|
 s
a longtime admirer of Fr. Groeschel, I appreciate his remarks, though
we ultimately cannot agree on certain points. I will keep my response
a brief as I can.
1. How many cases of shuffling pederast priests from parish to parish
will have to come out before Fr. Groeschel and others acknowledge
that bishops have been grossly negligent? He says that bishops "have
spent immense amounts of time and agonized over this issue,"
and that's no doubt true. But as the saying goes, "A long face
is not a moral disinfectant." It's better to look at what the
bishops have actually done, not what they've said. Each day's newspaper
brings further evidence of the failure of the bishops' policies.
I also do not accept the dodge that the bishops were only following
the best medical opinion available at the time. The secret 1985
report issued to the bishops by the Rev. Thomas Doyle and others
told them in no uncertain terms that pedophilia was untreatable.
The report was ignored. In Boston, Fr. John Geoghan was shuffled
around throughout his entire career, even into the 1990s. In any
case, does it take a psychiatrist to tell a bishop that a serial
child molester like Geoghan had no business in the priesthood? The
first 500 people in the Boston phonebook could tell you that without
having to consult a psychiatrist.
2. I do not accept that bishops "often had little choice"
but to have their strategies for dealing with accusations of child
abuse dictated to them by lawyers. I have personally spoken with
sex-abuse victims and their families, who have told me that they
only filed suit in court when it became obvious to them that their
local bishop wasn't going to do anything to remedy the problem.
It pays for a bishop to be wary when dealing with plaintiffs' attorneys,
but over and over one hears stories about Catholic children and
their families being treated as enemies from the very beginning.
It makes legal sense, perhaps, but it has proven to be a spiritual
disaster.
3. Regarding Richard Sipe's research, one does not have to agree
with the conclusions he draws about the Church's teachings on sexuality
and celibacy to recognize the validity of his research. I checked
with orthodox Catholics I know, including at least two priests,
who are hostile to Sipe's views on priestly celibacy, but who vouched
for his credibility as a researcher.
4. I have no doubt that false charges are made against priests.
That said, seeing the unholy mess many bishops have made of handling
these allegations, and the risk to which children have been put
by the episcopal cult of secrecy, I maintain that the best solution
is to involve the secular authorities from the beginning. The alternative
— secrecy, denial, cover-up — has proven far, far worse.
5. Ah, yes, blame the media. If Fr. Groeschel is implying that I
am trying to undermine the Church's position on abortion and sexuality
by reporting and commenting critically on the bishops' response
to the pederasty crisis, he is not familiar with my work. I am an
orthodox Catholic who has defended the Church's teachings in print
and in private on many occasions, and will continue to do so. What's
more, to imply that "many in the media" wish to attack
the clergy on this matter to discredit the Church is a clumsy way
of detracting from the truth of what has been reported. I have no
doubt that the Boston Globe, for one, does not wish the Church
well on any number of moral issues, but that in no way takes away
from the fact that much of what the Globe has reported about
the evil in the Archdiocese of Boston is true, and important. Indeed,
the actions of Cardinal Law and others in the Catholic hierarchy
have done more than anything to obviate the Church's moral authority
to speak out against the society-wide corruption through the media
that Fr. Groeschel so rightly decries.
|
