Pope Francis Admits Serious Errors in Handling Chilean Sex Abuse Cases
In a three-page letter, Francis admits his own “serious mistakes” in dealing with this scandal and asks for forgiveness and goes on to take two dramatic steps: He summons the entire Chilean hierarchy to meet him in the Vatican in May and invites the three main accusers of Bishop Barros to meet him there too at the end of April.
The American Hierarchy did meet with Pope John Paul II, mainly to sell him and the Vatican on their one strike and you are out policy. The Irish Hierarchy meet with Benedict; unfortunately the new Archbishop of Dublin did not receive the backing he should have had from the Vatican Curia even though he was a former Curia official and had been appointed by Benedict to remedy the situation.
Rocco Palmo's coverage gives some indication of just how difficult it has been for Benedict as well as Francis to move against the clerical establishment There are many cardinals and bishops in Rome and around the world who continue to oppose transparency and reform.
Hierarchies around the world will be watching this. If Francis accomplishes a major reform of the Chilean hierarchy everyone may wonder if they could be next.
Pontifical Commission For Latin America Proposes Synod on Women
At the end of their meeting March 6-9 at the Vatican, members of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America proposed that the church hold a Synod of Bishops “on the theme of the woman in the life and mission of the church.”
The theme of the four-day meeting, “The woman: pillar in building the church and society in Latin America,” was chosen by Pope Francis. In addition to 17 cardinals and seven bishops who are members of the commission, the pope asked that some leading Latin American women also be invited; eight laywomen and six women religious participated in the four-day meeting and in drafting its pastoral recommendations.
The next Ordinary Synod will be that on Young People, Faith and Vocation Discernment this fall.
It will be followed by a Pan-Amazon region Special Synod in 2019. It is widely expected that these bishops may ask for married priests in this difficult to serve area. Francis has encouraged them to do so.
There have been some remarks for European cardinals that Francis should NOT reestablish women deacons without consulting the bishops. His commission that is studying the issue is limited to deciding whether there were women deacons in the early church. It is likely their report will cause Francis to say that there were, and therefore we can have them again if the Bishops want to have them. A Synod on Women in 2020 would be a opportunity to explore the issue.
This action regarding Barros and the Chilean bishops is most welcome. If Francis deserves to be criticized for his mishandling of the Barros affair during his visit to Chile, he deserves at least some credit for this evident change of heart.
ReplyDeleteI takes a big person to admit a mistake. Our biggest person-in-chief never does. He just fixes it. Whatever that means.
ReplyDeleteThere is a subtext here. Francis has been pushing to have national bishops' conferences handle more decisions. Some of the push back is because they would rather blame the Vatican than take the blame themselves.
Yes - I found it interesting that he's inviting the Chilean bishops for dialogue and collaboration. I guess it's possible that that formulation is simply for mass consumption, and to wallpaper over a coming unilateral reaming-out by the boss, and I'm not saying that wouldn't be well-deserved, but this seems to be an instance of Francis putting into practice his notion of respecting the autonomy of individual conferences.
DeleteI am watching the developments of the Chilean scandal with interest.
ReplyDeleteAs to a possible Synod on Women, there are many things comical in that piece of news. Starting with the picture and its caption "Pope Francis greets a woman in 2017" -- an unnamed woman. Is it so noteworthy that in 2017 Pope Francis greeted a female member of the human species? Was it the first time something like that had happened? Was that particular woman of no interest except for her being a woman? The way it is presented is quite humorous.
I don't think I remember any other pope admitting to making a mistake. Francis has done it at least twice now. It's a good start. But, besides admitting to making a rather grave mistake, and summoning the bishops from Chile to Rome, he also needs to a issue very clear document that spells out exactly how Rome will deal with bishops who conceal crimes committed by priests, regardless of their rank. Until that happens, many will continue to distrust Rome in this matter, because there will be no guarantees that future popes will hold bishops accountable for protecting criminals. In Chile, Francisignored all the pleas from people to reconsider naming this man bishop. Francis preaches against clericalism in the ranks, but he still has somewhat of a blind eye when it comes to higher ranking members of the hierarchy. Perhaps this is a sign of genuine recognition of his own blindness to some forms of clericalism. He set up some commissions on this, which have accomplished precisely nothing. Will he actually DO something that will be binding on future popes so that they don't let their brothers in tall hats off the hook when they protect their own?
ReplyDeleteAnne - I would say that, just as President Obama can't bind President Trump with executive orders if Trump doesn't like them, it's difficult to see how Francis could do anything that a future pope can't undo. Of course, that cuts in both directions; Benedict can kick off an investigation into American women religious, and Francis can make it go away.
DeleteI'm not sure how to summarize Francis's stance on higher ranking members of the hierarchy. He ended Cardinal Muller's tenure at CDF, rather abruptly. He packed Cardinal Burke off to Malta. He didn't stand in the way when Cardinal Pell decided he had to go home. He has publicly corrected Cardinal Sarah several times. So he's willing to crack a few eggs. But on the other hand, he hasn't fired Sarah (yet), even though it can reasonably be argued that Sarah has been obstructive. And he has shown quite a bit of tolerance toward other high-ranking folks who don't seem onboard with the program.
Barros, to me, feels like something else. For reasons that nobody professes to understand, Francis felt he had to defend Barros. Seems that may be coming to an end, though.
Jim, then why bother with trying to do anything at all about the patterns of sexual abuse and cover-ups in the church?
ReplyDeleteWhy enact strict "rules" for lay workers in Catholic institutions - background checks, fingerprinting etc? After all, if the bishop learns that another priest is abusing another young person, he can just continue to hide the crime, as was always done. If it's a lay person - a teacher or coach or Youth Minister - the bishop most likely would make a big display of firing them and calling the cops. But it is less likely - as we have seen in recent years - that the same thing will be done if the abuser wears a roman collar.
Two sham commissions were set up in Rome to try to convince the "simple" faithful that Rome cared and was going to clean house. It didn't happen. Neither commission has done anything. I think the one set up to discuss what kinds of "rules" should apply to bishops died without doing anything at all, even hold sham meetings, like the commission that the two victims resigned from.
If Rome is determined to continue to protect bishops,refuse to hold them accountable, refuse to even enact a code that they are sworn to obey - even if such a code could be undone by a later pope - then the bishops cannot be trusted to protect kids instead of priests.
If there was a set of hard and fast rules governing bishops' responses to sexual abuse by priests in their dioceses, and a future pope nullified them, it would be far more obvious that the clerics are not really concerned about the "simple" faithful and that their own "brotherhood" comes first.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"why bother with trying to do anything at all about the patterns of sexual abuse and cover-ups in the church? "
DeleteI should think the answer to that question - "why try to do anything about sex abuse" - is self-evident. Let's agree that there are gaps and issues and have been terrible failures in the past.
I fervently hope that whatever reforms are enacted to address those issues won't be rolled back by some future pope. Obviously, the watchdog role - for all the people of God - is important to hold leaders accountable.
And don't forget: the topic that triggered this conversation is an instance of a pope saying, "I apologize: I was badly mistaken." That doesn't mean that everything will now magically be fixed, but it does signal a possibility for conversion and reform. This could be a holy opportunity. Let's not let the opportunity slip away, would be my prayer.
Jim, I think that what Francis did - admit he was wrong - was truly extraordinary. Popes don't ever admit they are wrong about anything, at least as far as I can recall.
ReplyDeleteSo, MAYBE he is finally becoming aware of the need to have policies that spell out the responsibilities of all bishops in all suspected cases of abuse to contact the civil authorities - policies which also clearly spell out the (hopefully) dire consequences for bishops who fail to do so. Putting in "laws" for everyone except the hierarchy is a loophole that you can drive a truck through.
I think it would be a whole lot harder for a future pope to undo such a policy than it would be for Francis to implement one. How would he explain or justify rolling back such a policy?
Even though Francis faces vicious opposition whenever he tries to implement almost any reform, and this one touches very close to home for a lot of current bishops and cardinals, he should still give it a SERIOUS try - not a half-hearted, sham commission set up to appease the "simple" faithful. The current crowd in mitres and scarlet might be willing to let him do it, IF they themselves are grandfathered. If they can remain untouchables. As we know, with the exception of Law who was more or less forced to resign because of the 50% drop in money take in Boston and the subpoenas, not a single bishop has ever voluntarily held himself accountable. Even when Francis removed the Opus Dei guy (Finn?) and the one in the midwest (Minneapolis - long name starting with N) Rome did not give a specific reason. THey did not spell out that these men were removed for their failures to protect the young. They gave a vague, mush-mouthed bit of impenetrable Vaticanese. Obfuscation is a fine art in Rome.
If bishops remain above the law, protected by Rome, then there are no assurances that children in the future will be safe.
We should remember that both JP2 and Francis lived under authoritarian regimes where priests who crossed the government could become targets of the governments wrath. Both experienced that and so are likely to be protective of priests in such situations. Francis has said that he believed the bishop in Chile was a victim of a leftist plot.
ReplyDeleteBenedict had not such experience. Because the CDF was required to process the cases of priests who were sexual abusers, he read every Friday the case histories. In other words he was in the position to know the most, of anyone in the church.
Benedict did act but slowly once he became Pope. The cases begin to move, and priests were dismissed (thought this hardly solves the problem). Benedict did sentence the head of the Legionnaires to a life of penance, but in such a way that the magnitude of his case did not become apparent until after his death. Benedict could hardly have announced that JP2 had made a very big mistake although by the time of his resignation that had become apparent to the world.
One of the problems in making priests and bishops accountable is to also put in place processes so that authoritarian governments do not use these to remove priests and bishops whom the government may dislike
Benedict acted against Maciel - an order priest he was NOT a bishop. Even though Benedict had long known about Maciel's crimes, and had JPII's ear, it seems that he let JPII protect Maciel - whom JPII as a "model for youth". What kind of real morality did these men have? Ratzinger himself refused the requests of more than one bishop in Wisconsin to remove a priest who was molesting boys in a boarding school for the deaf - a total of around 200. Ratzinger turned a "deaf" ear to those pleas, so he too enabled crimes to continue and be covered up. Of course, the bishops did nothing - if they acted on their own to protect these boys by calling in the cops, they would have risked their "careers". These men seemed far more interested in their careers than in the kids.
ReplyDeleteJPII/Ratzinger/Benedict did NOT act against any bishops - whisking Cardinal Law to Rome to keep him away from perhaps having to testify again - under oath, setting him up in cushy digs with nuns to serve his every domestic need, a car and driver, positions on powerful committees - including the group that vetted bishop candidates. Seeing him live the high life in Rome at the expense of the people in the pews whose children were molested without him lifting a finger to stop criminal priests was a huge sign of total disrespect - actual contempt - for the victims, their families and for the 99.999% of Catholics who don't wear roman collars. Then Francis gave him an all-out funeral - rubbing salt in the wounds.
The issue here is NOT the priests who abuse, but the bishops who enabled them - who hid the crimes and moved the priests around from parish to parish. It's about the Vatican enabling these crimes also by protecting the bishops.
There have been actions taken in the US (not everywhere) (Dallas) to implement policies that might help to reduce future incidents of child molesting in the church, but those policies do NOT impact bishops - who are still perfectly free to cover up crimes, since Rome has chosen to NOT hold them accountable and has chosen to NOT design policies that would hold them accountable.
It seems that you are saying that because SOME authoritarian govts might move against bishops then Rome is right to refuse to hold them accountable at all?
I hope I am misunderstanding what you are saying, because it is WRONG to let bishops off the hook. It's NOT OK that the little people in the church can be held accountable (teachers, coaches, youth ministers, lower level clergy etc), while bishops are protected against "authoritarian" regimes.
About that school of deaf boys, I do not remember that Benedict enabled crimes to continue. He may well have delayed sanctions, but I believe that he did not let the priest continue to be in a position to commit crimes.
ReplyDeleteActually, the priest was gone from the boarding school by the time Ratzinger was head of CDF. His bishop ordered him to live at home with his mother - in a neighboring diocese - but did not alert the receiving diocese of his crimes. He continued to work with youth. When, years later, a canonical trial was ordered, Ratzinger chose to end it on a plea from the priest/abuser.
ReplyDeleteI think Ratziner belatedly understood the horror of sexual abuse of children and so he acted against Maciel almost immediately. But bishops seemed to get a pass - brought to Rome, rather than face the justice systems of other countries. The same thing happened with the papal nuncio in the Dominican Republic whose priest/assistant procured street boys for him. He went to Rome, and Rome refused to extradite him to the Dominican Republic to face charges. The man died - rather conveniently - just before his canonical trial was to begin.
Foreign Policy magazine has a brief summary of Ratzinger's actions as a bishop, a cardinal, CDF and Pope.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/02/22/the-skeletons-in-benedicts-closet/