U.S. Cardinals visit Rome.

The visit of the U.S. Cardinals with the Holy Father on April 23-24, 2002, was treated by the media as a courtroom drama with the judge pitted against the accused. Having raised expectations to a fever pitch, the outcome disappointed and angered many. The following article explains what the meeting was really about.

We begin with Cardinal Law's press release of April 12, followed by Bishop Gregory's statement in Rome on April 13. There follows an analysis of the expectations promoted by the media and the subsequent letdown when the true nature of the meeting was revealed. There follows the American Cardinals' statement of April 24, a search on the internet for some information, an estimate of the number of priests removed, and we conclude with the Pope's address of April 23.

A: Cardinal Law's observations

Boston--In an April 12, 2002, letter Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston summed up what he had learned from the homosexual sex-abuse exposure which has raged in the public media, especially in the Boston Globe, since December 2001.

* His first point was the lack or inadequacy of record-keeping in the diocesan personnel files. He called the case of Father Paul Shanley, today 71, particularly troubling. For over 30 years this Catholic priest had been involved in sex-abuse cases; he was even a founder of the "Boy-love-man-love-boy association," a homosexual group which justifies and promotes such "relationships." Yet little or no trace of these crimes was to be found in his personnel files. (Editor: One's guess is that most dioceses are in the same boat).

* The Cardinal's second point was that in the not too distant past bishops viewed sexual abuse of children almost exclusively as a moral failure only, which therefore only required spiritual and ascetical remedies for the perpetrator. During the last few decades, he said, "there has been a recognition that such cases reflect psychological and emotional pathologies and this in turn has inspired a reliance on medical professionals." (Editor: The cardinal said nothing about the fact that today this reliance is itself in question).

* The Cardinal's third point dwelt on the criminal dimension of sex-abuse cases. "In an effort to give a pastoral response," he wrote, "we have not taken into sufficient account the criminality involved in abuse." It is for these reasons that the Boston diocese has handed over "the names of all priests against whom a credible allegation has been made, going back 53 years." (Source: "The necessary dimensions of a sexual abuse policy," Origins, April 25/02.)

B: Bishop Gregory on clergy sexual abuse of minors

Rome--On April 13, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Wilton Gregory of Belleville, IL., concluded his regular semi-annual meeting with Vatican officials. This time there had been considerable discussion about the abuse of children and young people by American clergy, he told a press conference.

The Holy See, the Bishop stated, has indicated a strong desire to be of help and to support "our efforts to respond effectively to the concerns we share with our people." The Pope had expressed his personal desire to be of assistance.

The Bishop then added some other points:

* The USCCB aims at protecting children and eliminating abuse.

* It seeks the development of policies instituted earlier with respect to action against transgressing clergy.

* It recognizes that re-assigning priests involved in sex-abuse had led to further tragedies.

* It seeks new steps and policies on how to protect children. And how to deal with depravity will be discussed at the bishops' meeting in Dallas, TX, June 11-14.

* The bishops "will always have the deepest regret for those who were abused and must live with that pain all their lives."

(Source: "Matching policies with thorough vigilance," Origins, April 13/02). The April 13 meeting received Little publicity in North America, if any at all.

Two days later, on April 15, it was announced that a meeting of U.S. Cardinals and the president and vice-president of the USCCB with the Pope and Vatican cardinals would take place in Rome on April 23-24. From that moment on things went awry.

The media interpreted the event as a sort of tribunal before which American cardinals had to explain their failures. Take the headlines in the Toronto media as an example; I believe they applied throughout North America: "Vatican calls in top U.S. Clerics. Talks on sex scandal" (Toronto Sun, April 15); "Pope to convene sex abuse summit. Summons American cardinals to Vatican" (Toronto Star, April 16); "Pope calls meeting as abuse cases grow" (Nat. Post, April 16). Two days later, the Toronto Star of April 18 announced, "U.S. Cardinals face grilling by Vatican. Answers demanded in sex abuse scandals" (emphasis mine).

C: Non-decision-making gathering

In reality the meeting was not confrontational at all. As Cardinal Francis George explained on CNN's Sunday program with Wolf Blitzer on April 28, some four days after the meeting had closed, the Americans met with the Pope to discuss how the Vatican could facilitate the work of the American bishops in dealing with reprobate priests. It was a non-decision-making gathering.

Canon Law, for example, makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to dismiss a priest from the priesthood. Bishops can restrict the priest's ministry, but cannot dismiss him from the priesthood if he resists. Consequently, the Americans asked the Vatican to look into the question of involuntary laicization. They also suggested a renewed visitation of all seminaries, presumably one far more rigorous than the one held some ten years ago under a Bishop Marshall who travelled from seminary to seminary naively accepting the word of rectors and faculty that all was well without investigating whether this was so or not. He gave every seminary a clean bill of health when, in fact, some were rife with dissent in faculties and homosexuality among students.

Meanwhile, the general public expected the meeting to produce results. They should have known better: the physical weakness of the Pope alone ruled out such an outcome. Nevertheless, the media, especially the TV channels, kept it up: "Media frenzy trails cardinals to Rome," reported the Nat. Post on April 23. Stated NBC: "Pope blunt before U.S. Cardinals. Sexual abuse of children rightly considered a crime, he told them." "Cardinal's job at stake," stated the Toronto Globe & Mail of April 23, referring to Cardinal Law of Boston. "Pope trying to shield bishops from responsibility, critics say, "wrote the Globe & Mail, April 24." And so on.

All this make-believe laid the groundwork for a huge letdown. Had the Boston cardinal been fired? Not a mention of it. Had the cardinals resolved a hard and fast rule about zero tolerance? They seemed to disagree about it. Had they decided what to do about pedophiles? They seemed to distinguish between one-time offenders and serial offenders. Who, the public asked, is a serial offender and how many times could he offend before being kicked out? And what about the accountability of bishops themselves, bishops who keep tolerating abuse? Why, it hadn't even been discussed!

By week's close, media commentators across America concluded that the Pope's "summons" had been a dud and that nothing whatsoever had been achieved. The cardinals' distinction between notorious and non-notorious offenders was denounced widely. As noted, it wasn't until Sunday April 28, that Cardinal George of Chicago finally threw some light on the matter, declaring that all decisions were reserved for the upcoming June meeting in Dallas while the papal gathering of April 23-24 had been a non-decision-making consultation only.

That, of course, left everything in abeyance and left everyone in suspense as to whether or not the American hierarchy would actually be able to clean house. Many were not encouraged by what they had seen or heard.

D: Final statement of U.S. Cardinals

On April 24, at the close of the meeting, the American cardinals issued the following text. The meeting was called with three goals in mind:

* On the part of the American bishops, to inform the Holy See about the difficulties which they have faced in recent months.

* On the part of the Roman Dicasteries, to hear directly from the American cardinals and the chief officials of the USCCB a general evaluation of the situation.

* And together to develop ways to move forward in addressing these issues.

The cardinals continued:

The participants, first of all, wish to express their unanimous gratitude to the Holy Father for his clear indications of direction and commitment for the future. In communion with the Pope they reaffirm certain basic principles:

1) The sexual abuse of minors is rightly considered a crime by society and is an appalling sin in the eyes of God, above all when it is perpetrated by priests and religious whose vocation is to help persons to lead holy lives before God and men.

2) There is a need to convey to the victims and their families a profound sense of solidarity and to provide appropriate assistance in recovering faith and receiving pastoral care.

3) Even if the cases of true paedophilia on the part of priests and religious are few, all the participants recognized the gravity of the problem. In the meeting, the quantitative terms of the problem were discussed, since the statistics are not very clear in this regard. Attention was drawn to the fact that almost all the cases involved adolescents and therefore were not cases of true paedophilia.

4) Together with the fact that a link between celibacy and paedophilia cannot be scientifically maintained, the meeting reaffirmed the value of priestly celibacy as a gift of God to the Church.

5) Given the doctrinal issues underlying the deplorable behaviour in question, certain lines of response have been proposed:

a) The pastors of the Church need clearly to promote the correct moral teaching of the Church and publicly to reprimand individuals who spread dissent and groups which advance ambiguous approaches to pastoral care.

b) A new and serious Apostolic Visitation of seminaries and other institutes of formation must be made without delay, with particular emphasis on the need for fidelity to the Church's teaching, especially in the area of morality, and the need for a deeper study of the criteria of suitability of candidates to the priesthood.

c) It would be fitting for the Bishops of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to ask the faithful to join them in observing a national day of prayer and penance, in reparation for the offenses perpetrated and in prayer to God for the conversion of sinners and the reconciliation of victims....

After recalling some of the Pope's words to them (see below), the statement continued:

As part of the preparation for the June Meeting of the American Bishops, the United States participants in the Rome meeting presented to the Prefects of the Roman Congregations the following proposals:

1) We propose to send the respective Congregations of the Holy See a set of national standards which the Holy See will properly review (recognitio), in which essential elements for policies dealing with the sex abuse of minors in Dioceses and Religious Institutes in the United States are set forth.

2) We will propose that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops recommend a special process for the dismissal from the clerical state of a priest who has become notorious and is guilty of the serial, predatory, sexual abuse of minors.

3) While recognizing that the Code of Canon Law already contains a judicial process for the dismissal of priests guilty of sexually abusing minors, we will also propose a special process for cases which are not notorious but where the Diocesan Bishop considers the priest a threat to the protection of children and young people, in order to avoid grave scandal in the future and to safeguard the common good of the Church.

4) We will propose an Apostolic Visitation of seminaries and religious houses of formation, giving special attention to their admission requirements and the need for them to teach Catholic moral doctrine in its integrity.

5) We will propose that the Bishops of the United States make every effort to implement the challenge of the Holy Father that the present crisis "must lead to a holier priesthood, a holier episcopate, and a holier Church" by calling for deeper holiness in the Church in the United States, including ourselves as bishops, the clergy, the religious, and the faithful.

6) We propose that the Bishops of the United States set aside a day for prayer and penance throughout the Church in the United States, in order to implore reconciliation and the renewal of ecclesial life.

From the Vatican, April 24, 2002 (Zenit, April 25/02).

N.B. As noted above, the terms "notorious" and "not notorious" in paragraphs 2 and 3, created much unfavourable commentary on American television. Secondly, one report from Rome claimed that the cardinals had not used the term homosexuality out of fear of a backlash at home. By then it had become clear that the majority of the transgressions were not cases of pedophilia, but cases of homosexual sex abuse. A third point of annoyance to commentators was the silence about episcopal accountability.

E: An internet search revealed the following

1) There is no definition of pedarasty or paedophilia; these are clinical descriptions, not moral or legal terms.

2) The main concern of the 'net' was the defence of homosexuals, principally denying that they are more likely to sodomize children than they are.

3) The legal age of consent in Canada is 14 years (anyone under 14 is a "child.")

4) Homosexual activity with "children" is relatively low with active homosexuals. However, D. Hudson, editor of Crisis magazine, was reported by Zenit (April 12/02) as saying that "homosexuals are three times as likely to be pedophiles as heterosexual men are." Although exclusive paedophilia (adult attraction to prepubescent children) is an extreme and rare phenomenon, one third of homosexual men are attracted to teenage boys (Jenkins, Priests and Pedophilia).

The attraction to teenage boys of homosexual men is a well- documented phenomenon. This is directly connected to homosexual behaviour.

5) We must, therefore, refuse to be sidetracked by the low incidence of paedophilia--and also by the wrongly reported high incidence of "paedophilia" among priests. The use of the term "paedophilia" here is a misnomer. It is homosexual sodomy that is the problem.

F: Priests removed

The number of American priests charged with sex-abuse offences and removed from their posts is extremely difficult to discover. There is no national registry and, as Cardinal Bernard Law pointed out (see above), diocesan records are often badly kept, if at all.

The National Catholic Register of April 14, 2002, quoted a survey (its date was not given but apparently it was done in the fall of 2001), conducted by the St. Louis-Post-Dispatch. It states that at least 232 priests have been removed over the past 20 years according to a survey of 178 dioceses.

In late April, 2002, Associated Press reported that since the beginning of January 2002, 174 priests in 28 states have been removed from their ministry for predatory homosexual wrong-doing.

The total number of priests in the United States is around 46,000.

That number would be much larger if one goes back in time, 20, 30 or 40 years. Consequently, the percentage of priests involved appears to be lower than one percent; this, in turn, is less than the percentage of homosexuals in society in general, which is estimated to be between around two percent of the population today (the often-quoted 10 percent is a falsehood concocted in 1948 by Alfred Kinsey in his infamous report. Kinsey himself was a homosexual who based his data on his own environment, gay bars, etc.)

G: Address of John Paul II to the U.S. Cardinals

Dear Brothers,

Like you, I too have been deeply grieved by the fact that priests and religious, whose vocation is to help people live holy lives in the sight of God, have themselves caused such suffering and scandal to the young. Because of the great harm done by some priests and religious, the Church herself is viewed with distrust, and many are offended at the way in which the Church's leaders are perceived to have acted in this matter.

The abuse which has caused this crisis is by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society; it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God. To the victims and their families, wherever thy may be, I express my profound sense of solidarity and concern.

It is true that a generalized lack of knowledge of the nature and also at times the advice of clinical experts led bishops to make decisions which subsequent events showed to be wrong. You are now working to establish more reliable criteria to ensure that such mistakes are not repeated. At the same time, even while recognizing how indispensable these criteria are, we cannot forget the power of Christian conversion, that radical decision to turn away from sin and back to God, which reaches to the depths of a person's soul and can work extraordinary change.

Neither should we forget the immense spiritual, human and social good that the vast majority of priests and religious in the United States have done and are still doing. The Catholic Church in your country has always promoted human and Christian values with great vigour and generosity, in a way that has helped to consolidate all that is noble in the American people.

A great work of art may be blemished, but its beauty remains; and this is a truth which any intellectually honest critic will recognize.

The abuse of the young is a grave symptom of a crisis affecting not only the Church but society as a whole. It is a deep-seated crisis of sexual morality, even of human relationships, and its prime victims are the family and the young. In addressing the problem of abuse with clarity and determination, the Church will help society to understand and deal with the crisis in its midst.

It must be absolutely clear to the Catholic faithful, to the wider community, that bishops and superiors are concerned, above all else, with the spiritual good of souls. People need to know that there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young. They must know that bishops and priests are totally committed to the fullness of Catholic truth on matters of sexual morality, a truth as essential to the renewal of the priesthood and the episcopate as it is to the renewal of marriage and family life (emphasis ours).

The peace of the Risen Christ be with you!