Lacy Wright – Letter From WashingtonLIFE SEEMS often to be more complex than we would wish. Just when I thought I had the rights and wrongs of the Catholic clergy's paedophilia scandal all figured out, a friend made me think some more.
The friend in question is a highly regarded criminal lawyer in a large, heavily Catholic American city who has defended a number of priests accused of sex-related crimes over the last decade. He was also, long ago, a Catholic priest himself. His background and professional role, one might argue, give him an automatic bias in favour of the defendants.
On the other hand, having been intimately involved in many sex-abuse cases, he has a rare insider's knowledge of the problem.
And it was clear from our candid, off-the-record talk that his views were genuine and strongly felt.
In our discussion, a variety of defendant types emerged.
There were priests whose behaviour had been truly outrageous, and over a long period of time. Others, perhaps many years ago, had engaged in improper behaviour with a young person, but admitted their guilt, perhaps underwent therapy, and served afterward in parishes in an exemplary manner. Some priests engaged in sex with a consenting adult, who later brought charges of wrongdoing. Finally, there were priests who had done nothing improper, but were falsely accused.
My lawyer friend thought that transgressors who had rehabilitated themselves had been especially badly served by the bishops' "zero tolerance" decision in Dallas in June. He gave several examples of priests who, after years of dedicated, problem-free service, had now been dismissed from their parishes. The bishops, he thought, had been stampeded into a simplistic, unfair decision by public pressure.
But my friend was upset not only that some priests got worse than they deserved. What surprised me more was how he viewed many of those claiming victimhood. These accusers were typified by the kind of middle-aged man whose life is a mess - failed marriage, job lost, debts piling up - who decides one day that all his troubles have been caused by the priest who 25 years before touched him inappropriately. So he gets a lawyer, or a lawyer finds him, and they go for the money.
In the past, said my friend, before priest sex abuse grew into a widespread public scandal, such cases followed a pattern. The man's lawyer would go to the Catholic diocese and threaten to sue unless his client received a large cash settlement. The diocese, even though it might be convinced the lawyer could not win in court (often because the alleged crime was covered by a statute of limitations), would want badly to avoid a scandal, and would pay up, in exchange for silence.
We also discussed cases of false accusation, which I have always found particularly troubling. One came to light just this week in Boston. Given the intense publicity surrounding the entire issue, it should not be surprising that some people, out of greed, revenge, or emotional disturbance, make up charges that are not true. For a priest who is wholly innocent, this must be a devastating blow. In these cases, it is he who is the victim.
Despite all this, it remains clear that the behaviour of many of the guilty priests was genuinely scandalous and shameful, that many of the victims do indeed seem to have suffered grievous psychological harm, and that a number of bishops behaved inexcusably in shuffling known sex predators from parish to parish.
But I also conclude that truth is elusive, and that, if we wish to understand any one of these alleged sex-abuse cases, we must look carefully each time at all the facts.
Lacy Wright was Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Kingston and acted as Ambassador in 1993-1994. He can be reached at LacyWright@cox.net.
