Why would a priest or seminarian not report sexual harassment by a superior?

iStock

Why would Catholic priests and seminarians be so reluctant to report allegations of sexual harassment or abuse from bishops, priests or religious superiors? This question has been raised repeatedly in the wake of the allegations against Theodore McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, D.C., who on Saturday resigned from the College of Cardinals. McCarrick is accused of abusing a minor as well as sexually harassing seminarians and young priests.

Based on my own experiences and many conversations with clergy and members of religious orders over the years, let me suggest six interrelated reasons for this reluctance.

Advertisement

First, there is a fear of being labeled as a “complainer” or “troublemaker” by others in the diocese or religious order. Sometimes simply raising concerns about the actions of a person in power (a bishop, seminary rector, religious superior, teacher or older priest), let alone reporting actual abuse or harassment, is enough to lead some in the institution to critique or even attack a person for “rocking the boat.”

There is a reflexive desire to protect the reputation of the institution to which one belongs.

Why does this happen?

The most basic reason is a desire to avoid “scandal” in an institution to which people have committed themselves and in which they take great pride. (This is the case not only in the Catholic Church but in other religious organizations as well as secular organizations that have faced abuse cases, for example, Penn State.)

Any case of abuse and harassment, particularly when made public, worsens the reputation of the church, diocese, seminary or religious order and diminishes a person’s positive feelings about belonging to the institution. There is, therefore, a reflexive desire to protect the reputation of the institution to which one belongs. This reflex may be intensified in a person in any official capacity, who, in a sense, represents the institution to the outside world. Those in authority are therefore sometimes especially resistant to hearing bad news about the institution.

The victim may be told, “Just stay away from him.” Or, more simply, “Get over it.”

But there is a simpler reason for the reluctance among some to report abuse or harassment: They understand that for those in charge, it will mean more work—of the most difficult kind. If it is a crime, it means reporting the priest’s actions to civic authorities; if it is inappropriate (but not criminal) behavior, it still means doing many tasks that few people want to undertake, including confronting the abuser or harasser and perhaps removing him from active ministry. All of this may lead to tacit feelings of “They will hate hearing this” among those who are harassed or abused.

Second, there is a fear of being told not to “take things so seriously.” Especially if the harassment has been continuing for years and is widely “known,” as it apparently was in the case of Theodore McCarrick, others who have been harassed or superiors who have known about it may wave it away or downplay it as something that “just happens.” Or the victim may be told, “Just stay away from him.” Or, more simply, “Get over it.”

Third, there is a fear of being dismissed when one reports it. Many years ago as a young Jesuit, I reported an incident of my being groped. (He had done this before to others.) One of my superiors responded, “I’m not hearing this from anyone else.” I told him, “You’re hearing it from me.” The priest in question was not removed from active ministry for several years.

Fourth, there is a fear of hostility from people with whom you work or, in some cases, live with. This is essential for people unfamiliar with the Catholic world of diocesan clergy and religious orders to understand. Unlike workplace harassment of the sort reported by those in #MeToo movement, priests and religious may not only work with but live with the people they are accusing. (In the case of a monastery, it might be someone you will live with your entire life: Monks take vows of “stability.”) Sometimes, victims of harassment or abuse also work and live with the religious authorities responsible for taking action—in a seminary, rectory, chancery or religious community.

There is a fear of hostility from people with whom you work or, in some cases, live with.

Living under the same roof with your harasser or breaking bread with the person you are asking to confront the harassment can be tremendously stressful. Thus, the person being harassed may say to himself (or herself in the case of women religious), “It’s not worth it.”

Fifth, there is a fear of misplaced sympathy for the abuser or harasser. One may hear comments like this: “He’s done so much good work. Why are you focusing on this one thing?” Or: “This happened years ago. He’s an old man now and not doing anyone any harm. Why are you putting him through this?” Many abusers or harassers are narcissists and skilled at shifting the focus from the abuse or harassment they committed to how difficult their lives are in the wake of dealing with lawsuits or their removal from ministry. In other words: “Poor Father So-and-So.”

Sixth, there is a fear of the reaction from others who did not report the abuse or harassment in the past. Other priests, seminarians or religious who have been harassed (or even abused) and who have not spoken up may feel an intense mix of emotions that sometimes translates into anger at the one now reporting. (As psychologists tell us, that kind of anger is more easily directed outward than inward.) That is, if other priests, seminarians or religious have been abused or harassed, the one who reports it, or even speaks about it, raises uncomfortable questions about patterns of non-reporting.

[Explore America's in-depth coverage of Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church.]

Taken together, it is easy to see why some seminarians, priests and members of religious orders may be reluctant to come forward about harassment or even abuse at the hands of their diocesan or religious superiors, or other clerics in power. Most of this, as we see, is based on fear—fear within the institution and fear within the person.

Today, I am glad that many are beginning overcome that fear out of love for the church. Because, as the New Testament reminds us, perfect love drives out fear.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
sheila gray
5 months 3 weeks ago

Thank you for your deeply-considered article. As a survivor myself, who was abused by an RSCJ in 1969 in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, after 49 years of speaking out and being “cast out” by beloved teachers and classmates, I can only hope that some are reconsidering their actions and words... Survivors must “take the wheel” now and build healing centers for ourselves. I cannot believe I have lived long enough to witness such a complete turn around in the CC about all of it. Love is afoot in the Land again. Hallelujah

Skip Collins
5 months 3 weeks ago

Another question: Why would journalists at a premier Catholic magazine (James Martin, Thomas Reese, etc.) fail for many years to investigate serious abuse allegations that they heard about a senior cleric in the American church? We should acknowledge that many, many people with responsibilities, not just bishops, have utterly betrayed our trust. McCarrick is a pathetic, narcissistic monster. The bishops are self-serving, craven, and spineless. The Vatican is fearful. Francis is inept. Finally, the Catholic press is cynically uninterested in discussing their own failings in this mess.

All American cardinals should offer their resignations. The editors of all American Catholic publications who did not do their duty to seriously investigate allegations they were aware of should also resign.

Sunny Donoghue
5 months 3 weeks ago

Well said. Any answers, Fr. Martin?

Jeffrey More
5 months 3 weeks ago

Excellent suggestion - the entire hierarchy of the Church in the United States should submit their resignations, and as his last official act before HE resigns, Pope Bergoglio should accept those resignations.

Linda Gatter
5 months 3 weeks ago

Skip, maybe try listening with a little compassion instead of lashing out in anger. James Martin already explained in his article why these things are so hard for many people (I would guess, nearly everyone) to report. Hasn't something similar to this happened to you -- maybe not sexual harassment, but what about a school bully? A teacher who treated you or other students badly? A colleague at work who you know is acting unethically? These things have happened to nearly all of us. Did YOU report them all? Really? In my life, I *did* sometimes, but sometimes I *didn't*. The truth will out, with or without anger, but the truth will succeed far more quickly without attacking people because attacking creates a climate of fear, and fear prevents people from coming out.

Skip Collins
5 months 3 weeks ago

Anger is not incompatible with compassion. I am angry with McCarrick and with every other bishop who knew, should have known, or suspected that McCarrick was unfit for his job and did little or nothing. But it goes even further. The hypocrisy has spread far beyond the episcopacy. For all of his hand-wringing about bishops, victims, clericalism, and homophobia, I have not read anything by Fr. Martin that suggests the slightest self-awareness of his own complicity in enabling McCarrick (and I suspect many other prelates and priests who live double lives) to continue to damage the Body of Christ. Do I understand and sympathize with this cowardice? I certainly do, because, as you suggest, I share the shame and guilt of not doing enough to expose the lies.

J Brookbank
5 months 3 weeks ago

For what it is worth, Fr Martin shared his own experience of reporting a sexual harasser only to watch the perpetrator remain in place for six years. He was disclosing that he, too was a victim of this abuse of power by a perpetrator and a bishop or superiot

Danny Collins
5 months 3 weeks ago

Good question. One of the things that sickens me is that Fr. Martin seems to convey the idea that the serial abuse of young seminarians by "Uncle Ted" was waved away by the episcopacy as something that “just happens.” Everybody knew. Fr. Martin knew. America Magazine knew, but they considered him a close friend of the magazine and honored him as their homilist for their 100th year centenary mass. Fr. Martin painted a very sympathetic picture of him in his article about how something like this could happen, and ignored the fact that McCarrick molested adolescent boys in his younger days when he didn't have power and only switched to molesting young adults after he gained power over seminarians. Worst of all, there is no acknowledgement that McCarrick created child molestors. He set the pattern of molesting those whom he had power over, and then released these young priests into the diocese where they acted out what they learned in molesting the young male altar servers who were in their control. Few priests have come forward to admit that they were molested by McCarrick. Of the few that have, at least one has said this about McCarrick.

McCarrick was a sexual predator who created other sexual predators and released them on the children of your diocese.

Fr. Martin and America Magazine knew about the beach house (i.e., McCarrick's predator factory) and continued to honor him as a friend and man worthy of honor.

Robert Lewis
5 months 3 weeks ago

Where do your defamatory charges against Father Martin come from? Can you prove them? If not, what you've written is actionable, because it's libelous.

Skip Collins
5 months 3 weeks ago

Fr. Martin has been one of the leading Catholic journalists in this country for a long time. He and many other journalists who had good reason to suspect that a wicked man was moving up the hierarchy, should have done more to bring this to light. Fr. Martin's words:
"The revelations of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s disgusting predation of Catholic seminarians and young priests over the course of many years makes for truly disturbing reading. Over the past few years, I had heard stories about Cardinal (then Bishop and Archbishop) McCarrick’s summer home, where he would invite (or suborn or force) seminarians to share a bed with him, massage them and invite them to call him “Uncle Ted.” But at the time they were unsubstantiated rumors, and I knew no one with any first-hand knowledge. (Otherwise, I would have reported them.)"
(https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/07/16/cardinal-mccarrick-sem…)

Sheila Connolly
5 months 2 weeks ago

Do you understand how the job of a journalist works? They can't just report rumors; they need at least one victim to go on the record. Without that, they are legally not permitted to print "hearsay," and they can be sued for libel if they do. The Catholic Church has deep pockets, and it had plenty of journalists nervous. With a victim to go on the record, they could have gone to press -- without one, it was impossible.

Skip Collins
5 months 2 weeks ago

Yes, I understand journalistic ethics. But there was plenty that Fr. Martin could have done ethically with his extraordinary access. First of all, "public figures" are not given as much protection from defamation as are private citizens. Unless public figures are able to prove that a journalist acted with "actual malice”—knowingly printing false information, or acting recklessly as to whether it was false or not—they cannot recover damages for defamation. Without committing any libel, Fr. Martin could have further publicized the already public statements of Richard Sipes and asked for responses from McCarrick and the dioceses that reportedly made settlements. He could have made inquiries from sources with inside information. He could have informed Vatican officials of the obviously credible allegations and demanded answers. For God's sake, he is the most prominent journalist covering the Catholic Church in America. Is it too much to expect him to do his freaking job? It was already out there in the open.

Fr. Martin wrote:
"I had heard stories about Cardinal (then Bishop and Archbishop) McCarrick’s summer home, where he would invite (or suborn or force) seminarians to share a bed with him, massage them and invite them to call him “Uncle Ted.” But at the time they were unsubstantiated rumors, and I knew no one with any first-hand knowledge. (Otherwise, I would have reported them.)"

As a manager in a mid-sized company, it has been drilled into me that I have absolutely no discretion when it comes to reporting anything that might indicate sexual harassment in my workplace, including any "unsubstantiated rumors." I am required to report. I understand that "report" in this case means to inform the proper authorities, not publicize in the media. Apparently Fr. Martin does not feel he had any obligation to do even that. So far, he has not indicated even the slightest awareness of his own failure in this mess.

Mark Silverbird
5 months 1 week ago

Mr. Skip Collins, "a big" thank you for your continued comments. I have a letter dated Feb. 12, 2018, that is evidence and proof of a man/priest who was staying in my home in Oct-2017 to June-2018, turning out to be a pedophile of over 50 plus 11-16 year old boys over a 20 year period. When I tried to bring this letter to the attention of the hierarchy of the Catholic church, everyone ignores it. The further cover up is in all those who refuse to do anything about this letter. I say that "Everyone of these people should be ousted" from the Catholic church, because they are not the solution, they are "ALL" part of the problem/cover-up. This poisonous snake sitting in the seat of Peter is hiring other poisonous snakes to administer that poison to the laity.

J Brookbank
5 months 3 weeks ago

Fr Martin, is there a reason you did not include as victims who might not report their superiors female victims serving and vowed to the church --- novices, sisters/nuns in temporary vows, sisters who have taken permanent vows?

Thank you for the article.

J Brookbank
5 months 3 weeks ago

Oops I see that you did. Thanks. It is a shame, though, that headline did not include religious women.

Charles Gallagher III
5 months 3 weeks ago

I was assigned to investigate clergy sex abuse in Philadelphia sixteen years ago and participated in issuing a Grand Jury Report that exposed abusers & their enablers! Finally this Pope has decided to focus on the enablers. It is about time! It is my informed understanding that what transpired in Philadelphia can be discovered in every large diocese in the American Catholic Church. Hence all bishops know what they have done & should resign; Pope Francis should accept these nation wide resignations to truly cleanse the Church of these failed leaders! Otherwise and sadly the Church will continue to die in this country!

Carolyn Disco
5 months 3 weeks ago

Charles Gallagher is a true hero who worked with DA Lynne Abraham to expose the rot in Justin Rigali's and Anthony's Bevilacqua's administrations. Jim Martin's lists of fears: of complaining, scandal, of being dismissed, to "get over it," hostility from colleagues, etc. --- are they not at heart the taste of cowardice? Nowhere, nowhere does the victim truly matter. Such is the narcissist clerical culture. Who and what are they witnessing to? Jesus Christ? Hardly. It's all about them. It's an abstraction, the passion of the church and they dare consider themselves the victim. The bleached language in the American bishops/cardinals statements about McCarrick (how awful, we need to strengthen policies, yada, yada, yada) are limp repetitions heard for years. Grow up, fire every Vatican official who was warned about McCarrick immediately and name them. Wake up, Pope Francis, and learn that Chile is everywhere. It's been 16 years since 2002 and this is where we are? For shame. Our disgust and fury should not be dismissed. Read this DA's response to Rigali's corrupt deceit in his rebuttal of the grand jury's findings. Do you really want such slick drivel by a cardinal to speak for the Church of Christ? And congratulations to Gallagher again for his integrity.

www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2005_09_21_Philly_GrandJury/da_re…

J Brookbank
5 months 3 weeks ago

self-deleted

Erin B
5 months 3 weeks ago

So I had to read your comment several times just to make sure I read it correctly. Please correct me if I misunderstood your point, but as I read it you label victims of abuse as cowards. Many victims choose not to speak up because of fear. In today's world, surely you have witnessed the treatment of victims who come forward. They are put under the microscope more than those accused.

Carolyn Disco
5 months 3 weeks ago

Oh, mercy, Lord, blaming victims was never my point. As an activist and advocate for survivors since 2002, I am well aware of the fear factor, the shame factor, the grooming, the trauma bond, the emotional manipulation, the near suicide of victims and the lifelong impact of abuse. I am ashamed I left any impression to the contrary, Erin B. Writing late last night took more care than I appreciated. I need to reread my comment and correct any such inference.
Meanwhile, the cowards to me are those who see no evil, abandon every principle of decency to protect their own power and reputations, the "get over it" crowd, the Vatican personnel who were warned about McCarrick and perhaps recalled his prolific fundraising skills at the Papal Foundation (follow the money is a truly wise maxim); what NH's attorney general called in 2002 as part of its state investigation conscious ignorance, willful blindness and flagrant indifference to the danger clergy posed to innocents in their paths. Sorry, I have my doubts about prelates who proclaim "I had no idea." Why didn't they, if they are such skillful, rising, aware leaders? Cluelessness and denial should not be assets among hierarchy, though sometimes I wonder after reading their depositions and statements.
The settlements with priests and seminarians abused by McCarrick have been online for about the eight years I’ve been aware of them, if memory serves. Read for yourselves at Richard Sipe’s website, the former Benedictine and current expert witness who treated so many victims and perpetrators. Scroll down to bold type for quotes from settlement documents: http://www.richardsipe.com/Comments/2008-04-21-McCarrick_Syndrome.html This is what McCarrick got away with for maybe 50 years plus?
So, when will we get fewer smooth statements and more direct action? The curia successfully blind-sided policies in the last few years to hold bishops/cardinals accountable. No wonder Marie Collins resigned from O'Malley's child protection panel he headed.

Erin B
5 months 3 weeks ago

Carolyn,

Thank you for the clarification. I apologize that I made you panic! I clearly needed more coffee this morning.

J Brookbank
5 months 3 weeks ago

Sane here, Carolyn. Thanks

Phillip Stone
5 months 3 weeks ago

May I venture an alternative perspective.
Fear and the love of money are both major themes in the New Testament.
Many actions and failures to act are founded on one, the other or both.
My life is replete with actions and omissions rooted in fear and each and every one required repentance.
Of course each of them was an expression of cowardice on my part. In like manner, the failures and omissions under discussion are indeed acts of cowardice.
I hope you other Catholics here share with me the revealed conviction that we all share FALLEN human nature and are ALL sinners and are ALL deserving of its dreadful punishments and disgrace and place our hope in the salvation brought about by the courageous consent of Jesus to human life, death by crucifixion and resurrection obtaining for us release from the curse of the fall and reconciling us to the Heavenly Father.

Perpetrators, victims and bystanders - we are all in the same boat needing to respond to grace by acknowledgement of our own wrong-doing and accepting healing and reconciliation and leaving vengeance to the Father.

None of us will make the slightest bit of difference to the sin nature of our fallen humanity, that is socialist heresy, but we do have some power to manage institutions and processes in such a way as to minimise occasions of sin and providing fewer opportunity for predators of various hues.

A couple of thought experiments from a doctor of 50 years experience.

Abolish seminaries. Grow presbyters and bishops within our day to day communities. No isolation, no quarantine, no hot-housing of pseudo-piety or superiority.
They are not aristocrats or superior human beings, their calling is a call to service not a mark of special favour or reward for goodness. Monastic life I leave aside.

Have confessionals completely glass in full view of others. Conduct spiritual direction in unlocked areas prone to entry of others without notice or with CCTV properly administered. There is no INALIENABLE RIGHT to privacy, it is a decadent distortion of modesty and discretion which can be honoured and handled without allowing for "dirty deeds done in darkness".

Henry George
5 months 3 weeks ago

I would like to ask some difficult questions:

It appears that Jesuits at America heard about McCarrick long before the scandal broke.

Did they tell anyone, I guess at the Vatican, about what they heard ?

If not, why not ?

Will they now please resign their positions at America.

My nephew attended a Seminary and brought to the attention of the Rector, his Vocation Director and his Bishop that one of the Priest/Professors had a habit of getting drunk
and putting his hands on seminarians...
He was told it would be taken care of.
That following Summer, my nephew was notified that he was being dropped by the
diocese and thus no longer a student at the Seminary and it would be best if he did not
visit the Seminary...

Five years later the Priest is still there.

Why is that ?

Every Bishop, every Rector, every Vocation Director should be forced to resign by the Pope.
Then the Pope himself should resign.

MARIO CATALDO
5 months 3 weeks ago

The 2002 book "Goodbye Good Men" by Michael S. Rose, is rife with events that took place in many of our US seminaries like the one you describe -- effectively running out good orthodox men and keeping the offenders. It is a painful but necessary read to see how we got here.

A Fielder
5 months 3 weeks ago

Seven: members of religious orders are totally economically dependent on the order. Being dismissed or leaving in protest will have drastic economic consequences, the older you are the harder it is to start over with nothing. Most other priests also have no professional credentials outside of church ministry. You give your whole life, and then you belong to the leadership.

A Fielder
5 months 3 weeks ago

Also, jesuits don’t want to be accused of “interfering with a man’s life.” In some places, seminarians and priests who date “need” the freedom to do so, in the name of “discernment.” If you don’t report a brother, he won’t report you. Better date a friend than a minor child or parishioner. Sad but true. This is even more complicated in multi cultural contexts. It’s well known that most diocesan priests in African and some other place keep mistresses.

Phillip Stone
5 months 3 weeks ago

Are you using "date" as a euphemism for having an affair?
Are you likening the normal allure of young men for young women to perverted appetites for same-sex eroticism or paedophilia or alpha male dominance driven polygamy?
Are you saying "one man, one woman ... till death do us part" is merely a cultural dictum?

Do you have inside knowledge that this is a Jesuit norm?

A Fielder
5 months 3 weeks ago

Phillip, good question, yes and no. Based on my own experience at an international Jesuit theologate, there are two kinds of “dating” in the seminary. Some men fall in love and test out their call to marriage in the seminary while continuing to prepare for the priesthood. Others just take the same freedom to discern as license to seduce and have fun. This is true for gay and straight men alike.. in my experience straight Americans are more honorable. The foreigners have different cultural norms. I also believe that predatory behavior is not limited to gay men. A straight man can be a sociopath too.

A Fielder
5 months 3 weeks ago

.

Kristeen Bruun
5 months 3 weeks ago

Many years ago, I reported sexual acting out by a pastor. When I went to apply for a job at another parish, I found I had been blackballed by the archdiocese as a troublemaker. The pastor who was interviewing me for the new job called the pastor in question, who told him, "Everything happened just as she said it did." So I got the job. The pastor who was acting out had issues but he had more integrity than the chancery crowd did.

A Fielder
5 months 3 weeks ago

Kristen, I’m so sorry to read about your experience. I’m glad it worked out as well as it did for you. I too have been led to believe that some religious orders know who the whistleblowers are and blacklist those people. I don’t know if it’s true, but it is certainly freigtening to consider that a woman will always be vulnerable to the power players in the clergy.

J Brookbank
5 months 3 weeks ago

Carolyn - I agree in general with what you have written here. With one exception and I believe it is a big one.

You write: "Jim Martin's lists of fears: of complaining, scandal, of being dismissed, to "get over it," hostility from colleagues, etc. --- are they not at heart the taste of cowardice?"

I believe this admission of fears - by both Father Des Rossi, a diocesan priest and Fr Jim Martin, a religious priest - is one of the most critical lanes in the road forward.

What they are admitting is what we have known all along. These priests, bishops, cardinals, superiors and popes; these sisters and nuns and mothers superior; these seminarians and novice sisters and nuns ------- THEY ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS JUST LIKE US. Many of us understood that all along; many of those men and women also understood that all along. And yet we ALL - we and they - agreed to play a game where they were a better kind of human being, instead of simply human beings who, like the rest of us, have a specific kind of relationship with God and, thus, with others.

But they were NEVER free from all the fears we experience, the fears that keep us awake us in the middle of the night, aware that doing the right thing will cost us our lives and terrified of both that cost and what comes after.

All those prayers and hymns and meditation they taught us about not being afraid, about trusting that all is well and will be well -------- they, like we, were "faking it until they made it".

But they and we colluded in a fantasy in which these men and women are different from us, in which they are superhuman, in which God is more present in them than in each of God's children, that they are braver, more selfless, more holy than the rest of us.

And, eventually, a lot of us figured it out and resented the hell out of these men and women for that fantasy we built and maintained with them, long after our own childhoods.

And now we are angry that they are telling us the truth.

They too can be scared into paralysis and retreat when the life and work they have chosen is threatened. They too can be scared into trusting the people they trust. They too can be scared into " staying for the sake of the relationship they believed they had". They too can be scared into paralysis to keep a roof over their heads. They too can be coached into "staying and working on the problem from the inside instead of shouting in impotent rage from the other side of the door'; they too can be so disappointed and heartsick and spiritually lost and emotionally broken by what they have learned about our church that they have to leave to save their own health and souls and then they spend years trying to decide whether to come back and how to come back and stay well. They too can can be so fragile and so scared and so alone that they sleep at night curled in on themselves. weeping and crying out to the God they are not sure exists because they can not find God in the people they thought had a line straight to God's room up in the sky. They too can become so focused on their small world that they become bureaucrats and worry about the boss's workload and the reputation of the agency and what that means for their own day to day life.

In short, they are human and frail.

In short, they are one hundred percent our brothers and sisters.

********And, Carolyn, some of them are victims. As with child victims, we cannot fairly or justly and in Christ's name blame them for being impacted by the abuse and harassment and cruelty of the perpetrators.

We cannot blame people for being harmed by harm. We know now that many of these men and women HAVE been harmed by perpetrators of abuse and harassment.

In this, they are like us. In this, in their depression, in their anxiety, in their lonely silence, in their post-traumatic stress disorder, in their tortured paralysis, these victims are like all other victims of this and other forms of abuse.

And we cannot eradicate any future harm by blaming the victims of past harm. We CAN promise to stand with them if they decide to join in the collective healing. But we cannot make them responsible for the collective healing. The job of victims is to heal themselves, And in healing some will choose to join in the healing of others. That is a choice, not a requirement, victims get to make in this context as well as any other. Healing is always brave, whatever its form and whatever its format. Blessed are brave victims whose healing can lead them to back to faith in God and the rest of us, whatever that looks like.******

Again, we must not pretend now that we have not been enraged at times and brokenhearted at time that these church leaders often did not seem aware of the humbling reality that they are just like us, often frail and terrified and paralyzed, knowing what the right thing is but terrified of the human cost and the aftermath and our own survival in the life we know.

Especially not now that we finally have, in the persons of Father Desmond Rossi and Father James Martin, priests who begin to tell this truth in the most painful of contexts.

I see their truth-telling as a turning point.

I SEE THIS AS THE CLEARING OF A CRITICAL LANE IN THE ROAD AHEAD. This particular lane is now being cleared of barricades, of DO NOT ENTER signs, of orange cones and orange caution flags, of concrete barriers, of flaggers wrapped in winter clothing even on the hottest of days, waving us to a stop, of the lead cars flashing their lights and leading us off on a detour so beautiful and so pastoral and so reassuring that we agree to agree that our spiritual leaders do not live in the same murky human waters we do.

I am relieved. I knew they were just like us and I was waiting for them to admit it.

Because now we can ALL begin to be safe together.

But we can waste this moment by raging at them for their human frailty instead of celebrating that they are tell us what many of us has known and what many of us have shouted at them these long years and what we have longed for so that we might truly travel this Christian journey together with them, each helping each.

Carolyn Disco
5 months 3 weeks ago

Thank for your comment J Brookbank. I am on vacation with family and cannot take time now to respond. See my response to Erin B above for starters. Until later, assuming this recalcitrant laptop cooperates. Briefly, I am thrilled the truth is being told and not at all angry at that. It is past time to do so. Yes, we are all human, brothers and sisters, but we have been had or scammed by all the ontological nonsense that pretends otherwise. After 2002, a pastor gave a talk how priests are only human too. Well then, stop preaching a different narrative and acting it out. And for all our sakes, stop imposing a deadly secrecy that corrupts and burdens the innocent. While of course hiding and protecting one's position no matter the cost to others. It's interesting to me how shabbily priests who speak out for survivors are treated by their supposed "brothers." I suggested the Priest of Integrity award to Voice of the Faithful way back when, only to observe with disdain how the dioceses of the winners treated the honoree. The bishop might cough up a begrudging press statement, or not. Fellow clergy seemed more intent on disparaging than congratulating. The clerical system punishes goodness and who gives a damn? Silence is not an option any more. And yes, every priest without independent means is an economic hostage to his bishop or superior.

Carolyn Disco
5 months 3 weeks ago

Thank for your comment J Brookbank. I am on vacation with family and cannot take time now to respond. See my response to Erin B above for starters. Until later, assuming this recalcitrant laptop cooperates. Briefly, I am thrilled the truth is being told and not at all angry at that. It is past time to do so. Yes, we are all human, brothers and sisters, but we have been had or scammed by all the ontological nonsense that pretends otherwise. After 2002, a pastor gave a talk how priests are only human too. Well then, stop preaching a different narrative and acting it out. And for all our sakes, stop imposing a deadly secrecy that corrupts and burdens the innocent. While of course hiding and protecting one's position no matter the cost to others. It's interesting to me how shabbily priests who speak out for survivors are treated by their supposed "brothers." I suggested the Priest of Integrity award to Voice of the Faithful way back when, only to observe with disdain how the dioceses of the winners treated the honoree. The bishop might cough up a begrudging press statement, or not. Fellow clergy seemed more intent on disparaging than congratulating. The clerical system punishes goodness and who gives a damn? Silence is not an option any more. And yes, every priest without independent means is an economic hostage to his bishop or superior.

Phillip Stone
5 months 3 weeks ago

Ah, a Christian Catholic realist. I am reminded of something Simon Tugwell OP included is a little book of his on Prayer, "whenever men are right they are not young - e. e. cummings"
At a large gathering of Catholics who shared the neo-Pentecostal experience widespread in 70s and 80s in UK, US and Europe there was growing distress about the emerging facts about widespread clerical sexual abuse in all denominations - a prophetic utterance at the time rang true
- ... do not be discouraged, I AM CLEANSING MY CHURCH ... "

I believe it.

Lisa Weber
5 months 3 weeks ago

Anyone who has been a whistleblower knows quite well that abuse is not reported because the price the whistleblower will pay is too high.

Chris Johnson
5 months 3 weeks ago

12 JESUIT PRIESTS SEXUALLY HARASS JESUIT SEMINARIAN in CALIFORNIA from ncr on line.
Court OKs harassment suit
By PAMELA SCHAEFFER

NCR Staff

When Sr. Elizabeth McDonough tried to sue The Catholic University of America in 1996, claiming sex discrimination in her failure to get tenure, a federal court dismissed her case. In order to determine whether the nun was as qualified as her male peers to teach canon law, a secular court would be required to review “competing opinions in religious disputes,” a violation of the First Amendment, the court declared.

In a case some legal experts regard as similar in principle, a U.S. appeals court made a different decision on Dec. 1, allowing former seminarian John Bollard’s sexual harassment suit against the Jesuits to go forward.

Religious organizations are not free to engage in sexual harassment under the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, an appeals court judge has ruled in the Jesuit case. The ruling was handed down by Judge William Fletcher of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California.

Bollard, who claims he was subjected to unwanted sexual advances over a period of five and a half years, is seeking $1 million in damages.

Fletcher’s decision has dismayed Douglas Laycock, a constitutional law expert in Texas, who regards it as “a disaster” -- a green light for courts to interfere in decisions that rightfully belong to the church. “There’s a saying that hard cases make bad law,” he said. “If this guy [Bollard] is telling the truth, it’s a hard case.”

Gerard Bradley, law professor at the University of Notre Dame, disagrees. The lawsuit in question -- John Bollard v. The California Province of the Society of Jesus -- describes an unusual situation and is set up in such a way as to preclude broad application of the judge’s ruling and a breach in the church-state wall, Bradley said.

“In general I don’t think this case will be a precedent for a large number of cases,” he said.

In previous sex discrimination lawsuits by church employees, courts have routinely applied the “ministerial exception” to laws forbidding sexual discrimination and harassment under Title VII. That exception, granted under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, gives religious organizations wide latitude in selecting their ministers and interpreting their doctrines free of court interference.

Paul Gaspari of San Francisco, attorney for the Jesuits, said in court papers that selection, retention, assessment and discipline of clergy is a “core religious act” that should remain free of court interference. Gaspari did not respond to telephone inquiries from NCR.

Bollard’s suit is the first sexual harassment suit by a former seminarian against the Jesuits. The appeals court was not asked to determine whether Bollard was harassed, but rather whether his suit could go to trial without interfering with religion or church doctrine. Bollard is not asking to be reinstated as a Jesuit -- a key element in the appeals court’s decision. Bollard left the Jesuits in 1996 without being ordained.

Bollard’s story is widely known from his appearance on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in May. Between 1989 and 1996 he trained for the priesthood at the Jesuit’s St. Ignatius College Preparatory School in San Francisco and at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley. His idealistic image of the priesthood was shattered, he said, when he began receiving cards from Jesuit superiors depicting sexually aroused men -- images he considered “shocking,” he said.

Bollard also told interviewers on “60 Minutes” that during his seven years as a Jesuit, at least 12 priests made unwelcome sexual advances and invited him to cruise gay bars. At first, he refrained from reporting the advances, he said, out of fear that he would jeopardize his future with the order. When Bollard did take his complaints to the Jesuit provincial in California, Fr. John Privett, they were brushed off, he said. He said Privett gave him a coffee cup that bore the words “no whining” and asked him to sign a paper releasing the Jesuits from legal liability. Bollard refused to sign.

In his suit Bollard contended that he left the Jesuits because his life in the religious order had become intolerable. According to his attorney, Mary Patricia Hough of San Francisco, Bollard had been approved for vows and was scheduled to take them during the year he decided to leave.

Individual Jesuit defendants in the suit include Privett along with Jesuit Frs. Andrew Sotelo, Thomas Gleeson and Anton Harris. The Maryland and Oregon Jesuit provinces are also named as defendants.

Judge Fletcher said the so-called ministerial exception did not apply in Bollard’s case because he was not seeking reinstatement -- therefore the case was not about a religious organization’s right to choose its ministers. Nor, Fletcher said, had the Jesuits claimed that their alleged behavior in the Bollard case was a religious practice subject to constitutional protection. Fletcher noted that indeed, the Jesuits had condemned such behavior as “inconsistent with their values and beliefs.”

“There is thus no danger,” he wrote, “that by allowing this suit to proceed we will thrust the secular courts into the constitutionally untenable position of passing judgment on questions of religious faith or doctrines.”

“Moreover,” Fletcher added, “this is not a case about the Jesuit order’s choice of a representative.” According to allegations in Bollard’s complaint, Fletcher wrote, “the Jesuit order has enthusiastically encouraged Bollard’s pursuit of the priesthood.”

“The Jesuits most certainly do not claim that allowing harassment to continue unrectified is a method of choosing their clergy,” Fletcher said.

Because the Jesuits had provided neither a doctrinal nor a protected-choice rational for their alleged actions, and had, in fact, expressly disapproved them, “a balancing of interests” strongly favors application of the law in Bollard’s case, Fletcher ruled. A jury would not be asked to evaluate religious doctrine or the “reasonableness” of the Jesuit’s religious practice but simply to make “secular judgments about the nature and severity of the harassment and what measures, if any, were taken by the Jesuits to prevent or correct it,” Fletcher said.

Notre Dame’s Bradley said he is not surprised at divergent opinions from church-state scholars.

“I myself would say this is a plausible opinion,” he said in a telephone interview. “To say it’s wrong for civil judges to ever get involved” with inappropriate behavior by members of religious organizations “is overstated,” Bradley believes.

Laycock, however, said, “If we take this opinion seriously,” Bollard is “carving out an exception” to the ministerial exception. “The logic of this lawsuit says that someone had a right to be a priest and was deprived of that right.” Laycock, a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, believes Bollard may have a legitimate claim against individual Jesuits who harassed him but not against the order itself.

“The guys harassing him are the wrongdoers here. The search for a deep pocket defendant” -- that is, the Jesuit order -- “should not be allowed to turn the decision about clergy over to the courts. That’s where all this leads.”

Laycock fears that Fletcher’s decision will prompt future litigants to declare that their dismissals by churches were for other than religious reasons -- sex, disability, age, for example. Ultimately it will mean that “judges and not churches will decide who can be clergy,” he said.

Legal experts said it is likely that the Jesuits will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hough said an appeal must be filed within 90 days.

Bradley considers it unlikely that the highest court will hear the case. “My guess is that the Supreme Court will take a voucher case next term,” he said. “That would be enough church-state headache for one term.”

National Catholic Reporter, December 17, 1999

Henry George
5 months 3 weeks ago

What is sad is that Jesuit Superiors knew what was going on and did nothing about it.

luciano tanto
5 months 3 weeks ago

...porque es homosexual, es su derecho, y está de acuerdo. solo que está obligado a la hipócrita clandestinidad que le impone la santamadreiglesia.

J. Calpezzo
5 months 3 weeks ago

Roger Mahony.

Phillip Stone
5 months 3 weeks ago

Thank you Mario, that presbyter Palka is knowledgeable and insightful. And paints a dismal picture of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

J Brookbank
5 months 3 weeks ago

I think the Rev Fr doesmore harm than good by making up stories like this. If he has information, BLOW THE WHISTLE. This is the stuff of a badly scripted pulpy TV show.

Joan Sheridan
5 months 3 weeks ago

I find this very sad

Matt Teegarden
5 months 3 weeks ago

Fr. Martin: As you allude to, the essential structure of the Church makes it prone to abuse--again and again.

john abrahams
5 months 3 weeks ago

Cdl. Theodore McCarrick was our chaplain at CUA the early 60's. He was a bright light among us--especially bringing the Hispanic Undergraduates into community with the larger student body. First time I heard a homily delivered in Spanish at the central 11 a.m. mass, Gibbons Hall, was delivered by Chaplain Fr. McCarrick. I just received word from Alma Mater
CUA that the University is taking back its honorary degree bestowed upon
the Cardinal in 2006. I, for one at 78 and a Roman Catholic priest still in good standing with Holy Mother Church, kindly ask the Powers-That-Be
retreat from tearing Us apart. As Paul VI uttered: "The smoke of Satan is within the Church." There is a less hideous way of clearing the air better than our present Bread & Circuses. Don't you think? "No, let the heads roll," you say watching / reading every tasty morsel of flesh.

J Brookbank
5 months 3 weeks ago

I do not understand your comment. What actions are describing as "tearing us apart"?

john abrahams
5 months 3 weeks ago

I attempted but was blocked out because I crossed decorum's line but not truth.

john abrahams
5 months 3 weeks ago

I attempted but was blocked out because I crossed decorum's line but not truth.

Advertisement

The latest from america

In cities across the country, local activists marched in support of a progressive agenda centered on economic justice, racial justice and immigrant rights.
Brandon SanchezJanuary 20, 2019
Pope Francis has suppressed the Ecclesia Dei Commission, a significant decision with consequences for the Holy See’s relations with the priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.
Gerard O’ConnellJanuary 19, 2019
Photo: IMDB
A new Netflix miniseries brings out the story’s aspects of adventure and conflict, with occasionally pulse-pounding results.
Rob Weinert-KendtJanuary 19, 2019
Protestors march to support a U.N. anti-corruption commission in Guatemala City on Jan. 6. Photo by Jackie McVicar.
“What they are doing not only puts Guatemala at risk but the entire region. Bit by bit, for more than a year, they have been trying to divide us. The elections are at risk. We are six months away.”
Jackie McVicarJanuary 18, 2019