The Catholic Church’s Ongoing Scandal
July 17th, 2007 by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist
In the interests of full disclosure, I inherited some fairly heavy baggage when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church.
My father attended a parochial school for 12 years and dutifully returned the favor as an altar boy when he was younger and as a star football player when he was older. But when it came time to get hitched, he had the temerity to want to marry a woman whose father was a Jew in a church ceremony and the local diocese said “No way, Jose.”
So my parents were married in an assistant parish priest’s office on a weekday afternoon to the unwelcome accompaniment of a Hopalong Cassidy record being played at full volume in the adjoining office of an elderly priest who was nearly deaf.
Although my siblings and I were given a religious upbringing and required to attend church and Sunday school, my father would have rather walked on hot coals than exposed us to the Catholic Church, which when we were old enough to understand he would refer to as “that enormous guilt machine.”
And so I come to the ongoing pedophile priest scandal with enormous sympathy for the victims and none whatsoever for the church.
Note that I say ongoing because there is little indication that the church has learned anything from the scandal other than to mouth insincere platitudes at press conferences and hire the best lawyers that their parishioners’ collection plate offerings can buy to push back against the many thousands of young innocents who have been fondled, fellated and sodomized with the knowledge — which is to say tacit approval — of an imperious church hierarchy all the way up to the Vatican.
This sordid attitude has been on full display in Los Angeles, the largest Catholic archdiocese in the U.S.
Cardinal Roger Mahony certainly seemed to be contrite in making the obligatory apologies in announcing a $660 million settlement for more than 500 victims of sexual abuse by his clergymen, but it is the back story that tells the true tale.
Mahony caved in to the plaintiffs’ lawyers after four years of fighting back against the victims, thereby prolonging their guilt and their suffering, and only then because he would have to soil his cardinal’s robes by having to testify at trial.
The settlement, under which each victim will received about $1.3 million for treatment and therapy, seems appropriate. But it carries with it a another price: A guarantee of silence from the victims and a bar against the archdiocese having to hand over incriminating documents, let alone cleaning its Augean stables.
Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez nailed it:
“Was anyone surprised?
“If so, God help you.
“All along, the Los Angeles Archdiocese — which was once compared to La Cosa Nostra by the head of a Catholic review board — had one primary objective.
“The truth? Not a chance.
“Justice? Forget about it.
“The top priority?
“Keep Mahony off the stand.
“Under oath, he would have been forced to explain exactly what he knew about the scandal and what he did, or didn’t do, in response.
“Apparently, that’s not something the cardinal wants anyone ever to know.
“Kind of scary, isn’t it?”
Meanwhile, it’s obvious from the Vatican’s response to the settlement that it still doesn’t get it: A spokesman harrumphed that sexual abuse of children is not just a Catholic Church problem and other faiths should take steps to acknowledge and deal with such “wickedness” within their own ranks.
The Catholic Church in America does many fine things. I refer specifically to its network of inner city schools, in many places the only opportunity for children of color to get a decent education.
The church has paid out over $2 billion for its pedophile sins so far with more payments to come. It has made some efforts to weed out or get help for its troubled priests.
But just think of what that $2 billion could be used for had it not encouraged a culture of depravity and then covered up it up.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007 at 7:56 am and is filed under Vatican, Scandals, Roman Catholics. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Shaun, I”m inclined to agree with what you have to say in this post but I have one, small quibble that I think is important because I think you’re making the same mistake that the American hierarchy is: your confusing the hierarchy with the Church.
The Church isn’t just the hierarchy. The Church includes the laity. It’s especially the laity. I think it’s beginning to be arguable that the American hierarchy has abandoned the Church.
An immediate response on the part of the bishops to protect the Church would have been understandable and correct. That’s not what they’ve done. They’ve moved to protect the hierarchy at the Church’s expense.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Hi Dave:
Thank you for making an important point.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Not only is the church the laity, it’s the laity’s money that is being used to settle these cases. Do you think, had they known this was going on, they would have let it happen? Absolutely not. Problem is that the church hierarchy is hit in civil court because lawyers can make money there (40% of the settlement) instead of having these cases determined in criminal court where they belong. But that is the culture we live it, it’s not about punishment and future deterrence, it’s about the defense attorneys being able to buy yachts and vacation homes.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Wally:
It will be a cold day in Hell when I defend lawyers, but this is an instance when blaming the plaintiffs’ attorneys for this mess is misplaced.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Yep. That’s the real last laugh behind those “clink” ads on teevee (showing a “victim” clinking glasses of champagne with bikini-clad Baby aboard their new yacht). It’s not the victim that does the clinking and living well so much as the lawyers.
That is especially true with the class-action scam.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:53 am
That si going to be problematic for the church going forward, I think.
I look at my in-laws, who are devote Catholics, volunteer their time at their parish, and donate about $25K a year.
Just this Sunday they were talking about a parishioner that they were sponsoring to go to Santiago for a year, and the subject of the settlement came up.
They shocked me by then saying that they were considering stopping their donations to the church in general because they didn’t want to fund such activities in the future.
They were careful to note that the victims deserved their settlements, but the anger they have towards the hierarchy, both for hiding and condoning these activities when they occurred, and for the CYA happening now, has shaken their faith in the Church (but not their religious beliefs themselves).
There has to be a lot more people out there feeling the same way.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:55 am
DLS and wally - This isn’t about a judge and his pants, it’s about the churches criminal cover up of criminal priests. I doubt if bishops and such will pay an economic price for their cover ups. Another good one is the selling of annulments by the church.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Shaun, I don’t think that wally is blaming the cases themselves on the plaintiffs lawyers, as much as the way they are handled. As sick as it might be a victim of child molestation by a priest will probably find much better lawyers by being willing to make a civil case than a criminal one, since the lawyer stands to make more money that way. The point is that criminal cases with priests and some bishops actually doing time in prison might serve as a better deterrent, but lawyers ambitions and greed could be getting in the way. I don’t know if it’s true, but if it is, it just adds another layer of disgust to the matter.
The existence of the cases are the individual priests and any knowing superior’s fault. The victims are blameless, obviously, and the lawyers are being what they usually are, bloodthirsty sharks.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Lynx:
Amen.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Just how much money should the lawyers receive for the rather easygoing task of tackling the open-booked Los Angeles archdiocese.
Separate the two causes, and don’t blame the lawyers for the plantiffs for the fact that the archdiocese was willing to spend a fortune to defend themselves.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Piggy-backing on some of what has been said above, the outcome that I wish that the courts would implement is to force trusteeship on the offending dioceses. I won’t go into the details of the social, historical, and organizational steps that brought the Catholic Church in America to the point at which it is now but a good bit of it is due to the total control that the ordained clergy has on parish and diocesan matters.
Separating financial and administrative responsibilities from truly priestly ones would be socially, psychologically, and doctrinally sound and would promote more non-clerical oversight. Rome would never buy it, of course, which is why I think that American Catholics could use a little help from the courts.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“But just think of what that $2 billion could be used for had it not encouraged a culture of depravity and then covered up it up.”
Why, the Pope could have bought himself ANOTHER summer palace in addition to the vatican. That fact you have $2 Billion to give on these trials in the first place shows a serious break with the teachings of Jesus.
“‘No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.*” - Jesus
July 17th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
How in the world did this come to be about greedy lawyers? If I may swear a bit here, Jesus Christ! Priests were raping children. I doubt any of the victims or their families are blaming the lawyers.
Now I happen to know lawyers who worked on behalf of victims here. They did so on contingency, because the church had huge bucks and the victims had none. When a rich defendant is up against a poor plaintiff (or vice versa), they use procedures to increase the costs in an attempt to exhaust their opponents’ resources. The lawyers for these child rape victims put their law firm’s resources on the line (if they lose, they pay). Had they not taken the case, the church would have buried this case easily with a superior legal war chest.
Let me also point out that the law firms in question are not hurting for business and need not take the risk on contingencies. They have big corporate clients who will always pay, no risk. So please. Put your hatred of lawyers aside for once and see that they stepped up to the plate and WON this case for the victims, who could not have afforded to win it themselves.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
But why are these being settled in civil courts instead of criminal ones Green? I also don’t feel like reflexively pointing the fingers at greedy attorneys but lets face it these guys are buying their accusers testimony so they don’t have to face jail time, and the civil attorneys are also making a rather time sum participating in that. We should not be discussing settlements, we should be discussing plea bargains.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Sam, there are big problems putting rape victims on the stand in a criminal case, and victims don’t make the choice to prosecute criminally, anyway. The DA does.
And to DLS comment about class action suits, the same applies. An individual, unless extremely wealthy has no chance to fight in court against a big corporation. Class action suits aggregate claims in a way that saves time for the court, the plaintiffs and the defense, and allows lawyers to take cases on contingency (they couldn’t afford to risk their time and resources for each individual case).
And just like the church case, if the government does not vigorously prosecute, civil suit is the only recourse we citizens have for seeking justice.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:53 am
Greeen Dreams: As far as comment 13, first off a gentle reminder:
(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service
Now, Did priests do horrible things to children? Absolutely. Is this in any greater proportion than the population at large, probably not.
You obvously have serious issues with the Catholic church and think very high for the lawyers who act out of the wonderful kindness of there heart. If so, why didn’t they do this work pro bono or accept some sort of flat feee? Reason: it was an investment, take the case at cost expecting the big score later. It’s risk vs. reward just like any other business decision. If cost of taking the case is less than the probability of winning times the expected payout: take the case. Now if these wonderful warm and fuzzy lawyers are so great, let’s see them go after pennyless deadbeats who do the same things to children… oh wait no money there so these victims will get nothing under our wonderful legal system
July 18th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Wally - first, what is with the current trend of people trying to throw around the comment policy for simple strong wording about an issue, that does not attack someone or is not ‘profane’?
A mild expletive should hardly count, nor a correct characterization of the facts, that priests were raping children.
As to having a ‘problem’ with the Church, as I said earlier, I am seeing long-time, devout Catholics struggling badly with this issue. They certainly have no issues being Catholic, or with the Church in general, but DO have very real issues with this conduct.
Finally, I hate lawyers as a whole with the best of them, but the primary point of the failure of the criminal justice system to be able to deal with this issue, combined with the hierarchy’s complete unwillingness to address the issue initially, and indeed their desire to continue the cover-ups, really left no viable alternate to bring justice to the victims.
IMHO.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:35 am
AustinRoth, I’ve been thinking about what you said about your in-laws. It seems to me that a compromise would be to donate only to catholic charities that specify where the money is going; the poor, orphans, the sick etc. Since they can’t trust that their money given simply “to the church” won’t be used for defending pedophiles then simply give money to specific causes. They could still be involved in charity, even Catholic charity, without the risk of possibly contributing to the defence of a monster.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Austin said: … the primary point of the failure of the criminal justice system to be able to deal with this issue, combined with the hierarchy’s complete unwillingness to address the issue initially, and indeed their desire to continue the cover-ups, really left no viable alternate to bring justice to the victims.
So because we have inadequate criminal justice laws, people’s hard-earned donations to the church, who would have never condoned this action, have to go to pay for these suits? Also, if the goal is “justice” and to right a wrong, why don’t the victims and the lawyers donate what they feel is extra from the suits to either charity or others who need help from these types of actions but won’t recieve a penny because the their molesters won’t/can’t pay? Why not: our sue to riches American culture.
My point in all of this is while everyone is happily slamming the church (ususally cause they have issues with it and this is their big oppurntunity to point fingers back) no one is pointing out some of the other things going on, mainly those profitting from the situation at the expense of the innocent (church donor’s $) or the missed oppurntunity to do what is truly right (give the profits from the suit away to help others)
July 18th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Lynx - those are the directions they are thinking. They are certainly not abandoning their local parish, no charitable works. They are just trying to find ways to make sure their money is going more directly to the needy and those who are doing good works.
Wally - lawyer kill you sister or something? Yu accused someone of having problems with the Church, but you seem to have some real issues with civil litigation.
As reprehensible as it may seem for those huge payments and contingency checks now lining others pockets, what alternative, given the reality, do you support?
That the Church’s apology was sufficient? That they could now be trusted to police themselves? That the victims should have just ‘got on with their lives’?
The reality is that it IS the Church’s fault. This was not just one or two rogue priests; there were many, it was known for decades, the Church actively protected and sent them on to new parishes only when forced to, and without warning the new parish.
You don’t have to have ‘problems’ with the Catholic Church to have problems with those actions.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
austin- Civil Litigation serves an important purpose in our Judicial system BUT when it is used as a method to get-rich-quick, I DO have a problem with it. Can you honestly say that none of that is going on here?
You said: As reprehensible as it may seem for those huge payments and contingency checks now lining others pockets, what alternative, given the reality, do you support?
That the Church’s apology was sufficient? That they could now be trusted to police themselves? That the victims should have just ‘got on with their lives’?
Answer: Work to change the criminal statutes so that criminal proceedings can be brought against those who perform these acts and those that knowingly harbor them. I agree that the church shouldn’t be trusted to police themselves, so we should enact laws accordingly. I would bet the fear of going to jail is much greater than the fear of a lawsuit, especially when it’s money that others have donated.
In summary, my point of all of this is to look beyond the obvious and call out some of the other problems I have with this situation that have had little to no mention by anyone. What happened was to the children was awful, but that should not be a screen to hide a money grab and I feel someone must note the missed oppurntunties to truly help this problem in the future.