L.A. Aux. Bishop Zavala resigns after admitting he fathered two children.
Official word came this morning at the bottom of the Vatican Information Service bulletin, under “Other Pontifical Acts”: “Accepted the resignation from the office of auxiliary of Los Angeles, U.S.A., presented by Bishop Gabino Zavala, in accordance with canons 411 and 401 para. 2 of the Code of Canon Law.” Canon 401, para. 2 holds that ”a diocesan bishop who, because of illness or some other grave reason, has become unsuited for the fulfillment of his office, is earnestly requested to offer his resignation,” and canon 411 applies that law to auxiliary bishops.
Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez announced the “sad and difficult” news in a letter to Catholics in the archdiocese. He said Bishop Zavala, who was auxiliary bishop for the San Gabriel Pastoral Region, had informed him in early December that he was the father of two minor teenage children who live with their mother in another state.
In the letter, Gomez announced that Zavala was no longer in ministry and would be living privately. Gomez also said the archdiocese had reached out to the mother to offer spiritual and financial support.
Why did Zavala choose to disclose this information last month? I imagine we’ll know soon enough.
Any chance he can slip into the new ordinariate and keep the wife and kids?
I hope this doesn’t discourage other bishops and priests from using Natural Family Planning, which seems to have failed here, but is really quite reliable when practiced consistently and correctly.
Regarding priests not keeping their vows, I like how Chesterton once observed (paraphrasing):
‘It is not surprising that some priests break their vows. The surprising thing is how the vast majority of them manage to keep their vows.’
This may be a good time to exercise some New Year’s resolution and hot post snotty observations like the one abov by DN.
Bishop Zavala’s tragedy is part of a strangely irrational drama in which we all take part. Just got my magazine and reallyenjoyed reading the wisdom in “Sex, Marriage, and the Church.” The older I get, the stranger it seems. Ours is a “pro-family” church, but of course, the leadership has no family. And yet the leadership in some astounding way imagines it has the wisdom to teach married people what their sacrament means and how they are supposed to live it. And then the wise married people, as exemplified by this wonderful article, have to try to convince their so-called teachers about what is really going on.
It’s difficult to match the errant behavior of clerics in the Ancien Regime. My favorite example: the late Anthony Levi, distinguished British historian (and ex-priest), makes the case that Louis XIV, the Sun King, may have been the son of Cardinal Mazarin and the Queen of France in an arrangement with the tacit approval of Cardinal Richelieu. In the words of Maureen Dowd, “This is huge.”
http://www.historytoday.com/rj-knecht/louis-xiv
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3618846/Was-the-Sun-King-the-kings-son.html
Much as the late Archbishop Marino’s scandal and resignation was a setback for efforts to develop African-American leadership in the church, I think a real loss here will be for the Hispanic community, which does not have the indigenous clergy and religious to support them as so many earlier immigrant groups did. Nor do they have the free or nearly free Catholic schooling that previous generations did, and that was so crucial to developing and maintaining those groups as Catholic communities.
As a thought experiment: suppose his resignation wasn’t accepted, and it was made publicly known that a bishop had fathered two children out of wedlock. Suppose that he took responsibility, tried to be a good father, provided financial support, did everything he could to protect the mom and children from publicity. What would happen? Would the people of his diocese reject him? I suspect that many would support him. Children fathered out of wedlock is not uncommon these days, and touches a lot of families.
Would he lose his credibility as a leader and shepherd of the faith? In my book, he wouldn’t. But I’m just one person.
Would his brother bishops be able to work with him? I’d like to think so, but I don’t know.
Patrick, if indeed the defense is that it was much worse in days gone by, I would respond thus: in days gone by many more men, and certainly, a much higher percentage of men generally, were priests. Many were without other suitable vehicles for education and advancement, and even among the wealthy and well-connected younger sons might have considered the church as one of only two really suitable options — the oter being military. The opportunistic use of the Church or orders as a way to advance is a far cry from the current concept of a priestly vocation.
Jim Pauwels, that is a very interesting thought experiment.
Is David Nickol’s last post his attempt at irony or slapstick? In either case, it’s a pretty good shot!
Just think how the rest of the world, especially young folks under 30, must react to the systemic hypocrisy of the hierarchs! Fortunately, for the hierarchs, most of those folks have long since turned their backs, and minds, to the hierarchs. We ever diminishing remaining Catholics in the pews are in deep trouble!
I found it very fetching that Arch Gomez announced that the archdiocese had reached out to the mother of Zavala’s two teenagers with financial support. You think that she could have a “huge” law suit planned against the archdiocese? As Cardinal Mahony demonstrated repeatedly, the LA archdiocese has literally $billions at their disposal! [More likely, I'm sure that Gomez's lawyers got a "release of liability" before they left Papa Gabino off the hook when he resigned as bishop.]
What is most remarkable is that Gabino Zavala was the rector of St John’s Seminary in LA and a new auxiliary bishop [Zavala was trusted enough to have made it into the inner, inner circle of hierarchs] all the while he was extra busy fathering two children. That really takes cojones!
Being a father myself, I am perplexed how was Zavala able to live two very separate lives? Unless he was an especially detached, distant parent?
How is someone like Zavala able to psychologically maintain such a dichotomy in one’s life, one’s integrity? How does someone psychologically hold the emotional tension especially when you have to hypocritically uphold in public a weird ideology like celibacy? [If either or both of his children is female, how do you continue to dismiss women as fully human?] How do you deal with the all the countervailing emotional impulses and sentiments? It is beyond bizarre!
Of course, I have to believe that bishops must receive some kind of special training prior to their appointment on how to be extra narcissistic and emotionally remote. How else could you explain this kind of schizoid/anti-social behavior, worldview and mindset? [All right, I'm just indulging my cynical sense of humor.]
Actually, I rejoice that Gabino Zavala has ended living the lies and hypocrisy. I wish him and his family well. I hope he learns the joy of a wholesome family life. George Harrison was right: “Love is all there is.”
If Zavala really wanted to redeem himself, he could spend the rest of his life spearheading efforts to ordain married men and women to the priesthood and episcopacy.
lawrence cunningham,
I am beginning to believe mandatory celibacy is as much of a joke as the prohibition against “artificial” birth control. As usual, I cite Richard Sipe’s estimate that at any given time, about half of priests (and presumably bishops) are sexually active. Gabino Zavala was made a bishop in 1994. If he has two minor children, both had to have been conceived while he was a bishop.
Actually, I think Anthony Andreass’s comment was much more devastating (and subtle) than mine, and I believe he is a priest.
1) I too think Larry should lightenup.
2)ATST the story, As David g, points out is sad because it does impact a community.
I also thought of Bishop Sanchez here in NM and the 60 minutes expose that got him shipped off (to Alaska?)
I thought of – on another level -poor Bishop Emerson Moore whose tragedy also impacted the local community deeply.
I think that impact continues to be real though IMO it’s quite clear what Sipe says is correct though it doesn’t seem to shape the high expectations we have or pedestals we create for clergy.
So 3) Not much will change until we really rexamine Mariage Sexuality and the Church , not because marriages and Catholic marriages are declining or priests/bishops are having sex but because we need to do a lot of rethink on eccesiology, sacramental tehology, moral theology and canon law.
Times like these — and revelations like Bishop Zavala’s — test the mettle of the Christian Community. The easiest thing in the world is to condemn the ‘sinner’ … and the impression I get from reading reactions to the Zavala affair (no pun intended), there is no lack of Pharisees in the Church throwing stones. The more challenging response, I believe is one of compassion: who of us is without sin and can afford to throw stones? God alone can judge the heart of a person.
Among priests, there has always been the understanding (never expressed publicly) that celibacy is observed more in the breach than in practice. It’s the quintessential ‘elephant in the room’ … and it points to a more systemic, underlying problem with the discipline itself. I have read studies on the subject by both Richard Sipe and Fr. Donald Cozzens.
If Cozzens prognosis is accurate (and I believe it is), the problem of clerics fathering children outside of marriage will disappear naturally with the growing homosexual orientation of our priests. Like it or not, the priesthood is seen by many today to be a ‘gay profession’. Objections to celibacy will no longer be a problem … and there will be even fewer priests. Sad days indeed!
A sad story, and apparently Bp. Zavala was also a great supporter of Pax Christi. He deserves our prayers, not least for his courage in coming forth to tell the truth.
Whatever may have been Louis XIV’s true paternity, I think we’d have to go far to beat Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau (1559-1617) , Prince-Bishop of Salzburg in the late 16th & early 17th century, who carried on a twenty-year affair with the beautiful Salome Alt. She bore him fifteen children (how’s that for fidelity and family values?). Neither made any attempt to hide their relationship, and in fact he built her the Schloss Mirabell in Salzburg as her abode. To do him credit he did (according to German Wikipedia) seek a dispensation from Rome shortly after his elevation to the Prince-Bishopric, to allow him to continue as a married ecclesiastic. Despite the intervention of a cardinal who was his uncle, however, the plan came to naught (not that its failure seems to have changed his behavior). Indeed, in 1600 he raised the good upper-bourgeoise Salome (daughter of a merchant) to the nobility.
I wonder if Rome ever raised any eyebrows at his behavior? Wolf Dietrich was, in good harsh Counter-Reformation style, a true scourge of Protestants, expelling them from Salzburg when he was in charge, and that may have encouraged the Vatican to look in other directions (like Father Maciel, in more recent years?)
Given some of the troubles in the Austrian church at the moment over questions of a married clergy, among others, I wonder if any of its members look back on Wolf Dietrich?
In these times of financial stress on parishes and dioceses, it would be interesting to know if Abp. Gomez’s letter signals the start of a new tradition of providing contributed funds for the college expenses of all clerical offspring.
“The archdiocese has reached out to the mother and children to provide spiritual care as well as funding to assist the children with college costs.”
Many mothers, teens, and Parish Financial Councils should be curious.
http://ncronline.org/news/people/bishop-resigns-after-disclosing-he-father-two-children
Jack – I’m not sure how tongue-in-cheek you were being in your previous comment, but the story has caused me to think about the church’s responsibility to the illegitimate offspring of celibate clergy. Didn’t we have a post here within the last year or two in which the Franciscan order is paying the mother of a child (or children) fathered by a Franciscan priest? (Sorry, I’m fuzzy on the details).
In the larger society, it is both the social and legal expectation that the father pays child support. Thus, all else being equal, I’d think that it is now-former-Bishop Zavala’s responsibility to support his children, and there is at least a moral obligation to help pay for their college tuition. Does a diocese or a religious order share in that moral obligation? If Zavala were a pipe fitter or stockbroker, presumably his employer wouldn’t be on the hook for child support. But on the other hand, it is the church that put Zavala in the position of authority that he was able to abuse – assuming that whatever circumstances led to the children were related to his church office. But on the third hand, it’s difficult to know whether the church would have suspected that Zavala would do what he did when it promoted him.
Do we really believe that no other clerics had a clue abut what was going on with him all of these years? Possible, but what a double life! How did he not go crazy compartmentalizing this duplicity? Of course, in my personal experience I know of many priests who have “special relationbships” about which I do not make inferences or judgments about the affective or sexual nature. Still, for those of us who “left” a vocation that we loved to honestly marry, I will admit that this presents a strange feeling when the bishop for all these years was implictly and explictly instructing seminarians in celibate living. I do wish them all well, but the hypocrisy is still diffcult to accept. Nevertheless, whatever was his catalyst for coming forward, may they all find peace.
I agree with Jim Pauwel’s thought experiment and think it should be more than just that.
Whatever happened in earlier times is earlier and different times. Nobody who has had experience with infidelity will argue that it is a good thing. Clearly it is complicated and I have no idea what the relationship he had with this woman was.
However, the fact of the matter is that he chose to remain a priest and Bishop and that choice has consequences for the here and now. The woman obviously chose to continue an intimate relationship as well. That is all we know at the moment and maybe all we need to know. Nonetheless, he is the one who made vows and he needs to be accountable for those vows. They were, afterall, public vows. That is not being judgemental that is just a fact.
Whether that means he should not serve in a leadership capacity is a different question. However, it should at least be a question and unpacked and discerned in the manner Jim P suggested – reasonably open (with appropriate privacy and safeguards) but also transparent.
Purple Culture, by Stephen Boehrer, got good reviews from Doyle, Sipe, and Berry. It is not a literary triumph, but it’s got some interesting insights about bishops. ($1.99 for Kindle.)
http://stephenboehrer.com/
What is sad is that this guy felt the need to resign because he fathered 2 children. I speculate that the wing nuts must have gotten wind of it and threatened to go public; hence the resignation. The California WN are particularly vicious. These folks are a bit slow on the uptake but wait til they report this story tomorrow: http://www.calcatholic.com/
OTOH, Ireland and other European countries have more than their fair share of bishops who covered up and effectively facilitate much worse and they have not, in the main, been forced to resign. Big Bernie Law was really punished, wasn’t he? And how about his auxillaries?
It appears that, more and more each year, the 5th Mark of the Church has become Hypocrisy.
Along with Gerelyn’s recommendation, I also offer this one: “Clerical Culture” by Michael L. Papesh. http://catholicbooksreview.org/2004/papesh.htm
An anonymous comment on the NCR website was, I thought, illuminating: “the progressive Bishop Zavala is Chair of the USCCB communications committee.[...] coincidence of [...] Dolan’s appointment to the newly formed Vatican Communications Council. [...] I would suggest that Bishop Zavala’s family has been known about for a very long time[...]. I would also suggest that any and all moderate and liberal clerics or theologians who have any irregular relationships will be getting similar pink slips. The conservative ones won’t.”
It’s all about church politics. We are witnessing the triumph of the conservative branch of the church. There are no more protections for the members of the progressive branch, and the ones who are not irreproachable will rapidly be swept away.
Progressives are very much at home and warmly welcomed in Episcopal and UCC churches. There are lots and lots and lots of former Roman Catholics (laity and clergy) to be found therein.
If you continue to allow yourself to be beaten on and up time and time and time again, I think that is called masochism.
I don’t think it’s helpful to accuse those who stay in the church in spite of the trends of “masochism”. I think of it more in terms analogous to France at the time of the occupation. Some people went abroad to fight the occupation from afar, and others organized resistance while staying in the country, but both were engaged in action for their country.
OK, if masochism bothers, then how about calling it a self-defeating personality that chooses people and situations that lead to disappointment, failure, or mistreatment even when better options are clearly available?
Jim Pauwels, Your thought experiment makes absolutely no sense. If the Church is going to get together to decide what its responsibility is to the “illegitimate offspring of celibate clergy,” I hope it does so with a great sense of irony with regard to what it means by “celibate.” Because, of course, celibate clergy could, by definition, not have offspring, unless their sacramental powers now extend to inducing conception by means of the Holy Spirit. If so, forget the Eucharist, I want Christmas every Sunday!
Eric, acknowledging that I’ve failed and sinned, and accepting the consequences of my failure and sin (by resigning from a coveted and high-profile position) seems to me to be rather the opposite of hypocrisy. The irony in this case escapes me.
The thought experiment is to imagine being shepherded by a man who has acknowledged his sin and is trying to repair the damage it has caused. It is to imagine reality: that we, the broken but forgiven and redeemed, are led by the broken but forgiven and redeemed. Granted, it is all a bit mind-bending.
Jimmy, I don’t think you have to be a masochist to stay in the Church, just … irrationally optimistic! Hope is a virtue for a reason. I expect that the Holy Spirit has a few more tricks up her sleeve that have yet to play out.
It bothers me that the man was lying. Gary Wills nailed it in the book Papal Sin when he said that lying is the besetting sin of our Church at this time, and here it is again. That bishop was living a lie for however many years he pretended to be a celibate while pursuing a sexual liason and fathering children. This is a big lie. The problem is not fathering children or failing at being a celibate, it is lying about it. That he could at the same time be a rector of a seminary is mind-boggling. Is anyone really comfortable with systematic liars forming the next generation of priests? Are we so inured to lying that we don’t care anymore?
It also bothers me that financial responsibility for this man’s children is falling on the Archdiocese (or being taken on by the Archdiocese). Why his children have any more claim on what comes in on the collection plate than any other man’s children is a mystery to me. The poor are everywhere with us. If the church were offering financial assistance to kids across the board who need it, fine. But that isn’t the case so far as I know. Reaching out, my foot. In fact, this represents a perk, a reward for this guy. He doesn’t have to go out and sell used cars or whatever so as to send his kids to college; the people of the Church of LA are lifting that financial burden for him, isn’t that nice! If we are not paying for college for the children of farm workers or the cleaning women at the local hotel, we should not be paying for the college expenses of the out of wedlock kids of supposedly celibate bishops. How about the idea of fairness?
I am not personally directly affected by the mistreatment. Some people may imply that women are not as worthy as men, but I know they’re wrong. They cannot hurt me.
I have no confidence in Protestant churches. In the push and pull of individual sensibilities, how is one to know that they will not go down some bizarre path and get lost? I find it more challenging to live as a Catholic, in tension between my private beliefs and the ones claimed by my pastor, my bishop, my pope (and the Scriptures, too). It’s a struggle, but by and large (ignoring the mean words) it’s a struggle of a good kind. Trying to reconcile what they say with what I believe stretches and strengthens my understanding.
For the Catholic church, I hold hope in spite of the current drift. The successes of the arch conservatives will be short-lived. They occupy most of the Vatican and the clear majority of bishop positions, but we know that the demographics are in favor of the South, and who knows what kind of renewal the next generations will bring from there? All we need is a great saint or two.
But, really, I don’t want to leave. In reality I simply love being Catholic. There is much that is beautiful in the church, and there is much cause for wonder in our liturgies always. Why should I let a mean-spirited prelate or two get in the way between me and my Church?
Those of us who went through the system were taught to lie in the seminary.
All of us.
Those who deny this are, well… lying. And that is one of the main reasons why I got out.
Financial responsibility: this situation is different from the one discussed some time back about a Franciscan who fathered a child. The Franciscan took a vow a poverty when he joined the Franciscan order, so he had no assets because every resource and talent he’d had had gone to the Franciscans. But for a priest (and a bishop) it’s different. They don’t take a vow of poverty, and I believe that they’re supposed to manage with a salary just like anyone else. So I’m also not sure exactly to what extent the diocese is financially responsible for the bishop’s offsprings.
Let me clarify — “why I got out of the seminary”.
I love being Catholic, too, Rita. And I’m not going to leave the Church. I’ll have to be kicked out!
Despite the fantasies coming out of Rome, we are a church of sinners. So we stay, pray, suffer and admonish. At the same time we must continue to rebuke clerics for its endemic hypocrisy. How many priests were advised to stay and keep the girl friend. No doubt some knew and some did not about bishop Zavala. I always advised priests to leave when there were children involved. It is a practice which should be addressed and not covered up. Sadly, it is only addressed when public or when someone threatens to make it public.
And then there is this:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lahey+will+test+church+rules/5942800/story.html
Claire, Jeanne et al: we all make our beds and must be prepared to live with the consequences of our time therein.
I pray that your choice is right for you and ask that you offer me the same prayer for success, even though it involves rejecting your choice(s).
“I think a real loss here will be for the Hispanic community, which does not have the indigenous clergy and religious to support them as so many earlier immigrant groups did.”
David Gibson -
Indeed. My concern is why there are so few Latino priests. The Irish and others encouraged their boys to become priests. Why don’t the Latinos? Are they losing the faith so soon?
Jimmy, thanks for that link. Evidently more of this shocking story has come to light.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Disgraced+bishop+freed+from+jail+child+porn+conviction/5945320/story.html
155,000 pornographic pictures, the vast majority of which were adult S&M pornography. He has been released.
“Lahey wasn’t a risk to reoffend against a child, Dr. John Bradford testified.
Bradford was confident he is not a pedophile. Bradford added Lahey, who has been involved in a 10-year romantic relationship with another man after a number of one-night stands, imagines himself in a “submissive role” in his sado-masochistic sex fantasies.”
What impact his fantasies and addiction had on his ministry or his relationship to his superiors in Rome is not taken up. He says he was relieved to be caught.
As to the Archdilcese paying the Bishop’s private bills, I think his case is different from the predator cases because the archdiocese was responsible for over-seeing the children’s safety. But when a priest breaks his celibacy vows I can’t see how the archdiocese has any responsibility for that at all.
That the Archbishop feels responsible is one more indication that bishops consider “their priests” to be their minor children and so hold themselves responsible for their bad boys’ behavior. It’s time for all of them to grow up. Sort of. It will be the parishes that actually pay.
Jimmy: absolutely. Hopefully we’ll all meet at the right hand of Christ one day and have a big party. I rather like the Simpsons’ vision of Catholic heaven. Let’s try to meet there, ok?
Claire –
About staying in the Church — my sentiments exactly! The opinions of the idiotic bishops are not the ones I care about. Yes, there have certainly been bishops whose opinion of me I would value highly (if they had known me). But the narrow-minded, small-hearted ones just don’t count.
Jim, I think that the Bishop’s coming forward and resigning was, as we now say, “right and just,” even though it seems to have come a little late. It’s your thought experiment that is inconsistent. We can forgive the Bishop and acknowledge the workings of human sin, while still determining that his actions have disqualified him from performing his duties as a priest. It would be ironic, given all of the ink that has been spilled defending mandatory clerical celibacy, if we were to simply let the Bishop go about his business after fathering two children, and it would seem a bit disingenuous if we were to endorse his being both a priest and a good father and partner, given the insistence that priests remain unmarried. One would think that one of the many hard-learned lessons of the abuse scandal is that there is a difference between forgiving and enabling. If someone simply can’t live the discipline of the ordained life, then we either need to revisit the discipline or let the guy go. And since the former seems to be off the table for now, it’s going to have to be the latter. So, sorry, the resignation MUST be accepted.
Rita – don’t think we know enough about Zavala, his circumstances or the children and the mother of the children.
Rector of St. John’s, Camarillo – doesn’t really surprise me; in fact, would guess that some psychologists could make a case that his relationship with this woman may have actually been a sign or attempt to grow psychologically. The “lie” is to deny this woman and his children of an active, responsible, and in person father for years and setting up some type of “alternate” universe while kidding himself and his family.
It is interesting that Camarillo in the early 1990′s was just beginning to become aware of their significant issues with sexual abuse – some of the Camarillo ordination classes have had >15% ordained found guilty of abuse allegations. It was not a “fun” place to be assigned to. The archdiocese in its infinite wisdom decided to replace the Vincentians as formation directors and rectors with their own diocesan priests – and this achieved what?
Note again that the current statement from Gomez says nothing about Zavala’s responsibilities as a husband and father?? It basically constructs another “alternative” universe – so he resigns from active duty; but he is still a bishop? Will he stay and be supported by the instiutional church? If a regular priest did this, the bishop would suspend him without pay (probably) and threaten to laicize him (usually). There are exceptions to this – there really is no consistent canon law on this and any ordinary or Rome can always forgive, move on, and pay lip service to the children. This is the “lie”. (Eric’s comment is excellent) It places his ordination above his behavior and resultant children. And, just like the abuse situations, there is no way that some other diocesan priests did not know about this family; and yet, did what? Obviously, opted to protect the institution from scandal, etc.
As one famous person used to say: “and now for the rest of the story……”
If you would like to put your anger and disgust over this to better use, may I suggest a vocation of reparation for priests not living their vows; Reparatrix We are lay people who make reparation first for our own sins, and then for priests. We have a Rule of Life and Constitutions, and an intense spiritual life lived in place==in our own homes. We have associate vocations for Priest Reparators and Deacon Reparators. See our website.
Well, Robert Mickens has certainly fixed us who went through the seminary system. He already knows that to deny, as I most certainly do, that we were taught to lie, is itself a lie. Very convenient for him, if not for us. Another case of guilty until proven innocent?
” If someone simply can’t live the discipline of the ordained life, then we either need to revisit the discipline or let the guy go. And since the former seems to be off the table for now, it’s going to have to be the latter. So, sorry, the resignation MUST be accepted.”
Eric,
While there is a problem with this bishop’s actions, we must revisit the discipline and leave it on the table since the problems are quite serious and ongoing. We have to revisit mandatory celibacy because right now it is a sham.
“We can forgive the Bishop and acknowledge the workings of human sin, while still determining that his actions have disqualified him from performing his duties as a priest.”
Eric – that’s true.
I generally agree with Rita’s judgment that the lie he has lived makes resignation the only course and, as I posted, I would admit to feelings of sadness, anger, and resentment for all who made choices to attempt to live in a married or committed relationship while this bishop was was living this duplicity. Again, I cannot imagine the psychological splitting or toll it has taken on him and the pain for his partner and children. I also am saddened as a member of Pax Chrisit and know that it damages this credibility also.
We are all speculating about what his partner and her children have accepted and suffered and that is the most proximate violation — aside from his own personal integrity and then the resultant duplcity on all levels. However, I think that the children should not suffer for his lack of parenting.I think that there should be some policy for support of children of priests and bishops even though there may be no formal responsibility by a diocese and tivity noted.
Also, I also reject the notion that we were all trained to lie in the seminary. Surely there were cover-ups of all matters sexual and a “turning away” and the seeds of duplcity. I will never forget a priest who I knew and loved and respected immensely suggesting to me a “third way” when I was agonizing with him about my struggle with celibacy after a few years of ordination. That attitude was perhaps a prevalent one in late ’60′s and ’70′ and bred an attitude that was damaging to all of us, but I think this deserves a greater nuance about clerical culture rather than simply saying that we were all trained to lie.
David P. —
As for policy on supporting children of priests, the Vatican spokesman in 2009 denied any such policy was being considered. The thought has appeal, but it is hard to understand why just those priest-fathered children suffering from lack of parenting should be singled out for diocesan funds when many similarly deserving ones are ignored.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_denies_reports_of_new_guidelines_on_illegitimate_children_of_priests/
Bravo to Rita – what we could use is a thread on the problem of lying and its consequences politically and in the church.
We are conditioned to it until a proverbial hits the fan here, with the sad community aspects David G. pointed out.
As to lying and seminaries, I thought about Paul Dinter’s ‘The Other Side of the Altar” and the pillars of the Church bearacracy (hypocrisy and bs.)
Also true in government beauracracies.
Larry wants no snottiness as a new year’s resolution – great I say as long as there’s a concomitant one on honesty!
I remember Dintner’s book and thinking it was accurate, but I do not remember the specifics.
Regardless of Vatican policy, I think there is a strong moral dimension — not ready to say “obligation” — by a diocese to the children of a cleric. Should a diocese investigate insurance policies in this regard? True that others are ignored, but there seems to be a unique moral claim.
I recall reading that at least part of the reason the Latin church imposed the mandatory discipline of celibacy to clerics was precisely so that the Church could legally be able to avoid inheritance claims to property made by children of clerics. It was a way of maintaining the corporate ownership of property and buidlings which is not as bad as it seems since this property belongs to the community (going back to Fr. K’s posting, here is a very practical implication of how we understand the meaning of “church”. Who “owns” it? It is not quite a co-operative model of ownership but somebody has to make decisions about selling and what to do with assets. Who does or should make these decisions?).
On the surface of things, I would be more inclined to support the notion that the Legionnaires owe Maciel’s children and victims compensation more thatn the diocese of LA and the people owe the Bishop’s children and mistress compensation.
But I have no logical reason as to why that is so.
First of all, much of the ruminations on this blog are disturbing to me because the discussion is still basically narcissistic: It’s all about Zavala, it’s all about priests and bishops’ hidden sexual life, the bishops’ lies, the lies of priest who must mouth a discredited ideology, etc. It’s all about “me.”
Unfortunately, when it comes to priests, and especially hierarchs, it’s always about “me.” That was what was so devastating about the critic of Irish Taoiseach Enda Kenny last summer when he nailed the Vatican for their endemic “narcissism.”
One thing becoming a father taught me is that I was no longer “No. 1″ even in my own life. My priorities were now secondary or subsequent to those of my wife and sons. That is what happens when you hold a newborn in your hands for the first time and realize that you are already hopelessly in love with this person, and you understand how vulnerable you have become to a broken heart.
My personal needs now came in a miserable 4th or 5th place in life’s daily routine. This was [is] quite a come down for the psychological demigod that boys are frequently acculturated to by families and society. It convinced me that God indeed has a twisted sense of humor.
If there is anything to celebrate it is that Zavala has been liberated from a twisted sub-culture in the Catholic Church that only exaggerates the pernicious effects of this clerical narcissism.
This story is not about Zavala’s priesthood, his betrayal of his high office, or the decayed and corrupt state of the priesthood in the church.
Ultimately, this story is about the children that Zavala has fathered. The story is about their lives, their welfare, and their future: how they will remake their father. Isn’t that the mystery at the heart of the Christmas pageant we just reenacted?
Children are God’s way of turning our lives upside-down: giving us a chance at true humility because if parents are true to their calling they must now truly live their lives for others. [Arguably, this all comes more naturally to women than men because the feminine really does reenact the creativity of the divine - in their own bodies!]
Sadly, the way the Catholic Church has evolved over the centuries we deny by design this fundamental human experience to our priests. Others here have written about the “lie” that priest must live. As my sainted sixth-grade teacher, Sister Mary Adelaide, would often warn us: “You live a lie, you live in hell.”
If the last decade of revelations about the rape, sodomy and sexual exploitation of children by priests and bishops have taught us anything it is that our priests and bishops have betrayed not only us, the survivors and folks in the pews, but they have allowed their priesthood to become a fraud.
For over a decade now Catholics have had to watch the spectacle of bishops and priests retreating behind a phalanx of lawyers and public relations firms just to salvage their political hegemony over the church. We have had to watch as geriatric pope and cardinals offering limp apologies while conducting a worldwide cover-up strategy that seeks to insulate them from their moral responsibility.
Rahner was prophetic when he foretold years ago that the church was entering into ”wintertime” for Christianity.
The only road out of this mess is for Catholics to take matters into their own hands: Reform and renew the priesthood from parish to pope. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!
Half-measures will not cut it. The cancer in the priesthood has metastasized too far. Zavala’s story is only the latest evidence of the true extent of the rot and decay. Zavala seems like a basically good man, flawed like the rest of us, who got terribly twisted around by a corrupt system.
The sooner we Catholics acknowledge what we’re up against, the better the church’s long term prospects for survival in the next century.
In the meantime, I pray that Zavala’s children will be able to teach him what true spiritual death and resurrection really feel like.
One of the john Jay study’s admisions was that there was a culture, not unlike the police blue line, that cobered up or didn’t want to see what evils had been perpetrated against kids.
No scandal?
Interesting piece I saw today on retired Bishop Darcy who, when an auxilliary in Boston, tried to speak up was unheeded to say it nicely.
Presumably some reformation is “put out” to have happened but the same canonical rules and secrecy coupled with clerical “specialinees” is stil the order of the day.
I fear Jim J. is right.
But the problem wil never be dealt with if honesty is not the touchstone of reform.
The word “mistress” always sounds somehow pejorative to me; that’s why I’d use “partner”-still inadequate for its ambiguity, but it connotes some reciprocity or possible power. Not knowing her age or the circumstances could radically change perceptions of her and Zavala’s power and responsibility.
Children should not be punished for their parents’ errors and while this case, in many ways, is not different from many others of neglectful fathers, the diocese does have some gut-felt responsibility here. Maciel’s children something also– in additon to the therapy they must need!
As a grateful and harried father, I agree at least with Jim’s last sentence as well as some of the other points he makes.
Lead editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch today:
Bishops target victims’ advocacy group in St. Louis, Kansas City
http://tinyurl.com/79tuoqr
Also, I also reject the notion that we were all trained to lie in the seminary. Surely there were cover-ups of all matters sexual and a “turning away” and the seeds of duplcity. I will never forget a priest who I knew and loved and respected immensely suggesting to me a “third way” when I was agonizing with him about my struggle with celibacy after a few years of ordination. That attitude was perhaps a prevalent one in late ’60’s and ‘70′ and bred an attitude that was damaging to all of us, but I think this deserves a greater nuance about clerical culture rather than simply saying that we were all trained to lie.
——
There are many euphemisms for lies: fibs, whoppers, tall tales, calumny, detraction, misrepresentations, etc., etc., etc., but imho, less nuance is needed when discussing liars and the lies they tell, not more.
I admit the darkness in the system and how we were taught to grope in a connvenient ather than question or bring it all to the light of day, but it was not communicated to me that this was right. It was much more subtle, I think, and perhaps even more pernicious that way. Surely, I knew guys who had girlfreinds- and boyfriends- and was vaguely aware of some rumors about clergy faculty, but there was not an “honor code” to turn people in and I think the impression I had was that this was not right, but not not my business. Perhaps others experiences were more explcit or I was duped more than I knew, but I do believe there were many honest men who apparently tried to live honest and healthy celibate lives also and perhaps we all wanted to be in a bubble….
The training in lying that takes placed in closed enviornments is not only about sex. It’s more/mostly about protecting the institution, guarding the prerogatives, maintaining the prestige of its members.
In The Purple Culture, a priest recounts the thrill that came with the deference that came with ordination. Once experienced, it’s hard to relinquish, even when the joy of family life beckons.
Plus, the training in lying makes it possible to avoid and deflect unpleasant questions from people untrained in theology. (What are the real reasons women can’t be ordained, e.g.)
And the training makes is easy to mollify those less educated, etc., by pretending to believe in apparitions, personal revelations, etc.
That’s a few different thoughts, Gerelyn.
I agree with the first sentence and would lean toward agreement with an aspect of the second, but have not read the book and question how that would hold most. However, “specialness” is always seductive and infects even the most effective.
You final points would warrant a lot more commentary, but we all know any practice or belief can be rationalized. Just check with Harold Camping!
Ann pondered: “My concern is why there are so few Latino priests. The Irish and others encouraged their boys to become priests. Why don’t the Latinos? Are they losing the faith so soon?”
Could it be that large Irish families were seen by many Irish as a curse, and having kids was not desirous by so many? Hence the attraction to the life of a celibate – for men and women?
OTOH, Latino families seem to treasure children, so celibacy is a very negative foreign affront to their culture.
Or so I ponder —-
” — it would seem a bit disingenuous if we were to endorse his being both a priest and a good father and partner, given the insistence that priests remain unmarried.”
What is disingenuous are the multitude of “exceptions” being made for married former Protestant ministers being ordained into the RC priesthood. And shall we not now praise the wonderful “Orneryariate” which will become its own little parallel world of Roman Catholicism?
I know that those pesky Eastern Rite priests are a rather invisible thorn in the side of celibacy, but so long as they really don’t crawl out into the Latin sunlight very often, they can be tolerated, even if celibate noses have to be held when periodic encounters occur.
And, even though it took them 24 hours to whip up a frenzy, here are the “good California Catholics” in action:
http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=5c9f44b8-7d05-4f95-8911-54cb5b61e0f3
The comments invite a call to Reconciliation for about 100 years form a good portion of the regular denizens.
It seems to me that the real issue here is that children resulted from this relationship. Had Zavala and his partner used contraceptives (it’s possible they did, and their methods failed–but given that two pregnancies resulted, it seems possible they were winging it, or even chose to produce children)or chosen to abort the children, the man could easily have remained bishop for the rest of his life, and nobody would have been any the wiser.
A quickie confession, and he would have been good to go.
I do have to wonder if perhaps the reason homosexuality has been so widely tolerated within the ranks of the hierarchy doesn’t have everything to do with the fact that there is no possibility of inconvenient pregnancies that then have to be dealt with one way or another.
And given Richard Sipes’ research on how few priests are able to live their vows of celibacy their entire lives, it does make one wonder just how most pregnancies that result from their liaisons are actually handled. Or perhaps priests and their female partners are just particularly good at contraceptive use in general.
I agree that the lying one of the worst aspects of his behavior. But I also wonder just how far the duty to be honest about ones’ sins goes. Is it only when a child or some other massive consequence results from our sin that we must be honest? He may have repented years ago and decided to keep his mouth shut to protect his lover and children. If falling into sexual sin makes one ineligible for remaining in the priesthood, I suppose about 90% (according to Sipes) of priests and bishops would have to resign.
If, on the other hand, it’s the begetting of children that makes on ineligible, I would imagine the pressure to use very effective contraceptives (vasectomy, anybody?) and/or to procure abortions would be quite high. Again, homosexual unions avoid this mess, and a quick confession is all one needs to make one right with God. Fertile women, pregnancy, and babies really muck up the situation!
I do agree it will be interesting to find out just why this news came out now.
A case of a Franciscan priest and child, probably the one referred to above by Jim P. and Claire, is described in the NYT. The most striking part to me were recent words from the priest. “He [the priest] said he did not want to talk about the situation, and pointed out that Ms. Bond had more to lose than he did because she had signed a confidentiality agreement that, if broken, requires her to pay a penalty. He asserted that Ms. Bond had shown no care for his needs and was only concerned about money, and that his son had shunned him. He said that he and the Franciscans had done nothing bad.” He is senior pastor of a local Roman Catholic church.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html
Jack – that is the one I recall. If that is how my thought experiment plays out in real life, then let’s banish the thought!
Re-reading the NYT account is even more sickening at this time. The failures of the OFMs on all levels are really beynd the pale — and allowing him to stay in ministry!!!! No wonder there is no credibility left. I doubt I’ll be here for it, but coupled with seeing Benedict’s appointments today makes me yearn for that next Reformation….
No Jim – that is a good way for it to play out but it should be done privately and openly.
For example, assume you were a superior or someone who had to mediate in this situation. On the one side, you would see a woman who is trying to take responsibility for the care of her son. I am not sure if the Francisican priest understands (but I am sure the superior does) that money doesn’t drop down from Heaven and that there is this thing called rent and a mortgage, heating bills, electric bills, housing, medical bills. And if the child wants to be involved in some kind of activity (as they should) there are lots of costs associated with that. Child care is not cheap either (150 – 200) per week and on and on.
Then you have him, framing this as her being only interested in the money (see above). And then the final whopper that he has shown no care for his needs. And what needs exactly are those? (how soon he forgets the moment of conception as well as the practice sessions!!!!). His other needs such as food. clothing, shelter, meaning, friendship, belonging are all supported by his order.
Given all of that, I would insist that he find employment somewhere and that a large portion of that pay go to her and the rest to the community.
He is pretty clueless about the reality of relationships of this type which is why he shouldn’t be involved with them in the first place. And then as far as not doing anything bad – “You BROKE your vows!!” That IS bad. Not unforgivable, not saying that he should stab himself samurai style for dishonour but good grief – you made a vow and you broke it. Yes, that is bad. Sheesh.
On the day after Bishop Christensen of Superior read the front page of the NYT (link above), he suspended the Franciscan in question, who served as a pastor in his diocese. The need for the suspension was attributed to the 2002 Dallas agreement of Catholic bishops on dealing with priests credibly accused of sexually abusing minors, which applied to this Franciscan. A contributing factor was reported to be that the Franciscan had encouraged abortion when the woman who had come to him for spiritual advising first became pregnant by him. The fate of the lethally ill son and burdened mother was not mentioned. The decorum of dotCommonweal precludes all comments that come to mind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/us/17priest.html
Unless I missed something (very possible!) it’s not clear whether Bp. Zavala revealed his partner and children of his own accord, or whether he was “outed” or threatened with “outing,” perhaps by a mother who, quite reasonably, might have thought that it was time that Dad ponied up for child support and college costs.
Imputing the best here would be, I think, to infer that the Bishop can no longer live the life of an irresponsible absent father, and will now step up to be in his kids’ lives, if they still want him. (And the mom, too, if she still wants him.) That’s if the relationship is on-going. If not, well, I cannot imagine how tough it must have been all these years for the mom to say to her kids that their dad isn’t around because his job is more important than they are, and that he’s ashamed of them all.
Imputing the worst, he’s been outed, had no intention of ever acknowledging the partner or the kids, much less contributing to their education, just as he’s eluded helping parent them all these years. I’ve known priests who simply fool around, misleading women into inferring actual care for them, then they retreat back into the priesthood to avoid commitment. Instead of the adulterer’s come-on line of “my wife doesn’t understand me,” it’s a version of “the priesthood isn’t really for me,” as the come-on for a relationship they know they will never take responsibility for.
I’m still enough of a romanic to hope that the relationship is still loving, that the kids have always known (and known their father,) and that at last the Bp. has decided to speak out publicly. I’m enough of a realist to sadly admit that the latter seems more likely.
Lisa,
I am thinking along the same line you are. It seems very plausible that this news has come to light because the bishop was about to be “outed.” If so, I wonder if, in exchange for the monetary settlement, the mother of the children had to sign a confidentiality agreement, like Pat Bond, so that we will never hear here side of the story.
That should be “her” not “here.”
The old saying “it’s always darkest before the dawn” has always struck me as more hopeful than quite true. In my experience the dawn comes on gradually, and you don’t quite know when it begins. So the present disillusionment of ordinary Catholics with their clergy and Bishops seems to me to be not altogether a bad thing, even though it has been occasioned by so many appalling revelations.
It might represent the first flush of a better time to come. . . Eventually, Bishops who have to meet a constant and newly skeptical scrutiny by their “flocks”may be less autocratic, more pastoral. Seminaries whose continued existence comes to depend on the proven character of their graduates may feel a healthy pressure to refuse candidates who are trying to escape into a fantasy world. And ordinary Catholics who realize they are the Church, too, may have to stand up to the job of helping run it. (Yes, they will have to share the blame when they mess things up, but that’s what Christian grown-ups, lay or clerical, do. They try to face the truth about themselves, take responsibility, and change whatever needs to be changed, with all the “wisdom and patience” they can muster.)
Lisa is close, I believe. It may be coincidence, but it’s roughly time when the older of Zavala’s two minor teenagers is nearing the age to head for college. A responsible parent often faces major concerns about where the needed money is going to come from. The father of the child is an obvious source for the mother to ask. If he responds generously, the matter is settled until the next child’s needs come along. If not, what are her options?
In the normal world, it is hard to imagine the head of a large organization agreeing to fund tuition for selected children just because they were fathered by a straying deputy. Abp. Gomez’s diocesan priorities and values obviously differ, at least for a bishop astray. A good question from Alan M. is what did it cost the mother. Another is what the cost of all this accumulates to for the unknowing parishioners in the area. Is it worth it, considering Zavala’s widely praised public performance? An opinion survey of the diocese would be interesting, although unlikely.
Lisa – was trying to say some of that between the lines in my original post. Another variant:
Rome just named a new co-adjutor for Brom in San Diego and it is obvious they were thinking Hispanic. Given Zavala’s reputation and probably backing by Mahoney, would posit a guess that the internal vetting may have elicited this “secret”.
For me, the contrast between what Rome demands when a bishop/priest has children and what they never demand or even insist in terms of criminal cover-up behavior only makes this episode a continuing church farce. In these highly charged media sexual times, the fact is that the church needs to have a serious discussion about celibacy (it is a gift and charism; not a regulated requirement); it may not even be that much about sex as it is for many priests approaching mid-life and looking for companionship, intimacy, growing in a relationship. (this episode seems to appeal to the baser comments and thus misses an opportunity to learn something and to behave as adults).
Most parents with children learn that they are no longer the center of the universe and choose to focus on the family and each childs’ good. Too many priests miss this opportunity and find that trying to replace this with work or service or whatever only leads to increased loneliness – that is the real emotional learning point as it is for couples who lose the other spouse.
As Richard Sipe says well in his documented research: “…the priest is forever 14″ in the eyes of many.
An account that I read suggested that Rome got the news first, then Bishop Gomez made the resignation announcement. Hmmm.
What a sad, sad story all around.
Hi, Ann, I don’t think it’s well-understood that Rome appoints *all* bishops, even auxiliaries. In theory (and occasionally in practice), a priest in a diocese is ordained a bishop and made an auxiliary of the diocese, and the diocesan ordinary is the most surprised guy in the chancery.
I’m still of the mind that the diocese ought to contribute something significant — not sure of the amount – towards the children’s education at least. While perhaps not its responsibility in a strict sense, it would show some sort of goodwill. Of course, it could be misinterpreted and, as others have said, does not deal with the justice dimension for so many others, but I just feel on a gut level that it is a right thing to do for the children– and the least that the institution can do….
Jim P. —
I still don’t understand how the appointment/choosing process works, either in the early Church or now. I know that somehow in the early Church the people chose – or were allowed to choose. Didn’t they peple choose St. Augustine? It is my understanding that now even auxiliary bishops have to be approved by Rome before they become bishops. Are they not vetted by the Curia? If they’re not, maybe that’s why we got such a fine auxiliary, Bishop Fabre. (hee hee)
Jim P. — The lack of understanding you note might be less if we didn’t hear so much from representatives of the Vatican about how little control Rome exercises over the Church in the outlying continents. Granted, the devil is in the details, but mixed messages cause confusion for the majority who are non-scholars. One example:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125639602
Jack B. –
It would seem to me that bishops are more like members of the board of directors of the Church than employees themselves, though some board members are paid for their services. Bishops certainly aren’t paid salaries by Rome, are they? Don’t bishops establish their own wages?
Of course, there is that pesky teaching about the Pope being in control of various things. I bet the documents of V2 make it to SCOTUS one of these days. And I’ll bet the Popes will be sorry they didn’t implement collegiality better. Bet you one holy card of St. Francis of Assisi and one of Wm. of Ockham. (The latter was right about collegiality, you know, but the Vatican has never admitted it.)