The Empire Strikes Back - Part III of VI
What does the Catholic Church really think about the importance of children’s rights?
The Vatican itself has clearly expressed little regard for the issue of children being abused from the perspective of the children themselves: We all know now that Cardinal Bernard Law (as one of many) was exposed as being specifically complicit in hiding abuse by priests, moving them on without warning anyone in the destination parishes and effectively facilitating the abuse of more children. And rather than offering support he also condemned those who made complaints against specific priests by accusing them of trying to undermine the church. But when he was eventually forced to resign and was recalled to the Vatican out of the jurisdiction of US law, without any apparent punishment whatsoever. He remained an influential cardinal and was given a prestigious post at the Vatican. This meant him playing a major role in Pope John Paul II’s funeral, an action that some outraged abuse victims likened to rubbing salt into an open wound. This resulted in what was probably a first in history, whereby otherwise-committed Catholics handed out flyers among the crowds, explaining and condemning the behaviour of a prominent cardinal and his role during the funeral of an otherwise much-loved pope.
Catholic self-delusion about John Paul II
Having said that, it seems that some victims and their families were still mourning the passing of the Pope and willingly deluding themselves that John Paul II was an innocent spiritual leader doing his best to handle a recently-discovered crisis that was caused solely by others; And that he was neither responsible for either Cardinal Law’s prestigious role at the his own funeral or for creating a culture of secrecy and blatant disregard for children’s rights.
Over time, the culture of an organisation comes to reflect that of its leader as people are promoted or leave and new people become part of the organisation. It might have been ok for a new pope to be absolved from responsibility of what is happening in the lower levels of management for the time being, had it not now become clear that during John Paul II’s reign it was simply a continuation of the cover-up of the same ongoing problem.
But it is clear that the sheer scale of the operation and the levels within the hierarchy it was maintained by the end of his long reign as Pope, that the culture was a reflection of John Paul II himself – or else that John Paul II himself was simply a reflection of the culture of the organisation, as after all, it is cardinals that elected him. Indeed, words he approved gave away his own attitude, after he convened an extraordinary meeting of US cardinals, senior bishops and Vatican officials, to deal with the crisis in the American Catholic Church. It was a crisis, remember, not because the level of abuse had suddenly gone up, and in fact the publicity may well have reduced it significantly - just that lawyers were finding out about it. Clearly, rampant child abuse which had been going on so long was not considered a major crisis until it started to cost serious money.
There were two main outcomes of the meeting. One was that not only did most of the abuse “not really count as paedophilia because most of the victims were adolescents” – which may have been technically true, but was an insulting slap in the face for most of the victims and casual minimisation of the seriousness and distress caused by the issue for them. And the greatest criticism was not of priests and bishops because of the abuse done to children, but because priests had broken their vows of celibacy. Clearly, the church was more concerned about ideological policy rules being broken than the harm done to children.
Notably, and read the wording carefully, a special process was approved for the dismissal of a priest “who has become notorious, and is guilty of the serial, predatory, sexual abuse of minors” (my italics). In other words, if a priest has abused children a few times but has got away with it and it hasn’t come to public attention because we’ve succeeded in keeping it under wraps, then we’ll keep him on as a priest offering moral guidance to his flock and dishing out religious reprimands to those who stray from the path of righteousness. So, not much change there then.
When US bishops tried to impose a zero-tolerance policy to restore confidence, John Paul II personally overruled it, implying that the church’s policy at the highest level was that you could get away with predatorily sexually abusing one child and still remain as a priest, and possibly do more if they could keep it quiet. With regards to Cardinal Law’s role in his funeral, most people don’t seem to realise that promotion (for that is what it was) to the position of Archpriest at the Basilica of St Mary Major that intrinsically involved him having a senior role in the Pope’s funeral, could only have come with full examination of the cardinal’s background and the approval of the pope himself. And with the Pope’s proven willingness to personally intervene in decisions at many levels within the church hierarchy, it is entirely appropriate to blame John Paul II himself for the insulting outrage of Cardinal Bernard Law’s role at his funeral, not faceless Vatican officials.
And with the revelation that as long as 40 years ago, abuse allegations were considered such a serious problem that Pope John XXIII made strenuous efforts to conceal them, John Paul II’s sudden Damascan-like conversion to ‘openness’ about abuse allegations as if he’s only just discovered them, does begin to look a bit…well, ‘rich’, to put it mildly. It is evident that until it became big and expensive news, John Paul II simply continued the policy of suppression and concealment, clearly handed down from pope to pope, without taking any serious measures to stamp it out while the abuse continued unabated.
What would Jesus have said about the whole business?
Jesus of course had a reputation, not just as a spiritual leader and representative of God on earth, but also as an aggressive activist - kicking over the tables and chasing out of the temple people he considered to be using it for dishonourable business (Mathew 21:12), and we also know he cared deeply about children. It may be hypothetical speculation, but one wonders just how many tables he would have kicked over in the Vatican. I mean, where would he start? I can’t help picturing a scene of Vatican police attempting to arrest Jesus for disruption and vandalism. What an irony that would be. The devil truly works in strange ways.
In the next instalment: Can it be gay priests making all those women pregnant?
The Vatican itself has clearly expressed little regard for the issue of children being abused from the perspective of the children themselves: We all know now that Cardinal Bernard Law (as one of many) was exposed as being specifically complicit in hiding abuse by priests, moving them on without warning anyone in the destination parishes and effectively facilitating the abuse of more children. And rather than offering support he also condemned those who made complaints against specific priests by accusing them of trying to undermine the church. But when he was eventually forced to resign and was recalled to the Vatican out of the jurisdiction of US law, without any apparent punishment whatsoever. He remained an influential cardinal and was given a prestigious post at the Vatican. This meant him playing a major role in Pope John Paul II’s funeral, an action that some outraged abuse victims likened to rubbing salt into an open wound. This resulted in what was probably a first in history, whereby otherwise-committed Catholics handed out flyers among the crowds, explaining and condemning the behaviour of a prominent cardinal and his role during the funeral of an otherwise much-loved pope.
Catholic self-delusion about John Paul II
Having said that, it seems that some victims and their families were still mourning the passing of the Pope and willingly deluding themselves that John Paul II was an innocent spiritual leader doing his best to handle a recently-discovered crisis that was caused solely by others; And that he was neither responsible for either Cardinal Law’s prestigious role at the his own funeral or for creating a culture of secrecy and blatant disregard for children’s rights.
Over time, the culture of an organisation comes to reflect that of its leader as people are promoted or leave and new people become part of the organisation. It might have been ok for a new pope to be absolved from responsibility of what is happening in the lower levels of management for the time being, had it not now become clear that during John Paul II’s reign it was simply a continuation of the cover-up of the same ongoing problem.
But it is clear that the sheer scale of the operation and the levels within the hierarchy it was maintained by the end of his long reign as Pope, that the culture was a reflection of John Paul II himself – or else that John Paul II himself was simply a reflection of the culture of the organisation, as after all, it is cardinals that elected him. Indeed, words he approved gave away his own attitude, after he convened an extraordinary meeting of US cardinals, senior bishops and Vatican officials, to deal with the crisis in the American Catholic Church. It was a crisis, remember, not because the level of abuse had suddenly gone up, and in fact the publicity may well have reduced it significantly - just that lawyers were finding out about it. Clearly, rampant child abuse which had been going on so long was not considered a major crisis until it started to cost serious money.
There were two main outcomes of the meeting. One was that not only did most of the abuse “not really count as paedophilia because most of the victims were adolescents” – which may have been technically true, but was an insulting slap in the face for most of the victims and casual minimisation of the seriousness and distress caused by the issue for them. And the greatest criticism was not of priests and bishops because of the abuse done to children, but because priests had broken their vows of celibacy. Clearly, the church was more concerned about ideological policy rules being broken than the harm done to children.
Notably, and read the wording carefully, a special process was approved for the dismissal of a priest “who has become notorious, and is guilty of the serial, predatory, sexual abuse of minors” (my italics). In other words, if a priest has abused children a few times but has got away with it and it hasn’t come to public attention because we’ve succeeded in keeping it under wraps, then we’ll keep him on as a priest offering moral guidance to his flock and dishing out religious reprimands to those who stray from the path of righteousness. So, not much change there then.
When US bishops tried to impose a zero-tolerance policy to restore confidence, John Paul II personally overruled it, implying that the church’s policy at the highest level was that you could get away with predatorily sexually abusing one child and still remain as a priest, and possibly do more if they could keep it quiet. With regards to Cardinal Law’s role in his funeral, most people don’t seem to realise that promotion (for that is what it was) to the position of Archpriest at the Basilica of St Mary Major that intrinsically involved him having a senior role in the Pope’s funeral, could only have come with full examination of the cardinal’s background and the approval of the pope himself. And with the Pope’s proven willingness to personally intervene in decisions at many levels within the church hierarchy, it is entirely appropriate to blame John Paul II himself for the insulting outrage of Cardinal Bernard Law’s role at his funeral, not faceless Vatican officials.
And with the revelation that as long as 40 years ago, abuse allegations were considered such a serious problem that Pope John XXIII made strenuous efforts to conceal them, John Paul II’s sudden Damascan-like conversion to ‘openness’ about abuse allegations as if he’s only just discovered them, does begin to look a bit…well, ‘rich’, to put it mildly. It is evident that until it became big and expensive news, John Paul II simply continued the policy of suppression and concealment, clearly handed down from pope to pope, without taking any serious measures to stamp it out while the abuse continued unabated.
What would Jesus have said about the whole business?
Jesus of course had a reputation, not just as a spiritual leader and representative of God on earth, but also as an aggressive activist - kicking over the tables and chasing out of the temple people he considered to be using it for dishonourable business (Mathew 21:12), and we also know he cared deeply about children. It may be hypothetical speculation, but one wonders just how many tables he would have kicked over in the Vatican. I mean, where would he start? I can’t help picturing a scene of Vatican police attempting to arrest Jesus for disruption and vandalism. What an irony that would be. The devil truly works in strange ways.
In the next instalment: Can it be gay priests making all those women pregnant?
posted by Mike Hersee at 11:14 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home