Why the Traditional vs. Liberal Catholic Divide is Enabling Sexual Abuse
Why cultural differences in American Catholic life hide abusers- and someone who is attempting to illuminate the divide.
In America (and I suspect much of the West), we live in a Church that’s nearly as divided as our political landscape. Many people interpret their Catholic faith depending on their cultural, liturgical, and political alliances, which are mainly polarized between a ‘traditional’ and a ‘liberal’ sect in the Church.
The cultural differences between these two groups aren’t small. There’s real theological differences in what parts of Catholic teaching are emphasized and how those teachings are applied to day to day life. Culturally, there’s differences in art, music, liturgy, and architectural preferences between the two. Even the day to day language between the two is different; one side uses phrases like “ally” and “accompaniment” where the other side talks far more about “orthodoxy” and “fighting against the culture of death.” Bishops and priests who choose to identify with one group or the other become lightning rods for controversy and quickly become cast as villains or heroes.
When you introduce the Catholic clergy sex abuse crisis into this polarized environment, the division prevents the Church from identifying abusers and eliminating the culture they thrive in.
There are two ways that this happens.
The first is that division breeds blind spots around certain individuals, often members of the clergy but some prominent laymen as well1. It provides an environment where “champions” can arise, people who are especially good at promoting and representing their particular side of the rift, and can be effectively lionized and seen as above scrutiny. Any attempts at legitimate criticism are quickly framed as persecution.
While not everyone who has this type of status is an abuser, having this status can be a powerful armor against being reported if they were to commit abuse. If you value what your ‘tribe’ does and believes, the damage you will potentially do to your cause by discrediting one of its champions is an effective deterrent to speaking up. Not only will you cause distress to people you love and admire— you’ll cause real damage to something vitally important. Even if you do come forward, you may not be believed by the other people in that person’s circle.
As an example, recall the circumstances surrounding the allegations of sexual misconduct against Fr. John Corapi in 2011. They were investigated, found to be true2 and he was removed from ministry. Almost fifteen years later, I still occasionally come across people saying he was “silenced” because he was “speaking the truth3.” People are slow to believe it when their white knight turns out to be tarnished4.
The cultures around accused prominent Catholics Frank Pavone and Jean Vainer are also examples of this dynamic in action— in both cases, their victims were initially reluctant to come forwards because of the good work that these men were doing. In Vainer’s case, his victims waited until after his death to come forward.
This tendency towards hero worship is a problem in any religious group, but the wagon circling and hero worship is heightened when there’s a perception, real or not,5 that there’s been infiltration of evil that we have to guard against within our religious group. Thanks to the mutual polarized demonization the traditionalists and liberals have towards one another, the American Catholic Church currently has this perception in spades. It’s very easy for cultural heroes to arise, and to become more or less untouchable simply by virtue of their being good spokesmen for their camp.
The second way that this divide enables abuse is by crippling the intellectual and administrative parts of the Church from effectively gaining a full picture of the abuse crisis, or of coming up with ways to prevent it from continuing. When people favor narratives blaming an already existent evil, or when competent researchers dedicated to understanding these problems find themselves isolated from one another on opposite sides of the cultural rift, it distorts the true scope and type of the problem from being seen.
As an example, a popular narrative on the traditional side of the divide is that the sex abuse crisis is entirely the fault of homosexual infiltration into the seminaries6. While there is most likely truth to the assertion that seminary and priestly life is used as a cover to hide homosexual inclinations for many, it has become all encompassing to the point that it’s used to explain and excuse heterosexual abuse by clergy.
I know of one case where one ex-priest laicized as a result of his sexual misconduct against women was able to use the ‘homosexuals are the problem’ narrative to effectively exonerate himself7 and preserve a vestige of his reputation by deflecting the blame for his actions to his homosexual formator in seminary. 8 And I’ve seen people in the comment sections of traditionalist websites that cover heterosexual abuse say things like, “at least it was a woman” and “sexual attraction between a man and a woman is at least natural, this could have been so much worse.”
On the liberal side, the favored narrative is that clericalism is to blame9 , and discussions tend to center on disrupting systems of power in the hierarchy of the Church. These discussions can echo much of the ‘tear it all down’ ethos of the liberal political left; I’ve seen people argue for rapid restructuring of Church decision making processes and even for a change in Church teaching to allow for a female priesthood within the Church10 as an answer to solving the crisis.
There is at least some truth in both root cause arguments, but the extent that each is true, how these truths can be applied, or how they coincide are more or less lost in the extremes that each argument is brought to. The bias that each group has also prevents collaboration. One side values and emphasized tradition, the other downplays it. One side sees those particularly identifying with an LBGT identity as a marginalized group worthy of particular protection and inclusion, while the other sees them as deeply suspect. It is a difficult thing to test the arguments solely on their supporting data and logic when so much of the groups’ identity is wrapped up in the questions these theories raise.
Moving from the cultural to the academic sphere, the rift also makes it very difficult for insights into the the crisis to move freely between institutes of higher learning.
When I recently came across a study about clerical sexual abuse11 authored by researchers at a Catholic university, I realized that it would only be read within a particular Catholic subset. The university that funded and supported the study was Jesuit12 (a religious order currently all but anathema to pretty much any traditional leaning Catholic) and the authors used terms like “patriarchal constructions of gender.” I knew that any insightful research contained in it would not be taken seriously outside of the particular academic culture that produced it.
Similarly, the academic work done by Ave Maria University (Mary and the Crisis of the Church) on the abuse crisis is unlikely to be referenced by someone in a Jesuit or liberal leaning university. Aside from having to overcome ideological bias and language, the framework that each camp uses to approach the question is fundamentally different. While a liberal university is likely to choose and gather information data points to draw conclusions and suggest structural and social changes, traditional leaning universities tend to focus on the theological realities that abuse distorts and impacts and what the teaching of the Church has to say on the matter13.
Just as with the conflicting popular narratives about the root causes of abuse, the differences in academic (and in many cases moral) emphasis make conversation and suggestions that could be widely implemented very difficult. The two sides don’t just have opposing ideas about what the root causes of abuse are— they have completely different emphasis on which parts of the crises most deserve attention and study.
Very few people have attempted to bridge the cultural rift between the two sides. One of the most notable to try to do it is Dr. Peter Kreeft; he has devoted a handful of his numerous books to trying to join what is good in liberal and traditional Catholicism together14 and has spoken about it occasionally for at least the past thirty years.
A more recent attempt can be found in the work of the Sisters of the Little Way. Srs. Theresa Alethea and Danielle Victoria are the founders of a new religious order with the express charism of reaching out to those harmed by abuse in the Church and offering reparation for that abuse. One of their first projects to this effect has been to produce a meticulously researched podcast explaining the dynamics and context of sexual abuse in the Church, and what circumstances give it cover.
Though only three episodes are out at the time of this writing, the sisters have already included interviews from researchers working out of a Jesuit university, a researcher working out of a Baptist university… and one from Fr. Boniface Hicks.
For those who don’t know, Fr. Boniface is a face very much associated with the traditional side of Catholic culture. He’s a semi-frequent guest on Pints with Aquinas15, has appeared on EWTN (the absolute pinnacle of right leaning Catholic media), and does work with Ascension Presents. He not only leans traditional, he rubs elbows with that side’s most culturally prominent spokesmen.
While traditional Catholic media personalities will occasionally reference the abuse crisis, it’s very, very rare to see them addressing survivors of clerical sexual assault as a distinct group worthy of research or particular ministry. Similarly, you almost never find discussion of theological realities among liberal leaning Catholics. I’m hopeful that Fr. Boniface and the Sisters’ willingness to break the mold on this can start building a bridge across the rift.
There are necessarily cautions and possible confusions that come with considering input from across the divide. Much of what the two sides argue about are things that are vitally important; questions of emphasis and teaching and culture all come with souls hanging in the balance. But, if only by the grace of God, we have to each be able to see the value in work done by the other if we’re going to bring this crisis into the light and begin the process of ending and healing from it.
Neither side of the Church should have a monopoly on addressing this issue. Both sides have been deeply impacted by it and both should be open to genuine insight from the other. None of us are served by limiting our consideration of clerical sexual assault, a crime that has caused scandal, is inherently sacrilegious, has actively driven people away from the Sacraments, and that has ruined the lives of numerous people, to our favorite camp in the Church.
Listening to the other side will take patience, discernment, and the ability to look past cultural buzzwords to the actual ideas being discussed. It may not be easy, but it is necessary.
It’s the only hope we have of stopping the loss of yet more victims, and more souls, to the rift.
Such as the environment that surrounded composer David Haas.
SOLT, the religious order he was a member of, put out a public statement to this effect.
For anyone reading this who still believes in Fr. Corapi’s innocence: my family were living in the Diocese of Corpus Christi and heavily involved with SOLT at the time all this went down, and know a few of the people who ultimately had to make the call to remove him. Absolutely nothing I’ve seen about the culture of the diocese of Corpus Christi, SOLT, or know about the people involved leads me to believe that this was a case of his superiors wanting to “take him down” for being too popular or truthful.
I think that there is some merit in the “culture war” in that I do think there’s a wrong and right way to approach and do certain things in the Catholic faith. But my personal thoughts on this are not the point of this essay. If I seem to pick on the more traditional side more, it’s because I’m more familiar with it.
More about his case later came out— the man used to use information he’d learned about his intended victims in the sacrament of Reconciliation to manipulate them into gratifying him sexually. I don’t think that kind of behavior can be adequately explained or excused by poor, or even abusive, formation.
Bishop Barron in his Letter to a Suffering Church echoed this same approach by focusing primarily on the theological questions and realities that the abuses crisis raises.
This is one of my favorite books where he does this. Don’t let the title throw you off.
Most recent interview he did with them.
I love your heart and commitment to protecting the vulnerable and holding abusers accountable.
Very insightful! You really nail something I’ve sensed, but not adequately thought through or been able to articulate!