independent.ie
Saturday July 16 2011
By Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor
LAWS introduced five years ago to crack down on clerical sex abuse have never been used.
Legal sources said the offence of “reckless endangerment” — which was designed to keep children from being put at risk — was too difficult to prove.
The laws were introduced in 2006 by Justice Minister Michael McDowell. They were supposed to target clerics and others who shielded abusers and failed to act in the interests of children. But to date, the laws have not been used in a single prosecution.
Legal sources said that the burden of proof was too high — so the offence was far too difficult to prove in a court of law.
The revelation came as the Government unveiled another layer of legislation in a bid to stem the fallout from the Cloyne Report, which will be debated in the Dail next Wednesday.
This time, the package includes a mandatory reporting requirement, which has put the State on a collision course with the church over fears that it will compromise confessions.
But Children’s Minister Frances Fitzgerald insisted that there would be no exemptions from the new law, which carries a prison sentence of up to five years.
“Compliance must be ensured,” said Ms Fitzgerald at the launch of the revised ‘Children’s First’ guidelines, which are to be placed on a statutory footing with sanctions, including jail, for anyone who fails to follow the guidelines.
“No exceptions, no exemptions, ” she said.
The minister said the church’s concerns about breaking the confessional seal would not lead to any exemption from the new reporting regime.
“I’m not concerned, neither is the Government, about the internal laws or rules governing any body. Such a privilege can not be asserted as a defence for a statutory offence,” she said.
“The only exception that is likely is where a victim says he or she does not want the offence made known or information relating to that offence to be disclosed.”
However, a senior bishop last night insisted that the new laws would have little impact as abusers generally “do not come to confession”.
The Bishop of Dromore, John McAreavey, said: “Anecdotal evidence shows that abusers hardly ever show remorse. Abusers do not admit their wrong. They do not come to confession.”
Meanwhile, speaking at the ‘Children First’ launch, Assistant Garda Commissioner Derek Byrne said reckless endangerment had not been a consideration in any of the files sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions following publication in 2009 of the Ryan Report into institutional abuse.
“That (endangerment) is considered on a case-by-case basis as we submit the files to the DPP,” he said, adding that even if charges of reckless endangerment were recommended by gardai, it would not necessarily result in a prosecution.
CHILDREN
Some 13 files have been submitted to the DPP following a garda investigation into complaints of abuse and the handling of complaints by church authorities after the Ryan Report was published.
A confidential garda helpline received 181 complaints in total.
Mr Byrne stressed the centrality of the ‘Children First’ national guidelines to garda policy for the protection and welfare of children.
He added: “The brutal and ugly reality is that there are people in the community who seek to hurt and abuse children.
“Protecting vulnerable children must therefore be a priority for everyone and we in An Garda Siochana will continue to work with the HSE and other agencies to ensure children’s safety.”
– Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor
Very important. The Children’s Minister insists there will be “No exceptions, no exemptions” to the proposed legislating mandating clergy to report in Ireland, even if it means violating the seal of confession. BUT, the Minsiter added an exception:
“The only exception that is likely is where a victim says he or she does not want the offence made known or information relating to that offence to be disclosed.”
That’s a start. A spark of common sense prevails. I would venture that that covers the large majority of instances in which a penentant references sexual abuse during his/her confesssion. In those instances in which that is not the case the confessor would be able to urge the penentant to report to police, discuss the matter outside confession and so on.
However, the exception itself could prove problematic downstream. Say, for example, Johnny tells Father during confession that he, Johnny, was molested by the Bishop last week. And let’s say that, for all the usual reasons, Johnny doesn’t want anyone to know. Perhaps Father knows Johnny’s identity, and perhaps he does not. And let’s say that Father’s attempts to get Johnny to report the Bishop are in vain.
Father’s hands are tied. He is bound by the Seal of Confession. He can not get Johnny to go to authorities.
Now, fast forward 20 or 30 years. Johnny is ready to address the sex abuse he endured at the hands of a bishop. Johnny goes to police. Johnny is asked did he ever disclose the abuse to anyone. Johnny tells police that he told Father X in confession a week after the abuse transpired.
The police call in Father X. Father is asked to confirm that Johnny told him about the abuse during confession. Father can not confirm. To confirm would violate the seal of confession.
Father is charged and sent to jail.
What is gained here?
The more I think about it the more I believe that this is an ill-thought law. As we see in the article, legislation was introduced in Ireland five years ago to crack down on clerical sexual abuse. It has never been used. The burden of proof is too high.
What was gained by introducing the legislation? The legislation was obviously a knee jerk reacion and poorly thought through.
I fear the proposed legislation regarding mandatory reporting for priests, which tries to compel clergy to report information heard during confession, is knee jerk reaction. It will do no more than see decent priests tossed behind bars for refusing to violate the seal of confession.
What’s to be gained? Or, am I missing something?
Hmm! I’m sort of thinking out loud here, and I’m on my iPad so bear with me. As an educated adult it’s easy to see your logic Sylvia, however thinking through the eyes of the child, one has to view it differently. Logically, confession is not the place to report sexual abuse, it is a place to seek forgiveness and reconciliation. Those who work with children know that a child who is abused will often state that they told someone but weren’t heard, which is why in abuse prevention programs we tell children to tell and to keep telling until they get an adult who will listen to them. Victims of sexual abuse often even as adults, will revert to a child-like state when remembering their abuse, so they go to confession, and then believe they’ve told someone, even though it was under the seal of confession. Let me share my own story. I was a Catholic school teacher, and was on a staff retreat at Rosemary Heights inSurrey B.C. I’d studied a fair bit of theology and had a very deep understanding of Catholic teachings. Father Scott, was our charismatic retreat leader, and when the opportunity for confessions came up, I felt like I could for the first time in my life, reveal my abuse. I have no memory of what he said, I’m sure he didn’t probe further or say that it wasn’t my fault, he reassured me of God’s forgiveness, and off I went. I did expect that he might approach me later and talk about it, but he never did, and I do recall thinking that of course he wouldn’t say anything because I’d spoken to him in confession. In my childlike thinking though, I would have expected that he would have at least kept an eye on McCann or have told someone if he’d thought someone else was in danger. It was at least 3 or 4 years later when I finally disclosed openly to another priest who put the process in motion. If during that time McCann had been abusing more girls, or grooming other victims, and Father Scott knew of that possibility shouldn’t he be somewhat culpable on some level?
The problem proudsurvivor is that if Father Scott said anything to anyone about Father McCann because of what he learned of McCann through your confession he would risk excommunication. Inviolable really is inviolable. I think the seal of confession is probably a great burden for good priests, and no doubt precisely for reasons such as this.
And so, I struggle with this. I believe in the Sacrament of Confession. I believe the Seal of Confession is essential for the penitent and must therefore remain inviolable. It has been such for hundreds of years. Only in recent years has that inviolablity come into question, and that because of the lies, deception and cover-up on the part of those who molest and those who protect and enable the molester.
A question. Were you ready to come forward when you identified McCann in confession?
I’ve jsut read something on the whole issue of the seal of confession which is quite enlightening and gives food for further thought and discussion. It’s in a 1957 edition of a Catholic dictionary. I will photocopy and post in it’s entirety tomorrow :).
He would “risk excommunication” hmm? – from my reading on this site many people have risked many things to stand up for their beliefs. Survivors have effectively been “excommunicated” or at least felt ostracized from their church because they disclosed. Are we not called by God to rise above the earthly constructs in defense of “the least of these”? I think it is because of the lack of true transparency and integrity of its leaders, that Ireland feels the need for this legislation. The church should not continue to hide behind the seal of confession to protect itself.
You asked if I would have been ready to come forward and I truly don’t know. I think the process that I underwent was obviously the right one for me. I believe I am where I am today for a reason. I would likely have felt less on my own if Father Scott had initiated a process that saw the church removing Father McCann from harming other children, and seeking justice for all of his victims. Perhaps I’d still be a practicing Catholic and Catholic school teacher if I felt it was a place where there was a real desire for truth and justice….
Please, Proudsurvivor, don’t paint the whole of the Catholic Church with the same color of your terrible experience with Jack McCann!
There are evil people in the world, and you were compromised and abused by one.
There are lazy, stupid and fearing people, and you experienced all of that with the other Priest you dealt with.
GOD saw your intentions.
The vast majority of the Priests and others in the Catholic Church are not like those two very weak ones.
Do not let them and your bad experiences with them destroy your Soul also.
You are a daughter of GOD- Please, Please, return to the Church of your youth, many are praying for you.
If you stay away you will be giving yet another victory to the Boss of Jack mCcann and the other weak priest.
proudsurvivor, I lost my electricity before I had opportunity to reply to your comment. I asked if you werer ready to come forward only because whether in or out of confession that makes a difference as to what can be done. I was in no way trying to repromand you. Those who know me know that I struggle with this constantly, just as I constantly encourage victims to go to police. It is a difficult situation and one which I believe diocesan officials have nurtured to their own advantage when approached by a victim; they are all too eager to resepct the victim’s desire not to go to police. I think it is rare indeed that under such circumstances Church officials acutally enourage a victim to go to police.
(Found it!!)
Sylvia,
I never felt reprimanded. I have read your thoughts on the seal of confession, and can see you struggling with this issue. I still wonder about the possible excommunication of a priest and the real excommunication that many victims and their families feel. While I may not be able to participate in church life, no one could ever excommunicate me from my daily relationship with God in whatever form that takes in my life. With all of their theological training, priests should know that too. If we look at Matthew’s “Discourse on the Church” 18: 5-10, it seems to me (imho), we are called time and time again to toss aside the earthly constructs (e.g. seal of confession) for what is right and just.
Again, using my experience as an example I, like you, am trying to work through this, asking the questions that I think will help all of us that want the best for children and the church to do what’s right. I do believe that Father Craig Scott was simply following his rules regarding the seal of confession when he didn’t take the time to approach me after to get more information, back in 1985. As a former police officer, I believe he would have been well aware that McCann’s actions were a crime.
In B.C. my job as a teacher, children tell me many things, that cause me concern and as a trusted adult in their lives, it is my job to report my concerns to the Ministry of Children and Families. I do not need to be able to prove anything, I just report! If the child tells me something directly, asking for help, I tell the child that I heard them, I’m glad they told me, and that I will tell someone whose job it is to help them. I make a phone call to the ministry and it is then their job to decide what to do. I do the same thing even when the child doesn’t tell me but there are signs of lack of care, physical abuse etc. I don’t ask the child if they want me to tell on mommy or daddy. They’d likely say no! This is the reality they’ve always known, and at a young age they often don’t understand that it’s not okay for adults to treat them that way. What child would want me to tell if they knew it would devestate the reality they all know? It is up to me to report it! I may know their parents, and believe their parents would never do that to them, or are good parents who mean well , but I must report it. It is not up to me to judge whether or not the child wants me to tell. I keep a record of the report so that I am able to say if anything happens that I reported it. I cannot control how other people do their jobs. If the ministry decides it’s not enough evidence to do anything, that’s up to them. I have done my job and reported. I really don’t see a difference in the role of priests. They are not judge and jury, they are trusted adults in children’s lives.
I would hope that today if Father Scott heard the confession of a young woman as he did over 20 years ago, that he would let her know that it was not her fault and that whether or not she wanted him to or not he would make a report to the Ministry of Children and Families, to his bishop, the priest’s order, and any one else he could to ensure that he’d done his duty to protect children.
Another big concern I have that I believe perpetuates abuse in the church is the whole notion of secrets, as you outline in your post on the seal of confession. In sexual abuse prevention programs we teach children that secrets are not okay. Surprises are fine, the difference being that someone finds out. The notion of our sins as “secrets” is disconcerting to me. It causes us to hide our human failings in darkness producing a “toxic shame” that perpetuates the cycle of addiction and abuse. In our humanness, we sin, we fail, we accept our failings and work to become more spiritual. Why does this need to be a secret?
Just some more thoughts as I ponder this issue.
Yes, proudsurvivor, I struggle with it. I am thunk out! I am trying to read what I can and still thinking. How to accomplish both ends?
You mention mandatory reporting to CAS. The trouble is I think we all know of those cases where officials have moved in on a family, removed the children, and distraught parents were left for weeks and often months or more on end trying to prove they had never abused the children and fighting to regain custody of their children. Costly battles, both emotionally and financially. That’s not healthy either.
When it comes to protecting our children from sex abuse we are, in some ways, a rather schizophrenic society. On the one hand the duty to report to CAS as you mention, and on the other judges who rattle on about the horror of child sex abuse and the despicable nature of the crime before they hand down a conditional sentence, or, if it’s really tough judge, perhaps two years? Goodness, I have been astounded to see a few sentences handed out in Ireland which sounded for all the world like ours.
And then of course there is the inability of citizens in Canada to know where in their community these convicted molesters live. There is a registry, yes, but it’s accessible only to police and so on. What good to the parent is a sex offender registry if they can;t access it know where danger lies? is the next door neighbour a convicted molester perhaps? There’s no way of knowing, and, generally speaking, no one will tell us.
But, back to the Seal of Confession… Somehow all of these elements tie in, but I’m not sure yet just how. I’m still reading and pondering and looking for people who will discuss this with me
Still pondering proudsurvivor. Still pondering
I feel so much better now……..”they erred”, they didn’t know that it was a crime, they didn’t know that it was an abhorent crime, they didn’t know that it went against everything they preached of and taught. WE DID!!!!!!!!!
Sylvia I will say what you won’t……..HORSESHIT!!!!
John
In other words: “yes…it’s pure barnyard honey”!
Lina