One of the hallmarks or perhaps little "t" traditions of the Catholic Church was/is "not giving scandal." The Church did not want people to be scandalized by the bad actions of others, be they clergy or laity.
Today, this concern for keeping deeds of darkness secret in order not to give scandal to others is called "cover-up."
We live in the information age and the age of fake-news because information flows so freely and news is now, more or less, gossip, innuendo and what ifs.
As it concerns clergy scandals, yes, the criteria was to keep people quiet so as not to scandalize the faithful and damage their faith. Unfortunately, this lack of transparency led to serial abuse by some of the most criminal minds in the clergy.
What was your experience within your own family about giving public bad example or spreading news about scandalous behavior of family members and others and your own thoughts on not airing your dirty laundry in families as well as the Church?
5 comments:
This is a hard decision for many of us. The Church IS our family, and in some ways, more so than the people we live with at home. But what to do when they commit horrible sins? On one hand, it is not our job to dwell on the sins of others and it can even, in certain circumstances, be virtuous to protect another person's reputation by remaining silent about what that person has done. However, when it appears that there is no end in sight to the corruption and sin and the persons in question begin to count on our silence--that's quite another matter.
ENABLING is the act of actively covering up or looking the other way when someone does something wrong (or commits a serious sin of omission) so that the person in question can avoid the consequences of their wrongdoing. Unfortunately, the heirarchy of the Church has created a culture of enablement. The ONLY way that structure of sin can be demolished is to shine the light straight into it and expose it.
Unfortunately, we also live with a news media hungry for scandal and hateful towards the Church, which exacerbates the dilemma. However, regardless of how the media might distort or campaign against the Church, the enablers have to be exposed and the house needs to be cleaned. Of course, we probably would not need to air our dirty laundry if the people in charge had CLEANED it in the first place.
I realize I failed to answer your question. The culture in my family was keep your mouth shut and it's nobody else's business.
To some degree, the integrity of the family must be respected. On the other hand, if the faults and wrongdoing are bad and consistent enough, isn't it rather dysfunctional to continue to hide it?
One of the aspects of Church history that I have always been happiest with is the openness about scandal and bad actors. They are powerful reminders of our own struggle with sin and can be great examples when the person or group fought their own intentions for the sake of their better nature. It is a lie to portray us as perfect merely for our Faith.
The cover up of clergy misdeeds seems to have several motives, some merely misguided; others nefarious. Last night I was discussing the treatment of wounds in field conditions. Everyone agreed that best treatment starts with isolating the injury and opening it as much as possible for cleaning. That is especially true when it becomes infected or septic.
In 1975, my father, a retail business owner in San Diego, who was a fairly visible public figure because of his television commercials, decided to help the local Catholic high schools by sponsoring a "bowl game" at San Diego stadium (at that time the home of the Chargers, the Padres and the SDSU Aztecs) and getting big-name entertainment at half-time. We had a difficult time selling tickets and many Catholic parishes treated my dad with suspicion. We actually got more help from Jewish groups and Shriners than from any Catholic source. The nuns at an all-girls high school actually GAVE THE TICKETS AWAY! We ended up getting Bob Hope for the halftime show, but he made a secret agreement that we had to donate $25,000 to his favorite charity, the Eisenhower Hospital in Palm Springs. My dad agreed, hoping a sellout would mitigate the loss. We didn't sell out. There were so many people cheating us behind the scenes that you wouldn't believe it. We DID sell about 20,000 seats, but it was too little too late. After the game we had barely a few hundred dollars to give the schools. My dad kicked in $10,000 of his own to try to help. The schools were mad at my dad because he didn't deliver as much as he had hoped. The editor of our Catholic Newspaper, (ironically, called The Southern Cross) an ordained deacon, interviewed my dad. He then published the interview and turned it inside out, quoting my dad out of context and making him look like a criminal. It gave us horrible publicity. My life at the Catholic high school was a living hell for the next two years and my dad ended up declaring bankcruptcy a few years later, as he had neglected his business to make the endeavor work. The local news media also jumped on the story and essentially followed the template set by Southern Cross and just reinforced the bad publicity.
Scandals need to be exposed. But when they are, it needs to be done honestly. I know firsthand how the media can create scandals that don't even exist or neglect to do their job of exposing the real culprits.
Bee here:
I have always thought that it is better to admit a some scandalous thing outright that has happened in the family rather than deny it. However, that does not mean one has to publicize it or bring it up.
My mom told me as a child that things in the family are private, and we should keep them private, but not secret. So if someone steals something, and you know it, it is right to tell the appropriate authority, but not to spread the news far and wide.
I think it is a balance between making sure to be open and truthful about the things that go wrong, but also to not become a gossip and revel in the failures of another.
God bless.
Bee
Post a Comment