You’ve probably already read Philip Lawler’s book about Boston, The Faithful Departed. If not, read it immediately!
It’s excellent, and one thing he points out is that the problem won’t be solved until they can be honest about what it is. The bishops even came to the conclusion that the problem was homosexuality - and then they decided not to publish the paper they were writing and in fact when they finally came out and said anything, they made no mention at all of homosexuality.
Lawler says that the root of the problems is essentially the desire of many in the Church to be accepted by secular society, which of course is done by their having to accept the values of secular society first. In the case of Boston, he points out that this was happening even before Vatican II, because by the 1950s, the Church in Boston saw itself as an ethnic and political organization (wing of the Democrat party) before anything else. Vatican II, with its destruction of authority, destruction of the strong connection with and obedience to Rome, and ridicule of doctrinal and moral certainties, simply allowed something to happen which had been gestating in the American Church in general and Boston in particular for some time.
This unfortunately coincided with a time when the values of secular society became abysmally bad, and the reason that the bishops won’t speak out against homosexuality (aside form the fact that some of the worst bishops in the scandals probably were active homosexuals themselves) is that secular society not only tolerates but approves of it and even enshrines it as some bizarre testimony to how open minded it is. The bishops don’t want to look uncool and - well, you know, judgmental or anything like that!
The problem really lies with the bishops, who are cowardly if they’re good, shameless if they’re bad, and almost entiredly disobedient to Rome.
It is excellent! I felt especially vindicated by his treatment of Medeiros/busing/Southie (I've lived in Southie almost all my life). I do wish he had gone into St. John's Seminary (Boston) and what must have been going on there during the relevant years (and now?). I guess it's just "life" that Medeiros' memory is untouched by the scandal, when the worst of it was on his watch, while Law is forever disgraced.
I think there was a lot more "collateral damage" in the priesthood due mostly to the rise in homosexual priests than this article discusses, a more general demoralization among many priests in the 70s. Granted, my knowledge is anecdotal and fragmentary, but things that didn't seem to fit into anything at the time make a lot of sense looking back and knowing now there was a veritable tsunami of unbridled (yes, that's what I mean) homosexuality among priests.
Excellent post.
I think you’re right on. I will never forget the day when a bishop who was referred to me for counseling for depression proceeded to tell me about his sexual relationship with one of his priests. This was years before this bishop reached the mandatory retirement age of 75 and so he continued to ‘lead’ his diocese under this cloud. I remember thinking: “Your being depressed is an appropriate response to what you have told me; you’re not clinically depressed, you are experiencing a normal reaction to sin.”