The 1989 pop movie Lethal Weapon 2 ends in a shootout between Argen Rudd, a villainous apartheid South African consulate minister and LAPD sergeants Murtaugh and Riggs. After emptying his gun into Riggs and still facing his armed partner, Rudd holds up his wallet shouting, “diplomatic immunity!” “It's just been revoked,” retorts Murtaugh before firing his fatal shot.
Bad guys are bad guys and there are limits to immunity. So it would seem thought the Belgian police when, to the outrage of the Vatican and subsequently of the Pope himself, they raided Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard’s palace on June 24th and (the next day) the home of his predecessor Cardinal Godfried Danneels. They seized computers, financial records and investigative reports, reportedly even drilling holes in a number of tombs so that cameras could search inside for incriminating documents hidden there. In the process the police detained a group of bishops who happened to be attending a meeting at the palace, preventing their communicating with the outside for the nearly ten hours of the operation. They obviously did not want to be interrupted or to have their investigation thwarted. Insofar as criminal investigations are concerned, there was nothing remarkable about what the police did in Brussels. It is even fair to ask, why did it take law enforcement so long, and why haven’t similar incursions taken place in other countries?
The Roman church’s record, relentlessly pursued of late by the NY Times, is one of obfuscation, cover-ups, co-conspiracy and stonewalling reflecting more the spirit of Watergate than the divine. That includes acts of omission and commission by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who had ultimate responsibility for policing abuse throughout several decades before ascending the thrown of St. Peter. Considering the record, the Church has no reasonable expectation that law enforcement should either trust them or respect its claimed “autonomy to conduct its own investigations”, nor at this late date can one make a strong case that it should be protected by immunity. Benedict may be outraged and may bluster about the “deplorable methods” of Belgian police, but any objective observer knows the Church essentially brought this on itself.
All these years after the first abuses came to light in the 1980s and reached what may be considered a tipping point early in this century, new cases and new countries continue to emerge. One has to wonder about the arrogance of a church that has treated these high crimes like the lapses of a school child who, in being exposed, is sent to the principal’s office and admonished without even informing his parents of the wrong doing. Had this happened only once or in one place we might excuse it, but that is not the case. Rome and its representatives across the globe may see this as an internal in-family matter, but their position is inconsistent with the way the rest of us, and indeed society, view sex abusers.
Thanks to Megan’s Law, Americans not only incarcerate sex offenders, but also keep tabs on them when they are released. To varying degree, their names and history is made available in every state and searchable through the National Sex Offenders Registry. While that exposure has generated some civil liberties questions, it nonetheless suggests how seriously we take this matter, an inexcusable offense for which serving time seems insufficient.
No one could believe more strongly in the separation between church and state than I, but to proclaim that sex abuse a solely religious matter to be adjudicated by the Church — any church — is patently absurd. Moreover, what is church and what is state blurs somewhat in the eyes of the Catholic Church, which in its stance on sex abuse has generally taken the position of a sovereign state. In fact, that sovereignty applies only to the Vatican, but it is one they extend opportunistically in contending that prelates around the world should be considered its representatives and thus be accorded virtual “diplomatic” status. I say opportunistically because they do so in claiming the rights of adjudication for predator priests while holding themselves out as just plain citizens when trying to force their ideology on others as we saw during the healthcare debate.
None of these arguments or comments are new; most have been made or said better by others. So let me turn to a somewhat different issue, the naked double standard that is applied to the Church relative to society as a whole. Can you imagine the revelation of systematic and widespread sex abuse and cover-up tolerated in or relative to any other institution public or private? How long do think the chief executive of a major corporation, the leader of a non-profit or a politician would last in similar circumstances? We essentially impeached a President in this country for consensual infidelity and both corporate and organizational heads have rolled when the entities they led have gone amuck. In any other situation not only would the offending abusers face justice so would anyone in the hierarchy that either covered it up or conveniently averted their eyes. Much of what the Church has done has been in the name of protecting the institution, an argument that would never fly anywhere else.
Religious institutions often hold themselves out as the source, not to mention arbiter, of righteousness. They surely are quick to judge others. In this instance righteousness seems to be on the other side, with those offending cops who entered the inner sanctum. Ornate vestments might hide the stains on the clothing underneith, the sounds of incantations drown out the cries of anguish of all those touched by this terrible crime — victims and often entire families. Infallibility may protect a pope and his surrogates, but no carpet in the Vatican or anywhere else is large enough to hide what’s been swept beneath its surface. In the end ordinary believing Catholics, including the many priests and nuns dedicated to their work and service are being damaged, many disillusioned. Some of us may take issue with the doctrine of this or any other religious institution, but this fall from righteousness is truly sad — tragic. No one should rejoice in it.
Dear Jonathan,
I just read an article on 'Tablet' about your dad and my rabbi so many decades ago in Newark, NJ.
I would like to be in contact with you.
Judith
Posted by: Judith Nusbaum | February 25, 2011 at 12:45 PM