Pope Benedict the XVI is here, our Campus has been scrubbed from top to bottom, and the faithful are lining up in droves to get tickets to see the Holy Father pray the Rosary and say mass. Not being a Roman Catholic, I don’t find myself all that excited, but I respect the religious choices of many of my classmates and appreciate their excitement at his arrival.
Since this is a blog about the law, I wanted to make the following observation. In 2001, The Pope (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. At that time, he issued a letter which asserted the Church’s right to investigate sex abuse allegations, and to keep the findings of those investigations secret for 10 years after the minor turned 18. In essence, he asserted that ecclesiastical authority supersedes the right of civil authorities to investigate criminal sexual conduct of priests with minors. While I don’t want to speculate on motivations, I will point out that this course of action does hamper prosecution of these crimes by concealing their discovery until after the statute of limitations has expired in almost every state.
I have no reason to doubt the Pope’s faith. So I take him at his word that he is “deeply ashamed and we will do what is possible so this cannot happen again in the future.” Further, I have no reason to doubt that he has a fervent belief in the power of prayer to ameliorate the suffering of victims of sexual abuse, and to change the hearts of those who committed these crimes. It is, after all, the position one would expect from “God’s Vicar on Earth.”
My disdain in this situation, therefore, is for the civil authorities who have abrogated their responsibilities to the citizenry of the United States by not prosecuting this to the fullest extent of the law. It is one of our most deeply held foundational beliefs in the United States that all other authority is subordinate to the civil authority. We are obviously not so in thrall to religious dictates that a massive contingent of Texas state troopers removed 416 children from a Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ranch last week on suspicion of physical and sexual abuse. Where is the comparable response when thousands have been abused by priests in the Catholic Church? Is plaintiff’s litigation our only methodology of enforcing justice? Is sapping the financial wherewithal of the Catholic Church to engage in its many good works a satisfying response?
Thomas Jefferson once noted that “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.” To the extent that we are able to provide no response to the abuse of our citizens when they happen behind a cassock, than I think we have proved Mr. Jefferson correct.
Pope Hater.
If meant as a joke, that was the best. comment. ever.
Though if meant as criticism, I think Bombay’s issue is a fair one raised by someone with no particular animus towards Pope Benedict XVI. I have yet to see anything to suggest the Holy Father did not write that or that he has changed his position.
Certainly, an organization can conduct a closed door investigation of an alleged crime and ask its employees to not discuss it outside of the organization. But that cannot be used to obstruct a criminal investigation.
I’ll echo the Sherpa’s sentiments. I’ll also suggest that — if serious — this is where debates on such issues go off the rails. I say “we should prosecute pederast priests like they we non-clerical pederasts.” Anonymous says “Why do you hate the Pope and Catholicism?” And meanwhile, thousands of crimes go unpunished.
I will (hopefully) post a more substantive response tomorrow, but for now, I would just like to say that I would be very, very hesitant to appeal to last week’s FLDS raid. That is quickly turning into an utter fiasco and yet again validating the maxim that nothing is so bad that it cannot be further corrupted by the government.
Theophile,
You’re not suggesting that if allegations of child molestation in a home arise, the government somehow makes the situation worse by intervening, are you? Just to remind you, Warren Jeffs, the former leader of the sect, is currently serving 10 to life following a conviction on accomplice to rape charges. This arose out of an incident where he presided over the marriage of an underage girl to older her cousin, and then supervised the consummation of the marriage against her will. Frankly, I’m horrified that it took the State of Texas as long as it did to kick down the door.
I’m suggesting that you can’t have it both ways when it comes to “separation of church and state.” The irony is that the idea of such separation was intended to prevent state interference in church matters. It has since been flipped on its head to support the proposition that religion (more accurately, Christianity) is to be evicted from the public sphere. “As long as you stay behind the doors of your church, we won’t have any problems.”
But now we have perhaps the nation’s largest case of the state interfering in church affairs and (surprise) making a complete mess of it. 400+ children into state “protective” care? Herding them into sporting arenas? Sending the boys off to corrective schools? Are you kidding me?
I’m not a Mormon, but I also think those kids were better off before the ever-paternalistic state stuck its nose in. I’m very sensitive to the government miscasting religious beliefs and engaging in modern-day witch hunts. As one FLDS mother said in response to the raids, if children were being abused, that should be stopped. But thus far the evidence uncovered suggests that by and large, the ranch was not some child torture center and that there was no cause for the government interfering in the way that it did.
Bottom line: If you want religion out of the public sphere, you have to keep the government out of church business. You can’t have it both ways.
[This comment was edited to remove a five-word parenthetical comment on the Mormon Church that was, in our view, unnecessary and overly disparaging. - Eds.]
I would argue that the redacted comment served a valuable hyperbolic function. Although I believe the children were subjected to a religion that imperils their souls, I nonetheless believe they were in a better position than they are now that they are in the “system.”
…and just let me apologize if I caused offense. That wasn’t my intention.
No worries, Theophile. Though we consider “be nice”, for purposes of this blog, as including refraining from claims that certain religions lead to damnation. I’m happy to discuss this off line with you if you’d prefer (e-mail).
I don’t disagree with your overall point necessarily. My issue is with the assumption you’re asking us to make. I’ve done enough work with foster care agencies and res. ed. programs to know what a mess the system is, not to mention working enough in and around government to have verified my distrust of government programs. Though I’m just as willing to note that each has notable positives. That said, to agree with you on the issue of what’s best for the kids I would need to assume that the foster care system is less healthy than the (arguably) abusive, polygamous environment they were removed from. While I grant that there may yet be evidence released disproving allegations of abuse, from what I know now I cannot join you in that assumption.
That, of course, begs the question: what is child abuse? “Child torture center” is, in fact, valuable and “relevant hyperbole,” (good phrase by the way) though I think it overstates the case alleged by the state. Granting the FLDS the benefit of the doubt on charges of physical abuse, the state’s case essentially boils down to “forcing minors to marry is child abuse.” In Texas, a child younger than 17 cannot consent to “consensual” sexual activity. So on its face, a woman having sex - even if she “consents” - is abuse. A community requring or encouraging this can reasonably be construed as abusive. Many states try to police this with abortion and health clinics to prevent abuse of minors by older men.
From what I’ve read, the evidence actually shows that Child Protective Services was quite measured and deliberate in acting out of respect for the right of this community to withdraw from society. A right that I fully support.
However, at some point the state must have authority to act on its policy judgment in response to unlawful activity regardless of where it occurs. You’re right to point out that the FLDS case, in many ways, points to this deeper question of the balance of power between church and state a conundrum which Rod Dreher explains far better than I could in this thread on the Pope’s visit.
The bottom line is that I cannot agree that a believer is exempt from laws simply because they are acting as part of their faith. When society judges certain behaviors to be intolerable, then it has the right to ask the state to intervene. For a Mormon perspective on these issues I highly recommend this post and others by In Medias Res.
One more thing…
Isn’t the key question here whether the state has treated the FLDS community differently than it does other communities or families in similar situations? If it has and there is an absence of evidence of abuse then, yes, there is serious church-state issues here. If not, regardless of evidence the state acted WELL within its right (though that then opens a debate on the extent of state immunity in such cases - the LA Times recently covered an analagous situation).