Trust betrayed

The NCR reported last week that Fr. James Connell, vice-chancellor of the Diocese of Milwaukee Wisconsin diocese, had publicly spoken from the pulpit and apologized to his parishioners on November 13-14 for his failure to address the issue of clerical pedophilia. His remarks evinced the frustration felt by many priests about the scandals of the last decade. Hopefully many more priests will follow his lead. Many of the abuses predate that period but the public revelation of the scandals, not just the abuse but the prevarications and outright lies by members of the hierarchy at every level in covering up the crimes of their fellow priests and bishops, is what is most heinous and most distressing to the ordinary Catholic.

Some apologists try to excuse these crimes by saying that it was a different time with different standards. The same argument would justify the massacre at Wounded Knee, lynchings by the Klan, Nero’s persecutions or the Holocaust. Let’s just stop a minute and think things through to their logical conclusion.

Numerous bishops have excused their failures by passing the blame to therapists who told them what they wanted to hear; that Fr. X was truly repentant and cured of his aberrant tendencies and could return to his priestly work again in another assignment. Fr. would report in to his counselor periodically on his progress and all would be well . . . until the next “unfortunate incident”. He would not need even the minimal support of a group similar to AA.

It was asserted that the incidence of such abuse among the Catholic clergy was much lower than among clergy of other denominations, 1.5% rather than 10%, a truly insignificant number, due in all probability to the careful screening of all applicants to and in the seminary. It seems just as likely that the figure represents the number of accusations accepted as verified by diocesan authorities. Conceivably the bishop who appointed and transferred priests from parish to parish was far more familiar with his priests than lay boards in other denominations that interviewed and selected pastors after careful investigation and evaluation. Of course such boards could also fire as well as hire a pastor who did not live up to their moral standards, unlike Catholic parishioners who must prove their suspicions or accusations to a bishop who must in turn seek permission from Rome to remove the accused from the priesthood. While waiting for Rome to respond, the priest in question can continue to function with no restrictions and no warning to his pastor or parishioners.

A friend of mine commented some years ago, ”I feel so bad for the good priests who must deal with this”. I can only imagine the stress of following a pedophile in a parish. What do you say or do? What credibility do you have? I thoroughly believe in a priest visiting his parishioners in their homes. He gets to know them and they him on a personal level, where they can discuss their problems, fears and needs in a more comfortable environment than an office across a desk. This is how a community comes together but there is a need for mutual trust which is the basic element of a community in which faith is shared.

We talk frequently about the damage done to children and the bishops’ lack of concern for them. We also recognize the damage to the Church and its credibility. We rarely hear about the damage to the local parish community. Yet as Andrew Greely points out “The parish is where it is at.” For most Catholics the priest represents the Church, not the bishop, diocese or Episcopal Conference. This is where the abuse occurred and this is where it must be dealt with by the priest on the ground, not a bishop in an ivory tower several removes from reality.