This American Life on a Former Monk/Fixer
I heard this segment of This American Life on my way home today. It was a powerful story that, in my view, captures what is wrong (but at the same time almost inevitable) about how the hierarchy has responded to the (now global) abuse problem. Here’s the summary:
Patrick Wall was a special kind of monk. He was a fixer. The Catholic church sent him to problem parishes where priests had been removed because of scandal. His job was to come in, keep events from going public and smooth things over until a permanent replacement priest was found. But after four different churches in four years, after covering up for pedophiles and adulterers and liars and embezzlers he decided to make a change. Carl Marziali tells his story. (21 minutes)
You can stream the entire episode here. The Wall segment is the first segment of the show. As a lawyer, I was particularly intrigued when Wall said he thought his work with plaintiffs’ lawyers was in many ways more pastoral than the work he was asked to do as a “fixer.” The 20 minutes or so is well worth your time.
UPDATE: Grant Gallicho tells me that Patrick Wall — who now works for a plaintiffs’ firm — has quite a history of making questionable claims about the abuse issue. I’m not sure how much of that bleeds into this particular interview, which I found interesting precisely because of the way it illuminates the ambiguous role litigation in both of Wall’s incarnations (as a “fixer” and as a consultant for plaintiffs’ lawyers). On the one hand, it has helped bring to light lots of documents that we surely never would have seen about the extent of the problem and the flawed responses to it by the relevant authorities (both within and outside the Church). On the other hand, as Wall concedes, the threat of litigation pushed him into a corner in his role as “fixer,” causing him (along with other things, no doubt) to approach victims in a less than pastoral manner. But, as with everything, please take the story with the appropriate grains of salt.
It’s a pretty sad commentary on the institutional Church of Rome when a former monk/presbyter says he finds his work with a law firm more pastoral in nature than his stints as a “fixer” for his religious order.
Talk about taking Christ out into the world!
Boston’s Cardinal O’Malley is regarded as a fixer too. He must have more of an iron stomach than the monk in that radio program. Or maybe getting a red hat helps ease the pain – seriously, it’s easier than being a cog in the machine.
The fact that there are full-time fixers among our priests leads me to doubt the “anti-catholic bias” talking point about how other churches and religions have, proportionally, the same number of cases. I’m convinced that this can’t possibly be true. I’ve read about ministers and rabbis (and TV priests) who use and/or abuse their minor celebrity status to conduct affairs but those stories are nothing like the cases of serial molesters in the Catholic Church.
What I want is a comprehensive, independent, scientific analysis and explanation of why the conditions of the Catholic priesthood create and/or attract pedophiles and then the reforms needed to fix the problem. However, it’s sad to realize that the chance of this happening is approximately zero.
Eugen Drewermann made a very significant effort to give the reasons why the priesthood as currently defined is attractive to men whose sexuality is fixated in adolescence. His book Kleriker has not been translated into English and Drewermann was hounded out of the conservative German Church.
Maybe the present crisis will make us less dismissive of prophetic radicals like Drewermann. See:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RJTTU930p9cJ:id.erudit.org/iderudit/602393ar+%22eugen+drewermann%22+kleriker&cd=5&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=jp
The new guidelines that the Catholic Church has established to protect Children should be used to help rid the World of the global plague of child abuse some of which is exposed here:
http://www 2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf
I’m interested in the update here -i think it would be helpful if Grant would let us know more about what he knows about Wall and how he knows it.
Then there’s also a discussion about how does the Church deal with its problem clergy.
Not just sex xrime people – they’re a special group requiring special attention, but alcohol/drugcdependent problems. Or those who are bipolar or otherwise psychologically challenged? Or othr types of criminals,(embezzlers or even violent acting out folks?)
Are some of the above given some “treatment” and “dumped” back on the unsuspecting?
Does institutional protection ( read, scandal avoidance) rule the day til the press exposes it? And then “damge control”/”fixing” take over?
Nancy you mention that bromide that the Church has has a lot of experience to help the world rid itself of child abuse. It reminds me .Can Mexico ‘teach’ anyplace about drug cartels? The two systems in that they are breeding impunity are very similar.
Bob – agree with your request. I have had a number of ripostes with Grant – my experience is very similar to Wall’s. Would agree that moving over to the Jeff Anderson’s of this world adds a certain level of bias, opinion, etc. but has P. Wall make incorrect statement during a court trial; has he obfuscated or lied on the stand; has he used “mental reservation” as a tactic to bully victims?
There are some who hear that you are an “inactive” priest and automatically assume that you “hate” the church and are out to get the bishops. There are some who hear that you are active in VOTF or SNAP and you are automatically painted with the same paintbrush.
None of those extremes are accurate. Am sure that at times Wall’s passion for the victims and his experience as a “fixer” color his words, his statements, etc. But, has he distorted the truth? I would put him up against bishops such as Egan, Murphy, Morlino, Finn, Mahoney, Grahmann, etc. any time.
Refer to the blog above that Prof. Kaveny just posted.
Waiting for an answer!
Bob, sorry to keep you waiting.
I attended a press screening of the poorly done documentary Deliver Us from Evil, which I wrote about for RNS and the Tablet of London. On the way out I was handed a glossy, heavy-stock print-out of the following “Ten Common Myths” about the abuse scandal:
http://patrickjwall.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/10-common-myths-in-the-sexual-abuse-of-minors-and-vulnerable-adults-by-clerics/
I find the list simplistic and confused, when not plain false. Myth 9: “Roman Catholic journalists, like priests, are in a difficult spot. They are paid and owe obedience to the Hierarchy who are deathly afraid of negative press and scandal. I believe if a Roman Catholic journalist was to fully plumb the depths of the scandal, they would be warned and then relieved of duty. The Roman Catholic journalist who studies and searches below the surface is like the nail that sticks out: they are hammered down.” No, no, and no.
And on another Web page, Wall complains that “the Pope chose not to respond to the Bishop of Brooklyn announcing plenary indulgences are now again for sale,” linking to Paul Vitello’s Times story about the the return of the old practice. What? First, it was the pope’s idea; second, who’s selling them? And we’re supposed to believe Wall is an expert in matters Catholic? I wouldn’t want him advising my lawyer.
http://patrickjwall.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/the-hierarchy-of-the-roman-catholic-church-and-misdirection/
As for Wall’s This American Life interview, I wasn’t impressed. How odd that the breaking point for him was the realization that his “career” would be dictated by other people, superiors sending him in to do damage control, etc. He didn’t understand what he was getting into when he joined a religious order? You’re signing up to serve the people of God, not to nurture career ambitions.
““the Pope chose not to respond to the Bishop of Brooklyn announcing plenary indulgences are now again for sale” — I had to follow the link to see that for myself. Unbelievable. Does he really believe that “Oh hey Pauline year indulgences have been available for nine months now” story was some kind of expose? Did he read it?
Appreciate your details, Grant. As with any professional or expert, you take them with a grain of salt. sorry, but given the total situation and that it has been going on since 1985, your points seem “minor” especially in comparison to the documented evidence of bishops who have misled, been less than honest in the courts, spent millions on legal fees, etc.
Let’s at least keep some perspective here.
Finally, Wall’s comments about his “career change” – sorry, again, think you have taken his words literally and missed his meaning, his understanding, and the pain he was in. Your comments are “cheap” and insulting – folks at times make huge personal changes that come at a cost. Am sure that, if you had the desire, he could explain that to you in great detail – but it would be very personal. It is always easy to judge from afar. How do you know that what he was referring to was not the religious order’s directions/orders about their apostolic works – rather, it was the fact that he had to clean up and support decisions that had destroyed lives. You can say – well, that is all part of being ordained and becoming a member of a community but things happen. Life is not black and white – in a perfect world, we would all have the resiliency & flexibility to go with the flow. Give me a break – 50% of all marriages wind up in divorce……would you say the same thing about these folks?
You picked out one myth from a list – you criticize his comments about indulgences and you then generalize and characterize him based on these isolated events. Does that mean you would only choose a lawyer who was “perfect”?
Sorry, you are being disingenous here with your comments. You do not know this man; yet, you have picked out a couple details and made a sweeping judgment. Do you work for the Vatican – Sodano needs help.
First, thanks for anwering, Grant.
I’ll let you and Bill slug it out further if you choose.
I do think that there continues to be a problem of where we ate at in looking at the problem of how the Church gets sued and the actors involved in the process and what we think the impact of such suits have been.
Part of that issue is who we tend to beleive among the actors involved and how that shapes the rest of our approach.
For myself, those who work in justice sytems directly bring the best appreciation of what happens. I particularly comend Justice Burke, Professor Cafardi and Ms. McChesney.
Frank Keating was probably accurate in his assessment but over the top in the language of formulating his disgust.
Folks who’ve been on the inside who try to work with victims will then bring a strong if at times oversimplified view to the issues, but get little thanks and lots of abuse from the establishment and friends inside of it.
I guess I go back to the notion of God being on the side of the victim(Gene P. on Romero) and the now seemingly agreed on notion that the defensive spin trying to “ptotect” the Church/Vatican/Pope is counterproductive, to say we really need to coomend those who fight for victims, warts and all , even as they expose more of what happens on the “inside.”
Bill: I’ve had enough of your repeated attempts to smear those who disagree with you. There’s nothing disingenuous about my take on Wall’s usefulness as an analyst of the abuse crisis. Give it a rest or find another blog.