Monday, April 12, 2010

The Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal, Part II

(This is the second of four articles about this crisis. The other articles may be found at the links: Part I, Part III and Part IV.)

When the first widespread publicity about clergy sex abuse began to emerge, it was naturally a huge shock to Catholics everywhere – particularly priests. Many had no idea of the scale of the problem, or even of its existence. That might be considered naive, but most of us weren't aware of previous cases, which had been dealt with in the utmost secrecy by the hierarchy (including, in most cases, pressuring the victims to sign pledges of confidentiality as part of any settlement).

Many priests (including myself) simply couldn't imagine that such evil could exist within our ranks. How could any priest, knowing the words of our Lord in Matthew 18:6, dare to conduct himself in such a manner? “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Did they care so little for their immortal soul that even so blunt a warning from Christ Himself failed to give them pause?

We were even more astonished to learn that some priests, having committed such heinous acts, were still active in ministry, having apparently not been restricted from contact with further potential victims. I think all of us (certainly all priests with whom I discussed this) were extremely angry at the situation, not least because it cast all of us under a pall of suspicion merely for being priests. I'm sure many of us had more than one encounter where we were called 'pedophiles' purely and simply because we wore the Roman collar. I had at least a dozen such accusations hurled at me.

We began to get more and more questions from our parishioners about the scandal. How big was it? How many priests were involved? Why were the faithfuls' contributions, freely given for the support of the Church, being diverted to pay settlements to victims instead of being used for their intended purpose? However, when we turned to our bishops to ask those same questions, most of us were either stonewalled, or told very bluntly to stop making waves. I know, personally, a number of priests, in a number of dioceses, all relatively advanced in years, who claim they were threatened with the loss of their pensions and retirement facilities if they asked too many awkward questions or made too much of a fuss. I have no reason to disbelieve them. Several priests told me they were instructed to deflect parishioners' queries by assuring them that the problem was being blown out of all proportion by a greedy, rapacious news media, which was trying to escalate the scandal for its own mercenary ends.

There were (and are) some good bishops who openly addressed the issue, provided clear guidance to their priests, and stood up for the truth; but the majority of the hierarchy seemed to go into defensive mode, circling the wagons to defend the institution of the Church (and, perhaps more to the point, their own positions of authority). This seemed to me to be utterly incomprehensible, for three reasons.
  • First, the church belongs to Christ. He will do any defending that is necessary. (Tragically, many organization men in the Church probably believe more in the institution than they do in Christ. That's one of the saddest things I've ever had to say in my life . . . but I think it's the only possible explanation for their focus on protecting and defending the institution, rather than the victims of this scandal.)
  • Second, the ammunition being used by critics to attack the Church had been provided by the bishops themselves, through their evasion of their responsibilities in failing to deal with the crisis swiftly and decisively in its earliest stages. Had they done so, it would never have developed to the point that it did.
  • Thirdly, how can one possibly defend the indefensible? If the stories we were hearing were true – bishops deliberately concealing abuses, transferring offenders to new locations where they could put others at risk, and so on – there appeared to be no possible justification or defense for them. The perpetrators, and the institution of the Church, deserved the public pillorying they were receiving.

The situation was made much worse when many bishops appeared to deliberately sidestep the issue, refusing to take a stand until they'd met with other US bishops to formulate a joint response to the crisis. This was nothing more or less than another abdication of their responsibilities as diocesan bishops. Their people and their clergy were crying out for information and strong leadership . . . and few of them provided it. Frustrated, heartsick and dispirited, some of us priests began to conduct our own investigation, calling each other across the country for information, trying to come to terms with the problem and find answers that we could relay to our parishioners.

First, it seemed to us that there were more than sufficient grounds (in terms of actual cases of clergy sex abuse) to warrant the public outcry. This was compounded by the secrecy with which the Church had handled earlier cases. This had backfired, making the ultimate situation worse, not better.

Secondly, the crisis was aggravated by the number of clergy who'd been found guilty (in a Church forum) of sexual misconduct, only to be readmitted to pastoral ministry after 'counseling' and/or 'treatment' of one sort or another. I absolutely could not understand this. How could any pastor, having demonstrated so conclusively that he was untrustworthy, even potentially dangerous to future parishioners, be not only allowed to remain a priest, but reassigned to a similar office? Was it not the duty of the Church to first and foremost protect her children, rather than her personnel and institutions? In particular, if these priests had committed acts defined by law as crimes, why had they not been prosecuted in the criminal courts? Had not Our Lord commanded, in Matthew 22:21, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”? Surely, the referral of criminal acts to the criminal justice system was an integral part of 'rendering to Caesar'?

There were those who pleaded the seal of the confessional as a reason not to refer such cases to local prosecuting authorities, but I believed this to be specious. A priest might have a confessor, with whom such a bond of confidentiality would exist; but there would be others involved in Church investigations who would not be bound in the same way. They could have referred the cases to prosecuting authorities without violating the seal of the confessional. An aggravating factor, in my opinion, was the reported use of confidentiality agreements with the victims of such crimes to prevent them bringing criminal charges against guilty clergy on their own account.

Some bishops tried to maintain that it wasn't their fault that such priests were reassigned to pastoral duties. They made the excuse that they'd been guided by professional advice from doctors, psychologists and other experts in making such assignments. Surely, they argued, they couldn't be held responsible if such advice proved defective? My immediate reaction was, of course they could – and should – be held responsible! Given the number of (sometimes multiple) failures of treatment or counseling to prevent (sometimes repeated) recidivism, there was abundant evidence to prove that a therapeutic approach to the problem simply didn't work. Even if every doctor and psychologist in the USA swore under oath that such therapies were effective, their claims would have been fatally undermined the very first time a priest, having received 'treatment' for an initial offense, nevertheless backslid and offended again. The second, and third, and subsequent failures should have demonstrated beyond any possible doubt, to anyone with even an iota of understanding, that therapeutic intervention could not and would not solve the problem. How could any bishop, seeing such failures of treatment, continue to believe in and accept the 'professional advice' he was receiving? How could he be so blind?

Having served in the military, and been a manager and company director in the commercial world, prior to entering the priesthood, I had two additional yardsticks against which to measure such assertions. If a military officer were to act on bad advice, and fail to achieve his mission as a result, he, not the advisers, would be held responsible by his superior officers. He'd likely be relieved of his command. If a commercial manager made a hash of things as a result of taking bad advice from consultants, he, not the consultants, would be held responsible by his employers. He'd almost certainly be fired. President Truman famously kept a sign on his desk reading, “The Buck Stops Here”. As President, he couldn't blame anyone else for his mistakes; he was right on top of the heap, and had no-one behind whom he could hide. As the supreme ecclesiastical authority in his diocese, a bishop is in a similar position; he can't hide behind anyone else. I regarded attempts by some bishops to blame 'flawed professional advice' as an attempt to pass the buck, and cowardly to boot. Few appeared willing to accept personal responsibility for their mistakes.

A third problem I found with the bishops' approach was the seemingly unremitting hostility on the part of many of them towards the news media and what they regarded as 'pressure groups'. They appeared to regard the media as engaged in an anti-Catholic war, out to discredit the Church by any and all means, fair or foul. Organizations such as the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and Bishop Accountability, set up by victims and survivors of clergy sex abuse and their supporters, were tarred with the same brush. It seemed as though many bishops simply could not conceive, or concede, that such organizations might have a legitimate point. Instead, they appeared to regard them as enemies, part of the problem rather than the solution.

I found this attitude to be incomprehensibly short-sighted. Sure, such organizations might contain individuals seeking to use them against the Church; but they also contained genuine victims, people who were hurting and seeking healing and reconciliation, within themselves, with God, and with the Church they had trusted (but which had so signally failed) to protect them and/or their children from this sort of harm. I believed that the latter far outnumbered the former. It seemed to me to be counter-productive to avoid engaging with them in a joint effort to address the issues.

As for the media, I believed (and still do) that there was more than enough justification for a 'witch-hunt' on their part. Because the scandal had been covered up for so long, and because it had been made worse by the bad decisions of many bishops, it was inevitable that its exposure would cause a sensation. Furthermore, the bishops had signally failed in their duty to protect the faithful, instead choosing to protect their own position and authority, and the institution they served. I was taught at seminary that the Church exists to serve Christ by, in and through serving the People of God. If it fails in the latter endeavor, it automatically fails in the former as well. The media attention being paid to the scandal was simply driving home that truth with renewed force, as far as I was concerned.

I also had to ask whether God wasn't deliberately using the news media to accomplish something He'd been trying to get His bishops to do for years – decades! - without success. Since they'd so signally failed in their responsibilities, it seemed to me that the Lord appeared to be using the news media instead – conspicuously less than holy though it might be in many ways – to clean up His Church. Needless to say, my hypothesis wasn't greeted with unbridled enthusiasm by ecclesiastical authorities.

As the Catholic bishops of the USA came together to discuss the crisis and find solutions, we priests waited and prayed for them. We longed for strong, Godly leadership; but many of us didn't get it. Instead, the assembled bishops voted for measures that dismayed and even outraged many of us. To name just a few examples:

• Priests found guilty of sexual abuse of others were to be laicized (i.e. removed from the ministry), which was entirely appropriate and legitimate; but no mention was made of those in authority who'd covered up for offenders in the past, or allowed them to continue in the ministry, thereby exposing others to harm at their hands. The assembled bishops apologized for their errors in dealing with the scandal, but few of them appear to have faced any sanction for their errors of omission and commission. Many priests (including myself) felt that this demonstrated the existence of a double standard. After all, if guilty clergy were to be laicized for their sins and crimes, why should the same not apply to bishops who had covered up those crimes, enabled guilty clergy to commit more crimes through their silence and bad decisions, and sometimes even been guilty of moral lapses in sexuality themselves? Through my contacts with fellow priests across the US, I've been given the names of no less than 48 currently-serving bishops, archbishops and Cardinals who are alleged by their own priests to have been guilty of such acts. My informants went so far as to provide details such as cases, names, dates, times and places. All 48 are still in office, having apparently suffered no penalty – and I'm sure there are more than 48 such bishops.

• The authority of bishops in the Church was re-emphasized, which is, of course, entirely in accordance with Catholic teaching and Canon Law. However, few if any bishops appeared willing to give a meaningful voice to others who'd been affected by the crisis, including movements such as SNAP. The bishops agreed collectively to establish advisory boards in each diocese to help them deal with the problem, but many (perhaps most) of those appointed to the boards appeared to have been selected on the basis of their reliable support for the hierarchy rather than the value of their potential contribution. In particular, victims of clergy sex abuse were not always invited to participate, and were seldom given real responsibilities and/or authority. This seemed unbelievably obtuse.

• Stringent measures were put in place to limit when, where and how priests could have contact with Catholics, particularly children and teenagers. These measures might have been well-intentioned, but they placed an almost impossible burden on good priests. For example, where in the past we would have met privately with a young man to discuss his possible vocation to the priesthood, this was now effectively forbidden. Confessionals were to be redesigned to provide windows, so that those inside could be observed, as a measure to prevent the use of the confessional as a location for sexual sin. However, this made many Catholics uncomfortable, as they could now be seen within. They regarded it (justifiably, in my opinion) as a breach of their privacy. There were many other measures, too numerous to list here. It seemed to many priests (including myself) that they indicated we were all regarded by our bishops as potential pedophiles, 'guilty until proven innocent', to be treated with suspicion at every turn. I found the new measures intrusive, grossly insulting in their implication, and so burdensome as to render many normal pastoral activities almost impossible.

• Measures were agreed to screen all Church workers, including seminarians and volunteers, for tendencies towards sexual deviance. However, it was clear that such screening could be 'fooled', just as I'd seen happen in my prison ministry. A training program was to be developed to educate all Church personnel in relevant areas. This has since been implemented as the VIRTUS program, in which I personally have little faith. It's riddled with buzz-words and political correctness. Anyone can go through the course, provide the right answers in the examinations, and pass it. It matters not whether they have pedophile tendencies – the course won't reveal that, and will do nothing to protect young people from them. I regard VIRTUS as little more than pious window-dressing, designed to give the faithful the impression that something is being done but actually achieving little or nothing. Indeed, it's yet another symptom of the US church's seemingly incessant practice of instituting a program to deal with any problem. Programs are not the same as actions. They do nothing to heal wounds, save souls, or fix problems. They're a panacea, not a solution. Any business could tell you that only actions will fix their problems quickly or efficiently and satisfy their customers. If they tried to use programs instead, they'd soon be out of business altogether.

• Few US bishops acted, individually or collectively, to reform seminary training and education in their dioceses. It was left to the Vatican to appoint a commission to investigate the matter and recommend solutions. As mentioned earlier, I regard this as a catastrophic failure of leadership and dereliction of duty on the part of the bishops concerned.

Many priests were extremely dissatisfied with the measures collectively adopted by the bishops of the Church in the USA. Some voiced their concerns to their bishops, but in every case of which I'm aware, they were told (in so many words) to shut up and stop making trouble. There was little or no attempt at dialog or an exchange of views. Many of us felt that the hierarchy regarded anyone who was dissatisfied with developments as being a rebel, in league with the news media and the 'troublemakers' of SNAP and similar organizations, out to challenge the authority of our bishops. This was, of course, completely untrue: but when so much authority is concentrated in so few hands, and the owners of those hands aren't inclined to listen, one can't make any headway.

My attitude to the situation was influenced by bitter previous experience in another country where Catholic bishops had collectively failed to live up to their responsibilities. This isn't the place to go into detail about that, but there are many countries and regions where it's happened in the last few decades. Examples abound in South America under the influence of liberation theology, in Africa with inculturation, and in all too many nations where political and/or social conflict has diverted the attention of bishops from their flock. All too often ideology has usurped theology in such cases, and the Vatican has had to intervene on more than one occasion to rectify matters. My past experience of such incidents once caused me to stop practicing my faith for several years, before I was persuaded to make allowances for the exigencies of the situation and return to the fold. That had led, in due course, to my becoming a priest.

Now, in the light of the clergy sex abuse scandal, all my previous concerns about the collective leadership of bishops returned. This was a different country, and a different problem, but once again I was seeing bishops who could not or would not do their jobs, accept their responsibilities, and fix the problems confronting them. I'd learned a new proverb on coming to the USA: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” I felt that I was very much in a 'fool me twice' situation as far as the US bishops were concerned. They are regarded in the Catholic Church as the successors to the Apostles; yet under the circumstances, I couldn't help but feel that many had chosen Judas as their model, rather than the more worthy Apostles. Certainly, their actions (and inaction) appeared to have betrayed Christ, His Church and its members just as truly as Judas had betrayed Our Lord.

(As I said earlier, this is not to deny that there are some [regrettably few] outstandingly good bishops, who do a superb job in their dioceses to provide the leadership the Church so desperately needs. Unfortunately, when the episcopate acts collectively, as in the resolution [?] of the clergy sex abuse crisis, the good bishops appear to be overwhelmed by the larger number of organization men.)

Many of the clergy, including myself, felt personally betrayed by our leaders. I know a number of priests who took early retirement, or withdrew from the ministry, due to their unhappiness. Others soldiered on, but to this day many harbor resentment and anger at the way in which the crisis was mishandled. Some who spoke their minds claim to have suffered retaliation, assigned to the least desirable posts and left to stagnate there. Others have learned from their unfortunate example and kept their heads down . . . but their resentment lingers, and they continue to express it to those they trust not to talk out of turn.

I was faced with a real crisis of conscience. Witnessing the bishops' ineffectual response, particularly in the light of my previous experience of bishops who had failed in their duty to God and the Church, brought me to a point where I seriously questioned their collective fitness for office. I had (and still have) no quarrel with the doctrine and dogma of the Church, but I had a real problem with its leaders and their institutionalized failures. I had promised obedience to the Church when ordained; but how could I square that obligation with the dereliction of duty I was seeing? (I'll have more to say in the fourth article of this series about what I think lay behind such problems.)

I lay awake many nights, my thoughts churning, trying to find a way out of this dilemma. In the end, the problem boiled down to just two fundamental questions.
  1. Could I stand up in front of my congregation and assure them, in all honesty and sincerity, that they could trust the collective bishops of the Church to be wise and apostolic guides through this crisis and beyond?
  2. Could I honestly advise a young man considering a vocation that he should aspire to be a priest in an organization led by such men, and promise lifelong obedience to them?
I concluded, heartsick and sore, that my answer to both questions could no longer be anything but “No”.

If that was the case, it also became clear that I could no longer in good conscience remain faithful to the promise of obedience I'd made when I was ordained. I therefore withdrew from the ministry. I won't try to describe the immense mental and spiritual anguish that decision cost me. They continue to this day . . . but I couldn't lie to my people, or to myself.

I'd like to apologize to any of my fellow Catholics who are offended or troubled by this. Some may disagree profoundly with my decision, and that's their right. I would not willingly cause anyone to have difficulties concerning their faith. I know that some of my former friends, who've turned their backs on me over my decision, regard me as a 'failed priest', one who has abandoned his calling and thereby endangered his soul. Indeed, there have been many nights when I've woken from sleep and lain awake for hours, fearing God's just judgment. I'm mindful of Christ's words in Luke 9:62; “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God”. Does that apply to me? It may . . . and I know I'll have to answer for my choices, words and actions in eternity. Yes, I fear His justice; but I had to follow my conscience. I place my hope and trust in His mercy. In the end, that's all any of us can do.

I suppose it's ironic that although I remain Catholic in my beliefs, I must range myself beside Martin Luther, and make my own his reported words before the Diet of Worms in 1521: “... it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.”

In the next article in this four-part series, which I'll post tomorrow, I'll consider priestly celibacy and the formation and training of priests as potential contributing factors to the clergy sex abuse crisis.



Kathy B. said...

I have had close family members affected by a pediophile priest in the 70s & a Bishop's inaction & burying of the situation (sending the priest to the abbey in Subiaco, AR & then back to a parish), then continued inaction in the 00's when help was requested from the bishop. In 09, it was announced that the priest had committed abuse, only after a lawsuit was filed! Like you, I have my faith, but cannot stomach the hierarchy that is self protective to the exclusion of it's flock. Thank you for your articles that are more balanced than the news or the church.

Anonymous said...

Peter, Thank you for this thoughtful and honest appraisal of this issue. Having never been closely associated with the Catholic Church, I feel it is important to understand what the reality of this issue is. Please accept my most sincere condolences for the victims of these unfortunate abuses, and especially for your heart wrenching decisions.

Be of good cheer, my friend. In my experiences, there seems to be a universal bond among all those who choose that which is right over that which is less. I think the proper term for such is "the pure in heart", and great are the blessings that await them. Yes, in this degraded world, we will see much of sorrow and trials inflicted by those of lesser character, but their effect is limited by the Grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, Who can and will succor us in our afflictions.

When I feel down I like to focus on uplifting scriptures like the Beatitudes and one of my favorites, Proverbs 22:1.
Also uplifting hymns such as "Choose the Right" and "Our Saviour's Love" are especially encouraging and soothing.

Peace,my friend.

Anonymous said...

Consider in this that regarding organized religion, I look in from the outside:

Responsibility comes first, then authority. I heard it put once that there are no bad regiments, only bad colonels. If the bishops et al knew and did nothing (or worse) then surely they'll face suitable eternal justice, and I'd be happy if they (and the primary offenders) saw temporal justice also.

I don't envy the dilemma this created for you, but it seems that having faith has trumped having religion, as it appears the two have diverged.


Anonymous said...

Being Jewish has, I think, played a part in my mistrust of divine authority. Not a mistrust of the Divine, but of those who claim to be closer to G-d simply by holding a position within the "organization". The Roman Catholic Church is the best known offender by virtue of having made a fetish out of bureaucracy. In other words, as you seem to be saying, they love The Church more than they do the reasons for its creation. I wish it could be argued that the RC church was the only one to whom such misbehavior, but it seems that abuse and bureaucracy natural partners.

I hope you find a place that allows you to minister in an atmosphere and trust.


STxRynn said...

I agree with AntiBubba. it must be easy to lose sight of the Lord Jesus when you are involved in a tightly organized denomination, too.

I was a pastor of a small church in a small denomination. Very good people for the most part. I helped plant that church, gave to it, helped to lead it. We received a new district supt (like a bishop). He was a company man. I like your term organization man, too. He ran our district like a business, made decisions based on the bottom line, not on Biblical standards. I had to resign last year due to being at logger heads over spiritual growth vs numbers, offerings, and other business trends applied to church growth.

I continue teaching the Word and pastoring those who need it. The call is from Jesus the Messiah, not the organization. For me, the call is what has to be obeyed, not the company. I owe my allegiance to Jesus. Titus 3:5 is my song. With a gift like that, Jesus deserves my all, not an organization.

Keep your eyes on Him, hang on to Him, and follow closely. He'll guide you where you should go. I live that every day.

May God bless you real good, paisano!


robnrun said...

When I began to seriously consider my faith, the RC church held a certain attraction theologically. Yet I could not say I would be obedient when I knew ahead of time that on several key points (this issue among them) I would never agree. I had this issue with all organized religion.
So I belong to no organized church, though if pressed Scottish Episcopal is the closest. I know I am not the only one who has taken this route. This scares me sometimes, for the future of the Christian faith depends on the community. For me not being part of organized religion has made my inner faith stronger. The message of Christianity was stronger than the perversion of some of its messengers and the secular skepticism of this present time. That, perhaps, is something good.

Diamond Mair said...

Slightly off-topic, but - back in the 80's, our Progeny was told by her houseparents @ the boarding school she attended that "Catholics weren't Christians" - MY answer to that was that the definition of "Christianity" was to model one's life on Christ's, ie, to strive to be 'Christ-like' as much as possible.

The Church itself never specifically failed me, but my 'moral exemplar' {godmother} did - she molested me from ages 9-14 - as the person who was to provide an example of a 'good Catholic woman' {who attended Mass every Sunday & received the Sacrament, from habit rather than true faith}, it raised questions I have to this day regarding faith & forgiveness ..................

Semper Fi'

Old NFO said...

Peter, thanks for sharing this. I know this has to torment you still, but based on what I've seen, you made the only decision (and the right decision)...

Kansas Scout said...

As I mentioned earlier, I too left the ministry as a Protestant. It was wrenching and after 26 years the pain is still there. Thankfully, it is by far compensated by the understanding that it was the right thing to do and I am better for having done it. So, while the scars are there, my better healthier self remains as well.
Hang in there.

Anonymous said...

"I concluded, heartsick and sore, that my answer to both questions could no longer be anything but “No”."

And that is the saddest part of this whole scandal. Good men, God fearing men, are forced to seek a type of spiritual suicide because they were not given a chance to take on the topic of the spiritual murder that was being protected by the bishops.

Which are goals #2 and #3 of the enemy. #1, peel off the weak and subvert them. #2, prevent the righteous from mounting an immediate defense. #3, stop any reinforcements from making it to the front in a timely manner.

I feel a certain kinship to those priests who left the church in disgust. The laity is fed a crock of poison by some priests. There have been many times I’ve thought about leaving The Church when I’ve sat through sermons that amount to little more then warmed over Liberation Theology masquerading as Social Justice. But every time I’m about to say, “I can’t do this anymore!” I’m reminded that it’s not about priests, bishops, or even popes. It’s about Who is in the tabernacle and if I leave, who will sit with Him in this hour of misery. Who will be a voice for orthodoxy? I guess that’s what happens when you read too much Chesterton.

And Peter, while I pray for your soul to find its way back to The Church if possible (and if God’s will); if you want an example of who I consider “Failed Priests,” please look up Andrew Greeley and Michael Pfleger. The latter being an Epic Presbyteral Failure.

God Bless you.

Anonymous said...

Had family members in several parishes where the priests were involved (or were said to be involved and were transferred) in pedophilia. When the issue was raised in those Churches, and our own, it was all about excuses and downplaying significance, and not about repentence or correction. When we learned our offerings were being (had to be) used for defence and compensation, we quit giving. It all saddens me.

Dad29 said...

Good summary, thanks!

AJ said...

"failed priest" ??
What a load of rubbish.
Your calling is from God, not the organisation. I'd bet you are still performing your calling of caring for God's people, even if you are no longer recognised by the organisation as doing so, or authorised by the organisation to perform certain acts & rites.

God will surely bless you in your obedience & sacrifice, even if the organisation isn't impressed.

Thanks for opening this window.

warm regards

Anonymous said...

Years ago, our church had a priest transferred to us from a parish an hour away. He was an Episcopal minister converted to a RC priest, married with two children. There were rumors that his transfer was related to a scandal, but nothing definitive. Seemed like a nice guy, but I felt like he was always seething beneath the surface. Turns out I was right, he was beating his wife, and abusing his kids as well, all on church grounds. He went to prision, and the church swept it all under the rug. Attendance, and contributions fell massively. Sad, but all too common.
Thanks for your thoughts on this painful subject.

Batman said...

I left the United Methodist Church, in part, because my hierarchy and local church retaliated against me for blowing the whistle on a registered sex offender. They were more concerned about publicity, their feelings, in that they had forgiven this person, than in protecting children and congregants. I am an Evangelical now. I am much poorer, but I have Christ. I have my soul.