BishopAccountability.org
	Out of Left Field: Another Deposition, More Betrayal By Margaret Field Chicago Catholic News August 31, 2009 http://www.chicagocatholicnews.com/2009/08/out-of-left-field-another-deposition_30.html I have just finished reading Bishop Ray Goedert's deposition , and I am very, very sad — and very confused. Where is the Catholic outrage? Where is the call from the faithful for a public act of penance by this bishop, this former vicar for priests, who knew that at least 25 priests had sexually molested children and did not, even once, report any of these substantiated allegations to appropriate civil authorities? Goedert's rationale? Yes, our bishop admitted, he was aware that molestation of children was a crime, but he wasn't a "mandated reporter" at that time. Nor did Goedert tell the truth to parishioners when these priests were either reassigned, forced to resign or granted a sabbatical. He either never understood (or never cared) that parents and other victims who had not yet come forward had a right to know the truth, so that they could either deal with their own suppressed abuse issues or, as parents, verify that their own children had not also been harmed. Where is the outrage? Over and over victims and their families pleaded that the Church make sure these priests could not hurt any more children, sometimes offering to forgo a monetary settlement to ensure the future protection of children from these men. Over and over, while giving lip service to these requests, the Archdiocese of Chicago blatantly ignored their pleas, and refused to commit themselves in writing. Now we also know that information and correspondence regarding allegations of priest sexual abuse of minors was not made part of priests' personnel files, but kept in separate files controlled by the vicar of priests. The monitoring of these sexual offenders was casual to say the least. Sometimes the vicar of priests was himself the monitor; often it was the bishop of the vicariate to which the priest was assigned, or the bishop's designate. (Bishop Goedert is pretty vague about all of this. I guess it wasn't of much importance to him.) There was no defined protocol. There was no oversight or review. Only the "monitor," whoever that might be, knew of the allegations. Certainly, the parish school personnel did not. Where was any real concern for parishioners and their children? So, where is the outrage? But, all that has changed, hasn't it — with the U.S. bishops' 2002 " Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People "? Article 4 of this original charter states: "Dioceses/eparchies will report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities. They will cooperate in their investigation in accord with the law of the jurisdiction in question. . . . In every instance, dioceses/eparchies will advise victims of their right to make a report to public authorities and will support this right." And, Article 7 of the original 2002 charter states that: "Each diocese/eparchy will develop a communications policy that reflects a commitment to transparency and openness. Within the confines of respect for the privacy and the reputation of the individuals involved, dioceses/eparchies will deal as openly as possible with members of the community. This is especially so with regard to assisting and supporting parish communities directly affected by ministerial misconduct involving minors." So, the distressing behaviors and attitudes reflected in Bishop Goedert's deposition, mostly covering offenses and procedures during the '70s and '80s, are no longer the norm. Since the Charter of 2002 (revised by the bishops in 2005), allegations are reported, transparency is in place so that the Catholic faithful are informed in a truthful and timely manner, and, most importantly, children are protected. Certainly that must be the case right here in Chicago, where our cardinal is the current president of the U.S. Bishops Conference. Certainly, this diocese must be a model of faithfulness to the bishops' charter. Not quite. . . . Remember the tragic stories of Frs. Dan McCormack and Joseph Bennett? With accusations going back to his seminary days, Dan McCormack, known as a "rising star" in the archdiocese, was finally arrested in August of 2005, and released while an investigation was underway. But the cardinal, against the advice of an archdiocesan review board, chose to leave Fr. McCormack in his parish and promote him to dean, until after his arrest in January 2006. During this time, Fr. McCormack continued to molest at least one boy! Oh yes, an archdiocesan official explained, "he was being monitored. . . ." Fr. Bennett? In 2002, the archdiocese received information about alleged abuse from the 1970s. Again, in 2003, allegations of abuse and rape were made known to the cardinal, and finally, the review board recommended removal in October 2005. Was Fr. Bennett removed from ministry then? No . . . not until the McCormack story broke. Then, in February 2006, and after more allegations were received, Bennett was finally removed from ministry. Oh yes, Fr. Bennett, too, was "being monitored . . ." from 2005, anyway. In their charter, the bishops piously repeat these words of the Holy Father in his address to the American cardinals: "There is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young." Obviously, despite the grave scandal to the Church, despite the huge monetary settlements, despite the harm inflicted on innocent children, despite the betrayal of the people he is vowed to shepherd, Cardinal George has flouted his own charter, overridden the advice of his own review board, and has not taken the words of the pope very seriously. But then, again, where, oh where is our communal Catholic outrage?
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.