By Diogenes (articles ) | December 29, 2006 9:19 AM
Today is the feast of St. Thomas Becket, martyred on December 29th, 1170, in Canterbury Cathedral by agents acting on the wishes of King Henry II. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that "the great matter of dispute was reached in the resistance made by Thomas to the king's officials when they attempted to assert jurisdiction over criminous clerks." Becket defended the Church's right to deal with her own misbehaving priests -- i.e., priests who committed criminal and not merely canonical offenses. Henry demanded civil jurisdiction.
Our moral sympathies today are probably with Becket; our judgment about the legal dispute is probably less clear. We tend to think of the Church's independence in matters of internal governance as a privilege i.e., an immunity from the legal apparatus that binds everyone else. And just as the military is permitted to discipline its own members within certain confines -- on the understanding that it will be quicker than civil authority to detect malefactors and more effective in punishing them -- so too Church's liberties are granted on the understanding that her governors will act more responsibly than their secular counterparts.
After the clerical abuse crisis, that understanding is shrapnel.
Particularly painful in this regard is the maneuvering of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony, who has put church law, and himself, through serial makeovers in his extended dueling with courts, prosecutors, journalists, police, victims, insurers, victim attorneys and the rest of the citizenry interested in his dealings with abusive priests. He's a kind of Becket-in-reverse: invoking the Church's privileges not so as to expose himself to the hostility of civil authority, but to protect himself from it -- and this in such a way that the Church's spiritual ministry is weaker as a result.
In one pose, Mahony presents himself as Friar Roger, the little guy's friend. He's a simple, pastoral, aw-shucks kind of priest who feels the people's pain and, if it were up to him, would turn over the files in an instant and let the healing begin. And besides he's all in favor of openness. But, regrettably, he's been over-ruled by his hard-nosed team of legal advisers, who have their own job to do and who refuse to budge. They say it's a matter of legal principle that priests can't have their files made public: it would violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the California Evidence Code and the Seventh Scout Law and many other things that Friar Roger can't say he really understands, but then these men know their business.
For another contingency, we get another pose: St. Roger, the Elizabethan martyr: "Tear ye my tongue & myne eyes from my head, yet shall I ne'er betray that most sacred Seal of the Holy Sacrament of Penance & damn therewith myne immortal soul to perdition everlasting!" We're treated to this act when there's good reason to look into the archdiocesan personnel files to see what was known about molester-priests before they were re-assigned. Somehow the Aura of the Confessional has been beamed onto these documents. It would violate a sacramental secret to let profane eyes gaze upon them, and the Cardinal would sooner be dragged to his death than let this happen.
In another mood -- that's to say, when the insurance companies are threatening not to pay on the grounds that the Archdiocese has withheld info about its liabilities -- St. Roger becomes Mister Rogers: "Well I can't really see what all this fuss is about. We have cooperated fully. Any insurer has all the access he needs into our Archdiocesan archives. We're all friends here, and friends have no secrets from one another. I think there must be some simple misunderstanding or mistake that we can clear up at any time. Why, I imagine in a few days or so we at the Archdiocese and our wonderful friends at the insurance companies will all have a happy laugh about this misunderstanding or mistake."
It goes without saying that there is considerable cross-pollination between the poses, as the situation requires.
Were the courts to demand that the archbishop reveal solemnly contracted secrets, his duty would be to refuse and take the consequences -- even if contempt of court landed him in jail. We could admire that. But it's obvious that the Cardinal's positions contradict each other, and add up to a series of tactically chosen bluffs: "Don't believe the confessional seal line? How about notes from indiscreet psychiatrists? Formation privilege? OK, what if I told you the files only contain address and date of birth ...?"
Among the heathen, the net effect of this bluffing is to increase the cynicism of an already skeptical audience. Among Catholics, the injury is deeper still. A bishop is meant to be a trustee of the Faith, not a confidence man who uses religion for his own purposes. The sacramental seal is not the Cardinal's personal property, which, like a hotel in a game of Monopoly, he can trade away when it suits him in exchange for a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. It may be that Mahony has, rather like Clinton, lied himself into the position of a lovable rogue: the ne'er-do-well who can't tell the truth but who amuses a largely indifferent public by the unctimoniousness (a coinage of Ronald Knox) with which he eludes capture by a slower, more earnest justice system. But there may come a time -- perhaps in the not so distant future -- in which the privileges of the Church are necessary to serve a true spiritual good. A pity, if they've been pawned in order to keep a senior ecclesiastic from facing the consequences of his own negligence.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Becket's heroic martyrdom caused the lords temporal to rethink their own ways: "All Christendom was horrified, and Henry II, whether from policy or genuine remorse, surrendered his former pretensions while, in 1174, he performed humiliating penance at the martyr's tomb." After the archdiocesan files are clawed open and their content revealed, can you picture the Los Angeles District Attorney, the tort lawyers, and the insurance actuaries performing humiliating penance in the crypt of Our Lady of the Angels?
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our March expenses ($27,629 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Jan. 04, 2007 2:28 PM ET USA
Mahony really belongs in jail. The civil powers are intimidated by the possible reaction of the Catholic population. To their surprise, there probably would be none. The cdl. should do the right thing and resign. There is no chance of that. The corporate office and the CEO should take action to save the people and the diocese.
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Dec. 29, 2006 11:08 PM ET USA
My prediction, reluctant as it is, is that if Rome will not deal with prelates such as Mahony, then Caesar will flex his muscle and deal with the problem for us. At least the lions will be well fed, which will keep the folks at PETA happy.
Posted by: -
Dec. 29, 2006 9:02 PM ET USA
Mahony has no real personal legal liability in all of us this; he's acting in the worst possible ways to protect what he views as his important reputation. Well, his reputation is not, and never will be, that Clinton's might have been -- a lovable rogue who, shucks, just happens to get away with lying about sex with an intern. No, we lay people tend to develop an indomitable, unforgettable hatred of those who've acted in any way to faciltate harm to our children, and will ever demand justice.
Posted by: -
Dec. 29, 2006 8:41 PM ET USA
Cdl Mahony has never shown the integrity of a two bit ward heeler from the southside of Chicago. He not only doesnt stand by church teachings - he doesnt even stand by his own teachings. No one one here pays any attention to anything he says - it will be something different next week. The man who blows with every breeze all of a sudden wont bend to the hurricane even his buddy Bp Todd (St Todd???) Brown adjusted to. Just what is in those files? If nothing, we wasted millions in legal fees.
Posted by: Trent-on -
Dec. 29, 2006 2:50 PM ET USA
I am ordinarily in much agreement with what you write, but, as a political science graduate, I am very concerned about the independence of the Church to fulfill its mission as a result of the legal consequences of the priestly sexual scandal. Defending the Church's right to exercise freely its authority is in concurrence with American jurisprudence, and some district attorneys have clearly, for political reasons, attacked the Church's rights. Watch out here - there are big issues at stake.
Posted by: Fr. William -
Dec. 29, 2006 12:03 PM ET USA
(continued) Homily concluded with St. Thomas' own words (Office of Readings): "Nevertheless, no matter who plants or waters, God gives no harvest unless what he plants is the faith of Peter, & unless he himself assents to Peter's Teaching. All important questions that arise among God's people are referred to the judgment of Peter in the person of the Roman Pontiff. Under him the ministers of Mother Church exercise the powers committed to them, each in his own sphere of responsibility."
Posted by: Fr. William -
Dec. 29, 2006 11:52 AM ET USA
Thanks, Diogenes. I was second-guessing my homily today, until I read your blog. The homily noted a parallel between Henry II & a few bps. today, giving Cdls. McCarrick & Mahony as examples of bps. who disconnect us from the Holy Father (McCarrick lying about Church Teaching to deny Communion to pro-abort pols; Mahony ignoring Church Teaching on the Mass, & as you note, playing an "anti-Becket" game with priests/files). We prayed for all bps. to be more like St. Thomas Becket, bp. & martyr.
Posted by: www.inquisition.ca -
Dec. 29, 2006 10:54 AM ET USA
Please, gather these articles (and most importantly, the relevant news clippings with precise references) and publish it! 40 years from now, nobody will believe it. Right now here in Canada, I still can't get Opus Dei priests to admit something is wrong. They just stonewall and claim everything is fine, just fine.
Posted by: opraem -
Dec. 29, 2006 10:16 AM ET USA
you're spot on. Christ's bride (the church) is portrayed as a cheap harlot by the actions of messrs mahony and his ilk. the courts have been a somewhat successful tool in the cleansing process, with the disclosures and fines/settlements. if they are unsuccessful, what's the next step? rico conviction as a conspiracy for child abuse? B16 needs our prayers as he navigates this mess we call the us catholic church.