bishops for sale
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jan 06, 2007
Bishop William Skylstad's Diocese of Spokane has reached a provisional settlement of sex abuse claims: $48 million, plus. It's the "plus" that's particularly disconcerting:
The Spokane Catholic Diocese has agreed to pay at least $48 million to people molested by priests as a part of a deal to emerge from bankruptcy, a federal mediator announced Thursday. Federal Bankruptcy Judge Gregg W. Zive in Reno, Nevada, said the settlement would provide survivors "with some measure of closure and allow them to move forward and continue the healing process." ...
The settlement requires Spokane Bishop William Skylstad to publicly support eliminating statutes of limitations on child sex crimes and to personally visit each parish where children were abused to urge parishioners to come forward with reports of abuse, according to court documents.
Skylstad must also send letters of apology to victims or their immediate families; publish the names of all known abusers; allow victims to publicly address the parishes where they were sexually abused; and to publish their stories in the diocesan newspaper.
Take a closer look at the provision that obliges Bishop Skylstad to "support eliminating statutes of limitations on child sex crimes." Let's bracket the question of whether eliminating this statute of limitations is a good thing or bad thing. What's going on when a bishop allows himself, qua bishop, to be forced to shill, qua bishop, for a political goal that serves his legal adversary's purposes? Is his episcopal support a good that a bishop has the liberty to barter?
As a thought experiment, take a hypothetical and frivolous example: the future Bishop of Kokomo writes his flock: "Lobbyists in favor of moving the State of Indiana to the Central Time Zone have offered to pay off our diocesan debt if I lend my public support to the time change measure; for the good of the local church I have decided to accept their offer." No Catholic doctrine is at risk. The change may be objectively good. The bishop may be sincerely and antecedently convinced of its rightness. Yet his vending his official support is sordid all the same. Altering the conditions somewhat, suppose it was the Governor's office that wanted the change pushed through, and suppose they could apply legal duress to the bishop: "Support the time change, or we'll prosecute and fine you for employing undocumented workers." If he capitulates, isn't it his ecclesial office, and not just his person, that he's allowing to be blackmailed?
Perhaps this criticism seems abstract and captious. Well, consider the embarrassment of the Archbishop-designate of Warsaw, who has admitted collaboration (while denying hostile complicity) with the Communist secret police. Taken at his own estimate, he's not a blackguard, just another soft churchman who, when the pressure was on, took the easy way out. Even those Catholics inclined to forgive his complicity may be dismayed that he didn't volunteer the confession himself, but reluctantly succumbed to necessity yet again when the facts came out. Now they're looking at the man expected to guide them spiritually in making tough moral decisions for the next eight years: are they meant to feel that his capitulation doesn't matter?
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: Fr. William -
Jan. 09, 2007 2:08 AM ET USA
I pray that someone in the Vatican is reading your blogs, Diogenes. For, indeed, you are making, as usual, some seriously good points about the Church and her leaders... Might we pray for Canon 401-2 to be invoked by the Holy Father for Bp. Skylstad and for all the bishops who follow Skylstad's approach toward "leading" a diocese. Saint Thomas Becket, bishop and martyr, pray for us.
Posted by: -
Jan. 08, 2007 1:09 PM ET USA
(... pay at least $48 million ...with some measure of closure and allow them to move forward and continue the healing process." ...) Court and church approved cash for sex??? (The settlement requires ...to publicly support ...) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (Skylstad must also ...) Window dressing. Wouldn't a resignation be more appropriate?
Posted by: Gino -
Jan. 06, 2007 9:04 PM ET USA
With few exceptions such as the great Bishop Bruskewitz and 4 or 5 others; our bishops seem lacking in manhood. It is a sad thing to feel this way but they show it every day in every way. The Church appears rudderless and our hapless bishops go their merry way turning a blind eye to the disintegration of our beloved faith. I have reached the point where I hate to read articles about the uselessness of our "leaders". Pray that our Holy Father can do something to change this situation.
Posted by: Ross Dee -
Jan. 06, 2007 8:33 PM ET USA
Again and again and again, very poor advise from their attorneys. It is beyond my comprehension of how badly the Bishops' have handled these horrendous child abuse crimes from the beginning. God the Father gave all these Bishops the right tools from Heaven and earth to work with. What do they do? They try and circumvent God's Law and the law of our land. They are in a box now and I am sure there will be people coming forward that where never abused by any priest. but loves the blackmail money.
Posted by: -
Jan. 06, 2007 12:18 PM ET USA
This whole statute of limitations thing is specifically targeted against the Catholic Church and its leaders should never, ever support waiving or eliminating such limitations. There has never been a waiver or elimination of statutes of limitations in the history of the USA for anything other than clerical abuse. Studies have shown that far more cases of child sexual abuse have occured in public schools yet they remain exempt from statue waivers (wonder why!). Poor move by the Bishop.
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Jan. 06, 2007 11:41 AM ET USA
The lump of wood is remorseless.
Posted by: Leo XIII727 -
Jan. 06, 2007 11:30 AM ET USA
Retch! Gag! Help!