BishopAccountability.org
	O'Malley's Sex-Abuse Policy: Proof Is in the Implementation Boston Globe August 27, 2011 http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/08/27/omalleys_sex_abuse_policy_proof_is_in_the_implementation/ CARDINAL SEAN P. O'Malley's new policy on releasing the names of priests accused of clergy sexual abuse does much to protect children and lift the shroud of secrecy applied by O'Malley's predecessors. It's a workable approach to handling the most grievous offenses while tending to the victims. It has some clear limitations, though, and the archdiocese must take care that the new policy is implemented with a commitment to both the letter and spirit of its intentions. The spirit is outlined in O'Malley's seven-page letter accompanying the policy, which declares that the archdiocese's core commitment is "to protect children and to ensure that the tragedy of sexual abuse is never repeated in the church." To achieve this noble goal, O'Malley must fully transform a culture that once put the protection of priests and the church's reputation ahead of the need to root out abuses. The linchpin was secrecy. Allegations were investigated within the cloistered confines of the all-male clergy, who sought to protect their own. With no requirement of exposure, the clergy could dispose of cases as they saw fit. It's worth noting just how far the archdiocese has come from those days. For the past nine years, every complaint has been turned over to the authorities, and prompts an internal investigation. That won't change. The new policy is aimed at setting clear guidelines for when allegations are made public, and O'Malley accompanied his announcement with a long-sought - and long overdue - list of 159 accused priests. But the list did not include the names of those who belong to separate orders or who were deceased when their accuser came forward. As matters of procedural fairness, these exceptions are justified. Under church law, it isn't O'Malley's place to discipline clergy from outside orders. And priests who were accused after death have no chance to defend themselves. If O'Malley had imposed a rule requiring that such names be released, he might needlessly tarnish the reputations of honorable clergy. But it's also easy to see how these loopholes could lead to a situation where archdiocese officials fail to exercise sufficient oversight of priests who work at Boston churches but happen to belong to separate orders, and don't pursue claims against deceased priests. (While the priest may be dead, others who enabled his abuse or covered it up may still be part of the church hierarchy.) Archdiocese officials insist that this will not - and cannot - happen, because of their commitment to investigate every case, and they vow to alert the relevant district attorneys to any and all complaints. Still, O'Malley should understand that while he may not be the religious overseer of priests from other orders, he is responsible for the safety of children in the archdiocese's churches and schools. O'Malley's stark words surrounding his new policy suggest that he does accept those responsibilities, and understands all that's at stake. Now he must make sure that his new policy becomes a vehicle for bringing greater sunlight to the archdiocese's handling of abuse cases, and not a legalistic shield to prevent exposure of priests for purely technical reasons.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.