Bishops Still Stonewall On Abuse

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1339529146' post='2444003']
Not to shake an unlit censer... but the tone and gist of the article was that there is a lack of transparency when the Bishops misbehave or fail in correcting Bishops, not priests.?[/quote]Actually, that's what I got too.

The problem with the article is that it doesn't take into account how the hierarchy of the Church operates. It's very silly to apply American civil law (a 200-year-old system) to a universal, religious, 2000-year-old entity. There is a bishop I know who has been accused of these things. It's difficult to know exactly how to proceed, though I'm sure someone is investigating the situation.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1339529411' post='2444005']
Actually, that's what I got too.

The problem with the article is that it doesn't take into account how the hierarchy of the Church operates. It's very silly to apply American civil law (a 200-year-old system) to a universal, religious, 2000-year-old entity. There is a bishop I know who has been accused of these things. It's difficult to know exactly how to proceed, though I'm sure someone is investigating the situation.
[/quote]I get that it is a religious organization, not American civil law. But our US laws and social customs are founded on Judeo-Christian ethos and principles. Wouldn't those same principles and ethos apply (with reasonable accomodation for the differences between the two institutions) in this situation?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1339529704' post='2444007']
I get that it is a religious organization, not American civil law. But our US laws and social customs are founded on Judeo-Christian ethos and principles. Wouldn't those same principles and ethos apply (with reasonable accomodation for the differences between the two institutions) in this situation?
[/quote]The same [i]mores[/i] are applicable, but I don't think that the Church would accept one bishop simply looking into another bishop's actions. It's not completely without precedent, but the Church spent hundreds of years setting up protections for bishops in charge of their dioceses. I think in this case the issue goes to Rome and is investigated there.

This isn't to say that the magisterium is above local law; I don't think that bishops, priests, or anyone else should be allowed to get away with pedophilia and I have no problem with them being charged with local law. If the local authorities start to investigate, I would not be opposed. The problem is that the bishops cannot simply apply the Dallas Charter to their fellow bishops without a complete reworking of the laws of the Church.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1339529936' post='2444009']
The same [i]mores[/i] are applicable, but I don't think that the Church would accept one bishop simply looking into another bishop's actions. It's not completely without precedent, but the Church spent hundreds of years setting up protections for bishops in charge of their dioceses. I think in this case the issue goes to Rome and is investigated there.

This isn't to say that the magisterium is above local law; I don't think that bishops, priests, or anyone else should be allowed to get away with pedophilia and I have no problem with them being charged with local law. If the local authorities start to investigate, I would not be opposed. The problem is that the bishops cannot simply apply the Dallas Charter to their fellow bishops without a complete reworking of the laws of the Church.
[/quote]The Church has had more than a millenia to figure out how to deal with Bishops whose public actions violate civil law and socially accepted [i]mores[/i] of behavior. Given the breadth of the scandals and the damage done to the Church as well as people's faith in their religion (which the Church is supposed to represent to them and the world), this is a serious issue that demanded attention. The Dallas conference was conducted by the Bishops to set up agreed to protocols on how to deal with priests, religious, and lay persons who misbehave while performing the duties of their roles within the organization. Fine and wonderful.

I understand and can agree that 'fraternal' correction by Bishops would be limited and at best, not a swift or decisive action, not only because it can't be, it shouldn't be that way. But there comes a point that those in charge of Bishops need to involve themselves to provide and enforce correction and/or discipline. Surely that concept isn't at odds with the hierachy of the Church. The problem is a few Bishops (a minority) have consistently defied complying with the Dallas Charter and/or themselves have fallen victim to their human imperfections. Given their role, responsibilities, and public nature of their office, it's should be of a great concern of the Church hierarchy to make the corrections needed, given the desired role of the Church to be a beacon and compass of moral behavior. I understand and temper expectations considering the lofty ideals of the Church make it easy to point out examples of hypocrasy in behavior. But in the same perspective, that also increases the need for the Church to make corrections since that is the role it wants to fulfill.

It is doubly regrettable if the Church fails to correct itself and thus, makes it subject to correction by civil authorities. Look at the Sandusky scandal as an example of leadership failing to correct it's sub-leaders and the effects on the entire organisation. So much scandal, strife, abuse, and institutional disgrace could (and should) have been avoided if the few on the top addressed their subordinates misbehavior BEFORE it became a public outrage. Shouldn't the Church have figured it out in the centuries after Luther's first complaints about clerical misbehavior eventually led to the Protestant theological debacle?

Edited June 12, 2012 by Anomaly

[cmotherofpirl]

How do you make a bishop DO what he is asked? If convicted of something there are options, but what about before that? In the Lahey case there were three choices: [list]
[*]It can dismiss Lahey from the clerical state
[*]It could sentence him to a life of prayer and penance, perhaps in a monastery.
[*]It could reduce Lahey’s powers, so that he would not be able to identify himself as a cleric by title, by address or by association
[/list]
We need CatherineM

[qfnol31]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1339531437' post='2444019']
How do you make a bishop DO what he is asked? If convicted of something there are options, but what about before that? In the Lahey case there were three choices:[list]
[*]It can dismiss Lahey from the clerical state
[*]It could sentence him to a life of prayer and penance, perhaps in a monastery. [color=#0000ff]This happened to the former bishop of Phoenix, Arizona.[/color]
[*]It could reduce Lahey’s powers, so that he would not be able to identify himself as a cleric by title, by address or by association
[/list]
We need CatherineM
[/quote]In the case of bishops it can be difficult. Their place as head of their diocese affords them a certain amount of leniency, almost like the position of a mayor or governor could provide some leniency. Typically people in such roles tend to resign before they have to be removed, but it has happened before. I'll say a bit more in response to Anomaly.

As for your three options, public disgrace tends to work fairly well for bishops. Once they've been disgraced they tend to step out of the public eye. All of this goes through the Vatican, and it's ultimately up to the Holy Father to decide what then takes place.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1339530933' post='2444015']
The Church has had more than a millenia to figure out how to deal with Bishops whose public actions violate civil law and socially accepted [i]mores[/i] of behavior. Given the breadth of the scandals and the damage done to the Church as well as people's faith in their religion (which the Church is supposed to represent to them and the world), this is a serious issue that demanded attention. The Dallas conference was conducted by the Bishops to set up agreed to protocols on how to deal with priests, religious, and lay persons who misbehave while performing the duties of their roles within the organization. Fine and wonderful.[/quote]The thing about the Dallas Charter, and a position espoused by John Paul II, is that the Dallas Charter was only binding insofar as each bishop decided it was binding on those in his diocese and each bishop has the prerogative to refuse to abide by the chapter. Church law is very clear that national conferences of bishops do not have actual force of law for bishops. I know this isn't a very popular position amongst people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, but the bishop has a particular role by virtue of his ordination. You're right that there need to be protections against pedophiles; I agree entirely. But the reason that bishops have the autonomy they do is rooted in deep Catholic theology and in years of abuse by other bishops. They also deserve protection from injustice, and that's why the Church hierarchy is ordered the way it is. That's what I mean about applying American legal understandings to Church hierarchy.

Unfortunately, that means we need a new and different solution for dealing with pedophilia cases.

[quote]I understand and can agree that 'fraternal' correction by Bishops would be limited and at best, not a swift or decisive action, not only because it can't be, it shouldn't be that way. But there comes a point that [b]those in charge of Bishops need to involve themselves to provide and enforce correction and/or discipline.[/b] Surely that concept isn't at odds with the hierachy of the Church. The problem is a few Bishops (a minority) have consistently defied complying with the Dallas Charter and/or themselves have fallen victim to their human imperfections. Given their role, responsibilities, and public nature of their office, it's should be of a great concern of the Church hierarchy to make the corrections needed, given the desired role of the Church to be a beacon and compass of moral behavior. I understand and temper expectations considering the lofty ideals of the Church make it easy to point out examples of hypocrasy in behavior. But in the same perspective, that also increases the need for the Church to make corrections since that is the role it wants to fulfill.[/quote]I bolded the important part here. There are not persons "in charge" of the bishops according to Catholic ecclesiology. While the Holy Father indeed has full authority over the bishops, he is not "in charge." That isn't to say that he can't and shouldn't remove them from their position, but he isn't like a bishop to the other bishops who can just remove another from office. As I pointed out above, history is replete with examples of bishops who have overstepped their bounds and the current establishment of hierarchy follows two millennia of developments and protections built in.

[quote]It is doubly regrettable if the Church fails to correct itself and thus, makes it subject to correction by civil authorities. Look at the Sandusky scandal as an example of leadership failing to correct it's sub-leaders and the effects on the entire organisation. So much scandal, strife, abuse, and institutional disgrace could (and should) have been avoided if the few on the top addressed their subordinates misbehavior BEFORE it became a public outrage. Shouldn't the Church have figured it out in the centuries after Luther's first complaints about clerical misbehavior eventually led to the Protestant theological debacle?
[/quote]While there were some scandals during Martin Luther's time, they aren't really equivalent to what has happened here. Luther's grief against the hierarchy really had less to do with true scandal and more to do with his own theology and what he wanted from the hierarchy. (Look in his book [i]Babylonian Captivity of the Church[/i] for what I mean on this point.)

I would argue that the scandal that has occurred in recent decades is unprecedented in the Church's history. It will require a new examination and set of rules to prevent it from happening ever again. Some of the efforts currently being implemented are grassroots. You're right that the Church should do more to prevent and to correct bishops, priests, etc. from such heinous crimes. I don't think that bishops should be above local civil law, but I also don't think that means that the Church should or even can ignore their crimes. I'm not sure what to propose, but it might take a local synod or a particular intervention from the Holy Father. The big problem here is that these actions cannot really be done without proving the guilt of the one in charge. Sandusky was removed from his position when it became evident that the accusations were true. Should he have been fired with the first accusation? What if the first accusation had been a false one and then he began committing crimes? In fact, the scandal and harm from dealing with a false accusation could in fact impair any later actions against a true accusation, so caution is needed as always.

[Lil Red]

Quaf, I am sure that was a great post. But it was teal deer. I will try to read when I am not so delirious.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1339557534' post='2444181']
Quaf, I am sure that was a great post. But it was teal deer. I will try to read when I am not so delirious.
[/quote]They're more fun to write/read after a good drink or two.

Typing class in high school seems to have been a bad idea. It just means I can type for five minutes and get that much ^.

[Amory]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1339549869' post='2444127']
Church law is very clear that national conferences of bishops do not have actual force of law for bishops. I know this isn't a very popular position amongst people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, but the bishop has a particular role by virtue of his ordination.[/quote]

I completely agree with you upon this point.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1339549869' post='2444127']
I bolded the important part here. There are not persons "in charge" of the bishops according to Catholic ecclesiology. While the Holy Father indeed has full authority over the bishops, he is not "in charge."[/quote]

This is where you and I disagree. The pope definitely is "in charge" of the bishops in as much as the pope has jurisdiction over all the members of the Universal Church (both collectively and individually), including the bishops. If the pope (or the curial bureaucracy that operates under his authority) wanted it, the Dallas Charter (or other acts of bishops' conferences) could be given force of law. The pope could also delegate to a bishops' conference the authority to establish norms that all those in the conference must follow.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1339563516' post='2444206']This is where you and I disagree. The pope definitely is "in charge" of the bishops in as much as the pope has jurisdiction over all the members of the Universal Church (both collectively and individually), including the bishops. If the pope (or the curial bureaucracy that operates under his authority) wanted it, the Dallas Charter (or other acts of bishops' conferences) could be given force of law. The pope could also delegate to a bishops' conference the authority to establish norms that all those in the conference must follow.
[/quote]While the Holy Father indeed enjoys full jurisdiction, the Church does not operate entirely in a top-down schema where the Pope acts as a bishop of all the bishops.

That is to say, the Holy Father has the authority to govern the Church, but that does not mean that a bishop does not also have his own local, immediate, ordinary authority himself. The Church generally does not operate as though the Pope is simply a "boss" of the bishops.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1339549869' post='2444127']
Unfortunately, that means we need a new and different solution for dealing with pedophilia cases.

I bolded the important part here. There are not persons "in charge" of the bishops according to Catholic ecclesiology. While the Holy Father indeed has full authority over the bishops, he is not "in charge." That isn't to say that he can't and shouldn't remove them from their position, but he isn't like a bishop to the other bishops who can just remove another from office. As I pointed out above, history is replete with examples of bishops who have overstepped their bounds and the current establishment of hierarchy follows two millennia of developments and protections built in.

While there were some scandals during Martin Luther's time, they aren't really equivalent to what has happened here. Luther's grief against the hierarchy really had less to do with true scandal and more to do with his own theology and what he wanted from the hierarchy. (Look in his book [i]Babylonian Captivity of the Church[/i] for what I mean on this point.)

I would argue that the scandal that has occurred in recent decades is unprecedented in the Church's history. It will require a new examination and set of rules to prevent it from happening ever again. Some of the efforts currently being implemented are grassroots. You're right that the Church should do more to prevent and to correct bishops, priests, etc. from such heinous crimes. I don't think that bishops should be above local civil law, but I also don't think that means that the Church should or even can ignore their crimes. I'm not sure what to propose, but it might take a local synod or a particular intervention from the Holy Father. The big problem here is that these actions cannot really be done without proving the guilt of the one in charge. Sandusky was removed from his position when it became evident that the accusations were true. Should he have been fired with the first accusation? What if the first accusation had been a false one and then he began committing crimes? In fact, the scandal and harm from dealing with a false accusation could in fact impair any later actions against a true accusation, so caution is needed as always.
[/quote]q,
thanks for the response. I read it three times, yesterday and today. I'm not sure if you missed my points, or just have a different take on the response by the Church thus far. As far as Luther's "beef", his 95 theses dealt mainly with the abuse of selling indulgences by the Clergy. His beef grew to what it became because of other geo-politcical factors as well as the Church's failure to correct obvious and significant misbehavior. The same can be said for the sexual scandals. The problem is not limited to selling indulgences or having sex with minors. The problem is those misbehaviors are ignored and toleratated within the institution by the institution. Those in charge, because of the benefits and priviliges of their office within the institution, are in a position to both deflect consequences and scrutiny, while also being in the position that it's their responsibilty and role to correct it. Too many cases and too much evidence have become publically known to down play it as a minor or insignificant malady. At this point, it's dishonest to claim the Church has done all it could and should do, and the remaining cases are the remanants of mere human imperfection. In other words, much has been done to treat the superficial damage, but little has been done to correct some of the fundamental causes when those in charge avoid correction and accountibility when they err, not just in a few instances, but in fundamental thought and behavior that allows these bad behaviors to continue over years and decades.

Please don't twist what I'm saying to think that I'm calling for Bishop's to be suspended or publically investigated at the first accusation or appearance of a problem. What has become apparent when scandals in parishes and dioces have become so large, is that little or nothing was done by the hierachy in too many cases and it's evident there is a systemic problem requireing a systemic solution. If the Church continues to fail to correct itself, it becomes a hollow shell with just the appearance of being a moral beacon. I get the Church can decide to correct itself within it's own organizational guidelines, whether it's a fraternal council of local biships, the pope, a panel in the vatican, etc. But the Church can't continue to do nothing to correct those in charge with the excuse that these things aren't to be rushed. Supposedly people win or lose their salvation in the few years of their lifetime. Shouldn't the Church be as concerned about the immediate needs of the congregation as well as the long term needs of the Institution?

[qfnol31]

Anomaly, I'm not sure we actually disagree on much here. I think I take a stronger stance on the civil authority's ability to respond, but otherwise we're not too far off. I wholeheartedly think that the Church and her leadership need to take action, but I know some of the difficulties with what they've done. Most of that part of my response was directed at Amory I think.

To your post I was just clarifying that there is a particular difficult with bishops who abuse children (the real point of the original post--think Archbishop Weakland's relationship) because of the way the hierarchy is set up. Most people think that it's a completely top-down approach with the Pope as a bishop of bishops, but it's not really. That causes a particular difficulty when it comes to the censorship and removal of bishops, just as it's more difficult to prosecute/punish a US president for crimes than your average citizen. I think that something should be done, but honestly I'm not even sure how to handle these situations feasibly.


As for Luther, I've been reading a lot of his works recently. His problem with the Church was quickly revealed as a doctrinal problem rather than a simple disagreement on abuse. All I meant to say with respect to him is that I think his situation and time was different and I argue that the crisis we (the Church) face today is even more grave than what happened in his time.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1339590620' post='2444244']
...What has become apparent when scandals in parishes and dioces have become so large, is that little or nothing was done by the hierachy in too many cases and it's evident there is a systemic problem requireing a systemic solution. If the Church continues to fail to correct itself, it becomes a hollow shell with just the appearance of being a moral beacon. I get the Church can decide to correct itself within it's own organizational guidelines, whether it's a fraternal council of local biships, the pope, a panel in the vatican, etc. But the Church can't continue to do nothing to correct those in charge with the excuse that these things aren't to be rushed. Supposedly people win or lose their salvation in the few years of their lifetime. Shouldn't the Church be as concerned about the immediate needs of the congregation as well as the long term needs of the Institution?
[/quote]

With all due to respect, this systematic rash of sexual abuse cases stem from basically only a few decades in the twentieth century. Thus the main problem is not the systematic structure of the church, but rather the general policies of the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s.

Back in the day, ALL society thought sexual predator problems could be swept under the rug, and that a few counseling sessions could cure the disorder. If you look up "The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the
United States, 1950-2010 John Jay report" on page 39, you'll see some graphs depicting the number of incidents per year. Notice the huge spike up followed by the huge spike down. I am not saying we don't have to worry about sex abuse anymore.....however, it shows that it is a false alarm to think the church is massively and systematically still hiding abuse, and that massive corrections still need to take place.

The media can make a circus over a few bad apples, however the facts say otherwise.

[qfnol31]

If anything, I think the recent Sandusky trial has taught us that this is also a national problem and as a nation we will have to reexamine how we deal with these accusations.