BishopAccountability.org
	Diocesan Review Board Members Say Their Work Proceeds Unimpeded By Dennis Sadowski Catholic News Service May 23, 2011 http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1102031.htm WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Members of seven diocesan review boards that consider clergy sex abuse cases said their work never has been impeded by diocesan officials or church hierarchy as they developed recommendations on whether an accusation was credible or not. The review board members also said they worked collaboratively with officials within their dioceses to ensure that priests who posed a danger to children were removed from ministry as quickly as possible. Review board members talked about their work in response to inquiries from Catholic News Service following an account by the chair of the Philadelphia review board criticizing archdiocesan officials. Ana Maria Catanzaro, who chairs Philadelphia's board, charged in Commonweal magazine May 12 that church officials failed "miserably at being open and transparent" in their dealings with board members. In response, the archdiocese explained that its understanding of the best way to investigate and act on abuse allegations, especially those not pursued by civil authorities, has continuously changed over the years. The archdiocese has pledged to "improve that process from beginning to end." Catanzaro's revelations cast a shadow on the work of review boards across the country and likely will open the review board structure to deeper examination by victims' advocates and the U.S. bishops. The board structure is outlined in the "Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing With Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons." The norms, with the Vatican's approval, spell out procedures for dioceses to offer assistance to clergy abuse victims, provide guidelines for establishing a review board to consider cases and offer advice to a local bishop and specify steps to carry out disciplinary action against clergy when necessary in accordance with canon law. The norms were developed to implement the bishops' 2002 "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People," which mandates policies and procedures for responding to abuse allegations. When the U.S. bishops meet in Seattle in June, they will review implementation of the charter as well as whether the system broke down in Philadelphia. Under canon law, a review board -- as any diocesan consultative body -- only can offer recommendations to a bishop, leaving the final action to him. The board members contacted by CNS said they could not recall when their bishop did not follow their advice. Among board members interviewed, the desire to serve at a time when the church was mired in crisis was a widely held feeling. Members said they felt their particular expertise or their standing in the community was needed to lend credibility to the review process and so they responded when the church came calling. "I didn't want to do it," Rosemary Baron, chair of the review board in Salt Lake City, recalled about first being approached by the diocese. "I was very angry and upset with our priests. When I received a call from our vicar general, I declined and he said, 'You need to do this.'" So she did. The now-retired public school principal is glad to have joined the effort. "Personally, I have seen the strength of our bishops as they united together ... to give direction to every diocese on how to address this issue," Baron said. "Unification was significant to me and that we as a diocese without fail followed every one of those norms to the 'T.' That was the direction of our review board." In the Indianapolis Archdiocese, review board member Ann DeLaney said she harbored doubts when Archbishop Daniel M. Buechlein invited her to serve. On the board since 2003, she said she has found that the process established under the norms works well. "Transparency has been surprisingly good," said DeLaney, a former prosecutor of sex crimes and child abuse cases who now is executive director of the Julian Center, which assists domestic violence and sexual assault survivors. "My first concern about this at all was that we weren't going to be a rubber stamp. If our advice was going to fall on deaf ears and we were going to be used as a Band-Aid, then that was not going to work. But that hasn't been the case. I cannot think of a time that we recommended something and it wasn't done," she said. DeLaney's concerns were expressed initially by review board members elsewhere as well. They said they did not want to be viewed as being complicit with the failures of the church in addressing clergy-caused sex abuse. Patricia Ritzert, longtime chair of the Cleveland Diocese's review board said both Bishop Richard G. Lennon and his predecessor, Bishop Anthony M. Pilla, insisted that the board function independently as it investigated abuse accusations. "The review board is permitted and does examine information firsthand and examines documents and assembles documents," she explained to CNS. "The bishops we've served under have asked the diocese to cooperate with requests of the review board." Bishop Lennon was the apostolic administrator of the Boston Archdiocese for six months after Cardinal Bernard F. Law resigned in the fallout of the abuse scandal in December 2002. There's no telling if his experience in that heated setting shaped his approach, but Ritzert credited Bishop Lennon for ensuring that transparency reaches across the diocese. "If there has been any difficulty, the bishop smoothed the way," she said. Elsewhere, review board members lauded their bishops for ensuring that the process specified by the norms works, but expressed frustration about external matters that affect their efficiency. Psychologist Shane Haydon, chair of the review board in Portland, Ore., said the slow pace of the legal system has been the most significant hurdle to board action. He cited cases where the board has postponed hearing from an abuse victim as attorneys negotiated conditions for the appearance or finalized a settlement in a civil lawsuit. "We feel badly for the parties (both victim and priest) involved," he said. "It's that justice delayed is justice denied." In the Diocese of Burlington, Vt., review board member William Cunningham said that under Bishop Salvatore R. Matano since 2005 cases have moved more quickly for consideration than during the first few years he served. He said his comment was not meant as a criticism of retired Bishop Kenneth A. Angell, but simply was an observation. "It's my sense in the earlier years there was quite a bit of internal investigation of what may or may not have transpired," he said. "But this current bishop ... proceeds quickly." Attendance by bishops at board meetings varies, board members said, but an observer from the diocese is always on hand. In Davenport, Iowa, one observer is Bishop Martin J. Amos. Board member Clarence Darrow, a retired circuit court judge from Illinois, said Bishop Amos sits quietly at meetings, taking notes and listening intently. The bishop speaks only when spoken to, Darrow said. "If we're going to make a recommendation to him, he wants to know the basis," Darrow said. "He's always followed our recommendations." On the other hand, Bishop Paul G. Bootkoski of Metuchen, N.J., does not attend board meetings, instead choosing to hear reports from Msgr. William Benwell, vicar general and moderator of the curia, who serves as board chair. The bishop's practice is more typical of bishops around the country. Board member Richard S. Rebeck, a retired New Jersey Superior Court judge, said it is not necessary for the bishop to attend meetings, especially because Msgr. Benwell takes board recommendations directly to him. "Our intentions have been good and we have not run into criticism that I'm aware of," Rebeck said. "We know the health of the church is at stake. It's not been an adversarial experience," he added. Still, board members are considering naming a new chair, one who is not a priest. Msgr. Benwell said the change will preempt the appearance that a clergyman is guiding the process so that outcomes benefit the church.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.