BishopAccountability.org
	Bishop Says No to Registry of Accused Voice in the Desert [United States] March 30, 2007 http://voicefromthedesert.blogspot.com/2007/03/bishop-says-no-to-registry-of-accused.html The following story from the March 30, 2007, issue of the National Catholic Reporter should remove any doubt that the bishops in the United States, by not publishing the names of clergy facing credible accusations of sexual abuse, are continuing the criminal cover up that has been ongoing for decades, if not centuries. * * * Bishop says no to registry of accused Chair of clergy sex abuse committee takes stock of five years since charter By JOE FEUERHERD Washington The chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People told a Georgetown University audience March 20 that he opposes establishing a searchable Internet-based registry containing the names of clergy facing credible accusations of sexual abuse. "There is very little chance that such a list would be comprehensive or accurate," said Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin, Texas. Such a system would likely lead to a "miscarriage of justice," he said. Comparable to sex offender databases administered by state and local governments, the registry was first proposed to the bishops by Evansville, Ind., Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger in the spring of 2002 as a means for bishops to track clergy abusers as they moved from their diocese of origin to other church jurisdictions. Advocates for victims of clergy sexual abuse backed the idea, saying widespread dissemination of the information would help protect children. Several dioceses, including the Baltimore archdiocese, have posted the names of priests with credible accusations against them. The public posting was opposed by some Baltimore priests and others who saw it as primarily a public relations move designed to inoculate the church from additional criticism. Others said it was unfair because the list included the names of deceased priests who were unable to defend or explain their actions. Rather than a centralized system, Aymond said the release of such information was "best decided on an individual basis by the [clergy abuse] review board of a diocese" and the local bishop. "One size does not fit all, and we have to be very careful," he said. Further, Aymond said in response to a question, the aggressive efforts of church lobbyists in state legislatures to oppose repeal of the civil statute of limitations on sexual abuse are grounded on the well-founded concern that justice cannot be served after many years have passed since an alleged act of abuse. "I think it would be interesting if the states that were proposing this would propose it not just for the Catholic church but for all denominations, all schools ... [and] state officials," he said. Last year, church officials in Colorado argued that any relaxation of statute of limitations in civil cases should apply equally to public institutions such as schools, an approach that proved effective in defeating the legislation. Church lobbyists in Maryland used similar arguments this year to beat back a measure on civil liability in abuse cases. "All across the country, it looks like they are reading from the same playbook, making up the same spurious arguments and deflecting attention away from themselves," victim advocate David Clohessy told NCR. Aymond's comments were part of a wide-ranging presentation and question-and-answer session commemorating the U.S. bishops' institutional response to clergy sexual abuse -- the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People -- following January 2002 revelations that Boston archdiocesan officials protected priest-abusers at the expense of young parishioners. Aymond, who termed his presentation a "personal reflection," said that the six months following the Boston Globe-reported revelations were "a time of great pain, certainly a time of embarrassment, and one where we all felt a brokenness of spirit." "We looked at our brother priests and we felt a sense of betrayal. Trusted colleagues that we had worked with, gone to seminary with, been stationed with, and we asked the question, 'How can this be? I did not know that he was so troubled or sick. The signs were not there. Or the signs were there and why didn't we act more quickly, why didn't we put some of this together?' " Further, said Aymond, it was "painful also because bishops lost creditability because of their actions or their lack of actions." He said, "Just as Jesus died and was buried so too this church today must die and be buried to rise to new life." The failure of those in authority to act against abusers was much on the mind of the audience at the Woodstock Institute-sponsored event, which included abuse victims and their family members, journalists, and, as one questioner put it, those "with no dog in this fight." "If this is the worst scandal in the institution's history in the United States, it seems to me that within the institution someone should be held accountable and responsible," a former insurance company lobbyist told Aymond. "It's hard to understand how in the situation we are in, we have leaders -- cardinals and bishops -- [and] that nobody has been disciplined or held accountable." Aymond responded that some bishops who participated in cover-ups have resigned under Vatican pressure, but that bishops have no authority over other bishops. "We can't hold each other responsible. We are responsible to the pope," he said. At the same time, said Aymond, bishops have engaged in "fraternal correction" -- the church term for holding a colleague accountable. While not a "police approach," he said, "We are holding ourselves accountable and calling our brothers to be accountable." Aymond said that he personally has contacted other bishops to express dissatisfaction at their handling of abuse issues in their diocese. On other issues Aymond: * Said high-quality "safe environment programs" designed to educate both children and adults about child sexual abuse are an essential element of the church's response to sexual abuse. That there have been "fewer cases in recent years" is a "sign of hope," Aymond said. * Called for priestly formation and seminary programs that are "vigilant" in weeding out candidates who reveal any signs that they might abuse. * Acknowledged "genuine cover-ups," but said there have also been cases where bishops overly relied on the judgments of therapists and counselors, allowing abusive priests to return to ministry. * Called on church officials to seek out victims and "offer our apology, healing and counsel." * Offered "heartfelt and sincere thanks to the individuals and groups that have called us as a church to integrity and repentance and purification." The leader of one such group, Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said the church's response in the five years since passage of the charter has not been impressive. "There are cases that cry out for some fraternal correction and none ever appears to take place," said Clohessy. "The simplest and most obvious being [Lincoln, Neb., Bishop Fabian] Bruskewitz, who thumbs his nose at the bishops and gets not so much as a slap on the wrist from his colleagues." Bruskewitz has refused to allow audits of his diocese's child protection programs, as called for in the charter, and says the largely lay National Review Board established by the bishops to monitor the church's handling of the crisis is a usurpation of a bishop's role. Joe Feuerherd is NCR Washington correspondent. His e-mail address is jfeuerherd@ncronline.org.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.