Review Board Head Charges Bishops 'Manipulated' Sex Abuse Panel and Withheld Information
Bishops 'Anxious to Put These Matters behind Them'

By Joe Feuerherd jfeuerherd@natcath.org
National Catholic Reporter
May 11, 2004

Washington - The high-profile lay committee investigating the clergy sex abuse scandals was "manipulated" by the bishops, who used the 13-member National Review Board for public relations cover while withholding key information from the panel.

That charge was made in a March 30 letter from Anne Burke, the Illinois Court of Appeal Justice who serves as the Board's interim chair, to bishops' conference President Wilton Gregory. [See letter from Burke to Gregory.]

Copies of correspondence obtained by NCR indicate the board's relationship with dozens of members of the hierarchy is severely strained. While the language used by the NRB and the bishops falls short of the invective that led then-NRB chairman Frank Keating to resign in June 2003 (he compared the bishops to the mafia), it is far from collegial. Board members question the bishops' commitment to child protection, while some bishops charge the NRB has strayed beyond its mandate.

Burke's letter paints a picture of hierarchical deception and public relations maneuvering. While the letter bears her signature, it was reviewed and approved by the Review Board, Burke told NCR.

Even as NRB members were presenting their findings on the scope and causes of the crisis to a widely-covered Feb. 27 press conference, wrote Burke, its members were unaware that the bishops were considering shelving or delaying some of the board's key recommendations. Nearly a month later, as four NRB members formally presented the recommendations to the bishops' Administrative Committee, the Board had not been informed that key members of the hierarchy were seeking to defer or derail a second round of audits designed to measure diocesan compliance with child-protection policies established by the bishops at their June 2002 meeting in Dallas.

"We find it more than disingenuous to have permitted our members to make their presentations to the Administrative Committee and never once bring up or mention the letters from some bishops asking to defer these matters until November," wrote Burke. Further, wrote Burke, "it is hard to reach any other conclusion than that the failure to tell the NRB of these matters in a timely fashion was to make sure that they did not come up in any discussions with the national media on February 27."

Said Burke, "In short, we were manipulated."

She continued, "We believe that the work we have accomplished these past 22 months is perceived by the bishops as having successfully deflected extensive national criticism. In effect, they have 'dodged the bullet,' and they are anxious to put these matters behind them."

Among those urging the administrative committee to defer a decision on the audits was New York Cardinal Edward Egan, writing on behalf of a number of New York bishops. "We write to report that the undersigned bishops and diocesan administrators are not in favor of extending these efforts until after the matter has been discussed by all of the bishops … at their general meeting in November," Egan wrote Feb. 2. [See letter from Egan to Gregory.]

Using identical language in two separate letters, 12 bishops from New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Nebraska wrote Gregory in mid-February. Those bishops - including Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali, Newark Archbishop John Myers, Omaha Archbishop Elden Curtiss, and Lincoln, Neb., Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz - said they were "opposed to any extension of the National Audit regarding the sexual abuse of minors by clergy until all the bishops … have an opportunity to discuss this matter in executive session at our general meeting in November, 2004."

Further, said the two letters, it is "advisable not to give any impression to the media that the numerous recommendations coming from the Office of Child and Youth Protection are in any way assured before they are discussed by the bishops." [See the Rigali and Curtiss letters.]

A Feb. 12 letter to Gregory signed by more than a dozen Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania bishops warned that the NRB and the Bishops' Office of Child and Youth Protection "appear to be expanding their competence, responsibilities, activities, and studies in a dynamic of autonomy." Said the bishops: "We are troubled … when we see the word 'independent' being used indiscriminately in reference to both entities." [See the Connecticut letter.]

Gregory announced last month that the bishops would consider whether to proceed with the audits at their closed-door meeting in June. It is unclear, however, if they will vote on the matter at that gathering, which is designed as a spiritual retreat and not a business meeting.

Meanwhile, on April 2, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput and his auxiliary bishop, Jose Gomez, responded to Burke. Her letter, they wrote, "assumes the worst motives on the part of the bishops, despite the progress that has already been made. Your language is designed to offend and contains implicit threats that are, to put it mildly, inappropriate for anyone of your professional stature." Burke's letter, said the two bishops, "invites resistance." [See Chaput's letter to Burke.]

The dispute centers around the June 2002 "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People," the document that established the NRB and called for implementation of diocesan policies to combat sexual abuse. The Charter calls for the NRB to oversee production of an "annual report" to gauge diocese-by-diocese compliance with the child-protection procedures approved by the bishops' conference. In January, the NRB and the bishops' Office of Child and Youth Protection released an "audit" of diocesan compliance, which reported that the overwhelming majority of dioceses had implemented programs to protect children from sexual predators. The NRB recommended that the audit process be institutionalized, beginning with a second round for 2004. Additional audits are vital, Burke told NCR, because they will allow the NRB to judge the effectiveness of the diocesan programs.

Chaput and Gomez, however, questioned whether such audits are necessary.

The Charter, said Chaput and Gomez, "nowhere requires an annual national audit and the expense, staff and structures that would involve. We do not necessarily oppose such an audit. We do think it would make more sense on a triennial or quadrennial basis."

Further, said Chaput and Gomez, the Review Board overstepped its mandate. "It is not the NRB's duty to interpret the Charter. The NRB is an important advisory body at the service of the bishops. It does not and cannot have supervisory authority."

In addition to the proposed audits, the bishops' Administrative Committee deferred consideration of an NRB proposal for a "Causes and Context" study, an "epidemiological" follow-up to the report produced by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. The John Jay study was released in late February.

Burke's letter said the NRB is "very disheartened by this apparent decision to go back to 'business as usual.' " Delays, wrote Burke, will vindicate "those who said that the bishops were never serious about breaking free from the sins, crimes and bad judgments of the past." [See letter from Burke to Gregory.]

Continued Burke, "A decision to backslide on the Charter and Norms -- and it is hard to see the decision to delay matters until November as anything else -- will delay the necessary healing and reopen the wounds of deception, manipulation and control -- all the false ideals that produced this scandal."

The Review Board "would feel personally betrayed by such actions," wrote Burke.

Even if the bishops voted at their meeting next month to approve diocesan audits for 2004, said Burke, the resulting report will be delayed. "I hope and pray that this is just a little bump in the road," Burke told NCR. If the bishops further delay implementation of the audits or reject them outright, said Burke, then there will be no annual report as called for by the Charter.

The latter result would appear to be desirable to at least one bishop.

"I do believe that, after such a storm for two years, the bishops need a bit of a break to reflect on all that has happened so that we can move ahead, thoughtfully and prayerfully, instead of rushing in and making a lot of mistakes that we later regret," Cheyenne Bishop David Ricken said in an April 16 letter to Burke. [See letter from Ricken to Burke.]