RC Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas held a news event yesterday -- I don't say "news conference" because he didn't take questions from reporters, who might have pressed him on what the diocese knew of Mallinson's involvement with St. Sebastian's Angels before it became an issue this time, and why SSA member Fr. Cliff Garner (who is no longer in the priesthood) got disciplined by the diocese, but Fr. Mallinson seemingly did not. But I digress.
Anyway, the bishop held a news event to announce that the diocesan review board is going to investigate Fr. Mallinson's involvement with SSA, and report back to him. OK, but here's what I don't get:
+ The review board, I'm pretty sure, was founded to investigate allegations of sexual abuse made against priests. Nobody is alleging that Father Mallinson abused anybody. Nobody is even alleging that he had sex. Maybe this kind of thing does fall within the board's oversight, but is this really a matter for this committee?
+ Is this even a matter for a committee, period? It's not that hard to investigate this matter, and to find evidence that deeply undermines Fr. Mallinson's account. Roman Catholic Faithful is easy to find, eager to help, and it's got all the SSA stuff archived. Bishop Galante, the ex-auxiliary in Dallas who handled the SSA stuff locally when it became public, presumably kept his notes on Fr. Mallinson in a file (and if he didn't, that's very interesting.) This is not like cracking the Enigma code -- the relevant material could be gathered in the morning and reviewed in an afternoon, and Fr. Mallinson could be questioned by his well-informed bishop.
+ The diocesan spokeswoman was quoted in initial media reports repeating Mallinson's transparently false account that the site was only for support of gay priests seeking to live celibately, and he left in 2001 when it became pornographic. In today's story, the diocese has shifted a bit, with the bishop saying only that Mallinson continues to stick by his story. It seems to me that if a priest appeared to be lying to me, and making me part of his scheme to cover his tracks, I would want to get to the bottom of the matter straightaway, especially considering the terrible record of my predecessor with regard to covering up for priests in matters of what we might gingerly call inappropriate expressions of sexuality.
+ Father Mallinson deserves to be fairly treated as his situation is reviewed. I don't object to that at all. What I do question is whether referring this case to the review board is really about achieving that end, and really getting to the bottom of this situation -- or about bureaucratic crisis management. If the maid found a Playboy under my son's bed, and he told me it was really nothing, that he was only reading the articles, I don't think I'd have to convene a committee to get to the bottom of the matter. Then again, I'm not a bishop, so what do I know...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
You cannot get an accurate picture of this complicated situation if you only rely on your own side for information, I came to believe.
I don't disagree.
In terms of credibility, RCF was involved in the hysterical "Satan worship" allegations against Bernadin. Their allegations in Illinois have included reliance on ex-felons who were accused of perjury in other cases. They were accused of altering e-mails in initially exposing the St. Sebastian website and, while hacking the site, may have altered data.
They were accused of making up allegations in Scranton.
Unquestionably, they've uncovered a lot of damaging information and, as cyber-vigilantes go, they are very successful. Like a "Catch a Predator" segment on NBC's Dateline, what they uncover is riveting. But like "Catch a Predator," what they do is controversial and their motives are suspect. Most people groups like Voice of the Faithful and SNAP want to have nothing to do with them.
Isn't it possible, Daniel, that the concerns of the membership of SNAP and VOF about RCF have more to do with their differing beliefs about the role of homosexuality and poor priestly formation as root causes of the Situation, than about RCF's tactics? As you know, there are plenty of examples of predatory priests disputing the allegations made by victims. Lack of honesty tends to go hand-in-hand with being dirty and nasty.
I'd like to point out that priests who are found to be betraying their vows with women have been historically dealt with with at least as much severity- in fact, on anecdotal evidence I believe in general more harshly - than priests who have broken them with same sex improprieties.
This is not about the 'orientation' of the compromised priests. Or, if it is, it is only in the sense that there is an apparent conspiracy of priests and bishops with same sex orientations, protecting one another from severe consequences.
To insist that our pastors adhere to their vows is not Donatism. To the contrary. The Church holds all of us to a high standard. When we take a vow- be it baptismal, marriage, priestly or religious. We are all called to sexual integrity and fidelity. When a priest, or anyone else in a position of moral authority, has broken any of those vows, it is a serious matter. Our priests are exemplars, and they have to lead us by their witness. When they fail, especially if in serial or public manner, they must be held to account. Certain sins make one unfit for ministry.
I think participating in a grotesquely pornographic webring, where the members describe their sexual indiscretions and post shockingly obscene material is exactly one of those sorts of sins. Especially now that the matter is one of grave public scandal.
Our Church is collapsing when it comes to pastoral leadership concerning sexual matters. Collapsing along with our culture. Now 90% or more of us ignore the prohibition on contraception. Annulments are granted as a matter of course, since it seems we are all too immature to make a valid vow these days. Our salt loses it's savor.
Given this catastrophe, it is all the more crucial that our priests and bishops set the necessary example, and set an irreproachable example in these matters.
If the Faith means anything, our vows must be true. And public scandal demands public penitence. We are so tepid now, we shirk both our word and penance.
Lo, the sap runs dry. Behold, a faithless generation. Kyrie Eleison.
St. Michael's Church in McKinney is a large, thriving parish which is raising money for a new church building and which has had the leadership of a very well-educated and doctrinally orthodox pastor for many years.
Father Mallinson, as a man and as a priest, showed extremely poor judgment in his decision to be involved in SSA; this imprudence has been exacerbated by the transparent falsehoods he has told about his involvement. Not only is it impossible to claim that SSA was ever a wholesome support group, but Fr. Mallinson's email shows that he had had internet chat conversations elsewhere with gay men whom he might or might not decide to meet in person--and that he was identifying himself to these men as a Catholic priest.
Let me be clear: this would be every bit as troubling if Fr. Mallinson were a heterosexual priest engaging in anonymous chat with single women for the purpose of arranging "dates." The vow of celibacy requires a very different kind of behavior, in which a priest guards not only his actions but even the appearance of wrongdoing for the sake of his calling.
It's no different than the sort of conduct married men and women ought to hold themselves to. I would never meet privately with a married man because I would see this as being disrespectful to my husband and a breach of propriety; I know he feels the same way about any interactions he has with women. At the very least I would not want to be falsely accused of inappropriate behavior; you would think that a Catholic priest would have the same concern for his parish family as I have for my family.
So to put Father Mallinson in charge of a large parish as if his conduct did not show a very troubling lack of judgment and prudence of the sort that ought to be expected from any leader, let alone a priest, is not a good idea. There are plenty of other options, after all. Father Mallinson might make an excellent hospital chaplain or a good associate pastor or some such thing, if he wishes to remain in the priesthood. But there's something wrong with making him the pastor of a parish when there's been no evidence that he's learned from his past imprudence, and indeed, considering the quick untruths he has told to cover himself, some evidence to the contrary.
Not sure it matters if it is a large parish, a small parish, as assoc. pastor, or hospital chaplain... I think a desk job may be in order??? Counting stuff, excel spreadsheets, something along those lines... Well, on 2nd thought, better keep him off the pc...
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.