A turning point in the sexual abuse scandal in the USA's Church occurred this past week. A monsignor who was the "Vicar for Clergy" under his cardinal in Philadelphia was indited by a grand jury that was investigating the Archdiocese's handling of abusive priests for decades.
As the Philadelphia Daily News notes:
It's believed to be the first time a high-ranking Catholic official has been accused of being criminally accountable for covering up priest abuse. . . .As [the Cardinal's] secretary for clergy, he was the Archdiocese's personnel director and responsible for investigating reports of priest sexual abuse from 1992 until 2004.
District Attorney Seth Williams said at a press conference that the monsignor “supervised two of the abusers . . . knew they were dangerous, and chose to expose them to new victims.” The indictment marks the first time that an American chancery official has faced criminal charges for covering up evidence of clerical abuse.
My comments:
The biggest and very legitimate criticism directed toward the hierarchy of the Church is that the bishops of the Church have not acknowledged their role in the sex abuse scandal and that the "buck" stops with them, not their delegated "inferiors" meaning those assigned to work under them, such as the Directors of Personnel.
What this indictment indicates is what we already know about much of the post-Vatican II Church in terms of administration and so-called moral and disciplinary renewal:
1. Many in the Church, especially those advocating a new social order and flexibility toward errant sinners and criminals often side more with the abuser than with the victim. For example, in advocating for the end of the death penalty, more sympathy appears to be shown to the criminally guilty than to the victims by Church advocates against the death penalty. Can a "bleeding heart" liberal, progressive attitude toward those who commit heinous crimes and sins against people, young or old, account for bishops and their underlings who showed way too much compassion toward abusive priests and absolutely no compassion towards their victims?
2. The misreading of the Second Vatican Council's documents led to what is euphemistically called the "spirit" of Vatican II. In the 1960's this made possible the Church embrace of Protestant Pentecostalism, called the Charismatic movement in the Catholic Church. The spirituality of this movement tied into the call to radical conversion and many who were touched by the charismatic movement experienced great healing and overcame horrible addictions and terrible behavior, some of it criminal. Jesus Christ could heal all and restore them. This was the great hope. How much did this mentality creep into the way bishops mismanaged miscreant priests? The hope was that these priests could be sent to treatment, healed and put back into ministry. Saving and healing through the use of psychology and prayer seem to be the mandate, not the protection of victims through the removal of miscreant priests.
3. The "spirit" of Vatican II also ended that dastardly era when the Church excommunicated members; threw people out of the seminary and religious orders on any pretext whatsoever (there are stories told of seminarians being dismissed and disappearing under cover of night over the smallest infraction against seminary rules!) and where the Church issued anathema after anathema. The Post Vatican II Church is all about love for the sinner and that punishment either temporal or eternal is not Jesus' way. Jesus is portrayed as the biggest bleeding heart liberal of all time by the "spirit" of Vatican II. How much did this sappy, love fest that hated retribution and punishment affect post-Vatican II bishops? How many have heard a sermon on hell or have been to funerals that were canonizations because Jesus loves us too much to punish us?
4. I can testify that I've heard prominent priest-psychologists who have worked with priests who have abused children and teenagers that their problem is one similar to an addiction to alcohol or drugs. Once into treatment programs where they acknowledge their addiction and guilt they can be put into recovery like alcoholics. They need support groups like AA to keep them on the straight and narrow. We need society to embrace them as we now embrace recovering alcoholics. In fact today, isn't being a "recovering" alcoholic a badge of honor? Why not for a "recovering" pedophile? Doesn't Christian charity demand that? (Again the focus is on the abuser and his need to overcome his problem and be reintegrated into society, rather than on the victims or potential victims.)
5. John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter says that in some countries the Church wants to protect its independence from the state given the 2000 year history the Church has with states that want to control or eradicate the Church. Since the Church is considered in Church teaching to be a society with its own laws and government, does this then justify the Church considering itself above "civil law" and not reporting priests who commit crimes to the civil authorities? How much does this play into the minds of bishops of the period prior to the establishment of a national policy on sex abuse in the Church?
6. Finally, in dioceses and religious orders, priests are considered brothers to each other. We are part of a family. Families don't air their dirty laundry publicly. Families protect their members. Was there a blurring of responsibility to the larger Church and to children-victims or would-be victims and disciplining miscreant priests appropriately? Did the brotherhood trump the members of the larger Church and the protection of the brotherhood and its reputation? This is called "CLERICALISM." Clericalism is at the root of this horrible episode in Church history that will go down in history as the darkest stain on the priesthood and bishops who enabled this scandal in all of Church history.
What happened in Philadelphia I am sure has bishops and personnel directors shaking in their boots. Oddly enough and maybe I'm formed too by silly "spirit" of Vatican II sentimentality and bleeding heart theology, I feel bad for them. In a sense they are victims of an errant theology and ecclesiology as are many "spirit of Vatican II" Catholics.
8 comments:
Well, Fr, you pretty much have it pegged in our world where psychotherapy = redemption/sanctification..."for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should be conflict free..."
I recall viewing on EWTN the entire meeting in Dallas that the USCCB devoted wholly to the abuse crisis after it broke in 2002. In 3 days of discussion of crime and legal problems, of sickness and treatment, I heard not a single bishop mention any aspects of sin and repentance. I wondered how it was possible for an entire national episcopate to appear oblivious to any moral and religious aspects of the crisis. I still do. And whether this apparent inability of our bishops to look at a problem from a traditionally Catholic perspective explains not only the abuse crisis, but also the liturgical crisis, the catechetical crisis, the vocational crisis, the life issues crisis, . . .
BINGO! You win the jackpot. How could moral leaders be so oblivious to proper screening of seminary candidates taking anyone who applied and "hoping" for the best and then not "firing" someone who so egregiously broke their vows or promises to celibacy but were given a pass time and time again and pampered in very expensive treatment facilities.
The main questions that I wish we had an answers to is this:
Did bishops think that the molestation and sexual penetration of boys by priests was just a "sin" and that the goal was "forgiveness?" And then more importantly did they not think that children/teenagers, boys in particular but also girls were not affected by it or did they think these kids wanted this sexual "affection" and thus it was their culpability too?
It seems there was an attempt by Catholics in general to use the spirit of tolerance emphasised by Vatican II avoid accountability. Of course the special status of clergy has always been with us, and should remain. The abuse of that special status simply found fresh fuel with the types who would have abused it anyway.
Popular unrest, for want of a better term, resulted in a Reformation. The circumstances are now not too different in concerns with intolerable 'abuses. This time the rabble rousers are attempting to lead a reasonably informed populace. As a result, many of the dissidents simply look anti-Catholic.
Groups tend to protect their own and ignore transgressions of members, especially members with special status. This is how 'gangs' gain protection in ethnic groups. Christianity and Catholicism in particular has the gift of being able to go beyond introspection and actually evaluate actions against objective standards. (This is my personal thesis for the existence God and his divine guidance for our Church).
We need our own King Kanute to demonstrate fearlessly to the Church and the world that we are accountable to God in every respect, including the laws of His universe, and special status in His Church does not grant exception to those laws for any personal reason.
rcg
Actually Father, the "spirit (small 's') of Vatican II didn't entirely do away with people being expelled from seminaries.
In certain places, any sign of being attached to the office of the papacy or too much of a fondness for traditional forms of liturgy, amongst other things, was enough to get you shown the door. "Too rigid" and "unsuited to pastoral ministry" were the phrases used to describe this unfortunate condition.
Pretty much anyone else who could fog a mirror was given the green light.
We're still dealing with the consequences of this breakdown in seminary spiritual direction.
Q. "How long will this sad saga continue?"
A. As long as there's money to be made off it; and not one minute more.
Q: "How long will this sad saga continue?"
A: As long as the leaders of the Church fail to address the matter of human sexuality in a mature and honest way.
Dr. Ruth (Oh, Brother), To use pop psych speak...would you like to unpack that comment for us?
Post a Comment