Catholic court documents ordered released
As a disclaimer, let me state categorically that I am not trying to bash the Catholic Church with this article.
If there is one thing the Catholic Church is known for, it is it’s secrecy. I am not versed at all in their religious proceedings, but the first thing I think of when I hear the Catholic Church mentioned is how secretive they are. It seems that the theme filters from the Vatican, all the down to the local diocese.
This secrecy was one of the things that hampered any investigation into sexual abuses by their priests in recent years. Their process for vetting and monitoring priests was not well known and as it turns out, failed in a lot of cases. Could it be that this secrecy was at fault for the continued abuses we have seen?
Secrecy has been abundant around the cases concerning these sexual abuses and the church has fought a long and hard battle to keep it intact. Several news organizations, including The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post and The Hartford Courant have asked to see the court documents concerning some of these cases. As was to be expected, the Catholic Church sued to keep them sealed. The Connecticut Supreme Court had ruled that some 12,000 pages from 23 different lawsuits should be unsealed and made available to the public. The United States Supreme Court issued an order on Monday, November 2 to proceed with the release of the documents, without comment.
In it’s fight against releasing the documents, the Catholic Church has said the First Amendment protects it’s internal decision making about priest assignments from intrusion by civil authorities. While I may agree with that to a certain point, there is much more at stake here. It is clear the Catholic Church had a major problem policing itself in this matter. From what I have read about the abuse, some bishops in positions of authority knew what was going on and turned a blind eye. Did they think it would go away if it was ignored? Look at the repeated offenses from the same priests, over and over again, and you will realize that sexual abuse is very addictive by it’s very nature.
One of the things that Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and other programs that help addicts kick their habit will tell you is a must is accountability. Those who are recovering always have a mentor or someone who will talk to them and ask the hard questions. This helps keep them straight. It seems clear that the Catholic Church had nothing like that in place, even though internally, they knew they had a major problem with priests and sexual abuse of children. If it takes a mentor, bishop, etc. to talk to a priest every day, making sure he is not falling back into his old ways, so be it.
To be sure, the Catholic Church isn’t the only religious organization who is guilty of playing their cards so close to their vest. I know of cases in my own faith where situations happened that could have been avoided, had it not been for the secrecy that surrounded them. Sometimes, church leaders start getting the idea that they know what is best for me and my family. While I may trust them to a certain degree, when they start gathering the wagons and not telling church lay members what is happening, that trust goes out of the window and my family comes first.
I think the decision of the Court to order the release of the court documents is a good thing for that very reason. If the Catholic Church is to regain it’s standing with it’s members, those same members have to know that someone is watching their back. Otherwise, how could anyone trust a priest with their children? As a father, I know I couldn’t.
Thanks, Larry, for bringing this up. I didn’t know of the case until now. You ask “…how could anyone trust a priest with their children?” Some insight from a Catholic…
Many years ago, we chose to raise our son in the Catholic church. We’re Catholics by birth and in practice, and it seemed very natural to us to stay where we were comfortable. We even chose very good Catholic schools as an education choice.
Then came the crisis regarding the abuse as it became well known. The basic tenets of the faith weren’t our crisis. It was whether or not to choose to encourage our son to participate as an altar boy, something my husband had done as a child, like most Catholic boys and now girls are expected to do. We, however, had to look at the very question you asked and decide whether or not it was the responsible thing to do. We chose not to have him participate, for the simple reason that we felt we couldn’t trust the people in charge. Not the faith, mind you, but the people.
I had a very uncomfortable conversation with our parish priest with whom I served on the Catholic school board after he asked why our son was not participating. It was difficult to look this man, for whom I had a great deal of respect, in the eyes and tell him that, while I had no reason to suspect him, I also had no reason not to. Catholic priests regularly switch parishes after a number of years. How were we to know for certain the circumstances under which our priest had come to our parish?
One more thing-as the cases against the Church piled up, we also chose to stop contributing directly to the Church because we were never certain whether our tithing would be used at our Church or diverted to legal defense funds. We, instead, give to Catholic Charities, an organization that we can trust for certain will use our money for its intended purpose.
I think you know, Larry, that I have a tendency to lean towards “innocent until proven guilty” on a range of issues. Not when it comes to protecting my vulnerable son (now grown), and certainly not in the environment that the Church itself created. More Catholics need to do as we did- refuse access to their child and their money. Maybe that will encourage the openess that the Supreme Court rightly said they cannot.
Thanks for sharing your story, Laurie. I think it is very relevant to the discussion to see how Catholics actually dealt with the sexual abuse situation.
Wow, Larry, you’ve really made some very interesting observations that I hope will bring input from readers. Laurie has certainly started us off with a fascinating perspective. I must say, however, that it surprises me the distinction Laurie makes with the clergy. Can’t you say the same thing about leaving your children with anyone? Teachers? Babysitters? Camp counselors? We go thru the vetting process as best we can in all aspects of our life and I would hope your church board would have been quite thorough in looking into the priests’ history. If there was scuttlebutt at his former church it would not be difficult to learn. But at some point don’t we need to let the tether out a little? I understand the issue here is with secrecy and pulling down that veil; but somehow depriving children of an integral part of the religious experience strikes me as counterproductive. I sound critical — I’m really not. Just asking questions.
Mike,
I do not take offense to your questions, and can only answer them from my perspective. Sure, I was careful with babysitters, teachers etc. We all are, to the extent that we can be. But your assertion that an individual parish had in any way complete background information on a priest is dead wrong, and it speaks exactly to Larry’s point about secrecy.
The problem that existed (exists?) stems from how the Catholic chuch chose to deal with those with a known history of abuse. Unlike any other institution (say, a school) who would be required by law to turn an abuser over to authorities for evaluation and possible criminal prosecution, the Catholic church systemically removed offenders on the authority of only itself. Years ago, the Church would often simply transfer the priest to another parish far away. No records were kept, and if the individual parishes were made aware of the problem (most weren’t), they certainly didn’t notify parishoners.
I was never an overprotective parent, choosing to guide my son through the world as it is rather than hide him away from it. But you tell me, Mike: If it came to light that many, many children had been abused over decades by an institution AND that that institution had a policy of protecting the abusers over the children, would you not have done as I did? All we did was use the information we had to make the best, most informed decision we could before introducing our very young son to a “trusted adult”, and we weren’t alone.
Many will ask (and it’s a fair question) why we just didn’t leave the Church. We chose to stay with the faith that we believe, a community that was overwhelmingly positive and a part of our life, and use the information we had to make the most reasonable decision to protect a very young child. Child molestors live (documented by the State) in nearly every neighborhood in the country. Does everybody move when they find out they have such a person living close by? No, but they certainly step up the protective measures and education and absolutely, NEVER make the mistake of introducing that person as a “trusted adult” to their children. That’s all we did in this instance.
All we did was use the information we had to make an informed decision, and we weren’t alone.
This is a subject that I am not real comfortable dicussing but I am going to try to anyway.
As someone who was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school for eight years only to find out that the people who taught me morals and taught me right from wrong (in addition to my parents of course) were involved in and covered up one of the most henious crimes that can be committed and allowed these priests to continue to serve in different communities instead of doing what was right and moral themselves, I can’t even begin to put into words how I feel about the Catholic church. I find them to be the biggest hypocrits imaginable.
While I still try to follow the morals that I was taught, and I try to be the best person that I can be, the Catholic church has left in me a grudge that I can’t let go of. I know that that is wrong but it is deep seated.
I know that you didn’t want to bash the Catholic church in this post and I apologize for doing so, I have strong feelings about this and I don’t usually discuss them.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Rhode Island Senator compares healthcare mandates to the draft
Mr. Pink Eyes,
I’m certain that there are many, many Catholics who feel as you do. I, for one, think it’s imperative that we speak the truth whenever we can to the power structure that can affect real change. That’s not bashing, in my opinion, it’s stating in realistic terms where the actions of the Church in this instance have left you. Sometimes the truth hurts, but sometimes it also heals. Time will tell.
Thanks Laurie. I am not sure that time will heal my feelings toward the Catholic church. I suppose this is a fault of mine, but I don’t think that I can get passed it. I do respect the people who have forgiven the church and who are still active members.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..AmeriCorps Inspector General shredded White House documents that pertained to Gerald Walpin’s firing
Thanks for sharing your story, Mr. Pink Eyes. As Laurie said, I don’t think what you said was bashing the Catholic church, as I am sure you could have went much further in your comments. Sometimes, it is painful to say or to hear the truth, but it is the only way some things can be changed.
No problem Larry, and you are right. I stopped writing when I did because I was getting worked up and would have gone much further, probably too far, and I didn’t want to do that.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..AmeriCorps Inspector General shredded White House documents that pertained to Gerald Walpin’s firing