Commentary
[What do you think? Write to pthorp.ed@votf.org]
“Thanks,
But, No Thanks”
David Clohessy, National Director of SNAP
Cardinal
Roger Mahony set up a chapel for us. Others pen apologies
for the past. Some meet face-to-face with victims. A few
others hold "healing masses" for us (often, however, neglecting
to invite us). Others are talking about erecting statues
or monuments in memory of what was done to us.
At
the risk of seeming ungrateful, many abuse survivors say "thanks
but no thanks."
One
of my favorite Biblical passages comes from Matthew: "And
what parent, when his child asks for bread, would give
that child a stone?"
For
years now, abuse victims and caring Catholics have sought
real nourishment from bishops - real openness about past
crimes and effective steps to prevent future ones. Yet
increasingly, bishops give us stones - policies, procedures,
and worse, symbols. These might make us feel better today, now, but
are really illusory and leave all of us hungry.
We
can heal with or without the bishop's help. We can conduct
our own services and erect our own statutes. Others can
apologize or meet with us.
But
only a bishop can:
-
name
the known, admitted and credibly accused abusive
clerics in his diocese, thereby warning parents and
protecting kids;
-
discipline
church employees who refuse to be fingerprinted,
or an accused priest who plays legal hardball and
sues his accuser;
-
marshal
an entire diocese's resources to lobby for tougher
laws against child sexual abuse.
Which
is a more effective way to reduce suffering? A one-time
foot-washing ceremony, or on-going parish bulletin announcements
urging witnesses and victims of sex crimes to call the
police or SNAP (and include the phone numbers)?
In
the months ahead, shrewd public relations firms employed
by bishops will no doubt come up with other "innovative" steps
allegedly intended to "bring healing."
When
evaluating such moves, we recommend a two part litmus test.
First,
where'd the idea come from? Is it something many victims
and Catholics have long sought?
Second,
does this action reduce a bishop's power in sex abuse
cases or increase the power of police, prosecutors or
the victims themselves?
If
the answer to either question is no, then it's not reform.
It may be well-intentioned even, but it is a symbol. It
is not substance. And symbolism protects no one.
Why
is this second question - lessening bishops' power - so
crucial? Because one reason we're in this mess is that
bishops have, and have had, too much power.
For
decades, any bishop has had the power to play police, prosecutor,
defense lawyer, forensics expert, judge, jury, and social
worker - in other words, to handle the investigation and
adjudication of crimes himself (usually with no training
in any of these areas). At the same time, he's assessing
risk in the victimizer and damage to the victim. But no
one person can play all these roles. Nor should any one
person try.
That's
why SNAP so vigorously supports enlarging the role of the
unbiased, experienced and independent professionals in
law enforcement, and reducing the role of biased, untrained
Church officials and volunteers. That's why we back legislative
reforms like expanding the dangerously rigid and restrictive
statutes of limitations. Those arbitrary and archaic time
limits force victims to turn to secretive, untested internal
Church processes, instead of what they really need – open,
time-tested external judicial processes that have successfully
evolved over more than 200 years of American jurisprudence.
So
we're asking for bread, but getting stones.
And
we're getting continued secrecy and more molesters. We’re
seeing cover ups exposed only when forced by determined
prosecutors and dogged journalists (the same pattern we've
seen for years).
Sometimes
we're told that "half a loaf is better than none at all." This
is only true, however, when it's real bread, not something
that looks like bread. At best, such symbolism is often
a waste of energy. At worst, it's a distraction from the
real remedy - substantive change. Such symbolism may enable
some to feel less guilty or less inept. But it may also
dissipate drives for genuine reform.
We
want, need, and have repeatedly asked for the bread that
only bishops have
-
names
of perpetrators and names of enablers (and secret
files)
-
the
power to discipline either
-
access
to parish bulletins (for outreach notices begging
victims to step forward)
-
Church
records that could shed light
Victims
and Catholics have sought all of this and more. Instead
we get PR stunts (like Orange County Bishop Tod Brown's
shameless nailing of his promises to his own cathedral
door, a la Martin Luther at Wittenberg), We get carefully
crafted apologies (pre-emptively posted on web sites just
before Church documents are disclosed, like Boise Bishop
Michael Driscoll).
Sometimes,
something that's supposedly "better than nothing" really
isn't.
|