Catholic Whistleblowing (or Not) (Part 2)

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