Archbishop Flynn wrote
a column two week ago on recent news on how wide spread
sexual abuse is in public schools and the fact that abuse is declining
withing the Church but increasing within schools.
This week the Archbishop responds to an
angry reply to his column in which he prints in full and then answers.
The letter writer’s main contention is that the Archbishop
was changing from “Mistakes were made.” Now it’s, “Everyone does it.” I
think the letter writer was wrong in this categorization of the
Bishop’s letter since that was not the point of it and that he was
saying their is a broader crisis that is mostly being ignored by the
government and the media.
On the other hand I think the Archbishop also does not answer some of
the valid points made by the writer and keeps everything on a very
focused reply. For example priestly abuse is worse than teacher abuse
on many levels and can’t be simply equated as in the Archbishop’s
replay. He also ignored answering the question on what should
happen to Bishops who have been involved in a game of musical
chairs with priests suspected of abuse and only talked about it in the
context of the public education system.
He seems to miss what so outrages many. It is not just abuse
which is a horrible evil on it own, but the fact that the problems
could have been nipped in the bud and prevented from getting worse.
People can accept that their are sick individual that do
horrible things – it is when that evil is swept under the rug by those
responsible that it really angers people. Though it isn’t just
Archbishop Flynn who doesn’t seem to understand this. It is
evident that the majority of the USSCB does not get it.
The new vice-president of the US bishops’ conference likely next
president is Bishop Gerald Kicanas. As Diogenes posted:
So where does Bishop Kicanas stand on
the all-consuming issue of sexual abuse? The Chicago Sun-Times caught
up with man who was once seminary rector there, to ask him a few
questions about the case of Father Daniel McCormack. It turns out, you
see, that Kicanas was aware of three different incidents involving
sexual impropriety by McCormack prior to his ordination. Did he
therefore blow the whistle, and hustle the young man out of the
seminary? Guess again.
“There was a sense that his activity was
part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the
experience,” Kicanas said. “I was more concerned about his drinking. We
sent him to counseling for that.”
Drinking can be a problem, certainly. Especially if it’s not part of a
developmental process.
Just in case you’ve missed the headlines, McCormack is now in prison,
serving a term for 5 counts of sexual molestation of young boys. But
now, looking back from the post-Dallas perspective, surely Bishop
Kicanas has second thoughts, right? Wrong.
“I don’t think there was anything I
could have done differently,” Kicanas said.
They still don’t get it.
Meanwhile
Gerald reports on the case of a pastor
in Oakland who was arrested in 1999 for a lewd act in a men’s bathroom
– but it’s okay since it wasconsensual and didn’t involve a minor.
15 comments
Quote: “It turns out, you see, that Kicanas was aware of three different incidents involving sexual impropriety by McCormack prior to his ordination.”
I think that much depends on what the nature of the impropriety was. If it involved this seminarian and an adult woman, for example, then I would agree that that would be definite cause for concern, but I would not see it as a warning sign of possible future child abuse.
Paul, I think you are wrong. It makes no difference whatsoever whether Fr. X was chasing skirts or pants “prior to Ordination”.
HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDAINED!!!!!!
Get it?
The Bishops as a group do a helluva job of blaming the lawyers, blaming the shrinks, blaming the boy-victims…
We’re not impressed at all with “the Bishops’ Club.”
It’s just evil..that’s what it is..& our Bishops need to clean it up..
As a white male heterosexual Viet-Nam veteran Catholic public-school teacher…um…I forgot the focus…
I have to agree with Paul, for several reasons.
One is that I can think of sexually inappropriate things I have done in the past 4 years that I would never again repeat. People do sin, and people do repent. If every person that had ever committed a grave sin or had some sort of disorered desires at one point in his life were banned from the priesthood, you’d have to get rid of 95% of the priests we have (and you might want to consider taking St. Augustine off the Roman Calendar).
The second is that I know a priest who had a mishap while he was in seminary, and he happens to be one of the best priests you could possibly hope for. He’s halfway to sainthood.
So if Fr. McCormack had a few issues while at the seminary, he’s just like you and I – sinners who on occassion fall down. For all we know these things all occured in his first year and he was fine for the next 3.
What I would say is that if Fr. McCormack had one of these problems near the time of his ordination, it may have been appropriate to put off the ordination a year and see how he fared over that time.
Correction – Fr. Danielson is the outgoing pastor, not the new one (who is Fr. Greene).
I work at the Oakland chancery (I haven’t been here too long), and I only knew Fr. Dan Danielson as a strong voice and a bit of a “mover and shaker”. I’m sorry to hear that he has some, um, unfortunate history (according to Gerald – I don’t know the source).
Curt Jester – it is Fr. Greene, not Fr. Danielson, who was arrested. You are unintentionally defaming Fr. Danielson. You need to correct this on your blog!
Reread Gerald’s story more carefully…
Well, the incidents reportedly involved two adult males and a minor.
I would say that was significant enough to prevent his ordination.
I think some people have a misguided view of compassion.
That in each of these cases there was confusion, mishandling, and now persistent accusations that cannot be resolved, but can only do further damage, is a clear indication to me that this whole affair is the work of the Devil. This is not to excuse human failure. But in the classic strategy of forcing the mother to hand over for destruction the guilty child whom she loves, there can be nothing but perpetual destruction for all involved. Perhaps in their dilemma, recognized consciously or not, the bishops reacted with paralyzing fear. Yet if they had remained calm and eliminated priests and seminarians on the first accusation, the results would still be the same. This was a diabolically thought-out strategy that capitalized on the weak souls of many. And it is still succeeding. The mother is forced to destroy her children. God help us.
When the ‘few instances’ of ‘inappropriate’ sexual behavior involve homosexual interludes, particularly with minors–THAT is NOT something that can be swept under the rug or counceled away!
It is a sign of a grave disorder. That man is not
priesthood material.
And I resent the thought that 95% of priests have indulged in their own selfish sexual passions that are detrimental to themselves and other souls. There are HOLY virginal priests out there who are in love with God and do care for souls in the most self-giving possible way.
Magdalen,
I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression in my post. I didn’t mean to say that 95% of the priests in the world have indulged their sexual passions whether in the priesthood or the seminary. I certainly recognize that there are a great many virgin priests.
What I meant was that 95% of the priests we have have committed some mortal sin in their lives, whether before entering seminary or after, and so we can’t say that just because a person committed or struggled with mortal sin in their life they ought to be barred from the priesthood.
And remember, sexual sins are really down the list in terms of importance. Please don’t misunderstand me! Of *course* a person who has some sort of pedophilic problem would be an incredible danger in the priesthood. I’m not denying that in any way. What I am saying is that as dangerous as such a person is, someone who is unable to control his anger can be in many ways just as bad or worse of a danger. A priest with a bad temper can turn souls away from God quicker than anything else I know. I’ve seen the damage it can do.
My point is that if we are going to say that because a person slipped up in seminary sexually we ought to bar them from ordination, then we have to also say that if a person loses his temper in seminary – or does any number of other things – we ought then to bar them from ordination as well.
The reality is that there are circumstances when either (or any other grave sin) ought to lead to a bishop or rector saying that so and so cannot be ordained. Yet at the same time, that doesn’t mean that *every* instance of grave sin, in or outside of the seminary, should constitute matter for prohibiting ordination.
All this goes back to my original point which was simply that it’s not a black and white case such that just because Fr. McCormack had some problem in the seminary then it ought to have been over for him. As Paul said, if he spent the night with a woman in year one, well that’s different from if he molested a 10 year old at some point.
Bishop Kicanas is my bishop. (hangs head in shame). He’s a VERY good administrator. And he speaks the language of therapy like a professional, which he is. But he will never inspire people to sainthood. Phoenix, next door, has a HOLY bishop that does that job well. Here in Tucson, we are just waiting till someone better comes along.
I was a classmate of Fr. Dan McCormack at Mundelein. During our second year of theology, nearly a dozen of us were “asked to leave.” In my case, I was never clearly told the reason why, only that I was in need of psychological counseling and I needed to be open to the possibility of institutionalization. I went to a psychologist weekly for a year, and he concluded that there was no indication of any significant problem. In fact, he said the only minor problems that he noticed (a mild tendency to paranoia, a distrust of authority) were likely caused by the seminary.
God has his ways, and I can’t say that I should have been a priest. All I know is that, in the fifteen years since I left the seminary, I have never molested, abused or even thought of abusing a child or adult. While I and some of my classmates were deemed “psychologically incapable” of being a priest by Bishop Kicanas, Dan (and a few others) who were deemed psychologically capable have harmed countless young people, and damaged the faith of many others. I can’t help but feel a bit angry to read his words that “it would have been unfair” to keep Dan out of the priesthood.
Pray for me that I keep focused on Christ and let go of my bitterness.
I think one of the things that most of us leave out of the equation, due to lack of personal experience — thank God! — is the way these abusers act when they are caught.
Take, for example, the Nebraska public school teacher who was arrested just last week for bedding down a 13-yr-old boy and taking him to Mexico. She cried when arrested, she shouted her undying love for the boy as she was muscled into a squad car, she presented a pitiful, “I can’t help it, I fell in love” defense when she talked to a lawyer.
Those of us who are objective spit back a terse and cynical, “Whatever.”
But for the people who knew this teacher, who admired her skills in the classroom and as a sports coach, who grew up with her and knew her to be sweet and sincere — they’re the ones who are moved to sympathy. They *want* to give her the benefit of the doubt because of their histories with her.
So it is with clergy who abuse minors. I unfortunately was on staff of a Protestant Church, working for one of the executive presbyters of the denomination, when another fellowship in our denomination went through this with a youth pastor. Oh, how he cried. He loved the child, you see…wanted to show the child the utmost love and happiness. He was mortified, embarrassed, hated himself, hated his sin, deserving of hell, yadda, yadda, yadda.
So his senior pastor and this executive presbyter were sympathetic. They wanted to help him, not hurt him, not ruin his career and his life. They told him they’d find him a job elsewhere in the country so he would be removed from all temptation with his victim. He would not be able to contact the child ever again. He must repent of his sin and go to counseling. Of course, he leapt at this offer. Was his “indiscretion” ever revealed to his new senior pastor in another state, either in specific in vague terms? I never knew.
The victim’s parents were handled. The victim’s counseling was paid for. The situation was hushed up, so as not to hurt the rest of the congregation, not to spoil the church’s reputation as a loving, Christ-like family.
Unless you’ve been through it, you can’t see how easy it is for one of these attackers to pull this off. They’re very, very, VERY good at winning the favor and trust of all the adults around them. If they weren’t, they’d never have access to children.
We all should know better, but it’s so easy to fall for the illusion. That’s why kids need to be protected all the time, and the person who seems most perfect and most trustworthy might be the one who is laying the foundation for an attack.
What a disgusting world we live in.
Comments are closed.