Click here to subscribe today or Login.
It is, and likely always will be, difficult to objectively gauge the full legacy of the late James Timlin’s tenure as bishop of the Diocese of Scranton. Everything he did became colored by the priest child abuse sex scandal first exposed in Boston but quickly unmasked across the country, including here.
The Times Leader broke the story of two diocesan priests relieved of duties pending investigation into alleged sexual misconduct in 2002, and the bad news just kept expanding, culminating arguably with the release of a statewide grand jury report in 2018 naming 59 priests of the Diocese of Scranton accused of abusing children — a report issued during the tenure of State Attorney General Josh Shapiro, now governor. The grand jury contended Timlin had suppressed or dismissed allegation of rape, assault, underage drinking and abortion.
How do you get past that? You don’t. Maybe you shouldn’t try.
But the man lived to the age of 95. He spent more than seven decades in religious life. While he was the eighth bishop of the diocese, he was the first native son appointed to the post. Through much of his tenure, he created warm memories for thousands, even tens of thousands of Catholics.
Timlin grappled with unprecedented problems and changes long before the priest sex scandal hit, attempting to navigate the diocese through declining revenues, a shrinking pool of priests and religious sisters, dropping school enrollments, and other changes no Scranton Diocese bishop before him had faced. He often maintained a relative openness to media questions, providing in-person interviews even as the priest scandal unfolded in increasingly ugly ways, and even as he himself became ensnared in its devastating web.
Do we ignore all he did outside the scandal because of the scandal?
Throughout the growing revelations, Timlin maintained a firm conviction that he had done everything the Church hierarchy recommended, trying to assure allegations were fully investigated while caring for victims. He periodically pointed out that priests were evaluated, treated and deemed by professionals to be able to return to service. It is fair to argue he should have done more, but it’s hard to argue he did nothing.
There are legitimate questions of what he knew and how he reacted, but also legitimate questions of how much those reactions were the result of erroneous “best practices” since deemed flawed, or required by a rigid patriarchy renowned — even celebrated — for resistance to change.
This is by no means an apologia, much less an absolution, of Timlin’s shortcomings. Forgiveness here on earth, if possible, must come from victims and their families. And by the tenets of his own faith, Timlin now faces the judgment that matters most, beyond what we collectively or individually may decide.
But few of us would want to be judged in the end solely by our worst actions or decisions, at least not without weight given to the things we may have gotten right, the forces that bore upon us, or the attempts to atone.
– Times Leader