Respect for Religious Institutions, Religious Office and those Occupying such Positions.
Catholic Church and community leaders urge us to acknowledge the good work of Archbishop Wilson, rather than just remember him for concealing the sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy in the 1970s. Is this a call for us to show respect for the man or for for an Archbishop? If, as I suspect, respect for an Archbishop, it confuses respect for an office/position worthy of respect and Respect for the person who holds the position. A distinction, perhaps best illustrated by distinguishing respect for the office of the President of the USA and respect for Donald Trump – which also illustrates that sometimes respect for an office/position is best demonstrated by getting rid of the office-holder as soon as possible, so as to minimise the damage being occassioned to respect for the office held by that person.
History reveals that society’s unquestioning respect for members of the clergy enabled the clergy and their privileged institutions to remain immune to laws governing the rest of society. We’ve no doubt all heard stories of abused children confiding their abuse to their parents, only to be punished for being disrespectful of the priests or nuns who abused them, and sent back for more potential abuse. Even less understandable is the respect shown by our law enforcement agencies and courts, which stood by and allowed religious institutions to be a law unto themselves – seemingly out of a misguided respect for their special place in society. As a lawyer I struggle to understand why even in my lifetime the law did nothing to stop young single mothers being placed in sweat-shop homes (often run by sadistic nuns) and did not prevent their babies being adopted out against their wishes.
The way forward is NOT MORE RESPECT but more scrutiny and accountability to ensure that respect is accorded to institutions and positions not because it has been in the past, but because they are worthy of respect today. Current and recent church scandals are making it abundantly clear that we should not make any assumptions about a person’s worthiness based on the position they hold.
Clearly, a person may be a priest and yet be a child molester. Respect for the priesthood has allowed their dismissal to be extremely rare. Would we respect and privilege any other type of institution if it also declined to sack employees known to abuse children? That our laws and courts allow religious institutions to avoid the obligations we impose on all other organisations can in my view only be explained in terms of some unhealthy and misguided respect for religious institutions simply because they are religious institutions. This attitude appears to also best explain why religious institutions are awarded tax exemptions without having to demonstrate the community benefit others need to demonstrate to deserve such a benefit. It would not be disrespectful to religious institutions to ask for proof rather than just assume that the community benefits simply because the institution is religious, it would simply weed out those unworthy of community sponsorship.
When speaking to my students, Ajahn Brahm, a Buddhist Abbott, suggested that they were too respectful towards religious leaders and urged them to insist on answers and justifications. I agree with him and with his controversial assessment that our religious institutions have lost the right to be accorded privileges simply because they are religious institutions. In his view, it should be years before religious institutions deserve to regain the privileges and respect of the community.
By all means, let’s respect religious institutions and office holders but not because of their title but rather because of what they do. An Archbishop can contribute greatly to the welfare of a community, but an Archbishop can also conceal the sexual abuse of children, and by so doing, facilitate further offences and new victims. The person in the position of the latter Archbishop is not worthy of any respect and deserves to be condemned – irrespective of whether he or she behaved differently twenty years later. To suggest as Fr Frank Brennan and others do that what Wilson did or didn’t do reflects the society’s values at the time of the offences, or that he meant well, appears to justify the behaviour of someone who by virtue of their position in a religious institution cannot possibly simply be a despicable criminal as they must have had a good reason for doing what they did (protect the reputation of the church) or because they also did some good.
Unless, of course, we choose not to draw inferences from Wilson being an Archbishop and Trump being the President of the USA.