BishopAccountability.org
	The National Survivor Advocate Coalition (nsac) Checks the Facts in Statements by Bishop Richard J. NSAC January 4, 2009 http://nsacoalition.wordpress.com/fact-sheet/ [letters to Bishop Malone] Malone and Diocesan Spokeswoman Sue Bernard: In a statement posted on the Diocese of Portland website and in several interviews, Bishop Malone explains his reasons for initiating police action and canonical warnings against Paul Kendrick, a longtime survivor advocate. Unfortunately, those reasons contain misrepresentations that distort the truth, and therefore warrant correction. Here is the full record in response: —————– MALONE: “He has picketed my residence…” FACT: On four occasions during the past five years (less than once per year), Kendrick has joined a small group of sex abuse victims and their supporters as they stood on the public sidewalk outside Malone’s church owned residence. On each occasion, they stood in a peaceful vigil for the sole purpose of a) calling attention to the bishop’s failure to protect children from priest abusers who live in unsuspecting neighborhoods or, b) recognizing and acknowledging the trauma, pain and suffering of those who were abused. Two of the vigils were held for the purpose of praying for the souls of victims of clergy sexual abuse who have died of suicide. On the other occasions, they held signs urging the bishop to make public the names and whereabouts of all credibly accused priests, religious and church workers. There was no picket, no protest. The vigils were held with the concurrence of local authorities. —————– MALONE: “…he has sent literally hundreds of e-mails to the Chancery” FACT: Three advocacy groups-–Voice of the Faithful (VOTF)–Maine, the Ignatius Group, and Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP)–Maine-– have indeed sent “hundreds of e-mails” over the past seven years to hundreds of recipients in Maine and elsewhere about the clergy abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. Kendrick is or was affiliated with all three groups, in whose name the e-mails were sent to distribution lists that included the press, media, parish members, parish leaders, Catholic Charities, survivor advocates, abuse victims and survivors, non-profit agencies, other Maine churches and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland. E-mail messages sent to the Chancery were addressed to the Director of Public Relations for the diocese and other chancery workers. The twice weekly messages included copies of worldwide updates about the sexual abuse crisis, editorials, letters to the editor, informative news articles and “Open Letters” to former Bishop Joseph Gerry, Malone and other church officials. The ”Open Letters” expressed criticism of (among many other issues): a) the church’s failure to warn parents about unsuspecting priest child abusers, b) the hardball legal tactics employed against abuse victims and their families, c) the failure of Church leaders to tell the truth and be responsible and accountable for what occurred in the past, d) the bishops’ lack of pastoral care, compassion and understanding towards those who were abused. The email distribution lists were created by victims’ advocates in an attempt to educate, inform and awaken the Catholic community in Maine to the realities of the cover-up and transfer of known priest child molesters into unsuspecting parishes and schools by Church officials. In addition, the messages contained in the e-mails are purposely intended to clearly and forcefully call attention to Church officials who have in the past and continue to mistreat and bully abuse victims in an attempt to intimidate and frighten those who were abused. Malone and his spokeswoman neglected to mention that the bishop will not allow survivor advocacy groups to publish information in parish bulletins, the bi-monthly diocesan news magazine or the diocese web site. The same groups are denied access to parishes for the purpose of speaking to parishioners about the sex abuse crisis in the Church. As a further example of the bishop’s censorship, the bishop refused to publish a paid advertisement in which contact information for SNAP and the Maine Coalition for Sexual Assault would be made available to those in need of help and support. The editor of the news magazine informed group leaders that the SNAP ads would not be published because the bishop said that “SNAP has been critical of me in the past.” —————- MALONE: “I was warned that Mr. Kendrick was waiting for me outside the gathering place with a video camera.” FACT: After weeks of Malone refusing to meet with Marie Tupper, the mother of a clergy sexual abuse victim, she asked Harvey Paul, Maine Director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests and Paul Kendrick to stand alongside her in a peaceful vigil on a public sidewalk. An open meeting with Malone at a local bar had been advertised in parish bulletins and on the diocesan web site, inviting all to attend. No entrances were blocked; Malone’s path was unobstructed as it was for all pedestrians on the busy sidewalk. The press and media were not contacted so as not to disturb the meeting’s attendees. Kendrick held a video camera to capture the event so that Malone could not tell an alternate version of the meeting. —————- MALONE: “A police escort was provided to me so that I could enter the building safely.” FACT: At Malone’s request, a single police officer walked one block with him to the bar. The police did not initiate contact with Malone, nor warn him of any danger being posed by the small group of advocates. Instead, Malone or his representative called the police. The police neither warned nor spoke to the three advocates either before or during Malone’s arrival. The bishop had no reason or evidence to expect that he would not be able to enter the bar from the sidewalk in a timely and safe manner. The advocates informed the police officer that they would not be present when the bishop emerged from the bar. ————— MALONE: “I received a letter from Mr. Kendrick detailing his plans to distract and unnerve me and thus disrupt Midnight Mass at the Cathedral.” FACT: Kendrick’s letter to Malone said in part, “I will come in peace. But if you happen to look my way from time to time, you may see me shaking my head ever so slightly in disbelief, or my head may be in my hands as I pray for tolerance to remain seated in spite of your hypocrisy.” Coming in “peace” means just that. It did not mean a disruption of the mass. When Malone filed the police notices against Kendrick, he knew that Kendrick would not disrupt the mass. Why? Because shortly after reading Kendrick’s letter to Malone, a senior diocese official contacted Kendrick to assure him that he would be treated with the same respect as any other Catholic attending the midnight mass. In an email sent by Kendrick the same day, Kendrick wrote, “Further, he (the deacon) told me he would call head usher, Bob Schwartz, to ensure that I could sit in the front row or anywhere else I wanted and that no one would be purposely placed beside me or behind me.” Kendrick responded warmly to the deacon, reinforcing his intentions: “You have my word that I will come in peace to the midnight Mass. It is an act of conscience for me to be there as a visible reminder to the Catholic bishop of Maine that he is not treating Marie Tupper in accordance with the gospel values that he is preaching. I intend to respect the occasion and all those in attendance at the Mass. It is enough for me to know that Bishop Malone knows the reason for my presence.” -————- MALONE: “…what felt threatening to me personally and harmful to my ministry as your bishop.” FACT: It is incumbent upon Malone to explain and define what he means when he says he feels personally threatened. No advocate in Maine has ever “threatened” Malone in a manner that would cause him physical harm. Any harm imposed upon Malone’s ministry is as a result of his cover up and secrecy about credibly- accused priest perpetrators living unsupervised in Maine communities. For instance, Malone knew that Rev. Michael Plourde (who had abused 12 year-old boys when he worked in a Biddeford, Maine parish) was living in an apartment building filled with unsuspecting children. ————— MALONE: “Constructive criticism is always welcome.” FACT: Survivors and their advocates have not found Malone receptive to constructive criticism. They have experienced a defensiveness and testiness in Malone’s demeanor. He has steadfastly refused to meet with or accept invitations to join their outreach in parishes where abuse occurred. Neither he nor his staff responds to reasonable inquiries with direct answers, leaving many issues unaddressed and unresolved. As an example, Malone has been criticized for refusing to move out of his 7,000 sq. ft. mansion (6 bedrooms, 4 full baths), where he lives by himself. The property has an assessed value of $1 million; operating and maintenance costs are kept confidential. Yet in an ongoing legal case, the bishop is defending himself and the Church by employing the doctrine of charitable immunity; i.e., the Catholic Church in Maine does not have the resources to make financial reparations for sexual molestation. Bishops in other dioceses have sold or tried to sell a mansion, cancelled an expensive property purchase, or if they went forward with costly renovations, it was under severe public opposition. ————— MALONE: “I assure you that the Diocese of Portland has aggressively and appropriately responded to this crisis.” FACT: Malone’s statement that the Diocese has pursued an aggressive and appropriate response to the sexual abuse crisis is contradicted by his record of withholding the names of credibly accused clergy, withholding crucial information about the number of their victims (a dozen versus one or two), refusing for months to reveal the disposition of Vatican proceedings, and withholding the identities of previously unnamed priests, to name several examples. Timely disclosure of the truth about perpetrating clergy is an important mark of a genuine aggressive and appropriate stance. Finally, Malone closes his release with prayers for survivors, their families, the Church, perpetrators, “good and faithful priests,” for himself and other Church leaders. May the bishop also come someday to include those who advocate for survivors, seeking to witness by their presence amongst them. The National Coalition and local advocates again invite the bishop to join us in our ministry. He has always been welcome. Response to statements by Sue Bernard, diocesan spokeswoman: BERNARD: “This is about harassment.” FACT: Bernard’s definition of harassment is inaccurate. Bernard is attempting to define a Catholic’s commitment to the tenets of Catholic Social Teaching with her own misguided definition of harassment. Kendrick has persistently called for Malone to meet with and comfort families of survivors, to make full disclosure about abusive priests’ records, to stop employing hardball legal tactics against victims, to cease claiming a charitable immunity defense for the diocese while the bishop lives in a million dollar mansion, to stand peacefully outside a church with a sign. ————— BERNARD: “…the diocese took that as a threat to disrupt the service.” FACT: Kendrick clearly stated that he was coming in peace and in a follow-up e-mail said he would not disrupt the mass. He has never disrupted any liturgy, anywhere. ————— BERNARD: “And if the person saying or leading the Mass is distracted, that’s disruptive to everybody.” FACT: Saying Malone would be distracted by Kendrick’s presence and hence disruptive to everyone is disingenuous. Where is the focus and sense of presence? How is the spiritual leader of Maine’s Catholic community “distracted” by a baptized Catholic’s plea for the bishop to help, support and comfort a mother whose child was molested by the family’s priest? ————— BERNARD: “Malone has invited Tupper to meet with Dubois, the vicar general, and Paul Falconer, chairman of a diocesan board that reviews sexual-abuse claims.” FACT: Tupper asks specifically to meet with her bishop, not his surrogates. Besides, Rev. Andrew Dubois ignored for weeks her repeated requests for an update on her child’s priest abuser’s case, a common unresponsive and demeaning practice by Church officials. On arrival in Maine as bishop, Malone said he would meet with any person who was abused, and Tupper took him at his word. Beyond the abuse of her son, Tupper has been continuously maligned by her pastor(s), parish council members and other parishioners for reporting a well liked and popular priest. This mother is made out to be a pariah, accused of lying, and of making claims for the sole purpose of collecting money. She needs the bishop to come to her aid and inform the community that there are at least a dozen more victims of the same abuser instead of abandoning her to suffer unjustly as a scapegoat for people’s anger and frustrations. ————— BERNARD: “He does not feel comfortable sitting down with people who have such a close association with Paul,” FACT: Guilt by association? The bishop is making his personal comfort the issue. The issue is not Kendrick. The issue is the pain of a survivor’s mother in need of a Shepherd’s healing care. ————— BERNARD: “The bishop asked for and received a police escort past the trio, who peppered him with questions as he walked by.” FACT: Bernard’s statement is proof that Malone “asked for the escort.” Tupper quickly asked only one question to which the bishop did not respond directly, as Malone hurriedly scrambled to enter the bar. There was no “peppering” of questions. The Coalition calls on Bernard to speak the truth and properly represent the facts. We also invite her to join in this very import ministry of serving the poor, the sexually abused and their families.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.