I spoke, in the new issue of the Weekly Standard, about the effect of the atmosphere created by all the reporting on clerical abuse:
The best sign of such hysterical moments may be the difficulty of anything sane or sensible being heard in them. As Newsweek noted on April 8, the surveys and studies over the past 30 years show “little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue.” Nonetheless, in 2002, after the last set of revelations, “a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent” of Americans “thought Catholic priests ‘frequently’ abused children.”
A poll released on April 13 this year found that between 8 and 11 percent of Canadians say they know personally a victim of sexual abuse by a Catholic priest—which works out to well over 2 million people, out of a national population over 33 million. Given the number of Canadian claims over the last 50 years, that would require every abuse victim to know thousands and thousands of people—but the poll respondents aren’t lying, exactly. They’re responding, quite accurately, to an atmosphere, reinterpreting the past and reinventing the present to conform to the ambient understanding of the world.
Need another example? Here’s Lawrence Lessig in the New York Times this week:
With the pope’s pledge, and the resignation in recent days of three European bishops involved in the sex abuse scandal, it might appear that the church is finally taking responsibility for failing to protect children against molesters for hundreds of years.
Ah, yes, molesters for hundreds of years.
Don’t worry, by the way, that this passage seems to be moving toward praise for the Catholics. The phrase “might appear” is setting up the required negative turn in the next sentence: “But the church is not doing everything in its power to help victims. In fact, it is worsening the sins of the past by taking a leading role in preventing abused children from getting the compensation they need to help remedy past abuse.”
April 28th, 2010 | 1:49 pm
I do not doubt that most priests, within the long history of Roman Catholicism, were sincere in their devotion to God and in their desire to serve Him by serving their parishoners.
However, one cannot escape the stark truth that the hierarchy regularly and systematically covered the truth and ignored the anguished cries of many, many victims.
Given that the world at large has never had any particular love for Christianity, can one be surprised at the kind of coverage the Roman Catholic Church is receiving from the secular press?
As I understand confession and repentance from sin, the repentant person makes unqualified confessions of sin. With a few exceptions, this is singularly lacking in the ongoing public reponse from the Vatican down to the parish church.
David Daniels
April 28th, 2010 | 2:21 pm
Perhaps Mr Daniels hasn’t noticed that Catholic Confessions are, in modern times, made in private. Note that Pope Benedict’s apologies, when made, are made in private to individuals who have been harmed. That is, where they will do the most good. The public repentance often seen today tends to be political, so the last paragraph seems curious.
I suggest that correction is needed with or without “unqualified confessions of sin” to a world that, in many places, has stopped believing in sin. In the U.S., correction has progressed as is visible in the published numbers. Other countries need to find similar approaches. Would that other American institutions undertake similar efforts.
If you are sincere, Mr. Daniels, I hope you will join us at the local level in that correction.
April 28th, 2010 | 2:29 pm
One would assume that a member of the Catholic clergy or hierarchy conscious of sin would confess to God through the sacrament. I am unaware of any absolution or redemption available to any person through confession to Jeffrey Anderson, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Lessing or the editors and publishers of the New York Times. And repentence? What is is that about “let who without sin …” oh you know the rest.
April 28th, 2010 | 2:56 pm
“Hundreds of years’ is quite inaccurate. The truthful answer is “Thosands of years.”
See St Peter Damien’s Book of Gomorrah and the orinigal use of the term “nephew.”
It’s pretty clear that celibacy has been treated as a distant seldom achieved lofty goal, not an actual practice and commonly observed custom.
April 28th, 2010 | 3:23 pm
It’s pretty clear that celibacy has been treated as a distant seldom achieved lofty goal, not an actual practice and commonly observed custom.
Mr McFaul: That conclusion does not follow from your premises. While it is true that pederasty has always been a problem, within and outside the Church, there is no evidence whatsoever that the celibacy requirement in the Latin Church has anything to do with it. If you can find a replicable study showing that the incidence of sexual abuse of minors among the never-married is measurably greater than among the married, you might have an argument.
April 28th, 2010 | 11:11 pm
For years I heard hints that many priests had liaisons with women, then it turned out that a whole lot of male religious had them with boys. It almost seems chastity is observed more in the breach than the observance. These breaches are made possible by secrecy: no one really knows what these people are doing, unless one is doing it with them. In short, we need real community in the Church, rather than rhetorical. If you live in a house with 12 people you can’t carry on any kind of affair in secret. That’s simply an image, by the way. If we had a real community, such things would almost never happen, because they couldn’t. Clergy and laity should be so mixed together that neither could get away with anything.
April 29th, 2010 | 9:13 am
Bob G
It’s clear you can’t count.
And many people can keep a secret as well, hence the reports of “funny uncles”. Are you an uncle as well? What does that mean we should conclude about you?
Baseless innuendo, the currency of conspiracy theorists.
April 29th, 2010 | 10:39 am
Mike:
Without doubt, confession and repentance for sin should be made first to God, then to the individual(s) affected. In the case of spiritual leaders (e.g. pastors, priests, etc.), the Scriptures seem clear that another dimension is also critically important:
“Do not entertain an accusation against an elder (i.e. priest, pastor, etc.) unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that others may take warning” (1 Timothy 5:19-20 NIV).
Further:
“Not many of you should presume to be teachers (i.e. pastors & spiritual leaders), my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1 NIV).
Holy Scripture requires spiritual leaders to be publicly rebuked. Spiritual leaders are to be held to a higher standard of accountability.
If we ever hope to find credibility in a secularizing society, we need to be holy people of God. Obviously we are not sinless, we all fail in many ways. But, and new evidence appears daily from around the world, the widespread failure of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to quickly, honestly and compassionately help those abused is a failure of immense proportions. And all the while, it now seems increasingly evident, this same hierarchy worked overtime to mitigate any damage to the church and its offending priests.
I believe in compassion, forgiveness and God’s grace. But I cannot escape the warning of Scripture:
“He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy” (Proverbs 28:13 NIV).
I agree that correction is needed whether or not there are unqualified confessions. And I am grateful for wherever that correction is occurring. But my heart grieves for the thousands of victims who cannot help but feel that their church has abandoned them in their pain because they are so busy protecting their own interests.
No one can re-write history – what has been done has been done. But I would hope that one day, the Roman Catholic leadership – from the Pope to the parish priest – will humbly and openly confess its deep failure, and stop trying to make excuses or minimize the depth of its failure.
Until that kind of open, unqualified repentance occurs, one is left with the discomforting feeling that current apologies are more about being sorry that one has been found out.
April 29th, 2010 | 2:35 pm
Mr Daniels writes: “…will humbly and openly confess its deep failure, and stop trying to make excuses or minimize the depth of its failure.”
I am not omniscient. I suspect you are not as well. To my knowledge, no church leader of any faith is omniscient. So, I ask: How are they to know the depth of their failure unless they sift the wheat from the chaff? Let alone, how will you know when they have confessed it?
Then again, if not the confessions of various politicians of the sins of their country, are you then referring, e.g., to the televised confession of Jimmy Swaggert? Perhaps you can point to an example of the type of public confession that you call for. It’s clear that the Pope’s rebuke of the Irish episcopate isn’t sufficient for you. What would be?
And I wonder, are you “presuming to be a teacher”?
April 29th, 2010 | 5:15 pm
What would be sufficient for Mr. Daniels would be a complete reordering of the Catholic Church into something more to his liking. The whole point of the Jeffrey Anderson/NY Times/ Hitchens exercise is to create such loathing for the institutional church that it simply ceases to be what it is – that with a little wealth transfer. Something a little more like, say, the Anglicans, tame, non judgemental, a little “prophetic” no doubt.
April 29th, 2010 | 11:46 pm
ROB,
Not to worry about the Anglican church. It is alive and well … in Africa.
April 30th, 2010 | 11:20 am
In the interests of full disclosure, I am an evangelical Baptist pastor. I’ve been in vocational Christian ministry since 1970, having served in the USA, England and now, Canada.
My entry into this conversation is directly related to Joseph Bottum’s “apparent” playing of the “persecution card” as it relates to the society-wide criticism of the Roman Catholic hierarchy’s approach – over several decades – to the tidal wave of abuse allegations. It just doesn’t wash with thinking people.
To criticize the Roman Catholic hierarchy for its handling of this crisis is not anti-Catholicism. To make that claim is no different than the Jewish community claiming anti-Semitism when Israel’s political policies are condemned. And lest my remarks be misconstrued, I am an evangelical who supports the right of Israel to exist in safety and security.
As the ever-growing list of allegations, from an ever-growing number of countries, comes to light, it is increasingly hard to conclude anything other than that the heirarchy knew of these horrific acts, but for decades sought to cover them up.
There are many, many areas of concern where I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Roman Catholics. For example, no group has advocated more consistently for the sanctity of life. Furthermore, there are very committed, upright-living Roman Catholics in my extended family. And while our theological beliefs differ in significant areas, I have high regard for them, and for those who like them who grieve deeply over the failure of their spiritual leaders.
April 30th, 2010 | 2:41 pm
Mr. Daniels,
As a Catholic, I thank you for your wise comments. Your second to last paragraph is an accurate and sympathetic summary of the situation.
April 30th, 2010 | 3:50 pm
Joe,
My sincere prayer is that those responsible for this tragic state of affairs will take whatever steps are necessary to bring healing and resolution wherever this can be achieved.
And I humbly recognize that, but for God’s grace, I could also find myself in a similar tragedy.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact