Public Choice and the Abuse Scandal
Obviously, the investigation is ongoing, but this doesn’t look good:
A widening child sexual abuse inquiry in Europe has landed at the doorstep of Pope Benedict XVI, as a senior church official acknowledged Friday that a German archdiocese made “serious mistakes” in handling an abuse case while the pope served as its archbishop. The archdiocese said that a priest accused of molesting boys was given therapy in 1980 and later allowed to resume pastoral duties, before committing further abuses and being prosecuted. Pope Benedict, who at the time headed the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, approved the priest’s transfer for therapy. A subordinate took full responsibility for allowing the priest to later resume pastoral work, the archdiocese said in a statement.
What’s sort of surprising to me is that, even assuming the worst is true, anyone would be particularly surprised by this. Although the Church leadership is fond of saying that all sorts of other institutions have experienced child sexual abuse, I cannot think of any organization that has had the same history of both (1) covering it up and (2) repeatedly sending the wolves back out to tend the sheep. But that pattern seems to me to follow very naturally from the status of lay people within the Church’s bureaucracy.
Conservative legal scholars are constantly harping on what public choice theory teaches us about political structures and the perverse incentives they can create for public actors. But conservative Catholic legal scholars — who are often very skeptical of government bureaucracies — seem extremely reluctant to apply those same insights to the Church’s hierarchy. Given the nearly total lack of meaningful input into Church governance by lay people (short of the largely unutilized power to conditionally withhold donations), is it any real shock that the celibate clergy made decisions in the abuse scandal that largely track the interests of the celibate clergy. And that the abuses were worse when the children involved had no families to look after them and were therefore particularly vulnerable? For anyone who thinks that public choice theory offers even a modicum of insight (and, to be clear, I am skeptical of its reach), it would be surprising if it were any other way.
Why would the Church be exempt from the consequences of the perverse incentives created by a bureaucracy with almost no mechanism for democratic feedback? The popes and bishops are, after all, human beings. I suppose the argument is that the Holy Spirit is somehow looking out in a special way for the Church such that the normal tendencies of human motivation don’t apply. The thing about providential arguments like that is that you can never tell where things are going to go next. Perhaps the growing scandal rocking the Church is itself the work of providence and will put enough pressure on the institution to take a second or third look at its autocratic governance system. If so, THAT will be the work of the Holy Spirit as well.
I am not surprised that Pope Benedict would have been no different in his managerial decisions from most other bishops a quarter century ago. A question on a point of detail: on 15 November 1981, now-Pope Benedict was named prefect of the CDF. He resigned from his post as Archbishop of Munich and Freising on 15 February 1982. Wikipedia does not say when this resignation was accepted by the Holy See. The next archbishop was appointed on 28 October 1982. Is it possible for the Vicar General, during such interim periods, to take decisions all by himself and not ask for at least a formal stamp of approval from the Archbishop?
More importantly, I wish the strategy laid out by Fr. Lombardi, “recognition of the truth and help for victims, reinforcement of preventative measures and constructive collaboration with the authorities (including the judicial authorities of State) for the common good of society”,
-included an examination of the possible root causes of cover-up of paedophilia within the church (including, as you suggest, the autocratic governance system),
-addressed the question of justice and retribution for past offenses (viz., the case of Cardinal Law), and
-discussed the mechanism for evaluating and dealing with bad bishops.
If anything ever makes me consider leaving the institutional church, it is the mishandling of cases of sexual abuse. This crisis may be the work of the Holy Spirit leading to a purer church, but I watch anxiously to see how it plays out.
There is a theological difficulty in connecting the sex abuse scandal with the Holy Spirit working to reform the church. Would a loving God use the suffering of the young victims of abuse as a means to reshape the church?
The suffering of children raises among the most difficult questions of theodicy. I suggest we investigate a response along the lines of J. B. Metz’s thinking on lament. As a church we need to linger where the cry of the abused ones is lifted up to God.
Certainly the Holy Spirit does not cause scandalous behavior, but he may be supposed to allow it–and, since it has occurred, we must suppose that he has allowed it–because he foresees that some good may arise from it.
Be careful what you wish for. It’s certainly plausible that increased lay participation (which I welcome) may lead to policy changes across the board, including views on capital punishment, torture, unions, etc. that are not acceptable to the liberal intelligentsia.
Unless, that is, there is some way to selectively exclude the input of groups such as the conservative Catholic legal scholars (I can guess some names) and others who are so distasteful to Mr. Penalver.
“A subordinate took full responsibility for allowing the priest to later resume pastoral work, the archdiocese said in a statement.”
Well, I guess that takes care of this matter.
How the issue of victims are treated remains a major issue in Europe and here.
Of course, Joe J. is right in noting the damage spin.
As to the problem of how this will impact the Church, I submit one frame to view where things are going will be ability to change or continued resistance thereto.
Moving back or moving forward?
My confidence (despite many fine words) is limited.
I would not get on Benedict for something he did in 1980 when all bishops including Bernardine thought these clergy could be rehabilitated. Bernadine changed earlier than the others but that was only in the early 90s.
What I do lay on Benedict is his mishandling of the abuse as CDF director and pope. The presence of Cardinal Law in luxuryville in Rome is a loud statement that “we protect our own even in such shameful acts.” Also I blame those who continue to idolize this pope and remain in irresponsible ivory towers while the gospel is torn to shreds.
Eduardo, I do take Public Choice Theory rather seriously, and find it indispensable as a heuristic for unlocking the intransigence of regulators and bureaucrats and some elected officials, but you hit the nail on the head when you say this:
“I suppose the argument is that the Holy Spirit is somehow looking out in a special way for the Church such that the normal tendencies of human motivation don’t apply.”
There will be no arguing via public choice theory for similar conclusions in the Church with Catholic defenders of public choice theory. But as Joseph said, “Certainly the Holy Spirit does not cause scandalous behavior, but he may be supposed to allow it–and, since it has occurred, we must suppose that he has allowed it–because he foresees that some good may arise from it.” This at least seems consistent with St. Paul’s insistence that this world was subjected to futility so as to not lead us to idolatry. How would this lead us to think of our Holy Church? It’ll all depend on whether or not we think that the Church as an institution is part of this world or the divine–or, perhaps a little bit of both.
More evidence to weigh on the Church as institution:
Here is the Vatican spin on today’s news from Rocco, who also has a translation of a release by the Munich Archdiocese and some other items of interest. (Be sure to keep scrolling down on the “whispers” site.)
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/
Of particular interest, I would think, is this interview linked by Rocco to an interview with the Promotor of Justice at the CDF. Some hard questions are asked, but the answers deserve– and will probably get–close analysis, since there is at last considerable public interest in the way the CDF handled reports forwarded to it:
http://radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=363896
“Perhaps the growing scandal rocking the Church is itself the work of providence and will put enough pressure on the institution to take a second or third look at its autocratic governance system.”
Amen.
Is the sex scandal the work of the Holy Spirit? Who knows? Nobody!
We have to start with the human first and assume events will follow their human course. Which can be quite unpredictable. Trying to contemporaneously perceive the work of the Holy Spirit seems like a fools errand.
How about Isaiah from the reading in lauds this morning: Cease to do evil. Learn to do good, search for justice, help the oppressed, be just to the orphan, plead for the widow.
That this be the only priority (especially during Lent for Christ’s sake) seems like the best guess for doing the work of the Holy Spirit just now.
If it is truen that the Pope actually instructed his subordinates to keep the abuse issue secret, then he ought to be charged, in a civil court, for obstructing justice. If convicted, he ought to go to prison, period.
Now, I realioze that the legal structures involved (the Vatican being a sovreign nation and all) would make such an action formidible, but there is no other choice. Keep it a secret indeed! What in the Hell was he thinking?
Isn’t the suggestion that the sex scandal may be the work of the Holy Spirit tantamount to a suggestion that evil itself is the work of the Lord?
Theodicy is hardly my subject, but I’m under the impression that a reasonably orthodox view holds that, while theology may have no satisfactory answer for natural catastrophe (like Haiti, Chile, China, Indian Ocean tsunami, etc.), human evil can be seen as God’s respect for the operation of free will, so that while God is Love, he can restrict his intervention in human affairs.
(I pick this readers’ digest view of theodicy from a German Jesuit, incidentally).
In such a view, human malfeasance is the result of sin, which can lead to evil not because of God’s will, but despite God’s will. It would be blasphemous, in other words, to blame the election of the Borgia pope Alexander VI on the Holy Spirit, in other words for an act for which all too human and sinful humankind is responsible. And for the same reason it is blasphemous to blame the Holy Spirit for child abuse and its coverup. Mankind has shown itself many times to be quite capable of frustrating the Spirit’s work.
There is no satisfactory philosophical answer to the question why God allows moral evil. Theodicy just doesn’t work. For a recent clear account of the intractable problems with teodicies, see Susan Neiman, “Evil in Modern Thought,” Princeton U. Press, 2002.
Eduardo
“Perhaps the growing scandal rocking the Church is itself the work of providence and will put enough pressure on the institution to take a second or third look at its autocratic governance system. If so, THAT will be the work of the Holy Spirit as well.”
I think it would preferable to say that the “the growing scandal rocking the Church” is the work of certain malefactors and those who failed to take steps to prevent their misdeeds; if there is genuine reform arising from this situation, that can be fairly called the work of providence, but its occasion–the scandal–is something that providence has merely allowed.
What the catechism choose to focus on regarding telling the truth:
2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.
My personal suggested rewording:
2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for the law, and the common good are sufficient reasons for speaking up about what ought be known and for making use of an explicit language. The duty to avoid scandal often suggests strict discretion, but no one is bound to hide the truth from someone who has the right to know it.
It is possible for good to come out of any situation, no matter how horrific that situation is. Therefore, to say that something is allowed because it is foreseen that some good might come out of it is nonsensical.
If God could have stopped even one instance of abuse but did not, call me an atheist, for I wish to have nothing to do with that God.
Since we’re on the theodicy theme, I should just make clear that I’m not saying the abuse was the work of providence. By “scandal,” I’m talking about the public outrage the abuse generated. I’m saying that, once we’re within the providence framework, it’s just as possible to attribute to providence the public reaction and the pressure it’s putting on the governance structure.
I think the real work of the Spirit here is to be seen in the prudence, justice, fortitude and amazing self-control demonstrated by those many brave survivors of abuse who have come forward to end the conspiracy of silence.
What is often missing from these dicussions is the realization that things are different 30 years later.
I had my first exposure to prosecuting child sex abuse in the late 1980′s. The things we take for granted now were not so in the 60′s-80′s. Even in the late 80′s there was a prominent school of thought – one that was predominant until the early 80′s – that this was a principally a psychological issue and that the primary response was medical and social, not criminal. Children were not the focus.
The very first court martial I worked on was a Sgt who had mollested his 7-8 year old daughter for a year. He was participating in a counseling group for incest perpetrators run by the local county. We interviewed the head of the program. He was to be a sentencing witness. He was recommending no jail time and intensive counseling for a year. When he found out that we had a plea agreement for 8 years, he was aghast. None of the dozen or so men in his program had done jail time – including several who had raped their children.
Like I said – different times.
Claire -
I like your revision of the Catechism.
I wonder what the CDF had in mind when it wrote, “The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion”. If by “scandal” here it means behavior that tempts others to sin (as the Catechism defines the word in another place) then the use of the word here makes little sense. Why should we be quiet when someone is doing or has done serious wrong to another and the behavior is not being corrected? ISTM that the duty to the injured person is to speak out loud and clear — it is not to be “discrete” about the sinner and his sin.
Sean -
Yes, times have changed insofar as we now know that abuse which is less serious than rape can also be devastating to some children, and we now know that psychological therapy doesn’t cure the abusers.
That is why I’m still wondering about the reporting about Pope Benedict and the case in Munich for which he was responsible at least for a time. I find the reporting thus far very fuzzy. Did Cardinal Ratzinger approve the retention of the abuser even after it was known that therapy was not effective? If so, then he was an enabler and should resign. If not, then he deserves more accurate news coverage. Perhaps it will become clearer as more questions are asked.
Conservative legal scholars are constantly harping on what public choice theory teaches . . .
I’ve known quite a few “conservative legal scholars” and I have NEVER heard even a single one ever mention the words “public choice theory,” much less constantly harp on it. To be sure, I don’t know of any who even knows what in the heck “public choice theory” is.
Sean, I hear what you’re saying, and have heard others say the same as you, but it’s really hard to understand that mentality of just 25 years ago!
Bob, I am also deeply disturbed by the collection of horror stories of evil committed by clerics and covered-up by church hierarchy under a cloak of silence imposed by the Vatican and by the prevalent culture. I am anxiously watching the stories develop.
Yes Ann, the media spin (both ways) gets in the way of knowing what happened in Munich. In the stories of the 2001 letter not requiring secrecy, but having been “misunderstood, because of a poor translation in English”, or “misunderstood, whereas the secrecy only referred to the questions pertaining to confession, not to sexual abuse of minors”, or “misunderstood, whereas the secrecy was only about the internal church court proceedings, not about the crimes themselves”, I sense a whiff of panic. At least no one is openly trying to defend secrecy as a good thing: perhaps soon they will be willing to change the catechism? With increased transparency will come increased accountability, and from there, increased integrity.
Then, there are all these discordent voices. One cardinal speaking about celibacy, then quickly back-pedaling; another forcefully saying “enough” about what members of the church have done; while another whines about media ferocity and relativizes the evil done compared to other parts of society. Certainly no unified voice. Again, possibly a sign of panic. Maybe the wind of change is blowing?
According to the BBC story –
Following a report in the Munich-based newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the diocese of Munich and Freising confirmed that Archbishop Ratzinger had let the priest, known only as H, stay at a vicarage in Munich for “therapy”. H had been suspected of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform a sex act upon him in the northern city of Essen. While he was in Munich, between February 1980 and August 1982, no wrongdoing was reported. He was then transferred to the town of Grafing, where he was relieved of his duties in 1985 after allegations of child sex abuse, the diocese said.
What bothers me is not just that after his “therapy” he was given another job elsewhere, but that even though he had been thought to have abused an 11 year old boy, the police weren’t notified and there was no investigation – wasn’t sexual abuse a crime then? And if so, isn’t covering it up also a crime?
All I am saying is that the nature of a lot of these cases was typical of everyone, not just the Church. I would like to know what type of advice the Holy Father was getting. If he was talking to the “professionals” this kind of treatment would have been very typical.
As for notification, who knows what the laws were. Even in the US mandatory reporting of child abuse is a fairly new phenonmenon. It actually grew out of situations like this. I suspect if you look at the facts, the parents knew and preferred to keep it quiet. That is why we have mandatory reporting laws now, not because of cover-ups by the Church or schools or doctors, but because parents and family members.
I think it is premature to accuse anyone of a cover-up.
More on the 1980s in Munich: http://www.golias-editions.fr/spip.php?article3663
Looks like Benedict is in much the same unhappy position as the late Archbishop Dermot Ryan, subjected to a damnatio memoriae in Ireland (with a large group calling for his park to be renamed after Oscar Wilde — on the grounds that Wilde’s sex with minors was “consensual”!)
Some media reported that Benedict gave the Irish Bishops a severe scolding, but that does not seem to have been the case.
Actually, the remissness of the former Archbishop of Munich seems to exceed that of Archbishop Ryan. The priest forced an 11 year old to sexual acts, was allowed to continue tranquilly in the diocese until arrested for other abuses 6 years later, and then to continue still to the present day, without difficulties.
I would like to know what type of advice the Holy Father was getting. If he was talking to the “professionals” this kind of treatment would have been very typical.
Sean,
While I think you are making a reasonable point, I also would like to raise the question of how seriously the Catholic Church has taken modern psychiatry and modern medicine in general, particularly regarding matters involving sexuality. If the Church doesn’t accept that masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality, and pornography might not be “disordered,” why should it have accepted that child molesters just needed some therapy and then could safely be given charge of children again?
And I don’t think therapists in years past who believed treatment rather than jail was appropriate for child abusers would have given any guarantee at all that an abuser who underwent treatment would not abuse again.
I disagree with the claim that 25 years ago that there was any widespread understanding that pedophelia could be cured. I also court martialed sex offenders and the 8 year plea bargain was about right (or even on the high side). Of course counselors would recommend agaisnt incarceration for their patients but those recommendatios were rejected by the military commanding officers, in contrast to the sinful bishops who actively solicited such recommendations. Ther emay have been reasons why a court martial couldn’t happen, but the service memmber would not be permitted to continue in the serivce.
Of corse, this was not the course of conduct chosen by the bishops. Not only that, the bishops were porvided specifc detailed advice regarding the nature of pedophelia and the prospects for rehabiltation in 1985, more than 25 years ago.
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/051702/051702a.htm
Fr. Doyle testified that the probelm was know and well understood for decades prior to that.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ia-davenport/archives/doyle.htm
If you want to go back further, St. Peter Damien outlined the scope of clergy sex abuse to the Pope and yet nothing was done.
http://www.crusadeagainstclergyabuse.com/htm/AShortHistory.htm
In my opinion the bishops simply heard what they wanted to hear and rejected what conflicted with their pre-formed judment to protect the institutional church. The made no effort to examine the scope of the problem. They made no effort to determine the level of compliance with celibacy genarally by the clergy. They grossly mismanaged this problem and the church’s handling of the clergy sex abuse crisis will go down in history as one of the largest isntitutional displays of incompetency evere seen.
The church was on notice since the year 1051 on how to properly handle incidents of clergy sex abuse. Any claim that things were differennt 25 years ago is an attempt at revisionist history.
Thank you for those informative links. The infamous 1962 text from the Vatican commanding absolute secrecy under penalty of excommunication was written and sent out during the papacy of Bl. John XXIII!
Joe McFaul –
I reqd Fr. Doyle’s affidavit about the Janssen case. I find it difficult to believe that Fr. Doyle has met ‘thousands” of victims who thought they would be condemned to hell if they exposed a priest. No doubt there were some, even many. But thousands?
Ann Oliver, not thousands?
Since Fr Doyle has talked and met at SNAP and other groups in quite a few countries for quite a few years . let’s just all agree that he may have met 10s of thousands of survivors..
Please if you join the minimalist party you will have to agree to their whole agenda = talking points. i.e. it’s really other groups that molest. it’s really the teachers, survivors are after deep pockets money, all the ‘boys’ were almost 18, the poor bishops got bad advise, and my favorite ‘the Church by its forthrightness is helping other groups by dealing with this problem’ .an also ran until last week = ‘it’s an English disease’ [i.e.mostly American]
Coincidentally, a local station was playing the Nixon/Frost interviews. There, one gets a close-up view of the same self-serving rationalizations at work to protect a gang of high-level abettors within a different power structure.
Joe
Then I guess all those legislatures wasted their time beefing up reporting requirements and imposing manadatory sentence statutes.
The problem here is not theodicy but the continuing view that, unless things get out in public -when damage control must be used-, such matters must be handled on the inside because the clergy and their caste are different (better?)
So better reporting/SOL laws ,etc, are important.
I also think Fr. Doyle (like other prominent whistleblower who break a code of silence) is a hero.
From the 80′s on, yes 30 years ago, the issue was made clear (by him) to episcopal leadership here.
Cafardi traces the problems of response from that time til the Boston revelations hit the fan.
During that period (80′s to 2002) there were several high profile cases including the ugly mess in the 90′s at Covennant House in New York and the Servants of the Praclete issues in New Mexico.
I think saying folks didn’t know better often means they followed the rule of silence and only revelation by the media (often then branded as ac (anti-Catholic) brought about action.
The bottom line seems to me that the Church keeps acting on the same m.o. – our guys are subject to canon law- civil law if we have to.
It also strikes me that that’s a problem all the way up the line to the top, damage control or not.
Ed –t
You seem to think that the judgment of heroes is beyond criticism, and Fr. Doyle definitely seems to be a hero. But that way lies hero-worship and the sort of polorization that it ripping this country apart. Regardless of that, we still have the obligation to tell the truth, even when is is not complimentary to ourselves or “our side”. That is the great problem with the bishops, I think– they aren’t capable of self-criticism.
As for the thousands who Fr. Doyle says thought they were going to hell if they outed a priest, I have never seen that specific charge made before, and if that really had been typical of the abused children I would expect that other sources would also have said so. That is why I asked the question. Exaggeration, no matter how innocently presented, does not help a cause in the long-run. Further, I’m not questioning Fr. Doyle’s veracity, but I am questioning his his jdgment about this particular point. He is obviously passionately committed to the children, and passion sometimes blurs one’s vision.
Could I be wrong? Of course. But implying that I’m just making excuses for the bishops won’t make me think so.
Bender: In fairness, I think of public choice theory as far more relevant to economic and political science theories than legal scholarship, although there is probably some crossover considering how much interdisciplinary work has been done in these three areas. Public choice theory has been used to explain the behavior of autocratic governments, so it probably could be used to analyze decision making in undemocratic institutions generally (not just the Church, but Fortune 500 companies!).
As for Sean’s point, there is no doubt that there was a learning curve on the treatment and disposition of sex offenders by the criminal justice system, but, and I think it is a relevant detail, you would be hard pressed to find an institution that was as willing as many Bishops were to knowingly give an offender continuing unsupervised contact with young people. Maybe once — but over and over again? This is what shocks, and it’s hard not to continue to be shocked.
What’s the problem here? The hierachy is just another human, power-wielding institution, subject to the same sins and vices as any other and in need of similar checks, balances and sanctions if justice is to be served. What’s not clear to me is why anyone would think the hierachy is immune and ought to be exempt — except for the fact that a hierarchy reconstituted to be accountable to its members, is no longer a hierarchy.
The excellent article quoted by Ms. Steinfels in her latest thread is about leadership, bureaucracy and honor in the military and in academe. I think it would be extremely relevant here if the principles expounded there were applied to the Church bureaucracy. The article is at:
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story
It was originally a speech to a class at West Point, and it’s main point is that honorable leaders must sometimes oppose those who are higher up in the chain of command.
Antonio –
I’m not sure that such a reconstituted institution would not be a hierarchy. So long as the hierarchs retained their decision making functions up the line, then the lower-ranked officers could be expected to voice disagreement without destroying the system. IIf anything, such feed-back should strengthen it. The problem, as always, is to find higher-ups who can take disagreement, even criticism, and — worse — accusations of malfeasance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8567144.stm
A hiererach in action in the 1970′s.
let’s put aside this myth that people didn;t know better then.
I’m not sure that such a reconstituted institution would not be a hierarchy.
For accountability to work, the hierarchy would have to be answerable to an empowered body outside of its ranks, including making its doings transparently available on demand. In other words, the Church would have to conduct its business just like any other accountable institution.
Even then, I’m not sure that you can really salvage much of the old power structure, once you look closely at what it would take to make such oversight work. Just for a start, recognize that an oversight body cannot function without true independance, which means governance and funding that’s outside the purview of the hierarchy. Seems like a tall order to me.
Appeals to honor and integrity are fine, but look at it this way, has any organization of size that is as closed as the Church hierarchy ever diligently policed itself? If you’re looking for a miracle, that would be it. As I said, the mistake is believing the Church is exceptional, then being aghast when it’s discovered that’s not true.
In some ways the Church is very much like the military, given the de facto concentration of power in the Vatican these days. But bishops do have power, and that power is said not to derive from the pope. Or should I say they don’t derive their authority from the pope. What the difference is between power and authority is not at all clear to me, ISTN that their power is their capacity to *implement* their authoritative decisions. This would seem to make their rightful power contingent upon their authority, with the latter being at least to some extent independent of other human authorities.
On the other hand, given that the pope’s authority/power is said to be supreme and absolute, and we end up with a contradiction.
At any rate, I do think that given the metaphor of the Church as family (we are children of God the Father) there are inter-personal strengths which are not present in the military hierarchy. But do families have hierarchical structures? I’d say yes, to a limited extent. But the pope’s assumption that he is “father” to all, even the bishops, sets him improperly in the position of God in the metaphor of Church as family, which, needless to say, is not exactly theologically sound.
Agree that Fr. Doyle is a hero.
Can’t imagine why anyone would accuse him of dishonesty after all he’s heard/seen/been through during all these years.
Can’t imagine why anyone would doubt that children would fear being condemned to hell for reporting the priests who molested them, particularly since the setting of abuse was often the confessional or the sacristy.
In the Irish Times this morning, we read of children who had been molested being “bound . . . to secrecy”.
———–
“We heard at the weekend also, through the Irish press that in 1975 as a 35-year-old priest of Kilmore diocese Cardinal Seán Brady conducted canonical investigations, involving a 10-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl, into clerical child sex abuse allegations against Fr Brendan Smyth.
“He bound the children to secrecy, believed what they said and, acting on the information they supplied, recommended to his bishop that his priestly faculties be removed from Fr Smyth where diocesan work was concerned.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0316/1224266350973.html
Cardinal Brady did not decide or advise that Fr Smyth be maintained as a priest. He did not cover-up in the sense of saying “let’s keep things secret, not investigate in depth, pretend this priest didn’t do anything, move him elsewhere, give him therapy and hope for the best”. He only did cover-up in the sense of saying “let’s keep things secret, deal with this internally, investigate in depth and remove this priest so that he can do no more harm”. Cardinal Brady did his part, in the sense that, if the other members of the clergy involved had also done their part, the church would have policed itself properly and Fr Smyth would have been rendered harmless.
Could he have refused to let children sign an oath of secrecy? Could he have reported the case to the police? Yes, but he would have had to be a hero. He thought they were dealing with Fr Smyth properly, and preventing further abuse. Why would he have gone to the police? Because he didn’t trust the way the church dealt with such matters? Because of a little-known law requiring reports to police that no one applied? It’s easy now, that we know how dysfunctional the whole system is, to say that his behavior was criminal. I think that taking a stand against what was then the custom would have been heroic on his part. He missed his opportunity. Not taking a stand was regrettable but not criminal.
“He would have had to be a hero”?? I just heard of a letter from an Italian bishop to Ottaviani in the early 1960s. The bishop tells that a priest came to him and told of his sexual abuse of a boy. The bishop took the priest to the police straight away, for his own good, asked clemency for him, and notified the boy’s parents. This seems to have been normal procedure, not heroism.
Forcing two children to take oaths of secrecy about being raped, under pain of excommunication, is horrendously inhuman, but Cardinal B still seems not to see this.
Had Fr Smyth been sentenced in 1975 the people of Ireland and their children might have been spared the deluge of woes and scandals that have since befallen them.
David Quinn, an ultraconservative, says that if Cardinal B should resign so should the hundreds of other people in all walks of life whose failures to speak out favored the careers of pedophile rapists (e.g. Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, or teachers in schools who reported colleagues to the principal but not to the police).
The turbulence in the Church is just beginning and only a Council will end it. But a wider turbulence for many other areas of society may be starting as well; if not, clergy are being used as a convenient whipping-boy.
By the way, though I object to mandatory celibacy as a breach of human rights, and though I agree with Drewermann that the dominant image of priesthood has attracted people with pedophile dispositions, I do not think pedophilia is a good grounds for attacking celibacy. There are just as many if not more pedophiles in the state of matrimony, and we do not use this as an argument against matrimony. Let celibacy stand or fall by its own merits. Pedophilia is an independent problem.
Here is the sort of amateur psychologizing that I think is misleading: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/948/506132/text/
Gerelyn –
I have enormous respect for Fr. Doyle. I did not question his integrity, I questioned (only questioned) his *judgment* about all of the abused children thinking they would go to Hell if they “told”. True statements about *all* things of a kind are extremely rare, and since no one else to my knowledge has made that statement, I think it needed questioning.
It is a sad fact of human nature that we are inclined to remember things somewhat differently than we experienced them, especially when we are extremely involved with them, as Fr. Doyle has been with the children. He has shown extraordinary courage, integrity and love of the children. So far as I can see no one has cared more. He is a hero.
Quick points:
-Though some may like it, there is no military analogy for the Church – no support in the NT.
-If posters want to discuss perceptions about dealing with abuse, I think it would be helpful to listen to victims and their experiences as courts do in sentencing offenders. That seems to be a matter of basic justice.
-I se the latrst John Allen piece is how BXVI is under fire and tries somewhat to exculpate him. But the issue of hierarchical accountability is clear there and the canker of this oissue will not go away until it’s resoved, no matter how far up the line it goes.
The analogy with a bishop does not work because it was the bishop’s prerogative and responsibility to decide to deal with the offender internally or by turning him to the police. If Fr Brady had gone to the police in 1975, he would have done the church equivalent of civil disobedience. I maintain: had he done that, he would have been a hero.
Not sure about how to judge secrecy per se. Imagine somehow the church internal proceedings miraculously worked and, in secrecy, dealt with abusers and made sure they could not abuse any more children. Then I would still dislike the secrecy, but how bad would that secrecy, alone, be? We always knew the church was secretive, but there wouldn’t be this public outcry if secrecy had not led to repeated unpunished sexual abuse. I think Bob Nunz has a point there: perception by victims matters.
Not sure about how to judge secrecy per se.
It’s easy — just like all organizations that operate in secret.
Somehow, we treat this elaborate code of secrecy as if the claim of legitimacy is not absurd on its face. This is not the 16th century.
There is no mysterious charism or mystique at work here — merely human beings behaving as venally as all human beings are wont to, given the chance. When the truth comes out, we’re shocked, shocked to discover the Church is no different than, say, Enron.
[The] canker of this issue will not go away until it’s resoved, no matter how far up the line it goes…
Ah yes..I remember this one.
DEAN: I think, I think that, uh, there’s no doubt about the seriousness of the problem we’re, we’ve got. We have a cancer–within, close to the Presidency, that’s growing. It’s growing daily. It’s compounding, it grows geometrically now because it compounds itself.
.
What good bishops did when they realized the sexual abuse problem:
- set up guidelines to do things right dealing with problematic priests (moving forward)
- review all folders of existing priests and remove priests with severe past problems
What a good pope might do:
- set up guidelines to do things right dealing with problematic bishops (moving forward)
- review all folders of existing bishops and demand resignation of bishops with severe past problems
Given that there are 5000 bishops and only one old pope, that review might be done with the help of a committee. For me personally, depending how it’s done, that could go a ways towards restoring my trust.
The reason secrecy is generally bad is because it is generally easier to do evil in the dark and to keep it hidden.
Yes, Ann, secrecy is generally bad because of what it leads to, but would you say that it is intrinsically bad?
I saw Cardinal Brady’s homily for today and thought there was a certain dignity to it.
Claire –
No, I don’t think it’s intrinsically bad, just generally bad. (Of course, I’m using it as a metaphor for secrecy.) There are times when it is right and proper, for instance, with legitimate, private matters.
Of itself I don’t think it leads to evil, it just makes it easier to do and to hide.
Claire, heroism is a big word. Fr Brady did not face any threat to life or limb or even to his livelihood. Had he spoken out he might have jeopardized his career, that’s all. I think he did not even think there was any need to speak out. He was a product of an ultraconservative clerical milieu. Fr Kevin Hegarty, banished to a remote parish for editorializing on child abuse in a church review he was in charge of, was one of many who used their intelligence and imagation to cut through the clericalist miasma. Not heroism — just common sense.
“What good bishops did when they realized the sexual abuse problem:
- set up guidelines to do things right dealing with problematic priests (moving forward)
- review all folders of existing priests and remove priests with severe past problems”
I wonder if these steps were adequate. They thought they could move forward, but the complaints and scandals kept on coming. If schools and police/jail institutions were checked in the same way as to how they protected children, I am sure they would face the same problems as bishops.
“What a good pope might do:
- set up guidelines to do things right dealing with problematic bishops (moving forward)
- review all folders of existing bishops and demand resignation of bishops with severe past problems ”
The present pope is himself now regarded as a problematic bishop. Did he lack “heroism”? It is said that he joined the Hitlerjugend only so as not to jeopardize his school career. It was not strictly mandatory, according to the German Embassy in Dublin.
Fr O’Leary,
I am getting a positive impression of Cardinal Brady in human terms. More and more, I am starting to believe that the organization of the church is a structure of sin: the way it is set up traps ordinary (not heroic) good people in the clergy into doing evil.
I quite like your analogy with German youth joining the Hitlerjugend. But I am reserving my opinion of Pope Benedict until we learn more.
Cardinal Brady is a nice man, certainly. But the culture of secrecy and closed mouths in Ireland then was very intense. Coming back to Ireland from abroad one could feel one’s mouth being clamped shut. Only imaginative rebels of a Joycean stamp could cut across that.
Even if all bishops put on a dignified demonstration of repentance and reflection now, it will not solve the ever growing crisis. I think that it is a crisis of foundations. A Council is needed. As Alberto Melloni wrote in Corriere della Sera last week — in normal times we need hierarchy, in difficult times we need communion.
Ireland breathes a sigh of relief as the same kind of scandal pops up all over Europe and in Brazil. The Church breathes a sign of relief when Chancelor Merkel points out that child abuse is universal, not just a church problem (her remarks receive grateful front page coverage from Osservatore Romano).
The worst embarrassment is inflicted on the Pope by his defenders: http://rpc.blogrolling.com/redirect.php?r=6035662578763cdd1ae1bf0b535b8577&url=http%3A%2F%2Frorate-caeli.blogspot.com%2F
Another thread that died behind the curve.
More reports of abuse across Europe.
A bid NYT op ed by Peter Schneider from Germany on the dec.ine(furher) of Vatican influence.
Mary Ann Glendon’s daughter saying there’s anti-Catholicism going on with the publication of “salacious” dtails of abuse.
An excellent panel duscussion yesterday on NPR including David, Fr. Doyle and Joseph Bottum..
Again,IMO, a real line between protectors of the institution and those who value justice first and hence the voices of victims.