Leonard Pitts, Jr.
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | I thought I was done with this.
Felt I'd said all that needed to be said - for a while, at least - about the Catholic Church sex scandal. After all, I wrote a column just last week blasting a New York City priest who blamed American tolerance of homosexuality for the problem of pedophiliac priests. Enough said, I figured.
I was wrong.
Because while it's awful enough for the Church to accuse homosexuality of causing priests to abuse children, the line of legal defense that has been taken by a church official in Boston is even more offensive. The position of Cardinal Bernard Law is that blame for child molestation should be laid upon the child.
In other news, the Japanese are blaming Hawaii for Pearl Harbor, the Nixon family argues that the Democratic National Committee is responsible for Watergate, and Osama bin Laden says Sept. 11 was New York's fault. Why not?
In a world where a priest claims a child allowed himself to be molested, anything is possible.
But there it is in black and white in Monday's Boston Globe, part of Law's legal response to a lawsuit by the boy and his parents. They claim Rev. Paul Shanley began abusing Gregory Ford when the boy was 6 and that Law, Shanley's church superior, knew or should have known the priest was a longtime advocate of sex between children and adults.
Law's defense, filed in April and recently obtained by The Globe, reads in part: "The defendant says that the Plaintiffs were not in the exercise of due care, but rather the negligence of the Plaintiffs contributed to cause the injury or damage complained of" English translation: The boy and his parents allowed it to happen.
Let me say a couple of things here in the interest of fairness. One, it's not at all clear that Law's lawyers consulted with him in preparing this defense on his behalf. And two, experts say the strategy of blaming the victim for negligence is legal boilerplate in proceedings like these. It would not be remarkable in any other case.
But you know something? It doesn't matter. If Cardinal Law didn't know his attorneys were going this route, he should have. Because this is not "any other case." It is, rather, a case that centers on a subject of extraordinary sensitivity. Meaning the abuse of children, yes. But meaning, also, the abuse of people's trust in an institution that's supposed to serve as an earthly representative of the Almighty.
That's the other troubling issue here. Observers are describing Law's defense tactic as "appalling," "horrific," "insensitive" and "stupid," all of which it is. It is also, however, one damning thing more: a betrayal. The latest in a series.
The Church, after all, is not - or at least, is not supposed to be - like other institutions. Law tacitly acknowledged that fact in February while responding to calls for his resignation. He reportedly told parishioners that, "Archbishop is not a corporate executive. He's not a politician. It's a role of a pastor. It's a role of a teacher. It's a role of a father. When there are problems in the family, you don't walk away. You work them out together with G-d's help."
Exactly. So how disappointing it is, then, to see the Church behaving like any other institution caught with its figurative pants down. With its weasel-ly legal defenses and its increasingly laughable efforts to shift the onus - Blame society! Blame homosexuality! Blame the victims! - it brings to mind Gary Condit bobbing and weaving against Connie Chung and Bill Clinton parsing an intransitive verb for a grand jury. There is an echo of Enron executives and cigarette CEOs practicing looks of wounded innocence before Congress.
Bad enough that you get that sort of behavior from representatives of institutions to which you've entrusted your health, your money or your nation's leadership. Worse when you get it from the representative of an institution to which you've entrusted your soul.
I'd have thought the Church was better than that. Would have sworn its officers served a cause higher than the preservation of their own skin.
Now I find myself wondering if I was wrong about that,
Comment on JWR contributor Leonard Pitts, Jr.'s column by clicking here.
04/19/02: A reminder of how small the world has become
04/16/02: 100 death-penalty mistakes and counting
04/12/02: Until all the bad guys wear black hats
04/10/02: Connecting with history with hope for future
04/08/02: Just me and the boys: A black father's road trip
03/26/02: It's time to give up fighting the good fight and join the masses
03/22/02: It's not the art, it's the artist who's troubling
03/19/02: Don't ask, don't tell when it comes to police work
03/15/02: Do we have an inalienable right to TV?
03/12/02: What will we learn about ourselves as war toll grows?
03/08/02: Marriage madness --- oh, please!
03/05/02: A risk free life
03/01/02: Pentagon's idea of lying to media was breathtaking' in its stupidity
02/16/02: Will the Afghans forgive the U.S. for the beating of innocents?
02/15/02: In search of manhood, some make a fatal decision
02/08/02: Time for blacks to give the same respect they demand
02/05/02: A question of character and "unlawful combatants"
01/31/02: There's only so much a parent can influence a child
01/29/02: Mike Tyson is incapable of embarrassment
01/25/02: Acts of patriotism or acts of desecration?
01/18/02: Waiting for tears in the rain at Ground Zero
01/15/02: A little cultural respect works both ways
01/11/02: Can blacks be racist?
01/07/02: What price for the priceless?
12/21/01: An intriguing study on race
12/18/01: To err is me
12/14/01: Admit it, folks, If you've ever been 16, you can probably relate to Walker
12/11/01: Blacks-on-blacks poll is a healthy project
12/07/01: The best defense against government excesses
12/05/01: Better hoist caution flag
12/03/01: Martin Luther Ka-CHING!
11/27/01: Beauty reflects an ugly truth
11/22/01: Another reason to be thankful
11/19/01: If only they knew our names
11/12/01: Watching a 'dying' man live
08/01/01: Should a man be put in jail for what he's thinking?
07/27/01: It's your responsibility to invade their privacy
07/20/01: Is optimism for fools?
07/17/01: Everybody should have a white man