I M P R E S S I O N S

 

Profound Betrayal Demands Zero Tolerance

by David McGrath

As America’s Catholic bishops gather in Dallas June 13 to debate whether to institute a zero tolerance policy for priests who sexually abuse minors, they need to face a devastating truth. I am not referring to the odds that the offender will prey again; nor to the severity or duration of his offense; nor even to the measurable harm inflicted upon the victim. I am asking them to consider the egregious betrayal of a Catholic family’s unquestioning trust in a man of God.

Any member of the clergy or the legal profession who doesn’t see that as yet another compelling reason for immediate termination has only to speak with the parents of abuse victims — parents racked with guilt for having trusted too much. Like ‘marks’ who eagerly handed their money over to a con artist, some parents let themselves be tricked into sacrificing their children because of their blind devotion to the church.

One such case involved “William” (names and places have been changed at the subject’s request), who was sexually molested by a priest three decades ago. The abuse, which consisted mainly of fondling, went on for at least two years.

William said the priest had been a friend of his parents for as long as he could remember. He was a pastor at a parish near Dubuque, but he would often visit the family when he was in Chicago. His parents thought they were blest to have a priest as a special friend. They hadn’t gone to college, and they saw Father Mark as a repository of knowledge and culture and sophisticated humor. He gave them an illusion of privileged connection as he shared with them jokes about the bishops and cardinals and celebrities with whom he sometimes mingled.

Father Mark would write letters that his mother would study and reread, sending William downstairs for the dictionary to learn what Father meant when he said he was "edified" after his last trip to the Vatican. She and William’s father seldom failed to mention their "friend, Father Mark" in conversation.

Back then William hadn’t figured out what Father Mark derived from their family, though it seemed as if the priest acted as if he were his godfather. He was always sending him presents, writing him letters, teaching him things. William was proud of how Father had singled him out, and his brothers and friends were envious.

When Father Mark visited, William’s parents went all out, turning the house over to him. It was, his mother would say, like having Jesus himself visit. And when his mother and father slept on a cot and couch so that Father Mark could have the privacy of their bedroom, they were touched by the priest’s willingness to help with the family accommodations when he’d offer to let William sleep with him in the big bed.

Did William’s parents mean well? Was that reason for them to be suspicious? And why wouldn’t William tell his own mother about what the priest did behind the closed door?

In addition to this parental unconditional imprimatur of the priest, there was an even stronger force of authority. An 8-year-old, especially one enrolled in a Catholic elementary school 30 years ago, still straddles the threshold between fantasy and reality. Bible stories have him imagining demons wearing lascivious smiles perched on his left shoulder, and white clad angels displaying disapproving frowns on his right. He’s mesmerized by stories of Lourdes and Fatima and Guadalupe, and each night is prepared to welcome his very own vision, its evanescence framed by his darkened bedroom window.

He is taught that priests have special access to the preternatural universe, since they know the magic words that turn bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood. William’s school teacher, Sister Elizabeth, tells the New Testament stories of the emergence and power of priests, explains that they’re Jesus’s surrogates on earth. So it’s practically a sin not to stand when a priest enters the classroom for religious instruction or to keep your eyes open while receiving the good Father’s blessing before he leaves. Being chosen by one of them as a particular friend was for William both a miracle and a sacred vocation. The boy’s only chance for deliverance from this predatory evil was his family; yet their “good” intentions made them blind to the danger. 

Think of an 8-year-old facing corporal punishment, parental disapproval and eternal damnation — all a painful price to pay for any resistance to the good Father. So William never told his parents, never told anyone. And even though decades have past, the priest is dead, and media attention and societal empathy have made it possible for victims to unburden themselves, William keeps his secret. He smothers the grenade of that awful truth, he says, to protect his aging parents.

Doctors who purposely poison their patients: Should we give them another chance? Pilots who fly drunk just one time ” it’s clear where I’m going. There can be no internship, no probation period, no halfway ministry for a man guilty even one time of child sexual abuse. One time is ruinous. One time is a sledgehammer that cracks lives, faiths, trusts, families and children. Forever.

P o p  F o r u m
Should bishops adopt a zero tolerance policy?

Related Sites
From PopPolitics, David McGrath questions whether religion is used as a sanctuary for the sexually ill.
Here’s the draft of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People approved by a committee of Roman Catholic bishops. It will be voted on in Dallas. Want to pray for the bishops? Click here.
The Boston Globe continues to update its spotlight investigation on priest sexual abuse and the effect on the Catholic Church.
Monica Davey of the Chicago Tribune reported May 30 that Call to Action, a liberal Catholic organization, has come out in opposition of a blanket zero tolerance policy. According to the group, priests convicted of felonies should be removed; those convicted of misdemeanors should be evaluated by an independent review board.