 |
|
|
|
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
| ***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - November 11, 2002***
A SNAP Leader's View Of The Bishops Latest Sex Abuse Policy
"Once again, a panel of elderly men wearing Roman collars has revised the American bishops Increasingly convoluted sexual abuse policy. Once again, Catholic lay people and abuse victims were on the outside looking in. Some church leaders claim the latest revision is "a step towards balance." From our perspective, however, it is a clear step backward, a radical departure from the promises bishops expressed in Dallas. The so-called "balance" is achieved by increasing the power of clerics and reducing the power of rank and file Catholics. But let's examine precisely what is to be "balanced" and how that "balance" is to be achieved in this latest proposed policy. The "balance," simply put, is between adults and children. On one hand, we have the potential hurt feelings of a small number of
accused priests who may lose their right to work in a parish setting. (They
remain priests, receiving their pay, pension, and health insurance.) On
the other hand, we have the very real emotional, psychological, physical
and spiritual devastation of thousands of innocent children, who receive
a life sentence of
There can be and should be no "balance" between these wrongs. One is hypothetical, the other is real. One involves a tiny handful, the other involves thousands. One affects powerful adults, the other affects innocent children. Let's also keep some perspective or "balance" when considering the actual harm done. We can all imagine the horror of being "falsely accused." But we should remember that it is far easier for a grown up to restore his reputation than for dozens of children to restore their shattered lives. It is easier to repair wounded adult feelings than shattered youngsters' psyches and souls. How does this revised process actually work? Vatican bureaucrats and American bishops have devised a cumbersome, confusing and untested five step process for taking an alleged molester out of his parish: First, a bishop removes an accused priest. Then, he consults with his lay board. Next, the case goes to a Vatican bureaucracy. Then, a panel of priests called a "tribunal" conducts a trial, either in Rome or in the US. Then, the case goes back to the Vatican for a final determination. Regardless of the actual outcome of this awkward process, it is problematic for three reasons: - Priests who have molested will be emboldened to fight hard to keep or regain their jobs. (After all, look at all the chances they now have!) - Bishops, who have timidly followed the path of least resistance time and again with abuse cases, will be much more hesitant to oust an accused priest, knowing the long and risky legal struggle that is likely to ensue. -Victims will feel betrayed by this obvious backtracking from the emphatic
promises bishops made this summer in Dallas, They will be deterred from
reporting their molestation by the newly reimposed ten year statute of
limitations (despite whatever "fine print" exceptions bishops claim
In the final analysis, this Rube Goldberg-style scheme will diminish
the role of lay people and expand the role of clergy. At best, it will
delay the separating of predators from their prey. At worst, it will keep
abusive priests in or return them to their positions of power. And it will
David Clohessy of St. Louis is the national director of SNAP, the Survivors
Network of those Abused by Priests, a Chicago-based national support group.
He was the first person in Missouri to file a civil suit against a priest,
Father John Whiteley, whom Clohessy alleges molested him repeatedly in
the late 60s and early 70s
Southern California SNAP Regional Office
http://www.survivorsnetwork.org/ OR. Local Contact:
|