BishopAccountability.org
	The Clergy Lists: a Distinction without a Difference? Western Massachusetts Catholics September 13, 2011 http://westernmassachusettscatholics.blogspot.com/2011/09/clergy-lists-distinction-without.html The Springfield Diocese has released a long-promised list of 15 credibly accused clergy: http://www.scribd.com/doc/63751160/History-and-Procedures-for-Handling-of-Misconduct-Allegations More about this release later. For now: how does this response to the sexual abuse crisis compare to other dioceses? Roman Catholic Bishops in the Commonwealth are evenly split: 2 have released lists (Boston and Springfield) and 2 have not (Worcester and Fall River). Nationwide, some 25 or 30 dioceses have released some type of list. Certainly in numbers and in coverage by the press, the list released by Archbishop O'Malley overshadows Bishop McDonnell's by several orders of magnitude. Over in Worcester, Bishop McManus took the opportunity to issue a press release about how he was NOT releasing a list. In the Falls River Diocese, Bishop Coleman had nothing to say. But, last year one of those plentiful "Diocesan spokesmen", John Kearns, explained the lack of a Fall River list by asserting that when a complaint is found to be credible: "A notice is placed on the diocesan website and members of the affected parish are notified through various outlets. Every time we receive an allegation that is deemed credible, we put out a release and release the details of what we know and provide contact information to let people know how to follow up with us." (For more, see "Parishioners rally against Fall River Diocese's sexual abuse policy," by Will Richmond, Herald News, June 24, 2010). Kearns also said that: “We want to do whatever we can to stop the abuse. That’s why we’ve had this policy in place and continue to strengthen it as we see fit.” We see in these four small words "as we see fit" a trace of the so-called "church autonomy" doctrine that's being examined on this blog. If church autonomy means anything, it means this: "as we (bishops) see fit." This places bishops at odds with parishioners who demand lists of credibly accused abusers. Although every effort is made by the bishops to disclaim that rupture within the body of Christ, it is real. And, it goes to the heart of the church. This places the civil/church split, whereby the state wants the church to change, in a different and somewhat secondary light, even if, ironically, there appears to be more structural change within the church issuing from civil tort law than from parishioner initiatives. It's not just that sex abuse laws, charitable immunity and SOL laws should change in the Commonwealth. Those changes will be pushed through sooner or later at the Statehouse. The issue for Catholic parishioners is more damning: they have not yet seen fit - to turn a phrase - to seize the high ground and make the church better from within. The strategic placement of the Springfield diocesan press release would seem to be a case of reverse SEO. Apparently, it was not sent to the media and languished until someone found it in the 4th tier of their web site. The timing was suspect as well. It's may not be coincidental that both lists were released a few weeks in advance of an important hearing at the Statehouse on Sept. 27. That hearing will rehearse for perhaps the 5th or 6th time why concerned citizens and legislators want to change the laws governing the Catholic church and other churches when it comes to reporting and acting on sexual crimes against children. It will be another chance to find out why the bishops of the Catholic church are just as concerned, but again, this involves reverse-engineering: the reason they are concerned is that they are adamantly opposed to any changes in the SOL, charitable immunity, and discovery laws. Among the reactions spurred by the Boston list was one particularly disturbing report from North Andover, reported by a community newspaper (North Andover Patch) by Brian McGonigle, to wit: Five Priests With North Andover Ties on Archdiocese Sexual Abuse List Five priests with ties to North Andover were accused of sexually abusing children, according to a list published by the Boston Archdiocese. This is the first time the Catholic Church has released the information. The five cases with ties to North Andover all involve priests who served at St. Michael Parish at one time in their career. The cases include two cases in which the priest has since died, two in which the priest was defrocked and one still listed as an open case with the priest on administrative leave. Cardinal Sean O'Malley explained in a letter that he chose to withhold the names of certain priests, however, particularly ones that were never publicly charged while they were alive. This last point, the unreleased list, has caused a great deal of concern, as it should. Put yourself in the place of longtime parishioners at St. Michael, and perhaps you can see why. It's not enough that their parish harbored these five; but the unpublished list (which is said to number close to 100) may have included yet more of their former priests. They just don't know. Let's be clear about these nuances in language: it takes egregiously bad behavior and an inordinate amount of pressure for a priest to be publicly charged - we know from voluminous testimony that most all incidents are swept under the rug. For these reasons, O'Malley's disclaimer about the "ones that were never publicly charged" is not reassuring. None of the lists from O'Malley (or McDonnell), published or not, includes the names of order priests. This is a failing because as a matter of church law, order priests and religious are under the protection and discipline of the local bishop. A priest who applies to work in a diocesan parish (whether it is territorial or national) from outside must first obtain permission to exercise religious authority in the diocese. This is called obtaining faculties. If the bishop has the authority to admit the traveling religious in the first place, why is there no corresponding duty for oversight and accountability, once the religious obtains faculties and sets up shop? The matter of order priests becomes more pressing because of the far-flung nature of the orders. This makes them easy conduits to points unknown for clergy in trouble. In a few cases a single-minded and solitary manhunt has tracked them down, but these are difficult maneuvers at best and most of the attempts to escape to other parts of the world succeed. _____ So, in Massachusetts, two dioceses are issuing lists, and two dioceses are not. That might suggest different approaches. But, I think it obscures an underlying unity: the bishops all insist on doing things "as they see fit," untroubled by any input from laity, be they parishioners or even civil servants, who I suppose look like another form of laity, if you're used to the view from a throne. The political situation at the Statehouse, child abuse reform, and episcopal positions all relate, though it's hard to connect the dots. When searching for connections, it's good to keep in mind the report about sex abuse in the Catholic church issued by Attorney General Reilly in 2003, from which I quote below. The report was issued just as Cardinal Law was picking up stakes. The most detailed sections of the report are in Finding No. 3. Despite not being able to indict Law and others, the investigation did produce evidence that "the widespread abuse of children was due to an institutional acceptance of abuse and a massive and pervasive failure of leadership." The report explains this failure in sections 1 through 9, over a span of 55 pages. The Attorney General makes clear that church officials just barely escaped: "...they acted with a misguided devotion to secrecy and a mistaken believe that they were accountable only to themselves. They must be held to account, if not in a court of law, then before the ultimate arbiter in our democracy: you, the people. ....until the Archdiocese clearly demonstrates an understanding of what occurred and how to provide a safe environment for its children, there must be a period of vigilance by the public and its officials..." Reilly's mention of "existing and new laws" carries more than a hint that the State might step in and do what church officials have been avoiding. But the question of how, exactly, to get better security for children, and how much intervention is necessary was left hanging, and Reilly was content (or maybe just resigned) to leave a permanent fix dangling between the vigilance of the people and the response of church officials. That is why a clergy list, even a meager one, matters. Certainly Bishop McDonnell's is especially vulnerable to criticism, since it's a matter of public record that 18 clergy from the Springfield Diocese were admitted to St. Lukes Institute in Maryland, a mental health facility. And these were only the worst cases. Paper 97 of the insurance trial records that subpoenas sought information from St. Luke's about ". . . any Bishop, priest, sister, monk, deacon, or any other clerical member of any religious order of the Roman Catholic Church whether or not presently alive, who is or was formerly affiliated with the Springfield Diocese. . ." This sketches a considerably broader category than the one that McDonnell offered. Other public documents in the diocesan attorney's own words put the number of credibly accused at "around 60" (Paper 73, pg. 2 and 4). Why, then, after all this time, and after settlements with over 100 victims, are there only 15 names on McDonnell's list? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Massachusetts House Bill No. 469, proposed legislation which would eliminate civil & criminal statutes of limitation, and charitable immunity, in child sex abuse cases, will be heard on September 27, 2011, at the Massachusetts State House, at 1:00 p.m., in Room A-1. The hearing will be preceded by a Rally in front of the State House, at 11:00 a.m. This is the best opportunity we have had in several years to obtain passage of this legislation. We need an extraordinary turnout of survivors and supporters on that day, for both the Rally and the Hearing. Please come, and bring at least one other person with you. Thank you for your support. For more information, contact Carmen L. Durso, at: 617-728-9123 / 800-287-9123 / dursolaw@tiac.net
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.