Northwest Laity Report - Spring 2003

by Peter W. Miller

By now, most of the publicity that surrounded the clerical sexual abuse scandal has subsided. Cardinal Law has resigned, the Boston Globe has won its Pulitzer, religious reform groups have gained political and financial strength, victims have received settlements and vindication, bishops have opted to enforce upon themselves slightly more decisive yet entirely reactive measures—offering partial apologies for not reacting quickly enough while defending and continuing the very methods which most contributed to the problem, and the Church has lost what little respect and moral authority it retained, particularly in America.

Pressing the "Reform" Agenda

As with other parts of the country, Seattle has seen the establishment of liberal "reform" groups, seeking to use the current wave of scandals to bring about what they consider "necessary changes" in the Church.¹ These have involved calling for modifications of everything from the Church's God-given hierarchical authority structure to the very nature of the priesthood. An organization going by the name Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) has been the most visible and vocal in this regard, and has gained a large degree of support in the Boston area, appealing to Catholics understandably disenchanted with their local Church leaders. Although the stated aims of the group are vague and vary depending on who is asked to comment, VOTF activities and functions have featured a number of known heretics and dissidents, who have made a career pushing for radical reforms with groups such as Call to Action and We Are Church.

Another organization, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), describes itself primarily a victims' advocacy group aimed at public policy. The group insists that it has no reform agenda and exists solely to support victims, but such claims are belied by its close affiliation and joint efforts with VOTF and other such groups whose intentions are less veiled.

Over the years, liberal reform groups have enjoyed a significant degree of support from the both the laity and the clergy in the Archdiocese of Seattle. However, as opposed to Dignity and New Ways Ministry who based their opposition on a rejection of the Church's moral tradition, this new crop of reformists claims as a foundation those obvious complaints shared by all. In the tradition of Martin Luther who used reasonable and overdue objections to push through unjustifiable errors and heresies, the fact that these groups offer part of the truth makes them quite tempting and dangerous. Space in later issues will be dedicated towards the more specific substance and the folly of their claims.

Lawsuits and Tragedy

In a continuation of the steady stream of local litigation, six men filed lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Seattle, alleging three priests (Fr. John Forrester, Fr. Gerald Moffat and Fr. John Cornelius) abused them in the 1970s and 1980s.² Tragically, one of those claiming abuse would commit suicide just three months later. Jeff Alfieri, 43, who was described as a "burly lawyer from Seattle who worked as a business agent for Teamsters Local 117" was found by the Kirkland police in his car with a gunshot would to the head.³ His funeral was held at St, James Cathedral where Archbishop Alexander Brunett offered an apology for the shortcomings in the Church:

"Your son's life was burdened, even tormented by memories of abuse by the hands of a priest. In the name of the Catholic Church, I offer you the deepest apology for all you suffered through the violation of this sacred trust." ⁴

Figures Revealed

In a long overdue but nonetheless welcome move, the Archdiocese of Seattle released the number of priests against whom allegations had been raised, as well as the amount of the faithful's money paid out as a result. Immediately before the new national policy on dismissing abusive priests become mandatory, it was announced that 47 priests since the mid-1950's had been accused of sexual abuse. Of those, 13 were still active diocesan priests whose cases would be reviewed by the new archdiocesan abuse review panel.

Fifteen of the 47 were in religious orders or from other dioceses. Of the other 32, from the Seattle Archdiocese, 22 are still alive. Nine of those priests have left the priesthood on their own, and the archdiocese no longer tracks them...⁵

The thirteen priests include Fr. Gerald Moffat, Fr. Patrick O'Donnell, Fr. James McGreal, Fr. John Cornelius, Fr. Dennis Champagne, Fr. Jack Marsh, Fr. David Jaegar, Fr. Barry Ashwell and Fr. Patrick O'Neill. The other four priests have not been named in order to protect them from false or questionable accusations.⁶

Just over one month later, the Seattle Archdiocese revealed that since 1987, it had paid $4.1 million for 65 victims of clerical sexual abuse, including $2.8 million in settlement costs, $800,000 in attorney's fees and $500,000 in "counseling and pastoral care for victims."⁷

Although previous requests for such information were denied due the potentially "irrelevant or misleading" nature of the numbers, the Archdiocese of Seattle stated upon their release that Archbishop Brunett "believes now that this is important and he's responding to questions that have come from members of our parishes. He feels it's a legitimate question." Despite her predecessor's dismissals that "talking about stuff like that doesn't bring any clarity to the issue" and "arbitrary numbers simply don't give context or perspective to the problems," ⁸ archdiocesan spokeswoman Jackie O'Ryan attributed the delay, in part, to the "task of compiling those numbers took some time."

Happy Ending or Temporary Reprieve?

Perhaps the most disturbing thing to come from all the meetings, policies, committees, and rhetoric to result from all this controversy, is the almost sole focus on reactive measures — what to do when a priest is caught or an accusation is made, rather than addressing what lies at the root of the problem. The implication is that such occurrences are inevitable and their rapid increase in the 60s and 70s (as immorality and liberalism took hold in society) is mere coincidence. But what about keeping such events from happening in the first place? Are the suggestions made by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz and others that cultivating a seminary or clerical culture of theological liberalism, moral relativism, and outright endorsement of perversity have something to do with the problem, really not worth any thought or analysis? The sad unstated fact is that these victims are viewed, consciously or not, as collateral damage in the post-Conciliar "renewal" of the Church. The architects of these modern American dioceses received the attributes in the clergy they wanted—theologically flexible, morally tolerant, religiously malleable, sexually "un-rigid" and thoroughly modern individuals—but they got more than they bargained for. Considering how the problem has been addressed, one is left to conclude that these consequences have been deemed acceptable.

So long as the link between the homosexual disorder and the molesting of teenage boys is denied and churchmen refuse to acknowledge the proverbial elephant in the sanctuary, the problem will not be completely behind us.

Liturgical Confusion

With the sting of scandal and betrayal from the clerical abuse crisis still fresh on the mind of every faithful Catholic, a new type of assault was launched. The liturgical progression apparatus was given a key victory in select locations, including the Archdiocese of Seattle, as kneeling during communion was quickly and forcibly eliminated under the guise of implementing new "norms".

The decision of a handful of dioceses to take a perceived exception and mandate that all Catholics must stand from the Angus Dei until after the last person has received communion, was merely the latest in a long string of concessions acquired through open defiance of liturgical guidelines. Many parishes in the Seattle Archdiocese have long since abolished kneeling at any point during the Mass, some going so far as to remove the kneelers from the backs of pews (and in at least once instance, with the assistance by the Archdiocesan Liturgical Office). As with the eventual acceptance of communion in the hand, routine eucharistic ministers and altar girls, if a rule is openly defied for long enough, it will eventually be repealed, particularly when it comes to the liturgy.