Friday, March 26, 2010
A Catholic law prof and MOJ reader weighs in [Updated: open to comments]
I don't read the Washington Post. This morning, an MOJ reader sent me a message
and a column from today’s WP.
The reader's message:
"A question that should be put
to every participant of the MOJ blog, to which no one should not respond if MOJ
intends to have any credibility at all outside Catholic circles: How does Catholic Social Theory respond to
this? I can't think of any more pressing
socio-theological-legal issue confronting Catholics (including American
Catholics) right now or in the future..."
Now, the column:
How the Catholic Church could end its sex scandal
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
How in the name of God can the Roman
Catholic Church put the pedophilia scandal behind it?
I do not invoke God's name lightly.
The church's problem is, above all, theological and religious. Its core
difficulty is that rather than drawing on its Christian resources, the church
has acted almost entirely on the basis of this world's imperatives and
standards.
It has worried about lawsuits. It
has worried about its image. It has worried about itself as an institution and
about protecting its leaders from public scandal. In so doing, it has made
millions of Catholics righteously furious and aggravated every one of its problems.
So instead of going away, the
scandal keeps coming back, lately in a form that seems to challenge Pope
Benedict XVI himself. It was sickening to read Thursday's New York Times story
reporting that Vatican officials "did not defrock a priest who molested as
many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned
them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church."
The priest, the Rev. Lawrence
Murphy, worked at a Wisconsin school for deaf boys from 1950 to 1974. He died
in 1998.
In Germany, the pope's home country,
more than 300 victims have come forward in recent weeks, and Chancellor Angela
Merkel, whose party has Catholic roots, called the scandal "a major
challenge for our society."
In the case of Murphy, the Vatican
did what every institution does in a scandal: It issued a statement putting the
best face on its decisions.
"In light of the facts that
Father Murphy was elderly and in very poor health, and that he was living in
seclusion and no allegations of abuse had been reported in over 20 years,"
the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said, "the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested that the Archbishop of Milwaukee give
consideration to addressing the situation by, for example, restricting Father
Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full
responsibility for the gravity of his acts." Murphy, he noted, "died
approximately four months later without further incident."
The statement is representative of
what's wrong with the church's response. It is bureaucratic and
self-exculpatory, even asking us to feel for this priest because he was
"elderly" and "in very poor health."
The spokesman called the case
"tragic," but tragic does not do justice to the outrage here. Yes,
the statement included an acknowledgement of the "particularly vulnerable
victims who suffered terribly from what [Murphy] did," and that he had
violated his "sacred trust." Is this the best Father Lombardi could
do?
During his visit to the United
States in 2008, Pope Benedict started moving toward a better approach. He
seemed genuinely pained and angered by the scandal. He repeatedly apologized
and said he was "deeply ashamed" of the abusive priests who had
"betrayed" their ministry.
But while this was a step in the
right direction, apologizing for the misbehavior of individual priests will
never be enough. The church has been reluctant to speak plainly about the heart
of its problem: In handling these cases, it put institutional self-protection
first.
The church needs to show it
understands the flaws of its own internal culture by examining its own
conscience, its own practices, its own reflexives when faced with challenge. As
the church rightly teaches, acknowledging the true nature of our sin is the one
and only path to redemption and forgiveness.
Of course, this will not be easy.
Enemies of the church will use this scandal to discredit the institution no
matter what the Vatican does. Many in the hierarchy thought they were doing the
right thing, however wrong their decisions were. And the church is not alone in
facing problems of this sort.
But defensiveness and institutional
self-protection are not Gospel values. "For whoever wants to save his life
will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it."
The church needs to cast aside the
lawyers, the PR specialists and its own worst instincts, which are human
instincts. Benedict could go down as one of the greatest popes in history if he
were willing to risk all in the name of institutional self-examination, painful
but liberating public honesty, and true contrition.
And then comes something even
harder: Especially during Lent, the church teaches that forgiveness requires
Catholics to have "a firm purpose of amendment." The church will have
to show not only that it has learned from this scandal, but also that it's
truly willing to transform itself.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/03/a-catholic-law-prof-and-moj-reader-weighs-in.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
E.J. Dionne seems to be on to something important with his call for repentance. In that regard, I have one question and one observation:
My question is this: What does institutional self-examination mean in this context? Is it code for enacting a mode of "democratic" decision-making model (and all the values that accompany democratic process), or is it something else? E.J. Dionne doesn't say what he means, but I hope he will write a follow-up outlining his vision of self-examination.
My observation is this: those who disagree with one or more teachings of the Church often justify their disagreement by expressing the view that the real Church is the "people of God", not the institutional Church. The implication, of course, is that we - as the people of God - don't have to listen to our unelected leaders because we, not the institution, are the Church.
Whenever those who disagree with the Church want to attack the Church or call for reform, they identify the Church (as E.J. Dionne does in the article above) as the institutional Church, not the people of God. The implication is that it is our unelected leaders, not the people of God, who must show contrition and accept blame for all the Church's problems.
In the contex of the sexual abuse problem, it seems clear that our unelected leaders failed miserably, and E.J. Dionne's call for a more serious institutional response seems appropriate. As men who are "married to the Church," the bishops failed to protect their spouse and children from corruption and, in some ways, participated in the corruption themselves. But the bishops are not the only ones whose failings have weakened the Church and have caused it to lose its moral stature in our communities. In our role as lay people, many of us have also abandoned or betrayed our Church communities and our families - through divorce, workaholism, deceit, indifference, violence, verbal abuse, addiction, materialism, adultery, pornography, abortion, sterilization, contraception, and a host of other failings - and we have done so almost as frequently as our secular brethren. As stewards responsible for the souls of our spouses and children, we - the people of God - are hardly without blame.
Our failings, of course, are of a different degree and severity than the failings of the bishops, and I am not suggesting that the bishops should be let off the hook because we too are sinners. However, because the institutional Church is dynamically related to the people of God, and the sins of one affect the other, I hope that E.J. Dionne's worthy call for institutional self-examination implies a corresponding call for personal self-examination. If the Church is the "people of God", it seems to me that we too, during this time of Lent, ought to head to the confessional. Otherwise, our calls for reform and repentance of the institutional Church may seem like opportunistic attempts to promote our own vision of the Church, rather than expressions of a serious desire to conform ourselves, and our Church body, to the will of God. Reforming ourselves may, in fact, be the best hope we have of seeing clearly enough to be able to reform the institutional Church.