June  2002

                                       BISHOPS  AND CHRISTMAS  TREES

                                                     Opinions and Observations

 The recent meeting of Catholic Bishops in Dallas has gotten mixed reviews. They have not gone far enough, says one group: they have gone too far, says another. Others are quite content with the outcome. The Bishops themselves seem relatively satisfied  and have gone back to their jurisdictions  with  self justifying plaudits convinced that they  have done  what was necessary  to “ restore the trust and credibility” of the Catholic laity. 

But have they?  No one disagrees that the  sexual molestation of children is appalling and disgusting. Such behaviour must stop and can never be condoned. No one disagrees that  predatory priests  must be removed from  ministry permanently. This is the obvious position of the Holy Father, himself.  No one disagrees that true   “cover-up” behaviour  is more than inappropriate  in Catholic leaders –(such as Bishops). No one misunderstands  the  psychological  and spiritual scars  of  real victims. 

Yet, as Cardinal Dulles, bravely  stated  as a non-Bishop and non-voting member of the Conference, the document is  “ seriously  flawed.” Where, for example,  was  any distinction made between pedophile conduct  and ephebophilic ( read  homosexual) conduct?Why  Was such a fundamental  point allowed to be  passed over so  smoothly? Was there a fear of the so-called “gay” community and its  possible  retaliation against certain dioceses?  Are Bishops afraid to confront such  a reaction?  Or worse, is there  fear that same sex conduct has occurred with  men who now wear the Bishop’s ring  and who fear possible exposure? Gov. Frank Keating has stated that he  will seek “corrective action” even  “…to the most powerful Bishop.”  Is Archbishop Weakland’s

behaviour with a grown  man  for  an extended period terrifying some of our leaders?  Weakland’s behavior was NOT  molestation of children. 

Allowing the focus to  be on CHILDREN  ( with a very  little  nod to homosexual behavior  with teen age boys ) would take the  spotlight off the dominant fact that a huge proportion of the misbehaviour is  done by homosexual priests. The statistical  evaluation  that approximately one half of 1% of all priests in the country shows the horrendous volume of this  abhorrent activity. Yet, 96+% of this number represents homosexual behaviour. Perhaps, statistically insignificant, it is,nonetheless, appalling if even only one  child or teenager  were involved.   

The unmentionable datum  that the scandals   are  basically  about homosexual  priest s  is known and  publicized  by Philip Jenkins, Cal Thomas, Lowry of the  NY Post, Msgr Clark, Fr. Benedict Groeschel  and hosts  of others.  How come the Bishops  don’t know it?   By its very silence,  IT SHOUTS  OUT ! 

But beyond this  obvious evasion, there    are  several   factors which  are feeding into the distrust,  and sense of betrayal of the Catholic laity.  The general perception is that the Bishops  reacted in panic.  This was not pro-active behaviour but re-active.  This was a document written not by brave men  but by frightened  ones who  desperately seek the approval of the public  by  responding frantically to the demands  of  noisy  self interest groups. Even the garrulous  Bill O’Reilly of the O’Reilly Factor (Fox News)  “ opines”… that  there  “….is not ONE credible  voice with moral authority  in the current American Catholic church.”  Apart from the  intrinsic absurdity of that statement, it does  reflect  the perception of many American Catholics today. 

The  general disappointment stems from the belief that Christian leaders should, primarily, seek the approval of God not men. There   is a yearning for an American  Thomas Beckett  with the fortitude to  confront the symbolic Henry II and  speak forth Christ’s truth , justice  and mercy to the world.  American Catholics are  not  seeking  Henry Viii style Bishops    who crave the approval  of  the secular world. People are looking for  John Fishers who dare to  be non-conformist  even  at  personal cost. 

Cardinal  George, on his return from a visit to the Holy Father, stated his disagreement with the  Zero Tolerance policy  since it would release us from the  obligation to think! He thought  that each  case of priestly misconduct should  be reviewed and analyzed  individually—especially the case of the   “ per modum unius.”  Yet, even he, in the final count, voted for  the  controverted Article Five  which substantively  downplays  forgiveness and the possibility of personal reform  through God’s grace. 

Many Bishops admitted that  while they personally disagreed with the harshness of the document, they voted counter to their interior convictions. Shades of Mario Cuomo  and the Janus-like position of  “ While  I am personally opposed to abortion, I publicly support it.”What happened to the classic Catholic  notions of mercy, repentence, and the possibility of permanent reform of life. What happened? Why did so many Bishops vote for the “ flawed document” knowing  its   weaknesses?     

On the other hand, Bishop Joe Sullivan, of the Brooklyn Diocese, made an impassioned and   forceful  statement  against  the  implicit harshness of Article Five.  He  was  vigorously applauded   by  the  Bishops as  he  argued  for  forgiveness   and at the same time pointed out      that  the document  preaches“ unforgiveness.”   If so many Bishops, in their consciences, believed   in  the power   of God’s grace  to “ convert” people to righteousness, why did  they vote  the opposite? 

Bishop Hubbard of Albany  lamented that  this     document will   signal  to  many the abandonment  of these  priests  by the Church. His  position was specifically in relation to the  ONE TIME  OFFENDER  of years past  who has demonstrated his  personal reform.  This reformed priest has done everything   required  of him by the Church, by the Law and by his conscience. He has lived impeccably and effectively  as a  GOOD  priest for years. He is loved by  his people, some of whom are aware of  his  long  ago  transgression.  Apparently, some  Catholic people   share  the  Christian  understanding  and compassion  of Hubbard and Sullivan  more  than  many   Bishops.

                                                                                                                                                                                     This author, as a licensed  practicing Psychologist, has treated several of  these  one time  offender priests.All of these men have responded with  sorrow  and  vigor and  generosity to the  call to repentence. They have ALL  succeeded in the  reform of their  lives.     None of them  is a pedophile. All   are   ephebopiles—i.e.  their transgressions   came from   from their  homosexual orientation  and  were   directed  at TEEN age  MALES!  All  of them struggle  successfully with their  personal disorder. 

The Bishops  have such information  at their disposal. Why, then, did  they so vote?  What  are  they  afraid of ?

To accept  repentant priests who have  reasonably  demonstrated  their  successful rehabilitation and who pose no threat  to  CHILDREN  might be  criticized by the noisy  minority  who seek sometimes  not the protection of children primarily  but their  own agenda .  Many observers  note that much of the  frenzy is  not about children  but  about  other hidden matters.  We  read between the  frenetic lines  the  itch for power, the ordination of women, the abolition of mandatory celibacy  and the legitimization of  homosexual  “ love.”  Consult Freud and his  ideas  on  latent motivations! 

Ironically, in this frenzied crusade   for  blood  we  have at the same time   a   plea  for  more priests  to offer the Eucharist. Clearly no one  can, under even such pressure, ease requirements  for  the priesthood  and  ordain  ephebophiles.  Pedophilia  is not the  basic problem!   Ephebophilia  is .  It   is with the  more probable predators  that we have  concern--- i.e.-   the   self   identified  and previously active homosexual applicant!

We all know of the many celibate and chaste  homosexual priests  who  are not ephebophilic. These are not of concern. 

However,in the book, GAY PRIESTS  written by Dr. James Wolf,in 1991,  a study of 101  homosexual priests  was presented in which ALL interviewed homosexual priests believed that homosexual activity is NOT against the will of God. Only 9% of them would advise lay people to follow the Church’s teaching  on sexual morality!  The review of the book  by Leonard Kennedy CSB  in  Crisis  magazine  (March 1991) suggests that Bishops had better move to end the cynicism and duplicity  that homosexual  behavior by priests is consistent with  “ being a good priest.” Did Bishops listen?    Why not ?  What goes  on?

Can  Bishops  knowingly Ordain this kind of candidate? 

It is clear enough from clinical evidence that  the psychic eneregy needed to contain homosexual drives is far greater  than that needed by the   straying heterosexual. This is even more  telling when it involves the ephebophilic  homosexual. The narcissistic  wound is far deeper. Within the  context of the Catholic  priesthood it  is insanity to put these men into  contact with  adolescents  whose own raging testosterone  levels are screaming for  discharge  with any  available  agent. 

Some observers  have  noted there is no demonstrable  link between homosexuality  and  the abhorrent  behavior which  has absorbed us for months. At least, they  say, on a  “causality” level.  This may be a legitimate observation  yet on a CORRELATION level a much stronger case for linkage can be made. Stat 101  would indicate that given the high incidence of homosexual priests  “ hitting on” teen age boys, one might  safely  conclude  that  homosexual orientation  is a highly probable factor in the whole picture. 96+%  is  a stat which cannot be dismissed lightly.

 One might recall the strenuous lobbying  efforts  made by the tobacco industry  to throw doubt on the causality  factor linking cigarette smoking and   lung cancer. They  had  some success but they  failed to discredit the huge correlational factor  involving the link between active smoking   ( and now even second hand smoke)  and  carcinoma of the lung.  Or can one use simple common sense?  May I ask whether or not the King is wearing clothes?   Perhaps, there  really is  an elephant  in the front  parlor ! 

Even so, it could be  reasonable   to  place the ONE time offender into ministry  within  safe  paramaters.

The priest who has  faithfully and holily  served the Lord and the people of God for years—even with his ONE  transgression of 10/15/20  years  ago—deserves  his second chance. This man is no threat to children. He is usually  not  a pedophile.   His risk is minimal but to compare him to Geoghan/Shanley types with their repeated unrepentant sociopathic  behavior is ludicrous. THEIR  cognitive and moral stances  are significantly different !  

The  classic Catholic notion of gratia supponit naturam  requires  one to assess  the “ naturam.”  How wounded is the “naturam”?  The Geoghan/Shanley types are  so ill that NATURALLY  God’s grace i s impeded. Such  men must be  ousted permanently and hopefully  their types are never admitted  to seminaries in the first place! The one time offender who has demonstrated, beyond doubt, that  he has fully cooperated with God’s grace  can  be  re-assigned—with  appropriate  caution.

 Recently, one of my priest  patients who had one  such  tragic  sin  15 years ago who has done his months of rehab   in a  major  facility for nine  months, five years of follow up  and  many years of counseling with me, was  yanked  from his position of  relatively high importance . He was  told  to be out of the rectory  by 3 pm that afternoon. I asked where would  he spend the night—he replied  “I  don’t know.”

He declined  the offer of hospitality in my religious house, believing he could not stay anywhere in the Archdiocese. He spent the weekend in  a  motel—saying Mass by himself in the room.He has been told he will be laicized.  He is living out of his car shuttling to houses of friends week by week.  He is given no money for lodging, clothing, food or laundry  -- only  a monthly stipend—which is below  the national poverty level! 

What does such a   man do?  No family. No real contacts.

At 53 years of age, how does he support  himself?

This man has been impeccable for  the 15 years, doing penance, regretting bitterly his  five minutes of stupidity, and being a model priest. Do the Bishops see this  as justice? Charity?  Setting things right?  Does the sudden request of the victim  for  “ big bucks”  tell them anything?

Are the Bishops   using  sinful, weak priests as scapegoats? Are the Bishops so anxious  to take the spotlight off themselves  and  to restore “credibility” that they are willing to be  so merciless  even to include the rehabilitated, deeply repentant one time  offender? 

The   term   “ MANAGEMENT LEAVE OF ABSENCE’”  is being   translated ( in some people’s  minds)  as    “execution.” When a priest  is “ temporarily” and  publicly   removed from his parish  during an investigation,  he instantly loses forever his good name and reputation. His  years  of good work are  negated  because he ( in the present climate) is guilty until and unless proven innocent. In effect, he is  “ dead”  in relation to his priestly career.  These  priests  are now   disposable—  since the “public” so decrees  the lot of these  tragic ( and sometimes innocent) men. With this enthusiastic Green Light, are the Bishops   men of  Compassion  or  people pleasers?  We can recall the  mob  screaming for blood  before  Pilate ! Are the Bishops—in a sense  playing the Pilate role? Many  People  are so  asking !  What say  ye, Your Excellencies?

 How do you  handle  spurious charges? Do you  know  the uneasiness of your vulnerable  front line troops? Will  you   “investigate”  your priests  on ANY  allegation? Why was the word  “credible”  dropped from the  document?  Does it not consistently  open the gate  to any  angry, distorted, money seeking “ Martian”? Have you heard of the suicides  of your  priests? Have you heard of Benedict Groeschel spending an afternoon  dissuading a one time offender from taking his own life? 

Rationalization   is defined as  attributing  noble motives to base acts. In effect, the Bishops “ rationalize” their  stance thus: “ We regretfully sacrifice these  men ( the one time offenders)  ONLY for the restoration   of trust and credibility for the Catholic people. WE can do nothing else.“ 

 Yet, much of the  Catholic reaction  has been the opposite. People are calling for the resignation of cardinals and bishops  NOT because of the sins  and weaknesses of  a  relatively small number  of  priests but for   corruption,  hypocrisy and cowardice  of some of our leaders. The merciless and unforgiving stance of the Conference was horrific to many Catholics’ Faith  and shattering to their  Trust !  Recently,  a woman from  New York City  entered  the Church—not because  of weak and evil  priests—but because she sees the Catholic Church as a  FORGIVING  CHURCH.

  It is said  that talk is cheap. One can preach about the power of God’s grace , the call to reform and to  change .We are invited to  admire  the repentance of  sinners  like Augustine and Magdalene  but when   a Bishop  ACTS as if he did not  really   believe  in God’s grace, perhaps  HE  should  resign and go himself to the monastery to find faith.

  With few exceptions, what the Bishops  have done, in fact, was to react in panic, rush into something without real thought and  truly lose the respect of all, including priests who increasingly  hesitate to view their Bishops as  “Father in God.”Cardinal Dulles is a man of faith,  intelligence and  COURAGE. Plaudits to the gutsy dissenters, Bishops Sullivan and Hubbard,  champions  of justice and compassion.

 God bless the  warrior Bishop Fabian  of Lincoln, Nebraska who sees   that  we have allowed through timidity and human respect the growth of the CULTURE OF DISSENT. To speak thusly  requires  courage  in this climate of P.C. tolerance,   nevertheless  theologic and moral dissents   are  major  factors in the infidelity!  So, speaks John Neuhaus  and others.  Why was not Michael Novak invited to explain what really happened in the last 30 years?  Were the Bishops  fearful that he might hit home? Why were  some ones invited who simply chided the  Bishops to give   over  POWER to them?  Why were people allowed to  lobby for the ordination of women   a  case closed  by the Holy Father? Why was some one allowed to urge  Bishops  to disregard  Rome?  Why?  Why?

 At the Episcopal ordination, as the Mitre is placed on his head, the new Bishop is told that this symbolizes the HELMET OF SALVATION!    He is told that he is  to  be the shepherd of his flock!  Why, then,  did the Bishops sit there and applaud as they were castigated or worse?   Were  those “ crocodile” tears they shed as they listened to the carefully chosen victim presenters? 

At a recent gathering  of priests psychologists in New York, the discussion centered around the psychic scars attendant upon sexual molestation  of children and minors.

One eminent priest  therapist  asked  whether  ONE grab of a kid’s bottom is enough to ruin  him for the rest of his  days? No one assented to that observation  but all agreed  that the serial, pattern molestation is incalculable in  its  long lasting effects.  Put this in the context of the one time offender  versus the  very sick  pattern of  the   Geoghan and Shanley types.

 The   Document  from the  Conference  is  not the Last word. Hopefully, its flaws  will be removed and its strengths extended.  Hopefully, too, Bishops will become  like  Thomas  a Beckett  and will love and encourage their priests  who now feel discouraged  and lonely  and frightened.

 Oh –yes     about   the title of this piece—

 A  priest friend asked  me if I knew what  Bishops and  Christmas  trees  have  in common.  When I answered   NO, he said:

 “In both, the spheres  are strictly ornamental”

  Written as opinion and observation in New York city,  June 2002

E-mail me

Back to my home page