https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/22/americas/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html
"The word 'proof' was not the best way
to approach a pained heart. I would say 'evidence.' In Barros' case, it
was studied. It was restudied. And there is no evidence. And that is
what I wanted to say. I don't have evidence to convict.
"If I convicted without evidence or without moral certainty, I would commit a crime of being a bad judge," said Francis."
Those advocating for the victims will find this unsatisfying. What they want is for Barros to be removed. But if no civil court has found him guilty, and the pope has not seen convincing evidence, is that a just solution?
The difference between "evidence" and "proof" used to be important when words meant what they mean. But now it's all feelings, and victim feelings trump meaning. When you're in a hole, the best thing to do is stop digging.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that's how it should be. But I can adduce examples all day.
"He also reaffirmed his support for Barros -- and his assertion that allegations of sex abuse without evidence are slander."
ReplyDeletePerhaps there is no evidence that Barros committed sexual abuse, but there might be indications that he did cover up. Did Pope Francis study whether Barros committed abuse or whether he covered up? Zero-tolerance for abuse, ok. What about tolerance for cover-ups? Has Pope Francis said anything about that?
I don't know if I am understanding correctly, but I interpret the comment about "slander" to be regarding the accusation that Barros stood by and watched sexual abuse. That does seem to stretch credibility.
DeleteThe article above quotes the pope as saying, "In Barros case it was studied. It was restudied. And there is no evidence." That would seem to be about cover ups.
I think Margaret Steinfels' suggestion in a previous thread that Barros resign for the good of the Church would be the best possible outcome for this situation.
Delete"Studied" and "restudied". I'd ask the Holy Father consider a formal investigation, with some transparency, i.e. published findings. If questions and doubts can be put to rest, that seems to me to be the best approach. The inquiry could be conducted by the Holy See or by the Chilean bishops. Just a suggestion.
ReplyDeleteI do not trust our pope to have the ability to figure it out all by himself; in fact I am not at all clear on what he considers to be "cover-up" and what examples he would give of cover-up behavior that would warrant someone stepping down, so I do not know his definition of "guilty behavior". I also do not know what he would consider to be "convincing evidence" of such cover-up. I completely trust his goodwill and his desire to be even-handed and discern objectively, but that's not enough. I'd be much happier with a committee, even of canon lawyers, who at least who make their criteria clear, so I would be able to disagree with them! As it is, I do not know what our pope's statement means.
ReplyDeleteCall me selfish, but I am very glad that it is not my diocese. I like my pope, I like my bishop: how lucky I am!
Fwiw, Francis did approve some formal guidelines a couple of years ago to remove bishops who were negligent in handling reports of sex abuse.
ReplyDelete"The accused bishops will have the right to defend themselves, and the final word will be that of the pope, the decree states. He will be advised by a panel of legal experts, most likely made up of cardinals and bishops"
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/world/europe/05popeabuseupdate1pix.html
Whether any bishops have actually been put through this process, I am not sure. And it's probably worth noting that the accusations against Barros are from the time before he was a bishop, so it's not clear that these guidelines would apply in his case.
I agree with Jim and Claire's suggestion of a formal, transparent, and independent investigation.
DeleteI question whether Holy Mother Church is capable of formal, transparent and independent investigations. The non-bishop members of the pope's advisory commission on sex abuse were maneuvered into being the same kind of window ornaments any members of the laity become when they get tangled up with the interlocking "charisms" of a bunch of bishops whose careers depend on the one man with the final decision.
DeleteFrancis has said many eloquent things about the perils of clericalism, but I believe we will be stuck with it and suffer from it as long as we have to wait for the participants and beneficiaries of clericalism to change it. It would require a whole new ecclesiology, and that would have to be accepted by -- clerics.
Tom - the common storyline is that Francis was elected to be a pope of reform - the fact that he's also emerged as a rock star was sort of a two-fer, and I think mostly unanticipated.
DeleteI worry that his reform efforts seem to be flagging, and/or stymied. I'm sure that resistance from the 'deep state' is the biggest part of it. No doubt, some of it is mistakes in judgment on his part, such as putting his trust in leaders who haven't been worthy of it. I hope his energy and zeal for reform haven't dissipated.
Benedict, too, gave backers some hope that he would be a reforming pope. But no matter how you stir apple sauce, its surface resumes its original shape. Real reform would have to start with sending all of the visible likely leaders out to their first love, parish work, and bringing in a bunch of untried priests from the highways and byways. I suppose that when you have to fill the big holes (like running the Vatican banks) the human thing is to go with the devil you know rather than the street priest you don't.
DeleteTom, do you think the electors picked Benedict to drive reform? I don't think he was the reform candidate at that conclave - I believe that honor may have gone to the runner up, that fellow Bergoglio.
DeleteJim, My memory ain't what it used to be, but it seems to me that going into the conclave Begoglio a longshot, and the best odds on a reformer was a Brazilian (?) named Hummes, at about 8-1. Then Ratzinger delivered his zinger speech, causing the Italian press to declare him the reincarnation of Gregory the Great. Briefly. But memory is furtive.
DeleteTrue, Bergolio was runner-up. But that was as big a surprise to Paddy the Bookie as Ratzinger was.
Once the cow has been milked it’s hard to force the cream back up her udder. [Lady Olenna of House Tyrell (Game of Thrones)]
ReplyDelete