BishopAccountability.org
	Church Leaders Still Don't Get It There Remains Much to Be Done to Protect Kids By David J. Braiterman Concord Monitor [New Hampshire] April 2, 2006 http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20060402/REPOSITORY/604020366/1028/OPINION02 On Thursday, I went to the two press conferences concerning the Diocese of Manchester audit report released by the attorney general. The diocese scheduled its press conference to begin just after Kelly Ayotte issued her evaluation. The report by KPMG stated that the diocese's efforts to date were sorely lacking in commitment from the top to correct the conditions that led to widespread child sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Ayotte observed that church efforts had not even included simple measures such as criminal records checks and sex offender registry checks. These are routinely used by other institutions that work with children. Father Edward Arsenault, speaking on behalf of the diocese, made no apologies for not attending Ayotte's press conference. He did not need to, he said, because he had read the AG's letter that complimented the church on positive steps taken during the last couple of years. What Arsenault failed to acknowledge meaningfully were the five pages after that introductory paragraph that took the church leadership to task for not implementing even the most basic steps to assure that abusive priests and staff are not free to prey on children. Arsenault spent most of his time at the press conference challenging a few incidental facts in the KPMG auditors' report. He said these minor errors undermined the whole report, including the auditors' central critique of church practices. In challenging the report in this way, Arsenault undermined his other point: that the diocese still has more to do. Evasiveness and debate points will not address the real question of whether the church is living up to the settlement and to its obligation to the public to make children safer. A little contrition, not combativeness, would better bring the church and the state toward conciliation in this review process. The way Ayotte cast it, the purpose of the audit was to see if, after the 2002 settlement agreement, the church implemented effective reforms. Father Arsenault viewed the compliance period as a time for the church to do certain administrative tasks directed at sexual abuse prevention regardless of whether those steps actually worked to make children safer and church personnel more accountable. This disconnect between the state's and the church's positions is troubling. In Hillsborough County Superior Court, Judge Carol Ann Conboy heard arguments on both points of view when she ruled on the meaning of the performance audit provision in 2005. Her 14-page ruling a year ago dedicated five pages to the very question of whether performance standards, rather than merely compliance standards, were required. "The Court cannot accept the Diocese's contention that the audit may assess only whether the programs, training, etc., required under the agreement have been developed and/or provided," Conboy wrote. The settlement "obligates the Diocese to do more than maintain an office staffed by individuals appropriately trained to handle sex abuse allegations," the judge wrote. "To conclude otherwise would contravene the stated objective of the parties - to effec tively protect children from sexual victimization by clergy or other church personnel." That Arsenault still chooses to focus on what the church is doing rather than whether those actions are extensive enough and afford effective protections reflects what many law enforcement people, Catholics and child advocates have been complaining about for years. To put their position simply: The leadership of the diocese just doesn't get it. During her press conference, Ayotte referred to the five-year audit process provided for in the settlement agreement. The first audit began only last year and concluded with the release of this first report, to be followed by others over the next four years. In his press conference, Arsenault referred to the end of this audit process in 2007, a mathematical function of adding five years to the 2002 settlement date. He disregarded the fact that the audit did not even start until April 2005. The AG and the church need to resolve this apparent conflict at once or return to court to determine the duration of the compliance period. Conboy is surely in a position to resolve this disagreement and should be called on promptly so that auditors and church personnel know what time frame they are working in. The delays getting started on the audit process while the state and the diocese argued about the scope of the audit and its costs are no substitute for a meaningful five-year period of institutional reform conducted under public scrutiny as was contemplated by the settlement agreement. (Attorney David Braiterman of Concord represents interveners New Hampshire Voice of the Faithful, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests and several individuals in the audit compliance phase of the church sexual abuse case.)
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.