BishopAccountability.org
	Performance of the Church's Response Team Times of Malta May 18, 2010 http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100518/opinion/editorial Over the past 11 years, the Maltese Church's Response Team received allegations of child abuse involving 45 Maltese priests. When this information emerged, at the end of last March, much to the amazement of many, no information was immediately forthcoming from the Archbishop's Curia on the outcome of such cases. The news that allegations had been made against 45 Maltese priests spread like wildfire, perhaps also because of Pope Benedict's impending visit to the island in mid-April. Comparisons were made between the number of accused priests with the total number of priests in Malta and also with the size of the Maltese population. Nonetheless, it incredibly took the Archbishop's Curia 12 days to react and, on April 12, provide the additional information that its Response Team had found no basis for such allegations in 19 cases, it identified that cases can be instituted against 13 members of the clergy and that 13 are pending! The much overdue clarification also explained that, in line with standard procedure, four of the cases were referred to the Holy See and judgment was delivered accordingly. The priests were found guilty and were sentenced. Sentences varied from being defrocked to restrictions placed upon the priest's pastoral activity in such a way that the priest involved would not be permitted to work with minors and be subject to supervision. These clarifications were most welcome as they provided a much clearer picture than just stating that the allegations against 45 priests had been received in the space of 11 years! However, the delay in providing such information surely could and should have been avoided! The Church in Malta should ensure that full statistical data regarding the Response Team's performance, especially statistics on the cases dealt with and their final outcome, is made available to the public on a regular basis. Such statistics should also include, for instance, information on the average time employed by the Response Team to conclude a case involving an allegation of child abuse, for how long has the oldest such case been under scrutiny, in which cases deliberations take very long and why such delays cannot be avoided. In putting such questions one ought to bear in mind that the Regional Superior of the Missionary Society of St Paul, in reference to a case that emerged in 2003, was quoted as saying (il-gensillum.com, May 1) that they do not exactly know what has happened and, like everybody else, they are still awaiting the result of the Response Team and the court, a situation which, of course, also raises questions about the court delays. The Archdiocese is on record stating that the Response Team's deliberations remain of a preliminary nature and that, after due inquiry of an allegation, the team reports to the ecclesiastical authorities concerned whether there are reasonable or probable grounds to believe that there has been a situation of abuse. If it is found that there are such grounds, the authorities shall give directions with respect to the provision of assistance to the victim of the abuse and to the abuser and to ensure that situations in which similar abuses could be committed are avoided. A Curia spokesman has told The Sunday Times that the Response Team does not make its conclusions public. In the circumstances, speeding up the Response Team's procedures and seeing that it presents its reports as early as possible remains fundamental. It is in the best interest of all, including the credibility of the whole process.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.