Culpability

The articles by Archbishop Harry Flynn and Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., (10/18), and Archbishop Francis Hurley’s letter (11/8), dealing with the one strike and you’re out approach to pedophile priests, clearly state many important considerations.

One not addressed is the culpability of any bishop or religious superior who, despite understanding that there is a significant degree of recidivism among pedophiles, regardless of the quality of treatment, returns a pedophile priest to active ministry.

If that reinstated priest commits another act of pedophilia, then the bishop or superior is the proximate cause of a grave sin and is also guilty of a grave sin. Sanctions similar to those proposed by some for proximate cause pro-choice politicians might be an appropriate response.

Likewise, an act of pedophilia is statutory rape in criminal law. The bishop or superior should be considered an accomplice before the fact, subject to civil action for that felony.

Eugene Bova

Welcome Advance

Brian D. Scanlan’s forthright account (11/1) of wholesome boyhood experiences in the company of an aging priest was a welcome relief from the depressing lore we have painfully endured regarding boy-priest relationships these past years. His memories do not clamor for healing. Yet his otherwise laudable essay betrays an angst, I fear, that is all too common among Catholics still reeling from the pain and shock of the priest sex-abuse scandal. His uncompromising demand that the abusers must be driven out of the priesthood disturbs me greatly. Although I certainly agree that the guilty should pay for their crimes and I deeply commiserate with the young victims of this frightful tragedy, I winced when I read his claim. A new and sad fact is that some priests who have suffered the allegation of sexual abuse have now themselves become victims in this horrific saga.

Despite the feverish rhetoric that frequently frames this explosive issue, it needs to be admitted that not all accused priests have a history akin to that of John Geoghan or Paul Shanley, and they should not be ostracized or exiled as if they did. They are not all serial predators. Neither are they beyond the pale. Yet all of them, even those with a solitary allegation against them often years in the past, are now tarred with the same broad, all-embracing, unforgiving strokes, despite the fact that prior to the Dallas charter some of these priests had ministered effectively, if not admirably, for years in settings without children and with no accusation of impropriety. Now they’re gone; and given their record of restoration and service, there are still those who would drum them out of the priesthood altogether. Did somebody say justice?

Faced with wrenching decisions, people sometimes ask, What would Jesus do? Some fathers of the church judged Peter’s denial of the Lord a crime without parallel. But Jesus did not drive him out of the apostolic college. He not only forgave him; he reinstated him. The fallen, restored Peter retained his leadership of the church. Is this just a pious story to make us feel good during Holy Week, or should Jesus’ action be a paradigm for our own conduct in these anguished, traumatic times?

Perhaps the bishops will revisit this issue when they gather again in 2005 to ponder the norms of the Dallas charter. In the meantime, less harsh and strident language by all participants in the conversation might be not only a blessing but a welcome advance.

(Rev.) William T. Cullen

Can of Sardines

I wish to comment on Immoral Bingeing by Terry Golway (10/18). I feel that I not only do have a right to complain about the price of gas with which I fill my gas-guzzling S.U.V., but I have a right to complain about the cost of my S.U.V., along with the cost of my pants, shirts and shoes. I have that right because I don’t have a say in what I drive. I am 6’ 4 and weigh 190 lbs. For the first nine years of my driving life, I drove Chevy Cavaliers and a Ford Tempo. They have the leg room and head room of a can of sardines. The same goes for those Hondas and Toyotas. It is not fair that I should have to buy an S.U.V., but they are the only vehicles made with a person slightly taller than average in mind. I really feel discriminated against by the fact that I cannot buy a cheaper car. The shorter people are catered to; the taller people aren’t. So I should not be put in the category of S.U.V. yuppies who don’t care how much gas they burn.

Matthew Toohill