ways?”
By investigation, I was speaking of the authorities, not an in-house archdiocesan investigation.
“I don’t think many in the hierarchy have a well-developed sense of sin where their own sins are concerned. If the leaders can’t lead by example, well, you connect the dots …”
Well, that is pretty much shared by the laity who don’t even bother going to confession at all by and large. I don’t have a well-developed sense of sin myself and am more than capable of justifying virtually anything when it comes to self-serving behavior. So, that little crack is neither here nor there. Nor is it clear to me, as I said above, that Cardinal Law has any grave matter to confess in connection with the sex abuse scandal, but that is between him and his confessor, perhaps Cardinal Law himself was of a different opinion.
But back to the OP – even if Cardinal Law were everything that his detractors here claim him to be, I fail to see anything the slightest bit scandalous about Steenson going to Law for reception. Law has the authority to receive Catholics into the Church – it really doesn’t matter who does it. I suspect most complaints would be driven by the fact that Steenson is somewhat “conservative” and the perceived need by some to discredit him. I don’t think any questions would have (nor should have) been raised had he been received into the Church by Archbishop Weakland – at least not by liberals – and we know that Weakland paid the equivalent of hush money to keep his sex life quiet. (Though the fact that the lawsuit against him was legally frivolous and his outing by the press was despicable goes without saying.) Steenson is a capable, intelligent, and irenic man, and will serve the Church well, whether as a layman or in the clergy. Who knows, maybe he’ll even write articles for Commonweal!
Why the pope is coming is enigma. He made an important move by censuring Maciel. But being a shepherd is much more than cutting ones losses. He should not be welcome in the US if he does not visit Boston. We are a healing church and healing and love more than aggrandizement and pomposity must stamp everything.
Why this convert is being accepted in Rome rather than in a parish repeats the aristocratic nature of the RCC. It has been so since the Constantinian revolution. This is why I keep harping that we should know our history. Augustine and Jerome competed for the support of aristocratic women in the church just as Gregory, Basil, Ignatius and others. Cardinal Hayes would not speak to Spellman when Spelly coopted his rich friend on Long Island. The knights of Malta has a cachet of wealth and has always been a scandal. You certainly can have the Cardinals and bishops private number.
We have an historic opportunity to reform our church. We certainly do not need anarchy. But we do need people to come together. We do have to change the structure and that is where the energy can be spent more valuably.
Patrick, in case you missed what I wrote before, here it is again:
Response to Patrick Rothwell, both regarding Law and Shanley: Oy vey! There is no sale on either side.
The crime is that the church prevented passage of laws that would have held Law accountable, and distorted the first amendment before compliant judges for decades – until Sweeney came along. Nice trick. Her interpretation of the church’s position noted with impatience that Law was claiming the right to be as negligent as he wanted, and to be exempt from neutral principles of law in protecting children in order to freely exercise his Catholic faith. And she overruled it, and documents were released. God bless her! And other judges who released docs, most of whom are women, BTW.
Why wasn’t Law prosecuted for perjury in his sworn testimony? For obstruction of justice in seeing that an Australian priest got out of the country before police could investigate and get to him? Why didn’t the MA AG use the same case law NH did to threaten prosecution for “willful blindness,” and “flagrant indifference” to an obligation to protect children by engaging in a “conscious course of deliberate ignorance.”? He might have gotten the same plea bargain NH did, where the bishop had to admit there was evidence for a likely conviction. Good questions, but moot at this point.
But even when someone like Shanley is criminally convicted, Rothwell finds that a miscarriage of justice. Famed psychologist Elizabeth Loftus’ testimony about recovered memory was demolished by the prosecution in the Shanley trial: Loftus had to admit that her research had never involved experiments with deep trauma because of the questionable ethics involved. Suggesting traumatic sexual abuse is far different from her traditional work of suggesting people were lost in a mall as children, or that they saw Bugs Bunny at Disney World when Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. character, or that they got really sick as youngsters on either hard-boiled eggs or dill pickles.
Loftus had to acknowledge her own words on the stand that, “This is not to say that people cannot forget horrible things that happened to them, most certainly they can.” In addition, she said in a PBS interview that it is possible for a victim to forget being raped.
The prosecutor further drew admissions from Loftus that she is not an expert in the sexual abuse of children, indeed has never treated anyone with therapy for anything, and has no expertise in child development. She has, however, developed a long record of testifying for accused abusers based on irrelevant, benign events in memory experiments. Loftus did testify about research by another psychologist that failed completely to instill a false memory of just having a rectal enema, pardon the graphic example.
For a solid refutation of false memory syndrome, see the journal Trauma Violence & Abuse at http://tva.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/7/4/274 and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5835/215 in Science magazine this past summer. For good measure, catch the book, “Misinformation Concerning Child Sexual Abuse and Adult Survivors, ed. by Charles Whifield, MD, Joyanna Silberg and Paul Jay Fink, both PhD’s – compendium of articles by about a dozen experts on the selective use of data by the other side.
Rothwell’s standard of justice is both contradictory and breathtaking, but I can see there will never be common ground. My heart goes out to survivors who might read this blog.
If Law receives a friend in the church, fine. My daughter headed in the other direction, as have two great former NH RC priests.
What is or ought to be the bitterest irony is that the Church was forced to conform its conduct to the law, and really, its own teaching by none other than the “dictatorship of relativism” that the Church so loves to sneer at. If Law had been the superintendent of the Boston school system he would be in jail — or more likely, and to what ought to be our greater sorrow, he would have acted differently.
And next in line for repulsiveness is the fact that the Church was granted a good faith exemption by the state from child abuse reporting laws in order to protect priests from being forced to break their vows of confessional secrecy, and that exemption was used to hide the sins of the confessors and protect them from the consequences of their crimes against some of their most vulnerable sheep.
And yet, the irony of this, and its impact on the credibility and authority of the Church is simply lost on many in the Church, who to this day reserve their greatest moral outrage for the Boston Globe.
Thank you, Barbara, for your post.
I firmly believe that immeasurable healing could begin from simple admissions of the truth by bishops. Then we all could move on, with hearts and heads held high, making reparation to survivors in a way they desperately need.
BTW, survivors were put under confessional secrecy by perpetrators, and even by Law when one approached him at a funeral, NOT in the confessional.
Let me quote briefly from what I said at the VOTF conference:
My last dream for reconciliation, the admission by bishops of their real culpability, finds resonance in the writing of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran theologian executed by the Nazis. He said, “Communicating truthfully means more than factual accuracy…There is a way of speaking which is…entirely correct and unexceptionable, but which is, nevertheless, a lie…When an apparently correct statement contains some deliberate ambiguity, or deliberately omits the essential part of the truth…it does not express the real as it exists in God.”
The reality that exists in God is honored when bishops own the truth of their conduct. It sets them free, even if it is incriminating. They must admit the particulars of what they did and did not do – not in passive euphemisms like “mistakes were made” or “some persons experienced harm.”
Reject the bleached generalities and spin of public relations – what Bonhoeffer calls lies. Embrace authentic humility, another word for truth, and acknowledge, “I lied to survivors, covered up sexual abuse and criminally endangered children.” That confession, that penance would be a gift to survivors and the Church of astounding proportions. Thousands of documents on http://www.BishopAccountability.org provide all the evidence needed, what my attorney general called, for example, a “willful blindness…and conscious course of deliberate ignorance,” in criminal violation of child endangerment statutes.
As Fr. Ken Lasch, a Commonweal contributor and survivor advocate says, there will be no justice until there is the full disclosure of truth; no disclosure of truth until there is full accountability. Healing follows from that. See his website: http://fatherlasch.com/article/1371/there-are-no-cheap-graces
John Allen has more on Steenson today in hiw weekly NCR post. Steenson hopes to be incardinated as a priest in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe.
Maybe he’ll be my pastor one day and I’ll ask him why he was received by someone so awful as Law.
I just came upon something that’s definitely worth reading. In her post, above, Carolyn Disco referred to “what I said at the VOTF conference.” What she didn’t tell us was the context in which she made those remarks: she was accepting VOTF’s Catherine of Siena Distinguished Lay Person Award. I just found the full text of her talk on the VOTF website, and it’s very good. Be sure to check it out at
http://www.votf.org/blog/convention/2007convention/awards/catherine_of_siena_distinguish/
Here are some excerpts:
“[Catherine of Siena’s] writing largely focused on God’s love for us as the ultimate reality. So she reached out in love to those she rebuked. This did not restrain her sharp vocabulary about corruption in the Church, but it did leaven her appeals to show of what goodness her correspondents were capable – if only they opened their eyes.
“Justice [Anne] Burke spoke at our conference in Indianapolis about her three years on the National Review Board. She said she learned to second-guess what bishops told her, to look for hidden agendas, and to count her fingers and toes after dealing with officialdom. As soon as the pressure was off, some bishops tried to neuter accountability. I find the same, after five years of prodigious research.
So, where does hope lie? As it must, in keeping our eyes on Christ. This is about the incomparable love of God, embraced in and through His Church, and to which we must respond with all our heart and soul and strength. Reform is hard work, but the symbol of the Church is the cross of redemption….
…. So many survivors do not know God’s love, how precious they are in His eyes. That is what was stolen from them. The destruction of a child’s trusting relationship with God, his spiritual heritage, is especially cutting.
“… [B]ishops have a precious opportunity here to reconcile with survivors. Instead, prelates often leave them bleeding, as they hand out checks. … Far better to follow the Gospel willingly, not under the legal gun. What is the profit really in putting survivors through the judicial meat grinder for four, five, or even 10 years as in Providence? Bishops can and should grant some measure of justice before their last legal maneuver expires. Engage the better angels of your nature, and do so in the Lord’s name; make it as much a pastoral as a business decision.
“My second wish, the public release of documents by dioceses and religious orders, holds an important key to healing and prevention: Documents offer survivors the validation they so desperately need. Surely, that is a grace in keeping with the Scriptural truth, that what is done in darkness will be revealed in the light.
“Let me speak directly to survivors and their families as friends and fellow advocates: …. I thank you from my heart for coming forward. Because of your courage, innocent children are being protected, dangerous molesters are being removed, and negligent enablers are being exposed. What an extraordinary legacy you bring in forcing our Church to face the truth! …. [Y]our experience is the impetus for reform and purification. Look what you are achieving by bringing us to a new day of truth. Thank you, thank you.”