Welcome readers of The Anchoress and Andrew Sullivan.
See also: EVIL MONSTER UPDATE: THE INSIDE STORY.
The level of vitriol being directed at Pope Benedict by the mainstream media right now is truly extraordinary. It’s primarily drive by desire for cash (scandal sells), followed closely by hatred, along with a hefty dose of ignorance.
Reading Maureen Dowd’s latest opinion column is just a cringe-inducing experience.
Even in ostensible news pieces the misrepresentation of facts is staggering. That’s where the ignorance comes in. Reporters in the mainstream media are seldom well versed in the matters they are reporting on, and it is clear that—even when outright malice is excluded from the equation—they simply do not have the background to properly understand or report on how the Vatican works and what its actions mean.
I am not saying that the Holy See’s handling of abuse cases can’t be legitimately criticized. I’m not saying that then-Cardinal Ratzinger/now-Pope Benedict XVI didn’t experience a learning curve on this point. And I don’t know what else is out there that remains to be discovered.
But I am saying that the media is getting this story wrong, particularly in the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy, the American priest whose case was dealt with by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when Cardinal Ratzinger was its head.
The New York Times has done a great service to those wanting to look into this story by putting online a large number of primary source documents pertaining to the case. No doubt they mean these to incriminate Pope Benedict, but if you read them carefully—and if you know the relevant background—they don’t. (The documents are also posted here in .pdf format.)
So let’s look at the facts of the case in light of the documents:
Lawrence Murphy was born in 1925 and was ordained a priest in 1950. He served at St. John’s School for the Deaf from 1963 to 1974, during which time he later admitted to having abused 19 boys (press reports are saying as many as 200, but there is speculation involved there).
In the mid 1970s his victims complained to the police, but this did not result in a trial.
Note well: This is not a case of the diocese preventing the police from knowing about it. They already knew.
His victims also hung “most wanted” posters of him outside Milwaukee’s cathedral to urge Church authorities to deal with the situation. According to a document from the 1990s produced in preparation for a Church trial, virtually no documentation was available on the details of what the Milwaukee archdiocese did regarding the case back in the 1970s, but the result is known in broad brush.
Murphy was removed from the school for the deaf and given no further pastoral assignment. He moved back to his family residence, where he lived with his mother. Except for occasional visits to his brother in Houston, he lived in this house for the rest of his life.
He was never granted a pastoral assignment by the diocese of Superior, in which he was now living, but he occasionally said Mass at parishes and was used in some capacity at retreats for deaf people, due to his ability to communicate in sign language.
There were no further allegations of sexual abuse against him.
In 1995, some of Murphy’s victims and their lawyers contacted the now-archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland (ironic, yes, but that’s a different issue), reporting Murphy’s actions from the 1970s.
In December of 1995, Weakland ordered a preliminary investigation to determine whether the allegations had merit. It was concluded that they did.
However, because the charges against Murphy included the abuse of the sacrament of confession—an offense that was (and is) reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—Weakland wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger in July 1996 asking for guidance in how to proceed.
Note this well: Back in 1996 the CDF did not have a mandate to handle cases of sexual abuse by priests. It does now. It received that mandate later. But in 1996 it did not have one. The reason that Weakland notified the CDF was not because the abuse of minors was involved but because the abuse of the sacrament of confession was involved.
Weakland had not received a reply by October of 1996, and he began preparations for a canonical trial of Murphy.
In February 1997 Murphy raised the point that his crimes were committed before the 1983 Code of Canon Law was issued and that under the legal norms in force at the time, the statute of limitations had run out.
This caused Weakland to contact the Holy See with a request that the statute of limitations be waived so that the trial could proceed. He sent the request in March 1997 to the Apostolic Signatura, noting that he hadn’t heard from the CDF.
Since the case involved offenses reserved to the CDF, the Signatura promptly forwarded the request there, and within two weeks Weakland had a reply from the CDF.
The reply came from the secretary of the congregation, (now Cardinal) Tarcisio Bertone.
Here are two important points:
1) The delay in response. Weakland first wrote to the CDF in July 1996. He got his reply (after a further prompting) in March 1997—nine months later.
If you want to criticize, here is a possible thing to criticize. The CDF could have gotten back to him in a more timely manner. On the other hand, the CDF does not have a huge staff but it does have a huge mission as the Church’s theological quality control department. I think this one is debatable.
2) Note that the reply came from Bertone, not Ratzinger. This is actually what you would expect. The way these dicasteries work, while the Cardinal Prefect (Ratzinger, in this case) is in charge, it is the Secretary (Bertone) who is the actual “show-runner”—the one who oversees the day-to-day functioning of the department. So while you would write to Ratzinger as a matter of protocol, you would expect him to hand the matter off to Bertone and to hear back from the latter. Indeed, after deference to Ratzinger has been paid by writing the first letter to him, Weakland and Bishop Fliss of Superior correspond directly with Bertone.
This creates a situation where we don’t really know what Ratzinger’s involvement was. In the documentation presented by the New York Times Ratzinger never replies. It’s always Bertone who does so. Bertone (not Ratzinger) even chairs a meeting at the Vatican on the matter.
Did Cardinal Ratzinger even see the initial letter regarding Murphy? Maybe. Or maybe it was given to Bertone as part of his role as show-runner. Maybe the mail room at the CDF automatically gives correspondence addressed to the Cardinal Prefect to the Secretary, who serves as his filter. I don’t know. (Maybe someone who knows such things can clarify in the combox. Please cite sources.)
Incidentally, note that in his statement, press spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi carefully and repeatedly talks about what “the Congregation” did regarding the Murphy case, not what Cardinal Ratzinger did.
Guess why.
So we don’t know if Ratzinger saw the letter, or if he was told about it, or what if anything he did.
That’s important to how we evaluate the story. Criticize the way these departments are run if you want, but we don’t have evidence that Ratzinger did anything in bad conscience.
He’s also been the leading change-agent pressing for tougher measures against abusive priests for nearly ten years.
So what did Bertone say in his reply to Weakland’s request for a waiver of the statute of limitations? He said for Weakland to continue the judicial process against Murphy, thus waiving the statute of limitations, while asking him to pay attention to certain prior norms that must be read in light of current law.
In other words, Bertone said, “Go ahead. Prosecute.”
Scarcely anything to fault Ratzinger for here.
So things proceed with the potential canonical trial of Murphy until January 1998 (by which time the case had been transferred to the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, in whose territory Murphy was residing). In this month, Murphy writes his own letter to the CDF.
As you’d expect, he addresses it to Cardinal Ratzinger, and as as you’d expect, Bishop Fliss of Superior (now handling the case) gets a reply from Bertone.
This is the crux letter—where people in the press want to find fault with Cardinal Ratzinger.
There are, again, a number of important things to note:
1) The text of the Murphy letter itself. Mainstream media sources will quote only a sound bite or two (at best; some flat-out misrepresent it), but thanks to the Internet and the NYT’s putting the document online, you can read it for yourself and make your own judgments.
2) In the letter, Murphy asks the CDF to declare the action of the diocese of Superior (to whom the case has been transferred) invalid because the statute to limitations when the crimes were committed has passed. The CDF refuses to do so in Bertone’s reply and suggests that the case be handled in another way (more on that in a moment). The point is: The CDF refuses to invalidate the pending action of the diocese of Superior against Murphy. No ground of faulting Ratzinger there.
3) Murphy also makes a mercy-based request to the CDF not to be subjected to a trial at this point in his life. He writes:
I am seventy-two years of age, your Eminence [Cardinal Ratzinger], and I am in poor health. I have just recently suffered another stroke which has left me in a weakened state. I have followed all the directives of both Archbishop Cousins and now Archbishop Weakland. I have repented of any of my past transgressions, and have been living peaceably in northern Wisconsin for twenty-four years. I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood.
So when the response came from Archbishop Bertone, what did it say?
It did not prohibit a canonical trial. It didn’t say that this couldn’t be done. But it did hint at another path, saying:
[T]his Congregation invites Your Excellency [Raphael Michael Fliss of Superior, WI] to give careful consideration to what canon 1341 proposes as pastoral measures destined to obtain the reparation of scandal and the restoration of justice.
Canon 1341 provides that:
An ordinary is to take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender.
So Bertone urges the relevant ordinary (now Fliss due to the change of diocese in which the trial would occur) to heed what the Code of Canon Law says regarding when to use a judicial process. Criticize the Code if you want, but we don’t have evidence of wrongdoing on Ratzinger’s part.
Note that Bertone doesn’t say Fliss can’t or shouldn’t go forward with the trial. He just says think about this canon and if there is another way to resolve the matter.
In May Fliss concluded that the scandal in the deaf community was such that the trial needed to go forward.
At the very end of the same month, he and Weakland were in Rome for their ad limina visit, and they had a meeting with Bertone about the Murphy case. Ratzinger was not present.
Bertone again did not say that the trial could not proceed. He pointed out certain canonical and practical difficulties it would involve, but he did not prohibit it. He further recommended that Murphy be examined by three psychiatrists, that he be assigned a spiritual director to keep tabs on him, that he be prohibited from doing anything with the deaf community, and that he be allowed to celebrate Mass only with permission given in writing by both Weakland and Fliss.
This seems to be the last action the CDF took on the matter—except for forwarding the minutes of the meeting a few weeks later (July 1998).
The next month, August 1998, Murphy died.
He really was in poor health.
Murphy had written his letter of appeal—the crux letter that the media is up in arms about—in January of 1998 and in August of 1998 he was dead.
One can fault any number of things about process or policy in this case, but we don’t have evidence that Ratzinger did anything in bad conscience. He didn’t stop the trial against Murphy from proceeding. At most (attributing everything to him that Bertone did) he recommended waiving the judicial proceeding due to the man’s advanced age and ill health while simultaneously taking steps to ensure that the man would not be a threat to anyone as he lived out his final months in seclusion.
Civil prosecutors make these kinds of judgments all the time, deciding whether it is really worth it to devote the resources to proceed to a full trial when the accused is elderly, not a threat, and likely to die during the proceedings.
They aren’t portrayed in the press as evil monsters, and from the facts of this case, Pope Benedict shouldn’t either.
Your thoughts?
Thanks Jimmy! There are things to criticize with the handling of this case. The expediting more than anything. It just took so long. However, then Cardinal Ratzinger made the right decisions. I tell myself to keep in mind that this is happening during a time when the Church is instilling stricter policies (the Pope being a bulwark in this) and is setting precedents with each decision being passed. I applaud Pope Benedict’s approach and stance. Indeed, he has the courage to not be intimidated. God Bless Our Holy Father!
Thanks for the clarifying some issues.
So, with the authorities not pursuing it, why didn’t the diocese pursue this back when it happened? Why was he allowed to resign with no further restrictions on him?
Those are my questions.
I would like that exposed.
While there’s no excuse for what occurred, I’d note a few things on this entire scandal that may be significant concerning it.
1. While it doesn’t present an excuse, there’s no reason to believe that abuse levels are greater in the Church than in any other institution. Probably less. It’s shocking, of course, as it’s the Church. But in Western Society in general things of this type are now sadly common. I’d guess (although it’d be a guess) levels of similiar misconduct amongst school teachers is likely far higher.
2. The reason that the Pope has received this attention is that the Press likes to attack a Pope if it can. There are still all sort of dis-proven allegations against Pope Pius XII regarding World War Two. We know the Church acted to save Jews, but you’ll still here all sorts of allegations that the Pope failed to act against the Nazis, and you never hear anything regarding such figures as the Bishop of Westphalia who clearly and openly opposed the Nazis. Why? Well, it’s fun for the Press to pick on the Pope; and
3. A lingering aspect of the Reformation is the belief that the Church is up to all sorts of secret no good. That provided a basis for the radical reformers to separate from the Church, and it still does. As this proved to be a necessary element for Protestant Reformers to excuse separating from the Church during the Reformation, it became a standard belief in countries where the Reformation took root, and then spread from there. So this taps into a pre loaded set of suspicions that still exist, even though the Protestant Reformed churches themselves have massively declined influence over the years. That’s the same reason that Dan Brown can actually sell all sorts of silly novels, or that the History Channel can run all sort of bizarre shows about the Knights Templar.
4. The Church stands for a set of morals. The entertainment media stands for no values. The press over time has tacked towards the entertainment folks in view, except when a public figure is involved in a scandal (hence all the bizarre focus on Tiger Woods, who after all is a Buddhist, and who probably has no pre existing set of moral standards from Buddhism that would suggest he shouldn’t sleep with every available woman. He’s held to the high Christian standard, but only because he’s a public figure. Anyhow, when members of the clergy fail, as they have in the case of the subject priests, it gives those on the miserable libertine end of things to argue that this is proof that no standards should apply.
5. Christ said he was founding his Church on Peter, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. But he didn’t say that the gates of Hell wouldn’t try to prevail against it. We, therefore, should expect that in any age there will those who give in to temptations of all sorts. Sometimes those who give in excuse their conduct, in others, they repent.
The best example is Judas. After all, he was one of the twelve, but in the end, he betrayed Christ for money. Peter himself denied Christ three times at the time of his crucifixion. Thomas openly doubted the Resurrection, as we know, until it was proven to him in the most dramatic way.
This presents one of the best arguments against the current “abandon the Church” argument which you are now seeing out there.
Should disciples of Christ in the year 32 have abandoned Jesus because of Judas?
Should Peter have been put to a public examination because he denied Christ three times?
Should Thomas have left the Church because he was a doubter, even when he was later convinced.
Obviously not. You don’t leave the body of Christ because there’s illness in some member. And the same Press that lobbies for all sorts of abominations daily, and only holds the high to any standards, shouldn’t really be taken that seriously.
“While it doesn’t present an excuse, there’s no reason to believe that abuse levels are greater in the Church than in any other institution.”
You are right about that. A recent study (2002 I think) found that the rate of abuse by Catholic priests was the same as that of protestant ministers and Rabbis. The problem is the institutional and hierarchical nature of the Church, which makes it an easier target than, say, diffuse protestant organizations, and the fact that that very same nature allowed for some cover-up of the abuse (which is, of course, a very bad thing).
“The problem is the institutional and hierarchical nature of the Church, which makes it an easier target than, say, diffuse protestant organizations, and the fact that that very same nature allowed for some cover-up of the abuse (which is, of course, a very bad thing).”
The cover-up IS the real problem.
“3. A lingering aspect of the Reformation is the belief that the Church is up to all sorts of secret no good.”
But, unfortunately, the Church HAS BEEN up to no good in the past. In the past, the clergy has been responsible for all sorts of abuses, selling indulgences, buying and selling episcopal seats, political ties to princes and kings that were involved in politics rather than pastoral leadership, Popes, Bishops, and priests keeping mistresses and concubines, holding onto Church property and passing them onto their family. Just look at the popes from the 1200’s to the reformation. There was so much corruption during that time. While those abuses were addressed, I don’t think that it ever was totally eradicated from their heart. Just look at how long the papal monarchy lasted.
The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. However, some of the ordained, over the centuries, have not lived the gospel, but rather used their office to further their own ends and interests.
Great article, Jimmy.
Just FYI — there was one typo:
His victims also hung “most wanted” *powers*
Dan
You yourself sin through rash suspicion when you lump whole groups together in corporate guilt of the sins of some of them.
You wrote:
“Popes, Bishops, and priests keeping mistresses and concubines, holding onto Church property and passing them onto their family. Just look at the popes from the 1200’s to the reformation. There was so much corruption during that time. While those abuses were addressed, I don’t think that it ever was totally eradicated from their heart. Just look at how long the papal monarchy lasted.”
And I say: Just look at how Protestants spread real divorce over the entire Western world and thus hurt countless adults and children after God had said in Malachi 2:16
“For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel…”
What did I do there, Dan? With a broad brush called a generality, I convicted all Protestants who ever lived of spreading divorce to others. But countless Protestants in their real hearts as testified by their lives and marriages, did not buy into divorce which their church may have permitted to them erroneously.
The problem with the above passage of yours is that by using a generality where it should not be used at all (to lump very different Popes in sin from 1200 onward because some of their class sinned), it sins through rash suspicion by tainting numerous Popes for example with not eradicating what was in the heart of Pope Alexander VI and some others not countless others.
It is possible that he, Alexander VI, and not Caesare his son, murdered his daughter’s second husband and he (not every Pope after him) had mistresses as Pope and had six children while he was a Cardinal. Four other Renaissance Popes had illegitimate children… some prior either to being clergy at all and others like Julius II prior to being Pope….Felice he publically ackowledged.
Your sentence was evil in itself: ” While those abuses were addressed, I don’t think that it ever was totally eradicated from their heart.” Imagine the sheer numbers of Popes you have done no research on and whom your sentence above is condemning.
To say “there’s no reason to believe that abuse levels are greater in the Church than in any other institution” misses the point entirely. “Everyone else is doing it” does not work for little children caught in misconduct by their parents, and it certainly should not avail the Catholic Church, an organization which claims to possess the sole means of eternal salvation. The question which must be answered what the church did about the matter once it became aware.
Dan:
1. The Church never sold indulgences. That’s a popular fiction. See http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp
2. There have been 265 Popes. The number of Popes who slept around could be numbered on the fingers of your hands.
3. The celibacy rule was introduced, partly in order to prevent priests from passing on their property to their children.
John:
Nothing can excuse the failure of the clergy to stop child abuse. But what happened in the past is done and cannot be undone. From now on, what matters is the future of our children. If you’re a parent of a school-age child, the first question you’ll ask yourself is: which school is the safest place for my child? THAT is the question you need to answer. Bad as the institutional Church’s record is, that of secular society is much, much worse, as far as caring for children is concerned.
Sexual abuse in public high schools is far worse than in Catholic and other religious schools:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695220529,00.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml
I also find it ironic that those condemning the Catholic Church for child abuse turn a blind eye to three forms of spiritual, emotional and physical abuse which children are likely to be exposed to in public high schools:
1. They are likely to be told that the killing of 60 million children around the world every year through abortion is a legitimate lifestyle choice. Abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse.
2. When they study science, they are likely to be told that humans are animals, that human beings are complex biological machines that lack free will, and that the afterlife is a scientific impossibility, because there can be no mind without a brain. If telling your child that he/she is a machine isn’t child abuse, then what is?
3. They may be exposed to teachers who are gay. While most of these are (apart from their lifestyle choice) decent and law-abiding individuals, the fact remains that homosexuals are many times more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals. See http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L46.pdf (for details of the authors see http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L40.pdf ).
To whom would you rather entrust the future of civilization: the Pope, or the mad “Ecrasez l’infame” Voltaireans that are running the show in the Western world, right now?
Vincent, enumerating the real or imagined faults of others is not an excuse for the misconduct of the Catholic church.
While the public schools do suffer from the ills you mention, the church’s failure to deal adequately to its own sexual abuse crisis has seriously undermined its moral credibility when it speaks out on the issues confronting society. For that circumstance, it needs to be deeply ashamed.
Celibacy is a principal cause of the problem. The celibacy rule significantly reduces the number of men who are willing to serve as priests, and it increases the likelihood that a given priest will have inappropriate sexual inclinations. The rule also provides excellent cover for homosexual males. A significant number of Roman Catholic priests are homosexual, at least in terms of having same sex attractions.
Assuming for the sake of argument that a priest is (or would be) heterosexual, his effort to repress a natural instinct is bound to have inappropriate emotional and psychological consequences, and, in my opinion, renders him completely unfit to advise others on marriage and family matters. How can he possibly do that if he has no personal knowledge or experience concerning the subject?
The really sad part about the celibacy rule is that it is not Scriptural and is completely unnecessary.
I am a Ukrainian (Byzantine Rite) Catholic. Ukrainian Catholics are in full communion with the Pope in Rome, and we are as Catholic as any other Catholic. The pastor of our church was married at the time of his ordination to the priesthood, and he is still married and has three wonderful children. He is the most normal, well-balanced, and emotionally stable Catholic priest I have ever met.
John, as Jimmy pointed out in the article he linked, the majority of sexual offences against children are committed by married men. That being so, it should be obvious that abolishing clerical celibacy will not put an end to this problem.
Assuming for the sake of argument that a priest is (or would be) heterosexual, his effort to repress a natural instinct is bound to have inappropriate emotional and psychological consequences, and, in my opinion, renders him completely unfit to advise others on marriage and family matters. How can he possibly do that if he has no personal knowledge or experience concerning the subject?
Assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus was (or would have been) heterosexual during His earthly life, His effort to repress a natural instinct, etc., etc. . . . Or maybe not, hmm?
We don’t require that secular marriage counsellors be married; we don’t require psychotherapists to be sexually active; and we certainly did not require that God in His incarnate form be either of those things. Why? Because in truth, it’s just not relevant. As a wise man said, you don’t have to be a hen to know when an egg is rotten.
John, again, I don’t think anyone here is saying that the Church lacks an obligation to address this problem. Indeed, the entire media suggestion that it hasn’t acted is false.
However, the Church also must be focused in a way that other institutions are not. When a scandal breaks out, the public always looks for somebody to blame and hang in effigy, if not cast out (while ignoring the same sins more locally). The Church cannot do that. The Church must act according to its long held positions which hold that it’s a body independent of governments, that governs itself where necessary, and that holds out the hope of salvation for all. I’m sure that Bishops become aware of all sorts of heinous sins, often by Church members, and sometimes by clergy. It must take that seriously, but at the same time it has never held that sins by clergymen were automatically subject to immediate public exposure, or some such thing. The Church did act here, not always correctly, but what it is really being criticized is for acting internally. The Press’ main complain, at the end of the day, is that the Church tried to handle this matter within the Church.
While relativism does not excuse this, at least based on what I’ve seen personally, many other institutions react the exact same way, but with much less of an excuse.
Vincent, I’d add a 4th item to your list, although it doesn’t pertain directly to public schools.
That 4th item is this. Divorce and cohabitation. American society at least likes to pretend that divorce and cohabitation are harmless to children, but day after day I see instances of children being abused in all sorts of ways. Almost without fail, they aren’t abused by married parents, although that does happen. Far more often, they’re abused by men who their “step fathers”, or who are just shacking up with the child’s mothers. I’d guess that all sorts of child abuse, from the sexual to the purely physically violent, committed by “stem fathers” or “boyfriends” of these children’s mothers grossly outnumbers that committed by anyone else. I’ve gotten to where I simply read the facts and then guess it the perpetrator was a male unrelated to the child. My batting average on this is around 97% right now, as it almost always is.
Anyhow, while all this is going on, we freely allow unrestrained divorce and unrestrained cohabitation (both of which were not the case as recently as 30 or so years ago) as if this had no impact on anyone. Only the Catholic Church really stands as an institution in opposition to this, and a large percentage of Catholics ignore the Church’s position on this.
If we really wanted to do something about child abuse in this society, we’d do something about having reduced sex to the level of animal conduct, which is what we’ve done by pretending that marriage isn’t a necessary institution to control its bounds, and that once entered into, it is permanent. Until we address that, we have to assume that any complaints about any institution are really just loud yapping, and that we’re not really serious.
Indeed, if we want to find the moment in time at which this series of problems started in the Church, I suspect we can date it back to the first date of publication of Playboy magazine, at which point society began to accept that sex is merely a physical act, or entertainment. That set this malevolent tolerance loose, and it’s crept into everything, everywhere.
On priestly celibacy, let me state that I think that is a rule worth examining. That is, I think that perhaps we should allow letting in married men to the priesthood.
But this is only in part for the reasons that John cites. I think the reason to do that is that it might allow into the Church men who discerned their calling a bit late. I suspect there’s a lot of men who became aware of their religious vocation too late to answer the call.
In an earlier era, when resources were thinner (even just 4 or 5 decades ago) there were not the vast array of worldly distractions. If we take even good economic times, say the 20s, or the 50s, in the US we’d still have a lot of men, Catholic men in particular, who were looking at a narrow range of occupations, and less of a constant focus on sex.
Now, most Roman Catholic men who are turning 18 have already had 18 years of exposure to the view that if you aren’t having sex routinely there’s something wrong with you. Most of them, by that age, already probably have some sexual experience. They live in a culture rich with distractions and toys, and one whcih emphasizes that the good life means that you get a job where you can buy a lot of toys, liven in a town that’s rich with toys and that sex is entertainment.
The truth ultimately is revealed to all who care to look, and probably around age 30 or 40, quite a few of these men are now married, in careers they don’t care much for, and perhaps have really focused on their spiritual life in a really deep way for the first time. Stripping away all the distractions, they likely hear that call for the first time. But, they also have to answer the call of their married duties as well.
In writing this, really, I can see a little of myself in that, but only a little. But I’ll admit to being quite distracted by things when I was younger, although I was always at least somewhat serious about my faith. Having said that, if married Priests were allowed, I’d probably look at it. I’m 46 years old, however, married, with two small children. Not a candidate for the Priesthood.
I also think, fwiw, that the exclusion of men who are otherwise attracted to the regular things to the point that they might be distracted by them might have caused a bit of a skewing in the population of men who determined to become priests, but only slightly. That slight, however, might be significant. Economic factors frankly caused quite a few men to answer a call where they would not have back prior to 1970 or so, particularly in the case of Irish priests who immigrated to the US. While Ireland has now had its own scandal, I’d guess that a fair number of these men were seriously religious, but they also had fewer options. Was this good or bad? Probably both. It was probably bad in that there were probably those who entered the Priesthood who were answering less of a call than we might suppose, and who therefore became poor Priests. But, at least in the case of the US, it was probably good as it attracted a lot of fairly manly men to the Priesthood. Quite a few of the Priests I recall when I was young, some three decades ago, were really guys’ guys, but Priests. Now this is not so much the case in regards to the native born Priests (but much more the case in the example of the African Priests we now see).
Opening up the door to married men would recruit, I suspect, more of the manly men who are unlikely to yield to the temptations that we see at work here.
Assuming for the sake of argument that a priest is (or would be) heterosexual, his effort to repress a natural instinct is bound to have inappropriate emotional and psychological consequences …
John,
I’ve been celibate for over 40 years (I’m a single Catholic laywoman) and I take offense at your comment.
Vincent Torley,
“The Church never sold indulgences.”
What the Church did was to offer an indulgence for certain things such as giving donations to build basilica’s and the like. So while it is technically true that they were not sold, there were certainly abuses within the practice of the Church at the time. My point is to say that there are those in the Church who have committed abuses.
“There have been 265 Popes. The number of Popes who slept around could be numbered on the fingers of your hands.”
It is a well-documented historical fact that many Bishops, typically, had mistresses and did not follow the celibacy rules that were in place at different times between the 8th to 12 centuries.
There were a few popes too.
I never said nor implied that the whole bunch is rotten due to a few bad apples. that some of you are taking my words to mean that is your own false interpretation of my post.
In Jimmy Akin’s NCR blog, he asserts that Father Murphy remained out of ministry from the time of his elave in 1974 and that he lived with his Mother and remained out of ministry.
Unfortunately,
the PDF documents available online from the NY Times seem to show that Father Murphy did, indeed, have access to minor’s and did assist in ministries after 1974 and before 1980.
The letter stating that Father Murphy was living alone with his Mother is dated from 1980 and subsequent documents in the PDF demonstrate that he did assist at St. Anne’s parish with youth there.
Sorry, Jimmy, but your statement appears to be factually incorrect. It gives me no pleasure to point this out for the whole case of Father Murphy is very sad, and is a taint on the Church as a whole to the world.
Quite a few years ago, most of the bishops in the Catholic Church got up to speed on the fact that men who are are obsessed with seducing or raping underage males cannot be “cured” by admitting them to mental health treatment centers, and then sending them back into battle, which was what they had been doing in the 70s and the 80s.
Yet many of the commenters here and elsewhere complain of the Church’s handling of sexual predators as if the wrong-headed and ineffectual approaches in use during the ’70s and the ’80s, were still operational today.
They are not. And these commenters know they are not, yet they continue to compare what the Church was doing back then to what non-Catholic entities do today – that is, to stop the predators in their tracks.
As if the Catholic Church weren’t now handling these predators in the exact same way that non-Catholic entities are handling theirs. Today.
Zero tolerance, which is the right way to go, has now been the Church’s policy for years. All but a tiny number of predators have been smoked out and are gone.
But the solid improvements present in the current state of affairs – the virtual absence of ongoing predation within the Catholic Church TODAY is never alluded to in all this ongoing publicity, is it?
Is it?
No, it is not. And it is not alluded to, I believe, because as George Weigel noted, “. . . the crisis of sexual abuse and episcopal malfeasance has been seized upon by the Church’s enemies to cripple it, morally and financially, and to cripple its leaders.”
If we started actually comparing how the Catholic Church is CURRENTLY handling sexual predators within it ranks to how the public schools, for example, are CURRENTLY dealing with their CURRENT predators, we would observe that the approaches fairly closely match. As to children and their predators.
I’m not talking about punishments, or apologies, or transfers, or publicity, or pay-offs or other peripheral matters.
I’m talking about VICTIMS and PREDATORS. And predators’ access to victims
Today. RIGHT NOW.
Today and right now, the Church is doing the right thing for children’s safety and welfare as it pertains to predator’s access to victims.
That’s the crux, and that’s the bottom line.
For people genuinely concerned with children’s safety and welfare, I think that’s an important piece of information.
But then, enemies of the Church are not concerned with children’s safety or children’s welfare. Nor are they concerned with the truth. Instead, in their quest to morally and financially cripple the Catholic Church, the Church’s enemies refuse to acknowledge the truth that the Church’s present committment to children’s safety and welfare is where it needs to be, and where it should stay.
I am amazed that everyone doesn’t see through the Church’s enemies’ dishonest and disingenuous insistence on ignoring the positive and central realities of the present and instead spotlighting ONLY the grievous errors of the past as well as the peripheral matters attending them.
Such tactics stink . . . stink to High Heaven. You can’t miss the smell unless you’ve let the bad guys stuff cotton wool up your nostrils. Which they are liable to do if you let them.
Don’t let them. And if you have already had the misfortune to let them, then get that cotton out of your nose and take a whiff of the garbage they’ve been spewing at you. And then run for the hills.
Marion’s points are excellent.
What’s notable about this is exactly what Marion noted. Whenever a “major crisis” hits the news, it’s almost always the case that the crisis is over. In this case, it’s long over. This is, or should be, old, old, news.
The fact that it isn’t is revealing in that it demonstrates the extent to which people will leap into very old arguments, sometimes centuries old, against the Church, as if they are current today. With all due respect to the comments above, the one about indulgences is a good one. A lot of the current argument is a revival of arguments of the Reformation, and largely irrelevant today, as the issues supposedly sought to be addressed are long past us know.
However, I’d also note that the arguments are sadly lacking in one thing the arguments of the Reformation had. While much of the Reformation was actually political, and the arguments disingenuous, there were at least those who were very serious about their religious views, no matter how off base they may have been.
Today’s moral watch guards, it would seem, aren’t. We see no public outcry suggesting that this reveals a problem with sex in our society. There’s been no suggestion that opening the door to all sort of sexual conduct in society at large has been globally destructive. There’s no hint that we should reassess the libertine and materialistic world we’ve created in the Euro-American globe since World War Two.
Indeed, the real suggestion is that crimes in the 70s and 80, while very real, show that the Church has a problem now. Otherwise, unless you are Tiger Woods or Jesse James, it’s okay to keep on keeping on, divorcing, sodomizing, fornicating, exposing kids to what amounts to pornography on tv and magazines. Whatever. There’s two moral standards. One that applies to the Catholic Church and celebrities, and then one that applies to everyone else. In the second one a person’s proclivities are okay, and indeed, they must be acted upon or they’re being irresponsibly suppressed, except in very narrow, and way too late, circumstances.
Indeed, I wonder what would occur if the Church said “you’re right, that’s why we now have zero tolerance. . .and in that spirit, and to protect children, there will be zero tolerance to these other ills too. . .”
I suspect then the complaints would be that the Church needed to reform to accept these ills.
Please excuse the typos, and in reference to the argument about Indulgences, I meant that’s an example of how a long irrelevant argument suddenly pops up, as if it’s currently applicable.
Marion,
Talk about tactics that stink.
You go and paint everyone those who criticize the Church’s cover-up as “enemies”, “dishonest”, and “dis-ingenuous”.
You have just done, what you have denounced.
Make no mistake, the crisis was caused by the cover-up, atmosphere of silence, and shuffling around of priests.
The Vatican had material knowledge of abuses as early as 1963, and there were recommendations to permanently remove priests from ministry. The story is here. There is no denying this.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100401/world/us_church_abuse_letter_2
So am I and anyone else now to be considered an enemy, dis-honest, and dis-ingenuous by mentioning the facts?
Marion did not “paint everyone those(sic) who criticize the Church’s cover-up as ‘enemies'”.
I think that, maybe, what some people tend to confuse is the office with the person.
There is a difference between the office of Bishop and the office of Pope with the people who happen to fill that office.
The office of the Episcopcy and Papacy are ordained by God, and they enjoy a special charism of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes, some men who fill those offices fail badly in their pastoral office.
Before people start denouncing those who criticize the Church leadership, might want to consider that it is sometimes necessary to criticize the men who do not live up to their Episcopal office, while not in any way be-smirching the office itself.
Dan, nobody is saying you are an enemy, but consider the point you note. These abuses seem to be from the 60s and 70s. You note the Vatican, the article states, had some sort of notice in 1963.
So what we have is something that seems to have arisen in the 60s and 70s, and was taken care of. Very old news.
In 1963, the US hadn’t yet fought the Vietnam War. Kennedy and then Johnson were President. Watergate hadn’t happened. Czechoslovakia hadn’t been invaded by the Soviets, heck Czechoslovakia still existed.
My point is, does it not seem odd that this seems to be the only topic on which the Press actually believes that 1963 to 1970 isn’t ancient history?
Yeoman,
To me, the question of whether or not this is the only topic of the media is a non-issue.
I think we all recognize that there are two components to this sad scandal; 1) the priests who molested, and 2) the fact that the Bishops, for whatever reasons, shuffled these men around, and didn’t finally have some concrete uniform policy until about 2002/2003.
The Bishops have cosnistently with-held documents and information in many different diocese in America, that is now coming out that shows direct evidence that they had knowledge that these men were repeat offenders and put children in harms way anyway. I am speaking about Cardinal Law and Cardinal Mahoney, in particular, as well as others.
I don’t see how anyone can deny that there has been a fundamental failure by the men who hold the office of the Episcopacy to remove these men from ministry and tried to keep these things secret from the public.
I am not outraged about the divine structure of the Church. I am outraged by the particular men who failed the Church and the world.
All of these documents are now coming out and being made public which shows that they clearly have not been open and forthcoming to the laity and to the world.
I am so disappointed because my Bishops failed my Church badly. How can the world see the Church as the Universal Sacrament of Salvation when all of this has been transpiring?
Is it really the media’s fault? I think not.
That children and young people have been harmed by predators – any predators – is horrific. These predators, when they came to light, should have been neutralized by whatever means necessary to protect children and young people.
Should have been then, and should be today.
Should have been then, and should be today . . . whether these predators are harming children while operating as Catholic priests, or whether they’re harming children while functioning as Protestant clergy, or harming children while functioning as public school teachers.
In the 1960s, in the 1970s, or today.
Protecting the safety and well-being of children is THE PARAMOUNT ISSUE. Now! Today! Right now, where there are vulnerable children and vulnerable young people, are these children and young people do sexual predator adults have access to them?
Within the Catholic Church in 2010? The answer is a resounding “NO!”, and has been for quite some time. For years, in fact.
That is the main point, and that is the main issue. That cases from the 1970s and 1980s that occurred in the Catholic Church keep being brought up, when during the ’70s and ’80s ignorant and wrong-headed approaches to dealing with adult-on-minor sexual predation was ENDEMIC within many organizations and institutions, (lamentably!) not just the Catholic Church – and when the Catholic Church’s failings are brought up out of this context – points to those mentioning it operating from motives other than concern for the safety and welfare of youngsters. All of today’s youngsters, Catholic or non-Catholic, private or religious school, deserve our concern and protection. All of them.
Youngsters in the public schools are more at risk today than youngsters who come in contact with Catholic priests, and that’s a fact. That’s danger, that’s predation, and that’s children being harmed. Today. Right now.
Why isn’t that the concern?
I already told you why it’s not.
Because all this scandal about the Catholic Church isn’t about “the children.” Far from it.
If it were, the focus would be all children at risk, and the emphasis would be about today, about right now.
And it’s not.
Wake up, people!
Marion,
While I appreciate and agree that the paramount issue is the safety of children, and that the controls in place are working well, I think that what you are saying is that we can separate the scandal and the cover-up. IMHO, we cannot do this.
There are molestations in many other denominations and in public schools too. The controls are also in place in those institutions as well, but here is the BIG difference. The scandal is the cover-up where Bishops shuffled priests around, and in doing so, allowed them to molest again and again and again.
I think that your post also ignores that literally thousand of molested males and females have to live with this every single day in their lives. The cover-up only served to deepen the scars of these victims, and they ALL tell us that they simply CANNOT HEAL AND MOVE ON until the people who did nothing admit that they were personally guilty of omission and take responsibility for putting them in harms way when these Bishops had the authority to keep these predatory men out of ministry, permanently.
You see, my concern IS for the victims. These victims cannot move on. They cannot make themselves whole while there are Bishops involved who never admit their failure to act.
Don’t you see that to ignore the subsequent cover-up over decades DOES INDEED neglect the well-being and healing of these victims over these long years?
Your last post totally ignores that the priest moletation and the cover-up cannot be separated and that the Bishops who neglected to do the right thing need to personally accept responsibility in their own words by their own mouth.
You can’t ignore the sins of the past. I applaud the Church’s policy today. But I also think of the many victims who cannot be made whole unless those who allowed these priests to continue to molest admit their sin of omission.
That’s what it’s all about.
I haven’t been addressing myself, Dan, to persons who are concerned about the hurt, the pain, the disappointment of ALL young people whose lives have been destroyed by adult sexual predators functioning within various organizations, including the U.S. public school systems, the various Protestant denominations, Jewish and Muslim organizations, and also the Catholic Church.
I also haven’t been addressing myself to persons who express their outrage about cover-ups and other forms of malfeasance committed by officers of these same entities who, while entrusted with the well-being of children and young people, became aware of these disgusting activities of their colleagues and subordinates, but failed to take steps to protect young people.
I have not been addressing myself to persons who are concerned about the plight of past victims of *ALL* sexual predators from the past – Catholic, Protestant, non-Christian, and public, and about the well-being AND safety of *ALL* young people in the present and going forward.
As I said earlier, if your exclusive concern is with past and potential future victims of sexual predators functioning as CATHOLIC priests, and with the malfeasance of higher functionaries within the CATHOLIC hierarchy . . and that’s it: the concern is solely and exclusively with the Catholic side of this terrible phenomenon, then I can only conclude that the concern you carry may be rooted in any number of different things – but it is not particularly rooted in a concern for childrens’ safety and for children’s welfare.
And neither is that of the Church’s enemies.
I haven’t said you are an enemy of the Church; I would say, however, that if your concern about past, present and future sexual predation is solely with the Catholic Church and the Catholic hierarchy, then that is a thing you have in common with the Church’s enemies.
Oh, but I am concerned about children’s safety and children’s welfare. It’s not an either-or. it’s a both and.
As a father of two children, of course, I am concerned about my children and all children. I assume everyone in this conversation is very concerned with that.
But I am active in my parish, and so I am concerned about the Church in that I want people to see the Church as the Body of Christ and the sacrament of salvation. Right now, it appears that there are a vast number of people who cannot see that specfically because they see this scandal and they simply cannot believe that God would ahve anything to do with such an institution. That might not be an accurate view to hold, but it is simply the reality for many people in the world today.
As someone who takes his vocation as a Catholic seriously, I am frustrated that much good that is being done is outweighed by this scandal. It is a simplistic argument to say that the media is at fault for smearing the Church by attempting to smear the Pope.
perhaps you didn’t hear me, but I said that my concern about the past is that it affects the present, today, right now.
If you don’t see that, then you haven’t been listening to the victims who still suffer greatly and cannot heal because they NEED to hear the Bishops who did nothing admit that when they did nothing, they allowed predators to abuse them.
The EFFECTS of abuse don’t end when the physical molestation stops.
Until a Bishop who committed the sin of omission publically admits, “it was my fault, I didn’t stop him when i had the authority to do so”, those victims simply cannot go on.
Do those victims deserve any less today, right now? It’s an honest question.
“Until a Bishop who committed the sin of omission publicly admits, ‘it was my fault, I didn’t stop him when i had the authority to do so’, those victims simply cannot go on.”
Really?
Doesn’t that also mean that if those young girl who had been raped by their own teachers in our public schools, but he was never caught, or punished, but was moved, and the administrators never admitted their wrongdoing, that these young victims somehow “cannot go on”?
Or that teenaged girls raped by their mother’s boyfriend “cannot go on” until the men admit what they did, and the mothers confess their negligence?
Persons who work with victims of rape never treat them as if all power has been taken away from the victims – and resides instead with the perpetrators. They do that for a reason: often perpetrators aren’t caught, or if caught, aren’t repentant. “She was asking for it!” or “B*tch set me up! I’ll get her” Sometimes victims are stalked, threatened, or harassed by their rapists. Their families are threatened if they tell.
Persons who work with rape victims know all this, and they reinforce to their victims that they have it in their power to recover and to move forward apart from the criminal’s actions or attitude to them. It is critical to rape victims’ recovery that they know that the bad guy doesn’t continue to have power over them, whether he confesses or not, whether he is repentant or not.
Otherwise, you are giving over your future and your happiness to somebody else. Never a wise idea.
Responsible mental health professionals and experts in recovery do not support former victims that their welfare is in the hands of the bad guys, nor do they support other people telling former victims that this is the reality for them.
Again, the concern for children and the concern for victims should be a genuine, knowledgable, and factual concern for all persons affected, universally.
Marion, please do not confuse the issue by talking about what may or may not go on in the public schools. It does not matter what they do. We are discussing the Catholic Church, which maintains that the papacy and the episcopacy are ordained by God, and which asserts that it possesses the sole means to salvation. It is to be held to a higher standard, and it must not be permitted to excuse its admitted misconduct by referring to the bad acts of others. Such actions only serve to weaken whatever moral credibility it may have left.
Also, I find Jimmy’s reference to “NYTwits” (i.e. the reporters at the New York Times) as extremely uncharitable. Thank goodness we live in a free country with a free press where wrongdoing can be exposed, and not in Europe, where, at one time, the Holy Inquisition punished people with the rack and other methods of torture for expressing their conscientously-held beliefs.
Namecalling does not become the church, or those who would defend it, at a time like this.
Marion, please do not confuse the issue by talking about what may or may not go on in the public schools.
I hope, John, you don’t mean to imply that children harmed by adult-on-child sexual predators within our U.S. public school system don’t merit the attention, the concern and the sympathy of the American public. Because they do merit our concern. As a Catholic, I feel that all children harmed by sexual predators, or those at risk for such harm, merit our very sincere concern and attention.
I am saddened and troubled to learn that you do not feel that all such children deserve our care and our support.
the Catholic Church, which maintains that the papacy and the episcopacy are ordained by God, and which asserts that it possesses the sole means to salvation. It is to be held to a higher standard
A higher standard than what, John? Higher than the standard whereby adults in a variety organizations have been and continue to prey on children and are covered up for?
No standard is too high when it comes to protecting children. All children. That is why I applaud the Church for correcting the actions of the past that put children in harm’s way, and for ridding bad actors from the ranks of its hierarchy.
It’s too bad they didn’t do it sooner, but they did it.
Meanwhile, innocent children continue to suffer at the hands of sexual predators functioning in other organizations.
See, I don’t understand that narrow-focussed outlook. That’s not someone with a heart for children – all children. In fact, that’s not someone with any heart at all.
“it must not be permitted to excuse its admitted misconduct by referring to the bad acts of others.”
“Excuse?”
The Church has worked hard to ensure that children are no longer put in harm’s way by adult sexual predators within its ranks. I think the Church has come a long way in accomplishing the goal of securing and safety of children.
On what planet is that called “an excuse”?
“Also, I find Jimmy’s reference to “NYTwits” (i.e. the reporters at the New York Times) as extremely uncharitable.”
How would someone without a heart for children’s safety and welfare – all children – know what is even meant by the word “charitable”?
My fellow readers, remember P.T. Barnum’s dictum. Think of it often, especially when dealing with enemies of the Church. And don’t let yourself be one of the ones the great circus master was speaking of.
My fellow Catholics, the New York Times and these other outlets don’t care about children or about victims of past abuses! If they did, they would forcefully and thoroughly address the safety and the welfare of all at-risk children and past victims.
We all know the statistics and they are gruesome: these kinds of abuses have, in the past, been as prevalent (lamentably) in other faith traditions as in our own. And sadly, the statistics suggest that children in our public schools are still not as safe as they should be.
If you think about it, can you honestly conclude that the NYT and these other media outlets are truly overwrought with heart-felt love and sympathy for child-victims of Catholic priests, so much so, that they cannot bring themselves, in their grief, to look away from the Church’s victims to attend to the situation of so many other youngsters . . .?
People, try that on for size, and see whether that sets right.
It don’t. Not quite, does it?
And that’s for a reason.
People, you know what that smells like.
Before we pound the NYT too much, we might want to look at the posts of Time’s columnis Douthat.
Douthat has made some points here that we have been making, and he’s been taking a pounding for it from NYT commentors. Specifically, he’s noted graphically that this is an old, not a new, story. Take a look at this:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/the-pattern-of-priestly-sex-abuse/
Moreover, he’s also suggested that part of what occurred here is a byproduct of the sexual libertinism of the 60s and 70s, which was suggested above by. . . well. . . me.
Marion, I do care about the children in the public schools. The question we are discussing, however, is whether Pope Benedict cares about children in the care of the church that he leads, and what he does when he discovers that they are going to be abused. When we are discussing that issue, it is not appropriate to direct the discussion into the activities of others. Nothing that is or is not going on in the public schools, or anywhere else, can, in any way, excuse or justify any misconduct by church officials.
“Everyone else is doing it” or “others are worse than I” is not a defense.
“‘Everyone else is doing it’ or ‘others are worse than I’ is not a defense.”
True. Of course, neither did anyone offer any such defense.
John, I can answer with certainty that Pope Benedict does care every bit as much about what happens to children in the Catholic schools as you do. And as much as parents of public school children care about the welfare of their youngsters.
I am more concerned about how anyone can defend or excuse the enemies of the Church deliberately and maliciously distorting the facts of this case so as to smear the reputation of a good and holy man, and of Christ’s own Church.
I am aghast that you would come onto this blog and attempt to excuse and defend the deliberate lies and slanders of the Pope’s enemies, John.
Many people have been filled with diabolic rage, hatred, vitriol and hate toward the Holy Father the Pope down through the centuries, and for Christ’s true Church. People who would say, do, believe, and promulgate any hateful, vicious lie to bring shame to our Shepherd on Earth. People willing to say or doing anything to draw men and women of good will away from our Shepherd on Earth.
I am more concerned about your apparent willingness to excuse and defend the spewing of lying, unfounded hate-filled venom at a man you’ve never met, whom you know nothing about, and whose main crime is that he leads and represents a Church you happen to abominate.
I find your behavior and the behavior of all the vicious, arrogant liars acting out of nothing but pure, bald-faced, spiteful hate, is sickening beyond words.
Even more sickening is that some poor saps aren’t able to smell the sulphurous fumes clinging to your writings.