All the Pope's Men (29 page)

Though this book is not the place to develop the point, it’s important to note that while the dimensions of the sexual abuse crisis are perhaps greater in the United States, this is not an “American problem." To take just a few examples, Archbishop Juliusz Paetz of Poznan in Poland was accused in 2002 of sexually abusing seminarians, and stepped down from office on March 28. Cardinal Hans Hermann Gröer of Vienna was forced to resign in 1995 after similar accusations. The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland agreed in 2002 to pay the equivalent of $110 million to compensate thousands of victims of molestation in church-run schools and child-care centers over most of the last century. Thirty French priests have been convicted in recent years of pedophile activities and eleven are currently in prison. One French bishop, Pierre Pican of Bayeux, received a suspended three-month jail sentence for failing to report the conduct of a priest who was allegedly engaged in sexual abuse. In October, then-Archbishop George Pell of Sydney, Australia, now a cardinal, was cleared after suspending himself when faced with charges of sexual abuse. More than ninety priests and church employees have been convicted of sexual abuse in Australia over the last decade. A former Catholic brother in Australia, for example, was recently jailed for ten years for a series of sexual assaults against young children from 1975 to 1999. Examples could be taken from all over the world. My newspaper,
National Catholic Reporter
, broke a story two years ago concerning the sexual abuse of nuns by priests in Africa and elsewhere. No one whose eyes are open can pretend that the phenomenon of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church is restricted to American airspace.

The financial and legal dimensions of the American crisis, despite the difficulty of obtaining precise data, are in many ways far easier to establish than the human and spiritual costs. Few would argue the point, however, that the Catholic Church in the United States has been badly damaged and that it will likely be the work of a generation or more to recover. Many U.S. bishops had no doubt hoped that with the December 13, 2002, resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law, the dramatic arc of the sex abuse story had come to a close. Many signals gave them reasons for optimism, above all the fact that media interest in the story dropped off dramatically in the early months of 2003. As the year wore on, however, indicators suggested a much longer shelf life for the story. Chief among them were the burgeoning lawsuits in the Los Angeles archdiocese, bringing with them the potential for more explosive revelations of documents unsealed by court order, such as the ones that had originally triggered the crisis in Boston. The deal struck by Phoenix Bishop Thomas O’Brien with Maricopa County to avoid criminal prosecution, followed by his arrest on a hit-and-run charge and resignation from office, further sullied the public image of the Church at a critical moment. With the Church still facing hundreds of lawsuits, and new accusations continuing to emerge, it seems clear that the close of the sexual abuse crisis is not at hand.

Moreover, the Church in the United States does not appear to have reached anything like a consensus on the root causes of the crisis. Public debate seems polarized between leftists who blame a clerical culture of secrecy, a hierarchy that looks more to Rome than to the local community, and celibacy; and their right-wing counterparts who blame tolerance for doctrinal dissent, asleep-at-the-switch bishops, anything-goes sexual morality, and homosexuality. Not only do these perspectives seem to be moving further apart, but it is increasingly difficult to identify spaces in the public life of the Church in the United States where people who hold these views are engaged in conversation with one another. The drift seems to be a more fragmented and divided American Catholicism—sociologically, one could make the argument that there are in fact three or four American Catholic “churches."

The crisis has generated a new literary genre of insta-books devoted to the scandals, from George Weigel’s
The Courage to Be Catholic:
Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Catholic Church
(Basic Books, 2002) and Fr. Benedict Groschel’s
From Scandal to Hope
(Our Sunday Visitor, 2002), representing the conservative view, to
Sacred Silence: Denial and
the Crisis in the Church
by Fr. Donald Cozzens (The Liturgical Press, 2002) and
Toward a New Catholic Church: The Promise of Reform
by James Carroll (Houghton Mifflin, 2002), embodying the liberal perspective. Each book is well written, thoughtful, and contains useful insights. They should be read by anyone seeking to understand the situation facing the American Church. At the same time, however, each reads like it could have been written before the crisis began. In a sense, the books were written before the crisis, because they present familiar points of view from each of the authors. Weigel decried doctrinal dissent well before he knew who John Geoghan and Paul Shanley were; and likewise, Cozzens thought clericalism was a serious woe long before Boston’s Cardinal Bernard Law ever gave a deposition. The books thus become a battleground for familiar ideological duels. Where Weigel exonerates celibacy, Cozzens challenges it. Cozzens allows that there is no “inherent relationship, in itself, between Catholic clergy abuse and celibacy," but goes on to say, “it may foster or reinforce, at least in some, the very psychosexual immaturity that leads to compulsive and diverse manifestations of destructive behavior." Where Weigel scoffs at the notion that an “authoritarian church" played any role, Cozzens is sure of it. Cozzens condemns the “sacred silence" imposed by church leaders and laments the “feudal, clerical culture of secrecy."

The status quo in American Catholicism, therefore, seems to be an ongoing crisis that is exacting massive financial, legal, human, and spiritual costs, and a Catholic community badly divided as to how to analyze what has happened. In this context, the frequent misunderstandings between the American street and the Holy See have been an important factor in aggravating and prolonging the crisis. It is to that story we now turn.

THE VATICAN RESPONSE TO THE AMERICAN CRISIS: A CHRONOLOGY

This section provides a chronological review of events involving the exchange between the United States and the Holy See connected to the American sex abuse crisis. In certain cases the items below summarize interviews given by foreign prelates to the respected Italian Catholic magazine
30 Giorni
, to the
National Catholic Reporter
, or other news outlets. While some of these prelates are not Vatican officials, they are included because these interviews were widely read and discussed in the Vatican, and they often gave voice to views held by many in the Holy See.

December 2001
The Catholic News Service and the
National
Catholic Reporter
reported that under a papal
motu proprio
entitled
Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela
and dated May 18, 2001, but not previously disclosed, John Paul had assigned exclusive canonical authority over cases of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest, along with five other grave crimes, to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This action predated the eruption of the current American scandals, but was in part motivated by a desire to bring the handling of these cases in other countries in line with procedures established in the United States. Under the rules, bishops were required to report probable sexual abuse of minors by priests to the congregation, which can decide to let a local tribunal handle the case or to take it up in Rome. The rules imposed strict secrecy, extended the canonical statute of limitations for this crime to ten years from the accuser’s eighteenth birthday, and specified that such cases must be handled by priest-staffed courts. In addition to sexual abuse of minors, the new rules assigned several other matters to the doctrinal office, including sacrilege of the Eucharist, forbidden concelebration with Protestant ministers, and abuse of the sacrament of penance, including cases in which a priest uses the pretext of confession to solicit sexual favors.

February 2002
In an interview with
30 Giorni,
then-secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Italian Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone commented on the new Vatican norms. (Bertone has since become the Cardinal of Genoa.) Among other points, he suggested that the desire for financial payoffs was fueling the American litigation. “Even though the absolutely negative judgment on this behavior remains even if the acts happened 30 or 40 years ago, there is a well-founded suspicion that some of these charges, that arise well after the fact, serve only for making money in civil litigation," he said. Bertone called it a “strange fact" that in the United States the Church is forced under civil law to pay for the misdeeds of single individuals. “This ordinarily doesn’t happen, and shouldn’t happen," he said. Bertone criticized proposals to make bishops “automatic reporters" of abuse allegations, arguing that a priest should be able to confide in his bishop without fear of being denounced to the police or other civil authorities. “In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offense of pedophilia is unfounded," Bertone said. “Naturally civil society has the obligation to defend its citizens. But it must also respect the ‘professional secrecy’ of priests, as it respects the professional secrecy of other categories, a respect that cannot be reduced simply to the inviolable seal of the confessional. If a priest cannot confide in his bishop for fear of being denounced," Bertone said, “then it would mean that there is no more liberty of conscience."

March 3, 2002
In an interview on the sexual abuse crisis published in the
New York Times,
Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls cited canon law on homosexuality and said, “People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained" as priests. Navarro-Valls compared the situation of a man with homosexual inclinations who becomes a priest to that of a man with the same affliction who marries. Just as such a marriage can be annulled, he said, the ordination might similarly be invalid. (Canon lawyers later said that this argument is incorrect since sexual orientation is not one of the conditions for a valid ordination.) Navarro-Valls also insisted that the Vatican was not out of touch with regard to the American crisis. “We’re very well aware of the dimension and implications of the problem," Navarro said, “very well aware." He said the Pope was distressed by the scandals. “He has shown tremendous sadness, a very physical sadness that affected his whole body and said, ‘How can this happen?’ "

March 13, 2002
Archbishop John Foley, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Social Communications, suggested that “the best defense against the crisis is virtue, and in the absence of virtue, candor." Foley spoke at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia. “The real tragedy of the present crisis, apart from the undermining of confidence in the Church and her clergy from such terrible actions and such revelations, is not embarrassment for the Church. It is the fact of a grave offense against God and a grave offense against God’s children," he said. Foley added: “We truly need holy priests, priests who are pure in thought, word and deed; priests who are men of prayer; priests who are generous in service; priests who are self-giving, self-sacrificing; priests who are dedicated to making known the saving knowledge and love of Jesus."

March 21, 2002
John Paul II made his first public comment since the crisis broke on January 6 in his annual Holy Thursday letter to the priests of the world. “As priests, we are personally and profoundly afflicted by the sins of some of our brothers who have betrayed the grace of ordination in succumbing even to the most grievous forms of the mysterium inquitatis [mystery of evil] at work in the world," the Pope wrote. “Grave scandal is caused, with the result that a dark shadow is cast over all the other fine priests who perform their ministry with honesty and integrity and often with heroic self-sacrifice. . . . As the church shows her concern for the victims and strives to respond in truth and justice to each of these painful situations, all of us . . . are called to commit ourselves more fully to the search for holiness."

The Pope’s letter was presented at a news conference by Colombian Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, head of the Congregation for Clergy, the Vatican office that supervises priests. Castrillón Hoyos and his top aide, Archbishop Csaba Ternyák, read statements commenting on the Pope’s letter, which was mostly about the sacrament of reconciliation. When they finished, Navarro-Valls invited a large group of reporters, including many Americans, to ask questions. My questions were:

Will the Vatican support a zero tolerance policy, under which any credible allegation of sexual misconduct against a priest means he is automatically removed from ministry?

Will the Vatican support an automatic reporter policy, under which any credible allegation of sexual misconduct against a priest is automatically reported to the civic authorities?

What is the status of proposals, widely circulated and debated within the Vatican in recent months, to ban the admission of homosexuals to Catholic seminaries?

Does the Vatican still have full confidence in Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston or is there consideration of asking him to resign?

Robert Mickens of
The Tablet
, an English Catholic journal, wanted to know why the language in the papal letter about the sexual abuse problem was indirect. Stephen Weeke of NBC asked why the Pope wasn’t speaking himself, rather than signing a letter and having someone else talk about it.

Castrillón Hoyos took notes, jotting down each question as it was asked. After the reporters had finished, he then declined to answer the questions. “I don’t want to take more risks than are necessary," he said, and instead produced a two-page prepared statement which he said was the only response he could offer. The statement made two points: few priests are guilty of this sort of misconduct, and the Catholic Church has long had strong policies against sexual abuse by clergy. He cited the 1917
Code of Canon Law
as evidence.

Castrillón Hoyos added to his prepared statement several times, however, in the course of reading it aloud. First, when Castrillón Hoyos started to speak, he observed that most of the questions had been put to him in English. “That in itself is an X ray of the problem," he said. The comment was taken as an indirect way of presenting the sexual abuse issue as an American or Anglo-Saxon problem. Then, in arguing that the Catholic Church has never ignored the problem of sexual abuse, Castrillón Hoyos added that this was true “even before it ended up on the front page of newspapers." Citing provisions of the
Code of Canon Law
that fix penalties for sexual misconduct with minors, Castrillón Hoyos issued a challenge: “For the non-Catholic world, I want to know what other institutions have laws like this for defending children from the behavior of officials? What other great institution?" In noting that the Church had recently adopted a statute of limitations of ten years from the date when an alleged victim turns eighteen for prosecuting sexual misconduct cases against priests, Castrillón Hoyos asked: “I would like to know, has this been legislated elsewhere?" Still later, in describing new Vatican norms that insist priests should have a right of reply to charges of abuse, Castrillón Hoyos said: “We live in an era of human rights, not totalitarianism. This is an era of law." At the end, Castrillón Hoyos defended the Church’s preference for “keeping things within the family," which does not, he said, mean that the Church refuses to cooperate with the state, except when it comes to its sacramental secret. He then expressed the Pope’s solidarity with the priests and bishops of the United States, but said nothing about victims.

April 8–13, 2002 Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, Vice-President Bishop William Skylstad, and Secretary-General Monsignor William Fay attended a week-long series of meetings in the Vatican. This regular biannual visit had been scheduled before the sexual abuse crisis erupted, but conversations were dominated by the scandals. “The Holy Father is an extraordinary pastor of souls," Gregory said afterward to the media. “Given the level of anxiety and anguish, this has touched him deeply." Gregory insisted that the Vatican was engaged in the crisis. “We came away from these conversations with a strong sense of the Holy See’s desire to listen and to support our efforts," he said. The Pope communicated a desire to help the American church “at this difficult moment," Gregory said. “He extended his hand in support to the bishops of the United States. The Holy See has demonstrated an extraordinary openness in understanding the particular situation that we face in the United States."

April 15, 2002
The Vatican announced that Pope John Paul II had called the American cardinals to Rome, along with Gregory and Skylstad, for an extraordinary two-day summit on the sexual abuse crisis, April 23–24. The news triggered a flood of speculation in the U.S. press about likely Vatican concerns and American responses. The eight residential American cardinals who attended were: William Keeler of Baltimore; Bernard Law of Boston; Francis George of Chicago; Adam Maida of Detroit; Roger Mahony of Los Angeles; Edward Egan of New York; Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia; and Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C. The American cardinals had been called to Rome as a group previously in 1989 to discuss the situation of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, and in December 1996 the seven American cardinals active at the time went to the Vatican en masse to try to resolve a liturgical dispute. Also to take part in the summit were the three American cardinals resident in Rome: James Francis Stafford, president of the Pontifical Council for the Laity; Edmund Szoka, president of the government of the Vatican City-State; and William Baum, retired.

April 23–24, 2002
The forty-eight-hour Vatican summit took place. On the Vatican side, eight officials took part. Cardinals Angelo Sodano, secretary of state; Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Congregation for Bishops; Jorge Medina Estévez, of the Congregation for Divine Worship; Castrillón Hoyos; Archbishops Julian Herranz, head of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts; Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of the doctrinal congregation; and Francesco Monterisi, secretary of the Congregation for Bishops. Media interest from the United States was intense, with one portion of the large piazza in front of St. Peter’s Square cordoned off for all the satellite trucks dispatched by American networks.

The Pope received the participants in an audience the first day and lunched with them the second day. He spoke to the American bishops April 23, and the key phrase from his address for policy purposes was the following: “People need to know that there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young." The sentence was widely taken by the American bishops and in the press as a green light for a zero tolerance stance.

The full text of the Pope’s remarks:

Let me assure you first of all that I greatly appreciate the effort you are making to keep the Holy See, and me personally, informed regarding the complex and difficult situation which has arisen in your country in recent months. I am confident that your discussions here will bear much fruit for the good of the Catholic people of the United States. You have come to the house of the Successor of Peter, whose task it is to confirm his brother Bishops in faith and love, and to unite them around Christ in the service of God’s People. The door of this house is always open to you. All the more so when your communities are in distress. I too have been deeply grieved by the fact that priests and religious, whose vocation it is to help people live holy lives in the sight of God, have themselves caused such suffering and scandal to the young. Because of the great harm done by some priests and religious, the Church herself is viewed with distrust, and many are offended at the way in which the Church’s leaders are perceived to have acted in this matter. The abuse which has caused this crisis is by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society; it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God. To the victims and their families, wherever they may be, I express my profound sense of solidarity and concern.