Here are Tom Doyle’s reflections on the gathering held at the Faculty Club at the University of California at San Diego on June 9, 2008, with Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, with some of the attorneys who have been deeply involved in the clergy sex abuse crisis in the U.S., and as well as with some of the experts who have been part of the overall response to this crisis.
I suggest that these reflections be read in conjunction with those of A.W. Richard Sipe previously published on this blog.
GATHERING WITH BISHOP GEOFF ROBINSON
Monday, June 9, 2008 in La Jolla, California
Reflections - Thomas Doyle
1. Geoff
Robinson’s US speaking tour presented an opportunity for a meeting with some of
the attorneys who have been deeply involved in the clergy sex abuse crisis in
the U.S. as well as some of the experts who have been part of the overall
response to this crisis.
Some of us originally hoped that we would be able to provide Geoff with
significant factual information on the U.S. bishops’ response to the
crisis. We hoped he might be able to take this information and share it
with higher ranking officials in the Vatican curia. This hope was born
from our realization that the Vatican’s information sources are limited for the
most part to bishops whose reports are understandably subjective and
inaccurate.
We began with this hope, however our expectations were
changed once we had conversed with Geoff and had realized that he is clearly
not an “insider” in the hierarchy and certainly not the Vatican. The U.S. papal
nuncio had asked Geoff to cancel his tour. The prefect of the
Congregation for the Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Re, had initiated the move to
try to convince Geoff not to speak. The archbishops and bishops of every
diocese where Geoff was scheduled to speak sent letters which were made
public. These letters were consistent in saying the same thing: a) Geoff
was not allowed to speak in any Catholic building in the diocese, b) He should
cancel his entire speaking tour, c) His book is causing confusion among the
laity and disunity.
Geoff did not cancel his tour. He maintained the
original speaking schedule with the talks being given in venues that were not
controlled by the Catholic Church. In the west the secular press provided
excellent coverage however their primary interest was the “dispute” as they saw
it, between Bishop Robinson and Cardinal Mahony. Geoff took the “high
road” and did not respond directly to any invitations by media to escalate the
“dispute.” Geoff expressed it thus: he is here to speak about clerical
sexual abuse and the need to explore two areas of systemic causality: the
exercise of power by Church authorities and the official teaching on sex and
sexuality. He was not here to engage in a dispute with Cardinal Mahony or
any other hierarch. Throughout his visit to the U.S. his conversations
with the media were consistently dignified, insightful and forthright.
In his public talks and in his remarks at the meeting
with the attorneys and experts he repeated that Pope John Paul II had not shown
adequate leadership in the sex abuse crisis. This assessment was a
refreshingly honest affirmation for those of us who have believed that the late
pope not only showed inadequate leadership, but no leadership at
all. He also shared some of his personal experiences in getting to know
victims and their families in Australia which led him to put the welfare of the
victims above the image of the Church. He repeated this sentiment in his
public talk by stating that he chose to stand with the victims and not with the
image of the institutional church. He also revealed much of his own
personal story and provided a great deal of detailed information about how the
Australian Church has responded to the sexual abuse problem.
2. There are
significant differences between the Australian and U.S. experience. The
variance in numbers of Catholics, bishops and priests is itself
impressive. Geoff said there are 42 active bishops in Australia and he
believed he could speak with and communicate with 30 of them. The
comparison between the two countries is striking:
|
|
Australia |
U.S.A. |
|
Dioceses |
32 |
194 |
|
Total
priests |
3115 |
44,000 |
|
Total
bishops |
55 |
486 |
|
Cardinals |
1 |
17 |
|
%
of total population |
27% |
23% |
N.B. The listing of bishops includes retired bishops
and auxiliary bishops. Presently Australia has 6 active auxiliary bishops
and a total of 19 retired bishops.
3. The attorneys
and experts shared their experiences in dealing with bishops and superiors of
religious orders in the United States. There is a common element that is
obvious from the remarks of all: the U.S. bishops appear to be working in
concert to resist any and all attempts at monetary settlements arrived at
through the civil court system. The bishops do not seem to have developed
any appreciable degree of pastoral sensitivity towards the victims or towards
their families and loved ones. There are numerous examples of how bishops
and their attorneys have lied, manipulated the civil law system, savaged
victims, their witnesses and their attorneys and mislead the public through
their public statements though which they try to appear contrite, concerned and
sympathetic. In stark contrast to the image the church’s public relations
people are spinning, there is the harsh reality of an institution that
continues to use its power and resources to thwart justice, devalue and even
destroy victims and to snuff out any attempt by priests or even bishops to call
for justice and pastoral sensitivity.
The civil processes have been drawn out and very
costly because of the commitment of the church’s attorneys to use every
possible tactic to resist disclosure of pertinent documents. In the
course of these processes the victims were generally treated as the enemies of
the Church. In a number of cases the victims’ (plaintiffs’) attorneys
have been subjected to both public and private slanderous attacks by Church
officials and/or their attorneys. The bishops have also resorted to the
use of various means of character assassination of plaintiff attorneys and
witnesses. They have also tried to stir up animosity toward victims who
have received settlements by insinuating or saying outright that church
closures, budget cutbacks and other financial problems are due to forced
payments.
4. Some of the
attorneys and experts are baptized Catholics who had been involved in varying
degrees with the life of the Catholic Church. The involvement with
victims and the direct experiences with the institutional church have left deep
spiritual scars for many. The experience of the attorneys present
reflects that of many attorneys who were not present: representing victims of
sexual abuse and seeing first-hand the response of bishops and cardinals has
caused a serious crisis of belief. Many have simply abandoned any
involvement with the institutional Church in their private lives and some have
gone even further and have seriously questioned the validity of most or all of
the teachings of the institutional Church. Some have also radically
altered their belief in God. The spiritual devastation has extended far
beyond that of the victims. It has touched persons who have had no firsthand
experience with clergy sexual abuse and has certainly impacted many who have
been directly involved, even if for a short time.
5. There was a
general opinion among all that it is hopeless to expect the bishops to change
their approach. A few bishops have met with victims and a few of the
diocesan review boards have left positive impressions on victims. In
general however the experience in speaking with bishops, with diocesan review
boards or with victim outreach coordinators has not been positive. In a significant
number of cases the victims and their attorneys have been savaged by the Church
authorities and by the church lawyers.
6. The Vatican
officials do not have an accurate understanding of the nature of clergy sexual
abuse and the impact on victims and their families. They do not
comprehend how extensive abuse is throughout the U.S. The Bishops’
Conference (USCCB) has concentrated on self-protection. It has issued
reports and created certain administrative structures such as the National Review
Board and Office of Child Protection. These do not report to the Catholic
people in general but to the bishops. It appears that their primary focus
is enabling the bishops in maintaining their image.
7. Bishop Robinson
shared in some detail his own experiences with victims. He was selected
by the Australian Bishops to be their representative to the victims. He
has met with and spent significant time with hundreds of victims and with their
families. These experiences caused him to come to grips with his own
experience of sexual abuse as a young boy. As he listened more and more
and probed into the meaning of sexual abuse he concluded that the systemic
causes required an honest and fearless look at the use of power in the Church
as well as the approach to human sexuality. He is well aware that his
statements have caused concern on the part of Vatican officials. He
stated privately and publicly that he believes we must address the problem
honestly and follow the arguments wherever they may go.
8. The discussion
centered on our shared experiences with clergy sex abuse victims. We also
discussed some of the financial mismanagement and duplicity perpetrated by
Church officials. Bishop Robinson expressed his surprise at the extent of
financial impropriety. He also admitted that he was quite surprised at
the consistent problems we have encountered with U.S. bishops and their
response to clergy abuse. Bishop Robinson admitted that he found it
difficult to believe that the U.S. bishops have acted as they have. We
assured him that we respected and understood his feelings but admitted that we
found it equally difficult to believe that a group of bishops, in this case the
Australians, had not acted irresponsibly and even maliciously in their response
to the crisis. Our collective experiences have been quite different from his
experiences in Australia. He made it clear to us that he did not
disbelieve anything he had heard but was finding it difficult to assimilate it
all.
9. Bishop Robinson
does not believe that the Vatican will ever respond as they should. In
spite of the pope’s words and gestures on his recent (April) visit to the U.S.,
it is highly unlikely that Benedict XVI will take any action against any bishop
who had either been an abuser himself or had intentionally enabled
cleric-abusers. We shared in the conviction that the Vatican and the pope
will never take the action that is needed. Some of us may have found the
pope’s recent words and gestures somewhat responsive but the real proof will be
in the follow-up actions and not the words. Thus far there has been no
evidence that the U.S bishops have taken to heart the pope’s admonition that
the bishops do everything possible to help the victims. There also has
been no evidence that the pope has taken any decisive actions to see that his
words are followed by the bishops.
10. We concluded by sharing
the hope that our mutual support and collaboration will serve to help us
protect children and vulnerable adults from abuse in the future. We also
shared the hope that our mutual support will provide some degree of hope for
those who have worked long and hard for justice for victims and accountability
by the bishops.
11. Bishop Robinson spoke to a
full house at the University of California in San Diego Faculty Club on
Tuesday, June 10. His talk was forthright, refreshing and
inspiring. I had heard him in Washington D.C. at the beginning of his
tour and it was obvious that he was re-shaping his remarks to reflect what he
was learning along the way. He clearly repeated that he believed Pope
John Paul II had not provided leadership and cited the cases of Maciel
Degollado and Cardinal Groer as examples of inaction. He also clearly
supported the elimination of Statues of Limitation. He is not picking
fights with anyone in the U.S. hierarchy or in the Vatican because that is not
his purpose. Rather, he is committed to charity and justice for the
victims of clergy sex abuse and has the wisdom to realize that the root causes
are systemic and the courage to stand tall in the face of Vatican and U.S.
hierarchical opposition and call for the search for truth wherever that search
may take us.
12. Without wanting to sound
arrogant or smug, I believe that those of us who have been on the inside of the
clerical world have a more painful appreciation of Geoff Robinson’s witness to
the victims, their supporters, Catholics and the public in general. He
had been in the seminary system and therefore the clerical world since age
12. He spent over a decade of his life studying in Rome without the
opportunity to return to visit his homeland. He was named a bishop in
1984 and at that time entered the inner circle of the clerical-hierarchical
elite. Nearly all of his years as a bishop have been during the
pontificate of John Paul II who insisted on total personal loyalty from bishops
and unquestioning assent to his version of orthodoxy. Truly, the clerical
world has been Geoff Robinson’s past, present and future. It was profoundly
instrumental in forging his identity and value system. With this
contextual background his public witness is nothing short of amazing and even
shocking. While many bishops have agreed with him and have privately
criticized the Church’s and the Vatican’s response to the abuse crisis, only
two have publicly spoken out clearly and unequivocally, Tom Gumbleton and Geoff
Robinson. Both have incurred an official rebuke from the Vatican and both
have been left to stand alone by their “brother” bishops. Geoff (and Tom
as well) has stood strong in spite of the public opposition of the bishops of
Australia, the U.S. and the Vatican. He has not only publicly sided with
the victims but he has called into question two of the pillars that support the
hierarchical world of image and control: the exercise of power and the
traditional understanding of human sexuality.
13. To fully appreciate
Geoff’s challenge one must understand that the hierarchical governmental system
with its monarchical style and appended aristocracy is officially taught to be
of divine origin. In plain English this means that the Higher Power, the
creator and sustainer of the universe, had decided about 2000 years ago that
“He” would communicate with humankind through a male and celibate dominated
power structure that would be essentially stratified but also contradictory to
the words and actions of the embodiment of this Higher Power in human history,
namely Jesus Christ. Christ, on the one hand made it quite clear that he
had no use for arrogant churchmen and that his Father’s love extended equally
to the marginalized and disenfranchised as well as to the privileged. Yet
the institutional Church wishes us to believe that on the other hand Jesus
decided to start up a church that would be run like monarchy with people whom
God loved more in leadership positions over those whom He loved a little less,
namely the “lower” clergy and the laity.
14. By calling into question
the Church’s use of power Geoff has challenged not only the political structure
of the Church but the very belief that this structure was founded by God and
therefore must be retained without question.
15. The institutional Church
has consistently resisted any questioning of its interpretation of the meaning
of human sexuality. There are two kinds of sex: procreational
sexual intercourse by married people which is acceptable, though virginity is
better, and every other conceivable kind of sexual expression, gesture or
thought which is gravely sinful. The Church’s sexual teaching has been
controlled by male celibate clerics who are forbidden to have any experience
with it yet who believe have the God-given calling to dictate to everyone else,
including married people, the when, how and why of sex. With the Church’s
history of a distorted and misshapen philosophy of human sexuality as a
backdrop, Geoff’s challenge is nothing short of an astounding prophetic
gesture.
16. I have found it difficult
if not impossible to conceive of the office of bishop as being divinely
inspired and created and equally impossible to believe that individual bishops
are selected through some arcane action of the Holy Spirit of the Higher
Power. I have not had an experience of bishops as pastors living and
acting in the image of Christ the Good Shepherd. Yet Tom Gumbleton and
Geoff Robinson have given me hope that the compassionate and courageous spirit
of Jesus Christ, infused in the Church’s official leaders, is not mere
myth. Their witness to Christ, though they are only two, goes a long way
to overcome the constant spectacle we have been subjected to in America of
clerics concerned only with their image and their power and with no remote
conception of the devastation caused by the clergy sexual and spiritual abuse debacle.
17. Cardinal Re and the
various U.S. bishops who wrote letters to Geoff all parroted the same baseless
concern: his words were causing confusion and sowing disunity. It
is is clear that none of these men have had the experience Geoff has had in
ministering to the victims of the Church’s dysfunctional clerical system.
In all probability none have taken the time to read his book. Their
concerns illustrate just how far out of touch the Vatican and most of the U.S.
bishops are from the faithful, whom they claim they are trying to protect and
whose support they need to sustain their lifestyles. If anything, the
confusion has been caused by the bishops’ and the Vatican’s self-serving
response to the plight of people savaged by sexual abuse. Geoff may be a
sign of disunity with the bishops but for many he is a sign of hope because
while he may be at variance with the bishops he certainly is one with the
victims of the Church’s sexual and spiritual abuse. To get the point, one
need only ask that simple question: What would Jesus do? It would
seem that Geoff Robinson asked himself that question…and had the courage to
live out the answer.