WASHINGTON — In 2002, the U.S. bishops’ groundbreaking “zero tolerance” policy for clerical perpetrators won broad support, but the new era of aggressive accountability has made it tough for accused priests that have been cleared of abuse charges and seek to return to parish work.
Fresh allegations of abuse and curial negligence, incomplete media coverage of new and historical cases, the difficulty of establishing guilt, the drumbeat of outrage from victims’ rights groups, and ongoing financial settlements have led the public, and some Church leaders, to question whether any priest linked to a “credible allegation” — whatever the outcome of subsequent investigations — should be allowed further access to children.
While Church law and the criminal justice system stipulate that the accused are “innocent until proven guilty,” media coverage of last week’s clergy abuse scandals in Philadelphia and Los Angeles gives credence to an opposing principle: The accused are guilty until proven innocent.
In Los Angeles, a priest who was a pastor and once served on the archdiocesan panel that reviews allegations of clerical abuse has been removed following allegations that he had an extended sexual relationship with a teenage girl and is a self-identified “sex addict.” The archdiocese’s vicar of clergy has resigned amid charges that he appointed the priest despite his record of abuse.
In Philadelphia, a two-year grand jury investigation into the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s handling of clergy abuse cases led local authorities to charge two priests, a former priest and a Catholic school teacher with raping young boys, while a former archdiocesan official was accused of transferring priests with prior abuse complaints without alerting the public. Some of the accused were linked to previous abuse cases.
“At least 37 priests accused of molestation and other inappropriate behavior toward children have been allowed to remain in active ministry,” stated a Feb. 13 story in the Philadelphia Inquirer on the grand jury report.
Media coverage of the grand jury report did not generally distinguish between priests that had been cleared of charges, those awaiting a resolution to criminal or diocesan investigations, and those actually found to have abused minors.
One news story stated that “37 accused priests in the archdiocese work in assignments that put them near children while complaints are investigated or, in some cases, deemed not credible, the grand jury found.” Some stories employed terms like “pedophile” and “substantial evidence of abuse” interchangeably — without clarifying that “substantial evidence” merely triggers an investigation, but does not confirm actual guilt.
Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia vowed to carefully review the grand jury’s findings and make further changes if necessary. But he also insisted in a statement that there are “no archdiocesan priests in ministry today who have an admitted or established allegation of sexual abuse of a minor against them.” The archdiocese declined to respond to questions for this story.
Members of Philadelphia’s archdiocesan review board challenged the findings of the grand jury, which suggested the review board had set aside or missed “very convincing evidence” of wrongdoing. The report noted that in two cases, two accused priests remained in their positions despite failing a lie detector test, while another priest provided “evasive answers” during an investigation.
The review board members said they had scrutinized evidence in more than 50 cases since 2003, and, for the most part, had recommended that the accused be removed from active ministry — a stance backed by archdiocesan officials. But board members also contended that some allegations lacked sufficient evidence to justify permanent removal.
No Uniform Process
Under canon law, a cleric is entitled to protection of his good reputation and restoration if it is damaged. In addition, an accused priest or deacon who is not laicized is entitled to decent financial support from his diocese or religious order.
Yet amid the glare of headlines marking another round of clergy abuse scandals, canon lawyers and various groups that defend the rights of accused priests contend that their clients don’t always obtain justice. Part of the problem is that the Dallas Charter did not precisely define what constitutes sexual abuse, and priests have limited options for appealing decisions.
“This is detrimental to the morale of the priesthood: One accusation and you’re done,” contended Father Michael Maginot, a canon lawyer and the pastor of St. Stephen Martyr in Merrillville, Ind. Father Maginot has represented many accused priests.
Whatever the limitations of the Dallas Charter, the U.S. bishops have sought to regain credibility by adhering to the zero tolerance policy and related guidelines, from fingerprinting of all volunteers in contact with children to immediate communication of abuse allegations to local law enforcement.
However, there remains no uniform practice for dealing with priests that have been formally cleared of charges. In many dioceses, the return of these priests to active ministry is less common than “retirement” in good standing.
Off the record, some canon lawyers say dioceses are slow to return the accused to parish life because of fears that a second allegation might surface, prompting stiffer criminal and civil penalties for institutions that approved the reinstatement.
Indeed, groups like Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) aggressively challenge the dismissal of abuse charges — even in a court of law. David Clohessy, SNAP’s executive director, defends the group’s relentless targeting of accused priests as a necessary precaution .
Legal and Moral Minefield
Historically, false allegations of abuse have been rare. In the five decades preceding the 2002 clergy abuse crisis, just 1.5% of all sex abuse allegations against U.S. priests were determined to be “false.”
Mary Jane Doerr, associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Office of Child and Youth Protection, reports that “there are a handful of false accusations every year.” In recent years, there has been a rise in false allegations, in part, she suggested, as a result of heightened awareness of child sex abuse and the “grooming” process used by sexual predators.
“Current allegations involving children who are or have been abused are sometimes boundary violations — hugging or petting on the head that might creep the kid out,” Doerr noted.
“We have two categories: historical cases and new allegations. In 2009, 286 priests were alleged to have abused kids [in the past]. Out of that number, a handful of allegations could not be proved. In contrast, in 2009, we received 21 allegations from current minors — children today that say they are or have been sexually abused. Six were deemed credible,” Doerr said.
Paul Danello, a Washington, D.C.-based canon lawyer and civil lawyer, also acknowledges that bishops face a legal and moral minefield when they consider returning priests to ministry — whatever the outcome of criminal trials or a canonical legal process that does not result in the imposition of a penalty.
“Even though a priest or deacon is not proven to have abused minors, other issues surrounding his ministry or behavior might have arisen during the investigation that cause concern for the bishop. This might involve unacceptable boundary violations or improper behavior with adults, i.e., homosexual or heterosexual relationships or pornography use. These situations would need to be addressed before the priest or deacon is returned to public ministry,” Danello said.
Such concerns may never surface publicly, in part because of privacy considerations. But critics suggest that damage control and the wages of past neglect by bishops have discouraged transparency on such matters, leaving the reputation of innocent priests irreparably shattered.
Now, as the Los Angeles and Philadelphia archdioceses confront new charges alleging that their internal review process was seriously deficient and permitted known abusers to return to active ministry, the drumbeat for reform could prompt a further reassessment of the limitations — as well as the strengths — of the Dallas Charter.
Yet these new revelations underscore the stubborn truth: The foundation of a diocese’s zero tolerance policy will remain vulnerable to human error, as well as outright negligence.
“We’ve worked hard to create a culture in which the protection of children is our priority up to the top of the archdiocese,” said Los Angeles archdiocesan spokesman Tod Tamberg. “The vicar of clergy received a falsified report from the priest’s order stating that there was no prior history of abuse. He did not check our own records, which included the priest’s admission of a past relationship with a teenage girl. That’s inexcusable, and he resigned.”
Register correspondent Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Edward Pentin: Pope Pardons Gabriele, Appoints American as Promoter of Justice
Tim Drake: Register Radio: Abuse Statistics & The Hunger Games
Comments
Post a Comment
Joan Frawley Desmond, instead of leading the “pity party for pedophile priests,” should focus instead on the climate of corruption, secrecy, and cover-up that pervades the clerical culture and continues to keep children at risk in the Catholic Church. The Philadelphia Grand Jury report was “spot on.” I raised some of the very same issues the grand jury addressed when I brought survivors to the Philadelphia Archdiocese over the years to report their abuse. When a client of mine asked me to accompany her to Cardinal Rigali’s “supposed” outreach event at the seminary a few years ago, I was banned from attendance. This “client” expressed her desire to have an advocate, but she was not allowed to bring me. My advice to Ms. Desmond: stop apologizing for illegal, immoral, and unethical conduct and call for the jailing of all the criminals involved.
Fr. Hoatson - What article did you read?
Parents unlike a legal court and somewhat like a prosecutor’s office have no obligation to presume innocence of the priesthood in general in so far as their protective obligation brings forth actions on behalf of their children. Any parent who read the Phily grand jury report and allows their boy to be an altar boy in that singular Diocese is missing a piece of their mental faculties. Out in whoville P.A. in the Blue mountains where there has been no such incident in a hundred years is entirely different. Let the boy serve on the altar if you know the priest close up.
Two laywomen in Phily involved in priest vetting and victim assistance are being sued by attorney Anderson as part of the fallout at Philadelphia. If their fees and damages are not covered by the Diocesan insurance then the Church has an obligation to inform all such lay workers country wide of this new reality even if it means losing droves of workers. One of the devil’s largest successes against the Church is this whole gestalt that includes hierarchical awful judgement and their false sense of immunity fed further by the escape of Cardinal Law. Christ promised only that the gates of hell would not prevail. He did not promise that hell would not have great tactical successes…..and this one is the one that keeps on giving.
This is a situation of the clergy’s (as whole) own making; for how many years, centuries, decades, did they protect their fellows and subordinates from the consequences of acting out sexually with children and vulnerable adults?
How often did they look the other way, bury reports, prevail upon police and DA’s not to file charges, intimidate victims and their parents into silence, pay out settlements with “gag” clauses attached, and so on.
Now, they try to hide behind the very statutes of limitations which they themselves actively sought to run out! Try to abolish an SOL, and you’ll see more clergy (and their PR mouth-pieces) testifying in opposition than grace a bishop’s installation.
Indeed, there is a degree of injustice that will be visited upon some clergy who are innocent of the allegations against them. (Though fewer are innocent of complicity with covering for their errant colleagues). But let us not forget that it is the clergy, not the abuse survivors or their advocates, who created the atmosphere of mistrust and injustice that has created the presumption of guilt in the minds of many, including the general public.
Is anyone else out there sick to death of the Catholics’ misuse of the legal concept of “innocent until proven guilty”? Yes, in criminal cases, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But that in no way means that the public at large should pretend that nothing happened unless or until a conviction is obtained. All serial murderers and child rapists were innocent until they were found guilty. But no one would hire them to babysit or do work around the house while their trial was pending. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to public opinion. It applies to criminal courts. If one is charged with a heinous crime, that person is under suspicion by the public at large until the matter is settled by a judge and/or jury.
So please stop trying to convince the public to forget about these rape charges during the pendency of a case. The person who is charged with a heinous crime such as child rape or child endangerment, if he is lucky enough to be out on bail or lucky enough to have run out the statute of limitations, should be avoided at all costs, especially by parents with children, until the matter is settled. Don’t listen to Catholics on this. They are the last people who should be giving advice on the topic of child protection or safety.
Sara
I’m Catholic and I said exactly what you’re saying in the third post of this thread.
I suspect that today a higher percentage of accusastions are false than in the past due to the media saturation of the issue. So I would advise priests and any any other adult in charge of children or teens to be very careful with any touching at all, even if entirely innocent.
The efforts to make the environment in Catholic settings safe for children and teens has been won overwhelmingly over a decade ago. But the fallout from the media storm is still ongoing and will be with us for a while.
This article is a realistic view of the situation today. Somehow there must be balance between the ‘Zero tolerance’ policy of the bishops and the cash cow agenda of organizations such as SNAP. While no amount of abuse can be tolerated, there must be a clearer definition of abuse to make sense of the situation. And while the court of public opinion may not treat the accused fairly, the accused is entitled to justice.
@Sara: “Don’t listen to Catholics on this. They are the last people who should be giving advice on the topic of child protection or safety.” I don’t think so. Perhaps you need to see the statistics on Catholics and child abuse. There are many other groups that shouldn’t give advice either. Rather this statement should be” Don’t listen to Catholic priests, school teachers, Policemen, psychologists, Homosexuals (those who first supported the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)), etc… If we overgeneralize, we usually lack the truth.
Also, my question is “do 2 wrongs make a right?” That is to say, just because some priests abused and covered up (a huge injustice) doesn’t justify another injustice (that of being defamed)
“...the cash cow agenda of organizations such as SNAP…”
The agenda of survivors’ groups is justice and deterrance, no more no less. To represent them as being about enriching anybody is cynical in the extreme, and absurd.
The fact is that, due to SOL limitations the proper justice i.e., jail terms, will never be meted out. That is not SNAP’s fault. The nearest and only thing which our society provides are monetary settlements. If you talk to a survivor who’s received a six-figure settlement they will probably tell you they’d give ten times the settlement amount never to have been abused in the first place. And, sadly, when you put real numbers on it, those settlments do reflect the actual costs of therapy, lost opportunity, lost jobs, broken marriages, etc.
Don’t blame the tort lawyers, either—- in America, the system is that tort lawyers work on contingency, risking that they will do a lot of work for nothing should they lose.
To blame the victims and their lawyers for their “uncharitable” response to the crimes of priests, religious, bishops and superiors is an unseemly sort of whining which seeks to avoid the inconvenience of delayed justice coming home to roost. But who delayed that justice? Not the victims!
Having been falsely accused myself, I can tell you that the rule these days in cases like this are “Guilty even after proven Innocent.”
When a priest (or a layman not involved with the Church) is accused, the reasoning is that he has to be guilty, and any evidence offered to prove his innocence is denounced as a “cover-up.”
And by the way, in most cases involving priests they aren’t “pedophiles”—abusers of pre-pubescent children—but homosexuals who seduced teensge boys. But (read the current issue of “Entertainment Weekly”) the seduction of teenagers into homosexuality is supposed to be a good thing.
If the bishops actually followed the canon in the law, which says, “A bishop must defend his priests,” they would have stood with their priests, deacons, religious, and lay employees/volunteers. What they should have done is to say to accusers:
1. If the priest is convicted, plea-bargains, and/or admits to abuse we will do everything we should for you.
2. However, if we find out the allegation is false, malicious, and/or negligent, we are going after you because the cleric’s life is also at stake here, we would not have paid out one or two billion $ in settlements. Furthermore, all of these innocent priests, deacons, etc. would be restored to ministry.
3. The priests need to get together and as a group demand the bishops treat them and everyone else justly. But the priests haven’t spoken-up for their brothers, or anyone else. (How many priests have you heard speak-up for their brother priests?)
This entire episode is a scandal for many reasons, not the least being the cowardice of many of the bishops who tried to cover their episcopal derrieres rather than do their jobs. Oh, I forgot, we are supposed to genuflect to favorable media coverage.
How many of my fellow Catholics have heard the term, “lapse”, in relation to sex habits of our clergymen, priests, bishops and higher in rank?
It’s not only children and teenage boys (some girls) that our Roman Catholic “celibate” clergymen have used for sex, and tossed out. Women and even other men have been the target for clerical “lapses”. A lapse for clergymen, by the way, can be a relationship that lasts 8 years, or a one-night stand.
I am not a victim of abuse, but I know women that are survivors of priests and their “lapses”. The worst case I know of was a woman that bore the child of the priest that wooed her for sex. He never married her. When her child was pre-teen, she found out the priest, 25 years her senior, was having sexual “lapses” with 3 other women at the same time.
At his memorial, the priest’s child remained a secret (though the child is now an adult, and was in attendance among the mourners- looking exactly like the dead priest, his father.)
But the presiding priest said in his eulogy, “He was such a WONDERFUL priest! We need MORE like him!!” - because the deceased clergyman/father was known for working in social justice issues. The presiding priest knew all about the priest’s child and the 4 women he was having “lapses” with, at the same time. We need more priests like him?
NEWS FLASH - We do have more priests like that one; bishops too! And we have even more bishops that cover up for their indescretions. How many priests are not having “lapses” but are covering up for brother-priests that are? I know a priest that “retired” early, and with the support of the diocese, he remains in good standing, after having cost us $$$$ to settle a lawsuit from survivors that were credible. The retired priest claims he’s innocent. I know him - I think not.
I agree w/ what Fr. Robert Hoatson wrote. It’s time for our bishops to wise up. There will NEVER be trust among any clergyman, if bishops continue to call in high powered Catholic attorneys to do their dirty work, and to intimidate survivors.
Most importantly, none of these bishops/clergymen that hide & abuse anyone (men, women or children and teens) are in the Body of Christ. Look at their “fruit”. These supposed men of God are on their ways to hell, in a handbasket. For the clergy’s OWN good, we pew people need to speak up.
1. People should read about Fr. Robert Hoatson, who made the incredibly uncharitable first comment of this thread.
http://www.rcan.org/news05/121405pr.htm
2. @G Bullough, who wrote, “The agenda of survivors’ groups is justice and deterrance, no more no less.”
No way. Pardon the shameless plug, but I wrote a book about the truth about SNAP. They claim their “primary purpose” is to support survivors, but their very own tax records show something entirely different. SNAP has its roots in ACORN and the dishonest tactics of Saul Alinsky: ‘Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church’: http://www.amazon.com/Double-Standard-Scandals-Attack-Catholic/dp/1453730699
DPierre-
What about Fr. Hoatson’s comment was uncharitable? He suggested the reported “...focus instead on the climate of corruption, secrecy, and cover-up that pervades the clerical culture and continues to keep children at risk in the Catholic Church.” And then he went on to share a personal story.
I find that CHARITABLE, and it’s also biblical. It is constructive, and the reporter is wise to heed the suggestion, because diocese are going bankrupt, as we speak. Did you see that last Fall, a church in Delaware has to cough up over $3 million, for looking the other way, when their pastor had his “lapses” with boys? Are you willing to pay $$$ for having your head in the sand? I’m not. Clean up the Church-Fr. Hoatson’s right.
As for SNAP - nothing is perfect, because it is run by human beings. But I know people that I met through SNAP, and overall, its good outweighs the bad. We pew people need SOMETHING to protect us from our clergy and their ilk. It’s sad. But even you must agree that Roman Catholic “celibate” clergymen cannot be trusted, with the acceptance of their “lapses” being so common.
Just imagine a wife coming home to her husband, every 3-5 years of their marriage, and telling him, “Honey, I had another ‘lapse’ today. That’s okay with you, isn’t it? I’ll go to confession this Saturday night.” Do you think all will be well, until the NEXT lapse?
Would a wife tolerate her husband having “lapses” with other women and just forgiving and forgetting it as casually as “brother-priests” that live in glass houses forgive and forget the flaws in their “brothers”.
They’re all MEN. No wonder God said, “It is not good for man to be alone. I will create for him a help-meet.” That’s not Adam and Steve. It was Adam and EVE. A woman and a man, for balance.
Only the Magesterium from the Middle Ages would have the gall to dispute God. But they lack courage still- the sham of mandatory “celibacy” is called merely a PRACTICE. Too bad so few priests are able to live up to their lofty standards. Celibacy is a gift alright - to the Vatican and to a bishop that gets extra $$$ with all those second collections. What do pew people get? Sacrament Dispensers that have “lapses”, and bishops that cover it up. Time to get real folks - NO MORE COVER-UPS. Or no clergymen worthy of being trusted.
At least Fr. Hoatson is on the right side, with PROTECTING Jesus’ flock, and calling out for and end to “the climate of corruption, secrecy, and cover-up that pervades the clerical culture and continues to keep children at risk in the Catholic Church.”
Actually, abuse is abuse and it’s not only children (and male teens) that remain at risk. It’s women and other men - heterosexual and homosexual priests that have “lapses”, and leave the used and tossed out lambs in their wakes.
If states would make it ILLEGAL for any priest to have sex with any parishioner (like psychologists cannot have sex with patients, or they lose their license to practice) it would be ideal. Right now, the more lapses the priests have and the more the bishops cover it up, they’re retired or promoted!! I know a priest that was the cause of lots of $$ being paid out, and he was “retired”.
As for bishops [“Princes of the Church”] being promoted for playing the game of cover-up, we need look no further than Cardinal Law, the poster boy for bad management that was given a cushy position in Rome, and a 6-figure expense account by JPII. Fr. Hoatson complains about it, and rightly so. We need more priests that know right from wrong and have the guts to speak out.
I’m a little surprised that Desmond did not report the HUGE, eye-opening comments by former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Donald H. Steier: http://www.themediareport.com/jan2011/special-steier-declaration.htm
Steier: “One retired F.B.I. agent who worked with me to investigate many claims in the Clergy Cases told me, in his opinion, about ONE-HALF of the claims made in the Clergy Cases were either entirely false or so greatly exaggerated that the truth would not have supported a prosecutable claim for childhood sexual abuse.”
Also, “In several cases my investigation has provided objective information that could not be reconciled with the truthfulness of the subjective allegations. In other words, in many cases objective facts showed that accusations were false.”
And there’s lots more: “Los Angeles Attorney Declares Rampant Fraud,
Many Abuse Claims Against Catholic Priests are ‘Entirely False’”: http://www.themediareport.com/jan2011/special-steier-declaration.htm
(Full disclosure: I am the author of TheMediaReport.com.)
Why does the media continue to say that the problem is one of “pedophilia”—the abuse of pre-pubescent children—rather than what it is—homosexual predators in the priesthood? And why doesn’t it seem to care about all the accusations made against ministers, rabbis, teachers, and coaches?
That’s the real cover-up.
Nora wrote, “Until the Church mans up and takes it on the chin like they deserve, they are nothing but a mewling, pewling pack of pantywaists ...”
C’mon. The Church has certainly “taken it on the chin.” It has paid out over $2 billion in settlements in the United States alone, even though many allegations weren’t even investigated and almost all accusations date back DECADES. It has also trained 99+% of all priests in “child abuse awareness.” It has radically strengthened its screening of seminarians. Its “zero tolerance” policy removes a priest even with the flimsiest of accusations. The Church has certainly “manned up,” as you say.
Meanwhile, the media ignores massive abuse and cover-ups happening in our schools TODAY.
-
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.