Peter’s Sense
The New York Times has assembled a first-class group to comment on the Pope’s visit, but none more astute, balanced, and challenging than Peter Steinfels.
Here is a portion of today’s reflection, which will undoubtedly provoke outcries from right and left, but which shows an uncommon common sense.
I have long had my own list of things Catholic leaders should do to prevent abuse, remove perpetrators and reach out to victims. Actually the church has done a good number of them. It has balked or stumbled on others. And there is always the danger of backsliding.
But it would be utterly naïve to think that any of this would assuage the anger. Too many people, frankly, have a stake in it. It is a reservoir of energy, whether for personal coping or for battles in the church. There are complexities in the sex abuse story that contradict or qualify many of the sweeping generalizations that both conservatives and liberals, in clashing ways, continue to repeat. There are even a lot of things, believe it or not, that we still don’t know. It is almost hopeless to try to discuss any of this. The anger is too great.
And now, unfortunately, I sense a new anger. Call it anger at the anger. It infects people in the pews who have perhaps always been too deferential toward their leaders. But it is, I believe, growing among people who were horrified to learn of these crimes, of the widespread (but not universal) negligence of bishops and by the outright complicity of some of them. Sympathy and outrage on behalf of victims and their families remain; but impatience, hostility and even cynicism are growing toward those who tap into that sympathy and outrage for larger purposes. Those purposes include the purging of gay men from the priesthood. They also include rewriting statute of limitations laws, which now seems to be the spearhead concern of the organized victims’ movement.
Since statutes of limitations vary from state to state, there is no way to make a blanket judgment about where revisions — or precisely what revisions — might be warranted. In some cases, legislation has been proposed that targets the Catholic church while exempting public schools or other settings where the risk of sex abuse is significant. The scandals have produced a small industry of plaintiffs’ lawyers specializing in litigation against the church who have a lot to gain from revisions in the law, and Catholics who follow these arcane matters are increasingly aware that the sums of money involved punish neither the predatory priests nor the offending bishops, who in a great many cases are retired, deceased or without personal fortune, but instead people who benefit from the church’s services.
It is a bad habit of those inside and outside Catholicism — and even of popes themselves — to assume that popes have the power to resolve all difficulties in the church. This is another instance where that will be proved wrong.
Peter S is quite right that other Catholics are quite disturbed that the money going for settlements are hurting the needy in the church rather than the clergy and bishops who caused and ignored the scandal. But it is too simplistic for him to say that these problems are not easily solvable by pope and bishops. The pope can do something about the five cardinals that snap has listed as still truculent in their neglect of the victims.
http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_press_releases/2008_press_releases/041608_snap_pope_worst_American_bishops.htm
Bill forget that the settlement moneys ‘are hurting the needy’ about 10% of catholic charities money comes from the Church. Gov. grants, United Crusade, ;in kind’; etc make up the vast bulk of ‘monies for the needy’.
Blaming plaintiff lawyers for making great money from abuse cases is like blaming auto body shops from profiting from drunk drivers.. true But?
I hate to say I agree with Hitchens, when he says ‘don’t call it sex abuse call it child rape and cover-up’
And then there’s Cardinal Law in Rome, doing quite well.
I hatre to say it, but the hurt to the people caused by abuse scandals is probably overstated from several points of view.
If Bishops had and do handle matters properly, the suits may have been less or amounts settled for far less.
The amount Church lawayers get paid is not spoken of, just “greedy” plaintiff lawyers.
Church finances themselves are hardly as transparent as one could wish – ask the angel at New York, for wxample.
Finally, how the Church spends its money, the priorities it shows (based on dollar amount) also raises questions.
It’s easy to say the leadership can’t solve it all – but they sure as shootin’ could do better.
“The pope can do something about the five cardinals that snap has listed as still truculent in their neglect of the victims.”
Of course, the point of Steinfel’s column was to suggest that some of us, including myself, don’t believe that the Church should be doing SNAP wants the Church to do.
I got really angry at the Popes apology(?) with respect to priest’s sexual abuse. As if sin wasn’t possible for the ordained. He didn’t have anything to say about his bishops who colarorated in the abuse by abetting it. I guess installation as a bishop makes you unable to sin.
Patrick,
Steinfels is not attacking Snap as you clearly are. I guess you want to bring Law back to Boston also.
Great point, Mary.
Steinfels’ observations about the ultimate futility of large awards and settlements are right on.
Re: SNAP: perhaps they would be more effective in influencing the church hierarchy if they took a less adversarial stance toward the church. Not many persons think it wise to follow the advice of their bitter enemies, e.g. those who wish to bankrupt and humiliate them.
Jim, how you and Patrick twist Steinfels words to fit your opinion is startling. He did not say that the awards were futile. His point was that all sides are anger so that no one will work to a solution. In this sense I do have a problem with Peter in the sense that there has to be more movement by the hierarchy. Those five cardinals that Snap cites really are awful. Secondly, Peter seems not to be aware that the Church is spending an enormous amount of money in all states to fight any expansion of the statutes of limitations. No survivor group comes close to spending the amount of money the bishops have put there.
And it really would have been helpful for Peter Steinfels to acknowledge that this scandal would never have been acknowledged and exposed without the force of secular courts. That is a terrible omission by Peter. All sides are truly not equal in this case.
Peter does have a point in that there is a certain protester that protests for protest sake. That does not nullify valid protest. Peter’s attempt to satisfy everyone, satisfies no one.
Bill, here is what Steinfels wrote:
“Sympathy and outrage on behalf of victims and their families remain; but impatience, hostility and even cynicism are growing toward those who tap into that sympathy and outrage for larger purposes. Those purposes include … rewriting statute of limitations laws, which now seems to be the spearhead concern of the organized victims’ movement.
… The scandals have produced a small industry of plaintiffs’ lawyers specializing in litigation against the church who have a lot to gain from revisions in the law, and Catholics who follow these arcane matters are increasingly aware that the sums of money involved punish neither the predatory priests nor the offending bishops, who in a great many cases are retired, deceased or without personal fortune, but instead people who benefit from the church’s services.”
Bill, all of us want to see justice done. As far as I know, nobody here is in favor of sexual abuse, nor of protecting those who are guilty. But if justice can’t be done because of statutes of limitations, suing a third party (a Catholic diocese) with deep pockets doesn’t punish the wrongdoer, which is the predator and in many cases his bishop. Setting one injustice against another doesn’t achieve justice.
The last time we discussed this, Carolyn Disco very graciously explained to me that it can be healing for abuse victims when bishops and abusers are forced to admit on the public record that they abused or were complicit in the abuse. In other words, suing the third party – the diocese – is a legal strategem to get the real criminals to the witness stand. I do understand that, and inasmuch as healing takes place, I am glad. But that doesn’t make it okay to punish the third party for the sins of their leaders or members.
One in five Boston parishes are closing or have closed. Is that just? Is it the fault of those parishioners that a handful of priests and their bosses engaged in criminal behavior?
Steinfels has it absolutely right.