Healing old wounds

A  decade ago the abuse scandal in Boston broke, setting off a seemingly endless domino effect of allegations and revelations of Church personnel molesting minors, and Church authorities mishandling cases of reported abuse. The Catholic Church has come a long, acutely painful way since then.

The initial reaction was defensive and reactive. The Church seemed programmed to regard those who complained of having been abused as adversaries. Those who called for new principles – mandatory reporting of allegations to the police, accountability in dealing with abuse cases, solidarity with the victims of abuse, an end to the culture of cover-ups, a Church-wide apology, and so on – were treated with suspicion and even hostility.

At least initially, it was evident that the Church did not understand that it was at the epicentre of an earthquake which would damage its reputation profoundly. In trying to cut a bella figura, Church officials assumed grotesque postures, going as far as to suggest that the incidence of abuse was an “Anglo problem” and blaming a “homosexual subculture” for it. Both propositions have been shown to be rooted in ignorance.

Ten years after Boston, the Church is saying all the right things, with due humility.

The Vatican has effectively pronounced mandatory reporting a Church-wide policy (even though loopholes still exist); the Church has committed itself to putting the victims of abuse first; the Vatican has become more open about the incidence of abuse; Pope Benedict and many bishops have issued repeated and sincere apologies; and the Church is now aware that the safety of minors is more important than the reputation of the Church.

Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, put it well in his homily at a penitential service this month when he acknowledged that the Church authorities often failed to protect children and served instead as an “instrument of evil against them”.

This is important: the public reaction against the Church has been chiefly against a clerical culture that allowed abuse to take place, and against Church leaders who put minors at risk from predators – and sometimes even were complicit in the abuse by discretely moving known abusers to new parishes. That entrenched culture has harmed the Church even more than the actions of a tiny fraction of abusive priests.

Pope Benedict, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger tried unsuccessfully to address the problem of clerical abuse, has done much to bring about this change. Likewise, diocesan bishops such as Cardinal Sean O’Malley in Boston and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin in Dublin have done much to start repairing the shattered image of the Church.

This month’s symposium, titled “Towards Healing and Renewal”, went a long way to set out the Church’s approach to handling clerical abuse, past and future.

And yet, for all its good intentions, the symposium struck a few false notes before it even began. For one thing, the outspoken and proactive Archbishop Martin was not invited to participate. It is an astonishing omission which communicates that the one bishop who has truly earned the respect of those who distrust the Church is being sidelined.

Secondly, it cannot suffice to invite only one representative of abuse survivors to a conference that sought to make things right with those who were abused. It was not fair on Marie Collins, the representative who spoke movingly about her distressing experience of being victimised first by her priest and then by the previous cardinal-archbishop of Dublin.

Moreover it sent the wrong signal that the views of abuse survivor organisations, not all of whom share the same perspectives and some of whom are hostile towards the Church, are not considered important to the Vatican. We must not be surprised then when they express the uncharitable view that the symposium was just “a public relations stunt”.

This, however, points to another issue: What do abuse survivor organisations want from the Church, and what can the Church do? This is not a question best conducted through statements and the media. It is necessary that these organisations and the leaders of the Church meet, on terms that are not prescribed by the Church.