Home | Join/Donate | Current Voices | Liturgical Calendar | What's New | Affirmation | James Hitchcock's Column | Church Documents | Search
by James Hitchcock
June 13, 2002
Not for some years will we know the full affects of the recent bishops' meeting in Dallas. The horrendous nature of clerical pedophilia has finally been acknowledged and, like other injustices long ignored, will henceforth receive almost obsessive attention. Procedures have been adopted, but it remains to be seen how they are implemented in particular dioceses. In one important respect I think the meeting was a misuse of a unique opportunity, and that was in the bishops' choice of speakers.
Certainly the spokesmen for sex-abuse victims deserved to be heard. Indeed, they can hardly be heard too often, having been ignored for so long. But several of the invited speakers did not address the issue at all, even as they pretended to do so. Two speakers who had nothing personally to do with pedophilia instead used the occasion to promote a liberal Catholic agenda which has been around for decades, an agenda which offers no particular help with the problem at hand.
In effect the message was, "The bishops have failed, now the laity must take charge." I think the bishops, or many of them, have indeed failed, as they themselves now acknowledge, and it is an open question whether they will do better in the future. But there is no compelling reason for thinking that giving more power to lay people would improve the situation. In effect the two speakers said to the bishops, "We told you so", but in fact that claim was false. Until quite recently, when pedophilia started becoming a public issue, Catholic liberals had no more to say on the subject than did anyone else. On a list of the key liberal issues of the past 35 years, pedophilia only began to show up as an afterthought, once it had gotten into the media.
If by lay "empowerment" is meant that lay people should have a role in dealing with pedophilia, no one disagrees. Responsible lay people should certainly be part of the process. But the liberal lobbyists went much farther, in effect calling on the bishops to effect a revolution across the board. One of them sneered at the statement "the Church is not a democracy", and the other broadly hinted that the bishops should disregard the Holy See in making decisions.
But it is merely common sense to recognize that giving more power to lay people would in itself achieve nothing. Everything would depend on who the lay people were. Just as there is no "typical" American, so there is no "typical" Catholic. If bishops surrendered much of their authority to lay people, the result might be no better than the bishops themselves have achieved.
The figure "34 years" was used to date the bishops' supposed lack of regard for the laity, a date obviously chosen to indicate the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church's teaching on birth control. But the logic of this is preposterous, as though changing the teaching on birth control would somehow serve to prevent pedophilia. Liberal Catholics still do not acknowledge that pedophilia was made possible in part because of the sexual revolution of the l960s, and the bishops' failure was hardly that of upholding strict standards of sexual morality. (How many pedophiles support Humanae Vitae?)
The lobbyists made the predictable argument for "empowering" women, merely a variation on their claims about the laity. Once again, there is no such phenomenon as "women", if by that is meant females all of whom think and act alike, and if women were given greater authority in the Church the results would depend entirely on which women were chosen. (From the media I have noticed that it is certain women in particular who continue to express loyalty and support for accused pedophiles.)
In this bleak moment in the history of American Catholicism, it is regrettable indeed that some of the people invited to address the bishops chose to exploit these sufferings in order to push their own stale agenda.
James Hitchcock, professor of history at St. Louis University, writes and lectures on contemporary Church matters. His column appears in the diocesan press. His two-volume book on religion and the Supreme Court has just been published by Princeton University Press. E-Mail: Dr. James Hitchcock
**Women for Faith & Family operates solely on your generous donations!
WFF is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Donations are tax deductible.
Columns copyright © 1995 - 2007 by James Hitchcock. All rights reserved. May not be reprinted without permission. (Permission is granted to download articles for personal use only.)
Voices copyright © 1999-Present Women for Faith & Family. All rights reserved.
All material on this web site is copyrighted and may not be copied or reproduced without prior written permission from Women for Faith & Family,except as specified below.
Permission is granted to download and/or print out articles for personal use only.
Brief quotations (ca 500 words) may be made from the material on this site, in accordance with the “fair use” provisions of copyright law, without prior permission. For these quotations proper attribution must be made of author and WFF + URL (i.e., “Women for Faith & Family www.wf-f.org.)
Generally, all signed articles or graphics must also have the permission of the author. If a text does not have an author byline, Women for Faith & Family should be listed as the author. For example: Women for Faith & Family (St Louis: Women for Faith & Family, 2005 + URL)
Link to Women for Faith & Family web site.
Other web sites are welcome to establish links to www.wf-f.org or to individual pages within our site.
Back to top -- Home -- Back to James Hitchcock Column Index
Women for Faith & Family
PO Box 300411
St. Louis, MO 63130
314-863-8385 Phone -- 314-863-5858 Fax -- Email