Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

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.

[email protected]

https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/03/a-catholic-law-prof-and-moj-reader-weighs-in.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515a9a69e201310fe44835970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Catholic law prof and MOJ reader weighs in [Updated: open to comments] :

Comments


                                                        Feed 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.