By Dr. Michael Liccione Do read the entire piece by clicking the link!In 2002, when the scandal found its epicenter in the Archdiocese of Boston, Americans became fully aware of the extent to which a small minority of Catholic priests had been sexually abusing minors and, for far too long, getting away with it. The American bishops and, as we have learned, the bishops of Ireland and many other countries, usually shielded their clerical buddies from civil prosecution and even, in many cases, minimal ecclesiastical discipline. Such failure to protect innocents has led since then to massive payouts for civil damages. Naturally, the bishops and the Vatican itself have been doing much since then to address the problem--even though many American bishops, such as Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, have failed to take as much personal responsibility as they should, and most have failed to acknowledge the rather clear implications of the fact that most victims are, or were, pubescent boys. But now we face a new wave of reports about Joseph Ratzinger's role in old cases. With whatever degree of objective justice, the scandal has now reached the Pope himself.
The complaint is not that he abused anyone himself during his long career, but that he was criminally negligent in failing to take due action, as an archbishop and then as the Curia's most powerful official, against many of the priestly perps who came to his attention. Some of the better-known enemies of the Church, such as Richard Dawkins, now propose to arrest the Pope for that and put him in the dock, presumably at the International Court of Justice. The interest of such a ludicrous proposal does not lie in its legal plausibility, which I am unqualified to judge and is probably a strictly academic question in any case. Its interest lies in the challenge it poses to explaining the irrationality behind it.
I believe myself qualified to discuss that not only as a lifelong Catholic who has spent much of his professional life defending the Catholic faith and serving the Church, but also as a victim of molestation myself, in my early teens, at the hands of a priest-teacher of mine. My abuser died years ago; I have not seen fit to sue the Church; indeed my experience was one of the factors that led me to reject progressive Catholicism and ascribe to what is generally understood to be "orthodox" Catholicism. I understand, of course, why many victims have rejected the Church, even religious belief generally, and have lived very troubled lives. How could anybody not understand that? But the generalized furor, among people who are neither victims nor loved ones of victims, strikes me as positively irrational. My way of explaining why I say that can only issue in a statement of faith. But I believe that's just what's called for, if only at the end not the beginning.
What's irrational about the furor? Well, for one thing, the sexual abuse of minors, both "pedophilia" and what is gently called "ephebophilia," is much more common in, say, public schools than in Catholic institutions or, indeed, in most churches. That of course does not excuse even a single rape of a child by anyone in the Church; such acts are serious crimes deserving proportionate punishment, which the bishops have only too slowly recognized. But notice that nobody is calling for the arrest of public-school officials who, in many cases, have done too little to address just the same problem among adults under their authority. One might reply, of course, that representatives of the Church should be held to a higher standard. And in one sense, that is true: given what they profess, we do have a right to expect better behavior from such representatives than from most other people. But it doesn't follow that civil law should punish them all the more severely on that account. People who believe it should all the same are engaged simply in a form of religious discrimination. For such people, "religion" in general, or perhaps this particular form of religion, merits special opprobrium simply because some of its representatives are greater-than-average hypocrites. That may well be true, but such a notion has hitherto had no place in civil or canon law. It is the product of a rage that cannot be explained simply by the nature of the crimes in question, which do not provoke the same degree of outrage when others commit them, and which are matched in hypocrisy by many other sorts of sin committed every day by others.
The rage stems, in my long experience, from a free-floating bitterness about prior issues people have with the Church—issues that are mostly about sex and power among adults, such as celibacy, women's ordination, and the authority the Church claims for her teachings about sexuality generally. Maureen Dowd is one prominent purveyor of that attitude, but her distinctive style of thought—if it can be called thought—is not worth a digression here.
6 comments:
No inauthication or wrong doing will be found in the decisiona and acts of the Holy Father. We need to concetrate on marginal, fearful Catholics. The Holy Father is protected---and i don't care what anyoe says---He is not the Holy Father (Papa) by accident. Pray for the marginalized Catholics. They need to be fed by both the Word AND their brothers and sisters. I am sad that this harm has been focused on
Pope Benedict XVI. Subterfuge is so easy; getting out he Truth is not so easy. Pray.
The Holy Mother Church is infallable re moral preservation and doctrinal tenet of Faith. ps. i do not know why 'dollar dog' appears, as it do not understand technology. i am maureen wheat maureenwheat@gmail.com I am confident in posting here.
The gates of hell will not prevail against the church, but they are having aserious try and people will be hurt in the process. Prayer for all whbo are being hurt of misled by this scandal is necessary.
Thanks for posting this Jeff, it's most useful.
I think there is only one case in which the Pope has any questions to answer: the Hullermann case. Although his handling of that case was - with hindsight - clearly, tragically wrong, it is defensible in the light of the culture. There were evidently many adults who knew about Hullermann's abuse - including a therapist - none of these individuals saw the need to hand Hullermann over to the police (and if they had done, would it have made any real difference at that time?). Indeed, it is only because of the consequences of mistakes like that that we know abusers need more than a dose of therapy. Why should Archbishop Ratzinger be held more responsible for this mistake than the therapist in this case, or in many other cases, than people at the Samaritans, in schools, youth-clubs, Scouts etc., who, in good faith, failed to hand abusers over to the police (of course there are others who failed in bad faith).
What this article adds to that (rather obvious) defence I think, is that Archbishop Ratzinger's response was probably driven by forgiveness. That may explain some of the rage too: in an age in which sin has been abolished, it is paradoxically necessary to channel all the revulsion into one, unforgivable sin. In an age of mass abortion, paedophilia seems to have been picked almost at random for that particular accolade.
Albert - "Why should Archbishop Ratzinger be held more responsible for this mistake than the therapist in this case, or in many other cases, than people at the Samaritans, in schools, youth-clubs, Scouts etc., who, in good faith, failed to hand abusers over to the police (of course there are others who failed in bad faith)?" - Ans: Because he is in a greater position of authority, and with greater power comes greater responsibility.
I think a distinction needs to be made between forgiveness and oversight. What the Church has done is to overlook and cover up the sins of its priests. That has nothing in common with forgiveness - and it is certainly a long way from Jesus' "Go away, and sin no more". Overlooking and covering up sins may look the same on the surface (both look reconcilatory) but in fact have nothing in common. Forgiveness entails recognising the sin, and doing something about it (including, where appropriate, bringing the perpetrator to justice).
Anon. I agree with what you say, but my point was slightly different from the one you are answering.
Remember, Ratzinger was not Hullermann's bishop. Hullermann had offended in Essen (if I recall) and the matter had obviously been investigated there. The result of this investigation was the decision to send Hullermann to Munich for treatment. All Ratzinger was being asked (again, as I understand it) was whether to offer him accomodation or not. In agreeing, Ratzinger was simply allowing the priest to be removed from his parish and put into the treatment that was thought (by those who had investigated the matter) to be necessary.
The question that then arises was whether Ratzinger should have simply called the police. There are two reasons why the police might need to be called: (i)justice for the victims and (ii)to protect children.
The difficulty with (i) is that the parents were evidently not wanting to go down this path (the Murphy report found that parents sometimes asked the Church not to report the matter to the police).
This leaves (ii) and whether that would come into play would depend on (a) whether Hullermann was judged to be a continued threat and (b) whether the police would have acted appropriately.
My point is this: Archbishops may have authority, but they do not have authority to judge (a). The specialists involved evidently were not themselves judging Hullermann to be such a threat that they thought they should call the police.
It is that question of judgement of whether Hullermann was a continued threat that counts here. I see no reason why Ratzinger should be judged by the clarity of a later standard, that is, judged by the standard of information which he (at that time) did not have.
What if it was a court that had released Hullermann because the specialists consulted had not made it clear that Hullermann remained a danger. Would you say that the judge was as much to blame as the specialists simply because he had authority?
In the UK courts didn't deal well with such people, they were often given only light sentances or therapy into the 1990s. We only had a sex offenders register from the mid 90s. There's something anachronstic about applying a later standard to Joseph Ratzinger. Popes may, in specific circumstances be infallible, but even they aren't timelords.
Don't get me wrong, there is a real mistake here. But it's not the kind of mistake that it would be if it was made today. Similarly, because of their expertise in this particular question, those psychiatrists who had examined Hullermann and advised the clergy were at greater fault than the people they advised. And they of course are less to blame than they would be today if the matter was not as clear as it would be today.
Post a Comment