Yesterday Pope Benedict met with 5 victims of sexual abuse by priests. And today there is a lot of positive coverage of his actions. After all, the Roman Catholic Church in this country has been badly hurt by the myriad of cases which have come to light, and some dioceses - particularly Boston - have suffered huge financial losses as they have been forced to pay compensation for a long period of ignoring the damage that was done by their priests.
Yesterday the Pope also addressed the heads of America's Catholic colleges and universities. While it is appropriate for him to remind them of their Catholic mission (and here while not a Catholic I have some experience of how that mission is done, having a masters from a Catholic seminary and having reached ABD at Catholic University), we also have a strong tradition of academic freedom. As Mark Kleiman notes in a post today, the Pope may not serve as the best example of responsibility in either domain.
Let me deal with the issue of academic freedom first. The Church has wrestled with this problem over the years. Those in DC may think back several decades when the noted moral theologian Fr. Charles Curran was forced off the theological faculty at Catholic University because of the content of some of his books. Granted, the Theological faculty at Catholic was Pontifical, meaning it was directly under the supervision of the Holy See. While Curran was forced off that faculty, he was allowed to continue at the University, albeit he moved to the department of Philosophy before deciding to depart for a full professorship at SMU. It might be worth noting that the Vatican official responsible for doctrinal enforcement among Catholic theologians was a man who had been a theological liberal at Vatican II, but who somehow was shaken by the student riots across Europe in 1968 and by the 1980s had a reputation as a theological enforcer, who rooted out any hint of dissent among Catholic theologians. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was later to become one of the closest advisors to John Paul II, and upon the death of that Pontiff, became his immediate successor as Benedict XVI. Thus it was not surprising, even if still disturbing, to read what Mark Kleiman quoted from the Pope's address yesterday to those Catholic educators:
I wish to reaffirm the great value of academic freedom. In virtue of this freedom you are called to search for the truth wherever careful analysis of evidence leads you. Yet it is also the case that any appeal to the principle of academic freedom in order to justify positions that contradict the faith and teaching of the church would obstruct or even betray the university’s identity and mission.
As Mark so aptly summarizes and parodies it:
Got that? "You'e perfectly free to think anything you like, as long as you wind up agreeing with me."
Can you say "Orwellian"? Can you say "double-think"? Can you say "Freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength"?
As troubling as that is, it is far more important to remember the role Cardinal Ratzinger played in preventing a more thorough and timely investigation of the priest sexual abuse scandal by liking to a 2005 British news story about his role in obstructing the investigations. The story, published the week after the new Pope was elected, begins as follows:
Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.
The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.
It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
Let me offer several other snippets from that article:
The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.
It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.
'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.
and also
Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'
Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.
And the final lines of the article sound eerily reminiscent of some of the assertions we have recently heard from this administration in a different context:
A spokeswoman in the Vatican press office declined to comment when told about the contents of the letter. 'This is not a public document, so we would not talk about it,' she said.
Before I go on, let me note that I am not hostile to the Catholic church per se. As I have written paranthetically above, I have twice attended Catholic institutions of higher learning. Several of my inlaws are Catholic.
And I also recognize that the Church is not a democratic institution, and those in authority have some responsibility to preserve the integrity and stability of the Church.
But it is also true that many Catholics have become somewhat disaffected from the Church. In large part that is because of how the Church has handled the sexual abuse scandal. We often think of the Blue Wall of silence among police, with unwillingness of officers to testify against other officers no matter how egregious or even abusive their behavior is. Similarly, it can be frustrating for someone injured medically to find a physician willing to testify in medical malpractice suits against other physicians. And as we have seen in the Congressional ethics process, some of our elected officials seem reluctant to hold one another to appropriate standards of accountability.
But that is the key. Those in positions of leadership and authority sholddemonstrate and live up to the highest possible standards of responsibility, especially if they expect us to to abide by the authority they wish to impose or administer upon us.
As for academic freedom and free inquiry, somehow I think the words of Robert Jackson written in a different context might also be applicable. In W. Virginia v Barnette, Jackson's opinion in ruling against mandating participation in the Pledge of Allegiance ceremonies noted
o believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.
If in fact the Church is sure of its eternal truths, it seems to me it would not be afraid of the outcome of free and open and unrestricted academic inquiry, and certainly would not insist, as this Pope seems to, upon restricting where that inquiry might go.
Perhaps it is because a wise theologian in the Orthodox Church in America, the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann, once told me in a public setting that he thought the Church constantly had to change in order to remain the same that I react as I do. Schmemann explained that the way the Church expresses what it perceives to be truth has to change because it is in a different time and place, its faithful and the inquirers have different experiences and background, and it is only thus that a connection can be made with what the Church understands as the eternal truth for which it is responsible. Further, as one who teachers, albeit at the secondary level, I worry that the approach of this Pope runs the risk of restricting the ability of academics in Catholic institutions to fully explore the depths of the fields in which they labor, for fear that like what has happened to Charles Curran in the US and numerous theologians in other nations, they will be restricted, silenced, or dismissed.
And when one compares the approach take to academics to the handling of the priest sexual abuse scandal, the contrast is stark, and disturbing. Not only were priests moved from parish to parish, often with no notice of previous problems to those in the receiving parish, not only were few attempts made to treat the men in question lest it be used as an indication of an admission of possible wrongdoing in lawsuits against the church, not only did the Church, as exemplied in the Ratzinger letter already quoted, take deliberate action to prevent civil authorities from gaining access to the information that could have resulted in accountability in civil and criminal courts, the Church did something far worse. When the scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston exploded and the continuing tenure of then Archbishop Bernard Cardinal Law became untenable, rather than discipline him, the Church merely moved him, and effectively shielded him - today he serves as Archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, which is a papal basilica, one of the most important churches in Catholicism. He has since his resignation from Boston held several high positions in Rome.
It always seemed to me that the most important title a Pope held was that of servant of the servants of Christ. And while there is no doubt that a Pope must exercise authority, it is a far more effective moral leadership - for those within the Church and for those from the outside looking in - if the use of that authority includes humility, the humility of the servant. hat includes acknowledging the limitations of our humanity, and accepting responsibility for errors. I fear from what have seen from the previous work of Cardinal Ratzinger and what we are seeing now that such a dimension is not yet part of what this Pope is doing, and he thus runs the risk of losing a real opportunity to heal the pain and wounds within the Church, and to demonstrate to the rest of the world something of importance.
I acknowledge and praise his willingness to meet with some victims. It is a start, however belated, of a healing that is long overdue and quite necessary. But it cannot be in isolation, and should the Church and its leadership continue to avoid accepting full responsibility and opening itself to full inquiry - of its behavior and of the academic pursuits of those in its universities - it may merely slow the loss of educated Americans, the diminution of its moral authority, the erosion of its influence.
I am not, have never been, and will never be, a Roman Catholic. Nevertheless, the Church has the potential to be a strongly positive force. Its history, being produced by imperfect humans, has its flaws. But it has often spoken with powerful authority about moral issues of war, capital punishment, social and economic justice. That is a voice that our time needs, and it is to my sorrow that I find myself writing a piece like this that of necessity is critical.
Authority of any kind must be bound with responsibility. Perhaps Benedict will realize that there is much more he can do. And perhaps if he truly accepts the message of the Church, it can be on the basis of an important saying: Be not afraid.
Peace.