How to tell the story of a church scandal

[Jersey City, NJ] -- A year ago tomorrow the Boston Globe started publishing articles on the Catholic church's sexual abuse scandal, which sent the Boston diocese into a tailspin and had a ripple effect throughout the country.

A few weeks ago, a coalition of the courts, the press, the people, and the parish priests toppled Cardinal Bernard F. Law. It was sad to see his fall; but it is tragic that some bishops, like Law, have carried themselves less as servants than as princes on thrones.

How should the story of this scandal best be told -- and what kind of writer should tell it?

1. The writer should start by describing what happened in the church at the end of the 19th century: Rather than modeling the growing American church on the structures of democracy, the hierarchy -- more political than pastoral -- set the patterns of institutional behavior that remain today, especially patterns of secrecy.

Next, the writer should move to 1983, to Lafayette, La., where a group of families told their bishop a priest had molested their children. Within 20 years this scandal, repeated throughout the country, became the battleground on which progressive and conservative Catholics fought for their vision of the church's future.

The conservatives have seen the sexual acting-out reflected in the current scandal as the natural outcome of Vatican II's opening the windows to modernity, letting Marx, Darwin and, above all, Freud blow in.

The advantage of Thomistic moral philosophy, taught in Catholic colleges until the 1960s, was its moral clarity. The social sciences were the camel's head in the tent, conservatives say, introducing ambiguity, a watered- down sense of personal responsibility, and an implied invitation to experiment, even for vowed religious. In their periodicals, conservatives today argue that homosexuals have taken over the seminaries and corrupted the church's morals and doctrines.

Progressive Catholics, on the other hand, attribute the scandal to the clerical culture: Bishops are chosen only on the basis of their doctrinal purity. This means they are, with few exceptions, company men devoid of courage and imagination.

For progressives, the scandal has revealed the cracks in a system of forced celibacy and the exclusion of women from the priesthood. Married bishops with children would not brush off reports of priests who molested children. Women priests would break up the all-male club in the clerical power structure. The issue of gay priests, they say, is a red herring. Gays can be as chaste and pastorally effective as straights, they argue.

2. Ideally, the book should be written by a Catholic scholar, or, at least, by a theologically sophisticated non-Catholic believer. A number of "lapsed," "raised," "collapsed," and other species of angry-ex-Catholics have used the op-ed pages to settle scores with Sister or Father So-and-So who rapped their knuckles in grammar school. This book calls for a surgeon with a scalpel rather than an executioner with an ax.

I have read of widespread clergy concubinage in Africa and Latin America; but I had long assumed that the overwhelming majority of American priests were both heterosexual and faithful to their vows. Now I read that perhaps half of those entering in recent decades are homosexual and that an alarming number of both gay and straight priests lead double lives. This may or may not be true. The writer needs to find out.

He or she also should consider the possibility that innocent priests have been accused, fired and sent to prison. Good priests, on the basis of a single ambiguous accusation, have been sidelined for the rest of their lives.

4. Many clerical-abuse victims have been willing to testify about their pain. But the writer's challenge will be to get inside the mind of the abuser.

The Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," has chillingly described serial offenders as sociopaths, without remorse. Inevitably there will be chapters on the monster molesters -- like Boston's John Geogan and Paul Shanley -- whose relentless pursuit of vulnerable youths marks them more as moral freaks than as representative figures.

But the greater mystery involves not the pedophiles and serial offenders, who constitute a minority, but apparently successful priests, admired by their flocks, who crossed the line in their relationships with young people -- some only once -- and repented long ago. Even once is too often, but how could this one time have been prevented? What went wrong?

Were such priests just not immune to the virus of a sexually absorbed American popular culture? Did they lack the maturity to integrate their spirituality, work, natural tenderness and need for affection?

5. The writer will understand that villains will emerge, but heroes will be harder to spot.

During the scandal's early stages, victims, parents, lawyers and journalists raised hell; the final surge brought forth the Voice of the Faithful and their priest supporters. But sex, money and power all corrupt. Some priests claim their accusers are motivated by money; some accusations have been found to be false. It will take a wise author to sort out the truth in disputed cases.

Cardinal Law and his coterie of auxiliaries who were promoted to other dioceses are characters made if not for Shakespeare, at least for Arthur Miller -- climbers loyal to a system that had moved them to the previous rung on the ladder and would move them to the next. Each bishop perhaps was tantalized by the same demon that sits on the shoulder of every ambitious cleric: You too could be pope!

They saw the church as a secret society, not answerable to parishioners, the public or the press. Now the laws of an open society have exposed them.

Meanwhile the writer must discover the untold story -- which I read in letters and e-mail messages from all over the country -- of the alienation between bishops and good priests who once kissed their bishops' hands at ordination and now feel betrayed.

The American bishops may imagine that they can restore the status quo. Perhaps. This pope will soon pass away. The writer of this book, unlike church authorities, must listen to an international cross-section of theologians and pastors for a grassroots view on what the church should be. A startling picture will emerge. The American scandal has been a match to the fire, and the wind will carry the smoke across the world.

Raymond A. Schroth, S.J., Jesuit Community Professor at St. Peter's College, is author of "Fordham: A History and Memoir" (Loyola Press). His e-mail address is raymondschroth@aol.com.

Does your "I-had-a-bad-experience-and-everyone-else-needs-to-know-about-it" approach in your diaconal ministry help bring people to know and accept the teachings of Christ's Church?

I didn't have a bad experience. I spent seven years in a Catholic seminary, was ordained a deacon, but decided I wasn't called to the priesthood. It was a very good experience.

As to whether my ministry brings people to Christ, you best ask them.

Did you spend seven years of your life seeking to determine whether or not Christ wanted you to serve Him?

Sinkspur, why do you loathe chastity so?

I don't. Your hysterics and anecdotal examples, however, add nothing to the discussion.

Do married people, committed to each other in sacramental marriages--which is, after all, what this thread is about--have an obligation to be observe continence when a mere discipline of the Church asks them to?

At age 16 I chose to serve my country.

At age 18 I realized my life was anchored on Christ.

At age 20 I realized my path of service to Him was to be as a husband and father (so far of 6).

I could go on and share more details.

Given the VOTF-ish (read "leftish") postings, I find your question somewhat "clericalist" (as if serving Him takes only one form!).

And tell me, how long did it take "most" of those churches to expel the molesters among them? We're still waiting for that to happen to some of the criminals in the Catholic Church. :(

It's not the churches which expel them, it's the local diocese/Bishop. Many Bishops who did follow the law had very few problems with their priests and very low recidivism rates. Of course, the left-wing biased press never did report that on the news because, they too, have an agenda. You will notice that in the dioceses of the "conservative" bishops, who follow church and civil laws accordingly, that type of behavior was almost non existent and if it did happen, the priests were dealt with expeditiously.

Me:Nowhere has it ever been said that those *married* Roman Catholic priests have to give up marital relations with their wives.

RM: Not true. It may not be said very often as a part of polite conversation, but a dedicated commitment to continence by both spouses is a requirement within the pastoral provision for the reception of married protestant ministers into priestly ordination within the Western Rite. The basis for this can be found in Canon 277 and a more detailed explanation of its development in "The Pastoral Provision: Ordination of Married, Protestant Ministers" Canon Law Society of America proceedings #51 by Richard Hill, S.J.. This is a contributing factor, I'm sure, to the vast majority of converting ministers choosing ordination to the diaconate or a lay pastoral role (it would be for me!).

Huh? Sinkspur, what's your take on this, and anyone else who's had experience with the pastoral provision?

Given the VOTF-ish (read "leftish") postings, I find your question somewhat "clericalist" (as if serving Him takes only one form!).

Fine. Everyone has his own way to the service of the Lord.

Good night.

I do believe married people sometimes consecrate themselves to continence as part of some sort of lay consecration.

Fine. But for the Church to impose continence on them after-the-fact is ridiculous and clearly contrary to the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Valkyrieanne, Ronaldus Magnus is wrong.

The Anglican dispensation, written in 1980, clearly allows Protestant ministers converting to Roman Catholicism who are accepted into the priesthood to be married men in the full sense of that term. Continence is not a requirement for the Anglican and Methodist converts who have been ordained to the priesthood.

I'm defending the reality that exists in my own parish.

Horse-hockey. All you do is attack the discipline of celibacy as a stricture of the Latin Church. No one here has ever, to my knowledge, attacked the marriage exceptions for Protestant ministers who convert. Yet you claim to defend something that no one is attacking? Unbelievable!

No one here has ever, to my knowledge, attacked the marriage exceptions for Protestant ministers who convert. Yet you claim to defend something that no one is attacking? Unbelievable!

Why should converting Protestant ministers who come late to the game have a preference over lifelong Catholic men?

Mandatory celibacy is the stricture, not celibacy, freely chosen.

Let him accept it who can accept it.

I am really curious why:

A) you would consider committing yourself at a young age to one spouse for the rest of your life to be a voluntary choice,

B) but you would NOT consider commiting yourself at a young age to never having a spouse for the rest of your life to be a voluntary choice?

"the" what? You've left a word out here.

Sorry, I guess my spell checker ate the linked word "Church".

It really doesn't matter. There's no Church today which allows a married clergy which binds them to continence.

Although you may not consider yourself to be "bound" by the restrictions of our Church, you may see my post #59 for references to the requirement.

And, how much continence do you think there was when married priests lived in the same house with their wives? Celibacy is proposed in theory, and observed much less in practice.

I pray that your frequent claims of being an active Catholic deacon are simply a petty lie. Your vocal disdain for the assenting faithful on this public forum is a disgrace. I converted to Catholicism to escape a religion led by moral relativists like you. I look forward to the day when all dissenters, at every level of leadership, are driven from Christ's Church. Come home Sinkspur, or get lost.

All you do is attack the discipline of celibacy as a stricture of the Latin Church.

Mandatory celibacy is a stricture. Celibacy, freely chosen, is a true charism.

And, the Latin Rite has relaxed the stricture for Anglican, Lutheran, and Methodist ministers who convert and request ordination.

Why should married men who have been lifelong Catholics be excluded?

Since priestly ordination is by no means mandatory for any individual,
it can hardly be said that the concomitant celibacy is any more mandatory.

That's like saying my mortgage payment is a mandatory imposition of the bank. It is certainly mandatory, but only because I volunteered for it.

Your vocal disdain for the assenting faithful on this public forum is a disgrace. I converted to Catholicism to escape a religion led by moral relativists like you. I look forward to the day when all dissenters, at every level of leadership, are driven from Christ's Church. Come home Sinkspur, or get lost.

Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine or a matter of faith. Catholics are free to dissent from a discipline.

You don't know the first thing about what is an essential part of Catholicism and what is not.

I'm home. You, OTOH, need further study.

I am really curious why:
A) you would consider committing yourself at a young age to one spouse for the rest of your life to be a voluntary choice,

B) but you would NOT consider commiting yourself at a young age to never having a spouse for the rest of your life to be a voluntary choice?

Committing one's self to serve the Church as a priest is the commitment. Whether one is married or not is a non-essential, obviously, since Protestant ministers who are married are accepted into the priesthood.

Imposing that discipline on lifelong Catholic men while giving a pass to Protestant men who convert proves that celibacy is not essential to the Catholic priesthood.

It was NOT sad to see Law fall ... and we didn't see that part.

Law "fell" when he failed to protect the innocent and powerless. He didn't "fall" when he gave up the perks of power. And seeing this creepy evil man leave office is a call for celebration. It's NOT sad.

It was sad to see his fall; but it is tragic that some bishops, like Law, have carried themselves less as servants than as princes on thrones.

It was NOT sad to see Law fall ... and we didn't see that part.

It was sad to see his fall; but it is tragic that some bishops, like Law, have carried themselves less as servants than as princes on thrones.

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.