Another late-in-the-day posting, and another piece commenting on the New York Times article to which I linked early today. The article to which I want to draw attention now is Joelle Casteix's statement today re: the Times article, at the website of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
Casteix writes,
As hundreds of thousands of boys and girls across the globe were being sexually assaulted by clerics, it’s especially troubling to read that:
-- Benedict was “busy pursuing other problems (including) examining supernatural phenomena, like apparitions of the Virgin Mary,” and "the diminishing image” of the priesthood.
-- Benedict “focused on reining in national bishops’ conferences, several of which, independent of Rome, had begun confronting the sexual abuse crisis and devising policies to address it.”
-- It took bishops from ten English-speaking nations to force Vatican staff, in 2000, to even discuss potential reforms.
And then she notes,
What will be the impact of these disclosures? We believe they will likely be a severe blow to two long-standing, disingenuous church canards: that the Vatican doesn’t control or direct bishops on handling abuse cases, and that bishops “just didn’t understand” abuse until just a few years ago.
At least three times – in 1996, 1998 and 2001 – English-speaking bishops met to discuss clergy sex crimes and cover ups. So it’s deceitful for these men to have repeatedly claimed in 2002 “Geez, we just didn’t know how widespread or harmful abuse is” or “We had little experience in dealing with abuse.” They knew. They just refused to act.
And who knows how many other secret meetings about clergy sex crimes and cover ups, large and small, have been held involving bishops across the planet and officials in Rome
These revelations will likely help the legal moves to hold the Pope and his staff responsible for the sexual violations of children by predatory priests, nuns, bishops, brothers and seminarians.
I've repeatedly noted that one voice which absolutely has to be at the table in any discussion of the future of the Catholic church that expects to be productive is the voice of the community of survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic religious authority figures. Casteix's commentary convinces me all the more of the imperative need to include this voice in conversations about the future of Catholicism.
