Vatican City, Feb 18, 2019 / 03:45 pm (CNA).- At a press conference in Rome this morning, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago underscored the scope and expectations around this week’s global Vatican summit on sexual abuse.
The cardinal made it clear that the three-day meeting was strictly dealing with the abuse of minors, and would not look at wider issues of clerical sexual abuse – most notably the sexual abuse of adults, including seminarians.
Cupich warned that “including other topics” would “inflate expectations” and distract from “the task at hand.”
The cardinal’s comments came barely 48 hours after it was announced that Theodore McCarrick had been expelled from the clerical state for a number of sexual abuse-related offences, including adult seminarians in dioceses he formerly led.
The hour-long question and answer session offered more details about the aims of the summit, which will include the heads of bishops’ conferences from around the world. But the scrupulously narrow focus on minors, and the stated objectives of the conference raise a number of questions about what American Catholics, including many bishops, can hope to see from Rome in response to months of scandal.
The clear goal of the meeting is to impress upon the world’s bishops the seriousness of dealing with child sexual abuse at all levels of the Church hierarchy. To this end, Cupich highlighted measures already in place in the United States which, he noted, were proving successful, such as safe environment programs and enhanced screening of seminary candidates.
More broadly, bishops in the United States have noted the effectiveness of the 2002 reforms brought in by the Dallas Charter and USCCB Essential Norms, which have coincided with a steep decline in reported abuse cases.
But if the wider purpose of the three-day meeting is to impress the seriousness of the child abuse crisis on bishops from elsewhere, and even underscore effective measures already in place in the U.S., American focus remains on accountability for bishops and abuse cases of all kinds involving them personally.
—
Discussing the future of episcopal accountability, Cupich made a surprising reference to Come una madre amorivole, the 2016 motu proprio issued by Pope Francis setting out legal mechanisms for reporting and handling complaints against bishops, including for negligence or abuse of office in abuse cases.
“It is the document Come una madre amorivole that outlines procedures for holding bishops accountable,” Cupich said. The reference to Come una madre was surprising to many, since Pope Francis had previously said in public that he had abandoned these very processes.
During the inflight press conference on his return from Dublin in October last year, Pope Francis said he had effectively junked the procedures of Come una madre because they “weren’t practical and it also wasn’t convenient for the different cultures of the bishops that had to be judged.”
Francis even went as far as expressing frustration that prominent reform advocate Marie Collins, herself a survivor of sexual abuse and a former member of Francis’ own Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, was “a bit fixated” with the document not being used.
For Cupich to suggest that Come una madre was once again a living document suggests a possible second papal reversal by Francis on his own reforms, even though his original reservations seemed to center on the very global applicability this week’s summit is meant to address.
—
In November, an instruction from the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops prevented U.S. bishops from voting on a raft of proposed measures aimed at increasing episcopal accountability – reforms which would have addressed many of the gaps left by the non-adoption of Come una madre in the first place.
The move left many frustrated but, on Monday, Cupich called the Baltimore measures “problematic” and said he did not believe they would have been adopted even if a vote had taken place.
Cupich floated an alternative proposal of his own during the Baltimore meeting. Reportedly drafted in concert with Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Cupich’s plan would rely upon existing structures within metropolitan provinces, instead of the creation of an independent national body to oversee complaints against bishops.
Both the original proposals and the so-called “metropolitan model” were turned over to a special USCCB committee for further study, and are expected to be discussed again in more detail when the bishops next meet, in June of this year.
Despite the Baltimore setback, Cupich said, bishops’ conferences would have an important role to play in the future.
“The Holy Father does want episcopal conferences to take responsibility, that was never a question, but we have to do it in such a way that we work together with each other — that is part of synodality — that is part of the collegiality that this conference wanted to highlight,” Cupich said Monday.
What role this will be remains to be seen and, at least so far as it extends to episcopal abuse of adults like McCarrick’s, it seems unlikely it will become much clearer during this week’s summit.
—
One thing the Chicago cardinal did say was that bishops have a personal responsibility to face up to.
“The Holy Father wants to make it clear to the bishops around the world, that each one of them has to claim responsibility and ownership for this problem… to make sure that people understand, on an individual basis as bishops, what their responsibilities are.”
Many commentators have noted in recent months that personal initiative and ownership have been distinctly lacking in some American bishops’ response to recent scandals, with many appearing to be waiting for a lead to follow, either from the USCCB or Rome.
A few have begun to take their own steps, especially after the inability to move forward as a group in Baltimore. Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore recently announced an independent reporting mechanism for accusations of sexual abuse in the archdiocese.
Other options have been discussed. It has also been proposed that the canonical role of the Promoter of Justice could be given a broader remit in diocesan child protection policy, acting as a sort of attorney general by appointment of the local bishop, but with an enhanced degree of autonomy of action.
Other suggestions that bishops could implement without having to seek higher approval have included the passage of more nuanced and detailed laws for handling escalating clerical misconduct, in the hopes of addressing problem behavior early – before an act of child abuse is committed.
Such action would also allow bishops to address the sexual abuse of victims who are not technically minors, including people in their late teenage years and seminarians. Many have noted that the current legal framework, solely reliant on an age of consent, sees a case of child sexual abuse become an instance of mere moral failure when the victim turns eighteen.
—
Cupich also told the world’s media that “there is a new day in terms of transparency,” and said that he hoped the upcoming summit would be remembered as a “turning point” in this regard.
It remains to be seen if this newfound commitment to transparency will extend to responding to calls for some kind of full disclosure about how Theodore McCarrick was able to rise through the episcopal ranks, despite apparent decades of complaints about his sexual abuse.
In Baltimore in November, Cupich spoke against a resolution by American bishops to encourage the Holy See to make available any documentation it could on that subject as soon as possible.
While talk at the press conference was of new days and strong messages, there is no shortage of Catholics in the United States and elsewhere already looking at this week’s meeting with a level of skepticism.
Indeed, the real challenge facing Cardinal Cupich and the other organizers may prove to be less about lowering “inflated expectations,” and more about convincing Catholics wearied by scandal that any progress made in the coming days will be meaningful.
[…]
“celibacy is not the cause”
No, Cardinal, but homosexuality IS the cause. Say it loud and proud.
Quote: “O’Malley stated that he has “never seen any serious studies that have indicated that celibacy and sexual abuse is related.”
This is truly sad. It appears that those people responsible for doing something re: abuse have never even GOOGLED the subject. The first google “studies of connection between celibacy and sexual abuse” gives:
2023 – ‘In Defense of Married Priesthood: A Sociotheological Investigation of Catholic Clerical Celibacy’, Chapter 6 Celibacy, Sexual Abuse, and Married Priesthood: Exploring the Sociological Connections (by Vivencio O. Ballano, Associate Professor V of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology).
And more, more and more, of papers and books. Of course, since Cardinal O’Malley does not define what “a serious study” entails he can claim that those works are not serious.
Sexual abuse in the Church is not just an abuse of children; it is also an abuse of nuns, lay women and even men (especially young) – an abuse of those who is an easy target – so I propose to treat it as “sexual abuse within the Church”. From what I have studied a pattern emerges, among those who become priests:
– Those with a vocation of both priesthood and celibacy (their (either) sexual orientation is sublimated)
– Those with a vocation of priesthood but without a true vocation of celibacy
– Those who become priest to cover their emotional deficiency and/or sexual orientation
The first group, obviously, is the happiest in their vocation. They are extremely unlikely to abuse.
The second will suffer and most will “slip off” having affairs, harming themselves and their lovers. They desperately want an emotional connection and intimacy. Some of those priests would leave priesthood and marry.
The third group is the most troublesome. Being undeveloped emotionally, they treat others as mere tools for their satisfaction. They crave power and sex and not intimacy; they are immature so they cannot understand that love is not only about sex so they practice sex without an attachment. This is why abusing children is OK for some of that group. This is also why:
Quote: “I don’t see any relationship, [between celibacy and criminal sexual abuse]” she said. “Sexual relationships with children is a crime and the ones who commit this have a problem, which is related to their psychological state of mind.”
is very strange, to put it mildly.
Yes, it is a crime; yes, a person who does it has a problem related to their psyche BUT their psyche is attracted to priesthood because it perfectly matches the needs of their psyche. A compulsory celibacy will cover their psychological immaturity and (in some cases) even perversions; furthermore, it will give them an air of a superiority, angelic-like state; it will give them a power over everyone and so on. All that is perfect for their psychological needs.
From my experience, the third group tends to constitute about a half of priests. Hence, while I would never say “celibacy breeds abusers”, I must say that compulsory celibacy of priests coupled with position of superiority breeds an air charged with suppressed (not sublimated) libido in which something bad will inevitably happen.
Finally, the most mature and balances priests I have met came to priesthood late in life, after thirty-five-forty. They had professions which demanded close dealing with various people so they knew how to connect.
NB: I do not claim to know the correct proportion of three groups. I am from a diocese with a very rich history of abuse so it is probably why I have seen stunningly many priests along a narcissistic spectrum. Neither I am saying that all priests in the second group would engage in affairs. Finally, the majority of the third group tend to act out their sexual urges in a covert/cerebral way which, in my opinion, is spiritually very damaging, very much along the line of Cardinal Fernandez treaties (forgot the name of the book, a perversion of Catholic mysticism).
If celibacy is not a relevant variable in the study of clergy sexual abuse, then why is there so much disparity between the incidence of abuse by deacons vs those of the presbytery? And, again, if celibacy is not an issue, why is there such a disparity between the incidence of abuse between clergy of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches and those of the Roman Catholic Church?
Celibacy is not the cause of the heinous sexual abuse crisis , the failure to Love, to respect, protect, and defend the inherent Dignity of every beloved son and daughter is.
It is not The Faithful who are responsible for the heinous abuse crisis, The Faithful hold fast to The Deposit Of Faith and thus to Christ’s teaching on sexual morality.
It’s unrealistic to base an assessment of priests’ celibacy from the perspective of a diocesan onlooker or two experiences. A wider scope of experience, living with priests here and abroad would provide a fuller data based resource to compare with our own experience as priest.
Celibacy was never intended to be easy, or necessarily a form of sublimation of sexual desire buried somewhere in the subconscious [not all are John of the Cross]. It’s pure and simply said a sacrifice. One in which our real, existential desires of Man for women. It’s a life of temptation, prayer, negation, and emotional physical suffering. The way of the cross.
Best measure of this is Paul the Apostle who suffered a thorn in the flesh sent by Satan. Paul suffered physically throughout his priesthood and bore it with great courage. A thorn in the flesh indicates sensual suffering. Likely sexual desire and human weakness. Physical pain would strengthen his faith, sexual weakness discourages. Aquinas thought the same regarding the great Apostle. As do I. Christ’s grace suffices. His power more manifest in our weakness.
JimmyM identified the root of sexual abuse in our Church. One which Cdl O’Malley I’m confident is aware must realistically come to grips with. The significant presence of homosexuals in the priesthood.
And then, in the United States, there’s the Report John Jay College of Criminal Justice which found that 85 percent of the sexual abuse cases victimized older boys and were homosexual in origin—not pedophiliac.
LOOKING BACK, as we approach the 50th anniversary of the “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” (December 19, 1975), we might recall moments in another Dark Age. Consider the peasant wife whose dirt-farmer husband has finally despaired and committed suicide. Before the insights of abnormal psychology involving impaired free will, the suffering wife was told by the local padre that “God has sent him straight to hell for all eternity.”
FAST FORWARD to today’s Dark Age. Instead of “listening” to the findings of relevant gnome research, and the role of early sexual abuse, of abusive or absentee fathers, and of the slippery slope of even pre-teen sexual experimentation within a porn culture, and altered brain chemistry…instead of such considerations, another cleric misinforms the homosexual that “God who made you that way.”
It’s almost as if some successor of the Apostles should write something or other to counsel respect and compassion, but to not omit something like this, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective evil.”
Wait, what? Building on the 1975 Declaration, Ratzinger already said exactly this in his 1986 “Letter to Bishops of the Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” (n. 3). At least the Synod expunged the term “LGBTQ” from its Final Report.
SUMMARY: as a corrective to pastoral and institutional amnesia and worse, maybe court-jester Jiminy Cricket James Martin can be sent forth to find himself a hobby other than as photo-op/activist consultor to the Vatican Secretariat on Communications. Yes?