Commonweal, March 2,
2004
EDITORIAL
Beyond the numbers
The United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released two studies February 27, one on the
number of incidents as well as the financial cost of the sexual abuse of
children by members of the clergy between 1950 and 2002, the other
offering an evaluation of the data and possible explanations for the
scandal. The first report, conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal
Justice, found that more than 10,667 children had been assaulted by 4,392
priests over the fifty-two-year period. That figure represents 4 percent
of priests active during that time. The researchers cautioned that these
numbers were probably low, because not all victims had come forward even
now. According to the John Jay report and other news accounts, the church
nationwide has spent close to three-quarters of a billion dollars on legal
settlements, lawyers’ fees, and therapy for victims and perpetrators.
The second study, conducted
by the National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young
People (NRB), the lay panel created by the bishops to probe “the causes
and context of the crisis,” is a 158-page report. Commonweal
will present further analysis of it in the March 26 issue. Here are some
initial comments.
First, neither report
attempted to determine whether the sexual abuse of minors was more
prevalent among Catholic priests than among other professional groups,
such as schoolteachers, who routinely deal with children. It is impossible
to make such comparisons because there are simply no good studies of other
institutions. Indeed, the NRB notes that sexual abuse is “a societal
problem,” one the church can now help ameliorate. The data suggest that
incidents of abuse have declined dramatically since many bishops took
steps to protect children in the early 1990s. Whether that is in fact the
case, only time will tell.
The NRB emphasized two
factors to explain the pattern and pervasiveness of sexual abuse, which
appears to have peaked with the ordination class of 1970, in which one out
of every ten priests has been credibly accused. First, the report cited
the poor screening of candidates for the priesthood in the 1960s and
1970s. “Many sexually dysfunctional and immature men were admitted into
seminaries,” the study says. Second, the board criticized priestly
formation, especially around the discipline of celibacy. Since 81 percent
of those abused were boys, the NRB concluded that the all-male environment
of the priesthood presents a special challenge to homosexuals.
Neither the requirement of
celibacy nor the mere presence of homosexuals can be said to have “caused”
the crisis, however. Most homosexual priests serve well and remain
celibate. Celibacy itself is rightly regarded as a great “gift” to the
church. Still, it is clear that candidates for the priesthood who are
homosexual should receive special scrutiny and training. That said, the
board noted that the number of priests who have been in sexual
relationships with adult women or men is far greater than the number who
have abused children. Living a celibate life in a modern, hypersexualized
culture is extremely difficult. All priests need more spiritual guidance
and institutional support in honoring their vows.
The board’s report was highly
critical of the way bishops handled accusations against priests and the
way victims were treated. “The members of the review board stress that we
see this crisis as one of the episcopacy as much as it is a crisis of the
priesthood.” Many of the NRB’s criticisms of clerical culture have been
voiced by other groups and observers. Avoiding public scandal was too
often a bishop’s principal concern. In response to lawsuits, bishops
turned to lawyers instead of reaching out to victims. “Many lawyers did a
great disservice to the church,” said Robert S. Bennett, chair of the
board’s research committee. Canon law, as well as the clerical subculture,
extended every presumption to accused priests while victims were
effectively silenced. In the treatment and rehabilitation of abusers, some
bishops hid crucial information from clinicians while others placed too
much trust in psychiatry and therapy. Institutionally, the absence of
formal systems of cooperation and information sharing among dioceses kept
bishops in the dark about the prevalence of abuse. Some bishops
deliberately withheld information about abusive priests from fellow
bishops. In that regard, the NRB rightly urges the bishops as a group to
issue an annual report on such abuse.
Among the board’s
recommendations, many of which stressed transparency and accountability in
church governance, several seemed especially promising. With great
perspicacity, the report saw how damaging is the absence of “ongoing
intellectual, spiritual, and psychological formation and monitoring of
priests after ordination.” Given the shortage of priests, providing such
support is a daunting challenge, but it must be done. Too many priests are
overworked, burned out, socially and psychologically isolated. The board
also calls for “meaningful lay consultation” in the selection of bishops
and for a continuing lay role in church oversight. Equally important,
bishops must break the code of silence that prevents one bishop from
publicly criticizing another.
The scandal has intensified
the crisis of morale among priests. Many priests feel they have been made
scapegoats both by the public and by their own bishops. Some think the
zero-tolerance policy adopted by the bishops in Dallas in 2002, which
requires the removal of one-time offenders, unduly harsh and unfair.
(According to the John Jay report, 56 percent of priests had only one
accusation made against them. Serial abusers, of whom there were 147, were
responsible for a quarter of all the accusations.) Moreover, priests note
that bishops have failed to impose stringent punishments against fellow
bishops. Ordinaries guilty of covering up abuse and transferring abusers
are not compelled to resign. “The bishops must place priestly morale high
on their agenda and must show that they are willing to accept
responsibility and consequences for poor leadership decisions if the
confidence of the laity in the leadership of the church is to be
restored,” said the board.
The NRB report acknowledges that the
zero-tolerance rule (agreed to by the Vatican), though prudentially
warranted at this time, might not be the best way to ensure the safety of
children. It is not possible for the church to keep track of or to
supervise defrocked priests. Wouldn’t it be better for all concerned if
the church continued to accept responsibility for and exercised some
authority over these men? No one is arguing that abusers be placed back in
ministries with children, but is expulsion and laicization always and in
every instance the right response, especially for one-time offenders?
Anyone who reads the John Jay
study and the NRB report will be profoundly disturbed by the extent of the
suffering hidden behind the statistics and by the depth of ecclesiastical
failure. Something more than priestly and episcopal fallibility has been
exposed. The crisis has revealed a disturbing detachment from reality on
the part of those to whom Catholics look for moral inspiration and
leadership.
Yet that is not the end of
the story. The USCCB’s commissioning of these studies is evidence of the
church’s genuine remorse and contrition and of its determination to tell
the truth regardless of the consequences. It is a harrowing thing to
confess wrongdoing and to ask for forgiveness. But as we all know, unless
one is truly sorry and possesses a firm purpose of amendment,
reconciliation is impossible.
These reports are also
evidence of the fruitful collaboration that can—and must—exist between the
laity and the ordained. All Catholics owe the lay review board a debt of
gratitude for the professionalism, theological sensitivity, and honesty of
its report. In calling the bishops to account, and in speaking
forthrightly about the clericalism at the root of the scandal, the board
has opened a door long closed. Its work provides a model for future
governance of the church, one in which the hierarchy will not only listen
to, but also trust, the laity.
March 2, 2004 |