BishopAccountability.org
 
  A See under Siege

By Fr. Ranhilio
Manila Standard Today
April 12, 2010

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideOpinion.htm?f=2010/april/12/ranhilioaquino.isx&d=2010/april/12

Pope Benedict XVI, at the time he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, allegedly abetted the indiscretions of an abusive priest by allowing him to continue in his pastoral ministry despite complaints of molestation against him. One hysterical American paper screamed its headline: The Pope must resign! No, Benedict XVI must not resign and he will not, and one good reason he should not is precisely to put media in its place: It is not for media persons and the business tycoons who hold their leashes to install popes and depose them like they do politicians!

When a priest is charged with having abused his ascendancy to exploit the vulnerable, it is correct for the bishop or his ecclesiastical superior to first conduct a discreet investigation; after all a charge is an allegation or a cluster of allegations that may or may not be founded on fact. It is neither right nor lawful to expose a priest to the spite and insult of a mob already whipped up to anti-clerical frenzy before the evidence has been received and the facts established. An inquiry can be discreet and thorough, shielded from the curious, but relentless nonetheless in its search for answers. After all when the supposedly prurient conduct of a priest becomes the object of widespread publicity, and the accusations later on show themselves to be pure figments of the imagination of opportunists and their lawyers, how else do you take back every aspersion of impropriety and scandal? That a priest's superior should not obstruct justice is to assert the obvious. Any bishop or provincial superior who obstructs justice should be prosecuted, but to obstruct justice is one thing; to pander to the media and its insatiable appetite for the salacious is quite another.

Are the "sins of the Fathers" real? Indeed, they are, and each time I don the vestments for Mass, contemplating the awesome mystery I am about to celebrate, my own frailties weigh down heavily upon me, and there is the terrible feeling of my unworthiness. There is nothing else I can turn to except the consoling theological truth that "he who had no sin was made sin for us," not in justification of my own failings, but in the assurance that whatever good I might be able to do comes from the grace that is stronger than my weakness. If people expect their priests to be sinless, then one will have to recruit candidates for ordination from some other order of creation because they will not be found among men of flesh and blood. Each day a priest must be for others the image of Christ's continuing care, compassion, mercy and forgiveness—and one of the most compelling motives a priest can have for this sacramental disposition is his own unceasing and constant need for the remission of his sins!

There can be no compromise over the protection of vulnerable sectors from predators among the ranks of the clergy. But to be fair to men of the cloth, it will be well to remember that sinners do not come from their ranks alone, and that even for those who have fallen, conversion and renewal are always possible. After all, that is what redemption is about. The holiness of God shimmers in the command that we forebear from condemning, and condemning another essentially consists in slamming the door in anyone's face. Why should a priest who has once sinned be forever barred from ministering? Often it is the chastening experience of a fall that allows one to arise, strengthened, renewed after having been purified in the crucible of humiliation!

Lately, this paper carried news items from American papers on charges leveled against Dom Benildus Maramba, OSB, for acts supposedly perpetrated close to thirty years ago. Under jurisprudence on evidence, an inordinate delay in making a complaint always occasions an issue of credibility, for why should a supposed victim wait for so long before complaining —especially considering that Dom Benildus left the US a long time ago after his advanced music studies? Why did these complaints have to await the spate of similar charges made that have forced American dioceses to pay alleged victims and their lawyers millions of dollars in settlement money? And while we are at it, I should make clear that a settlement does not always constitute an admission of guilt or of liability. One may be willing to litigate to vindicate his innocence, but the costs of litigation are very, very high, especially if one has to engage the services of an American lawyer, and the toll of court appearances in time and emotional energy is enervating!

Dom Benildus and I have been friends for some time now. He is a friend to many others as well, esteemed and honored, not only as the consummate musician that he is but also as a monk and as a priest. It grieves me tremendously that in his old age, he should be subjected to this ordeal. One thing should be made clear: It was not Dom Benildus who entered into a settlement with the supposed complainant or complainants who surfaced more than twenty years after Benildus' return to the Philippines—and he returned, not because he wished to avoid prosecution or suit, but because he was summoned back to the Abbey. Every monk professes a vow of "stability of place", so wherever it is that studies or temporary assignments may take him, he must always, at some time, return to his Abbey.

Why did he, or the Abbot of Our Lady of Montserrat not respond sooner? The answer is not difficult: None in the Monastery had absolutely any idea that a settlement had been reached. He was not consulted; he was not informed; he was not privy to negotiations. In fact the reports themselves make clear that it was the American diocese that entered into a settlement. The supposed complainant's lawyer claims that Fr. Maramba avoided service of summons. Really now? How could he avoid service of summons when none was ever made? Of course, putting things the way the American press did surely points an indicting finger at good, old Fr. Benildus, but that is a most unkind cut! Why did the diocese settle? The American diocese should be asked—not Fr. Maramba. Has the Abbot commenced inquiry? To be sure, the prudent Abbot of Our Lady of Montserrat has commenced what his office as abbot requires him to do—in fraternal charity but with no less zeal for the truth.

A priest, and a monk, particularly, is a ready target for accusations of sexual abuse, and while similar transgressions of even more egregious magnitude are committed and all tracks cleverly covered by the rich and the powerful, the priest must face the full brunt of ridicule, humiliation and spite—many times even before he has been found guilty or even despite exoneration. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said of rape cases that they are not too difficult to concoct, but are difficult to prove. The same thing may be said of allegations of sexual abuse committed by priests. But why, it will be rhetorically asked, would anyone claim to have been molested by a priest unless it were true? The answer should not be too difficult to divine if one remembers that several American dioceses have gone broke over settlements and negotiations. Why settle then? Americans ask juries to be triers of fact and juries are notoriously unreliable at arriving at findings solely on the basis of the rules of evidence! Dioceses settle to be rid of devastating publicity and the hounding of lawyers, among other reasons!

No, I am not saying that every priest is innocent of charges against him, but let us be sure by the proper processes that there have been victims before we take up their causes. Is it not troubling that at a time that one priest after the other is placed on the dock, so many should, after so many should, after so many years, wake up one morning to remember their 'ordeals' and easily find lawyers who can calculate the hurt they are supposed to have borne in thousands of dollars? At least the question should be raised.years, wake up one morning to remember their 'ordeals' and easily find lawyers who can calculate the hurt they are supposed to have borne in thousands of dollars? At least the question should be raised.

 
 

Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.