Church in
Crisis
Making distinctions: A bishop defends his actions
Attorney John Manly illustrated the hierarchy’s attitude
toward sex abuse by paraphrasing a June 19, 2001, deposition he took from
Bishop Norman F. McFarland, now retired bishop of Orange.
“I asked the bishop, ‘Would you ever put a predator who
had molested a child back in a parish?’ ‘No.’ ‘Would you
ever put a predator who had molested a child back into a parish with a
school?’ ‘No.’ ‘Would you ever, ever put a predator back in
parish circulation knowing he was a predator?’ ‘No.’
“ ‘Your Excellency, could you please explain why John
Lenihan was a pastor at St. Edward’s?’
“ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘that’s
different.’
“ ‘What do you mean, sir?’
“ ‘You said child molester. As I understand it, these
victims were adolescents. And you know many adolescents are fully developed and
precocious.’ ”
Said Manly to the meeting, “Ladies and gentlemen, that is a
view of the soul of the hierarchy of our church. That is what is at stake
here.”
NCR asked McFarland how he remembered the exchange. The
bishop sent the deposition. Excerpts follow:
Q (Manly): Was it your policy while bishop that someone who you
believed was a child molester would not be a priest in the diocese of
Orange?
A: Of course, of course.
Q: Your Excellency, can you explain why John Lenihan has
administered the sacraments and is functioning as priest if this was the
case?
A: There was a charge brought against him by a Mary Staggs.
That’s while I was bishop here. That was early in 1990-91. In fact, she
entered a court case against him, and the allegation was that some 15 years
earlier a Fr. John Lenihan, who was a young priest not long ordained, at St.
Norbert’s, had sexually molested her and this was pursued.
I gave a deposition. Also there was the request of the plaintiff
and her lawyer that he receive therapy, and also there was
payment of money. … And he’s now the pastor of St. Edward’s, and
I appointed him there about 1995 at the recommendation of the priest personnel
committee.
I did not see any reason why he should not go there from his
record. That is, he had admitted publicly even as I recall to the people of St.
Norbert’s that he had been guilty of this sexual conduct with an
adolescent.
When he went down to St. Edward’s he informed them. …
Anyway, to answer your question directly, he had served well. There was no
indication even approaching this kind of conduct, improper sexual contact.
…
Q: Has anybody from the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops, the Holy See or any other Roman Catholic institution ever provided
your excellency with data on the recidivism rate of child molesters?
A: Yes. I think in the national meeting … but you used the
term “child molesters,” and they make a distinction between those of
“pedophilia,” like youngsters. Those that are adolescents.
Q: Does it make any difference to you in terms of how you
handle priest matters where the priest abused a 3-year-old or sexually abused a
17-year-old?
A: Yes, there is a difference.
Q: What is the difference?
A: From what I have learned the experts say that pedophilia I
don’t think is recoverable.
Q: How about a 15-year-old girl?
A: Well, that is also very wrong. But I think there is more a
chance for a person that, first of all, being an isolated incident … I can
understand the temptation of that more. It can’t even occur to me with a
child or a baby. Does one make a distinction that’s 15 or 17? She may be
very, very precocious or adult-looking, and there would be temptation
there.
(In addition to the Staggs case, Lenihan was later accused of
molesting and impregnating another teenage girl in the 1980s and forcing her to
have an abortion. Lenihan resigned from the priesthood in 2002 after the church
paid out [$1.2] million in a settlement. The Los Angles
archdiocese paid $200,000, the Orange diocese $1 million.)
-- Arthur Jones
National Catholic Reporter, March 21, 2003
[corrected 04/11/2003]
|
