Archive for January, 2014
By Fr. Thomas Doyle, Canon Lawyer and long-time supporter of clergy sexual abuse survivors
The leadership of the Archdiocese of Chicago has a mediocre to poor track record in responding to reports of clergy sexual abuse and their honesty with the public. Cardinal George’s recent statement to the archdiocese (“Accountability and Transparency,” Cardinal Francis George, January 12, 2014, in The Catholic New World) does nothing to change this pattern. This statement was issued to prepare the archdiocese for the release of the files of thirty priests confirmed as sexual abusers. His statement is defensive, misleading and insulting in addition to the fact that it does not reflect the reality of the key issues. A significant part of the statement is devoted to the defense of his mishandling of the Dan McCormack case. The McCormack files are not among those released!
In 1982 the parents of a minor boy reported that former Fr. Bob Mayer had sexually abused their teenaged son. This was under Cardinal Cody’s watch. They reported the abuse to the archdiocese and in return were intimidated and even threatened with excommunication by the chancellor at the time, Fr. J. Richard Keating who later became the bishop of Arlington VA. In 1988 they finally settled for a measly $10,000.00 that didn’t even cover their legal costs. The boy’s mother was not about to succumb to the scare tactics nor was she buying any of the dishonest mumbo-jumbo served up as excuses for their deliberate neglect. She went on to found the Linkup which quickly became one of the two most influential victim support organizations in the world.
Knowing about Mayer’s track record Cardinal Bernardin who had by then succeeded Cardinal Cody, gave him two more assignments as a parish associate and in 1990 made him pastor of a parish in Berwyn IL. During this period the archdiocese received other allegations and ordered Mayer not to be alone with anyone under 21. The infinite wisdom of the archdiocese in imposing this restriction was apparently not infinite enough.
In 1991 Mayer was charged with sexual abuse of a minor girl. When confronted by the angry parishioners, the auxiliary bishop dispatched to deal with the incident lied to them about Mayer’s background. In 1992 Mayer was sentenced to three years in prison. He has since been laicized.
Cardinal Bernardin died in 1996 and Cardinal George replaced him in April 1997. He was ordained bishop in 1990 and served first as bishop of Yakima WA and then as archbishop of Portland OR. Both Portland and Yakima had their share of sexual abuse problems during George’s time. Equally important, he was a member of the U.S. bishops Conference during the years they started to at least talk about clerical sexual abuse. During those years George and his fellow bishops received numerous documents from the conference headquarters that provided detailed information about clergy sexual abuse and the serious risks it posed the Church. He was also present, at least presumably, when a variety of outside experts addressed the assembled bishops on the very serious nature of sexual abuse of children.
These included Fr. Canice Connors, at the time President of St. Luke Institute; Dr. Fred Berlin, Johns Hopkins University, on diagnostic concepts, treatment and ethical considerations; Dr. Frank Valcour, psychiatrist at St. Luke Institute on expectations of treatment; Bishop Harry Flynn on care of victims; Jesuit psychiatrist James Gill on priests, sex and power and Fr. Steve Rossetti on the parish as victim.
During this period Pope John Paul II addressed his first public communication of clergy sex abuse to the U.S. bishops and that same year, 1993, the bishops established their first committee to deal with the problem. The claim voiced by the Cardinal and his auxiliary, Francis Kane, that “had they known then what they know now they would have handled the allegations differently,” has become a mantra for bishops when they are confronted with their disastrous actions. It’s also so worn out that one would think the conference spin-doctors would come up with a fresh excuse.
If Cardinal George read any of the numerous documents sent by the conference and if he was awake for even part of the lectures given at their annual meetings he would certainly have known the serious nature of clergy sexual abuse. So what is it they did not know “then’ that they know now? It’s fairly obvious.
They did not know that their duplicitous defenses and paper-thin excuses would gain them no traction. They did not know that the deference and unquestioned credibility they had taken for granted had eroded. They didn’t know that the victims and their attorneys would not be intimidated or put off by the endless legal delaying tactics. In short, they didn’t know they’d be caught! That’s what they didn’t know then that they surely know now.
The Cardinal has apparently not learned that the excuses from the bishops’ playbook have gone moldy. He invokes clericalism but applies it to the offending priests, claiming that it causes them to try to avoid accountability for their actions. That’s not clericalism, its just plain fear. The cardinal is smart enough to know that the truly egregious examples of clericalism are not provided by the perpetrating priests but by the arrogant bishops and cardinals who insist they are above accountability and entitled to twist the truth to suit their own purposes.
The next excuse, deemed not only historically and sociologically invalid, but actually ludicrous, is borrowed from the second John Jay Report. He tries to shift the blame to the social and cultural trends of the seventies and eighties as if these trends cause sexual dysfunction or hierarchical arrogance.
The Cardinal’s statement really breaks down and falls apart when he gets to his version of the Dan McCormack story. He claims the plaintiff’s attorneys “fashioned” the story and distorted facts that would “mitigate the charge of archdiocesan neglect.” The lawyers didn’t have to do anything to demonstrate archdiocesan, i.e., the Cardinal’s negligence. His documented actions do a sufficient job of doing that without any outside help.
McCormack was first arrested in September 2005. It’s true that the police questioned him but what the cardinal does not tell his readers is that his priest-personnel representative, who was called by McCormack from the police station, was also a civil attorney who told McCormack not to cooperate with the police investigators. He was released but if his ministry was restricted and if he was put under monitoring, this existed only in the Cardinal’s imagination.
The archdiocesan review board eventually received the results of the internal investigation, which came up with sufficient information to allow the board to make a solid recommendation to the Cardinal that McCormack be removed from the parish for the protection of children and not be put back in pastoral ministry. The Cardinal says, “no one involved in investigating the allegation, not even the review board that struggled with their justified concerns, told me they thought he was guilty.” This is nonsense. It was no one’s job to assess guilt or innocence especially the review board. The sole issue was suitability for pastoral ministry and probability that the allegation was true. On that the board members were clear. Guilt or innocence would be determined later.
Against the review board’s urging Cardinal George retained McCormack as pastor. He also kept him on as a regional dean. On January 20, 2006, he was again arrested and it was determined that more children were harmed, primarily because of Cardinal George’s arrogance and willful negligence.
On January 28, 2006 the review board sent the Cardinal a letter. Portions of it tell the real story. “The media statements that the board was unable to reach a decision because they did not have access to the alleged victim or his mother (Sun Times, January 25, 2006), and ‘after the family made the accusation in August, the Archdiocese’s Office of Professional responsibility referred the allegation to the Independent Review Board (Tribune, January 24, 2006), imply that we as a board chose not to act. Clearly this is not the case.”
Contrary to what the Cardinal would like people to believe, the review board made clear recommendations: “These included removing Rev. McCormack from St. Agatha’s and suspending him from ministry pending further criminal investigation.”
The board presented their recommendation to the Cardinal on October 17, 2005. Instead of heeding them he returned McCormack to his pastorate. When questioned about his action at the time of McCormack’s second arrest the Cardinal and the archdiocesan spokesperson came up with a convoluted and obviously misleading story that tried to spread the blame to the archdiocesan process, misunderstandings about national policies and canon law and finally lack of information. In a 2013 deposition he said, concerning the review board, “They gave me that advice, yes, I thought they had not finished the case investigation.”
All pure nonsense. The review board’s letter tells what really happened: “Our recommendations were presented to you on October 17, 2005 … You chose not to act on them, and now we have a situation that reflects very poorly, and unfairly, on the board.” As to George’s excuse that he thought the investigation was incomplete, the review board saw it much differently: “We resent the media implication that the Professional Review Board did not find Rev. Daniel McCormack to be a threat to the safety of children. These reports do not accurately reflect the situation, and we take offense at the lack of truth telling.”
In the second to last paragraph the Cardinal claims that the money for the multi-million dollars in settlements came from revenue ”entirely separate from regular donations or investments.” He then says that the sale of unused properties has provided funds for the settlements. Where exactly does he think the money came from to buy the properties?
Attorney Jeff Anderson knows the detailed history of the Chicago archdiocese’s response better than anyone else. His summary of why things happened the way they did applies to Cardinal George and his predecessors: We see this as a long-standing pattern of top officials of the archdiocese making conscious choices to protect their reputation and to protect the offenders,” he said. “That means conscious choices were made to imperil the children over the years.”
It goes without saying that the Cardinal and the archdiocese would have been much better served had he said nothing. But he didn’t remain silent. The McCormack fiasco was not the result of confusing or bungled procedures, incomplete information. It was the result of the Cardinal’s arrogance, his over-riding concern for his and the Church’s image and worst of all, his disdain for the victims. The attitude that underlies the Cardinal’s statement is not unique to him. This attitude, painfully evident wherever clergy sexual abuse has been reported throughout the Church, shows that the bishops in general have a long, long way to go before their actions began to match up with their promises.
This article previously appeared as a guest column in the Jan. 30, 2014, edition of the NSAC newsletter.
Fr. Doyle will present a workshop entitled “Survivor Support: Spirituality and Trauma” during the Voice of the Faithful® 2014 Assembly in Hartford, Connecticut, April 5, 2014. Click here are information, and click here for information about workshops.
Two Twin Cities prosecutors on Wednesday (Jan. 29) declined to file criminal charges against local Catholic officials in the two most prominent investigations in the clergy sexual misconduct cases that have rocked the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis …
“Disappointed advocates for the victims of clergy sexual abuse said the archdiocese was ‘let off the hook,’ and St. Paul attorney Jeff Anderson blasted the authorities for ‘defective analysis.’
‘“These are the two cases that screamed out for prosecution of archdiocesan officials,’ said Anderson, who represents Wehmeyer’s victims in litigation.
“Choi and St. Paul Police Chief Tom Smith expressed ongoing concern about the archdiocese’s handling of clergy sex abuse cases and said that related investigations are pending. Smith said he will keep at least two officers assigned full time to cases involving the archdiocese.”
By Tony Kennedy and Jean Hopfensperger, Star Tribune — Click here to read the rest of this story.
On Tuesday (Jan.21), the Archdiocese of Chicago released six thousand pages of documents related to the cases of thirty priests credibly accused of sexual abuse. The files, made public as part of a settlement with victims’ attorneys, offer a predictably depressing view of archdiocesan failures over the past several decades …
“For releasing these documents and for making public the names of known abuser-priests, Cardinal Francis George–archbishop of Chicago since 1997–takes some credit. ‘Publishing for all to read the actual records of these crimes,’ he wrote in a letter warning Chicagoans about the document dump, ‘raises transparency to a new level.’ Perhaps. But he didn’t volunteer these files. They wouldn’t have come out if it hadn’t been for victims who pressed for their release as part of a legal settlement. Still, it’s difficult to take seriously Cardinal George’s brief for transparency when he seems so intent on obfuscating his own role in the scandal.
“That letter was repurposed as George’s latest column in the Catholic New World. It’s titled “Accountability and Transparency” — because, the cardinal says, the archdiocese is “committed” to both. “For more than twenty years,” he writes, “the archdiocese has reported all allegations of sexual abuse to civil authorities and to DCFS [Department of Child and Family Services].” He makes it sound like every allegation the archdiocese has received has been promptly reported to civil authorities. That’s not what happened.”
By Grant Gallicho, Commonweal — Click here to read the rest of this article.
Click here to read: “Philly District Attorney files appeal of Monsignor William Lynn’s overturned conviction,” by Brian X. McCrone, Philly.com, Jan. 28, 2014
In an address Saturday to an Italian women’s group, Pope Francis once again expressed a “vivid hope” that women will play a ‘more capillary and incisive’ role in the Catholic church as well as in all the venues in which ‘the most important decisions are adopted.’
“Francis made the comment in an address to the Centro Italiano Femminile, originally founded in 1944 to promote the involvement of women in Italy’s post-World War II reconstruction and inspired by the Christian tradition.
“Though reaffirming the ban on female priests, Francis has voiced a desire for a greater role for women in the church on a number of occasions, including his airborne press conference in July while returning from Brazil and in his apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium.
“Francis did not offer any new specifics Saturday in terms of what those roles might look like, but the repetition of the point arguably suggests that it’s a papal priority.”
By John L. Allen, Jr., National Catholic Reporter — Click here to read the rest of this article.
Click here to read: “Pope, prelates must punish sex offenders,” column by Elizabeth Eisenstadt-Evans, Lancaster Online, Jan. 23, 2014
While secular authorities have moved to punish offenders, Catholic church higher-ups haven’t moved to impose consequences on its own members, according to Susan Matthews, founder of Catholics4Change a hub for conversation about reform.
“So far there hasn’t been a pope or someone within the hierarchy that has … called out the bishops in any way,” she said. “There is no accountability within the church.”
She’s hopeful that Francis can show the Catholic church is still relevant to young people taken aback by “do what I say, not what I do” hypocrisy, Matthews said. At the same time, there can’t possibly be a long-term solution to problems within the denomination “until the truth is exposed and accepted, there is accountability … and bishops are removed.”
Secret Accounts Paid for Clergy Misconduct But Left Church Open to Financial Abuse / Minnesota Public Radio
The Rev. Stanley Kozlak served nearly three decades in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. But then he fathered a child and the archdiocese needed him gone.
“Removing Kozlak quietly wouldn’t be cheap, but church leaders knew how to move money discreetly. The archdiocese held two secret accounts, controlled by the archbishop, designed to make problems like Kozlak disappear.
“To get him out of active ministry, Archbishop Harry Flynn agreed in 2002 to pay the fallen priest $1,900 a month ‘disability’ for life, plus $800 a month in rent for life, and $980 a month ‘to replace the social security payment until Father Kozlak reaches age 67 when he would receive his full social security.’
“Kozlak’s package was part of a secret financial system that let archdiocese leaders divert millions of dollars away from traditional church work to deal with clergy misconduct.”
By Tom Scheck, Minnesota Public Radio — Click here to read the rest of this story.
The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland appears to be backpedaling from earlier strict stances on child protection. Voice of the Faithful® in Ireland cites two examples.
First, Sean O’Conaill of VOTF in Ireland pointed out that Ian Elliott, CEO of the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland for the past six years, has alleged that “over the past four years, there has been a successive reduction in the NBSCCC budget.”
Now retired, Elliott has published an article in this month’s issue of St. Patrick’s College’s monthly The Furrow, in which he said, “History has shown that the effective monitoring of (child protection) practice within the Church requires independence, and adequate resources. I would argue that to site investment within individual church authorities, and to starve the national Board of the support that it requires, is running the risk of a lapse back to poor risk management or possibly worse. I see no justification for it other than a desire to limit the role of the Board by covert means.”
“This is truly an alarming statement,” O’Conaill said. “Already, well informed Irish Catholics,” he continued, “have deep misgivings about the lack of strong structures of accountability for their bishops, especially on the issue of child protection. what Elliott warns about is a weakening of the limited accountability system that he established for bishops and religious congregations in Ireland.”
Second, O’Conaill indicated, the Church in Ireland has gone forward with development of spiritual support services for survivors after only token early meetings with survivors. This was done despite survivors having outlined the need to be “fully included in the development and delivery of such services” during meetings with the Irish bishops in 2008 and again in 2010 … On both occasions we felt sure that the bishops attending had heard this central message of the need to involve survivors in the development of pastoral support for themselves.”
Pastoral support for survivors is under the purview of Toward Peace, a program established in 2009 following from priorities the Irish bishops established to respond to survivors. O’Conaill quoted the bishops’ news release distributed at the end of their December 2013 meeting: “It is planned to launch Toward Peace in 2014.”
“We know of no survivor who heard of, or who attended any of the early meetings on this theme of spiritual support for survivors, who was subsequently fully involved in the development of a spiritual support service’ for survivors, or who has any idea of what this now forecast service ‘Toward Peace’ will provide – despite recent requests for information.
“Most importantly, we know of no survivor who is awaiting this soon-to-be launched ‘Toward Peace’ service with any trust or confidence – given the lack of transparency, the exclusion, the discourtesy and the condescension implicit in their experience of its development. These characteristics are diagnostic of the Catholic clericalism that has continued to delay their healing since their initial experiences of clerical sexual abuse – and are entirely incompatible with properly respectful and sensitive pastoral care, as well as with an understanding of the Church as the people of God.”
O’Conaill’s point is further elucidated by coverage of this issue in the Jan. 20 edition of the Irish Independent, “Survivors of Abuse Hit Out at Church Support Service.”
Two examples may not indicate a trend, but the situation bears watching.
Voice of the Faithful®: Voice of the Faithful® is a worldwide movement of faithful Roman Catholics working to support survivors of clergy sexual abuse, support priests of integrity and increase the laity’s role in governance and guidance of the Church. More information is at www.votf.org.
For the first time in the decades-long church sex abuse scandal, senior Vatican officials last week (Jan. 15) appeared before an independent outside body charged with holding it responsible for protecting children. They took a grilling in Geneva by the U.N.’s Committee on the Rights of the Child for the Vatican’s alleged failure to abide by terms of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Vatican has long insisted it isn’t responsible for abusive priests because they aren’t employees of the Vatican, and they repeated the excuse last Thursday (Jan. 15).” By Thomas C. Fox, National Catholic Reporter — Click here to read the rest of this article.
One priest, the Rev. William J. Cloutier, was accused of raping a boy in his summer cottage, locking the door when the 13-year-old started screaming, and then brandishing a handgun while threatening to kill him if he told anyone. Another, the Rev. Robert C. Becker, would take boys to a trailer where, they said, he slept beside them and molested them. And the Rev. Joseph R. Bennett was accused of raping a girl with the handle of a paten, a plate used to hold eucharistic bread.
Thousands of documents gleaned from the personnel files of the Archdiocese of Chicago were released to the public on Tuesday, unspooling a lurid history of abuse by priests and halting responses from bishops in the country’s third-largest archdiocese. In each case, the priests ultimately died or were ousted from ministry, and in most cases, the allegations were never proved in a criminal court. But the documents suggest that church officials were at times quite solicitous toward priests accused of abuse.” By Steven Yaccino and Michael Paulson, The New York Times
Click here to read the rest of this article.