Pope Benedict XVI will meet today in Washington with the US bishops. I'm a supporter of this pope, and regret that he hasn't taken a more reformist attitude toward holding the bishops themselves accountable for the sex abuse scandal. Everybody else in the church, especially parish priests (the vast majority of whom were completely innocent of wrongdoing), has been put through the wringer, but the men who are more responsible than anyone other than the abusers themselves -- the episcopal class -- have gotten off scot free. They have not held themselves to account, and neither John Paul nor, alas, Benedict, has done so either.
As Phil Lawler writes in his important new book "The Faithful Departed," Cardinal Law was an egregious example of episcopal malfeasance in this regard. But he was by no means the only one. Excerpt from the first chapter:
While a small minority of American priests have been involved in sexual abuse, a clear majority of bishops were party to the cover-up. The priests who have been found guilty of sexual abuse have been removed from ministry, but bishops who betrayed their own sacred trust by countenancing sexual abuse remain in office. Whereas the misconduct by priests has been acknowledged and addressed, the administrative malfeasance of American bishops has still not been acknowledged-- at least not by the bishops themselves-- and not remedied. For all those reasons the third scandal, the scandal of episcopal misconduct, is today the most serious of all.When they gathered in Dallas in June of 2002, to devise a nationwide response to the sex-abuse scandal, the American bishops devoted their attention exclusively to the first of these three interrelated scandals. Efforts by a few isolated bishops to recognize the other important dimensions of the scandal-- the influence of homosexuality and the negligence of bishops-- were quickly rejected. Consequently the policies that the bishops established, promising prompt suspension of any priest credibly accused of molesting a child, did nothing to restore public trust in the hierarchy itself. Bishops who showed an icy insensitivity to the suffering of young victims, and lied repeatedly to conceal their own guilt, remain in power today. Even those bishops who were themselves caught up in compromising sexual activity have been allowed to resign quietly, preserved from public criticism by their colleagues-- or even allowed to remain in office despite clear evidence of personal wrongdoing.
In short the US bishops have responded to these crises by protecting each other. But why have they done so? Why has there been no move-- not even by a reforming minority-- to root out the corruption that has been so clearly exposed in the American hierarchy?
[snip]
The few prelates who have bothered to explain their conduct have said that they thought were acting for the good of the Church. Now at first glance, that explanation is simply incredible. How could "the good of the Church" possibly be served by the exploitation of children, by betrayal and lies? The Catholic Church sees herself as the mystical Body of Christ; how could it be helpful to the body to ignore a cancerous growth within?
[snip]
The bishops made a fool's bargain. They were prepared to sacrifice the essential elements of the Catholic faith: the moral teaching, the clerical discipline, even the loving care for the faithful. In return, they hoped to prop up the prestige of the institutional Church. But whatever prestige the Church enjoys is based on public respect for those essential elements of religious faith. When the disgraceful stories eventually hit the headlines, the bishops could no longer fall back on the conventional respect they had once taken for granted. They were willing to sacrifice their apostolic mission to preserve their prestige; in the end they were left with neither mission nor prestige.
I encourage Catholics and others interested in Phil's vital work to visit his new book blog.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I do think John has a point. The Catholic Church is more hierarchical. In some ways this has the potential to be a positive thing when it comes to sex abuse. I know of Baptist/Pentecostal ministers who committed incest with all their daughters, but if this becomes a problem there's nothing above them to do anything. Not to protect them, it's true, but also not to tell on them or defrock them. If absolutely necessary they can start over in a new town as a preacher without anyone knowing the wiser.
However it can also be a negative. During the reign of Henry VIII many anti-clerical types complained that the Church's tribunals for priestly sex abusers were too light. This later had some role in the Dissolution of the Monasteries, but I don't think it was entirely trumped up. A "fraternal brotherhood", whether it's priests or cops or teachers, can get too protective of its own.
Another is one of the reasons why Catholics get more media attention on anything. Catholicism is a much more visual religion than Protestantism. A Protestant Reverend can, and often does, look like any other guy. (Granted this is less true of Lutherans or Episcopalians) A Catholic priest is generally visually distinctive. Catholic Churches also have many things the camera can draw attention to. Granted all this is true of Orthodoxy too, but Orthodoxy is still too small for its sex-scandals (and sorry, but they have had them) to be as significant.
Lastly there's celibacy. The current media logic, if you wish to call it that, is that men need almost constant sex or they get "sick." To a limited degree some of the gay-rights movement is based on that idea. Hence priests must be narcissistic and perverse.
Granted all that said the other matter is that many of the American bishops really are losers and the seminaries were too lax. I understand why change is very difficult and can't be too fast without consequences. Still my faith is generally in the Roman Catholic Church with the Church in America just being some recent troubled group.
I followed Rod's link and read the entire first chapter of Lawler's book.
I have nothing good to say about Boston's Cardinals, and I fully agree with most of what Phil Lawler writes. But there is one thing he says that is both grossly misleading and utterly unfair, and it's a point that needs to be addressed and refuted.
Cardinal Medeiros did NOT urge Catholic parents to keep their children out of parochial schools! What he DID say was that Catholic parents who'd been sending their kids to public schools for years should not suddenly, conveniently "get religion" because those public schools were being inegrated.
Cardinal Medeiros was not discouraging religious parents from sending their children to local parochial schools in order to give them a solid grounding in the faith. He was merely trying to prevent Catholic schools from becoming a safe haven for racists. He did not want Boston's Catholic schools to become the equivalent of the lily white "Christian Academies" that bigoted parents in the South established once busing became widespread.
That was one of the rare times, in my opinion, when Medeiros acted honorably. People who'd never before seen a need to give their children a religious education should NOT be welcomed with open arms the moment they learn that their children will have black classmates.
Oops- that last post on school integration was mine.
Goodguyex: "As far as the bishop removal thing, bishops retire at 75 and I am sure many of not most who had any meaningful involvement in the issue are already gone.
If you want dramatic action by the Vatican you will be disappointed. As Americans we like to have lightening bolt action on some or any problem but the Church does not work like that."
I guess you don't live in Metropolitan Los Angeles. Mahony has wrecked the Church out here. He has placed archdiocesan ministries in jeopardy due in no small manner to the clerical sex-abuse crisis. His priests hate him (and, no, I'm not a priest). Many faithful Catholics out here hold him in contempt. If those aren't reasons for "lighting-bolt action," then, praytell, what are?
If "the Church does not work like that," perhaps it should. Perhaps it should mean what it says and not only stop protecting those who have misused authority in God's name, but throw them out of their offices. If the Church is more loyal to its institutional sense of itself than to Christ and His demands, then it commits idolatry and deserves to be judged.
Massive purging is unrealistic, but I could see removing Mahony.
However I believe how it works is you need some real evidence of personal wrongdoing or heresy. I get the sense there is such evidence, if so all to the good. Still Mahony is a Cardinal, which makes things more difficult. (I believe I called Milingo a Cardinal elsewhere, but he wasn't) I'm not finding any case of a Cardinal being removed, even during the Reformation. Has it ever been done?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.