Not only do those victimized by clergy sexual abuse have logical and emotional reasons to leave the Church, even those Catholics not directly victimized but disgusted by various insufficient responses by the institutional Church have reason to dissociate. (And clearly members from both groups have done so.)
Trauma is real, and is not to be trivialized, as that gravely violates charity. Similarly, the laity have important insights and valid responses to the abuse situation. The hierarchy values the wisdom of the laity, both with regard to spirituality and with regard to constructive suggestions. However, the paradox is that men in black do not “contain” or restrict the grace of God. The sacraments transcend those who administer them. As I said earlier, the sacramental life of the Church has an integrity of its own that is absolute and not subject to debasement by the individual sins of its ministers. As with any trauma, or any distress, it takes work to disassociate current events and actions from past or particular situations. If that can’t be done by the individual (easier if one was not a direct victim), then professional help is called for for the sake of the faithful, not as some excuse, permission, or denial of severe injury, grave sin, and serious crime, but for purpose of access to the infinite font of grace which transcends the evils of human beings.
The laity – and supremely so those who have been injured by God’s servants – have an absolute right to the sacramental life of the Church, both for spiritual sustenance and for practical healing. “Leaving” is an understandable reaction in the short term, but is not a permanent “solution” for all of us who need Christ’s life desperately. Trauma is crisis, but so is the absence of sacramental life for any truly believing Catholic.
Therefore, leaving is not to be trivialized or dismissed as reflective of character flaws by those who leave. I not only think – I know – that many Catholics have left for trivial reasons, reasons of convenience, and rationalizations: they admit as much. But that’s separate from other categories of departure, which are serious and may have occurred by those most sensitive, most thoughtful, most valuable to the body of the Church.
It’s just that those who leave indefinitely are secondarily allowing themselves (without intending to) to be victimized, and that is not a solution or a constructive response. It is an emotional reaction. In itself it does not address or redress the sexual abuse crisis. It deprives the person exiting from the graces he or she is entitled to.
We need to try to think of it this way:
When speaking about the general difficulty with forgiving others of grave offenses (not specific to clergy abuse) Johnette Benkovic has discussed how different forgiveness is from denial of the offense, not to mention from denial of the severe emotional effects of that offense. What forgiveness does is to liberate the individual from the bonds of enslavement to anger & retribution: it does not minimize the gravity of the offense, nor pretend it never existed, nor turn the blame inward, nor give the perpetrator a “pass” on his grave crimes/sins. It acknowledges the deep and often permanent hurt, but releases the blaming energy being perpetuated by the victim, into God’s hands, and allows the victim to move on — as still an injured person but without the burden of depleting & permanent anger toward the offender – an anger which is not necessarily affecting the offender, but is absolutely affecting and diminishing the victim.
