THE BISHOP GROWS

loading...
Two developments occurred this week in the Roman Catholic Church’s excruciating child sex abuse crisis. One illustrates how far some church leaders have come on this issue; the other how far some still have to go. After a clumsy and confused start in dealing with…
Sign in or Subscribe to view this content.

Two developments occurred this week in the Roman Catholic Church’s excruciating child sex abuse crisis. One illustrates how far some church leaders have come on this issue; the other how far some still have to go.

After a clumsy and confused start in dealing with the allegations of abuse by priests – although it was no more clumsy and confused than in other dioceses – Bishop Joseph Gerry of Portland has demonstrated commendable growth. His recent steps show a clear understanding of his office’s responsibilities, of the distinction that must be made between religious doctrine forgiving sin and the need to be accountable to civil authority, of the importance of addressing a matter of public interest in public forums.

When this nationwide crisis first surfaced in Maine with allegations this winter against two priests in Aroostook County, Bishop Gerry adopted the circle-the-wagons strategy that has failed miserably elsewhere. The result was public-relations disaster and a severe blow to public confidence in his leadership.

The turnaround is remarkable. The diocese now has a zero-tolerance policy that removes from ministry anyone facing a credible allegation of abuse. The diocese’s files are open to the Attorney General’s Office. Civil authorities are notified promptly of any allegation. A nationally developed sex abuse prevention program has been adopted. The diocese has promised to pay for victim counseling. A hot line for reporting abuse has been set up. Rather than communicate through form letters distributed to priests and parish councils, Bishop Gerry now addresses the people of Maine directly.

None of these measures can erase the harm caused by conduct that is immoral, unethical and illegal. They can, however, reassure those harmed that such conduct will not be condoned or covered up. The bishop’s sudden removal of a priest in Ellsworth just last weekend based on a credible allegation saddened many parishioners but proved his commitment.

This decisive action took place amid a painful reminder of the failure of the past.

Letters made public this week by litigants in

a lawsuit against the diocese show that Bishop Gerry promised to “vigorously and expeditiously” address an allegation of sexual abuse by a priest. Instead, according to policy at the time, that priest was sent away for treatment and then transferred to another parish. That was in 1990, that priest has since retired.

Today, under the bishop’s new policy, he would be investigated by civil authorities and, if warranted, prosecuted. As Bishop Gerry grows in this challenge, Cardinal Bernard Law of the Boston Archdiocese diminishes. His long practice of re-assigning abusers without informing their new parishes of their transgressions, of paying hush money to victims to buy their silence and of refusing to acknowledge any responsibility is infamous.

And now, he’s blaming the victims. In his first legal response to a lawsuit regarding the Rev. Paul Shanley, an alleged serial child molester, the cardinal asserts that the victim – a 6-year-old boy at the time – and his parents were negligent. That is, they should have protected themselves from a molester whose record as such was sealed by the very organization that now faults them for not knowing about it.

Apologists for Cardinal Law say the counter claim of negligence filed against the plaintiff in a lawsuit is common practice. The language used in the response is standard legal boilerplate and, besides, the cardinal’s lawyers probably did not advise him that the negligence card was going to be played. The flaws in this cold-hearted explanation are evident – to everyone, apparently, except those giving it. Worse, it betrays not merely bad thinking but also dishonesty: The negligence card of which the cardinal claims he was unaware was played by his lawyers in a case against another priest nearly a year ago.

Bishop Gerry and Cardinal Law both unquestionably are devout men of faith. The difference between the two is that the bishop has come to realize he has obligations as a public citizen. The cardinal isn’t there yet.


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

By continuing to use this site, you give your consent to our use of cookies for analytics, personalization and ads. Learn more.