Commonweal has published an extended critique by Peter Steinfels of the 2018 Pennsylvania grand jury report on the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy in six Pennsylvania dioceses. If you are interested in this story, Peter's article is essential reading. Please do read it.
Like the report itself, Peter Steinfel’s article was too long. While his article was likely accurate, it was unfair and misleading to the report. He judges it as if it were a sociological study. Having just read Kaveny’s book Ethics at the Edges of Law I now understand that legal briefs give a very selective picture of the evidence in order to make points. This one did intend to give bishops a pat on the back when they got it right, or rank them by how many times they got it wrong. Peter and others are welcome to do that as a rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteshould have said did NOT intend
Delete1. It has been very clear from the beginning that the PA grand jury investigation added very few new cases of abuse. Almost all the cases had previously been reported, and they all fit the same time frame profile, i.e. they took place before the enactment of the Dallas Charter. It was never intended to be a pre-Charter post-Charter study.
ReplyDelete2. What was different about the report is that it focused upon the cover up of sexual abuse by American Bishops. Again it was mostly cover up of abuse that occurred before the Charter was enacted. It does what the bishops avoided at Dallas, judging themselves for their misdeeds before the charter. By refusing to face the past the bishops lost many opportunities to remove priests from ministry. McCarrick has been removed from ministry precisely because people have come out of the past to label him as an child abuser not simply as an adult abuser.
Jack re: pre-Charter / post-Charter: I think one of Peter's main points is that the report *should* have made the pre-Charter / post-Charter distinction. He finds the report's dealing with the facts to be selective and misleading. It seems an important part of reality that today's crop of bishops is considerably more responsible and responsive than their predecessors to the needs of victims and the requirements of justice. Is the attorney general responsible for portraying reality (i.e. telling the truth), or is it permissible for the attorney general to mislead (i.e. to lie) to pursue his preferred policies and political agenda?
Delete“It seems an important part of reality that today's crop of bishops is considerably more responsible and responsive than their predecessors to the needs of victims and the requirements of justice.”
DeleteI don’t agree they are. I have no evidence they are, and have some counter-evidence. We have the case of Bishop Finn who eventually resigned . We have the case of the bishop in Buffalo reported on sixty minutes. We have Cardinal Dinardo, the bishop conference president, he kept a priest in ministry who is now being prosecuted. We have Archbishop Gomez, the vice-president, who recently got one of his auxiliary bishops to resign. The man had been given a desk job to keep him out of trouble . I am sure that Gomez is getting his house in shape for when he becomes the president.
I am very glad the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report has put everyone, especially law enforcement on the alert. As both a citizen and a Catholic I have no way of knowing how well these bishops are doing their jobs, and certainly no way of doing anything to keep them accountable other than reporting things to the police.
“ is it permissible for the attorney general to mislead (i.e. to lie) to pursue his preferred policies and political agenda?”
What you call misleading, and lying I call making a good case that since bishop have been very unjust and even criminal in the past they may well be doing the same thing now, therefore law enforcement needs to be very vigilant, people need to report evidence to the police (e.g. the hotlines installed) and that victims need to be able to sue to get justice.
3. Steinfel’s continues the practice of religious people treating sexual abuse as a moral issue rather than a justice issue. Victims, Catholics and the general public have all been done an injustice by the misuse of power by priests and especially by bishops. We all have an interest in understanding this misuse of power and preventing it in the future.
ReplyDelete4. A major result of the report was to bring justice to the victims by exposing the cover up. In a sense the bishops have been put in stocks and publicly shamed. Victims’ problems with the systems have been shown to have been justified. Pennsylvania has set up a hotline for reporting abuse, and is considering statutes of limitation reform to help victims.
5. A second major result of report was to alert Catholics and all Americans to the lack of accountability on the part of the bishops. We are all less interested in how individual bishops in the past have been accountable. Some bishops obviously did better than others, some bishops did better with some cases than other cases. The report has focuses us on the as yet unresolved issue of how to make bishops accountable now and in the future with both civil and canon law. The issue as Francis has said is not just sexual abuse, but abuse of power, and a culture of clericalism. I don’t think this article provided us with any help on issue of abuse of power and clericalism.
"A major result of the report was to bring justice to the victims by exposing the cover up. In a sense the bishops have been put in stocks and publicly shamed."
DeleteBut this would seem to be begging the question. The report does not "bring justice". Criminal and civil justice isn't accomplished by releasing a grand jury report. In our system, we achieve justice in court, before a judge, with rules of evidence, the right to confront an accuser, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to mount a defense. None of this happens in a grand jury setting, and none of it happened - nor is it likely ever to happen - in the cases examined by this grand jury. The whole purpose of a grand jury is determine whether there is a basis to bring criminal charges - a very low threshold. In this particular case, only two(!) defendants have been charged as a result of this 1000+ page effort that names some 300 priests.
Putting bishops in stocks and publicly shaming them is a punishment - the sort of thing that should follow from a verdict, which should follow from a trial with those features I've named in this comment.
Jim,
DeleteBefore the PA Grand Jury Report was released it was challenged in court because some people thought their rights to a fair trial were being violated. I don’t know if some changes were made in that process Eventually the judge ruled that the report should released because It was in the public interest. I agree that it was. There is so much evidence that bishops in the past have done very bad, immoral and illegal things. If some of their successors are unfairly tarnished, so be it.
I understand Peter’s desire to not neglect the progress under the Dallas Charter. Unfortunately the bishops have been congratulating themselves that they have put the sexual abuse issue behind them without having to admit their past errors. Obviously they have not put clericalism and the abuse of power behind them.
ReplyDeleteJack, in a way I am prejudging Steinfels in saying I think you have hit five nails right on the head. But I won't be in a position to attack or defend the article itself until my copy of the magazine arrives because I find it (and pretty much anything else longer than a page) unreadable in electronic form.
DeleteHeard a story the other day that ebook sales are down and paper books sales are up. Was in Barnes and Noble Wednesday, and there was no lack of browsers and customers for the old style.
Tom, try YouTube. America Media now has a 20 interview with Steinfels. Just type in "Is the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report misleading?" at the YouTube search engine. it should bring it right up.
DeleteIt's not helpful to speak of "the bishops" as though all of them are the same. Individual bishops should be held accountable (including criminally accountable, when appropriate) for individual crimes and failings. That Cardinal Cody or Cardinal George failed in certain instances (perhaps many instances), should not reflect on Cardinal Cupich. If Cardinal Cupich fails in a matter of protecting victims or removing abusive clergy from ministry, or to engage in fraternal correction of his brother bishops, he should be held accountable for his failings - and not tarred with the sins of his predecessors.
DeleteClericalism, to the best of my knowledge, is not a crime in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor any other civil jurisdiction in the United States. It's not for the attorney general to root out clericalism.
“Clericalism, to the best of my knowledge, is not a crime in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor any other civil jurisdiction in the United States. It's not for the attorney general to root out clericalism.”
DeleteBut right now they are my best allies, other than Francis, in organizing my fellow Catholics to change the structures which foster clericalism. I don't see but a very few priest, a very few deacons and a very few lay ministers willing to do what Francis says we must do -rethink everything to route out clericalism.
I give Peter credit for actually wading through all 1000 pages-plus of the document. I don't get the idea that he's saying thay it's a moral issue rather than a justice one. This paragraph struck me, with regard to binary thinking:
ReplyDelete"Yet something even more basic triggers the resistance to any questioning of the Pennsylvania report—what is popularly labeled binary thinking. To question the report’s conclusions is to affirm the very opposite. If it is not true that all victims were “brushed aside,” then it must be true that no victims were ever brushed aside. If it is not true that church leaders routinely acted to protect their priests and institutions, then it must be true that no church leader ever did that."
I agree with Peter that the document is misleading in implying that the Dallas Protocols have not done what they were intended to do, and in conflating historical cased with recent offenses.
"...cased" should read "cases".
DeleteThank you, Jack, and Tom. I haven't read the report, nor have I read Steinfels' article. But......
ReplyDeleteAt this point, focusing on the bishops' collective cover-ups is important. Reports of abuse may down due to Dallas. This is good, and one hopes it's not a matter of the time lapse. From what I understand, many victims do not come forward for years. As young teens and children, they don't have the courage or knowledge to understand that if they report it, they might be taken seriously and not blamed for it, or accused of lying. Formerly, this was not the case. Many would not tell their parents because they feared being accused of lying and being punished.
Dallas has probably helped raise awareness and reduce incidents of abuse. The fatal flaw is that there is no Dallas Charter for bishops that spells out what they should do and, most importantly, how they will be held accountable if they fail to do it.
It was only a couple of years after Dallas that Cardinal George protected a priest who was abusing boys. Not only that, once it came out that he had protected the priest, he was still elected to head the Bishops' Conference. There have been a number of cases of bishops continuing to protect abuser-priests since Dallas. George is only one of them.
Even now, one still reads a whole lot of self-excusing stuff from the bishops, and a continuing refusal by most to admit that they had enabled child abuse by protecting priests who molested kids. Their lack of sincerity comes through loud and clear.
Apologists for the bishops should be pushing them to come clean and to enact rigid accountability standards, with loss of their mitres, croziers and rings as the minimimum consequence for their failures. Demote them to being regular parish priests, and send them to work in regular parishes, which most of them either never did, or did only for a short time before being steered to the power and privilege fast-track.
Let lay people inform the entire process. Lay experts, parents and victims should be the authorities, not men in clerical collars. They should be the sentencing authorities too, not just consultants to whatever policies the bishops come up with to police themselves. They cannot be trusted to police themselves. The lay people should be the decision makers, not simply token members of some study commission - powerless and used by the hierarchy simply for show.
The crux of the biscuit seems to be that the report is a tool for getting people worked up about extending the statute of limitations.
ReplyDelete"But the critical point regarding the Pennsylvania report is that it has been designed to be a weapon in the debate. Its impassioned, graphic style; its characterization of church leadership as no better, perhaps even worse, than the abusers; its refusal to make distinctions between dioceses or between periods of time like pre- and post-Dallas Charter: all are aimed at mobilizing public opinion behind legislation suspending the statute of limitations for civil suits and discrediting church opposition."
The implication is that the R C Church's diocesan leaders will be special targets for investigation once these limits are extended, without regard to progress the Church has made to clean things up.
But any arguments, even good ones, sound like excuse-making and soft-pedaling. The Church has created anti-Catholic backlash with cover-ups and inadequate remedies for many decades. Saying that things are better now just isn't going to quell the outrage.
Individual parishes that are visible and vital to the well-being of their communities are probably the best anodyne. Sadly, many parishes are merely waiting rooms where the gray-hairs go to reconcile themselves to death and try to earn their get-out-of-hell cards.
I know that sounds harsh. Just based on my own jaded experiences as a failed convert in a spiritual desert.
I certainly agree that, intended or not, the report can be weaponized to extend the statute of limitations.
DeleteOne of Peter's main arguments is that the current leaders, by and large, aren't the ones responsible for the cases that the PA report is bringing to light. If they are targeted as a result of the report, then that doesn't seem just.
Personally, I don't think Peter's article comes across as excuse-making and soft-pedaling. He comes to this topic with a reputation as one who doesn't make excuses for church leaders. The arguments that he makes are reasonable, and he brings forth quite a bit of evidence - not least from the report itself - to bolster those arguments.
I don't know whether Peter's article will quell the outrage. But I don't think there is anything wrong with looking critically at the cause of the outrage. In fact, that is another of Peter's important points: the press that has reported on this PA grand jury report hasn't done it's job of looking at the report critically and objectively.
Nothing against Mr. Steinfels's critical skills. His take down of George Weigel some years back was excellent.
DeleteBut the public at large is not inclined, for many reasons, to criticize what's in the report and the way it is presented, valid as those criticisms are. The Church has made too many errors for far too long. It will have to eat what it has sown until it regains its reputation. Crying foul on the report isn't going to help it regain its reputation.
Agree that trust is going to have to be re-earned. But I am dismayed by Jacobin fury, especially if is applied to the wrong targets, and as it usually unleashes unintended consequences.
DeleteJean is on target again. To repeat - "The Church has made too many errors for far too long. It will have to eat what it has sown until it regains its reputation. Crying foul on the report isn't going to help it regain its reputation."
DeleteSo, question re: statutes of limitation: if the statute of limitation on these cases is changed or removed entirely, does that only apply to cases going forward? Or does it also apply to everything in the past?
ReplyDeleteKatherine - opening a window means that it no longer applies to cases in the past. It's problematic.
DeleteSorry, said that backwards - it *does* apply to cases in the past. Cases that would otherwise be barred from court because of the statute of limitations are eligible to be litigated when the window is reopened.
DeleteThese coverups and the abuse crimes are, first and foremost, CRIMINAL issues and dealing with them should be a legal matter above all. Moral outrage doesn't cut it. Ask the Australians how to handle it, as Pell found out.
ReplyDeleteI think the Church is going to have to put up with allowing states to lift statutes of limitations in order to allow a public airing of past criminal offenses. Saying "everything that happened in the past was terrible, but we're better now, so let's not bicker about all that and just move forward" offends justice.
ReplyDeleteI think this could be good for the Church in the long run, as a kind truth and reconciliation process.
It will, of course, will be a distraction from the Church's mission to do Christ's work. It will make Catholics look bad. And it will take resources away from diocesan funds.
However, to do less, offends justice and allows the Church to get off the hook by simply saying, what we did was terrible, but we made it all better now, nothing to see here, let's just move on.
If we really believe that the Holy Spirit will not let the Church go down the tubes, we must find a way to help the Church move through this. Again, I think that looking to the way our parishes affect the lives of our communities would be a good step.
Jean - I agree with most of this. The one distinction I would make is that it's not necessary to lift statutes of limitation in order for states, using their subpoena power, to review church records, interview victims and alleged perps, and publish a report of what happened. That is essentially what the Pennsylvania AG did. I don't object to that process, and as far as I can tell from reading his article, neither does Peter. (Not only do I not object to it; as I mentioned in one of NewGathering's other recent discussions on this topic, I'm coming around to the idea that it's the best way to shine light into these dark corners).
DeleteThere have been suggestions floated that, rather than lift the statutory limitations, a truth-and-reconciliation process be implemented in order to try to heal wounds, make survivors whole to the extent possible, and make sure they are getting the treatment they need. I'd support that, at least conceptually, and if our church leaders were on the ball and not hamstrung by their Roman superiors, they would have proposed something like that last November. There is still time.
Sorry - in my previous comment, I didn't finish my thought about these state investigations. I don't object conceptually to the state conducting these investigations. But that doesn't mean that anything and everything the state does in pursuit of these investigations is therefore okay. Peter's article calls out (persuasively, in my estimation) a number of aspects of Pennsylvania's process that he found problematic. The PA AG could have published the findings in a way that would have avoided those problems, and the main outcome - bringing these old cases to public light - would still have been the same.
DeleteI look at this from the point of view of "duel citizenship". I'm a citizen of the State of Illinois, so I'd like the publication of our state's AG to be accurate - essentially, to tell the truth. I'm also a citizen of the church, and want the church to come clean and be clean - but I also don't want the church and its leaders to be tarred unnecessarily or falsely.
The problem with truth and reconciliation programs is that they have no teeth. Where someone in the diocese can be held responsible for covering up or abetting abuse, let trials go forward.
DeleteI don't think that's tarring the Church falsely.
Thinking of holy martyrs like Maximilian Kolbe, against whose sacrifice the Church's efforts to cover up and handle abuse crimes in their own look particularly shameful.
WHERE ARE THE WOMEN VICTIMS?
ReplyDeleteWHY THE COVERUP MAY BE CONTINUING EVEN AFTER THE CHARTER!
The victims of child sexual abuse by priests have been predominately male. One explanation for this has been that many priests are gay. Another explanation has been that young males have been far more accessible to priests than young women. I have always thought both these explanations were inadequate. There must have been more women victims. They are just not coming forth.
WHY?
Part of the answer I think is that sexual molestation of young heterosexual males is a far more traumatic event in the long term that the sexual molestation of young women. Many young women of our society are molested and raped, far more than young men. However women are far more likely than men to seek help. They are far more likely to find other women, both their age and older, with similar experiences as a source of comfort and advice that they are not alone. For a young heterosexual male to admit to these experiences is far more difficult, and it is far more difficult for them to find help, especially from other men who are in their position. Hence the pattern of very late cases which have been surfaced by media attention to the subject. These long sufferers find they are not alone. Some cases of young women are also surfaced because of the religious nature of the trauma. However most young women who have had abused by priests likely see their victimhood as simply another case of men victimizing women, which occurs very often in our society.
ReplyDeleteThe more important answer I think is that most of the women victims were adults. And we have not heard from them YET because the charter was about minors However I think that we are going to hear more and more from them as this issue drags on, and as the #METOO movement comes alive in the church. There have been a lot of opportunities for adult women victims: housekeepers, secretaries, pastoral ministers, women religious. There were likely many cases in which women became pregnant. Some were abandoned, some were supported by priests, some may have been supported by dioceses. There were likely abortions, some supported by priests, even some by dioceses. All this will come out, it will not be pretty, and it will not be only about the distance past. It will also be recent post Charter.
ReplyDeleteIf Francis allows the Amazon to have married priests next year, the American Bishops would be wise to adopt it for us before all this happens, and provide us with a “solution” before all this comes out. The Bishops, of course will not likely do that so I intend to be a part of their prosecution not their defense.
I believe that allowing married priests would increase and broaden the pool of aspirants to the priesthood. Which would be good. But it wouldn't of itself solve the problem. In the secular world, many of the abusers of the #METOO victims have been married men. And not to pick solely on men, in our state there have been at several highly publicized court cases of women teachers having sexual relationships with minors. It's about misuse of power.
Delete"...at" in the last sentence doesn't belong there. Blogger, plz add an edit function to comments!
DeleteI agree that having married priests will not necessarily reduce sexual abuse, abuse of power and clericalism. So in the past I have never been an enthusiastic supporter of FutureChurch and other organizations with that agenda.
DeleteHowever in the present situation I think the only way the bishops are going to regain a leadership role is by making major changes such as a married priesthood. So while I would advise bishops to do that, if they do institute married priests and/or women deacons I will be the first to say that these in themselves will not solve sexual abuse, abuse of power and clericalism.