Posted on 08/17/2005 11:04:12 AM PDT by NYer
ALBANY -- Three years after the clergy sex abuse scandal exploded into the public consciousness, dozens of priests have finally been stripped of their duties by the Vatican in recent months.
Those defrocked, which means they cannot act as a priest or receive financial support from the church, include four clergy in Boston, six from the Rockville Center Diocese downstate and another nine in Philadelphia.
But here in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, none of the 13 surviving priests of the 20 removed from ministry will have his case reviewed by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Bishop Howard Hubbard contends that laicization is too harsh. His decision means the men will continue to draw pensions and health insurance benefits until they die.
"I believe, after reflection and consultation with the misconduct board and my canonical advisers, that the formal and public removal from ministry is sufficient punishment for the priest and adequate protection for the community," he said.
"And that's the route I have taken, in accordance with the charter and canonical laws of the church," said Hubbard, a vocal critic of the zero tolerance policy adopted by the U.S. Conference of Bishops after the scandal erupted in 2002. "If I found that anyone who had received this punishment had presented himself as a priest, publicly, then I still have the step of laicization. I haven't ruled out that option, and it is still available.'
In the past 54 years, 145 individuals who claimed they were sexually abused as minors have raised allegations against 76 priests in the Albany Diocese. Twenty priests have been removed from ministry and nine are under investigation, including two in active ministry, according to the most recent statistics available.
The process for removing a priest from ministry locally is thorough, Hubbard said. After the sexual misconduct board has determined reasonable grounds to believe an allegation, church officials make the news public. Church officials in Rome also are notified, he said.
"Everyone knows. I think that is sufficient," Hubbard said.
Mark Lyman, who is co-director of the Albany chapter of the Support Network for Those Abused by Priests, said abusive priests should be laicized.
"Justice comes in the form of assisting victims and putting their lives back together and some form of punishment for the offender," said Lyman, who said he was abused as a young teen by a trusted, Franciscan adviser.
"For years, they've known about the problem and hid it," he said. "If Christ were here today, things would be a lot different. I think he would be a lot harsher with his disciples."
Only one cleric associated with the Albany Diocese has been officially laicized by the Vatican, but that was requested by a New Jersey bishop in the diocese where he was assigned at the time.
James Hanley, 68, who was accused of sexually abusing at least 15 children in his home diocese of Paterson, agreed to be laicized in June 2003.
The process -- which involves approval from the Vatican -- took about nine months. These days, it takes much longer. The Vatican is working its way through a backlog of decisions on as many as several hundred accused American priests. The death of Pope John Paul II in April also may have slowed the process.
Hubbard has long opposed zero tolerance, the one-strike-and-you're-out philosophy that victims groups believe is more appropriate for child sex abuse.
Dennis Doyle, who is a professor of theology at the University of Dayton, said he was surprised to hear that Hubbard had actually deferred on laicization, after his colleagues around the country have opted for it.
"The zero tolerance policy is something that was politically necessary," Doyle said. "But I doubt it will be in place 10 years from now."
"To balance justice between victims and perpetrators, you have to go with the victims," Doyle continued. "That's the way the pendulum has to swing, because justice has been so long in coming. This bishop may have some good reasons, in the big picture, but sympathy has to be with the victim. That's where we are in history."
The Rev. John Patrick Bertolucci, 67, is one of the 13 diocesan priests who opted for a life of prayer and reflection in his family's Catskill home after being removed from his post.
The author and televangelist who preached the power of a personal relationship with Jesus on a nationally syndicated cable TV program sexually abused teenagers in the 1970s when he was a pastor in his 30s at St. Joseph's in Little Falls.
"The most powerful form of penance I can do is to pray for the healing and reconciliation of any person I have sinned against and any person I have misled by my misconduct," Bertolucci said last week.
"I believe that my bishop is wise in keeping open a line of communication with priests who have engaged in misconduct, rather than removing any canonical, jurisdictional oversight, which laicization would do."
There is a valid reason for not laicizing them, though. The priest interviewed mentions it. Once they are laicized, the bishop has no control over them whatsoever. They can go anywhere, change their name, etc.
An offending priest in our diocese was not laicized, but was placed under obedience in a cloistered monastery and remained there for the rest of his life. Had he been laicized, he could have taken off to wherever.
I like the idea of sending them off to strict monasteries. That was done in the past. It's more "traditional." Beats the alternative--the street.
-Theo
This is the obvious solution, and it's a pity that it wasn't followed consistently here in Boston and elsewhere.
I think Hubbard's probably right on this one.
are there any in siberia?
>>>>An offending priest in our diocese was not laicized, but was placed under obedience in a cloistered monastery and remained there for the rest of his life. Had he been laicized, he could have taken off to wherever.
They can do that now. The Church doesn't have hit squads to track them down. Keeping them as priests only works for the ones that decide to obey.
patent
Thats a good point. But those who choose not to obey can then be excomunicated.
Let us pray for priests
That would be appropriate. Only one priest mentioned in this article has been remanded to his "family's home". How does that benefit him? And what about the others? No indication that any of these priests has been sent off to a monastery.
He's probably not doing anything else right (at least that's the way to bet) but NOT laicizing the offending priests is probably a good idea. Even if he's doing it for all the wrong reasons.
Maybe the "family home" is way off on a mountain somewhere? < /hoping against hope >
Vows of poverty are all very well, but not many people are well adapted to living on the streets.
Dear patent,
It's the pension and the health benefits that keep these men in line (at least, that's the theory). If they don't obey, if they hit the road, then their lifelines are cut off.
It's possible that for some of the offenders, that may be the strongest motivation to obey.
sitetest
Dear gbcdoj,
In principle, this is the right way to handle the situation. I know that in the Archdiocese of Washington that there was once a priest offender who wound up assigned to the chaplaincy of a maximum security prison. I doubt he got much of a chance to prey on young boys while ministering to killers and rapists and other assorted hard timers.
However, the problem with this has been that many bishops wound up failing to exercise adequate control over many of the offender priests. Eventually, many of these priests wormed their way back into situations where they could offend again.
I think that the zero tolerance policy and the mandatory laicization rules were adopted because clearly, many bishops seemed unable to act like..., well,..., bishops. Whether these priests were laicized or not, the bishops weren't doing what they needed to keep the offenders out of further trouble. So, might as well laicize them, and at the very least, make sure they were no longer of the clerical state.
sitetest
Thanks for the link- very interesting article on Archbishop Jadot
Unbelievable -- doesn't he believe in consequences?
I have to reluctantly agree. Even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.
A creative and orthodox Bishop would not need to rely upon laicization for the vast majority of offending priests. Some of our African Bishops might be able to assist in finding suitable ministries for these miscreants. Prison chaplains in Equitorial Guinea perhaps?
Sometimes firing someone is the kindest thing you can do. Child abusers deserve no such kindness.
Those should be laicized who after offending a first time and being caught and packed off to do penance, go and offend a second time.
If we still had Auto-de-fe's, the running around loose problem wouldn't occur with the repeat offenders either.
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.