Levada Says No Bishops to Face Sanctions
From a BeliefNet blog by David Gibson, 4.18.2008.
Also see the Commonweal blog, 4.18.2005.
My comments on the David Gibson report, posted on both blogs, are provided below in bold red.
* * *
Friday April 18, 2008
“The Successor”–Cardinal Levada on bishops and the abuse scandal, and why he is not in line to be Pope…
Benedict XVI has earned headlines and goodwill on this, his first visit as pope to the United States, by speaking out repeatedly about his anguish over the clergy sexual abuse scandal and yesterday meeting with a small group of abuse victims. The pope on Wednesday also told the American bishops at a meeting that some of them had “badly mishandled” some abuse cases–the first public suggestion from the pope or the Vatican the the bishops, who most Catholics continue to blame for the scope of the crisis, bore a measure of responsibility.
But Benedict’s successor as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s main defender of church orthodoxy, today said the pontiff’s words do not implicate the bishops in wrongdoing and that no bishops will face sanctions.
At a lunch meeting with journalists sponsored by Time magazine, Cardinal William Levada, the former San Francisco archbishop who Joseph Ratzinger named to replace himself at the CDF when Ratzinger was elected pope, bristled at a suggestion that some bishops had “aided and abetted” priest-abusers by not acting to remove them.
“I don’t believe that,” Levada said. “I know bishops who have said to me, if I had known then what I know now, I would have acted differently.” But he said the bishops who moved abusers around to other parishes or did not remove them from ministry were acting on bad advice from experts and psychiatrists.
“So it [the scandal] has been a learning experience for bishops,” the cardinal said.
“I personally do not accept that there has been a broad base of bishops guilty of aiding and abetting pedophiles…If I thought there were, I would certainly want to talk to them about that.”
On other matters…
…Cardinal Levada said that he had no input on the pope’s addresses or preparation for this visit, even though Levada is the highest-ranking American ever to work in Rome. “I have my own little work to do all the time,” Levada said drolly.
Asked about the question of giving communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians, Levada largely demurred. But he did seem to side against a handful of hard-liners in the U.S. hierarchy who have staked out an independent position on the practice, or at least against the current patchwork of positions. “My stand is that I don’t think our Catholic population is served by a territorial morality.” He said he hoped that when the election season ends there could be a “more serene and effective discussion” about church teaching and what ought to be done in this regard.
Returning to the issue of the scandal, Levada was asked if, in light of the pope’s visibility on the abuse crisis, the Vatican foresaw any subsequent action or envisioned a future course for policies or programs. “That’s a good question that I really hadn’t thought of,” Levada said. He said the pope’s words and actions were meant to be “exemplary,” in the sense of setting a pastoral example for others to follow. He said he hoped victims’ stories would now “be given more prominence.”
Levada later told a few reporters that the CDF was begininning to work through the backlog of laicization cases that had once built up to more than 700, according to reports. He did not say how many remained to be adjudicated. He also seemed to indicate that the CDF was considering ways to raise the church’s canonical statute of limitations on reporting sexual abuse. He noted that it often took many years before victims felt they could come forward and report such abuse.
I also asked the cardinal if he could clarify remarks that the pope made on the plane that distinguished between pedophilia and homosexuality–a linkage many have tried to make. “I would not speak in this moment about homosexuality but pedophilia, which is another thing. We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry,” Benedict said.
Yet his statements raised questions about what the pope meant (there was no opportunity for follow-up) and whether his words signaled a re-thinking of the Vatican statement in 2006 that seemed to bar gay men from the seminary.
Levada said he would not interpret the remarks as any modification of the seminary policy. But he said he wasn’t sure what else the pope’s words indicated. “I don’t know what to make of that myself,” Levada said. He said he believes Benedict wanted to focus on “the grave problem of pedophilia”–defined as the abuse of a pre-pubescent child by an adult–rather than what Levada calls “ephebephilia,” or “homosexual acting out with adolescent boys.”
Levada called ephebephilia a clinical term, but it is not listed in the DSM and mention of it raises many red flags among experts and within the gay community. Victims advocates also dislike the term, preferring to denote all sexual activity by an adult on a minor as child abuse, which is the criminal and civil law definition.
In short, there still seems to be little clarity. Many believe the pope was trying to make a distinction in order to shield homosexuals from efforts to identify gays with pedophiles. That seems like an obvious–and laudable–goal. But the standing of gay men vis-a-vis holy orders is still a bit uncertain, and seems likely to remain the ecclesiastical version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
On a lighter note, Levada told a good story about Benedict’s White House welcome on Wednesday. As the 15 or so churchmen in the papal entourage lined up to meet President Bush, Benedict brightened when Cardinal Levada, an American, stepped up. Benedict said, “Oh, Mr. President, this is my successor.” Benedict meant his successor at the CDF. But Levada saw Bush raise his eyebrows as if wondering whether Benedict had put the fix in for the Yank. “Oh my God, he’s not thinking I’m the heir apparent!” Levada said.
-30-
Filed Under: Levada, pope, sex abuse
posted by David Gibson @ 3:54pm Permalink 
Email This 
Add to:
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineComments
Read, “business as usual.”
Levada’s remarks are not credible and will undermine the good will the Pope started to generate
It’s clear why the pope chose Levada for his old job as CDF head. The pope plays the role of the good cop by meeting with victims–finally, after 7 years. In counterpoint, Levada plays the role of the bad cop bringing us the bad, but not surprising, news: the pope’s words don’t implicate the bishops in wrongdoing and no bishops will face sanctions.
The cover up, the whitewash, continues. Why would anyone with a sense of realpolitik be surprised? There is no other way. This is organizational hardball. This is the real world. To admit the bishops were, and are, guilty of wrongdoing would topple the whole house of Vatican cards built on the flimsy foundation of “apostolic succession.” Better to shed a tear or two, blow smoke at the faithful, and let them go home with a nice warm feeling about their papal “leader.”
5 Responses to “Levada Says No Bishops to Face Sanctions”
April 20, 2008 at 12:22 am
[...] I repeat what I posted on a blog entry yesterday: It’s clear why the pope chose Levada for his old job as CDF head. The pope plays the role of the good cop by meeting with victims–finally, after 7 years. In counterpoint, Levada plays the role of the bad cop bringing us the bad, but not surprising, news: the pope’s words don’t implicate the bishops in wrongdoing and no bishops will face sanctions. [...]
April 20, 2008 at 3:28 am
Can somebody email The Philadelphia DA’s grand jury report to Levada? Or maybe send him the link to Bishopaccountability.com? Does he live in a cave? Why don’t catholics or the media call him on this?
It’s total BS to say they didn’t know it was wrong. I was 13 in 1970 and knew adults shouldn’t mess with kids. How did all these educated men not know sexually abusing kids was a crime? How do catholics put up with these lies? I blame the sheeple in the pews as much as I blame the pope and his ordained lackeys. Lay catholics who knowingly continue to write checks to these scum are as culpable as the bishops.
April 21, 2008 at 3:54 pm
[...] (Also see “Levada Says No Bishops to Face Sanctions” published on this blog 4.19.2008.) [...]
April 22, 2008 at 12:51 am
Give Cardinal Levada a call…….he should recruit this esteemed legal group from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia……….They are the Masters of Legerdemain. And William Sasso, THE primary counsel, is also Chairman of the Board of the Free Library of Philadelphia……sure hope that the library’s child protection and reporting policies are better than those his legal firm, Stradley and Ronon, were responsible for over the many years of pedophilia in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
Our Philadelphia Archdiocesan legal counsel surely doesn’t discriminate—whether the victims are young children brutalized by pedophilia or the elderly church attendees, they are dispatched in the same cold, dispassionate, and un-Christlike manner. This archdiocesan legal tradition exists solely to protect our archdiocesan leaders, lay and religious, from any accountability and liability. What would Jesus do?
(1) In the National Catholic Reporter 1999, the current Philadelphia archdiocesan counsel states:
“No matter how vigilant a pastor or principal is, he or she may still face a lawsuit, said Timothy Coyne, who represents the Philadelphia archdiocese and various religious orders. “The little old lady who says her beads daily in church will sue you if she slips and falls in church,” he warned. Coyne told priests to regard lawyers as their friends and to “call your lawyer even before you call the chancery or your insurer.” One wonders if Mr. Coyne ever sits next to elderly women when he attends Mass.
(2)C. Clark Hodgson, long-time counsel to the Philadelphia Archdiocese was quoted in a local newspaper:
“Church officials were not obligated by state law to report sex-abuse cases to civil authorities unless the actual child victim notified the church personally. If the child’s parent filed the complaint with the archdiocese, however, church officials did not have to notify police.
Mr. Hodgson was subsequently awarded the St. Thomas More Award 2006 from the St. Thomas More Society of Philadelphia (Catholic lawyers). Remarkably, St. Thomas More was martyred for his faith because he was a champion for following the “spirit of the law”, not the “letter of the law.” What is the likelihood that a young, innocent and vulnerable school age child who was subject to the humiliation, degradation and physical sexual abuse by a clergy member would have the strength to come forward when this same victim would feel so ashamed, broken, horrified and bewildered? Our archdiocesan attorneys were sure to exploit the legal loophole re reporting such pedophilia to authorities. This conduct was KNOWINGLY, DELIBERATELY and CONSCIOUSLY performed by Church attorneys at the expense of the child’s physical, emotional, psychological and moral well-being and survival. What else can be said?
(3) William Sasso, Chairman, Stradley and Ronon, according to the firm’s website:
“Attesting to Stradley Ronon’s strength in this area, we have long served as general counsel to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.”
“An attorney for the archdiocese, William R. Sasso accused the report of exhibiting religious bias because it did not investigate allegations of child sex abuse in other denominations.
“As a lawyer, as an individual who has seen similar reports, I find it to be biased and anti-Catholic,” Sasso said.
Interestingly, on the firm’s website, there is a picture of Mr. Sasso and Bono at a dinner where Bono was honored for his humanitarian efforts and compassion to those children at risk in Africa. And what did Mr. Sasso do when archdiocesan children were not only victimized and/or abused over the years but others put in danger when the abusing priests were moved from one location to another?
(4) Mark Chopko, former counsel to US Bishops, and now head of the non-profit group at Sasso’s law firm. I particularly liked reading a summary of one of his legal arguments where he claimed that diocesan management was not liable for clergy sexual abuse behavior because the priest’s religious functioning was protected behavior by our constitution.
In light the Philadelphia Archdiocese’s duplicity, treachery and chicanery that has been clearly documented and substantiated, I personally would like the answer to the following question:
How are Archdiocesan attorneys like William Sasso, C. Clark Hodgson and Mark Chopko actually able to sleep at night knowing that former-priest predators are living throughout our communities and pose a “clear and present danger” to the youngest, most innocent and vulnerable in our communities?
June 2, 2008 at 3:06 am
Why would Cardinal Levada place sanctions against himself. It has been clearly documented that he hepled cover for abusive priest in his Diocese in California.
His appointment to the Vatican appears to me to be a bailout – like Cardinal Law’s – from being investigated and the truth revealed.
Circle up the wagons…