In an Op-Ed in today's Boston Globe, the current head of the National Review Board, the blue-ribbon, lay-led group that is supposed to keep the bishops following their own policies on child protection, says Catholics have nothing to worry about--all is fine, and the scandal is history.
The hook for Michael Merz's piece, "No Doubt about Church's Resolve," is the movie "Doubt," which premiers this week. (I've seen it, and will have more thoughts another time.) The film takes place in 1963 but effectively addresses questions of clerical sexual abuse of minors that only emerged in recent years. Church leaders are clearly concerned that the movie might prompt more critcism.
Voice of the Faithful, the lay reform group that grew up out of the scandal, is also making leaders available to talk about the movie and its implications.
But Merz's article, by dint of his position, is the most pro-active effort by the institutional leadership to "get ahead" of any criticism the movie may renew. Merz rightly points out the enormous efforts the church has made--thanks of course to the victims, their lawyers, the media, lay activists and others who forced the bishops to take steps they would not otherwise have taken--and the openness of the church relative to analagous organizations.
Yet it is puzzling that Merz does not cite any of the failures of recent years and months by some bishops, including top leaders of the conference, and in perhaps his most controversial statement, he rejects the suggestion that any bishops should resign:
Still, many Catholics and others expect more. Their anger, disappointment, and frustration are not surprising given the gravity of the crimes, and the admittedly sorry record of some bishops who moved priests from parish to parish even, tragically, in the face of evidence of abuse. Many Catholics wonder why more bishops haven't resigned as a sign of contrition and, indeed, penance. Priests, they say, have been removed. I, on the other hand, believe it is better for bishops to take responsibility for fixing the problem. This may not satisfy everyone.
This issue will continue to roil the folks in the pews, at least those who haven't left or care enough to stay and fight. But what strikes me is that Pope Benedict and the Vatican and top US church leaders have made it clear that they do not believe the bishops did anything wrong--except to follow bad advice from experts who led them down the garden path.
Given that lack of a sense of culpability, as well as ongoing violations of the bishops policies by bishops themselves, I'm not sure Merz's take is going to prove convincing. Certainly the lay board is playing a far different role than it did in past years.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Contra Judge Merz, I do not believe that we can regard the sexual abuse scandal of the Catholic Church as behind us with out some decades of stellar performance in tweo areas: 1) reduction in the munber of incidents relative to lay and clerical church staff; 2) demonstration by bishops and other mandated reporters of incidents that they understand the molestation and rape of children/vulnerable adults is a criminal offense. I underline decades here. The steps being put into place by dioceses and parishes are a healthy start. However, the corporate clericalist culture of the Church is still largely in place with many newly ordained enthusiastically restoring clericalism where it has been eroded. While the Catholic culure of sexuality has come out of the closet, so to speak, it still is rooted in shame and thus plays a role in preparing both perpetrators and victims for their roles in the disaster of sexual abuse.
Sexual abuse has played a significant role in the life of the Catholic Church for two millenia. Less than a decade's experience creating a safe environment and giving priority to the needs of victims (still a patchy thing) does not put the scandal behind us. The journey has just begun.
'Sexual abuse has played a significant role in the life of the Catholic Church for two millenia.'
What leads you to believe this, bearing in mind that 2 millenia=2000 years?
The scandal is twofold: the abuse by the priest and the cover-up by the bishops. It's not over by a long shot. The priests and the bishops fundamentally distrust the laity in this matter and only had their feet put to the fire by the lawsuits. To them the whole matter was instigated by "enemies of the Church," i. e., anyone who didn't agree with the bishops lock, stock and barrel. Fasten your seat belts, children, there's a bumpy ride ahead.
Sorry, Mr. Merz, but for me you have 0 credibility. The John Jay report was commissioned and paid for by the authority of the church, hence no credibility. The argument that settling lawsuits and paying claims damages the church's ability to feed the poor also belongs in the realm of la-la land.
You may want or need for people to believe what you say, but that's not going to happen.
I wish you well, and hope that one day you will open your eyes to the damage done and admit that you too conspired against children and enabled criminal activity.
Sex in of itself is taboo issue generaly in our time. Im talking about real sexual drive it's ultimate place in our collective as indeed an art of and part of communication. Is it not?
In the back rooms of the powerful, secretive dialouges take place that reflect the reality of perverse and shameful gatekeepers of the status quo holding the line against bringing warped practices of undue deviace to the light for examination.
Back sliding into "Doubt" as would seem to be an upshot of this film merely keeps things as they have been for the powerful the perverse, the mentaly ill.
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.