The Catholic Church and it’s scandals
Has it only been a few short years since the Catholic Church weathered one of the biggest storms of it’s very long lifetime? Beginning in the early 1980s, the news of more and more Catholic priests who were guilty of the sexual abuse of some of their young, male parishioners started to emerge. The scandals peaked in 2002, with allegation after allegation being made against priests who had been in the Church for years. Many lawsuits were filed against the Church, who ultimately had to pay some $499 million in 2007 and $376 million in 2008. In 2009, the amount of money paid out over sexual abuse lawsuits dropped to $104 million.
It has seemed for a while that the Catholic Church has weathered the storm
of scandals that has plagued it for the last 20-30 years, but fear not, those scandals are back. They come again in the form of more sexual abuse allegations, starting in Italy last week and escalating until bishops in several European countries admitted to “gross errors in judgment” and “mistakes” when handling cases that involved priests who raped children. I don’t know about you, but I am not convinced the terms “gross errors in judgment” or “mistakes” even come close to describing what has happened in America in 2002 and now is emerging in Europe.
I am not a Catholic and I know very little about the internal workings of the Catholic Church, outside of the fact that they seem to be very secretive in the way they operate. The Pope is the main figure of the Church, almost to the point of being considered a deity, and access to him is very limited. The current Pope, Benedict XVI, has came out strongly against the Italian bishops who dropped the ball and ignored the complaints of abuse in their dioceses. However, it seems there is a pattern of secrecy over these continued abuses that can not be ignored.
The New York Times is being criticized over their coverage of this scandal and especially over their questioning of Pope Benedict XVI and his handling of not only the recent abuse cases, but also of cases that came to light while he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in Germany.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish.
An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.
What part he played in the decision making, and how much interest he showed in the case of the troubled priest, who had molested multiple boys in his previous job, remains unclear. But the personnel chief who handled the matter from the beginning, the Rev. Friedrich Fahr, “always remained personally, exceptionally connected” to Cardinal Ratzinger, the church said.
The case of the German priest, the Rev. Peter Hullermann, has acquired fresh relevance because it unfolded at a time when Cardinal Ratzinger, who was later put in charge of handling thousands of abuse cases on behalf of the Vatican, was in a position to refer the priest for prosecution, or at least to stop him from coming into contact with children. The German Archdiocese has acknowledged that “bad mistakes” were made in the handling of Father Hullermann, though it attributed those mistakes to people reporting to Cardinal Ratzinger rather than to the cardinal himself.
Pope Benedic XVI
Again, let me stress that I know nothing about the internal workings of the Catholic Church. It is entirely possible that then Cardinal Ratzinger never saw the memo in question, but that does not remove responsibility for what has happened from anyone involved.
I thought about including a disclaimer at the beginning of this article, letting people know that I mean no ill will towards the Catholic Church or any of their members with this article. That really holds true for those of you who consider yourselves members of the Church and take your faith seriously, but as for the hierarchy of the Church, I am not so sure. There is inescapable proof that several members of that hierarchy knew full well what was going on with these priests and they chose to ignore the facts that were right before their eyes. That is incomprehensible and inexcusable to me.
Stop and think for a moment. What do you think would be happening if this were a sex abuse scandal in any other religious faith? I know what the results would be if a pastor, deacon, or lay member of my own Pentecostal faith had committed these acts. The guilty party would at least not be ministering to the members of the church and would most likely be in jail. The prosecution would be swift, as it should be. Now consider what has happened with the Catholic Church. Taken from Wikipedia, this is a partial result of the John Jay Report, which was commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Of the 4,392 priests against whom the accusations were deemed to be credible, 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. Police were contacted regarding 1,021 of the remaining 1,092 priests, of whom 384 were prosecuted, resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences. Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made had been convicted and about 2% sentenced to prison at the date of the report.
Because the abuse has spanned several decades, the gap between accusations and actual convictions is not surprising. What troubles me more than anything however, is the reaction of the hierarchy of the Church. They have ignored this problem for much too long, trying to keep it under wraps and inside the Church government. The priests who have committed these atrocities have been allowed free reign and have abused their office. Instead of ministering to those in need, they have taken advantage of them.
The bishops who are charged with watching these priests have turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the allegations that were made over the years. Finally, after the victims have started coming forward, they are going through the proper motions of contrition and holding complaint and repentance masses. While looking good for the media, those masses do very little to make up for the damage that has already been done. From the priests, to the bishops and cardinals, those in authority in the Catholic Church have failed their faithful members, the very ones who were depending on them for leadership and guidance. That failure should rest heavy on the heart and soul of all involved, even on the heart and soul of Pope Benedict XVI himself.
Very nicely and thoughtfully written Larry. Covering up mistakes whether small or large is an unfortunate part of human nature and does not stop at the church steps. I’m not sure I understand the criticism directed at the NY Times — this was a story reporting the facts of the case not an editorial condemning church activities. It will be interesting to watch the Church follow up on this report but given the already decimated ranks of Catholic priests this does not bode well for the church in the long term.
You are right, Mike. The biggest problem I have with the way the Catholic Church has handled these sex abuse cases is this. They seem to be more concerned with how it is going to make the Church look, when they should have been more concerned with protecting those who were taken advantage of.
This is a great post Larry. I wanted to write a post about this myself, but I could not bring myself to do it becuase I fear that I would lose control and say things that I regretted later. I have very strong feelings about this that I keep to myself, I would probably be better off if I just came out and said them.
I commented on a post you wrote before about this issue, here is what I wrote:
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.
I still feel the same way and this latest scandal has me just as upset as ever. I just can’t understand how nobody in the higher portion of the church ever went to the police to report what was going on. They felt it was more important to protect the priests than the victims? I can’t wrap my head around the notion that these people who are supposed to be men of God and who are supposed to spread God’s word could possibly cover up and now defend what the church did in order to protect these pedophiles.
Exactly, Steve. I can’t get my head wrapped around it either. I don’t know how far up the ladder the cover-up goes, but I honestly can not understand how this kind of thing can be allowed to go unpunished.
Larry,
We’ve had the Cahtolic church/priest abuse conversation before, and in that I shared why it was that my husband and I chose to raise our son Catholic (it’s a little like being Jewish;we feel born to it and comfrotable in it) but did not encourage him to participate in things like altar boys that might put him, as a very young child, in a confusing, compromised position. We made this decision not because we believe every priest is bad but because we know that the Church has hidden, transferred, swept under the carpet (pick the euphemism) the priests who have been involved in abuse. Some of the bloggers thought we had been a bit overly protective…
Just this week, it has been revealed that, in addition to the scandals in Europe, the Church in the US has quietly been REASSIGNING priests who have been guilty of abuse back to active parish status. Leadership has explained this away by saying that thye aren’t in acive ministry, so it doesn’t count. Many Church activists, however, are fed up with the subterfuge and are trying to get the Church to play to its original hand: Bad priest, no active ministry, ever, anywhere.
I remember that conversation and I still think you did the right thing. You had something much more valuable than the reputation of the Catholic Church at stake and it was your duty and responsibility to protect your son. It sounds like you did an admirable job, even in the face of many questions.
I had not heard that the US Church had been putting guilty priests back to work in their parishes. I would have to echo what you said, bad priest, no active ministry, ever. Our children have to be protected at all costs, even at the risk of damaging the reputation of the Catholic Church.
Larry,
I think that the reputation of the Church is part of it, but the sad fact is that there is a real shortage of priests in the US today-and I think that’s another motivating factor. The numbers of Catholic men who have chosen to make priesthood their life has steadily plummeted over the past couple of decades.
Some of this, I think, has to do with our changing society. Not many Catholic moms anymore see priesthood as an ultimate calling that they would either wish or encourage for their sons. I’m not saying none do, but I can tell you in my two decades active in the Church as my son has grown up, I never once heard a parent talk about that as being an honorable. Yet, growing up, I knew many Catholic boys who at least considered it and several who ended up being priests.
Why the change? I understand that a calling of this sort should come from God, but I do think parental attitudes go a long way towards encouraging any follow up. I also think that our young boys and men themselves are growing up in a Church that, too often, is one they end up having to apologize for. Who wants to choose a profession/vocation or follow a calling in something which has compromised integrity, especially one that requires so much personal sacrifice and puts you in a position of being veiwed with suspicion?
I am deeply sorry for every man, woman and child (and there’s stories of all of this) who has been abused at the hands of a priest. That’s the ultimate tragedy. But I also think that the farthest reaching consequence for the Church itself is exactly what is playing out now: A shortage of men who see priesthood as an honorable calling.
Larry, I am Catholic, I was an altar boy, I went through 12 years of Catholic education and I’ve raised my kids Catholic. The atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church go back many hundreds of years. Abuse, genocide, murder, rape etc. etc. So although the last 20 years have been horrible this actually pales in comparison to times in the past. I’m not defending this at all, on the contrary, I’m pointing out how horrible the Roman Catholic Church has been. But I have been raised in a very good parish and I’m thankful for that. I have liked all of the priests that I have been associated with, and they were always on their best behavior. I don’t care for the politics of the Catholic Church but I wouldn’t be the person I am without their teachings.
USAWatchmen´s last blog ..Health Care, Cows and Ice Cream