Pope Benedict’s question time.
Michael Sean Winters continues to call down shame on the secular press for its coverage of the latest phase of the sexual-abuse crisis. Winters doesn’t see why anyone should be too troubled by how the CDF handled the case of Stephen Kiesle: “This, we are led to believe, is the smoking gun. Raztinger signed the letter in 1985. That is HIS signature. Case closed.”
In 1978 Kiesle was convicted of molesting two boys and was sentenced to three years’ probation. (Later he was convicted of molesting a girl.) As Winters points out, the priest sought to be released from celibacy and returned to the lay state. The bishop of Oakland and others who knew Kiesle sent letters to Rome–along with Kiesle’s file–in support of the request. (Read the documents here.) Winters writes:
The first document posted at the Times is a 1981 letter from a parish priest who worked with Kiesle. It says that Kiesle lacked “maturity and responsibility and spirituality” and says he only became a priest to please his over-bearing mother.
That’s not all it says. Read it for yourself: Fr. Dabovich writes that Kiesle worked mostly with teenagers and children in the parish CCD program. “They liked him and cooperated with him. Yet he acted as one of them: played ball with them; took them to outings and shows and spent time in their homes.” He continues: “I was somewhat concerned, but never received any unfavorable comments. Only some years after he left this parish did I learn of some improprieties that were going on while he was here.” An experienced Vatican official would know how to read between those lines.
Winters:
The second document, also from 1981 and also from a priest who worked with Kiesle, says that Kiesle’s family was opposed to his becoming a priest and claims that Kiesle was irresponsible and had trouble relating to adults. The letter refers to “the eventual difficulty that Father Kiesle had with the law because of his relationship to young children” but there are no details.
So what? The letter writer, Fr. George Crespin, then chancellor of the diocese, may have felt squeamish about detailing Kiesle’s crimes. He may have wanted to stick to the protocol of understatement when communicating with Rome. Note, too, that before euphemistically mentioning that Kiesle ran into trouble with the law because of his “relationship to young children,” Crespin also notes that Kiesle showed interest in “ministering” to no one else but young people. Does Winters expect us to believe that CDF officials couldn’t connect those dots?
What’s more, in the same letter Crespin says that “a sufficient description of the nature of the difficulties” was included in the Acta, which had already been sent to Rome. Later in the post Winters–still ignoring the unpublished Acta we know was sent to the CDF–repeats the claim that Ratzinger was never informed of the full extent of Kiesle’s crimes. That assumption is unsupported by the record.
Winters again:
The third document finally is explicit. In the “Votum Episcopi,” the document by which the bishop demonstrates his support for Father Kiesle’s request for laicization, Bishop John Cummins notes that Kiesle had been arrested for molesting six boys, had pleaded “nolo contendere” and received a three-year suspended sentence.
Finally? That letter is not dated, but the first two are: April 25 and May 8, 1981, respectively. Is there any reason to believe Cummins’s was sent much later than May 8? Shouldn’t his letter have been enough to add a sense of urgency to the case?
More Winters:
First, the request for defrocking was made by Father Kiesle, not by the bishop. Second, the priest had already been removed from active ministry, so the case did not seem urgent insofar as protecting children in the future was concerned (remember, Kiesle was only asking CDF to dispense him from his vows).
That is an interesting distinction. What is the best way to describe this situation, given that Bishop Cummins inserted himself so prominently into the process? Indeed, he all but begged Rome to grant the petition. Given Cummins’s role in the case–he and his staff wrote the CDF on several occasions, and the bishop himself flew to Rome to discuss Kiesle–it’s not entirely accurate to say that the laicization request was made “not by the bishop.”
Look at Winters’s second point in that paragraph: “The priest had already been removed from active ministry, so the case did not seem urgent insofar as protecting children in the future was concerned.” Is that so? In 1985, Kiesle secured a position as a volunteer youth minister at the Church of St. Joseph in Pinole–two years before he was laicized. As for the question of whether Kiesle was in “active” ministry, consider what Cummins wrote to Ratzinger in February 1982:
It is my conviction that there would be no scandal if this petition were granted and that as a matter of fact, given the nature of the case, there might be greater scandal to the community if Father Kiesle were allowed to return to the active ministry.
So, which was it? Was he already out of active ministry or was it up to the CDF to decide? Bishop Cummins’s letter suggests he believed the latter.
Finally, Winters surmises that if Kiesle’s case had been presented canonically as a “gravoria delicta” then Ratzinger would have moved swiftly to laicize the man. That is a pleasing thought, but, again, I’m not convinced the record supports it. Exhibit A is Fr. Murphy, who was accused of solicitation in confession–a grave canonical crime that carries the penalty of excommunication. Whatever can be said of that complicated case, one can’t say the CDF moved quickly to resolve it. Exhibit B is the case of an Arizona priest who was accused of solicitation in confession, and whose bishop also had to nag Rome to return him to the lay state (the priest was first suspended in 1990, and laicized in 2004).
So, why shouldn’t we raise questions about Rome’s role in the Kiesle case? Because the local bishop didn’t do enough, and besides Ratzinger didn’t receive a sufficiently detailed description of the priest’s crimes, and besides the process didn’t engage the proper canonical technicality? But we don’t have to choose to be troubled either by the local bishop or Ratzinger. We need not view the CDF’s shortcomings in indirect proportion to the local bishop’s, so that the CDF is absolved to the extent that the local bishop failed. The same pattern of argument emerged in the Murphy case. “What about Weakland’s responsibility?” Benedict’s defenders asked, as though that swept away the questions that remained about the pope’s role in the case. Yes, why didn’t Weakland restrict Murphy sooner? Why did he wait three years after learning of Murphy’s egregious sins before sending the case to Rome? Why didn’t Kiesle’s bishop restrict him sooner? But they appealed to Rome, so: why did the CDF wait three years after receiving all the information it requested from Cummins to reply? Why was a Vatican official unable to grasp what the Kiesle’s superiors meant when they gently referred to his abuse of minors, even going so far as mentioning his criminal conviction? Why wasn’t the conviction determinative?
And then there are the larger questions: Why was Ratzinger on this case? Benedict’s defenders have claimed that he shouldn’t be blamed for Rome’s failure to address abuse claims promptly because he wasn’t officially responsible for such cases until 2001. Obviously that isn’t the whole story. Why not? Why was Ratzinger not really engaged in the Murphy case, which involved the abuse of as many as 200 deaf boys, but he was directly responsible for the decision not to release Kiesle from the full obligations of the clerical state? When Kiesle was finally fully laicized at age forty, whose decision was that? Ratzinger’s?
Are secular journalists not asking those kinds of questions, as Michael Sean Winters suggests? Or are they simply not getting answers? At his other blog, hosted by NCR, Winters writes that in the case of Kiesle “not only was there no smoking gun, there was no smoke and no gun.” There may be no gun, but Winters is mistaken. There’s plenty of smoke. One man can dispel it. And he’s not talking.
For more on Winters’s post, read Mark Silk’s critique.
Tags: CDF, Michael Sean Winters, obfuscation, Pope Benedict XVI, sexual abuse scandal
Thank you for this detailed and thoughtful analysis.
A better defense of the Vatican is Fr Lombardi’s http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-28863
I think the Vatican is weathering the storm quite well. It is already abating.
I think we will see some very carefully poised initiatives, as promised by Bertone, in the coming weeks. Those who denounce Benedict’s “silence” are expecting the Papacy to adopt a news-cycle rhythm of response (as Queen Elizabeth had to do at the time of Diana, Princess of Wales’ funeral); but he wisely refrains, since any response would have to be revised and updated to meet the new criticisms that the next day’s new would generate. Instead he is waiting until the calm comes, and will no doubt make his move then.
He might even call a Council!
Grant,
Thank you.
I’m glad you take this on because Mark Silk can’t help himself but bring in Charlie Curran and whatever else, which just muddies things, and makes those of us of a more conservative disposition distrust him. It’s one thing to raise the question: what exactly did Ratzinger spend his time on in the early 80s? It’s another thing to say, see, he doesn’t care about children because he’s after Curran.
It seems to me that Catholics left, right and center could actually come to support the same changes that these abuse cases suggest is needed, if only people would lay off their own hobby horses (e.g., blame the gays, CDF silencing, celibacy). We all agree that clericalism, secrecy, and putting the institution first are the causes, right?
Why was Ratzinger on the Kiesle case? Because it was a request from a priest for dispensation from his vows. Such cases went to the CDF.
Should Ratzinger have acted to defrock the priest as a punishment for his crimes? At the time, that would have required a canonical trial, I believe.
Should Ratzinger have acceded to Kiesle’s request to be dispensed from his vows? How would that have helped? Eventually, Kiesle was dispensed from his vows, married, and then molested another youth (for which he was convicted and sentenced to jail time). So, dispensation was not the magic cure.
Should Kiesle’s bishop have kept him from ministry? Yes, and he had authority to do so as well. Ratzinger’s letter instructed the bishop to take “paternal care” of Kiesle. This doesn’t mean “treat him with kid gloves” — to think anything like that would be to misunderstand the obligations and responsibilities of fatherhood. It means — keep him under control. Ground him, if you will.
The bishop’s pleas to have Kiesle laicized look like pleas to have him taken off the diocese’s hands.
Should Ratzinger have reported Kiesle to the authorities? Well, that had already been tried, and the courts had decided Kiesle’s crimes were not sufficient to warrant incarceration.
This may seem poor judgment on the part of the courts. In hindsight I would agree. But don’t forget that at the time respectable scientists suggested that treatment rather than incarceration was the best way to handle pedophiles. (This also played a role in the Hullerman case in Germany, I am sure.)
As evidence of this I cite an article from the time: “Who Would Sexually Abuse a Child?” by Sally Squires, Washington Post, June 18, 1986, HE7. (I think that is p. 7 of the health section.) Anyone with access to Proquest Historical Newspapers can verify this.
The article discusses the “largest and most extensive review of child sex abuse cases ever undertaken,” by Gene Abel of Emory University and Judith Becker, director of the sexual behavior clinic at the New York Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. The article states four “myths,” the last of which is…
“Myth no. 4. No good treatment exists for sex offenders. They must be put in jail.”
Abel is quoted as saying:
“The treatments are already available. They’ve been tested. They’re rather inexpensive. We can treat 10 outpatients for every one incarcerated patient.”
The article goes on to state that “In a companion study, Abel and Becker found that behavior therapy, designed to change how sex offenders think and act, can be successful at treating men with these problems. ‘The success rate is running between 85 and 87%,’ Becker said.”
It perhaps sheds some light on what happened in the 80s to be reminded that this was the “scientific” view at the time.
Finally — was Ratzinger directly involved in the Murphy case? So what if he was — when the canonical trial for Murphy was stopped, Murphy was a dying man — dead within two days. How would have continuing the canonical trial helped?
I realize that this isn’t the main point of the post, but since the question ‘Where was Weakland’ has been broached, my recollection of the Murphy timeline is that by the time Weakland became Archbishop of Milwaukee, Murphy had been out of the archdiocese for several years (believe he was in the Dioceses of Superior). Weakland presumably would have been the provincial metropolitan for that diocese, but Murphy wouldn’t have been under his direct supervision. The right question would actually be, ‘Where were Weakland’s predecessors?’ But of course Weakland has alrways been a flashpoint of conservative revilement, so it’s not surprising that the question is asked of him.
Without wishing to exonerate the CDF in any way, it seems clear to me that most bishops have been on a learning curve over the last 20-25 years at to how to deal effectively with these cases – pastorally, administratively, legally, publicly. That doesn’t make it okay that these cases were apparently ignored or slow-walked by Rome in the ’80′s. But nor should we retroject a consensus that exists now but didn’t exist then, back into those times. Nobody – the bishops, the Catholic people, the Catholic press, the secular press – had the sense of these sins and crimes and how to deal with them that we have now.
I mention this because I believe that the Holy Father needs to demonstrate to the world that he has climbed the learning curve. If he is entitled to a benefit of the doubt at all, it isn’t a large one. What is past is past; the past can’t be altered. But he can apologize if he is culpable; and he can demonstrate determination and vigor to do what he can to set things right.
JC wrote, “We all agree that clericalism, secrecy, and putting the institution first are the causes, right?”
When I saw “putting the institution first,” I was reminded of these words in a homily given recently – on the 30th anniversary of the killing of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero – by Dean Brackley S.J., a theologian who teaches at the Jesuit university in San Salvador:
Brackley’s homily can be found at http://ncronline.org/news/global/romero-good-news-poor-good-news-all
Also: thanks to Grant for this fine post.
Since it’s a foregone conclusion that Benedict is guilty of a grievous fault, as conclusively proven by various smoking guns, it is past time to determine his punishment. The charges may presently appear to be somewhat contradictory but those are details that can be straightened out in due course. They should not distract us from the more important task of devising an appropriate remedy.
Would that it were possible to recruit skilled PR experts to downplay the pope’s Nazi past and to engage psychiatric experts to remake his thoroughly misanthropic tendencies so that he can become a people person, but these measures are unfortunately not feasible. Resignation, however desirable in the abstract, is simply unrealistic. Likewise,the temptation to join with Hitchens and Dawkins in a call for the pope’s arrest should be resisted because of the dangerous precedent for prominent politicians. As a more practical yet appropriately theatrical step I humbly suggest that Benedict be strongly encouraged to don ashes and a sackcloth for the remainder of his reign, the sackcloth to be worn externally as a prominent sign of public penance.
At the same time we must not neglect long overdue positive measures to address the scandal of Benedict. To encourage much needed idealism among our youth I propose immediate canonizations of a selfless trial attorney and a fearless investigative reporter, even bypassing the Devil’s Advocate as will no doubt be necessary in these cases. At the death of Hans Kung he too should be canonized. Statues of these worthies should be placed so that Benedict cannot avoid viewing them from his Vatican hideaway. Santi subito!
If these steps fail to elicit proper contrition the appropriate powers, thrones and principalities should immediagtely start the process of laicization and as a last resort threaten to schedule a primetime appearance of the pontiff on Oprah.
Forget the ashes. The time has come for an institutional confession and an institutional penance: the reform of the structure of governance from absolute, divine right monarchy to one that reflects the Church’s belief in the respect for reason and the goodness of God’s creation.
Excellent analysis and post. Personally, we can do an in-depth drill down on individual cases (e.g. Bishop Cummins personally went to Rome twice during this period – obviously, he raised the issue of the case. What happened?) Overall, these individual cases point to a systemic and structural issue.
So, can’t speak for Grant but this specific case underlines the attitude in the 1980′s and even the 1990′s and for some curia right up to now. It is this “attitude” that needs to be addressed. We can argue about the causes of pedophilia, what is the exact ages of victims, etc. until we are blue in the face. Those arguments miss the bigger picture – bishops & Rome have covered up, lied, etc. with no accountability.
Here is a link to an article about this crisis by Wall and Doyle: http://inewp.com/?p=2407
Here is a more personal look at this crisis by a current Oakland priest: http://www.richardsipe.com/Miscl/2010-04-07-priest_speaks.htm
My heart goes out to this priest ordained in 1979 and dedicating 30+ years of his life to pastoral work.
Patrick M, You do realize that what you posted was not a ggod defense of the cover-up?
This is off the topic but local churches are going through significant changes – here is a link to a power point presentation about change management in a parish, diocese, community, or (if you use your imagination) a world wide church: Shortcut to: http://www.embracing-change.com/leadership%20during%20change%20powerpoint%20presentation.ppt#791,1,Spiritual Leadership During Times of Change
Pay particular attention to slides 25 & 61.
Think about this when you hear references to Rome (centralization):
a) changing canon law so that the aspects of the Dallas Charter of 2001 will be incorporated worldwide. (concern – it only focuses on priests; it suspends certain rights to due process for any priest; it again completely ignores the role of bishops) – obviously, Rome needs to do this because bishops are unable to use good judgment, are afraid to act; etc.
b) the last two popes effectively limited or eliminated any type of authority for conferences of bishops so that a universal law or directive could be implemented and applied by a national conference holding each bishop in line?
c) as you reflect on these slides, it does leave significant questions open about curia – current/past behaviors; need to move in a new direction, retirements, replacements, etc. driven by one purpose – safety of children and holding bishops accountable.
Bill, any reference to “slide 61″ makes me less than eager to review the deck :-)
Arrest the Pope? Can you believe this?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-pope-hunters-pathological-campaign/story-e6frg6zo-1225853773394
Not any dumber than Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone’s assertion that homosexuality — not celibacy — is the “problem” that causes Catholic priests to molest children.
I have to disagree with this:
” Nobody – the bishops, the Catholic people, the Catholic press, the secular press – had the sense of these sins and crimes and how to deal with them that we have now.”
That’s not true. The bishops were specifically informed in detail of the sense of the crimes and how to deal with them.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/1985_06_09_Doyle_Manual/
They ignored the detailed joint report presented to them by a priest, the Director of St. Luke’s Institute and a church defense attorney. It’s hard to imagine three more individuals more sympathetic to the church’s position.
There can be no excuses that the crime was somehow misunderstood in the olden days when the Bishops were each provided the detailed information in the 1985 report.
Thank you, Grant, more than thank you, for a careful, penetrating analysis. Yours rings true because of its comprehensiveness. Amazing what a sanitized reading like MSW’s and all those politically ambitious prelates (Levada especially) can spin.
I am over-sated with apologias for every document and response of popes, cardinals, Vatican bishops and departments, who make a high art of indirection and “discreet language,” to quote the catechism.
I am reminded in some respects of the exoneration of those CA police officers who beat Rodney King. By the time lawyers finished analyzing every individual frame of the video over and over in slow motion, desensitizing viewers, the whole focus was lost. No analogy is perfect, but in the end all this stuff just happened and everyone was absolved.
You see, thousands upon thousands of children and young people were abused in body and soul, and it all appeared somehow, out of the ethers perhaps. A small misjudgment here, a reasonable mistake there, and voila, how unfortunate, yet how understandable.
I come back to Irish theologian Vincent Twomey:
“But the real cause – and it is frightening – is the lack of expected emotional response to reports about the abuse of children. Nowhere, as far as I can see, was there any expression of horror or outrage by those who were told. Horror and outrage are the natural passions of the good person which God gave us to ensure that we get up and do something in the face of injustice done to others.”
But even when bishops (Cummins and Weakland) were utterly frustrated with Vatican responses, the only ones seemingly awake, why the Vatican is still absolved! Any “system” is composed of individuals who make choices, and the fact that the entire system was devoted more to whatever technicalities occupied them, whatever verbal dexterity was at hand, still cries out for justice for survivors.
Europe’s hotlines are overwhelmed right now, as decades of pain surface. Sorry, we didn’t realize just does not cut it.
Benedict, nor Bertone, nor Sodano, nor anyone ever has to answer to any authority or to the people hurt, because after all Rome is above accountability, by virtue of God knows what. Question time is unthinkable in their lexicon. We don’t answer questions because we don’t have to, so go pound sand.
Thank God for the survivors and plaintiff lawyers who bring us the truth against bishops’ fierce efforts to keep the secrets. I only wish Benedict, Bertone, Sodano, et al could be cross examined under oath by Jeff Anderson, who was dragged through 22 years of legal hardball for access to those documents.
Pure fantasy, but I can dream. Let’s see if their excuses hold up any better than their counterparts who have been subject to similar questioning. That such an event is so beyond reality is a commentary of its own.
Joe McFaul, thanks to the link to that report from 1985. In hindsight, it certainly seems prescient, Much tragedy would have been avoided had these recommendations been adopted at the time.
Nevertheless, I continue to hold the view that the world as a whole, and the church as a whole, didn’t view the problem the same way then that it does now. Had everyone heeded this report, perhaps the outcome would be different. But it seems all to clear that it wasn’t heeded.
(Joe, I meant to say “thanks *for* the link – I’m trying to thank you, not the link!)
Many of the bishops have become unhinged from reality; they have shrunk the cognitive sphere within which they allow themselves to think. They only look within a circumscribed body of information such as papal commissions, church documents, encyclicals, allocutions, books and speeches. The requirements of their logic consist of finding support for current proclamations in previous documents. Look at the U.S. Bishops Pastoral Letter on Marriage. It repeats the Church position against artificial contraception laid out in Casti connubii and affirmed in Humanae Vitae. It’s over one hundred footnotes reference nothing outside Church documents; the letter itself reflects no attempt to understand the experiences of the faithful or to interrogate the nature of things as they currently exist in the world. Papal utterances have taken the place of reality; they have corrupted their very relationship to truth.
Power relationships avoid reality; it is the only way they can be maintained. There is no shared reference to reality, no requirement to explore it, no need to change as a result of it, and therefore no need for evidence and reason. There is just the use of language as a tool to either dominate or be dominated. As Josef Pieper says in his small wonderful book Abuse of Language — Abuse of Power, “Corruption of the relationship to reality, and corruption of communication–these evidently are the two possible forms in which the corruption of the word manifests itself.” When reality (e.g., reason, evidence) is removed from any interaction, it ceases to be authentic communication and becomes an exercise in control based on power. “Instead of genuine communication, there will exist something for which domination is too benign a term. On one side there will be a sham authority, unsupported by any intellectual superiority, and on the other a state of dependency.” Sound familiar?
Where were the heroes? In the twenty or thirty years prior to the Boston Globe’s stories, were there any U.S. bishops who, in the light of today’s standards, did the right thing? This isn’t a rhetorical question, but an honest inquiry of the dotCommonwealers. I want to be encouraged that some bishop, somewhere, had the Gospel on his mind and the strength of character to act.
Jerry
The ‘link’ that Joe and Jim are talking about is the Doyle Mouton report in 1985 to the assembled bishops about abuse. . [For getting to the next level] … Who did the Bishops/ USCCB send to meet with the authors of this prescient report on abuse.???? Who was designated to tell them ‘go pound sand’??
None other than Cardinal Levada CDF who was a lowly auxilliary in 1985.He gave them the old heave ho order in a small midwestern hotel I believe..
Carolyn, thank you for the enlightening insights of Vincent Twomey.
The observation that hits me between the eyes is this:
“But the real cause – and it is frightening – is the lack of expected emotional response to reports about the abuse of children. Nowhere, as far as I can see, was there any expression of horror or outrage by those who were told. Horror and outrage are the natural passions of the good person which God gave us to ensure that we get up and do something in the face of injustice done to others.”
One of the questions at the heart of this crisis is, for me, how we find ourselves at the point Twomey describes so accurately: the lack of EXPECTED emotional response to reports about the abuse of children, including entirely credible ones. In situations in which we could do something to stop it and didn’t.
All the shuffling around right now, all the dissimulation and diversion of attention from the real dark heart of this story, doesn’t disguise this central point — which is obvious to many people of good will outside the church itself. In fact, the more shuffling and dissimulation that goes on now, not only from church officials who have covered up the abuse, but from their defenders, the more convinced I become that the lack of expected emotional (and moral) response is widespread.
And that it’s a terrible indictment of who we have made of ourselves as a community of faith.
Gerald,
There are only two US bishops I know to do a damn thing unilaterally (is damn allowed?), but both were after the 2002 media exposure: Paul Bootkoski of Metuchen, NJ and Tom Gumbleton of Detroit.
Bootkoski called a survivor just before a jury verdict was expected to say he was praying for the abuser’s conviction. He settled lawsuits without resorting to an SOL defense, released perp names long before anyone else, and met with victims.
Gumbleton testified in OH’s legislature in favor of statute of limitations reform. And has he paid for that! Gumbleton also spoke at a SNAP annual conference. As the episcopacy’s liberal standard holder, he of course is a regular object of censure, if not derision.
Outside the US, Geoffrey Robinson of Australia of course. Pretty slim pickings.
The true hero, bishop or not, is Tom Doyle, the Dominican advocate for survivors who was fired from the Vatican embassy as its canon lawyer in about 1986, I think, for pushing too hard on the abuse issue. He retreated to the military to be out of the control of US bishops as far as possible, only to be sacked just before retirement and military pension by the current archbishop of Baltimore on a pretext.
Got the documents, so, please, no apologias for then military archbishop Edmond O’Brien about it not being a pretext.
Tom has been at it for 26 years or so now, the only priest testifying in court for survivors and giving plaintiff lawyers an understanding of how bishops operate. Attacked on a regular basis, even researched back to his high school papers, he continues on, giving them much-deserved and erudite criticism.
Other incredibly rare courageous priests have stepped forward in the interim, but all would acknowledge Tom’s primary role. (The silence of all but a handful of priests is deafening, deafening.)
Jerry,
Bishop Bernardine was out front with this as early as 1992. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/timeline/1992-02-24-Steinfels-Inquiry.htm
As expected, Law and Co proceded to ostracize him for his courage. With all the spin going on at this time we should keep in mind that Rome read all the reports available then and earlier.
Kudos to Grant for giving us a state of the art piece on this current brouhaha. He did some hard work here and showed the difference between facts and spin. Just a terrific portrayal of the facts.
Thank you Carolyn! I have been wanting to “adopt-a-bishop” and his diocese. That’s where my diocesan annual appeal contribution will go: to Bishop Paul Gregory Bootkoski of the diocese of Metuchen (http://www.diometuchen.org/)
Did Law and Co ostracize Bernardin? Who are Law and Co? I thought Law was often a maverick toward the US episcopal conference because of his conservative views. In 1993 he made a public policy for handling sex abuse cases, which looks as if he was following in Bernardin’s footsteps.
An Opportunity to restore a custom of the church.
“Voice of the Faithful, an association of highly committed Catholic men and women, seeks to promote participation of the laity in the recommendation processes for candidates to the Episcopacy at diocesan and archdiocesan levels, preliminary to the appointment of new bishops by the Pope.”
http://www.votf.org/Bishops/Consulting%20Laity%20on%20Episcopacy%20Candidates.pdf
Actually, Bill, Bernardin set up policies, procedures, etc. but was brutal in his legal hardball.
Jason Berry goes into very great detail in his 1992 book, Lead Us Not Into Temptation, about Bernardin’s record. It was awful, the way he and his counsel browbeat survivors, to the point where Jason allows himself an unusual comment in his 2,000 intro to the paperback version:
“And yet the money and legal power Bernardin had long put at the disposal of pedophile priests, and the tactics he allowed church lawyers to use in Chicago, makes my skin crawl as I think of it even now.” My skin crawled too on reading the particulars.
Jason’s book won the Catholic Press Association award in 1993.
Bernardin had many good qualities, but his unbelievable tactics with survivors were and are an outrage. I recall a Wall St. Journal front page article on Nov. 24, 1993 titled:
“Cross Purposes: The Catholic Church Struggles With Suits Over Sexual Abuse — While It Pledges Compassion, Its Lawyers Play Rough Defending Lapsed Priests — Suing Parents for Negligence”
Snip: “the church has adopted bruising, bare-knuckle tactics more common to corporate defenses in high-stakes personal-injury suits.”…..
“Private detectives hired by the Chicago law firm Sidley & Austin have sifted through the family’s trash, staked out their home and telephoned neighbors in search of incriminating information.”
Jason makes clear the guilt of the priest involved. I think the family just gave up in desperation after all the legal hardball.
Even Andrew Greeley weighed in on the case, but he was not sued for libel like the parents (though he had written a column about the priest).
Greeley: “Whatever the Church’s intentions, the legal effects are to intimidate parents – have them think they’ll be beaten into the ground if you dare to accuse a priest.” p. 360
No, Bernardin is not on my list. I read a survivor’s account of going before his Review Board that was quite an eye-opener.
Do you resolve, for the sake of the Lord’s name, to be welcoming and merciful to the poor, to strangers, and to all who are in need?
– Rite of Ordination of Bishops
On Law’s attacks on Bernardin, by Eugene Kennedy:
“He (Law)seemed determined to have his light shine brighter than that of Chicago’s Cardinal Bernardin, whose successes and popularity he recognized but whose influence he decided to dim. When, already near death from cancer, Bernardin proposed an initiative, called Common Ground, to encourage dialogue between groups of Catholics, Law broke the protocol by which Cardinals never criticized each other, and promptly denounced the program, saying that the orthodox teachings of the Church were all that was needed.
It surprised me that Bernard Law would unleash an attack that hurt Joseph Bernardin so needlessly. I also learned that, as soon as Law had heard of Bernardin’s diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, he nominated Francis George, the able but obscure bishop of Yakima, Washington, to become the archbishop of Portland. Making George an archbishop also made him eligible to be moved to Chicago after Bernardin’s death.”
Eugene Kennedy quoting Bernardin:
New York Times, January 18, 2005, p. D3
“If another pope came in, who is more flexible than John Paul II, they would support this right away.”
Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, October, 1996, referring to criticism by Cardinals Law and Hickey of his Common Ground initiative
But the criticism of the Common Ground initiative was about abortion, as far as I recall; isn’t this something different from the 1992 initiative Bill referred to? Now it turns out that Bernardin observed his 1992 initiative as badly as Law observed his 1993 initiative.
I notice that one strong point of Benedict’s letter to the Irish was his stress on feeling the pain of the victims. Since Vincent Twomey is close to Benedict, one might even suspect that Twomey advised him on this?
LOL, God bless you, Tom Doyle, in an interview on Australian radio:
“he (Doyle) accused the US bishops of running ‘a self-serving public relations campaign by which they continue to try to flip the whole mess around, make themselves look like victims and demonize anyone who has ever challenged their collective stupidity, cruelty and total lack of compassion.”
Copy Dolan, Levada, DiMarzio, et al, et al.
Telling it straight – no holding back.
Thanks for your careful analysis, Grant.
I continue to think the reporters covering the story are in general doing a good job. The AP brings a lot to it and has probably become more important to the developing story than The Times. It doesn’t have a history of antagonism with the Catholic Church, as The Times does, dating to the 19th century, and its writers are expected to avoid the sort of opinionated judgments that The Times tends toward. Its coverage of religion – and the Vatican – is respected. Plus, the AP has the resources to cover a story happening in many places at once:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hD4Pi3Q64Tu9HOyNHGGF7mIyWwRwD9F35E000
The latest example of a bishop unhinged from reality:
Greensburg bishop denies women’s order recruitment request
Citing a women religious order’s support for the recently passed health care bill, Bishop Lawrence E. Brandt of Greensburg, Pa., has prohibited it from advertising upcoming vocation recruitment events. …
http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/greensburg-bishop-denies-womens-order-recruitment-request
In the 19th century, bishops who wished to punish nuns disbanded communities and took their property; demoted/exiled elected superiors/founders; refused to assign chaplains, thereby denying the nuns access to the sacraments; etc., etc., etc.
The histories of women’s religious communities are full of accounts of abuse by ecclesiastical superiors. They can be found in any Catholic university library.
The faithful have clearly grown beyond the bishops and for the most part a have more authentic working memory of what the faith is all about. The question is, if we are the adults in the room, what do we do? I see these options. To haul a term back from the old days, consciousness raising (e.g., continuing the dialog here and elsewhere to get to a clearer understanding of the past, present and the way forward). Moral suasion, for those who have ears to hear. Papal disobedience, like the nuns are engaging in by not filling out the visitation questionnaires; this could also take the form of the people in the Greensburg diocese specifically funding the vocation recruitment events in the above post. Exercising the power inherent in the fact that we pay for just about everything. There are things we can do.
“The histories of women’s religious communities are full of accounts of abuse by ecclesiastical superiors. They can be found in any Catholic university library.”
An excellent source of information about the spectrum of women’s religious communities and how they were treated (and treated each other, in some cases) can be found in Now You Know Media’s “History of Women Religious in the United States” by Margaret Susan Thompson, Professor of History at Syracuse University.
Excellent points by Carolyn, Gerald, and others. Jim – realize that slide 61 might be daunting but that is part of the “attitude” in some parts of the church – what you get is the same old; same old. You might actually learn something if you stretch your horizons…part of the role definition of any bishop is to “LISTEN” and to insure that his people are “receiving” the gospel imperative.
Some other comments:
a) Carolyn and Gerald – nice history of who has positively responded to this crisis. Interesting but I see no names from prominent religious orders/communities (male and female). Doyle was basically left hanging by the Dominicans; Jesuits – not even Arupe responded to this crisis; Salesions trouble me – look at how many are in the curia and B16′s inner circle (they use any and every means possible to fight legally and otherwise any accusations, allegations, etc.)
b) some of you question the DSM IV Revised – we also have the new addition of the “one Line’ in canon law to report all abuse to proper civil authorities. Of course, the adult age is different by culture and country which makes the whole issue around ephebilia complex. IMO from formation experience to behavioral health experience, it is disturbing to see a priest in his late 20′s or 30′s having sex with a male/female who is barely legal. Will the church take a world position and lead on this issue? will canon law lay out (like the Dallas Charter) specific age limits that go beyond criminat statutues in various countries?
c) around ephebilia, my experience is that the formation process in the 1970, 1980, and even into the 1990′s stunted the emotional growth of male celibates. Once freed from seminary constraints, they basically returned to their adolescent emotional stage and acted out inappropriately (by searching for relationships, comfort, support – male teenage boys were convenient – sorry, this does not make the priest a homosexual – merely, confused about his sexual development).
It has also created issues in court cases – priests who have offended one or two times or with only one or two vicitms. Not excusing this but these guys were never taught that this type of behavior is criminally illegal.
d) Am still troubled by the past 30 years in which conferences of bishops have been stripped of accountability if not responsiblity. Centralization and Rome have the power; yet, Rome says that every bishop follows Peter and is responsible. The judicial reports from Canada and Ireland suggest something completely different – appears that Rome is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.
Jeanne, Right on .. we laity need to find an effective pushback, An ineffective way being suggested is a ‘no funding Sunday’; even an impossible 50% funding decline would amount to only 1% a year reduction . not a blip. The Germans opting out of tax funding of the Church is effective .someone said it amounts to $1100 each a year, It was a Catholic Worker who first burned his draft card at a rally durring the early VietNam war. a serendipitous and effective pushback. Something will surface for the laity.maybe on a commonweal blog??
Great to have Bill D. backj in full swing.
The bishop in Greenburg (not really the subject of this thread) is another 4example of hierarchical misubderstandin gof power/control usage that ties into the underlying problem of failures in oversight abuse – just follow the party line as perceived from top down and punish if you can any who don’t fall into line.
Gene Palumbo has hit the nail on the head. The reaction in Rome, from the Pope on down, has been first and foremost to “circle the wagons” and claim that the institution is being attacked. Concern for the victims has been minimal. There is a level of institutional self-absorption which is remarkable.
The Pope has been getting bad advice, from a purely secular, utilitarian standpoint, about how to handle this crisis. It is time for Peter to stand on the beach with the Lord once again, and to answer His question, “Peter, do you love Me?” A little bit of humility (e.g., “It happened on my watch and I’m responsible”) and a lot more forthrightness would go a long way toward defusing the crisis — particularly if followed up by true reform and a rethinking of the Church’s general stance.
Bill DeHaas’ last paragraph regarding authority and responsibility is interesting. Recently, a case was filed in Kentucky seeking to sue the Vatican itself over the pedophilia crisis. Among other things, the plaintiffs are alleging that the bishops are employees of the Vatican; hence the Vatican is ultimately responsible. Attorneys for the Vatican are, of course, disputing the point.
How this will all turn out will be interesting to see. However, there is quite a body of case law and regulation about who is an employee and who is not. Much of it is related to tax law, and the IRS has clear tests to be applied to decide the issue. One such test is whether the person in question has freedom of action to determine the methods to be employed in carrying out the work.
One exhibit bearing on this point is a Vatican document entitled Crimen Solicitationis (the crime of solicitation). Apparently this is an instruction to bishops regarding the procedures to be followed in such cases. It does not allow them much freedom of action “to determine the methods to be employed”. Apparently it tells them to keep everything secret. Whatever it says, it determines what bishops were expected to do.
In my non-legal, lay opinion, it seems quite likely that the defendants will lose this point, even if they eventually prevail on the larger issue. If that is the case — and perhaps even if it isn’t — the theology of Vatican II concerning bishops, their collegiality, etc. is likely to suddenly become much more popular. (Otherwise, Rome will be perpetually on the hook for legal judgments around the globe.) Perhaps it will even lead to a different method for selecting our bishops. Perhaps national bishops’ conferences will more resemble a national synod of bishops, with clear responsibility and authority. Time will tell.
Funny what money can do sometimes.
Can someone tell me something about common law? (We don’t have it in Louisiana.)
It is my understanding that precedent in that system is supreme, but the system is also is predicated on the assumption that each case is different so judgments can differ somewhat from case to case. So how do the justices determine which are the likenesses among similar cases that must obtain (i.e., determine the outcome) and which are the differences between cases that yield different outcomes?
It seems to me that the Church, being a unique organization cannot always be judged on the basis of, say, commercial law. It is not a business, and bishops are not paid by Rome, rather Rome gets its money from the bishops.
“Salesions trouble me – look at how many are in the curia and B16’s inner circle (they use any and every means possible to fight legally and otherwise any accusations, allegations, etc.)”
Salesians do not have a high reputation for intellectual prowess. The recent papacy’s cultivation of them, along with Opus and the Legionaries, has been ill-advised. Their two most intelligent defenders now are a Jesuit (Lombardi) and a lay intellectual (Vian), whereas Salesian Bertone has put his foot in it. I think the Vatican should bring back the Jesuits and promote intelligent laity as well, this would give them a much-needed modernizing facelift (while awaiting a more radical reform).
“Of course, the adult age is different by culture and country which makes the whole issue around ephebilia [recte: ephebophilia] complex… IMO from formation experience to behavioral health experience, it is disturbing to see a priest in his late 20’s or 30’s having sex with a male/female who is barely legal. Will the church take a world position and lead on this issue? will canon law lay out (like the Dallas Charter) specific age limits that go beyond criminal statutues in various countries?”
This is unnecessary puritanism. The Church has already set the age at 18 in the case of clerical offenders. If the Church started to campaign for 18 or even older as the ideal legal age of consent it would be laughed at, and rightly.
“Around ephebilia, my experience is that the formation process in the 1970, 1980, and even into the 1990’s stunted the emotional growth of male celibates. Once freed from seminary constraints, they basically returned to their adolescent emotional stage and acted out inappropriately (by searching for relationships, comfort, support – male teenage boys were convenient – sorry, this does not make the priest a homosexual – merely, confused about his sexual development).”
Can you really recall many incidents where heterosexual priests turned to male teenagers for sexual comfort? I find that this access argument is being stretched to implausible lengths.
“Rome is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.”
Absolutely, and there must be a lot of people in the Vatican wondering if the extreme centralization of recent decades — in stark contradiction to the Council — as well as the theological gutting of episcopal conferences (on the basis of the ideas expounded in Ratzinger’s book Theologische Prinzipienlehre, 1982) — was really such a good idea.
On Crimen Sollicitationis and the documents of Ratzinger in 2001, the Vatican stoutly denies that they were intended to block bishops from notifying the police of sex offenses.
“It happened on my watch, and I’m responsible” — would it be such a good idea for Benedict to say that? Surely you must allow him to define first of all the exact degree of his responsibility. He cannot sign a blank check for all accusations. Moreover, “it” seems to have happened much less during Benedict’s “watch” as Pope since 2005 and as CDF Prefect in charge of sex abuse cases since 2001.
One thing that annoys most of us here is that Benedict thinks that excluding gays from the priesthood would contribute to solving the problem. Should he apologize for that too? Hans Kung begins his piece in today’s Irish Times by accusing Benedict of master-minding a vast cover-up — which sounds pretty slapdash to me — and then he goes on to give the familiar laundry-list of Benedict’s offenses against Vatican II. Are all of these to be included in the apology as well?
There is an extremely broad array of conflicting interpretations and ideological wishes among Benedict’s critics. So he should confine any eventual apology to the indisputable failures of the system in regard to the welfare of children and teenagers. On the other issues he should be more open to debate.
Punchiest reactions to Bertone’s bigotry come from his compatriots: http://fiumidacquaviva.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/reazioni-alla-dichiarazione-del-segretario-di-stato-vaticano-bertone-su-pedofilia-e-omosessualita/
Mr. Cassidy – agree with your analysis; well-written and expressed. I do hope it forces some issues around bishops’ conferences.
Crimen Solicitationes – in an interview two weeks ago, Scicluna in Rome stated that this document went out in 1962 but only about 50% of all bishops received it. That is a remarkable statement – no effort to communicate worldwide; almost 50 years later, Rome tries to explain the document by stating that it only is internal and refers to canonical cases – it does not prevent a bishop from reporting to civil authorities?
Yet, now it is cited as a foundational document – by whom? the 50% who got the document – many per Irish investigations, etc. state that they did not read, understand the document; hid it away; etc. It was rarely if ever used in seminary training and what about the 50% who never saw it. The Scicluna comments are mind-numbing in their implications.
Fr. O’Leary – dealt with plenty of cases with older teenagers and men in their mid-20′s who acted out sexually and were ultimately confused about their orientation. Happens every day.
Not disagreeing with your “puritan” idea – but, will the church hold to a higher standard than civil society – actually, the new one line insert does not say the age of 18 – it says civil law requirements that can vary from 14 to 18. This one line addition is not clarification – it is open to all kinds of loopholes.
Re Crimen Sol.-
It never was a law. To be a law it has to be promulgated. Only 50% of the bishops received it, so it was not promulgated, so it wasn’t a law.
men in their mid-twenties? From my point of view they are hardly more than children themselves. Of course sexually confused teenagers play around with fellow-males or fellow-females without thereby being gay, and these 20-somethings are in protracted adolescence — certainly something that would be very likely to apply to newborn priests. But I imagine most 20 yo’s are not confused about their sexual orientation. When older men claim such confusion (as in the case of fathers of 6 who leave their wives in their 50s to start a gay life), I suppose they are bisexuals who tried to deny the predominance of homosexual desire in their make-up. I still have not found a single book on bisexuality — which suggests that it is a terra incognita (it’s not enough to add up our received ideas about hetero- and homo-sexuality to acquire a knowledge of this).
“Crimen” seems to be a bit of a legend or red herring. Latin documents emanating or half-emanating from the Vatican are usually taken with a grain of salt unless the Vatican makes a huge effort to get them noticed. Consider documents banning gay seminarians or urging the revival of Latin (the latter an Encyclical no less) back in the time of John XXIII — most were not even aware of their existence, very few read them, and no one took any notice of them.
An Italian theologian did his doctorate on the possibility of applying the same criteria to the dissolution of ordination as are applied to the dissolution of marriage. He is forbidden to publish it, which may mean the degree won’t be conferred. One can imagine what a can of worms that would open!
If someone is sexually confused in their mid 20s, their promise of celibacy at least could be considered invalid.
One priest who turned out to have developed the physical characteristics of sexuality only in his mid-20s had his ordination annulled.
An Italian priest who became a transsexual was declared to be no longer a priest. As a wit remarked — ‘now we know where the character indelibilis resides’.
“Arrest the Pope? Can you believe this?”
Hell, yes, I can! Dubya and His Handler Cheney know better than to get off of a plane in certain European countries — there are standing warrants for their detention.
It may come as a surprise, but popes are not considered to be anything sacrosanct by many people and in many areas of the world, either as heads of state or head of church.