Posted on 04/11/2010 5:39:31 AM PDT by marshmallow
| The following piece was written by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., founder and editor of Ignatius Press, in response to the breaking story about a 1985 letter written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to Bishop John S. Cummins of Oakland.
The so-called "stalled pedophile case", blame for which has been laid at the feet of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, had nothing to do with pedophilia and everything to do with strengthening marriage and the priesthood.
Here's what was happening in 1981 when Bishop Cummins of Oakland first wrote the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking that one of the priests from his diocese of Oakland, be dispensed from his promise of celibacy.
Well first, what was not happening. The letter came a week before Cardinal Ratzinger had even assumed his duties as Prefect of that congregation. This is a very important office of the Roman curia. It handles a variety of cases worldwide, mostly having to do with defending and promoting doctrinal integrity in the Church. There's a lot of work to do, and it takes time for someone to become fully engaged in its activities.
But much more pertinently here: By 1980 the effects of the sexual revolution on marriage and the priesthood had been devastating. In 1965 there had been 59 marriage annulments granted by Rome to American couples. By 2002, there were over 50,000 annulments per year in the U.S. alone. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of priests were asking for dispensation from their promise of celibacy in order to be able to marry.
The Catholic Church holds the marriage vows to be indissoluble. Even an annulment, contrary to a widespread misconception, does not dissolve those vows. It is a declaration that because of some impediment, there never was a valid marriage in the first place.
Priestly ordination is also "indissoluble", in the sense that a validly ordained priest never ceases to be a priest.
And here's the rub. It was literally scandalous in the Church that priests, who had been prepared for eight to ten years for their ordination (which would be permanent, irreversible) and their promise of celibacy (which also has the character of a solemn promise before God), were, in the 1970s, being so easily dispensed from their promise of celibacy.
Married Catholics said to themselves: If a priest, who is so well prepared for his commitment, can so easily be dispensed from it so that he can marry, why can't we be dispensed from our commitment so that we can remarry?
When John Paul II was elevated to the papacy in the Fall of 1978, he immediately changed the policy on priestly dispensations. I don't have the exact dates and numbers at hand, but I remember at the time that many of us were amazed that the hundreds of dispensations per year (and it may have been thousands) under John Paul II's predecessor, Paul VI, suddenly were reduced to almost zero. It was almost impossible to get a dispensation in 1980.
What was John Paul's intent? To restore the integrity of the priesthood and of marriage. These commitments are permanent. A priest may be removed from ministry, but he will not be given a dispensation to marry. Priests are to be made to take their commitments with utmost seriousness. They will be an example to married couples to take theirs seriously also. When a priest makes a promise of celibacy, it's forever; when a couple make vows of marriage, it's forever.
This is the decisive context of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to Bishop Cummins. It is not a smoking gun. It did not mean that Ratzinger was not taking the priest's sins seriously. (He called the accusations "very serious" [gravis momenti].) It meant that he, following the policy of John Paul II, was taking the priesthood and its commitments very seriously.
And again, this entire affair had nothing to do with preventing further abuse by this priest. That had already been done, or should have been done, by the local bishop.
A final, minor but significant point of translation. The translation being used by the media of an important part of Ratzinger's letter is: "your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible". This has been rightly interpreted by some to mean that Ratzinger was saying that the bishop should keep a watchful eye on the priest. The original Latin makes that even clearer: "paterna...cura sequi" which means "to follow with paternal care". We get the word "persecute" from the Latin "per-sequi". "Sequi" is much stronger then "provide".
There is a completely mistaken first premise underlying all this criticism.The premise is that "defrocking" has anything to do with protecting victims and preventing further abuse.
First, the media needs to know that according to Catholic teaching, Holy Orders is a sacrament which leaves an "indelible mark"; in layman's terms, once ordained a priest, a man is always a priest. The reason the word "dispensation" is used in the correspondence is that that is what happens technically: the priest is dispensed from his obligation of celibacy. In a sense, this works in the opposite direction from protection: a restraint is being removed.
Further, as if to prove this point, the priest in question continued to abuse children after he was "defrocked" and had married. QED.
Secondly, nothing at all prevents a bishop from: removing a priest from all ministry; removing his faculties; reporting him to civil authorities. There is no need even to inform Rome about this. The only way (until 2001 or in cases of abuse of Confession) that it need get to Rome is if the priest appeals the bishop's actions.
Thirdly, why was the CDF involved anyway? That was not the congregation that handles abuse cases, except where abuse of Confession has played a role. I believe the CDF was involved in cases of dispensation from celibacy. (Though you would think that should be under the Congregation for Priests.) But, again, dispensation has nothing to do with preventing further abuse. It may appease the sense of justice on the part of victims. But at the same time, It normally takes eight to ten years to become a priest. It's not a club one joins. It is a very serious thing to dispense a priest from celibacy, and there needs to be a careful process to protect innocent priests.
Fourthly, there are definitely cased of priests who have been falsely accused. Especially the American media ought to be sensitive to the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Civil law requires that to be done in a court of law. A bishop can, and in many cases, should take action against a priest before there is any canonical trial.
Finally, let's compare this to the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. Criminal trials can be expedited, but even then in all but the most grievous cases, a criminal defendant is a free man until convicted. In the case of priests, the "punishment" of removal from ministry can be applied immediately by a bishop even before there is any canonical trial, which is like a civil trial. How long do civil trials take in this country. I know of trials that have dragged out for more than seven years.
If Ratzinger took part in "stall[ing]" a "pedophile case", the worst one can say is that he wanted care taken in a canonical trial. And, let's not forget, this wasn't "punishment" at all from the priest's point of view. He had "asked" to be dispensed.
You are showing prejudice against the Catholic Church because you are falsely accusing the Vatican of having covered up the scandal and of having obstructed justice in the cases of priests who were accused of misconduct with minors. Again, your ignorance and your bigotry are showing. Heck, you won’t even capitalize the words “Catholic Church,” which are a proper noun.
This whole argument against the Pope and the Vatican in their handling of the sex abuse crisis boils down to the claim that they have not done enough, which is a pretty weak claim. There is absolutely NO evidence that the Vatican ever returned guilty priests to ministry or covered up the scandal. If there were, that evidence would have been brought to light years ago when the media uncovered the scandal.
Let me be clear.
If this were a school board; and it were saying
“Don’t hold the superintendent responsible, the principal has the authority to fire a pedophile teacher”, I would find that argument empty.
If another teacher chimed in and said, “That the teacher wasn’t fired is not because of pedophilia but because of the seriousness of the contract they made when they became a teacher- and we need to reinforce how serious contracts are” , I would find that argument specious.
My guess is that there are a certain number of priests attracted to the priesthood because they believe the vows will provide them a certain safety railing to prevent them from continuing or progressing into a wide array of behaviors that are not consistent with their faith.
Some of these behaviors are sexual. Some might be financial. Others might be substance abuse related.
My guess is that this happens in non Catholic churches as well.
My guess it, that for a percentage of priests (since this is about priests) their commitment to their vows works. for some it works for a time, and for others it works for their entire life.
But a percentage of these priests fail at their vows. Perhaps they find a way to live a lifestyle that is not consistent with poverty. And perhaps those failings can be addressed without the removal of the priest.
Perhaps those failings are sexual. And perhaps in some cases even those failings can be addressed without the removal of the priest. (consensual sex with an adult female who is not a parishoner for example).
But, when those failings involve an under-age person the breach is so egregious that society will not accept it and the church should be so offended at the sin that they have no stomach to find offense with the accuser.
The article at the beginning of this thread tried to make the case that it is precisely because of the sanctity of the vows that such a priest could not be released from them.
Bull!
The vows that are so ‘sancrosanct’ have already been violated.
I have been in a church where sexual misconduct by a leader has been dealt with. It was done in a manner where the person accused was propped up and supported. I railed against the issue then, and I rail against it now.
Defend the Catholic Church’s handling of this all you want, but to think her behavior in the past or even at present will ever be viewed as the prototype by which other organizations should respond to such perversion is a pipe dream.
The church may well be handling the situation less badly today than she did in the past, but it still a pretty poor performance.
Keep in mind, it is the church who has paid millions in settlements, not the accusers (I mean victims).
That the Catholic Church would have a percentage of ministers who have acted deplorably is no surprise to anyone; not because of any insult to the church, but because she recruits from humanity, which is riddled with sin. I don’t judge her for having priests who have violated their vows- that’s not the the sin of the Church, but the priest.
That she continues to defend her sluggish and half hearted response, and reinforces the perception that she may no longer turn a blind eye, but she’s certainly above criticism, leads me to say; if she were a school, my kids wouldn’t be going back - just like the church we left who responded in a similar manner.
When one holds themselves to be light in the darkness, one must be willing to answer why darkness is harbored.
I don’t disagree that much of the press coverage is opportunistic; but I think we would disagree heartily over who created the opportunity.
Will Wallace
Some of these behaviors are sexual. Some might be financial. Others might be substance abuse related. My guess is that this happens in non Catholic churches as well.
It doesn't happen in business - not for long - because a person gets caught undermining the organization by destroying customers, clients etc - and their ass is out the door.
The Church and some nonprofits have provided shelter for those most eager to harm the innocents. That's wrong.
Those who provided cover and protection for evil to flourish, are also evil.
That's sort of like complaining that the garden club treats the criminal acts of their own members as a garden club issue.
Of course they do, they're the garden club, not the police.
What do you think the church is supposed to do, set up their own jails when the police won't take action? That would go over great. /s
We had a case here where the diocese was sued over abuse committed by a man who had been removed from the priesthood, after he had been removed from the priesthood and hired by the city to work with kids! The church told the city and the cops that this guy was a risk, and they did nothing.
Know who had to pay 6 or 7 figures to settle the case out of court? Not the city. Not the cops.
The guy had already been removed from active ministry, and had no contact with kids at that point.
You understand that, right?
Very true, but the Church was also infected by the spirit of the age -- the peak period of abuse cases coincides with the craziness of the rise of the radical left (remember the "Student Strike"?), the "Sexual Revolution" (with all that involved, including the growing acceptance of homosexuality, "if it feels good, do it", "a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper," the Pill, etc.), the rise of the drug culture, and undoubtedly more that I've tried to block out (or the headaches will come back!).
Just adding a little local color here . . . they were horrible times, not just in the Church!
In what must have seemed to be an outpouring of irrefutable logic, you stated: “That’s sort of like complaining that the garden club treats the criminal acts of their own members as a garden club issue.
Of course they do, they’re the garden club, not the police.
What do you think the church is supposed to do, set up their own jails when the police won’t take action? That would go over great. /s”
You know- if the garden club caught a member planting a pre-purchased plant in violation of their rules; that’s a garden club issue.
If the garden club caught their treasurer embezzling $25, and decided to keep it internal- that’s a garden club issue.
But if the garden club found that one of it’s officers was committing a little hanky panky with one of the junior garden club members: well that’s not a garden club issue.
We wouldn’t expect the garden club to set up a jail- we already have them. But if the garden club decided that keeping this person away from junior garden club members was all they needed to do; well, they would open themselves to both civil and criminal recourse.
No one expects the church to be the police- just to turn the miscreants over to the police.
Will Wallace
You said: The guy had already been removed from active ministry, and had no contact with kids at that point.
You understand that, right?
My response:
Who cares.
He was still a priest.
And the church’s refusal to remove him from the priesthood is indefensible.
No contact with children, huh. Never walked near a playground, huh. Never ventured near a schoolyard? Never had any contact with a child after that?!
Give me a break. Are we basing that on his character or on the sanctity of his vows?!
And don’t you think being a priest would allow him to get past a lot of parental defenses- easier say than some other middle aged guy that approaches kids on a playground.
I have no idea if any of the above scenarios happened, but the church made herself liable for them when it did not separate this man (and many like him) from the ministry at the first confirmation of his transgressions.
Will Wallace
Check you mail
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.