BishopAccountability.org
	Victims" Voices Crucial in Bringing Church to Understanding of Harm of Abuse Catholic San Francisco May 19, 2011 http://www.catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=1&id=58593 This is an excerpt from the heading "Organizational responses to abuse" on Page 119 of the John Jay College study, "The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010," presented May 18 to the U.S. Catholic bishops in Washington, D.C. -- Diocesan responses to abusive priests changed substantially over the 60-year period addressed in this study. For example, abusive priests were less likely to be returned to active ministry and/or more likely to be placed on administrative leave during the later years. Bishops and other diocesan leaders experienced confusion about or difficulty with available options (for example, suspension, laicization, reinstatement) for permanently removing abusive priests from ministry. -- By the mid-1980s, all bishops had been made aware of the issue of sexual abuse of minors. Bishops were committed to the Five Principles, but these Principles were not consistently implemented in all dioceses. Some bishops undertook thoroughgoing change in their response to victims of abuse and affected parishes; other bishops limited the discussion of sexual abuse to those consultants who had commitments of confidentiality. -- Diocesan leaders responded to acts of abuse, but with a focus on the priests and not the victims. Many bishops acted in good faith to help abusive priests, most often by sending the priest-abusers to treatment. There was no clear indication, however, of the bishops’ or other diocesan leaders’ understanding of the extent of harm resulting from sexual abuse. Although this lack of understanding was consistent with the overall lack of understanding of victimization at the time, the absence of acknowledgment of harm was a significant ethical lapse on the part of leadership in some dioceses. -- “Insiders” were engaged, but “outsiders” were rebuffed; information about sexual abuse within the Catholic Church was tightly controlled. This pattern led individuals and groups outside the church, including victim advocates, to call for a greater response and more transparency about the response to abuse claims. -- Some diocesan leaders were “innovators” who led the organizational change to address the problems of sexual abuse of minors. However, some were also “laggards,” or were slow to respond to organizational changes. The media often focused on the laggards, even though they constituted a minority of diocesan leaders, which further perpetuated the image that the bishops as a whole were not responding to the problem of sexual abuse of minors. -- It is the voices and narratives of victims that have confronted priests, enabled dioceses to act responsibly, and brought diocesan leaders to an understanding of the harm of abuse.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.