Times on Dolan’s handling of abuse cases
In the midst of a corruption scandal in New York City government in the 1980s, one of the reporters at the newspaper where I worked did a profile of a lobbyist who was closely tied to a corrupt politician. It was one of those articles you do when you haven’t been able to get the goods on someone, but still want to get on the record what you do know. For his part, the subject of the article wants to show he has nothing to hide. After the article was published, the lobbyist reacted to the outcome of this game, telling the reporter: “No runs, no hits, no errors.” That is, he was unscathed. Nothing had changed.
That’s my reaction to today’s New York Times article on Archbishop Timothy Dolan and his handling of clergy sexual abuse.
The Times, which had been criticized harshly (and, in my view, unjustly) by Dolan for its coverage of the sex abuse scandal, focused much of its story on a case in which Dolan, then a bishop in St. Louis, became convinced that a particular priest was innocent of an abuse claim being made against him. There is no evidence that Dolan mishandled the case, in which prosecutors also were unable to make a case.
Part of the article focuses on Dolan’s willingness to pay claims to victims even though Wisconsin law protected the church from lawsuits. Hard to fault Dolan there, too.
“No runs, no hits, no errors.” That struck me when reading the Dolan story. But in that framework….I thought the reporter managed to convey the hard places in which Dolan found himself over the years.
Since I was one of the critics of the recent Times‘ stories about Milwaukee, let me say that I thought this one, in contrast, managed to convey considerable nuance even while the reporter seemed to be walking a tightrope (rigorous editorial supervision?). These nuances included the varying time frames in which the sex abuse issue emerged and episcopal responses developed; the challenge of getting prosecutors to bring charges; and the resistance of some victims to a negotiated settlement.
Apropos of this story the Times editorial page has once again came out in favor of NY state legislation lifting the statute of limitations (we’ve been around that before on this blog). The editorial called on the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Jewish community to give up their opposition to such legislation. But, if I remember correctly when this was on the table last Fall, it was local school boards whose opposition sunk the bill. Is it alright in the Times’ eyes to force religious communities to support this legislation, but what about local school boards? Then taxpayers will be paying Jeffrey Anderson et al.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/opinion/16sun2.html
Bill Donohue sees it as a missed “hit job” on Dolan, no surprise:
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1855
I suspect many will see the piece that way. (Or maybe Ken Woodward will put Serge Kovaleski “in bed” with Dolan? One can never tell where the fevered imagination of Times’ critics will transport them in moments of passion.)
I wondered about the SOL editorial as well. I know the last session’s bill included public institutions like the schools and thus was shot down. But the Times’ edit only referred to “non-Catholic” organizations, and I don’t know if this is a new bill with more targeted language to exclude public entities?
I suspect that would be problematic — with me — but would give the bill a better chance of passage. I can’t see it passing if it includes public entities like schools. Then again, I don’t think Albany could pass gas at this point…
I too noted the editorial yesterday. SOL legislation is critical to many victim groups and their supporters( and hence the credibility of Bishops.) Recent stands against such legfislation in Connecticut and Wisconsin (where Dolan’s successor is under fire from those groups) is raising hackles beyond New York.
The greedy lawyer argument doesn’t fly with them.
I think it will continue as a major issue about how sex abuse is hnadled by the hierachy though today’s article underscores the complexity of that.
What really is difficult to get through is secrecy about all that’s happened and do we tend to approach the issue from a perspective that is limited not only by lack of information but the eccelesiology we bring, perhaps as baggage.
Maybe it’s because I’m tainted by academia and its ways, but I do sometimes wish that stories on the sex scandal (like the Dolan one today) made at least something of an effort to put them in the context of American child abuse in general, and not just in the context of Catholic child abuse in particular. Perhaps reporters don’t see this as part of their jobs. But isn’t it part of the job of the writers of editorials, like the one Peggy Steinfels refers to from the 14 May issue of the NYT on lifting the statute of limitations, and which seems to assume that only Catholics and Orthodox Jews are involved?
I know little about the law here, but my sense is that public bodies — like school boards, districts, etc. — have some kind of legal protection (quite apart from the statute of limitations) from the possibility of having to pay vast damage awards of the sort levied against the Catholic church (or for that matter, against private schools, secular, religious, and all the rest). Am I right? or mistaken? Probably the latter — but if the former, what is the reason for this special treatment? To protect the taxpayer, presumably. But isn’t that at least part of the context in which we should see these things?
The story is the functional equivalent of a “Nihil obstat” from the Times. Nothing now stands in the way of the naming of Archbishop Dolan as a Cardinal.
Pinch locutus est.
Re: Mr. Gibson. While I have no problem with the Times’ latest editorial on Dolan, it is rather condescending, not to mention obtuse, to refer to all criticisms of the Times’ recent coverage as “fevered,” the result of transports “in moments of passion.” Mr. Gibson’s colorful depiction is proof that the easiest way to refuse to take someone else seriously is to imagine him or her in a Danielle Steele novel.
Bill Donohue’s follow-up also takes the NYT’s SOL editorial to task, as one might imagine, and beneath the bluster he gets at the unfair selectivity of the editorial (IMHO) because, as he writes:
Shame is certainly in short supply in many places.
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1856
Mr. Lindley: I actually haven’t seen any NYT editorials lately on Abp Dolan. I was only referring to Ken Woodward’s piece in Commonweal, which I thought contained an interesting (though hardly novel) idea about the media as an alternate magisterium, but was otherwise tainted by an ugly and unfounded slur against the credibility of excellent reporters who it accused of being “in bed” with a plaintiff’s lawyer. So I think your beef about purple writing, being condescending and obtuse, and a refusal to take something seriously are best directed to Mr. Woodward. Good luck. I don’t think all criticism of the Times is unfair, not by a long shot. Same with the RCC.
BTW, his piece is here.
Instead of this piece, The Times might have run an article on Archbishop Dolan’s attempt in Milwaukee to pay money voluntarily to victims, and whether or not he would support an effort in New York State to compensate those who have been deeply wronged but are unable to sue because of the statute of limitations.
Living in Texas, it gets a little difficult to get excited about a NYT editorial. But, this interview is interesting when placed side by side with B16′s and Diarmund Martin’s latest comments. Dolan (Allen calls him the new American Pope?) does reveal some interesting points:
a) he was new to the sex abuse cases and crisis – prior to 2002, he tried to initially work with SNAP but found them to be unwilling to compromise. And yet, he states that he learned…..”He said he would not offer his opinion to a review board and would not sit on the panel, which he said must be “scrupulously independent.” He said he now knew that abusive priests could be deceptive, and that he should not “trust my gut. One thing I’ve learned is, well, they can speak their piece,” he said. “I cannot give this credibility. It’s not up to me.”
(agree – this is more nuanced but what is left unsaid is that SNAP had vastly more experience than Dolan but Dolan had to repeat mistakes personally before he learned his lesson which SNAP tried to tell him? this pattern continues over and over again across hundreds of bishops and now Rome and you wonder why organizations such as SNAP lose patience)
b) point two and this is related to Mr. Gibson’s and Ms. Steinfels references to SOL legislation – “Yet he and SNAP, the group representing most victims, soon tangled in an escalating series of battles. One sticking point would be money.” Actually, what is needed is a better legal approach which takes Dolan’s financial points; the need for any SOL change to be broad based and awards/damages to be limited e.g. religious organizations treated the same as school districts; while opening the SOL so that victims can come forward. It also protects the vast majority of catholic giving from being diverted to legal awards impacting the poor, charities, hospitals, schools, etc.
c) settlements and mediation – “Three months into the talks, the advocates walked out, saying the church had made non-negotiable demands; among them, that mediation would not include the victims of priests who belonged to religious orders like the Jesuits or Capuchins, and that victims would not have final say over how to divide settlement money.” Again, admire Dolan for trying to find a way….yet, in listening to Archbishop Martin and even B16′s comments about sin in the church & forces that resist, the stumbling block here is internal church politics – bishops vs. religious communities and the child victiims are the ones who suffer. It does not appear that Dolan learned that helping and empowering the victims was the healing goal; not his authority;
4) “Mr. Isely said that without the ability to sue, his group had no bargaining power, but relied on the church’s good faith. “And if that good faith was broken,” he added, “there was literally nothing we could do.” (do we really need to look at the church’s track record – this gets at the whole point of the NYT’s editorial and its ability to question the church and its pattern).
“The archbishop said he did not know why the advocates withdrew. But the archdiocese continued to negotiate with victims one by one. Under Archbishop Dolan, the independent mediation he set up reached resolution with more than 170 victims, paying about $10.2 million for settlements, therapy and other assistance.” This does not include the later LA archdiocesan settlements for two priests that had been sent there – add another $16 mil.
5) His recollections about SNAP – “The archbishop said he had come to regret his early overtures to the group. That’s when I knew I should have listened to those who told me that working with them would not be helpful.”
6) Naming names – Only two dozen of the nation’s 195 dioceses have done so, according to the group BishopAccountability.org. Yet, Dolan has resisted this in NY…why? He says about Wisconsin – ““In retrospect,” he said, “I’m glad I did.” Keep in mind that the list is incomplete – no religious order priests are named. This is another SNAP recommendation and one that National Board reps (Judge Anne) have encouraged the USCCB to do….does this step not get at the spirit of what Martin and B16 are getting at? Statement by the next USCCB president: ““It doesn’t seem appropriate just to do diocesan priests,” said Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas of Tucson, the vice president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Our goal is to demonstrate to the person harmed that the church understood their pain and the harm that had been done to them, and to get as many victims as possible to come forward.” (now, that reflects the words of Martin and B16) Dolan stated that he regretted the orders’ decision but did nothing else.
Guess – my feeling is that we continue to see a pattern where various bishops are learning but we always get new bishops and then we learn all over again. But victims are victims no matter what or who the current bishop is…..it would seem that this NYT piece shows a complex pattern but a pattern that is still under the control of the bishop – thus, the structure of the institution can either make or break healing.
It would seem that after 25 years, bishops would know what they are doing?
The state of the Archdiocese of New York in the sex-abuse scandal is elusive. There have been a few individual claims that have become public over the years, including the O’Connor years. But there has never been a major outbreak of claims. It is hard to know why. I remember years ago reading a story about O’Connor visiting a priest imprisoned for child sexual abuse, in which as I recall, the Archdiocese had turned the priest into civic officials (cite anyone?).
What exactly Dolan could or would know about the state of the question in New York? And though Weakland is tarred in the Times story (for an offense other than pedophilia), his autobiography reports that on his arrival there in 1977, Archbishops Cousins, his predecessor, seems to have dealt with cases by the lights of that day and that it took a long time for Weakland to “see” what might be at stake and to become aware of the problem.
The learning curve of “new” bishops before Dallas may have been exceedingly steep because their predecessors dealt with these cases in light of their limited understanding and in some cases putting nothing in writing. Post-Dallas, there are policies in place but a “new” bishop will always have to come to understand the state of his fiefdom. Can we say that like politics, all sexual abuse is local? Or is that counter prevailing theories?
From the NYT story:
“[Archbishop Dolan] expressed impatience with Mr. Isely’s group — Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, or SNAP — which, he said, could be impossible to please. ”
Although, in fairness to SNAP, one can scarcely credit the report that, after Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount, SNAP issued a press release slamming Him for failing to mention clergy sexual misconduct …
“Do not put your trust in me. You often speak eloquently about your own imperfection and sin. I’m in the same boat. I am imperfect, sinful, struggling, clumsy.”
These, to me, were the most revealing words by Dolan. Very powerful. In other words there are forces greater than I at work here so be careful. Like Rome and the UCCB. Secondly, it shows clearly that he was not willing to stand up for what is right but knew instinctively that obedience would be his choice over truth and justice. This is in a nutshell a description of Catholics following their conscience and the magisterium.
The other factor that jumps out, reltated to the first, is the conflict this Archbishop has with his emotions. He could not be himself and that is why he uttered those extraordinary words quoted above. The magisterium is in so many instances an obstructor of justice. One can see clearly how Dolan, even in New York is following the party line. It does not have to be that way.
Think of Romero, Tim Dolan. There is nothing like the joy of a good conscience.
Despite the absence of horrifying allegations related to Dolan, the story is a good read – I come away with an impression that I learned quite a bit from it. I’d think many bishops could learn from Abp Dolan’s handling of these cases.
It seems clear that Dolan’s favored approach with victims and their advocates is in the spirit of partnership/pastorship (‘let’s work together to help you’) rather than legal confrontation. Is that a fruitful approach? Is it repicable to other dioceses? I hope the answer to both questions is ‘Yes’.
My previous SNAP cheap shot aside, the NY Times article does paint SNAP in a somewhat more … unflattering? … light than it frequently does in mainstream news accounts. That Dolan is portrayed as at once critical of SNAP and yet straight up with the victims is not the story line than we’re grown accustomed to.
Bill Mazzella quoting Dolan: “Do not put your trust in me. You often speak eloquently about your own imperfection and sin. I’m in the same boat. I am imperfect, sinful, struggling, clumsy.”
“These, to me, were the most revealing words by Dolan. Very powerful. In other words there are forces greater than I at work here so be careful. Like Rome and the UCCB. Secondly, it shows clearly that he was not willing to stand up for what is right but knew instinctively that obedience would be his choice over truth and justice. This is in a nutshell a description of Catholics following their conscience and the magisterium. ”
I too thought these were revealing but not, for the first time Bill, for the same reason you suggest. The quote can be read another way: ““Do not put your trust in me. You often speak eloquently about your own imperfection and sin. I’m in the same boat. I am imperfect, sinful, struggling, clumsy.” Sounds like a pretty fallible guy to me. I think that’s what he was saying…not that he was clicking his red shoes!
It is interesting that the “tsunami “doesn’t seem to have hit New York the way it has hit other, smaller cities. If that is because of some specially good practices, even prior to the review boards, it would be good to know what they were. And if there were Bishops or teachers, or social workers to be thanked for their leadership, that would be good to know also. On the other hand, if, for some reason, information has just been more effectively controlled in New York, it would be helpful to know that, too. Perhaps the Times can look into such matters for us now that it is on the case?
Susan – given the “reign” of Egan, you can rest assured that the “tsunami” is coming. Pity poor Dolan when it finally hits.
Ms. Steinfels – not sure about the local, local but that is the argument that the US Vatican attorney, Lena, is using to dismiss the Kentucky case against the Vatican. It is almost comical – Rome appoints; find out what happens if you ordain a married man or a woman – Rome will act so fast….but sex abuse; well, that takes years.
Cozzens has an article today in NCR – he talks about the institutional hierarchy as the last remaining feudal kingdom. His points resonate with what my friends say about Dolan – don’t expect him to be anything but “orthodox”; he will not go beyond the limits of obedience. If the decision is between the image of the church and an abuse victim, Dolan will side with the church. That is what I was trying to say about Diarmuid Martin – he appears to be trying to get beyond that built in clericalism; cultural indebtedness; blind loyalty or at least NAME it.
Dolan was a breath of fresh air in Milwaukee (sorry, my reading of Weakland’s autobiography left me cold in terms of the final chapters and his description of addressing sex abuse….it was beyond his comprehension; he was compromosed by his own behaviors; etc. His natural abilities in terms of leadership; intuition; and brillance seemed to disappear when confronted by abuse. Yet, even Dolan reached his limits – he was not able to creatively move beyond certain limits because of the institution.
Dolan was also a breath of fresh air in STL – but, again, there was no one in STL who understood; much less, knew how to confront this issue. Unfortunately, STL revealed Dolan’s limits – he does not seem to have moved beyond what he learned in Milwaukee.
So, what happens when NY has its inevitable meltdown – will Dolan learn from Martin? It doesn’t appear so – he has made no move to be transparent; he is taking a wait and see attitude – geez; you would think that the worldwide pattern would have taught him something? The issue – secrecy; clericalism; lack of transparency. Has any bishop learned how to be proactive vs. reactive?
Do we continue to deal with this diocese by diocese; conference by conference; nation by nation – the pattern of dribble, dribble, dribble…..
Like Martin said – it is depressing and discouraging.
When I read the article I was astounded by the report that Archbishop Dolan immediately believed the priest from St. Louis when he claimed innocence. This is because I have long ago training as a psychiatric social worker and in that training I was alerted to the fact that as a clinician, I had a blind spot which could be exploited by clients unless I made it my business to become acquainted with that and with the issues that energized it. If a lowly social worker can be this serious about getting to the truth of matters, what is the obstacle to a less lowly bishop? I would have to comment that the formation (or lack thereof) for bishops is quite impoverished. Don’t they realize that because they hold sacred authority, folks will attempt to exploit and manipulate them? It isn’t uncharitable to view things from this perspective; it’s realism and there’s a lot of resources available for them to become steeped in such realism. Clinical pastoral education would be a good start. Get off “Go” boys and start to grow up and take your responsibilities a little more seriously.
Dolan comes across as a more human and many-sided character than I had imagined. SNAP are fixated in adversarial mode, which, despite initial good intentions, is ultimately self-defeating.
“Sounds like a pretty fallible guy to me. I think that’s what he was saying…not that he was clicking his red shoes!”
Peggy, sure he is fallible but that does not excuse not standing up to a magisterium that has done so poorly with the children. As the hymn goes: “Who will you send Lord.” Humility not followed by action is false. The Times article continues: “His message was to trust only in God. And his warning proved accurate: He would disappoint many victims.”
Good advice in that God is the only one who does not fail. Does not excuse us though. Dolan turned around a bit after that. Like saying I killed you because I am imperfect……
Mollie –
You mention bishops’ formation. My diocesan paper this week has an article about a new program for priests’ formation (which any priest can participate in) which teaches them how to handle money matters efficiently. It’s been so successful it’s going to be offered to the bishops next.
The irony is there don’t seem to be any programs to help bishops understand human nature. You’d think by now they’d have caught on that that is their greatest lack.
Is anyone else getting the idea that the Church needs to get pretty far out in front of this issue? Something more than just being good citizens?
My long-standing meme is that a good amount–probably almost all–of the clergy abuse has been sex addiction. That bishops are so easily taken in, that’s not a surprise. Few have any experience with AA or with the psychology of addiction. And if parents and parishioners can be groomed, certainly bishops, as being prime supporters of clergy, would be targets of sex addicts as well. That SNAP, in dealing with the blowback from addiction, wouldn’t be somewhat tainted by certain codependent behavior is also not surprising. That said, let’s also make sure that we don’t lose our focus on the issue, though. Child sex abuse and episcopal cover-up isn’t about mean embittered laity being impolite with bishops.
My thinking is that if Roman Catholics could find a way to get proactive about sex abuse, it would go a long way to healing the various rifts. Off the top of my head, some possibilities:
- The USCCB or a group of bishops sponsor a consortium of professionals to study sex abuse fallout, to speak and to teach at parishes, dioceses, and institutions, and to train others to do the hard work of accompanying victims into being survivors.
- The Church take the initiative on sex abuse for which it wasn’t partly responsible: offer support groups for parents and victims, especially victims it wasn’t responsible for. It can be a ministry, and a ministry of healing with respect to AA’s steps 9 (when making direct amends is inadvisable) and 12 (carrying the message of healing to those abused by others).
- Maybe the Church is the body that needs to begin addressing child abuse within families. Parishes already host AA and other 12-step meetings. Never seen a Parents Anonymous meeting at a Church institution.
Obviously, listening to angry parents and activists is difficult. We need pastors and bishops who are willing to do it, to take the high road. It should be obvious that dealing with a few insults or bitterness isn’t anywhere near the suffering exacted upon victims. While I realize that some people are just unpleasant, we should encourage our bishops to “offer it up,” and keep with it. It might take years, but eventually patience and tenacity might break through.
How much of a priority could this or should this be?
I’ll try this once again: not only did the Cardinal Egan regime keep everything tamped down in New York, which the current ABP. has to maintain (and he has maintained the basic governnance structure there), but there’s the Egan connection in Connecticut, where even now materials thought to reach the Vatican ( I know, per Lena, that Bishops really aren’t responsible to the Vatican – that is, when the vatican is being sought to be brought before the US Courts.) is being played out in the Courts there.
My view is that the protection of the institution, particulalry up the line, drives what happens from the hieirarchy still.
In that view, SNAP, for all or any warts, has to be an “enemy.”
And media reports will be viewed for perfection of wht is known clearly as fact when the name of the game is to maintain secrecy.
But enough about truth and justice….
.
Really don’t want anyone to be an “enemy” – like Mr. Flowerday, we need someone to step up and be creative. That means to change from a clerical mindset; orthodox institution comes first; to leading on this issue. Dolan is mediocre at best given his track record and his current unwillingness to question the clerical secrecy.
Here is an interesing link to a private letter sent by the Belleville,IL chancellor (lay man, married, w/children) to then Bishop of Belleville, Wilton Gregory. This is almost ten years ago – now, when questionned about making this public, this same man makes three simple statements (compare these to Dolan’s approach today):
Asked why he consented to the text’s release now after years of quietly sharing it around, the father of three observed that “it’s important on occasion to remind ourselves that the only affiliation that’s required to speak up in this church is baptism. From that moment forward we are full-fledged members with a God-given right and a God-driven obligation to help fix what’s wrong in our church and in the world.”
“If there’s any lesson we in the church should have learned by now, but still seem to struggle with,” Spotanski said, “it’s that disclosure is always better than discovery.” (Emphases original.)
He went on:
“I was asked recently what advice I’d give the bishops today, and these three things came to mind immediately:
•We have to stop making rules without consequences.
•We have to stop patting ourselves on the back for quickly enacting policies our people reasonably presumed had been in place for 2,000 years.
•We have to stop comparing our crisis-driven responses to those of secular institutions for which we were all taught the Church would be our secure, God-given sanctuary when those worldly institutions inevitably failed us.
I would add to that a renewed sense of urgency. I closed my 2002 memorandum
This is exactly what SNAP is doing and what we really need from our priests (where are they?). So, some of you can call SNAP the enemy; can criticize them for being single issue (they are not); can say that they are unwilling to compromise (guess you have never been a parent?).
What we need is a group of bishops who are willing to work with victims, those who defend and support victims, etc. and do not make this into a black and white issue; them and us issue.
Too many folks on this blog admit that without the media; without SNAP, without bishop.accountability.org the institution would have barely moved on this crisis. So, why take cheap shots at them? They are frustrated – so are all of us.
Just want to comment that the comments posted here since I last checked in yesterday have been exceptionally good.
I wonder if the primary reason that Dolan seems to come off so much better in this article than the Vatican did in Laurie Goodstein’s articles from several weeks back is simply because Dolan took the trouble to respond to the reporter’s questions?
Todd Flowerday – re: your suggestions to the bishops: I am SO with you! Thank you for articulating thoughts that had been sort of vaguely coalescing inside me for some time. You’ve hit the nail on the head regarding the church’s appropriate response. What is needed is a HOLY response to this crisis.
Todd and Bill,
Good luck. Dolan is part of a the last Feudal system in the West and his cohorts are not giving it up. Governot Keating, not stranger to hard nosed politics was a bit startled by the activity of the bishops when he was appointed to lead the committe on abuse. He said they were like the Mafia. http://ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/dont-expect-accountability-last-feudal-system-west
As for comments here about SNAP I really object to them. Most of us will not get off our rears and confront the bishops and we like arm chair quarterbacks condemn them. These people are out there at the risk of ridicule in seeking justice for the abused.
As for Dolan becoming Cardinal there should be a massive protest at his installation and before it. “We need but look at their ermine-trimmed robes and catch the ring of their courtly titles, “your excellency,” “your grace,” “your eminence.” As elite members of the last feudal system in the West and one of the last absolute monarchies in the world, we shouldn’t be surprised.” Or are we going to continue to ridicule SNAP while we continually to merely verbalize?
I don’t think anyone is ridiculing SNAP, but they are a one-issue group by definition. I pointed out here the story of a boy who was traumatized, not by the impropriety of a priest who photographed him in a swimming pool, but by the subsequent court proceedings. (The refusal of anyone here to read the story attentively or discuss it rationally was quite revealing.) SNAP is focused on getting priest abusers in court and actively solicits complaints against priests. If you know of actions they have taken to counter the dangers of a witch hunt or to protect priests and adolescents from damaging over-reaction such as the case quoted, please tell us about it.
This is from SNAP. http://www.snapnetwork.org/links_homepage/when_priest_accused.htm
14) Support the accused priest PRIVATELY.
Calls, visits, letters, gifts, and prayers – all of these are appropriate ways to express your love and concern for the accused priest. Public displays of support, however, are not. They only intimidate others into keeping silent. In fact, it is terribly hurtful to victims to see parishioners openly rallying behind an accused priest. You may want to publicly defend a priest, collect funds for the priest’s defense, and take similar steps. Please don’t. Express your appreciation of the priest in a direct, quiet ways. Even if the priest is innocent, somewhere in the parish is a young girl being molested by a relative or a boy being abused by his coach or youth leader. If these children see adults they love and respect publicly rallying around accused perpetrators, they will be less likely to report their own victimization to their parents, the police, or other authorities. They will be scared into remaining silent, and their horrific pain will continue.
Ann Oliver pointed out ” — a new program for priests’ formation (which any priest can participate in) which teaches them how to handle money matters efficiently.”
Once again this simply shows a failure/unwillingness to treat the laity as equals in the temporal side of running a parish. I’m sure that the average parish has more than enought layfolk who can (and regularly do) run circles around the average pastor when it comes to financial planning, money management, fund-raising, debt reduction, budgeting, capital improvements management, etc. If asked properly, and if given assurances that their participation will be more than just a “suggestion” to the pastor, then many of these people will be happy to step up and take on the challenge.
But clericalism demands that the priests have to do it, so lets give the pastor one more task for which he most likely is not qualified, capable nor interested in performing.
One of the most signal aspects of priestly immaturity is the lack of training in handling of finances, personal or communal, in the seminary. Priests are notoriously “green” about money and are ripped off by astute painters, architects etc. all the time. There should be an effort to make seminarists at least as aware of money matters as lay students.