A number of points that should be addressed separately.
We must be very careful not to make the same mistake that some journalists are making, that is judging by association. The media has a job to do, to report information. There have always been and will be biased reporters. We have to learn to recognize them and drive around them, like a pothole on the road.
As far that the handling of the abuses there are several points. The Church never told anyone to cover anything. I’ve been in religious life for years. I have never been told to cover anything, except a pot in the kitchen. There is a big difference between privacy and covering up. It seems that the only organization that is not allowed to have secrets, confidentiality rules. protect people’s privacy and so forth is the Catholic Church. The government can do it. Microsoft can do it, so can the military. But not the Church. This attitude is silly.
The individuals who made claims of being abused have the right to privacy. It is inappropriate for the Church to bring the person’s private information to the public. That’s a choice for the person to make. He or she has to decide whom to tell and when to tell. The Church’s rule has been to protect the privacy of the person.
In every civilized society a person who is accused of a crime has the right to privacy. No one has the right to know what you discuss with your attorney. It’s illegal to ask and to pry. The same rule applies inside the Church. When a cleric or religious is accused of any crime, abuse or other, the individual has a right to privacy. The allegations are explored by the competent authority and until proven guilty, the case remains confidential. Let’s put ourselves in another situation. Imagine that you’re the mother of a priest who is accused of absuing a child. After all is said and done, there is no proof of the abuse. But the doubt remains. You, who are innocent in all of this because you’re the mother, not the accused, can’t show your face in public. Now imagine how much worse it gets if it’s true.
There are too many people affected in these cases. We, I mean society, has a duty to avoid turning these cases into soap operas for the world to see. They have to be explored and if guilt can be proven, then consequences have to be applied. But those who are innocent, should not suffer because an investigation gets out of hand and becomes a public circus. Honesty is one thing, indiscretion is another. Sometimes, we don’t seem to know the difference. Not everything that happens has to become public.
The management of these cases is pretty straightforward stuff. The person is suspended. If he’s a secular priest, his bishop can suspend him. If he’s a consecrated religious, his superior can suspend him. This does not go to Rome. Rome is not interested in doing other people’s job. What we have to understand is that a suspension is no guarrantee that a person is not going to abuse. It’s a guarrantee that the person is not going to function as a priest or religious until proven not guilty. The suspended person is not in a prison.
If the District Attorney issues a warrant for an arrest, then it’s his/her job to decide if the person is to be held without bond or not. In some cases, people are allowed to be free while on trial and not in others. But that’s not the Church’s call. The ecclesial authorities must suspend. That’s their call.
Laicization is being made up to be something different than it is. It’s almost being made out to be a panacea. Let’s understand what it means. Laicize a priest that the person’s promise of celibacy is dispensed and his promise of obedience is dispensed. In simple words, he is no longer bound to celibacy, may not wear religious garb, may not exercise ministry, may not live on Church property or collect benefits from the Church, except those that are mandated by law such as retirement, 401K, etc. Laicization means that the person will live
AS IF he were a lay man. He’s not really a lay man. Once you are ordained you will never be a lay man. The Church cannot undo what God does. Just as she cannot make a married person single again, she cannot make a cleric a lay man again. Do not confuse laicization with a decree of nullity. That is very different and not what we’re talking about here. Very rarely can you prove that the person’s ordination was invalid.
Again, it does not guarrantee that the person will not abuse again. In fact, a priest or religiious who is laicized and goes to confession, may marry in the Church, receive all of the sacraments, live as an active Catholic and be burried as a Catholic. He has that right and it cannot be taken away from him. It is his baptismal right.
By he is not a lay man, what do we mean? That man will always be a deacon, priest or bishop. If there is a need that another ordained man cannot provide for, this man can provide without any consequences. In other words, he can hear a confession, grant absolution and annoint a sick person in an emergency. The Church provides the faculties necessary for validity. She does not have to provide the power, because he never lost it.
I hope this helps for better understanding.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
just cuz he’s Catholic…
***: