Read more of Judy Valente's interview with Rosemary Radford Ruether:
Q: What are the implications at the present time of these scandals in the Church?
A: People are quite dismayed and quite angry. It's a common topic for sermons. We had a sermon at our church last Sunday. Basically, the priest said that we need to stop scapegoating people. In other words, let's not go blaming homosexuals. There is no evidence that this is caused by homosexuality. We need to deal more appropriately with the real problems, and not by trying to find somebody to blame.
Q: What impact do you think it's having on people right now?
A: My sense is that people are angry, but they're primarily angry at the way in which the hierarchy has dealt with this, rather than necessarily angry with priests as a whole.
Q: What aspect do you think they're angry at?
A: They're angry at the cover-up and the fact that people who were known to have these problems were shifted around, and the people in the next parish or the next diocese were not told. The anger is really with the hierarchy, primarily.
Q: Is the problem worse than it appears? Do you believe there's more bad news to come?
A: I think there's more bad news [about] pedophilia, but there's a much wider issue that is not being dealt with, and that is the abuse of girls, of young women, and a whole underworld of priestly sexuality that is just being denied.
Q: Why do you think that's not being dealt with?
A: Maybe because men are interested in men's issues. I don't really know, but it's very clear that most of us know very well that there's also abuse of young women. In many parts of the world, and I don't know if this is true in the United States, there is a whole issue of how nuns are sexually harassed and even raped by priests.
Q: Can you offer any explanation why this would have been denied or relegated to the sidelines?
A: The issue of the rape or sexual forcing of nuns came out as a big story a few years ago in Africa, and that's not being mentioned at all in this whole issue.
Q: Are you convinced the Vatican realizes the depth of the problem?
A: No, they don't realize it at all. I think they see it primarily [as] managing an institutional image, which tends to be the way institutions respond generally, and this is no surprise. I think they see some pressure for change of celibacy, so they're really not dealing with the issue that concerns most people in the laity.
Q: Is it too early to assess the long-term impact of the scandals?
A: I don't think we know that, because it will depend a lot on how the hierarchy adapts -- if they really widen the consultation to real experts and the laity. If they restore trust in that kind of way, you could have one effect, but if they continue to stonewall and try to blame homosexuals and the victims themselves, to suggest that somehow these people that were victimized were negligent, as Cardinal Law apparently said, then people will get angrier.
Q: What will it take to restore the trust?
A: Real consultation with experts and a broad sense of allowing the laity themselves to enter into consultation, rather than trying to close ranks [and] defend the hierarchical institution.
Q: Do you think change will begin at the parish level? Will this result in, perhaps, a greater role for the laity?
A: I'm not sure the parish is the level. I think actually what you are going to see are organizing efforts by networks of lay organizations. National organizations like the one called Action, or perhaps local laity, like the businessmen in Chicago. I think you're going to have organizational movements of that kind, that are neither the hierarchy nor simply at the parish level.
Q: What do you think will change?
A: There are two options: dealing with the real failures, which is the hierarchical cover-up, or [its] continuation. Which of these is chosen will make a lot of difference -- [you could] continue to have people increasingly angry and then organizing real boycotting of funds and so on, or you could have developments that will restore trust.
Q: If the appearance of stonewalling continues, what will happen?
A: Clearly, some boycotts of contributions are one possibility, but perhaps there will be more people convinced that we simply need to change the whole profile of the priesthood.
Q: Do you think there'll be breakaway groups from the Church?
A: Well, there are always breakaway groups from the Church, but that doesn't actually change the institutional structure that much.
Q: Are there signs that Catholics are withholding contributions in serious proportions, or is this just a lot of blowing smoke?
A: There clearly is a group suggesting that, and I have no idea how widespread it is. A lot of people, and I would include myself in this, are not really interested in denying funds to their own parish if they're pleased with their parish. They want to support their own programs in their own parish. What they'd like to do is deny funds to the bishop and the Vatican. In other words, it's really the hierarchy that they see as the problem.
Q: Do you think it's a mistake to withhold contributions?
A: Withholding contributions definitely will get the hierarchy's attention, if nothing else. But you have to be sure that you're simply not scapegoating the local community, [which is] actually paying the price for a lot of this. In other words, the contributions of the laity are being used to pay people off, and that's distorting the funds available for [the people's] own programs. People want to discriminate; they want to make statements that will call the hierarchy to attention without necessarily scapegoating their own local communities.


