Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russell Shaw: Why the '60s Wend Wrong; Candid Cardinals (Catholic)
Zenit ^ | March 25, 2004 | Delia Gallagher

Posted on 03/29/2004 8:25:01 AM PST by cebadams

ROME, MARCH 25, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Russell Shaw was press secretary for the U.S. bishops' conference from 1969-1987. He is the author of 16 books, most recently, "Personal Vocation: God Calls Everyone by Name," published last year by Our Sunday Visitor.

Shaw's unique understanding of the workings of the bishops' conference and long experience as a Catholic writer and journalist position him as an authoritative commentator on the crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States today.

In Rome recently for a week of lectures, Shaw candidly shared with a group of Vatican journalists his views on "squishiness" in some American seminaries, the Vatican's "uncollegiality," and the future of Catholicism in the United States.

I asked Shaw about the underlying causes of the sex abuse scandal.

"About two weeks ago back in the States, I saw an Associated Press story out of Springfield, Massachusetts," he said. "It was one of these rare stories where someone inadvertently speaks the living truth and you say to yourself, 'Oh my God, that's it.'"

The bishop of Springfield had resigned due to allegations of sex abuse brought against him, and a veteran priest of the diocese was put in place as the administrator, Shaw explained.

"So this monsignor got himself quoted by the AP on the subject of sex abuse and the good man said in so many words: You know, back when I was in the seminary in the 1950s and '60s, people didn't make a great deal of this kind of thing. I mean -- and I'm quoting now -- 'the word was sort of out that if a priest chose to engage in a bit of sexual activity with an adolescent boy, that wasn't so bad.'

"Then the AP ran a story the next day that was a sort of correction. The heavens must have opened on the poor monsignor because he was quoted as saying, 'I didn't mean to say it was all right!'"

"But I said to myself reading that story," added Shaw, "'Golly, I bet that's a large part of the explanation.' The word was out in some American seminaries and clerical circles that this sort of activity was OK; it wasn't so bad."

He continued: "Things started to go sour in moral theology in the late 1960s. But was it already going bad in the 1950s and that kind of thinking begun to infiltrate the seminaries.

"Sometime back in the '50s you began to have a mixed picture. Some seminaries and dioceses were still quite sound on these matters, and some were starting to go bad."

"So the ground was laid apparently even before the turmoil of the '60s and the sexual revolution and dissenting theology and the 'Humanae Vitae' controversy," Shaw said.

"You bring those factors to bear on a pre-existing state of affairs in which there was a squishiness at least in some seminaries circles on the subject of priestly celibacy and the obligations of priests, and you can see fairly clearly why the disaster that happened did happen," he observed.

Shaw was critical of the U.S. bishops' institutional response to the sex abuse crisis, and found fault with Vatican timing vis-à-vis the recent release of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice investigative reports.

"I don't think the policy that the American bishops adopted in 2002 is a very good policy," he said. "I think there are some serious things wrong with it, and if the Vatican shares that view, as apparently it does, then the Vatican and I are of one mind in having severe reservations about the American sex abuse policy. But the policy is up for review this year and they are going to get another shot at it then.

"Against that background, I thought it rather odd that as the American bishops were preparing to release the new half-century study on the incidence of sex abuse in the U.S., the Vatican chose just that moment to release word of a forthcoming new compilation of papers. Non-Catholic authorities: psychiatrists and sociologists and so forth, who are highly critical of just the sort of policy that the American bishops have put in place.

"Sometimes I take the Vatican side in these arguments and sometimes I take the American bishops' side. This time I take the bishops' side.

"This is supposed to be a fraternal and collegial Church but, intentionally or not, that sort of thing struck me as rather unfraternal and uncollegial."

"The Church has been hurt very badly by this affair," Shaw continued. "It has been hurt over here [in Rome] and back where I come from, and a lot of the damage has been done by officials in the Church. Sometimes I intuit that the view over here is: 'Those crazy Americans, why don't they just shut up?'"

"That's not a view that is universally held, I know, but I think that view is present here in the Vatican and it's an attitude that has prevailed for a long time here about the Church in the United States.

"So as a concerned Catholic laymen I feel I have a right and an obligation to speak up and say to my leaders: 'Come on guys, stop sniping at each other. It's the interests of the Church which are at stake.'"

Although he disagrees with some solutions proposed by the U.S. bishops, Shaw applauds their efforts at transparency.

"I tend to think transparency is a little bit like pregnancy, you can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't be a little bit transparent," he said. "And I'd like to see the bishops apply this policy of transparency to the rest of the Church, partly as a media relations strategy. But also I think it would be much healthier for relationships among the members of the Church.

"Unnecessary secrecy is a large part of the explanation for why the sex scandal turned out as badly as it did."

"If there had been less unnecessary secrecy about this problem many years ago, the problem would have never reached the dimensions it did reach."

Shaw contends that some current U.S. bishops have been unfairly implicated in the sex abuse crisis, since many of them were not bishops 20 years ago, when many of the abuses were occurring.

"I would go so far to say that the sex abuse crisis in the U.S. is largely a product of the bungling and mishandling by an earlier generation of bishops and the present generation of bishops are stuck with it. They've been given the unhappy task of cleaning up somebody else's mess," he said.

The real crisis, according to Shaw, has been taking place for the last 30 to 40 years in Catholicism in the States, and the sex abuse crisis has "metastasized" into a crisis that involves more than just the sexual crimes of priests.

"There's a question which no one ever seems to talk about -- I raise it occasionally," he said. "And that is: What about sexual abuse by clerics in the U.S. which is not a crime -- which does not involve minors but involves consenting adults? It's not against the law, it just happens to be a serious sin. Nobody is discussing that."

Catholic lay people, Shaw thinks, are also implicated in the general crisis.

"American Catholics generally -- if the public opinion polls are to be accepted as truthful, and I think they should be on this matter -- long ago bought into the sexual ethic of secular America," he said. "'Humanae Vitae' is widely rejected in theory and practice by American Catholics. Abortion rates among nominal Catholics in the United States are quite high, etc. etc.

"In terms of sexual behavior or sexual misbehavior American Catholics look very much like their non-Catholic fellow Americans and it's not a very edifying picture."

One of the effects of the sex abuse crisis has been financial: Dioceses are paying large amounts of money to settle cases. Shaw thinks that might not be such a bad thing.

"The Catholic Church in the United States is a Church which somehow over the decades has become much too fond of money and much too fond of the little comforts which money can buy," said Shaw.

"Harsh as it may sound, I would say that although I'm very, very sad that in the settlement of sex abuse cases so much money has ended up in the pockets of lawyers, on the whole I'm not at all sorry to see the money go," he said. "I think it will be a good thing for the Church in the long run to have a little less and maybe a lot less money to play around with."

In mid-June, the American bishops will gather in Denver, Colorado, for a special assembly held every few years, to consider, in closed-door discussions, a plan to address the greater crisis in American Catholicism today.

Shaw outlined three choices of action that the bishops may take:

1. Request the Pope's permission for a new plenary council in the United States.

"The last plenary council took place in the late 19th century, 1873, I think," said Shaw. "So this would be the fourth plenary council and the bishops who propose the idea have suggested a very large agenda dealing with issues of sexual morality as they apply to priests, as they apply to Catholics generally, and dealing with the authentic reception of the Second Vatican Council, something we haven't bothered to do yet in the United States."

2. Seek Pope's authorization for a regional synod of bishops, which would probably take place in Rome under the presidency of the Pope.

"The advantage of a regional synod of bishops," Shaw commented, "is that the only participants would be bishops. And it would be a close, controlled meeting. The plenary council, according to canonical provisions I've read, could involve as many as 2,000 people, which is an awfully large number of people in order to have a productive and even coherent meeting."

3. Turn the whole thing over to unspecified new initiatives on the part of the episcopal conference.

"Although I worked for the bishops' conference as press secretary for 18 years and I'm fully cognizant of the need for and the value of the bishops' conferences in the Church today, nevertheless, among the three options, this is the one I would favor least; in fact, I would be against it," Shaw said.

"The reason is pretty simple," he explained. "You're then turning a crisis over to a complex and slow moving network of committees and a group of staff people who are certainly competent and highly committed to the Church but who have their own agendas and their own ways of doing things. I don't think it's the way to elicit the kind of new thinking dynamic action that the bishops are looking for."

The proposals of the Denver meeting will be voted on in November at the bishops' annual business meeting in Washington, D.C.

"So we may very well know by the end of this calendar year what the American hierarchy is going to do about this crisis," Shaw said. "We may have reason to go out and dance in the streets or we may have reason to don sack cloth and ashes."


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: catholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
For those who may be reluctant to read the whole article here is a quick summary:
"You bring those factors to bear on a pre-existing state of affairs in which there was a squishiness at least in some seminaries circles on the subject of priestly celibacy and the obligations of priests, and you can see fairly clearly why the disaster that happened did happen," he observed.

"Unnecessary secrecy is a large part of the explanation for why the sex scandal turned out as badly as it did."

Catholic lay people, Shaw thinks, are also implicated in the general crisis. "American Catholics generally -- if the public opinion polls are to be accepted as truthful, and I think they should be on this matter -- long ago bought into the sexual ethic of secular America," he said. "'Humanae Vitae' is widely rejected in theory and practice by American Catholics. Abortion rates among nominal Catholics in the United States are quite high, etc. etc.

"The Catholic Church in the United States is a Church which somehow over the decades has become much too fond of money and much too fond of the little comforts which money can buy," said Shaw. "Harsh as it may sound, I would say that although I'm very, very sad that in the settlement of sex abuse cases so much money has ended up in the pockets of lawyers, on the whole I'm not at all sorry to see the money go," he said. "I think it will be a good thing for the Church in the long run to have a little less and maybe a lot less money to play around with."


1 posted on 03/29/2004 8:25:01 AM PST by cebadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Consider posting this to your ping list please.
2 posted on 03/29/2004 8:25:42 AM PST by cebadams (Amice, ad quid venisti? (Friend, whereto art thou come?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cebadams; NYer; Salvation; Canticle_of_Deborah; sandyeggo; american colleen; Polycarp IV; ...
Defenders of the Faith Ping!!

Interesting article, thing he is right on about Humanae Vitae's rejection resulting in damage to the Church. Anyway, discussion is encouraged, enjoy.
3 posted on 03/29/2004 8:42:20 AM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cebadams
You left out of your summary, though, one very important fact, the when.

Things were starting to go sour in the 1950's, which is good bit earlier than most would like to admit. It really means also that the baby boomers, who are blamed for almost everything rotten in Denmark (so to speak), simply continued that which was already starting to go bad. There were no baby boomers in seminaries in the late 50's as they were too young.
4 posted on 03/29/2004 8:58:55 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC
Interesting article, thing he is right on about Humanae Vitae's rejection resulting in damage to the Church.

True. People were looking for affirmation of what they were doing. A lot of my family fell away at that point.
5 posted on 03/29/2004 9:01:25 AM PST by Desdemona (Contemplating kosher Easter cookies as seen on the Home Shopping Network.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC
Interesting article, thing he is right on about Humanae Vitae's rejection resulting in damage to the Church.

While I wasn't born yet, it seems that everyone though that everything was up for grabs and for discussion in the 1960's including matters of faith and morals. They were mistaken.

6 posted on 03/29/2004 9:08:17 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Hey John F'in. Kerry, why the long face?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cebadams
I don't know why people criticize the new norms. Of course there should be due process, but if one is convicted, why shouldn't there be zero tolerance for the abuse of children? Of course, the seminaries also need to be cleaned up, discipline enforced and Catholic doctrine pure and entire needs to be inculcated in the clergy and the faithful.
7 posted on 03/29/2004 9:19:38 AM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
>> I don't know why people criticize the new norms. Of course there should be due process, but if one is convicted, why shouldn't there be zero tolerance for the abuse of children?

Because zero-tolerance is such a politically correct way to deal with abuse. Let's face it, abuse is a criminal offense and should be treated as one. Shaw makes a good point about transparency. The notion that the Bishop's felt that they had to deal with abuse cases outside of the context of law was their first mistake.

As a parent I don't want platitudes about zero-tolerance; I want to know that suspected criminal activity is promptly turned over to the criminal justice system.
8 posted on 03/29/2004 9:36:20 AM PST by cebadams (Amice, ad quid venisti? (Friend, whereto art thou come?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cebadams
But nothing you have said contradicts the basic soundness of the notion that those convicted under Church law of abusing the young should receive zero tolerance. I just don't see what is "politically correct" or wrong about that notion -- it seems common sense to me.
9 posted on 03/29/2004 9:42:40 AM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dmz
>> Things were starting to go sour in the 1950's

Agreed. Some like to think that things went south after or as a result of Vatican II but the attendees at Vatican II were clearly born prior to the 1950s.
10 posted on 03/29/2004 9:43:23 AM PST by cebadams (Amice, ad quid venisti? (Friend, whereto art thou come?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
>> ... those convicted under Church law of abusing the young should receive zero tolerance.

Criminal activity (of any kind) should be handled by the local criminal justice system first -- give unto Caesar and all that. The whole Church tribunal thing is a diversion and will tend to keep complaints behind closed doors. Only those complaints that make it into the public forum will be dealt the zero-tolerance policy.

If there isn't a conviction from the local criminal justice system then and only then should the local Church legal system step in to determine whether there is cause for further action.
11 posted on 03/29/2004 9:52:01 AM PST by cebadams (Amice, ad quid venisti? (Friend, whereto art thou come?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cebadams
I disagree. Canon law and civil law are entirely different spheres. Both should be allowed their full province. If one breaches civil law, one should be dealt with by the civil law. If one breaches canon law, one should be dealt with by canon law. If one breaches both, one should be dealt with by both. The state has no right to interfere in canon law and the Church should not be dependent on the state for enforcing its own internal rules.
12 posted on 03/29/2004 10:37:59 AM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
So was I, so was I. In fact, I wasn't to be in the picture physically for a rather long time when Humane Vitae came out.
13 posted on 03/29/2004 11:23:44 AM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC
In fact, I wasn't to be in the picture physically for a rather long time when Humane Vitae came out.

Aww heck, I wasn't even born until 2 years after Roe v. Wade

14 posted on 03/29/2004 11:26:13 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Hey John F'in. Kerry, why the long face?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
still got you beat
15 posted on 03/29/2004 12:44:29 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC
You win. Congratulations. I'd say you win a beer but they are checking ID's. LOL.
16 posted on 03/29/2004 12:50:07 PM PST by NeoCaveman (Hey John F'in. Kerry, why the long face?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
>> Canon law and civil law are entirely different spheres. Both should be allowed their full province.

Hiding priests in institutions and moving them around is not part of Canon Law. Shaw brings up very good points about transparency. Civil Law gets to decide if there was a criminal offense. It is necessary that both be allowed to work in their respective jurisdictions.
17 posted on 03/29/2004 3:40:03 PM PST by cebadams (Amice, ad quid venisti? (Friend, whereto art thou come?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
1982
18 posted on 03/29/2004 4:19:38 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
And I enjoyed the full Religion Program of CCD till 5th grade, Parochial School until 8th and the Jesuits till 12th, think I did pretty all things considered.
19 posted on 03/29/2004 4:20:27 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC
think I did pretty all things considered.

From your posts I'd say you escaped unscathed.

20 posted on 03/29/2004 7:08:49 PM PST by NeoCaveman (Hey John F'in. Kerry, why the long face?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson