by Pearl Solas
Veronica mesmerized the Congregation with her tale of Sean’s life and death, of what she had learned about how Paul’s superiors had enabled him and obfuscated the danger he presented to the body of Christ, of how she and countless others had been frustrated by how the Church had prevented them from seeking justice through the courts. She told them how she and other families had been denied even the catharsis of being heard by representatives of the Church hierarchy.
“The irony is not lost on me, and I hope it’s not lost on you: after years of trying to make myself meaningfully heard by senior Church officials, my opportunity finally comes when the Church is deciding whether to elevate a pedophile priest—the very category of individual responsible for the rift between the body of the Church and its leadership.
“The Church has broken the hearts of the faithful and the suffering again and again. Instead of protecting our communities of faith, Church decision-makers almost always erred on the side of protecting accused clergy, referring them to unproven and ineffectual treatment programs, and then unleashing them on new communities without warning.
“When journalists began uncovering the extent of this practice around the world, the Church hired PR firms to protect its image and when they have engaged directly with victims, they’ve retreated to their entrenched positions of defensiveness and justification.
“Even now, the Church is too afraid of impacting its wealth and status to offer a meaningful apology to those it hurt. What we want, what our pain demands, is not an apology that generally expresses sympathy for the suffering, but one that encompasses how the institution and the individuals in leadership failed us. And then they need to show us exactly how they’re going to prevent this from happening again. Without that kind of sincere repentance, there can be no reconciliation.
“I’ve heard all of the reasons Frank Muncy is different: he never actually touched anyone underage; he didn’t have the technological capability to view the child pornography in his possession for years before he turned himself in; he did so much good for the community; and he chose to hold himself publicly accountable for his actions. Good. Fine. I hope those mitigating factors help him with God, but they do not erase the fact that he admitted to seeking out and viewing child pornography, and he admitted that he was sexually attracted to children.”
Veronica’s incredulous outrage broke through her attempt at dispassionate persuasion. “And we’re supposed to venerate this guy? Those of us whose lives became hell because of priests like Paul Peña who used their positions to manipulate children to make them believe that they were sinful?”
“So you see, gentlemen, that the decision about whether to canonize Father Frank can never be made in a vacuum. If you do this, you will lose many more of the faithful than you’ve already lost. Many more who, like me and my family, have continued to love the Church even though the failure of her leadership. But if you do this, regardless of how nuanced and eloquent your justification, you will be sending a message to the abused children and their wounded families. The message is: ‘The clergy is the Church. We alone decide what is right for the Church. We choose our own over you.’ I urge you not to send that message. Recommend that for once . . . for once . . . the Holy Father choose the body over the institution.”
Chapter Thirty-Six
“Gentlemen,” said Sam, again addressing the Congregation, “I appreciate this opportunity for rebuttal, and I’ll make my remarks brief. In short, it won’t be much of a rebuttal because I’ve heard Ms. Matthews’s challenges before and, for the most part, I agree with them.
“Before delving into the flaws with the Church’s handling of the crisis that Mrs. Matthews pointed out, I, and many others, had perceived the Church to have apologized for its role in the damage done to so many of the youngest, most innocent members of its flock. However, as Mrs. Matthews says, the substance of such ‘apologies’ leaves much to be desired. In fact, under scrutiny, the Church’s statements would not satisfy even the most accommodating priest in the confessional.
“The Church repeatedly has issued the kind of pseudo-apology beloved by older siblings: the passive-voiced ‘I’m sorry you were hurt’ rather than the active-voiced ‘I’m sorry I hurt you.’ While good parents require their children to own their behavior by amending their apologies, no one has been able to hold the Church or its leaders to such account. The Church continues to make mealy-mouthed statements, expressing sorrow for the effect of suffering without acknowledging its own participation in the cause.
“In researching the Church’s response, I’ve been horrified by the impressive skill of the Church’s public relations professionals. Misleading headlines have given the Church the benefit of accepting responsibility without the reality of having done so. A headline reading ‘Roman Catholic Leaders Apologize to Child Victims’ reveals only that leaders ‘expressed sorrow for some priests’ inappropriate contact with children, and regretted that the manipulative habits of such offenders allowed them to continue their shameful behavior under the noses of their superiors.’ The Church’s public statements have relied heavily on euphemism, substituting ‘inappropriate behavior’ and ‘boundary issues’ for ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault.’ Additionally, rather than acknowledging that, for decades, Church leaders systematically and knowingly covered up allegations and transferred known offenders to different geographical areas where they continued to injure children, the Church’s PR machine characterized the leadership’s failures as ‘negligence,’ ‘lack of realization of what was happening,’ or a ‘failure to respond.’
“I appreciate that the current Pope, as the holder of the Church’s highest office, has at least publicly acknowledged the problem and its effects. Obviously, this is an improvement over his predecessors’ avoidance of the issue. Media reports cite the Pope’s private meetings with small numbers of abuse survivors as parts of broader visits around the globe, and then the Church’s public relations machine releases generalized statements about the fruitfulness of the meetings and the Holy Fathers’ commitment to improving processes that would eliminate the problem for future generations of the vulnerable faithful.
“These statements are masterpieces of legalistic tightrope walking—conveying sympathy without expressing remorse and requesting forgiveness without actually accepting blame. They do not accomplish a fraction of what Father Frank or Paul Peña have accomplished by accepting responsibility for their actions. The victims chosen to meet with the Pope are always carefully vetted in advance to ensure they will not express rage or ask uncomfortable questions. In this way, the Church hierarchy is insulated from direct exposure to the rage and despair the abuse crisis had engendered in much of the rest of the global body of Christ.
“As Mrs. Matthews told you, victims’ groups receive no satisfaction, and their members often feel their injuries have been compounded by the leadership’s refusal to acknowledge that such widespread damage has not been caused by a couple of bad apples alone, but that the rot has permeated the barrel. The institution’s leaders have, in this area, led so badly that they bear significant responsibility for how victims’ shame continues to be fed by the darkness of secrecy.
“I suspect that people rarely say these things directly to you, gentlemen, as holders of high offices within the Church, or directly to the Holy Father, but somebody should. This is the context in which you are making your recommendation about Father Frank. If you decide that he should be admitted to the canon of saints, many people will be justifiably angry. When I shut out the noise and wait for God to guide my actions, his call is faint but clear. It compels me to urge you: Do it anyway.”
Chapter Thirty-Seven
“So, to answer your primary question, the expectation is that the Holy Father will announce his decision regarding canonization during next week’s event. I don’t know what that decision is and I’m not sure whether the Holy Father has even made up his mind at this point, or even which direction he’s leaning.”
Pope Dillon, the 268t
h man to hold that title, and one of only a handful who had declined to change his name upon ascending to his position, paused in the hallway leading into the great room. One of his personal secretaries was speaking animatedly into the telephone. Curious, Dillon delayed entering the room so he could hear more of Nathan’s thoughts that, certainly, Nathan would have heavily filtered if he had been speaking directly to Dillon.
“I don’t envy the Holy Father this decision. If he hadn’t committed to making an announcement, the wise political move would have been to punt and either leave it to a subsequent Pope or allow the issue to fade with time. He’s hamstrung himself by removing that choice . . . and I don’t see a win either way. He’ll either be seen as choosing glorifying abusive priests over their defenseless victims in a gesture of breathtaking insensitivity, or as caving to politics and ignoring what many perceive to be an unmistakable movement of the Holy Spirit toward healing and reconciliation.”
Nathan, silent, listened to the voice on the other end of the line.
“Of course. ‘No’ is the pragmatic choice. If I were advising any other head of state, there would be no doubt.” When he continued, his voice trembled with confusion and sincerity, “But he’s not just any head of state. We rely on him to be particularly sensitive to the Holy Spirit . . . It’s tough to reconcile political wisdom with the way Father Frank died . . . and with what certainly appears to be the fruits of the Spirit that have resulted. So, I just don’t know what decision is best. But I’ll spend the next week praying for God to bless the Holy Father with wisdom and discernment.”
Dillon entered the room and Nathan acknowledged him with a small bow of his head. “All right, Staci, I’m going to need to let you go. I’ll make sure you get a press pass and I’ll see you next week in Colberg.”
“Press pass?” Dillon inquired after Nathan had hung up.
“Mmm-hmm,” Nathan answered. “Staci’s an old friend from college and she’s covering your visit for the regional paper.”
“Right,” Dillon said. He placed the stack of papers he’d been carrying under his arm on Nathan’s desk. “These are the reports gathered by the Congregation. I’ve read them and made some notes. I’d like to make sure they’re with us in the States next week, so please pack them.”
“Absolutely, Your Holiness. You have a meeting with the Senior Communications Advisor in a little over an hour. Would you like tea first?”
“No, thank you, Nathan. What I would like is a laptop loaded with the video of the arguments made before the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, a pitcher of water, a glass, and 24 hours. I’m afraid you’ll have to cancel all my meetings between now and this time tomorrow afternoon.”
Nathan’s brow puzzled over this announcement. Pope Dillon was known for exercising an unprecedented degree of control over his own agenda, but also for his reliable participation in the rigorous schedule he set for himself.
“Of course, Holy Father. May I ask . . . where will you be?”
Dillon nodded toward the smaller room that served as his private office. “I’ll be in there. I need time to fast and to pray.”
* * *
It was shortly after 2:00 a.m. Dillon had watched and re-watched the video of the arguments before the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. He had read and re-read the materials submitted in favor of and in opposition to the canonization decision, as well as the recommendation of the Congregation.
Listening to the arguments of Veronica Matthews and of Sam Wainwright, Dillon acknowledged he had fallen prey to a shortcoming of his predecessors: decrying, in general terms, the actions of those who physically perpetrated sexual abuse against children, while remaining conspicuously silent about the complicity of the Church as an institution. Like his predecessors, Dillon had actively defended some accused priests against whom an unassailable mountain of evidence had later accumulated.
Dillon remained undecided regarding the proposed canonization of Father Frank. On the one hand, he found the stories of the redemption and transformations of both Father Frank and Paul Peña to be deeply compelling, particularly poignant examples of what Dillon had taken to calling “God-sized forgiveness,” which he defined primarily by comparison to human-sized forgiveness. He considered that reasonably enlightened humans could usually forgive a multitude of hurtful actions, including lies, assault, theft, and adultery. In contrast, there were certain transgressions that touched such a deep nerve that they seemed unforgivable.
Dillon imagined forgiveness as a solid, immutable object, like a diamond. Depending on the perspective, or facet, through which one approached the concept, forgiveness could be offered through the purely human mechanism that indwells in souls with the propensity to crave peace and reconciliation over conflict. Others approached forgiveness through their tendency to hold fast to the memory of injuries sustained, and for them forgiveness usually required the heart softening of divine intervention. Still a different facet came to mind when Dillon imagined God-sized forgiveness. It was the facet through which even people pre-disposed to reconciliation considered the circumstances of an offense to reveal a perpetrator so filled with malice and disregard for the traumatic consequences of satisfying their deviant desires, that they could use the very defenselessness of a child to accomplish their sexual gratification. Through this facet, Dillon could understand why someone like Veronica would find it impossible to forgive both the man and the institution that had willfully and fatally injured her son. In those circumstances, Dillon did not imagine that forgiveness and reconciliation could be possible without divine intervention.
The faith to which Dillon was a lifelong adherent held that no crime placed its perpetrator beyond the power of Jesus to redeem, and no offense was beyond the power of the Holy Spirit to reconcile and even use in accomplishing God the Father’s good purposes. If it could be believed, the story of Father Frank and Paul Peña demonstrated this truth because it revealed that the Great Shepherd can, and does, pursue in love even these most bedraggled of lost sheep. This pursuit impressed believers with a sense both of God’s unfathomability and his proximity and willingness to aid in carrying our heaviest burdens. His pursuit of Father Frank and Paul Peña, with a perfect love that demanded both repentance and accountability, evoked the security of resting in the care of wise and loving parents: clear expectations, proportional discipline, and a return to good grace after the penitent worked toward restitution.
In contrast with the intractable anger Veronica had demonstrated so eloquently during the hearing before the Congregation, other similarly situated parents had submitted materials supporting Father Frank’s canonization. One father even admitted that he had once formulated a plan to kill Peña. Nonetheless, some of these righteously enraged people had been able to speak with such sincerity and even joy about the manner in which choosing to forgive Paul had enriched their existence and acted as a balm to soothe their pain. It had motivated them to lend momentum to a growing wave of reconciliation.
It was this glimpse into the benevolent motivations of an unfathomable deity, and into the commitment of his son to tenderly restoring even the seemingly irredeemable, that stirred healing victims and humbled-but-hopeful perpetrators alike in seeking to honor Father Frank with recognition of sainthood. They each considered him to be God’s instrument for their personal metamorphoses. Dillon could not fault those who held fast to their anger, but he had to acknowledge the power in the demonstration of God’s creative repurposing.
Dillon continued to consider these conflicting perspectives. Thinking deeply on these issues did not make his choice any clearer. Sighing, he hauled himself to his feet and allowed the pins and needles in his legs to settle before stepping gingerly to the private restroom attached to his office.
Exiting the restroom, he clicked off the light and headed back to the glowing fireplace, settling himself back onto the pillow he used for meditation. He was usually an early-to-bed, early-to-rise kind of person, but his fast had enhanced his focus and banished
drowsiness. He had no escape from the irreconcilable perspectives about Frank’s canonization. Hoping to return to the state of meditation, he prayed silently, Please, Lord God, for the sake of your son Jesus Christ, lend me your hand. There are so many ways to go wrong with this decision, and if I try to make it by myself, I will make the wrong choice. Help me. Lead me, by your Spirit, to the choice you would have me make. Anguished, and feeling more alone and uncertain than ever, he continued in silence.
“Stop feeling sorry for yourself,” chided a gentle voice nearby.
Startled, Dillon looked up to see a man sitting in a chair near the fire, smiling at him. His face was the one Pope Dillon had seen in the files he had been poring over all night.
“Hey, Dill,” said the man. “Mind if I call you Dill?”
* * *
A little more than 24 hours after he had entered it, Dillon emerged from his office, smelling a little stale but looking bright-eyed. He moved with an energy that Nathan wouldn’t have expected for someone who, in the past 24 hours, probably hadn’t slept and definitely hadn’t taken in anything other than water.
“We have a lot of work to do, Nathan, and not a lot of time. I’m gonna need you to push your logistical genius like you’ve never pushed it before. And no more calls to Staci—everything from here needs to be kept in the strictest confidence.”
Chapter Thirty-Eight
The day of the Pope’s audience dawned gray and cold. Although the audience was limited to 300 specifically invited attendees and a few journalists, the Pope would be appearing later in the day to greet a throng of congregants at the local stadium. Unsurprisingly, traffic was abysmal and parking was impossible.