Catholics for Accountability--and Those Against

I believe that this qualifies as good news:

They call themselves Catholic Whistleblowers, a newly formed cadre of priests and nuns who say the Roman Catholic Church is still protecting sexual predators.Although they know they could face repercussions, they have banded together to push the new pope to clean house and the American bishops to enforce the zero-tolerance policies they adopted more than a decade ago.

The group began organizing quietly nine months ago without the knowledge of their superiors or their peers, and plan to make their campaign public this week. Most in the steering group of 12 have blown the whistle on abusers in the past, and three are canon lawyers who once handled abuse cases on the church’s behalf. Four say they were sexually abused as children.

The fact that one of this group is Rev. Thomas Doyle, who has been indefatigable in his zeal for justice for victims over three decades is immensely encouraging. The participation of Anne Barrett Doyle, of the indispensable resource BishopAccountability.org, which curates a wealth of primary documents as well as helpful context-providing summaries and timelines is also very encouraging.

Of course--it never fails, does it?--Bill Donohue is appalled. After all, he writes, the crisis is long over, ending in the 1980s. He's back again to discounting Fr. Michael Fugee, whose confession to a 2001 offense is now reduced to a triviality:

One might think that a group called Catholic Whistleblowers would blow the whistle on bishops who are shielding molesting priests. But they can’t even name one. The best they can do is mention the arrest of Father Michael Fugee in Newark for violating a judicial order. In the 12 years since his case was thrown out of court—for groping a teenager while wrestling in front of family members—there have been no complaints. No matter, this is all about getting Archbishop John Myers, not Fugee.

Actually, Fr. Fugee has been charged with criminal contempt for violating his plea agreement, one which the Archdiocese co-signed, and which the Archbishop's spokesman first denied Fugee had violated, only to change the story days later to claim the Archdiocese did not know of the conduct he had scant days earlier defended as lawful. So, yeah, it looks like Archbishop Myers has been shielding a priest, previously found guilty of molesting, who entered a plea agreement rather than face retrial, and who violated the terms of the agreement. In 2013.

Donohue is so defensive of the hierarchy that he will can't keep his stories straight. On May 3, he wrote that:

Father Fugee now says he violated his agreement with the Newark Archdiocese and the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office; thus, his decision to step down. His dishonesty is appalling. Moreover, he has clearly impugned his character.
...
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: any priest who is guilty of committing a crime, especially sexual abuse, should have the book thrown at him; he will get no defense from the Catholic League.

But now the very act about which Fugee was dishonest, and which "impugned his character" (Donohue uses language like a drunk lumberjack with an axe) is guilty of a mere triviality with no ill intent--it was in front of the boy's family, after all. One of the two incidents happened in front of the boy's mother, according to Fugee's confession, but the priest also notes that the boy "shut down immediately" when grabbed sexually by the priest, who admitted his excitement on both occasions.

Catholics deserve a better defender than this overwrought bullyboy. Thomas Doyle is certainly one. Pope Francis may well prove to be one; he's certainly off to a good start.

The Song Remains the Same...

From yesterday's Newark Star Ledger:

Late in 2007, members of a secretive review board in the Archdiocese of Newark began the task of determining whether the Rev. Michael Fugee had committed sexual abuse by groping the genitals of a 13-year-old boy during two impromptu wrestling matches.

If the allegations were found credible — and if Archbishop John J. Myers concurred — Fugee would be banned from ministry forever in keeping with a landmark zero-tolerance rule adopted by the nation’s bishops in 2002.

The board, composed mainly of lay people appointed by Myers, had at its disposal Fugee’s police confession, documents from his criminal trial and a copy of an agreement he signed with law enforcement pledging he would never again work with children. It also had evidence of Fugee’s entry in a state rehabilitation program, itself an acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

Yet the panel found no sexual abuse occurred, clearing the way for the priest’s eventual return to ministry.

When it subsequently became clear that Fugee was violating the restrictions contained in the agreement, "Myers’ spokesman, Jim Goodness, initially said Fugee’s actions were within the scope of his agreement with the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office because he was supervised at all times. Goodness later reversed himself, acknowledging the agreement had been violated but saying Fugee acted alone."

As for Abp. Myers, "[l]ate last week, he returned from a weeklong trip to Poland, where he celebrated Mass with Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the top Vatican official in charge of policing sex abuse within the church."

How very nice.

The fact that the internal review panel could ignore the criminal conviction (overturned, it is true, but on a judicial error, not on inocence-related grounds) the plea bargain and the terms of the agreement, and Fr. Fugee's confession, is astonishing. Admittedly not as astonishing as the speed with which Arhbishop Myers' spokesman and Bill Donohue can reverse themselves on the fact while blaming others for their troubles, but pretty astonishing nonetheless.

Falling Out of the World

(Photo by D.L. Carson)


So last weekend was the end-of-term retreat, and my first return in a long time, longer than I like, to Holy Cross Monastery, a place that has always had a touch of the numinous for me. The brothers are warm, gracious hosts, the food is excellent, the grounds beautiful, the services--

ah, there's something about the regular services, in the beautifully simple chapel, with the voices chanting in unison, moments of silence to allow you to simply,

well, fall out of the world.

I don't mean run away from the world, I mean fall out of the world--disengage from the everyday, the routine, get a little perspective, and plunge back in, refreshed, rejuvenated, and possible renewed.

I first ran across that phrase on Philip Sandifer's blog, and if borrowing a theme from a highly intellectual discussion of Doctor Who seems a weird inspiration under which to gather some thoughts about a retreat, well, take it up with this guy. But "falling out of the world" appeals to me as a metaphor for a retreat, and there's even a Doctor Who metaphor for it--in the Russell T. Davies era, that lovely moment in the opening credits when the TARDIS, hurtling through the Time Vortex, suddenly takes an elegant, nice little pause so we can see her, and then, after getting her bearings and sauntering through our field of vision, why, hurtles back in.

Here it is (at 0:11-0:14):



Which explains why I haven't been posting much, right? After all, it takes a little, after falling out of and then back into the world to resume all of the routines of daily living.

Oh, and if you haven't already, get a chance to see The Way. It's a beautiful, touching and funny movie, well worth the time.

Wager of Battle

The friend whom I have alluded to as my "Best Critic" because of all the assistance I have received from his close reading of my work over the years and I made a bet yesterday, even though I'm generally not a betting man. Per the terms of the wager, I'm posting it here, and asking you all to remind us when it comes due.

The wager:

The parties hereto wager upon the proposition that, prior to the November 2016 elections, a measure to impeach or articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama shall be introduced in the House of Representatives, shall reach the floor and be debated, and that at least one-third of the Republican caucus shall vote in favor thereof.

Taking the affirmative: Anglocat.

Taking the negative: Best Critic. BC adds that he estimates his odds of winning at 60-40.

Anglocat adds that he can't compute odds, being nearly functionally innumerate.

Stakes:$10

Sworn to and subscribed this 14th day of May, 2013.

*******************end document*********************

A note: Neither of us believes that any actual high crime or misdemeanor or reasonable variant thereof is likely to be identified; it's all down to our estimation of how crazed the GOP base is, and how much the House Republicans will fall over themselves to pander to its hatred of the President.

So who thinks I've got this, and who thinks its a case of a fool and his money?

Anatomy of a Scandal

I was largely incommunicado for a few days, so missed a couple of things within my bailiwick. So, OK, let's get this clear:

1. This is not a scandal.

The attack on the consulate of Benghazi was a tragedy, and, until I see something other than primal screaming from the critical testimony at the hearings, I'm presuming that the Report of the State Department Accountability Review Board has it approximately right. I'm open to persuasion, mind you. But the hair-splitting headline chasing gymnastics of Darrell Issa? Unpersuasive is a flattering description. (On Issa, I'll outsource my commentary to congressional expert Anthony Clark, who knows wherof he writes.)

2. This is a scandal. Singling out groups for governmental scrutiny based on their political views is, whatever one thinks of the views in question, absolutely reprehensible, and one of the most overt violations of the First Amendment one can imagine. I am, as anyone who reads this blog regularly might have gathered, not a fan of the Tea Party. But the protections of the First Amendment are not, thank heaven, limited to those whose views are in favor with the Administration of the day, or even to people who are "mainstream." The use of tax audits as a political weapon has a dire provenance, and there is, simply, no justification for targeting taxpayers and organizations by political belief. It's not just illegal, it's profoundly subversive of democracy. The President's condemnation was a good first step, but I hope he will follow though and make sure that the investigation is thorough, and that the results are transparent, and that remedial action be taken as appropriate.



We the People should hold the President to those words.

Across the Great Divide...

I don't often visit the conservative Anglican blogs, but I sometimes sneak a peek. This post I found interesting, not because I agree with Sarah Hey on the specifics of her exchanges with the individuals in question (I seem to have missed that one), but because I think she is right, most regrettably on this:

I’m guessing that most of us within TEC have noticed that public exchanges between conservatives and revisionists within the Anglican Communion have grown far far more rare, now, with revisionists avoiding the conservative blogs and conservatives avoiding the revisionist blogs.

I personally think that’s probably a good thing. Once one has established the boundaries of the vast chasm between the two groups in foundational worldviews, there’s little left to say, other than running through the “prayer wheel” of arguments, which we all already know anyway. The problem is not “the arguments”—it’s that none of us accept the other side’s presuppositions or even basic definitions of the most basic of theological concepts.

Now, where I disagree with Ms. Hey is on that last sentence; I think that it is sometimes, maybe often, true, but I think that we're often missing our commonalities. Also, of course, I think it's not a good thing that we've lost the knack of talking to each other without yelling. Let me address both points.

In many ways, I am much more conservative than many of my fellow "reappraisers" or "revisionists" or whatever you want to call us. I am an actual honest to goodness creedal Christian who accepts the truth--not metaphorical truth, either, of the Creed. I believe that the Gospels are historically very reliable--at least as reliable as the biographies of the Roman Emperors who lived roughly contemporarily with Jesus; Suetonius, Cassius Dio, and Tacitus raise issues of historical accuracy and interpretation every bit as intractable as those presented by the differences in the Four Gospels, and yet the historicity of accounts of Claudius, or of Caligula, or of Augustus is not subject to the level of skepticism that th every existence of Jesus engenders in some circles. You can basically sign me up to Charles Gore's account in The Reconstruction of Belief (1921) of the historical veracity of the miracles and Resurrection, and the accounts given in that book and in Lux Mundi (1889) of the Atonement. I'm not a believer in Penal Substitutionary Atonement theories, but in the centrality of the Atonement? Yep.

So does that make me a conservative theologically?

Well, just as the Gospel has strengthened me in my belief in liberation and equality for women it has strengthened my evolution from a slightly conservative Roman Catholic childhood to a belief that my LGBT brothers and sisters must live into the fullness of their integrity, and that the strictures in the OT and St. Paul do not reflect the Holy Spirit, but the age in which Paul lived on both topics. I think that St. Paul's breakthrough moments are far more important than his moments of falling back into the spirit of his time--there is more truth in "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" than in "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

And I believe, with all my heart in the critical importance of "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

I acknowledge many readings of the Gospel, and I'm not uncomfortable with my fellow "revisionists" and their efforts to take Scripture on board. That's because most of them are (the ones I know, at any rate) deeply in love with Christ and with his teachings. Efforts to square modern or (zoinks!) postmodern thought with the Gospel leave me cold, but my reaction to them is that of C.S. Lewis to John A.T. Robinson:

The Bishop of Woolwich will disturb most of us Christian laymen less than he anticipates. We have long ago abandoned belief in a God who sits on a throne in a localized heaven. We call this belief anthropomorphism, and it was officially condemned before our time. . . .We have always thought of God as being not only "in" and "above" but also "below" us....His view of Jesus as a window seems wholly orthodox (he that hath seen me hath seen the Father....Thus, though sometimes puzzled, I am not shocked by his article. His heart, though perhaps in some danger of bigotry, is in the right place.

I mention all this because I think that Ms. Hey overestimates the extent to which we do not share one faith; while I don't miss vitriolic flame wars, I think we lose something when liberals and conservatives divorce each other, a recognition that our way is not the only way, and that our assumptions that we understand God are partial, fragmentary and misleading--"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face".

We get too certain of our premises, and of our conclusions. I've gotten too sure of myself at times, and have benefitted form more traditionalist comments that revealed the flaws in my own reasoning. And that has led to further exchanges, I'm glad to say. In addition to being pleasant and wholesome in and of themselves, friendships with those we disagree on subjects we are passionate about can help protect us from confusing our own commitments withthose required by God, and as well against that great danger Lewis warned us about: that of The Inner Ring.

Gun Shy

Now, let me be the first to admit that I'm a little, shall we say, gun shy? Not completely;I had an uncle who taught me to shoot one when I was a boy, and enjoyed it. But this story and this story, and, finally, this: Well, time for Uncle John tae tell the tale, innit? OK, when my sister and I were eleven, and my grandmother had died, our parents and we spent a lot of time over at my grandfather's house. We were all, I'm pretty sure, emotionally numb, and, having loved our grandmother very much, nobody was thinking too clearly, so my sister and I were left alone while the adults went to the funeral home. We did what children left alone in a house they know but which has mysteries would do: explore. As my sister and I were snooping around (more realistically), she opened a drawer, finding within it a small, snub -nosed gun. Thinking it was a toy, she assumed a firing stance a la Kate Jackson, called out to me,"Charlie's Angels!"

Well, I thought it was a toy, too, and swatted her hand away from pointing at my chest. She pulled the trigger, and a loud noise, a smell of cordite, and a surprisingly small hole in the wall later, we realized that it wasn't a toy. Oh, and that I was still there. And intact. So I had that going for me.

So it goes.

******

The thing that I find so bewildering about the gun debate is the nature of the interests asserted as so paramount that they must, must outweigh even the most minimal regulation of weapons in the interest of reducing avoidable carnage (more here)--carnage that continues to mount in the nearly 100 days since Newtown, and can be summarized thus:

In 2010, gun-related injuries accounted for 6570 deaths of children and young people (1 to 24 years of age). That includes 7 deaths per day among people 1 to 19 years of age. Gun injuries cause twice as many deaths as cancer, 5 times as many as heart disease, and 15 times as many as infections

Against this, we have asserted interests that are legitimate but, in essence, trivial--the sportsman's and sportswoman's enjoyment of hunting, target shooting, and the like, or, quite frankly, inextricably intertwined with neo-confederate weirdness. Leaving the latter to the side, the tragedy is that the former--worthy of accommodation, not a bad thing in esse--has been raised by our society to a shibboleth. Even the regulations expressly deemed constitutional by Antonin Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller are opposed as if they were the harbingers of tyranny.

Why? When I first read Gary Wills's story Our Moloch, I thought it was too strident. Now, as I look at the failure of even minimal reform and see the pro-gun forces striving to force every community to live in the shadow of the gun, I'm not so sure. Culture of death? Sadly, yes.