Posted on 06/21/2002 11:36:34 AM PDT by Antoninus
Addressing A Scandal . . .Bishops’ Actions Expose More Corruption
By MICHAEL S. ROSE and Paul Likoudis
DALLAS — The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ summer meeting in Dallas closed with the bishops approving a "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People," a shovelful of ground meat thrown to a media pack and victims of clerical sexual abuse demanding some sort of response to decades of clerical misconduct and episcopal cover-up.
The bishops placated almost no one. Critics assailed them from both the left and right and in the long run, the only likely lasting results from the meeting are diminished credibility for bishops, an exacerbated priest shortage due to their new one-strike and you’re out policy, and an opening of the chancery archives to liberal government and newspaper prosecutors and persecutors.
Within days of the dramatic meeting, which drew more than 700 journalists, bishops from coast to coast were announcing the latest round of clerical resignations and retirements.
• In Albany, diocesan officials — just days after Bishop Howard Hubbard said there might be "one or two" priests in the diocese who would need to be removed — announced that 13 priests were under investigation on charges of sex abuse, nine of which go back as far as 25 years, four of which were made since February.
"If the allegations are proven, the priests will be immediately removed under the church’s new zero-tolerance policy, and their names revealed," diocesan spokesman Fr. Kenneth Doyle told The Schenectady Gazette.
Of the 13 priests, Doyle added, some are deceased and others have already been removed from ministry.
• In Milwaukee, Fr. Marvin Knighton, who was a consultant for the archdiocese’s youth and child ministry office, was accused of improper sexual advances against a male student at the archdiocesan high school, Pius XI. He was charged June 18 with second-degree sexual abuse, but there is an interesting twist to this story: The student went to the archdiocese to report the abuse, which occurred in 1988, in February, and officials set up a meeting with Knighton and his accuser, and did not report the incident to the district attorney’s office until April. Victims’ rights groups claim that this case looks like "witness tampering."
• In Chicago, archdiocesan chancellor Jimmy Lago announced that eight priests will likely be removed, but the most shocking allegation, via The Chicago Sun-Times’ Steve Warmbir and Frank Main, was that the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin gave one of his priests, Vincent McCaffrey, 49, ordained in 1978, an $85,000 settlement to leave the Church. McCaffrey, now in jail pending a bail hearing, has been charged with possession of enormous amounts of child pornography.
• A grand jury in Westchester County, N.Y., has accused the Archdiocese of New York of engaging in an "orchestrated effort to protect abusing clergy members from investigation, arrest, and prosecution"; and in Boston, a grand jury is considering similar charges against Bernard Cardinal Law and top aides and former aides.
In the wake of the meeting, as a number of bishops mounted their pulpits to try to explain, apologize, and reassure their people, a Washington Post poll found that a majority of Catholics and non-Catholic do not believe the new guidelines are strong enough, and two-thirds of Catholics do not believe the new guidelines will "solve the problem" of predator priests.
The Meeting
The "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People," which passed 239 to 13, says "an alleged offender will be promptly relieved of ministerial duties and referred for medical and psychological evaluation." Moreover, "when an allegation is admitted or determined, past, present, or future, the diocesan policy will be that the offender will be removed permanently from ministry. If he is not dismissed from the clerical state (e.g., for reasons of advanced age or infirmity), he will not be permitted to celebrate Mass publicly, to wear clerical garb, or to present himself publicly as a priest."
The bishops, however, stopped short of requiring that all those against whom credible charges of sex abuse have been made be removed from the priesthood, leaving that to the discretion of local bishops. The USCCB did, however, agree to require themselves to report all allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities.
The approved policy is stricter than the policy proposed initially by a subcommittee led by Archbishop Harry Flynn, released a week before the meeting. The so-called "one-strike" policy no longer allows priests who committed only one act of abuse in the past to continue in ministry. At the same time, however, it no longer requires that bishops ask the Pope to defrock all priest sex abusers.
Priest abusers, according to the approved policy, would be banned permanently from functioning as a priest, including wearing clerical garb.
"From this day forward, no one known to have sexually abused a child will work in the Catholic Church in the United States," proclaimed Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the USCCB, after the historic document was approved. "No free passes. No second chances. No free strike."
Despite Gregory’s forceful statement, critics have pointed out that the new policy is only as good as the bishop who is enforcing it. Moreover, is instructive to note that the U.S. bishops did not call for measures that would discipline bishops who refuse to implement the new policy.
One result of the meeting, which some bishops may come to regret, was the formation of a lay review board, headed by Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma, who put bishops on notice that any who had shielded predator priests should resign.
"As a Catholic layman," he said at a press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, "I am horrified and angry and shocked and puzzled and amazed that such criminal, such horrific, such sinful acts could occur within my faith community. It is a horrific and pitiful statement that people who have been ordained to the ministry would do such things.
"If someone obscures, absolves, obstructs, or hides that criminal act, arguably they are obstructing justice or are accessories to the crime," said the governor, who is a strong proponent of the death penalty.
The board is designed, at least theoretically, to monitor whether the nation’s 195 dioceses implement the bishops’ new clergy sexual abuse policy.
According to Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb., commenting after the bishops’ conference, the review board has no authority to make bishops comply with the new national policy. "The only thing they can do," he explained, "is publish the names of the dioceses that aren’t complying, and hope that public pressure will force their hands." In his June 18 report for National Review Online, the contrite former dissenter Michael Novak traced the bishops’ current troubles back to the revolt against Humanae Vitae, and their cowardice in the face of a massive, highly organized, and well-financed dissent against the Church’s moral teaching.
A Rupture
Gregory, the bishop of Belleville, Ill., opened the three-day conference by offering a number of heartfelt apologies — to the victims of sexual abuse, their parents and families, to faithful priests, and to the laity — in his own name and in the name of the U.S. bishops. In his opening remarks he also laid the blame squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. bishops.
Bishop Gregory defined the crisis as a profound loss of confidence in the bishops by the Catholic faithful who count on their moral leadership. "What we are facing is not a breakdown in belief," he said, "but a rupture in our relationship as bishops with the faithful."
Addressing his brother bishops, Gregory said, "If there is any bishop who has sexually abused a child or young person, I ask you to report this fact to the nunciature so that justice and the Church will be served, and you will be able to live honestly with your own conscience."
He urged priests responsible for sexually abusing a minor — which he called a crime — to report this to their bishop.
Furthering his call for full disclosure, he also encouraged victims of sexual abuse by priests to report the abuse to their local bishop and to the appropriate civil authorities.
Scott Appleby, associate professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, and Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, editor of the dissenting journal Commonweal (who was once invited by the late Cardinal Bernardin to address his priests on the need for women’s ordination), were called upon to offer the laity’s view of the crisis. Both Appleby and Steinfels are well-known liberal intellectuals who have never been particularly stalwart defenders of the Catholic teaching on sexual morality.
After denigrating the role of the media — suggesting that reporters approach the present crisis with pre-existing story lines and invisible headlines that read "See, We Told You So" — Appleby recognized that the media have not created the scandal. "That the media have focused with such intensity on the scandal is a kind of testimony, odd though it may be" he said, "to the fact that American society rightly expects more of the Church — more purity, more fidelity to the Gospel, more compassion, more holiness."
Both Appleby and Steinfels were straightforward in their addresses, making it clear that they blamed the bishops for the scandals.
Can’t See That Elephant
One issue of gravest importance was categorically dismissed by the vast majority of U.S. bishops: homosexuality in the ranks of the priesthood. Well over 90% of the victims in abuse cases involving priests were adolescent boys, indicating not a problem of pedophilia — abuse against pre-pubescent boys and girls — but of ephebophilia, or predatory homosexuality.
Just as the bishops met in Dallas, the Holy See released a new, 57-page document, approved by Pope John Paul II, called Starting Afresh From Christ, a Renewed Commitment to Consecrated Life in the Third Millennium, which calls on bishops to better scrutinize candidates for the priesthood, and to insist on high ideals "and the profound demands of holiness."
The new instruction says prospective priests must accept fully what it called the "evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty, and obedience," which it described as a "powerful antidote to the pollution of spirit, life, and culture."
When Bishop Bruskewitz appealed for a commission to study the relation of homosexual clergy and theological dissent to the sex abuse scandals, he was voted down by his brother bishops, who have studiously ignored making the obvious connection.
In fact, on the eve of the conference, Archbishop Flynn appeared on Nightline with Ted Koppel. Representing the subcommittee that drafted the proposed document on sex abuse, he told Koppel that the bishops would not be discussing the issue of gay priests because, at least in his opinion, there was no relevance.
During the conference, one bishop told The Wanderer that the main reason that the U.S. bishops don’t want to broach the subject of homosexuality is because "many of them don’t really see anything wrong with gay priests — active or not."
"They’re upset about the bad publicity the scandals receive," he added, "but a lot of them aren’t particularly distressed by the idea of actively gay priests."
In a media briefing on canon law, a reporter for the Village Voice who is a well-known gay rights activist, asked the bishops and their canon law advisers about the 1961 Vatican document barring homosexuals from Ordination to the priesthood. They were quick to distance themselves from the Vatican teaching. Their response: "Nothing in canon law bars homosexuals from being ordained priests."
In his June 19-25 report for the Village Voice, Andy Humm predicted that "purging gays" from the priesthood "won’t be easy, since they populate everything from the Vatican curia to local parishes. This may be one reason why the bishops didn’t bring up the subject of homosexuality. But they did broach the topic of chastity and celibacy. The two words don’t necessarily mean the same thing to priests: Celibacy is a promise not to marry; chastity is a vow to be sexually abstinent. At the conference, the bishops made it clear that both commitments will be taken more seriously. ‘There will be clear and well-publicized diocesan standards of ministerial behavior,’ reads the bishops’ document."
Humm also indicated that the gay priests he interviewed for his report don’t expect to be purged, because most bishops are "if nothing else, ‘protective of their priests’. . . . In order to be a bishop, [one gay priest] said, you need a highly developed capacity for denial.
"A younger gay priest predicted," Humm continued, "‘People like me will get fed up and leave. Enough is enough. It is not healthy on many levels to be a part of this family. Given the current leadership, there is no hope.’ This priest has a partner and is leaving, but he knows gay priests who struggle to fulfill their promise to be celibate and chaste."
In a related matter, the bishops ignored a significant contribution that deals with some of the damage as proposed by the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), written on behalf of the CMA by a Catholic psychologist and a Catholic psychiatrist.
These two professionals, who have treated a significant number of priests from various dioceses and religious communities over the past 25 years for same-sex attraction (SSA or homosexuality) and for pedophilia and ephebophilia (homosexual behavior with adolescents), advised the bishops that homosexuals should not be ordained. They explained:
"Our experience over 25 years has convinced us of the direct link between rebellion and anger against the Church’s teaching, and sexually promiscuous behaviors. This appears to be a two-way street: Those who are sexually active dissent from the Church’s teaching on sexuality to justify their own actions, while those who adopt rebellious ideas on sexual morality are more vulnerable to become sexually active, because they have little to no defense against sexual temptations."
A Highlight
The Dallas chapter of Catholics United for the Faith held an open forum with panel members who were in Dallas attending the bishops’ conference: Bishop Bruskewitz, Philip Lawler, editor of Catholic World Report, author and journalist Russell Shaw, international CUF President Leon Suprenant, Helen Hull Hitchcock, editor of Adoremus Bulletin, and this reporter answered questions from a group of 300 or so concerned Catholics. Many attendees came from as far away as Phoenix, Arizona, and Rochester, N.Y.
Many of the questions were directed to Bishop Bruskewitz, who described his peers as "this hapless bench of bishops" and several questioners wanted to know why the Holy Father has appointed so many "bad bishops."
Bruskewitz responded that he had no idea, but told his audience that he once gave John Paul II a copy of the letter St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to Pope Eugenius III, warning that Pope, almost 900 years ago, that his eternal salvation hinged on the removal of bad bishops. Bruskewitz said the Holy Father has made a magnificent contribution to the Church through his writings, but said his governance was not sufficiently firm.
Lawler told the audience the American Church faced a "dual scandal": the sexual abuse of minors by a very small proportion of Catholic priests, and the cover-up of these crimes by a significant majority — two-thirds, according to some reports — of current bishops. Lawler also noted that the implementation of the policy lies with the bishops who are well known for their failure in this regard.
Profound Insight
"The really deep secret, then, of the last 40 years is the fear, timidity, and passivity of the American bishops. I believe it was Orwell who said that no one will ever know the crimes committed in our time through the fear of being thought conservative," he wrote.
"Everything the bishops did in Dallas showed how fearful they still are of being thought conservative. That is why they refused even to touch the one issue that John Paul II had told them is central: fidelity to the whole of Catholic teaching on married love and sexuality. That would have meant antagonizing the secular, liberal press. That would have meant preaching Catholic doctrine straight. The bishops didn’t want to touch that task. . . .
"The bishops need to understand that what we Catholics love and respect is the Catholic faith, not them. If they lack courage to speak up for the faith, what are they good for except to be thrown out and trodden upon, salt without savor?
"I don’t know about you, but I hear more and more people saying that they should throw out the whole bench, and get a new team. A few exceptions aside, this one doesn’t seem to be completely serious.
"But my advice is, give them a little more time. And pray that the one or two clear leaders among them will step forward, for the good of the Church. Enough of Avignon. It’s time to take the Church back to Rome."
Why limit it to just one? Those sees are all but vacant at the moment anyway.
patent
Be sure to make the subject: "For Bishop Bruskewitz"
Dear Bishop Bruskewitz:
I would personally like to thank you for being one of the few voices of Catholic orthodoxy in a nation overcome with secularism and political correctness. Instead of being strong leaders and examples for the faithful, regrettably, a number of America's bishops have subscribed to the values of a decadent culture and have permitted a malignancy to grow unchecked within the Mystical Body of Christ.
Once again, thank you for all your efforts and know that there are many other sincere Catholics like me praying for you and others like you who courageously stand united with Rome.
Yours in Christ,
xxxxx
"...The really deep secret, then, of the last 40 years is the fear, timidity, and passivity of the American bishops. I believe it was Orwell who said that no one will ever know the crimes committed in our time through the fear of being thought conservative," he wrote.
"Everything the bishops did in Dallas showed how fearful they still are of being thought conservative. That is why they refused even to touch the one issue that John Paul II had told them is central: fidelity to the whole of Catholic teaching on married love and sexuality. That would have meant antagonizing the secular, liberal press. That would have meant preaching Catholic doctrine straight. The bishops didn’t want to touch that task. . . .Enough of Avignon. It’s time to take the Church back to Rome."
BEARS REPEATING. At last, somebody who states the obvious.
During the conference, one bishop told The Wanderer that the main reason that the U.S. bishops don’t want to broach the subject of homosexuality is because "many of them don’t really see anything wrong with gay priests — active or not."
"They’re upset about the bad publicity the scandals receive," he added, "but a lot of them aren’t particularly distressed by the idea of actively gay priests."
In a media briefing on canon law, a reporter for the Village Voice who is a well-known gay rights activist, asked the bishops and their canon law advisers about the 1961 Vatican document barring homosexuals from Ordination to the priesthood. They were quick to distance themselves from the Vatican teaching. Their response: "Nothing in canon law bars homosexuals from being ordained priests."
The Deacon, St. Athanasius was right! THE FLOOR OF HELL IS LITTERED WITH THE SKULLS OF BISHOPS.
The Catholic faith, and all of us who adhere to it faithfully, has been betrayed by modern day JUDASES.
We need to fast and pray for deliverance. And seeing the Bishops themselves have neglected to publicly wear sackcloth and ashes, the laity are going to have to sacrifice and offer up sufferings and repentance for the evils committed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.