BishopAccountability.org
	Case against Diocese, Bishop Marshall Unproven By Dennis O'Brien Times Argus July 29, 2007 http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070729/FEATURES05/707290305/1014/FEATURES05 Vermont — The headlines in the July 1 edition of the Sunday Rutland Herald and Times Argus in connection with the sexual abuse cases involving the Catholic Diocese of Burlington were at best incomplete, if not misleading. "Records show Vermont church knew of sexual abuse cases." Given the current legal situation of the Diocese, one could well conclude "they knew about sexual abuse and did nothing." The case being discussed was that of Alfred Willis. If one read the full article, the charge of "doing nothing" was not, it seemed to me, well substantiated. A great deal was done from psychological counseling to suspension to final dismissal from the priesthood. Lest there be any doubt about the failure of the diocese in his case, the editorial that appeared shortly afterwards in the Rutland Herald and The Times Argus spelled out the faults in then-Bishop Marshall's actions. The editorial reads as a brief for the prosecution, well-salted with the wisdom of hindsight. It is not the only construction of the events, and it omits several crucial facts that could be noted in defense of the bishop's actions. The editorial paints a picture in which church officials knew of Willis' misconduct for years "since his days in the seminary" starting in 1972. According to the newspaper's own story, there were "allegations" against Willis of "homosexual conduct." The allegations from the seminary "failed to reveal substance." Was the diocese acting improperly in putting aside unsubstantiated allegations of homosexuality? In hindsight, one can trace a problem, but at the time, presumed innocence could well be seen as the right decision. (It is worth pointing out that "homosexual conduct" and "pedophilia" are by no means the same.) Putting aside hindsight and unsubstantiated allegations, it is important to consider the timeline: When did they know? What did they do? The first specific accusations against Willis occur in 1978. By 1980, Bishop Marshall has suspended Willis from active ministry. Whatever inaction or concealment the diocese undertook should be considered within that two-year period. What happened between 1978 – the first specific accusations – and suspension? It is a curious record but not one which shows passivity on the part of the diocese. After the first accusations from St. Anthony's in Burlington, Willis was directed by the bishop to seek psychological counseling and meet with the parents making the accusations. Presumably, Willis complied. The psychiatrist concluded that Willis was not homosexual "but he had odd habits." He seems to have reconciled with one set of parents, though the other parents regarded him as a "degenerate liar." Willis was transferred to St. Ann's in Milton in 1979. The editorial faults the bishop for informing no one about the accusations from Burlington. It is part of the scenario of the cover-up. What did the bishop know then about Willis and what should he have conveyed to the pastor at St. Ann's? Marshall could well have concluded that the psychiatrists' comment and the reconciliation with one set of parents had settled the matter and one could proceed with a "clean slate." As for the accusation that Willis was a "degenerate liar," the editorial complains that the diocese ignored this accusation because it could not prove lying. Failing to act on unproven accusations is hardly a moral fault! In the luxury of hindsight, the bishop made the wrong decision, but that is not the issue when it comes to accusing him of malfeasance. After transfer to Milton, new accusations occurred. I believe that would be important to imputing fault to the diocese. Clearly Willis was engaging in wrongful behavior and was so accused by several parents. The conduct was reported to the state's attorney who met with the bishop. No legal proceedings followed, however. Why? The principal reason is that the parents refused to file a complaint. (Strangely, the complaining parents were socially close to Willis and were somehow enlisted to help change his behavior!) The editorial suggests that another reason for failure to take legal action was that the bishop sought to intimidate the prosecutor by saying that he would be committing the sin of scandal. There are several problems with this account of Marshall's "threat." The accusation against the bishop was made by one lawyer at the meeting, Susan Via. Maybe she is correct, but the state's attorney at the time, Mark Keller, has no memory of the meeting. A threat from the bishop would be so untoward and unsettling that it is hard to believe that had it been made, Keller would fail to recall it even at this late date. I am inclined to believe the diocesan record: "The bishop made no effort to influence the direction of the S.A.'s thinking." I am certain that the bishop did mention the problem of scandal. Willis' conduct was scandalous, and the bishop could well have expressed deep regret that there would be public legal proceedings. Via may well have interpreted expression of regret as threat. Legal action was not taken by the state's attorney, but it seems that Marshall did take action. In November 1980, Willis was removed from active ministry and sent off to a series of psychiatric institutions. (Dates of the meeting with the state's attorney and Marshall's action would be important in assigning negligence to the diocese.) Willis never returns to ministry and is finally dismissed from the priesthood in 1985. Clearly there have been moral misjudgments and deliberate cover-ups in the way the Catholic Church has handled sexual abuse cases in past. The records in Boston and Philadelphia are clear on that issue. The editorial reads that general scenario onto the Willis' case. Maybe so, but from its own report, I would have to say that the case against Marshall is unproven.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.