Abuse of Power in the Church

The Tablet
March 26, 2015

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/editors-desk/1/5074/abuse-of-power-in-the-church

The stripping by Pope Francis of Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s rights and privileges of his office, coupled with an admission by his successor Archbishop Leo Cushley that his behaviour had made the Catholic Church in Scotland “less credible”, might not be enough, sadly, to bury this sorry affair and let healing begin. There were major allegations against O’Brien when he was Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh. The first was that he was a hypocrite when he outspokenly attacked the proposal for gay marriage. His exposure as a gay man who had made multiple unwanted sexual advances fatally undermined the Church’s message in what was already a tense debate. The reputational damage has been done; he has apologised and paid the penalty.

It is not so easy to lay to rest the allegation that he made some appointments in his archdiocese based on favouritism. That means the essential problem – abuse of power under the protection of the Church’s hierarchical structure – may still be present. But it is not confined to Scotland. There are several cases, most notoriously that of Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer of Vienna, where clergy knew of sexual irregularities in the past or present lives of senior church dignitaries, and did not know where to turn, or were not listened to. On a lesser scale, those who felt aggrieved by the behaviour of Bishop Kieran Conry, then of Arundel and Brighton, felt they had no obvious remedies except, eventually, to go to a national newspaper.

The victims of O’Brien’s sexual misconduct, mainly fellow clergy, suffered greatly. They felt trapped and powerless because of his seniority. It is still not clear how many there were – around 40 has been suggested – and though the new archbishop will need time to address all the issues, there is nothing in place so far that looks likely to give the victims justice. It is suggested that many of the 40 have not made formal allegations, though they are known to fellow victims. That indicates a lack of confidence in the Church’s procedures for dealing with such complaints.

When bishops are accused of erring in faith or morals, the matter is usually dealt with, in the first instance, by the nuncio, the local representative of the Pope. However, he may not understand the local culture; nuncios usually have a very small junior staff; their conduct is bureaucratic and secretive; they have a limited capacity to investigate. Yet allegations of sexual misconduct are always difficult to handle, and institutional pressures are strong.

In the case of O’Brien, the nuncio seems to have acted swiftly. But in 2009 the nunciature in Ireland was so savagely criticised for failing to cooperate with an official inquiry into child abuse by clergy that there was a serious breach between the Government and the Holy See which is even now not fully repaired. All of which suggests that the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, needs to take a long, hard look at how nuncios handle allegations of sexual abuse involving both children and vulnerable adults. Had there been a system in place in which clergy and laity had confidence, it is arguable that Cardinal O’Brien would have been stopped in his tracks long ago.