BishopAccountability.org
	Calling a Spade a Spade By Pamela Hansen Malta Independent August 21, 2011 http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=130790 The Church has apologised and is even discussing compensation with the victims' lawyers, now that so much has been exposed on the child abuse cases, despite its attempts to suppress the state of affairs. But rather than keeping schtum and quietly taking the deserved flak, it is now blaming the media. Of course, there are some in the media that thrive on sensationalism, but the Church representatives, like all those striving to retain power, have used that very same media to the hilt when it suits. If the media, not just here but internationally, had not exposed what was going on what would the state of play be today I wonder? Not taking responsibility is an unfortunate trait shared by many. It is never virtuous for people to shirk their obligations, but when it is a religious or State body that evades facing up to their moral or legal duty it is more serious than just the lack of doing the honourable thing. In the case of institutions like the Church or government, it is not just a matter of doing the right thing. It goes beyond that. As the ones who lead, they have an obligation to put things right and stop passing the buck. In the child abuse cases involving the Church for example, we have seen evasive action being spun and spun in the attempt to minimise the damage to that institution. We have seen a global shirking of responsibility on a long-term span. As I remarked a couple of weeks ago, the onus goes further than the priests who committed the abuse. As child abuse by priests was being exposed in country after country, the Church was very slow in taking global action. It dealt with the problem individually as the worst was uncovered. We had bishops resigning, but containment was the order of the day. Nevertheless, it was getting more difficult to suppress what was going on in places where children were meant to be protected, especially from evil. Documentaries were being released exposing how abusive priests in North America, Ireland and elsewhere were moved on to other parishes. We heard about child abuse by priests that had gone undetected for years. There were cases where rather than keeping the priests suspected of abusing children away from them, they were sent to remote countries where communities were even more trusting. The awful saga, which had been building up internationally for a while, was bound to affect us here as well. Despite that there are still people who believe we live in a bubble, the awful revelation that child abuse in religious institutions was happening here too hit the fan, and the Curia had to tentatively pull its head out of the sand. One of its evasive action ploys had been launching a "Response team". The man who heads it, Judge Caruana Colombo, wrote in The Times on Thursday, "The Response Team does not decide whether an alleged perpetrator is guilty or otherwise of the alleged abuse." So, what is the point of having such an investigative body in the first place? Surely not to stretch things out interminably. Even the Vatican's chief prosecutor, Mgr Charles Scicluna, was critical of the way the Response Team handled the sex abuse cases and accused it of dragging its feet. Besides, hang on a minute. Did the Response Team not send Charles Pulis, the now defrocked priest, back to carry on with his 'good work' following their first investigation, which in an unusually speedy process (the Response Team investigations usually took up to seven years for it to reach a decision) concluded that he was 'not guilty' as charged. And please let us call a spade a spade. I have just about had my fill of people trying to mystify by using sophistry. If an investigative body finds allegations unfounded, it means it found the alleged perpetrator not guilty since the allegations were not supported by evidence. It took no more than a couple of months to reach the decision that the accusations of abuse against Pulis were unfounded. He was caught lying on his bed in his underwear with a boy on top of him. The court, however, decided otherwise, "In circumstances where Carmelo Pulis allows minors in his room at about 11.45pm, while wearing a vest and boxer shorts, with a boy lying down on him and ending up with an erection, while saying that he never had homosexual tendencies and was allergic to homosexuals, to say the least, is contradictory," it said in its judgement. The Response Team had initiated a second investigation in October 2003, which this time took nearly a decade to conclude that the accusations were "founded" after all. Not only did the Response Team take nearly a decade to come to a different decision, but also, we were told, no decision on guilt or innocence would be reached after all those lengthy deliberations. That was not the team's function said the learned judge. Its raison d'être was to "conduct a preliminary inquiry into allegations of sexual abuse by pastoral functionaries. The purpose of such an inquiry is to obtain information determining whether or not there are reasonable, or probable grounds to believe that there has been a situation of child sexual abuse." So, the Response Team is an enquiring body that establishes whether there should be an enquiry! However, it had established that there was no need for an enquiry in their first quick deliberation. It took no more than a couple of months to reach the decision that Pulis was not guilty of abuse. In some cases, even before concluding an investigation and without implying guilt or innocence, the Response Team may advise the Church to remove the accused from a position of access to minors, said Judge Caruana Colombo. Nevertheless, the Team advised the Church that Pulis need not be removed from such a position in their first assessment, despite clear indications that he was totally unsuitable to carry on with that work. In his article explaining the workings of the Response Team, Judge Caruana Colombo said, "The acts of the investigation ... are to be kept in the secret Curial archives..." (Can. 1719). This rule of Canon Law binds to confidentiality all who are officially concerned in the conduct or review of such investigations, whether they are members of the Response Team or otherwise. "Even the fact that a person is being, or has been, investigated is confidential. In this regard, the right of the victims of abuse to maximum privacy is a very important factor." However, the judge might want to follow up on recent events at the Vatican. Confidential files about an abuse case in the United States are to be released in an attempt to defend itself against accusations of a cover-up. I cannot understand how, despite its manifest mishandling of the child abuse cases, the Response Team, which should have been renamed the Slow Reaction Team, has not been disbanded. Contact: pamelapacehansen@gmail.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.