IGNATIUS GROUP_____
OPINION by Paul Kendrick
Bishop Malone's "Healing Mass" sermon for abuse victims and survivors was just more hot air.
It was all "holy talk," no substance.
Malone must stop playing his silly games and start acting like an adult who, when it comes to the issue of child protection, sees himself as a concerned community member.
1) In his homily, Malone said that he is "scandalized" by recent reports of sexual abuse by clergy and consecrated religious in Europe.
Malone neglected to say that when he was an Auxilliary bishop in Boston, he had at least three child abuser priests secretly working for him in parishes. In addition, Rev. Paul Miceli (Malone's best friend and Cape Cod housemate), helped transfer abuser priests from parish to parish when he served as Cardinal Law's Secretary of Ministerial Personnel.
2) In his homily, Malone said that he finds himself "sick with anger and grief and almost desperation as he sees news report after report detailing the devastation caused for so many children."
If he's so concerned about protecting children from harm, why didn't Malone warn Falmouth police and school officials when one of his employees, an admitted child molester priest (Rev. John Audibert), moved into a Falmouth neighborhood?
3) In his homily, Malone blames the sexual abuse of children on ministers of the Church, ordained priests, consecrated religious and lay Church members for the harms inflicted upon children as a result of their sexual abuse.
Conveniently, Malone failed to address the role of senior church leaders and bishops (like himself) for protecting offenders and transferring abuser priests from parish to parish.
____________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
March 23, 2010 - Portland Press Herald Editorial - Sex Offender Registry
Our View: Arrest points to flawsin sex offender registry
Even after court rulings and legislative tweaks, the registry is not striking the right balance.
If there ever was a government program in need of an overhaul, it's Maine's online sex offender registry. Flawed from its inception, the online registry has suffered from providing not enough information to be really valuable while at the same time offering too much.
Its scope was too broad, providing names and perpetually updated addresses of people convicted of crimes that may or may not suggest that they are likely to re-offend. At the same time, the registry lacks the kind of detail about the underlying offenses that would really be helpful for community members who are judging the risk posed by a neighbor on the list.
The system was shaken by a state supreme court decision two years ago, which found that the registry amounted to a kind of double punishment. That led lawmakers to amend the law to create a way to get off the list for people who were retroactively added to the registry when it was created and have had clean records since.
One of the 304 people who have been removed from the list, Larry L. Smart, was arrested last week for possessing child pornography, leading to more calls for revising the registry. Two bills introduced this session that would further tweak the registry appear to be headed nowhere as the Legislature winds toward adjournment.When they next try to tackle this mess, lawmakers should keep a few points in mind.
The purpose of the registry is to give people information they can use to protect themselves. And when it comes to information, too much can be as bad as too little. A man who dated a 13-year-old girl when he turned 18, 20 years ago, may be a registered sex offender. Neighbors who know just what's on the list could fail to protect themselves from other, more immediate threats.
No system is going to be perfect. There is no exact science to predict who is going to commit new offenses. Some classes of sex offenders, such as fixated pedophiles, call for special attention, but others will slip through any warning system.
Programs that have proven to be effective, such as extended periods of probation, monitoring and mandatory treatment, should be the first line of defense for a community looking to defend itself from a repeat offense by a sex offender. A registry of the most dangerous offenders, especially if it reveals characteristics such as the age and sex of the victim, and his or her relationship to the perpetrator, can also serve an important public safety function.
The current registry is not there yet.
Even after court rulings and legislative tweaks, the registry is not striking the right balance.
If there ever was a government program in need of an overhaul, it's Maine's online sex offender registry. Flawed from its inception, the online registry has suffered from providing not enough information to be really valuable while at the same time offering too much.
Its scope was too broad, providing names and perpetually updated addresses of people convicted of crimes that may or may not suggest that they are likely to re-offend. At the same time, the registry lacks the kind of detail about the underlying offenses that would really be helpful for community members who are judging the risk posed by a neighbor on the list.
The system was shaken by a state supreme court decision two years ago, which found that the registry amounted to a kind of double punishment. That led lawmakers to amend the law to create a way to get off the list for people who were retroactively added to the registry when it was created and have had clean records since.
One of the 304 people who have been removed from the list, Larry L. Smart, was arrested last week for possessing child pornography, leading to more calls for revising the registry. Two bills introduced this session that would further tweak the registry appear to be headed nowhere as the Legislature winds toward adjournment.When they next try to tackle this mess, lawmakers should keep a few points in mind.
The purpose of the registry is to give people information they can use to protect themselves. And when it comes to information, too much can be as bad as too little. A man who dated a 13-year-old girl when he turned 18, 20 years ago, may be a registered sex offender. Neighbors who know just what's on the list could fail to protect themselves from other, more immediate threats.
No system is going to be perfect. There is no exact science to predict who is going to commit new offenses. Some classes of sex offenders, such as fixated pedophiles, call for special attention, but others will slip through any warning system.
Programs that have proven to be effective, such as extended periods of probation, monitoring and mandatory treatment, should be the first line of defense for a community looking to defend itself from a repeat offense by a sex offender. A registry of the most dangerous offenders, especially if it reveals characteristics such as the age and sex of the victim, and his or her relationship to the perpetrator, can also serve an important public safety function.
The current registry is not there yet.
A daughter's mother won't help protect children
For immediate release:
Monday, March 22, 2010
Open Letter
Sue Bernard
Director of Public Relations
Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland
Portland, Maine
Dear Ms. Bernard,
In a press release issued on Saturday, I asked Bishop Richard Malone to start acting like a real grownup. I asked him to become a responsible member of the community regarding the issue of child protection.
And now I am asking you to start acting like a mother who cares about protecting, not only her own child, but children everywhere, from cunning and manipulative child molesters.
Point number one. Providing full disclosure of all priest sex abuse cases in Maine on the diocese web site will help protect children, Ms. Bernard. It's that simple.
Point number two. Publishing such a database will also help unknown, heretofore silent, shame and guilt ridden child abuse victims realize for the first time that they aren't alone. Perhaps, for the very first time they will seek help.
And so, Ms. Bernard, it's way past time for you to start behaving in a mature and credible manner about the protection of children. For almost eight years now, you have been part of the problem. It's time for you to start being part of the solution.
In addition to your professional responsibilities, you are the mother of a teenage daughter. What do you suppose the parents of your daughter's friends would say to you if one of their children was raped by a molester priest like Father John Audibert and they knew you didn't tell anyone in the neighborhood that Audibert is a child molester?
Audibert lives in a Falmouth neighborhood that's full of kids and young people. You appear satisfied that children are safe because Audibert's crime has been made public.
C'mon, Ms. Bernard, no one in that Falmouth neighborhood knows that the man living there with his brother is named John Audibert. For God's sake, no one even knows what Audibert looks like. You diminish your credibility when you keep saying that Malone is protecting kids from Audibert because Audibert's name was once made public. Can you identify every public figure you've ever heard or read about? Of course not. You're being silly again.
And now we know that neither you, Bishop Malone, nor any other diocese official contacted Falmouth police or school officials in an effort to warn the community about Audibert's presence in Falmouth. By not saying or doing anything, Ms. Bernard, you made a conscious decision to allow other people's kids to be at risk of child sex abuse.
Which begs the question. If Audibert lived in your neighborhood, would you warn your own daughter?
How many more "Audibert's" do you know about who are living anonymously in other communities, Ms. Bernard? How many more children are in danger?
I urge you to reflect upon my words. Please realize that by virtue of your silence you are complicit when a child is abused and you could have done something to stop it.
You may have long ago found a way to compartmentalize your behavior like so many other church workers, Ms. Bernard, but the simple truth about your not warning neighbors in Falmouth about a dangerous child molester like Audibert is sufficient evidence to determine that you are more than willing to put other people's children in harm's way in order to protect your own interests.
Perhaps, Ms. Bernard, you would agree to meet with me. My words are not intended to be construed or measured in any other manner than that of an individual who is serious about and committed to protecting children.If you disagree with my assessment of your words and deeds, then please, do not run to your attorney but, instead, issue a cogent and principled response as to why you find it morally and ethically acceptable to neglect the safety of children.
Sincerely,
Paul Kendrick
207 838 1319
Monday, March 22, 2010
Open Letter
Sue Bernard
Director of Public Relations
Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland
Portland, Maine
Dear Ms. Bernard,
In a press release issued on Saturday, I asked Bishop Richard Malone to start acting like a real grownup. I asked him to become a responsible member of the community regarding the issue of child protection.
And now I am asking you to start acting like a mother who cares about protecting, not only her own child, but children everywhere, from cunning and manipulative child molesters.
Point number one. Providing full disclosure of all priest sex abuse cases in Maine on the diocese web site will help protect children, Ms. Bernard. It's that simple.
Point number two. Publishing such a database will also help unknown, heretofore silent, shame and guilt ridden child abuse victims realize for the first time that they aren't alone. Perhaps, for the very first time they will seek help.
And so, Ms. Bernard, it's way past time for you to start behaving in a mature and credible manner about the protection of children. For almost eight years now, you have been part of the problem. It's time for you to start being part of the solution.
In addition to your professional responsibilities, you are the mother of a teenage daughter. What do you suppose the parents of your daughter's friends would say to you if one of their children was raped by a molester priest like Father John Audibert and they knew you didn't tell anyone in the neighborhood that Audibert is a child molester?
Audibert lives in a Falmouth neighborhood that's full of kids and young people. You appear satisfied that children are safe because Audibert's crime has been made public.
C'mon, Ms. Bernard, no one in that Falmouth neighborhood knows that the man living there with his brother is named John Audibert. For God's sake, no one even knows what Audibert looks like. You diminish your credibility when you keep saying that Malone is protecting kids from Audibert because Audibert's name was once made public. Can you identify every public figure you've ever heard or read about? Of course not. You're being silly again.
And now we know that neither you, Bishop Malone, nor any other diocese official contacted Falmouth police or school officials in an effort to warn the community about Audibert's presence in Falmouth. By not saying or doing anything, Ms. Bernard, you made a conscious decision to allow other people's kids to be at risk of child sex abuse.
Which begs the question. If Audibert lived in your neighborhood, would you warn your own daughter?
How many more "Audibert's" do you know about who are living anonymously in other communities, Ms. Bernard? How many more children are in danger?
I urge you to reflect upon my words. Please realize that by virtue of your silence you are complicit when a child is abused and you could have done something to stop it.
You may have long ago found a way to compartmentalize your behavior like so many other church workers, Ms. Bernard, but the simple truth about your not warning neighbors in Falmouth about a dangerous child molester like Audibert is sufficient evidence to determine that you are more than willing to put other people's children in harm's way in order to protect your own interests.
Perhaps, Ms. Bernard, you would agree to meet with me. My words are not intended to be construed or measured in any other manner than that of an individual who is serious about and committed to protecting children.If you disagree with my assessment of your words and deeds, then please, do not run to your attorney but, instead, issue a cogent and principled response as to why you find it morally and ethically acceptable to neglect the safety of children.
Sincerely,
Paul Kendrick
207 838 1319
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
THE CAUSES AND CONTEXT STUDY of the JOHN JAY COLLEGE
Reflections by Thomas Doyle, J.C.D.
January 4, 2010
HISTORICAL FACT: Catholic clerics have sexually molested tens of thousands of children and vulnerable adults throughout the history of the Catholic Church in the U.S.
HISTORICAL FACT: Throughout the history of the Catholic Church in the U.S. Catholic bishops have consistently responded to this problem in an irresponsible and ineffective manner.
QUESTION: WHY? When the John Jay College first started its work I was 98% skeptical that it would be yet another exercise in hierarchical deception and dishonesty. I had been convinced of the absolute need for in-depth research as to causes for the plague of abuse and the consistent though totally dishonest response of the hierarchy from the pope on down. From 1985 until 2002 this need was totally ignored by the official church though a number of reputable scholars began to seriously look into the issue. The essential questions have been, at least in my estimation:
Why has the Catholic priesthood attracted so many sexually dysfunctional men?
Why have the bishops consistently and almost uniformly responded in a manner that is manifestly unchristian and contrary to the basic moral principles held by the Church?
Why has the hierarchical leadership from the papacy on down to local bishops been unwilling or unable to grasp the enormity of the problem?
Why has the hierarchy not responded in a pastorally sensitive manner to the countless victims?
I believe the key question for any believer is this: Why have the bishops and far too many of the priests responded to the sexual abuse scandal in precisely the opposite way that the Christ whom they preach would have responded?
The bishops have been presented with these and other questions for years and have generally ignored them. I do not believe they even know how to cope with a fissure of this magnitude. Between 1985 and 2002 they did practically nothing in response to calls for deeper study into the problem. For the most part their energies were thrown into efforts to defend themselves and counteract the waves of negative publicity. Their priority was to protect themselves from civil liability. Responding to victims was never a priority; in fact it was never even on the list.
The enormous pressure on the bishops and on the Vatican following the 2002 revelations in Boston was certain to produce at least minimal results. The National Review Board Report from 2004 was a credible beginning. The Dallas Charter and the Essential Norms were the product of this pressure. Both are woefully inadequate and respond in what is obviously a highly self-serving manner by dealing with the perpetrating clerics but ignoring the more basic question which is the bishop-led cover-up. The Charter and Norms also do nothing in response to the dire need for pastoral response and spiritual healing.
The recurring question to the authorities of the Church has been why? The quality and credibility of most “official” and semi-official responses has ranged from irrelevant to ridiculous. Some have responded with a deflection: But it’s only a tiny minority of priests! Others, including the popes, have tried to shift blame to secular society, the media or the sexual revolution. From within the fortress of doctrinal reaction have come the dogmatic conclusions that the problem is rooted in emerging notions of human sexuality epitomized by widespread disobedience to the ban on birth control. Many of the inadequate responses mask fear of seeing the hard truth about an idealized organizational Church. Others reflect a painful insecurity rooted in the revelations of the gross inadequacy of leaders in whom they had invested unconditional trust. Nearly all of these explanations are self-serving and none of them represent the need to face the honest but devastating truth of what has happened around us. Most of these explanations proved one thing: that there is an absolute need to look deeply into every facet and dimension of this complex and often mysterious phenomenon.
All of this is a prelude to the entrance of the John Jay College into the fray. They won a contract to conduct sociological research into the problem. They gathered numbers…numbers of accused priests, numbers of victims, numbers of bishops’ responses. That is their area of specialty. The sources for their numbers were the bishops. There is no other source for finding the number of reports, victims, known abusers etc. The JJC researchers had no guarantee that the bishops would uniformly produce honest responses. The numbers the bishops gave up provided a frightening landscape. But…it became known in time that some of the bishops lied about the numbers of reported cases. They…the bishops in question….determined which reports were credible and which were not. Such a procedure, the bishops’ internal investigations and evaluations, lacks any credibility. The JJC people knew the shortcomings they were dealing with and did the best with what they had. The final report of the first phase, issued in February of 2004, was not complete because there remained lingering questions about the accuracy of the number of reports, perpetrators and cases. On the other hand it was much more accurate than was expected and consequently, much more frightening.
The second phase is “Causes and Context.” Many believed that this phase would look deeply into the broad scope of information and come up with insightful conclusions as to why it all happened. Such a belief was unrealistic because that goal was beyond the expertise of the research team. The final product of the JJC in this phase will be helpful information that will assist other scholars in other areas in conducting the additional research that is needed.
At the outset many, including myself, misunderstood the mandate and goals of the John Jay study on both levels. Once I received a more accurate picture of what they have been about I have revised my expectations. I believe now that it is unrealistic to expect the John Jay report in this latter phase of their research to provide the definitive answers to the more fundamental questions that remain unanswered. They themselves realize that they cannot produce the answers to many of the essential questions. However their conclusions can provide invaluable information that will assist other researchers in other fields to delve more deeply into the entire complex phenomenon of Catholic clergy sexual abuse.
I predict the report will be met with disappointment which will provoke anger and hostility on the part of many who have expected much more. I also believe that this anger is and will be misplaced. It is not only useless but counterproductive to direct anger and hostility to the John Jay College researchers. They have acted competently within the scope of their mandate. If there is anger and disappointment it is rightly directed at the U.S. bishops. They have known all along that this on-going issue requires in-depth research and a willingness to take the enormous risk of not only sponsoring this research but providing the needed data for the researchers. This is a risk precisely because the results will not vindicate the bishops. On the contrary the results will, in all probability, clearly demonstrate deep problems in several areas of Catholic life. These areas include:
The Catholic philosophy of human sexuality
The theory and practice of pastoral care
The nature and role of authority
The role of the office of bishop
The structure of the institutional Church as a stratified society
The adequacy or lack thereof of the Canon Law system
The very meaning of “Church.”
Research on these and related questions has been on-going for many years as has been discussion on many levels about the need for such research. The sexual abuse “crisis” is far from ended, contrary to the statements of the bishops and the hopes of rank and file Catholics.
Victims of abuse from decades ago continue to come forward having been finally empowered to step outside their individual prisons of shame and fear. Though the bishops and many of their supporters continually try to devalue these claims because they refer to incidents that occurred years ago, the fact remains that these people were viciously abused as children or adolescents and remain deeply wounded. The steady emergence of such cases from the cover of history points to a problem that was not an occasional exception but a facet of the very culture of the Catholic Church, embedded in its clerical elite.
The steady stream of what some call “historic cases” demonstrates more than anything else, the absolute need for research. The Catholic “faithful,” who make up well over 99% of the institutional Church, and the secular societies that respect the institutional Church and show it such varied degrees of deference, deserve answers. Those who support the hierarchy and who look to them for guidance deserve to know why the anointed leaders of the world’s largest
religious denomination have systematically allowed such vile evil to exist in its very midst.
A number of reputable scholars in various disciplines have recognized the key questions and started to look deeply into the complex society and equally complex history of the Church for answers. In 1995 two books were published which stood out as beacons in the quest for answers: Sex, Priests and Power by A.W. Richard Sipe, and In the Name of All That’s Holy by Anson Shupe. Three years previous Jason Berry published Lead Us Not Into Temptation which has proven to be the most complete and accurate rendition of the early years and direction of the present phase of the crisis. It has also been the source of brilliant insight into the many “whys” and a catalyst for continued research.
These authors are representative of the kind of scholarship that is needed. Historians must delve into the primary sources and provide a non-revisionist version of how the Catholic Church unfolded over the centuries, especially in regard to its sexual philosophy. Scripture scholars and theologians are needed who can look deeply into the doctrinal presuppositions that support the institutional Church’s definition of itself and justification for its method of government. Experts in legal theory must look fearlessly at the Church’s Canon Law system in search of valid reasons why it has failed to be a vehicle for justice for the Church’s own victims.
The final report of the John Jay study should not be seen as a conclusion or as a source for definitive answers. It will not bring relief from the pain endured by so many. It will not provoke a radical about-face by the nation’s bishops. However it represents progress in sifting through the mass of information that provides significant documentary evidence of what has happened. The findings of the study will justify the absolute need to move forward fearlessly to the real question: Why?
January 4, 2010
HISTORICAL FACT: Catholic clerics have sexually molested tens of thousands of children and vulnerable adults throughout the history of the Catholic Church in the U.S.
HISTORICAL FACT: Throughout the history of the Catholic Church in the U.S. Catholic bishops have consistently responded to this problem in an irresponsible and ineffective manner.
QUESTION: WHY? When the John Jay College first started its work I was 98% skeptical that it would be yet another exercise in hierarchical deception and dishonesty. I had been convinced of the absolute need for in-depth research as to causes for the plague of abuse and the consistent though totally dishonest response of the hierarchy from the pope on down. From 1985 until 2002 this need was totally ignored by the official church though a number of reputable scholars began to seriously look into the issue. The essential questions have been, at least in my estimation:
Why has the Catholic priesthood attracted so many sexually dysfunctional men?
Why have the bishops consistently and almost uniformly responded in a manner that is manifestly unchristian and contrary to the basic moral principles held by the Church?
Why has the hierarchical leadership from the papacy on down to local bishops been unwilling or unable to grasp the enormity of the problem?
Why has the hierarchy not responded in a pastorally sensitive manner to the countless victims?
I believe the key question for any believer is this: Why have the bishops and far too many of the priests responded to the sexual abuse scandal in precisely the opposite way that the Christ whom they preach would have responded?
The bishops have been presented with these and other questions for years and have generally ignored them. I do not believe they even know how to cope with a fissure of this magnitude. Between 1985 and 2002 they did practically nothing in response to calls for deeper study into the problem. For the most part their energies were thrown into efforts to defend themselves and counteract the waves of negative publicity. Their priority was to protect themselves from civil liability. Responding to victims was never a priority; in fact it was never even on the list.
The enormous pressure on the bishops and on the Vatican following the 2002 revelations in Boston was certain to produce at least minimal results. The National Review Board Report from 2004 was a credible beginning. The Dallas Charter and the Essential Norms were the product of this pressure. Both are woefully inadequate and respond in what is obviously a highly self-serving manner by dealing with the perpetrating clerics but ignoring the more basic question which is the bishop-led cover-up. The Charter and Norms also do nothing in response to the dire need for pastoral response and spiritual healing.
The recurring question to the authorities of the Church has been why? The quality and credibility of most “official” and semi-official responses has ranged from irrelevant to ridiculous. Some have responded with a deflection: But it’s only a tiny minority of priests! Others, including the popes, have tried to shift blame to secular society, the media or the sexual revolution. From within the fortress of doctrinal reaction have come the dogmatic conclusions that the problem is rooted in emerging notions of human sexuality epitomized by widespread disobedience to the ban on birth control. Many of the inadequate responses mask fear of seeing the hard truth about an idealized organizational Church. Others reflect a painful insecurity rooted in the revelations of the gross inadequacy of leaders in whom they had invested unconditional trust. Nearly all of these explanations are self-serving and none of them represent the need to face the honest but devastating truth of what has happened around us. Most of these explanations proved one thing: that there is an absolute need to look deeply into every facet and dimension of this complex and often mysterious phenomenon.
All of this is a prelude to the entrance of the John Jay College into the fray. They won a contract to conduct sociological research into the problem. They gathered numbers…numbers of accused priests, numbers of victims, numbers of bishops’ responses. That is their area of specialty. The sources for their numbers were the bishops. There is no other source for finding the number of reports, victims, known abusers etc. The JJC researchers had no guarantee that the bishops would uniformly produce honest responses. The numbers the bishops gave up provided a frightening landscape. But…it became known in time that some of the bishops lied about the numbers of reported cases. They…the bishops in question….determined which reports were credible and which were not. Such a procedure, the bishops’ internal investigations and evaluations, lacks any credibility. The JJC people knew the shortcomings they were dealing with and did the best with what they had. The final report of the first phase, issued in February of 2004, was not complete because there remained lingering questions about the accuracy of the number of reports, perpetrators and cases. On the other hand it was much more accurate than was expected and consequently, much more frightening.
The second phase is “Causes and Context.” Many believed that this phase would look deeply into the broad scope of information and come up with insightful conclusions as to why it all happened. Such a belief was unrealistic because that goal was beyond the expertise of the research team. The final product of the JJC in this phase will be helpful information that will assist other scholars in other areas in conducting the additional research that is needed.
At the outset many, including myself, misunderstood the mandate and goals of the John Jay study on both levels. Once I received a more accurate picture of what they have been about I have revised my expectations. I believe now that it is unrealistic to expect the John Jay report in this latter phase of their research to provide the definitive answers to the more fundamental questions that remain unanswered. They themselves realize that they cannot produce the answers to many of the essential questions. However their conclusions can provide invaluable information that will assist other researchers in other fields to delve more deeply into the entire complex phenomenon of Catholic clergy sexual abuse.
I predict the report will be met with disappointment which will provoke anger and hostility on the part of many who have expected much more. I also believe that this anger is and will be misplaced. It is not only useless but counterproductive to direct anger and hostility to the John Jay College researchers. They have acted competently within the scope of their mandate. If there is anger and disappointment it is rightly directed at the U.S. bishops. They have known all along that this on-going issue requires in-depth research and a willingness to take the enormous risk of not only sponsoring this research but providing the needed data for the researchers. This is a risk precisely because the results will not vindicate the bishops. On the contrary the results will, in all probability, clearly demonstrate deep problems in several areas of Catholic life. These areas include:
The Catholic philosophy of human sexuality
The theory and practice of pastoral care
The nature and role of authority
The role of the office of bishop
The structure of the institutional Church as a stratified society
The adequacy or lack thereof of the Canon Law system
The very meaning of “Church.”
Research on these and related questions has been on-going for many years as has been discussion on many levels about the need for such research. The sexual abuse “crisis” is far from ended, contrary to the statements of the bishops and the hopes of rank and file Catholics.
Victims of abuse from decades ago continue to come forward having been finally empowered to step outside their individual prisons of shame and fear. Though the bishops and many of their supporters continually try to devalue these claims because they refer to incidents that occurred years ago, the fact remains that these people were viciously abused as children or adolescents and remain deeply wounded. The steady emergence of such cases from the cover of history points to a problem that was not an occasional exception but a facet of the very culture of the Catholic Church, embedded in its clerical elite.
The steady stream of what some call “historic cases” demonstrates more than anything else, the absolute need for research. The Catholic “faithful,” who make up well over 99% of the institutional Church, and the secular societies that respect the institutional Church and show it such varied degrees of deference, deserve answers. Those who support the hierarchy and who look to them for guidance deserve to know why the anointed leaders of the world’s largest
religious denomination have systematically allowed such vile evil to exist in its very midst.
A number of reputable scholars in various disciplines have recognized the key questions and started to look deeply into the complex society and equally complex history of the Church for answers. In 1995 two books were published which stood out as beacons in the quest for answers: Sex, Priests and Power by A.W. Richard Sipe, and In the Name of All That’s Holy by Anson Shupe. Three years previous Jason Berry published Lead Us Not Into Temptation which has proven to be the most complete and accurate rendition of the early years and direction of the present phase of the crisis. It has also been the source of brilliant insight into the many “whys” and a catalyst for continued research.
These authors are representative of the kind of scholarship that is needed. Historians must delve into the primary sources and provide a non-revisionist version of how the Catholic Church unfolded over the centuries, especially in regard to its sexual philosophy. Scripture scholars and theologians are needed who can look deeply into the doctrinal presuppositions that support the institutional Church’s definition of itself and justification for its method of government. Experts in legal theory must look fearlessly at the Church’s Canon Law system in search of valid reasons why it has failed to be a vehicle for justice for the Church’s own victims.
The final report of the John Jay study should not be seen as a conclusion or as a source for definitive answers. It will not bring relief from the pain endured by so many. It will not provoke a radical about-face by the nation’s bishops. However it represents progress in sifting through the mass of information that provides significant documentary evidence of what has happened. The findings of the study will justify the absolute need to move forward fearlessly to the real question: Why?
Monday, January 4, 2010
VOTF Maine President Robert McAteer says, "Rest assured, we still have a heartbeat."
In response to a recent inquiry about the state of Voice of the Faithful in Maine, President Robert McAteer responded, "Rest assured, we still have a heartbeat."
Well, President McAteer, that's not quite the response we were hoping for. Your lackluster description of Maine VOTF makes it sound like the Maine organization is in the intensive care unit.
We were hoping you'd instead tell us what has been accomplished under your presidential leadership? What real things have you done in the areas of survivor assistance, child protection, financial accountability and/or structural change, among many other issues?
We're anxious to know, President McAteer, in what direction you are leading VOTF Maine? What are your priorities for 2010?
In his speech to the October 2009 VOTF Conference in Long Island, NY, VOTF's National President, Dan Bartley, told attendees that reform must come from the "bottom up," parish by parish; i.e., stronger and better parish councils, finance councils, etc.
Now there's a recipe for failure.
However, in her speech to the very same conference, Sister Joan Chittister said something quite different. She told the audience that "reform has nothing to do with the survival of the church. Reform has to do with the survival of the gospel."
Amen.
Well, President McAteer, that's not quite the response we were hoping for. Your lackluster description of Maine VOTF makes it sound like the Maine organization is in the intensive care unit.
We were hoping you'd instead tell us what has been accomplished under your presidential leadership? What real things have you done in the areas of survivor assistance, child protection, financial accountability and/or structural change, among many other issues?
We're anxious to know, President McAteer, in what direction you are leading VOTF Maine? What are your priorities for 2010?
In his speech to the October 2009 VOTF Conference in Long Island, NY, VOTF's National President, Dan Bartley, told attendees that reform must come from the "bottom up," parish by parish; i.e., stronger and better parish councils, finance councils, etc.
Now there's a recipe for failure.
However, in her speech to the very same conference, Sister Joan Chittister said something quite different. She told the audience that "reform has nothing to do with the survival of the church. Reform has to do with the survival of the gospel."
Amen.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
The bishops have not acted as Christians but rather as agnostic, self-serving businessmen
Reflections from 25 Years of Experience
At the Start of the New Year
Thomas Doyle, J.C.D.
It is the beginning of 2010. Back many years ago when a new year would dawn, I remember when I would predict that this would be the last year of the Catholic sex abuse scandal. This year the Church will change. This year the bishops will shift gears and focus on the thousands of victims. This year the lawsuits will end because they will no longer be necessary.
Some would call that wishful thinking. Others may believe it to be delusion. In either case it was obviously magical thinking based on unreality.
None of my past hopes have come true and I doubt they ever will. The contrast between the reality of what has happened and continues to happen to victims at the direction of bishops, and what the bishops themselves claim they have accomplished is a chasm the depth of which defies the imagination.
As this new year of pragmatic action starts I’d like to share some random reflections from my experiences with the Catholic Church and clergy sex abuse. I have been closely involved on all levels since 1984. As many know, I did extensive research on the Church’s historical response for the book I co-authored. I have been involved in thousands of clergy abuse cases as a consultant, expert witness and/or pastoral minister in the U.S., Canada, Ireland (North and South), the U.K., Mexico, Italy, Malta and Israel.
In all of the research I have done and in every case I have seen or been involved in, the initial response of the official church whether it is on the part of the pope, a bishop or religious superior has been to hide the facts from the public. The second response has been just as consistent. The bishops have done everything they could to prevent the case from public exposure. If it does, then they do all they can to manipulate the truth so as to protect the image of the hierarchy first and the institutional church second.
In all of my research and in each and every case I have studied on any level, I have found something profoundly disturbing. I have not seen evidence of one single instance where the bishop or religious superior’s first response was to even ask about the condition of the victim much less reach out to the victim. I know there have been exceptions, but they have been very few and far between.
In every case where the bishop has met with victims, and this has only happened since 2002 with only a very few instances known to me between 1984 and 2002, the meeting has not been a spontaneous gesture by the bishop. In every case known to me the meeting took place because the bishop was mandated to do so in the terms of the settlement.
Throughout the U.S. there have been many cases brought to court where there has been little doubt on the part of either side that the sexual abuse actually happened but where the case was thrown out because it was outside the Statute of Limitations. I know of no such case where the bishop has, in spite of the lack of a civil process, offered to make monetary reparations to the victim. Uniformly…the victims are ignored. The bishops and their lawyers think they have won. They have protected their precious church’s money. But have they won…really? Hardly! They continue to reinforce the image of the “church” as a callous and insensitive business enterprise.
Since 1984 thousands of priests, deacons and brothers have been exposed. Many have ended up in jail or prison. Since 2002 the bishops have been scrambling to get rid of every cleric who has ever abused…but not because of a sense of Justice. Rather, getting rid of them creates the illusion that they are doing something. Getting rid of them reduces the liability!
Over two-thirds of the U.S. bishops have knowingly covered sexual abusers and in so doing have directly caused the ruination of the souls and often the bodies of countless more victims. The almighty Vatican, for all its carefully tooled statements of concern has not called a single bishop to accountability. A few have resigned but so what? They have committed crimes with impunity. Why? Because they are bishops and in the magical thinking of the papacy, bishops are above hard-ball justice. Some bishops have even been sexual abusers themselves. None have been defrocked.
I have seen consistent, hard evidence of a radical disconnect between the mandate of Christ in the Gospel in reference to such matters, and the actual actions of the bishops and the popes. In short, the popes (JP2 and Benedict XVI) and the bishops have not acted as Christians but rather as agnostic, self-serving businessmen.
Thomas Doyle, J.C.D.
At the Start of the New Year
Thomas Doyle, J.C.D.
It is the beginning of 2010. Back many years ago when a new year would dawn, I remember when I would predict that this would be the last year of the Catholic sex abuse scandal. This year the Church will change. This year the bishops will shift gears and focus on the thousands of victims. This year the lawsuits will end because they will no longer be necessary.
Some would call that wishful thinking. Others may believe it to be delusion. In either case it was obviously magical thinking based on unreality.
None of my past hopes have come true and I doubt they ever will. The contrast between the reality of what has happened and continues to happen to victims at the direction of bishops, and what the bishops themselves claim they have accomplished is a chasm the depth of which defies the imagination.
As this new year of pragmatic action starts I’d like to share some random reflections from my experiences with the Catholic Church and clergy sex abuse. I have been closely involved on all levels since 1984. As many know, I did extensive research on the Church’s historical response for the book I co-authored. I have been involved in thousands of clergy abuse cases as a consultant, expert witness and/or pastoral minister in the U.S., Canada, Ireland (North and South), the U.K., Mexico, Italy, Malta and Israel.
In all of the research I have done and in every case I have seen or been involved in, the initial response of the official church whether it is on the part of the pope, a bishop or religious superior has been to hide the facts from the public. The second response has been just as consistent. The bishops have done everything they could to prevent the case from public exposure. If it does, then they do all they can to manipulate the truth so as to protect the image of the hierarchy first and the institutional church second.
In all of my research and in each and every case I have studied on any level, I have found something profoundly disturbing. I have not seen evidence of one single instance where the bishop or religious superior’s first response was to even ask about the condition of the victim much less reach out to the victim. I know there have been exceptions, but they have been very few and far between.
In every case where the bishop has met with victims, and this has only happened since 2002 with only a very few instances known to me between 1984 and 2002, the meeting has not been a spontaneous gesture by the bishop. In every case known to me the meeting took place because the bishop was mandated to do so in the terms of the settlement.
Throughout the U.S. there have been many cases brought to court where there has been little doubt on the part of either side that the sexual abuse actually happened but where the case was thrown out because it was outside the Statute of Limitations. I know of no such case where the bishop has, in spite of the lack of a civil process, offered to make monetary reparations to the victim. Uniformly…the victims are ignored. The bishops and their lawyers think they have won. They have protected their precious church’s money. But have they won…really? Hardly! They continue to reinforce the image of the “church” as a callous and insensitive business enterprise.
Since 1984 thousands of priests, deacons and brothers have been exposed. Many have ended up in jail or prison. Since 2002 the bishops have been scrambling to get rid of every cleric who has ever abused…but not because of a sense of Justice. Rather, getting rid of them creates the illusion that they are doing something. Getting rid of them reduces the liability!
Over two-thirds of the U.S. bishops have knowingly covered sexual abusers and in so doing have directly caused the ruination of the souls and often the bodies of countless more victims. The almighty Vatican, for all its carefully tooled statements of concern has not called a single bishop to accountability. A few have resigned but so what? They have committed crimes with impunity. Why? Because they are bishops and in the magical thinking of the papacy, bishops are above hard-ball justice. Some bishops have even been sexual abusers themselves. None have been defrocked.
I have seen consistent, hard evidence of a radical disconnect between the mandate of Christ in the Gospel in reference to such matters, and the actual actions of the bishops and the popes. In short, the popes (JP2 and Benedict XVI) and the bishops have not acted as Christians but rather as agnostic, self-serving businessmen.
Thomas Doyle, J.C.D.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Deacon John Brennan gets Vote of No Confidence
Deacon John Brennan, former Deputy Chief of Police for the City of Portland, Maine, chose not to notify the Falmouth Police Department nor assist in warning neighbors when an admitted priest child molester moved into town.
Deacon Brennan works for Bishop Richard Malone as the diocese investigator. In this capacity, he is responsible for the investigation of child sex abuse claims brought against a priest or other employee of the Church.
Deacon Brennan is privy to information about clergy child sex abuse cases in Maine.
By virtue of his ordination, Deacon Brennan takes a vow of obedience to his bishop. Secrecy, though, doesn't protect innocent children from sex offenders.
It was for this reason that we initially objected to Brennan's appointment by former Bishop Joseph Gerry. We worried that Brennan would not be able to act objectively and independently.
Now, our worst fears have come true.
Brennan's failure to step forward and warn the Falmouth community that Father John Audibert, an admitted child molester, lives in a Falmouth neighborhood, has caused us to lose all faith, trust and confidence in Deacon Brennan's ability to seek truth and justice.
When a law enforcement official won't tell you that a child molester lives next door, something is very, very wrong.
Deacon Brennan works for Bishop Richard Malone as the diocese investigator. In this capacity, he is responsible for the investigation of child sex abuse claims brought against a priest or other employee of the Church.
Deacon Brennan is privy to information about clergy child sex abuse cases in Maine.
By virtue of his ordination, Deacon Brennan takes a vow of obedience to his bishop. Secrecy, though, doesn't protect innocent children from sex offenders.
It was for this reason that we initially objected to Brennan's appointment by former Bishop Joseph Gerry. We worried that Brennan would not be able to act objectively and independently.
Now, our worst fears have come true.
Brennan's failure to step forward and warn the Falmouth community that Father John Audibert, an admitted child molester, lives in a Falmouth neighborhood, has caused us to lose all faith, trust and confidence in Deacon Brennan's ability to seek truth and justice.
When a law enforcement official won't tell you that a child molester lives next door, something is very, very wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)