Religious authorities' obligation to identify sex offenders among clergy

Catholic Crisis: Sex Offenders and the Implosion of the Church

The Catholic Church in the United States is entering an age where they are faced with serious problems from multiple angles. Through the second half of the twentieth century, the Catholic faith has grown by leaps and bounds, but simultaneously, the number of practicing priests has fallen dramatically. Within this general settling -- of an organization desperately seeking leadership -- a torrent of pedophilic sexual abuse charges have been flung at the clergy since the winter of 2002. For the Church, this is a far more serious problem than merely battling to save face and to ensure the security of the American community; instead, the amount of past or present sex offenders within the Church is such that baring them completely would spell doom for the organization at large. The social perspective, however, is a bit more cut and dry. Legally, all fifty states have now adopted Megan's Law, which forces all convicted sex offenders to register as such, and makes this information publicly available (Klaas, 2003). Obviously, this law could be seen as an invasion of privacy; it is further punishing individuals who have already paid their debt to society. However, legislators have taken the perspective that protection of the nation's children is the first priority when handling these issues. Accordingly, the Church has little justification for their past and present practice of covertly handling sex cases and relocating the guilty parties.

The Church is further hampered by their general position in society, and the obligations that go along with it. Overall, a Church is supposed to be a safe haven from danger, and a model for moral existence. Even if Megan's Law had never been enacted, the Catholic Church should have already taken the initiative to inform community members when there was even the potential for such unimaginable atrocities. The aim of self-preservation should never have become a maxim by which to conduct the direction of the Church. Unfortunately, maintaining the position of the Church and the clergy has historically been the top priority of ecclesiastical officials; from the Crusades to the Spanish Inquisition, Catholic leaders have repeatedly adopted morally appalling methods to prevent the collapse of the Church. Fortunately for Roman Catholicism as a whole, this current scandal is relatively limited to the United States. Yet, it has implications that could stretch around the Christian world.

Fundamentally, the once powerful Catholic Church is now being threatened by their leaders' most basic and sacred vow: celibacy. "The Roman Catholic Church is facing a crisis of immense proportions. In the United States, the availability of priests to provide essential religious services is being cut in half. By 2005, there will be 40% fewer parish priests and 65% more church members than there were in 1966." (Schoenherr, xxviii). This forecast was made in 1993 and today has come to fruition (Schoenherr, xxviii). Essentially, this is the backdrop for the recently uncovered cover-ups surrounding sexual misconduct and accusations within the Church. "The cracks and the fissures and the fractures have been there a long time -- inadequate leadership, low quality of service, dissatisfaction with the Vatican, and sex." (Greeley, 1).

There is little doubt, of course, that accusations of pedophilic activity are relatively widespread within the context of adult supervision of the young; however, the image of the Church as a form of spiritual and communal leadership, coupled with the unbelievable attempts to keep the transgressions hidden, has made the issue exponentially more horrendous in the public's eyes:

For longer than most care to consider, the Catholic Church has been secretly struggling with an epidemic of pedophile priests. Whenever parishioner complaints overwhelmed the facade of holiness, offending priests were dispatched to behavior modification facilities under the pretense that therapy would override deviant sexuality. Ultimately, priests were relocated into new, unsuspecting parishes where sexual perversion inevitably overwhelmed treatment, morality and legality." (Klaas, 2003).

This cover-up has led many to feel, "The young victims who were abused into lifelong damage counted for nothing." (Breslin, 208). Still, this practice is at least somewhat aligned with the role of the Church as a vehicle of forgiveness. Priests are, after all, only human; so, repentance and punishment for their crimes should allow for forgiveness. Additionally, the vow of celibacy is regarded as the most holy and pure promise that a Catholic can make to God. Therefore, if someone is willing to accept the position of the Church as a true and merciful embodiment of holy sacrament, then they may also be justified in keeping such past offenses secret -- a matter between God and the individual. Since the priest could be regarded as God's human representation on earth, just as each Catholic is secure in the fact that their personal confessions will not reach public ears, priests might also be afforded this level of privacy.

However, the legal and social position of the Church must be considered more thoroughly than its theoretical relationship with God when making policies that pertain to it. This is necessarily because of the Constitutional separation between faith and legality. In other words, within the United States there cannot be a legal double standard when making laws that may influence religious institutions: it should not be the interest of the Untied States government to take actions specifically aimed at perpetuating the position of the Catholic Church within society.

Evoking the holy position of the Church is further weakened as a point of justification when the nature of the crimes committed is more seriously considered. Many have used this point-of-view to assert that the sexual offenses and subsequent efforts of cover-up were blatant acts betrayal with reference to those who placed their blind faith within the Church:

The extent of betrayal -- of children's innocence, of parent's trust, of priestly vows, of bishop's responsibilities, of the Church's basic tenets -- was unnerving. Most shocking to everyday Catholics, and most damaging to the Church, was the incontrovertible evidence that Cardinal Law and other leaders of the archdiocese had engaged in such a massive cover-up. Rather than protect its most vulnerable members, the Church had been putting them in harm's way." (Boston Globe, 3).

In this way, the Church's supposed relationship with God not only devalues the notion that such sins can be kept personal, but that doing such is a direct contradiction of the Church's obligation to its followers. This is the most common position taken by the public and the media regarding the scandal, and it is the most easily justifiable. Also, "Further fueling that anger were revelations that over the years the church had paid tens of millions of dollars in settlements to victims, often stipulating that they not discuss the cases." (Jost, 2002).

Importantly, it must be noted that this debate is fueled by strong emotions on both sides. Accordingly, evaluating the discussion from an objective position is important. So, although the anger felt by many at this apparent betrayal is significant, it does not provide adequate backing for asserting that priests should be required to register as sex offenders -- provided they have been convicted. The only convincing arguments that can be put forward must be from the social and legal standpoint, and addressed in a manner that can be applied to society as a whole, regardless of religious affiliations.

The Church's response to this public outcry in 2002 was a zero-tolerance policy adopted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Under this, any cleric found to be guilty of pedophilic crimes is immediately dismissed. However, "Dominicans, Jesuits and other religious orders, representing 16,000 of the nation's 45,000 priests, chose another path: giving abusive priests supervised treatment for as long as they stay within their communities." (Curtis, 2005). So, many of those not under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Bishops have opted for a far more cautious approach to dealing with sexual deviance. Still, "Both approaches could claim support from Pope John Paul II. He called abuse criminal and said there was no place in the priesthood for abusers of minors, yet also suggested that some priests could 'turn away from sin and back to God' if given a second chance." (Curtis, 2005).

The zero-tolerance policy has been criticized for its lack of treatment for the sexual offenders, and the competing policy has been criticized for its secrecy. In light of the emerging availability of such treatment measures many parishioners believe that keeping these matters within the Church is the best option. Rev. Edward Krasevac, who specializes in handling sex-related issues, defended his choice to keep one particular offense from the public: "We didn't tell the neighbors for the right reasons. In a family, if you have someone with bad stuff in their background and they're rehabilitated, do you announce that to your neighbors?" (Curtis, 2005).

Yet, this line of reasoning makes two mistakes: first, parishes are not families; and second, pedophilia has no cure. Obviously, individuals with pedophilic drives, having taken a vow, can abstain from such activities, but this by no means implies that there is a cure for their desires. Considering this, many have contended that once a priest's pedophilic drives have been revealed that "All minors are potential victims in [their] presence." (Wheeler, 2005). But this is analogous to saying that all women are in danger of having sexual relations with a heterosexual priest. Clearly, such an act is not necessarily a crime, as pedophilia is, but both opinions suggest that celibacy is impossible -- doubtlessly it is not.

So, the question is: can a pedophile be an honest and honorable priest? The answer most certainly is, yes. But it is also essential that if there is any evidence of sexual misconduct, whether by a priest or any other member of society, it must be reported to authorities; the "family" of the Church cannot avoid this obligation. Accordingly, the argument that, "Zero tolerance may be appropriate in cases where a serious crime is known to have been committed and as long as there is a palpable risk of its being repeated," is altogether too weak (Dulles, 2004). Palpable risk should not enter into consideration: if a crime has been committed it must be investigated by the proper authorities. These authorities are necessarily from outside the Church as they are upholding the laws that pertain to everyone in society, irrespective of their religious faith.