EDITORIAL Solutions that make matters worse
Facing a widespread uprising of
Catholic laity and a relentless media, the U.S. bishops seem to be edging
toward the adoption of a zero-tolerance policy for clergy sex abuse
at their June meeting. As Pope John Paul II said last month to the American
cardinals in Rome, there is no place in the priesthood for those who would harm
the young. Looking ahead, it makes sense for the bishops not to equivocate on
clergy abuse. Catholic parents need assurances their children will be safe.
However, when it comes to accusations dating back many years or
even decades, the bishops might be wiser to study each case on its own
merits.
The adoption of an absolute policy might provide needed relief but
it could also lead to further abuse. Would it serve the interests of the
Catholic community or that communitys sense of justice to enforce the
most severe punishment for a priest who may have acted in an improper manner
many years ago but who has since established a clean record? Crimes need to be
treated as crimes, but there are well-established reasons in Western law for
statutes of limitations. The wiser course may be to scrutinize each case
carefully. We worry about policies enacted under pressure that end up devoid of
human assessment and the need to make distinctions in acts or patterns of human
behavior.
While we have persistently pressed for more hierarchical
accountability in this area, we also fear that a simplistic one-size-fits-all
policy will end up in the future looking a lot like the notoriously failed
three strikes and youre out policy that has filled U.S.
prisons in recent years.
A deeper problem with the discussions -- or rather, lack of
discussions -- in recent weeks has been the episcopal focus on how fast and
under what circumstance to throw out priests. They are missing a crucial point.
As pained as Catholics are in dealing with the clergy abuse issue, they are
even more pained by the failure of their bishops to protect their children.
They are being forced to acknowledge unbelievable patterns of cover-up and
denial that persisted over decades. Catholics are looking for answers. They are
demanding accountability.
In this light, the Vatican meeting last month, which did not
address the role of the bishops in the scandal, is being viewed by many as the
latest incident in a longer pattern of denial. It now looks like the pattern
will extend to the U.S. bishops June meeting. Short of a thorough
episcopal self-examination coupled with serious efforts to open up and involve
the laity in future discussions, the bishops seem to be making matters worse.
They are certainly not showing evidence that they grasp the seriousness of the
moment. Nor are they indicating that they yet have what it takes to lead the
church to restored health.
If the June sessions are dominated by zero-tolerance
discussions, the bishops will have once more avoided the truly pressing
questions at hand, chief among them: What allowed this to happen in the first
place? To answer this question and many others related to it requires a
commitment to openness and inclusion that the church has not seen in a long
time. It is the closed atmosphere in which the bishops operate, it is their
unwillingness to allow themselves to be assessed from the outside that upsets
and discourages ordinary Catholics.
If the bishops do not open up the discussions, they cannot
reestablish trust. If the bishops do not allow outsiders to walk with them, to
work with them, to help them define the problems at hand, they are almost
certainly not going to find solutions that will help move the church forward.
Without major changes in attitude toward the laity, any solutions the bishops
come up with will be considered skeptically.
Without properly framing the problems, solutions are likely to be
simplistic. Worse, they can lead to dangerous and even injurious thinking. We
find, for example, very disturbing that some Catholic prelates are now floating
the idea of rooting out gays from the Catholic clergy and forbidding young gay
Catholics from becoming priests. The not-so-subtle implication here is that gay
priests are more inclined than heterosexual priests to act out their sexuality.
No supporting evidence is offered to back up the claim.
Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua of Philadelphia has raised this
flag. He stated last month that gays are not suitable for the priesthood,
even if they remain celibate. His explanation was that they do not give
up family and marriage, as heterosexuals are required. According to Bevilacqua,
what the gay candidate for the priesthood gives up is what the church
considers an aberration, a moral evil.
All such talk will do is muddy the picture, not provide any
clarity and it will provide convenient scapegoats. Far more responsible
commentators have already noted the need to discuss the implications of
increasing numbers of homosexuals in the clergy ranks. Such discussions would
be valuable if they are approached honestly and in the spirit of learning and
helping, not seeking vengeance against those of a certain sexual
orientation.
In real terms, a purge of gay priests is highly unlikely. Any such
effort would quickly lead to a frenzy of finger-pointing. We concur with Bishop
Thomas Gumbleton, an auxiliary bishop of the Detroit archdiocese, who said that
these kinds of statements contradict existing church policy. All
homosexual persons have a right to be welcomed into the community, to hear the
word of God, and to receive pastoral care, the U.S. bishops wrote in a
1997 pastoral message to the parents of homosexual children. Said Gumbleton,
I dont know how we could tell parents to accept their children and
then we wont accept them.
Finally, it is important to remember that our priests and bishops
are hurting, perhaps as never before. It is tragic that the Catholic clergy,
filled with men who have given their lives for the service of others, is being
so tarnished.
Lay voices are proliferating. This is a healthy sign and needs to
be encouraged. The widespread calls by laity for episcopal accountability might
also be seen by the hierarchy as a sign of growth and health. Most laypeople
speaking out and getting involved are doing so in attempts to heal and in
response to the need for greater unity among clergy and laity alike.
National Catholic Reporter, May 10,
2002
|