The sexual-abuse crisis: unfinished business.
This morning, Thomas Reese, SJ, delivered a keynote address at the conference Clergy Abuse: Ten Years Later, sponsored by Santa Clara University. In his talk, Reese described the “unfinished work in responding to the sexual-abuse crisis.” Some highlights (you can read the whole talk at the bottom of this post):
First, I think the church—and by church I mean both the clergy and the people of God—needs to re-envision its attitude toward the survivors of sexual abuse. In Latin America, liberation theologians developed the concept of the preferential option for the poor. The American Catholic Church needs to embrace a preferential option for the survivors of sexual abuse.
[...]
Second, we need a better system for investigating accusations of sexual abuse. Obviously, all accusations must be reported to the police, but if the statute of limitations precludes prosecution, the police will not investigate. Or the prosecutor may judge there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. Under these circumstances, the church still has an obligation to investigate and determine whether a priest is guilty or innocent, whether he must be permanently removed from ministry or returned to ministry. The charter calls for an investigation of the allegations, but there is no standard operating procedure.
That became painfully clear in February 2011, when a Philadelphia grand jury found “substantial evidence” that thirty-seven priests — all in active ministry at the time — had abused. As the chair of the archdiocesan review board wrote in Commonweal:
The board had reviewed just ten cases involving the thirty-seven priests. None of the evidence we saw concerning the ten led us to conclude they had sexually abused minors. But until the grand-jury report came out, the board was under the impression that we were reviewing every abuse allegation received by the archdiocese. Instead, we had been advised only about allegations previously determined by archdiocesan officials to have involved the sexual abuse of a minor—a determination we had been under the impression was ours to make.
Just a few months later, it came to light that in May 2010 the principal of a Catholic elementary school had warned the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph that a priest “fit the profile of a child predator.” Yet six months passed before the diocese took action against the priest. Fr. Shawn Ratigan was eventually arrested on three counts of possessing child pornography. Bishop Finn and the diocese stand charged with filing to report suspected child abuse, a misdemeanor crime. And now prosecutors want to add another charge against Finn and the diocese. (Read our coverage of the story here.) Somehow the diocesan review board never never saw the case.
As I wrote at Religion Dispatches last June, those developments weren’t terribly surprising:
In October 2005—just three years after the bishops’ adopted their new norms—the Archdiocese of Chicago’s review board recommended removing an accused priest, Daniel McCormack, from ministry, and Cardinal Francis George refused to do so. He wasn’t removed from ministry until January 2006, and McCormack later pled guilty to abusing five kids. As the victims’ attorney Marc Pearlman told NPR, “I just don’t know… how many kids were abused between the fall of 2005 and January of 2006, when he was finally removed.”
[...]
The reason the U.S. bishops adopted rules requiring dioceses to have review boards is that bishops couldn’t be trusted to handle the problem on their own. Yet the Charter [for the Protection of Children and Young People] simply mandates that dioceses establish review boards; it doesn’t say how they should work. And, as the egregious lapses in Philadelphia and elsewhere show, it’s not clear that they are working.
In that piece, I recommended three steps the bishops could take to shore up their sexual-abuse policies: First, improve communication. “Diocesan review boards are sometimes in touch with the National Review Board, which oversees the implementation of the Charter. But there is very little information sharing between local review boards. Why not hold an annual meeting of diocesan review board chairs…where participants could share best practices?” Bishops also need to keep in touch with their review boards. Lots do, but not all.
Second, standardize review-board procedures:
Not all review boards are created equal. In Philadelphia, for example, review board members were pressured to judge allegations according to the norms of canon law. In one case, a canon lawyer who attended board meetings claimed that because an alleged act of abuse was committed against a 17-year-old in 1995, the allegation should be thrown out. At the time of the alleged abuse, the canonist argued, canon law held that the age of majority was sixteen. But review boards were not established to serve a canon-law function. Their role is simply to determine whether there is good reason to believe an alleged act of abuse took place against a minor.
[...]
Review-board members aren’t always clear on what amounts to sexual abuse. Does plying a minor with alcohol count? What about inappropriate tickling? The Charter sets the standard as “an offense by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor”—the one about adultery. That definition is vague enough to allow review boards to recommend actions against priests for a range of abusive acts, but it’s also too idiosyncratic to be of much use to review boards. They need more guidance.
Third, require every abuse allegation to be forwarded to the review board — immediately:
In many dioceses, such as Brooklyn, every allegation goes to the review board. In Philadelphia, however, someone with the archdiocese had been pre-screening accusations, deciding which were worthy of the review board’s consideration and which were not. And in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, the diocese never bothered to inform the review board that it had received the letter warning about Fr. Ratigan. When a bishop or one of his employees or priests is deciding which allegations ought to go to the review board and which he doesn’t need to share, then he is undermining the purpose of the board. The USCCB should petition the Vatican to enact such a requirement in canon law.
When the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops met in June 2011, the Charter was up for discussion. The bishops could have changed the Charter to address the weaknesses made all too apparent in the months leading up to their meeting. Instead, they punted. Catholic News Service reported that the bishops had approved “extensive” changes to the Charter, but that wasn’t the case. The bishops just revised the document to conform to newly released Vatican norms holding that the possession of child pornography and the sexual abuse of adults with mental disabilities are no different from abusing a minor. They also approved a revision obliging bishops to report allegations against bishops both to civil authorities and to the papal nuncio. It was as though they’d completely missed months of coverage showing the gaping holes in the Charter.
Should we have expected another outcome? Back to Reese:
It is a disgrace that only one bishop (Cardinal Law) resigned because of his failure to deal with the sexual abuse crisis. The church would be in a much better place today if 30 or more bishops had stood up, acknowledged their mistakes, taken full responsibility, apologized and resigned. A shepherd is supposed to lay down his life for his sheep; these men were unwilling to lay down their croziers for the good of the church.
[...]
The problem in the Catholic Church today is that the hierarchy has so focused on obedience and control that it has lost its ability to be a self-correcting institution. Creative theologians are attacked, sisters are investigated, Catholic publications are censored and loyalty is the most important virtue. These actions are defended by the hierarchy because of fears of “scandalizing the faithful,” when in fact it is the hierarchy who have scandalized the faithful.
***
Here’s the complete text of Reese’s remarks:
When Tom Plante and Kathleen McChesney asked me to give this keynote address, I said yes because it is hard to say no to Kathleen and Tom. It is also hard to say no when asked to do anything that might help push the church toward a better response to the sexual abuse of children. On the other hand, when it began to sink in that the people at the conference were going to be America’s leading experts on this crisis, I began to get very nervous.
I am not an expert on the crisis, but rather a journalist, commentator and priest. Perhaps my contribution can be first to congratulate and thank Kathleen and Tom and all of the contributors to the book, Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: A Decade of Crisis 2002-2012 (Praeger, 2012). The book makes a genuine contribution to a better understanding of the crisis. The church should be very grateful for your work.
For the rest of my talk, I would like to concentrate on what I think is the unfinished work of responding to the sexual abuse crisis. Needless to say, I cannot list all of the unfinished work, but the items I will highlight strike me as being important.
First, I think the church—and by church I mean both the clergy and the people of God—needs to re-envision its attitude toward the survivors of sexual abuse. In Latin America, liberation theologians developed the concept of the preferential option for the poor. The American Catholic Church needs to embrace a preferential option for the survivors of sexual abuse.
Nor should we look at the victims of abuse simply as clients or problems to be dealt with. Just as people in the church have learned not to look on the poor as a problem to be solved, but to recognize their contribution to the church, so too we need to see the survivors of abuse as persons who can teach us what it means to be Christians, what it means to be church. No one who listens to their stories can fail to be touched by them.
This means that we cannot respond to every new victim who comes forward with “O God, not another one.” Rather we have to see them as integral to our community, persons who must be welcomed. Such an attitude would encourage the church to reach out to the thousands of victims of sexual abuse who have not come forward. We want them to come forward; the church needs them.
Second, we need a better system for investigating accusations of sexual abuse. Obviously, all accusations must be reported to the police, but if the statute of limitations precludes prosecution, the police will not investigate. Or the prosecutor may judge there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. Under these circumstances, the church still has an obligation to investigate and determine whether a priest is guilty or innocent, whether he must be permanently removed from ministry or returned to ministry.
The charter calls for an investigation of the allegations, but there is no standard operating procedure. Each diocese is on its own, with the result that some do better than others. The American criminal justice system sometimes fails even though it has police, prosecutors, grand juries, judges and juries. The church has not had anything like this since the inquisition. Not surprisingly, the church has a hard time getting this right.
It is essential that the church get this right. The victims deserve justice and children must be protected from future abuse. Innocent priests also deserve justice and a way to clear their names. And the process must have credibility to the public at large.
We need more research on this topic. We need to find out what are best practices and help dioceses to adopt them. We don’t even know how many priests are suspended or how long their suspensions last. Many priests fear that if they are falsely accused they will be suspended indefinitely because the bishop is afraid to return them to ministry.
In too many instances the investigative process appears suspect because it is under the control of the bishop. Episcopal credibility here is nil. The process will only have credibility to the extent that it is seen as truly independent of the bishop. Only an independent process will have the credibility to say that, “Yes, this priest can return to ministry.”
Third, we still do not have a system for bringing bishops to account. It is a disgrace that only one bishop (Cardinal Law) resigned because of his failure to deal with the sexual abuse crisis. The church would be in a much better place today if 30 or more bishops had stood up, acknowledged their mistakes, taken full responsibility, apologized and resigned. A shepherd is supposed to lay down his life for his sheep; these men were unwilling to lay down their croziers for the good of the church.
The bishops also have to step up and supervise their own. I know, “only the pope can judge a bishop under canon law,” but there are lots of things the bishops can do anyway. First, they must speak out and publicly criticize those bishops that are not observing the charter or are failing in their responsibilities. Bishops, including the president of the bishops conference, need to say, “Shame on you bishop, get your house in order.” This is not a canonical judgment; this is fraternal correction.
The Vatican also needs to do its job. It appears to have no problem investigating nuns and theologians, but investigating mismanagement by a bishop is not a priority. A bishop can be quickly removed in Australia for hinting that women and married priests might need to be discussed, but bishops who failed children are not removed. Only in Ireland were a few bishops removed because of their failure to protect children, and that took a brave archbishop and the full force of the Prime Minister and the government.
Even when a bishop is indicted, no one has the sense to tell him to take a leave of absence until the case is over.
Finally, the sexual abuse crisis has to be seen in the context of clerical culture in the church. I agree with those who say that celibacy did not cause the sexual abuse crisis, but when a group of men sit around a table discussing what to do with one of their colleagues who abused a child, it makes a big difference whether the men at the table have children. The first question in a parent’s mind is “How would I feel if my child was abused?” The inability of celibate men to ask that question blinded them to the consequences of their decisions. They focused on the priest, not the victim.
A culture of fear and dependency also contributed to the crisis. I don’t know whether Monsignor Lynn broke the laws of Pennsylvania, but he was certainly no hero. Too few priests stood up to those in authority and said, “No, you can’t do that.” Speaking truth to power is not welcomed in the Catholic Church. Diocesan priests are totally dependent on the good will of their bishop for assignments and promotions. If a 60 year old bishop is appointed to your diocese, he is going to be your boss for the next 15 years. In practice, there is no appealing his decisions toward you nor can you escape by moving to another diocese. You are stuck.
In this corporate culture, few are going to tell the bishop “no.” The one pastor in Philadelphia, who refused to accept an abusive priest, got reprimanded and punished for challenging the archbishop. This is what happens when you speak truth to power in the Catholic Church.
The problem in the Catholic Church today is that the hierarchy has so focused on obedience and control that it has lost its ability to be a self-correcting institution. Creative theologians are attacked, sisters are investigated, Catholic publications are censored and loyalty is the most important virtue. These actions are defended by the hierarchy because of fears of “scandalizing the faithful,” when in fact it is the hierarchy who have scandalized the faithful.
Is there any hope. The data in the John Jay report shows that the cases of abuse fell dramatically during the 1980’s. The problem of abuse is probably worse in other parts of American society than it is in the church, but that is still damning with faint praise. It can never be an excuse for doing less than is required. But I dream of the day when the church becomes part of the solution rather than part of the problem. We are not there yet. But hopefully someday what we learn about the detection, prevention and healing of abuse in the church may be of help in responding to abuse in American society.
Tags: Bishop Robert Finn, Cardinal Francis George, Cardinal Justin Rigali, sexual abuse scandal, USCCB
if we really had a culture of preferential option for victims, I would have hoped that the panel would include Justice Burke, Tom Doyle and a few victims who would wish to speak – their voices are powerful, and Fr. Reese’s coments about justice and truth to power will not be heard uncless powerful voices are heard.
Too often voices like Fr. Reese himself get fobbed off in the halls of power.
The Catholic bishops in the United States have no motive to motivate them to make significant changes regarding allegations of sex abuse by priests and review boards.
In each diocese, the Catholic bishop is the equivalent of an absolute monarch. As the equivalent of an absolute monarch in his diocese, each bishop has no motive to motivate him to make significant changes in his diocese regarding how allegations of sex abuse by priests are handled.
The review board, by definition, even today, still has no control over the records and reports it sees and cannot enforce its recommendations. From ESSENTIAL NORMS FOR DIOCESAN/EPARCHIAL POLICIES DEALING WITH ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS BY PRIESTS OR DEACONS (June 2011):
“To assist diocesan/eparchial bishops, each diocese/eparchy will also have a review board which will function as a confidential consultative body to the bishop/eparch in discharging his responsibilities. … Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop/eparch, with the advice of a qualified review board, to determine the gravity of the alleged act.”
In this and in all other matters, the bishop has first and final say. If it were otherwise, if the records and reports of a diocese were to be made available to the review board in the transparent way corporate financial information is made available to public accounting firms in an audit, the bishop’s power to govern autocratically would be compromised. The bishop would not be able to control the scope of the investigation, control access to records and reports, control the investigation process itself, or control the final outcome. Diocesan review boards are designed to keep this from happening; the perpetuation of the power of the bishop trumps all. Such is life in an autocracy.
The situation is inherently irreparable. Autocracy cannot co-exist with representation, checks and balances, accountability, transparency and modern standards of justice. In order to remedy the current dysfunction, the structure of governance itself must be reconstituted from top to bottom.
Grant – outstanding post, and your own recommendations are excellent, as are Fr. Reese’s.
“The American Catholic Church needs to embrace a preferential option for the survivors of sexual abuse.”
Great advice. Sadly this option is reversed to harass the survivor’s defenders by deposing them.
“A shepherd is supposed to lay down his life for his sheep; these men were unwilling to lay down their croziers for the good of the church.”
Augustine let everyone off the hook when he declared the age of Martyrs over. What that amounted to was to allow the hierarchy to make martyrs of those who disagreed with them by using the government which crucified Christ and the martyrs.
Crosses abound but few willing to die for the Lord. Especially those who insist they are the voice of the Apostles.
Let me stipulate from the get-go, were the ranks of the American Catholic hierarchy filled with the likes of Thomas Reese, SJ, not only the sexual abuse and exploitation of children by priests and bishops with impunity would probably have ceased by now, but, by now, the offending priests and complicit bishops would have had to resign in shame from their high offices.
Sadly, none of that – the necessary anecdote to the abuse crises – none of that has yet come to pass. Catholics have witnessed their church adrift in a rip tide of guilt and shame.
Frankly, as the obviously appropriate Reese’s suggestions for improvement in the “review board” approach are, Reese’s prescriptions for the future is a lot like “Too little, Too late.”
From my time as SF review board chair, the single biggest reason the review boards have been rendered ineffective in investigating past abuses and preventing new ones is that review boards are the creatures of the hierarchs who created them.
As presently constituted, review boards – including the National Review Board – have no independent authority to conduct their investigations and reviews – review boards are simply “advisory” in nature. Review boards are completely dependent on the bishops for staff support, for investigative information and sources, for budget support, on the bishop.
The review boards were never intended to be an effective response to the rape and sodomy of children. They were never more than elaborate public relations schemes designed to disingenuously shield the hierarchy from public scrutiny.
The investigative activities of the review boards are completely controlled and circumscribed by the bishops and their attorneys – who have a very different agenda. By design, the review boards’ independence and integrity died in the crib.
[Think Philadelphia, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Boston, New York, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Austria, Australia, and on, and on ... Abuse-related costs to American Catholics alone so far: $2.6 billion!]
When the full scope and dimensions of the scandal became apparent to me [just from my very limited perch in SF], I tried to lobby now Cardinal William Levada to support the creation of a truly independent and international “Peace and Reconciliation Commission” modeled on the one led by Nobel laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, which investigated the rape, murder, torture and political extortion during the South African apartheid regime.
Only such a body, perhaps under the aegis of the United Nations, could compel the cooperation and participation of Catholic bishops and priests around the world. Like in South Africa, if bishops and priests came forward and acknowledged their offenses they could have been accepted back into the full life of the church. If clerics would have stonewalled this process of healing [as many, if not most, hierarchs and priests still do today] then they could have lived out their lives in disgraced retirement.
Finally, with such an international investigation, the full scope of the abuse could have been revealed. Most survivors [many of whom have yet to come forward with their stories of abuse] could have been identified, making reconciliation and healing at least possible.
I know, that’s a lot of coulda, woulda, shoulda …
Of course, the process of healing would have probably taken maybe decades. But in the meantime, Catholics could have gotten on with business of the renewal and reformation of the priesthood from parish to pope. I would suggest first on the agenda would be to separate the MONEY from the MINISTRY – a major corrupting factor in the burgeoning scandal.
Levada only condescendingly sneered at me saying: “We have already done so much [to address the abuse scandal].” We all know how that’s worked out for us.
Jeanne Follman above said it best: “The situation is inherently irreparable. Autocracy cannot co-exist with representation, checks and balances, accountability, transparency and modern standards of justice. In order to remedy the current dysfunction, the structure of governance itself must be reconstituted from top to bottom.”
“— each bishop has no motive to motivate him to make significant changes in his diocese regarding how allegations of sex abuse by priests are handled.”
Whatever happend among bishops of the idea of “fraternal correction?” Or does that only apply to non-clerics?
Shouldn’t the sheeple have the right to expect something other than the deadly silence that is seen in secular professions (police, etc.) when something untoward about one of theirs is made known?
Jim Jenkins said: ” — review boards are simply “advisory” in nature.” As are parish and diocesan Fiance Councils, Pastoral Councils and whatever other bones are periodically thrown to the laity to let them think that their voices are actually heard and have meaning. Having served on a parish FC until I quit in disgust, I found out that the ideas of those whose secular experience provides them with excellent bases for financial management and planning do not have to be given any credence by a pastor if that advice doesn’t fit into the pastor’s plans.
This man’s wisdom is borne out more and more each day:
“Those called to serve the people of God as bishops have to remember that they walk on feet of clay and rely on the power of prayer and sacraments to protect them from the dangers of earthly ambition and corrosive pride. Regrettably, some bishops fail to understand the shepherding nature of their episcopal role; they attempt to rule rather than lead the “flock” that has been entrusted to their care. That simply doesn’t work, and it is regrettable that the bishop is often the last to notice.”
William J. Bryon, SJ, “The church can learn a lot from ‘servant leadership’”, NCR, Aug 21, 2010, http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/church-can-learn-lot-servant-leadership
“The American Catholic Church needs to embrace a preferential option for the survivors of sexual abuse.”
I suspect that it does, Bill: http://www.accus.us/
2012 is the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of Vatican II. Remembering that three year event and calling to mind the ongoing horrors of sexual abuse in the church as well as the more recent “doctrinal concerns” about the Leadership Conference of Women Religious perhaps it is time for a “preferential option for pastoral care”.
My reasoning is as follows:
1. Vatican II was and has been termed a “pastoral council”.
2. There has been and still is some ambiguity about what that term, pastoral, means and, consequently, implies.
3. John O’Malley, in my judgement, is correct in identifying the literary genre of the Vatican II documents as partial constituent of their meaning (and a better key to their meaning than the legal hermeneutic of spirit/letter) and, consequently, the meaning of “pastoral council”–especially in comparison with the “literary genre” of “doctrinal councils”,(e.g. Nicea), for which canon/anathema is similarly a partial constituent.
4. Controversy about the notion/theory of history notwithstanding, both Nicea and Vatican II are indicative of different and significant ecclesial (genetic?) steps in a developing (deepening) understanding of the church as mystical body of Christ.
5. If Vatican II was a pastoral council then the further questions might be: “What is pastoral care?”, How “pastoral” has our response to current issues which are critical–”have made lives unliveable”? and “How might we/should we implement pastoral care?”
Moreover, a preferential option for pastoral care would seem to be a general theorem which would include the option for the poor and Reese’s suggested option for survivors.
“The American Catholic Church needs to embrace a preferential option for the survivors of sexual abuse.” I wonder what Barbara Blaine (who founded the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP)) said about that in the panel she participated in? The SNAP website explains that abuse victims and SNAP are being attacked by lawyers for KC Bishop Robert Finn and pedophile priests…
“Many priests fear… the bishop is afraid… A culture of fear… These actions are defended by the hierarchy because of fears…” So much fear! What happened to “do not be afraid”?
Fr Reese’s presentation was hopeful, in a way. It was very interesting at a descriptive level, but at a prescriptive level, I am a bit skeptical. He laid out what the church administration, the bishops and the Vatican would need to do, indicating that he was still thinking about reforms from within the clergy: “The bishops also have to step up … The Vatican also needs to do its job.” I thought that that approach had been tried and had failed, so that the main focus of our thoughts should now be reforms that can happen independently of the church hierarchy.
Oops, I should have used my fingers. Vatican II was a four year not a three year event. If I had counted the sessions I would have been more accurate.
Claire — Agree with your view on Fr. Reese’s summary. It is theoretically commendable but offers no signs, nor does evidence appear elsewhere, of the motivation necessary to induce the hierarchy to act. Meanwhile, efforts are underway in Ireland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, and elsewhere by clergy and lay people trying to work out ways to proceed. In some cases, conversations with bishops have occurred (e.g., Flanders, Germany), apparently without much progress.
On May 7 in Dublin, over 1000 people met in a first step toward figuring out how to move “Towards an Assembly of the Irish Catholic Church”. A first overview of the day was just put out by one leader, Fr. Brendan Hoban of the Association of Catholic Priests, who summarized their perspectives and aims:
http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/05/reflection-on-the-day-in-the-regency-brendanhoban/
In Mannheim May 16-20, a German Catholic Day conference will be paralleled by an alternative German Catholic program run by reform groups. Its speaker on Saturday will be Gunther Schuller, leader of the Austrian Pastors Initiative which was noted by the Pope in his Holy Thursday homily because of its “Appeal for Disobedience” charter. Schuller will speak on “Church Reform for Beginners: Strategies and Dialogue between the Opposition”.
http://www.wir-sind-kirche.de/index.php?id=128&id_entry=3958
The net is obviously centrally important in worldwide interactions, and language doesn’t seem to be a problem. Support for US sisters in the CDF-USCCB-LCWR affair is being voiced in native tongues in France, Brazil, and Sweden.
If only a pope can judge a bishop, then no wonder the “system” is a failure.
There are now just too many bishops worldwide for them all to be governed by the Curia/Pppe. Couldn’t there be a court system for offenses by the hierarchy in which there could be judgement by peers (other bishops) ? Each country could have its own system. (it is probably too much to hope that bishops would ever subject themselves to judgememt by the faithful. Not for another 2000 years, anyway. It will be either that or bishops will find themselves in secular courts more often.
There really must be some sort of way for bishops to be held accountable.
Jack, that’s a great point.
I didn’t think of it because those reform groups are not centered on the sexual abuse crisis. In fact, as I remember, when the Irish group discussed it, their main concern was the plight of clergy under suspicion or accused, not the victims of sexual abuse. When I read about that, it was a little disconcerting.
But their efforts to break the authoritarian mold and change the government structure could potentially, as a side consequence, provide a healthy setting within which to deal with sexual abuse. That is a great suggestion. Very hopeful! If it’s a real possibility, then those groups deserve all our support.
” In fact, as I remember, when the Irish group discussed it, their main concern was the plight of clergy under suspicion or accused, not the victims of sexual abuse. When I read about that, it was a little disconcerting.”
It’s a legitimate problem, and rhetoric that castigates all bishops or all clergy is pernicious in this respect.
Legitimate but not central. It’s a legitimate peripheral concern.
I think Ann is right about our Bishops even if it castigates the group.
I think our clergy in the US are rather pacific though they are under the gun of control of said bishops – bless the Irish and Austrians and Australians for not being so timid.
The question of how power is used and beauracratically reinforced is a major issue in the Church today.
As the pPilly trial peeled away layers of what really mattered to the policy makers there, that issue was cast into sharp relief.
Jim Jenkins and Justice Burke and others before him see how really caring about victims is secondary to the institution.
Even now, I wonder how seriously they are taken
ALL the American bishops need to be castigated because none of them–NOT ONE — has ever publicly denounced Cardinal Law’s being promoted at the Vatican. And not one of them has demanded that he be dismissed from his positions on five (yes FIVE !) dicasteries in the Curia, including the group that vets and recommends new bishops throighout the Church. C. Law all by himself constitutes a major scandal, and not one American bishop demanded his removal.
Much the same can be said about Cardinal Levada who is now the equivalent (oh the irony) of Chief Justice of the Vatican.
Further, none cof the bishops has publicly castigated Cardin George for keeping a highly suspect priest in ministry, thus violating their Dallas agreement, and none of tham called for his removal as President of the USCCB,
If you know of any bishoP who has taken a public stand on any of these matters I will be very happy to hear about it and I will be happy to apologize. In the meantime I think they’re all deservng of very loud castigation.
They are gutless, jim, gutless.
Fr. Reese mentions the need for fraternal correction. Its absence was discussed by Nicholas Cafardi in Commonweal 2 years ago, focussing on abuse in the US and Ireland. It is noteworthy that he could find in the 2 countries one praiseworthy name – Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin, who still stands tall, alone among the Irish hierarchy. (In Boston, to his credit, Bp. John D’Arcy had objected to Law about an abuser. Shortly thereafter, he was shipped out to the hinterlands. He was recently replaced in Indiana by Bp. Rhoades, who leads the USCCB charge against the Girl Scouts.)
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/fraternal-correction
D’Arcy, para 9 – http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ma-boston/archives/PatternAndPractice/sample-documents.htm
Ann’s mention of Law’s role in nominating new bishops brought to mind Cafardi’s most memorable quote, attributed to Fr. Vincent Twomey, former Ratzinger student and retired professor of theology. He was speaking of another country: the “hierarchy has in effect produced a self-perpetuating mediocracy”.
“Legitimate but not central”
Claire: I agree it’s not central. But it’s still legitimate, and it’s not difficult for us to moderate our criticism so that it’s targeted to those individuals who deserve it.
their main concern was the plight of clergy under suspicion or accused.
It more central than you might like because among the victims are some victimizers and among the perpetrators and enablers are innocents. Justice demands, I think, bending over backwards for the victims but it also demands an equal concern for the innocents.
Bruce, who? How many? What facts fo you have for your statements?