www.peterellis.co.nz : seeking justice for Peter Ellis : mail to: [email protected]

Accusations of Abuse in Institutions

Index: Home Page Peter Ellis
Index: Accusations in Institutions

New Zealand Herald
June 17, 2002

Bishops slow to censure
Editorial


It has taken the Catholic Church an unconscionable time to respond properly to the problem of paedophile priests. Hush money was offered and cover-ups attempted but these actions could not eradicate the scandal. Later, perhaps even more errantly, the church in the United States sought the refuge of legal power, strenuously defending sexual abuse cases. That did not work, either. Nothing could quell the public dismay when the Archdiocese of Boston admitted in January that it had moved known paedophiles between parishes, where they allegedly continued to abuse children.

A conference of US bishops in Dallas has now sought to mould a proper response. As it met, similar scandals continued to rock the church around the world. In Australia, for example, the Archbishop of Sydney has been accused of offering bribes to conceal priests' sexual abuse of children. Finally, Pope John Paul II has had to break his silence to condemn "the most grievous form" of evil and to lament the threat to the moral authority of the church.

If that were not sufficient motivation, the gathering at Dallas also had the harsh evidence of public opinion. Seventy-five per cent of Catholics surveyed in a Gallup Poll thought the church had done a poor job in dealing with sexually abusive priests. Almost 80 per cent said any cleric guilty of abusing a young person should be defrocked, no matter when it happened.

Despite such sentiment, the US bishops' conference has not quite adopted the "zero tolerance" policy expected of it. It has decided that offending priests will be barred from further clerical positions but not necessarily expelled from the priesthood.

That is better than what might have been. Many of the bishops went to Dallas intent on introducing a policy that dismissed clergy found guilty in future but allowed past offenders, who did not have multiple offences, to remain in parish work. Only after the first day of the summit, when bishops were pressured by lay groups and heard from the victims of abuse, was that option recognised to be untenable.

Zero tolerance is the only option if the church is to restore its damaged credibility. The ideals of forgiveness and Christian compassion may have underpinned the approach of the past but it has been unbalanced compassion - sidestepping that for every case of abuse there is a victim and, too often, further victims of those quietly given a "fresh start".

The policy did little to reduce the incidence of abuse. So far this year, four bishops and 250 priests have resigned or been dismissed from their duties in the US alone because of abuse allegations.

The church must also become more adept in its examination of candidates for the priesthood. It has always been alert to the fact that a celibate order can attract young men who are not well adjusted in their social or sexual development. But the church must do better at detecting those with personality disorders that may lead them to take advantage of children if put in a position of power and trust and, indeed, considerable esteem. The very status of the priesthood is becoming sullied by the extent of abuse now coming to light. It will continue to suffer until the church becomes better at barring the psychologically unfit.

The scandal raises other questions. Would there be less abusive behaviour if celibacy were optional for priests? Research on the issue appears inconclusive. Regrettably, the church has shown little inclination to investigate it. But now it may also have to look afresh at another thorny question, the ordination of women. A tougher stand against paedophilia will make the job of attracting men to the priesthood even more difficult. If that promotes the ordination of women, so much the better.