Pope John Paul II and the Abuse Crisis

[prodigalson2011]

Over the past year, I’ve come across, in numerous sources, attacks on Pope John Paul II’s seeming apathetic response to the abuse crisis. Among the common assertions are that he “shifted the blame to American culture” and refused to meet with abuse victims. In addition to these accusations, there are the concrete facts that he did support, and seem to protect, Marcial Maciel amid a wave of allegations of abuse, and, more disturbingly, did not enact any serious discipline on Cardinal Bernard Law, who covered up and facilitated the ongoing abuse of hundreds of young people in Boston; he was not defrocked and in fact continued in active ministry in Rome.

I was most shocked to find extensive vilification from Bill O’Reilly, himself a professing Catholic. He writes:

…Jesus must be weeping. He commanded his followers to seek out afflicted children and comfort them. Did Cardinal Law miss that lesson? And what about Pope John Paul? Where was his outrage? In fact, the Pontiff even refused to meet with some of the sexual abuse victims when he traveled to Canada in 2002…

The Pope also alienated millions of Americans with his stand on Saddam Hussein and the war to remove him… …The moral questions surrounding the war became even thornier when Pope John Paul II weighed in by calling the conflict “unjust.” The Pontiff, obviously a man of peace, openly objected to the coalition’s invasion of Iraq. This is not meant as a cheap shot, but I wish the Pope had brought the same kind of moral passion to the priest pedophilia scandal we discussed earlier…

[On the war in Iraq], theologically, the Pope is on firm ground. Humanistically, he is one of the many Saddam enablers… And so, to prevent the mass death that took place in Europe and Asia while another Pope was praying sixty years ago, I support the moral quest of removing a dangerous killer from power…

Now, I know his comparison of the Iraq war to World War II is ludicrous, and we all know Pope Pius XII did a lot more than just pray. But my point in highlighting this is to show how, even among our supposed brothers in faith, these particular views of JPII have become so prevalent, and to ask why I cannot seem to find a perspective from “the other side” (i.e. JPII’s supporters.)

In attempting to research these issues, I have been disturbed to find that there is seemingly virtually no Catholic response. The matters appear to have gone completely unaddressed. While the accusations fly at JPII, the Church and its supporters seem to be completely silent on them, neither defending nor admitting to JPII’s actions or lack thereof. Why this uncomfortable silence? Are there Catholic resources that address these topics that I just haven’t been able to find?

It concerns me, as ignoring such serious criticisms seems to put the Church in a very unfavorable light. Simply sweeping such concerns under the rug seems to validate everything the critics are saying. Can someone help me out here?

 

[Armyvet007]

Would a strong active defense accomplish anything? Telling a guy that wears a tinfoil hat ranting about aliens that such aliens wouldn’t waste their time and energy coming to Earth just to draw pretty pictures in a corn field doesn’t stop him from wearing his tinfoil hat and ranting about aliens.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Would a strong active defense accomplish anything? Telling a guy that wears a tinfoil hat ranting about aliens that such aliens wouldn’t waste their time and energy coming to Earth just to draw pretty pictures in a corn field doesn’t stop him from wearing his tinfoil hat and ranting about aliens.

That comparison doesn’t stand. These aren’t some fringe conspiracy theories, but very reasonable objections, at least on the face of it. And an active defense would, at the very least, and most importantly, accomplish the reassurance of those within the Church who are troubled by such mudslinging.

 

[Armyvet007]

That comparison doesn’t stand. These aren’t some fringe conspiracy theories, but very reasonable objections, at least on the face of it. And an active defense would, at the very least, and most importantly, accomplish the reassurance of those within the Church who are troubled by such mudslinging.

-Catholics worship Mary
-Catholics worship the saints
-Catholics hate women
-The Church/Pope is greedy
-The Church was created by Constantine
-The Church isn’t the original Church
-All priests abuse children
-The Church/Pope helped/supported the Nazis

Not fringe ideas. All actively countered. None have gone away or been moved to the fringe by this active defense. Those that wish to know the truth will seek it, those that don’t will ignore it regardless of how actively it is presented to them.

 

[prodigalson2011]

-Catholics worship Mary
-Catholics worship the saints
-Catholics hate women
-The Church/Pope is greedy
-The Church was created by Constantine
-The Church isn’t the original Church
-All priests abuse children
-The Church/Pope helped/supported the Nazis

Not fringe ideas. All actively countered. None have gone away or been moved to the fringe by this active defense. Those that wish to know the truth will seek it, those that don’t will ignore it regardless of how actively it is presented to them.

Exactly. They have all been actively countered, thus providing a sense of closure to the faithful, so this suggestion really just adds to my question. As you say, those that wish to know the truth will seek it, those who don’t will ignore it. My point is that I am seeking the truth in this matter, but I can’t seem to find a Catholic perspective on it at all. It is said there are two sides to every story, so where is the other side on this one?

Moreover, with the exception of the Pius XII/Nazi connection, these are all myths, generalizations or misconceptions. The claim that JPII refused to meet with abuse victims should be easy to either counter, refute or explain, yet it seems like nobody has. The Chuch has offered plenty of defenses for the other accusations you mention… why not these?

Lest I be misconstrued, I am keeping faith that a rational explanation exists, but I have as yet been unable to find it. I think it’s quite possible and probable that these issues have been addressed in the past, but that the ongoing vitriol of anti-Catholic critics has simply buried the voices of Catholics and their sympathizers over the years. Hence why I am asking if anyone can help me find sources to counter these claims.

 

[april32010]

Moreover, with the exception of the Pius XII/Nazi connection, these are all myths, generalizations or misconceptions.

and why the exception?

 

[prodigalson2011]

and why the exception?

Sorry. That was poorly worded. When I was originally writing that sentence, it read “with the exception of the Pius XII/Nazi connection, they are all generalizations.” I went back and added “myths” and “misconceptions” afterwards without thinking about the precursory statement. Of course, the Pius XII/Nazi connection is even more than a myth or misconception: it is a pernicious lie.

 

[Armyvet007]

Exactly. They have all been actively countered, thus providing a sense of closure to the faithful, so this suggestion really just adds to my question. As you say, those that wish to know the truth will seek it, those who don’t will ignore it. My point is that I am seeking the truth in this matter, but I can’t seem to find a Catholic perspective on it at all. It is said there are two sides to every story, so where is the other side on this one?

Moreover, with the exception of the Pius XII/Nazi connection, these are all myths, generalizations or misconceptions. The claim that JPII refused to meet with abuse victims should be easy to either counter, refute or explain, yet it seems like nobody has. The Chuch has offered plenty of defenses for the other accusations you mention… why not these?

Lest I be misconstrued, I am keeping faith that a rational explanation exists, but I have as yet been unable to find it. I think it’s quite possible and probable that these issues have been addressed in the past, but that the ongoing vitriol of anti-Catholic critics has simply buried the voices of Catholics and their sympathizers over the years. Hence why I am asking if anyone can help me find sources to counter these claims.

Then I misunderstood what you were asking for help with in your first post. I think it is still far to early for any helpful sources to be available. The issue still being fixed within the Church, secular legal battles [both the valid and invalid ones], and the fact that the Church operates on a different understanding of time then we do most likely means we won’t have the type of sources you are after for years.

The best I can suggest is to review the scholarly work on the subject of child abuse as a whole and review how the Church’s response compares to other institutions and organizations [like the US public school and foster care systems].

 

[manualman]

Human nature itself inclines us all to continue to trust those whom we trust, and mistrust those whom we have had previous reason to mistrust. This is especially true for someone like John Paul II who came from a communist country in which the government continuously used propaganda and media (same thing in communist countries) to defame the church and religious people in general. Google “The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk.” That is an example of privately produced hate propaganda / fabrication in America. The commies did MUCH worse.

It was in this environment that accounts began to arise about abuse by clergy. I’ve met a number of people involved in Regnum Christ / Legionarries. They were extremely holy and devout people. It still boggles my mind that their founder could have been so diabolical! I suspect that JP, being used to false and malicious claims, put little to no stock in such stories that appeared to come from people with axes to grind against the church anyways. (Hypothetically it’s sort of the same way nobody is going to take seriously someone who comes forward now with “new evidence” that Obama faked his birth certificate. A sense of “Aren’t we done with that nonsense yet?”)

So what are the lessons here? We’re still not sure. The current policy of “guilty until proven innocent” is suicidal in the long run. The church is by its nature prophetic. If we establish a model where all anyone needs to do to ruin and remove a prophet from the public square is make up an accusation, they will do so. Scripture is proof that people hate prophets. So what DO we do?

There are some good ideas on the table, including awareness, vigilance and increased willingness to investigate accusations. But I don’t believe we’ve yet found the right balance.