WELLINGTON (NEW ZEALAND)
La Croix International [France]
December 6, 2024
By Dr. Christopher Longhurst
“By imposing a Litany of Lament recognizing sins of sex abuse on an unprepared audience, NZ bishops made all churchgoers complicit in the sex crimes of priests and their own coverups of those crimes”, the author of this column denounced.
The failure of New Zealand’s Catholic bishops to be “accountable or transparent to their congregations and the broader community about the nature and extent of abuse,” as reported by the nation’s Abuse in Care Inquiry (Whanaketia 7, 8:698), reached an unprecedented level recently.
Nationwide, at the end of Sunday Mass, November 17, the celebrant intoned: “We lament the crimes and sins of sexual, physical, emotional, and spiritual abuse perpetrated by clergy against children, young people, and vulnerable adults.” The people had to respond: “Be merciful, O Lord, for we have sinned.” Thus, by crafting a Litany of Lament and imposing it on an unprepared audience, the bishops made all churchgoers complicit in the sex crimes of priests and their own coverups of those crimes.
However, obliging churchgoers to repent for something they did not do has no theological, liturgical, ecclesiological, or ethical justification. Not even by conflation with the idea of collective sin are the innocent faithful responsible for the clergy’s sex crimes and the bishops’ coverups of those crimes.
The bishops’ Litany of Lament immediately received substantial criticism nationwide. One Mass-goer responded: “Sunday Mass is no longer a safe place when I am made guilty of the sins of pedophiles and church leaders who have not led.” Another asked: “Could somebody explain to me why my bishop asked me to say during Mass this morning, ‘Be merciful Lord for [I] have sinned,’ in relation to abuse perpetrated by other people?”
Other comments echoed resentment towards the Litany “foisted on us during Mass with no notice or explanation.” “I’m not guilty of any sin in relation to the sex abuse scandal….” protested one Mass-goer.
An ill-conceived church-focus
Forcing a church-focused Litany of Lament on the People of God not only fails to allow the needs of those who matter most—the survivors—to be met, but it also insults them and those directly affected by the abuse. Former New Zealand theology lecturer Cynthia Piper explained: “If you were abused or had a relative who was abused, and you had to say, ‘Be merciful, O Lord, for I have sinned,’ then you are putting the crime on them. You are re-abusing them. You have revictimized them.”
Implicating innocent people in crimes they did not commit is itself an act of abuse. At a minimum, leveraging feelings of guilt on innocent and powerless people is spiritual and emotional manipulation.
But in his attempt to discredit public criticism of the Litany, retired Bishop Peter Cullinane of Palmerston North said the lament was “an occasion for all of us.” However, not one survivor was invited to hear the people’s lament, and not one lamenter was made aware of what they were about to say beforehand.
One Mass-goer and a family member of several victims of clerical sexual abuse asked: “Why were victims and survivors not warned this [lament] was coming so they’d have the opportunity to attend Mass if they wished and feel the love and sincerity of the congregation? To commune with them after Mass and share what life is like for them after their abuse—How the church has treated them?”
But the bishops went to the trouble of publishing their Litany on the web, an act that manifests a narcissistic tendency toward pathological certainty, while the people who matter the most were ignored and, as Piper explained, revictimized.
In the wake of the Litany controversy, New Zealand Catholic priest Father Joe Grayland asked: “Is it reasonable to project representative guilt or accountability onto the general population with little knowledge of what went on, who have had no part in decision-making and those without agency?”
Collective sin
The New Zealand bishops’ ill-conceived attempt to use collective responsibility for personal sins recalls how German leaders responded to the atrocities their government committed during WWII. A generation born in Catholic Germany after WWII was constantly reminded of the crimes committed by Nazis. Germans were no longer allowed to be proud of their country or history. They were made to feel as if they had to carry the burden while those who committed the crimes escaped to Latin America.
German church leaders called this a collective sin. Now, New Zealand’s Catholic bishops have acted similarly by expecting innocent New Zealanders to carry the burden of their church leaders’ crimes.
But guilt is not calculated by association. Ezekiel taught, “The child will not share the guilt of the parent.” (18:20). The sins of priests and bishops are simply not the people’s sins. Given the people did not commit those crimes, they have no reason to say, “we have sinned.” As Grayland pointed out, innocent Catholics “are not complicit in the hierarchy’s failures of moral judgment.” Yet by this Litany the bishops co-opted all the faithful into sharing responsibility for their leaders’ crimes.
Transferal of responsibility
From a theological perspective, church leaders transferring personal responsibility onto innocent people for their own sins contradicts biblical teaching. When Jeremiah lamented, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (31:29), he meant that children suffer the consequences of their parents’ actions, but they are not to blame. Jeremiah taught: “But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge” (31:30).
The New Zealand bishops’ attempt to put sour grapes in their follower’s mouths as they themselves drink sweet wine, continuing to hide the truth about the extent of abuse and how they themselves are responding behind closed doors, makes them dangerous leaders and their church an unsafe place to worship.
But this was not the first time these church leaders sought to transfer blame. In September 2023, Bishop Stephen Lowe of Auckland blamed the whole church for abuse perpetrated by his priests. His predecessor Bishop Patrick Dunn blamed the victims’ parents. At the Royal Commission’s faith-based hearings in 2021, the Society of Mary’s congregational leader, Timothy Duckworth, blamed lawyers and psychiatrists.
Attempts to justify response don’t ring true
A spokesperson for the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference attempted to justify this transferral of responsibility by quoting an unnamed Catholic organization: “When faced with the abhorrent evils of sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults, where can we go? To whom can we turn? How do we respond? Lament offers our community an opportunity to turn to God in prayer, for only God can provide the needed hope that good triumphs over evil, that justice will prevail, and that the future church will be different.”
However, this response not only betrays a gross misunderstanding of the Lament, but it also evades the question it responded to, which was why the Lament was forced on the faithful during Mass.
Theologically, lamentation belongs on the streets in public to protest the injustice committed. This is especially true when the harm affects all members of society. It should never be performed during a Mass.
Further, no one must be forced into a public lament. It must be a free act of the will with the right disposition and accompanied by external signs of restoration for the harm done. It must call for a response. It must not be the response.
Special malice
Either the architects of this Litany lacked the basic knowledge and skills required to respond appropriately to abuse, or they were acting with special malice. Special malice is a scholastic term used to describe an act devoid of mitigating factors such as ignorance, mistake, or oversight.
The intent to make others feel guilty for something they did not do is an act of special malice. It is different from ordinary malice because it involves the bitterness and cruelty that constitute such an action as the deliberate transferral of personal responsibility for sex crimes against children onto innocent people. Special malice is outside the norms of morality and fully opposed to human dignity.
Since the New Zealand Catholic bishops have repeatedly demonstrated little understanding of how to respond adequately to sexual abuse by clergy, and since they have now insulted all the People of God and revictimized the survivors and their families, it is long past time that they reconsider their positions and step back to allow people with sufficient knowledge, skills, and experience to address this issue appropriately instead.
Dr Christopher Longhurst is a New Zealand-based Catholic theologian and lecturer at Te Kupenga Catholic Theological College. He was a core participant in the New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State and Faith-based Care.