January 9, 2019 – 8:23 pm
Could Christian mediation help with the Catholic Church’s clergy abuse cases?
Christian mediation differs from standard mediation in that it consciously incorporates Christian principles into the mediation process, promoting not only resolution of the dispute but also reconciliation of the relationship, to whatever degree is appropriate. Far from settling with a compromise, Christian mediation has the potential to be transformative for one or both parties. The process brings the gospel of Jesus Christ to bear on the parties’ conflict, inviting them to draw on the power of the Holy Spirit as they seek to honor God by reflecting on how they may have contributed to the conflict, and forgiving wrongs done against them. Like all mediation, the process is voluntary; people go as far as they are comfortable going. The results can be astounding, achieving reconciliation where none was thought possible. (For more information on Christian mediation as conducted by the Institute for Christian Conciliation, visit the web-site for ICC Peace.)
Many survivors of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests in the U.S. have filed civil lawsuits against their dioceses. As noted in the Pennsylvania attorney general’s report released last August, these are typically settled at the direction of the bishop in negotiations with the survivors’ attorneys. The issues are financial payment in return for a non-disclosure agreement; the plaintiffs do not interact with the bishop, and there is no discussion of non-litigation issues. While many civil lawsuits these days are referred to mediation, I know of only one instance where “mediation” was used for clergy abuse cases, in Guam last fall. The process used there sounded from news reports like the standard form of mediation used in civil litigation, where the lawyers negotiate a dollar figure and clients are secondary participants. The mediator used in the Guam cases does not indicate on his web-site any skills or interest in spiritual matters or reconciliation. It may be that the plaintiffs were never in the same room with the bishop or his representatives. That means an opportunity was missed to bring some healing.
Could a Christian mediation process be used instead of the standard mediation model? Christian mediation depends on the willingness of both parties to explore the spiritual/relational aspect of their conflict, after preparation of each party separately. It has been used successfully in very serious cases, and has the potential to bring healing in clergy abuse cases. As in all post-criminal mediations, and all cases involving a child or otherwise powerless victim, the party in power is encouraged to focus on confession, while victims are encouraged to work on forgiveness. This concept has been used with success in victim-offender mediations. Imagine if, under the cloak of confidentiality, a bishop acknowledges his poor decisions to a now-adult survivor; then imagine that the survivor is able, through the grace of God, to express forgiveness to a humbled bishop. It could be a powerful step in bringing the Kingdom of Jesus Christ one step closer to reality.
December 29, 2018 – 5:47 pm
Peacemaking includes being able to admit being wrong. So stories of people who publicly acknowledge being wrong are encouraging and instructive.
Recently, author Joshua Harris has acknowledged that the popular book he wrote some twenty years ago, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, was not only naïve but in some cases caused harm, and asked his publisher to cease publishing it. Harris realizes that he was “young, certain, zealous and restlessly ambitious,” when he discouraged Christians from dating, a view he now recognizes as not based on Scripture.
“Admitting that I was wrong hasn’t been easy for me. I’ve angered people who still like my book, and my efforts are understandably viewed as inadequate by the people who were hurt. But I’m glad I set out on this journey because it’s been a pathway of transformation for me, and I’ve heard from others who have found healing in knowing they’re not alone in reconsidering old ways of thinking…
“Admitting I was wrong about the biggest accomplishment of my life has given me a greater willingness to admit that I don’t have all the answers…”
Mr. Harris notes that critics are referring to his current round of talks as an “apology tour.” Should one apologize for promoting a particular viewpoint that one later regrets? Apology is appropriate when there has been an offense. But writing a book promoting a particular lifestyle is not in itself offensive. Readers are free to accept or reject the ideas in Mr. Harris’s book, so if readers were harmed, perhaps it’s because they put too much stock in Mr. Harris’s ideas without evaluating those ideas for themselves. Perhaps it’s a matter of influence: Mr. Harris used his influence to promote a particular viewpoint that he now realizes was incorrect. Whether or not others were harmed, it’s a matter of integrity now for him to correct that viewpoint.
Mr. Harris is to be admired for admitting publicly that he was “wrong.” That takes humility.
December 18, 2018 – 9:40 am
Interesting blog by Amy Sereday recently on mediate.com regarding apologies: sometimes, saying “I’m sorry” is not the best thing to say. Some people over-use “I’m sorry,” as if they’re apologizing for things for which they’re actually not sorry and indeed may have no control over. Her example was saying you’re sorry after receiving unfair or inaccurate criticism, to which a better response would be an expression of gratitude.
A better example of when one shouldn’t say “sorry” is when the listener has no responsibility for the speaker’s lament. If the speaker complains that she’s cold and her colleague replies that she’s “sorry,” it diminishes the effectiveness of “sorry.” What the colleague really means is that she’s sad, or sympathetic, or some other emotion. “Sorry” doesn’t really help here.
It’s a good reminder to us that, although we may not say “sorry” when we should, we may also be using it where it’s not the most appropriate word. If you disagree with me, I’m sad, and I feel badly for you, but I’m not sorry.
December 10, 2018 – 8:18 pm
Shortly after winning the Heisman Trophy this weekend, football player Kyler Murray issued an apology for tweets he had written a few years ago, that were considered by some as “anti-gay.”
Here’s Murray’s apology:
“I apologize for the tweets that have come to light tonight from when I was 14 and 15. I used a poor choice of word that doesn’t reflect who I am or what I believe. I did not intend to single out any individual or group.”
As an apology, this one’s not bad. He takes responsibility, distances himself from the offensive behavior, explains his intentions, and doesn’t say too much. He couldn’t resist pointing out that these tweets were “from when I was 14 and 15,” implying that they are (a) at least six years old, and (b) should not be held against him since he was an adolescent at the time. But he doesn’t include the deadly “but” (“but, c’mon guys, I was just 14 or 15!”). He doesn’t use the magic word “sorry,” but he does use the word “apologize.”
And it was issued swiftly.
The bigger question is whether adults should ever have to apologize for anti-[fill-in-the-blank] comments made in their adolescence. Almost by definition, adolescents say provocative things. Should we apologize for being adolescent?
Or maybe the apology is exactly the right tool to help us shake off our past and clear the path forward. If this is the last we hear of Mr. Murray’s feelings towards gay people, it will prove this point.
This incident occurred so close to Kevin Hart’s withdrawal from hosting the Academy Awards that we can’t help but compare the responses. Like Mr. Murray, Mr. Hart was discovered to have made anti-gay comments in his past. Rather than apologize, Mr. Hart pointed out the obvious, that we all evolve in our views so we shouldn’t be judged by past comments. What would’ve happened if Mr. Hart had instead issued a simple apology, a la Mr. Murray?
Or have we just gone too far in our insistence on an apology?
December 5, 2018 – 4:05 pm
Can we apologize for the sins of our grandfathers and grandmothers? Should we?
The answers to both questions was “yes” at a lawyers conference in Berlin this fall.
Brent McBurney, president and CEO of Advocates International, reports the amazing work that God did during the gathering of Christian lawyers from across Europe. The conference, “50 Nations – 1 Fellowship,” co-led this year by the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship (UK) and Christ und Jurist (Germany), was attended by over 200 lawyers, judges and law students from across Europe.
As Brent tells it in his November newsletter, the first day of the conference was devoted to prayer. On the second day, the keynote speaker, Judge Peter Gegenwart, admitted to the audience that his grandfather was a judge during the Nazi regime, and Peter asked for forgiveness, on behalf of himself, his family, and his nation. In response, Teresa Conradie, of South Africa, came to the podium to offer forgiveness on behalf of her own family and nation. Her grandfather had died during World War II fighting against the Nazis in Europe. Brent reports that there was not a dry eye in the room.
I admit that I’m a little skeptical of apologies and forgiveness on behalf of ancestors. I haven’t quite worked out the theology of that. But it sounds like the Spirit of God was definitely present among these Christian lawyers, enabling them to experience a new level of reconciliation. This has opened my eyes to the possible benefit of seeking and extending forgiveness for sins for which we are not personally responsible.
On Friday afternoon of the Christian lawyers’ conference, the group visited the Sachsenhausen Labor Camp, where Judge Gegenwart prayed a Prayer of Repentance, a way of trying to make amends for the sins of our fathers.
