The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe Conroy case: SNAP's unfortunate demand for perfection
by Tom Roberts on May. 13, 2011
The nomination of Fr. Patrick J. Conroy, a Jesuit who happens to hail from the order’s Oregon Province, as chaplain for the House of Representatives, is running into some obstacles because of objections from SNAP and other victims’ advocates.
I am long on record supporting and lauding the work of SNAP and its various leaders. I think the church would be far worse off today than it is were it not for the persistence of such leading figures as David Clohessy, Barbara Blaine and Peter Isely in keeping the spotlight on the institution’s handling of abuse, it’s failure to face the truth of what has been done in the name of protecting the institution, and in generally raising awareness of the destruction that is wrought when adults in positions of authority exploit the most vulnerable in the community.
It is because of my regard and public endorsement of the work of SNAP over the years that I feel compelled to publicly criticize the objection to Conroy’s nomination.
The objection seems to rest on a fact of geography – that Conroy is a member of a province that has recently paid out $166 million for more than 400 claims of child sexual abuse. It also rests on the charge that he was less than perfect, by today’s standards, in notifying authorities about an abusive priest back in the mid -1980s.
No one is charging that Conroy ever did anything wrong. He is not accused of abuse. He is not among those involved in any of the cases that were settled. In fact, in 1986, years before the U.S. bishops established norms and a charter for the protection of youth, Conroy wrote a letter to then-Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle, reporting that a boy told him he had been abused by a priest when he was 12 or 13 years old.
The accuser was about 20 years old when he spoke to Conroy. The priest told the Seattle Times in 2002 that he didn’t get a response from the archdiocese. Isely now charges that he should have followed up with the archdiocese and gone to the police. Perhaps he should have. In a perfect world perhaps he would have.
But the fact of the matter is that Conroy, though not perfect in reporting what he knew, went much further than most priests at the time and placed himself on record with a letter detailing what he knew.
The concern I have is that SNAP, in haunting a career on such thin rationale, risks marginalizing itself in an arena that can be easily hostile to its most valuable work. Demanding the kind of perfection that would be required in this instance to satisfy SNAP, or disqualifying Conroy simply because, as some victims have demanded, he comes from a province where a lot of ugly abuse occurred, is painting with such a broad brush that the claims verge on frivolous.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
It would be good to remember that some of those now correctly hailed as courageous in unveiling the institution’s duplicity, and who now call for victims to go to law enforcement instead of church authorities, did not themselves, in the early years of the scandal (the mid-1980s) turn over perpetrators to police.
There has to be some allowance for the fact that our understanding of the problem has evolved over the past decades; some consideration should be made for a courageous act at a time when most priests, we now know, looked the other way when they became aware of abuse.
CONROY IS QUESTIONABLE.
CONROY IS QUESTIONABLE. __Tom, I usually agree with you, but not here. Conroy served in a senior position in priest formation in a Jesuit Province that just settled for $166 million numerous sexual abuse claims against numerous Jesuit priests formed in that province. Conroy's handling of the one abuse case we so far know about raises a legitimate question about his being the best candidate to be Congressional chaplain. The fact that he did more than his confreres who usually looked the other way is faint praise. He may be entirely without personal fault, but American taxpayers are entitled to feel completely confident the chaplain counseling their Congressional representatives comes free of conflicts. The chaplain surely doesn't have to be perfect, but no one, including SNAP has really asked for that. When Congress will soon likely be facing important child protection issues, especially in light of the Philly fiasco and trials and today's Amnesty International human rights violations' charges against the Church's hierarchy, it is fair that citizens be concerned that Conroy not be the one whispering in their representatives' ears. There are dozens of equally qualified priests who could serve just as well, without any questionable baggage. And SNAP of all groups is clearly entitled to raise its concerns without indirect threats of being marginalized for so doing. Please see also my comment to the Michael Sean Winter's May 12 NCR article entitled "Bruhaha over House chaplain" and my comment thereto entitled, "MSW, You Are Wrong Thrice". PAX+
Why would anyone want a
Why would anyone want a minister from a supposedly religious group that permits child abuse by its ministers and then protects the perverts, a group that calls a Pope who protected pedophile priests blessed, and a group of people who don't protect their own children. I am an ex Catholic and definitely don't want a Catholic priest offering up prayers in the House. Mr. Roberts, I am called publicly to critize you for condoning the lies and lack of action by Pope Benedict and for finding fault with SNAP. Both actions makes you sound like a pedophile protector, very unchristian and anti-family not to mention your denial of the facts already in the public realm concerning the papal inaction, coverup, and lies concerning pedophile priests.
Thank you, Tom Roberts.
Thank you, Tom Roberts. Frankly, I didn't think you were capable of making distinctions any longer. I'm glad to see I was wrong, and I apologize. - robert.
I think the world of Tom
I think the world of Tom Roberts and the entire staff of the NCR. But a few clarifications are in order
Our objection to Conroy does not “rest on a fact of geography.” It rests on Conroy’s admission that he
--didn’t call the police about suspected child sex crimes when he knew they were illegal, and
--wrote one church official once about the allegations and never followed up.
Our objection is also based on the fact that, in the 25 years since, apparently Conroy still has never
--contacted the police (which he should have repeatedly considered doing at least since 2002),
--followed up with the church official, nor
--apologized for this failure.
By the way, the accused priest, Fr. Dennis V. Champagne, still walks free today. How will Conroy feel (and the church look) after he becomes the congressional chaplain, if Champagne is arrested for molesting kids in recent years.
Keep in mind, we’re not arguing Conroy should be demoted, disciplined, defrocked or anything even close. We are simply saying public servants should be more prudent in who they honor, and avoid hiring and elevating someone who admits a) never calling the police about suspected child sex crimes, b) never following through on the one report he made and c) never apologizing for his failure).
(By the way, at least 60 of Conroy’s colleagues in the Northwest Jesuit province are accused of molesting at least 700 kids. Almost 30 of Conroy’s colleagues in the Seattle archdiocese are alleged predators. And Conroy’s been a Jesuit for nearly 40 years. So it’s a stretch to assume that only once, over decades, did Conroy see or suspect clergy sexual misdeeds by only one of these nearly 100 allegedly abusive colleagues.)
“He’s no worse than most of his peers.” Is that our new standard for who oughta get a six figure job on the public payroll?
Finally, Tom’s right when he points out that “some of those now correctly hailed as courageous in unveiling the institution’s duplicity, and who now call for victims to go to law enforcement instead of church authorities, did not themselves, in the early years of the scandal, turn over perpetrators to police.” At the same time, however, many of them have since clearly and publicly admitted that they were wrong in not contacting law enforcement. On that point, sadly, Conroy, even now, remains silent.
I lost my pastor of eighteen
I lost my pastor of eighteen years a while back because people made allegations that turned out to be completely false. When my husband died, the priest who celebrated the funeral mispronounced his name four times. But that's all right with you, isn't it, David, as long as you get all the publicity you possibly can. I hope someone takes you to court for all your hypocrisy and puts you in jail for having ruined people's lives.
How is SNAP responsible for
How is SNAP responsible for that? Were they involved? And, for that matter, who was the priest and who made the allegations? Would you favor us with some details to make your accusation credible?
It would be nice if we would
It would be nice if we would require the same burden of proof of SNAP. Unfortunately, they get to use the "guilty until proven innocent," "guilty by association" and even "guilty by working in the same Jesuit province" standards.
Fifteen years (from 1986
Fifteen years (from 1986 until 2002) is a long time. That's how long Fr. Dennis Champagne stayed on the job, despite allegations against him of child sexual abuse made to Fr. Conroy.
Had Conroy either called the cops or even called the archbishop a second time, I wonder if maybe Champagne's access to kids might have been curtailed even a bit sooner.
The issue here is NOT about
The issue here is NOT about "satisfying SNAP".
--The issue is exposing the full truth of those who have enabled, empowered, and covered up sex crimes against kidds.
--The issue is that sexually abusing a child was a crime in the 1980's, and church leaders knew that.
--The issue is that until these church leaders are held accountable, there is no settling for any less than "perfection" when is comes to protecting kids from this kind of abuse.
Why would anyone want to settle for less?
Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, 636-433-2511
snapjudy@gmail.com
"Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests"
http://www.snapnetwork.org/
Two viral responses to a
Two viral responses to a rather mild essay. SNAP must really be worried that NCR has finally seen through their scam. They show their ugly faces everywhere they can, just like the Westboro Baptist Church, trying to drag everyone possible into their mud. At the worst moment in their history, the Jesuits could still teach SNAP something about the gospel. I wonder what would happen if we subjected SNAP to the same kind of scrutiny our dioceses are subject to....perfection, anyone?
Tom, I cannot agree with you
Tom,
I cannot agree with you on this one. It isn't asking for perfection to find one member of the clergy in the United States who is not somehow tainted by the clergy sexual abuse scandal. This is a big deal. Yes, he reported the abuse to his bishop, but that wasn't enough. If a parent saw his child sexually abused by his teacher would he have only reported it to the school principal and not contacted the police?
Whatever happened to this child? Were there children who were subsequently abused because no phone call to the authorities was made?
The chaplaincy of the US House of Representatives is a prominent position of public trust. Why not nominate a member of the clergy who stood up to his bishop and did the right thing? Or isn't there one?
The vast majority of priests
The vast majority of priests are good men, doing a difficult job, often under very adverse conditions. A very small percentage have been abusers. But of course, so have been teachers, doctors, and other occupations. THis is not to dismiss or sweep abuse under the carpet, but rather to keep in mind, that the vast majority of priests had nothing to do with this horror.
It is a fair argument that,
It is a fair argument that, absent the tepid response of Conroy and his ilk, the abuse of children and vulnerable adults could not have gone on. That is the argument SNAP makes. I see nothing in Tom's opinion piece to refute that.
Given that, should the abuse scandal haunt Jesuits of the Oregon (and other) Province when they seek National recognition and office?
You betcha!
SNAP employs shrinks who lie
SNAP employs shrinks who lie to courts and government agencies while stockpiling tons of kiddie porn on their computers.
And you know this how?
And you know this how?
Evidence?
Evidence?
SNAP is showing it's true
SNAP is showing it's true colors. Actually, Clohessy and others like him have been flying that flag for a long time. It's about time someone in the press has dropped the ideological blinders long enough to get a glimpse for once.
You are way too generous to
You are way too generous to SNAP.
As a pressure group they need to be outrageous and unreasonable to keep the money flowing from donors and the likes of lawyer-creatures like Jeff Anderson so don't ever expect them to say anything measured or balanced. They would like all priests to be removed and shot on even a suspicion of abuse.
Of course Tom Roberts is NOT
Of course Tom Roberts is NOT "way to generous with SNAP". What he has simply said is that in this case they have targeted an individual more on the periphery of the issue, an individual who indeed did point to the problem. Perhaps this was not enough. But by targeting such, they leave themselves open to the sorts of reaction as that expressed above and more so. It isn't that they are completely wrong, it's that their judgement lacks any hint of presupposition of understanding of the position the man was in, and therefore open themselves up to the same sort of (though opposite) suppositions. Perhaps the man saw himself as not having all of the information and not positioned to be judge and jury, just a witness. Was the culprit a Jesuit? Were there perhaps formal relationships between the order and the diocese? I have limited knowledge of the case of Fr. James Rapp in Oklahoma, where somewhat similar considerations apparently played a role.
Thanks Tom, as I've said, there's too much fury. But we should also recognize that much of it results from real frustration that issues are being ignored. Or worse, lied to. On both sides of many issues
Jerry Slevin and those
Jerry Slevin and those supporting Snap position. Your position would imply that just about every priest in existance should be denied further activity in or out of the Church. Don't you realize that most of them were aware to some extent of the abuse of childrfen that was being practised by priests in their province or diocese. The systems within religious organizations, Catholic and otherwise, creates an atmosphere of 'double think'. Yes we know what is going on but not really. And so behave as though nothing is going on.\
I also beleive that 'double think' goes on in many, many organizations, institutions governments whatever. We are a species of sinners and we manage as best we can.
"DOUBLE THINK" & KID RAPE
"DOUBLE THINK" & KID RAPE ....Thank you, Page 5, for your thoughtful and measured reply. I am fully aware how "double think" works in institutions and how difficult it is to balance moral decisions in many settings. But one must also try to balance the equities. If the choice is between protecting a defenseless child from rape and holding both perpetrators and their enablers accountable, I go for protecting innocent children. Of course, many (perhaps most) priests have been and some may still be unintentionally put in a very difficult bind----blow the whistle on their confrere or look the other way. If they blew the whistle, they often faced being blackballed or expelled. Of course, they also could have blown the whistle and resigned. Tough choice, certainly. I suspect many of the thousands of priest resignations in recent decades resulted at least in part from disgust at what the former priests saw going on. So "double think" is a helpful explanation; but it cannot be a sufficient excuse----the evil of child rape is just too grave. _________________________________________________________________________ The curia and bishops have exacerbated the problems for non-abuser priests by failing to really address the internal problem in an effective and honest way. If part of the way forward to protect children better from future rape is to deny bestowing gratuitous public honors like the House chaplaincy on a priest who at a minimum appears to some degree to have aquiesced in the dangerous system like the one that existed in the Jesuit Oregon Province, then that is what should be done. Perhaps, in the future more priests will stand up collectively to their superiors and bishops and demand that perpetrators be removed promptly and effective child protection measures be adopted and implemented. Unfortunately, children cannot protect themselves and given the squalid history here, the benefit of the doubt should be resolved in favor of innocent children. As bad as things appear, I find it very unlikely that in the entire US one could not find a single qualified priest to serve as House chaplain that is free of any questionable conflicts.
What J. Slevin offers is a
What J. Slevin offers is a perfect example of normative hyperbole: "Of course many," he writes, (perhaps most) priests have been and some may still be unintentionally put in a very difficult bind----blow the whistle on their confrere or look the other way."
In the first place, this is a massive exaggeration -- a classic example of the use of hyperbole in place of fact as a premise.
How many is "many"? Jerry suggests that it is probably more than half of the group. (Wow! Ain't that an eye-popper!)
In the second place, however, Slevin could have no way of knowing what he proposes. No one has shown that over 50% of priests have found themselves in the compromising position that Jerry describes. His premise has not been established as true!
But it's not necessary to substantiate the claim, is it Jerry? (Heck, NCR writers do it regularly and they get away with it, right?) All you need do is posit the premise, hyperbole that it is, and you've managed to get it inside the minds of dull-witted people who easily accept it as a fact. Viole! It's a virtual fact -- a normative hyperbole. Never mind that it is the creature of an undisciplined and twisted logic.
Very likely Jerry has even convinced himself of the veracity of his premise. Eh, Jerry?
RHETORIC OR REALITY ?
RHETORIC OR REALITY ? ....Thanks, Mah51, good effort but no cigar. A fair assessment of the data, assembled by groups funded by the bishops, leads to a fair inference that the percentage of priests involved is sex abuse of minors approaches 10%. Assuming these children were not invisible, their confreres and rectory mates can be reasonably presumed to have noticed something amiss. Instead of ducking the obvious with hairsplitting rhetoric, why don't you use direct your wrath at the perps. Let's assume only 20 % of non-abusive priests were aware children were being abused by their confreres, but said nothing about it. You win the argument, but lose the war. Give it up, please. PAX+
"Let's assume only 20
"Let's assume only 20 %..."
That may seem like an improvement--20% instead of more than 50%--but it's still, as you say, only something you "presume".
You're better off sticking to the facts as we know them. After all, the well established facts are bad enough. No need to exaggerate.
We are a species of sinners.
We are a species of sinners. We are also a species of complex people living in complex situations. That is why we honor the virtue of prudence. That is why we do not (or should not) demand absolute perfection of one another while demanding the observance of social norms for the protection and well being of all.
Page 5 writes properly and
Page 5 writes properly and prudently: " . . .while demanding the observance of social norms for the protection and well being of all."
then end all wars now.
Thank you Tom. Hindsight is
Thank you Tom. Hindsight is always 20/20 vision. We continue to use 2011 standards and understanding of the abuse crisis for where all of society was in regard to this immense problem back in the 1980's and earlier. Even then the healing professions dealt with and understood abuse in a very different way. We have come a long way. More needs to be done. But as a survivor as well, I fear that SNAP is loosing credibility when they paint with such broad brush strokes. Tends to look like they make no distinctions whatever, and people simply will stop listening to them. They then appear shrill and without any measure.
How can any truly Roman
How can any truly Roman Catholic pastor preside over the most immoral military body in the world, responsible for generations of countless deaths worldwide, the leading military pimp in history, and acting very profitably for terrorism in the world today?
Except of course for the courageous and prophetic and Reverend Father John Dear SJ.
Place this our finest fine Jesuit in that perilous position and convert our nation to the God of Peace, at last.
Jesus demands perfection:
Jesus demands perfection:
Make the Jesuit and very Reverend Father John Dear chaplain of this international military tribunal called the US Congress;
he alone can convert us all at last to Jesus Christ and the Path of God's Everlasting Peace.
As we heard not the REverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., but killed him as he called for peace in Vietnam and just jobs at home, let us internationally hear now the sacred chaplaincy of Father John Dear SJ
The clerical system cannot be
The clerical system cannot be trusted. Catholics really want to trust their priests and bishops again, but the hard proof to do so is not there. Rigali's recently exposed continuation of the cover-up in Philadelphia is a parting of the curtains in one archdiocese. Grand jury investigations in other diocese would reveal similar duplicity. The safety of our children is at stake here. There is no room for compromise. Conroy's appointment is a win for compromise - something that non-survivors tend to feel is OK. SNAP is made up of victims who know first hand how compromise shreds lives. They have good reason and sound moral authority to hold the RCC and NCR to the most stringent and exhaustive standards of excellence.
"SNAP is made up of victims
"SNAP is made up of victims who know first hand how compromise shreds lives. They have good reason and sound moral authority to hold the RCC and NCR to the most stringent and exhaustive standards of excellence.
It is increasingly obvious that SNAP's leaders are not looking for "the most stringent and exhaustive standards of excellence", they are seeking the rubble that comes of revenge.
They have long since lost credibility.
The clerical system cannot be
The clerical system cannot be trusted. Catholics really want to trust their priests and bishops again, but the hard proof to do so is not there. Rigali's recently exposed continuation of the cover-up in Philadelphia is a parting of the curtains in one archdiocese. Grand jury investigations in other diocese would reveal similar duplicity. The safety of our children is at stake here. There is no room for compromise. Conroy's appointment is a win for compromise - something that non-survivors tend to feel is OK. SNAP is made up of victims who know firsthand how compromise shreds lives. They have good reason and sound moral authority to hold the RCC and NCR to the most stringent and exhaustive standards of excellence in child safety.
A wee "thought experiment"
A wee "thought experiment" for our Mr. Roberts and those who defend the nomination:
What if the nominee had been Opus Dei? Or how about Legion of Christ?
What if he'd been from one of these reactionary groups, at least one of which coddled and protected it's founder in spite of his being one of the worst charlatans in recent Church memory? Would the "guilt by association" objection still hold?
Considering the Jesuits have coddled and protected more than their share of high-profile abusers in recent decades, perhaps it is time for them to pull back from the spotlight, and do "prayer and penance" rather than aspiring to high-profile office.
In Victoria Australia in the
In Victoria Australia in the past, there have been cases reaching the level of church authorities and their high profile lawyers and have gone no further, usually through intimidation against a complainant.
For that matter why haven't those bodies reported it to the relevant authorities.
I agree with Tom Fox...SNAP
I agree with Tom Fox...SNAP has done great things for the victims
of sexual abuse...but this is abit over the top...We Catholic Christians don't usually blame each other for "the sins of our fathers".
"Mea culpa"...the author is
"Mea culpa"...the author is Tom Roberts...I agree with him, too
Post new comment