Fighting back.

With recent publicity in North American newspapers, magazines, radio and TV, about the horrendous homosexual abuse of boys by priests in Boston, Dallas, and a dozen other dioceses (see "Homosexuality among the clergy," March 2002, pp. 15-19), demands for holding bishops accountable have increased dramatically. An example is Diogenes, a pseudonym for a writer who drafts a regular column in the monthly Catholic World Report.

In his February column, "Holding bishops accountable," Diogenes sees the refusal of bishops to confront the abuse by homosexual priests as part of a much larger refusal to confront just about any major problem in the Church.

This, Diogenes says, is the same hierarchy which has been unable to reply effectively when universities were secularized, when religious education was gutted, when parents were pointing out that sex-ed programs were violating their children's innocence, when whole generations were left ignorant of Catholic doctrine. This is not an isolated problem. Confronted by serious problems, the bishops have acted in a way that suggests their first loyalty is not to Christ or his people but to the clerical establishment. The old boys' club required that scandals be hidden and victims paid off or stonewalled.

The folly of the hierarchy defies belief, he continues; one is simply astonished to see that priests who were repeat offenders were routinely reassigned and found new victims. "They" had no way of knowing, they say, that a priest who had repeatedly violated the innocence of young boys should not be reassigned; anyone with common sense would immediately have come to a different conclusion.

And Rome needs to look seriously at the whole episcopal selection process, he argues. At present, it is dangerously incestuous: a troubled hierarchy promotes its own. The following article demonstrates that the Catholic faithful can fight back, so long as the initiators do not expect gratitude or thanks. On the contrary, they must expect to be abused themselves. The article was written before the latest ecclesiastical scandals.

Have you ever objected to something wrong going on in your parish, your Catholic school, or your diocese? Have you approached the authorities, hoping that the wrong would be righted, and then discovered that you were given the runaround, or that there was an interminable delay but not a remedy for the evil?

Editor

Many publications today report similar happenings. Perhaps the liturgical laws are flouted, or churches are restored in a manner contrary to the wishes of the parishioners, maybe with the tabernacle moved to an inconspicuous spot; or the Marriage Preparation course teaches that contraception is just another form of birth control, no mention being made of its sinfulness.

Perhaps your eight-year-old son is being given sex education suitable for a twelve-year-old, or in language not suitable for either age. Or he tells you one day that a visitor to the classroom has explained what homosexuality is and that it is just a variety of sexuality and how wonderful diversity is. Or he is not being taught major Catholic truths in a clear and definite manner. Or he is being taught error. Perhaps your bishop allows or tolerates General Absolution, or won't tell your priest that you have the right to receive Communion kneeling or on the tongue, or allows dissenting theologians or groups to use parish halls, or even to lecture to priests.

Here are some examples of people fighting back.

Guelph

Mr. Joe Cotter of Guelph, ON, asks in a letter to us, "What can we do to rebuild the Church around us? I like to hear from readers who clearly indicate they are fed up with what dissenting priests do to us. One good example is from a letter to the editor [Name withheld, C.I., June 2001]. There must be Catholics willing to act if they knew how. I have been so lucky to meet Tex, a man who does know. My computer and ability to type brought us together.

"The Liturgy of the Mass was changed and everyone went along with it. Tex asked three good priests about the changes. They said the changes were not allowed. He then composed a letter to the pastor and sent a copy to 75 parishioners and to every priest in town (in our five parishes). Six weeks later, the proper liturgy was back. I don't know what happened exactly but an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist told me: 'They (who?) went to the bishop and his response was: "If parishioners don't like it, don't do it."' Apparently they didn't like it, for we got the proper liturgy back. And now for the priest's revenge.

"Tex led the rosary after evening Mass during the week. One evening after Mass, before leaving the altar, the pastor announced, 'Because of his letters, Tex will no longer be allowed to lead the rosary.' Everyone left except Tex, who stayed to pray in silence until the pastor switched off all the lights (there were no windows). In a few weeks, others began to stay and join him in prayer for a while, and the lights stayed on.

"Some weeks later Tex was told that his wife needed a serious operation. That evening, as he was going into the church for Mass, a woman stopped him at the door (whom he had seen only once or twice before), to ask him to pray the rosary after Mass. He smiled at her and didn't pay much attention to her request, thinking that she would forget about it. After Mass, when almost everyone had left, this lady turned around to Tex and asked him again to pray the rosary. He hesitated a moment, then asked the parishioners who were still there if they would pray for his wife. Soon after, his wife had the operation and recovered fully. Tex never saw this woman again."

United States 

Favourable results are not always to be expected and sometimes, even in very serious matters--even cases of outright public scandal--they are very difficult to obtain. What's more, those who involve themselves in these struggles must not expect gratitude. On the contrary, they should expect abuse, as demonstrated even in the brief example above. Let's turn now to a couple of examples in the United States, fully documented in the Catholic press there.

In quite a few American parishes or dioceses, things have gotten so bad that parishioners feel coerced to form societies to strengthen their effectiveness, or they begin to publish newsletters to alert others to what is going on. They often find it difficult to get action, even in cases of real evil, calling to heaven for redress. Pastors and school trustees dig in to fight, and bishops, shielded by yes-saying chancery appointees, rather than address the complaint, attack the complainers. This is called killing the messenger. However, some authorities finally cave in and then consider the matter objectively and listen to their flock.

Bishop Daniel Ryan 

Take the case of Bishop Daniel Ryan of Springfield, Illinois. He was bishop there since 1983, and resigned in October 1999 after having been accused for several years of living a homosexual lifestyle, involving sexual abuse, for many years. Stephen Brady, an ordinary parishioner in Illinois, started a newsletter, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam. In May of 1996 he founded an organization, the Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), to counteract abuses in dioceses in Illinois. Chapters of RCF sprang up in other parts of the United States.

Even before 1995 Brady had already tried to have liturgical irreverence corrected. He also laboured to change the sex education program in public and Catholic schools, and catechetics in Catholic schools, and tried to stop dissenting teaching in the Springfield Office for Catholic Education. He found out that these privately conducted causes were all hopeless.

In November 1996, Brady privately called upon Bishop Ryan to resign, after ascertaining from priests and laity that the bishop was homosexually active. He informed Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago, Ryan's metropolitan archbishop, but the Cardinal refused to do anything.

That's when Brady decided he had to go public. All of his activities in RCF are guided by good priests, whose belief it is that in these days the laity must speak out. He was also encouraged in his work by attorneys who have been active in cases dealing with homosexuality and the clergy.

Since Bishop Ryan's only response was to threaten Brady with a lawsuit, Brady resorted to a public press conference in February 1997, stating the facts about Bishop Ryan's homosexual misconduct, indicating that the bishop denied everything. Brady read a signed affidavit of a male prostitute, Frank Bergen. Bergen had served the bishop as a male prostitute over a period of eleven years from 1984 to 1995, during part of which time he was a minor. He claimed that he had been paid lots of money, which he spent on cocaine, pot, LSD, and alcohol.

The bishop made no effort to have him receive therapy. Bergen, who now has AIDS and wants to die in God's grace, also stated that the bishop absolved him sacramentally. Under Canon Law, this is a crime involving excommunication reserved personally to the Pope.

The bishop's office responded to the public accusation by a public denial and by attacking Brady's newsletter. (Get the messenger: don't do anything about the message.) A second press conference was held two years later, in January 1999. By this time Brady had statements from other male prostitutes and provided witnesses to speak to the press. Moreover, he had evidence that the bishop was, as late as December 1998, homosexually active. The bishop repeated his denunciation of Brady.

At long last, the Vatican ordered an investigation. The new Cardinal of Chicago took this in hand and in the fall of October 1999, Bishop Ryan suddenly announced his resignation. There were no explanations from anybody. Not a public word about the scandalous behaviour itself. Of course lawsuits will probably cost the diocese millions of dollars in years to come. As for the laity who brought this story forward, no one has said thank you to them.

San Francisco 

Let us mention one more case that came to a head in January 2001. Before that date, when the San Francisco diocese was still under another archbishop, Father John Conley reported that a fellow priest, James Aylward, was engaged in homosexual activity with a minor. Father Conley, a late vocation, was formerly a federal prosecutor. What was the response? The archdiocese forbade him to exercise his priestly activities, cut his monthly stipend, and removed his name from the National Catholic Directory.

In January 2001, the California Appeals Court ordered the diocese to pay $700,000 to the boy whom Father Aylward abused in his homosexual tryst, as reported by Father Conley. The diocese discovered that Father Aylward had been acting in this way for twelve years. The Court not only ordered the diocese to pay this sum but, in addition, gave Father Conley leeway to sue the diocese for defamation. What he had done, the Court ruled, was not only right but was demanded by law.

Thus another case of trying to kill the messenger had backfired. And where is the former archbishop today? He is writing tracts about the papacy and how it should be reformed.

Sad to say, others are not prepared to act. One priest we know refuses to write his bishop about the evils he sees because, he says, the bishops know what is going on and they alone have the power to act. Another person, a layman and professor, had to listen to his pastor deny the teaching of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae vitae. He, too, says that the bishops know what is going on and they are the only ones who can do anything about it. A third person, a priest who did speak out, has been removed from two dioceses because he complained to the bishops there.

It's risky to be a messenger. But when all is said and done, truth will conquer. So do write, do stand up, and, if necessary, do get organized. But be certain of your facts and make sure you get sound advice.

Leonard Kennedy, PH.D., C.S.B., is a priest of the congregation of St. Basil, and a retired professor of philosophy.