Both secular and religious news outlets are abuzz today with the that retired Cardinal Roger Mahony and Bishop Thomas Curry have been relieved of public duty as a result of their involvement in the sexual abuse cover up in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Released, too, on a website operated by the Archdiocese are the clergy files of those priests involved in the $660 million dollar settlement reached in 2007.
I have read through many of the documents and I can say, simply, that they serve as a monument to a clerical culture that would put the institutional church over the best interest of the individuals it exists to serve. The documents serve, in short, as a testimony to how far we fall from grace when we devise tactics to evade the truth of our misdeeds rather than seeking transparency.
There is no silver lining to this latest chapter in the Church's story. Reading the personal accounts of men and women who suffered abuse at the hands of priests defies response. When I read that those involved were"naive at the time about the effectiveness of treatment for abusers and the impact on victims" I feel a knot in my stomach: reading the harrowing personal accounts of abuse, I simply cannot believe that church officials failed to grasp how dire the situation was. I am, sadly, confident that they did understand the seriousness and chose to do nothing, hoping that it would blow over eventually. Instead, the maelstrom has only grown in strength and, in the wake of the storm, few lives remain untouched.
I have respected Cardinal Mahony for his prophetic witness on immigration reform. While his "sin of omission" does not erase the good that he has done, it has left a permanent blight upon his and his record as the shepherd of his flock. No longer able to work as a public minister, our Church and our nation has lost a powerful voice for those who have no voice in this country. He, however, provides a tragic reminder of the cost of grasping, too late, the severity of the issue of the abuse of minors and the inevitable consequences of deceit and evasion: broken lives and hearts and a compromised ability to share the Good News. That said, his final words on his blog say the only words that remain for him to say: "I am sorry." These words will not erase the past or take away the scars but, perhaps with grace and time, be the site where those who have been victimized and who continue to suffer will one day be able to say, "I forgive you."
Karl Rahner, almost sixty years ago, described the history of theology as "no means just the history of the progress of doctrine, but also a history of forgetting...". Today, the Church must modify this and say, instead, a history of asking forgiveness. There is much to celebrate in the Church, of this there is no question. Yet where we have failed to live up to our witness as women and men enlivened by the Good News of Jesus Christ and in, under the cover of his name, used or abused others...we must ask forgiveness. Pope John Paul II began this in 2000 with an apology for the Church's sins. Let us be grateful, Church, for all that we have done and for all that we have failed to do, for all the ways we have not lived up to our calling as the People of God, let us say, "We are sorry" and pray for the grace and healing that can only come from forgiveness.
I have read through many of the documents and I can say, simply, that they serve as a monument to a clerical culture that would put the institutional church over the best interest of the individuals it exists to serve. The documents serve, in short, as a testimony to how far we fall from grace when we devise tactics to evade the truth of our misdeeds rather than seeking transparency.
There is no silver lining to this latest chapter in the Church's story. Reading the personal accounts of men and women who suffered abuse at the hands of priests defies response. When I read that those involved were"naive at the time about the effectiveness of treatment for abusers and the impact on victims" I feel a knot in my stomach: reading the harrowing personal accounts of abuse, I simply cannot believe that church officials failed to grasp how dire the situation was. I am, sadly, confident that they did understand the seriousness and chose to do nothing, hoping that it would blow over eventually. Instead, the maelstrom has only grown in strength and, in the wake of the storm, few lives remain untouched.
I have respected Cardinal Mahony for his prophetic witness on immigration reform. While his "sin of omission" does not erase the good that he has done, it has left a permanent blight upon his and his record as the shepherd of his flock. No longer able to work as a public minister, our Church and our nation has lost a powerful voice for those who have no voice in this country. He, however, provides a tragic reminder of the cost of grasping, too late, the severity of the issue of the abuse of minors and the inevitable consequences of deceit and evasion: broken lives and hearts and a compromised ability to share the Good News. That said, his final words on his blog say the only words that remain for him to say: "I am sorry." These words will not erase the past or take away the scars but, perhaps with grace and time, be the site where those who have been victimized and who continue to suffer will one day be able to say, "I forgive you."
Karl Rahner, almost sixty years ago, described the history of theology as "no means just the history of the progress of doctrine, but also a history of forgetting...". Today, the Church must modify this and say, instead, a history of asking forgiveness. There is much to celebrate in the Church, of this there is no question. Yet where we have failed to live up to our witness as women and men enlivened by the Good News of Jesus Christ and in, under the cover of his name, used or abused others...we must ask forgiveness. Pope John Paul II began this in 2000 with an apology for the Church's sins. Let us be grateful, Church, for all that we have done and for all that we have failed to do, for all the ways we have not lived up to our calling as the People of God, let us say, "We are sorry" and pray for the grace and healing that can only come from forgiveness.
5 comments:
Well, personally, I see your mixed feeling of Mahoney as the problem with the post-60's Church; it places political and material wellbeing, "social sin", and "structures" at an equal level (if not higher than) the importance of individual sin, spiritual wellbeing, and truly Christian behavior. I personally see Mahoney as the epitome of the cultural-marxism that infected the Church after the Council. In my book, pressing for a change in immigration laws (an external, materialistic, and particularly political march that really has nothing directly to do with the gospel) is in no way a judge of a person's private conscious or personal holiness. A cleric who is more concerned with politics of material benefits rather than preventing and clearing out the far worse evil in his own backyard is no man of God. At least not the God I believe in. The horror of these stories and his lack of concern overrule any good his politicking may have done, as it shows the caliber of person he was inside. A cleric who shows little concern over political reform yet is outraged by such behavior and does everything to rectify and prevent it is FAR more a man of God than Mahoney.
The worst and most incomprehensible part of this whole thing has been the complete non-challance people like Mahoney have shown. They are incapable of empathy. Where is their anger over concrete injustice occurring under their influence? They only care about "social organization" and their actions make it seem as if they do not believe in personal sin. I think it was Aquinas who said something about the failure to show indignation when it is entirely appropriate says some very negative things about a person's spirit and closeness to God.
I have to ask, can you come up with a reason why the "social justice" crowd have been the ones that this scandal has hit the hardest? Can you come up with a reason why groups like the SSPX, who do not believe in "social sin" but only individual sin, have yet to have a single accusation let alone be found guilt of "failing to act" over this behavior? It is impossible that these people did not know the gravity of these acts, and it is equally impossible for me to believe that someone who has true and traditional understanding of God and gospel would allow such things to continue.
I do not deplore the loss of Mahony. This type of action is what needs to be done on a mass level. Scripture, in multiple places, advocates expulsion from association for those who create such scandal and damage to the faith community. As the victims have recently said, this action against Mahony is too little too late.
While I am grateful for the fact that you have posted, I must nevertheless disagree with just about everything you have said.
Would you unpack what you mean by "truly Christian behavior"? I mean, if you want to take Luke 4:18-19 (Isaiah 58:6 and 61:1-2) as a charter for authentic Christian practice - and Jesus sure seems to have done so - then how could "truly Christian behavior" not account for those structures and institutions that contribute to the denigration of human well-being? Indeed, even Canon Law (222.2 says that the Christian faithful "are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor from their own resources). You sound more like a Donatist than a Catholic, one who thought only the pure could be members of the Church. The Church, as Augustine once wrote, is a school for sinners.
I can't speak to Cardinal Mahony's contrition - he has said he was sorry and I have no reason to doubt that he is. It's simply sad that the price that accompanies "I'm Sorry" is a loss of public ministry.
Finally, I would suspect that groups like SSPX have issues that have not yet come to light. Unless you can point to concrete evidence that the scandal has hit the "social justice crowd" at a higher rate than others, your point is merely anecdotal. Furthermore, Blessed John Paul II's recognition of the structures of social sin simply draws our attention to the deep roots of Original Sin, that it affects all of us. There is hardly anything we do, or purchase, that is not somehow wrapped up in this web. In realizing the depth of sin in this world, itself a grace, can we respond by working to bring about God's reign.
Your notion of the individual Christian is, oddly enough, infected with the very modernism you seem to decry in others. That is, you've enacted a radical turn to the subject and focused exclusively on the subject, rather than the subject-in-relation. Why does this matter? Because you only came to know Jesus by being in relation with others and, if you know the Lord well, it's because what was handed on to you through Scripture, Tradition, Liturgy, etc., aided you in this. You're not a self-made Christian because there is no such thing. To be a Christian is to come to know the Lord with others, although one's commitment to discipleship can only be made on one's own.
Duplicitous. Working toward justice for some while preventing justice for others. Forgiveness? Judgment Day would be too soon.
"A person who does not persevere in charity, however, is not saved, even though incorporated into the church." Lumen Gentium, 14.
As I said, the events of the past sadden me and they cripple an effective worker for change. I cannot, nor would I wish, to discount the work he has done even in light of past lapses.
Having grown up a few years later than the hierarchs of the past 25 or so years (I was born in 1943), I can very easily believe thatuntil quite recently they were unaware of the lasting hurt inflicted on victims of sexual abuse. It is something that was just not common knowledge in the '60's. '70's, and '80's.
I can also very easily believe that at one time they sincerely believed that abuse was a sin for which the usual remedies for sin were appropriate and adequate: a good Confession, prayer, and avoidance of the occasion of sin. So if a priest had lusted after a particular boy, the thing to do to prevent him from repeating his sin was to get him away from that boy. I also believe that when the realization dawned that transferring priests didn't stop them from abusing, they believed that it was a problem that could be cured by psychological treatment. And, btw, I think you'll find that not every priest was a repeat offender. Some were "scared straight just by being found out and transferred. I think you'll also find that not all priests reoffended after psychological treatment — some were "cured." (There was an article by Fr. Steven Rossetti at the time the scandal was coming to light in which he said if we were looking for someone to blame, we should "blame the psychologists" — of whom he was one — for overconfidence in their ability to cure pedophiles/ephebophiles and for faulty assurances in a number of cases that it was safe to return priests to parochial ministry.)
What sets Card. Mahony apart from the others I've heard and read about is the conscious, expressed intent to shield priests from prosecution. This differs from another mindset which I can assure you was prevalent in earlier times: nobody wanted to see priests prosecuted. Police didn't want to arrest and report on them. DA's didn't want to prosecute clergy. Laity didn't want their priests charged with crimes for their sinful behavior. Victims and their parents did not want to have to become witnesses in court. And the hierarchy didn't want bad publicity. So for a long time, the cover-ups were enabled by all involved — it required no great effort by the bishops, it was how everybody handled things. Of course parents wanted the offending priests disciplined and stopped from reoffending, but that did not imply public prosecution — it could be handled internally, which is why they complained to the hierarchy, not to the civil authorities. But with Mahony we see an awareness that the old mentality has broken down. He can't rely on the unwillingness of prosecutors to let things go. So with him there is, uniquely, conscious activity to put offenders beyond the reach of the law.
From the vantage point of someone your age, it may be difficult to realize how different attitudes as well as understanding were a couple of decades ago, but I can assure you that it was a different world before 2002. In fact, with psychologists and review boards, at least some bishops were moving before 2002 brought widespread awareness to the general public. (And unfortunately, the public often remained unaware of the efforts that had already been undertaken to deal with the problem.)
Post a Comment