When Pennsylvania's attorney general convened a grand jury to look into the records of abuse in six dioceses across the state, dioceses and individual clergy attempted to shut down the probe. The attorney general prevailed in court, and the report is devastating: the grand jury discovered records of 300 priests across the six dioceses abusing 1,000 minors over a 70 year period.
The Pennsylvania dioceses and church leaders seem to have followed the standard American Catholic church playbook: resist, deflect, minimize. Perhaps that was the best legal advice from the best legal minds that the dioceses are able to hire. But observers have wondered for many years whether, despite the obvious and enormous legal liability, this approach best serves the church's mission. The strategy has made the church many enemies, some of whom have proven to be pretty media-savvy; and it has caused many other people, even some who previously were disposed to think benignly of the church, to become skeptical of its good faith and trustworthiness. In short, the church has seriously wounded its public reputation, and in retrospect it might have been better had the church chosen to be poorer but still in possession of a bit more of its integrity.
In the wake of the Pennsylvania report, coupled with the Ted McCarrick scandals, church leaders have been discussing what needs to be done to arrest the cycles of of negative news and win back the public's trust. We looked at some of the proposals floating around. Most of them consist of independent review boards, featuring some combination of bishops, experts and other laypersons, that would be empowered (somehow) to review the records of bishops.
But two Missouri bishops are now taking a dramatically different and perhaps more promising approach. The Archbishop of St. Louis has invited the Missouri attorney general to review archdiocesan records:
[MIssouri Attorney General Josh] Hawley announced the effort in St. Louis in a Thursday conference call with reporters. He said while he didn't have the authority to conduct investigations, he could do so if an individual diocese requested it.
Archbishop Robert J. Carlson of the St. Louis Archdiocese made such a written request earlier in the day.
"I now invite you to review our files for the purpose of making an independent determination of our handling of allegations of clergy sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of St. Louis," the request stated.
After Attorney General Hawley received Carlson's request, he announced that he'd write to other bishops in the state, offering to conduct the same investigation in their dioceses. Within hours, Jefferson City's bishop, W. Shawn McKnight, accepted the attorney general's offer.
McKnight told the attorney general that as soon as he was installed as bishop this past February, he engaged a firm comprised of former FBI and law enforcement agents to review files of all active clergy and seminarians "to ensure that all who minister are ministering in the diocese are appropriate to do so."
That review was completed this June, he said in the letter.
"While we were preparing to release a full report, which would have included not just information on our current situation, but also historical information, we will suspend that effort to allow you to begin your investigation immediately," he told the attorney general.
For David Clohessy, former director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), there may be a certain poignancy in Bishop McKnight's offer:Clohessy sued the Diocese of Jefferson City in 1991, claiming the Rev. John Whiteley, of St. Pius X Catholic Church in Moberly, abused him in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when he was 12-16 years old. The case went to the state Supreme Court, but the statute of limitations had passed. In 2015, Clohessy said he had received a check from the church for $40,000 but had to promise never to sue the church again. Then-Bishop John Gaydos said in a news release at the time that the church had extended an apology to Clohessy and gave him a check for an undisclosed amount to help him in the healing process.Another Missouri diocese may follow suit in inviting an investigation:
The Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph told the Associated Press it would cooperate with an investigation if requested by the Attorney General's Office.That would be notable, because the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese formerly was led by Robert Finn, one of the most notorious bishops in the annals of the scandals in the US. Finn was convicted in 2012 of failing to report abusive diocesan priest Shawn Ratigan, who took lewd photos of little girls and kept child pornography on his diocesan computer. Pope Francis accepted Finn's resignation in 2015.
It's notable that at least two dioceses are willing to open themselves up to independent and authoritative scrutiny in this way. And it's interesting that Attorney General Hawley is putting his own reputation on the line by agreeing to investigate dioceses; those probes historically have not been characterized by friendly cooperation.
If the Catholic church has any hope of rebuilding its reputation, it has to be willing to tell the truth, even in the face of intense criticism and wide legal liability. Could this be a new paradigm for establishing that baseline of truth?
The bishops do indeed need a new playbook. Illinois, and New York along with Missouri have state officials who are considering following along the path of Pennsylvania.
ReplyDeleteReports like in Pa will lead to attempts to change the statute of limitations which if done will lead to more legal actions and more disclosure over more years. Public relations experts usually advocate getting all the bad news out quickly rather than playing hide and seek.
One of the Pa Bishops, Erie, is also trying a new playbook. He cooperated with the investigation, published a list of lay and clerical offenders, etc. A few days ago when SNAP protested at the diocesan headquarters (they are making the rounds of the state) he went out to meet them, invited them to hold their demonstration in the parking lot where it would be more visible, and then met with the leader afterwards. SNAP leaders were stunned; it took them a while to decide how to respond!
It is pretty obvious that consensus has broken down, and real leadership is up for grabs among the bishops. It is a good time for individual bishops to get themselves on the public record before they have to close ranks again when their fellow bishops agree on some new direction.
"It is pretty obvious that consensus has broken down, and real leadership is up for grabs among the bishops."
DeleteThe divisions between American bishops during my adult life have primarily been portrayed as a liberal/conservative split. But this issue of abuse cuts across both of those categories.
If you accept that this is an age that prizes authenticity, then it may be that the bishops who respond most authentically are the ones who will come out of this with the most moral authority with the public. This strategy by Carlson and McKnight seems to me to enhance their authenticity. To the extent that's true, it's probably a good move on their part. We'll have to see what transpires.
Do we really need 50 states and 50 reports and 50 headlines and 50 weeks of discussion? I mean, the details will be disgusting, like the details Brett Kavanagh recommended including in the Starr report, but, aside from the ick factor, will anyone get anything out of it? The whole idea sounds like something starring Donald J. Trump if he were still in television.
ReplyDeleteI liked Fr. Tom Reese's idea of creating a huge pot, like the 9-11 Compensation Commission and having an outside, non-Catholic czar receive the claims and decide who gets what.
And I like the idea of all the bishops resigning -- and giving reasons - and Pope Francis deciding which to accept and which not to. That probably would leave the Church with another huge liability of paying the dead weight that wouldn't be able to find another job.
It would be worth 49 more traumatic reports if it reformed the clericalism situation, but it probably wouldn't. Having this autocratic closed society within the society of the Church wouldn't be bad if they had a direct pipeline to God. But their reflexive institutional behaviour in the face of clerical pedophilia shows they are no more special than the rest of us. It was like having a secret society inside the Church. And now we have more of them, Opus Dei et al. This problem doesn't seem to be fixing itself.
ReplyDelete"If the Catholic church has any hope of rebuilding its reputation, it has to be willing to tell the truth, even in the face of intense criticism and wide legal liability."
ReplyDeleteJim,
As a social scientist I tend to avoid the words "Catholic Church" in favor of "Catholics" or "Catholicism (meaning people, institutions, and culture)" when I am dealing with the larger organization, or "Clergy," "Parishes," "Bishops," "Dioceses" when dealing with smaller parts.
Pew research data in the past episodes of clergy abuse has still shown high favorable ratings for priests and especially women religious even when the Pope and especially the bishops favorable ratings tanked. As in politics people often like their own bishop (congressperson) when they dislike bishops (the Congress).
An important part of freeing Catholicism of clericalism especially among the laity is to recognize that bishops are servants of the people. Sometimes in Francis terms, they need to get out in front, sometimes they need to follow and affirm, but mostly they need to be with the people. That implies that criticism of them and what they should be doing is perfectly normal. Our new bishop says that he expects the people will teach him how to be a bishop. That is not only humble but also wise.
The problem we face is that in recent decades the vast majority of bishops failed in their ministry. I would argue that this goes far beyond sexual abuse. We need NEW bishops whether that be new people or RENEWED current bishops. Maybe new playbooks is a step in that direction.