Catholic Whistleblowing (or Not) (Part 2)
Like many whistleblowers, Archbishop
Carlo Maria Viganò is a complicated
figure. In his
August 22, 2018 letter he called one of the
most admired people in the world, Pope Francis, complicit in concealing
for years sexual abuses by one of the Church’s vilest characters, Cardinal
Theodore McCarrick. Viganò also
continued his screed against tolerance for homosexuality by and in the
Church. That acceptance caused the
scandal, he said, not clericalism,
as Francis argued.
Responses to Viganò echo those HomeFirst
Services of Santa Clara made against me when I alleged it
violated laws. They recall what is said
of most whistleblowers. The boss, Francis,
blew off his charges. They were
beneath comment. Viganò’s allegations were
unsubstantiated
and designed to undermine Francis’ authority. He’s not a good-faith whistleblower, critics
say. He plays to the conservative wing
of the Church that fights Francis’ policies.
Viganò is impure himself. He tried
to suppress a 2014 investigation into homosexual activity by a Minnesota
archbishop who was later accused of
covering up abuses. He
has a history of
dishonesty. What’s more, Viganò is a
disgruntled employee: Francis kicked him out of the U.S.
ambassador job for poor performance.
Like any whistleblower, Viganò is flawed. He is a bit repellent even if he is right to
make his allegations.
More offensive, and less understandable to a whistleblower, are
the thousands of priests who knew about sexual abuses in their ranks and did
nothing. Or maybe they raised questions
discretely and let them drop. Either
way, they allowed heinous behavior to continue.
The recent Pennsylvania
grand jury report made clear that many did know. It described expansive
procedures the Church used in 6 Pennsylvania dioceses to conceal abuse by hundreds
of priests. It documented what many long
suspected.
The priest
who first blew a whistle on McCarrick twenty years ago believes his abuse
was known by many in the seminary that McCarrick headed. Nothing was done at the time. McCarrick’s behavior was commonly known for
years after, he claims. Instead of punishing the abuser, they raised him to cardinal.
Unlike most whistleblowers, priests can’t lose their jobs for
objecting. They can be ostracized,
though, and relegated to less appealing jobs.
That can be painful in an organization so fundamentally social.
For the same reason, parishioners rarely stand up to object. Naka
Nathaniel told how he confronted his parish priest. During his homily the priest said the Church must
change, and then he moved on to other things.
Nathaniel rose beside his 9-year-old son and demanded to hear how it
would change. We don’t know what price he
will pay for creating a fuss.
In May I emailed the pastor of our Palo Alto parish about a homily by
one of his priests. The guy had announced
he was the “word of God” at church, teachers were the word of God at school,
and parents were the word of God at home.
I observed that predator priests say such things on their way to abusing
children. My pastor said he’d correct
the priest, but I later learned he dropped the matter.
After the Pennsylvania news, our local bishop Patrick McGrath sent
out a letter. With other bishops, he asked for forgiveness
for the abuse and cover-ups. He asked
everyone to pray for the victims. Pretty
lame, I thought.
Before a recent Mass celebrated by the “word of God” priest, it
seemed to me he was just a little too friendly with a young boy. Especially in light of what happened in
Pennsylvania. I emailed our new pastor, Fr.
Stasys, about it, and we chatted after Mass on the next Sunday. He was attentive and concerned. He would discuss boundaries with the parish
priests.
Then came Viganò’s revelations.
I anticipated another letter from Bishop McGrath. What
came was a description of all the good things the diocese has done to
protect minors. It was mostly what the
bishops had agreed
to do in 1994. Nothing about people who
were silently complicit in the abuses and protected abusers. Nothing about the Pope’s missing defense
against the allegations by Viganò.
Responding to my email, Fr. Stasys said he can only do his best to
protect the people in our parish. On
Sunday a different priest did not address the issue directly. Instead he advised us to focus on faith,
humility, and obedience. If we ask too
many questions and don’t accept the answers, we lack faith, he warned. The next day Pope Francis said something
similar. He recommended prayer
and silence to combat scandal.
It does seem true that the Church has done a lot to stop abuse
from happening. Here in California,
priests and many other Church employees are State-mandated reporters. There is oversight and training. Reports of abuse seem to relate mostly to
acts from years ago although victims of more recent attacks may still come
forward. On the other hand, Church lawyers
still work to block victims’ lawsuits by protecting
statutes of limitations on reports of abuse.
If the Church deals honestly with its concealment of past sexual
abuses, it may graduate to a more normally corrupt organization. Then we’ll see just the usual financial
mischief.
But as long as the Church encourages silence and sees its sexual
abuse scandal as an aberration in an essentially innocent organization[1],
rather than part of a corrupt culture, whistleblowers may not emerge to
disclose wrongs until they are too big for anyone to ignore.
[1]
Cf. Snyder, Timothy. The
Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. New York: Tim Duggan
Books. 2018
