Perspectives
Two among a number of interesting letters in today’s New York Times:
To the Editor:
Re “Pope, in U.S., Is ‘Ashamed’ of Pedophile Priests” (front page, April 16):
The Holy Father’s expression of shame for the sexual abuse scandal is well taken. But I think he should also, at some point, remind American Catholics that they are called on in the Lord’s Prayer to forgive from the bottom of their hearts the sexual abusers in question.
Hard as it may be, that call holds for Catholic victims of sexual abuse as well. Our faith is supposed to be a liberating experience for all involved.
George McCauley
Bronx, April 16, 2008The writer is a Jesuit priest.
•
To the Editor:
In his “View From My Pew” (Week in Review, April 13), Dan Barry admits that he prefers getting his Catholic views from the “aimless” sermons of his pastor rather than reading papal encyclicals. That’s like preferring Fox News to the BBC.
The current pope has written only two encyclicals, one on love and one on hope, both of them theological gems that feed the soul. Mr. Barry ought to take one to church next Sunday and read it during the sermon.
Students at a Catholic high school here in Rhode Island use Benedict’s “Introduction to Christianity” as a textbook and find it stimulating, challenging and nourishing.
This pope has a better understanding of the issues underlying modern consciousness (or lack of it) than all the talking heads of Europe and America.
James D. Poisson
Wakefield, R.I., April 13, 2008
And their excellent Papal Discussion blog continues.
I would like to hear from Fr. McCauley exactly what it would entail for Catholics, and especially victims, to “forgive from the bottom of their hearts the sexual abusers in question.”
Perhaps some victims of clerical sexual abuse have or will be able to forgive their abusers, especially the abusers who have apologized to their victims and have sought their forgiveness. Though we as Christians are called upon to exercise foregiveness liberally, I wouldn’t presume to advise a victim of sexual abuse, clerical or otherwise, if or when to bestow the gift of forgiveness.
At the institutional level, the issue is more complicated IMO. Until the Church experiences a catharsis on the sex abuse issue–diocese by diocese if need be, in the form of truth & reconciliation commissions, for example–this issue is going to eat away at the Church. As painful as transparency is, it not nearly as painful or destructive to the Church as the circling of the wagons and stonewalling that has taken place in many dioceses. I for one might be able to forgive a bishop who moved an abuser priest around from parish to parish; others justifiably may not feel they can be so forgiving. But fear of legal consequences or of loss of rank within in the Church pale in comparison to the pressing need for a process that brings all of the facts of the sex abuse crisis into the open air. Only after engaging in such a public penitential process will real healing be possible, and only then will the full beauty of our faith and our Church be evident.
We all ought to forgive anyone who has wronged us. This is what Jesus told us to do. The sexual abuser are not an exception. But the abuser profits nothing if he does not admit his sin and his need for forgiveness. This is true of abusers. It is also true of the bishops and other clerics who may have been complicit in the sins of the abusers and failed to protect and do justice to the abused.
Are there not psychological tests, including instruments (using physiological responses – pulse rate, perspiration, etc.) that would effectively screen out the majority of likely pedophiles? I’m talking hard-core in-depth testing not unlike that used to screen out security risks for government jobs. It seems to me that nothing less will do.
Dear William,
I apologize for sounding like a broken record about this, but … as long as litigation, and the threat of further litigation, casts its shadow over the institutional church, bishops and their staff will continue to exercise caution and prudence in their public statements and actions.
I love the idea of truth commissions. Unfortunately, given the litigious environment, the window of opportunity for it (if it ever was open) would seem to be closed.
Do you think the study commissioned by the USCCB pursuant to the Dallas meeting was an example of bringing the truth to light? If so, what more should be done that wasn’t done by that study? I’m not trying to be quarrelsome, I’d really like to know what else the church should do.