BishopAccountability.org
	Speaking about Events with Priest Therapeutic for Ex-Local Man By Pat Bywater Meadville Tribune February 12, 2008 http://www.meadvilletribune.com/local/local_story_042210024.html After two sexual encounters with his parish priest in Jamestown that Kevin McParland, then a 20-year-old college sophomore, said were unwanted, he saw his life unravel. He had become a sometimes homeless drug and alcohol abuser with no hope or direction. McParland had attempted suicide twice and nearly killed himself with an accidental drug overdose after the death of his beloved father. That it took getting that low to shake McParland out of his downward spiral is no surprise to David Clohessy, director of the Chicago-based Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. Crippling and potentially deadly drug abuse, self-doubt and self-destructive behavior are common among those who have been abused by priests, he said. "A huge percentage of victims try to cope with the pain by self-medicating," he said. "It usually takes victims years or decades to understand the hurt is severe and ongoing." Clohessy should know. He, too, claims to have been victimized by his family's parish priest. Through SNAP, which was founded in 1988 by a female social worker who was victimized by a priest, Clohessy comes in daily contact with victims across the United States. He has been involved with the organization since 1990. While every instance of sexual impropriety by a priest is a serious matter, Clohessy believes that such instances within the Catholic Church are even more disabling to victims due to the tenets of the faith. "Catholic children are trained from birth to trust, respect and revere priests and also that they are God's representative on Earth," he said. "These are men who can take away our sins and get us into heaven. They are imbued with almost superhuman powers." This "power imbalance," as Clohessy calls it, combined with Catholic priests' vow of celibacy, often renders victims helpless when a sexual advance occurs, he said. In many cases, victims do little or nothing to resist, according to Clohessy, even in situations like McParland's when they have more than one sexual encounter with the same priest. In addition, Clohessy believes most abuser priests pick their victims carefully. "These men are unbelievably cunning, shrewd and manipulative," he said. "They know how to pick people who have a hard time saying no and who won't report it." Often, according to Clohessy, that means finding a victim who is vulnerable, as McParland was over his father's failing health. The fact that McParland went back to the man he felt was his abuser for answers is another strand Clohessy finds running through many cases of sexual abuse by a priest. He likens it to a battered spouse who goes back to her or his abuser again and again. If the downward spiral victim's experience does not lead to their death, the victim is likely to hit a pivotpoint in their life that causes them to seek help. For some, like McParland, it takes getting as low as you can — a near-death incident, for example. For others it can be a major change, like getting married or divorced or having a child. Since the Catholic Church's priest abuse scandal broke into national consciousness around 2000, it has become easier for victims to find help and know that they are not alone. "Now, thankfully, many victims are now more skeptical of church hierarchy, more willing to find independent help," Clohessy said. "It is better than it was pre-2000, but is still an issue." Even after counseling, many victims find that the impact of the abuse "is never erased and the harm is never undone," said Clohessy. "The unacknowledged wound never heals." In addition, "almost every one says they want to make sure the priest is not doing it to anyone else." In both respects, McPar-land's case is representative of countless others. Road to recovery Thanks to therapy that McParland said led to diagnoses of post-traumatic stress syndrome and panic attacks, he was getting back on his feet by 1991. He was sober, had found new friends and a new job. He believed continuing therapy was the key to recovery, he was looking for some sense of justice, and he had an idea of where these issues would take him. First, however, he needed the backing of his family. McParland was relieved with his family's supportive, sympathetic reaction when he finally revealed to them what had happened to him 11 years ago and how it had changed his life. For a long time they had a feeling that something was at issue with Father Stephen E. Jeselnick, who served their parish for only about a year. Jeselnick also served other parishes in the Erie Diocese, including some time in Meadville. With his family behind him, McParland was determined to approach the Erie Diocese. He knew there would never be a criminal case against Jeselnick — he learned that the statute of limitations had expired, so it was too late to seek prosecution. However, he did hope that the diocese would assist him in his recovery and he did expect church officials would act to ensure others were not at risk of abuse. During his 1991 meeting with Bishop Donald Trautman, McParland claims he was offered pastoral counseling, which meant he would be counseled by a priest. A letter provided by McParland, sent to him by e-mail from Trautman, refers to both psychological counseling and pastoral care. Although Trautman's letter indicates McParland received diocese-provided counseling from 1991 to 2007, McParland claims that is not the case. McParland claims he declined the 1991 offer because he did not want counseling from a priest. He wanted the diocese to pay for counseling from an independent, secular source. According to McParland, the Erie Diocese's stance changed in 1996 when he, in the wake of reports of abuser priests in the Los Angeles Diocese, contacted officials there who served as a liaison with Erie. They helped forge an agreement that led to the Erie Diocese paying for McParland's counseling, he said. According to McParland, the diocese paid for his counseling from 1996 to 1999 and from 2002 to 2007. Throughout the process he had to wrangle with the diocese over how much treatment he should receive, he claims. In 2002, McParland claims to have heard from Erie Diocese sources that Jeselnick was interested in forging a settlement in the case. In 2005, that led to an agreement between McParland and Jeselnick. McParland received a payment of $25,000. In exchange, McParland released Jeselnick and the Erie and Los Angeles dioceses from all claims, agreed to never contact Jeselnick, Trautman and a number of church officials and agreed to never discuss the incidents with Jeselnick with anyone except mental health and medical officials.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.