We have heard today a
clarion calls to make sure that each diocese has in place effective outreach to
victims.
We did not need this additional
evidence to know that many have been harmed by persons acting in the Church's
name. But now, with this evidence before us, a
priority becomes an urgent summons to act as fully as possible in
reaching out to
victims. Our vocation is to be ministers of reconciliation, a vocation which
includes this community
of suffering, made so by the misconduct which
occurred in our midst.
--- Bishop Wilton Gregory, President
US Conference of Catholic Bishops
In the headlines this week we have the case of Monsignor
Joseph F. Alzugaray, formerly of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, now pastor of
St. Apollinaris Church in
Monsignor Alzugaray has adopted the unusual tactic of suing
a woman who has accused him of sexually abusing her when she was an 8-year-old.
(
His actions hark back to terrible past days, when the Church
would impose ‘gag’ clauses on sexual abuse survivors as a condition of
settlement, with ruinous penalty clauses if they were violated. If viewed in
context of the revelations of the last few years, months, and weeks, and in the
context of his priesthood, the answer is clear: Monsignor Alzugaray must choose
between serving as a Catholic priest and pastor, and seeking redress against
his accuser in civil court. The two are mutually exclusive. This is the message
which Daniel F. Walsh, Bishop of Santa Rosa should be sending to Alzugaray, as
should his former boss, Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles. If Alzugaray cannot
see this himself, then the Bishop should invoke clerical obedience, and direct
Alzugaray to choose between retaining his clerical privileges in
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen. In the LA Times article, Father Robert Silva, president of the National Federation of Priests’ Councils, stated "Just because he is a priest, it doesn't mean he should not use all the legal proceedings available to him to defend himself.”
Silva seems to be forgetting a key principle of Catholic teaching about priesthood, teaching which he has probably himself re-iterated. It is the Church’s position that at ordination, through the sacrament of ‘Holy Orders’ a man is ‘ontologically changed.’ His hands become the ‘hands of Christ’ and he is to be an earthly embodiment of Christ’s ministry. At least, so it is said when it is in the Church’s interest to say so. Does it not follow, then, that a priest must follow that pop-Christian-culture motto: ‘What would Jesus do?’ which is colloquially abbreviated “WWJD?” Jesus was falsely accused of a great crime; that of blasphemy. Did he turn to the courts in a defamation suit? Can we imagine him doing so?
“Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you.” Matthew, Mark, or Luke, take your pick.
We are tempted to ask Fathers Alzugaray and Silva how well this ‘other Christ’ is adhering to the words of his Master.
Even assuming Alzugaray’s innocence (a bit of a reach, since he has been cleared only by the Church’s own internal process, the alleged victim’s civil suit still pending), do his actions seem consistent with the Gospel, which is Alzugaray’s living and which he should be living?
Another aspect of this ‘ontological change’ is that a priest, try as he (and Fr. Silva) may, cannot compartmentalize his being into his clerical self and his secular self. He is not offered the luxury of being a priest 8 hours a day and all day on Sunday, and a secular being the rest of the time. Just as he must honor his vow of celibacy twenty-four hours each day and seven days a week, he must also behave as a priest (an ‘other Christ’) in the fullness of his life, waking and sleeping.
Nor is he offered the same luxury that a tinker, tailor, or shoemaker is offered, to sue the life out of someone who does him wrong or publicly speaks ill of him.
Even if not doing so makes his ministry difficult.
Or even if it makes it impossible.
His only option is the one which his Master had. To speak the truth as he knows it and sees it. And to live his life as a witness to his truthfulness. And then to hope and pray that his truth wins out, if that is what it is.
Alzugaray’s situation cannot be viewed in ethical isolation from the Church’s recent troubles any more than his actions can be viewed in ethical isolation from his priesthood.
The victims of clerical abuse have, for decades, been
thwarted in their pursuit of justice. It has been clear that justice has been
extraordinarily and egregiously denied to these individuals. Consider the
actions taken (often with great resistance from the Church) to circumvent
statutes of limitations that have expired in places such as
The Church has recognized, at least in words, its shortcomings:
On behalf of the
bishops and the entire Church in the
apologies to all of you who have been harmed by those
among us who violated your trust and the
promises they made at their ordination. The
heartfelt sorrow that we feel for this violation and the
often ineffective ways with which it was dealt
has strengthened our commitment to do everything
possible to see that it does not happen again.
--- Bishop Wilton Gregory, President
US Conference of Catholic Bishops
Therefore, it falls upon Alzugaray, and failing that upon the Bishop of Santa Rosa, to do something to make up for the inequity with which Alzugaray’s alleged victim, along with virtually all other victims of sexual abuses by Catholic clergy, have been treated. The alleged victim has been denied a hearing for more than 3 decades. What must be done is that Alzugaray, if innocent, must ‘turn the other cheek’ If guilty, then he must step up to the truth, and tell it, and then bear the consequences. But above all, Alzugaray must cease to prosecute his civil case if he is to retain any credibility as a preacher of the Gospel.
There is, indeed, a larger issue here. The Catholic Church is in the midst of a struggle for its very life. The scandal has shown it to have been deceitful, manipulative, and disingenuous in its treatment of survivors of clerical sexual abuse. Bishop Gregory’s characterization of ‘often ineffective’ is an understatement that whitewashes the terrible, self-serving, and clericalist tactics of the Catholic bishops. They have pledged to ‘turn over a new leaf.’ Actions such as Alzugaray’s run counter to that pledge. If individual priests are permitted to sue accusers, then their Bishops’ pledge rings hollow. They must demand from their subordinates the same sort of restraint. Any cleric who does not elect to exercise that sort of restraint must be isolated from his clerical role.
In addition to the alleged victim, Alzugaray has chosen to sue SNAP, the Survivors Network for Those Abused by Priests. SNAP has done more to advance the support and healing of survivors than any entity in the history of this crisis. His attack on SNAP indicates clearly that he has little or no regard for the survivors’ single thread of support.
It is incorrect for Bishop Walsh to treat Alzugaray as an ordinary employee. Priests do not enjoy the sort of employer-employee relationship that we have come to view as one of our ‘civil rights’ in 2004. The Church is an unabashedly paternalistic employer, indeed one who asserts that it is above laws which require that employee health plans cover artificial contraceptives. A priest simply cannot exercise the same gamut of civil liberties afforded to the rest of us. The rest of us can run down-town with our bride-to-be, get a marriage license, and get a judge to marry us in legally binding fashion. A priest cannot do the same thing, and if he does, his Bishop must fire him. Entering into a secular marriage, or any marriage, is inconsistent with the doctrine to which the priest adheres. I would further assert that a priest cannot commission his legal team to file suit against a person who accuses him of sexual impropriety, because doing so is inconsistent with the doctrine of absolute charity to which he adheres.
Bishop Walsh, having confidence in his subordinate, has gone out to his parish to express his trust and confidence. That is appropriate, if in his conscience he believes it to be confidence well-placed. At the same time, he must not give his subordinate carte blanche to act in contravention of the very Gospel upon which he stakes his claim.
Assuming that neither Alzugaray nor Walsh will bring Alzugaray to his senses, it falls to the parishioners of St. Apollinaris. If Alzugaray will not accept the terms of the Gospel, then he should be ostracized by his own parishioners. St. Appolinarians who sympathize with clerical abuse survivors should attend masses where Fr. Alzugaray is not the celebrant. At confession, they can choose another confessional. They can request that his assistant officiate at their weddings, their funerals, and at the baptisms of their children. And, perhaps most effective of all, they can put into the collection basket a note which reads ‘Msgr. Alzugaray: when you drop your lawsuit you will find cheques and cash here, rather than this note.’
Father Alzugaray is unwittingly risking making himself and his Bishop the villains of the year in the clerical abuse scandal.
We can only hope that by dialogue and fervent prayer they will find their way out of the ethical morass in which they are immersed.