Religion & Law

Several of our recent MOJ posts have addressed the recent media coverage of the sex abuse crisis.  Although I agree with Rick that John Allen's piece does a good job in helping us keep perspective, I am far less persuaded than he is with the value of the Elizabeth Lev piece.  Lev ignores the fact that the greatest anger and protest now is not with the abuse itself (which is why claims that only a small minority of priests have committed abuse or "we're not the only ones who have been guilty of abuse" are beside the point), but with how the Church handled the abuse.  There are some who portray all such reporting as anti-Catholic, which ignores that many of those who are angry and protesting the Church's behavior are Catholics.

I, for one, think E.J. Dionne's Washington Post piece makes some important points.  Regarding Dionne's closing note, Rick focuses on the portion of Dionne's statement suggesting that the Church cast aside its lawyers.  Rick is, of course, right that one can not cast off one's lawyers when one is being sued.  However, I do think Dionne is right to suggest that what is needed here is "institutional self-examination, painful but liberating public honesty, and true contrition."  I share the sense of many that there has been far too little evidence of the first and the second and, while some contrition has been expressed, it has been largely expressed as sorrow for the abuse itself rather than how the abuse was dealt with.