Judging the Catholic Church

CaliforniaRepublic ^ | 11/9/07 | J. F. Kelly, Jr.

[Alex Murphy]

By way of disclaimer, let me say up front that I am a practicing Catholic (as opposed, say, to the cafeteria types who selectively practice aspects of their faith or the twice-a-year Catholics who attend mass on Christmas and Easter). I admit, therefore, to a tendency to react somewhat defensively when I hear critics of the Church, including some part-time or estranged Catholics, taking advantage of the notoriety over the sex abuse scandals to unfairly malign the entire Church and its clergy in general and the Diocese of San Diego in particular.

The Diocese of San Diego filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection early this year after concluding that the demands by 150 or so alleged victims of sexual abuse would exceed its insurance coverage and the available financial resources controlled by the diocese. Otherwise, some claims would have been settled but others denied before available funds ran out, so not only was the decision to file reasonable from a business and legal point of view, it seemed the fairest thing for all the victims under the circumstances.

The decision provoked a furious reaction from some of the plaintiff lawyers and their clients who hoped for deeper pockets to tap and who described the decision as, inter alia, a cop-out, an outrage, a cowardly act and “a cynical attempt to keep the truth from coming out”. They alleged that the diocese had sufficient assets at its disposal to pay, presumably, whatever a trial jury decided was fair compensation for the victims. As everyone knows, juries tend to be magnanimous in this regard.

In the ensuing months, Judge Louise DeCarl Adler missed few opportunities to chide the diocese for its accounting methods and its position that many of the properties to which Bishop Robert Brom held title were held in trust for individual parishes. Meanwhile, San Diego’s only major daily newspaper assumed what appeared to be a belligerent rather than neutral editorial and reporting stance toward the diocese even as the case was proceeding, probably contributing to increasing anti-Catholic sentiment in the community.

After about eight months and several reported threats by Judge Adler to throw out the bankruptcy case and permit individual trials to proceed, the diocese reached agreement with plaintiffs and requested that she dismiss the bankruptcy. According to newspaper reports, she said that she had planned to do so without comment until she received a mailing from her former parish asking her to help the diocese pay for the settlement. The mailing, sent to parishioners throughout the diocese, included a financial breakdown which she reportedly described as less than candid, saying that there was ample property the church (diocese?) could sell or mortgage to fund the settlement. The San Diego Union-Tribune, moreover, quoted her as saying: “Chapter 11 is not supposed to be a vehicle, a method, to hammer down the claims of those abused.” The newspaper further reported that Judge Adler scolded the church (diocese?) for being “disingenuous” in reporting its finances to parishioners as part of a campaign to fund the settlement. Before delivering her “rebuke”, the newspaper account said, Adler “was moved to tears by several victims who stepped forward to thank her for her work.”

In my opinion, this is rather remarkable behavior by a judge. Judges are supposed to be impartial and unemotional, I thought. Isn’t it juries that often have to be instructed to not let their emotions affect their judgment? If Judge Adler believed the financial reporting to be disingenuous, why did she agree to dismiss the bankruptcy? The mailing to the parishioners asked for voluntary contributions. It is purely a matter between parishioners and their bishop and pastors. What business is it of Adler’s in her capacity as a judge? And what is it with this language about “hammering down the claims of the abused?” Is there no room for negotiation in these matters or is the diocese supposed to be held to a different legal standard and just pay whatever is demanded by the plaintiff attorneys who, of course, know what’s fair and are never motivated by greed?

Diocesan officials, while expressing gratitude that dismissal was granted, enabling the terms of the settlement with the victims to be implemented, expressed disappointment that the presumption continues, as if it were a legal conclusion, that the assets of non-diocesan institutions and parishes are available to the diocese for settlement of abuse claims. The bankruptcy proceedings did not establish that they were. Parish properties belong to the parishes. If they are sold, the proceeds must be returned to the parishes whose members provided the donations and sacrifices to fund them in the first place.

Sexual abuses, most dating back decades ago, many involving perpetrators now deceased, and the admittedly insufficient efforts by the Church in the past to protect children from these abusers, have constituted an acutely painful tragedy for the Catholic Church as well as for the victims. In my opinion, it has since acted far more aggressively than most other organizations have, including public school systems, to eliminate this scourge and to reach out with compassion to the victims. It has been said by some, however, that no amount of money can adequately compensate them for what they have endured. There will always be, then, disagreement over how much is fair. The Church and her members, though, also deserve fairness and closure. Judge Adler should have provided that closure when she dismissed the bankruptcy. Instead, she denied closure and precipitated further media and public criticism of the Church by her emotional rebuke of the diocese.

The Catholic Church, its clergy and its members have been a powerful force for good and charitable works in this community and throughout the world. It should not be overshadowed by past sins committed by a relative few. Should the Church’s ability to raise funds to support its charitable mission be impaired, the community and the many needy persons who benefit from Catholic generosity will become victims, too.

[Petronski]

What an asinine response. So you are saying that lay people who had no idea that a few priests were abusing children and who had no responsibility for the actions of those men should be punished because they didn’t leave the Church after the scandal broke.

!

[marshmallow]

They can always leave the parish, or even convert. If lay Catholics and higher-ups willfully continue to associate themselves with lawbreakers, they should willfully pay up.

"Willfully continue to associate with lawbreakers"? Oh yeah, it's "Crime Central" down here. You're really reaching here, Murph.

Most "lay Catholics" go to Mass once/week, put their money in the collection plate and then go home again. If the homily isn't too long and nothing crazy happens at Mass they're happy. That's about the extent of their involvement.

Many have children. Like parents with children are going to "willfully associate" with and give support to known child molesters. Any support given by Catholic lay people to accused priests is for one of two reasons: (i) they still believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, or (ii) they simply don't want to accept the fact that their priest is a pervert.

[Alex Murphy]

When you say: “If lay Catholics and higher-ups willfully continue to associate themselves with lawbreakers”, it ought to be based on more than just generics, don’t you think?

If I'd thought that, then I would have said that, wouldn't I?

[RobbyS]

No, but she is holding the Church to an impossible standard. Frankly the punishment does not fit the crime. No judge would hold a public school system to the same level of accountibility. Yet the schools are far more guilty than the Church. Almost forever school districts have handled the problem of sexual predators by sending them on there way, not by turning them over to the cops. Yet how many school districts have been required by prosecutors to turn over their personell files for those employed thirty or forty years ago.
And there is the matter of scale e: Hauling the diocese into court is like hauling the state of Rhode Island into federal court and demanding it surrender all its records, and then alllowing a jury to award huge settlements to clients who have suffered, in many cases, minimal harm. Fact is that they would get nowhere, because most personnel records are purged on a regular basis by most public schools.

[RobbyS]

In most cases, the minister is simply allowed to go on his way. Victims have little recourse, because the congregation does not have deep pockets.

[NYer]

Often overlooked on these threads is the pervasive child sex abuse that goes on in the Protestant Churches. Tracking allegations and confirmed cases of misconduct by Protestant clergy is an elusive task because Christianity's other ecclesiastical division is wildly diverse, congregational and sometimes staunchly independent compared to Catholicism's centralized hierarchy. Here are some statistics:

These reports related to complaints of child sex abuse by Protestant clergy in the United States were released by the insurance companies to The Associated Press.

* Protestant clients: 96,000

* Top churches insured: United Methodist -- 10,000 churches; Southern Baptist -- 9,600; Assemblies of God -- 4,000; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- 3,300

* Complaints: average of 100 each year for the past decade

* Claims paid: declined to release because company deems figure proprietary information

* Protestant clients: 45,000

* Top churches insured: Baptist -- 10,922 churches;

Presbyterian --2,812; Lutheran -- 2,665; United Methodist -- 1,742

* Complaints: average of 160 each year for the past two decades

* Claims paid: about $4 million each year for the past five years for child sex abuse and sexual misconduct settlements, excluding attorney fees

* Protestant clients: 30,000

* Top churches insured: Southern Baptists -- 4,000 churches; Assemblies of God -- 2,300; United Methodist and Baptist -- 2,000 each

* Complaints: average of 73 of both child sex abuse and other sexual misconduct each year for the past 15 years

* Claims paid: about $7.8 million for sexual misconduct and child sex abuse in the past 15 years.

Stop Baptist Predators

[William Terrell]

I would expect any Protestant faith that had a hierarchy with sovereign power over its ministry to revoke such a minister's credentials and remove him from that church.

The Pope has that power in the Catholic church, yet I wonder why he hasn't defrocked these priests and excommunicated them. It's pretty obvious they don't need to be priests to the people, especially with the spiritual status the church assigns to priests, and they don't belong in the Catholic faith at all for using that status to bring harm and pain to others for their own physical lusts particularly in the face of a vow of celibacy.

I doubt the Pope condones this behavior of his priests, but continued failure to issue the specific remedy when it is in his power to do so would certainly make it appear to many that he does.

[Alex Murphy]

Often overlooked on these threads is the pervasive child sex abuse that goes on in the Protestant Churches. Tracking allegations and confirmed cases of misconduct by Protestant clergy is an elusive task because Christianity's other ecclesiastical division is wildly diverse, congregational and sometimes staunchly independent compared to Catholicism's centralized hierarchy.

Doubly overlooked - IMO deliberately - is any comparitive study of "Protestant" numbers versus Catholic numbers. As I had concluded on an earlier thread:

The John Jay study is more than conclusive - it's exhaustive of the entire US population of Catholic priests. Every study I've seen of "Protestant" abuse included volunteers and laypersons; excluding them (to create a "pastor vs priest" apple-to-apple comparison) gives you a roughly 1% abuse rate for "Protestant" pastors, or (in other words) at least a four times greater likelihood of abuse by a Catholic priest than by any given Protestant pastor....

Let me throw in one caveat to that statistic. I found that when I isolated "Protestant" abuse cases by denomination/affiliation/theological leanings, the more free will/Arminian/synergistic the theology is, and the more independent the association is (as opposed to denominational affiliation), the higher the abuse statistic goes. It's the average of all "Protestant" pastors that is, in my calculations, around 1%. Some independent churches have statistics that are far, far higher than the Catholic average of 4%.

[marshmallow]

Oh yeah .....one other thing.

What do you mean by the word "associate", as in "associate themselves with lawbreakers".

Say "good morning" to?.....pass the time of day with?........provide financial support to the parish?.......actively collaborate in their crimes......??

I think what you'd like to suggest is that lay Catholics played a part in the cover up of these crimes. Am I wrong?

Which gets back to Sandy's question.

If that's your contention then provide some details instead of dancing around words.

[RobbyS]

Then “every study” begs the question of how reliable the data is. Protestant churches, governed as they are, tend to dispose of records and certainly have no reason to track pastors who have left their sight. Out of sight, out of mind. Then you have the matter of churches that “fold”. Protestanht denominationalism offers a small business model, with lots of start-ups. ; the hierarchial ones, a corporate ones. For instance the “Bible Baptist” church my grandmother attended. Or the church just next door to my home. I knew the pastor’’s son. They disappeared after a few years. In each case, the pastor disappeared with the assets; in the second case, the church folded after his WIFE disappeared with the assets. More to the point, a church atttended by
a high school friend divided because the pastor was caught cheating on his wife. He cut a deal, and walked away with half the congregation. within a year, he had left town and both churches closed. No way under heaven to prove any of this ever happened.

[steadfastconservative]

And, don’t forget, most parishioners are not even aware that a priest is doing anything wrong until he is formally accused and removed from his parish. Therefore, Alex Murphy’s claim that lay people willfully associate themselves with lawbreakers, is calumny, pure and simple.

Finally, I would add, that some of these accused priests are not guilty. Some are guilty and some are innocent and every case must be decided on its own merits. Being accused is not in itself proof of guilt. But this is something that most people seem to have overlooked in all of the hysteria surrounding this scandal.

[RobbyS]

some of these accused priests are not guilty. Some are guilty and some are innocent and every case must be decided on its own merits.

Indeed. There is a lynch mob mentality at work in all this. Even some of the guilty were guilty of indiscretion, o momentary weakness. The proper response WAS reassignment. In any case, there is a logical disconnect at work in our society. We have priests who are damned as pedophiles. At the same time, there is an organization openly working for the repeal of laws that prevent sexual relations between men and boys. We have states authorizing same sex marriage when the fact is that same sex marriage are generally open-marriages where any children are raised in the same general climate as a brothel.

[Running On Empty]

Thanks for this post.

[Running On Empty]

Thanks for this great post. You said it for me and for all who are Catholic and are reading this thread.

[Running On Empty]

Thanks for this post.

[steadfastconservative]

I did not say that the guilty were guilty only of momentary weakness or that they should have been reassigned. But I am saying that some of the accused priests are not guilty. You apparently believe that every accused priest must be guilty simply because he was accused. Just as every man accused of rape must be guilty simply because he was accused.

[GoLightly]

If one doesn’t live in this diocese and has not beem aware of all the aspects of this case from the very beginning, it’s not so advisable to make assumptions about it.

What assumptions do you think I'm making? I have a problem with the state of California suspending the statute of limitations for these cases & don't think payoffs are any kind of cure when these things have happened. I think one of the perps involved in the SD cases also offended in my local archdiocese. His employer moved him elsewhere after allegations were made against him, so claims of total innocence of the church isn't a valid argument.

All that said, the article isn't about the sexual abuse. It's about money. The church agreed to a settlement & it seems to be misrepresenting its assets to its parishioners in order to hold on to properties that have nothing to do with its mission. You or anyone else wanna continue supporting an institution that does that, pony up. It's no different than when one spouse blows marital assets. Is the vow for better or worse or is it for better, but the in the bad they're on their own?

BTW, the author has a very accurate grasp of the highly biased and editorialized style of “reporting” all of this by the so-called “journalists” of the San Diego Union Tribune.

I'm sure that's true.

[NYer]

I wonder why he hasn't defrocked these priests and excommunicated them.

Those actually convicted have been defrocked. The media did not give those stories the same coverage it did to the initial ones because they lack the same sensationalism.

continued failure to issue the specific remedy when it is in his power to do so would certainly make it appear to many that he does.

Failure??? The Catholic Church implemented the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People several years ago.

What has the US Government done to protect students from sexual predators in the field of education? According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education – the most in-depth investigation to date - nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students have been targeted with unwanted sexual attention by school employees. More than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade, says the report, more than 100 times the abuse by priests. Where's the outrage? Where's the media on this? Why aren't parents marching on Washington DC? What have you done about this?

What have the Protestant churches done to protect their own members, or the Muslims or the Jews? Yet here you are complaining about the pope. Why?