07 February 2019, The Tablet
Bishops must be held to account
The Vatican summit which Pope
Francis has convened for 21 February could be a watershed moment in the
history of the Catholic Church’s response to the scandal of child sexual
abuse within its ranks. There is no quick fix available, but there is a
deep appreciation within the Church of how profoundly serious the issue
really is, and a growing consensus about what needs to be done. The
summit, to which presidents of bishops’ conferences throughout the world
have been invited, is aimed at solidifying that consensus and drawing
into it those parts of the Church not yet fully on board. Bishops’
conferences, of which there are more than a hundred, have been required
by the Vatican to implement local guidelines for dealing with
safeguarding issues. So far as many as a quarter of them have failed to
do so. The religious orders, too, must no longer be allowed to escape
the net.
Given that behind every abusing priest stands a bishop who has failed to protect the priest’s victims, the meeting has to have a strong element of repentance and shame. This could be powerfully demonstrated in the opening liturgy. Ritual and music – and, of course, silence – can sometimes reach where words cannot. But repentance also requires a firm purpose of amendment. The episcopal office itself must change. Where the safeguarding of children is concerned, bishops can no longer be left as masters in their own house. Every bishops’ conference has to have an independent body dealing with complaints – and that has to include complaints against bishops. The suggestion that senior members of the hierarchy, such as archbishops, should be responsible for the investigation of junior members of it, favoured in some circles, sounds simply like an attempt to keep the scandal within the club. This obviously will not do.
First, the Church has to listen to what victims have to say; then it must attend to their treatment, compensation and recovery. Their long-term suffering and the permanent damage that child abuse causes has not yet everywhere been fully grasped, and the Church still sometimes seems to treat the spiritual welfare of the abuser as more important than that of the victim. It needs to be understood that the fact that many abusers often abuse again – and again – renders sacramental confession as of only limited value.
Victims, who in many cases prefer to be regarded as survivors, often need long-term therapy even to begin to repair the damage inflicted. Justice demands no less. Changes to canon law are required, including a better definition of child abuse itself and a statement of the duty of bishops in this regard, a breach of which would be a disciplinary offence. Much use has been made of the phrase “zero tolerance”. It needs to be clearer what this means. Provisions for the enforced expulsion from the clerical state of offending clergy also need to be clarified, and the process simplified and accelerated. And all these processes must be made transparent, and open to outside inspection.
Bishops will not like giving up control. But as a body, they have forfeited the right to it. Most of them realise this. If the summit can transfer this knowledge to those who still don’t “get it”, then it will have been useful for that reason alone.
Given that behind every abusing priest stands a bishop who has failed to protect the priest’s victims, the meeting has to have a strong element of repentance and shame. This could be powerfully demonstrated in the opening liturgy. Ritual and music – and, of course, silence – can sometimes reach where words cannot. But repentance also requires a firm purpose of amendment. The episcopal office itself must change. Where the safeguarding of children is concerned, bishops can no longer be left as masters in their own house. Every bishops’ conference has to have an independent body dealing with complaints – and that has to include complaints against bishops. The suggestion that senior members of the hierarchy, such as archbishops, should be responsible for the investigation of junior members of it, favoured in some circles, sounds simply like an attempt to keep the scandal within the club. This obviously will not do.
First, the Church has to listen to what victims have to say; then it must attend to their treatment, compensation and recovery. Their long-term suffering and the permanent damage that child abuse causes has not yet everywhere been fully grasped, and the Church still sometimes seems to treat the spiritual welfare of the abuser as more important than that of the victim. It needs to be understood that the fact that many abusers often abuse again – and again – renders sacramental confession as of only limited value.
Victims, who in many cases prefer to be regarded as survivors, often need long-term therapy even to begin to repair the damage inflicted. Justice demands no less. Changes to canon law are required, including a better definition of child abuse itself and a statement of the duty of bishops in this regard, a breach of which would be a disciplinary offence. Much use has been made of the phrase “zero tolerance”. It needs to be clearer what this means. Provisions for the enforced expulsion from the clerical state of offending clergy also need to be clarified, and the process simplified and accelerated. And all these processes must be made transparent, and open to outside inspection.
Bishops will not like giving up control. But as a body, they have forfeited the right to it. Most of them realise this. If the summit can transfer this knowledge to those who still don’t “get it”, then it will have been useful for that reason alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment