The Awful Truth: Reflections on the Situation in Chile.

By Jennifer Haselberger
Canonical Consultation
April 1, 2015

http://canonicalconsultation.com/blog.html

There is a field of study in mathematics known as chaos theory. Students of 'chaotic' environments, which include natural systems such as weather and climate, note that even deterministic systems can produce unpredictable outcomes as a result of small differences in initial conditions. As a result, chaotic systems might appear predictable for a period of time, but then give way to uncertainty. Where meaningful predictions cannot be made, the system appears to be either random or 'chaotic'.

Chaos theory might offer a helpful lens with which to consider the episcopal appointment of Bishop Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid, recently installed in a scene of utter chaos as the new bishop of Osorno, Chile (see the video above, in which protesters carrying black banners and balloons attempted to disrupt the liturgy and prevent the Bishop-elect from entering the Cathedral). Ordained an auxiliary bishop for the diocese of Valparaiso, Chile in 1995 (when he was just 38 years old), Bishop Barros had received new appointments in 2000 and 2004 without any apparent controversy. Not so, however, for the January 2015 decision, issued under Pope Francis, to appoint him as Bishop of Osorno.

Bishop Barros has not been accused of committing sexual abuse. Nor has he been accused of failing in his episcopal duties. Instead, the outcry over his appointment stems from accusations, which I have no reason to doubt, that he was complicit in abuse committed by another priest, Father Fernando Karadima. Some of the victims of Karadima, led by a fifty-one year old man named Juan Carlos Cruz, have made the following accusations against Barros, as reported in The New York Times.

Mr. Cruz and three other young men who were devoted followers of Father Karadima, and members of a Catholic youth movement he oversaw, accused him of sexually abusing them over two decades, starting when they were teenagers [other news reports indicate that the young men were between 14 and 17, so at least one was a minor given that the canonical age of majority at that time was 16]. Criminal charges were filed against the priest alleging abuse during the years 1980 to 1995, but a Chilean judge dismissed them in 2011, saying the statute of limitations had expired.

In a February letter to Archbishop Ivo Scapolo, the papal nuncio to Chile, Mr. Cruz accused Bishop Barros of covering up Father Karadima’s abuses, threatening seminarians if they spoke out about them and, while serving as secretary to Cardinal Juan Francisco Fresno, destroying letters addressed to him reporting the abuses.

“When we were in Karadima’s bedroom, Juan Barros saw how he touched us and made us kiss him,” said Mr. Cruz, referring to himself and other young victims. “He witnessed all of that countless times. And he has covered it all up.”

Other reports indicate that the victims allege that Karadima also fondled Barros in their presence, and Cruz states he saw Karadima and Juan Barros kissing and touching each other.

Those who oppose Barros's appointment do not do so because of any alleged sexual contact between the bishop (then a seminarian) and Karadima. Instead, the complaint against Barros is that he was present when the victims were being kissed and touched by Karadima and did not take action to prevent it. It is also alleged that Barros covered up the abuse by Karadima by threatening other seminarians and destroying letters of complaint. Barros has denied all of the allegations, stating in a letter to priests 'I never had knowledge of, or could have imagined, the serious abuses that this priest committed against the victims'.

Last week, at least two members of the 17-person Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors expressed their displeasure at Barros's appointment. Marie Collins, who is herself a survivor of abuse, was quoted in the National Catholic Reporter as having called for Barros's removal.

"As a survivor, I'm very surprised at the appointment in Chile because it seems to go against ... what the Holy Father has been saying about not wanting anyone in positions of trust in the church who don't have an absolutely 100 percent record of child protection," said Collins, an Irishwoman..."[Barros] is not accused of abuse himself in anyway," she continued. "He may have been aware of it and did nothing. And that's enough."

It is easy for me to understand why the people of the diocese of Orsorno, and the victims of Father Karadima, are outraged over this appointment. The allegations that Barros was complicit in the abuse committed by Father Karadima have been public since at least 2010, when an investigation into the abuse was broadcast on television. In addition, Cruz has published a bestselling memoir. At the same time, I am not surprised that the Holy Father went ahead with the appointment, nor that, as Chilean Archbishop Fernando Chomali Garib of Concepcion has reported, Pope Francis 'had analyzed all the past records' and still concluded 'that there was no objective reason at all' that Bishop Barros 'should not be installed as the diocesan bishop'. This assessment was reaffirmed in yesterday's statement by the Holy See's Press Office.

Perhaps I have become overly cynical, but what I found most surprising in all of this is Marie Collins's statement that, acknowledging that this is not a question of accountability for a bishop since Barros was not a member of the episcopacy during the time of his complicity, the Barros appointment is contrary to the Holy Father's statements on child protection, which she paraphrased as Francis stating that he did not want 'anyone in positions of trust in the church who don't have an absolutely 100 percent record of child protection'. For Collins, Barros's unsuitability for the appointment is based on the fact that 'he may have been aware of it [Karadima's abuse] and did nothing. And that's enough.'

To say that someone who has been complicit in the sexual abuse of minors is unsuitable for episcopal appointment would seem like a reasonable proposition to many, and I can't disagree that such a litmus test is highly desirable. Men promoted to the episcopacy and entrusted with the care of a diocese should not have these types of skeletons in their closets. But, at a certain point (and this is my cynicism emerging again) it becomes a numbers game. Barros was already a bishop and had been for some time when the scandal currently engulfing him emerged, and the reality that the Holy Father and the Congregation for Bishops is facing is that they can't possibly remove all of the current bishops with a less than perfect record on child protection. The Chilean victims, for instance, are not just accusing Barros of complicity, but three other bishops as well- including Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ossa, emeritus Archbishop of Santiago and a member of Pope Francis's Council of Cardinal Advisers. The Cardinal was forced to publicly apologize to victims of Karadima in 2011, after previously discounting their allegations.

Not convinced? Then let's look, just for a moment, at the situation here in Minnesota. How many of the current bishops of our five dioceses would be able to withstand the litmus test of 'an absolutely 100% record on child protection'? Obviously Nienstedt, like Bishop Finn in Kansas City-St Joseph, would be out. But what of the others? The current bishop of Duluth, the Most Reverend Paul Sirba, would certainly not pass because of his involvement with Curtis Wehmeyer in 2009, when Sirba was Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Having learned that Wehmeyer had taken minor boys on a camping trip without a second adult chaperone, Sirba telephoned the mother and encouraged her to help Father Wehmeyer follow safe environment guidelines. He did not tell her that Wehmeyer had a history of sexual misconduct and had previously had problematic encounters with young men. Wehmeyer is currently in prison for abusing two of her sons in 2010.

Bishop Piche and Bishop Cozzens are both severely tainted by the scandal involving this Archdiocese and Archbishop Nienstedt, and share the responsibility for allowing priests to exercise ministry after they were known to have sexually abused minors. In addition, Bishop Cozzens was appointed to investigate the accusations against Father Michael Keating on behalf of the Companions of Christ during the initial review of accusations that Keating had sexually abused a minor girl. Those reviews did not result in any tangible restrictions on Keating's ministry, although he did leave the Companions, and Bishop Cozzens would later serve along with Keating as a speaker for the Archdiocese's 'Rediscover' initiative. Bishop Cozzens would also likely draw the ire of many for his support of Father Christopher Wenthe during his trial and sentence at the Ramsey County Workhouse.

Bishop Piche, whose record in safe environment during my time at the Chancery in Saint Paul was abysmal, was Wehmeyer's pastor at the Church of Saint Joseph when the allegations involving the bookstore arose, as well as other accusations involving boys in the parish school which have not yet been made public. That information should have been beneficial when Piche was the Vicar General and Archbishop Nienstedt was considering appointing Wehmeyer pastor of Blessed Sacrament. Nonetheless, Piche did nothing to oppose the appointment nor did he share his knowledge with the parishioners or staff of the parish.

Bishop John LeVoir of New Ulm, also a priest of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, has been criticized for not disclosing and then only partially disclosing his diocese's list of known abusers. Bishop Kettler of St. Cloud received high marks for his handling of the Fairbanks bankruptcy in 2008, but his years of formation at Saint John's in Collegeville and the Diocese of Fairbanks's dependence on extern priests increases the likelihood that those looking for grounds of complaint against him could find them. And, like Barros, Kettler has been steadfast in his support of a charismatic and well-regarded priest who has been accused of abuse- Bishop Paul Dudley. Similarly, Bishop Michael Hoeppner, now Bishop of Crookston, has drawn criticism for his handling of abuse cases while Vicar General for the Diocese of Winona.

And then there are the former auxiliaries of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis who participated at some level in the decision-making regarding abuse cases that has been proven to have been so exceedingly flawed. At least three of these are currently leading dioceses elsewhere in the United States. The most well-known of these is Saint Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson, who testified under oath in May of 2014 that he would have handled cases of sexual abuse of minors differently when he served in the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis had he known then what he knows now about the illegality of crimes against minors and the nature of pedophilia.

Obviously, there are differences in severity among the complaints made against these bishops, but in almost every case there are victims who claim that, as is being said about the situation in Chile, their appointments (or continuation in office) means that the 'voice of the survivors is being ignored, the concerns of the people and many clergy...are being ignored and the safety of children...[of the] diocese is being left in the hands of a bishop about whom there are grave concerns for his commitment to child protection'. And certainly few, if any, would be found by reasonable people to have 'an absolutely 100 percent record of child protection', and in some cases it can be argued, convincingly, that they 'may have been aware of it [sexual abuse of minors] and did nothing.' For Collins and her fellow commission members, that is enough to force their removal.

Yet, if all these bishops are removed, what then? Who would replace them in their positions of trust in the Catholic Church? Sadly, the pool of potential episcopal candidates is riddled with priests who are exposed to similar complaints as those made against Barros. Curial files are filled with accusations of sexual abuse of minors said to have occurred at seminaries or parishes where other priests and seminarians were present and may have been aware or should have been aware of the abuse. In the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, one of the catalysts for this was the opening of a swimming pool/sauna facility on the campus of the University of Saint Thomas to which priests and seminarians were given access. Several accusations of abuse have arisen from trips to that pool/sauna taken by priests with altar servers and other young male parishioners in tow. Likewise many acts of sexual abuse are known to have been perpetrated by pastors and even associates in parish rectories while the abusers were allegedly under the watchful eye of another priest.

These acts of abuse did not take place in a vacuum, and many priests, seminarians, and lay faithful will admit that they saw things that they found 'strange' or 'odd' or even that they identified as abusive. Some of these priests and laity attempted to bring their concerns to the attention of the Chancery, with little success, while others did not. In hindsight, many would feel that their efforts were insufficient and tantamount to doing nothing.

And then there are those who have been involved in diocesan administration. It is the rare bird indeed- clergy or lay- that has occupied a senior Chancery position without learning of abuse or potential abuse to which they did not respond correctly, and the number of those guilty of even serious offenses in this regard expands exponentially when one considers those who served prior to 2002.

But, these aren't merely historical issues. When people speak of a '100% record' I think of a situation of which I was a part in 2005 and 2006, and which led to the ex officio dismissal of a priest for crimes involving sexual abuse of a minor. This priest was removed from ministry in 2005 as a result of charges to which he had previously pleaded guilty in civil court, and at the time of his removal he was a 'person of interest' to the FBI because of an ongoing investigation into his more recent conduct. So, the priest was sent to Saint Luke's Institute for an evaluation and whatever therapy program was recommended, following which- providing no additional charges were filed- the diocese intended to provide him with vocational training to assist him in his transition from the clerical state.

The evaluation indicated that the priest was a fairly high risk for reoffending, and Saint Luke's recommended an extended period of inpatient therapy. However the priest, who already objected to his removal, similarly objected to receiving treatment and so checked himself out of Saint Luke's and seemingly disappeared. His bishop was extremely concerned about this, both because of the liability attached to this high-risk priest and because the priest had indicated that he did not intend to follow any restrictions or even adhere to the terms of his dismissal. So, in the fall of 2005 the bishop flew to Rome and met with Monsignor Scicluna- then Promotor of Justice for the Doctrine of the Faith- and personally delivered the dossier against the priest and communicated his concern about his inability to locate him or otherwise protect the faithful from further abuse.

But the bishop did not travel to Rome alone. He was accompanied by another priest of the diocese whom the bishop was preparing for a role in diocesan administration. Unbeknownst to the bishop, even as he was communicating to the Holy Father that the whereabouts of the first priest were unknown, his traveling companion knew exactly where that priest was, because he and two other priests had helped facilitate the first priest's disappearance by allowing him to secretly live in their jointly-owned cabin in another diocese, in another state.

This was 2005, three years after the implementation of the Charter, and so one might legitimately expect that when the second priest's complicity was discovered that the punishment was swift and severe. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, he was named a Monsignor in 2007, currently serves as Vicar General of the diocese, and in 2014 released the diocese's list of credibly accused clergy without including the name of the priest who was dismissed in 2006- despite the fact, as I have already mentioned, that the priest pleaded guilty in civil court prior to the 1991 adoption of Minnesota's Predatory Offender Registration requirement.

As this story should demonstrate, we are far, far from a situation where there is no one in a position of trust in the church who doesn't have 'an absolutely 100 percent record of child protection', and the Barros appointment, amongst others, suggests that we aren't even moving in that direction. Instead, I think what is taking place is the creation- explicitly or implicitly- of some sort of guidelines or 'hierarchy of offenses' that can be applied when making important appointments. Perhaps there has even been progress towards the development of a sliding scale of sins or omissions regarding child protection, with punishments ranging from an absolute ineligibility for appointments, to a temporary period of ineligibility, or a even just a limitation on which positions to which the cleric might be appointed.

If this is true, then I think it extremely likely, as the Barros appointment suggests, that questions of agency and the time period in which the actions took place are being given greater importance than, say, the public outcry that the appointment might generate. In terms of agency, I suspect that those evaluating these appointments are looking at the ability of the individual seminarian, priest, or bishop to act in the particular moment, and that they are concluding that seminarians (such as Barros), junior priests, and even minor Chancery officials (also Barros) lacked the ability or had an extremely limited ability to act in a way that would have prevented the abuse or result in justice for the victim. Senior priests, bishops, and those with greater governance responsibility would naturally be held to a higher standard.

Similarly, I suspect that as concerns are raised, the time period in which the actions occurred or failed to occur becomes significant. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone to learn that prior to 2001 there was a general unwillingness to take action, and especially to impose penalties, on clergy who committed acts of sexual abuse of minors, or that Chancery officials and bishops often discounted the reports of victims and their families. This is regrettable and reprehensible, but I suspect that allegations of mishandling of abuse are considered much more serious in Rome when that mishandling occurred after the establishment of the 2001 procedures of the Congregation for the Faith. Remember, even deterministic systems can produce unpredictable outcomes as a result of small differences in initial conditions.

Hence I suspect the lack of an 'objective reason' - not subjective one- for not appointing Bishop Barros as Bishop of Osorno. I suspect the argument is that his omissions occurred many years ago, and his position at the time was such that whatever knowledge he had or did not have, his actions would have been unlikely to have significantly influenced the outcome of events. Is this satisfactory? Of course not. Is it ideal? Not in the least. Do I support this type of assessment? No, and I have proposed alternatives. But, and this is the awful truth- this is the situation in which the Church finds itself. It is simply unable to impose, as anything more than a romantic ideal, the requirement that only those with an absolutely 100 percent record of child protection can hold positions of trust in the Church.

It should not come as a surprise to Marie Collins or others on the Pontifical Commission that this is the case. It is obvious to anyone paying attention to these issues that many of those currently in the episcopacy or other important leadership positions are far from meeting the 100% test, and that fact is extremely unlikely to change anytime in the near future. If this is unacceptable to Marie Collins, both she and other like-minded members of the Pontifical Commission may want to hand in their resignations now.