BishopAccountability.org
	Abuse Charter Not Cut and Dried What Happens to Guilty Priests? Wrongly Accused Priests? By Jeff Diamant The Ledger June 23, 2007 http://www.theledger.com/article/20070623/NEWS/706230386/1326 Newark, N.J. - In 2004, the Rev. Gerald Sudol believed he would be kicked out of the Catholic priesthood after a man accused him of sexual abuse two decades ago and the Archdiocese of Newark signed a five-figure settlement with the man's family. Fast-forward two years. A canonical trial acquitted Sudol, and he was reassigned to work at a hospice. Last February, "Fr. Gerry" was honored at a festive, church-sponsored jubilee for the 25th anniversary of his ordination. The case highlights the complexities facing the Catholic Church since it adopted the so-called "Dallas Charter" five years ago in the wake of damning revelations that church leaders for decades covered up child sex abuse by priests. The charter, hashed out by Catholic bishops meeting in Dallas, mandated all accusations be investigated and certain steps be taken to prevent future abuse. The charter also urged bishops to promote reconciliation with victims of clergy sex abuse, many of whom felt ignored or chastised for coming forward. By all accounts the situation has improved at least somewhat since 2002, as dioceses have used the charter - formally called the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People - as a guide, and as more church employees and volunteers become sensitive to signs of abuse. "We're far more astute now than we were, say, 15 or 20 years ago," said Bishop William Skylstad, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a prepared statement. "I think across the board we've learned that sexual abuse of children occurs not only in the church, but everywhere, and that's really important. I think that people are now better prepared to spot abuse and to provide a safe environment." Others agree that the issue is now more out in the open. Now, "kids are somewhat more apt to tell (adults about abuse), parents more apt to believe, families more apt to call 911, police more apt to investigate, DAs more apt to charge, juries more apt to convict," said David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. "All that is extraordinarily positive." Yet Clohessy - among the bishops' most prominent, persistent critics - and other victims advocates have said the bishops' response to the scandal is lacking, that the largely voluntary nature of the efforts has proven inadequate. They complain that the bishops conference does not publicize names of credibly accused priests or release their personnel files, and say bishops have avoided accountability for harmful decisions of the past. Advocates for priests, on the other hand, complain bishops have often been too quick to suspend priests after accusations. More significant, perhaps, no one has yet devised a way to supervise clergy whose crimes can't be prosecuted because of expired statutes of limitations. In the Dallas Charter, bishops conceded the scandal was "a crisis without precedent in our times." They apologized and vowed to diminish its stain by: Investigating abuse claims more methodically. Barring men from ministry who had committed even one sex offense against a minor. Reconciling with emotionally scarred victims. Training church workers to prevent abuse. Being "open and transparent" to the public about child sex abuse while protecting reputations of the accused. A study released in 2004 found that 4,392 priests - 4 percent of all U.S. priests - were credibly accused of sex abuse from 1950 to 2002, with more abuse occurring in the 1970s than in any other decade. The number of new accusations has since declined, from 1,092 in 2004 to 714 in 2006. Most dioceses are now receiving a handful each year. Yet church officials have refused to create a database of credibly accused priests - which victims groups say could help prevent additional abuse - because they say they could be sued for slander since most of the accused were never charged in court. A de facto database of sorts has emerged on the independently run Web site www.bishopaccountability.org, which since 2003 has listed names of accused priests, diocese by diocese, who have been named in news articles, with links to the articles, short summaries of known accusations, and the priests' statuses. "Consolidating that information is a public service," said Terry McKiernan, president of Massachusetts-based BishopAccountability.org Inc. "We're not saying the people are all guilty. That's not our role." Over the last five years, the question of what to do with credibly accused priests has grown in significance. Even some victims advocates say outright laicization - formal removal from the priesthood - is not always the best solution because cutting all ties often places a man who has abused children out on the street with no supervision of any kind. The Dallas Charter's most controversial provision was the measure barring any priest from ministry after even one credible accusation of abuse. To many bishops and victims alike, it seemed an obvious step after the scandal. But five years later, determining whether accusations of decades-old abuse are credible remains difficult, given that most accused priests have only one or two people coming forward making claims, said the Rev. Thomas Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center in Washington, D.C. "How do you prove it? It's like a sexual harassment case in the workplace. Nobody sees it, there's no evidence. It's one person's word against another," Reese said. "We don't have a police force to investigate crimes. We don't have a district attorney, or judges and grand juries, let alone a system to prosecute someone and try to get at the truth."
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.