Before it slips down the memory hole.
November 4, 2008, 11:55 am
Posted by Grant Gallicho
The Diocese of Davenport, Iowa, which entered bankruptcy in 2006, announced yesterday that it has evidence that four clergymen sexually abused minors, including retired Bishop Lawrence Soens, whose case has been referred to the Vatican.
A five-member review board found Soens, who served as bishop of the Sioux City Diocese from 1983 to 1998, guilty of sexually abusing students at Iowa City Regina High School in the 1950s and 1960s, when he was principal. Soens was also found guilty of sexually abusing a male minor when Soens was rector of the St. Ambrose Seminary in Davenport.
Interesting timing.
“Kudos” is probably not the right word, given the subject matter, but some sort of acknowledgement should be made that the diocese (which presumably means the current bishop) reported a former bishop to the Vatican. Unprecedented?
SNAP’s reaction is per immemorial custom. I’m sure they’ve helped people somehow, but honest to goodness, could someone please stop pouring the vinegar in their lemonade?
Equally noteworthy is that an accusation was found to be unsubstantiated. (Not sure that the “guilty” and “not guilty” terminology would be correct for a diocesan review board).
Jim, I’m sure that folks who work with victims and who are still reasonably unhappy with the way the sex abuse crisis has and is being handled, will not enjoy your “vinegar in the lemonade” comment.
You’re entitled to your opinion, which seems to be I’m tired of all this) but the road is far from over for many folks who deserve respect and who still have reason to anger.
For example, aybe you could urge the folks in Southern Califonia episcopacy to become more forthcoming(among others) so that they can be”acknowledged.
In reality prophecy in the church today may rest more with VOTF and SNAP than anywhere else. Certainly, they are the only ones to confront the bishops on a consistent basis and who really has a plan to reform the church. Everybody else, more or less, just issues commentary and lets the bishops do what they want or, more precisely, does not do anything about the irresponsibility of the bishops.
“You’re entitled to your opinion, which seems to be I’m tired of all this”
No, not tired. But I do find SNAP is a little monotone-ous. If a diocese does something blameworthy, they gripe. If a diocese does something praiseworthy, they grouse. Had SNAP been present at the feeding of the 5,000, one suspects their press release would have been headlined, “BREAD WAS STALE”
This particular diocese seems to have done things the way they should be done. It’s an approach that calls for praise and encouragement. SNAP apparently couldn’t bring itself to say anything positive.
I’m afraid I agree with SNAP about the timing of the announcement.
Then what should the diocese have done?
Chosen another day.
Why?
Didn’t I cover this? “I’m afraid I agree with SNAP about the timing of the announcement.” I can’t say whether it was intentional, but releasing news the day before a presidential election is a good way to get a story buried.
I thought there was some compelling reason the diocese shouldn’t want the story buried.
SNAP also released today the “5 worst US Cardinals.”
Maybe worth a read, Jim, or maybe youll think it’s only vinegar.
Let’s just see now what the Vatican does. Any predictions? I think there will be some sort of mild rebuke, but nothing much. Like Macial being told to retire. I think this bishop should be defrocked, but my guess is it won’t happen.
Correct me if I’m wrong; but a bishop can not be “defrocked!” Only lackey priests.
What I would like to see just once is a local or state attorney general prosecute a bishop found guilty of sexual abuse and send him to a state prison.
This bishop’s case is somewhat different in that he’s been credibly found to have personally abused, rather than “only” countenanced/ignored priests under his watch. No idea if that’s an important difference in the eyes of the Vatican, though.
Check out 173 entries about Soens on http://www.BishopAccountability.org:
http://search.bishop-accountability.org/search?q=%22Lawrence+Soens%22&ie=&site=ba-prod&output=xml_no_dtd&client=ba-prod&lr=&proxystylesheet=ba-prod&oe=&sa.x=18&sa.y=11&sa=search to get the fuller picture on Soens.
The question is what took so long. Survivor Mike Uhde has been through hell to get this far. I am not sickeningly grateful for the Diocese of Davenport’s conduct. Do all you can to obstruct a survivor, act only when forced to, and then claim credit.
Jim: think harder.
Mr. DeHaas: Bishops can be defrocked. Fernando Lugo, for example.
I’ll be more precise. It was unclear whether bishops could ever lose the clerical state. This confusion came from canon 290 #3′s direction regarding voluntary dispensation from the clerical state. It said that deacons are only dispensed “for grave reasons” and priests “for the gravest of reasons” with no mention at all of bishops. Fernando Lugo’s case laid that confusion to rest, as he was dispensed this year. His case technically was not a “defrocking,” though, in the sense of incurring a penalty for committing a canonical crime. He asked to lay aside the frock, and Rome allowed it.
No such qualifiers exist for canon 290 #2, which discusses the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state. Under that language, a cleric loses the clerical state through the lawfully imposed penalty of dismissal. The only reason anyone supposed that bishops were exempt from 290 #2 was because of potential exclusion from 290 #3, which we now know includes bishops. Thus, any cleric who commits a canonical crime worthy of dismissal (e.g. molestation of a minor, can. 1395 § 2) is subject to dismissal from the clerical state, even if a bishop.
Mr. Madrid – thanks for the precise canon law quotations.
But, I sense a real difference between Lugo’s case (his request that the pope personally granted reluctantly and only for a greater good – serving the indigenous and poor) vs. taking away the “fullness of the priesthood” as a penalty because of a criminal (does this count with Rome) and sinful action. Let’s see what happens.
Echoing what Ms. Disco documented – given this long history, I would agree with Grant, etc. that making this statement public on election day was a “cheap” way of burying it. For the sake of victims, this bishop needs to be in prison.
Mr. DeHaas: you are right that the Lugo case and the present case are different. I corrected myself in my immediately preceding post; Lugo’s was not a “defrocking.”
His case, however, made clear that bishops were in fact subject to voluntary dismissal, which means they are definitely subject to dismissal via penalty, as I discussed above.