|
The Gallup bishop’s hollow apology
Gallup Independent
March 30, 2017
Once again Bishop James S. Wall and Diocese of Gallup officials have stumbled in their efforts to demonstrate to survivors of clergy sexual abuse that they are genuinely remorseful about the trauma these survivors endured as children and are sincerely interested in helping them find emotional, mental and spiritual healing.
To those not familiar with the vulnerability many clergy sex abuse survivors struggle with, the latest misstep of the Gallup bishop and his chancery officials may not seem like a big deal. The bishop postponed eight healing services for abuse survivors — originally scheduled for January, February and July — and postponed them all to March 2018. So what’s the problem with that? Events get canceled and postponed all the time. That’s life.
Actually, there are a lot of problems with that, and it is disheartening that diocesan officials are oblivious to them.
Someone who has worked with many clergy abuse survivors offered this insight: Although canceling and rescheduling healing services may seem like a simple administrative function for the bishop and his staff, it oftentimes carries much more meaning for survivors of abuse. Survivors often struggle with trusting others, especially the Catholic Church, so when Wall unilaterally cancels healing services and fails to fulfill his promise, it is a reminder that bishops and priests cannot be trusted. Another way to think about the lengthy postponements is to reframe them in personal terms. Suppose you have deeply hurt a family member and come to the realization that a face-to-face apology is necessary. You contact that family member, tell them you would like to meet them in person to apologize and then set up an appointment. However, something interferes with that date and you have to reschedule. Wouldn’t you reschedule as soon as possible to demonstrate your sincerity? On the other hand, if you told them you couldn’t meet until the following year, what would be the message you are giving them?
That is the same message many abuse survivors received loud and clear from Wall’s postponements.
So what should Wall have done differently?
First, he shouldn’t have canceled the healing service in St. Johns, Arizona, when it was scheduled the same evening as his Mardi Gras fundraiser celebration in Gallup. Yes, the Mardi Gras event raises a lot of money for the diocese each year. But by canceling the healing service, Wall chose money over people. What if Wall had instead asked a fellow bishop to be his stand-in at the Mardi Gras fundraiser so he could minister to the needs of abuse survivors in St. Johns? Had Wall done that, he would have garnered both good publicity and goodwill.
Secondly, Wall shouldn’t have postponed his upcoming healing services in Overgaard and Snowflake, Arizona, originally set for July, just so he can deliver a speech at the annual Tekakwitha Conference. Wall’s opportunity to live up to his promise to abuse survivors shouldn’t have been easily pushed aside for a conference that is held each year. One local abuse survivor contacted the Independent and raised the following question: Why it is so important for Wall to deliver a speech to Native Americans in South Dakota, but it is not so important for him to deliver a promise to local abuse survivors, some of whom are Native American?
Thirdly, Wall and his chancery staff should have rescheduled the eight postponed healing services sooner and in a more sensibly paced way. According to the healing services schedule, the bishop is not offering any services this month, he is only holding one in April, and for the remaining months he has only one to three services per month. Yet he has scheduled the eight postponed services all into a 17-day period in March 2018? Couldn’t those eight services been rescheduled in a more evenly spaced way over the upcoming months?
Those eight services now appear to be simply an inconvenience to the bishop’s important schedule — something to push aside, cram together and hurriedly get through.
It should be noted that during the healing services Wall has held thus far, he has offered this apology: “I apologize in the name of the church for failing to minister to you in a way that was respectful to your human dignity.”
In light of the sloppy and inconsiderate way these eight healing services have been canceled and postponed, the bishop’s apology to abuse survivors rings hollow.
In this space only does the opinion of the Gallup Independent Editorial Board appear.
|