There was more troubling news for the Catholic Church locally yesterday, as an area priest was accused of possessing child pornography on his work and personal computers. The evidence appears to be overwhelming against the man. The diocese is also under scrutiny for the manner in which the area hierarchy handled the issue. It is my guess that the scrutiny will only intensify in the coming days.
Long and short of it; Late last year, the priest in question took his laptop in for servicing and the technician discovered the images in question and reported what he found to Church officials. According to Church officials, and confirmed by the police, the diocese contacted the local authorities to ask about the content's nature at that point, ie. did it constitute child pornography? At the time, at least two opinions concluded it did not.
The church acted by removing the priest from a local parish, moved him to a cloistered living environment, away from children and around adults. The priest, prior to this move, received counseling. Under the watch of the local diocese, the priest apparently ignored parameters, including attending family and friend's events, and partaking in a local parade. At this, the diocese again contacted authorities.
Today, the priest is charged with possessing child pornography, among other disturbing crimes. It is now May and many in the public want to know why the diocese acted so slowly in bringing this news forward, news they discovered in December of 2010. The city's newspaper editorialized this morning, questioning the Church's priority to that of victims or priests. No doubt letters will follow, demanding resignations and further reform.
And, all of this is understood. The Church and Catholic priests have a terrible past, one marred by the acts of many, and further protected by countless among the Church's hierarchy. What's worse here, the victims are often our most helpless in society, trusting children. These acts have destroyed too many. But, I want to advise caution, while at the same time acknowledging the problem.
Admittedly, I am a Catholic, proudly, and my world view will be colored by that perspective. However, I am also an American and I live in a nation where rules are in place to guide our proceedings, specifically in the legal realm. Of course, the legal side of things is really only half of it; there is the court of law, driven by a quest for justice, and then there is the court of public opinion, fueled by soundbites and media speculation. I defy you to tell me which is more powerful.
At heart of this issue is what should the Church have made public and when. Due to the issue's past, many will say, it would be best for all if the Church spills its guts about anything and everything. How else can we truly trust the Church again if there is not complete transparency? At first glance, that sounds like a strong and compelling argument. However, it neglects to take into account all individuals involved in these separate instances.
I can imagine that one of the more difficult roles in today's society is that of good-hearted, upstanding Catholic priest. You're well intentioned, desirous of doing God's work, and tasked to shepard over a large number of parishioners. And at the same time, suspicion clouds your actions and paranoia affects your every interaction. All because you can't outrun a caricature in the public and you're always one accusation away from being ruined.
As the term goes, it's impossible to unring a bell. Once a modifier is placed on an individual, it's hard to be completely cleansed of its resonating. And some terms, more readily stick. Just ask several lacrosse players from an elite North Carolina university, who still live under suspicion, even after vindication. But, historical failings should never be reason enough to indite entire groups.
If the Kansas City Star and many in the public have their way, and they may still get it, anytime an accusation or suspicion is had over a priest, the diocese should release the priest's name to the public, remove him from service, and police should isolate him behind bars. You and I know very well that when that man receives his trial, if it indeed goes this far, the verdict will have already been read loud and clear in the court of public opinion. Guilty.
I am not advocating cover-ups, pushing issues aside, or ignoring the sins of the past. But, I am saying, because of these historical failings and perceptions, we are compelled to tread with caution when identifying suspects for public consumption. Remove them from power, scrutinize their dealings, and protect the defenseless. But, do your diligence to substantiate any claim. For we know, if and when the name is released, that man will have a shell of his current self left standing, regardless of a jury's decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment