The story of sex abuse and the Catholic priesthood has itself been abused to malign the Church. A canon lawyer describes the resulting erosion of the rights of priests.
by Father Stuart MacDonald, J.C.L.
Note from Father Gordon MacRae: It is an honor to host this guest post by Father Stuart MacDonald whose previous contribution at These Stone Walls was one year ago with “Ever Ancient, Ever New: Jesus’ Priesthood in a Time of Chaos.”
A few weeks ago, Fr Gordon MacRae published, yet again, a profound post – Holy Orders in Exile: The Ascension of Persona Christi – which was shared on Facebook an astonishing 25,000 times. Father’s posts are normally shared in the hundreds, only once reaching 15,000 shares. Both of those record-breaking posts dealt with due process in the Church – an issue with which Fr MacRae is justifiably interested.
Something else happened, moreover, on this latest post: an unusually high number of clerics chimed in with comments. You might think, “big deal.” Let me tell you, as a priest, it is because normally priests are reticent to associate with a brother priest who has been convicted of that crime for fear of being guilty by association, or labeled a priest protector or for any other number of reasons.
Something clearly is happening in the Church and the world – apart from Fr MacRae’s bold and prophetic posts – that is emboldening priests, and others – cf. Patricia MacDonald’s (no relation to me) comment from the June 6 post – to speak out against the injustice that is routinely being carried out in the Church against priests. Followers of TSW are well aware of Fr MacRae’s innocence and the double-blow of lack of due process dealt him. His is but one egregious case of many.
In an age in which liberty and choice are glorified, the reality is that priests have little freedom and fewer rights than most. The debacle that we refer to as the sex abuse scandal has made priests pariahs in both the secular and ecclesiastical worlds. In the secular world now, priests, in general, are held in suspicion; accused ones, considered guilty no matter what.
In the ecclesiastical world, priests are seen as a potential liability for a law suit against the diocese: they have become the pawns of risk management. The result is a form of tyranny with which a bishop treats his priests. Many bishops, in the name of protecting minors, incorrectly have bought into the argument that laws, due process, and rights are not nearly as important as appearing to be on top of things, read: the accuser is always right. Based on the incorrectly understood mantra that a priest must obey in all things but sin, priests, routinely, are pressured into giving up, or are forced to cede, their ecclesiastical, and sometimes even their civil, rights, all for the good of the Church.
For the good of the Church – pro bono Ecclesiae, as those in the know use it – is an interesting concept. The way it is bantered about today refers to the fact that the Church is going to be vigilant in protecting minors and vulnerable adults (as if the Church is going to wipe out that sin completely, and one wonders where the Gospel efforts are to wipe out the same sin in families, in sports and any number of other arenas). There is zero-tolerance in a zero sum game; any priest who is accused must be dealt with severely. Perhaps some laws and rights have to be glossed over, the thinking goes, but it is better for the Church this way, in the sense that the Church needs to regain her credibility among the faithful and the wider world. It’s all at the service of the Gospel. So they think; so they say. What those who subscribe to this theory fail to realise is that the good of the Church is only ever served when truth and justice are held as the highest standard, not credibility.
Truth has been compromised countless times in cases involving accused priests because, if the accusation is credible – in other words, the abuse could have happened, in theory, because the dates are relatively correct, the priest was serving in that parish at that time etc etc (which in Fr MacRae’s case is not true!) – then the priest is considered guilty. Judicial process, or even truly credible proofs, are not necessary: accusation has become the de facto standard of guilt for the world, and very nearly so in the ecclesiastical world. There is no opportunity for the accused priest to refute the accusation or to confront the accuser. Truth and justice are secondary to dealing with the problem. The expedient way of dealing with an accusation is automatically to believe the accuser.
What is ironic is that this mindset has now infiltrated the secular world with the #metoo movement. People lose jobs, are pilloried in the press, simply because an anonymous accuser says that Mr. X did or said something five, ten or twenty years ago. No proof (truth), no process (justice). Just accusation and guilt. In the Church, this does not lead to respect and confidence. It quiets the madding crowd for a while, to be sure; however, it belies that the Church still cannot be trusted because she uses power to do whatever she wants – which is exactly the same complaint that was levelled against her regarding the sex-abuse crisis. Bishops thought they were above the law, ignored it, and tried to protect the institution pro bono Ecclesiae. Well, the chickens have come home to roost, and it is making even bishops run scared. The result is more tyranny. Strangely, the result is also more clergy who are willing to stand in solidarity with those of their confreres whose rights have been trampled upon.
THE POWER BUT NOT THE GLORY
Several years ago, my own bishop – now emeritus – recounted to me how a priest had been telling him that a priest’s obedience was not about everything and anything (“obey in ALL things buts sin”) but only pertained to those things over which a bishop had legitimate claim. I recognized that this was a conversation I had had recently with the priest in question and that the bishop was seeking to correct me. The bishop said to me, “I told Father, that’s simply not true. I own each and every one of my priests.” I shall never forget that conversation. It opened my eyes to how deeply the abuse of authority runs.
The problem is that power, which is the tool of a bully, has been mistaken for authority, which is the legitimate tool of superiors. Power is getting one’s way by force and might. Authority is the superior’s prerogative of making licit decisions. The tyranny that reigns against priests is of bishops who think they can do whatever they want with those under their care because of ‘obedience’. It’s nothing new in the Church. A bit of history is in order.
An interesting book by Fr Kevin McKenna, For the Defense: the Work of Some Nineteenth Century American Canonists in the Protection of Rights (2014), outlines in great detail the struggle of some priests in the United States to assert their rights in the face of illicit removal from office or transfer as a pastor. Various canonists had to write in defense of priests, had to appeal to the Holy See in order to bring about change in the law of the Church at the time. One might think again, “big deal.” And again, I say, it is.
Priests are completely dependent on their bishops for their work and sustenance. Without leaving the priesthood – a very serious, and most often sinful thing – a priest can’t just go and find some other work or a new bishop. Therefore, it can sometimes be nigh impossible to find a canon lawyer (priest or lay) who is willing to advocate on behalf of a priest, because an advocate is seen, not as someone performing a legitimate and necessary function, but as someone who is challenging authority. That is as true now as it was in nineteenth-century America. Thankfully, that advocacy led to changes which were codified in the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law. Unfortunately, it remains an uphill battle to find canonists willing to assist a priest.
Even though the rights of clerics have been enshrined in the law of the Church, some canonists and bishops still find ways of getting around them. When the ugly face of sexual abuse manifested itself in the 1980s, canon law in general and penal (criminal) canon law specifically was held in disdain. Law was considered old-fashioned and rigid in the after-glow of Vatican II. Dioceses were ill-equipped to handle a trial for a priest accused of serious canonical crime. They didn’t have enough canonists, let alone the requisite knowledge, to conduct a trial.
Instead of using applicable canon law, superiors made other laws fit the situation if they even bothered to use the canons themselves. One such example occurred when canonists, using interpretations that have never been part of the canonical patrimony, distorted other laws that allowed priests to be removed from ministry, namely, laws regarding impediments to ordination. Just as there are certain situations which prevent a couple from marrying, things we call impediments to marriage – like not marrying too close a relative, for example – so there are impediments to being ordained a priest or exercising priestly ministry. In the old days, for example, you couldn’t be ordained a priest, or say Mass if you were already a priest if you were missing fingers that would be needed to hold the host. One such impediment which remains today in the law is the presence of insanity or psychic infirmity. Obviously, a person who is not compos mentis cannot be allowed to celebrate the sacraments for fear that they would be administered invalidly. In the 1980’s, abuse of a minor by a cleric suddenly became an indication of severe psychic infirmity, hence a cleric so accused was declared impeded from exercising his ministry in any and all ways. It was a complete misapplication of the law against which the priest had little or no recourse.
Administrative leave is the other common misapplication of ecclesiastical law. The concept, of course, is borrowed from civil law and business praxis. Someone is alleged to have done something seriously wrong in the workplace, pending an investigation, they are removed from their duties while still being paid. When the investigation is over, the leave comes to an end: the person is dismissed or she returns to work. Canon law has a similar practice. When an ecclesiastical trial is undertaken, a priest can be removed from ministry pending the outcome of the trial. At the end of the trial, the priest is either exonerated or punished, but the removal from ministry, as such, comes to an end.
Bishops began to misapply this part of the law. When a priest was accused, he was removed from ministry and placed on “administrative leave” that never ended because no trial was contemplated, let alone conducted. Soon bishops began to assert that a priest’s ministry was completely dependent upon the discretion of the bishop. Many canonists argued against these practices. When the full brunt of the abuse crisis exploded and the Church was caught with pants down – figuratively and, ahem, literally – something ‘more legal’ was needed to deal with the situation.
Just prior to the explosion of the crisis, and in response to what was seen as these inadequate practices by dioceses, the Holy See took on exclusive competence for handling abuse cases. While the Holy See was well-intentioned in its desire to see proper canonical procedures followed, it did not foresee the number of cases on the horizon for which it didn’t have enough staff. In 2002 the Boston scandal hit. Suddenly there was an avalanche of cases as dioceses scoured their personnel files to send cases to Rome, read: let them take care of it so we can wash our hands of it. Most of these cases were already well known to the local dioceses and had been dealt with in whatever way the local church chose: transfer the priest for a new start, declare the impediment or administrative leave. Almost none of them had been dealt with in the proper legal manner envisioned by the Church’s law.
Rome’s new competence meant that the local church could declare to the press that they were dealing with these cases with total transparency (often publishing the names of any priest who had been accused, including deceased ones, even though there had never been a proper investigation into the allegation). It was the pro bono Ecclesiae mentality firmly taking root – protect the Church, and her assets from being sued, rather than seek truth and justice.
Soon after, the American bishops – the Latin rite ones – enacted what have become known as the Essential Norms. Those are the laws that call for zero tolerance. But even they are fraught with difficulties – an article I wrote in 2006 “Legality and Law: some reflections” published in Advocacy Vademcum argues that the Norms might not even be valid law and may not apply to religious priests, among other problems.
It soon became clear that the Church could not handle the cases. Rome began delegating local dioceses to conduct trials. Dioceses responded that they didn’t have the ability to conduct them. Provision was made for shorter ‘administrative’ processes to be conducted locally. Furthermore, the issue of prescription (the Church’s equivalent of a statute of limitations) came up. The Holy Father approved a new law that would allow for the ‘statute of limitations’ to be set aside. It quickly became clear that due process and the rule of law were sitting on ever-changing sands.
What is especially ironic about the panic and legal wrangling that ensued is the bravado with which bishops, on the one hand, proclaimed they were seeking the protection of children by dispensing from the Church’s statute of limitations, pro bono Ecclesiae, while, on the other hand, they screamed “unfair!” at civil legislatures removing the civil statute of limitations for cases against the Church. People who claimed abuse often sued both the priest and the diocese for damages (Fr MacRae has written about how unscrupulous that whole business sometimes is). But those civil suits were often barred by the statute of limitations. Various legislatures removed the statute, clearing the way for the civil suits to move forward and for the dioceses to have to pay out money. It baffles any academically honest mind how someone could claim that removing prescription pro bono Ecclesiae was acceptable but that removing the statute of limitations was unfair. I guess it depends on which side of the power divide one stands.
THE MIRROR OF JUSTICE CRACKED
So now we come to the present. The madding crowd was not satisfied with going after the priests: they want the bishops too. First, they wanted the priests held accountable for the abuse. Now they want bishops to pay the price for what is seen as cover-up. [In defense of the bishops, it needs to be pointed out that, for the most part, what is now seen to be cover-up and transferring priests to protect the Church, was, in reality, a dereliction of responsibility for carrying out canonical procedures, yes, but also, according to the anti-legal sentiment of the time, following the expert opinions of the professional psychologists who counselled bishops that transferring an abusive priest to a new setting would help him with his problem. Much needs to be laid at the feet of the medical professionals and the clergy rehab centers.]
In response to this public pressure, we see bishops increasingly, but quietly, being removed from office because they didn’t report accusations to the police, or harbored an accused priest. Just recently, Pope Francis excoriated the episcopate of Chile for the culture of cover-up. Almost all of the Chilean bishops have submitted their resignations to the Pope. Not so long ago, a Vatican diplomat was removed from the clerical state as a canonical punishment for sexual abuse – a punishment rarely, if ever, meted out to a bishop – and died before being tried in the Vatican’s civil court. An Australian Cardinal is currently being tried for sexual abuse of a minor in the Australian courts. Another bishop in Australia, criminally convicted of failing to report abuse, decided to take a leave of absence during his appeal and appointed a delegate. That didn’t fly: the Pope, in turn, has appointed an Apostolic Administrator – in other words, neither the convicted bishop nor his delegate is going to govern the diocese.
There is a new fear afoot – that of the bishops. The public is still hungry and the Church is once again struggling to gain credibility. Bishops are looking over their shoulders to see who is monitoring them. It’s not just priests who worry about being removed from ministry and tossed on the streets. It’s all ironic because bishops, in one sense, have even fewer rights enshrined in law than priests about these things. They serve at the will of and are judged only by, the Pope. The law just doesn’t envision that a bishop would be derelict in his duty or have to be removed from office, let alone removed from the clerical state – defrocking as the press quite incorrectly terms it. A priest, if he has the courage, can lodge a lengthy, financially costly recourse to higher authority, but a bishop? Short of begging the Holy Father… The irony brings no satisfaction or comfort to anyone. Bishops are on the hook now as well, and, in some senses, are being treated in the same manner as they have been treating their priests, all pro bono Ecclesiae. But the Church is no healthier. The faith is waning drastically in Western culture.
This sad situation will continue as long as the Church is interested only in appearing to be in control of the situation by the abuse of power. If all that matters is that we regain lost credibility with the world and the faithful, and we are willing to do that without truth and justice, then the credibility we gain is only temporary. Bishops will continue to show that they are strict and zealous, at the expense of their priests. If we thought it was bad before, it will only be worse because a bishop fears, not just public outcry about an allegation, but now he fears that his own job will be on the line.
Our Lord taught us that He is the way, the truth, and the life. If we are not interested in finding our way to the truth of accusations, of admitting mistakes, of admitting that human justice is never perfect and that perhaps a particular accused cleric here or there is beyond the scope of human justice, then we are not living in the way and the truth. Our Lord was sent to His death by accusations that no one bothered to investigate and by fear of the mob. Our credibility will return only when due process, as best as it can be done in our human condition, is respected. That will not make us popular; it will, however, make us authentic and transparent.
In saying all this, no one is trying to downplay or deny, the very serious crimes that have been committed by a very small number of priests, or even the egregious dereliction of duty by some bishops. But they, and much more so the innocent ones, deserve the same justice that Kim Kardashian was seeking for the convicted, and confessed, drug dealer. Where are the Kim Kardashians seeking the release of Fr Gordon MacRae? They deserve the same justice that bishops are bending over backward to get for illegal immigrants: I think we call it mercy.
Even if all the priests who have been accused were guilty, trampling truth and justice pro bono Ecclesiae is not the answer. Increasingly people see the injustice that Fr MacRae has suffered. It’s no wonder his post about fidelity to the priesthood was shared 25,000 times, that so many priests commented in support of him. His story, his wisdom scream to be shared. Thank God, priests and other clergy are recognizing the hypocrisy of it all and are willing to speak up. They are bold enough to speak out in support of Fr MacRae. God bless them. God reward them, but most of all, God protect them from pro bono Ecclesiae, truly for the good of the Church.
Father Stuart MacDonald, J.C.L., is a priest of the Diocese of St. Catharine in Ontario, Canada, Father Stuart is a canon lawyer, licensed paralegal, and former official in service to the Holy See. In addition to theological credentials, he holds a Master of Arts in History from McGill University and a Licentiate in Canon Law from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. Father Stuart is presently administrator of St. Anthony Parish in Welland, Ontario.
His guest post this week is a masterful analysis of what has happened in the last few decades in the Church in America, and he brings a much-needed insight into my own situation. His is a summons to Gospel fidelity for all Catholics – the only roadmap out of Dante’s “Dark Wood of Error” that is now the state of due process for Catholic priests.
Note from Father Gordon MacRae: Please share this most important post on your social media, and if you are in contact with other priests and deacons, please send them a link to this. It is once again my honor to welcome Father Stuart MacDonald to These Stone Walls. You may also like these related posts from These Stone Walls:
Patricia A. MacDonald says
Many thanks for the incredible article and thoughtful comments. I am fairly new to the travesty that is the case of Fr. Gordon MacRae that I came across several months ago while doing some legal research on another project I was involved with.
Even though I have worked in the legal field for over 30 years, this is one of the gravest injustices I have ever seen and it boggles my mind how Fr. Gordon can not only maintain his sanity in the situation he’s in, but also, that he is still faithful to his beliefs and manages to help others, including those of us on the outside for whom he has been an inspiration.
Luckily, the subject of priests and others who have been falsely accused has been getting more and more attention in the media. Here’s a link to Michelle Malkin’s blog for example:
https://www.creators.com/read/michelle-malkin/02/17/fighting-for-the-falsely-accused
At this point, my bottom line is this: I believe Fr. Gordon is innocent of the charges and has been demonstrably wrongly imprisoned. He has spent way too many years behind the stone walls of prison, and it is long past time when he should have been released and his false conviction vacated. I don’t think he would agree with me, but personally, I would like to see the “people” (they won’t publish what I really want to call them) who are responsible for this to be sued and/or put behind bars themselves for what they did to Fr. Gordon.
I continue to read and try to get up to speed, but I can’t help but feeling there must be some way to help this man get out of jail- some legal process or change of venue perhaps. I don’t know what can be done as I am not sure of all the legal proceedings to date. There are several crowd funding sites that might be used for to raise money and awareness. There are people who read this blog and who have written about Fr. Gordon. that have a lot more knowledge than me. I don’t mean to re-invent the wheel, but if there’s anything I missed, any stone that has not been unturned, any way to help, I would like to know.
Meanwhile, God bless and keep Fr. Gordon.
Helen says
It’s not so strange that a country, who continues to try to kick God out, would do the same to His representatives. Jesus warned us: “‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.”
That surely doesn’t rectify or condone what is being done to God’s holy sons, in the least. The jaw just drops becoming more and more apparent, (often thru these posts) that there are many, many priest who are suffering for the church.
Our hope lies in the Word: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Rm 8:28
Hopefully, Father Gordon, that good will result in your being justified here, on earth, and released from those stone walls. I’m looking forward to the day when you will be able to shout, using the same words that Martin Luther Kings shouted: “Free at last, free at last, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY I’M FREE AT LAST.”
God bless and free you soon. You haven’t seen as much of me recently, but I am still at your back, holding you in prayer. Hopefully, I will be back in full force, again.
Thank you…for YOU.
Your fan, Helen
Claire Dion says
Maria Stella wrote “On the other hand, Fr. MacRae has also written of people who when young, were sexually abused. Mike C. And Pornchai-Max are two prisoners he has written about”. This further proves the innocence of Fr. Gordon. Both of these men would not have turned to Fr. Gordon for guidance if they thought there was any chance that he was guilty of the same crimes committed against them. We TSW followers want justice for Fr. Gordon and we can help by sharing, sharing, sharing. On his Facebook page, he has made this request “I have a small request of my friends. If you are in touch with a Catholic priest or deacon, or other prominent Catholics, I urge you to share this post with them. The truth will set us free, but first someone has to tell it – and then share it. With thanks and blessings, Father Gordon MacRae.” Let us do what he has asked–we might just reached the person who can help.
Fr. Gordon J. MacRae says
I would like to make one more point about the discussion that has ensued in these comments. I have known many priests who were guilty of their misconduct. We must not lose sight of the fact that the Church exists to bring sinners to Christ in order to restore them to grace. The guilty and the innocent alike should get on our knees in thanksgiving for this truth.
I know one priest who spent fifteen years in prison for his crime. He was deeply repentant and he was laicized. On the eve of his parole, having fully paid his debt to society, the Auxiliary Bishop of his diocese wrote his a letter:
If you read this against my other comment quoting an Archbishop’s disdain for a merciless concept like zero tolerance, then the sinful hypocrisy should be clear. The priest who spent fifteen years in prison went on to a new career as a paralegal in a law firm, and he has spent the last five years trying to help me and Pornchai Moontri to find our way through the dark maze of the legal system.
So I must ask the same question that our Lord asked the Pharisee after the Parable of the Good Samaritan: “Who was neighbor to the man left beaten on the side of the road.” I told more of this story in “Our Catholic Tabloid Frenzy about Fallen Priests.”
http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae/our-catholic-tabloid-frenzy-about-fallen-priests/
Father Gordon J MacRae says
I want to thank Father Stuart MacDonald for lending his expertise to These Stone Walls with this incisive post. Ironically, on the same day this was posted, I received the following news item from a priest. It is the published statement of an American archbishop:
The priest’s comment that accompanied the statement is this:
Bishops cannot claim credibility with such a “Do as I say and not as I do” approach to social justice.
Now please share this important post on socia media. This is not to challenge the integrity of our bishops, but to preserve it pro bono ecclesiae.
With Blessings, Father Gordon MacRae
Fr Stuart MacDonald says
Dear Maria Stella
Not abandoning a truly guilty priest does NOT mean, and not that you are suggesting this, allowing him to return as if nothing happened. The church’s law has always held that, in certain cases, a guilty priest must be returned to the lay state (in his being, sacramentally speaking, he remains a priest forever, but he is not allowed to exercise any of his priestly functions (except in danger of death to absolve someone) because he is no longer a cleric, but a layman). Even if he remains a cleric, it does not mean that he can socialise with or minister to whomever he wishes. Prudence must rule. But to treat him as someone who can never be forgiven, as someone we should shun, that is not Christian. Insisting on due process does NOT mean advocating for a free pass.
Our Lord ate with prostitutes and tax collectors even before their conversion. Surely having a cup of coffee to discuss the weather with a guilty man is not beyond our means. Isn’t that what we admire so much about our dear friend, Fr MacRae? How many guilty men has he helped because he is Christ to them.
Keith says
Father Stuart,
Thank you for this insightful and inspirational article. As a “laicized” priest, under protest, I would have the following information conveyed to the Faithful. Laicized priests are considered “a situation judicially [person] as if he were a layperson. ” The expectation is that he is being “returned to a lay state”, but in my experience, as well priests from three dioceses with whom I am familiar, there seems to be the interpretation that this man cannot become a lector, a Eucharistic Minister, or become involved in Parish Counsels or any of its subcommittees. Some pastors have added: singing in the choir, or attending daily Mass while school is in session! Hence, they become “second class citizens”.
The wonderful work of God’s Spirit is most “laicized” priests do not leave the Church: of the over 200 priests that I have met over the past 25 years, only 4 have aligned with other Communities of Faith! Those priests who have met former parishioners, usually are filled with gratitude because these people accept them more than fellow priests!
I have long held that the only way that the Church leadership will move from the only JUSTICE in these “cases” to the Augustinian wisdom: “Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty.” is through the Laity. As they become more informed, the faith of the people will have its impact on the hierarchy – much as what happened with alcoholic priests (though these situations much more serious)! Perhaps if the principles of Restorative Justice had first been applied we would be in a different situation. We have to continue to live in hope that the Spirit will lead the Church into a deeper understanding of God’s Mercy.
cl says
Dear Fr. MacDonald Thank you for this brave post. It left me angry and sad but because of priests like you, I feel there is hope for our priests who have been accused and abandoned. Hopefully your post will encourage other priests, deacons and laypersons to speak out especially for those priests like Fr. Gordon MacRae who spend their days in prison. Our priests are the only way we get to receive our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist so Satan hates you all. Keep up the great work dear Fr. MacDonald. Every day I pray for all the priests who have ever touched my life and now you are one of them. May Our Lady wrap you in her mantle of protection.
Gerard Martin says
Wow! What a right-on article, and comments as well. A number of years ago I wrote a response to a Bishop’s invitation to comment of the “Dallas Charter,” and it actually developed into an article. I called it “Lost Prophecy,” meaning, that in the pressured attempt to satisfy and appease the clamor of SNAP and lawyers, the Bishops sold us priests out. In doing so they forfeited any consideration of mercy for priests. What has to b e talked about opening is that there are priests who have been falsely accused, and priests who have made mistakes – both need mercy because the first are burdened by a Church-imposed cross and suffering – the worst part of the suffering being, there is no hope! The second group needs mercy because they’ve been weak.
But of this second group there are also two groups, in varying degrees. There are those who had/have serious personal sexual problems, and who therefore, need serious spiritual and psychological help. Some of these may not be fit for continued ministry. Some of these have clear pedophilic problem, especially when and if repetitious. But then are those whose sexual mistakes was one of “crossing a line,” which I think healthy psychology refers to in the same terms. It was not pedophilic, even tho sexual. Part of the present day suffering is all, any sexual indiscretion – even the slightest – once reported – has/is been placed and labeled under the term “abuse,” which most people immediately translate into “pedophilic.” So once the term “abuse” and “priest” is mentioned in the same sentence – doesn’t matter how many years ago events may have occurred – doesn’t matter his clear goodness and effectiveness in ministry, he’s a gonner. He’s across the board, as Fr. MacDonald’s article itself mentions – shunned by bishops, fellow clergy (many former brothers), as well as by superiors in religious communities. He has the emptiness that “nobody gives a damn!” It’s a terrible suffering. Why can’t/doesn’t the Church/dioceses/religious orders have the courage and insight to say “No, we are getting Father evaluated and, based on that objective/outside the Church influence/power critique, we will decide re the possibility of further ministry – open/limited – or none at all. Until we begin thinking in these terms there’s no possible change in practice. To me, while the sexual problems have been/are a scandal for the Church – the lack of a holistic mercy is at least as great a scandal. GM
Fr Stuart MacDonald says
Dear Maria Stella
It is very difficult for laity or anyone to do anything concrete, in terms of guaranteeing rights, when a priest is accused. Certainly you must pray. Reach out to the priest to offer your support. Offer him friendship because most of his brother priests will abandon him. Help him financially. It will cost him a lot of money to hire even a canon lawyer let alone a civil one. Encourage your friends to do the same which will help to change the current mentality. And if the poor man has indeed done something terrible, do not abandon him. He is still the object of God’s love and of ours as well.
Fr Stuart
Malcolm Farr says
Dear Father MacDonald,
Thank you for a wonderful post – so wise but harrowing. If I may, I would like to make a ‘few’ comments on secular aspects. (Sorry if I have gone on way too long.)
I saw a panel-discussion on television recently concerning allegations of sexual abuse by a priest, and one of the panelists asked rhetorically, ‘Why would [the alleged victim] even raise the issue if abuse had not occurred?’ Why, indeed?! Without imputing anything against this particular accuser – I have no knowledge of the facts, and therefore cannot comment in that regard – at least speaking generally, I can say that the possibility of civil damages or statutory schemes for victims’ compensation (as are available here in Australia) provides a very good reason for the unscrupulous to make false claims of abuse.
Now I said ‘alleged victim’, and at least here in Australia it is not lawful to refer to an accused person as the perpetrator of the relevant crime unless and until he/she is convicted. However, I have noticed that the press here seems not infrequently refer to the ‘victim’ rather than the ‘alleged victim.’ Omitting the word ‘alleged’ gives public credibility to the accuser’s claims (over and above the misplaced trust which stands behind the rhetorical question I mentioned above). Where there is said to be a ‘victim’ rather than an ‘alleged victim,’ the natural conclusion is that a crime has in fact been committed; and, in these circumstances, referring to the accused person as the ‘alleged perpetrator’ is something less than a real acknowledgement that the accused person is just that – someone who is suspected of having committed a crime, but is yet to have that proven against him/her – and more of a qualification given with a wink to the audience, letting it know that the added ‘alleged’ is undeserved.
Speaking of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s methods on his See It Now program in March 1954, famed US journalist Ed Murrow stated, ‘We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.’ Both in Australia and the United States, a criminal conviction requires a finding of proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, while continuing to pay lip-service to this standard of proof, for the last few decades cases involving sexual offences (whether or not involving the abuse of minors) have seen this requirement progressively watered down. Particularly in cases of historical abuse, what we now so often see is that an accusation, plausibly presented and repeated on the stand for the court, can be sufficient. In these cases, accusation has in essence become proof; and real evidence and a genuine due process of law have disappeared.
Of course, this is not always the case, and I read only in today’s news of a young American woman who was sentenced to 45 days in jail, without credit for time already served, for making a false accusation of rape. (Mind you, her sentence – even the maximum 4 years plus US$2,000 to which she could have been sentenced – pales into insignificance against the term of 67 years which poor Father Gordon is serving.)
Somehow, there must be balance; but where exactly it is to be found, frankly I do not know. On the one hand, we should not in any sense abandon genuine victims. Having read a number of articles on victim psychology, I can understand (or at least, think I can understand) why some take many years to open up about the trauma that they have experienced. I can also understand how, without falling into a mindset of vengeance, they can feel that their abusers’ conviction and punishment gives them a sense of vindication and release.
Yet on the other hand, there is as I note above the very real danger of abuse to the system through the acceptance of false, but sufficiently plausible accusations. As you note, even without recourse to the court system we are now seeing people losing their careers and more, all on the basis of what is said and repeated about them. (By the way, I find the name #MeToo very disturbing, encouraging others to join the movement less on the basis of a common history of genuine trauma, than on a junior playground mentality of not wanting to be the one left out.) Further, a major plank of the criminal justice system in which Australia and the United States share is the famous basis for a finding of criminal liability as stated by English judge, Sir William Blackstone, in 1766: ‘All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.’ Ultimately this derives from something far more ancient and worthy of respect than even Blackstone – Gen 18:23-32. This is the Bible’s lesson for us – one that secular standards are steadily eroding.
But is it a standard we can reclaim? Certainly, if secular ‘morality’ continues to erode the Christian basis of our society, we will have a very hard task to rebuild it. And in this regard, I would point out that a certain Dick Cheney, whom I have read professes himself to be a devout Methodist, is reported as having had no problem with the possibility that 25% of CIA detainees who underwent ‘enhanced interrogation’ might actually have been innocent. ‘I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective,’ he is reported to have said. See Caroline Bankoff’s Daily Intelligencer article ‘Dick Cheney Simply Does Not Care That CIA Tortured Innocent People’: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/cheney-alright-with-torture-of-innocent-people.html. Whatever one’s political beliefs and allegiances, is this, if correct, acceptable?
May God indeed have mercy on us!
Fr Stuart MacDonald says
Mr Farr
You are entirely correct in your observations. Thank you for them.
No one wants to deny that crimes have been committed, that justice needs to rendered and true victims supported. But it can only be done with due process. Even guilty priests, who deserve punishment, whether secular or ecclesiastical, or both, deserve, nay have the right, to be found guilty in a just and orderly way. Let’s not forget, that if they are repentant, they are worthy also of forgiveness. More importantly, the innocent ones must not be sacrificed pro bono ecclesiae.
How we change mentality and practice is not so easy. We are living in a confused world. This is truly a battle against principalites, against powers, against rulers of the present darkness. Conversion is not the only answer, but it is the most important one.
JoAnne Braley says
Fitting in with this, I do not believe Cardinal McCarrick is guilty of sins talked about 50 years ago, and a couple others I read about. The Pope took him out of his position. I commented to the Washington Post what I thought and compared his trial to Fr. McRae’s. Evil people are out to get the church and the clergy in many ways, and to get money, but mainly to make us look terrible.
MaryJean Diemer says
Thank you Father Stuart for putting this into terms we the layperson can understand.
I am so sick of people lumping all priests as abusers because of the few that disgraced their calling. I am appalled at the amount of money the Hierarchy threw away to “make it go away” at the expense of the lives of their own fellow priests. They abandoned and denied Christ when they did this. It is very hard for us to get our own clergy to speak up on this. Believe me, I have tried. But they fear they are one step away themselves, or so that is their excuse.
I will keep praying as I know all must be put in the Lord’s Hands.
Sending love and prayers to Fr. Gordon and all those in prison and to you also Fr. Stuart. God bless you for sharing what the faith should be .
Kathy Maxwell says
I pray that we can stem this hemorrhage of good men out of the priesthood, or from considering a call to priestly vocation.
I keep wondering how we allowed emotional manipulation by the “media” to overcome the basic tenet of our civil law; that of presumed innocence in the absence of proof.
I know there are many causes:
1. The guilt of a few-NOT dealt with
2. Money
3. Making “victims” heroic
4. Money
5. Anti-Catholic bias
6. Money
7. Incompetent bishops
There are more, but I like the number 7.
As a woman, I find a woman’s claim of past abuse heretofore unmentioned, both questionable and disgusting. If she’s not someone hopping on the “victim” train, then her silence enabled a terrible man to hurt others.
As far as the never ending flood of claims against Catholic clergy goes, What is most frustrating, is that I believe the majority of the truly guilty acts, were the result of allowing men with same-sex attraction to fill the seminaries.
We can’t talk about that. We’ll just keep feeding the innocent, like Father Gordon, to the alligators.
God have mercy on us indeed.
Maria Stella says
Kathy you say, “I believe the majority of the truly guilty acts, were the result of allowing men with same-sex attraction to fill the seminaries.” I concur with you on this, and would also point out that some of these same men have been promoted to positions of authority in the Church.
Furthermore, I would add one more item to your list of causes: Feminism, and the emphasis on emotion rather than reason. I make this observation as a woman. The rise of feminism and the resultant emasculation of men have led, in my view, to the loss of reason. I have encountered many men who make a perfectly logical and reasonable, though non-politically correct statement, and then apologise for “not being sensitive” enough.
Law, whether ecclesiastical or civil is based on reason. I cannot help but wonder if there is a connection between the rise of extreme feminism, the loss of reason and the neglect of law and order.
P.S. Ofcourse, I err in all of this, because we no longer have men and women, rather we have persons who can be which ever gender they want to be …. (sarcasm off)
May God, who created us, man and woman, have mercy on us all.
Fr. Stuart MacDonald says
People wouldn’t believe this stuff if you wrote a book about it. Many people will want to deny what I wrote for today’s post — they will say it is exaggerated. But truth always wins: sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. Today it was announced that Cardinal McCarrick, the archbishop-emeritus of Washington D.C., has been removed from public ministry by the Holy See over an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor stemming from over 40 years ago. https://archny.org/statement-of-cardinal-theodore-mccarrick
So, we note:
1. upon notice of the allegation, made a few months ago, the fact of the allegation was not made public, unlike what happens with priests, or even note, a local story in my diocese about a Catholic high school teacher removed from the classroom over sending an explicit video to a student — but her name is not released because it’s too early in the investigation (even though the video is allegedly all over social media!). https://www.wellandtribune.ca/news-story/8681907-denis-morris-teacher-suspended/
Can you imagine a priest’s name being withheld?
2. the Archdiocese of Newark released a statement admitting that it had received OTHER allegations against then-Fr. McCarrick involving sexual behaviour with people who were not minors (two of which were settled financially)
3. despite those allegations, and settlements, he was ordained bishop and created Cardinal
4. while bishops, perhaps Cardinal McCarrick himself, sent cases of historical allegations of abuse to Rome after the Essential Norms in 2002, they did not apply those norms to themselves — most people don’t realise this: the Essential Norms apply ONLY to priests and deacons, not bishops.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/Charter-for-the-Protection-of-Children-and-Young-People-revised-2011.pdf
5. While Cardinal McCarrick maintains his innocence, it is seems clear that he has been found guilty, mainly because he plans to appeal. His own statement says the allegation was credible and found to be substantiated: that means guilty. Is he allowed to live on church property? – which many merely accused priests are not allowed to do. Will he receive sustenance from the Archdiocese? – which many merely accused priests are denied?
To deny that there is a double standard, with regard to the world and accused priests, vs. the world and accused teachers, accused parents, etc is patently ludicrous. To deny that there is a double standard with regard to the Church and the rights of an accused priest vs an accused bishop is mighty difficult to accept, given today’s news.
Do Thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us.
Father Jim says
Father MacDonald has clearly and succinctly presented the situation of sex abuse and the Catholic priesthood as it impacts our lives and the Church today. The bishops have abused their power under the guise of pro bono ecclesia by placing media credibility and monetary concerns over truth and justice. Thousands of priests find themselves “on administrative leave” without support or termination. I am one of those priests (who happen to be innocent and unjustly accused before God) who feel betrayed and told to get lost. It is frustrating to me that while I personally accept this Cross as God’s Will, I see churches without priests and our people being deprived of the sacraments. At the same time there seems be no hope or willingness to resolve this truly “scandalous” situation. How is it that bishops have and show mercy and compassion to alleged and to many self-proclaimed victims without trial or proof over their own priests? Is there something wrong with that? We have so many priests in limbo. They are priests forever and ordained for the salvation of souls. If they are not welcomed in their own dioceses for political and pre-judgment reasons, they should be allowed to function in pastoral situations and dioceses where they find true justice and acceptance. This is one egregious sin that the Church cannot cover up or confine to silence. It affects all of us. The Church is losing and the devil unfortunately is winning.
Father Gordon’s plight and imprisonment defies any logical comprehension given the lack of any true evidence and the documented miscarriage of justice that sent and kept him in prison for years. Where is the Church in this ? Where is the USCCB? You have the resources and influence to do the right thing. Charity, justice and compassion must begin with our own Catholic family if we ever hope to reflect it to an unbelieving and incredulous world.
I share this on behalf of my fellow priests, placing it under the intercession of Our Blessed Mother.
Father Jim
Joan Ripley says
This is truly heartbreaking, Fr. Jim. Thank you for sharing. You will be in my prayers along with Fr. Gordon. May God forgive us for allowing such things to happen.
Juan says
Father Jim, count on my prayers and those of my folks. Certainly, the father of lies is at work and has quite a few accomplices on this Earth but your reward in the end will be immense. Saint Teresa of Avila used to say that life is like a bad night in a bad motel. While that may be true, you are not alone and God loves you even more although for now it seems to be in an invisible way. May the Peace of our Lord always be with you.
In union of prayers,
Juan.
Jmj says
… Dominus flavit.. I’m sad for the Church, the hierarchy, the priesthood & the victims.
As one who was not re-assigned as a pastor for standing up to a mitre over financial impropriety..(he wanted $80k from an estate in order to ‘repay’ an unjust settlement of property).. I was not given an assignment for 2 yrs & then assigned as ‘administrator.’
When this new mitre brought up ‘obedience’, I assured him that I’d do the same thing if asked, one could see the zucchetto spinning…
From then on: a marked man…
This does not rise to the level of those falsely accused, however, there is a pattern… In the words of our ‘priest vicar’ : “I’m not going to jail over N.”
Truly, we’re smitten by the Irish curse: ‘may you live in interesting times.’