Cover
story Post-Dallas: Sex offenders to monasteries? Monks say no
way
When Shakespeare has Hamlet tell Ophelia to Get thee to
a nunnery! he was reflecting a mindset of the day: Monasteries were
convenient hiding places for people disappointed in love, for unmarriageable
daughters, for illegitimate sons one wanted to keep from view or from
contending for the throne, and for other undesirables.
It was common in the Middle Ages for children born with
disabilities (or sometimes just want of good looks!) to be donated
to monastic communities, whose families paid a dowry or lifetime fee for their
upkeep. It is no wonder that with such questionable vocation
recruitment practices, the qualities of many religious communities
deteriorated precipitously in the ensuing centuries.
With this kind of stereotype still clouding public perception
of their life, its not surprising that monastic communities would be less
than enthusiastic about the bishops suggestion that they become a haven
for clerical sex offenders.
By PAT MORRISON
You would think the U.S. Catholic bishops couldnt do one
more thing to alienate the faithful. While their Dallas meeting was in some
ways a positive moment for the church, many people are still unhappy with them.
Victims say the bishops didnt go far enough because they stopped short of
calling for laicization for all offenders. Some priests feel theyve been
scapegoated, with the bishops setting policy for priests removal when
nothing was done about bishops who moved abusing clergy around or paid out hush
money. Some bishops and priests alike voiced strong opposition to the new
norms one strike youre out stance that more than one
bishop said would make his priests feel he had sold them out. Many laity still
feel betrayed, angry or disappointed.
So whos left to take umbrage at what the bishops said and
did in Dallas?
Try monks.
What do the bishops plan to do with priests who are removed from
ministry and who cannot function as priests because their history of sex abuse
of minors? One solution, offered by several bishops, both in news conferences
prior to Dallas and in comments from the floor during their discussion of their
proposed charter, was to send the offending priests to a monastery.
If anything reinforced a growing conviction that the bishops just
werent thinking, that comment did it. Not only did the bishops apparently
not run their suggestion by any actual communities of monastic men before they
made it, but, some suggest, they also reveal their ignorance about religious
life in general and monastic life in particular.
NCR spoke with top leadership of more than a half dozen
mens monastic communities around the country. All of those interviewed
voiced understanding for the bishops difficult situation. But they were
also clear that that the prospect of making their monasteries the dumping
ground for problem priests just wouldnt fly. And several said the idea
itself was downright offensive.
Theyre just
clueless
It certainly makes me wonder what kind of theology of
religious life the bishops are operating out of, said one Trappist abbot
who asked not to have his name or his community identified. It seems,
that like many people, theyre just clueless about what monastic life
is.
By suggesting that sex abusers be sent to monasteries, the abbot
continued, the bishops are buying into the old stereotypes
that we
live this medieval, idyllic and isolated life, and that a persons
problems disappear when he comes here.
Instead, the Trappist said, even a person of good will who
has a genuine vocation will have one heck of a time making it. But [sex
offenders] will have major, deep-seated psychological problems, probably be
dealing with depression and a whole package of issues. This is certainly not
the place to get them the long-term help they need.
But, say the bishop calls and asks you to consider it. Would you
bring his request to the community? The abbot laughed. Not on your life!
Theyd shoot me!
Id find a respectful and diplomatic way to
decline, he said, but I would say very clearly, Bishop,
thats a very, very bad idea.
Another Trappist abbot concurred. Abbot Damian Carr heads one of
the orders largest U.S. houses, St. Josephs Abbey in Spencer,
Mass., home to 65 monks. Id be mighty surprised that youd
pick up from [any monastic community] that this is a viable solution, he
told NCR.
There is, of course some historical precedent for the
bishops suggestion. Carr noted that for centuries, monasteries were known
as refugium peccatorum -- a place of refuge for sinners, where people
often came to live among the monastic community in repentance and penance for
sinful deeds.
That concept continued through the middle of the 20th century,
when bishops and religious superiors would send known alcoholics or sexual
offenders for lengthy retreats at monasteries. As recently as the 1960s, before
sexual and chemical addictions were understood to have medical and
psychological causes, the church often viewed these as solely moral lapses, as
sin rather than sickness. Understandably, priests and religious would often
return from such retreats penitent and well-intentioned, but with no tools to
accomplish the essential behavioral changes. Relapse was almost inevitable.
Out of the question
Benedictine Abbot Hugh Anderson, who heads the 50-member St.
Procopius Abbey in Lisle, Ill., said it would be out of the
question for his community to accept a priest who was a sex abuser. In
the first place, the Lisle monks combine apostolic ministries with their
monastic tradition. They sponsor and staff Benedictine University and Benet
Academy, large and bustling institutions both just across the road from the
abbey in the large Chicago suburb.
Because about half of the mens monasteries in the United
States are apostolic-contemplative houses that have ministries and constant
contact with the public, Anderson said he thought the bishops were referring
more to contemplative houses, such as the Trappists. Still, he didnt
think the idea of housing sex offenders in monasteries was one that any
community would accept. I think it would be highly imprudent to even
consider it.
I suspect it was a hyperbolic statement, Anderson
said. He agreed with a Southern Trappist, who told NCR, The
bishops know theyre in the hot seat and they were under pressure to do
something. In the heat of the moment, suggesting these guys be sent to us
probably seemed at least like some kind of a solution. But it sounds like they
really hadnt thought it out at all. And certainly no one asked
us.
Anderson said that in the past some monasteries have accepted
people on a permanent guest status. The person is not a member of
the community and lives in separate quarters, usually the guesthouse, but has
his or her own work and is free to join the community for prayer. In some
cases, with proper monitoring, that might be a possibility, he suggested. But
none of the monasteries NCR spoke with had any program of this type.
And in the case of a known sex offender, the communities were
unanimous that they wouldnt even consider the risk. This would
bring huge problems, said another Trappist abbot. Supervision and
liability would be a giant issue, just for starters.
Were certainly not isolated, he said.
People come to visit, come for retreats. And on Sundays we have up to 150
people here for liturgy. The monks visit with them, theres a lot of
interaction. In that kind of setting, he said, no one could ensure that a
former sex offender wouldnt have access to children or teens.
Monasteries arent on another planet, said a
Benedictine who is also a psychologist. People can meet and
entice children through something as impersonal as the Internet. No matter how
controlled the environment, they could still be predatory -- in a monastery,
wherever. And no community in its right mind would want to take that
risk.
The bishops lack of understanding of what brings a monastic
community together was another irritant for almost all the monks NCR
interviewed.
A few bishops are members of religious communities, but most are
diocesan priests. And while many diocesan clergy do understand and appreciate
religious life, its not a lived experience. Often problematic for
diocesan priests and bishops is the understanding of community, several monks
said.
Its extremely hard to achieve community, for a man to
enter fully into that dynamic of monastic life, Anderson said.
Thats why were hesitant to take anyone over 40. The change
and adaptation to this way of life is very difficult for anyone entering -- for
the person who genuinely wants to do it. He speculated that it would be
difficult if not impossible for a person to live in a healthy
fashion in a community setting that was forced upon him.
That difficulty is compounded when it comes to a contemplative
community. A priest sex offender would simply not be called to our
vocation, despite his experience of priesthood, said another Trappist
abbot.
Carr agreed. I think there are two dimensions at work [in
the bishops suggestion], he said. One is to put the person in
a controlled environment, and the second is to offer him a life of prayer and
penance. A monastery might seem to fit the bill on both scores. But the
bishops seem to be forgetting a crucial element, and thats the matter of
call.
A vocation [to monastic life] is not just a matter of will
power, but a response to the call of God, Carr said. Just putting a
former sex abuser into the environment is no solution, he said.
The head of another Trappist community worried, too, about the
impact on potential vocations if monasteries took the bishops up on their
suggestion. What would peoples image become of monasteries if
they were suddenly populated by clerical sex offenders, he asked. And
what would that do to vocations? Whod want to join if they thought
the place were filled with pedophiles?
Despite their shared and sometimes blunt opposition to the
bishops ill-conceived proposal, the monks said they understood its
genesis.
I want to think [the bishops] motivation is genuine
care and concern. They are asking, How can we positively respond to the
spiritual, physical and psychological needs of priests who are sex
abusers, Carr said.
He said he thought the bishops were trying to articulate, however
awkwardly, their understanding of the need for well-thought-out care
for some kind of place where these men could receive the ongoing help
they need to live holy, healthy lives in the face of the reality that
they can no longer serve as priests. But, Carr repeated, placing them in a
monastery would create more problems than it could solve.
Crisis presents new opportunity
For Anderson, the current crisis presents an opportunity for the
church. Reflecting on the history of religious life, he noted that religious
communities usually came into existence in response to a specific need of the
time, in the church and in society at large. Orders were founded to
educate women when it was not the custom, or to ransom slaves, he said,
because those were clearly needs of the era.
That may be what the
church needs to do today, again, he suggested. It may be time, he said,
for a religious community or other group to consider operating centers -- not
just for clergy but for laity as well -- providing the controlled
environment that is most conducive to long-term health, where a number of
former offenders could live together.
Clearly the bishops are thinking of some kind of a healthy,
controlled holding place, where men who can no longer
minister can both be monitored and also receive ongoing treatment,
Anderson said. Maybe, as difficult as this moment is, it offers the
church a graced opportunity to respond to a clear need.
Still, the monks were clear thats not their calling.
As far as Im concerned, said one of the
Trappists, placing sex offenders in monasteries was an idea the bishops
dreamed up out of the blue.
And we hope it goes right back up into the blue very
soon!
Pat Morrison is NCR managing editor. Her e-mail address
is pmorrison@natcath.org
National Catholic Reporter, July 5,
2002
|