The Dallas Outlook

Back in January, when what many Catholics now simply call "the Scandal" broke, I had a stormy correspondence with a bishop — one of the last bishops I would have anticipated arguing with. The bishop was angry over the hard-line language I used in my early commentaries on the scandal. He took particular offense at my saying, in a letter to him, that it appeared that protecting children and families was not a priority for the bishops.

"To suggest that they protect their resources before they protect their people is not just insulting, but unjust and wrong," the bishop wrote. "If you really believe that, why would you remain Catholic?"

I told him that I remain Catholic not because I had any faith in the bishops' handling of the sex-abuse matters, but because I believe that Catholicism is true. As well-taught Catholics believe, the truth or falsity of the Catholic faith does not stand or fall on the moral worth of individual priests or bishops. It was startling, however, to learn that a good bishop seemed to be suggesting that faith in the hierarchy is the sine qua non of being Catholic. The Catholic faith cannot exist without bishops and clergy, but the bishops and clergy are not the whole of the Catholic faith.

In the excruciating months for Catholicism in America that followed our exchange, in which four bishops have resigned over sex allegations, and the public has become familiar with the sordid personal lives of priests Paul Shanley, Ronald Paquin, Daniel Herek, and so many others, I have often wondered how that bishop's thinking has changed, if at all. It better have, for the sake of the Church in this country, which faces a grave challenge.

Today, he and all the other American bishops arrive in Dallas for their annual meeting, under a dismal and angry cloud of suspicion, one few of us could have imagined back in January. Polls have shown that most American Catholics place primary blame for this scandal not on the abusive priests, but on the bishops who allowed them to prey on minors and families for years. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago understands that a policy change regarding handling clergy sex abuse is only the surface issue. As he writes in his column this week, "[T]he deeper reality also at stake throughout the discussion is the holiness of priests and the trustworthiness of bishops." That's not something you can legislate into existence.

From the bishops' point of view, the best thing that can happen in their two-day Dallas meeting is quick and vigorous agreement on the reform proposal put forth by an ad hoc committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), followed by a public sense that the Church has turned the corner in this scandal. Among other things, the proposal calls for defrocking any priest henceforth who is guilty of sexual abuse of a minor. It also proposes that priests who, in the past, have been diagnosed with pedophilia, or who have committed more than one act of sexual abuse of a minor, should be laicized.

There are problems with this. For one, there have been reports that many bishops think the proposals too harsh and unforgiving. We are likely to see open debate on the convention floor (the Catholic cable network EWTN will carry the sessions live). Deal Hudson, editor of the conservative magazine Crisis, last week quoted an unidentified high-level Vatican official saying, "The bishops are divided on these issues. Their divisions are going to become even more apparent at that meeting."

On the other hand, some have complained that the proposals don't go far enough. The "one free pass" provision for past child abusers has been particularly criticized. A leading Catholic psychiatrist told me it's absurd to think that someone who molests a minor only does it once. And syndicated columnist Michael Kelly, himself a Catholic, had this to say: "'But it was just that one time, your honor,' is a defense seldom successfully employed in criminal sexual assault cases. It is not immediately clear to a layman why an institution devoted to the teaching of a higher order of morality should adopt a threshold for the punishment of immorality (not to mention criminality) that would be laughed out of, say, the Suffolk County courthouse."

And then there is the urgent matter of what Weekly Standard essayist Mary Eberstadt calls, in her essay of the same name, "The Elephant in the Sacristy": homosexuality in the priesthood. The overwhelming number of priest sex-abuse cases with minors involve postpubescent males — which is not technically pedophilia (thereby creating a huge loophole in the bishops' proposal) — and the bishops aren't even scheduled to discuss it. Michael S. Rose's tremendously important book, Goodbye, Good Men, has made it abundantly clear that unchaste homosexuals networking in seminaries and throughout the Church are a big part of this scandal. Yet the bishops, like the media, prefer to look the other way. Archbishop Harry Flynn, who serves on the bishops committee that produced the sex-abuse proposal, said on Nightline last night that the bishops wouldn't discuss the matter in Dallas, and he regretted earlier comments made by a Vatican spokesman, who said gays shouldn't be in the priesthood.

Rome itself poses another serious challenge to reform. Whatever policy the American bishops approve must be okayed by the Vatican to go into effect, and it has been reported that Rome is deeply skeptical of "zero tolerance" — and not always for discreditable reasons (as victims-advocate Father Thomas P. Doyle has warned, there is a danger that some bishops could use a streamlined laicization system to railroad innocent priests they want to be rid of). While the Holy Father instructed the American cardinals in their recent meeting to clean up the mess, it is likely that the pope is too enfeebled to give the matter the close attention it deserves. Into the breach come the Curial cardinals and officials, who have indicated a preposterous and insulting belief that the scandal is the fault of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. media.

The authoritative Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica, which recently said bishops could not be held responsible for sexual misconduct of their priests, trashed the American media for its "anti-Catholic and therefore anti-Roman and anti-papist" spirit. The magazine, whose thinking reflects the Vatican's, speculated absurdly that the U.S. press wants payback for the Vatican's opposition to the Persian Gulf War, and its warnings against vengeance after the September 11 attacks.

As if that weren't enough, a hysterical Honduran cardinal last week compared the American media to Nero, Diocletian, Hitler and Stalin, and compared what Cardinal Bernard Law has endured with revelations made in the Boston media to communist show trials. While those statements are extreme by any reckoning, they are perhaps understandable as the emotional reaction of a flustered old churchman. The uncomprehending stares Deal Hudson received from Vatican insiders when he tried to explain to them what's happening to the Church here are more unsettling, at least to me, because it shows how cut off the leaders at Catholicism's central command are from the reality on the ground in America.
"Needless to say," Hudson wrote, "I came away from Rome with little hope for the upcoming Dallas meeting of the bishops."
The final hurdle the bishops must clear is ... themselves. Catholics and non-Catholics alike have been sickened and astonished to confront the repugnant sex crimes — child-rape chief among them — committed by priests. They wonder, as any normal person would, what kind of men in a position of authority can learn of these unspeakable acts and fail to act to stop them. They wonder, as any normal person would, what kind of Christian leaders would protect child predators, unleash lawyers on victims of these priests, and publicly lie about these matters. They wonder, as any normal person would, why, after all that failed bishops have on their conscience — including secret sexual sin of their own — they do not resign, and go to a monastery to do penance for the rest of their lives.

So many bishops seem to have been involved in the cover-up that it begs the question: How can an institution so riddled with this behavior reform itself? The Dallas Morning News reports today that two-thirds of sitting American bishops have to some degree allowed priests who have been credibly accused of sexual abuse to continue working in ministry. The USCCB did not dispute the numbers. When asked by the Morning News if some bishops were too much a part of the problem to be a part of the solution, Bishop Joseph Galante of Dallas, answered frankly: "I honestly don't know."

The Church doesn't need new policies; we need new men. I don't mean that literally, though clearly in many cases, such as Boston's, a new bishop is required. I mean we need many of these bishops to be converted, truly changed in their minds and hearts. Any new policy voted on in Dallas is only as good as the willingness of each individual bishop to enforce it. There is nothing — nothing — in the church's rules that would have prevented a bishop from sacking a John Geoghan or a Paul Shanley at the first sign of trouble. The problem isn't a lack of law; the problem is a lack of leadership, a lack of virtue, a lack of humility, a lack, even, of faith. That is not something two days in Dallas will likely impart to any of the American bishops, who have shown so little of it till now.

This is very good. He's right about needing "new men." He's wrong to think the existing hierarchcy can be converted short of a miracle on the order of Saul becoming Paul on the Road to Damascus.

Every bishop, archbishop or cardinal who has covered up credible allegations of sex abuse by priests of minors of any age, and every bishop, archbishop or cardinal accused credibly of homosexual relations with anyone, adult or minor, should resign and retreat to a Trappist monastary for the rest of his life, do penance and pray for God's Mercy.

I told him that I remain Catholic not because I had any faith in the bishops' handling of the sex-abuse matters, but because I believe that Catholicism is true.

This is also why I remain Catholic. I have lost faith in the hierarchy of the Church to protect children, to be honest with the laity, to teach actual Catholic morality (esp. sexual morality), to rid the priesthood of its thousands of active homosexuals, and so on. Though I respect the Pope, I am losing faith in him too. A good and strong Pope would not let this happen, and would act vigorously to clean up the moral morass into which the Church has fallen.

A leading Catholic psychiatrist told me it's absurd to think that someone who molests a minor only does it once.

Without a one strike and you're out rule, kids will be molested who didn't have to be. Further, the Church is doing absolutely NOTHING to PREVENT these abuses. Putting active homosexual priests in close company with teenage boys is like putting an alcoholic in charge of a liquor store. Only in the former case, many lives are ruined.

I agree with this author. Not being Catholic, one thing continues to perplex me with most of what is being written about this topic. That is that most articles and comments never get around to the fact that the behavior is not only counter to church teachings--but it is also ILLEGAL! While the Catholic Church is a fine institution that does a tremendous amount of good, there is an overriding impression from both the church hierarchy and the membership that this is something that can and should be dealt with from within the church. These bishops have aided and supported felons in their avoidance of prosecution and perhaps have stood by while additional felonies have been committed.

It also proposes that priests who, in the past, have been diagnosed with pedophilia, or who have committed more than one act of sexual abuse of a minor, should be laicized.

Laicized? I don't what that is, but it sounds like what the priests were doing to the young boys. I guess "an eye for an eye" is in effect here.

What is also significant about this is that the Catholic Church has been totally neutralized as a force for representing any kind of moral standards for the country. This is not to say that there are no moral Catholics or Catholic priests. What is does mean is that any priest who speaks out against any type of sexual sin can immediately be neutralized by the opposition with a snide remark or joke.

It's very clear that pedophilia is the taboo currently in the sights of the nihilists. Who can speak out against it now? When the next book comes out claiming that "adult-child sexual relations can be positive", the Catholic Church will either remain silent or be ridiculed out of the debate. Since all conservative Protestants have already been effectively marginalized by the mass media, the final obstacle is out of the way for the final descent.

If you cannot trust the priests, bishops, or even the Pope (because of his age and infirmity) to teach true Catholic doctrine, how can you know what true Catholic teachings are? Do you, as a Faithful Catholic decide what true Catholic teachings are? While I don't disagree with you that the hierarchy cannot be trusted to lead, be honest or teach true doctrine, you need to understand that this is putting you perilously close to the Protestant position in fact, if not in your intent.

I trust the Catholic Catechism, which cannot be in conflict with scripture. - - It's abundantly clear that if the homosexual rapists and the hierarchical cover-ups in this scandal had followed the words of Christ (as well as what's in the Catechism), there would have been no problem whatsoever. As for active homosexuality, the clear cause of all of this, it's forbidden in the Catechism and in scripture. But nobody in the Church has the strength or integrity to remind anyone of this. Pandering to active homosexuals (in the laity and the priesthood), wanting to be just so PC, and succumbing to intellectual pride has all taken precedence over teaching authentic Catholic morality (including sexual morality). My priests (in my Church), who are conservative and believe in scripture and the Catechism, still can't find the little bit of courage they need to address any of these issues forthrightly. The Church needs a massive injection of holy truth and integrity - not to mention making the safety of children the first, rather than last, priority. My children suffer from not hearing Catholic truth (and they are at risk as well in the company of priests).

I never thought I wuld be agreeing with you on the subject but I am. Well,that is, with 90% of what you say.

I would add,in addition to the hierarchy,who must be removed if they have ever been credibly accused of being in a homosexual relationship with a minor or an adult,so must the priests.

When the next book comes out claiming that "adult-child sexual relations can be positive", the Catholic Church will either remain silent or be ridiculed out of the debate.

If the current scandal is any indication, groups of priests will actually start promoting pedophilia, pedophiliac acts will be ignored and your toddlers will stop being safe around priests. Actually, rapist Shanley DID promote pedophilia, and was promoted and transferred.

Laicized? I don't what that is, but it sounds like what the priests were doing to the young boys. I guess "an eye for an eye" is in effect here.

I thought it was what Goldfinger tried to do to James Bond.

No. And the diocese has a formal policy that homosexuals shall not be ordained and that sexual abusers shall not be permitted to continue in ministry. This policy has existed in some form since the early 1970s.

Of course, I did not mean to suggest that abuser priests not be removed. I was focusing on the cover-up aspects. You're quite right that the homosexual priests must go. We should start signing communications with the hierarchy with the old Monty Python "rule #1" from the "Bruces" skit: NO POOFTERS!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.