The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThoughts on Boston archdiocese's decision to name accused priests
by Michael Sean Winters on Aug. 25, 2011
Thursday afternoon, the Archdiocese of Boston announced that it has compiled a list of all the archdiocese’s clerics who have been accused of sexually abusing children and is placing it at one, easy to access, location on its website.
A total of 159 clerics are listed at the new website and it includes all clergy who were accused and found guilty by either criminal or ecclesiastical courts, all clergy who were accused and laicized, and all clergy who were accused but subsequently exonerated.
The only two categories of clergy against whom public accusation were made who are not included on the lists are clergy who belong to religious orders and those clergy who had died by the time any accusations were made. Clergy who have since died, but were alive at the time of the accusations, are included in the list.
I am sure this decision will open some wounds that had begun to heal. I am sure that some will criticize Cardinal Sean O’Malley for “throwing the priests under the bus” and others will complain that the new disclosure does not go far enough.
But, I hope that the critics will first read the letter from Cardinal O’Malley announcing his decision.
It is unprecedented in the way he shares his own decision-making process on these difficult issues. Whether you agree or disagree with his decisions to disclose this information in such a public manner, it is difficult not to admire his willingness to share with those affected the thought process that went into the decisions.
Fr. Richard Erikson, the Vicar General of the archdiocese, told me in an advance briefing that this was “One of the decisions the Cardinal has anguished over the most in my five years working with him.”
And, it is easy to see why. People have a right to their reputation. That is no small moral concern. People also have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and to face their accusers. Those are legal principles that distinguish ours as a civilized society.
On the other hand, the culture of clerical and hierarchic obfuscation that turned a sex scandal into an accountability scandal demands openness and accountability if the Church is ever to regain her credibility. How to balance such equally pressing, easily conflicting, moral concerns?
I suspect most of the criticism from outside the Church will focus on the fact that some priests are not listed. As noted above, the right to face one’s accuser is a hard-won principle in our civilization’s climb up the mountain of justice. We are still climbing to be sure, but the end of the Star Chamber was a good thing.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Among the reasons for joy on the faces of the Libyan people is the hope that they, too, will never have to face a capricious legal system in which such basic rights are denied. Cardinal O’Malley’s decision not to publish the names of those priests who had died before any allegations were made honors this principle of justice.
On the other hand, why publish the names of any of those who have died? After all, they are not here to make their case to the cardinal that no more publicity be attached to their names and, what is more, they obviously no longer pose any threat to children. But, one of the reasons to publish the names is because other victims, who may have never been able to even discuss what happened to them, may see a name on the list and say, “I was not the only one,” come forward and both find healing for themselves and provide credibility to the charges of other victims.
The decision not to publish the names of those accused of abuse who belong to religious orders is even more controversial. Here is the problem: Even if those religious priests were working in Boston when they abused a minor, any canonical investigation of the charges would be conducted by their religious order, not by the archdiocese. If an accusation is made against a religious order priest in Boston, the authorities are notified immediately. That happens with all such accusations and it happens even before there has been any determination whether the accusation has prima facie credibility.
The archdiocese then removes a religious order priest’s faculties and turns the matter over to the religious order for investigation. As well, each religious order has the responsibility to determine its own policies regarding the disclosure of names. To publish those names would both infringe on the rights of religious orders and it would in some sense make the archdiocese accountable for the credibility of investigations conducted by the religious orders. But, as you can see, the issue is complicated and these are the kinds of complications that make some outside observers nervous.
Another controversial decision was to publish a distinct list of those priests against whom public accusations had been lodged but who have been exonerated by either a civil or a canonical investigation. There is a narrative in some circles that bishops are willing to “throw priests under the bus” to preserve their own reputation as tough guys.
In this instance, the opposite is the case. Erikson explained that by searching the archdiocesan website, you could sometimes find the announcement of the original accusation against the priest, and the announcement that he was being removed from ministry pending the investigation, but that the website might not include the information about his exoneration.
“One of the reasons to publish the names of those who were exonerated is to help them clear their names,” Erikson told me.
The archdiocese did not only rely on its own records in determining which priests had faced public accusations, although since the archdiocese adopted the Dallas Norms in 2002, any priest against whom a credible charge was made was removed from ministry and that fact was published by the archdiocese.
The current list also includes the names of any priests listed at BishopAccountability.org and on other victims’ advocates’ websites.
Weighing how to balance the demands of justice in such cases is difficult. Doing so in a pastoral way that brings healing only adds to the difficulty.
Take one of the thorniest issues, on which there are sure to be some who are disappointed, the decision not to list those priests who died before any charges were made.
“I emphasize that our decision not to list the names of deceased priests who have not been publicly accused and as to whom there were no canonical proceedings conducted or completed (most were accused well after their death) does not in any way mean that the Archdiocese did not find that the claims of particular survivors who accused those deceased priests to be credible or compelling,” O’Malley writes.
“Indeed, in many of those cases, the Archdiocese already has proceeded to compensate the survivor and provides counseling and pastoral care to those individuals.”
It is so important to validate the experience of others in such cases, and even here, in a decision that will disappoint some, O’Malley’s pastoral sensibility is spot-on.
So, why undertake this decision to publish all the names in one place? Accountability. Openness.
“Boston has a specific responsibility because this is where the sexual abuse crisis started,” said Erikson.
Of course, we now know that the sexual abuse crisis started in many other places in the 1970s and 1980s, when most of the abuse actually happened. What happened in Boston in 2002 was a different crisis, a crisis of episcopal moral authority.
What we learned in 2002 was that bishops had been told about the horrific things that had occurred and they did not react with horror. They reacted with legal strategies and mealy-mouthed apologies and, most sadly, in some cases they reacted with continued efforts to cover-up the crimes that had been committed.
Not in Boston. In Boston, ever since Cardinal O’Malley arrived, the response has been forthright. O’Malley has met with scores of victims.
Unlike some dioceses that have fought efforts to raise the statute of limitations, in Boston such statutes, as well as those that provide immunity for non-profits, have been waved in negotiations of settlements.
In Boston, unlike some other dioceses, the Dallas Norms have been implemented and followed. In Boston, the Review Board includes victims. In Boston, some 300,000 children have received safe environment training and 175,000 adults have been trained in how to recognize and report suspected abuse.
And, now, Boston becomes the largest archdiocese in the country to publish the names of those who have been publicly accused in one place.
Why do it? Because if this more accessible list helps even one victim to come forward and find healing, re-opening the wound that has afflicted the archdiocese for so long will be worth it. Because the Church cannot heal unless that victims of her clergy are healed. Because the Church cannot move forward while it is mired in the secretive, evasive ways of the past.
Because the people of God have a right to bishops they can trust and bishops have a responsibility to be as open and accountable as they can be if they are to restore that broken trust.
Because it is the right thing to do.
Editor's Note: NCR's John L. Allen Jr. says O'Malley puts down a new marker on abuse crisis
I am pleasantly surprised at
I am pleasantly surprised at this action by Cardinal Sean O’Malley. May he long continue his walk with Jesus. His actions are a giant step forwards for the Catholic church. I hope the Vatican doesn't censure him for his actions.
Howard
You are exactly correct!
You are exactly correct!
This is a balanced,
This is a balanced, thoughtful article. I applaud the openness of the writer of the article, and the thoughtfulness of Cardinal Sean. A lot of people have been hurt by this scandal, in Boston and elsewhere, at the same time, it is more than just a "Catholic" problem. It is a problem when power boundaries are ignored or manipulated. And I hope we all have the humility to understand in the words of an African Anglican Bishop, that perhaps none of us have it "right, yet" in coming to terms with the overall issue. The rest of us can learn a lot about how to confront the issue of power related sex abuse by the example set by Cardinal Sean.
For context, I'm a retired professor and administrator having taught at two Jesuit universities. I am now and have been since birth, an Anglican.
The dissidents at SNAP, VOTF,
The dissidents at SNAP, VOTF, and the National Catholic Reporter will privately love this decision, but publicly and dishonestly yell that "it doesn't go far enough."
Even though I find it
Even though I find it difficult to follow all these steps, all the credentials for all the steps in this long chain of revelations of abuse I truly admire this true bishop leading his people. He surely has made mistakes and will make them. He's not perfect. But I see a bishop here. I see few others starting with the Vatican--how sad.
I wonder if His Eminence is
I wonder if His Eminence is going to release the names of the alleged victims as well (at least those over the age of 18). After all, if this database were to help prove even one priest innocent of these terrible allegations, it is worth it.
If a priest was privately
If a priest was privately accused and admitted guilt and victims were compensated, even if he has died, his name needs to appear on the list.
There are still other possible victims that also need to see those names so that they know they were not the only ones, and so that they might come forward.
It is absolutely necessary, as well, for the recordation to be public so that researchers into relationships between abusers can document where this priest was, which assignments he had, which bishop was involved, how many abused victims he had, how many he possibly shared with other priests and bishops, etc. These names must be published for the sake of victims.
I too hope Cardinal O'Malley
I too hope Cardinal O'Malley is not censured by the Vatican for his actions. What we could expect is a visit by Archbishop Chaput, similar to the one he made at the Pope's request to Australia, prior to a bishop there being removed. Once the Vatican pulls that kind of stunt, Catholics could be pardoned for thinking it will be repeated every time a bishop says or does something the authoritarian ruler doesn't like.
"Each of the 159 names
"Each of the 159 names published Thursday has been made public previously, though not necessarily by the archdiocese."
So in fact Cardinal Sean O’Malley released nothing; the secrets of the Church remain secure.
My problem with publishing
My problem with publishing the names of priest accused but subsequently exonerated is that, in this day and age and church climate around this topic, no one will really believe they guys to be innocent. The old "smoke and fire" syndrome will prevail. People have gone from always trusting priests to almost never trusting priests.
The innocent category of accused should NOT be published for the preservation of the good name and innocence of the unjustly accused.
Well, it is about time!
Well, it is about time!
My, my. Almost ten years
My, my. Almost ten years later, and still the Cardinal writes:
“I emphasize that our decision not to list the names of deceased priests who have not been publicly accused and as to whom there were no canonical proceedings conducted or completed (most were accused well after their death) does not in any way mean that the Archdiocese did not find that the claims of particular survivors who accused those deceased priests to be credible or compelling.”
In other words, yes these dead priests molested children, but it is not right to identify these men. But it is. And the Cardinal cannot have it both ways. Priests who molested, raped and tortured children must be named for both justice and mercy's sake. They have no right to "a good reputation," dead or alive.
Cardinal O'Malley should know better.
AW
Thank goodness.
Thank goodness.
If I applied this policy to
If I applied this policy to lay employees--if I announced that a lay employee had been accused of sex abuse, but the charge had not been substantiated--I would be subject to a lawsuit for defamation. And I'd likely lose.
Can a priest in that situation sue the Archbishop for defamation of character? Why not?
There's less chance in that
There's less chance in that situation for a coverup. You can't compare the two.
Too little, too late. He
Too little, too late. He promised this over two years ago, and finally delivered. In any other part of society, if someone is accused in court, it's made public, especially when it concerns child safety.
Cardinal O'Malley is your typical Catholic bishop. He will wait and delay as log as he possibly can to do the basic things that any other group in society would have done years ago. Great religion, horrible church.
Parents - keep your children away from all Catholic priests.
Cardinal O'Malley has done
Cardinal O'Malley has done the right thing and he is to be congratulated. Other bishops should follow his lead.
It would be additionally helpful if the cardinal released the amounts of hush money spent during cardinal Law's episcopate for silencing children, their parents,and local law enforcement authorities to keep their mouths shut during the investigation of the priests found guilty of sexual abuse.
The Vatican also needs to release all of its files to the Italian and European press if there is ever to be any chance of closure. This would be a truly memorable first step. Unfortunately,I haven't much hope of that happening.
I applaud Cardinal Sean for
I applaud Cardinal Sean for his efforts. The archdiocese has changed for the better since the departure of Cardinal Law and his bishops. The one remaining sore is that none of these bishops has been brought to justice, and they still sit, in purple and gold, awaiting their comfortable retirements.
If only the Vatican would launch a visitation into the bishops and what they did. I'd vote for starting with every bishop here in Boston who served under Cardinal Law. Many will be found innocent. Some will be guilty. The latter should be brought to justice.
Wouldn't it be nice to see a
Wouldn't it be nice to see a list of the Bishops and Cardinals who lied and transferred, along with the priests in question.
For example...here's
For example...here's (http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3268162) a report about a priest, in Canada, who succumbed to paying extortion money when threatened with an accusation of sex abuse.
Now, of course, the priest--who is unnamed--maybe foolish; and maybe he had something to hide after all.
But gee, can anyone think of any other reason a priest might be terrified, when someone says, "give me money or I'll accuse you of molestation!"
Anyone? Anyone?
This action could play into
This action could play into the hands of the "SNAP" attack against the Catholic Church and our Priests and Bishops, and their attorneys who are putting money and the destruction of priestly vocations and reputations before real justice, transparency and truth. The evidence has been out there now for a long time. It truly serves no purpose if the Bishop is vigilante and pastoral.
The Cardinal's job is to save
The Cardinal's job is to save souls...as is with every Christian. I would feel better about his choice (to continue to "out" the priests who jeopardized the salvation of many children's souls), if he also chose to "out" the so called "catholic" politicians who continue to jeopardize the salvation of many, many souls by their example in word and deed(vote). He could start by going to the Boston Globe to publicly correct a known "catholic" politician's stand on an issue if it violates Catholic Church Teaching. The Church's silence here in the USA in not publicly correcting these state and national "catholic" politicians has been a real Cross for families. It is time to stop publishing the Catholic Church's sins and start publishing her beautiful, beautiful TRUTHS!!!
with those in his own state and then continue right across the country.
The Cardinal's job is to save
The Cardinal's job is to save souls...as is with every Christian. I would feel better about his choice (to continue to "out" the priests who jeopardized the salvation of many children's souls), if he also chose to "out" the so called "catholic" politicians who continue to jeopardize the salvation of many, many souls by their example in word and deed(vote). He could start by going to the Boston Globe to publicly correct a known "catholic" politician's stand on an issue if it violates Catholic Church Teaching. The Church's silence here in the USA in not publicly correcting these state and national "catholic" politicians has been a real Cross for families. It is time to stop publishing the Catholic Church's sins and start publishing her beautiful, beautiful TRUTHS!!!
It is the job of a prelate to
It is the job of a prelate to supervise the saving of souls. Sean O'Malley might have singlehandedly saved the soul of the Archdiocese of Boston and he may be doing that for the entire church now. It seems to be in good hands and I applaud him as one of the good guys.
Mr. Winters - my only caution
Mr. Winters - my only caution is about the religious priests that worked in the archdiocese. In reality, the local bishop/archbishop must grant each priest (including religious order priests) faculties to exercise their public sacramental ministry. Thus, every priest with faculties is connected to the local bishop. What you say makes sense in terms of the responsibility of the religious order but the ministerial work and faculties is with the local bishop whether it be one of his diocesan priests or a religious order priest.
One interesting aspect of the abuse situation over the years, are the number of religious order abusers from small, shrinking, or disorganized religious orders that appear to have very loose accountability for their members. In this situation, the local bishop does and should have the accountability initially.
"What happened in Boston in
"What happened in Boston in 2002 was a different crisis, a crisis of episcopal moral authority." This is exactly what happened in 2002, due to the forced publicizing of the personnel records..
Therefore, Cardinal O'Malley's action, while a step toward full transparency, is only a first step in addressing this "different crisis"..... it cannot be the last step. If we stop with this list we are stuck in the oft-repeated spin that all of this is the result of a few sick men who constitute a small percentage of our clergy.
Precisely because what happened in Boston brought to light the systemic dynamic and highlighted the "different crisis"--one of episcopal moral authority--Cardinal O'Malley's next step must be even more agonizingly prophetic--he must call for justice to be done at the episcopal level of the Boston crisis or the church in Boston will never be able to move toward healing and forgiveness. None of us should envy him but all of us should pray for him to have the strength of character and leadership to do this. He may be the only one who can take this next crucial step.
Post new comment