Reading Eagle
October 25, 2010
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=258920
 |
| John Fidler |
Last month's announcement by the Diocese of Allentown that it had removed two priests from the ministry because of allegations of sexual abuse lit a candle that burned only until it was snuffed out by the diocese itself.
When I learned that the diocese had begun investigating allegations by sending a former FBI agent to interview a survivor of abuse - and then, according to the survivor, Mark Rozzi, telling the survivor not to tell anyone about the interview - I needed no more evidence that the diocese had quickly returned to the same position the church itself has maintained for decades: Secrecy is better than openness.
While the diocese admitted that it was using an investigator, the investigator himself, Brian Smyth, did not return a call I made to him. I had lots of questions.
David Clohessy, president of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which is based in Chicago, did return my phone call.
He too was troubled, not only by the secrecy surrounding the investigations but by the investigator's refusal to meet with Rozzi because Rozzi had brought his attorney, Jay Abramowitch.
"The only time you should be unwilling to met with someone is if you consider that person your enemy," Clohessy said.
He added that the sudden exit by the investigator, confirmed by both Rozzi and Abramowitch, spoke volumes about the real intention of the meeting and the investigation.
"If the goal is to determine the merits of the information provided by the survivors, then the more open the process is the quicker the determination can be made," said Clohessy, also a survivor of sexual abuse by a priest.
He compared the diocese's investigation to one done by the police, who want people to call them if they have information about a crime.
"If the unbiased take that approach, then the biased should certainly do that, too."
I asked Clohessy what he thought the investigation was all about. He said he wasn't sure but told me a story about a similar circumstance in Oklahoma, where a private investigator interviewed a survivor and asked him for the names of other possible victims of abuse.
The survivor gave the investigator lots of names, but the investigator never interviewed the other people, Clohessy said.
"The church could then say, 'See, nothing to it.' "
But Clohessy's concerns are broader than one diocese.
He recalled for me the pledges made in June 2002, when the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops met in Dallas. And when Clohessy delivered a moving statement to the bishops as part of the official proceedings.
"The bishops promised to protect kids," Clohessy said. "And to keep the process open and transparent. That's what's so troubling about what happened (with the investigations in the Allentown Diocese).
"You would expect a greater degree of openness eight years after Dallas, but it appears we've done a 180 back to secrecy."
Clohessy closed his statement in Dallas with a call not to the bishops but to Catholic parishioners.
"Don't settle for cheap talk, grave expressions of concern, eloquent apologies, for pledges to do better," he said eight years ago.
Eight years later, disappointment has won again.
Clohessy lamented the bare-bones approach taken by the Allentown and other dioceses.
"They do what their lawyers, insurance companies and PR people tell them."
In other words, the promises made in Dallas were as empty as a starving man's
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.