OPINION: Unless the Catholic hierarchy examines its obsession with power it cannot reform itself.
MUCH
OF the Cloyne report brought no surprises to the people of Ireland and
those of us in other countries who had anticipated its publication. In
many ways it was a continuation of the revelations that came with the
three commission reports that preceded it.
The report was met with
the expected “heartfelt” expressions of regret, apology and even shock
by officials of the Catholic Church, followed by promises of reform and
the promulgation of yet more procedures, policies and boards.
By now the
Irish people, however, are beyond suspicion and cynicism. They have
broken through another layer of the protective clerical veneer and have
named the responses for what they are: a mendacious smokescreen.
It
is no consolation to the Irish people but they are certainly not alone.
This debacle in the Diocese of Cloyne is reflected in the recent
publication of the report of the grand jury in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Five years after a first jury exposed widespread cover-up
and shameful treatment of victims, followed by the usual promises to
clean up the mess, a second grand jury found that the expressions of
regret and promises of reform were a deceptive cover for an intentional
lack of commitment to bring justice to victims and protect children.
Cardinal
Seán Brady said that “grave errors of judgment were made and serious
failures of leadership occurred”.
Bishop John Magee admitted that the
diocese “did not fully implement the procedures set out in church
protocols”.
What happened in Cloyne and in Ferns, Dublin, and the
institutions cannot be dignified as “grave errors of judgment” or
incomplete implementation of church protocols.
The systemic sacrifice of
the emotional, psychological and spiritual lives of innocent children
for the sake of the image and power of the hierarchy was no error.
The
commission of investigation into abuse in the Cloyne diocese learned
that the destructive response to the reports of sexual abuse was not
accidental or isolated but embedded in the fabric of the clerical
culture.
The members of all four commissions are to be highly commended
for their courage in rising above the long-standing tradition of
unquestioned deference to the hierarchy to reveal in detail the
disgraceful and infuriating systemic disregard of the innocent children.
The
three preceding reports were indeed shocking and scandalous.
But the
report carries the revelations even further in three important ways:
naming the Vatican as an integral part of the problem; exposing the
cynical use the concept of “pastoral care” as an excuse for obstructing
justice; and acknowledging that the church cannot be trusted faithfully
to comply with its internal regulations, much less the demands of the
civil law.
When the reality of widespread sexual violation of the
young by clergy was first exposed in the US in 1985, Pope John Paul II
and the Vatican remained mute for six years. When questioned, Vatican
spokesmen distanced not only themselves but the rest of the world by
asserting it was an “American problem”.
In his first public statement on
June 11th, 1993, the pope tried to shift the blame to the secular
media, whom he accused of “sensationalising” evil. He concluded his
letter with: “Yes dear brothers, America needs much prayer lest it lose
its soul.”
It was not long before tragic events in Newfoundland,
Austria and Ireland clearly dislodged the papal efforts at denial.
The
recognition of widespread sexual molestation by clerics in several
continental European countries, in South America and most recently in
the Far East, have confirmed this is a worldwide problem not only of
sexual violation by dysfunctional clerics but, even worse, a problem of
intentionally self-serving and destructive responses by the bishops.
THE DIRECT ROLE of
the Vatican in enabling and even directing the cover-up, stonewalling
and obstruction of justice has been suspected for years. The report made
a vitally important breakthrough by describing in concrete detail the
essential role the Vatican played in the disgrace of the diocese.
The
report points to two serious deficiencies in the Vatican response. The
first is the papal nuncio’s refusal to co-operate with the commission
during the Dublin and Cloyne investigations, as well as his lukewarm
response to the horrific contents of the report.
The second and far more
treacherous aspect is the direct attempt to sabotage the Irish bishops’
1996 policy document
Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response .
The
commission found this document contained a “detailed and easy to
implement set of procedures”.
Yet, before it could adequately be put
into practice, the papal nuncio, Archbishop Luciano Storero, sent the
Irish bishops a letter passing on the concerns of the Vatican’s
Congregation for the Clergy.
The letter clearly reflected the
reactionary attitude of Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, who was prefect
at the time. He erroneously labelled the policy “merely a study
document”.
This most outrageous and at the same time erroneous
sentence gave the Irish bishops licence to ignore their own procedures
but also the civil law.
The Vatican response has been the defence
of the hierarchy and the scandalous lack of concern for the victims.
There are the expected expressions of regret, sorrow and promise of
prayers which serve only to confuse and even anger the victims and are a
very thin cover for the consistent pattern of self-serving support and
protection of the bishops.
The clerical culture that cannot
comprehend the depth of evil and destruction it has enabled has failed
to internalise the reality that in this 21st century sacrificing the
welfare of innocent children to maintain the image and power of an
ecclesiastical aristocracy is a disgrace that will be the catalyst for
an inevitable and profound change in the nature of the institutional
church.
The rapid disintegration of the absolute control of the
Irish hierarchy over Irish society is the result not of the lack of
faith of the Irish people, as some in ecclesiastical leadership would
like to believe, but in the lack of fidelity of the leadership to the
people whom they have sworn to serve.
Msgr Denis O’Callaghan,
Bishop Magee’s point man, openly opposed the framework document because
it did not provide an adequate pastoral response.
This masks a
fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of an authentic
expression of pastoral care which is not an excuse for minimising the
fact sexual violation of a minor is a serious crime in both canon and
civil law.
WORSE STILL WAS the use of pastoral
care as a justification for protecting the accused priests at the
expense of justice for the victims.
The report saw the misuse of the
pastoral concept as a “scheme whereby counselling was provided to the
complainant in a manner which was hoped would not attract any legal
liability to the diocese”.
There is no evidence of effective
pastoral care in the past or even today, only crisis management.
There
is no evidence from any of the four reports that the overriding concern
of the hierarchy and clergy has been the physical, emotional and
spiritual welfare of the victims.
What would true pastoral care have
looked like? Upon receipt of a report of the sexual molestation of a
child or adult, the bishop’s first (and often only) concern would not be
the maintenance of secrecy and protection of the priest.
Rather, he
would immediately seek out the victim and the victim’s family to make
clear to them that in their hour of pain, confusion and humiliation at
the hands of a cleric, they and not the cleric are the most important
people in the diocese and indeed in the church.
The third
breakthrough is the realisation that any structures or policies created
by the church depend on the commitment of the bishops and the support of
the priests.
In Cloyne and elsewhere the bishops made promises, created
policies and appointed boards and then proceeded systematically to
subvert their rules and those of society.
Marie Collins, in her recent interview on RTÉ’s
Prime Time , spoke the truth when she said that the promises
and policies that have streamed from the bishops mean nothing. The
report clearly reflects this sad reality: “It seems to the Commission
that continuing external scrutiny is required.”
Outside monitoring with
serious consequences for neglect, and mandatory reporting by all clergy
with possible jail time as a consequence for failure, are necessary
responses.
The commission has probed deeply into the dysfunctional
clerical culture of the Cloyne diocese.
With this report, the threshold
to a new level of awareness has been reached.
The findings and
conclusions, as probing and shocking as they may be, are not enough.
What we have seen exposed in all four reports but most shockingly in the
Cloyne document is the toxic nature of the clerical culture at the
heart of the institutional church.
We must demand answers to even
more radical questions.
What is it about this culture that justifies
living in an alternate reality that places image and clerical security
far above the welfare of innocent children?
Why does the “people of
God”, as Vatican II described the church, need to function like a
monarchy with an attendant clerical aristocracy?
Why the
narcissistic obsession with power, secrecy and control?
Until the
bishops and priests look deeply into this culture and acknowledge its
pathology, the outrageous behaviour exposed in the report will be part
of a shameful history.
Fr Thomas Patrick Doyle OP, a US Dominican priest with a doctorate in canon law, is a renowned and outspoken advocate for church abuse victims.