MORE INSPIRATION: There's a wonderful commentary on the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius in this week's Tablet that is definitely worth reading. Also worth reading are Father Shawn O'Neal's homily and Sean Gallagher's reflections on church history, both of which can be found on Nota Bene.
The Blog View from the Core also commented on this question, noting that there is a provision in Canon Law that covers this particular situation:
If a priest has been removed from ministry, but not defrocked, the Ordinary is required to provide for his support. If a priest has been defrocked, the Ordinary may provide for his support if he has no other means.
Canon 1350 §1 In imposing penalties on a cleric, except in the case of dismissal from the clerical state, care must always be taken that he does not lack what is necessary for his worthy support.
§2 If a person is truly in need because he has been dismissed from the clerical state, the Ordinary is to provide in the best way possible.
There were also a large number of readers who found themselves, in many cases regretfully, supporting a “zero tolerance” policy:
I cannot recall any situation where I have agreed to a zero tolerance policy being adopted. It usually is nothing more then a knee jerk reaction to those who cannot use their God given thought processes to make distinctions. That being said, I see child molestation as being an evil so black that there can be no tolerance nor justification.
Here is another reader who wrote in a similar vein:
I agree with your frustration with a zero-tolerance standard for sexual abuse committed by priests. However, sadly, the Church has lost all credibility to deal with this problem. Those priests who sexually abuse children or adolescents after adoption of a zero-tolerance policy, regardless of their potential for rehabilitation, will pay a price not only for their own sins, but for the sins of the Church in protecting other abusers. For those few (or several) salvageable priests are "unfairly" laicized for abuses committed before the policy was adopted, that too will just have to be part of the Church's penance for tolerating abusers for so long. If the Church handled these cases of abuse with a stronger hand years ago we wouldn't be dealing with this now.
Some readers, however, thought any sympathy for the offenders was grossly misplaced:
You write regarding a one-time, offender: "Is it reasonable to remove the man from active ministry? Absolutely. Defrock him? Perhaps. But after a lifetime of service as a priest, it's a fair bet that his pension is the only thing he'll have to live on (plus a little Social Security) in his retirement. I'm a little uncomfortable just kicking him out the door and saying "fend for yourself."
Question: Since the victim has to live for the rest of his life with the consequences of such a priest's sin, regardless of his other accomplishments, service, etc., why the hell should the molester be given a walk for his "lifetime of service?" Use his pension to pay for the repairs on the damage he has done.
Finally, I received a letter from an attorney who has clearly given a great deal of thought to these matters and I believe her remarks are worth quoting at length. With regard to the proposed policy, she recommends the following:
1. Define what cannot be counterbalanced by competing considerations. This includes any form of felony, criminal sexual abuse. Why is this so? In brief, the Church -- in our law and order society -- cannot consider its members to be above the criminal law. It is also deeply hypocritical for an institution whose message includes profound respect for the weak and helpless among us, including efforts to criminalize -- or keep criminal -- activities (abortion, euthanasia) that are directed at killing the weak and helpless. Is it really any excuse that criminal sexual abuse is only aimed at wounding and not killing the weak and helpless? This is the way to oblivion.
2. Those who commit such conduct cannot be in charge of any pastoral setting. This is the point, even the main point -- to remove perpetrators from a setting in which they are able to engage in opportunistic behavior. Forgiveness operates in a different realm from trust. Ask any wife who has to deal with her husband's adultery. Can you forgive the drug addict? Surely you can. Should you put him in charge of dispensing and inventorying the narcotics? I don't think so -- for his good as well as for the good of patients and the institution as a whole.
3. For the less than criminal, a sliding scale is warranted, but it should be well-defined and well-advertised, insofar as possible. In the main, I agree with your concerns about so-called "three strikes" and "zero tolerance" approaches. However, it also bears remembering that we are not talking about large pools of uneducated potential criminals with only the most meager understanding of criminal law concepts. We are also not talking about criminal penalties. Serious education of all volunteers, teachers, camp counselors, as well as of priests, can be accomplished. I have set one of these programs up. It isn't easy, but it can be done.
4. Finally, try to remember that for anyone administering this system, it is deeply disorienting. Child sexual abuse is beyond the capacity of most people's imaginings, in ways that, (let's say) visiting a prostitute, is not. Ideally, you would include someone with background -- be it personal or professional -- that makes them capable of imagining the reality of child sexual abuse without having been personally scarred, even if you include other perspectives. I just went through training in representing children in custody cases, and an experienced judge participating in the course said, flatly, in the area of child sexual abuse, denial is the norm for nearly any adult whose life would be negatively affected if the perpetrator has to bear the consequences for his or her behavior. She once presided over a case in which a child bore four children by her biological father before the matter was finally referred to the criminal justice system. You say to yourself, "What does it take?" The answer is, "More than it ever should." In this respect, in dealing with child sexual abuse, the Church is beset by many of the same problems as society at large. It is not entirely apart. Having many different perspectives is necessary for this reason alone.
The National Catholic Register anticipates at least one of the issues that may be discussed at this week’s meeting with a cover story on priestly celibacy, as well as an interview with Father Thomas McGovern, an Opus Dei priest who is also the author of Priestly Celibacy Today. This week’s editorial suggests that the Bishops should enforce a 1961 Vatican directive to deny ordination to homosexual men: “Does that sound old-fashioned and harsh? If it had been followed, countless victims would have been saved the severe trial of abuse by a priest.”
The British Catholic weekly The Tablet has a perspective on this week’s meeting of the Bishops. Richard Major notes that the Bishops are in an almost impossible position. They are caught between the demands of Catholic laypeople for stern measures against abusive priests, and Vatican concerns that the rights of priests not be sacrificed to assuage the demands of the U.S. press. At the same time, they are also caught between dueling liberal and conservative factions within the U.S Church, each of whom has its own explanation as to “what went wrong” and what the solution is. Major concludes:
Perhaps the most likely outcome in Dallas is that the bishops, neither condemning homosexuality as conservatives would want, nor questioning compulsory celibacy, as liberals would like them to do, will concentrate on those church structures that have allowed molestation to flourish. They will solemnly apologise, condemn sexual abuse of minors as a terrible crime as well as a grievous sin, and enforce nationally the sort of explicit and transparent regime recommended by the USCCB as far back as the mid-Eighties: suspending clergy as soon as they are accused, and until they are cleared; dealing with plaintiffs gently, rather than playing “hardball” in court; and always disclosing concerns to a priest’s new parish or diocese. The bishops may go further, decreeing that in future all credible accusations must be passed at once to civil prosecutors, and establishing lay review boards to investigate each accusation (a system long employed in Chicago and other dioceses, not always successfully).
America (subscription to the print edition required for access) generally endorses of the draft Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People that has been proposed by the U.S. Bishops. This week’s issue also contains a very moving reflection by Msgr. Henry Byrne about the impact of the events of September 11th on one New York neighborhood:
There is a deep personal quality to our losses on mid-Manhattan’s East Side and throughout our city. Husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, lovers, sons and daughters, relationships and future dreams were destroyed in the imploding twin towers. A wedding I was to perform in November did not occur. The groom, a bond trader in the south tower, was gone. Seven of my high school alumni were also lost. Across the street from my former rectory, the 13th Precinct lost Bobby Fazio and Moira Smith, mother of Patricia, age 2; Emergency Squad One lost Brian McDonnell.
The cover story of this week’s National Catholic Reporter is on the growing popularity of parish nursing ministries. The International Parish Nurse Resource Center estimates there are about 7,000 parish nurses in the United States today. NCR also has a disturbing and challenging reflection by a priest (whose name was kept anonymous) who describes the circumstances surrounding a sexual relationship he had with a teenage boy when he was in his mid-20s.
An editorial in this week’s Commonweal takes on the criticisms that some mid-level Vatican officials have leveled at the sex abuse policies emerging from the U.S. Bishops. There is also a disturbing article by Rand Richards Cooper that recounts some encounters he had with the priest who was principal of his Catholic grade school. Those looking to read something that does not focus on the clerical sex abuse scandal should peruse James A. Tamayo’s fine article on the challenges of defending the rights of migrants and refugees in the wake of September 11th.
In the wake of all these discussions, perhaps we would all do well to read Father Ron Rolheiser’s column in this week’s Tidings. Father Ron is talking about the Eucharist, but his comments clearly have wider application:
We simply fight too much about the Eucharist. Everyone, it seems, has an important, non-negotiable, truth that he or she feels may not, at any cost, be compromised: Catholics and Protestants fight over the real presence (at least over its vocabulary); feminists and traditionalists fight over language; liturgists fight with the common folk over how a service should be properly done; artists fight with the pious over liturgical aesthetics; choir directors fight with pastors over the choice of songs; priests fight with each other over the issue of concelebration; bishops fight with church boards over how liturgical space should be constructed, and people at Eucharistic services glare at each other and throw private tantrums because a certain song mentions dancing or names us as wretched sinners. Too often what's at stake under all this is more pride than truth, more the need to be right than the need to worship.
