First, it is important to set the context of my personal experience as a priest. We are talking about the period between Feb 1963 and June 1969. As a matter of fact, many priests ordained in the Boston diocese just prior to 1963 and within the period above were later reported to have committed sexual abuse of minors. I knew many of them. Never during the period when I was active as priest was I aware of any priest committing such acts. There never was a conversation in my presence indicating that another priest knew of such behavior.
Of more interest is the reason for such ignorance. The culture of silence was such that anyone who knew would never share the information. This culture was cultivated by our training, but also by the way deviancy of any sort was managed. In my experience, a common inference regarding a priest's transfer outside the routine time of ordination was that the priest must have had a problem with alcohol or possibly, was involved with an adult woman. However, never did someone share with me explicitly that this was the cause of the transfer. The culture of silence was so deep that it never occurred to me to ask questions.
It is of interest that the bishops of Boston were very concerned during this time with my behavior. Since my approach to the priesthood was considered radical, if not "revolutionary" as suggested by a letter to the bishop, I was a person in need of special attention. Not only was I brought to the bishop and other officials of the diocese about my sermons etc., I was transferred to a specific parish as a punishment designed to get me back on the right path. Considering my more recent knowledge of priests at my time being involved in the sex abuse problem, you would have thought that the hierarchy would have had much more important issues to deal with than my sermons!
During the latter part of my career as a priest, I was called by the head of Catholic Charities who asked me to get a graduate degree in social work for the purpose of working with clergy with behavioral problems (I assumed that he was referencing alcoholism). I said that I was not interested. I saw priests who were functioning in roles commonly performed by laity as a betrayal of the reason for becoming a priest in the first place. However, it has often occurred to me what would I have done IF I did work with priests who has sexually abused minors.
Given what has been reported in recent years, one would wonder if there would be any question that such priests would have been reported to the civil authorities and their counseling would have been directed towards addressing their behaviors with the knowledge that they would have been prevented from ever returning to the ministry. However, given the culture, I cannot claim that I would have been any different than those who are now lambasted for their behavior of covering up the behavior and returning these priests to active ministry after treatment. The culture in which we lived was so strong and isolated from the "real" world that I cannot be sure what I would have done.
For sure, I am grateful that I left the priesthood when I did and that I never had to confront myself within the context of another priest who had committed sexual abuse of minors. I escaped the situation somewhat unwittingly. I left because my theology got me into problems. I am thankful that I do not have to live with the knowledge of somehow ever being complicit with these problems. I do not know how I would have acted. While I share the general indignation of virtually everyone regarding the bishops and others who somehow facilitated the repeated abuse by a system of denial and transfers, I cannot say that I would have done any differently if I was confronted with the same issues at that time.
No comments:
Post a Comment