Speaking of SNAP

23 comments

• SNAP is not demanding that bishops “throw out canon law” to protect children from molesters. They are asking for some common sense on thse matters. Besides, what’s wrong with laity being AWARE of what is going on?

  SNAP is quite correct that “real change” is necessary before the Church comes to grip with the crisis.

  Many (including Domenico’s predecessor at CWR) detect little sincerely by the bishops in coming to grip with the crisis.

  Charles Wilson, of the St. Joseph Foundation wrote perhaps the most insightful analysis yet of the “real” problem when the scandals became known in 2002. The problem, he said, is the “narcotic” of secrecy.

  The secrecy that pervades the whole Church is not grounded in scripture. While secrecy makes it easy to administer a diocese, it also provides the cover needed for every manner of illegal and unethical behavior.

  Here is the link to Wilson’s brilliant essay on the matter:
  http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/2002/cfd20-2.htm

• Phil Lawler and I have zero difference between us on the general sincerity of most bishops in dealing with the Scandal as anyone who has spent any time reading this blog should know.

  It’s not the necessity of coming clean on the perversions that I’m criticizing. I’m criticizing SNAP’s unrealistic expectations of how the Church works.

  The Catholic Church is not a monarchy and neither is the bishop a king. In fact, it’s thinking like that led to the secrecy and coverup. We need to dispel that notion if we’re going to overcome our problems.

  Bishops have to play by the rules, just like everybody else.

  Can you imagine what would happen to good, orthodox priests if heterodox bishops could act link unaccountable kings in their dioceses?

• Thank you Dom for finally saying what I have been waiting for you to say since 2002. Yes Dom,
  “What they are after is the dismantling of the Church as we know her into a form of Protestant congregationalism in which activists like themselves can more easily distort the Church’s teachings and assert their own power and authority.”

  They also never cared about the victims, especially VOTF, except as a method to do exactly that. Never have and never will. How do I know, because that is what the victims learned as well.

• Domenico and Fr. Carr could not be more off base in claiming that SNAP is trying to “dismantle the Church as we know her into a form of Protestant congregationalism …”

  The SNAP press release that was the occasion for their absurd claim asks for more transparency from Cardinal George, asks him to bring in some “experts” more inclined to genuinely address the scandals than he is already relying on, and calls on him to visit parishes where deviant priests were assigned.

  There’s no “Protestant congregationalism” here.

  Disclaimer: I have no animus against Cardinal George and respect him, as do all Catholic conservatives (from what I can see). I am saddened to see his credibility so vehemently challenged. Why, then, is he facing such controversy? Because he’s got the wrong people using the wrong policies to handle the sex scandals. One need not be a Protestant to see there are ways to avoid these kinds of messes.

  Cardinal George is in a tight spot, and he’s making a lot of boneheaded mistakes. He’s ultimately at the mercy of his staff. He pays the price for heir screw-ups.

  1) He is openly being contradicted by a NUN who says Cardinal George was quite wrong when he said the diocese was not warned about Fr. McCormack. She said she called the Catholic Schools Office in 2000 to complain about the priest asking a prospective altar boy to pull down his pants so he could “measure him.” How often does a NUN call the bishop a liar? This episode happened pre-Boston. The diocesan official told the nun to “let it go.”

  2) Most noteworthy is rebuttal from the mother of the McCormack victim, who says George is flat-out lying when he says the family did not complain to the archdiocese. She says she made several contacts. Who you gonna beleive? My experience as a journalist tells those on the bishop’s payroll have a lot to lose if they stray from the company line. And they do occasionally lose their jobs for speaking honestly.

  3) A woman who SECRETLY settled with the Chicago chancery for $120,000 in 2004 thought better of it and has given the names of the three priests who abused her. The bishops claimed at their Denver meeting that things were going to change. Doesn’t this secret settlement give a contrary message?

  I have a feeling most of the people commenting on this Chicago situation (and others) have never personally dealt with diocesan officials (including bishops) on sex scandals, and have a sense that these guys are what their public personna is; Holy guys who are full of compassion, care, concern, even wisdom. The truth is sometimes very different, which we learn continually from court testimony. Under oath, some of these bishops reveal their true selves. Yesterday a newspaper columnist in the Diocese of Joliet recently discovered some of Bishop Imesch’s mendacious court testimony about a priest who molested the columnist when he was an altar boy. The writer advises Imesch to do the right thing and resign, sooner rather than later. (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/index/dsedit.html)

  Media reports of the last few weeks show that not much has changed in Chicago. When Gov. Keating resigned from the National Review Board in disgust he described the bishops as a kind of “organized crime” and as “mafioso” in their approach to the scandals.

  Keating is not Protestant, and neither is SNAP.

• No question the bishops have made more than their share of mistakes in dealing with the sexual abuse scandal.  However, moving away from a standard of truth guided by the Magisterium through the bishops to a congregational consensus doctrine is exactly what has led to the implosion of the US Episcopal Church and perhaps the Western Anglican communion in general. Christ did not send the Apostles out to take an opinion poll from the people and come up with a compromise dogma. He sent them out to communicate the one Truth.

• Jay,

  As I said, you’ve obviously not been reading this blog very long. I’m not an apologist for the bishops on this and never have been.

  But that doesn’t make SNAP above reproach. Some very good, orthodox people have serious questions about the motivation of those in charge at SNAP. Just like I question Voice of the Faithful’s motives even though they agree that there’s a problem with many bishops. Just because we’re on the same side in one sense, doesn’t mean that we must agree in all ways.

• Domenico,

  It may very well be that I’m wrong about the motivation SNAP. I’ve been of the impression they are mainly—or only—addressing the sex abuse situation. I’ll do some research on this. I’m well acquainted with Voice of the Faithful, Call to Action and other groups.

  In any case, quite aside from any other agenda SNAP may have, what they asked of Cardinal George in the recent open letter seems rather reasonable to me.

• They told him to ignore canon law. I’m not saying that Cardinal George was right in the way he handled this case. I’m saying that his previous errors do not mean that he gets to ignore canon law now.

  This was the same argument parents made against “safe environment sex education programs” like Talking about Touching. That bishops let priests abuse kids in the past doesn’t mean that they get to ignore the Church’s teaching that parents are the primary educators of their own children.

  It also means that priests accused of any crime get due process. Innocent priests not accused of anything don’t get treated like potential criminals.

  It’s one thing to be upset about the Scandal and to want change to prevent it from happening. But it doesn’t justift betraying our own principles to get there.

• SNAP, Hmmm is this the same SNAP that is funded by trial lawyers according to Forbes Magazine?

  Also according to Forbes trials lawyers pay protesters to harass faithful parishioners in the name of victims?

  Is this the same SNAP who’s Bay Area chapter head says all Catholics are guilty in the sex abuse issue?

  The same SNAP whose president was fed answers on TV by John Gibson during an interview?

  The SNAP whom victims tell me just keep the victims focused on their pain and not on any healing.

  You mean that SNAP?

  Now that you have brought up the issue of the nun. Why did she not go to the DA if she was that concerned? If she did not go to the DA then she did exactly what she claims everyone else did. She knew about the abuse and did not take it to the proper authority. 

  How often does a NUN call the bishop a liar? Usually about every day, especially if the nun is a feminist liberation theologian. Which brings me back to my penultimate question.

  No, Jay, I am not off base, I am right on target.

  Meanwhile, check this out:
  http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19991031newabuse1.asp

• Hmmmm … I did a Google search and quickly found the Forbes article explaining SNAP got large donations ($20,000 and up) from at least two trial lawyers who each reprsented more than 200 people suing the Church.  I also found commentary by Bill Donohue denouncing this.

  Here are links to the articles.

  http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0915/054_print.html
  http://www.catholicleague.org/03press_releases/quarter3/030904_lawyers.htm

  I was unaware of this situation and have to agree with Domenico and Fr. Carr that it certainly calls into question SNAP’s purity on this issue. Makes me wonder how I missed this. Thanks for the specific information, Fr. Carr.

  Nevertheless, without intending to be argumentative:

  1) It seems the current Chicago situation (of last month and this month) reveals flaws in the way Chicago is dealing with the problem, regardless of SNAP’s involvement.

  2) Open disclsoure, especially financial, is not contrary to the magisterium or to the integrity of the Church.

• You are not disagreeing with me. I have said that my beef wasn’t with criticism of how the archdiocese of Chicago handled this issue. Nor do I disagree that disclosure is good.

  The original point of my post was that SNAP was wrong to claim that the Church is a monarchy and that the archbishop can whatever he wants regardless of canon law.

• I do not disagree with you, Jay. Just remember that groups such as SNAP will draw you into an alternative agenda and use you as a crusader for justice to do their bidding. Instead in prayer ask God how to use your gifts to address this issue.

  If you don’t know me Jay, then click on the link at the bottom of this entry and you will discover who I am.  Trust me when I tell you, if you are going to address this matter correctly, you better be a person of prayer and hopefully spend time regularly before the Blessed Sacrament. You will also be close to the sacraments especially Reconciliation and Eucharist. This will give you the insight to address this matter correctly.

  I am also in the midst of a novena, feel free to join me in that prayer. http://www.angelfire.com/ma4/cathedral/catholicismanew/index.blog?entry_id=1153653 (help me spread the word too!)

  “The highest form of treason: to do the right thing for the wrong reason.” T.S. Eliot Murder in the Cathedral

• If it is an alternative agenda, Father Carr, you would be better off with a cultist group like Opus Dei, not Voice of the Faithful.

  The good catholics who belong to VOTF are rightly disgusted with the way the bishops have mishandled this entire sex abuse scandal. 

  It has much in common with Nixon and his times.  What brought Nixon down wasn’t the “break in” at the Watergate but the COVERUP and it is much the same with the hierarchy today. Many of them haven’t seemed to have learned much in five years, unfortunately.

  Cardinal George could have and should have removed Fr. McCormack early on.  The same goes for Fr. Bennett.  The cardinal was right when he said he was not “vigilent enough,” but it is more than that now.  His veracity is seriously doubted and rightly so.  He says he was concerned with the priest’s “due process.”  He should have been concerned with the children, first and formost.  I hate to have to say this but since when has the church been so concerned about the “due process” rights of catholics, lay people, priests or nuns?  It has never been of much concern as far as the sisters go.  There are more than enough examples of hierarchical heavy-handedness toward individual sisters that has managed to hit the newspapers.

  Fortunately, the was a nun at the parish school who did report McCormack but he still he was not removed.

  What is it going to take?

  Yes, Father Bill Kenneally is correct when he says that Cardinal George should submit his resignation. He should. 

  To Rome.

  Now.

• There is something that bothers me more and more as this scandal drags on.  We get the details about tne accused priests.  We can form an opinion about their lifestyle.  What we don’t get is any sort of picture of the lifestyle of the victims.

  Perhaps I’m just getting it wrong, but the general impression of the victims that comes first to mind is an 11-year-old altar boy.  Then I amend the impression to include teenage boys.  Priest perpetrator on one hand.  Child on the other hand. 

  But the victims who prosecute are not children any longer in the majority of cases, correct?  The abuse took place some time ago, and now they are adults.  They have adult lifestyles.  I can’t recall reading about any of those adult lifestyles. 

  Doesn’t it seem reasonable that if we are going to know about the lifestyles of the priests being accused, we should also know something about the lifestyles of the victims as well?

• Carrie,

  Boy, don’t get me started.

  You are absolutely right. “We”—beginning with every bishop and every chancery official—should know about the “lifestyles of the victims” … from the victims themselves.

  There is a lot of literature and film explaining how these children’s lives were shattered. For a quick, 90-minute explanation of the issue, I recommend that you view the 1993 Canadian film, “The Boys of St. Vincent.” (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/boysofstv/boysofstv.htm)

  The film portrays life in the 1950s at a Catholic orphanage in Newfoundland, and the trial 15 years later of one of the pedophile priests who ran the orphanage. In about 1994 I was fortunate to meet some of the men who grew up in Canadian orphanages. They had created a traveling exhibit of artwork depicting the horrors of their childhood and I visted it when it came to Windsor, Ontario, and spoke at length with some of the men. They explained that they suffered from some of the psychological problems associated with such abuse. Many were alcoholics or drug addicts, many couldn’t maintain loving relationships, many were suicidal, etc.

  You know what? These guys said they were not interested in litigation. The ONLY thing they wanted from the religious order that ran their orphanage was an apology and an admission that these horrors took place. Yet, as of that date, the Church—or at least that order—was still in denial mode.

  I started coming in contact with other victims of pedophile priests beginning in 1993 when I was editor at The Michigan Catholic. The director of worship for the archiocese at the time was was Fr. Gerald Shirilla, the most notorious of the pedophiles in Detroit. His story alone is worthy of a feature-length film, especially regarding the support he received from two Detroit cardinals, several bishops and chancery officials, even though they were aware of his predatory habits going back to to the 1960s.

  The Detroit media carried extensive reportage about Fr. Shirilla’s perversions in 1993, thanks to litigation by several victims. He was removed from his chancery position that year but the chancery refused to say where he was working. The world learned nine years later in 2002—only thanks to the investigative reporters at Detroit Free Press—that Cardinal Maida had transferred Shirilla secretly to a parish with an elementary school in northern Michigan. Shocked to see the unrepentant Shirilla still on the loose, a family of several prominent local men (one was a professional baseball player) told their story about how they were absued by Shirilla to the The Detroit Free Press, which put it on the front page. The story wound up being broadcast widely throughout the state on TV and radio. They men gave graphic details about the abuse and the devastating, long-lasting effect it had on them.

  One of the brothers said the only reason he was going public with his story was to alert the public that the cardinal was obviously not protecting children at Shirilla’s parish. He did not file a lawsuit. 

  Sometimes it seems there is a tendency to want to downplay the savagery of these priests, or to pretend that the accomplice bishops and chancery officials who coverered for these felons made “mistakes,” as someone noted in a comment in this thread. These were not mistakes. They were involved in obstruction of justice, and still are, in many cases.

• Jay McNally,

  Thank you for your post. It just gets worse and worse, doesn’t it?  And the hierarchy still is not dealing with it.  I’m not in the area but in the Philadelphia Archdiocese where the hierarchy is just wants everything to go away, especially what is detailed in the Grand Jury Report released in September of 2005.

  God bless.

• These guys said they were not interested in litigation. The ONLY thing they wanted from the religious order that ran their orphanage was an apology and an admission that these horrors took place.

  Imagine the impact a victim would make if, after the gigantic settlements that we have seen awarded, he said that he would refuse the money in exchange for payment of his legal expenses and genuine reform.  What we see, of course, is something else.

  The victims stories are beginning to ring hollow as parishes are sold and other Church property is being threatened.  It has come to the point that it no longer looks like efforts to help genuine victims.  It looks more and more every day like efforts to destroy the Church, or at least Her clergy.

  I have sided with the victims’ advocates.  I’m starting to rethink my position.

• Oh what a tangled web the Spirit of Vatican II witches and warlocks have woven: ordain homosexuals here, allow paedophilia there, a little Cark Rahner here, a little female ordination there.

  Former Gov of Oklahoma Karl Keating was right when he decribed the USCCB as a crime syndicate but then he tunred around and heaped praise on the wonderful reforms of Luther. 

  Go figure… that’s like observing a housefire and resolving to go down to Citgo to get more gasoline.  Bp. Bruskiewicz was right to slam the door on the USSCB visitors.

  When you observe the alpha and omega of this unfold you’d think it was all pre-planned because every iota is geared toward the destruction of the Church.

  I’m convinced the Church is a monarchy with Christ as the King.  Cardinals are like princes, Bishops are like Dukes.  I labor in the field.  If the Church denies the Kingdom then I guess then end times have come [clutching my pitchfork tightly].

  St Peter Damian, ora pro nobis.

• Carrie,

  The very, sad thing is that in just about all of this is that the Vatican and the bishops have no sense of accountabiity, even today.

  There is no meaningful effort at “real reform.” For the life of me, I can’t figure out why Maida is still in office, along with the key figures who protectured and nurtured Shirlla’s pedophile lifestyle, for decades. The pope should have removed all of them the day it was revealed in 2002 that Maida lied about Shirilla. Dozens of other bishops should be removed.

  I can’t seen much “real reform” occuring until the Vatican refigures the way it creates bishops and holds them accountable. It’s an inside game, and I really doubt the Holy Spirit’s influence wasn’t mitigated by Lucifer in some of the recent decisions, beginning with Daniel Ryan of Springfield, and Ziemans in California. In Detroit, Walter Hurley, the priest who was head of the sex abuse “review board” that was supposed to prevent beasts like Shirilla from being given another assignment, said publicly—after the media broke the story—that he “disagreed” with Maida’s secrect decision to transfer him to the northern Michigan parish, yet the deed was done. Hurley was rewarded for this shameful and dishonest loyalty to Maida and was named a bishop about two years later. Same old story, and this happened AFTER the Denver meeting. It wasn’t always this way. In previous eras (even in the last century) there used to be much broader consulation by the Vatican in the selection of bishops.

  Financial accountability would be a step in the right direction. In Detroit we learned this month that Cardinal Maida loaned $40 million to the JPII cultural center in Washington D.C. This was a big secret until the media broke the story, and forced Maida to come clean. Dozens of parishes and schools are being closed right now, yet Maida gave $40 million to the JPII center! No wonder he kept it a big secret.

  If these guys did not have unrestricted access to tens of millions of dollars to secretly do whatevery they like, many things would change.

  The sex scandals may not have spun out of control so badly if secret payoffs were not made, and if laity NOT on the Church payroll at least saw the books. Weakland’s $450,000 payoff to his gay lover comes to mind, as does Law’s $400,000 purchase of a single tape recording of a telephone conversation.

  I began rethinking my position about the Church when I editing The Michigan Catholic and saw the mismanagement and ongoing deceit up close. The main reason bishops and their minions get away with so much is because there is no so much secrecy and no financial accountability whatsoever.

  I’d bet a lot of the victims would back off if they saw the bishops who were complicit in the abuse removed in disgrace, by the Vatican. Certainly, public opinion would change.

  Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is not Protestant to recognize things are very, very wrong.

• Carrie wrote:

  “There is something that bothers me more and more as this scandal drags on.  We get the details about tne accused priests.  We can form an opinion about their lifestyle.  What we don’t get is any sort of picture of the lifestyle of the victims”

  Carrie,
  That is because the victims are not on trial. The victims have not committed a crime and are not accused of a crime. But your thought process is the reason that Michael Jackson was found innocent or “not guilty”.

  The victims go through hell when they are abused. Then again when they tell people. Then the lawyers who defend the perpetrators and are financed by the diocese put the victims through hell but that isn’t enough hell. We need to expose their lifestyles.

  All I can say is “wow”!

  A little bit of compassion for the victims might have resulted in a lot fewer lawsuits and money paid in our judgments.

  VOTF and SNAP did not create this crisis. Put the blame where it lies.

• If having their lifestyles exposed is so threatening to the victims, they must have something to hide.

  My lifestyle, for instance, consists of fulfilling the duties of wife and mother of a grown child.  That is hardly something I need to hide.  In fact, I can write that here in this very public forum.  I spend my days cooking and cleaning and doing the laundry.  I spend the time leftover blogging and occasionally doing some freelance writing.

  If a hypothetical victim of sexual abuse who is 30-years-old today spends his time engaging in petty crime, I would be less inclined toward sympathy; and I believe other Catholics would share that opinion.  Certainly such a victim would have a great deal to gain by having his lifestyle kept out of the news.

  On the other hand if a hypothetical victim of sexual abuse is a family man who goes to work every day and attempts to live a moral life, he would have nothing to hide from the news media.

• Carrie,

  You can’t be serious. If you think that your simple little life would be picked up by the media and portrayed as is – you are either extremely naive and/or have never had the experience of the media scrutinizing you. And I hope you never do.

  If a victim of sexual abuse is a family man who goes to work everyday guess what- he either wasn’t abused that badly (thank God) or he has too much to lose to step forward. The most damaged victims have A LOT of problems. Do you think that maybe, just maybe some or all of these problems were caused by the abuse they suffered? Of course they were.

  This takes blaming the victim to a whole new level.

  We have seen in Boston victims murdered and who commit suicide. And if that isn’t enough suffering for you to be convinced that their pain and the damage they have suffered is real then nothing is.

  The wolves in sheeps’ clothes do not deserve your defense.
  Mary

• Mary, are you suggesting there can be no wolves in victim clothes?