Vatican
must confront sex abuse
By Christian Cary St. Lous Post-Dispatch May
21, 2014 http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/vatican-must-confront-sex-abuse/article_25bf8f9c-b623-5c66-8509-773cdfaa82ae.html
|
Pope Francis speaks during a
meeting with the media at the Pope VI hall, at the Vatican,
Saturday, March 16, 2013. Pope Francis offered intimate
insights Saturday into the moments after his papal election,
telling an audience with the press that he was immediately
inspired to take the name of St. Francis of Assisi because of
his work for peace and the poor, and was embraced by another
cardinal amid applause inside the conclave. (AP Photo/Michael
Sohn) |
WASHINGTON • A United Nations committee
is set to publish its verdict Friday on the child abuse scandal
in the Catholic Church. It's hard to tell what the result is
going be. But it's entirely possible that the committee will
rule that the Vatican is guilty of violating international laws
on torture for allowing Catholic priests to commit acts of
pedophilia (and by covering up their crimes).
If the U.N. Committee Against Torture rules against the
Holy See, church leaders will have only themselves to blame.
Both the recently canonized John Paul II and his successor, Pope
Benedict XVI, could have chosen to tackle the abuse allegations
head-on. Instead they went to considerable effort to cover up
cases of abuse, in some cases moving suspect priests away from
their accusers to help them evade criminal responsibility.
The current pontiff, Francis I, has vowed to resolve the
scandal, appointing a commission to address past cases and
implement reforms that will prevent further abuses. But this new
body has been slow to get off the ground. Victims have
criticized the new pope for not acting more decisively. Last
month, Francis finally issued a public apology to those affected
by the abuse, including a personal plea for
forgiveness — a gesture that went quite a bit farther
than he'd previously been willing to.
The case currently under review by the U.N. torture panel
has the potential to send the scandal into a whole new realm. A
ruling against the Vatican could usher in a fresh wave of
lawsuits and legal challenges. The reason: according to
international law there is no statute of limitations on torture.
If members of the panel deem the Holy See to be guilty of
abetting torture, that could encourage the filing of allegations
dating back, well, forever. Lawyers pressing the claims of abuse
victims say that the Vatican, as a signatory to the Convention
Against Torture, should assume full legal responsibility for the
crimes committed by its priests.
Earlier this month, as part of the U.N. inquiry, the
Vatican revealed that it has defrocked 848 priests who raped or
molested children and punished another 2,572, as well as paying
out $2.5 billion in settlements to victims since the scandal
began. But this information comes late. The victims want greater
accountability from the church and clear reforms that will
prevent such things from happening again.
The whole story fills me with sadness —
profound sadness, above all, for the victims, many of whom will
go on living lives scarred by the traumas inflicted on them by
men who were supposed to be their guides in the search for
salvation.
But I also feel deep melancholy about the church itself.
Though I'm not a Catholic, my moonlighting work as a
historian has made me deeply aware of the ways in which the
church has been able to function as a unique force for
good — not only by preaching a gospel of love but
also by playing a positive role on the global stage.
Consider the case of John Paul II. Critics now place much
of the blame for the abuse cover-up at his feet. Many of the
crimes were committed during his 26-year-papacy. His first
instinct, when confronted with abuse allegations, was not to
help the victims but to protect the priests —
including, most appallingly, the monstrous Marcial Maciel
Degollado, a serial rapist who happened to occupy a powerful
position within the church. There can be no denying that John
Paul II bears personal responsibility for sustaining a
pernicious culture of impunity within the Vatican.
Yet there is another story of his leadership that
inspires. I wrote a book, "Strange Rebels: 1979 and the
Birth of the 21st Century," that looked, among other
things, at the remarkable story of John Paul's commitment to
the cause of human freedom around the world.
What we usually hear of this story is an abbreviated
version that goes something like this: John Paul II was from
Poland, and, like many Poles, he was a staunch anti-Communist.
Once he became pope in 1978 (the first non-Italian to hold the
office in 455 years), it was only natural that he would use the
leverage afforded by his position to make trouble for the
Russians. In this telling, his nationalism was a natural fit
with his innate conservatism.
This version of the story actually misses some important
nuances. First, John Paul II wasn't just a Pole; he was also
an enthusiastic European, deeply devoted to postwar values of
peace, social justice, and political and economic freedom.
Second, during his career as a Polish priest he lived through
Nazism as well as Stalinism. This biography left him with a
healthy skepticism toward the excesses of nationalism, a deep
contempt for dictatorship in all of its flavors, and a deep
respect for the primacy of the individual. Third, though John
Paul is often described as a "doctrinal conservative,"
it's a characterization that tends to elide his role in the
Second Vatican Council, when then-Pope John XXIII embarked on
far-reaching reform of the mission and institutions of the
church. (He died not long after the council began.)
It's this background that explains why the first major
treatise of John Paul II's papacy was Redemptor Hominis
("The Redeemer of Man"), a text that explicitly raised
the defense of human rights to a central place in the life of
the church. The Polish pope took this principle very seriously.
During his pilgrimages to his homeland he defied the communist
authorities precisely by emphasizing the inviolability of
individual rights, lending immense moral authority to those who
opposed a dehumanizing state. The traditions of Polish
resistance to despotism were often couched in a romantic embrace
of armed rebellion. In this respect, John Paul II's
patriotism was profoundly untraditional: he rigorously stressed
the need for non-violence.
His support for human rights wasn't restricted to
Poles, or even to anti-communists. He was outspoken in his
condemnation of South African apartheid. He encouraged church
leaders to assist the People Power Revolution in the Philippines
in 1986 (despite the fact that President Ferdinand Marcos was a
fervent convert to Catholicism). During John Paul's trip to
Chile the year after that he harshly criticized Augusto
Pinochet, the country's dictator, and called upon members of
the church to support a democratic opening there. The pope's
public upbraiding of Paraguayan President Alfredo Stroessner is
widely regarded to have contributed to the collapse of that
dictatorship as well. He was also the first world leader to use
the word "genocide" to describe what was happening in
Rwanda in 1994. This, in short, was the John Paul II who
didn't hesitate to scold the world's most powerful
people to their faces.
Indeed, it wouldn't be amiss to say that John Paul
II's 26-year papacy served as an important accelerant to the
late-20th-century phase of the human rights
revolution — and I believe that holds true even if
one disagrees with many of the church's other teachings.
Ironically, this also serves to illuminate the magnitude
of his failure, and that of his successors, when it comes to
confronting the human rights disaster that was happening inside
the church during that period. The world's repulsion over
the sex abuse scandal reflects the general expectation that
we — or at least many of us — would like
to see the church live up to the high ideals that it espouses.
I'm not sure if the United Nations Committee Against
Torture is the right place to address the church's failings.
But I also find myself wondering whether the church is really
well advised to resort to legalistic wrangling in its efforts to
defend itself.
Maybe it's time for Francis to consider another
course: steering the church back towards a role as the
institution that speaks with innate humility, charity and love,
and not from a position of power. We've been moved by the
spectacle of Francis washing the feet of prisoners and
comforting the disfigured. Maybe it's time for him to invite
the victims of clerical abuse to his home, where he can assure
them of his own willingness to do better. Maybe it's time
for the church to demonstrate its sincere will to become the
moral example the world needs.
|