The other scandal
On the front page of the New York Times today: Laurie Goodstein’s story about a woman whose son (now sick with cancer) was fathered by her former lover, a still-active Franciscan priest. Don’t waste all your outrage on the first page, because it just keeps getting worse.
Ms. Bond’s case offers a rare look at how the church goes to great lengths to silence these women, to avoid large settlements and to keep the priests in active ministry. She has 23 years of documents, depositions, correspondence, receipts and photographs relating to her case, which she has kept in meticulous files.
Those files reveal that the church was tightfisted with her as she tried to care for her son, particularly as his cancer treatments grew more costly. But they also show that Father Willenborg suffered virtually no punishment, continuing to serve in a variety of church posts.
The church entity Ms. Bond dealt with is the Order of Friars Minor, commonly known as the Franciscans, whose members were known as mendicants because they survived on handouts from the communities they served.
“I know better than Franciscans what it’s like to beg, because nothing has happened without my begging the Franciscans,” said Ms. Bond, who is 53.
How many other confidentiality agreements are hiding stories like this one? What should the Church be doing about it? What would you want done if this were your pastor?
A disturbing and important story, but I so tire of the NYT’s coverage of the Church. Of course it is the second-most e-mailed story. They’ll endlessly cover Catholic scandals–however human they may be–because they sell papers.
We cannot tire of it until the culture is changed. This is a story of not only a irresponsible priest but also his superiors and his order. It is a chronic historical problem where the reputation of the clergy and hierarchy are considered more important than the welfare of persons. This is not a tabloid story. It is a call to conscience and integrity. What makes this story more galling is the fact that this woman came for help in a vulnerable position. Notice that the lawyer was more into talking legalese than about the welfare of the woman.
But let’s talk about abortion.
Without getting into the she-said / he-said aspects of the dispute: Fr. Wallenborg crossed a number of huge and brightly drawn lines. It’s surprising, to say the least, that he was never disciplined.
Regarding your final question, Mollie: most pastors don’t belong to religious orders, so it would fall to the diocese to discipline the priest and make good on whatever moral commitments ensue from the illicit relationship. I can say that it’s a standard part of clergy formation in the Chicago Archdiocese to make clear to candidates that having affairs with parishioners is a serious abuse of power (not to mention sinful).
The supporters of the hierarchy (as one friend calls it supporters of the Hurch) will point to the awful media digging up scandals.
But the issue of the hierarchy’s handling of its own (of course if you berlieve “the priest is everything.” real justice doesn’t matter.) is what’s at stake here.
I’m delighted to hear Chicago has a policy, but the leadership of the Bishop there (and Jim tells us he as a rule sides wih the Bishops) is awful in the way it handled sex abuse matters and led to calls for his resignation.
And what Mollie raises is what goes on behind the scenes and how it’s really dealt with, not what policies are in place.
The Goodstein piece, I think, points to what many perceive as a lack of genuinity on the part of Church leadership, not just statements of propriety or how awful it is an individual acted out.
I guess they jusy want us to be “simple Catholics” and not ask too many questions.
Just one more example of a dysfunctional ecclesial culture.
Yet, despite all that’s been revealed in recent years (really, just the tip of the proverbial iceberg), we have a pope doing his level best to revive practices and beliefs conducive to the promotion/maintenance of said culture.
Just plain sick!
(but keep putting your money in the envelopes, folks)
I’m with Maria on this. This front-page story tells us more about the NYTimes coverage of the Catholic Church than it tells us about the problem of clergy-parishioner relationships. The story mentions experts but I didn’t see any cited.
And what are the motives of the woman and son?
“Eventually they had a son, setting off a series of legal battles as Ms. Bond repeatedly petitioned the church for child support. The Franciscans acquiesced, with the stipulation that she sign a confidentiality agreement. It is now an agreement she is willing to break as both she and her child, Nathan Halbach, 22, are battling cancer.
“With little to lose, they are eager to tell their stories: the mother, a once-faithful Catholic who says the church protected a philandering priest and treated her as a legal adversary, and the son, about what it was like to grow up knowing his absentee father was a priest.”
The Franciscans, according to the story, provided child support presumably now ended for the 22-year old. The woman signed an agreement to keep quiet about it presumably in her interest as the mother of small children as well as the Franciscans.
I guess the operative phrase here is “little to lose.”
“Jim tells us he as a rule sides wih the Bishops”
Actually, Bob, I don’t tell you or anyone anything of the sort, and never have. Ever.
“but the leadership of the Bishop there …is awful in the way it handled sex abuse matters and led to calls for his resignation.”
Certainly, Chicago is not pristine in its history of handling sex abuse cases, particularly cases involving minors. Yet it has also handled a number of sex abuse cases “by the book”. At the very least, Chicago’s history is a mixed bag.
And the only calls for Cardinal George’s resignation I’ve ever encountered are yours, Bob.
What should they have done? I am not sure, but if it had been public I am convinced that some more honorable solution would have been found. The secrecy is the root of the dysfunctional handling of the problem. Secrecy is a major cause of scandal, not a way to prevent scandal.
In any case, how can the church, on the one hand, have such a lax “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude towards a priest who chronically breaks his promise of celibacy, and on the other hand, be so insistent that the celibacy requirement is so clear (priests espoused to the Church etc) that it is not up for discussion? It seems contradictory. Maybe there is a gap between the Magisterium and the “sense of the priests”…
My sympathies are with Pat Bond and not with Father Henry Willenborg or the Franciscans, but when a woman with three small children leaves her husband to have an affair with a priest, the priest isn’t the only one who is acting badly.
So I would say one of the major lessons of this story is that women should avoid having sexual relationships with priests.
Let’s not blame the NYT about Clerical scandals anymore than we blame the political sexual breakdowns on media. . the ecclesial meltdown is a weekly story and will continue to poison the pews. The sad thing is , the clerical sexual hypocrisy has all the same signs as the financial crisis. And we have The perpetrators of mess in charge of cleaning up the mess! End mandatory celibacy as a first step. and pray this fresh air will change the predatory secretive culture.
we pray… God help us.
David — yes — it’s a pretty obviously Bad Decision. I thought the digression in the story about “Good Tidings” was particularly interesting. According to what they told Goodstein, the founders of that organization thought they were creating a group to support priests as they discerned whether to leave the priesthood to pursue a romantic relationship, but they ended up being a support group for women being used for sex by priests. That kind of unhealthy relationship pattern isn’t unique to the Church, of course, but the extent to which it’s covered up and enabled is an institutional issue.
Is is possible this is not a bishop issue; the “priest” was a Franciscan not a diocesan priest…
And if you read to the end of the story:
“The child support money had run out long before Nathan turned 18. Ms. Bond had used $38,000 of it [an $85,000 lump sum payment from the Franciscans] as a down payment on a house. She remarried, twice, and her last husband was a lawyer who encouraged Ms. Bond to petition the Franciscans for money to help send Nathan to college.
“The Franciscans resisted, and they ended up in court. Father Willenborg insisted on a DNA test, which showed the probability of paternity was 99.9 percent.
“That really pushed me away further,” Nathan said. “It was ridiculous. He knew I was his son.”
“After months of court proceedings, the Franciscans agreed to pay half of Nathan’s college expenses, plus $586 a month, until he turned 21.”
First, to Jim P.
At the end of the Pax Christi thread you told us you were known to side with the bishops but were withholding judgemen there. I thought that was good of you.
It’s clear that there was a call for Cradinal George’s resignation by VOTF and it was carried in Chicago media.
I side with most here who are tired of blame the victim, blame the media, protect the institution.
Today’s news (for another thread) brings the Vatican effort to dialogue with Sthe traditi9onalisyts and a Vatican rep saying what we need is “a return to the past.”
Yuk!
Certainly the past was time when priests were and I think continue to be protected until some scandal becomes public.
A story from Rome this week caugh tm yeye: in 2006 police tried to stop a high ranking Vatican offical in a red light district wher ehe was known as a regular cruidsing for male prostitutes. When the police asked for his ppaers, he drove off hitting a police car and three policemen.
Recvently trhe Court in Rome ruled there was not a crime.
Think Joe J. nailed it when he talked about the dysfunctionality of clerical culture and apologists for that culture will continue in the days ahead to hear more stories of scandals I’m sure -but what happens behind the scenes will remain hidden about other problemns that wil not be resolved.
I don’t think the “Catholic” part of this problem has much to do with either Fr. Willenborg, his mistress, or his child, terrible as those stories are. After all, I doubt if you’d have to dig very hard to find similar tales of straying clergy among, say, Methodists or Episcopalians or Congregationalists (though it’s unlikely that the NYT would go to the trouble to do so). Doesn’t it have to do rather with the appalling dishonesty and hypocrisy of Willenborg’s superiors, whether diocesan or Franciscan? Somehow I think (I may be wrong) that Methodist or Episcopalian or Congregationalist officials would have handled the matter in a more forthright ways (even though perhaps in a clandestine manner).
But forthrightness does not seem to be a “Catholic” virtue, in some people’s eyes (never mind what St. Paul says). How can this whole story help but be read as a gloss on the forthcoming bishops’ pastoral on marriage, about which John Allen wrote recently in the NCR?
I’m not sure why this is a front page news story.
As Commonweal readers know, I am no fan of Bill Donohue, but I think he gets this one right.
“Catholic League”
10/16/2009 12:16 PM
Subject NEW YORK TIMES DECIDES THE NEWS
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on how the New York Times decides what’s newsworthy:
The New York Times has a story today about a gay activist who as a counselor learned about a case of homosexual statutory rape, but did not tell the boy to go to the authorities. Instead, he recommended the kid wear a condom. The man who gave this advice has been appointed by President Obama to be the new “Safe Schools Czar.” The story appears on p. 19. On the front page, above the fold, there is a story about a priest who had a consensual affair with a woman.
After a mid-western woman separates from her husband, she has an affair with a Franciscan priest. She gets pregnant and miscarries. They vow to “keep the relationship platonic,” but don’t. She gives birth to a boy. She signs a confidentiality agreement and the Franciscans fork over $85,000 to cover the costs of the birth, furniture for the baby, child support, legal fees, etc. The priest is sent for treatment. He gets out and the affair starts up again. The woman uses $38,000 of child support for a down payment on a house, the result of which is the money runs out before the boy is 18. She remarries. She gets divorced. She remarries. The Franciscans pay half of the boy’s college expenses, plus a stipend of almost $600 a month, until he is 21. The Franciscans pay 50 percent of her son’s cancer treatment expenses. She goes to New York with her lawyer husband for a one-week consultation regarding her son’s tumors. The Franciscans give them $1,000 to cover the trip. They stay in a New York hotel for three months, expecting the Franciscans to pony up again. They don’t. Hence, she breaks her confidentiality agreement and goes public.
There is a reason why this story about an irresponsible priest and an irresponsible woman merited 2,424 words on p. 1, and the story about the irresponsible gay activist turned “Schools Czar” merited 488 words on p. 19: the lead story was about ginning up public sentiment against priestly celibacy.
Celibacy causes priests to cheat the same way marriage causes spouses to cheat—it provides the opportunity but does not determine the conduct.
I don’t pretend to know why the NYT carried the story or put it on the front page, but it seems to me that the laity need to know about such goings on.
As for Fr. Willenborg, no one can say that he is the victim of the celibacy requirement. No one made him become a Franciscan or forced him to take a solemn vow of chastity. Was it the habit he couldn’t resist? It could hardly have been the spirit of St. Francis. And by the way surely one thing counselors, spiritual or otherwise, are not supposed to do is seduce those they counsel. How could the Franciscans continue to allow this man to deal with the public in their uniform? Have they no shame?
Can’t speak to the NYT and catholic bias – Ms. Steinfels has done a good job of highlighting that with the above post. But, going beyond the front page – there is a real issue here.
Sexual abuse of children has had the headlines since 1985; the bishops’ coverup efforts, legal battles, bankrupticy efforts, etc. gets mixed reporting, accuracy, etc.
The hidden scandal because it is not usually illegal (per US law – consenting adults) is what Mollie is writing about. It rarely gets headlines; it is always going on; and it parallels childhood abuse in terms of cover-up, settlements, legalese, etc. It not unlike MDs, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, other professionals who break their ethical boundaries via sexual activity with their patients, congregants, etc. At heart, it is an unequal relationship (shades of Letterman)
Here are some excerpts from studies on this issue:
a) since the US bishops’ commissioned study of 1971 by Conrad Baars, MD – “A significant proportion of clergy are psychologically immature (undeveloped). The clerical culture and system fosters & preserves this immaturity that can and does allow bishops and priests to absolve themselves of responsibility for their sexual behavior. 66% of all priests were considered under-developed; 8-16% were considered mal-developed.” This culture is still in place; if anything, the percentages have risen. When questioned, bishops & religious superiors use “mental reservation” to avoid facts, truth, or non-protection of the church’s image.
b) Clerical culture fosters superiority and entitlement because the priest has been “ontologically” transformed through ordination. This gives rise to Altruism in the service of Narcissism. Thus, the cleric is able to justify to himself and others that his good actions cover his abuse of women/men.
c) studies indicate that the current clerical culture manifests itself as anti-women. Even well-meaning productive priests use women for the sexual education that is absent in their lives and seminary training. Recent studies indicate that 30% of Dutch and 50% of German clerics have mistresses. It is an open issue in Africa, South American, and SE Asia.
Friends who are in leadership in religious communities tell me that they actually have set up systems and appointed both internal and external experts who handle, interview women, and make recommendations in handling these cases when they come forward. It is a fact that they try to keep anything from becoming public – via settlements, agreements, payment for counseling, etc.
There is little involvement of women in this process; there is little understanding of the pain and damage these relationships bring. In fact, women are often seen as the perp and the priest as the victim even after repeated affairs. It is not a healthy environment.
The church seems to continue to approach and handle these events as if the catholic in the pew is not an adult and can not handle the truth. How often does a man leave the priesthood and it is covered up or explained as a “sabbatical” – as if that decision may cause scandal and destroy someone’s faith. There is not appreciation for the fact that decisions (even lifetime vows) change at times; that this cleric may have served the church for years….that is skipped over and hidden with excuses.
Interesting link to the other side of the story: http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/women_face_stigma.htm
Bob: yes, I am known to side with bishops from time to time – when I think they are right. That is not the same as siding with them “as a rule”. I do appreciate your appreciation, though :-)
(I confess I completely missed the VOTF story in Chicago – it didn’t cause enough of a stir to catch my attention, and I’m probably a little more tuned into church-in-media matters than the average bear. I don’t think it amounted to anything. If there is widespread sentiment for Cardinal George to step down, I haven’t heard of it. I think most people don’t care and don’t see that his being in the Cardinal’s mansion makes any difference in their lives).
The law may not require it, but it seems to me that if Father Willenborg’s order was willing to forgive his repeated transgressions and maintain his status a Franciscan, then it owed at least a moral duty to the child. Perhaps the order did enough in that regard, I don’t know, and I doubt the NYT story gives the complete picture of these sad and complicated events. (I agree with what Peggy has said about the NYT coverage of the story.) What puzzles me is just when would enough be enough for the order to discipline Father Willenborg? If the following allegations are true, and if the order knew about them, why didn’t the order take action to at least limit Fr. Willenborg’s ministry to one that did not involve women? He allegedly had a prior relationship with another woman, he relapses with the boy’s mother immediately after returning from treatment, and he counsels the woman to have an abortion. I’m guessing he had other inappropriate relationships as well. (That’s pure speculation, but he clearly seems to have (or to have had) a very serious problem. I’m not criticizing his relationships per se, only his efforts to engage in them and to remain a Catholic priest.) And what was he thinking when he took his 13-year old son, whom he hadn’t seen in many years, to see that movie “What Women Want”?
Cathy: Nearly every day there’s a story on the front page of the NYT that’s there because it will attract interest (and newsstand purchases), not because of its newsworthy status. This is definitely that story today. I mentioned its front-page placement in my post as a heads-up — i.e., here’s a story lots of people will see today — but I agree, I wouldn’t call this “front-page news” in the generally accepted sense.
Bill Donohue would be more persuasive if he weren’t yoking this to the long-since-debunked “gay statutory rape” smear against Kevin Jennings. Peggy, do you really think the NYT’s motive in running this story is to “gin[] up public sentiment against priestly celibacy”?
FWIW: I remember, during the height of the sexual abuse scandals earlier this decade, speaking with some women who work for the church as music directors. Quite a few of them had been propositioned or otherwise sexually harassed by one or more priests at some point in their careers. The overall impression I was left with is that it’s distressingly commonplace. Even though children aren’t involved, it’s a serious abuse and shouldn’t be condoned.
I encourage any person who has been inappropriately approached by a member of the clergy to contact the diocese and report the incident.
There is no doubt: Ms. Bond is immature, but her son is terminally ill and is an innocent in all this. Believe it or not, she has gotten more financially out of the Order than she ever would have out of an ex-husband. Courts almost never order parents to pay college tuition, and I’ve never heard of someone being ordered to pay the medical expenses of an adult child.
But for those who are nodding their heads in agreement that she is just as much at fault and obviously motivated by greed: silence and secrecy come with a price and apparently, the Church finds that price more acceptable than the alternatives.
More important, however, do you honestly think she would have been so focused on money if her son had been allowed a more normal relationship with his father?
The dysfunction doesn’t stop when the baby is born and the sexual relationship ends. It distorts the family’s life in long-term, fundamental ways. In effect, the nearest parallel is when a single woman has the child of a married man who has no intention of getting divorced. She is never going to have a normal family life, and she can’t force the man to give it to her, and so becomes obsessed with what she can get.
As with most things as I get older, I am ambivalent about this story. I agree with Margaret that reading the story leads us to conclude that the Franciscans did not completely wash their hands of Nathan and have provided what can only be characterized as substantial support and that it doesn’t tell us everything. As to it appearing on the front page of the NY Times, as long is it it is true, how can you complain? As Joseph pointed out, it performs a service by letting Catholics know the kinds of things that go on with money given by the faithful. I also think it is important to note that Sipe’s study is almost 20 years-old, too old to be cited in the authoritative way it is.
The two aspects I find most troubling is that Willenbourg was never disciplined by his order and that a bishop, assuming he knows all this, would grant Willenbourg faculties in his diocese, let alone to be the pastor of a parish. My puzzlement is compounded by the fact that it seems reasonable, based on the story, to believe that there was at least one other woman with whom Willenbourg “was intimate” (to put it euphemistically), which leads me to ask how many women there were and, given that the second woman claimed she and Willenbourg had been “intimate” since she was in high school, were all his affairs legal, and are there any right now, especially given that the first thing he did after being released from the treatment center was to seek “intimacy”? Of course, I am badly abusing the word intimate because sex is not inherently initimate.
Mollie: “do you really think the NYT’s motive in running this story is to ‘gin[] up public sentiment against priestly celibacy?’”
I don’t know the Times’s motive(s). I suspect they don’t have a clue why anyone would choose a celibate life (and then live by that vow). In this case, the priest’s behavior confirms the Times’s conviction that celibacy is not really a livable state in life, and that Catholic clergy are prone to various forms of violating their promieses/vows (with women, with children, with who knows what). I think many Catholics share this view.
As Nicholas Clifford points out this is an issue with many/all? clergy, including those who marry; yet the Times and most other media pay little attention to stories of Methodists, Episcopals, Presbyterians, etc. I would say, but I could be wrong, that the Times and most media outlets do not think marriage vows are to be taken seriously (except among politicians) and are not on the story when they are broken because extra-marital affairs are a cultural norm they accept.
“I don’t pretend to know why the NYT carried the story or put it on the front page, but it seems to me that the laity need to know about such goings on.”
I’m not certain what the right way is to handle something like this.
FWIW – fairly recently, I was subbing as a musician at a parish other than my own. After communion, the pastor (who was not celebrating the mass) approached the ambo and announced that Fr. X, also assigned to the parish, had been placed on immediate suspension, would be leaving the parish, and was taking time off to discern his vocation to the priesthood. No specific reason was given for the suspension. As you would expect, the parking lot was abuzz with expressions of shock – and speculation. It is a natural part of human nature to think to oneself, or to whisper to a spouse or friend, ‘I bet he was having an affair – but with whom?’
So in thie case (which might have nothing to do with sexual impropriety, but the clues were tantalizing), people were publicly told that he was leaving, and were left with the strong impression that he had done something wrong. If he had any close female friends in the parish – which is common enough among parish priests – they probably would have been the subjects of some unwelcome speculation.
Jim
I said: “I don’t pretend to know why the NYT carried the story or put it on the front page, but it seems to me that the laity need to know about such goings on.”
You said: I’m not certain what the right way is to handle something like this.
I assume this is an instance of meiosis. But how does one get the Franciscans to refrain from sending philandering friars out among the innocent? Or at least presumptively innocent–before their first encounter with Friar Tuck.
It occurs to me that one might cite the friar Chaucer gives us in the Canterbury Tales as apposite here. I suppose Chaucer is not on Bill Donohue’s list of approved writers. But I bet he is on Peggie Steinfels’s good guys list.
I read the New York Times every day, and think their coverage of things Catholic is remarkably thin, and with the exception of Peter Steinfels’ essays, surprisingly uninformed. Laurie Goodstein and Rachel Donadio too often sound like “outsiders looking in” on stories that demand an in-depth, on the ground grasp of what is going on. The paper doesn’t seem to comprehend the Church, or be interested enough in it to try to cover it well. II would agree that lately, as the paper shrinks each week, it also is amping up the scandal/ human interest/local color stories on the front page, in a desperate bid for more– and different– readers. Perhaps the placement, pictorial coverage and space given today’s story have more relationship to that effort than to hostility toward the Church.
That said, absolutely nothing excuses the behavior of the Franciscans in allowing a priest they knew to have abused his position to continue in sensitive counseling work, and in “formation” of seminarians specifically on sexual matters. I am afraid that, given the mere facts, a much more hard-hitting article might easily have been written about this case and it would have been richly deserved. Wait and see what the National Catholic Reporter does with it.
Mollie – have no clue what you are referencing in terms of Jennings??
My point – professional folks such as MDs, Psychologists, etc. are in the business of helping people. Taking advantage of them via sex not only breaks their ethical but also their professional bonds. Add in the role of a priest, and the damage can be even more lasting and severe. Sorry, but religious superiors and bishops handle these cases the same way.
In health care, we find numerous instances of professional ethics being broken through abusive relationships (power, inequality, etc.). Yet, when reported to the state boards, the resultant punishement is usually delayed and minimal e.g. psychiatrist sexually abuses three women; admits to it; but blames his alcoholism. Board gives a reprimand; does not take his license; and requires him to have supervision for a year.
I would not agree that these types of clerical abuse cases are the same as a straying husband. I might parallel a medical professional but it does not have the added dimension of faith/religion. Think someone called it “death of the soul”
These can be complex cases – both parties may be guilty of using each other but my gut tells me that this is in the minority of cases. Some of you have raised other interesting points
- why was he left as rector of a minor seminary?
- esp. given that the order had iinformation of previous relationships?
- what is the role of a bishop or superior when one of these relationships results in a child – isn’t support of a child more than an order or diocese paying money? what is the responsiblity of the father/priest and the role of the order/diocese in this?
It appears that there are a number of gaps in this story.
The unfortunate reality is that the Boston Globe did more to arrest the pedphilia coverup and scandal more than any one or group in the Catholic church. This is really an indictment of all of us that we remained silent and defensive during this whole imbroglio of pedophilia.
Jim: “unwelcome speculation” seems to be to be an extremely minor negative side effect compared to the great benefit of saying things as they are. Much better to have people gossip than let them remain ignorant that that priest may not behave according to normal expectations.
I’ll try this one last time, though I don’t think I’ll get anywhere in some quarters.
I think the thread’s major and vital point is about the use/misuse of women by clergy, not how the NYT reports it – that just sluffs aside an issue. An issue recently highlighted by a Baylor U. study saying (as I remember) one out of seven women are going to be approached in a sexual manner by clergy.
The issue runs. of course, across denominational lines. Bill D. has two fine posts on this.Still, given that this is a particularly Catholic website, that the hieratchy has so badly handled sex abuse matters, that isues of secrecy by a Church that wishes to uphold its clergy as “everything,”, the matter deserves better thought here on the management of such matters by Church leadership.
Instead, I think the Church leadership tries to “manage” any story that casts it in a bad light -maybe that’s why Jim didn’t hear the anger about the MCormack matter in Chicago, or the release of a deposition of an auxialary whose name I don’t recall at the moment.
Sio I’d just say to Mollie that we should both expect and deserve better from our leaders in dealing with these questions.
As Nicholas Clifford points out this is an issue with many/all? clergy, including those who marry; yet the Times and most other media pay little attention to stories of Methodists, Episcopals, Presbyterians, etc.
Margaret,
It seems to me that the media hold Catholic priests to a higher standard because the Catholic Church appears to be, and claims to be, “higher.” Protestant ministers who marry and then have affairs and/or get divorced are ordinary mortals because they do get married and have families, the way almost everybody else does. Committing to a life of celibacy is seen as something more dramatic, and even the Catholic Church sees celibacy as “higher” than the married state. So when someone violates a vow of celibacy, it is seen as a more serious matter than when someone violates marriage vows, even when that someone is a Protestant minister.
When a Catholic priest does something wrong, he is in a “chain of command” that goes all the way up to the pope. Priests represent Catholicism and the Church in a way that is quite different from the way Protestant ministers represent their churches. If a Methodist minister gets himself in a public scandal, most people probably wouldn’t feel it reflected on all Methodist ministers. But when a Catholic priest is involved in a scandal, it does reflect on the Catholic Church.
Also, this case is not simply a case of a priest who broke his vows of celibacy. It involves the priest, the Franciscan Order, and a woman with a son who has cancer. I would imagine the average priest who has an affair with a woman (or a man) gets about as much coverage in the Times as the average Protestant minister who does the same — that is, none.
Bill DeHaas — sorry, by “Bill D.” above I meant Mr. William Donohue. I edited my comment to avoid further confusion!
Peggy, I guess it’s possible that Goodstein/the folks at the NYT believe celibacy is untenable, but I don’t think that has to be the case. This story doesn’t demonstrate that vows of celibacy are a joke to begin with, any more than stories about, say, David Letterman having sex with his staff members demonstrate that monogamy is untenable. People who already think celibacy is inherently bad will probably see this story as further evidence. But I think many Catholics are scandalized by faithlessness precisely because we value the vows. I see this story as illustrating the complications that arise when a priest breaks his vows and the institution goes out of its way to keep the whole thing secret. It’s the way the order let him continue, and how that made things worse for everybody in the long run, that makes this a story.
Also, of course, it’s not just about breaking the celibacy vow. So many of the church’s moral teachings get compromised along the way: she was married; he reportedly tried to talk her into having an abortion; he fathered a son who grew up without a father…
“Jim: “unwelcome speculation” seems to be to be an extremely minor negative side effect compared to the great benefit of saying things as they are. Much better to have people gossip than let them remain ignorant that that priest may not behave according to normal expectations.”
Hi, Claire, I guess I would say that if you have ever been the subject of a vicious gossip campaign, you might not see it as a minor matter!
In the anecdote I reported, the people were left with a pretty clear idea that this guy had crossed a line somewhere, without getting too specific. As I say, I don’t know if it’s the best way to handle it, i.e. am not sure whether or not they provided sufficient information. What would have been a better way to handle it?
The Times has 545 reader comments on this story for your week-end reading pleasure!
Here: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html
Mollie – you hit the nail on the head.
Are these the questions?
1. Why did the Times publish this story? And on the front page?
2. What did Laurie Goodstein find so newsworthy? (Believe it or not Mollie, this story has been told many times.)
3. Why did the Franciscans allow this priest to continue in ministry?
4. Why did the priest break his vows apparently, from the story, not just once?
5. Why did the woman break her marriage vow?
6. What are the woman’s motives in going to the press after so many years? And after signing a confidentiality agreement that was presumably court sanctioned?
7. Why did the Franciscans Order keep meeting her demands/requests for more money?
8. Why did the priest give an interview to Goodstein?
9. What will the bishop of the priest’s current diocese do about his appointment as pastor?
And add your own!
Hello Jim.
Perhaps you’re right, I’m dismissing calomny too easily because of how I am.
Still, in the situation you described, the man’s friends could choose to continue trusting him, in spite of knowing that he had done something unacceptable. It’s up to them to decide. The friends he keeps, now he will know that they care for him in spite of whatever it is that he did. I think that it gives him a possibility for a new start, and there is a redemptive aspect to that.
So, I very much like the relative clarity of the situation in your story.
My questions start from a more global view and not specific to this front page story:
a) USCCB passed norms protecting children from abusive priests, ministers, etc. but set up no process or criteria that applies equally to bishops? Why not?
b) USCCB did not address the bishops’ cover ups, settlements, legal manuevers, hiding pesonnel files, etc. why not?
c) USCCB only focused on abuse of children/early teens? Knowing that studies and experience around the world indicates that (conservatively) 30% of all celibates are breaking their vows, why has the USCCB and the church not addressed this issue? no system? no structure? no agreed upon process, period of investigation, return to work under what circumstances, what if they have fathered a child? repeat offender?
d) Numerous studies since 1985 have indicated that the current westeern rite of enforced celibacy for all ordained creates sexual issues around maturation, lays a context and is an indirect reason for inappropriate abuse of early teens, etc. and yet, the church does not address this?
e) church highlights that life must be defended from conception to death; except when a priest is found to have fathered a child; then, the church can accept alternatives to the priest being an actual father via money, settlements, etc. Why this double standard?
f) these stories seem to focus on the priest – there is no balance between both priest and woman involved? why is there no input from women on this issue?
g) sexual abuse has already damaged the credibility of bishops/pastors – is there a fear that opening up the adult male/female and celibate relationships is just opening a can of worms? why are most cases dwelt with in secrecy, with settlements, and only make the light of day if the media finds out?
Someone asked ‘how many church [diocese/orders] confidentiallity agreements are there’?
my guess… 300 dioceses times 100 on average = 30,000..+ order agreements 20,000 =50,000
each agreement contributed to the bigger cover-up and encouraged the continued pathology of others. Next question is …how many financial Ponzi schemes and insider trading actions ??
Let’s get the NYT to stop reporting all these boring financial stories.. )-:
To Bill deHaas,
Your question list is a breath of fresh air. God bless you for your insights.
Thanks also for the link to the SNAP article about women facing the stigma of clergy abuse, and being far less likely to come forward. My daughter, who examined religious life for a number of years (and decided against it, thank God), was approached by a priest during this period and never told anyone for decades — out of shame that it was her fault, she should have spoken up, she should have realized the situation; she was 19, not a minor; why was she so afraid, why, why, why? It never progressed to anything really, but her lasting reaction is one of embarrassment and shame, as though it was her fault for agreeing to talk to him about faith.
To Jim Pauwels,
Well, failure again. It is not for lack of trying to get media to respond that repeated calls for George’s resignation never registered in Chicago. Most Catholics are simply not interested in complicit bishops being held accountable under the law. See what George got away with admitting at http://votf.org/vineyard/Nov19_2008/survivor.html.
Illinois law states“ (j) When the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the offense, a PROSECUTION for criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, or aggravated criminal sexual abuse or a prosecution for FAILURE of a person who is required TO REPORT an alleged or suspected commission of any of these offenses under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act may be commenced WITHIN 20 YEARS after the child victim attains 18 years of age. “
Victims of convicted abuser Daniel McCormack are a long way from 38 years old, but I expect no research or any action whatsoever will occur to hold George liable.
Jesus said what you whisper in the hideways will be preached from the housetops. We say we are sinners but when the sin is exposed we shout “avoid the scandal.” There is healing and therapy in true contrition and future avoidance. The good stories do get told. But in a greedy clergy where position, political alignment and building mortar are high priorities, it is no wonder that people are not drawn in. Remember this is not a case of false accusation. It is a terrible abuse of one’s authority and position. The question about the woman has no relevance here. She came for help and was clearly taken advantage of. Practically every church official involved gave the wrong answer. The church will be dealing with things like this forever until empire gives way to service and humility. Instead of pomp and domination.
Apparently the priest on the cover story has just been suspended. Why now? If the diocese previously believed keeping him active was the right thing to do to, then what has suddenly changed to now make him unfit even though he was judged to be fit last week? Has the diocese now learned something new about him that they didn’t know before?
Contradictions, secrecy, and lack of moral compass. Our church deserves better. Bill de Haas is right: a protocol, a structure are needed to guide bishops in their decisions.
Claire and Bill deH,
A structure, a protocol, indeed, but what about a moral compass first?
I am so gratified that the article got front page placement. I do not think most people realize the extent of ongoing negligence by religious superiors and bishops, and this story highlights that vividly. Once again, secrecy is paramount, and it is very encouraging to see confidentiality agreements overturned by victims who refuse to play that game any longer. The office for sexual abuse in the archdiocese of Vienna (if memory serves) includes “Vulnerable Adults” in its title. The name needs to find currency here.
The Times has not been in the forefront of sexual abuse coverage at all, as any advocate knows from years of trying to get them to be responsive. Major writers worked endlessly to find traction there, and could not. Actually, NCR is the premier outlet over time.
What brought about the revelation of this story at this time and in this manner?
I have always found confidentiality agreements to be sleazy, at best, and when it comes to this kind of crap within the church, immoral at least. She came across as a starry-eyed dits who knew what she was doing was wrong, but, you know, wasn’t it great the he gave up his vows for her? Excuse me, lady —
This is one hell of a disgusting man posing as a priest, and his superiors can’t be far behind. That said, this story tells only one side so we’ll most likely never know the full truth of what did/didn’t happen and who said/didn’t say whatever.
He should be laicized and the Franciscans should step up to the plate and give this young man (not necessarily his mother) whatever medical assistance is needed.
If the church needs to keep guys like him around because of a shortage of priests, may the shortage win sooner rather than later and necessary changes made when the hierarchy can no longer ignore the rather large elephant in the sacristy — the abject failure and phoniess of “mandatory celibacy.”
Jimmy Mac – these types of situations make me very sad. It is hard for me to understand a man, especially a priest, who would get involved with a woman, she gets pregnant, and first recommend an arbortion and then have the child but neglect it and return to active ministry. (so, that is my bias)
Unfortunately, these cases are sad and happen all the time. Where do you start to make complex decisions, every case is different, etc. For example,
a) priest ordained for 15+ years and humanly gets involved – a one time relationship that is resolved between the woman & the priest;
b) priest who is a repeat offender – how many times is too many? what are the reprecussions?
c) priest who is ordained less than 5 years? what are the cut-offs; what are the extra emotional, psychological circumstances that may mitigate this type of behavior?
d) what about any priest who impregnates a woman? treatment of a child?
e) think about the revelations of the relationship that retired archbishop Weakland had – its impact on him, on his diocese, on his priests, on his catholics?
Not sure any black and white or rigid all of nothing rule works – e.g. automatic laicization; period of years before re-assignment; modified external supervision?
What we do need to address is leaderships’ current attitude which is to see this as weakness; forgive and move on all the while handling the situation in secret and asking the woman/man to do the same. It implies that adult catholics can not understand what happens; it implies that scandal will impact the church. Yet, these cases do find the light of day and many catholics have become indifferent or live in denial and just want them to go away. That is not a very healthy situation.
Isn’t it masogynistic to assume that the priest was the one abusing the women. Haven’t we moved beyond the ‘poor helpless women’ being prey for all men (read ‘sexual predators’). To compare this situation to child abuse is disengenuous at best. Now if the priest activity abused his power over the woman,just as in any other professional society he should get the boot. However, from every reading of the article, it seems that the woman was more than a willing accomplice in the affair, lasting five years and ending in two pregnancies (one being a miscarriage).
Did he exercise spiritual power over the woman? I doubt it. She seems to have reveled in the fact that he provided a sense of worth sexually (being a handsome young man) and additionally the position of power and authority is a natural attractant.
As a young seminarian, I was repeatedly offered relationships by women (and men, but that is another issue) that I felt were not entirely intended to be platonic. It is a well known fact frequently joked about that seminaries are prime hunting grounds for women seeking husbands. I can only assume that the Thornbirds image has contributed significantly to the attraction of these forbidden liaisons. I have one friend who, after only one year at a parish, left with the organist (many years his senior) and is now an anglican. If the statistics that so many priests are immature (sexually/developmentally) than it is more likely that they are victims (willing victims) in many of these situations.
Similarly, as a married man, I was offered a number of affairs or improper relationship (ones I would have a hard time explaining to my now ex-wife), some explicitly. In all likelihood, this couple started off well intentioned, with some mild flirting between them that escalated. A handsome, lonely priest and a young woman going through a divorce and seeking personal affirmation along with what appears to be serial matrimonial skills is a dangerous situation.
If the order acted improperly, it was only in that they failed to help this priest with the underlying issues of sexuality, relationships with women and his relationship with his son (like it or not, he can’t ignore the child). They seem to have been more than generous in financial terms and this woman has come to take advantage of their generosity now that (again) she finds herself without a husband.
Ah Yes. Women are such temptresses. Chasing all those celibates and even married men. Tertullian, you taught us well. And they have the gall to want to sway upon the altar as pastors!………..
To Adam Marischuk,
I obviously disagree with your definition of adult consent, and am troubled that your attitudes still find resonance. Seminary humor about women (and I’ve heard a fair dose of it) is well…perhaps more revealing than intended.
As for the story today, there is something called the trauma bond, as well as being enmeshed emotionally that preclude any sense of “willing accomplice.” Her “serial matrimonial skills” betray a marked level of dysfunction.
The power differential between priest and troubled parishioner was clear, as well as her neediness and immaturity – all the more reason for Willenborg not to take advantage of her. He abused his position, period. And charges about his abuse of a minor are being investigated; he was sent for treatment in New Mexico after they originally surfaced (no doubt the ineffectual Paracletes facility)
The experience of the Good Tidings group is very instructive. Organized to help priests discern vocation, it learned it was the women needing help, after the priests played and stayed. Just what Willenborg did. Mercifully, the high school lover of Willenborg eventually woke her up. His complaint about her disregard for his needs seems narcissistic in the extreme.
As she now has cancer, may God guide her (and her son) to some peace, after a brutal education in self-abasement.
Adam I don’t disagree with your view — I think a great many of transgressive relationships are fully consensual even if that doesn’t inspire much confidence because the people involved are so dysfunctional. However, in this story, the problem with this view is that she had sought counseling from him regarding her marriage, and, at least according to her side, he initiated the relationship during a retreat.
At some point, of course, and certainly after five years, you have to say that the relationship was consensual. But it’s hard not to think that he took advantage of her during a time when she was particularly vulnerable. If you read the full story, you do get the picture that she is not a star when it comes to adult relationships, having been divorced three times. But nothing he did helped her to grow up, like he should have.
Of course, I have a great deal of skepticism about pastoral counseling in general — people who are trained as counselors are taught how to deal with the risk of attraction, the risk of not liking your client, and so on. I doubt if most priests or ministers have effective tools for dealing with these very common risks.
Adam,
Forget about how to spread the blame between the man and the woman: we can’t really know who is closer to the truth between you and Carolyn Disco. But I’d like to object to your assertion that “if the order acted improperly, it was only in that they failed to help this priest with the underlying issues”. The Franciscan order arranged for a confidentiality agreement, so that: the boy would grow up without people knowing who his father was; the parishioners would trust their priest without knowing that he had repeatedly broken his vow of chastity; and the priest would live a lie, falsely pretending to have respected his promise of celibate life. Do you really think that that secrecy is ok? That it would help the priest grow in holiness, the church grow more trusting and united, and the boy have a healthy youth? And, now that the truth is out, suddenly the priest is suspended, why?
So, I do think that the Franciscan order acted improperly, primarily in promoting confidentiality (aka secrecy). No wonder Catholics don’t go to confession any more, when their leaders attempt to repress unpleasant truths instead of facing them!
Excellent points by Claire. Now, let me add and make it even more “incestous” and insidious.
That priest(s) have now failed in some way and owe allegiance, loyalty to those in power who cover up, settle, or divert attention away from their misdeeds. How can that priest(s) honestly deal with authority after that? He owes the bishop, the lawyers, the vicar of clergy, etc. or the provincial, provincial council, etc.
What happens when authority asks this priest to do something that may not be on the up and up? what if this priest discovers something about the bishop or vicar of clergy – he owes these folks.
So, what you have is the start of a co-dependent and manipulative relationship that can poison a diocese, parishes, a religious community?
It impacts much more than just the priest and the woman he is involved with. If the studies are correct, at any point in time 30% of all clerics (priests and bishops) are involved in a relationship……multiply and you begin to see the depth and expanse of this damage.
Bill: we’re on the same page, but you go one step further, and your network of interconnections based on individual weaknesses starts looking like the work of evil… I know too many priests whom I respect to accept this view…
Claire,
Yes, there are very many good priests who do not fit Bill’s description, but there are many not so good.
Richard Sipe notes in a 2003 speech about blackmail: “Priests and bishops who know about each other’s sexual affairs with women, too, are bound together by draconian links of sacred silence. A system of blackmail reaches into the highest corridors of the American hierarchy and the Vatican and thrives because of this network of sexual knowledge and relationships.”
From his book, Celibacy in Crisis: “Dozens of firsthand reports – some horrendous and Byzantine – exist…Bishops know a great deal about each other’s sexual history. It is not uncommon for authorities to use knowledge of hidden scandalous behavior to keep each other or a religious institution in line with the threat of public exposure…the power of the underworld is tremendous.”
Priests and bishops are not exempt from behavior that cries out to heaven for redress. Haven’t we learned that through all this?
Listen to Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke, former head of the National Review Board, this summer: “truthfulness was always the one virtue that was hardest to wring out of the institution during our investigation. Truthfulness, itself, was the victim everywhere we turned. …”
“Truthfulness would have separated scandal from crime – for the terrible scandal was most of all a result of” the untruth”- THE LIES, THE DECEIT AND THE COVER-UP. (CAPS ADDED)… holiness disappeared. Character was traded for secrecy; honor was bartered for disguise; and moral excellence was silenced before it could utter a word.”
Bill is right.
people who are trained as counselors are taught how to deal with the risk of attraction, the risk of not liking your client, and so on. I doubt if most priests or ministers have effective tools for dealing with these very common risks.
If they are taught properly, they do. Jesuit William Barry has written the basic book on spiritual direction -The Practice of Spiritual Direction – and there’s a chapter devoted to trnasference and counter-transference.
Believe it or not Mollie, this story has been told many times.
Peggy: yes, I’m aware. And those are all good questions. I don’t think it’s a bad thing if Goodstein’s article gets people asking them (again).
Doesn’t it seem oddly coincidental that this story appeared the morning after the Al Smith Dinner?
Looks like an old fashioned keep the upstart minorities in their place smack down to me.
Kathy
Trying to distract from a horrific story by insinuations about the motives of the media is an old trick.
Horrific, Joseph? This is very ordinary sin, here on the front page of the Times, above the fold.
Kathy,
What causes one to shudder, if one is not desensitized, may fairly be called horrific. As to the matter at hand, it is you, not I, who regard clerical the clerical malfeasance detailed in this story as “ordinary”.
Have to disagree with the criticism against the NYT on this one.
If this were merely a tear-jerky story about a vulnerable woman and son ditched by her callous priest-lover, then I’d say you could make a case for the paper’s “ginning up” sentiment against celibacy.
But this story spring-boards into how spiritual leaders of the nation’s Catholics dealt with the situation. And as members of a worldwide heirarchy with a flock of 1 billion people what Catholic leaders do to cover up their mistakes is news.
Griping about incessant coverage of Church wrong-doing reminds me of my staunch GOP grandma, God love her, griping about the incessant coverage of Richard Nixon’s lies and deceptions. It isn’t the WaPo’s fault that Nixon did dirty deeds, Gramma. Even if some of that bad news happened to be released around, say, the Lincoln Birthday Dinner.
A true non-story is that one about a kid in the flying saucer helium balloon.
Offer a few definitions and distinctions:
a) pastoral counseling – this is a difficult concept to define. Most insurance companies, insurance plans do not cover pastoral counseling. Why? Very few pastoral counselors meet the higher, professional standards required by national counseling associations and states. For example, social workers must meet degree and quality standards, yearly audits and on-going education requirements, and have 3+ years of supervisored counseling in order to maintain their state licensure; same for psychologists, psychiatrists;
b) very few pastoral counselors have to meet any type of regulations or requirement; thus, if you have a masters or not, you can post on your door that you are a pastoral counselor; (this also means that no one is tracking abuses, unprofessional conduct, etc.;
c) all major denominations grant their priests, ministers some type of professional degree e.g. for priests being ordained; most receive a MDiv – degree in ministry. Most priests thus believe that they can do marriage counseling, etc. when, in fact, they may have had one or two courses covering this. Compare that to a professional counselor who is required to have hundreds of hours of supervised counseling before being able to charge for services;
d) very few “pastoral” counselors get any type of supervision; no on-going tracking. It is presumed that they can guide people because they are ordained as ministers for their respective church;
e) finally, their is “spiritual direction” – again, there are degrees in this; but there are no professional or state organizations with requirements, tracking, audits, etc. It is very fly by nite. Thus, you have a structure that can be easily abused.
Per earlier comments, I do not intend to paint a dark picture to be contrarian. I am trying to show that there are inherent dangers in the current set up, as Carolyn rightly said, a set up that the bishops do not want to insert more supervision, requirements, etc.
Last summer, a major religious community at its Rome headquarters had a world wide meeting of all major superiors/provinicials to discuss a pattern and growing tension: superiors and provincials are responsible to guide, lead, and advise their brothers, colleagues. When events such as sexual abuse, inappropriate sexual behavior, financial crimes, etc. are committed, the tendency is for the community leader to react as a confessor and to circle the wagons around the “victim”. What this leads to, in many cases, is a pattern where the offender, the local community avoid the difficult and hard work of addressing and holding the offender to righting the crime (in some cases); doing responsible reparations; and setting up difficult ongoing supervision. It means that the leader has to choose to move from the role of “brother” to the role of “parent”. Examples of “superior as brother” led to excusing the offender’s behavior; reinstatement that came too quickly and with no oversight; no direct and difficult assessment of the offender. The proper role of a provincial and superior is not comfortable and is difficult. This worldwide community noted that they have failed at addressing repeat patterns or appropriately dealing with behavior that at times is criminal.
It’s a cold story, not a news story. It’s a sad and pitiful story, but not a front page story.
It’s certainly not a unique human situation. Can you imagine even the Sunday supplement showcasing adultery, and the web of lies and complicity surrounding it?
Kathy–
If this is an ordinary sin or, rather a set of sms, then it is all the more horrific. It means that there are many children abandoned by their priest fathers, the latter of whom go on to preach hypocritically about chastity and love. It means that “superiors” and bishops regularly cover up and collude in such abandonnmemt. If this is ordinary, then corruption is endemic in the American Catholic clergy generally, not just in the hierarchy, which we already know.
Right on, NYT. We — including especially Rome — need to know just how ordinary such stories are.
Folo-up story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/us/17priest.html
The non-uniqueness of this story doesn’t disqualify it as news. Corruption among politicians is an not unique, but it’s still news when it happens. As a voter, I appreciate knowing when politicians have covered up their misdeeds. As a contributor to the Franciscans, I appreciate knowing how they operate.
Moreover, the JFK assassination is a “cold” story. However, if new evidence came to light about what happened, it would be news. Similarly, evidence that comes to light about how a worldwide organization handles miscreants is news.
I would concede that this is not a Page One story, and the play that the NYT gives to stories about the Church might be rightly criticized.
I would further add that I hate these types of stories personally, because it means that I will spend an afternoon listening to my parents bait me about the Church and chide me for raising my child in what they consider a bigoted and corrupt international operation.
But it’s not the job of newspapers to shield me from familial strife.
In general I think it’s a mistake to assume (with Bill Donohue) that the NYT runs stories that are unflattering to the Church because the NYT is anti-Catholic. My guess is that stories about Catholic matters (flattering and unflattering alike) are prominent in the NYT because a lot of the NYT’s readers are Catholics and/or directly affected by the Church. In other words, these stories are there because Catholics want to read them, not because the NYT editors want to give Catholic-haters more ammunition. And the fact that they can be used as ammunition for anti-Catholic causes only discredits them if they’re not accurate.
Sorry – arguing about whether the NYT is anti-catholic or not is a dead end street. It appears that a few of you posted enough historical information, stats to indicate that there is no definitive pattern of anti-catholic bias – it is in the eye of each reader. (example – Kathy)
Thanks, Grant, for the follow up post. So, following my comments above this raises even more questions about the movement, appointment, and personnel files that follow a priest esp. religious priest from diocese to diocese.
It appears that this bishop appointed the priest based on his order’s recommendation. Don’t know the whole story at that time but, if we take the bishop’s questions, it appears that he knew nothing about this priest’s prior behavior; that he was a father; that there was an indication of a relationship with a teenager; that the order had continued to offer this woman & child financial payments. The bishop only became aware of this when the order let him know that there might be a NYT article about it.
This is part of the current, broken system. The order (sure in their mind for very valid reasons) protect this priest’s history, story, background and present him as a viable candidate to lead a large parish. There is no requirement, no canon law that demands that the order or that the “receiving” bishop have the full personnel file. Most dioceses have learned to do more extensive background checks before accepting a priest from the Third World or just accepting that priest’s bishop’s word.
Just an example of where the gaps are and what is valued in this process – not the protection of people; not the acknowledgement that this parish should have been told, etc.
And the timing of the story?
Peggy,
Thanks for shedding, as you do so often, more light than heat. Rather than using this story to take us on a wild romp through church history, you help to put one article from the NYT in perspective by raising some very thoughtful questions as to possible motives for dedicating so much print-space to a story that has a good bit of abiguity in it.
As for confidentiality agreements, I think they rarely (if ever) have a place in this day and age. But remember a time when people used to be “ashamed” of their actions? And would want to preserve their name? (Think of a time when an audience did not applaud a talk show host for having multiple affairs while either married or in a supposed monogamous relationship.) Let us not look too far down our noses as we judge the past. Mores have changed dramatically in the last two decades. Imagine how future generations will judge our actions (or blogs) of today?
I must say that if I learned that my pastor was living with an adult woman, I might just say: “It’s their business” (as long as he didn’t preach against cohabitation!)
I would suggest that there is a widespread tolerance of such situations. The priest in the article lived with the woman like a husband and wife for five years! The parishioners and the Franciscan order must have known and turned a blind eye.
The possibility of abuse of power makes this questionable, but that does not seem to be on most people’s radar (is that “the other scandal” that’s the title of this post?). Had there not been a child, no one would have cared. Even the bishop who suspended the priest, I note, objected to his possibly having had sexual relations with a minor, and to his having suggested an abortion once, but not to his being sexually active.
So, I would venture that even within the church hierarchy, people do not take the mandatory celibacy requirement very seriously.
There’s nothing people get so fired up about in this country as abuse of power — it’s a never fail story line. And the Roman Catholic hierarchy actually has enough power to abuse, unlike most Protestant hierarchies (eg, most Episcopalian priests go through secular-style job interviews before being “called” by a parish — so the responsibility to check references and such is shared, at least, by the hiring body; Roman Catholic bishops appoint clergy to parishes largely on their own). The fact that the hierarchy knowingly left the priest in this story in circulation has many resonances with recent scandals to, so the NYTimes knows it will generate interest.
As for the Jennings story, the problem with it is it’s unclear what actually happened — it’s a political football. Here’s what (leftish) Josh Marshall says about the story:
“In an incident described in one of Jennings’ books, Jennings counseled a high school student who’d had a sexual encounter with an older man. According to Fox’s Sean Hannity, et al, the student was 15, and Jennings should have reported it as “sexual abuse.”
But the student involved came forward to say he was actually 16 at the time. ”
The front-page story was not in dispute.
In general, I don’t think it makes much sense to spend a lot of time wondering if the NYTimes is victimizing Roman Catholics by reporting not-in-dispute stories about them!
Looks like an old fashioned keep the upstart minorities in their place smack down to me.
This “upstart minority” has, among its oppressed members, six Supreme Court justice, at least seven cabinet members, the Vice-President, and the Speaker of the House, and the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff. And please let’s not hear how many of them are “bad Catholics.” When a minority is oppressed, all its members are lumped together.
And the timing of the story?
If the story had run on Christmas or Easter, there might be good questions about its timing. But the day after Al Smith Dinner?
I think David N. nailed it down.. that Wild Bill Bonahue’s take has gained a foothold on this blog is discouraging to say the least…
First, thanks especially to Carolyn and Bill D. for their repeated efforts to show why this indeed old story is not cold and that attempts to fob it off as non news for being reported the day after the Al Smith dinner is an absurd atempt to sidetrack a genuine issue.
The issue that bothers e is that some here still think about hoiw the role of the woman is critical and seem still focused on the needs of the institution of the Church and downplaying the ineptitude of leadership in handling these matters..
That’s why the story is critical!
I went looking on the Commonweal archives and could not find a review I wrote of a book by Flavia Alleva (Brown), the widow of Harry Brown, who for many years was pastor of the parish we attended.
Who knew? As far as I was ever able to tell, no one. I asked priests who had lived in the rectory at the time; I asked neighborhood activists who worked with Father Brown; I asked his friends. No one knew! Alleva tells the whole story of their marriage, their three(?) children, and their family life in New Jersey. He lived a double life, it appears.
Brown was “outed” by the FBI who found out while searching for the Berrigans (!!think how long ago that was) and who told Cardinal Cooke, who asked Harry (according to hearsay) to choose one way or the other. He chose his family in New Jersey.
What no one can deny is that he was a great pastor. And at his funeral from our parish church, his son gave a eulogy attesting to his being a good father.
So…for the many here who are shocked! and horrified! by the Times story, who think it tells us something about the Church, about cover-ups, about sinful people..my last word is: This is not news.
It would seem that the NYT did not time the story to appear after the Al Smith dinner because the Franciscans informed the local bishop that the story was going to be printed before it ever appeared. Anyway, what would be the point of publishing it right after the dinner? To embarrass the media star archbishop, whom the press seems to love? I do not think that even the NYT is that dumb.
But Peggy: if, in that case, no one knew about the wife, kids, etc., I don’t understand how it’s analogous. The whole story in this case stems from the (undisputed) fact that the religious order DID know, and covered it up, making the situation worse for everybody.
Someone above mentioned Chaucer… Stories about priests (and other public figures) leading hypocritical double lives are indeed nothing new, and I don’t think anyone here has suggested otherwise. But whether such a story qualifies as “news” is, I think, more ambiguous. What do we mean by “news”?
Many of us oldsters remeber the Harry Browne story, his great knowledge of history, his work on Stryker’s Bay housing.
That was some time ago and much was bubbling through the 60′s and 70″s. I’m not sure his story is pardigmatic, that the that ou rknowledge of misuse of power has grown since then.
Shock and horror are hardly the point: justice, use of power, management of clergy with a heavy(handed) emphasis on insttional protection are germane.
Here’s your review (Commonweal, Jan 14, 2000):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_1_127/ai_58675349/?tag=content;col1
“Sofor the many here who are shocked! and horrified! by the Times story, who think it tells us something about the Church, about cover-ups, about sinful people..my last word is: This is not news.”
A distinction needs to be made here. That some priests have been cheating is not news. That a particular priest has been doing so is news to those have known him and have believed otherwise. The misdeeds of Fr. Willborg are surely news to many who had innocent contact with him over the years. Still I dare say that are not news to those who never knew him, to you and me. But here is where your argument fails. Willenborg was a Franciscan, not a diocesan priest. and his order’s handling of him is indefensible. They continued knowingly to put him in positions where they ought to have been concerned that he would harm others. That is news. There are a many Franciscans in many places. (It would be helpful to know which particular group he belongs to.) Are they ever going to apologize for this vicious pattern of behavior and spiritual reckless endangerment? That would also be news.
Thank you Claire! I see I have misremembered her name (Alaya) and the spelling of his (Browne) and the fact that they never seemed to have actually married.
The big difference here is that Alaya had the courage of her convictions and did not go whining to church authorities. All of the institutional secrecy in the current example came about because Bond went to the Franciscans and demanded that they pay up. They did. Should they have? No? [CORRECTION--that should have had a question mark--if that helps]. But then, wouldn’t we think they were unjust! and cruel! Should they have gone public with her demand? Wouldn’t we say that was blaming the vicitim?
Without doubt there are serious institutional problems around priestly celibacy and the difficulty of living a celibate life. Grant posted today’s story (see above). It doesn’t sound like the bishop removed Willenborg because of his relationship with Bond, but because there is the possibility that he had sex with an underaged woman and because he proposed that Bond get an abortion with her first! pregnancy with him. This raises a question: How many bishops would remove a priest who was having a discrete consenual relationship with an adult woman?
Joseph: ok, but what should the Franciscan order have done? Margaret: when you say that Fr. Browne’s bishop “asked him to choose one way or the other”, what does that mean? Had he chosen to remain an active priest, then what of his children? Would the diocese have asked him to stay away from them and given them some money in compensation, perhaps asking their mother to sign a confidentiality agreement? We seem to agree that it’s immoral, but in the 80+ comments so far no one has suggested a workable alternative solution.
My favorite comment so far: BdH’s note that there are no established guidelines to deal with such situations, which, as many have pointed out, are not out of the ordinary. Is it possible that there are no guidelines because there is no really good way to resolve such quagmires? (Perhaps no more than when someone has a double life with two households and two sets of children…)
All of the institutional secrecy in the current example came about because Bond went to the Franciscans and demanded that they pay up. They did. Should they have? No.
I am actually shocked.
Even setting civil law aside, I thought there was a belief in Catholicism that a man who fathers a child has a responsibility to help support it. I presume all Franciscans take a vow of poverty, so in this case, wasn’t the Franciscan order responsible?
An hour ago, Joseph Gannon wrote, “It would be helpful to know which particular group he belongs to.” The 2003 Catholic Directory lists him as living at the Provincialate of the Sacred Heart Province of the Franciscan Friars (O.F.M.) in St. Louis. The name of that monastery is Franciscan Friary of St. Anthony of Padua. Henry Willenborg, O.F.M., is listed as Dir. Office Friar Formation (my! my!).
The Order of Friars Minor is that of the 1897 Leonine Union, not the Capuchins, nor the Conventuals, nor those of the “Renewal.” In 2002, there seem to have been seven U.S. provinces of O.F.M. Living in a particular house would not seem to be firm proof that he was a member of that province, but his title as Director of the Office of Friar Formation would seem to indicate that that was the province to which he belonged.
Some pages on this link work, others do not. Note the two houses in Quincy, Illinois:
http://www.thefriars.org/friaries.html
To my knowledge – there are no rules in terms of notifying a bishop when a diocesan or religious priest is transferred? Background checks are increasing but it is a choice – inconsistent, not thorough, often avoided;
Ms. Steinfels – you provide a great story of a man who lived a double life well before the scandals of 1985 and later. If anything, your story demonstrates that celibacy is an issue – good men, good pastors, good priests fall in love and are forced (by man made rule) to decided between their priesthood and their love for a woman/man. Why? I admire this story because your “good” priest made the correct moral decision in this case – he choose his wife and children. Who lost – the church. I see know parallel with this front page story – I do see parallels with many of the synod of African bishops or the stories from South America where bishops/priests (good pastors and ministers) live double lives, often public and common knowledge of their towns, villages, tribes. Again, a question about celibacy?
Where I have trouble is in two situations:
- priests who choose to move from relationship to relationship with no ethical issues, or when a child happens, they flee back to the protection of the diocese or order? Or in your story, the cardinal says choose – what does that say about the church and its leadership?
- the double standard, lack of honesty, the public vs. private issue – reminds me of Egan’s legal defense that diocesan priests are “contract” workers. Not sure we can have it both ways.
Joe – part of what I was trying to say is that it is obvious that this man has administrative skills in the eyes of his order – rector of the Quincy seminary; wonder if he has not served on their provincial council?, and also involved in their formation. Again, by what moral decisions would you do this given his history?
You may not respect Sipe and his studies but these situations and dilemmas are the heart of his writings. HIs issue is not individual failure (he expects that in a sinful world); it is that demanding celibacy but doing nothing in terms of preparation, training, mentoring, and supervision creates issues and detracts from the mission of the church.
Great story about Fr. Browne – but would suggest for every Browne, you have 5-10 Willenborgs.
Many of the commenters here present the woman and the priest as equals. In the current structure of the Catholic Church, no woman is the equal of a priest in any kind of authority. Furthermore, the priest was counseling the woman about her marriage. This made it impossible for them to be equals in a romantic relationship–a fact that is recognized in the codes of ethics of many professions. That’s why it’s wrong to date your clients if you are a therapist, or your students, even adult students, if you are a teacher. The relationship is inherently unequal, with one person far more vulnerable than the other.
This priest clearly had a habit of going after vulnerable women: the Times story alone lists a counselee and a teenager. That is the profile of a serial abuser, interested not in relationships, but in using power to get sex. He’s not a nice guy in love and hampered by celibacy, nor a nice guy who made one big mistake: he’s a user who should not be trusted in any capacity. As a counselor, doctor, or teacher, he’d have his license yanked in a heartbeat.
The Order’s culpability in this cannot be understated. The people above the priest in the hierarchy knew enough about his behavior to make better decisions than the ones they made. The information about the ethics of sexual contact with people in counseling or clergy/parishioner relationships is out there. The information about men who repeatedly use others, whether you call them abusers or just creeps, is out there. Superiors who keep a serial womanizer in the priesthood are as ethically challenged as the men whose reputations they value over the lives of those they are supposed to serve.
The motivation for the piece is on the first page, just before the snip, viz: “Clergy members of many faiths have crossed the line with women and had children out of wedlock. But the problem is particularly fraught for the Catholic Church, as Catholics in many countries are increasingly questioning the celibacy requirement for priests.”
Yup–seen too many instances of this to blame the women. Or sometimes even the men. And sure, this is a problem of professional boundaries, involving the violation of a spiritual counselor/retreatant relationship, but I think the core of the issue (and where it’s more widespread, not always involving violating professional boundaries,) is the set of questions around celibacy.
Men who cease growing up past the emotional age of, say, 15, can do fine in the priesthood. There’s nothing in the structure of institutional life that would challenge them in any way, unless they misbehave. If they act out sexually, it’s often in the way teenagers do–irresponsibly and often with little self-awareness. The priesthood is also a wonderful closet for men who fear or who cannot form real relationships with others. I know one priest who describes all his relationships as “keeping people at a distance,” and when he said that he held up his hands as though warding off an attack. He acted out sexually–then ran away when it became clear that the woman thought they were having a relationship. He wasn’t–he was just fooling around. Nothing in the institutional structure prevents the emotionally crippled (and those crippled by the struggle to remain celibate) from living out their lives in the intimacy closet.
Indeed, men (and women!) outside the priesthood live messed-up emotional lives, too. But we have a structure which is vigorously defended by the highest members of the Church, that seems to attract the damaged, and damage many of those attracted to it. It’s a systemic, institutional issue. As with the Boston Globe and the expose of the sex abuse crisis, whatever the NYT’s motives for front-page coverage, it does the Church a favor by not allowing us to continue to ignore all-too-common situation.
Bill D,
In the case of a priest of a religious order being assigned to a parish, even if the parish has been staffed by members of the religious order for some time, the bishop makes the appointment. That is why the bishop could suspend this priest. The bishop had to sign off on the assignment of this guy to a parish in his diocese.
Bill deHaas –
“…a child happens…” Like it’s an accident?
Isn’t it time to start avoiding such avoidance terminology? It just reinforces Russian roulette sexual ethics, in this case for adolescent priests.
Alan – technically you are correct. My point (not stated well, obviously) is that the bishop, all too often, takes the word of the religious superior or neighboring bishop and rubber stamps the transfer. There are no rules, regulations that set up this process. It is assumed that the transfer will be honest and above board. (any research of the abuse cases dating back to the 1950′s shows how little bishops shared in terms of information; often saying that he is a good priest when they knew he had issues; may even have had legal action against him).
Ann – yes, you are correct. I quickly made that point because it appeared to me that others felt the priest had a right to a private life with little or no responsibility even when a child is involved. Not sure how that approach squares with any semblance of moral ethics, public responsibility, the types of professional ethics and state ethics many of us have to rigidly conform to. Sorry, it is almost like saying: if you don’t get caught, it is okay.
The foibles of an egotistical priesthood cannot be exposed enough. For example, in the Phillipines many nuns will forego a priest saying Mass becoming of predator priests. The Vatican will not face up to this unless it has to.
Bill deHaas –
Yes, that’s my concern — the not liking ahead to very serious possible consequences.
It certainly isn’t that I think every priest having an affair should be outed, especially since these days it must be harder than ever to remain celebate. But the over-riding consideration should always be the children and the otherwise helpless.
I find these discussions so very frustrating because short of joining an organization like VOTF, which only *hopes* for structural change, it seems there is nothing we can do to change things. Further, relatively few lay people and priests are themselves willing to join fsuch organizations. The scandals began in 1984 and what has been done to change the structure of the Church? Zilch. It seems we’re wasting our breath.
Hi, Claire, I’m not sure if I was clear, but – the possible victim of vicious gossip I’d be concerned about is not so much the priest, but the woman. If she continued to live in the community and perhaps even attended the church with her son (I believe she had several children?), she may well worry about her own reputation, particularly what her children might hear said about her. Catholics tend to be pretty loyal to their priests, a tendency that sexually abusive priests have exploited in the past.
“Many of the commenters here present the woman and the priest as equals. In the current structure of the Catholic Church, no woman is the equal of a priest in any kind of authority. Furthermore, the priest was counseling the woman about her marriage. This made it impossible for them to be equals in a romantic relationship–a fact that is recognized in the codes of ethics of many professions. That’s why it’s wrong to date your clients if you are a therapist, or your students, even adult students, if you are a teacher. The relationship is inherently unequal, with one person far more vulnerable than the other.”
Precisely.
Good link to the draft USCCB pastoral on the sacrament of marriage: http://zenit.org/article-27238?l=english
Good example of the double talk – guess these insights don’t apply to a priest or bishop; examples:
“According to the bishops’ Catholic News Service, the 57-page document “cites four ‘fundamental challenges to the nature and purpose of marriage’ — contraception, same-sex unions, easy divorce and cohabitation.”
“Calling both contraception and cohabitation ‘intrinsically evil,’ the bishops say that although couples who use contraception ‘may think that they are doing nothing harmful to their marriages’ they are in reality causing many negative consequences, both personal and societal,” CNS reported.
Cohabitation is “intrinsically evil” (the new label for all bishops’ statements) unless you are an ordained cleric
“”To have sexual intercourse outside the covenant of marriage is gravely immoral because it communicates physically the gift of oneself to another when, at the same time, one is not willing or able to make a total and permanent commitment,” the draft says, as reported by CNS.
Yes, part of the posts have talked about the NYT front page, timing, etc. but no one has connected this to another front page story going on in the archdiocese of Miami – Fr. Dueppen who is suing for custody of his child (years later) because his “girlfriend” is a stripper. Dueppen (a delayed vocation) was once stationed at the same parish as Fr. Cutie. He has a long history of affairs, etc. including on and off long term stays with this woman. Yet, the bishop just continued to move him….no supervision, blamed his behavior on drinking and did send him to treatment; after release he just picked up where he left off.
The duplicity, moral bankrupticy, and double standard by leadership is actually mind numbing.
“To my knowledge – there are no rules in terms of notifying a bishop when a diocesan or religious priest is transferred? Background checks are increasing but it is a choice – inconsistent, not thorough, often avoided;”
We’ve been told, though, that this background checking of interdiocesan transfers has greatly improved since the Dallas Charter – yes? What is the timeline here? Two items of information are needed: (1) when did Willenborg start ministry in this diocese? And (2) was the current bishop the bishop at that time? I don’t know the answer to either question, but it may be that the current guy inherited problems caused by a predecessor’s laxity. (Or not).
As is the case with the scandals around the sexual abuse of minors – I continue to believe that the priest shortage is a huge factor in keeping these guys in ministry when problems become known.
Jim,
The Charter and Norms indicate full transparency is required in transferring priests involved in the sexual abuse of a minor. I should think Bishop Christensen would want a word or two or three with the OFM provincial who oversaw Willenborg, and is now head of the whole order in the US. Even now, secrecy by religious orders continues. Trust them?
The records of treatment at the Paraclete Center are probative, depending whether Willenborg authorized them to be sent to his provincial…though that may have predated HIPPA rules, in which case I believe access could have been granted to the bill-payer. Since there are no penalties specified for violating the Charter, and the Gavin Group USCCB auditors had no right to see personnel files, well, it’s a pretty loose arrangement.
Wasn’t every bishop supposed to review all personnel files for problems? Here is George on the obligation back in 2003:
PBS 6-19-03: CARDINAL FRANCIS GEORGE: But as far as I know, every bishop went back and went through the records, and removed from ministry anyone who was credibly accused of this. I don’t know any other group that has done that. I don’t know whether journalists have done that, I don’t know whether politicians have done that. I don’t know whether sports directors have done that.
Despite the arrogant sarcasm, George did just the opposite and kept credibly-accused abusers in service for years, up to 2006 in fact, when publicity forced him to act. What is it with these guys? No consequences for him except the USCCB presidency. Weren’t we told bishops had everything in hand after 1993?
The priest shortage is a miserable excuse for putting unqualified people in ministry caring for souls. Long-term, the shortage could be the catalyst for necessary changes that would not occur otherwise. Aren’t there currently more pastoral associates than priests in the US? Maybe when the pressures get severe enough, a miraculous revelation or new light will appear. Something will have to give, and the power differential will shift.
Bill, so few appreciate your accurate statement: “The duplicity, moral bankruptcy, and double standard by leadership is actually mind numbing.”
Hi Jim. Yes, I realized you were referring to the woman. But if I were her I would think: “my children know me for who I am. It does not matter what they might hear about me. They know better.” It’s hard for me to take the risks of gossip seriously compared to the great damage of secrecy. But – as you guessed, I don’t know from personal experience.
Carolyn: it’s good to know that every bishop is officially supposed to have reviewed all personnel files. I certainly don’t buy the “I didn’t know” excuse. I do think that the bishop is responsible for his priests. It’s the counterpart of the promise of obedience: it’s the bishop’s responsibility to keep himself informed of his priests’ lives. The “I didn’t know” has to be expanded into: “I didn’t know in spite of doing actions x,y,z to make sure I kept myself duly informed, and that was all I could possibly do”.
As to double standards, I would like to point out a risk of our being inconsistent ourselves. On the one hand, we are shocked by priests’ misdeeds much, much more than we would be if a lay person was doing the same: we seem to expect priests to be super-human. On the other hand, we (at least, many of us reading this blog, I think) do not ascribe to the notion that a priest, equipped with his anointed hands, operates at lofty heights half way between us and God. Rejecting the idea that a priest is superior, while simultaneously expecting him to be better than us. It’s a bit contradictory, isn’t it?
Bill DeHaas said: Sorry – arguing about whether the NYT is anti-catholic or not is a dead end street. It appears that a few of you posted enough historical information, stats to indicate that there is no definitive pattern of anti-catholic bias – it is in the eye of each reader. (example – Kathy)
Jean replies: I’d like to clarify that there are really two issues here re the NYT: a) whether it is anti-Catholic and b) whether the Willenbourg story is news. Arguing b) is not the same as arguing a).
I will concede that b) was sufficiently argued 40 posts ago, that it’s not really germane to Mollie’s main question, which is what would we like to see happen to a Willenbourg.
IMO, priests who father children should be required to do what any decent single father unable to marry the child’s mother should do: Pay for the kid’s support out of pocket, show up at band concerts, deal with the principal when the kid’s in trouble, take him to doctor appointments, and help raise him to be a decent person.
Covering up sins rather than making amends for them strikes me as going against everything Catholicism teaches.
OK, outta here now.
I agree with Jean about Willenbourg.
I also think those that don’t see anti-catholic bias in the NYT reporting are almost delusional. This kind of thing happens with universities, businesses, and medical and psychiatric facilities all the time and it never gets this kind of publicity. Just look at the wording – the church is “tightfisted.” That wasn’t an interviewee’s wording, it was the writer’s. I would bet dollars to donuts that an offer of $350 a month child support at that time was pretty fair, and paying half the college and medical expenses is also fairly standard in divorce cases.
It’s easy to point the finger at people in the hierarchy for what went wrong, but they are not the only ones responsible. Every time something like this happens, there are countless ennablers–people who “wink” at affairs, cover up, make excuses, prefer not to know. Where were their communities? Is it only the priest’s superior who has any responsibility? Are we not enjoined by the scripture to care for one another? I fear that we are reinforcing the idea that all responsibility belongs to the hierarchy, and that’s nonsense. As if no other Franciscan could have had an influence, no friend of the woman, none of the other 90 retreatants or the groupies surrounding the “handsome priest.”
Mollie asks: “What would you want done?” I think we have to ask “What would you do?”
“I also think those that don’t see anti-catholic bias in the NYT reporting are almost delusional. ”
I guess it depends on what one means by “anti-catholic.” I’d be surprised to see the NYT making fun of the Mass, for example, or of Roman Catholic devotions, even though the phrase “anti-catholic” in the old days would certainly have included this sort of thing. But a secretive hierarchy that has made a habit of protecting its secrecy and power makes a very tempting target — and the Roman Catholic hierarchy has often enough lived up to worst of the NYT suspicions on these points, sad to say.
1) While I think Rita is right that we have met the enemy and he is us,
2)Bill D is also correct that there is mind boggling hypocrisy, which, i supect, perdures in a Church that wants to maintain “the priest is everything.”
3) I’d be remiss if I didn’t say I’m saddened that the editorial leadership of Commomweal seems to taken a very soft approach to the Church’s handling of sex abuse matters, both children and adults; I think if Harry Browne were alive today and teaching history,, he would, in his usual trenchant and acerbic style have little good to say for the way the Church handles these matters and he would be right!
Rita Ferrone is surely right about the countless enablers that available to abusers with sufficient charm and savvy to manipulate not only their victims but congregations and supervisors. For a disheartening twist on the Willenborg story, see Rocco today for an account of what happened when Willenborg announced his version of the story to the faithful at masses in his parish. Would you believe a “standing ovation” from the folks in the pews and a bland statement about his having been, from the Bishop’s perspective “a very good priest”?
Here the story Rocco links to:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWP4T1EWiteFCKXZgbBoMwbUI60QD9BCG8TG1
One more note about this sad affair, while we’re at it. How do the faithful feel about the money they’ve donated to the Franciscans (ostensibly for the poor) that instead has been spent on the lifelong support of an out of wedlock child of a priest? We may take any position about what’s “owed” to Fr. Henry’s son in the abstract, but how about what’s owed to the poor? The money wasn’t donated for the support of offspring of wayward Franciscans. No illegitimate child I know gets $100,000 worth of support from the church when mother lives in poverty and can’t make ends meet. Why do Catholics owe more to this son than to other sons of poverty?
Bob Nunz: “I’d be remiss if I didn’t say I’m saddened that the editorial leadership of Commomweal seems to taken a very soft approach to the Church’s handling of sex abuse matters, both children and adults; I think if Harry Browne were alive today and teaching history,, he would, in his usual trenchant and acerbic style have little good to say for the way the Church handles these matters and he would be right!”
If this refers to me, you should know I left Commonweal in 2002. The editorial leadership of CWL is not responsible for my views and vice versa. Since the only member of the staff to post here is Mollie Wilson O’Reilly I don’t see from where, Bob, you draw your conclusion. And if Harry Browne, married or not, were alive today, it would be a better church.
This long string of posts goes in many different directions and people are clearly perplexed by the problem of wayward priests and those who facilitate their behavior. Maybe I have become a tad too cynical about church governance and discipline, but honestly I have few expectations that church authorities will systematically address this and other forms of misgovernance.
Following on Rita’s comment: in some ways many others are responsible for this misgovernance, including some parishioners, some lay people, etc. On the other hand, not everyone of us is responsible. Nonetheless aren’t we a bit disingenuous to always be suprised by these stories, and outraged by the decisions and behaviors of church leaders. And aren’t we condescending to Ms. Bond, and others in her situation, to think she/they are mere putty in the hands of seductive priests. Her affair, and many others, are consenual for long periods of time. When things go awry, legal means of establishing responsibility, legal separation, divorce, child support, custody agreements, etc., aren’t available. Hence the situation of this and other cases. Who’s “fault” is it? The couple who created this extra-legal relationship.
What is the answer? Catholics like to think a married clergy is part of the answer. But look at the situation in other churches and religious tradition. There are potentially many remedies, but we are naive to think they are iron-clad and that when Catholics adopt them somehow the circumstances described in this story will no longer occur. I don’t think so.
One diocese spokesman says ‘Willenbourg received a standing ovation’
‘But the St. Louis archdiocese said in a statement that a bishop has only limited jurisdiction over a priest not of his diocese such as Willenbourg’.
With A/B Burke having excommunicated priests, nuns, laypeople left and right what does ‘full’ jurisdiction look like?
maybe new diocesan spokemen are the answer? (-:
Can’t we all agree that the Church is mired in a deep malaise instead of taking shots at each others observations ? There are always a 100+ posts done when the subject is’what the h–l can we do the pull out of the ecclesial nose dive’.
and what’s with the Catholic pew potatoes and their denial of the malaise? .
With all of this nonsense becoming so commonplace, one can easily sink into despair.
And yet, I went to 10 AM mass at my parish, which today was our quarterly healing mass. It is always a fairly emotional time because we have so many people with so many physical, mental and spiritual problems. It has been a mainstay of our spirituality since the middle 1980s with the AIDS epidemic decimated our membership and all outlooks seemed so gloomy.
While almost the entire assembly inched its way up to the 5 priests doing the anointing, a beautiful tenor voice plaintively intoned that wonderful old hymn, “Precious Lord, Take My Hand.”
This verse in particular spoke out to me:
“When the darkness appears and the night draws near
And the day is past and gone
At the river I stand
Guide my feet, hold my hand
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home.”
In the end, that’s what all of us want. All the rest can be so very much meaningless chaff.
Rita wrote: How do the faithful feel about the money they’ve donated to the Franciscans (ostensibly for the poor) that instead has been spent on the lifelong support of an out of wedlock child of a priest?
Jean butts back in to reply: As a contributor to the Franciscans in the past, that’s exactly the point I was getting at about the newsworthiness of the Willenbourg story. I would be less inclined to contribute again if they’re going to pick up the tab for a priest’s love child.
I’m happy that Sean and I agree on something (Fr. Willenbourg’s duties as a parent), despite the fact that I am “almost delusional” in my inability to see an anti-Catholic bias in the NYT.
I can only suggest that years of anti-Catholic harangues from my Baptist in-laws and my anti-religion-especially-Roman-Catholicism parents may have rendered me unfit to see finer nuances of bias such as those that might appear in the NYT.
I’m not sure some of you Catholics know what real anti-Catholicism looks or sounds like.
Jim McCartin, friend, historian, and ardent researcher sent along this from 1883:
ACCUSING A PARISH PRIEST.
New York Times (1857-Current file); Feb 19, 1883;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 – 2006)
pg. 5
I can’t seem to copy it–but for those who can access the Times’ archive, quite a story, a familiar one.
This kind of thing happens with universities, businesses, and medical and psychiatric facilities all the time and it never gets this kind of publicity.
Sean,
You might have a point if the Catholic Church claimed to be just another organization. But the man who drew this woman aside and kissed her passionately at the end of a marriage counseling session was a Catholic priest. The Catholic Church claims to have been founded by Jesus. The pope is the “vicar of Christ,” the bishops are the successors to the apostles. As for priests, the Catechism says:
Now, it is true the Catechism goes on to say the following:
However, I don’t think that is supposed to mean that the pope, bishops, and priests are really no better, or no less reliable, or no less sinful than the average man in “universities, businesses, and medical and psychiatric facilities.” What about the guidance of the Holy Spirit? What about grace? What about holding in consecrated hands every day the Body and Blood of Christ? If these things don’t help priests to avoid the temptation to break their vows of celibacy, don’t act as some restraint on acting out as child abusers, and don’t make bishops more sympathetic to victims and less concerned with enabling abusers, it seems to me that it’s only reasonable to wonder if the special claims the Catholic Church makes for itself are worthy of being taken seriously.
Jean said that “I’m not sure some of you Catholics know what real anti-Catholicism looks or sounds like.” and I agree. Because I DO know the cruel bias of some — that the Catholic Church is a complete fraud and a tool of the devil, and because I’ve had this thrown in my teeth more than once — and I know for a fact that converts are especially assaulted by this sort of meanness and hostility — I was grieved to see that the NYT chose to use a photo of baptism on the front page with this story. Seeing that picture doesn’t shake MY faith in baptism, but I know this gives aid and comfort to the people who already believe that Catholicism is a religion of hypocrites.
I also thought of those couples who have one Catholic parent and the non-Catholic “goes along” with baptizing their child in the Catholic Church. It’s hard enough for them. Stuff like this makes it harder. That picture said a thousand words. It could have been captioned: “Catholicism, a fraud.”
Jean wrote and it is of utmost importance: “IMO, priests who father children should be required to do what any decent single father unable to marry the child’s mother should do: Pay for the kid’s support out of pocket, show up at band concerts, deal with the principal when the kid’s in trouble, take him to doctor appointments, and help raise him to be a decent person. ”
That people in Willemborg’s parish should give him a standing ovation and not tell him what a rogue he is, is outrageous. The story is not the money but the manipulation and neglect of the child. That cries to the heavens. Instead of doing what Jean rightly exhorts the man is allowed to continue to exploit women, live rent free and remain on his high horse.
I was grieved to see that the NYT chose to use a photo of baptism on the front page with this story. Seeing that picture doesn’t shake MY faith in baptism, but I know this gives aid and comfort to the people who already believe that Catholicism is a religion of hypocrites.
Rita,
The picture raises one question in my mind. Since the Franciscans were well aware of the relationship between Fr. Willenborg and Ms. Bond before the birth of the baby, WHAT WAS WILLENBORG DOING WITH 1000 MILES OF BOND AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME? Wouldn’t the responsible thing for the Franciscans to have done been to put as many miles between the two of them as possible?
Is it at all appropriate for a priest to baptize his own child? He should have been expelled from the order to marry Bond and provide for his son, or he should have been put somewhere so distant that he never again had anything to do with them. The fact that the Times used the photo says very little about the Times’ alleged anti-Catholicism. The fact that such a photo exists at all indicates to me how poorly the Franciscans, Willenborg, and Bond herself handled the whole situation.
What should the order have done? My shot at answering this question, developing Jean’s point:
(1) Given that Fr Willenborg wanted to stay in the order and that the Franciscan order were happy to keep him, the order had responsibility to provide as much financial support as would have been adequate if Fr Willenborg had taken a leave to get a secular job to provide for his son. (Plus maybe some compensation for abuse of authority, but that’s murky.)
(2) But his relation to the boy should have been strictly as the biological father, not as a priest! He should have been moved away from the parish, so that the woman and her son could separate their relation to the church and sacraments from their relation to him.
(3) In addition, in an ideal world the Franciscans should have provided a setting where he could help raise his son by doing some parenting – publicly recognize his son, and maybe be stationed in a parish nearby so that his son could visit him often. (How to do that without encouraging continued intimate relations with the woman, I am not sure.)
David N., you have missed my point. I am not talking about the Times’ “alleged anti-Catholicism.” I am talking about effects, not the moral agency of the Times. I do know that there are people who think that the Catholic Church is a nasty cult that ought to be abolished. There are people who think our sacraments are superstition-ridden, and are taking people to hell. I happen to know that innocent people suffer because of this.
Claire has grasped the problem; there is no good solution. Move him far away from mother and child, and keep him close to them so he can act as a real father. He should support the child, though he has vowed poverty, but the church should not contribute anything to the child’s support, though the father has vowed poverty.
One place the difficulty arises is in Jean’s remark: ““IMO, priests who father children should be required to do what any decent single father unable to marry the child’s mother should do…” The proper analogy is to other committed men, not single men. (this might be different if he were a diocesan rather than a religious.) What should a married man do if he fathers a child by someone other than his wife? Abandon the wife? Actively participate in the child’s upbringing? Stay away?
Quite simply, Fr Willenbourg is not a single man. He is a part of a community who should have ensured that this would not happen. Who should ensure that Fr W. will never do anything like this again. (did’n't they always go out in pairs at one time?) His pockets are empty, except for what his community gives him. It is a difficult situation, but looking at only this aspect of his life, and not at his other commitments will not solve much.
A kinder solution for the child might have been adoption. I wonder how many children of priests have been adopted. I can see why the authorities would be against this option, however. The child might later seek out his parents, and scandal might happen anyway.
It seems to me this whole topic of scandal meds airing. Yes, Jesus said not to scandalize the little ones, but He also said to tell the ttuth. The notion that wrong-doing ought never be revealed would make civilization impossible — crimes must be revealed, and minor sins sometimes ought to be revealed. The hierarchy’s notion that cover-ups are a moral necessity, even virtuous has got to go.
It seems to me this whole topic of scandal meds airing. Yes, Jesus said not to scandalize the little ones, but He also said to tell the ttuth. The notion that wrong-doing ought never be revealed would make civilization impossible — crimes must be revealed, and minor sins sometimes ought to be revealed. The hierarchy’s notion that cover-ups are a moral necessity, even virtuous has got to go.
I think that’s what Jesus meant by scandal … the whited-sepulchre church authorities who hide rottenness under a patina of holiness.
Jim, thanks for setting me straight on analogies.
I like how Claire put it; make the guy be a father–pay child support, acknowledge the child, and take a hand in raising him. Like any parent, he should bear the cost–financial, emotional and psychological–of doing so. If he can’t support his own child and asks his order to do so, I think the order has a duty to say no, it has other priorities. That means Fr. Empty Pockets will have to think about going out to work somewhere to support his child.
Ann suggests adoption. Fine if that’s what the mother wants to do, but no way she should be forced to do so (and I realize that’s not what Ann is suggesting).
As for ensuring it never happens again? Whoever can come up with that solution probably holds the key to the Second Coming.
I find the “why is this news” angle to be utterly baffling.
1. Until such time as we actually change our ideals (i.e., no extra-marital sexual relations and priestly celibacy) isn’t it always going to be news when those ideals are breached as spectacularly as they were here? Every time a politician is indicted for corruption, we might say, “is that really news?” but until we don’t care about political corruption it should, indeed, be newsworthy if just to assure us that such conduct is still not “normative” or “acceptable.” Saying it isn’t news is almost like saying we shouldn’t care about it. If that’s your take, then maybe you should be talking to to the Vatican about changing its doctrine to fit reality on the ground.
2. “I’m not sure some of you Catholics know what real anti-Catholicism looks or sounds like.” Well, let’s turn it around: I’m not sure all of you understand how obnoxious the Church’s unflinching stands on sexual morality are perceived to be when they touch on the lives of non-believers. The credibility of the Church’s positions on law and public policy on issues like not mandating insurance coverage of contraception or abortion as something other than self-serving, is predicated on a certain moral authority — that is, that it actually means and practices what it claims to believe in, and not that it is some charade with which to dupe the faithful while their hierarchical betters pursue a kind of opt-in or out mentality. Because if Catholic priests consider their own rules to be optional, what the heck right does the Church have to impose any morally based law or policy on anyone else?
I would think 100 times before you cavalierly dismiss this story as not news or not newsworthy, for what that attitude says about the moral authority and character of the Church in relation to its own doctrines.
Barbara,
While it is not news that Catholic people are human and are as flawed as the rest of mankind, it will always be news when we Catholics fail to live up to the ideals we profess. Non Catholics – especially atheists and anti-Catholic types – are typically delighted to see us Catholics fall.
That does not mean however, that the ideals we Catholics profess are wrong.
We Catholics are fortunate to have been given the gift of the one, true Faith, established by Christ and handed down to us from the Apostles via Rome, the Magisterium, and the inspiring example of the many Catholic saints.
We fail to live up to the high ideals we profess because we are flawed humans who are in dire need of God’s mercy.
Rather than changing the ideals we profess, rather than lowering the bar so to speak, we would do better to try and change ourselves, and continue to try to live up to ideals we profess.
Obviously we should not dismiss scandals like this one.
Rather, we should try to live up to the higher ideals, not to bring the ideals down to our level.
Barbara, I think you have an interesting point. But just to push these ideas a little further, it seems to me that the very peculiar problem is having the lived, Catholic disjunct between ideals and reality playing out in a society whose Christian sensibility is overwhelmingly Calvinist. Sinners, even grave sinners, can find redemption in Catholicism again and again. The hard bright lines of Catholic sexual ethics would seem like contradictions and hypocrisy if the Catholic sense of redemption were written in hard bright lines as well. It isn’t. Redemption for Catholics plays out over time, and is messy.
Barbara & Ms. Steinfels – interesting difference in viewing this event; both honest and emotional reactions. Any of these situations leaves me conflicted – as others have said, it would be nice if we, as catholics, could get to the point of realizing that adults even priests make bad (sinful) judgments. But, then, Barbara’s well-stated points leave me conflicted – if that priest represents the church in terms of its moral pronouncements and positions and yet appears to allow or be indifferent to having it both ways – where does that leave me. Agree that removing celibacy will not eliminate all issues but it might make the total church’s stance more human, more understandable, move us away from the old priest on the pedestal approach.
Here is a recent presentation by Robert McClory to one of the few active priests groups in the archdiocese of Detroit: http://www.elephantsinthelivingroom.com/Robert_McClory_text.doc
He is talking about dissent but also he defines discernment in today’s church:
highlights after listing many of the recent church headlines from abuse, bishops, sister audit, etc.:
Now all of these irritants, all of these issues which concern people, have resulted in various people going in various directions:
• Many people, as you know, have decided to leave the Church. They simply no longer consider themselves Catholic. A few years ago a very thorough study was done of religion in America, and the largest Christian denomination was still Roman Catholic. But the second largest denomination, if you will, in the country are former Roman Catholics; and this has been particularly hard on younger Catholics. We are hemorrhaging young Catholics at an incredible rate.
• Then there’s a second group that I would call people who stay in the Church, but complain all the time, everywhere, when they get a chance. They don’t like the pastor; they don’t like the bishop; and they don’t like the Pope; and they will tell you why; and they will go over it, and over it, until you’re stomach turns. And people have told me at Call to Action: “I belong to the Catholic Church, but the bishops don’t.” Oh! I’m afraid they do. “I belong to the Catholic Church, but I will not read anything that the Pope writes. When I see the Pope has an article quoted in a paper, I turn it aside.” Uh! Uh! Those people, and there are many of them, I do not consider that to be dissenting. I would call it whining.
• And there’s a third group – and maybe that’s the largest group of people – who just come to church on Sunday without any joy, without any enthusiasm, without any interest, to tell you the truth, except to fulfill their Sunday duty. And you see them in many parishes around the country, if you stop in on a Sunday; and there they all are. And they are not singing – hymns are going on, and you know who’s singing, but not them. They are not listening to the readings, partially because one of them is doing the readings, and there is no attempt to project. This is a terrible, sad situation. They’re like zombies. They are like people for whom there is no life. And I would not call them dissenters. I would not call that dissenting. I would call that moping.
• But there’s another group of people. There is another group of people, who are thoughtful about these things – these issues I just mentioned – who are prayerful, who talk to God about it, and who have talked to others about it, about their concern. And they have come to a decision; and their decision is: “I do not agree with this position of the Roman Catholic Church. I deny it.” And they take responsibility for that kind of very strong decision. And I think some of these people – many of these people, and I suggest, I would wonder, if a lot of people, right here this afternoon, are not in that group – some of these people, whom I would call dissenters, dissent in a creative way: priest, religious men and women, and many laity. And they look at the Church in a very interesting way: They try to live as if the Church of the future is already present. Or to put it another way, they try to live as if the kingdom of God were already here. Of course Jesus lived that way. It’s already here. It’s breaking out. And they manifest it, not by talking about it, as much as living it, as of course Jesus did. Or to put it another way: they live as if the vision of Vatican II had come to fruition, and had not been stalled, had not been disparaged and impeded in its progress. It’s an interesting way to live. It’s also a very dangerous way to live that way.
Claire, I think we always need to watch ourselves for the old trap of idealizing priests and then being harder on them, and double standards are indeed not a good thing, but in this case I don’t see that anyone is holding the priest to a higher standard than they would any other person in a position of trust who abuses that trust. I would be just as outraged if he belonged to any profession that was supposed to serve vulnerable people and then shopped for multiple partners among those least able to make a free choice to be with him.
The priest didn’t meet a woman socially and start an honest and faithful relationship. He took advantage of multiple people who came to him for pastoral care, simultaneously. If anyone in any walk of life did those things, I’d be outraged, not just because of my faith, but because those things are generally recognized as wrong by non-Catholics as well as Catholics.
The double standard I see is in the words and the behavior of this priest and his superiors, who vowed and preached priestly celibacy, chastity, and the right to life even as they kept a man in active ministry after he repeatedly broke his vows and took advantage of a woman he was counseling and a teenager, suggested abortion, and demanded secrecy of people who had been harmed in return for financial support. It is hard to see how their theoretical standards could be higher. It is even harder to see how their actual standards could have been lower without resorting to the limbo–that would be the dance, not the outmoded doctrine.
Ken and Kathy, the “news” isn’t the original sinful conduct — it’s the secrecy and the failure to really do anything to condemn or discipline the sinner for having abused his authority (and not just the underlying sexual infractions), and further, within the context of the article, the evidence that this might be a fairly commonplace occurrence.
And as for our ideals being wrong — I wasn’t conveying that at all — I was trying to convey that trying to use those ideals as a framework for public policy is undercut (a) by the fact that no one, not even Catholic priests, can adhere to them — that’s the charitable view — or (b) that even Catholic priests don’t see them as exactly mandatory. If redemption is unlimited and totally painless — well, at some point, you have to stop seeing it as redemption and start seeing it as tolerance for allegedly disordered behavior.
“Quite simply, Fr Willenbourg is not a single man. He is a part of a community who should have ensured that this would not happen. Who should ensure that Fr W. will never do anything like this again. (did’n’t they always go out in pairs at one time?) ”
Hi, Jim McK,
I think the part of the story that grates me the most is that the consequences of his misdeeds were minimal. It’s to be expected that a religious order can’t prevent 100% of its members from misbehaving 100% of the time. But when something serious comes to light, the repercussions should be serious.
The picture painted by these stories is of a man who shouldn’t be in pastoral ministry, shouldn’t be permitted to remain in the priesthood, and who has violated his vows so fundamentally that the Franciscans would be within their rights to expel him. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but it’s the way I see it.
Had those consequences been brought about, as they should have, years ago, then the encumbrances to proper paternal care entailed by being a priest in an order with an assignment would have been disposed of, and he could have gotten a job and been what millions of American Catholic men are: a dad not married to the mom and with little or no custody of the child, but who is rightfully expected to support the child and be there for him.
I don’t think that sounds harsh, Jim — I have a similar take. Seems to me the Franciscans ought to have cut this guy loose once he became a father (if not before). That’s the moment when it tipped over from private sinfulness into institutional hypocrisy. The order couldn’t have forced this guy to be a decent father, of course; that wasn’t in their power. But it was in their power to relieve him of his prior (broken) commitments to the order, which would also remove his excuses for not taking more personal responsibility for his actions.
Barbara –
It seems to me that news is justce episodic history. It isn’t usually very important except as part of history. And as you and others have rightly pointed out, it is the apparently common occurrence of such behavior that is important. The repetion is history, not simple news, and the Church must be informed about it — on a contnuing basis — so it can try to at least minimize such behavior, not enable it by continuing denial.
While it is not news that Catholic people are human and are as flawed as the rest of mankind, it will always be news when we Catholics fail to live up to the ideals we profess.
Ken,
If Catholic bishops and priests are as flawed as the rest of mankind, and if the Church is as flawed as any other human institution. What does that say about such things as the guidance of the Holy Spirit, grace, and the efficacy of the sacraments? Of course the Church is a human, and I don’t think anyone would expect to be free from human flaws. But if bishops and priests are actually no better at all than other men in relatively similar or equivalent positions outside the Church then I see a problem with the claims the Church makes about itself.
Of course, it is difficult to know how one can actually and objectively measure the Church in comparison to other organizations. But I used to know a priest whose constant defense of the Church was that the rate of child abuse was no worse than it was in other “helping professions.”
We Catholics are fortunate to have been given the gift of the one, true Faith, established by Christ and handed down to us from the Apostles via Rome, the Magisterium, and the inspiring example of the many Catholic saints.
One would think that would ensure that Catholics — and especially bishops and priests — would be a cut above average. Otherwise, what good is it?
Kathy makes the point that “redemption for Catholics plays out over time, and is messy.”
I agree, but I’m not sure exactly how that’s germane here. No one in these posts has called for any of those good ol’ Calvinistic punishments like the stocks, the pillory or the ducking stool. In fact, no one that I can see is calling for any punishment at all, unless stepping up to the plate as a father can be construed as punishment.
One wonders, strictly by Catholic standards, whether covering up Fr. Willenbourg’s sins is either a) fair to the Franciscan mission and to those who assume their contributions to same is going to help the needy or, perhaps more important, b) redemptive to the sinner?
Sister Mary 8th grade used to lambast us about “cheap grace” – getting grace, forgiveness, mercy without doing anything.
she would harp on the fact that in the sacrament of confession (to her and the times) – we had to know we did wrong; ask forgiveness, have a firm purpose to change, and do amends.
Cheap grace or HR policies is how too many dioceses and religious communties operate – where is his purpose to change, did he make amends – and how do you do that once you have fathered a child but decide to remain a priest and hide your past?
Double talk – states make wayward fathers pay child support. Take the Dallas Charter and rewrite it so that bishops, provincials, abbots have the power to make their priests grow up when they act inappropriately just like most everyone else has to do if they act out sexually.
David,
The fact that the Catholic Church – with all the weak and corrupt people who have been part of and/or in charge of it over the centuries – is the oldest organization in the history of the world and is still very much a going entity, speaks volumes about the influence of the Holy Spirit. Considering all the flawed Catholics over the many, many years, the Church simply would not have survived this long without the Holy Spirit.
Per David “One would think that would ensure that Catholics — and especially bishops and priests — would be a cut above average. Otherwise, what good is it?”
Your swipe is not without import David. In fact one of the problems we Catholics have today is that – in America anyway – Catholics don’t act that much differently than non-Catholics.
You are correct in that we Catholics should be grateful for the immense gift we have been given and accordingly, we should demonstrate our faith by the manner in which conduct our lives. The sad truth in America today, is that Catholics get divorced, use contraception, have out-of-wedlock children, and have other sorts of domestic troubles at about the same rates as non-Catholics do. In other words, it is not easy to tell by looking at Americans, who is Catholic and who is not.
Some Catholics say this trend has to do with us being told as (post Vatican II) kids to “not be so Catholic all the time”, or that most churches are basically the same. And now, we are not “so Catholic” all the time are we?
I read an interesting article that pointed out, regarding things ecumenical, that if we consider Catholicism to be just another denomination, Protestantism loses its meaning.
Obviously a lot is riding on (depending on) the Catholic Church. Indeed, we Catholics ought to be aware of the treasure we have been given, that which we hold, and which we are responsible to pass on to our children. We ought to be thoughtfully aware, and thank God everyday, try to do our best to follow His teachings, and ask for His mercy and love.
Bill D:
I think that the 4th group you describe is very small because it involves a level of theological self-discourse in which the average parishioner does not engage. Consequently, there is yet another group that appreciates that all church is local. Out of weariness and dismay, they no longer concern themselves with papal, episcopal and other allegedly magisterial pronouncements, shenanigans, carrying on, etc.
“Just as most of us did not choose to believe in God after an honest look at the alternative but rather just “stuck with Him”, most of us stayed with the Catholic Church simply because it was our “tribe”, our “family”, and its customs became as much a part of who we are as our ethnicity or our allergies.“ [Wm. J. O'Malley, SJ, Parents are Apostles (article), "America", 1-20-90.]
We have grown to define our Catholicism by reference to the parish to which we belong because they have found a community that feeds their souls and helps them along the journey to the goal that belongs to all followers of Jesus.
As I have said elsewhere in this blogsite, I am not a Roman Catholic, nor an American Catholic. Rather, I am a Most Holy Redeemer Catholic — and have not felt this good about my Catholicism in many years.
I am bothered by the suggestion that a Franciscan who has a child would automatically get expelled, and by the suggestion that the Franciscan order owes nothing to that child. When someone takes vows and thus joins a religious order, isn’t there some reciprocity in the commitment? Isn’t the order committed to taking care of their new member? Is that commitment only conditional (as long as the new religious brother is well-behaved…), or is the acceptance unconditional? I would like to think that the new member of the community is embraced unconditionally, without any reservations, for better and for worse…
So, if I make a donation to the Franciscans, and if that donation is used towards child support for the son of a wayward religious, that does not seem wrong to me: it’s unfortunate, but it’s par for the course.
And what about the idea of redemption? Fr Willenborg is not a good example, but there have to be religious brothers who are truly committed to their vows, who have only broken them once in a blue moon by human weakness, and who are nevertheless fit to be religious. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that there should be no consequences for Fr Willenborg’s actions. I am trying to say that the religious order should be with Fr. Willenborg like a family, like a loving mother, say: take the responsibilities that he’s unwilling or unable to face, pay for him, … and also work to change him. For example, asking him to take a secular job for 18 years while he earns money for his son: that would be a fitting consequence. If after that time he still wanted to return to life as a Franciscan, he would then be welcome back.
Claire – do not disagree with your comments. But, on the other hand, it appears that orders, dioceses, bishops are not allowed to deal with priests who continuously act out. I was stating the ability to use norms that allow for penalties upto and including dismissal from the priesthood. Would assume that there are always extenuating circumstances that need to be taken into any case but, right now, there are no norms and so a double standard exists.
Bill — we’re on the same page.
I though tJimmy Mac’s post a while back was vital -we live in a time of (Church) darknerss -see the latest post for example – but soldier on in the loving community of our brothers and sisters in the Eucharistic group.
Having said that, the lengthy debate here shows how hard the issues are:
-how to deal with Willenborg: I think Molie and Jim are on the righ ttrack-But what of the institution?
The notion that it’s suggested that a married clerg ywould solve all problems is a straw man,
The idea that we don’t understand the weakness of our clergy and heirarchy is simplistic.
It strikes me that the people of God have a right to expect a high standard of their clergy when the leaders says the”priest is everything>”
And, while it will hardly solve all problems, with the shortage of priests here, the idea of mandatory celibacy deserves discusson, as does women’s ordination, as do lots of other purpotedly neuralgic ideas.
And those same people of God deserve real honesty from their leaders, not cover ups and suppression of facts (see Willmington bakruptcy above).
I stand, as is evident. with Batrbara against those who would fluff off the story
Automatic dismissal of an erring priest would be about the worst thing that could happen. There would be priests who would father children if that were an assured way to get out of their community, and then abandon mother and child when they had served their purpose. Quite a chilling thought.
In the meantime, a judgmental, inflexible community would project an image of a judgmental inflexible God.
Perhaps a temporary dismissal would work, but it does not sound very practical. In normal circumstances, all of the fruit of a Franciscan’s labors belong to his community; taking those resources away is no different from taking money away from them. or maybe is worse.
SNAP reports today that it has heard already from another woman sexually exploited by Willenborg, and asks anyone else harmed to step forward, get help, protect others and start healing.
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2009/10/good_god_st_louis_group_looks.php
per David Clohessy, SNAP, 314 566 9790, SNAPclohessy@aol.com
The posts here have been thought-provoking, to say the least.
I come back to the standing ovation Willenborg received, and think of Bill deHaas’ reference to Sr’s comments about cheap grace. On target!
David N.–
The Church has never promised good example. It has only promised truth, or at least the possibility of finding it.
David N. –
And, of course, it provides the sacraments, those opportunities for grace.
Jimmy Mac – again, I may have not clarified well enough. What I suggest is a lucana in current canon law and practice for both bishops and religious superiors. Some type of regulation needs to allow bishops/provincials to clearly state limits, what is and is not acceptable, and allow them to make decisions that provide responsible behavior by bishops/priests. Did not say “automatic” dismissal – for a religious community, it may mean dismissal from the office of priesthood and yet the community still has this member and still has a responsiblity to this member. (for example, I do not support religious communities or even dioceses that just de-frock priests and wash their hands of their on-going responsibility turning this man over to the public sector – where is the responsible christian action there?)
Unfortunately, there is little creativity in dealing with these situations – either the priest is able to perform fully or he is out. All or nothing thinking……you can go back to Fr. FitzGerald sriting to the pope in the 1950s and 1960s – projecting that the church would need to restrict, track, and supervise these folks for the rest of their lives and that the church needed to face this. Never happened.
One of the most difficult things in life is dealing with human beings who continuously act out inappropriately – standing by them, supervising them, supporting them (we at times use the phrase “tough love”) but not the simplistic all or nothing approach that is currently used. Yes, it places demands on a diocese, religious communities that no one expected but it may be the ultimate gospel act.
The year of the priest could be an opportunity to think through these problems. If only…