Return to Sermon Index
 

How Could This Happen Here?
Rev. Sharon K. Dittmar
September 22, 2002

This year while on my summer vacation, the local news was riveting.  As in most summers I spent my time in Boston, and this summer Boston was reeling from the Catholic clergy sexual abuse scandals.  I say the word “scandals”, but it sounds too sensational for something that has created highly personal, damaging betrayals; betrayals of children, families, clergy, faith, and religion.

The Archdiocese of Cincinnati has struggled with similar issues, and with the need to turn over previously confidential cases of clergy misconduct to the Hamilton County prosecutors office.  But time spent in Boston reveals the extent of a wound ripped wide and deep within the Catholic church.

Both of the accused clergy who put the issue front and center, Paul Shanley and John Geoghan, served in the Boston area.  Their victims come forth in appallingly steady streams, men who were abused as boys by the priests they trusted.  One evening I watched television coverage of related testimony given to a state legislative committee.  The adult man testifying, spoke while tears streamed down his face, about how a part of him died during his childhood, killed by the trusted priest who abused him.  The agonized faces of family and friends sitting in the chambers revealed other parts of the story. 

A later article in the Boston Globe profiled five men, all abused by the same priest, who later committed suicide as they entered their early twenties.  It wasn’t until I completed the lengthy article that I realized that their grieving survivors struggle with dual anger and betrayal at the Catholic church and fear that their children/brothers/ friends committed a mortal sin by taking their own lives.  Many ask where is God and where is justice?

 This is the depth and breadth of the agony living in the Catholic Church, an agony that has waited generations to become public, an agony that the church hierarchy strenuously fought to keep silent, an agony that people, the laity, demanded be brought forward.  These are bitter times for many Catholics.  Even those who personally know no person who has been abused, feel betrayed by their faith, their leaders, their church. 

My husband’s parents are two such Catholics.  Both have been good, relatively obedient Catholic all their lives.  They attend mass every week, they sent their children to Catholic schools.  My mother-in-law says that she is “disgusted.”  Instead of giving to the Bishop’s appeal this year, they are giving their money directly to the agencies the appeal supports.  They say they just can’t stomach sending their money to the Bishop, who they remarkably said, they don’t have use for any more.

My in-laws are really what you would think of as cradle to grave liberal, but traditional, Catholics.  They are the faithful.  They care about what the Pope has to say.  To have them say that the Bishop is “irrelevant” was just stunning.  My in-laws, like so many other Catholics, share in the agonizing betrayal.  The betrayal didn’t happen to them personally.  It’s not their son, but they are betrayed.  They are ashamed and they are angry. To have the Catholic laity revolt in this way, to push the abuse cases into the public is extraordinary.

 I performed two wedding this summer, and at both weddings individual Catholics came forward to ask me what I thought about the cases of sexual abuse, and they really wanted to talk and hear what I had to say.  In talking with these lay people I realized how little the laity understands the life and boundaries of clergy, the fact that clergy are generally unsupervised, that clergy frequently spend time alone with people, that clergy are very isolated in their congregations (few of us are in congregations with multiple clergy staff members-we have no peers on campus), that many boundary violations begin with long-term individual counseling which clergy are not generally qualified to do (not with children, usually with women.  The issues of celibacy, pedophilia, and homosexuality were so confusing that many didn’t know where to begin, they just knew that something wrong, something very wrong had happened in their church.

The Catholic community continues to wage a heated debate on the relationship between celibacy, homosexuality, and pedophilia.  Unfortunately they are waging a distracting debate, a side bar that obscures larger issues.  In the bookstore I found two books on this topic (both published in the last two years), one entitled Goodbye, Good Men, the other entitled The Unhealed Wound: The Church, the Priesthood, and the Question of Sexuality.

The book jacket of Goodbye, Good Men contains this quote from the National Review “Absolutely astonishing…this bombshell book reveals a seminary underworld in which homosexual promiscuity is rampant…and seminarians who support the Church’s teaching are persecuted.”  The back cover blames this environment on gay priests, feminist nuns, and theological dissenters-talk about taking down the liberal opposition in one foul swoop.  This book insists that the Catholic clergy has gone “wrong” with liberal opinions and homosexual “recruits.”

 The other book I found in the bookstore, The Unhealed Wound, discusses the burdens of celibacy, not that they lead to sexual abuse, but that for many Catholic clerics they are isolating and repressive.  This book dealt much more extensively with the power and hierarchy of the Catholic church and how this environment has oppressed the laity and clergy, as well as enabled the sexual abuse of children to continue in secrecy.  As The Unhealed Wound so clearly explains, there is no correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality.  Pedophilia is a need for power, exploitation and control that exists separate from sexual orientation or sexual expression. 

I have a friend who had a classmate who was an adopted child taken in by an upper middle class, married couple.  This couple had many foster and adopted children, all boys.  All of the boys were abused by the father until my friend’s classmate had the courage, at age 20, to turn in his father when he saw him starting the same behavior with the newest adopted son.  This was a married man committing this abuse, and his wife, who must have known something, said nothing.  The sexual abuse betrayals in the Catholic church are not about heterosexuality or homosexuality, they are about pedophilia, a gross misuse of power, and violation of our children.

One of the courses I took in seminary was a sexual ethics course.  Our teacher explained over and over, that sexual abuse or misconduct in the clergy is an issue of power, not sexual orientation or sexual attraction, but power and its use and abuse.  As Robert Orsi writes:

This crisis is not only about bodies and sex, and about theology…Not about celibate men (there is no evidence really that celibacy inclines anyone to depravity and Catholic priests are statistically no more likely to abuse children than other adults who work with youngsters) but about the kinds of relationship that form between adults and children in Christian contexts and about the needs Christian adults bring to their children.  Not about sex but about power and authority adults in religious contexts claim over children, which is not only a Catholic problem.[1]

Authority and power that adults claim over children in most religions and every avenue of life.  By the time they turn 18, 1 in 3 girls will be abused, as will 1 in 7 boys.  Half of this abuse will take place within the family.[2]  This is not just a Catholic problem, this is a societal problem that occurs in every socio-economic, religious, ethnic, racial demographic group.  As I mentioned last week, Orsi speaks of our understanding of children as “hollow”, children are perceived as porous to adult needs and desires, no matter how inappropriate, no matter how destructive. 

The truly tragic corollary is that children are rarely believed, although they almost never lie about sexual abuse.  In addition, abusers know how to select children who are isolated, vulnerable.  When you look at the priests who committed these crimes, overwhelmingly they preyed on single mothers, children from large families, families in transition, home settings where a child was vulnerable, sometimes ignored (families clergy should be helping, not harming), or families who implicitly trusted priests.  Sexual predators know that most children can be coerced into secrecy and that children will obey them because they are the adults. 

And what of the children?  Children who are sexually abused learn that people they trusted, that other people trusted, can violate them.  They are coerced into sexual activity before they understand their own bodies, before they can consent.  Then they are told to keep a secret, and that no one will believe them if they tell the truth.  They are truly left alone to suffer repeat abuse in silence.  Abusers demonstrate to children in the most humiliating ways possible that they do not matter.  It is difficult to consider a worse betrayal of a child’s dependence and need as well as autonomy and spirit.

What I still find shocking is that many of these sexual predators abused boys, often altar boys, near the altar.  I know that sexual predators abuse children in any situation that seems advantageous to their needs, and priests have easy access to altar boys.  I just find this situation so extremely offensive as a clergyperson.  It is the absolute pits of clergy sexual abuse, truly sacrilegious.  But that is always the problem with sexual abuse in a religious setting, nothing is scared in this place where people, places, words, actions, objects are supposed to be sacred, safe, set apart, respected.

I am dismayed at the hypocrisy, the institutional ignorance, clubbishness, and perverse self protection (“Paul Shanley is an interesting character”, “Dealing with Paul Shanley is never dull”) that Orsi writes about.  In her book Trauma and Recovery, psychiatrist Judith Herman explains that any wide spread sexual exploitation always has institutional support.  I was utterly dismayed when the initial response to cases of sexual abuse from Rome indicated that this was an American issue of moral laxity, as if there are no cases in Ireland, France, Africa, South America, which of course, there are.  Any wide spread sexual exploitation always has institutional support, even if it is in the form of ignorance and denial.  This is exactly the theme the Reverend Marie M. Fortune explores in her book, Is Nothing Sacred: When Sex Invades the Pastoral Relationship[3].

Is Nothing Sacred is an anonymous account of a real congregation, their minister, and the six women who accused this minister of sexual abuse.  Now the abuse of children is not an issue in this book, but the related themes of inappropriate boundaries, misuse of power and office, sexual predation on the vulnerable, institutional denial and scapegoating – they are all here.  (second most influential book). 

The book also details the struggles, the pain of these women, and it is important to hear the voices, the experiences of those who suffer under this burden.  Church members wouldn’t believe their accusations.  Overall the church protected the minister and shunned the women.  The denomination was slow to respond.  Previous congregations had had the same problem with this minister, but never shared this information with the denomination or the congregation calling him. 

Abuse happens in isolation and secrecy, and here we have it.  The book also details how these women struggled with their faith, a faith that should have sustained them through this crisis, now became a painful reminder of their betrayal.  These are the devastating issues that anyone abused in a congregational setting must face.  There can be no clearer mandate in Christianity than to stand with the vulnerable.  In the case of sexual abuse most denominations have failed miserably. 

There has been a sad correlation between extensive church hierarchy and extensive abuse.  (Catholic church – male, female changed UUA - hierarchical – no admission, understanding, reflection – see changes, Boston settlement for 10 million, 86 complaints against John Geoghan, RI mediation and apology) But even associations, like our own, with limited hierarchy, have struggled as well.

As the article in the Boston Globe explains:

The Unitarian Universalist Association…has reported three allegations to prosecutors…In one case the accused minister has already been convicted and incarcerated, while in another case the accused minister is dead…in the third case the denomination received a complaint in March [2002] about an alleged instance of abuse in 1970.  The alleged abuser left the Unitarian Universalist Association in 1974…the denomination has now forwarded his name and last know address to the local district attorney.[4]

Abuse occurs in every socio-economic, religious, ethnic, and racial group, including our own.  So what can we do?  What has been done?  At the end of Orsi’s article he offers this:

Clearly defined boundaries between children and adults are essential especially in religious contexts where not only the boundaries tend to be weak but also the absence of such boundaries between generations is often seen as morally and spiritually appropriate and good.[5]

We must begin with boundaries between adults and children, children and children, adults and adults especially because boundaries tend to be weak here, because we want to and need to trust one another in order to deepen our faith live and grow.  In order to take the risks of faith, we must make sure everyone is safe and clear boundaries are the way to begin.

In 1993 First Church had the wisdom to craft a Policy on Sexual Misconduct.  The policy defines misconduct, creates procedures for reporting and dealing with it, and establishes consequences for perpetrators, whether they be clergy, staff or members. 

The policy contains important guidelines, “Be careful with physical contact,” “church sponsored retreats, weekends, trips and overnights with youth should always have two responsible adults that reflect the gender mix of the group,” “there should be a minimum of two responsible adults in the building when meetings involving children or youth are held at the church,” “the minister should encourage counselees to attend sessions in the minister’s office.  The minister should not go alone to the home of a person who is alone unless there is a compelling reason to do so.”

I think we will be seeing a lot more of this policy in the future, and in fact, I had Lynn make copies and place them on the desk with former sermons so that you can take a copy home with you.  Last spring our DRE, Carly Smith attended a safe congregations workshop and came back to First Church with many ideas.  I confess that this policy had gotten lost in the shuffle over the last decade, but through Carly’s effort it is receiving attention and follow through again.

The RE Committee has taken new steps.  Adults who volunteer in RE must have attended First Church for six months.  Adults who teach RE must have attended First Church for a year.  This may sound like a disincentive to teach, but truly it is for everyone’s protection, especially our children.  In the 1980’s and 1990’s many congregations discovered that sexual predators began attending their congregations with the intention of getting quick access to children.  Congregations have learned that predators leave if there are clearly established boundaries. 

Although our older children may have just one teacher in the room, our infant, preK and kindergarten teachers always have two children in the room, and almost every Sunday Carly stops into every classroom at least twice at unexpected times.  First Church also conducts background checks on employees (which by the way, lowers our insurance liability) and this year, for the first time, teachers will be asked to sign a code of ethics in October. 

Now on that Sunday in October I don’t want to hear anyone say they feel like they aren’t trusted, that they are offended.  It isn’t about you, it is about our children’s safety.  I had to submit a background check and go to my local police station and get fingerprinted in order to work at my son’s cooperative day care center.  I just want you to pick up your pen that day and sign with a smile on your face.  Your signature today protects our children from a predator tomorrow.  Your signature is part of your ministry to our children.  Sign with joy.

It’s not that every day and every place if full of sexual predators.  It is just that sexual predators can be anywhere, including here.  This is exactly the dilemma of the Catholic Church.  They were so ignorant, refused to see or listen to the cries, to consider the possibility, so the possibility became a reality that went on and on and on.  In addition, any member, friend, visitor, employee, minister could misuse power and sexually abuse or harass someone affiliated with this community.  The best way to make sure it doesn’t happen here is to know that it could happen here.  As the Boston Globe article tells us, it certainly can.

Before I was received fellowship within the Unitarian Universalist Association I signed a four-page Code of Professional Practice that specifies how I must relate to myself, my colleagues, congregations, Unitarian Universalism, and the larger community.  Both when I was in seminary, and now that I have been ordained, I have seen colleagues struggle with this one passage from the guidelines:

As a sexual being, I will recognize the power that ministry gives me and refrain from practices which are harmful to others and which endanger my integrity or my professional effectiveness.  Such practices include sexual activity with any child or with an unwilling adult, counselee, with the spouse or partner of a person in the congregation, with interns, or any other such exploitative relationship.[6]

The code is also specific that if I am married or in a committed relationship I may not become involved with someone in the congregation.  If I am single I may proceed extremely carefully.  The First Church policy mirrors the UUMA policy.

I have heard so many arguments about why this policy is too stringent, what if both parties are consenting adults, what if both parties love each other?  The guidelines are here for a reason, within a congregational setting there is always a differential in power between the minister and the laity.  Any sexual relationship between the minister and lay members is inherently unequal.  The minister has the power, whether deserved or not, of ordination.  I would go even farther to say that congregants who fall in love with clergy are seeing the public face of that person, not the deeper, personal self, which is private.  There are boundaries here.

Now with that said, I know two colleagues, both female, who came to congregations when they were single.  They became monogamously involved with other single members who they were not counseling.   After a brief period of privacy they brought their relationships to the attention of the Boards.  Both sets of couples worked through a central issue, that as partners they could not be in a clergy/congregant relationship.  You can’t pastor your partner or spouse.  In the end they both married these men and there were not problems within the congregation.

But there could have been, what if they dated more than one person and hurt feeling arose?  What if they had counseled one of these men in advance. I have a colleague who was married, who became sexually involved with a congregant he was counseling.  It was devastating for him, his wife, the congregant, and the congregation.  He was defellowshipped because he broke our code of practice.  In this instance, the code of practice was upheld.  Unfortunately, there have been instances when certain powerful or well-respected clergy (who also broke the code) were not disciplined with the same equality.  Even our Unitarian Universalist institution has limitations.

Marie Fortune recommends several ways to create healthy boundaries for all of us.  Ministers must attend to their personal lives and develop intimate relationships outside the congregation.  Ministers should not do long-term counseling, which I don’t do, because most of us, like myself, are not qualified.  We are ministers, not counselors, and in the past, a disproportionately high number of clergy became sexually involved with congregants they counseled.  Instead I refer people, not because I don’t care about them, but because I do care about them.  I do have bi-annual evaluations of my ministry.  I attend minister support groups.  And as the First Church policy suggests, I don’t go the homes of single congregants unless I have a compelling reason, usually that this congregant is a shut-in, someone who can’t get out due to illness, surgery, or frailty.

This is a very difficult topic, and I struggled with what to say, and how much to say in many parts of this sermon.  In the end I always deferred to respectfully telling the truth as I see it, our children deserve this from us.  Abuse exists, thrives, in isolation, in secrecy. 

Over the course of my ministry, many members have confided in me about their childhood abuse.  The strength and dignity of these individuals is so powerful, and so is their loss, as much as they have moved on.  I want to take it back, to do something so that they never had to suffer, but I can’t.  However, we can all take part in making sure that abuse never happen here.  We can all learn healthy boundaries so that children and adults, whether members, staff, or clergy, are safe.  This is most definitely a ministry of a lifetime.  May we each share part in keeping our children and those we love, safe and strong.  Amen.

*      *     *      *     *

Robert Orsi, “A Crisis About the Theology of Children” in Harvard Divinity Bulletin (Spring 2002), 28:

I agreed to write this article after reading the account in The New York Times on Wednesday, April 10 [2002], about the way the Boston hierarchy dealt with Father Paul R. Shanley, an incorrigible child molester.  Cardinal Law and his bishops lied about Father Shanley’s history when they recommended him for positions in other dioceses, knowingly granting him access to children in his new posts.  Again: Boston’s bishops placed among children a man they knew would rape them.  But they liked Paul Shanley, in a clerical clubhouse way.  On the occasion of Father Shanley’s retirement from what Cardinal Law knew well was a long career of molesting children, the Cardinal commended the priest: “For thirty years in assigned ministry you brought God’s word and His Love to His people…and I know that that continues to be your goal despite some difficult limitations.”  But it was the lighthearted chancery banter about Father Shanley that most profoundly shocked me.  “Dealing with Paul Shanley is never dull” the Times reports an internal diocesan memo chortling, and in another an administrator writes fondly “[Paul Shanley] is an interesting character.”  The meaning of this tonality is clear: these are men who cared absolutely nothing for children.  Children did not exist for them. (Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk explained his procedure for dealing with clerical child abuse: reassign the offender and “tell the child to forget about it.”  So much for children’s experience.)  Or to put this another way: the children who were so present to Father Shanley’s desires and imagination were at the same time completely absent to the moral imaginations of church officials.  How can children be simultaneously so absent and so present in the same religious environment?

excerpts from “Other Denominations Report Abuse Charges,” from The Boston Globe (July 19, 2002), A1.

Local officials of the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Methodist Church, and the American Baptist Churches say they have recently received allegations against clergy that they are reporting to prosecutors and disclosing to their churches.  The denominations say they are meeting the requirements of a law that went into effect June 3 mandating that they report any past or present allegations of child abuse to state officials…The Unitarian Universalist Association… has reported three allegations to prosecutors…In one case the accused minister has already been convicted and incarcerated, while in another case the accused minister is dead…in the third case the denomination received a complaint in March [2002] about an alleged instance of abuse in 1970.  The alleged abuser left the Unitarian Universalist Association in 1974…the denomination has now forwarded his name and last know address to the local district attorney…Until this year, religious organizations had managed to exclude themselves from being mandated reporters of suspected child abuse, led by lobbyists for the Catholic Church who had successfully argued that such a requirement would ruin the confidential nature of relationship between clergy and their followers.  But the outcry over the Catholic scandal caused a change in attitude among lawmakers and religious leaders, who amended the law in May, making Massachusetts the 30^th state to include clergy as mandated reporters.

Return to Sermon Index