Boston Globe April 18: Pope meets with abuse victims
TIME: The Pope Tackles the Sex Abuse Issue
look for updated posts on this in The Word on Employment Law
It’s often said that there are two topics to avoid–if you want to also avoid controversy: politics and religion. If you’re a reader of this blog, you know I have regularly eschewed this advice when it comes to politics. Now, on to religion.
Pope Benedict XVI is visiting the U.S. for a few days. You might say that Pope Benedict is the ultimate chief executive officer. Think about it. He presides over a vast organization–one of the largest world-wide organizations there is. He controls assets of unknown size, but they are surely in the billions, probably trillions, of dollars. Most CEOs think they’re infallible, but the Pope, according to church doctrine, is infallible.
He spoke about his trip with reporters on the papal plane as he traveled to the U.S. While in the states, the Pope will meet with President Bush, meet with his bishops, address the United Nations General Assembly, visit Ground Zero, and celebrate a mass at Yankee Stadium. One thing he won’t do is meet with the victims of priest child-sex abuse, their families or their advocates. In that respect, he’s like any other CEO. So much for infallibility.
CEOs meet and talk a lot. They meet with their management team. They meet with their counterparts from other companies. They address leadership meetings and make appearances at special events. They rarely meet with or talk to their employees, particularly if their employees have grievances they want the CEO to fix. Of course, no one likes an unfriendly crowd. It’s easier to deal with grievances through others or by answering reporters’ questions. The Pope said he was deeply ashamed of the sex-abuse scandal. He said it had caused great suffering for the church and for him personally.
The greatest suffering, however, has been experienced by the victims of the abuse and their families, and meeting with these aggrieved people–like meeting with an aggrieved group of employees–is hard. Apparently, it’s just too hard for people at the top to do it. Maybe looking into their eyes, hearing their pain and being asked to assure them of lasting relief are too much to bear. It’s hard–but unbearable? I don’t think so. It’s what a leader does.
Maybe the biggest reason a CEO can’t or won’t meet with victims or employees is that he or she fears (perhaps knows) that a promise will be demanded that the organization he or she represents is unlikely to live up to. Promises are easy to make, hard to keep. And after all, no CEO–not even the Pope–can control everyone.
Organizations pay out millions of dollars every year to employees and other people who have been wronged by representatives of the organizations. That may be regrettable, but it’s not unusual. The Roman Catholic situation is unusual, however, in at least two respects. (And I’m not talking about the fact that this scandal involves an organization holding itself out as a spiritual haven or priests whose job is in part to protect the children who’ve been entrusted to their care. I’m trying to look at this from an employment law perspective; I’ll leave it to others to address the spiritual or theological implications.)
The first unusual aspect is the enormity of it all. Thousands of alleged victims have come forward with the most sordid of stories. More than 5,000 priests–just in the U.S.–have been implicated so far. The church has paid out over $2 billion to some of the victims, and six dioceses have gone bankrupt. Second, the church has admitted its wrongs. Some would argue that it did so belatedly and only after public pressure was brought to bear, but the kind of admission made by the church is most unusual. In fact, when an organization pays out money to settle with an aggrieved person, it usually does so with the stipulation that it’s not admitting to doing anything wrong. It’s just paying money to settle a disputed claim.
What’s usual about this mess is that a lot of people at the top–the bishops–aren’t being held accountable for letting the abuse go on under their noses with their knowledge. The Pope will undoubtedly talk about this when he meets with them and tell them they better do a better job minding their priests, but they’re still bishops. And I’m guessing that some of them know the abuse is still going on, despite good faith efforts to curtail it. With all due respect to the Holy Father, I know of no CEO who could survive once it came to light that children in his or her organization had been sexually abused for generations, with the abusers moved from one location to another in the organization while the same abuse occurred over and over again. We hear accounts of supervisors and managers engaging in harassment without suffering consequences for their actions–being allowed to stay with the organization even though they continue to engage in harassing conduct. But we’ve never heard of anything quite like the priest sex abuse scandal–again, looking at it from an employment law standpoint.
That’s what makes Pope Benedict’s unwillingness to meet with the victims all the more disappointing. Yes, it would have been hard, perhaps wrenching. But what an example it would have been. The CEO’s CEO shows how you handle the biggest people problem imaginable. You handle it with respect for the people, with courage from a higher power, and with the conviction of a leader. You look them in the eye. You listen to them. You tell them–not reporters–you’re ashamed, you’re sorry. You promise to make things better, never perfect, but better. Then you clean house.
If CEOs handled employment problems this way, a lot of emloyment lawyers would be out of work. But they don’t. The Pope won’t either. Rest easy, brother and sister employment lawyers. We’re safe.
As you know by now, the Pope did meet with a few sex abuse victims on April 17. Please see my subsequent post about this development. (Click here.)
12 responses so far ↓
1 Richard Gray // Apr 18, 2008 at 7:56 am
What was the point of publishing this inaccurate piece of vitriol in this newsletter? According to ABC news, the Pope did meet with victims of sexual abuse yesterday. I’ve been reading about stories of alleged sexual abuse by priests, most of which are several decades old, in the mainstream media for the last 5 years. Stick to issues concerning employment law and leave the religious mudslinging out of it.
2 John Phillips // Apr 18, 2008 at 8:16 am
Thanks very much for your comments.
When I published my first post on this, it wasn’t inaccurate. As I noted in my second post (which I just now put up), every indication from the Vatican was that the Pope would not meet with the victims. I was delighted to see that he decided, apparently on his own and I’m sure against the wishes of some of his advisors, to have the meeting.
While I’m sorry you view this as religious mudslinging, I think it is directly related to employment law, as I tried to explain, perhaps unsuccessfully. If people at the top met with employees (who often view themselves as victims) instead of issuing statements and letting their surrogates handle the meetings, many employment problems that plague our workplaces and lead to employment litigation would, in my opinion, be handled without the 5 years of media attention and figurative bloodhed you alluded to in your comments.
I often take what might first appear to be a non-employment situation and try to draw emloyment lessons from it. That’s what I was trying to do here. I invite you to read my new post of this morning.
Thanks again for commenting.
3 Karen K // Apr 18, 2008 at 8:39 am
As you know the Pope did meet with victims in a private meeting yesterday.
I disagree with your comments that this is related to employment law.
It seems you did make a poor choice for your article this time and your attempts of drawing employment lessons from it failed.
Mr. Gray’s point of religious mudslinging is accurate.
It is disheartening that you chose to make such an analogy with bad facts and religious leader. It will make me pause upon reading future articles penned by you.
4 John Phillips // Apr 18, 2008 at 8:51 am
Thanks, Karen, for weighing in.
When I did the original post on this, the Pope had not met with the victims, and the Vatican had repeatedly indicated he wouldn’t. I applaud his decision to do otherwise.
I put up another post about this as soon as I could this morning. I hope you will read it.
You are certainly free to criticize the choices I make for posts I do. In fact, I welcome that. Reasonable people can disagree, and you and I disagree on the relevance of this topic to employment law.
I try to limit my mudslinging to situations when I’m representing a client in a lawsuit. I intended no mudslinging with my original post, and I’m sorry it was taken that way.
I certainly hope you’ll keep reading my blog, but thankfully, it’s a free country. Thanks again for your thoughts.
5 Jim Cole // Apr 18, 2008 at 9:49 am
Mr. Phillips, from where do you get your information about the Pope’s supposed assets? He does not “control” the property of the dioceses around the world, the various religious orders, etc. The annual budget of the Vatican is less than many metropolitan bishops’ budgets, e.g., New York, Rio, Paris, etc., and the property under the Pope’s “control” is quite limited. Nowhere near “billions” or “trillions.” You are jumping to conclusions that are highly unwarranted. Next time you want to use a religious organization as your whipping boy or even just for a colorful image, try one that really has some money, and do your homework first.
Jim Cole
6 Scott Vandenhouten // Apr 18, 2008 at 10:25 am
I am deeply disappointed in this original posting as well as your follow up post. I have never posted to a blog before but feel I must respond to this article.
I am greatly surprised that someone who purports to be an HR expert would make such disparaging, hostile and inflammatory remarks regarding a religion or religious figure. I am curious as to what you would say to one of your clients had they made your remarks in their workplace?
You erroneously bash the Pope for not doing anything, then you bash him for not doing enough. Obviously, you wrote the first article before the Pope met with the victims, and possibly even before he landed, maybe even before he took off.
He first arrived in the US on Tuesday afternoon. He has already done and said things no one predicted he ever would or could, and he is only half way through his visit. Who knows what is yet to come? Except for you apparently, you must have an incredible crystal ball.
One of the things I have learned is most important in law and HR is getting the facts and not making snap judgments or statements based on preconceived notions, prejudices or biases, which it is apparent to me you possess.
Personally, I will no longer read any post from you. The fact that you would write an article like this shows a lack of professionalism.
Oh, if the rest of us could only be as all knowing as you. Perhaps ye should practice what ye preaches.
7 John Phillips // Apr 18, 2008 at 10:52 am
Mr. Cole, thank you for expressing your point of view. To be honest, I don’t have the slightest idea what all the assets of the Roman Catholic Church include. I also don’t know how many of those assets are controlled by the Pope and how that control works. He is the Pope, however, so I’m confident that when he talks, people listen. Frankly, I’m shocked by your characterization of the Pope’s control as being limited, but again, I don’t know.
I also don’t know where you get the information you use in your comments. Is there a published, audited acoount of the church’s assets, its operating budget, etc.? Although I consider my mention of the church’s assets to be a minor point in my original post on this subject, I didn’t intend to include in my estimate any property of the dioceses around the world. I was only referring to St. Peter’s Basillica, the papal palace, the Vatican Bank, numerous office buildings and apartments and palaces and cathedrals in Rome, the incredible works of art at the Vatican, and whatever securities, gold reserves and other finanacial instruments the church may own. The only somewhat reliable glimpse I’ve ever seen into the church’s assets came during the so-called Banco Amrosiano scandal of several years ago. I confess that I don’t remember anything about trillions, but billions were often mentioned. Since I wouldn’t know a billion or a trillion if it were staring me in the face, maybe I should stick to talking about hundreds or thousands. You’ve got me on my failure to do homework, but I don’t have the slightest idea where homework that would actually show the church’s assets would come from. Such information is one of the world’s best kept secrets, so I guess I speculate along with others, which admittedly isn’t always a good thing to do.
The point I was trying to make is that the church is an immense worldwide organization and that the leader of such an organizaton can teach other leaders how to do a lot of things, particularly, as it relates to my post, teach them the way to deal with difficult people problems. While I thought the Pope was going to miss that opportunity, as I said in the second post (which was put up first thing this morning), he didn’t.
Though a fan of colorful imagery, I have no use for whipping boys. Thus, I apologize for giving you the impression that I was using the church as one.
Thanks again for weighing in with your strong sentiments.
8 John Phillips // Apr 18, 2008 at 11:28 am
Mr. Vandenhouten, I’m sorry for your disappointment. Based on the comments I have received so far, I seem to have struck a nerve. The advice about avoiding discussions that involve religion is proving to have some validity. I do appreciate your comments, however. You really should do more posting. You are a persuasive writer. I’ll try to respond.
I wouldn’t have any trouble with discussions in the workplace about this, at least in the context of what I have written. As I have written before about politics, the presidential election presents some great opportunities for workplace discussions about race and gender. The Pope’s visit could cause some discussions about religion I suppose, but I was using it to talk about the role a leader can play in making a positive difference in an organization.
My first post was written after the Pope arrived. My discussion of the Pope’s failure to use his visit as an opportunity to meet with the victims was based on what the Vatican had repeatedly said. The second post was written after he met with the sex abuse victims. It was based on the unexpected, yet welcomed, action he took in meeting with them.
I didn’t intend to bash the Pope about anything. In my first post, I was critical of what I understood from the Vatican he wasn’t going to do. My criticism turned out to be misplaced. In my second post, while I did say that he should have done more, I applauded him for what he did and said he did what many, if not most, leaders don’t do. As I noted, in the context of employment and employment law, he proved to be a great teacher for other leaders, other CEOs.
I agree with you about getting the facts and not making snap judgments. I thought I had the facts, and I have given a lot of thought to this for a long time. When I have the facts wrong, I admit it as I did in my second post. When I express an opinion, I’m always open to differing points of view. I can even be persuaded that my opinion is wrong, but you have failed to do so. I’m sorry you don’t like what I said, but I stand by the lessons to be learned from this situation in the employment and leadership context. I appreciate the Pope’s roll in teaching some of those lessons.
Finally, I don’t have a crystal ball, don’t always practice what I preach, have no biases against the church or the Pope, and am, when all is said and done, just a person who likes to say what he thinks. I like it when other people do that, too, so I am most appreciative of what I know are your sincerely held beliefs. I hope you won’t quit reading my blog and will continue to forcefully weigh in as you have today.
9 Bootstrapper » Carnival of Business and Entrepreneurship #17 // Apr 19, 2008 at 1:44 am
[…] Phillips presents The Pope and Employment Law posted at The Word On Employment Law. What does the Pope teach us about how leaders impact […]
10 John Phillips // Apr 19, 2008 at 9:06 am
Thanks for the mention. In this post, there is a link to a follow-up post called “The Pope and Employment Law Redux,” which should be read in conjunction with the origianl post.
11 Lupe Jackson // Apr 21, 2008 at 6:03 pm
It looks like you used this employment letter to let us know how you feel about the Holy Father. Yes, lets not mix politics and religion at work. No CEO can be compared to the Holy Father. It does seem to me that you are bias.
How do you compare the Fundamentalist “religions” that practice polygmy and abuse 12 year old girls. Which appear to be similar to organizations that don’t give a hoot about what employees think or do?
12 John Phillips // Apr 21, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Lupe, thanks for your comments. I appreciate your taking the time to weigh in.
My feelings about the Holy Father are positive, as I tried to make clear–unsuccessfully I suppose. It would be difficult to imagine how he could have made a better impression than the one he made on his first trip to the U.S. While I hope he continues to reach out to aggrieved people as I think any leader should do, his meeting with the sex abuse victims set an example, not only for CEOs, but for all people.
It can indeed be dangerous to mix politics and religion at work, but there are issues flowing from both that impact all organizations and the employees who work there. I believe that the discussion of some of those issues by employees can be helpful and can have a healing effect–if the discussions are handled in a way so that respect is shown all employees and their views.
I know that the Pope can’t be compared to a CEO from a spritual standpoint, and that wasn’t my intent. In my first post, I did say that it seemed that Pope Benedict was going to miss the opportunity to meet with people who had grievances like many CEOs also miss that opportunity. He proved me wrong, and I applaud him for that.
It is my personal view that abuse, sexual or otherwise, is wrong. People responsible for it should be held accountable. As I’m sure you know, the leader of the polygamous sect in Texas which has been in the news so much lately is in jail because, in part, of the abuse of children of various ages that he allowed to go on in that sect.
While I think your comparison of that sect to organizations not caring about what employees think or do is somewhat accurate, I don’t know of any employers that allow the kind of abuse reported to have occurred in that sect, particularly as to children.
I hold no bias against the Pope or your religion. I was simply trying to make a point that I still believe has validity in terms of the workplace, HR and employment law. Benedict XVI ended up making it better than I did.
Leave a Comment