www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall This Is Disgraceful !!!

Randy, not sure if you meant me, but here goes. Let me begin by saying that I knew Cardinal Law from his years in Springfield-Cape Girardeau, MO. He was appointed bishop there shortly before my baptism at the age of 14. I met him many times, spoke with him at length, went to confession to him and respected him greatly. Once, at his request, I sang all the verses of Amazing Grace for him in a public restaurant. I liked him and highly respected him for many years. But after reading his depostion concerning what he knew about the clerical sexual abuse in the Boston Archdiocese, how priests would be reported, moved, reported again, and then moved again ad nauseum, I quickly lost any respect I had for the man. I just recently read one deposition he gave and discovered that even while he was in Springfield-Cape Girardeau this was going on. One of the two priests who instructed me in the faith was reported to him as having molested a 12 year old boy and he did nothing! This was in a different parish and a few years after this man had instructed me, but it could have easily been me. (If anyone is interested I can provide a link to this deposition.) Even the National Review Board appointed by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops declared in February that the Archdiocese of Boston appeared to be "a diocese with a cadre of predator priests and a hierarchy
that simply refused to confront them and stop them." I was very disappointed that he was not held legally responible for what he allowed to happen in Boston and cannot believe Rome would reward him in such a way. They should have allowed him to remain in quiet retirement at a monastery or appoint him to be chaplain to nuns. He should never have been appointed to oversee one of the major shrines in the Church. I cannot help but think that the powers that be (whether JPII himself or, more likely, someone who is acting in his name)is not convinced that Cardinal Law has done anything wrong, but that he is a victim of anti-Catholic sentiments and a scapegoat for the sins of a few predator priests.

I believe that Law does have to accept responsibility for the continuing abuse of those priests he knowingly reassigned after their abusive behavior was reported to him. All bishops who do not respond to reports of abuse in a proactive manner are as guilty as the abuser him/herself. My abuser worked started out in one diocese, was reported to the bishop there and nothing was done. He then moved to another diocese, was reported there and nothing was done. He continued to move to another and yet another diocese, all with the blessings of the bishops involved. It was only over 30 years later when legal action was finally taken that the man was stripped of his status of religious brother and the community he founded disbanded. I am told this sort of thing was not uncommon. All of those bishops were responsible for evil this man did, by the very fact that they did nothing to stop him. And Rome always supports the bishops in these cases.

Don

Dear Irish Melkite:

I am not sure of course exactly what you are including in "what". On the issue of reporting to the police, I am against it for reasons including those outlined by Silverglate. If accusers want to go to the police, that is their right; if they don't want to make their accusation so publically, that position should be respected. If the church were obligated by the state to report, then victims in the later category would be left without any recourse at all. A bad, presumably unintended, consequence.

If you mean "criminal" figuratively" fine, but in the context of judicial remedies its hard to avoid inferring a literal meaning. The literal meaning makes your remark a falsehood. Why do that?

Ignore? Is this again an exagerrated rhetorical flourish meant only to be symptomatic of how angry you are, or is it a decision to make a statement that is a untrue. Your conclusions about motivations, if based on fact-challenged rhetoric are pointless.

More still. Fine. You resist Theophan and decide to make a judgement. I am with Sharon; it is so enormously difficult to cogently support these conclusions, that I am glad that I don't have to.

I don't think, however, that Law ever, in fact, condoned abuse. It may be stated, however, those guilty of this sin were, absent summary dismissal were, in some stretched sense, "enabled". On this point too, I agree with Silverglate. As I suggested in our own appraisal of Law, so also in Law's decision-making on these priests I would expect not only rigor in discerning the truth, but a pastoral quality - an adherance to belief in the transforming power of Christ. I would be scandalized if such an approach were abandoned in favor of bureaucratic principle: first let's cover our butts; or the business principle: first let's cover our assets.

The process used to discern who, among the accused, would be re-assigned and who was dismissed was obviously far from perfect. But it can hardly be said to have entailed ignore the victims, condoning abuse, etc. Indeed, the hardest part was to identify the sociopaths who no doubt were convincing in professions of remorse and repentence and intent to adhere to the faith, were able to dupe professional secular consultants, and who were loved by their flocks. Of course it was easy to identify those two or three in hindsight.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind for the majority of accused priests, there was only one accusation against them in their career. Statistically, the risk that a priest accused once will have another complaint lodged against him, is not that much greater than for a priest with no offences. In this light, the laudable goal of a risk-free environment for children is simply unobtainable.

"such behavior" as what - abuse? Of course. Extra-legal ideas about "criminality" "ignoring" "condoning" etc. Chilling. It is not unknown in Mass. and elsewhere to have judicial juggernauts based on the horror of the abuse rather than the merts of the specific charges - yes that is lynch mob mentality. It's what had kept the Amiraults in Massachusetts prisons.


Diak:

I think the accountabiliuty issue is interesting. And would be curious to hear how you might go about it, while avoiding arguably worse abuses that might follow.

I don't think cringing is a zer-sum enterprise, so for the most part I am in accord with your cringe-sensibilites. And I hope that you share some of mine.

I am convinced that Law had to go, but am not conviced that he is guilty of malfeasance. On his watch the incidences of abuse dropped substantially, repeat offenders like Geoghan were defrocked, a more rigorous procedure for fact-finding and evaluation was instituted, etc.

Not if it were demonstrably merited. But as a scapegoat for a bad outcome - yes.

Because it is manifestly the truth. Notwithstanding ours sins, but because of our faith and everythind that we do that is good.

A nice line from a court ruling quoted in the Silverglate article:

I won't give an inch of ground to the those who argue otherwise.

Thanks, Don. This has to be very painful for anyone who has gone through that nightmare to see Rome awarding those who had authority and power to stop it with anything honorific. I hope talking about it helps somehow.

Hmmm, from the poster who was previously admonishing about others passing judgement, about others needing to consider "charity" in this situation.

Now, that's a spirit of Christian dialogue. Law's past "performance" is adequately documented for the entire world to see. He was in multiple offices of authority while these abominations occurred, which is now well documented and part of public record.

He only enacted corrective measures upon public disclosures of some of the abuse victims. That is also well documented.

Don brings up an excellent point. The volumnous depositions speak to his complicity, by his own admission the knowledge he had of the abuses going on in two dioceses under his watch.

When a battle ends in failure, that bodes poorly for the commanding general most of all.

No. This is not justice nor charity nor manifestly the truth. The truth is, many of the Church's children were abused under the watch of this prelate. That is truth, that is fact, that is documented.

He could have deposed many of those prior to the public disclosure, as he had admittedly knowledge of them. At best, complicity with numerous crimes which cries out for justice.

djs, have you been abused? Do you have friends who are abused? Have you ever counseled someone who has been abused? I can say yes to the last two questions. Why in this case do you overlook the accountability and responsibility of Law and defend his being rewarded?

This sends quite a serious message about the Church's concern for justice and her abused children to the rest of the world when someone with the history of Law is rewarded with any honorific title. And it has been noticed.

The Church could have chosen to (1) not reward him and (2) enact canonical sanctions which are already in canon law, which supposedly exists for justice to be served within the Church. Not talking about lynch mobs, but canonical justice which the Church seems to be able to dole out to some but not others.

It is indeed a perverse sense of "charity" when the rewarding of someone with the career of Law with anything other than the justice due to him is defended.

The Church of justice and truth, who supposedly loves her children, should be conscious of the message that she is sending to the world when situations like this occur. This has been noticed across the world already. If the Church wants her message of charity and justice to be taken seriously, she herself needs to manifest it with applying justice internally.

Passing judgment? Huh? I mean no disrespect, and am not making a judgment about Neil's conduct or character at all. As I stated, I can readily understand the anger that leads to hyperbole.

But, Law did not ignore victims, he did not ignore the problems among the clergy. He did not condone abuse... The procedures and remedies were clearly lacking; he lost the confidence of the faithful and had to go. ("When a battle ends in failure, that bodes poorly for the commanding general most of all" - indeed.) So are the ideas about justice for Law based on the facts or on an anger-inspired exagerration of the facts of the case? When the rhetoric gets cranked up to an hyperbolic level, then are we still alking about justice or is it Fells Acres alll over again?

My comment of standing my ground was in support of this proposition:
"[We] must be wary of a claim that the true color of a forest is better revealed by reptiles hidden in the weeds than by the foliage of countless freestanding trees." If someone says the bishops should keep quiet about abortion, the war, capital punishment, communion, because of the abuse crisis, I impolitely disagree. I do disagree with the communion issue (as other might the war). But my reasons are unrelated to the unfair connection to the sex abuse crisis. To link the two would amount to judging a forest by its reptiles. I oppose such a unfair judgment against my church in any aspect unyieldingly.

These truths are not mutually exclusive. It is true that many of the Church's children were abused under the watch of this prelate. It is also true that "we [are] a Church concerned about justice ... [and] a Church concerned about the spiritual and physical well-being of our children"
Reptiles and Forests.


No, No, and No. I don't overlook the responsibility of Law, nor do I wish to overlook the pain and suffering of the victims. I stipulate that Law had to go. I agree that he failed.

But I do not see him as a nefarious evil-doer, who acted with arrogant pride and disregard for his flock. Very nearly all of the abuse documented by Riley occured befor Law's tenure. Law's revised practices came after the exposure of the Porter case, not one from Law's tenure. There was consultation with outside expertise. Priests were deposed but obviously not enough.

Setting up a system that optimizes justice and safety for all - with a Christian perspective - is not an obvious or easy thing to do. Law, like others, did not solve this tough problem. Not a good thing, but not, AFAIK, evidence of inherent evil.

Randy and others,

I sincerely apologize for saying what I said before since many of you made good points.

I have to say that I agree that the least Law should have gone to some kind of hermitage or something.

I hope what I said before didn't offend anyone, especially those who may have been abused or those who knew someone who was abused.

It's indeed a tragic...an evil one.

It's just hard to imagine ANYONE with good conscience allow priests to roam around after the abuses (moving them around).....and I'd expect a lot more from a Bishop who should have had GOOD CONSCIENCE to resolve the problems rather than running away from it.

YEAH DUH!!

G-d bless,


SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

djs,

What he did was to fail to take timely and definitive action with respect to investigating and acting upon allegations of abuse of children and adolescents by clergy who were subject to him.

Unfortunately, as has been testified to on any number of occasions and repeated in interviews, etc., many did not choose to go public because

• they were ashamed (a typical reaction of abuse victims)
• they felt that they were somehow responsible for the abuse (similarly, a typical reaction of abuse victims)
• they believed that the Church, through its hierarchy, would act appropriately to stop the abuser from doing such harm to others (they didn't question how that would be done, they just naively believed, in their faith, that the Church and its leaders would do the right thing, whatever that was)
• they did not want to expose the Church to public scandal (a theme reiterated again and again, as so many of the victims came from truly devoted Catholic families)

djs, you demean yourself by playing semantic games here (although you also have misread and consequently taken out of context - completely - the point of the sentence - I'll readdress my original point in the next paragraph - but, I want to make a point first about what you thought I said and how you reacted to it, because I think there's a point to be made here also.)

That something is not "criminal", because it has not been codified as such, but a reasonable man would infer it to violate accepted standards of acceptable behavior as they relate to conduct - in this instance an act of ommission by which a person in a position of trust and authority with knowledge that allegations exist of criminal behavior fails to take affirmative action to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations, and if found true, to take appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of that behavior, - by any standard of moral culpability has committed a criminal act, codified as such or not. That there were repeated instances of such takes the scenario to an extreme - suggesting an absolutely wilful disregard for the victims on the premise that the public image of the Church was more important than what had been done - an attitude that, ironically, brought greater shame on the Church than would ever have resulted from publically dealing with the issues as they arose - a process that might also have had the beneficial effect of deterring other miscreants from perpetrating their wrongs on more victims.

The above sentence is the one you misread. Let me try again:

That said, what the two of them did, [with respect to ignoring behavior by those subject to their jurisdiction that was absolutely criminal from a secular standpoint and absolutely sinful from a religious standpoint,] was itself criminal and sinful.

Note that the phrase "absolutely criminal from a a secular standpoint" refers to the behavior by those subject to the jurisdiction of Cardinals Medeiros and Law - not to what the Cardinals did. On the other hand, the phrase "itself criminal and sinful" applied to what the Cardinals did.

Again, you are being disingenuous. They ignored by failing to act timely and definitively and they compounded that by doing it again and again with additional victims and additional perpetrators - and, sometimes, with the same recurrent perpetrators.

Angry? Me? I have no grounds to be angry - I never suffered abuse and I do not personally know anyone who did. I did know several priests who perpetrated one or more instances of abuse, including one who was a high school classmate of mine. What I feel is not anger but an enormous sense of disappointment, a sense that persons in whom I placed trust and faith lacked both the moral sense of responsibility and the plain damn common sense to exercise their authority in a way that would have protected those to whom they had an obligation. As someone who has held positions of significant authority, I always believed that I did so as a trust and that it was incumbent on me to appropriately fulfill that trust - I expected no less of Cardinal Law and his auxiliaries, most of whom I have had occasion to met over the years.

It isn't necessary to make a judgement in this instance. The facts speak for themselves. Condonation need not be active or overt; the failure to act in circumstances that merit action is, in and of itself, a condonation - the failure to exercise one's moral responsibility gives scandal only slightly less in degree than the overt act of permissiveness. Perception is reality and reality, in this instance, is in the eyes of both the victims and the beholder.

How about, let's protect those of whom our Lord said, "Suffer the little children to come onto Me"? He did not say, "Suffer the little children to come unto My priests, that they might service them."

The Boston Archdiocese (and others also), in the person of its hierarchy and their administrative minions, has shown a remarkable proclivity to pick and choose its experts from among those who speak and say the words that it most wants to hear and to ignore and abandon use of those who have said otherwise.

Am I to understand then that predators in clerical garb who abuse only once deserve a pass for that? Funny, that doesn't seem to be the standard we apply to the plumber, the bartender, or any other citizen who does so - even though, for many of them, the opportunity to abuse again will not be as easily had as it will be for the one-time offending cleric who goes back into ministry - especially if he is transferred to another canonical jurisdiction, where no one is the wiser and, consequently, will not be watching.

You will get no argument from me about the Fells Acre Day Care-Amirault case in Massachusetts, the Wenatchee case in Washington State, or the McMartin Day Care case in California. All were miscarriages of justice that can only be described as witch-hunts fueled by mass hysteria and, in some instances, accompanied by prosecutorial, police, and/or social welfare agency misconduct. However, an important distinction to be made is that all of these involved very young children who were able to be manipulated by those who were hell-bent on proving what they had already decided to have happened. The priest sex-abuse cases in the Boston Archdiocese (and most other jurisdictions) have overwhelmingly involved adolescents or late pre-adolescents - not toddlers - and the recurrent instances, with similar modus operandi, at different times and places, cast an entirely different light on these.

Randy's point is absolutely valid. Silverglate's quotation from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court notwithstanding, the average person does not analyze events unfurled before it with the fine eye that is typically accorded to them by appellate justices convened en banc and examining them in the light of law and precedent. The average person looks at facts from the standpoint of what a reasonable man might perceive and mitigates that perception by the prejudices that he or she has acquired in the course of life, based on their own experiences, learning, and observation. It is that mitigation of perception, with its inherent risk of erroneous conclusions and the subsequent potential for errors in judgement, that cause there to be appellate judicial bodies and that such bodies make their decisions without juries. Yet, in almost all instances, appellate courts are enjoined from reconsideration of the facts determined by the jury - because the law puts fact-finding into the hands and minds of those 12 reasonable men and women. They are the finders of fact and unless they find in complete contravention to the evidence presented, their decisions as to the facts will be sustained without review.

Thus, we cannot rely on manifest truth to be the sole basis on which persons, viewing the circumstances of these events, will conclude that we are champions of justice who are concerned for the spiritual and physical and psychological well-being of the children entrusted to our care - we must manifest that championship by acting to assure that those who would use the facade of clerical garb to abuse and those who would fail to act responsibly in the face of such are dealt with timely and appropriately. My God, do you realize that some of this was done in the churches itself, in the confessionals, the sacristies, everywhere but on the altar. Talk about hearkening back to the rightly condemned slanderous material that commonly circulated prior to the 20th century, alleging all sorts of heinous activity in churches, rectories, convents. That fiction has become truth and given succor to those who are enemies of Catholicism (as well as having made enemies of persons who previously would not have given credence to such scurrilous materials).

Are you serious? Geoghan abused children (often while having them pray aloud or while he did so) and was shuffled from Medeiros' time through Law's tenure. He was not defrocked until 1998 - 2 years after his retirement, 14 years after Law became Archbishop of Boston, and 30 years after the first allegations against him were made to archdiocesan officials.

Think what you will. I am done debating this.

Don,

My deep and honest admiration for you as a survivor who has dealt with the trauma of what occurred and been able to move on into a productive life and also to maintain your faith. You have my prayers.

Many years,

Neil

Thanks Neil and Randy. Don

Don, don't know if you saw the NCR article about this: http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/todaystake/

Thanks Randy, saw it yesterday and thought it made some very good points. Ultimately the buck stops in Rome. Don