I have been mulling over the comments that Benedict has made about sexual abuse. His public acknowledgment of the evil of abuse, his acknowledgment that it was badly handled, and his meeting with victims were far more that John Paul II could bring himself to do. When one cardinal begged John Paul to make a public statement, he replied that he would like to, but “they wouldn’t let me.” The “they” in question are no doubt the Vatican bureaucrats who protected abusers for decades.
When Ratzinger became pope, he soon disciplined two prominent abusers, Maciel and Gino Burresi, both of whom had been protected by Vatican officials. As I have read the correspondence of bishops and chancery officials from the past 50 years, it has become clear that even when a bishop wanted to laicize an abusive priest, he knew that the Vatican would place almost insurmountable obstacles in his way. Perhaps this is why Benedict has not disciplined the bishops who enabled abusers: he knows that the American bishops were simply following the clear signals that they were getting from the Vatican.
Why the Vatican was giving such signals is another question. John Allen thinks that it was simply the Italian desire to maintain a bella figura, to look good in public. Richard Sipe and Fr. Tom Doyle think that the Church is as corrupt now as it was just before the Reformation. Many clerics, including those at the highest levels, are unchaste, and have sexual secrets that do not want exposed. I think that in a segment of the clergy the practice of pederasty has been accepted from ancient times. The Romans, they claim, learned it from the Etruscans and Greeks. The clergy continued the practice. When Justinian made pederasty a capital crime, he immediately executed two bishops as an example to the rest. In the Middle Ages St. Peter Damian described the corruption of the clergy in the Book of Gomorrah.
My concern is about the horse and the barn door. Obviously for years, the hierarchy has not even closed the door after the proverbial horse has escaped. Now they finally seem interested in what to do after abusive priests are identified. Other questions have not even been asked yet, such as what leads priest to become abusers and what leads abusers to become priests. Maybe some time spent on these issues would lead to better understanding of the problem. Understanding should also make it easier to decide on a path toward redemption of all concerned.
As a now former lay employee (never to return) I believed that the great ur-sin before us is rampant dishonesty among church managers. be they bishops, priests or lay people: in my years with various church bodies I would have a hard time remembering having a straightforward conversation with anyone. Having grown up in the US military, I was accustomed to a fairly clear communication style. In the church environment people just prevaricate and lie as a matter of course. This culure of deceit sets the stage for much else. Enough said!
Certainly it is difficult to get rid of a priest even when he is guilty of sexual abuse of minors. (Undeniable proofs, clear depositions, allowances for defense, etc., must be provided.) Levada’s brief remark during the Pope’s visit may inspire hope–that Canon Law may be revised to make it easier to remove abusive priests. I don’t think we need to suspect most priests (97% according to George Weigel’s recent high calculation for good priests). But even 3% is horrifying. The problem is that minors still remain at risk, especially in non-English-speaking countries. I have counted at least 23 priests who fled justice to come across to Mexico where I have been working for 30 years as a missionary. Many priests, after having been convicted of sexual abuse in the U.S., are practicing the priesthood unabashedly (as is typical of sociopathic abusers) in Mexico and in most other countries. This frightening fact again points to Rome’s responsibility to take matters much more seriously. An easy way to wake up is to consider your own child or young relative at risk of being sexually abused by a priest. The damage is such a unique way of permanently destroying the faith of a youngster that I personally would prefer for any nephew of mine to die, or even be murdered, before being sexually abused by a priest. If we would be appalled that 3% of our priests are serial killers, we should be even more aroused to put an end to sexual abuse of minors by priests. I cannot think of a worse crime, due to the moral and spiritual authority of the criminal over the victim–what Fr. Doyle calls “religious duress”.
What bothers me is that numerous priests, already identified as sexual abusers of minors, have escaped through the barn door into several countries. I have counted about 23 on the internet for Mexico alone. In our Diocese in Sonora, we have a priest who was convicted in 1989 in Sacramento of sexual abuse of an altar boy. He jumped bail and has been practicing the priesthood in our Diocese for the past 17 years. Everyone, including Rome, knows where he lives. It all came out on the front pages down there in Sonora. Why is this allowed to go on? What are the steps any of us may take? I am a missionary priest in Mexico, not a law-enforcement agent. I went to the local chief of police. He looked at me and appeared distracted by other more “important” matters. That was over a year ago. Bishops fear raising any dust because of what it usually sounds like to the majority of people who live in complete denial. (They support la bella figura syndrome). Do we need an international organization to help stamp out child sexual abuse worldwide? Or something like SNAP that would operate within the Church, especially inside the Vatican? The Church is simply too slow or too busy to confront these cases. In all the documents of Aparecida, not one mention was made of clergy sexual abuse in Latin America. Amazing.
I’m back again. The priest I mentioned in my comment of May 28, 2008, was officially defrocked by Rome two days later, but the bishops down here were not informed of this measure until July 11, 2008. Even though he was convicted of pedophilia in the U.S., and had been denounced by his U.S. diocese since 1989, he was allowed to continue in public ministry for 18 years south of the border. Undaunted by this example of foot-dragging, evidently we’ll need plenty of imaginative action to get rid of our other well-known pedophile priests, the ones who will never be confronted by law-enforcement agents. These priests are about 5% in our diocese, as in most dioceses in the world, at least before major house-cleaning is done. Send us all the prayers you can; it works better than anything else, but must produce fruit in effective action. Provide me with information on how to go about this grave task. (Perhaps some expert, of the talent of Mr. Podles, will feel inspired to write “A Handbook on Removing Pedophile Priests From Your Parish.”) Rarely if ever are accusations brought forth, because priests are the “untouchables” in the minds of most Latin Americans. SNAP in Mexico is totally blocked by this exaggerated clericalism. It’s the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes.
” I think that in a segment of the clergy the practice of pederasty has been accepted from ancient times. The Romans, they claim, learned it from the Etruscans and Greeks. The clergy continued the practice. ”
What about all the sexual abuse and pederasty that goes on in the Protestant Churches, which is higher than in the RCC as many claim? There were also LOTS of cover ups
What about secual abuse and pederasty in schools, boyscouts and other associations? They also covered it up more often than not.
The sexual abuses in the RCC are an horrible thing… but where is the rage and insignation in sexual abuses outside the RCC??!
You are so easy to attack the Church as priests where the only wrongdoers, but that i HIGHLY unfair.
I guess the sexual abuse victims in schools, step-families and boyscouts do not count as much.