MAARS News
June 16th, 2011
By Daniel Burke,Today USA
BELLEVUE, Wash. — BELLEVUE, Wash. —The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops began a review of church sex abuse policies here on Wednesday (June 15), bypassing several recent reports that raise questions about whether the rules are effective at removing abusive priests.
photo: inewp.comThe bishops’ brief public discussion was a prelude to private debates taking place throuhgout the week behind closed doors. The bishops are scheduled to vote on revisions to the church guidelines on Thursday.
Bishop Blase Cupich of Spokane, Wash., who chairs a church committee dedicated to protecting children from sexual abuse, said the church’s current policy is working.
“The charter has served the church well,” said Cupich, referring to the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, originally passed in 2002. “It is a helpful tool as we keep our pledge to protect children and promote healing in our church.”
Most of the proposed revisions bring church rules in line with Vatican norms issued in 2010, which equate child abuse with abusing the mentally disabled, and make the acquisition, possession, or distribution of child pornography a church crime.
The bishops adopted the charter and related rules known as the “Essential Norms” after the sexual abuse scandal erupted in Boston and spread nationwide. Catholic leaders point to a sharp decline in new sex abuse allegations — seven were reported in 2010 — as evidence that the rules remain effective.
But victims’ advocates say reports of ethical lapses by church leaders in Philadelphia and Kansas City, Mo., prove that the nonbinding church policies are weak and rife with loopholes.
“They fall short of having any consequences for bishops’ actions,” said Mary Dispenza of Bellevue, who said that she was raped by a priest in 1947 in Los Angeles.
Dispenza and several other professed victims protested outside the bishops’ hotel and pressed them to adopt guidelines that include penalties for church leaders who break them.
But Cupich said the bishops conference does not have the power to sanction church officials, and that when followed as written, the charter is effective.
“If we look at the cases, it is when the charter was not followed correctly or implemented correctly that we get into difficulty,” Cupich said.
Cupich also said that only amendments “seen as strengthening the charter” were accepted by his committee.
The committee rejected more than 20 amendments proposed by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb., who has refused to follow aspects of the charter, such as allowing outside auditors to assess his compliance with church sex abuse rules.
“The USCCB bureaucracy cannot bind bishops to obey the charter,” Bruskewitz said. “It is fundamentally dishonest to tell the faithful and the general public that the USCCB has any authority whatsoever to bind dioceses … to obey the charter. The more commitments, the more grounds for lawsuits.”
Archbishop Francis Hurley, former head of the archdiocese of Anchorage, argued that church policies aimed at reconciliation should include returning priest-abusers to ministry.
“Don’t we believe in forgiveness?” he asked.
Barbara Dorris, outreach director for the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, angrily rejected Hurley’s suggestion. “Forgiveness has nothing to do with justice,” Dorris said outside the bishops’ hotel. “Forgiveness does not stop pedophiles or protect children.”
A scathing grand jury report released in February excoriated church leaders in Philadelphia for failing to remove 37 priests who were credibly accused of abuse, withholding information from a lay review board and failing to implement “safe environment” programs in schools — all breaches of church rules.
Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali will not attend the bishops’ meeting outside Seattle, according to a spokeswoman. He is representing the pope at a celebration in the Czech Republic to honor St. John Neumann, a 19th-century archbishop of Philadelphia.
Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn recently apologized for failing to remove a priest from ministry despite a warning from church officials. The priest was arrested in May on child pornography charges. Finn is attending the Seattle meeting.
The U.S. church has spent more than $2 billion on sex abuse settlements, “safe environment” training for staff, and two sweeping studies that sought to explain the causes and scope of a scandal that has claimed 15,700 victims since 1950.
___________________________________
Panel stresses openness for US Catholic bishops
PostGazette.com
16 June 2011
Ann Rodgers Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
SEATTLE — As the U.S. Catholic bishops prepare to vote on minor changes to their child protection charter amid several new scandals over bishops who have failed to follow it, a key advisory committee warned that without more clear, direct responses, they risk undoing their progress on the issue.
The bishops’ conference must “speak publicly and provide clear, accurate and honest information,” said the report from the National Advisory Council, a demographically representative advisory board of 45 Catholics from across the U.S.
It was delivered by Bishop William Skurla, their liaison to the bishops, as they opened their three-day summer meeting in Seattle.
The council said that “without such information and renewed zeal to stay the course, the reputation of the charter and the image of the church are at risk.”
Victim advocates were far more critical.
“Dramatic reforms are needed to better protect the vulnerable and heal the wounded,” the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests said.
The charter was drafted in 2002 at the height of public outrage over bishops who had failed to remove priests who had sexually abused minors.
It says no priest who has sexually abused a minor may remain in ministry, that a review board of lay experts must advise each bishop on response to accusations, that bishops must provide compassionate support to victims and provide extensive training on the detection and prevention of child sexual abuse.
It mandates outside audits of each diocese’s implementation of those policies and established a National Review Board, whose members are primarily lay experts, to oversee all of this.
To give the charter teeth, the bishops arranged for the Vatican to give its rules the force of canon law.
But, it has no penalty for bishops who failed to remove abusers or to follow the charter.
Under canon law, only the pope can discipline a bishop.
“We don’t have any ability or authority to sanction anyone,” said Bishop Blase Cupich, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on the Protection of Children and Young People.
In Philadelphia, Cardinal Justin Rigali is under heavy fire for mishandling accusations against dozens of priests, after a grand jury said 37 remained in ministry despite credible allegations.
A high-ranking archdiocesan official was indicted for inaction.
In Kansas City, Mo., Bishop Robert Finn failed to act on complaints from a parish school that a priest was displaying disturbing, pedophile-like behavior.
The priest was later arrested for possession of child pornography.
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb., has refused to allow the audits required by the charter, with no apparent reaction from the Vatican. Notably, the bishops’ committee that oversees the charter rejected more than two dozen proposed amendments from Bishop Bruskewitz, who argued that the charter isn’t binding on any bishop.
The committee replied that the charter’s rules were approved by the Vatican, which has recently required all dioceses worldwide to adopt similar measures.
But this review of the charter was scheduled more than a year ago only to make sure it was in line with new Vatican documents, Bishop Cupich said.
There were no major proposed revisions because the charter works well in most of the nation’s nearly 200 dioceses, he said.
“It is where the charter isn’t followed correctly … that we get into difficulties,” he said.
The full debate and vote on the charter will be today. On Wednesday, bishops could only ask technical questions to make sure they understood the proposed changes.
The victim advocacy group BishopAccountability.org has proposed specific changes to the charter, including requiring the diocesan review boards to consider all accusations, not just those that bishops choose to forward to them, and requiring bishops to send all allegations, no matter how flimsy, to the civil authorities.
Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh said he believes the charter already requires that, but some bishops believe they have more discretion.
“We can’t back down on this. These do need to go to the civil authorities. And the more that we have the review board as a separate pair of eyes on these things, the better off everyone is,” Bishop Zubik said in an interview.
Another proposed change from the advocacy group is to at least temporarily remove a priest from ministry as soon as an allegation is made, rather than wait until a preliminary investigation is completed.
At least a few bishops believe the charter is already too harsh on priest perpetrators.
Retired Archbishop Francis Hurley, emeritus of Anchorage, Alaska, asked whether the committee would consider an amendment allowing the reinstatement of repentant offenders.
“I have received questions from a number of people [asking] ‘don’t we believe in forgiveness?’” he said.
Bishop Cupich replied that the committee didn’t consider any change to the zero-tolerance policy but that any bishop could submit a proposed amendment.
There are two variations on Archbishop Hurley’s intervention:
(1) “Archbishop Francis Hurley, former head of the archdiocese of Anchorage, argued that church policies aimed at reconciliation should include returning priest-abusers to ministry.
“’Don’t we believe in forgiveness?’” he asked.”
(2) “Retired Archbishop Francis Hurley, emeritus of Anchorage, Alaska, asked whether the committee would consider an amendment allowing the reinstatement of repentant offenders.
“’I have received questions from a number of people [asking] “don’t we believe in forgiveness?” he said.”
I suppose at the end of the day it boils down to the archbishop asking for the inclusion of an amendent allowing the recycling of known molesters, and that based on the notion that forgiveness somehow equates to waving a green flag for such recyling?
Unlike the rest of the Catholic world, the Americans have a one strike you’re out policy. So, how bizarre is this? As the rest of the world strives to have recycled molesters ousted Archbisop Hurley seems to be fronting the battle to have known American molesters reinstated!
And he’s using “forgiveness” as the wedge!
Forgiveness is one thing. Wilfully putting children at risk is quite another. Sullying the ranks of the priesthood with criminals is yet another. Treating the sex abuse of a child as no more than a little mistake on the part of a clerical molester is but another. And, last but by no means least, refusing to recognize that thousands of Catholics – the lsot sheep – will not set foot inside a Catholic Church until it is purged of known molesters is yet another.
What of Our Lord’s words about the millstone? Better they be drowned in the depths of the sea?
I personallly don’t ask that they be drowned. I’m not saying they can’t be forgiven. I am saying they are not fit to be priests. And I am saying they should be laicized (defrocked), not recyled.
Sylvia,
I do agree…they are not fit to be priests. They should be defrocked not recycled.
Lina
If Adolf Hitler came back to life the first thing Hurley would do is to make him ruler of the world!
It,s the Hurleys of the world that children need to fear most and indeed that we all should be afraid of because it is when we underestimate the power of Satan that we are most vulnerable to his clutches , deception and destructive force.
Please never stop exposing these imposters Sylvia! The good you do is for all.
Again, over the top
The forgiveness theme was brought up by Fr. Abbass in NS as well. It is a red herring of course. No one denies that there can be repentance and forgiveness but there have to be consequences and for priests who perpetrate these hideous acts there should be a one-strike-you’re-out policy – out of the priesthood, off the payroll, out of the parish and out of the possibility of ever, ever being in any position in the Church period: not tribunals, not chaplaincies in retirement homes, nothing, not cleaners in church buildings, gone. The comments of these bishops and priests suggesting that priests who have offended in that way can be returned to ministry is evidence of the fact that they simply don’t get it. Their failure/refusal to understand is nothing less than perverse. There will never be an end to the abuse if that mindset prevails. It should be made clear to every seminarian in the world and to members of of religious orders, male and female, that they will be booted out if they ever engage in such perversions with children or with adults or enable/affirm others who do. This rule should apply to the laity in positions of authority in the Church as well. Maybe the Church should invoke the intercession of St. Peter Damian regularly as the current state of Church resembles those that St. Peter Damian described in the 11th Century.
Well done, Esperanza
Yes, well stated Esperanza.
You are right, Father Abbass evoked the forgiveness theme as well. I think we have heard it more times in Canada than we care to remember. It is indeed a red herring. I think it’s geared to laying a guilt trip on those who can neither tolerate sexual perversion in the priesthood nor in good conscience twiddle their thumbs while children and the vulnerable are placed at risk .
My latest question is how do we in Canada get a zero toelrance policy? I know the policy in the States has its flaws, but, it’s a start. Why did the Vatican not see that as good start point and insist that it be implemented world-wide?
Canada will only see a zero tolerance policy when Canadians stand strong against those who tolerate and excuse this perverted behaviour.
We still have judges in court rooms chuckling out loud and making sarcastic comics such as “the only person not included on this statement of claim is the Pope”!!
We are no further ahead of this problem than we were 20 years ago. It is a sad state of affairs when we live in a world with very different set of rules are put in place based on one’s status is in society.
Brenda Brunele
How true, Brenda! It’s astounding how pervasive this attitude is. Sylvia’s work at revealing the connections some of these judges have to the Church, whether it be through their families, or their Catholic school education helps to shed some light on what a systemic problem we have. As long as it’s been okay within the system to laugh about it and joke about it without actually addressing the root of the problem, we will continue to maintain the status quo. It must be difficult for you to place your confidence in a judge who sarcastically laughs things off.
While within the system we may not be further ahead than we were 20 years ago, I see hope. Sites like this that bring like-minded people together to give each other support and a public voice were not there 20 years ago. I really felt alone back then and had to work so hard to find support. This time, I feel more that there is a community of people supporting me. I was surprisingly heartened by the many comments in the newspaper that recognized the damage caused by allowing these men to return to, and or stay in their ministries. Yes, we still have those as Sylvia pointed out who ask as the woman did to her husband why they are persecuting this man, but those comments are more rare than they once were.
In the early days of my healing I found the work of John Bradshaw http://www.johnbradshaw.com/ to be quite helpful. At a workshop I attended, he said that if we could only heal 2% per generation we were on our way to recovery. I feel we’ve done at least that. From what I’ve seen on your comments on this blog, you have the strength to make a difference and to fight against these injustices. Stay the course!