| |
COMMENTARY
From Apology to Justice – Watching
Santa Rosa, CA
[Bishop Daniel Walsh of Santa Rosa, CA issued an
apology to his diocese after he failed to respond
according to the law, as well as the USCCB Charter
for the Protection of Children and Young People,
in the case of admitted child sexual abuser Fr. Xavier
Ochoa. In the interim, the priest fled the state.
Reactions to the bishop’s apology were mixed.
We offer three texts for consideration: excerpts
from Bishop Walsh’s apology, VOTF Cindy Vrooman’s
perspective, and David Clohessy of SNAP’s reaction.]
Bishop Walsh:
I made an error in judgment by waiting to report
Rev. Ochoa's admission. I should have acted immediately,
and not delayed. For this I am deeply sorry. I
did not wait in order to allow Rev. Ochoa time
to escape, as some critics have claimed. I did
not wait, as others have claimed, because of some
desire to keep the abuse silent. I waited from
an excess of caution. In attempting to consult
first with our diocesan attorney, I made a mistake.
I failed to be guided by my own precepts for decisive
action and for doing the right thing. I am deeply
sorry for this, and for the tarnish it has placed
on the reputation of the Church and the clergy,
as well as for the questions it has raised regarding
our credibility and the Church's policy of zero
tolerance of sexual abuse.
As the District Attorney reviews the actions of
all involved in this horrible situation, my admission
of failing to report the case immediately could cause
me to be charged with a misdemeanor having a potential
penalty of 6 months in jail and/or a $1000 fine.
If I am found guilty for not taking immediate action,
I will accept whatever punishment is imposed.
Cindy Vrooman, VOTF North Bay, CA:
I see this apology as only a first step. It is like
any apology. If it is offered, the least I can
do is accept it in good faith; however, the proof
of the apology is still to come. Will Bishop Walsh
make some changes in the diocese? Will the Diocese
of Santa Rosa reach out to survivors and cooperate
with the prosecution? Since he admitted guilt,
he has opened himself to prosecution. I cannot
believe our diocesan lawyer told him to do that;
in the past the stance has been one of SILENCE.
Having worked with Bishop Walsh on a couple of
projects, and having sat with him on the Diocesan
Pastoral Council for a year, he doesn't seem the
type of person who would write this apology without
conviction.
I may not agree with him on numerous issues but
I found him to be honest. Was I fooled? I do not
know. I just know this: The people of the Diocese
of Santa Rosa needed this apology and now they need
to see some action. In the past a number of people
too readily accepted Bishop Walsh's assessment of
the sexual abuse crisis as it pertained to our diocese
but that is not the sense anymore. I think that is
growth. I stood outside three Masses at our church
collecting responses from the parishioners to the
bishop's letter. Most people were relieved and thought
this was a necessary step but saw a long road ahead
for recovery. Now Bishop Walsh will be more greatly
scrutinized since the diocese has been shaken to
its core.
When interviewed, I spoke as a member of the Diocese
of Santa Rosa and expressed relief that the bishop
admitted his mistake and said that I expected the
DA to treat the bishop the way he would treat me.
I, as a teacher, am a mandated reporter. Would I
get a slap on the wrist or would I face a fine or
time in jail?
I see the job of SNAP to continue to challenge
the veracity of statements that come out of diocesan
offices. I may be wrong, but I see my role as coordinator
for North Bay VOTF to keep making suggestions,
to keep the light lit from inside the operation;
to keep the curtains open and to prod the powers
to be to live up to this apology.
David Clohessy, national director of SNAP:(see more
at www.snapnetwork.org): I hate to be so cynical, but here's the rest of the
story, or at least part of it. Bishop Walsh has hired
a big, new PR firm. The DA has finished the investigation.
The bishop is afraid he'll be indicted; he's trying
to appear contrite so the DA will go easy on him.
This is speculation but it's what's what we're hearing
from sources in the Bay Area.
Almost every strategy has been tried: horrible media
exposes, civil lawsuits, criminal charges against
predators, and the threat of criminal charges against
bishops. Still, bishops continue to terribly mishandle
abuse cases.
The one yet-untried strategy: locking up a complicit
bishop. What's wrong with treating a complicit
bishop just like everyone else? Why “horse
trade” or negotiate with a criminal? If a
jury finds him guilty, he's punished, period. I'm
not a huge advocate of jail, but think of the deterrent
effect this would have on other Church officials.
And consider the reverse: If highly educated, high
ranking Santa Rosa Church officials can so blatantly
violate state law with such awful consequences
(an admitted serial child molester flees to a poor
country where he has even more access to kids),
think of THAT message. Why on earth would any Church
official do better in the future, when there are
no real consequences for law-breaking?
[Another opinion, noted by SNAP - click
here]
|
