« A Call for More Hymn Parodies | Main | Endless Mindgames »
January 02, 2008
Neuhaus on Podles
This notice appeared in a recent issue of First Things, without doubt the finest journal of its type:
Media attention has generally faded, but the repercussions of the clergy sex-abuse crisis go on and on. Unlike Lent itself, what I have called the Long Lent that began with exposes in Boston in January 2002 has no definitive end. In the Journal of Church and State, Jo Renee Formicola of Seton Hall University addresses "The Further Legal Consequences of Catholic Clerical Sexual Abuse." She writes that "states that now hold the Church responsible for the actions of its past clergy and employees as a 'third party,' a 'corporation,' or an 'unincorporated entity' means that the institution will be vulnerable for claims for many years to come." A careful overview of what happened, with particular attention to canon law and how it was used, misused, and ignored, is Before Dallas: The U.S. Bishops' Response to Clergy Sexual Abuse of Children, soon to be published by Paulist Press. The author is Nicholas Cafardi, an original member of the National Review Board established by the bishops at Dallas in June 2002 who was at the time dean of the Duquesne University law school. It is a scholarly treatment that will be of particular interest to students of church government. Very different is Leon Podles' Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church (Crossland). It is a rambling essay of more than five hundred pages on a potpourri of items picked up from the public media and the blogosphere, including, along with the kitchen sink, stomach-turning details of abuse, mainly with boys, and a scathing, if familiar, indictment from a conservative perspective of liberal depredations that brought things to this sorry pass. Regrettably, the tone is shrill, and even righteous anger does not justify the author's suspension of caution and charity in attributing motives. Among the repercussions of the crisis is a publishing stream that goes on and on, which is inevitable. . . .
I am afraid that Fr. Neuhaus, a man I find genuinely likeable and for whom I have the highest regard, has not done himself proud with this little screed. Particularly irritating is failure to mention that the major source of Podles' information on clerical malefactors was court records--hardly the kind of sources he wishes his readers to believe were used. The mixture of Podles' book and Neuhaus's remarks did not prove good for my own health, and I found myself regurgitating, much against my will, the following lines:
Ah, good Father Richard, on hearing screaming boys,
Is just as right as ever in keeping out the noise.
No rambling rants like Podles’ should ever make one think
The faith is made of suffering more than stately rows of ink.
The bleeding lines of bloody men are not for the polite:
They kill the taste of sherry, overthrow Gemütlichkeit.
They’re also too familiar and unfortunately shrill,
(We’ve heard these sobs at kitchen sinks and old Judean hills.)
We need no turning stomachs, less bile that makes us bored.
What we need is lawyers’ work--so favored by the Lord--
So close they are by trade to truth and valiant in the fight,
Who’ve kept their Latin grammars and know rectum meaneth right.
_____________________
All right, I apologize, but feel much better.
Posted by S. M. Hutchens at 08:24 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54fd089da8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Neuhaus on Podles:
Comments
Very well put-almost poetic. I too admire Fr Neuhaus and the many times that his clear voice seemed the only clarion amidst cacophany(sp?).
There must be something about Mr Podle's direct style which seems to irritate a certain sensibility which is settling over First Things(I trust this tired pallor will not stay for too long). They seemed not to understand the importance of Podle's first book Church Impotent. The real complaint against his second book is that it names names and demands something more than a general confession by the whole church for these horrific acts of sacrilege. The Long Lent is going to be endless unless we get not "reform by retirement" not "weve got that behind us" but real repentance which means diocese by diocese mutiple resignations,loss of priestly faculties, the closing of certain institutions, real penitential facilities and turning over for state prosection of certain predators. It isn't Lent if there are no specific sins atoned for. It really wasn't all of us who fostered a disoriented and devious subculture in the priesthood. It certainly wasn't the spotless Bride of Christ who sinned --it was Fr J and Bishop B--they have to be met with the truth and stripped of their public rank. So it will take a kind of inquisition and naming of names and testing of loyalties which is a hard step for many good men like Fr Neuhaus. Naming names seems so..so..
Podles voice is not too shrill--it is too deep and the demands it would place on any given religious order or diocesan priesthood are too onerous for Fr Neuhaus to imagine as realistic. This failure of authoritative corrective imagination is a direct result of his living in a sick emasculated diocesan priesthood of his own. Everyone loves to quote Alistar McIntyre(sp?). Well the non authoritative nature of both orthodox and dissenting priests is a fruit of them all being malformed by the same sick priestly culture.Fr neuhase isnot really a canadian intellexctual. he is shaped for better or worse by his attention or inattention to the community he lives in--the diocesan priesthood of New York. He lives with a lot of sick bros and if he has five good friends who whisper about it--do we think that fosters manly anger? (This debilitating inaction of the orthodox is mercilessly disparaged in the therapeutic verses of SMH)
The horrors of Podles second book can only be quelled by a reform of the patriarchal fraternal priesthood whose loss he lamented in his first work. I am sure there is a better scriptural or at least Lewis-Tolkein antidote to this problem than what occurs to me. But for me, movies like Departed and even better American Gangster about the bloody reform of corrupted police departments are the closest simulations of the personally accusatory reform needed to move this Long Lent along. Mr Podles has been showing us this for decades and so has Fr Neuhaus. If these allies are raising their voices at each other at this stage in our common battle, we have to remember they are trying to be heard over incoming fire.
Posted by: dpence | Jan 2, 2008 9:44:20 PM
Writing under the moniker coco I took grave exception to Dr. Podles' comments about Nazis and "Vatican officials". I have no desire to reopen what might (though I don't know this) be an old wound, but Fr. Neuhaus' comment struck a chord. I have read a few things from Dr. Podles only on this website so I cannot say if Fr. N's accusation of shrillness applies to the aforementioned book. I felt it certainly did in the first instance mentioned above.
Posted by: bonobo | Jan 3, 2008 12:06:22 AM
Most of us have read FT for years (I have subscribed since the first issue), and find Fr. Neuhaus's remarks a bit baffling, since he has harshly criticized the bishops for their role some years back. But now, to borrow Dpence's remark, he (like the bishops he criticized) wants it all (ahem) "behind them"--just where it should not be. I too admire Fr. Neuhaus, but there is something of a, oh, I don't know, prissiness at work here--let's not dwell on sordid details! I have a feeling that at the Great Assizes, the Lord will have no more compunction than local prosecutors in confronting the perps with the details. Gosh, don't you think we ought to have more charity in assessing the motives of child molesters!?
It's not just the bishops. A reviewer of Podle's book on Amazon notes: "But he goes further, seeing the crisis as about more than the bishops and the priests they coddled: Catholic culture is implicated; specifically a narcissistic clericalism in which the laity, including police and judges and prosecutors colluded." Frankly, I wonder more about the laity than the bishops (but perhaps my evangelicalism shows through). I say, let judgment begin in the house of God!
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 3, 2008 12:29:49 AM
>>Gosh, don't you think we ought to have more charity in assessing the motives of child molesters!?
So my choice is between prissiness and seemingly deliberate misreadings such as this one?
>>Everyone loves to quote Alistar McIntyre(sp?). Well the non authoritative nature of both orthodox and dissenting priests is a fruit of them all being malformed by the same sick priestly culture.Fr neuhase isnot really a canadian intellexctual. he is shaped for better or worse by his attention or inattention to the community he lives in--the diocesan priesthood of New York.
DPENCE thinks that the NY diocesan priesthood constitutes a community of discourse a la McIntyre? No. Especially not New York. The mechanism by which child molesters were shielded is far more complicated than that and involves -- among other things -- a dysfunctional, love-hate relationship between clergy and laity going back at least a couple of generations, if not to the beginnings of the Church. Consider, for example, how many of the molesters were quite effective at grooming families and congregations, and were defended by both even after public accusations were made.
The usual dudgeon, "If only we'd known...," rings false to me. Anyone who's wanted to know has known since 1985. It may be more comfortable to blame the crisis on an insular priesthood, but the priesthood has been anything but insular for the past forty years.
Posted by: DGP | Jan 3, 2008 5:41:53 AM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of the following: Dr. Podles' book has been out since November of last year. Little attention seems to have been paid to it until now, and the attention still seems to be surprisingly minor considering the nature of the bombshell that Dr. Podles has dropped.
Any hypotheses as to the reason for this relative neglect?
Posted by: Rob G | Jan 3, 2008 6:43:33 AM
Like Leon Podle's vitriolic denunciation of the Vatican's position on capital punishment some months ago, this book could give him the reputation of a major anti-Catholic voice. This doesn't jibe well with his position as a senior editor of an ecumenical journal.
Posted by: Howard Kainz | Jan 3, 2008 10:07:56 AM
To point out corruption and demand reform, perhaps intemperately (but not wholly out of proportion to the offense), is to be "anti" the body for which reform is desired?
Well, at least now I know that Jesus casting out the moneychangers was really "anti-Temple."
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Jan 3, 2008 10:33:28 AM
How you could describe Fr. Neuhaus' comments as a "little screed" is beyond me. He thinks the book rambling and the tone shrill. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But to call that appraisal a "screed" is amusingly over the top. And the use of "little" is condescending. You can do better.
Posted by: therecusant | Jan 3, 2008 10:54:08 AM
>>>Like Leon Podle's vitriolic denunciation of the Vatican's position on capital punishment some months ago, this book could give him the reputation of a major anti-Catholic voice. This doesn't jibe well with his position as a senior editor of an ecumenical journal.<<<
Since Podels is in fact Catholic, that's an oxymoron. Being Catholic is not synonymous with mindless, robotic acceptance of every utterance from the Holy See or with the USCCB. Fact is, recent Vatican statements on capital punishment are NOT consistent with the preceding 1900 years of Christian Tradition, and the Dallas Statement and other USCCB initiatives to reign in sexual abuse by the clergy are really much more concerned with insulating the dioceses from legal liability than with actually protecting children. Neuhaus himself has castigated the USCCB for its craven behavior, including (a) its failure to address the problem at its source; and (b) the bishops' tendency to toss innocent priests overboard with the guilty in order to be seen as 'proactive" (horrible word, that). As for clericalism, a number of Roman Catholic authors have addressed that baleful tendency (which is even more rampant in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church), one which was supposed to be solved by the Second Vatican Council's call for the development of a 'theology of the laity'--something which has yet to see the light of day.
For myself, I find agreement with both Neuhaus and Podles: the latter for airing out the dirty laundry; the former for wishing Podles had found a less polemical way of doing it.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 3, 2008 10:55:21 AM
>>>Well, at least now I know that Jesus casting out the moneychangers was really "anti-Temple."<<<
Actually, it was. If Jesus is the Temple of the New Covernant, then the Temple of Herod must pass away--there is no other way to interpret the Gospel passages. And the word that the Gospel record Jesus using in reference to said moneychangers was "lestes"--often translated as 'bandit" or "robber", but in the context of the day, meaning "insurrectionists", "rebels" and even 'terrorists". Against whom the "lestes' in the Temple were rebelling I leave you to work out yourself.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 3, 2008 11:04:10 AM
I will refrain from commenting on the primary topic, but I agree 100% with Stuart's post of Jan 3, 2008 11:04:10 AM.
Posted by: GL | Jan 3, 2008 11:09:18 AM
'To point out corruption and demand reform, perhaps intemperately (but not wholly out of proportion to the offense), is to be "anti" the body for which reform is desired?'
Right -- this puts Dr. Podles in the strange position of being an 'anti-Catholic' Catholic.
Posted by: Rob G | Jan 3, 2008 11:22:43 AM
Stuart finds himself in the odd (to me) position of saying Jesus, in defending what He called "My Father's house," was attacking it as an institution. I guess I should go burn down my parents' home because I love it so much.
Yes, He came to supplant Temple worship. But Who instituted it and wanted it to be respected until that time came? When Jesus returns, doubtless we will have no more need for institutional churches in their present earthly form. But until then, they are the visible expression of what He came to build. They are His, and thus holy in concept and ideal form; they are human, and thus flawed in concrete terms. To call those who desire its reform (I doubt Podles wants its destruction) "anti" its purpose and existence -- that is what "anti-Catholic" means, after all -- is a gross distortion of reality bordering on outright libel.
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Jan 3, 2008 12:40:07 PM
Okay, now I find myself somewhat in agreement with Dcn. Michael D. Harmon. This leads me to observe that he and Stuart are talking past one another.
Posted by: GL | Jan 3, 2008 1:25:57 PM
Podles is obviously not "anti-Catholic," nor are others who insist that the church is still asleep at the switch over this issue. It has ramifications that will linger long. For example, here in Southern California the Los Angeles Archdiocese sold an old residence long in use by an order of nuns in Santa Barbara in order to help fund the huge settlement the Archdiocese entered into with the victims of clerical abuse. The nuns were left with nowhere to go. The Archdiocese didn't care; it left them to fend for themselves. Fortunately local residents came to the sisters' aid. I can assure you that it never occurred to Archbishop Mahoney that his own new marble residence at the "Raj Mahal" ought to be considered as a source for the funds the Archdiocese paid.
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 3, 2008 2:02:32 PM
Two comments from me at this stage:
First, Sacrilege is a new book. Its official publication date is mid-November, 2007, but actually it appears be coming rather gradually into public view, starting to pick up momentum only recently--since only recently have its advertisements begun to appear. (First Things refused the ad you see on the back page of the current Touchstone.) One of the chief reasons I had for writing this little piece is that I do not wish to have Fr. Neuhaus's comments inhibit people, Catholics especially, from reading the book and coming to their own conclusions.
Second, I need to say that before posting this piece I did not run it past any of my fellow Touchstone editors, nor have any of them commented on it to me yet, favorably or not.
Posted by: smh | Jan 3, 2008 3:06:27 PM
>>.Okay, now I find myself somewhat in agreement with Dcn. Michael D. Harmon. This leads me to observe that he and Stuart are talking past one another.<<<
Perhaps we are. i suppose it depends on how eschatologically you interpret the "cleansing of the Temple". To me, Jesus is performing a symbolic eschatological attack on the Temple per se, not merely saying (as so many take it) that one shouldn't engage in commerce in church. Jesus is knocking down the Temple and putting in its place "the temple of his body". According to patristic interpretation, the Temple of Solomon and its successors was provided to the Israelites "by economy"--as an aid in Israel's approach to God. As such, the Temple differed from the Church in that the former was first and foremost, an institution, a means of mediation between man and God. The Church, on the other hand, is first and foremost a sacrament (albeit one which has an institutional aspect); as such, it does not mediate between man and God, but serves as the vehicle through which all men participate in Christ's royal priesthood.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 3, 2008 3:32:28 PM
>>>One of the chief reasons I had for writing this little piece is that I do not wish to have Fr. Neuhaus's comments inhibit people, Catholics especially, from reading the book and coming to their own conclusions.<<<
Contrary to what non-Catholics may believe, Catholics really like gossip about their Church--especially by insiders.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 3, 2008 3:56:00 PM
Yes there are people who make comments that can be labelled 'anti-catholic'. In my experience in surfing the net there are also plenty of comments that are 'anti-protestant' in tone & intention. Can't we all just listen to each other with respect without having to immediately go into defense mode like Pavlov's dogs?
Posted by: William Rush | Jan 3, 2008 4:22:59 PM
Is there a seemly and nuanced manner that one should employ when recounting the rape of young boys by predatory sodomites?
Just wondering.
Posted by: tonyo | Jan 3, 2008 4:34:27 PM
Is there a seemly and nuanced manner that one should employ when recounting the rape of young boys by predatory sodomites?
Just wondering.
Posted by: tonyo | Jan 3, 2008 4:36:02 PM
"Yes there are people who make comments that can be labelled 'anti-catholic'. In my experience in surfing the net there are also plenty of comments that are 'anti-protestant' in tone & intention. Can't we all just listen to each other with respect without having to immediately go into defense mode like Pavlov's dogs?" - William Rush
Wrong forum. That generally doesn't happen here. To be "anti-catholic" or "anti-protestant" is, I believe, to have pre-judged a matter before you know anything about it: merely hearing that something is "catholic" or "protestant" is enough to allow you to condemn it.
While I'm at it, I withdraw my use of the word "prissiness" above with respect to Fr. Neuhaus's comment. Neuhaus is no priss and I generally respect him quite highly. Once again, I am (in the breach) a good example of why one shouldn't hit "post" while angry or irritated. But other than that, I stand by my comment.
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 3, 2008 4:42:43 PM
I have not seen Dr. Podles' book, but Dr. Hutchens' word is good enough for me.
I too generally like and admire Fr. Neuhaus (despite a certain obsessive snottiness toward all things Anglican that he displays toward no other non-RC denomination). I only subscribe to four magazines, two of those being Touchstone and First Things. But on the issue of the RC church scandals he too has been in a certain degree of denial. Repeating his mantra of “fidelity, fidelity, fidelity,” he has treated the problem as if it is more a matter of inadequate doctrinal teaching than of unfit character and immoral conduct in need of condign punishment. And his criticisms of the USCCB have often focused on opposing “zero tolerance” and strict disciplinary measures for sexually predatory clergy, and pleading for forgiveness and second chances for these. (He generally characterizes such as being guilty of a single isolated incident of the mildest sort, rather than as the serial predators that many have actually been).
Nowhere has Fr. Neuhaus adequately argued why there should not be zero tolerance for such an offense, which is at best unnatural seduction and at worse outright rape. There are some offenses, such as this and murder, for which zero tolerance is the only right policy. It is also the only means by which the RC Church in the USA can reclaim credibility in this area after decades of inattention, denial, and evasion. (And this would go for any other church as well.) If it is right to exclude from considration to priestly ordination those of a confirmed homosexual disposition even if there has been no overt sexual activity by them, why is it not then right to remove from the priesthood every actual proven sexual molestor?
The truly revelatory moment for me regarding Fr. Neuhaus’ peculiar blindness in this area was his response to one letter to the editor in First Things a couples of years back. In it he made an analogy a molestation incident to an alcoholic priest who gets drunk, gets behind the wheel of car, and drives home, creating a hazard to himself and others but arriving at his destination without incident. Fr. Neuhaus then suggested that the priest should be thankful that he did not have an accident and should vow never to do it again.
Now, for the analogy to have any validity, in both caaes it must hold that:
a) the conduct was unintentional (since the alcoholic priest did not deliberately plan to drive while drunk and endanger others), and
b) no one was hurt by the priest's actions.
The obtuseness of the analogy, with its sole focus on and concern for the priest and implication that sexual molestation is unintentional and results in no injuries to an innocent victim, was and is stunning.
In short, I suspect that Dr. Podles' book is very much needed to knock down such efforts to rationalize away the grave reality of what has occurred, or minimize what needs to be done root and branch to deal with it .
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jan 3, 2008 5:27:43 PM
It's hard to believe that Neuhaus would use such an analogy. So, is the poor victim of the homosexual assault analogous to the drink, the car, or the ("just missed him by THAT much!") bystander?
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 3, 2008 5:55:23 PM
>>>I too generally like and admire Fr. Neuhaus (despite a certain obsessive snottiness toward all things Anglican that he displays toward no other non-RC denomination). <<<
At least, to all things Episcopalian--a trait he shares with you, James. There's also a mountain of condescension towards all things Eastern Catholic--I've exchanged some letters with him regarding his propensity for describing something as "a universal Catholic custom" (Eucharistic Adoration, Stations of the Cross, Tenebrae, etc.) which don't enter into our universe at all. In response, I get the usual "900-Pound Gorilla Argument".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 3, 2008 6:10:59 PM
"I've exchanged some letters with him regarding his propensity for describing something as "a universal Catholic custom" (Eucharistic Adoration, Stations of the Cross, Tenebrae, etc.) which don't enter into our universe at all. In response, I get the usual "900-Pound Gorilla Argument"."
Yes, Stuart, but is the 900-pound gorilla sober? Or behind the wheel? ;-)
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 3, 2008 6:26:23 PM
>>>Nowhere has Fr. Neuhaus adequately argued why there should not be zero tolerance for such an offense, which is at best unnatural seduction and at worse outright rape.<<<
Actually, having followed Neuhaus on the "recent unpleasantness" for some years, his argument against "zero tolerance" is the same as mine: it is, at its heart, an abdication of individual responsibility, substituting instead a book of rules for pastoral discretion. The corollary of the policy is a blanket assumption of guilt from the moment of accusation (the definition of 'credible accusation" leaving something to be desired), combined with a propensity for throwing the accused out of the troika in the hope that the wolves will stop long enough to devour him, allowing Their Graces to escape unscathed. Thus, the Dallas policy allows (indeed encourages) bishops to disavow all knowledge of the priests over whom they have the ultimate authority and responsibility. Essentially, they tell you to get a lawyer, and lots of luck, Mac.
That the policy has been applied retroactively against priests of spotless reputation on the basis of allegations of wrongdoing thirty, forty and in a few cases fifty years after the fact does not foster either confidence or trust in the process and its administrators.
That the same policy is applied to all parish workers and volunteers shows precisely what its true goal is: providing the bishops with legal cover in the event of law suits. It was for this reason, among others, that I refused to sign the "pledge" required of religious educators in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh (which never hesitates to adopt the worst of all fads Roman). First, I find it insulting to have to promise not to diddle little boys. Second, I have very limited confidence in background checks, having beemn subjected to REAL ones by the Defense Investigative Service (as compared to which the background investigations conducted by the local yokels are a joke); since DIS background checks regularly fail to find traitors within the government, I don't think that the sketchy ones required will do much to stop pedophiles and other sexual predators (they don't seem able to do so in the public schools). Third, if a parish is supposed to be a family, then reliance on background investigations and meaningless pledges is antithetical to parish life. As I told my fellow teachers, for eight years you've trusted your children to me, and I have trusted my children to you. I do not see any reason to insist on investigations and pledges as guarantees of your behavior, so why should I submit to this as a guarantee of mine? A couple of them thought about it, and turned in their resignations as well. The fact that the Eparchial policy explicitly stated that if I was ever accused of anything I was on my own was such an overwhelming display of loyalty downward, what else could I do than flip them the bird?
Like Neuhaus, I believe that there is only one comprehensive, long-term solution to the problem: the bishops must take up their staffs and behave like the heirs of the Apostles they claim to be. Knowing how they are chosen, and the criteria by which candidates are evaluated, I am not holding my breath.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 3, 2008 6:26:33 PM
>>>Yes, Stuart, but is the 900-pound gorilla sober? Or behind the wheel? ;-)<<<
Does it really matter? Even a stone-cold sober, pedestrian gorilla can cause massive damage just by being a 900-pound gorilla.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 3, 2008 6:29:02 PM
As a lawyer, I agree with Stuart, howevermuch my heart is with James's position. But as SMH pointed out in his original post, you really don't want to make this an issue to be resolved by lawyers! So again I concur with Stuart: the bishops must act as apostles and men, not as mealy-mouthed bureaucrats or CEOs. As I said above, I think the push must ultimately come from the laity. And good luck with that!
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 3, 2008 6:41:55 PM
It seems to me that Stuart (somewhat like Fr. Neuhaus) is conflating two distinct issues here -- abuse of proper rules of evidence (i.e. bishops throwing accused priests to the wolves to protect themselves poltiically) with "zero tolerance" of the continuance of truly proven molestors in the priesthood. The two are not the same, and I stand by my previous position.
As for Neuhaus on Anglican vs. Episcopal -- he doesn't bother to make the distinction, but treats them indifferently. But my main point was that even in his proper criticisms of the woes of the official Anglican communion, he treats that in a certain snide way that he does not treat Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, etc. But I'm not surprised to hear of the tenor of your correspondence with him, Stuart.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jan 3, 2008 7:42:42 PM
>>>It seems to me that Stuart (somewhat like Fr. Neuhaus) is conflating two distinct issues here -- abuse of proper rules of evidence (i.e. bishops throwing accused priests to the wolves to protect themselves poltiically) with "zero tolerance" of the continuance of truly proven molestors in the priesthood. The two are not the same, and I stand by my previous position.<<<
For those of us who have dealt with "zero tolerance" systems (I heartily recommend the public schools), the term has a specific meaning, which is exactly the meaning I indicated in my post: one substitutes a book of rules for one's own common sense and prudential judgment. it is precisely such systems that result in insanities such as five year olds being expelled for 'sexual harassment" because they hugged a classmate or bussed a teacher on the cheek. We see it in other areas as well, such as children being suspended or expelled for carrying a small penknife onto school property, drawing a PICTURE of a gun, or covertly quaffing a Midol. The excuse is the same in all these cases: "We have a zero tolerance policy towards (insert appropriate offense here), therefore we have no choice but to take the draconian action we are taking now, no matter how stupid or silly we may seem. You see, our lawyers told us that if we announce the policy and then mindlessly enforce it according to our published rules, we are immune from all liability--and what's more, we never have to take responsibility for ANYTHING!"
The situation with regard to the Dallas Policy is much the same, and I don't think either Father Neuhaus or I are conflating anything--a "Zero Tolerance Policy" along the lines of Dallas won't stop anything, but it will allow the bishops to cover their asses, which was the point of the exercise. On the other hand, both Neuhaus and I want to see the bishops' feet held to the fire, in all the areas for which they are responsible, from the spiritual formation of their seminarians through the behavior of their priests. This requires them both to be involved on a day-to-day basis AND to make hard choices. But most bishops would rather fund-raise and hobnob with the rich, famous and apostate.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 3, 2008 7:55:01 PM
I agree with Stuart on the subterfuge of zero tolerance policies -- and will add that they can provide a really powerful weapon to hurt an extroverted yet innocent priest whom you want to get rid of. I know this from unpleasant experience. What we want is the mercy of severe and manly punishment of the offenders; something just short of what the thugs did to Abelard.
I too admire Neuhaus and have long thought him the brightest star in the First Things firmament. I do as many do, I suppose -- I read the journal back to front. But you will look in vain through all the FT's for the last five years for a single paragraph written by Neuhaus that actually confronts the suffering of the victims -- what it was that the priests did, and what it did to the bodies and souls of the children and youths that endured it or were seduced by it. It is a curious omission, and it isn't as if there hasn't been plenty of opportunity for consideration. It is what compelled me finally to write an article wondering why even conservative Catholics talked so much about the fact that boys were the principal victims, but not at all about what in particular those boys suffered -- or the girls, too.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Jan 3, 2008 9:32:21 PM
I reviewed Podles' book here (the above referenced quote from an Amazon review was also by me).
No one has mentioned Neuhaus' vociferous defense of Fr. Marcial Maciel, removed by Pope Benedict XVI from responsibilities over the order he founded, the Legionaries of Christ. Maybe Podles' criticism of Neuhaus for this hit RJN just a little close to home.
Posted by: Bill Cork | Jan 3, 2008 10:57:52 PM
"It seems to me that Stuart (somewhat like Fr. Neuhaus) is conflating two distinct issues here -- abuse of proper rules of evidence (i.e. bishops throwing accused priests to the wolves to protect themselves poltiically) with "zero tolerance" of the continuance of truly proven molestors in the priesthood."
James, all profess "zero tolerance" for proven offenders, regardless of what they actually do. The novelty in today's "zero tolerance" policies is their application to those who are merely accused, but not yet proven, to be such offenders. We live in an Alice in Wonderland world where the accused are, metaphorically speaking, burned at the stake, whereas proven offenders are shipped off to practice their abominations anew elsewhere.
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 4, 2008 12:26:24 AM
"I too admire Neuhaus and have long thought him the brightest star in the First Things firmament. I do as many do, I suppose -- I read the journal back to front. But you will look in vain through all the FT's for the last five years for a single paragraph written by Neuhaus that actually confronts the suffering of the victims -- what it was that the priests did, and what it did to the bodies and souls of the children and youths that endured it or were seduced by it. It is a curious omission, and it isn't as if there hasn't been plenty of opportunity for consideration." - Tony Esolen
In the middle of the litigation of the abuse scandal here in Los Angeles, I had the opportunity to read Cardinal Mahoney's deposition transcript. It was eye-opening. Mahoney protested that he shipped known offenders off to unsuspecting parishes because he truly believed that such priests could be (and presumably were) reformed by psychiatric therapy (note: not by repentance with tears and years of penance). These are the motives that RJN wished Podles to address more "charitably." But well after Mahoney had clear evidence that such therapy was utterly ineffective, priests were still fobbed off on the unsuspecting. How "charitable" ought we to be? But there is a "brotherhood" to be defended and "employees" to be protected from the unwashed masses. I do wonder what Dante would regard as the fitting punishment for such shepherds who die unrepentant?
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 4, 2008 12:41:45 AM
As I already made clear, I have a different concept of what "zero tolerance" means, or should mean, than the examples cited here (of which I am well aware). So please address my position and point, and not someone else's, such as that of a USCCB employed lawyer. And, unfortunately, "zero tolerance" as I mean it -- that all truly proven sexual molestors among the clergy should be laicized -- is *not* professed by all, as Bill's posts about Bp. Manhoney, and Fr. Neuhaus' position, prove in spades.
I still have not seen any argument as to why a truly proven sexual offender should not automatically be laicized. To say e.g. as Stuart does that such a policy constitues "an abdication of individual responsibility, substituting instead a book of rules for pastoral discretion" is simply in effect an argument against having any rules for anything whatsover. And Stuart has several times on MC approving cited the EO rule that a clergyman who has shed blood should be forbidden to celebrate the holy mysteries.
So, please, don't give me vague assertions and false dichotomies about "rules" vs. "pastoral discretion." Give me a concrete argument as to why sexual molestation of minors by clergy should not be regarded as an offense of gravity equal to willfull murder, blasphemy, or sacrilege (e.g. a priest celebrating satanic rites), and punished in every truly proven instance with equal severity.
I agree with Stuart that "there is only one comprehensive, long-term solution to the problem: the bishops must take up their staffs and behave like the heirs of the Apostles they claim to be." But I assert that my position here to be an application of that.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jan 4, 2008 2:39:25 AM
Like many of you, I, too, read FT cover to cover. When Fr. Neuhaus takes issue with "zero tolerance," he is not arguing against hypothetically strict action against offenders, but against a very specific, blackletter policy. It would be unfair to construe his remarks outside this context.
Posted by: DGP | Jan 4, 2008 4:37:45 AM
>>But you will look in vain through all the FT's for the last five years for a single paragraph written by Neuhaus that actually confronts the suffering of the victims -- what it was that the priests did, and what it did to the bodies and souls of the children and youths that endured it or were seduced by it. It is a curious omission, and it isn't as if there hasn't been plenty of opportunity for consideration. It is what compelled me finally to write an article wondering why even conservative Catholics talked so much about the fact that boys were the principal victims, but not at all about what in particular those boys suffered -- or the girls, too.
Fr. Neuhaus is not the only one to omit such a description. Apart from anecdotal material about individuals, especially from victim's advocacy groups, efforts to reform clergy formation seem to spend little time attending to actual harm done by sexual abuse. This is all the more surprising given that there is reason to believe that an important factor in the decline of reprted abuse from recent decades is simply the increasingly explicit *awareness* among the clergy that sex with minors does them harm.
That is to say: In the 1970s, a larger minority of Catholic priests rationalized that sex with teenagers -- especially boys -- was a victimless sin. Since the first lawsuits c. 1985, and especially since the Chicago report of 1992, that illusion has been harder to sustain. The decreasing plausibility of the rationalization may have inhibited potential abusers.
Posted by: DGP | Jan 4, 2008 6:37:21 AM
>>>For those of us who have dealt with "zero tolerance" systems (I heartily recommend the public schools), the term has a specific meaning, which is exactly the meaning I indicated in my post: one substitutes a book of rules for one's own common sense and prudential judgment. it is precisely such systems that result in insanities such as five year olds being expelled for 'sexual harassment" because they hugged a classmate or bussed a teacher on the cheek. <<<
I have to confess I've been in situations where I've advocated black letter, no tolerance policie only to be bitten in the backside by them first rattle out of the box. God's imagination it better than man's imagination.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Jan 4, 2008 7:37:24 AM
Some priests had to be *told* that having genital contact with a boy or young man is likely to influence the boy or young man negatively? How far from the law of the spirit of life are these guys?
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Jan 4, 2008 9:07:52 AM
Anyone seriously interested in the subject might take a hard look at Creativity and Perversion, by Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel. Technical economy-of-the-psyche clinical essays that serve as a tacit guide to Romans 1, from a prominent French/British psychoanalyst who has no apparent connection with Christianity.
Institutional and conventional responses limp behind the science of the matter. Developmental and moral -- all kinds of moral -- issues interconnect. The portrait is devastating, has not really been addressed IMO regarding "the situation," and is probably confused by Fr. Neuhaus' enough already!.
Posted by: dilys | Jan 4, 2008 10:31:04 AM
>>Some priests had to be *told* that having genital contact with a boy or young man is likely to influence the boy or young man negatively?
I know how to calculate the caloric content of the plate of brownies just given me by a kindly parishioner. I know how many ounces they'll put on my waist. Still, somehow, my knowledge grows fuzzier and less certain when I'm hungry. Regular clarifications and reminders serve to keep me moderate in my consumption of brownies.
>>How far from the law of the spirit of life are these guys?
Do you really want to know this?
Posted by: DGP | Jan 4, 2008 11:49:04 AM
"And, unfortunately, "zero tolerance" as I mean it -- that all truly proven sexual molestors among the clergy should be laicized -- is *not* professed by all, as Bill's posts about Bp. Manhoney, and Fr. Neuhaus' position, prove in spades." - James Altena
Bp. "Manhoney"? Well, now....
I'd subscribe to your "zero tolerance" policy, James, but yours is not the commonly recognized usage of the term.
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 4, 2008 12:01:46 PM
DGP,
You're right, I don't want to know that.
But the difference between a brownie (made to be eaten) and a boy (not made to do that with and typically entrusted to your pastoral charge) is rather dramatic, no? I'm speaking as the father of seven boys and a deacon. Wouldn't there be warning signs before this sort of thing occurs?
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Jan 4, 2008 12:52:18 PM
>>>Like Leon Podle's vitriolic denunciation of the Vatican's position on capital punishment some months ago, this book could give him the reputation of a major anti-Catholic voice. This doesn't jibe well with his position as a senior editor of an ecumenical journal.<<<
>>>Since Podels is in fact Catholic, that's an oxymoron.<<<
Not necessarily. Some of the most anti-Catholic allegations I have heard come from Catholics, both liberal and conservative. Usually it's the religious liberals, who are like the secular liberal Americans who can't find anything good to say about America. Anyway, my point is that, if I want to hear all that is wrong with the Church and get full-page advertisements of exposes of episcopal incompetence and malfeasance, I will subscribe to liberal Catholic publications like Commonweal or the National Catholic Reporter -- not to an "ecumenical" journal like
Touchstone.
Posted by: Howard Kainz | Jan 4, 2008 1:32:37 PM
So, if one alleges that anything is wrong with the RC Church, one is "anti-Catholic"? I doubt that many here would subscribe to such a definition. So how about offering your definition of the term for critique?
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 4, 2008 1:37:55 PM
As one once said: Absolute power corrupts? Absolutely!!
Thus, the stomach continually churns from pedophile priests and the even worse perverts who protect them under the cover of the sacraments and "Holy Cloth". Mind control from the priests to control through flames of wrath in Hell for those who dare lift a finger against the people of the cloth.
Yet, it does not matter, what the religion. God says no and means no. Perhaps the tellers of truth need to point the finger more often and equally perhaps, the perverts who control need to wag a little less.
Posted by: Scribus | Jan 4, 2008 2:05:47 PM
"Anyway, my point is that, if I want to hear all that is wrong with the Church and get full-page advertisements of exposes of episcopal incompetence and malfeasance, I will subscribe to liberal Catholic publications like Commonweal or the National Catholic Reporter -- not to an 'ecumenical' journal like
Touchstone."
Got a feeling that leftwing publications will tell you that some of the things that are right, ARE what's wrong. By the same token, if I were somehow in the mood for RC-bashing, I'd have little trouble finding things written by members of my own tradition, and need hardly consult an ecumenical journal -
But I think Podles is doing diagnosis, not damage; wielding a scalpal, not a stiletto. If it helps, coming from a Protestant: Podels reflects credit on the RC Church, from my point of view. Everyone already knows about the problems; not everyone knows that anyone has the 'nads to specify, and confront, the problems.
Posted by: Joe Long | Jan 4, 2008 3:03:50 PM
"I'd subscribe to your "zero tolerance" policy, James, but yours is not the commonly recognized usage of the term."
I'll happily adopt any other name for my policy that someone else is willing to suggest, so long as the policy itself is followed.
-------------
Mr. Kainz does have somewhat of a point, albeit a small one. I am reminded of anecdote told by Albert Camus of a priest who announced at a gathering of atheist philosophers that he too was "anti-clerical" -- a pose that properly disgusted Camus. Any organization has its Quislings. But the tone of Mr. Kainz's commentary, and his scare quotes around "ecumenical," suggest either a complete lack of familiarity with Touchstone (as a stranger wandering in due to some googling) or else the bunker mentality of the narrow-minded partisan.
Thanks to Bill R. and Joe Long for their comments, which put the matter properly.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jan 4, 2008 3:36:37 PM
>>But the difference between a brownie (made to be eaten) and a boy (not made to do that with and typically entrusted to your pastoral charge) is rather dramatic, no?
Yes, of course, there is a great difference in degree of perversity. Still, sin is sin; in some sense, all sin is unnatural. Moreover, the tools for the formation of conscience are not really different. Hence the importance of correcting the old canard about victimless sins: There aren't any. We do well to understand just how much harm is done by the worst sins, in order to have a more secure motivation to avoid them. It's not the only tool for moral formation, but it's useful.
>>I'm speaking as the father of seven boys and a deacon.
That's an interesting way of putting it. What type of beast is this deacon that you have fathered? :-)
>>Wouldn't there be warning signs before this sort of thing occurs?
So far, it seems the only statistically useful warning sign is homosexual attraction: RC priests attracted principally to males apear to be at least two to four times more likely to be accused of abusing a minor. (PC readers, please note that there *are* explanations for this statistic besides the notion that homosexuals are intrinsically disposed to abusing minors -- though that possibility certainly cannot be ruled out.) This is why the estimable Fr. Neuhaus frequently calls attention to the importance of homosexuality in understanding the crisis.
Posted by: DGP | Jan 4, 2008 4:03:30 PM
