UNITED STATES, Voice in the Desert
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

"Bishop Says No to Registry of Accused"

The following story from the March 30, 2007, issue of the National
Catholic Reporter should remove any doubt that the bishops in the
United States, by not publishing the names of clergy facing credible
accusations of sexual abuse, are continuing the criminal cover up
that has been ongoing for decades, if not centuries.

* * *
National Catholic Reporter,
By JOE FEUERHERD, Washington
March 30, 2007

"Bishop says no to registry of accused"

"Chair of clergy sex abuse committee takes stock of five years since
charter"

The chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee for the Protection of
Children and Young People told a Georgetown University audience March
20 that he opposes establishing a searchable Internet-based registry
containing the names of clergy facing credible accusations of sexual
abuse.

“There is very little chance that such a list would be comprehensive
or accurate,” said Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin, Texas. Such a
system would likely lead to a “miscarriage of justice,” he said.

Comparable to sex offender databases administered by state and local
governments, the registry was first proposed to the bishops by
Evansville, Ind., Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger in the spring of 2002 as
a means for bishops to track clergy abusers as they moved from their
diocese of origin to other church jurisdictions. Advocates for
victims of clergy sexual abuse backed the idea, saying widespread
dissemination of the information would help protect children.

Several dioceses, including the Baltimore archdiocese, have posted
the names of priests with credible accusations against them. The
public posting was opposed by some Baltimore priests and others who
saw it as primarily a public relations move designed to inoculate the
church from additional criticism. Others said it was unfair because
the list included the names of deceased priests who were unable to
defend or explain their actions.

Rather than a centralized system, Aymond said the release of such
information was “best decided on an individual basis by the [clergy
abuse]review board of a diocese” and the local bishop. “One size does
not fit all, and we have to be very careful,” he said.

Further, Aymond said in response to a question, the aggressive
efforts of church lobbyists in state legislatures to oppose repeal of
the civil statute of limitations on sexual abuse are grounded on the
well-founded concern that justice cannot be served after many years
have passed since an alleged act of abuse. “I think it would be
interesting if the states that were proposing this would propose it
not just for the Catholic church but for all denominations, all
schools ... [and] state officials,” he said.

Last year, church officials in Colorado argued that any relaxation of
statute of limitations in civil cases should apply equally to public
institutions such as schools, an approach that proved effective in
defeating the legislation. Church lobbyists in Maryland used similar
arguments this year to beat back a measure on civil liability in
abuse cases.

“All across the country, it looks like they are reading from the same
playbook, making up the same spurious arguments and deflecting
attention away from themselves,” victim advocate David Clohessy told
NCR.

Aymond’s comments were part of a wide-ranging presentation and
question-and-answer session commemorating the U.S. bishops’
institutional response to clergy sexual abuse -- the Charter for the
Protection of Children and Young People -- following January 2002
revelations that Boston archdiocesan officials protected priest-
abusers at the expense of young parishioners.

Aymond, who termed his presentation a “personal reflection,” said
that the six months following the Boston Globe-reported revelations
were “a time of great pain, certainly a time of embarrassment, and
one where we all felt a brokenness of spirit.”

“We looked at our brother priests and we felt a sense of betrayal.
Trusted colleagues that we had worked with, gone to seminary with,
been stationed with, and we asked the question, ‘How can this be? I
did not know that he was so troubled or sick. The signs were not
there. Or the signs were there and why didn’t we act more quickly,
why didn’t we put some of this together?’ ”

Further, said Aymond, it was “painful also because bishops lost
creditability because of their actions or their lack of actions.”

He said, “Just as Jesus died and was buried so too this church today
must die and be buried to rise to new life.”

The failure of those in authority to act against abusers was much on
the mind of the audience at the Woodstock Institute-sponsored event,
which included abuse victims and their family members, journalists,
and, as one questioner put it, those “with no dog in this fight.”

“If this is the worst scandal in the institution’s history in the
United States, it seems to me that within the institution someone
should be held accountable and responsible,” a former insurance
company lobbyist told Aymond. “It’s hard to understand how in the
situation we are in, we have leaders -- cardinals and bishops --
[and] that nobody has been disciplined or held accountable.” Aymond
responded that some bishops who participated in cover-ups have
resigned under Vatican pressure, but that bishops have no authority
over other bishops. “We can’t hold each other responsible. We
are responsible to the pope,” he said.

At the same time, said Aymond, bishops have engaged in “fraternal
correction” -- the church term for holding a colleague accountable.
While not a “police approach,” he said, “We are holding ourselves
accountable and calling our brothers to be accountable.” Aymond said
that he personally has contacted other bishops to express
satisfaction at their handling of abuse issues in their diocese.

On other issues Aymond:

* Said high-quality “safe environment programs” designed to educate
both children and adults about child sexual abuse are an essential
element of the church’s response to sexual abuse. That there have
been “fewer cases in recent years” is a “sign of hope,” Aymond said.
* Called for priestly formation and seminary programs that
are “vigilant” in weeding out candidates who reveal any signs that
they might abuse.
* Acknowledged “genuine cover-ups,” but said there have also been
cases where bishops overly relied on the judgments of therapists and
counselors, allowing abusive priests to return to ministry.
* Called on church officials to seek out victims and “offer our
apology, healing and counsel.”
* Offered “heartfelt and sincere thanks to the individuals and groups
that have called us as a church to integrity and repentance and
purification.”

The leader of one such group, Clohessy, national director of the
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said the church’s
response in the five years since passage of the charter has not been
impressive.

“There are cases that cry out for some fraternal correction and none
ever appears to take place,” said Clohessy. “The simplest and most
obvious being [Lincoln, Neb., Bishop Fabian] Bruskewitz, who thumbs
his nose at the bishops and gets not so much as a slap on the wrist
from his colleagues.” Bruskewitz has refused to allow audits of his
diocese’s child protection programs, as called for in the charter,
and says the largely lay National Review Board established by the
bishops to monitor the church’s handling of the crisis is a
usurpation of a bishop’s role.

Joe Feuerherd is NCR Washington correspondent. His e-mail address is
jfeuerherd@ncronline.org.

**********************************************************************