I am a lifelong Roman Catholic and the father of five children. I am the Mayor of of the county's largest cities, and people look to me for advice.

I live in Palm Beach County, FLorida, U.S.A., where the last two archbishops have been admitted child molesters.

How can our church tolerate, yet alone protect and even facilitate the depravity and perverse conduct by a handful of priests and still profess to be doing God's work? How can a priest who is a child molester rise to become a Bishop?

I understand that these are sick people and should be helped, but they should be sequestered where they can do no more harm. How can my church, the True Faith, allow and even help these deviates to stay in circulation?

What is the Church's plan to deal with this issue?

Thank you, Rodney Romano

-- Rodney Guy Romano (mycounsel@aol.com), March 09, 2002

Answers

Jmj

Dear Mayor Romano (of Lake Worth, Florida),

[I will assume that you are not an impostor, but rather the man you say you are, even though the e-mail address above is not the one given at your Internet site (rodney@cityoflakeworth.org)]
Sir, I will respond to your comments and questions, but first I'd like to quote a news story about the sad event that has brought you to this discussion forum:

----------------------------- QUOTE -----------------------------
South Florida bishop resigns after admitting sexual abuse -- March 8, 2002 Posted: 10:03 PM EST

PALM BEACH GARDENS, Florida (CNN) -- The Catholic bishop of Palm Beach announced his resignation Friday after admitting he sexually abused a seminary student more than 25 years ago, calling the abuse "extremely ill-advised and naive."

"It always hung over me," Bishop Anthony O' Connell, 63, told reporters. "I don't think I've ever preached without being conscious of it, and especially in these recent times. I certainly have been powerfully motivated in my preaching and in my spirituality for having been so stupid and so foolish at the time."

The abuse took place in the late 1970s, while O' Connell was principal of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Hannibal, Missouri, a post he held for nearly 20 years. "What I was trying to do was to work with a youngster who had personal issues to deal with," he said. "Foolishly and stupidly and naively, I attempted to work with him to help him to deal with his problems in ways ... without any of the new light that we have today with regard to sexual abuse," said O' Connell. "It still doesn't change the naivete and the stupidity and the misguidancy," he said. "Could I change all of that, I would change it in a minute for his sake as well as for mine."

O' Connell left the seminary in 1988 when he was ordained bishop of Knoxville, Tennessee. He stayed until 1998, when he was appointed bishop of Palm Beach. The archbishop of Miami issued a statement Friday saying he is "profoundly saddened" by the news. "My heart goes out to Bishop O' Connell who has served the church so dedicatedly, even though the harm of this scandal cannot be minimized," said Archbishop John Favalora. "I am deeply grieved by the grave injury that clerical sex abuse inflicts on individuals, the church and society."

O' Connell admitted to the sexual abuse in an interview Thursday with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The newspaper contacted him about allegations made by Christopher Dixon, the former student, that O' Connell touched him inappropriately in bed after Dixon sought his counsel. "Yes," O' Connell told the paper. "I would say that I was extremely ill-advised and naive in that approach. I have thoroughly regretted it, and I apologized to him when he made his complaint."

O' Connell was among those who signed a statement, issued Thursday from The Catholic Bishops of Florida, on "concern and compassion for victims of sexual abuse." Deacon Sam Barbaro, a spokesman for the Palm Beach Diocese, said the statement addressed recent allegations of sexual abuse by priests -- including the case of a defrocked priest in Boston. He said the timing was coincidental and "certainly very dreadful."

The same Palm Beach diocese faced a similar scandal in 1998, when Bishop J. Keith Symons resigned after admitting he sexually molested five boys nearly 40 years earlier. O' Connell was appointed to fill Symons' position. "My heart goes out to the clergy, religious and good people of the Diocese of Palm Beach, who for another time must endure the pain of scandal and disappointment," said Favalora. "The breach of trust between the clergy and their people wounds the body of the church irreparably."

O' Connell will remain bishop until the Vatican formally accepts his resignation, Barbaro said. "He is taking some time off, obviously," he said. "He's going to go to a quiet place, as Jesus did, and try to reflect and pray."
---------------------------- END QUOTE --------------------------

Now, Mr. Mayor, to turn to your comments and questions ...

Your message begins with the title, "Church protection of depravity among priests."
Although I am not going to pretend that there is no problem of abuse, I am not going to remain silent when people blow the problem out of proportion or use inflammatory or inaccurate language about it.
And so, I must say that you are wrong to say that the "Church protect[s] depravity."
The truth is that the Church condemns depravity of all kinds, including the kinds that have been exposed recently. You can see how "the Church" speaks on this by reading the new Catechism and by reading the words of the pope on this subject. Have you, Mr. Mayor, read those things?

When a specific Catholic person -- be he a bishop, priest, or layman -- fails to do what "the Church" tells him to do, that is the responsibility of that individual. It is unjust to say that "the Church" is guilty of abuse or that "the Church protect[s] depravity."
Rather, "the Church" is over one billion people worldwide, including one pope and about 4,000 bishops. I would bet that over 99% of those people (including the pope and bishops) totally condemn sins of sexual abuse and reject the idea of "protection" of abusers. So, please, let us keep our focus on the specific individuals who have committed the sins. In our Catholic faith, the Church is the "spotless bride of Christ," and she cannot be sullied by the wrongdoing of her sons and daughters, all of whom are sinners (even you, Mr. Mayor).

You stated: "I live in Palm Beach County, FLorida, U.S.A., where the last two archbishops have been admitted child molesters."

Sir, this is an inaccurate and inflammatory statement. The term "child molester" or "pedophile" conjures up thoughts of kids between the ages of 5 and 10, totally defenseless and ignorant of what is happening to them. Now it by no means excuses the wrong that Bishops Symons and O'Connell have done, but the fact is that the boys in question were teenagers (O'Connell's victim even in a seminary). These kids, who had reached puberty, were not defenseless, and were not ignorant. It is very unfortunate that they did not fight back and did not cause the bad priests to be defrocked at the time -- but we can understand how they might hold back out of shame or trauma. I only ask that we not refer to the bishops as "child molesters" and "pedophiles," terms that refer to the worse abuse of pre-pubertal kids.

You asked: "How can our church tolerate, let alone protect and even facilitate, the depravity and perverse conduct by a handful of priests and still profess to be doing God's work?"

I think that I have already answered this in part. If you are a Catholic, you must know and admit that the Church is indeed "doing God's work" in tremendous ways, everywhere. Since she was founded by Jesus and will exist until the end of time, enlivened by and protected by the Holy Spirit, it is impossible for the Catholic Church NOT to "do God's work."

What people need to see is that it is not "our Church" that "tolerate[s] ... depravity." It is not "our Church" that "protect[s] ... depravity." It is not "our Church" that "facilitate[s] ... depravity." Rather "our Church" condemns all "depravity."
It has been coming out, in public, that there have been some bishops who have acted extremely imprudently -- though, they claim, in "good faith," following the recommendations of psychologists -- in allowing abusers to remain "on active duty," transferring them to other parishes. These actions of bishops were errors, and a lot of people are paying for these errors in a variety of ways -- most significantly the victims and their families, but also the sinful priests (now in prison), the laity (whose donations are wasted), and the entire Church (which some good people have become afraid to join, even though they are drawn to her and know her to be the true Church of Jesus).

You continued: "How can a priest who is a child molester rise to become a Bishop?"

Again, we are not speaking of "child molesters," so I would rephrase the question: "How can a priest who has been guilty of great sexual sin rise to become a Bishop?"

I think that the answer should be obvious. All men are sinners, and, while they may privately confess their sins and be absolved of them, they are not required to publicly confess those sins. In my opinion, a sinful priest ought to confess openly to his victim and the family, offering to make amends in any way he can and even offering to confess his crime to the police. He ought also to confess openly to his bishop, tendering his resignation. However, it seems that priests and bishops (for many many years) did not know that these courses of action were the appropriate way to go. Rather, because of the great shame involved and the expectation there would be no recurrence of the sins, they kept these things totally private, often avoiding the victims and covering up the crimes.

Some of the guilty priests seem to have truly rehabilitated themselves and stopped committing their sins. In some cases (Bp. O'Connell, for example), there seems to have been a one-time error (about 25 years ago), deeply regretted immediately. Therefore, in reply to your question, some men who have sinned have gone on to become such laudable priests that their names were recommended to the pope (Paul VI or John Paul II) for the episcopacy. The pope had no way of knowing that these men had old secrets. And that is how "a priest who has been guilty of [sexual sin can] rise to become a bishop."

You stated: "I understand that these are sick people and should be helped, but they should be sequestered where they can do no more harm. How can my church, the True Faith, allow and even help these deviates to stay in circulation? What is the Church's plan to deal with this issue?"

Sir, I realize that you must be a busy man, but you really need to locate and read the statements of the Vatican and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops about this subject -- statements issued at various times since 1985. If you had read them, you would not have posted this message on the forum, because you would know that the pope has been actively pursuing this problem for a long time, and the U.S. bishops (as a body) have been joined with him for a decade and a half. It is unfortunate, though, that specific bishops have failed to "walk the talk" of the whole conference of bishops -- some proving to have been abusers themselves and others proving to have mishandled cases involving priests. I think that we can rest assured that the incredible pain that has been caused, the tremendous embarrassment that has been caused, and the injustice done to the Catholic laity (as a whole) are factors that are moving together to bring an end to this crisis.

People are not just sitting still and ignoring all these scandals. Besides what has been stated in the Church documents that I mentioned earlier, I am confident that there is strong action going on behind the scenes. For example, although I have no proof of this, I believe that the pope has contacted every bishop worldwide, demanding that he resign if he is involved in, or has been involved in, any kind of scandalous sexual behavior. Moreover, although I have no proof, I believe that the pope has required every bishop worldwide to track down and defrock every priest that is involved in, or has been involved in, any kind of scandalous sexual behavior.

Of course, this would take hard work and voluntary compliance on the part of many people. The problem with voluntary compliance is that some people will be stupid (thinking that they are "cured"), others will be defiant (considering their actions not to be sinful), others will have been corrupted by power (which they won't want to lose), and others will be in such deep denial of their sins that they cannot even acknowledge them. It is mind-boggling to me that Bp. O'Connell, knowing what had happened to his predecessor, would nevertheless think it reasonable to accept the pope's appointment to the episcopacy. What kind of mental illness can have been the cause of such behavior? May God forgive him for this great sin.
Another option that is probably being considered (or even acted upon) by the Vatican is the practice of "visitation" (the use of Vatican-appointed experts who would travel to every diocese investigating and removing from ecclesial office those who have committed crimes).

St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John Gecik

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

Thank you for an intellegent and good answer to this.

Always for me, the Catholic Church raises the question of who shall gaurd the gaurdians. This Visitation idea could end up as an internal inquisition. The no-feedback problem of a hierarchy does bother me, as well as the too much feedback problems of other ruling/guiding structures.

Actually neither bishop was required (by the Church, by themselves, by the law) to proclaim their past sins. They sinned, apologised to their victums, (I expect they made restitution), confessed and were forgiven. And now, in an era where these crimes are being looked into, more is coming out. If all were required to proclaim their sins publically, whos reputation would survive? Not mine. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), March 10, 2002.

When I was writing that sentence about "visitation," I asked myself, "How long will it take for an anti-Catholic to read this and bring up the 'I word' [inquisition]?"
So sad to see that it was a Catholic whose mind would run in that direction! Damned if you do (investigate and clean up) and damned if you don't (leaving the bad guys in place)? How sad!
Thanks anyway, Sean, for calling mine a "good answer." Maybe we'll see what Mr. Romano thinks.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

You have written a thoughtful question that concerns all thinking Catholics. Perhaps there will never be a better time to split ourselves into two separate camps; Catholics who want better answers to obvious problems - and Catholics who have their head up their ass.

The Church seems to approach its problems in the context of centuries, so try and imagine what the Church will be like in two or three hundred years. Based on the trend ...

- Celibacy will no longer be required for priests, and that will help clear up a lot of mischief.

- Men will enter the priesthood later in life. The seminary won’t be an option for boys.

- The Church will take the lead in protecting women and children from abuse, be it abuse by brutal men or abuse involving drugs.

- Ordination will not be a requirement for having authority. And it won’t keep priests from getting fired either. Parishes will have to compete for members.

Of course, things will move a lot faster if .000001% of anti- Catholics step up and randomly make accusations against priests. If that happens, things will move along fast.

-- Bob Hennessy (bobhenn@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

Bob

What kind of foolishness are you trying to say her? This kind of stuff is just plain crazy and to tell the truth un-Christ like. You are not rying to tell me you want to Change the traditions of the church as Christ commanded her to be? Are you?

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 12, 2002.

You call yourself a Catholic, then--Mr. Hennessy? You're saying:

''time to split ourselves into two separate camps; Catholics who want better answers to obvious problems - and Catholics who have their head up their ass.''

Looks like you have yours squatted over your own jug-ears! You are a fine example of Irish humor. With Saint Paddy's coming, I'll put you down as an Irish joke.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 12, 2002.