A Response to James Keenan’s “The Ethical Rights of Priests” from Maine VOTF member Paul Kendrick of Maine and David Clohessy, Executive Director, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP)

In the April 2005 edition of In the Vineyard, Rev. James Keenan, S.J. was right on target when he pointed out that the Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States by the National Review Board offers "no equivalent policy of zero tolerance for bishops or provincials" who aided, abetted, protected and covered up for priests who sexually abused children and young people. Moreover, the Report argues that bishops "must show that they are willing to accept responsibility and consequences for poor leadership," but the report falls short of offering concrete expressions of how that responsibility ought to be expressed. In his essay, Keenan argues, "Fairness cuts two ways. If a zero tolerance policy is applied to priests, where is an analogous policy for the bishops?" We agree.

In September 2004, The Voice of the Faithful National Representative Council responded to the question of bishop accountability and the consequences of negligent leadership by affirming that "no bishop or other hierarch who, knowing of the sexual abuse of minors by any priest, has failed to remove the priest from any exposure to minors or to take any other effective step to protect the people of God, or who has concealed the risk of abuse presented by such priests from the people to whom such priest was assigned to minister, should be permitted to hold any position of ecclesiastical leadership in the Church." Keenan argues that zero tolerance is unfair and unjust as it applies directly to priests who abuse minors. He writes, "Zero tolerance recognizes no relevant circumstance of any kind, nor any due proportionality, the very factors that make treatment 'fair.' If zero tolerance is not fair, then how can it be just?"

In essence, Keenan is arguing that the consequences for a priest who sexually abuses a child must be measured by certain relevant criteria, thus rendering certain acts of child abuse as acceptable while certain other acts of child abuse would disqualify the priest from ministry. However, Keenan's measurement of "relevant criteria" ignores the long-term effects of sexual abuse on a child or young person. Long term effects of child abuse include fear, anxiety, depression, anger, hostility, inappropriate sexual behavior, poor self esteem, a tendency toward substance abuse and difficulty with close relationships (Source: Browne & Finkelhor, 1986). It also ignores the likelihood of re-offense.

Keenan makes three key points to support his argument:

Prevention or Punishment?

Unfortunately, by mischaracterizing the intent of "zero tolerance," Keenan's "fairness" argument falls apart. Like many priests, Rev. Keenan considers zero tolerance to be punishment for wrongdoings. Thus, he questions why mitigating factors (number of victims, severity of the abuse, how long ago the crimes were committed, etc.) are not considered in determining whether or not a priest should continue in ministry.

The purpose of zero tolerance is not primarily punishment of the priest as it is protection of the common good, i.e., protecting children against the threat of repeat-abuse (recidivism). While it may be less likely that a cleric who has offended for a short period of time will offend again, the words "less likely" raise a concern. It is very difficult to determine whether offenders who have participated in therapy have deeply benefited from counseling, creating yet another argument in favor of zero tolerance.

It's An Old Allegation

It has been documented that most victims do not report their abuse until years after the abuse occurred. Many cases are decades old. Thus, when an accusation of sexual abuse is alleged against a well-liked and popular priest, parishioners tend to rally around the priest, defending his many years of faithful service to the Church. The parishioners may also argue that there are no other allegations against the priest. (It is interesting to note that it is always "our priest" who will never abuse a child again.)

Unfortunately, in most states, expired statutes of limitation have prevented many priests from being arrested, there is not a criminal trial and no jail time is ever served. By conspiring to cover up and keep secret the past abuses of priests, church officials have obstructed justice. Church public relations officials often mischaracterize and minimize the abuse by telling us that "Twenty years ago, Father engaged in the 'inappropriate touching' of a minor." Translation for the faithful: "It is an old allegation. Father's 'sexual misconduct' was an aberration, an isolated incident. It will never happen again. Do not be concerned."

If, instead, public relations officials told us what really happened, we might read far more graphic statements about previous accusations including child and statutory rape, sodomy and endangering the welfare of a child.

Risk Management

People often say, "If you are a Christian, don't you believe in redemption? Don't you believe that people can change? Don't you believe in forgiveness?” Yes, of course we do. But how can we ever be certain that a person who has sexually abused even one minor will never abuse again? What guarantees do we have? Do we take the abuser's word for it? Of course not. Instead, we act responsibly and err on the side of caution.

What about an abuser who has received long-term psychological treatment? Residential treatment is the discovery phase. It is the beginning of a lifetime of daily maintenance for the abuser. The offender must never be far from a support network. He must live one day at a time not abusing a child. He must remove himself from access to children. He alone is responsible for his daily recovery. There are no guarantees. Those in authority must take appropriate steps to ensure that children are safe. Half measures will not be effective.

Protecting children from a sexual abuser isn't always about being right. Mostly, it's about risk management. Kids need help protecting themselves from cunning, convincing, charismatic, and charming sexual abusers. A person who sexually abuses a child or young person gives up his right to ever again have unsupervised access to children.

Is zero tolerance "too blunt an instrument for universal application?" If our intent is prevention, then we think not. The risks to children and young people are too great. Sexual abuse has the capacity to permanently alter a child's well being. It is non-erasable. It affects the healthy lives of young and old, poor and rich, successful and struggling. What loving mother or father would entrust their child to any person who has sexually abused a minor? If the owner of a day care center knew that one of his employees was sexually abusing a child and did nothing to prevent or stop the abuse, the operation would be shut down and criminal charges would be filed. If a high school principal knew that one of the teachers was sexually abusing a student and did nothing to prevent or stop the abuse, charges would be filed and neither the principal nor the teacher would ever work in a school system again.

Zero tolerance isn't about hate, it's not about revenge; rather, it's about making sure that kids are protected from sexual abuse. It's about not taking chances.