The Archbishop of Washington’s public relations strategy backfires
Six dioceses, 300 priests and 1,000 victims. Those numbers were splashed across the front pages of every newspaper in America, from the New York Times to the Bangor Daily News. The publication of a Pennsylvania grand jury report chronicling clerical sex abuse and episcopal cover-ups in that state has plunged the American Church into the worst crisis it’s faced since the Boston Globe’s “Spotlight” investigation of the early 2000s.
In fact, this may be an even greater scandal. “Spotlight” set off a domino effect that revealed widespread abuse in virtually every diocese in the country. These revelations cost them $3 billion, and at least 19 have filed for bankruptcy. Thousands became disillusioned with the Church and abandoned the faith. The “paedophile priest” became a trope in popular culture, which contributed to a precipitous fall in vocations.
The laity could at least assume the bishops would stop covering for abusers. The worst offenders, such as Boston archbishop Cardinal Bernard Law, were removed from their posts altogether. “Never again,” we were promised.
What makes the Pennsylvania report so devastating is the realisation that, despite the publication of documents including the Dallas Charter, abusers are still evading accountability. On August 16, two priests – one who was charged by police for child sex abuse, the other for drug and theft charges – were removed from active ministry in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Lay people inevitably ask, “Why only now?”
Worse yet is the possibility that the Archbishop of Washington (and Theodore McCarrick’s successor) Cardinal Donald Wuerl took too lax an attitude towards abusers in Pittsburgh, where he was bishop from 1988 to 2006. According to the grand jury report, Wuerl recommended one Fr Ernest Paone to the Diocese of Reno-Las Vegas, despite the priest’s long record of abuse allegations.
The Diocese of Pittsburgh denies that Wuerl had any knowledge of Paone’s history when he made the recommendations, and was only told of his record in 1994 when the allegations were renewed. Wuerl wrote to the dioceses in California and Nevada where Paone had served informing them – but, as the grand jury report says, “did not report the more detailed information contained within diocesan records [about the older accusations]. The diocese did not recall Paone; nor did it suspend his faculties as a priest.”
Clearly, Wuerl was not protecting Paone, or he wouldn’t have written to Reno-Las Vegas at all. But it appears he was attempting to hide his predecessors’ failure to discipline the priest. If this is true, Wuerl’s conduct is redolent of the “good company man” attitude epitomised by the late Cardinal Law: whatever the human cost of clerical abuse, it must not be allowed to damage the Church’s reputation or compromise the hierarchy.
The company man effect was heightened when a website appeared under the Archdiocese of Washington’s auspices called the “Wuerl Record”, defending the archbishop’s handling of abusers. As the popular Catholic writer Elizabeth Scalia wrote on her blog, “This is the sort of action we usually see being taken by a Chairman of the Board, or a CEO, or a politician, and that’s very telling; it exposes a mindset that is geared toward management and administration, with a less-than-optimal pastoral sensibility on display.”
The website was quickly removed. Ed McFadden, the archdiocese’s communications director, wrote on Facebook: “We knew there would be criticism after the report was released, and rightly so, but we also wanted fair coverage, so the Archdiocese of Washington put up the page ‘Wuerl Record’ so that reporters – who have not covered the cardinal or the Church before – would have the full picture.” He admitted that, retrospectively, it was a “mistake” and a “distraction”.
All of this comes too closely on the heels of Wuerl’s suggestion to the National Catholic Reporter that a “panel, a board, of bishops” be convened, “where we would take it upon ourselves” to investigate rumours of clerical abuse. Wuerl was panned on social media. The consensus was that the bishops can no longer be trusted to police their own.
Wuerl later explained that he meant that the bishops should work with the lay National Review Board, which investigates accusations of abuse. But the damage was done. On Sunday, Catholic News Agency editor-in-chief JD Flynn tweeted: “There are lots of rumours floating around that Cardinal Wuerl’s resignation (he submitted it in 2015) will be accepted this week.” It’s also rumoured that “the cardinal’s resignation could be accepted on Friday,” Flynn added, “but we have no confirmation on this”.
The company man look makes it difficult for the laity to believe Wuerl when he says he didn’t know about the allegations levied against McCarrick. The grand jury report would suggest that, if he was aware of his predecessor’s misconduct, he would do his best to prevent further abuse – but he wouldn’t call for a proper investigation. He would simply ensure that McCarrick’s handlers were aware of his “proclivities”, and that they avoid visiting scandal on the archdiocese.
Again, none of this can be confirmed. But, between McCarrick and Pennsylvania, several bishops who survived the “Spotlight” fallout are under scrutiny once again. The laity’s confidence in their bishops won’t be won back easily, if it’s ever won back at all.
Michael Davis
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.