Posted on 06/17/2002 2:38:43 AM PDT by maryz
Fr. Doyle, in case you didn't know, is the guy who warned the bishops in the mid-80s that they had better get serious and was almost completely ignored.
Reaction to the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young PeopleThomas Doyle,O.P., J.C.D.
1. This is the strongest, most unequivocal statement that the US Bishops or any group of bishops have made concerning sexual abuse by the clergy and the related cover-up by the bishops and other church leaders. It will be received with skepticism and doubt by many because of the bishops' history of broken promises and empty statements.
2. The bishops of our country (and other countries) have made similar statements and promises in the past. These statements for the most part, have not been followed by consistent action. The promises have generally been empty, giving rise to the presumption that their (the promises) purpose was primarily to garner good public image for the bishops in the face of growing criticism for their actions and inactions over sexual abuse. In fact, in many documented instances, the promises were followed by actions that were totally contradictory to the content of the public statements made by bishops.
3. The true test of the US Bishops' sincerity and the most significant and convincing sign that they are beginning to understand the horrific devastation that sexual abuse has caused for so many will not be by mere words. No matter how poetic, emotional and direct the statements may be, they are worthless without consistent and hard-hitting action. If there is no sign of compassionate outreach to victims and survivors, this Charter will be relegated to the same dustbin with past statements fromthe US Bishops.....the dustbin of irrelevance and uselessness. If this charter is not followed by immediate action that convinces the victims and survivors and the millions who support them, that the bishops are beginning to “get it” then the anger of the past months and years will increase and the credibility of the bishops and many clergy will never be restored In effect, the bishops’ unfortunate march backward into irrelevance will increase to a gallop 4. Historically the Catholic hierarchy has dealt with problems both big and small, with words. Statements, decrees, outlines, procedures and now charters, have been the medium of choice. These statements are often presented to the interested group orto the general public in a general, impersonal manner. In the case of sexual abuse by the clergy and related cover-up by the bishops, such a method of communicating concern and commitment is totally inadequate unless it is followed by decisive action. The bishops must cross the divide between themselves and the faithful,especially the victims and survivors, and enter into their world and begin to not simply acknowledge, but to understand their sense of emotional and spiritual devastation.
5. The bishops must understand that they have lost the trust and credibility ofthe victims and survivors but also of millions of others, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. They stand before people who have matured in their attitude towards the Church, its leadership and its clergy. They will no longer blindly accept without question the words of the bishops. If, as the days and months unfold, the survivors and those who support them see no action consequent to the Charter, they will demand reasons why and will accept nothing less than unequivocal truth.
6. Particular observations:
a. The overall impression is that the various boards, committees, office and procedures remain in the total control of the bishops. There must be a collaboration and inclusion of lay people is not mere token but actually shares authority and decision making power with them. If this is not part of the Bishops’ methodology then their credibility with regard to the Charter is immediately called into question. In the past they have failed miserably at policing the clerical system.
b. Article 3: Confidentiality Agreements. This statement must be clear and must statethat such agreements will be entered into only at the express request ofthe victim/survivor.
c. Article 4: Reporting to Law enforcement. This article does not specify when the report is to be made and it must specify that such a report will be made as soon as there is a substantial allegation. If there is question about the substantial nature of the allegation, the quandary is resolved in favor ofthe alleged victim and the report is to be made.
d. Article 5: The Preliminary investigation. There must be no confusion about the purpose of the canonical investigation and any subsequent canonical action. This canonical procedure does not replace the civil law criminal procedure or any investigation initiated or envisioned by civil law authorities. This article must be clear on the distinction between the two areas of responsibility. It must also clarify that the canonical penalties are not a substitute for civil law penalties but are penalties imposed in addition to any civil law penalties.
e. Article 8: Office for Child and Youth Protection. The method of appointment of members must not be left solely to the General Secretary of the Bishops' Conference. To do so immediately compromises the integrity of the office and calls into question the ability of the office members to act with complete independence and integrity. There must be some mechanism or procedure whereby lay groups can take part in the nomination and veto procedures for the membership.
f. Article 9: Review Board. For this board to have both credibility and effectiveness it must be independent of the Bishops' Conference even though it may come into existence through an action of the conference. To ensure this the tenure of the membership should be structured in such a way that they do not have to fear termination or dismissal should their feedback be threatening or disagreeable to the bishops. In short, if the review board has evidence to state that a bishop, group of bishops or the entire bishops conference is acting irresponsibly, they must be able to do so without fear of reprisals.
7. The Status of Confirmed Sexual Abusers
a. This is understandably the most visible and emotional element of the charter. By constant dwelling on this aspect in their individual and collective pre-Dallas statements, the bishops have almost isolated it as the most pressing issue. In fact, it is not the pivotal point in determining the sincerity of the institutional church’s commitment to eradicating the problem of clergy sex abuse. The real pivotal point is the personal and compassionate outreach to the victims.
b. The statements in Article 4 basically paraphrase the median penalty envisioned by Canon law for a cleric proven to be a sexual abuser in violation of canon 1395. Permanent removal from ministry amounts to a permanent suspension which can be accomplished by a bishop only by means of a tribunal/judicial process. To do so by means of an administrative act will necessitate the special permission of the Holy See. The article implies that this suspension will take place in every case wherein it is proven that a cleric has sexually abused a minor, past present or future. In dealing with past offenses then, the bishops will need a waiver from the present canonical norm of the statue of limitations.
c. Concerning laicization (commonly referred to as "defrocking") the Charter states nothing new or radical. An offending cleric will be given the option of petitioning the Holy See for laicization with the assurance that it will bequickly granted. In some cases the bishops may decide to ask the Holy See to laicize or dismiss a cleric without his consent. This too is a process that has been followed for at least the past 5 years in this country.
d. The bishops had no authority to authorize a "zero tolerance" policy on their own. To definitively dismiss a cleric from the clerical state...i.e., to defrock or laicize him, can only be done on the diocesan level by means of a canonical trial. This is a lengthy,complex process. With a good defense attorney a convicted cleric could avoid the imposition of the most severe penalty available to the tribunal, which is dismissal from the clerical state. Thus, this avenue would be practically useless in achieving the goal of removing offending clerics from the clerical state.
e. The only other alternative for the bishops would be to request the Holy See to give them the power to laicize or defrock clerics using an administrative process. The Vatican would almost certainly not permit this because of its fear that accused priests would be denied due process or that bishops would usethe process to unilaterally get rid of clerics deemed troublesome for other reasons.
f. A possible course of action for the bishops would have been a specific petition to the Holy See for a streamlined and expeditious process whereby proven abusive clerics (past or present) would be laicized by the Holy See. Such a procedure, if actually followed by bishops, would possibly have satisfied the demands and concern of victims and survivors and others. Short of this, the proposals in the Charter are nothing different than what is presently contained in the Code of Canon law.
g. The Code of Canon law (both editions, 1917 and 1983) contained explicit procedures for investigating allegations of sexual abuse, documenting such investigations, prosecuting allegations in a judicial forum, imposing punishment and providing just compensation to victims. Yet the provisions of the Code were never faithfully followed anywhere in this country. The reason they were not followed and consequently serve as no guarantee of a just solution to the problem of clergy sexual abuse, is the stark fact that they are totally controlled by the bishop. There is no such thing as a separation of powers in the Catholic church. In each diocese the offices of executive, legislator and judge are combined in the bishop. Hence, the inability for full accountability is canonically institutionalized.
8. The Charter is concerned with the protection of children and young people. Yet the majority of those actually sexually abused or harassed by Catholic clerics are adult women. Although society rightly considers child sexual abuse to be horrific beyond compare and rightfully so, this is no excuse for the bishops to have ignored the issue of sexual abuse of women. This issue demands as much attention as the sexual abuse of children and young adolescents. Sexual abuse no matter what the age of the victim, is devastating with life-long consequences. To even entertain the erroneous belief that adult women somehow are partially responsible when they are sexually abused is infuriating to victims and holds the bishops or anyonewho purports such an idea up to ridicule.
9. The bishops did not address the issue of their own responsibility for the cover-ups. Mention was made by Bishop Gregory in his otherwise outstanding statements. Yet the body of bishops failed to honestly confront the most vital aspect of the crisis. The actions of the bishops are what have engendered the anger and even fury of the victims, survivors and others,Catholic and non-Catholic alike. This issue must be dealt with in an openand honest forum participated in by not only bishops, but victims , laity and other concerned clerics. This single issue is the one that is pivotal for the bishops credibility. It is the reason for the lack of trust and its resolution will be the single most important aspect if the bishops ever expect to be presumed credible.
10. The Charter should have included a section specifically devoted to the demeaning and destructive hard-ball tactics employed by diocesan and insurance lawyers. The bishops should have pledged some form of reparation for this gross re-victimization of so many survivors. They should also have pledged an immediate end to such tactics.
11. The Bishops, in the Charter or elsewhere, should have addressed the gross misrepresentation of this problem by certain Vatican officials, bishops and cardinals in other countries and in certain unofficial Vatican publications. To address such outlandish characterizations of this problem would in no way deny anyone's freedom of expression. To have failed to do so significantly adds to the re-victimization and humiliation of the victims and survivors. The statements by certain Latin American cardinals and bishops as well as certain Vatican officials, are self-serving, clericalist and totally devoid of any semblance of compassion or concern for the victims.
12. The restoration of the bishops credibility and trust is secondary in importance to the healing of the victims and survivors. This will only begin when the bishops and other clerical leaders of the Catholic church move beyond words and begin to consistently act in a manner that convinces the victims, the survivors, their supporters and people everywhere that they truly are concerned not with their power and position but with the emotional and spiritual well-being of those who have been horrendously harmed by clergy sexual abuse.
Thomas Doyle Ramstein, Germany June 15, 2002
I will have some more comments later (hey! It's the weekend!) but I did want to note this: I was completely unaware of this: "Yet the majority of those actually sexually abused or harassed by Catholic clerics are adult women." So I will have to modify my previous position: the problem is a culture of unchastity, whether hetero or homosexual. Homosexual abusers appear to primarily go after kids (boy, there's something to boast about, eh?) but heterosexual abusers after adults. But I do retract my previous statements that the problem is primarily one of homosexual abuse. Apparently, abuse of minors is overwhelmingly homosexual, but (what a surprise!) our bishops have not been terribly forthcoming in discussing the other forms of abuse out there. Gosh. Who'da thunk they'd not be forthcoming with the full extent of their neglect of office?
More later. My gorge rises at the thought that many of these men do not appear to have learned a damned thing, but I will let some time pass before responding. I need to read and digest. In the meantime, I offer the following from my friend, the straight-shooting Greg Krehbiel: feel free to cut, paste, and adapt. Circulate it far and wide on the web. Go thou and do likewise.
God Bless you on your assignment. We'll miss your posts.
TM
e. The only other alternative for the bishops would be to request the Holy See to give them the power to laicize or defrock clerics using an administrative process. The Vatican would almost certainly not permit this because of its fear that accused priests would be denied due process or that bishops would use the process to unilaterally get rid of clerics deemed troublesome for other reasons.
I think this is what Sara has been trying to hammer home in some of her posts.
I'd like to see some evidence of this: "Yet the majority of those actually sexually abused or harassed by Catholic clerics are adult women." Fr. Doyle threw that out there and I'm wondering how it was/can be substantiated. I've seen very few female victims. But I am willing to look at all the evidence! Bring it on.
Orthodoxy! Orthodoxy! Orthodoxy!
I agree, AC! I'll look at all the evidence, if there is any that can change my mind. But, IMO, there is a huge homosexual population in the priesthood and they got caught with their pants down.(no pun intended) The bishops are covering for them because many of them are homosexual. I want to know why the 1961 directive was flagrantly DISOBEYED?
I agree, but the basic problem was dropped in the lap of the Cardinals and Bishops at the meeting in Dallas by Bishop Bruskiewicz, and it is out there. I think the pressure to reform is going to have to come from outside of the Cardinal and Bishop enclave - and I think it will have to come via us, the laity, hopefully aided by some of the hierarchy.
Maybe they don't know it exists? <./sarcasm>
Might be a good idea to either fax it or e-mail or snail mail it to all of the Bishops and Cardinals...
Russert interviewed Bishop Wilton Gregory yesterday on Meet the Press (did anybody see it?). He asked Gregory this very question and quoted form the 1961 document. I couldn't believe what I heard. Paraphrasing Bishop Gregory: "We looked at the document but found it to be contrary to consistent Church teaching."
Unfortunately, Timmy didn't follow up with any other questions regarding their disregard for the 1961 directive and whether or not they disregard any other directives from Rome based on the bishops' own authority.
At the concluding press conference in Rome, you will remember that Bishop Gregory took a hard line stance insisting that homosexuals would NOT be permitted to enter the seminary. Since that time, "they" have got to him.
Not only was the directive from the Vatican ignored for the past 50 years, "they", evidently, will continue to admit homosexuals to the seminary.
Wow. Too bad Russert didn't follow up. The entire homosexual problem is being shoved under the bed by nearly all of the Bishops. The only one who I am aware of, who will and has addressed this "issue" is Bishop Bruskiewicz.
It does appear that Bishop Gregory was "gotten to" - it's like the mafia, sadly.
"'Yet the majority of those actually sexually abused or harassed by Catholic clerics are adult women.' Fr. Doyle threw that out there and I'm wondering how it was/can be substantiated."
It seems that perhaps Fr. Doyle is implying that anytime a priest has a heterosexual affair with an adult woman, he is an abuser, and she is a victim. Do you think that may be his meaning?
Do you think that's fair? I'm not sure, myself.
I also wonder how common it is. We know that less than 2% of priests are caught up in this child-molestation horror. I wonder if unchaste heterosexual priests represent a similar percentage of priests.
Also, I think that concentrating on the sexual offenses, themselves, misses the point. The predator priests are bad enough, but they are few and far between. The direct damage they've done to the people of God would have been dramatically limited if not for the criminal actions of so many bishops. Instead of a handful of victims, the bishop's actions permitted someone like Geoghan to molest well over 100 children.
The most painful thing, at least for me, is not that there are a few priests who are sexual predators. It is that the bishops, instead of protecting our children, actually served up "fresh meat" for the abusers through their actions of covering up and transfering abuser priests.
sitetest
I don't think that is a fair statement, myself. If you are an adult, you yourself know the difference between right and wrong and it is wrong to have an affair. As distasteful as an affair is to me, personally, I would be even more horrified at having an affair with a priest.
I also wonder how common it is. We know that less than 2% of priests are caught up in this child-molestation horror. I wonder if unchaste heterosexual priests represent a similar percentage of priests.
Who knows. I don't think there is a dependable way to obtain this information. Either way, adherence to the priestly vows they voluntarily took upon ordination is the answer, ie., orthodoxy.
Also, I think that concentrating on the sexual offenses, themselves, misses the point. The predator priests are bad enough, but they are few and far between. The direct damage they've done to the people of God would have been dramatically limited if not for the criminal actions of so many bishops. Instead of a handful of victims, the bishop's actions permitted someone like Geoghan to molest well over 100 children.
I think it is "part and parcel" of the larger issue at hand. The Bishops seem to have forgotten their mission and the mission of the Church they serve - the salvation of souls, the souls of the laity and their priests and their fellow Bishops. The cover-ups of the Bishops, whether by direct intervention, no intervention, or silence in the face of the sins of the priests and the sins perpetrated on the laity, is the problem. It seems if the Bishops chose to follow the teaching of the Magisterium, these problems would not be possible. Unless they think the teaching of the Magisterium is not infallible. And, that is not a good thing.
The founder of SNAP (Network of those Abused by Priests) is a female who was assaulted for three months as a 14 year old.
Perhaps there are many stories like this one out there:
No matter the victim's age, clergy abuse shatters spirits
06/17/2002
By JAMES RAGLAND / The Dallas Morning News
Much, if not all, of the talk about clergy sexual abuse during the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops meeting in Dallas last week focused on the most vulnerable victims – the children.
And there's no doubt, at least in my mind, that the emphasis was in the right place.
The problem, however, is wider and deeper than that. I offer a former nun as evidence.
But first, let me say this. For too long, the Catholic Church has turned a blind eye and deaf ear to victims abused by those entrusted to provide moral guidance.
I'm not Catholic, and I have no desire to pile on the church while it's down. None at all. But as a father, I cringe at every report of child abuse, whether it's at the hands of a wicked pervert or a wayward priest. I get downright mad. And I think the church should do the same – without having to be prodded.
But I was willing to let the bishops come into Dallas, do their thing and get out of town without writing a word. Why? Because so many others of my media brethren were analyzing the sexual abuse problem facing the church.
And then I met Yvonne Maes.
Ms. Maes, 62, grew up in rural Canada, the daughter of Belgian immigrant farmers. She and her five siblings, including a twin brother, lived a modest life.
In college, she met two nuns who regaled her with stories of traveling the world and helping the needy. That's what she wanted to do, so she joined the Sisters of the Holy Name in Montreal in 1959. She was 20.
She taught math and English for the next few years. In 1968, she was sent to southern Africa, where she ran one school, helped start another and directed other community projects. "I had a wonderful time in Africa until 1985," she said. She was burned out and ready to return home where she could find a new challenge.
She went to a 10-day church retreat in Durban, South Africa, where she hoped to find some answers. She was assigned to an Irish priest with whom she had to meet daily for guidance. She trusted him so much that she told him that her own father had molested her for years when she was a child.
That priest, she said, began seducing her – first by holding her hand in a walk along a beach and then by inviting her into his office and, later, into his bedroom.
"And when he told me to follow him into his bedroom, I stupidly followed him," she said. "Within seconds, he was unhooking my skirt and saying that this is the way God wants a man and a woman to act. All I could think to say was, 'I don't want to get pregnant.' And he said, 'I'll take care of that.' "
It was not the last incident. But it took years for her to muster the courage to report them, and her superiors seemed bent on suppressing it, she said. She finally got a church committee to find the priest guilty of sexual abuse, and he was temporarily suspended from counseling nuns.
Her whole story is chronicled in Ms. Maes' memoir, The Cannibal's Wife , which was published three years ago. Reaction to her story was mixed. "There were some people who treated me like a jilted lover," she said. "But most people understood the abuse of power and how the boundaries were violated."
When women report abuse, she said, "It's seen as an affair. It's been happening for a long, long time. The abuse has always been broader [than just children]."
The priest that Ms. Maes said abused her is now an assistant pastor in Liverpool, England.
Ms. Maes is working two part-time jobs in Canada. She left the order in 1997. Her faith has been severely diminished. She doesn't even go to church anymore. She began crying when I asked her if she could ever get back to where she was spiritually.
"I still get emotional, and I don't know why," she said, wiping away tears as we sat in a hotel bistro near where the bishops met Friday.
"It's not even the abuse," she said. "It's the cover-up of the abuse. I don't even know if there's a God."
When a church does that to a nun, heaven help the rest of us.
++++++++++
Now, this happened in South Africa, granted, but does anyone think a woman in a Latin country, such as Mexico, would report a priest for harrassment or sexual abuse?
Two bishops had to resign in the late 80s and early 90s for affairs with women. (Archbishop Marino of Atlanta in 1989 and Archbishop Sancez of Santa Fe in 1992).
The question is, have bishops covered for reported abuse of adult women as much as they have for ephebophiles and pedophiles? If they have, then this scandal is just getting cranked up.
Is any sexual contact between a doctor, a psychiatrist, a counselor, or a boss, and a woman abuse?
I daresay the woman can make a good case that it is, especially if it was initiated when the woman was in an emotionally or physically vulnerable position.
It could be prudently maintained that ANY sexual contact between a priest and ANYONE is abusive, given the implied trust (at least the PREVIOUSLY implied trust) imputed to the clerical state.
Billy Graham gave good guidance by his own actions: never alone with a woman not his wife in a room with the door closed or in a car. Never.
If anyone doubts that abuse is not just as rampant in other countries (maybe even more so), all doubt should be removed with some of the statements made of late by some neanderthals in the Vatican and Latin America.
Him, too?
This is, at the same time, both fascinating and distressing. One by one, the homosexual advocates/dissenters are peeling these guys off. First, Cardinal Bevilacqua, now Bishop Gregory. What is going on? What do they have on these guys, or those close to them, to make them fold so quickly?
"They" have probably told him that there is no test for determining who is a homosexual and who is not, and that one must rely totally on the word of the applicant himself.
Active homosexuals and active heterosexuals are not proper candidates for the priesthood. However, celibates of either persuasion must act, essentially, asexually. Practically, how does one tell who is a homosexual and who is not, if the homosexual is not sexually active?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.