Clergy Abuse Scandals

The Archdiocese of Spokane, Washington, is getting ready to start selling stuff off--just like other archdioceses have had to do:

SPOKANE — The bankruptcy filing of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Spokane raises the prospect that some or all of the 82 parishes could be sold to pay victims of sexual abuse by priests.

It could also prompt Catholic schools to close, Catholic cemeteries to be sold and the bodies disinterred, and charities tied to the Catholic church to scale back their work.

That has outraged some Catholics, who wonder why they must pay for the depredations of a few pedophile priests.

"Do 90,000 innocent people deserve to be punished for the sins of those few?" said Robert Hailey, co-chairman of an association of parishes in the Spokane Diocese. "These people and their ancestors put their sweat and their money into building the churches and schools that you see in parishes today."

Unfortunately, the leadership of the Catholic Church for too many years ignored these problems--and sometimes played an active part in covering them up.

I've read the excuses that the Church has used, and I find most of them terribly unconvincing. Perhaps the strongest excuse was that the leadership relied on psychiatrists who told them these pedophile priests were cured, and the leadership wanted to extend mercy.

Some of the other excuses, however, just leave me going, "What?" I remember reading somewhere a quote from priest who had not been charged, saying that in the late 1950s, he could remember discussions among others in seminary about how sex with boys wasn't really violating the celibacy rule, because it didn't involve a woman. You just shake your head and wonder what was going on that priests could rationalize sex with a child because it wasn't a woman--while still insisting that God wanted them to be celibate.

The problem, unfortunately, isn't just sex. One of the scandals where I used to live, in Sonoma County, involved one Catholic priest engaged in embezzlement; to keep it quiet, he had to submit sexually to the bishop. I can't remember now which one of them was having sex with children, or if both of them were. Here's another one of these disturbing stories that show that immorality in one area often couples with immorality in another:

Just four days later, the Rev. Robert E. White began a two-day visit to St. John's Cathedral on behalf of Food for the Poor. The Florida interdenominational Christian charity asked if White could say Mass and raise money at St. John's.

After checking with White's home parish in San Diego, Driscoll agreed. But what he didn't know was White had resigned as a pastor in California after admitting he misappropriated parish funds and engaged in "behavior inconsistent" with his vow of celibate chastity.

Faced with a new test, Driscoll passed. After a suspicious parishioner brought allegations about White to him June 27, Driscoll investigated. The following weekend, Driscoll disclosed White's past to parishioners at St. John's, who had heard White solicit funds at six Masses on June 18 and 19.

...

Before approving White's visit, Driscoll asked his home diocese of San Diego about White's background as part of a check done for all visiting clergy since 2003. Driscoll asked if White had ever behaved in a way indicating "he might engage in sexual behavior inconsistent with priestly celibacy" and whether he ever was involved in "any incident ... that might adversely affect his performance as a priest."

In a Feb. 1 letter to Driscoll, Vicar General Steven Callahan wrote that he had reviewed White's personnel records and affirmed he was "of good moral character and reputation." Called a "Good Standing" letter, the background check is required for visiting clergy, whether they are filling in for vacationing priests, performing weddings or funerals, or soliciting for a charity.

But Callahan didn't mention White resigned as a pastor in 1996 after admitting he misappropriated parish funds. White also acknowledged "behavior inconsistent with celibate chastity as well as immaturity in relationships with teenagers, although there was never sexual misconduct on his part involving another person," Callahan said in a written statement released July 27, 1998. Callahan was then chancellor of the diocese.

What does that mean? It sounds like fine hairsplitting to cover over something that White shouldn't have been doing with minors--and pretty clearly someone who can't be trusted with money.