Church Culpability and the International Criminal Court (A Catholic Holocaust?)--Chapter 11

Louise Haggett, 1997 and 2010, All Rights Reserved. We learn values as children from our parents, teachers and especially from those anointed by God in the religious denomination to which we may belong. These individuals bring us the Word of God and teach us what is right and wrong. This is the reason it is so difficult for me to face the reality of my beloved Catholic Church being involved in criminal behavior, especially involving our most innocent children. The global numbers of clergy sexual abuse victims is staggering, some say over one billion. There have been Class Action Suits against priests and bishops, legal accusations of collusion between the church and courts, Federal Racketeering charges in the U.S. because children were transported across state lines where sexual abuse took place, silencing and gag orders attempted against victims and attorneys; countersuing and wiretapping since 1993 (Wall Street Journal-1993), and countless cases involving obstruction of justice. The Catholic institution has also tried to avoid trial by claiming the First Amendment (separation of church and state in the U.S.) or by claiming that “priests are not employees of the institution” therefore not the church’s responsibility. Some of these tactics are still being utilized as the Vatican faces abuse cases in several European countries, closer to home than the United States. It was only a matter of time before the notion of the church’s culpability would reach the heights of the International Crime Court as recently suggested by high ranking United Nations (UN) Judge Geoffrey Robertson. He said, “the Pope should be prosecuted at International Criminal Court.”* It makes one wonder if these atrocities affecting millions of children (or maybe a billion as suggested by some) are similar to the Holocaust? Are the crimes of the church like the legacies of Nuremberg? Is the Vatican a “criminal state?” *(Yoshihara, http://www.c-fam.org/publications/pub_detail.asp?id=1606) In the broad spectrum, clergy sexual abuse is a crime against humanity too. It differs from Nuremberg however in that these crimes involve a “state of people” rather than a “political state.” What perhaps makes it more heinous is that the majority of its victims are the innocent children of the world. The following examines research conducted on bureaucracy as it related to the Holocaust, as well as the Catholic Church’s current NGO status (non-Member State Permanent Observer) with the UN. In a paper entitled The Legacies of Nuremberg, author David Luban says, “The framers of Nuremberg were confronted with a new offense, the bureaucratic crime, and a novel political menace, the criminal state. Limiting themselves to traditional legal concepts—sovereignty, individual criminal liability, conspiracy—and unwilling to question either the political system of nation-states or the character of responsibility in bureaucratic settings, they came to the brink of recognizing the novelty of criminal states but ultimately failed to comprehend this major challenge of our [20th] century (1987, p. 779). Nuremberg is seen by some as a “founding moment of the modern human-rights movement.” Are the crimes of a supposedly moral institution are also a “profound moment of the modern human-rights movement?” In order to put the notion of a Catholic Holocaust into perspective, it is necessary to examine the similarities between the Holocaust and the crimes of the Catholic Church. The Church as a Bureaucracy Let us first look at the issue of “bureaucracy.” Bureaucracy is the centralization of administrative power within major organizations or institutions so that its hierarchy—whether an individual or a committee—can control the individuals or groups in their influence. According to Alexis de Tocqueville, “bureaucracy or centralized administration, however, can lead to the suppression of internal dissent in an effort to further consolidate its power” (1995 p. 303). David Luban says, “The bureaucracy is a circle from which no one can escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The highest point entrusts the understanding of particulars to the lower echelons, whereas these, on the other hand, credit the highest with an understanding in regard to the universal; and thus they deceive one another” (ibid. p.814). According to Jack Katz, “In the white collar ranks of formal organizations, persons construct authority to govern internal relations by shielding members from external scrutiny and by declining to force members to accept their responsibilities according to externally defined norms.” (1977 p.3) This is how “cover-ups” happen. As an organization builds internal authority, collective integrity becomes a secondary focus which can result in deviant behavior. In its attempt to maintain internal authority, the bureaucracy covers up the crime to protect the honor of the organization and maintain control of the deviant. This pattern manifests itself to other members of the organization who see the deviance as acceptable until the problem becomes uncontrollable. It is also possible that because the norms that are violated do not take priority over other organizational issues, less concern is shown, giving a message to the deviant that his misbehavior is tolerated. Another reason that an organization will hide the criminal or cover up the crime may be to maintain the external economic, political or financial support it may depend on to sustain itself, especially if it is nonprofit. In this context, the church is a bureaucracy. Its organizational structure is similar. It operates from the top down, attempts to maintain internal control and has protected deviant individuals so that it can retain its honor. The deviant individuals, seeing that it is okay to act in that fashion, continue the process until they get caught. Countless media stories have reported that deviant priests have been moved from parish to parish, country to country, rather than being disciplined or released. The Church as a Criminal State David Luban’s statement regarding the “framers of Nuremberg” described the Third Reich as a “nation-state” or “criminal state” (p.779). Does the church view itself as a church or as a state? As the only world religion that enjoys a “non-Member State Permanent Observer” status at the UN indicates that the church considers itself a “state.” To put it into perspective, the only other “state” with the same UN status is Switzerland (Columbia Law Review 1996). In this role, the church has more political influence in the General Assembly than it would in a lesser “observer” role. It even has voting and veto power at world conferences even though it has a “non-member State Permanent Status.” Two other UN “non-member” affiliations are available, each, however, with less influence. The International Red Cross belongs to one of them. If the church is a state in the United Nations political arena, it is responsible for potentially global criminal action against humanity and is, therefore, a “criminal state,” subject to the status of The Third Reich. There appear to be other similarities with the Catholic institution and The Holocaust. The Third Reich’s crimes were moral crimes; the church’s crimes are moral crimes as well. Both are crimes against God. The difference is, however, that the church is upheld as one of the highest moral institutions in the world, honor in the highest degree. While the crimes committed by priest perpetrators may not be related to a major war, these deeds would fall under Classification 6c in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal which describes the category of “crimes against humanity” as follows: “…murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in executive of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated (p780). Of course, there are differences in the crimes of the Holocaust and crimes of the Catholic Church. In the case of the Third Reich bureaucracy, since no single individual performed the whole deviant act, no single individual could be responsible for the individual acts. The administrative authority was at fault. In the case of the church, however, individual blame is also possible because of the nature of the crime (one abuse at a time) and the added element of “cover-ups” by immediate supervisors (the bishops) is identifiable. At the administrative level, the Pope would be named as the defendant because the Vatican’s bureaucracy protects the other hierarchy. (Evidence of alleged cover ups by the Pope when he was Archbishop has also emerged recently.) Luban said that “if the law is to be anything humane, it must guide our moral imaginations; and since it is now imperative that our moral imaginations include awareness of criminal states, the law must also include awareness of criminal states” (p.785). It would, therefore, seem fortuitous that the broader campaign that was launched in 1999, aimed at stripping the Holy See of its permanent observer status at the UN, was unsuccessful. Otherwise, the International Criminal Court might not be an option. ### Louise Haggett 2010, All Rights Reserved Excerpt from unpublished paper entitled “Why Would a Moral Institution Engage in Criminal Behavior?”, Haggett, Louise, November 13, 1997. CSRI99@aol.com 207-729-7673 Bibliography: Abdullah, Yasmin. 1996. The Holy See at United Nations Conferences: State or Church? Vol. 96. Columbia Law Review. 7:1835-1875 (Wellesley College) Associated Press. 1993. Pope: Celibacy Not Essential. July 18. New York Times 1996. Woman Sues over Relationship with Priest. May 30. Allegheny Times. 1997. (Dublin, Ireland-no headline) Aug. 25) Internet. Connors, Fr. Canice. 1993. The Issue of Sexual Misconduct & the Clergy, as presented at the 25th Annual NFPC (National Federation of Priests Council) Convention & House of Delegates. May 3-7, 1993. Hyatt Regency, Chicago. Dummett, Michael. 1995. Is Scandal, not truth, the norm for cardinals? Feb. 11. The Tablet (London), as reported in Breadrising, June 25, Terry Dosh, editor. MN Economus, Fr. Thomas. 1995. Missing Link Newsletter. Vol. 4 Linkup Abuse Support Organization. Chicago. Franklin, James L. 1992. Catholic Bishops Vow to Step Up Efforts Against Clergy Sexual Abuse. June 25. Boston Globe. Geyelin, Milo. 1993. The Catholic Church Struggles with Suits over Sexual Abuse. Nov. 24. Wall Street Journal. P.A48 Glascott, Katherine. 1997. 100 Priests Forced Out Over Sex Abuses. Aug. 26. The Australian. Haggett, Louise. 1997. Why Would a Moral Institution Engage in Criminal Behavior? Nov. 13. Unpublished paper. Framingham State College. Katz, Jack. 1977. Cover-up and Collective Integrity. On the Natural Antagonism of Authority Internal and External to Organizations. Vol. 25. Social Problems. 1:3-17 (Wellesley College) Lacey, Michael. 1993. The Sins of the Bishop. Sept. 8-14. New Times. Likoudis, Paul. 1996. In NCCB Lawsuit to Mediation. July 11. The Wanderer. Luban, David. 1987. The Legacies of Nuremberg. Vol. 54. Social Research. 4:779-829 Matchan, Linda. 1993. Porter Victim Tells of Secret Agreement. Dec. 7. Boston Globe. Matt, A.J. Jr. 1996. Why The Wanderer Can’t Back Off. Vol. 129. The Wanderer. 28:4 McCaffrey, Joseph D., Monica Maske. 1993. 3 Men Sue South Jersey Priest for Sex Abuse. June 11. The Star- Ledger. P.10 Merriam, G. & C. Co. 1967. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Chicago: Rand McNally. Ostling, Richard N. 1991. “Handmaid or Feminist?” Vol. 138. Time Magazine. 26.66. 1993. “Sex and the Single Priest.” July 5. Time Magazine. Renner, Gerald. 1997. Jury Hears Bishop Defend Diocese. Aug. 16. Hartford Courant (Internet). Reuter, 1997. Internet. Shannon, Denise. 1991. Public Perceptions, The Bishops Lobby. Booklet. Catholics for a Free Choice. Simmel, Georg. 1898:680-683; 1955: 99:104; 1955b:163-166. As reported in “Cover-up” Ibid. Sipe, A. W. Richard. 1995. Clergy Sex Abuse: A Crisis of the Church System. Vol. 5. Bread Rising, edited by Terry Dosh. P.2 Steinfels, Peter. 1993. Clinton Signs Law Protecting Religious Practices. Nov. 17. New York Times. Turner, Jonathan H, Leonard Beeghley, Charles H. Powers. 1995. The Sociology of Emil Durkheim. The Emergence of Sociological Theory. P.346 Welsh, Patrick. 1993. Is Sexual Dysfunction Killing the Catholic Church? Aug. 8. Washington Post. P.c3 Yallop, David. 1984. In God’s Name. New York: Bantam Yallop, Richard. 1997. Faith No More. Sept. 26. The Australian