Clergy Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church

Part III in a series
By Tom Doyle
continued

The anointed leadership of the Church in the U.S. was more interested in trying to influence U.S foreign policy and domestic health-care policy with little apparent realization that their influence was eroding in the eyes of a general public that was confused and scandalized by a Church that appeared to insist on a rigid and anachronistic moral code for its lay members while allowing the vilest form of sexual behavior by its clerics. 

While it is true that from 1985 on the bishops discussed clergy sexual abuse at every plenary meeting, usually in executive session, their major output consisted in several policy statements produced by the Office of the General Counsel.  The first ad hoc committee was created in 1993 and its sole accomplishment was an ineffective three-part handbook issued between 1994 and 1996.  It is clear that the diocesan attorneys were working together to devise strategies to counteract the growing number of civil suits around the country.  There was a striking dichotomy between what the bishops were saying and what they were doing.  The public expressions of regret and apology were not accompanied by actions that reflected these sentiments.  While bishops often provided psychological counseling to victims, there is scant evidence that more than a handful actually reached out in a sincere, compassionate manner.  Although bishops hold themselves out to be experts in the care of souls none seemed to have a clue even to the nature and extent of the spiritual damage from sexual abuse by a cleric much less how to heal the wounds to the soul. 

The Popes
We learned the painful truth that Pope John Paul II and his Vatican bureaucracy were not interested in responding to the thousands of abuse victims other than as a faceless group of people that threatened the image and power of the bishops.  John Paul II made 12 public statements about clergy sex abuse, all with basically the same theme.  They reflected his attitude as defensive, dismissive and either unwilling or incapable of comprehending the viciously destructive nature of sexual abuse.  During the many years of his reign it was clear that he was far more concerned with doctrinal purity and unquestioning obedience than he was with the violation of the bodies and souls of the Church’s most vulnerable. From John Paul II’s first statement in 1993 up to the most recent statements by Benedict XVI, it has remained clear that the papacy firmly believes in its intrinsic holiness and infallible judgment on all issues.  The Vatican was aware in detail of the sex abuse problems in the U.S. from 1985 onwards yet chose to remain aloof and when they did respond publicly it was to minimize the problem or shift the blame.  The popes have been primarily interested is defending the ecclesiastical status quo and in recovering from the massive loss of trust and esteem.  The Vatican gave numerous signals clearly showing its priorities but the strongest signal was the debacle involving the papal patronage of the late, disgraced Marciel Maciel-Degollado, founder and leader of the Legion of Christ until he was removed by Benedict XVI.  The whole story is accurately laid out by Jason Berry and Gerry Renner in Vows of Silence.  Maciel’s chief patron was the pope who was joined by several other high ranking officials such as Cardinal Sodano, former Secretary of State, Cardinal Rode, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious, Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos, former Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy and most important, Father Stanislaus Dziwisz, John Paul’s personal secretary and gate-keeper and now a cardinal).  Jason has uncovered in current research that this patronage was not only prompted by edification with Maciel’s sanctity and  devotion to the “See of Peter” but also by his expansive monetary expressions of loyalty, known as bribes in most cultures.

The Civil Courts
Civil and criminal cases continued around the country.  Although a significant number of clerics were charged with a variety of felonies and misdemeanors related to sexual abuse, the number sentenced to prison terms proportionate to their crimes was noticeably less than convicted lay persons.  Victims had been turning to the civil courts since 1983 when Jeff Anderson filed the first known civil suit against a diocesan bishop.  Insensitive and uninformed voices claimed the suits were all about greed….plunging into the Church’s deep pockets, draining the coffers and severely crippling all of the Church’s ministries especially its schools and extensive outreach to the poor and disenfranchised.  Behind these preposterous defenses, all of which originated with the hierarchy, there was no evidence whatsoever that much deserved payments to victims were putting any aspect of Church life out of business.  Although several bishops tried blaming sex abuse victims and their attorneys for the rash of Church closings in several dioceses, the truth was that many had been planned in advance of the “crisis” and all were due to changing demographics and a serious shortage of priests with little signs of a reversal of this trend in the future.  A more sinister reason was forced into the open by enraged parishioners in several dioceses:  bishops were closing some parishes that were thriving because they wanted to sell valuable property to shore up dwindling financial resources.  An additional fact that pushes these claims further into the realm of pure spin is the unquestioned data that approximately 80-88% of the funding for Catholic Charities across the U.S. comes from government grants.

Accused clerics have been extended “special treatment” by prosecutors and law enforcement officials. Bishops and dioceses have been treated with deference not shown to any other institution.  The discovery process in clergy cases throughout the U.S has revealed documentation of numerous examples of deferential treatment which benefitted the institutional Church and kept the problem hidden, at least for a time.