Recently archbishop of Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley published on his archdiocesan website a list of the names of priests accused of the sexual abuse of children. Accompanying the list was a letter that carefully explains the rationale for his decision.
Cardinal O’Malley indicates that he is deeply concerned about the tragedy of sexual abuse and hopes to ensure that it is “never repeated in the Church.” He further states that his motivation in publicizing the priests’ names is rooted in a concern for “transparency and healing” and for the “restoration of trust.” At the same time, he acknowledges that there are interests “related to the due process rights and reputations of those accused clergy whose cases have not been fully adjudicated.”
Throughout his letter, the cardinal adduces legitimate concerns that cannot be gainsaid. The sexual abuse of children by priests is a horrendous sin and crime. The episcopal neglect that often attended such abuse is similarly condemnable. And it is precisely these past sins and crimes which impel the cardinal’s actions.
The list published by the archdiocese includes the names of “all clergy of the Archdiocese who have been publicly accused of sexually abusing a child [even] where canonical proceedings remain to be completed.” O’Malley explains that in listing the names of accused priests, he is not relying on the standard of credibility since the meaning of that term is variable. Also included are the names of deceased priests who have already been publicly accused. In a separate list, “the names of accused clergy where the accusations have been found not substantiated . . . if the names of those priests are already in the public domain.”
In publishing these names on the Boston website, O’Malley is hoping for transparency and the removal of every shadow of deception. In a diocese which had previously stood as a model of opacity, such intentions are admirable. Nonetheless, while eschewing deception is a worthy goal, significant problems attend the publication of the recent list.
First, the publication of priests’ names whose canonical proceedings have not been completed courts the danger of rash judgment and detraction. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists such offenses as violations of the Eighth Commandment: “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” One is considered guilty of rash judgment if one “even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.” One is guilty of detraction if one “without [an] objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them” (no. 2477).
Parading a man’s name as an accused sexual abuser on a public website of the archdiocese while canonical proceedings remain incomplete seems to draw near to the transgressions noted by the Catechism. It is true that these men have already been publicly accused. But will not listing them on the archdiocesan website inexorably tar these priests’ reputations with the scarlet letter of priest-abuse?
Second, what about the presumption of innocence for accused priests, a right trumpeted in the Dallas Charter (Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People)? Are these words mere obiter dicta, without substance and foundation? Does not the publishing of names of those accused whose cases are still under review constitute a rush to judgment in the public square? Writing recently in the Wall Street Journal on campus rape accusations, Peter Berkowitz asks, “Where are the professors…who will insist clearly and in public that due process is a fundamental component of American political institutions and culture . . . indispensable in a free society to the fair administration of justice? Where are the professors . . . who will stand up and declare that the presumption of innocence rightly gives expression to both the belief in the dignity of the individual and the awareness of human fallibility?” If secular legal processes are deeply concerned with human dignity and the presumption of innocence, how much more carefully should such processes be employed in the Church of Christ?
Third, it has also become a contemporary practice in certain quarters to lionize victims while demonizing victimizers, a practice that can have dangerous results. Everyone remembers the hysterical reaction that followed upon the accusation of rape leveled against members of the Duke University lacrosse team—a charge of which the students were completely exonerated. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, seeks the healing of both the victim and the wrongdoer, with the vilification of neither. Has the recent publication of names in Boston simply followed the popular path of demonizing the alleged wrongdoers—and this because those accused deserve public wrath and scorn?
Finally, the relegation of the listed priests to the court of harsh public opinion can only damage the mutual bonds of respect which ought to exist between a bishop and his priests. The clergy in Boston now know that their reputations may not be guarded by their spiritual father. To many priests and lay Christians, the publication of the recent list will be regarded not as a gesture of transparency on the part of O’Malley, but as a lamentably short-sighted legal and public relations maneuver, showing little care for the reputations of priests.
Everyone understands that the issue of priestly abuse is a sharks’ tank for bishops who are constantly hounded by lawyers, advocacy groups, and the media. And in O’Malley’s defense, it must be remembered that he is the pastor of a local church which may aptly be described as an ecclesiastical Chernobyl, the ground zero of the American abuse crisis. But all bishops should realize that for priests to react cynically toward bishops—in Boston or elsewhere—is only damaging to the Church’s future. Jeopardizing the reputation of Boston’s priests is a high price to pay for short term hosannas from advocacy groups or the media.
Instructive here are the insights of Bl. John Henry Newman. Newman lauded the courage of bishops such as Basil, Athanasius, Gregory and Ambrose for their unwavering commitment to the truth. Reflecting on their lives, he concluded that “truth is the first object of the Christian’s efforts; peace but the second.” I have no doubt that the recent actions in Boston are intended to serve the cause of truth.
But by publicly parading accused men who may very well be innocent, such actions have the unfortunate appearance of seeking only peace—and at a very heavy price.
Fr. Thomas G. Guarino is professor of theology at Seton Hall University.
RESOURCES
Wall Street Journal, College Rape Accusations and the Presumption of Male Guilt
Thomas G. Guarino, Protecting the Innocent
Thomas G. Guarino, The Priesthood and Justice
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
"The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning."
If the bishops had followed verse 20 (rebuke publicly those who sin) in the first place, they would not have found themselves in the current dilemma over verse 19 (Do not entertain an accusation...). They need to reaffirm their commitment to the former before they can turn their attention to the latter.
If we look at Protestant numbers that should be a substantial list. If they are not on the list in what we know should be comparable numbers why not?
The archbishop has disclosed no one's faults, for it is not a fault to be accused of child molestation. It is only a fault--and rather more--if one is guilty of such. Thus no "detraction". The 8th commandment applies to the accuser, not to those hearing accusations or making others aware of them. Otherwise no accusation could be publicly known except when proven in a necessarily secret proceeding, a requirement found nowhere (in the Scriptures at least). Furthermore, the accuser would then have to be accused in turn and then proven to have lied knowingly. Dropping the 8th commandment in this context, as a practical matter, can sound like a threat against victims who dare to speak out at great risk to their personal reputations.
Your statement that Jesus does not seek to vilify wrongdoers, particularly the priestly "hypocrites" (in Greek, meaning actors or poseurs), defies any cursory reading of the Gospels. Forgiveness is for enemies, people who openly oppose you or seek your harm--not for fake friends who use your trust to gain an advantage. One is reminded of Jesus' explicit anathema to those who would cause little ones who believe in Him to stumble. Certainly it was not their reputations that Jesus was threatening.
St Paul warned the new Christians to not believe what the infiltraitors of their little groups were trying to preach to them.He said it was a gospel other than the Gospel that Jesus Christ had preached to them.It was a gospel of man. Do not listen to what they are saying as they are "tickeling your ears "You are right in all you say about the RCC. but not about Jesus Christ.
I think that this is extremely naive. Most people assess the situation according to the principle of ‘There’s no smoke without fire’. Thus, even when an accused person is completely cleared, I think that many people commonly still think that ‘he must have done *something* wrong’, even if that something is merely to have provoked someone to make the false accusation. Secondly, by the nature of sexual allegations, it is very hard to positively clear one’s name – rather the most one can do is to show that there is no solid proof on the side of the accusations. It will often be a matter of word against word. Given that that is the case, it is all the harder for a person who is falsely accused to shed the air of wrongdoing. Perhaps Chris himself is so rational and clear-thinking that when an accusation proves frivolous, he is able to completely erase it from his mind – but sadly this is not true of most people, The comments of ‘Outside the Door’ illustrate this: “I still struggle to make a living, and deal with the "scarlet letter" everyday”.
Of course, Bishops are in an awful situation – wanting both to be just and fair to accused-but-as-yet-uncondemned priests, and also to ensure that children are not put at any risk (for a priest who is guilty, but has not been proved so, can obviously pose a terrible risk). This is an awful tension to have to resolve, and I don’t imagine that it can be done perfectly. But the publishing of the names of the accused-but-not-proved-guilty seems not to solve either issue.
Donatism was condemned by the second ecumenical council, because it was based on the idea that you could create a pure breakaway church from a soiled one.
Such a church does not exist and did not even in Jesus' time.
There are no perfect churches because there are no perfect people.
Sex abuse is found across a spectrum of churches, Jewish and Muslim organizations.
I am frankly fed up of the mass hysteria.
Stop making generalizations.
I help run a youth ministry, and there are vigorous police checks conducted on everybody involved.
This is now turning into "tell a big lie often and people start believing it"
Don't lose hope. Contact the Catholic league. They have taken an active role in exposing SNAP and helping get justice for priests.
Above all pray, God is on your side.
I'm sorry to hear of your experience, and of your misery, and I will pray for your peace. I stopped attending Mass for a time - and didn't find much peace then either. I pray that the peace of Christ will overshadow you, and your entire family.
A member of the "RCC."
Your story is a heartbreaking horror. It makes cruelly vivid the fact that not all of the victims of this tragedy have been children. The God I worship grieves with you. His own cast him out too. I hope you find peace in His compassion.
Greg,
Please tell me that you're not a Christian. If you are, you've got a lot of work to do. If not, you might seriously consider it.
Best,
Richard
We can't have the Eucharist without the priesthood. This is the reason why the enemy is attacking you. He wants you to get desperate and lose hope.
Don't let him win.
I pray that you will find peace too.
Welcome to the real world. I would have thought that you would have found soalce in confessing your sins, doing penance and hopefully seeking plenary indulgence for remission of sin. We laity do these things you know. We have committed greater sins than you but some of us have been more honest than you. There are those of my friends who have killed many people and they have confessed this to their priests and humbly opted to tell the community we belong to of their sins. In fact these confessions have become part of their sharing during workshops and Life in the SPirit Seminars. These are laity, FR. Outside the Door, ordinary people. I sort of expected more from a priest.
The convicts have already been defrocked. There are groups that repeatedly ask for names for the accused to be released. It seems like the church is being blamed for not releasing them and then for releasing them.
I am happy and relieved to learn that the man behind the message is as humane and concerned with the things of God and souls as you evidently are. But I am still not sure that the tenor of your first message was exactly right when directed at a man whose temperament and circumstances you do not know.
Nonetheless, I will bow to your superior experience and the fact of your consecration (I am one of those Catholics who think it matters in the world of the spirit). I feel much more at peace reading your two subsequent messages, and perhaps "Out in the Cold" does too.
Pax tecum,
Richard
I would urge all who are suffering to remember that THIS life and THIS world are not everything. If we take the short view, indeed if we wallow in our own miseries without seeing the transcendent meaning in all of it, then we miss the greatest opportunity of all. We miss the moment in which we identify with Christ -- and he with us -- in suffering. To adopt an Athanasian idea, we miss out on our own divinization.
This is not easy theology. But it heroic theology. It is the theology of the greatest Saints this world has ever known. I pray that all of us who suffer in this valley of tears may learn what it means to "offer it up".
