Dare we hope?

Cross our fingers and say our prayers:

Benedict's "Friday Penance"

For the past four years, the man who is now Pope Benedict XVI had more responsibility than any other cardinal for deciding whether and how to discipline Roman Catholic priests accused of sexual abuse.

On Friday mornings, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sat in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith poring over dossiers detailing allegations of abuse sent in by bishops from around the world, according to two top officials in his office. He found the cases so disturbing that he called the work "our Friday penance."

Another about the re-opening of the Maciel investigation

Comments

[Rod Dreher]

I exaggerate not one bit when I say that this news brought tears to my eyes. He gets it, I thought, he really gets it.

Of course one should never be overconfident in these matters, but it does seem that what a Rome-based priest friend of mine told me a year or more ago: that the officials of the CDF were being overwhelmed by the tidal wave of sewage coming at them from the US, re: individual cases of the Filth, and that this shook them profoundly.

Please oh please God, let this pope be different. Please give him the strength and the courage and the clarity of vision and the iron will to face down this demon and cast it out.

If one of the first things Benedict did was to meet publicly with victims, the rejoicing would be total.

[Paul Pfaffenberger]

Of course we hope. We must, to remain faithful and loving.

And if that hope is dashed, we fall back on our faith. Not in the pope or his bishops, or apostolic succession or a conclave or the magisterium, but in Jesus Christ.

[Jason]

This is very interesting. The perception that Ratzinger has a vision to reform the institutional Church seems to be panning out.

[Nancy]

I too hope. Please oh please God, let this pope be different. Let him see the truth, and act on it.

[Rod Dreher]

It is very interesting to read these stories, and to pick out the following details:

1. The US bishops -- and the papal nuncio in Washington -- either lied to or withheld information from the Vatican. Ratzinger and the CDF didn't learn of certain key facts until Ann Burke went to them directly.

2. John Paul was apparently protecting Maciel. When he physically weakened, Ratzinger moved on Maciel.

[Nancy]

For whatever reason, JPII protected the abusers, and those who covered for them. That much is clear.

Why? Who can say? But whatever it was, it certainly isn't a positive fact in the push for his canonization.

[radtrad001]

Nancy,

I would not say that St. John Paul the Great "protected abusers" this is qutie calmuny.

If anything, this is a great slander.

And you should retract your statement.

In regards to Fr. Marcial, the accusations are from the 50's. Two of the six accusers have recanted their accusations and have stated that their accusations were launched more as an attack against the Legion than against anything Fr. Marcial did.

It has become quite the common accusation for lib. catholics, especially the Jesuits, to support accusations against traditional Catholic orders as a way to destroy them.

I can't say why you support such a view.

it is telling though.

[radtrad001]

Rod et al,

Just because some priests have abused, does not mean all have.

" The testimony of others and the historical record all point to his innocence. One of the original accusers swiftly recanted, admitting the allegations were fabricated to make Father Maciel look bad. Four other former Legionaries have sworn they were approached to join in the lies but refused.

Recent media reports suggest the CDF is proceeding with an investigation of Father Maciel. Neither he nor the Legionaries of Christ has been contacted about any such past or present inquiry.

It should be mentioned that the Vatican conducted an intense investigation of Father Maciel and the Legion from October 1956 to February 1959. During that period, Father Maciel was not allowed to function as general director. Vatican-appointed investigators interviewed members personally and in depth; the Legionaries were invited to raise their concerns or allegations. The investigators found Father Maciel not only innocent but exemplary; they concluded the Legion held great promise for the Church. In 1996, one of these investigators, Bishop Polidoro Van Vlierberghe stated: "I am surprised that more than forty years later, Father Maciel is accused of sexual abuse by some of the same individuals who did not hesitate to accuse him in the 1950s of so many other faults and grave crimes that were proven totally false. We, the Apostolic Visitators, gave them every opportunity to level any accusation they had, but not once was this type of offense mentioned" (Letter, December 12, 1996)"

[Mark]

"Just because some priests have abused, does not mean all have."

Thanks radtrad, because Rod and those of us sympathetic to him have saying for the past several years that *every* priest is sexual predator. That's been the main thesis of our argument not that the small minority of priest-abusers have systematically protected by the hierarchy starting from the local chancery all the way up to the Vatican.

[Jason]

Just because Benedict XVI seems to be taking a more direct approach to this problem doesn't mean John Paul II "protected abusers". It simply means that John Paul II chose to deal with the problem by letting the local Bishops clean up their own messes. Whether this was a good policy or not is debateable. But I don't think we should spit on John Paul II while praising Benedict XVI.

[Nancy]

radtrad,

JPII installed the most famous protector of child rapists (Cardinal Law) in an honored post in Rome.

QED

No retractions from me, sorry.

I can't say why you support such a view.

Try reviewing who's in charge at St. Mary Major, for starters.

[Scrappy]

To add to what Jason said: the "hands-on" vs. the "hands-off" approach was a judgement call. JPII made his choice and BXVI, having the benefit of observing and reflecting on what has followed, may elect to move somewhat in the other direction.

[patrick]

"Two of the six accusers have recanted their accusations and have stated that their accusations were launched more as an attack against the Legion than against anything Fr. Marcial did."

i would be interested in some documantation of this? Who are the two who recanted? All other current accounts of the reopening do not mention this at all and it seems to be an important factor that should be noted.

in regards to the charges being in the 1950's,
they still must be faced if they are true? if the alleged charges are true, they would show a very deep and systemic dysfunction that must be cleared before any healing could come to those involved. (which is why the accusers felt they had to bring the charges after so many years)

one interesting coincidence (?) is that at about the same time PB16 started to finally "get it" he also re opens the case.
so we pray the investigation will finally reslove this for all with the truth.

part of the reopening of the case has to do with the accusations that were brought to the CDF about seven years ago. I am interested if two of them have publically recanted and stated they did this only to attack the legion?
that would be important to know and I would appreciate any links to it.

[Nancy]

OK, let's see. I'm in charge of an international organization which claims the power and authority of Christ.

I find out that some of my uniformed officers have been raping children under cover of the organization. I further learn that some of my middle management persons have been furthering and protecting this behavior.

So. I decide I'll take a "hands-off" stance. (After all, this is all, well almost all, being brought to light in North America, and they're only 4% of Catholics anyway (and you know how bad Americans are from the get-go), and America is a long ways off, and the press is free there and so is suspect because we can't control them, and anyhow it's only a bunch of children anyhow and who cares about children anyway...)

When finally the most notorious offender in the coverup is driven from the United States, I'll put him in charge of St. Mary Major. Just to let everyone know what I think, and how valuable American children are to me.

____________

radtrad,

and I'm supposed to apologize?

[Jason]

I'm in charge of an international organization which claims the power and authority of Christ.

Yes and no. The Pope is the earthly head of the Church, but he does not run every See. If he did, there would be no need for a local Bishop. Christ entrusted the care of the Church to the Apostolic college, not just the Bishop of Rome. John Paul II chose to act through this college (this approach was used in other ways, not just with clergy sexual abuse). He, obviously, chose this method because he thought it would be the best way to deal with it. Right or wrong in his prudential choices, there is no need to slander the man. Charges that he "protected abusers" are so wildly in opposition to his proven character to make them absurd.

When finally the most notorious offender in the coverup is driven from the United States, I'll put him in charge of St. Mary Major.

And how did John Paul II see this? Did he see this as a way to give someone something to do, or as an honor? Cardinal Law lost his position as Archbishop of a major See, and was relegated to Liturgical duties at a Church in Rome. While you or I may wish that he had no been given any public position, we have reasonable indication that the Holy Father hardly considered this an "honor".

[Cornelius AMDG]

Rod: "John Paul was apparently protecting Maciel. When he physically weakened, Ratzinger moved on Maciel."

That's hardly clear. Do you really think Ratzinger was just waiting until his best friend was too sick to stop him from defying a prior command? If so, that would make Ratzinger a duplicitous, disobedient scoundrel. For all we know, John Paul ordered the investigation, hoping to clear Maciel's name. Or perhaps John Paul didn't express an opinion one way or another, but Ratzinger came across new evidence that made him want to reopen the investigation.

Of course, neither you nor I know what the real story is, but for you to jump immediately to the conclusion that John Paul was "apparently protecting" Maciel makes your judgment quite suspect. It's inconsistent with the Catholic faith (CCC 2478: "To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way."), and it's what makes people distrust journalists.

[Nancy]

This may be too simplistic for this blog. We're all so sophisticated, so learned, that we don't see these things. Certainly we don't want to think about them.

You can be as Doctrinitely Correct as you want (not everyone who calls Me Lord, Lord...), but that won't save you if you forget this:

Every child is infinitely valuable. Every adult is infinitely valuable. No one should be the target of abuse, of murder, of torture, of oppression. Isn't that what the pro-life movement is all about?

The raped child cries to heaven for relief, and we are told in Scripture that that cry is heard by the One Who allocates vengeance to Himself. That vengeance will fall not only upon the rapist himself, but also upon everyone who aided him, protected him, hid him, put him in a place of honor.

May God protect the Roman Catholic Church, and purge this evil from her midst. For it is guilty, many times over, of this offense. We may well tremble. We should tremble, every time Bernard Law parades down the axis of St. Mary Major, in his fine robes, to deceive the ignorant.

"Does he who made the eye, not see? Does he who made the ear, not hear?"

And radtrad, I'm supposed to apologize for saying this? Surely you jest.

[Nancy]

Charges that he "protected abusers" are so wildly in opposition to his proven character to make them absurd.

He protected abusers. Or one abuser, Cardinal Law. There's just no getting around it.

Law wears the fine robes, parades down the church, delivers the homily. It's a scandal.

[Jason]

Protected him from what? What crime did the US government every convict Bernard Law of?

[Nancy]

The message of Law's appointment to St. Mary Major is clear.

You Americans, with your overblown emphasis on the value of each child, are clearly out of line. What matters above all is the Dignity of the Priesthood. Besides, you have a press which cannot be controlled. Besides, what do a few children matter in the big picture? Besides, you're only 4% of Catholics, so who cares?

So, you drove this guy out, but I'll protect him and give him an honored post, he's a good guy, what do a few kids matter?

What did a few kids matter? Nothing. Just a few children, you know? And American kids, another reason to discount them. They probably made the whole thing up, and even if they didn't, they probably had it coming.

I'm hoping Benedict takes a different view.

[T]

Nancy: John Paul "protected abusers. Or one abuser, Cardinal Law. There's just no getting around it."

Note how easily Nancy now calls Law "an abuser" -- trying to equate him with the actual rapists. And if "protection" equals "abuse," Nancy should, by extension, call John Paul an abuser. I'm not saying that Law isn't quite culpable or that Pope didn't make big mistakes here, but seriously people, if you throw around invective that carelessly, a lot of us will discount everything you say.

[Nancy]

Jason, don't open up this topic. I implore you. Law's complicity in this thing is extensively documented. The flaw is in the laws of Massachusetts. Don't argue that the guy is pure as the driven snow, because I can prove the contrary.

[Jason]

You Americans, with your overblown emphasis on the value of each child, are clearly out of line. What matters above all is the Dignity of the Priesthood.

Right. John Paul II, above all things, was known for his abhorrence of young people.

Believe what you will. God bless.

[Nancy]

John Paul, to the extent that he protected the rapists of children, was himself an abuser also. Just as the mother who knows the father is raping the daughter is complicitous in the rape.

T, you think I wouldn't come right out and say it?

Law knew. In detail, he knew. This can be proven, extensively. If JP didn't know, that's his fault, because it was his business to know.

He knew. They all knew. They didn't care, that's the problem.

You can discount whatever you wish to discount. That attitude is what's gotten us into this mess in the first place: people who don't want to look the facts in the eye.

It's not that a few priests were sick. That's regrettable but probably unavoidable. It's that the structure right up to the Pope didn't care. That's the problem.

[Nancy]

Jason, JP loved crowds of young people cheering him.

He never met individually with the victims of clerical sexual abuse. His love didn't extend to them. Too scary, too close to the bone, I suspect.

[Scotus]

Like a lot of other people, I think, I would have loved to see JP2 do the avenging angel thing and sweep down on the US, demand resignations, put his own people in charge of Boston, LA and a few other key places and generally whip the money changers out of the temple.

He didn't do that. However, it's unclear to me (since the Vatican quite rightly plays on it's own terms rather than strictly for American PR) is what exactly did go on. At several points during the early stage of the controversy Law and then all the American cardinals were called to Rome for consultations with the pope. I've read that Law offered several times during that period to resign.

What may have happened (and I think this would be pretty much in character with JP2s way of dealing with problems and discent) is that JP2 originally told Law, "No, you made this mess, you are going to have to face the music and clean it up."

The American bishops kept messing around and accomplishing very little -- including pathetic charades like Mahoney trumpeting his zero tollerance policy and then doing everything possible to protect abusers from the police. And finally JP2 decided enough was enough, accepted Law's resignation, and sent in someone with experience in dealing with such problems.

Me, I think that getting medieval would have been cool, announce an excommunication of all priests who have abused children (superfluous, since I think they would be anyway, but why not announce it) demand the resignations of all bishops involved and then decide which ones to accept, send out a special nuncio to shake things up. But I don't know if that would have been more spectacular than effective. Still, it would be nice to speed up the turnover in the American hierarchy...

[T]

Nancy: "They all knew."

Thank you for proving my point, Nancy. You really should consider whether your goal is to persuade people or just to vent.

[Scotus]

Oh, and on putting Law in Maria Major, is it more an honor, do you think, or a way of keeping a close eye on him. Clearly, the guy can't be trusted to do the right thing on his own, so why not put him right dead center of the curia so he can't sneeze without someone noticing.

[Lee Podles]

Either Maciel"s enemies have constructed a series of allegations with many of the hallmarks of truth, or Maciel is guilty.

A conspiracy to defame Maciel is a possibility; Spanish and Mexican anti-clericals murdered priests during the Mexican Revolution and the Spanish Civil War, so they would not hesitate to defame an important churchman.

But the accusations may be true. It often takes decades for victims to come forward and even then many still have a traumatic bond with their abuser and will waver in their accusations.

From what I have heard, the investigation has resumed. Who decided to end it in the first place is not clear: the Pope, or Sodano (my guess), or Ratzinger. The documents that Ratiznger has had to read for the past several years may well have moved hin to see that the accusations against Maciel have greater probability than they initially appeared to have.

If Maciel is guilty, the Legion and the 99.999% of its sincere members will be deeply hurt.

But the papacy bungled a similar situation in the seventeenth century when it put a known abuser in as head of the Piarists and thereby destroyed the order.

Benedict has a nasty problem on his hands, and he knows he will soon face God's judgment about how he has handled it. Let us pray for him

[Nancy]

Scotus,

And then we appoint Law as head of St. Mary Major?

But really, it's not just the Americans. The Irish Church has been pretty much destroyed by similar matters...and what about that recent business in Austria??

It won't do to just blame the Americans. There's something deeper here. Duck and dodge as they will, the hierarchy in itself has got some serious problems.

And I'm supposed to look to these men for spiritual leadership? These guys couldn't find their way into or out of a supermarket if their lives depended on it!

[Kevin Miller]

Once again:

God could have prevented abuse by striking dead various priests and bishops.

He didn't.

Does that mean God doesn't care?

No.

Similarly, the fact that the pope didn't take such-and-such an action that was within his power doesn't mean he didn't care.

He may, rather, have thought that the action in question would have been ineffective, and/or bad in some other way.

[Sandra Miesel]

Sideways to the topic, John Paul II really did protect Archbishop Marcinkus from facing charges relating to the Vatican Bank Scandal. Perhaps coming from a Communist country he automatically discounted criminal charges against clerics.

[Scotus]

Nancy,

No you're right, it's not just an American problem. Nor even just a Western problem, though I suspect that the problems in the third world tend to take a different style than those in the first world. (Just as the medieval clergy were probably more corrupt, but in different ways, than our modern clergy.)

As for looking to the hierarchy for spiritual leadership: To paraphrase then Cardinal Ratzinger's comments not long before the conclave, the Holy Spirit in no way guarantees that we will have good bishops, merely that the bishop that we get won't succeed in destroying the true faith.

That said, although JP2 (for whatever reason) wasn't the managerial Rambo that I would have liked in the last couple years, he did provide a profound personal, philosophical and theological witness to the true nature of Christianity and the priesthood, which I think is arguably why (although the scandal mostly broke in the press in the last three years) the priests who have been coming out of the seminaries over the last 10-15 years are so much more solid than the ones ordained in the 60s and 70s who were causing all this trouble in the 60s through the 80s (when most of the abuse seems to have been going on).

My great hope with Benedict is that he will provide the managerial muscle to further implement and expand on the slow turn-around in the priesthood and the Church as a whole which JP2's reign has brought us. It may not have been handled as well as it could have been at the end of JP2 pontificate, but can you imagine the disaster this would have been had someone like the Paul VI been pope?

[Cornelius AMDG]

Well put, Lee.

[Jason]

Perhaps coming from a Communist country he automatically discounted criminal charges against clerics.

"The abuse which has caused this crisis is by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society; it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God." (John Paul II)

Crimes are followed with charges.

[cstafy]

It seems that this weeks' events are playing out like the last chapter of Martin's "The Keys of This Blood". Take a look.

[cstafy]

BTW, does anyone have an idea where Fr. Lawrence Brett has been hiding since his near-capture in 2002?

There's a rack with your name on it in Rome.

[Rick Lugari]

May God protect the Roman Catholic Church, and purge this evil from her midst. For it is guilty, many times over, of this offense.

Nancy, the scandal is a scandal and is there is nothing pretty about it, but please understand that the Church is not guilty. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and cannot be guilty of anything. Individual priests and bishops, etc. are guilty to the extent of their actions and ill intent. Far from being guilty, the Church is from which the graces flow from God to humanity. You, the victims, the abusers, and I have all received enumerable benefits from the Treasury of Graces, which the Church is. Further, I’m not going to argue this, because it is absurd, but the impugning of Pope John Paul II thoroughly disgusts me and probably ever other reader here. If you want to persuade people to see things your way, you may want to tone down the rhetoric a bit.

[Mark C.]

A hot rumour in the European press is that the Cardinals reviewed a document during the pre-conclave meetings that gave a blow by blow account of the state of the Church on clerical abuse, misuse of funds, violations of the confessional, failing seminaries, etc. The report was so detailed and so devestating that one Cardinal said that when he read it, he put his hand on his chest because he thought his heart would stop. This document was apparently what inspired Cardinal Ratzinger's Stations of the Cross meditation for Good Friday (particularly the Ninth Station) and his tough homily on the morning of the election. Apparently, a large enough majority of the Cardinals agreed with Cardinal Ratzinger's grave assessment of the situation to elect him Pope virtually by consensus.

Here is the original story in Italian by Mario Tosatti of La Stampa. There is also a synopsis in French in the Nouvel Observateur.

[wondering]

Nancy - There are two ways to treat a cancerous limb: amputation or chemotherapy. Amputation is immediately effective; chemotherapy takes a while, is not always successful, but in the long run promotes the greater good of the body. You seem to favor amputation.
If JPII was remiss in duty, as you suggest, I think it's because his prudence favored "chemotherapy" for the Church. Perhaps B16 will amputate. You and I might think we know the best remedy for the situation, but without all of the information, it's hard to say.
My own hunch about the investigation of Maciel is that as JPII became increasingly debilitated and weakened, and as American prelates argued at the Vatican that it was not fair to suspend American priests on a single unproven allegation while Maciel went free on multiple allegations, aids close to the Pope urged the investigation to be opened.

[HA]

Nancy, this is not to deny the depravity of what went on in Boston, and no one is claiming that Law is as "pure as the driven snow" as you stated, but no one should claim that Law is an abuser himself. That he didn't stand up more firmly against the rapists is bad enough -- you don't need to settle this with the kind of sound bytes a lynch mob would use. As far as historical abuses within the church go, this has far less evil intent involved.

Proper context is key. Today we “know” that pedophiles cannot be cured (whether we’ll know that in the future is anybody’s guess). Today we know that pedophiles can be found in all walks of life, and that they are sociopaths who are skilled at manipulating others and lying their way out of any situation, and also that they like to target the emotionally vulnerable and stressed who are unlikely to break silence, and who will likely seem untrustworthy if they do. We know this better today than in the very recent past. And God forgive me, as someone who has seen the demonstrators at Boston’s Holy Cross Cathedral first-hand (a number of whom are still at it, Sunday after Sunday) – some of them just not great in articulating their case (though who is to say I would seem any less unhinged if someone touched a kid of mine).

Given the wealth of evidence against someone like Shanley, for example, I’m not losing any sleep over his having been convicted on the basis of repressed memories – but it’s still a terribly wrng and unjust way for him to have gone down. Likewise, I wonder: how many of these sins that now cry out to heaven with the benefit of hindsight might have seemed less cut-and-dried at the time, so that someone conditioned to forgive the repentant sinner (as Christians are) might well have decided to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Our state prosecutors do this all the time. A lot of parents are likewise eager to hush these things up so as not to further traumatize the victims. These people are not outright abusers -- they're people who make the wrong decision. And at what point does a he-said, she-said case (or he-said, he-said – again, with the victim selected so as to appear suspicious, especially when racked with guilt and shame in the aftermath of the assault) become obvious?

And remember, before the Boston area was the center of the pedophilia crisis, it was known for the Amirault child care case. Accusations of weird sex rituals and the like were leveled at child care workers with cooked evidence. Parents much like those parading outside Holy Cross every Sunday were demanding justice. A zealous attorney general eager for political gain played right along. To this day, some insist that the stories that psychiatrists elicited from suggestive children are true. And let’s not forget the Salem witch trials either which was also local news here back in the day.

I don't' know if all that was on Law's mind when he was ruling in favor of the pedophiles. I know it ought to have been.

Of course, it’d be great if he would at least come clean about what he did, so we could know about what happened and why – I think that’d help us prevent this in the future -- but my impression is that no matter what he said, it would get twisted out of recognition and just feed the media frenzy. I doubt the truth would have been served. That will have to wait. Till then, I'd go easy on the smug, 20/20 hindsight self-righteousness.

[Sonetka]

HA - good points (especially about the Satanic-abuse thing - what a mess!) I've seen myself how a family will try to paper things over for respectability's sake, and this was a case where a grandfather had abused his own granddaughters! Yet his daughters hushed it up - despite the injury done to their own children - and convinced themselves that a bit of therapy for Grandpa would solve everything. And this was in the 90s, not in the 1970s, which seems to have been the heyday of the New Dawn - Therapy Solves All! movement when therapy didn't have its subjects still cranking out twenty-year track records of recidivism . Obviously a Cardinal should be held to higher standards than most, but even they can't look into the future. Law (and others) perpetrated a massive f*ckup, but to ascribe absolutely malicious motivations to them is doing a little too much mind-reading.

As for Maciel, my guess would just be that new info came to their attention at that particular time; it's certainly the simplest explanation. I have a hard time believing that Ratzinger, who'd been at the Vatican since 1981 and by all accounts was very good friends with JPII, would somehow not have been able to bring this up with JPII at all. I'm not surprised to see that JPII is being cast as the villain of the piece - as Queen Elizabeth once put it, men are ever apt to worship the rising rather than the setting sun - but I doubt he would have been so deliberately callous. (For the record, JPII's history of liking children - not, not like that! - seems to extend back to his parish-priest days, so I'll take it as being deeper than just being fond of adulation).

[thomas tucker]

as i wrote earlier this week on another thread, Fr. john Zuhlsdorf has written in his latest Wanderer comumn that John Paul pounded the desk and bellowed that the American church leaders had "betrayed him" when they were summoned to the vatican.

[HA]

Thank you, Nancy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the accusations of Satanic rituals occurred in the McMartin abuse case which happened at about the same time as the Amirault case, but in California. The McMartin case was likely on *Mahoney's* mind (as well as Law's).

I think the Amirault case actually involved talking robots or something equally bizarre. In any case, the point still holds.

[HA]

Uh, I meant Sonetka, not Nancy.

[scotch meg]

Just for information, I interned under the guy who actually prosecuted the Amirault (Fells Acres) case, and because I knew him I listened carefully to his closing on the radio. It made quite an impression on me as a young lawyer. Now, not practicing law at all, but as a mom, I still recall it as quite persuasive that there actually was abuse. This was one of the first instances where someone went to jail for a long time for such an offense. As in other cases, the better educated families dropped out early to avoid trauma for their kids, and the victim witnesses who remained were not the ones you would choose as a lawyer. Pushing for a long jail sentence was unusual -- the precedent was to seek "treatment". I don't condone Cardinal Law's cover-up, or anyone else's, but I do think it is essential to remember that (even beyond Christian forgiveness) the advice from the 70's and 80's and into the 90's was that treatment and re-entry into society were the way to go. When the Church relies on social scientists, or other professionals, she may find she gets bad advice! SO perhaps a little forgiveness is in order all around? No one is talking about stringing the psychiatrists and psychologists up...

[Todd]

Scotus, we have no data on how widespread abuse was prior to 1950. But given that the profile of abusers cuts across ideological lines even today, it's not unsupported to wonder if abuse has always been a scandal, only nobody knew about it. While I'm reluctant to jump on the evil nun and priest bandwagon for the pre-1950 period, we do know that substantial physical abuse went on in some corners with clergy and religious in charge. With the deaths of victims and perps, there's no way to know the extent, but if and when it happened, there's not much of a chance it was handled any differently than the Geoghan/Law method. Sad to say, Law was just continuing the tradition of his predecessors.

"No one is talking about stringing the psychiatrists and psychologists up..."

Hope not, because these professionals have been among the most insistent since the mid-80's that sexual abuse cannot be cured. Thanks also to these professionals, we have more appropriate screening methods for seminarians, no matter how much some complain about it.

Nancy's ire at Law and other accessories is tough for some to swallow. But clergy and prelates both should realize they are still in a position to absorb such criticism and will be for a long, long time. If we equate the Church with the hierarchy (and I would not) we can indeed say "the church" is guilty, guilty, guilty.

In part, Law and other bishops were duped by the sex addicts they were trying to protect. Don't underestimate the ability of a pedophile, alcoholic, or any other addict to seduce his or her friends and loved ones. Those who are not aware of child abuse, might not understand how a child would let such a thing come to pass and be silent about it. It happens because perps are so skilled at charming people: victims and friends alike.

I don't say that to blunt Nancy's points or make excuses. The bishops were as responsible as the abusers themselves in too many cases. But with awareness and truth also come the responsibility to assess how we ourselves can be coopted by such people, so we do not fall into the Law zone when dealing with abusers, alcoholics, or other addicts.

[Nancy]

Hey, OK, all good, you guys have persuaded me that Cardinal Law, who received repeated notice about Father Geoghan (among others), who turned a blind eye again and again and again, is properly put into fine robes and made head of St. Mary Major in Rome. In memoriam, as it were, of all the lives ruined because he couldn't or wouldn't see that the rape of children by his priests was wrong.

Get the guy into his fine robes. Hand me the incense container, so I can swing it for him.

But think this. If one of your children had been a victim, especially after he had plenty of notice, would you be so eager to applaud his installation in an honored place in Rome?

There's a message here, straight from JPII himself. I don't think I need to translate it for anyone. It's very clear as it stands.

[Sandra Miesel]

Given that pedophilia is mentioned in the stories of the Desert Fathers and penalties for same are listed in Dark Ages penitentials and St. Peter Damian's BOOK OF GOMORRAH denounces clerical sex crimes, I'd say these have been around a long time. And for the benefit of new bloggers, allow me to mention that my mother was abused by the pastor back in the 1920s.
My comment above was about John Paul II reflexively discounting accusations against a cleric as politically motivated. Whatever his motive Marcinkus never had to face charges and lives in modest retirement in Arizona.

[HA]

There's a message here, straight from JPII himself. I don't think I need to translate it for anyone. It's very clear as it stands.

Yeah, just keep it up, Nancy. If that's the best retort you can come up with, it makes my case far better than I could.

But feel free to come down to Holy Cross any Sunday and watch the small team of demonstrators parade back and forth with their home-made signs. If someone would have warned you to listen to what they were saying, you might well have ignored them too.

Mind you, I'm not dismissing them. As loony as they seem, they deserve our pity and understanding, and the victims they're marching for deserve justice. They were right all along. As to your other point, if a priest or anyone else raped a child of mine, I would want terrible, bloody vengeance to be exacted. Come to think of it, I kind of want that anyway. But I still wouldn't suggest it as the proper response. Our laws are not based on doing to criminals what the relatives of their victims would have us do, Nancy. Or didn't you already know that?

Make no mistake. Law did a terrible thing, an evil thing. But he did it not because he was a monster. He did it because as far as anyone knows, he was trying to do the right thing, and it was some of his best qualities -- e.g. forgiveness -- that led to his undoing. That is his fault and he is paying a price. There's a lesson here for all of us, but it's not the one you're implying.

And if the only alternative to sending Law to Rome would have been to put him in the hands of seekers of "justice" like yourself, I would have paid for his flight out of my own pocket.

Again, kudos to the other follow-up posts. Good points, all.

[HA]

I should add that I too know someone involved in Harshberger's prosecution of Amirault. The fact remains that the claims of children being abused by talking robots, and in the McMartin case, Satanic rituals, animal mutilation and the like were swallowed whole. Few people who see the case from a distance see it as anything other than a travesty of justice. Hey, it happens.

Yes, Amirault served a long time. For all I know, he's still in prison. I recall that at one of his parole hearings he submitted a college sociology textbook about modern-day witch hunts, which used his case as an example. I.e., the proverbial textbook example. As I recall, his parole request was denied.

Look up "Scott Harshbarger Gerald Amirault" on Google. Review the McMartin case. You might get a slightly different perspective on all this.

[AB]

Sandra,

Sideways to the topic, John Paul II really did protect Archbishop Marcinkus from facing charges relating to the Vatican Bank Scandal. Perhaps coming from a Communist country he automatically discounted criminal charges against clerics.

A good point. Also, Italy was extremely corupt back then. There would have been no Justice found in the Italian legal system.

Beyond Italy, there is a recent break in the case of the banker who 'commited suicide' by hanging himself from a London bridge. A suspect in the murder has been arrested.

The criminal justice system also broke down in civilized places distant from the Vatican and Italy.

[pw.]

so deep are the wounds of the molestation scandal that for some only the natural death of the tormenters will bring solace to their hearts. Absent this, while we still have people who committed henous acts alive and well, and serving, even in minor ministry, the church does well to acknowlege that this is a sore spot for many people, and for many keeps them from full communion, not with God but with the feelling that the church really truly speaks for God - as what God would let people go on in ministry or go on unnnoticed and even fight reporting such acts.

Mandatory reporting laws of child abuse in all 50 states (of which ministers are subject) have been in effect since 1967. It is a crying shame that we haven't lept out and called forth the accused for at least a civil hearing of the charges.

The Pope will win much respect and indeed latitude for other reforms if he takes the needs of those who have suffered so in this way to his heart and holds them close - and then acts.

Forgiveness and repentence requires penance. I think justice before a court, judicial or chuch that is open and transparent to the world would be a good penance to the many survivors who still suffer.

[DD]

"If one of the first things Benedict did was to meet publicly with victims, the rejoicing would be total."

No, I'm sure not "total" until they had the money in their hands. And please, don't anyone give me that tired old, "..it's not about the money, the money's not important". If that were so, we could just have B16 meet with them, apologize, and then graciously accept back the.. "money (that's) not important" to them. Many have received sincere apologies, witnessed the punishments, and still sued for the "money (that's) not important". Oh, and yes, I speak from personal experience and knowledge.

[midwestmind]

Well, DD, this might be true, but what right do we have to expect compassionate forgiveness and complete disregard for worldly compensation from those who have had their bodily integrity violated and their spiritual life permanently polluted by men who claimed to represent Jesus Christ?

[anonymous today]

DD,
Some victims say it's not the money and you don't believe them. Victims are only human, perhaps they are not exactly the kind of victim you would prefer. Maybe, you want saint victims. Do you also hope for saint bishops? In the United States you can sue people and, if your successful, be awarded money. Also, in this country it is a crime to molest children. If you don't want to be sued, don't cover for child molesters.

Scotch Meg,you stated
I don't condone Cardinal Law's cover-up, or anyone else's, but I do think it is essential to remember that (even beyond Christian forgiveness) the advice from the 70's and 80's and into the 90's was that treatment and re-entry into society were the way to go.
If I try to accept this argument, I always run into the same problem. There were just a few centers in the country the abusive priests were sent to for treatment, most run by the Church. Say, your car lost it's brakes so you send it to a service station. They keep the car for months, the repairs cost thousands of dollars and they tell you the car is fixed. Then it happens again. Now your other car has the same problem. Do you send them both to the same service station again, and again. How long does it take you to realize the service station doesn't know how to fix this problem, 5 years, 20 years? If your neighbor asks to borrow the car would you worry about his safety? Does it cross your mind that you could be held liable for knowingly giving him an unsafe car. Corporation soul basically means the bishops own the diocese. Every parish, diocesan high school etc. It's their responsibility to protect the diocese and not put it at risk. The most charitable thing I can say about the some of bishops is that they have no common sense.

[Jane M]

"Corporation soul.... " I love it. (but try sole)

[HA]

Anonymous_today, you make a good point. But establishing the success rate of a therapy is tricky. It's hard enough for organic diseases, and even more difficult for behavioral ones. Even if the success rate was zero, a certain number of the "patients" would have presumably learned to hide their crimes better, or else stick with sodomizing consenting adults in anonymous situations, or whatever. As long as they weren't caught again, they would have been listed as successes, thereby prolonging the time it took to realize the therapy wasn't working. Also, I doubt the centers would have claimed a 100% success rate, so the fact that several priests went on to molest again would not in and of itself be proof that these treatments were bogus.

Look at the situation of those who claim that homosexuality can be cured. (As an aside, I wonder if the realization that child molesters cannot be cured came at the same time that gay advocates were trying to establish the claim that homosexuality is also immutable, and if there is some connection there.) Anyway, with respect to homosexuality-reversal therapy, I get the sense that most psychiatrists consider it a sham. I have no idea if they're right or wrong, but I think there are some people who swear by it to this day.

All I'm saying is that we need to keep in mind that a lot of this looks a lot less obvious without 20/20 hindsight.

Still not convinced? Then read up on the (disturbingly recent) lobotomy movement, which during its heyday was considered a medical miracle.

[Bubbles]

"...the advice from the 70's and 80's and into the 90's was that treatment and re-entry into society were the way to go."

Please stop repeating this meme, it is Simply. Not. True. I don't care how many times you hear a bishop say it, or how many times Benedict Groschel says it on EWTN, it is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

When I entered into a Bachelor's program in Psychology in 1983, NO reputable psychologist or psychiatrist thought that pedophilia was even treatable, much less curable. This was not a new development.

When you hear a cleric saying that they were following "the best science of the time" you can be assured of one of the following things:
1. They were being misinformed by incompetents, such as those who worked at St. Luke's or Paraclete,
2. Against all reason, they misunderstood the prognosis offered, or;
3. They're lying.

Michael Peterson is probably not the most credible source to cite as he usually maintained that every child molester deserved a second chance, regardless of how much damage they ended up doing.

From all appearances, Pope John Paul II wanted the bishops to clean up their own messes. I think this is a good idea, except it does nothing to actually right the situation and continues to subject parishoners to risk. I don't think JPII just didn't care, or that he was motivated by malice; I think he tried to do the right thing. Regardless of whether or not you think it a good idea, you have to admit that by taking a hands-off approach, he really couldn't get more Godly.

[Patti]

I wouldn't call law an Abuser, but he surely enabled the abuse. Without his protection, secrecy, letters of recommendation, etc. these predators could not have easily continued. As I've said before, does it matter if you're the bank robber, or only drive the getaway car? (Or in Law's case, recommend your Treated Embezzler for yet another trustworthy financial position?) I cannot but the "We thought they were cured" argument. I would not put my own child near a Cured Molestor, Ex-Molestor, Treated Molestor. I would certainly not risk anyone else's child in this manner, and this was my attitude before having children. You don't play Molestor Roulette with kids and just hope everything works out. Not when souls are at stake.

But apparently they did. And yes, the "demotion" of Law to a highly visible position in Rome still rankles. Hey, if they REALLY wanted to "keep an eye on him," maybe they should've elected him Pope!

But I'm hopeful that B-16 will make postive moves on the Sex Scandal Front.