Reasonable doubt.
Today the Boston Globe published a curious op-ed by the head of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ National Review Board, Judge Michael Merz. The occasion for the piece is the release of the film Doubt, adapted from John Patrick Shanley’s Tony- and Pulitzer Prize-winning 2004 play about an accused priest, set in 1964 (I reviewed it here).
The movie’s plot is largely fictional. Sadly, too many stories that surfaced since 2002 were not fictional. The clergy sexual abuse crisis is the greatest crisis in the history of the Catholic Church in the United States, something that caused the downfall of one of the most powerful bishops in this country, Bernard Cardinal Law; moved hundreds of abuse victims to step forward; and resulted in the payment of hundreds of millions of dollars in legal settlements by various dioceses, prompted apologies from the highest levels in the church, and led to an extraordinary meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and abuse victims from Boston just last April.
Merz is right. The abuse crisis is the greatest scandal in the history of the Catholic Church in the United States. But note the strange construction of the last sentence in that paragraph. The scandal, Merz writes, “caused” Cardinal Law’s “downfall.” It also “caused” victims to come forward. It “resulted in” financial settlements for victims ($1 billion and counting, not “hundreds of millions of dollars”). It “prompted apologies from the highest levels in the church.” And it “led to” an unprecedented meeting between Pope Benedict and victims from Boston. When you put it that way, the sexual-abuse crisis almost sounds like a positive thing.
Of course, that is absurd. Merz has it entirely backward. The scandal did not cause Law’s downfall. Law was responsible for a large part of the scandal. That is why he resigned (twice, apparently–the first time John Paul II refused). Likewise, it is bizarre to speak of the scandal as having caused financial settlements for victims. According to the John Jay report, about 4 percent of U.S. Catholic priests (4,392) were credibly accused of molesting more then ten thousand minors. Presumably Merz would acknowledge that the courage of victims may have had something to do with “causing” the settlements. And what really “prompted” apologies from bishops? The media’s unsparing reports? The staggering costs? Sheer embarrassment? Finally, yes, Pope Benedict’s meeting with victims was impressive. It’s too bad his predecessor had not done the same.
Merz writes to reassure Catholics and the wider public of “the intention of the nation’s bishops to address this problem forcefully.”
These intentions have been translated into strong actions by the bishops. For example, any priest or member of a religious order against whom a credible accusation has ever been made is no longer working with children; many have been removed from the priesthood.
Merz helpfully details the significant progress made by the bishops’ conference: nearly 2 million clergy and laypeople trained in safe-environment programs; nearly 6 million trained to recognize predators; backround checks on more than 1.5 million church voluneers, workers, educators, clergy, and seminarians. Such achievements should not be minimized.
But neither must the failures of bishops–even “the bishops.” The way Merz uses the term reminded me of the many times I’ve seen it in articles submitted to Commonweal. Editors have to be mindful of nuance; the term “the bishops” can be accurately used in some instances. And many defenders of “the bishops” rushed to point that out as the Globe and other news outlets churned out story after story on priest-abusers and their enablers. They had a point. One shouldn’t judge the entirety of the bishops’ conference by the actions of an individual bishop, even Cardinal Law.
Yet Catholics have good reasons to remain vigilant. Last year the Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to a $660 million settlement, yet the public is still waiting for the clergy records the archdiocese promised it would release as part of that settlement. In April, during the pope’s visit to the United States, the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seemed to minimize the actions of bishops who failed to protect children from abusers. Then in August, a deposition of Cardinal Francis George of Chicago revealed his serious failures and confusions with respect to the case of a priest-abuser who molested children as recently as 2005. The cardinal is now president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Merz acknowledges that “many Catholics expect more,” and that they wonder why more bishops haven’t resigned. Not Merz, apparently. “I, on the other hand, believe it is better for bishops to take responsibility for fixing the problem. This may not satisfy everyone.” In his op-ed, Merz offers no explanation for why he arrived at that conclusion. More troubling is that this way of thinking echoes Cardinal Law’s own response to calls for his resignation in early 2002. Obviously Catholics expect their bishops to take responsibility for their tragic failures. They know that sometimes accepting responsibility means going away.
There can be no doubt that the institutional church has made major progress in dealing with clergy abuse–those successes can’t be ignored. By the same token, no one should have any illusions about the nature, extent, and present status of the scandal. Least of all the chairman of the National Review Board.
Tags: Boston Globe, Doubt, Michael Merz, National Review Board, sexual abuse, sexual abuse scandal
I’m really glad you started this thread, Grant.
I found Judge Merz comments unsettling and in sharp contratst with some predecessors, including the hot tongued Gov. Keating, or far better, another distinguishred jurist, the Hon. Anne Burke.
I found Judge Burke’s comments about the handling of matters by the Bishop’s Conference (e,.g in Kathlen Kennedy’s On Being catholic today) to smack of far more genuinity in evaluating the Bishops” work (N.B. the conference and its relationship to the Review Board.
I further wondered immediately when I read the Globe piece earlier what Judge Merz would say to Cardinal George whom many in the Catholic Chicago community have called to resign. Or to many of the former Law associates (co conspirators?) who have been given places of honor.
Or Braxton in Belleville? Or Cardinal Mahony or the others SNAP named as the 5 worst Bishops?
It’s not a matter of tarring all of the US (or Aistrallain or Irish, say) hierarchy with profound failure, but there clearly are figures in some numbers whose presence remains a canker for many who were touched directly or indirectly by those permitting the abuse of power to manipulate children, teens or the weak.
It will be interesting to see how Judge Merz”s view plays in Boston and with groups like SNAP, CTA and VOTF and of course the general Catholic populace.
My guess is that it weakens the Board’s integrity in the view of many if not all of these.
Yes, it is ‘curious’ why a Merz would personaly try out a half excuse. Should not this be the PR job of others in the USCCB?. Sadly, his ‘try’ neglects what is the real ‘biggest crisis’ in the US Catholic history i.e. the loss of “the bishops’” moral/political/leadership/doctrinal/liturgical/evangelical/pastoral/financial/educational/morale/vocational/respect, etc of a huge slice of the educated laity that was so excited about Vatican II. It’s for the next generation of bishops. Early resignations are welcome. Past age 75 ‘stay-ons’ are a further sign decay.
[Eagan!]
Indeed. The scandal didn’t “cause” those things; those things were the scandal. Or at least, pointed to the scandal. And the “scandal” specific to the institutional Church wasn’t the fact of the abuse itself, but the fact that the abuse had been systematically covered-up, lied about and enabled. For decades. I would hope that if any one person understood this, it would be Judge Merz. Taking measures to prevent abuse in the future is an important thing. But the “more” that people “expect” is a commitment to rooting out the institutional tendency to cover up, lie about and enable abusive acts. And I think there is still reasonable doubt about the Church’s resolve on that front. I mean, QED.
Judge Merz is a careful lawyer and I think used the causation language precisely. The scandal itself rather than the underlying abuse was a proximate cause of further events. Even though Cdl Law caused the crisis in some measure, it was the resulting storm which led to his downfall and made his second resignation something which could not be refused; the crisis itself helped victims come forward who might not otherwise have done so; the crisis made it impossible for dioceses to ignore or quietly settle claims on the cheap and forced them to pay sums which would not have been paid in the absence of a scandal; with the publicity of a scandal, apologies from bishops and meetings with the pope would likely not have happened.
Of course, without the abuse itself there would have been no public scandal. But as we know from the Jay report, incidents of abuse went on for decades without resulting in the itmes mentioned by Judge Merz. I read Judge Merz as making the the regrettable but realistic point that but for the publicity, there would not have been the same dollars, number of vicitms, apologies or meetings, or a cardinal’s downfall. In that sense, the crisis was if not a good thing, a necessary thing. Without the crisis, no review board and none of the preventative measures which Judge Merz detailed. Seems a fair point to make.
Is that his point? If so, is that a fair point or an obvious one? The word “publicity” is not in the article. As written, the sentence in question essentially says that the scandal caused the scandal.
It is hard to believe that the head of the National Review Board could possibly be so sanguine about the actual consequences of the Bishops’ decision in Dallas in 2002. True, many devoted people have worked on the Review Board to create and implement policies and practices for the protection of children. But Judge Merz, of all people must know that these practices have not “been translated into strong actions by” ALL OF “the bishops.” Just take a look at the deposition of Cardinal George, the elected head of the USCCB and see what he did– and neglected to do– in Chicago between 2002 and 2006. Here is the transcript of his testimony. The session was filmed, and it was unbearable to watch.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/depo/2008_01_30_Cardinal_Francis_George/
Here is a commentary on the matter by SNAP
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2008/07_08/2008_08_14_SNAP_BriefAnalysis.htm
Judge Merz comes up with this final comment: “”The Catholic Church is unrelenting in its quest to ensure that all children—indeed all persons—in its care are safe, and reverenced as children of God. Of this there is no doubt.” Read Cardinal George’s testimony and think about the bland confidence of that statement. Can we afford that sort of naivete in the head of the National Review Board?
Mertz and George repeat a long standing hierarchical practice, namely, that the bishops are more important than abused children and that criticism or rebuke of bishops is more harmful than the unbelievable agony the victims suffered in lost childhoods, lost innocence, lost joy, lost faith. And Jesus made the point that those who abused children were better off never being born.
We are forever in debt to the voices of the Spirit expressed above and everywhere where just people congregate. Suffer the little children indeed.
I would hope Mr. Englert and, if he hasn’t, the honorable Mertz would speak to the victims of Shanley, Geoghan and maybe the poor guy who tried to get help from the Boston Chancery and was flipped off by Lennon as “poor little man.”
The hierarchy and their adulators need to have a less self important view of that group.
Like Mr. Nunz, Mertz’s opinion misses the point IMHO. Who cares if the scandal caused the scandal. It is a reality. We have three issues:
a) actual sexual abuse (going back centuries but surfaced legally in the US in 1985 in a very public manner);
b) bishops/hierarchy/Vatican cover-ups, delays, non-pastoral approach, etc. – all you have to do is go to Abuse Tracker or BishopsAccountability to realize that Mr. Mertz makes valid points but misses the target completely e.g. George/Weakland’s published/recorded testimony acknowledging cover-up, deliberate transfers of priest pedophiles, LA archdiocese continues to not complete the agreement and withhold files; Braxton’s appeal and financial bond covering the expenses of the appeal at the rate of $1400 per day, regional bishops fighting in state houses against repeal of SOLs e.g. Colorado, Ohio, Tennessee and even paying lobbyist to influence votes; etc.;
c) unfortunately, the last issue is rarely discussed or talked about – the average Catholic’s denial, belief that we have passed the problem, or just want it to go away because they are tired of it.
Here is the link to David Gibson on Beliefnet: Shortcut to: http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2008/12/nrb-head-sex-abuse-scandal-its.html
Here is a copy of Sr. Maureen Turlish’s comments:
SISTER MAUREEN PAUL TURLISH
December 11, 2008 2:00 PM
I give just one recent example of the institutional church’s continuing lack of integrity in dealing with its sexual abuse problems:
COMMENTARY ON WASHINGTON, D.C. COUNCILMAN MARION BARRY’S CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE PREVENTION ACT
Washington, D.C. at large Councilman Phil Mendelson has succeeded in eviscerating Councilman Marion Barry’s child abuse legislation and folding it in with the Intra Family Offenses Act with a lot of help from the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.
Councilman Mendelson is just plain wrong in attempting to, “balance the interests of victims and defendants.” His responsibility is not to any defendant but to those who become the victims of childhood sexual abuse, by anyone.
It would be comforting to think that the seminal event that has come to be known as the Roman Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal has been adequately addressed let alone contained but reality says otherwise.
The larger problems of cover-up, collusion and conspiracy which provided the environment in which the widespread sexual abuse of children was allowed to continue will be much harder to address but the place to start is with the law.
Removing all statutes of limitation regarding the sexual abuse of children is the single, most effective method of holding sexual predators of any stripe, along with their enablers, accountable for their crimes.
In too many cases, the sexual abuse of children was accompanied by additional acts of facilitation, accessory, cover up and the transportation of individuals across state and national boundaries for purposes of sexual exploitation.
These crimes are only just beginning to be addressed by federal trafficking statutes.
For the District of Columbia, as well as for individual states like Maryland, the best way for society to protect its children is to provide legislation that gives more protection to the children than to the predators who molested or raped them.
Unlike the state of Delaware which removed all statutes of limitation in regard to the sexual abuse of children with the signing of the Child Victims Law on July 10,2007, Mendelson is simply doing a little tinkering here and there while making sure not to step on the toes of the only religious denomination vehemently opposed to more comprehensive child abuse legislation.
If the people of the District of Columbia were really serious about protecting its children they would support Councilman Barry’s Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Act as stand alone legislation and not support its inclusion with the Intra Family Offenses Act. They would support the complete removal of arbitrary statutes of limitation and provide a legislative window for bringing forward previously time barred cases of abuse.
I was honored to stand beside Councilman Marion Barry on the Lobby Day held in Washington, D.C. on September 17, 2008 in support of the Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Act. I spent my early years of teaching in Washington, D.C. at St. Martin’s, “T” Street and St. Aloysius on North Capitol and “K”.
Contrary to what the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. would have people believe, it was only in 2002 that mandates from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops required dioceses across the United States to put programs in place to address the sexual abuse of minors by clerics. It was not done by choice or altruism but in response to the public outcry over the revelations of cover-up in the Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts.
The removal of statutes of limitation regarding the sexual abuse of children and the provision of a civil window for previously time barred cases of abuse by anyone simply gives victims access to the justice that has been denied them for so long.
Jane Belford’s remarks are insensitive and counterproductive. There are NO free rides for the victims whose innocence has been stolen.
If “there are no longer any witnesses and evidence has disappeared,” as Belford notes, then any civil case will fail because the plaintiffs have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not the perpetrators.
The “national effort” that groups like the National Association for Prevention of Sexual Abuse of Children and the National Child Advocacy Center is centered on is supporting legislation that better protects the most vulnerable among us, our children.
The Archdiocese of Washington and its spokeswoman Jane Belford seem to have forgotten the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:5-6, where the Lord says, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Removing statutes of limitation and providing a legislative window for past instances of childhood sexual abuse is all about justice, accountability, transparency, and in the case of religious denominations, charity.
Urge your council members to support the Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Act and attend the bill’s hearing which is scheduled for Tuesday, December 16th.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims’ Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
Thank you, Grant, and David G for your responses to Merz’s op-ed. Merz chooses to be blind to the facts, adopting the usual deferential stance toward bishops. Keating (even if undiplomatic) and Burke were better able to see through the episcopal fog machine.
The incessant spin about the scandal being history, and the absolute refusal of bishops to own their culpability in enabling a massive crime wave are numbing. I offer excerpts about an op-ed I wrote on McCormack a few months ago, where his mindset reflects that of his peers. I find the comments below the op-ed a strong rebuttal to the efforts of Merz and company to evade the truth on the ground. I added two parenthetical comments here:
“McCormack’s repeated apologies are about “mistakes,” which is an affront to the truth. And it is the truth we desperately need so we can move forward.
Where is McCormack’s sense of self-awareness? He told members of New Hampshire Catholics for Moral Leadership in 2004 that the scandal was the “passion of the church” (note the abstraction) and described himself as a “victim.” He also emphasized that he did nothing legally or morally wrong.
There was no sign of understanding by McCormack of the real human suffering he caused. He actually disputed that any of his decisions led to a child being abused — barring one minor incident. Such entrenched self-delusion is sad if not tragic in a bishop.
When confronted with reference to a memo in his own hand indicating detailed knowledge of John Geoghan’s abuse four years before McCormack admitted knowing those facts, he turned defensive: “I’m not on trial here. The state of Massachusetts brought no criminal charges. The state of New Hampshire brought no criminal charges.” Evasions and denial followed.
Regarding his assignment to ministry of a priest in New Hampshire with years of compulsive sexual encounters, McCormack said, “I didn’t read the file. I didn’t know about his history. I relied on others to make recommendations.” He mimicked Cardinal Law’s response in Boston about McCormack, trying to have it both ways. Exonerate yourself, whether you are an aide with no power to appoint priests or a bishop who depends on aides to read files. How can someone rationalize like this?
McCormack grew to adulthood in a closed clerical environment that no doubt shaped his thinking. But “the system made me do it” is no excuse. I would welcome reconciliation wholeheartedly if based on the truth, on reality. Survivors deserve that healing witness, as does the entire Body of Christ, and Lord willing, even McCormack himself.
Pending such clarity on his part, McCormack’s episcopacy (and those of many bishops) remains tainted.”
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Carolyn+B.+Disco%3a+A+more+balanced+assessment+of+bishop%27s+leadership&articleId=3a57ac11-1b04-4d7b-86a5-5f680c7a6ba9
“There can be no doubt that the institutional church has made major progress in dealing with clergy abuse–those successes can’t be ignored.”
Yet we still have such a long way to go. Of course many folks on this forum can talk more knowledgeably than I can about the plight of the victims and their continuing quest for justice. We also need to keep clearly before our eyes the many other injustices that have sprung up during this period of the Dallas Charter regime:
* The injustice that church ministers can be removed from ministry more or less permanently, their reputations permanently destroyed, on the basis of a “credible accusation” that is determined with comparatively little by way of due process or rights for the accused, and with almost no prospect of the accused getting his day in court until years have passed – and even then without rights that are taken for granted by defendants in US legal proceedings.
* That victims and their advocates are unjustly seeking to repeal statutes of limitations
* That the problem of abuse has been framed as a problem of homosexuality
* That large portions of legal awards and negotiated settlements are borne, not by those who committed the crimes nor insurance companies who took on the risk with eyes wide open, but by average parishioners who had nothing to do with the crimes nor coverups
* That children are being pressured, perhaps mandated in some cases, to attend sex-abuse-awareness training at the behest of archdiocesan attorneys concerned primarily with legal liability
* That the mistaken belief is perpuated that any amount of negotiated settlement or court-awarded financial penalty can somehow undo the psychological and spiritual damage inflicted by the original crime
* That ministry programs are curtailed or canceled and parishes and schools closed to pay for outsize awards and settlements to victims and their attorneys.
* That parents no longer trust their children to be ministered to by the church’s ministers, and that church ministers no longer wish to minister to children because of fears of legal liability and false accusations
Thanks, Caroline. Your comments remind me of the Nuremburg Judgments after WWII. The repeated defense – “I followed orders” – ultimately, the international courts have delivered a more nuanced judgment that each of us has a responsibility to do more than follow orders especially if we are in a position of authority.
Where does that leave us with bishops who give testimony and reply: I am not guilty but I did not read the file; I followed the recommendation of my chain of command or a psychologist or a treatment facility. What about the number of bishops who have been caught in alleged lies in their testimony but district attorneys are unwilling to press perjury charges.
As I have said in other posts, until a couple of significant bishops wind up in a state or federal jail, we will not see any systemic changes. It will be business as usual (even if that business has been modified since 2002). Both Caroline and I have used documented cases and events that have all happended since 2002.
Sorry, Jim. You will have to demonstrate to me where someone has “UNJUSTLY” tried to appeal statutes of limitations. Documentation reveals that it is the exact opposite – bishops, dioceses, etc. pressure legislatures to torpedo efforts to make the playing field more open, honest, and direct.
Pay outs – result again of bishops choosing freely to use legal tatics vs. pastoral means.
What we need is not the current board but rather an independent truth and reconciliation board that would actually seek justice, historical evidence and truth. That would also address your concern about the few who have been unjustly relieved of their duties because of false allegations. Remember – the Dallas Charter only addressed priests who allegedly abused. The system, bishops, Vatican are not addressed because (some say) Rome had to give final approval.
Bishops using canon law have always had the means to remove abusive priests – history indicates that Rome would delay, ignore, or overturn a bishop’s request. So, bishops stopped using canon law. This makes the whole issue go well beyond the USCCB.
“McCormack grew to adulthood in a closed clerical environment that no doubt shaped his thinking.”
For those of you who have not spend significant time in a Catholic seminary, it is extremely difficult to understand this fact. Even when one departs from this milieu it takes a few years to clear one’s head and begin to think straight. This is training or indoctrination more intense than the marines, is more lasting than any armed services. Among the many factors emphasized there is nothing more stressed than the identity of the clergy as “alter Christus” and that anything critical said about them is almost always a sacrilege. This is the reason Law, George and others can justify their silence and inaction. As George noted, those critical of the bishops in this were “ruining the church.”
As if the church were the bishops alone. The most positive aspect of our age is most Christians are beginning to know that the church is all of God’s people.
Grant, I took Merz’ statement “The clergy sexual abuse crisis is the greatest crisis in the history of the Catholic Church in the United Statesus point” to be an allusion to the great public drama which we all followed day after day for several years and which continues now. And yes, I think it was an obvious point — the church was shamed and forced into acting — which I thought would have met with sympathy from Commonweal readers. I really don’t understand the suspicion on display here.
Mr. Nunz, you know nothing about me.
“I really don’t understand the suspicion on display here.”
Granted, James that you don’t understand. Nevertheless, many of us become attuned to apologetic language which tends to cover up rather than heal. Tends to perpetuate rather than terminate, tends to maintain the status quo while appearing to respond to a correction. Bishop Sheen was fond of quoting the philosophical axiom that a crisis does not create character. It reveals it. The important thing to understand is that the pedophilia crisis did not reveal something new in that bishops would cover up. This has been a practice for centuries.
Therefore, the presumption is loudly against Merz and Co. that the bishops would do the right thing in seeking justice. History tells us a different story. That is why apologetics is such a heralded field by the hierarchy. They have a lot of explaining to do.
Bishops and Rome are trying to escape accountability for the abuse, the cover-up, and ruined lives. The middle step between crime and forgiveness has been elided over: penance, which includes a complete confession of the truth, acceptance of just punishments, and making satisfaction to the extent possible. Bishops continue to hide documents, to evade any consequences for their actions, and make satisfaction only when forced to by the courts.
The laity have often been enablers: defending abusers, who are often popular and charismatic, and continuing to write large checks to bishops who have disgraced their office. The financial cost of abuse to the church has been a small fraction of a cent of the dollars collected over the past generation, as one diocese (Venice, Florida) has boasted. Allowing priests to abuse has been a small cost of doing business.
Bill, thank you for the effort. So we’re clear, my comment about suspicion was directed toward the language of the op-ed by Judge Merz (who is this Merz and Co??). Nothing there suggests to me a disposition to cover-up or to frustrate scrutiny.
“Doubt” has opened in Boston and was reviewed in today’s Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2008/12/12/let_us_prey/
The critic characterizes Streep’s performance as “rectitude run amock.”
James, I appreciate your willingness to exchange. Here are the words of Merz:
“As the head of the National Review Board, a board of lay persons that oversees implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, I can confidently state that the US bishops are committed to these programs.”
And later in the OP_ED:
“But one thing I hope that viewers might know. The Catholic Church is unrelenting in its quest to ensure that all children – indeed, all persons – in its care are safe, and reverenced as children of God. Of this there is no doubt.”
His confidence in the commitment of the bishops flies against the realities. “Unrelenting in its quest…”, This is pure fiction.
But thanks for making me take a closer look. The more I examine the words of Merz the more I understand and appreciate Grant’s in discerning the unsustainable words of Merz. More to the point as Grant wrote, this is a constant theme of those supporting the bishops.
Blogger here have pointed out with alarming clarity the fault of George and the other bishops in treating victims and covering up the clergy abusers.
“Sorry, Jim. You will have to demonstrate to me where someone has “UNJUSTLY” tried to appeal statutes of limitations. ”
ANY attempt to repeal statutes of limitations in order to expose criminals retroactively to criminal liability is unjust, Bill, regardless of the category or nature of the crime. No matter how deeply we care about the victim or how outraged we are about individual circumstances, we can’t compromise important principles of our legal system.
ANY attempt to repeal statutes of limitations in order to expose criminals retroactively to criminal liability is unjust, Bill, regardless of the category or nature of the crime.
Jim,
I am interesting that somebody else said this, because it is what I was thinking, and I thought that for once I would just remain silent.
There are good reasons for statutes of limitations, and to change them to go after a specific group does strike me as unjust. Of course, I don’t believe for a minute that the Church is fighting changes for the sake of justice. It’s fighting the changes so that no more priests will be exposed to the laws. So the Church may be doing the right thing, but for the wrong reason. I suppose those fighting eliminate the statutes of limitations may be doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, but I still think they are wrong.
Evidence disappears over time, and human memories are faulty. Recollections of what happened years ago can be faulty. There are stories in my family (not involving child abuse!) that everyone remembers differently. Even perceptions of what happened ten minutes ago can differ from one person to another. It’s clear that way too many people (and especially bishops) behaved very badly, and I don’t blame people for being very angry about it. But changing statutes of limitation is very misguided.
Law’s episcopal co-conspirators were promoted. Not only did they not resign, nor seem to acknowledge their role in causing the harm (see McCormack item above,) they were promoted to their own dioceses. Promoted. That message is clear.
Jim and David – there is a wealth of knowledge about changing the SOLs – any recent articles or books by Marci Hamilton expresses the legal reasons for making this change.
As someone involved in behavioral health for the last 25 years, SOLs are outdated and fly in the face of documented studies, experience, and treatment of those who have been sexually abused. This is a larger legal issue involving states, school districts, hospitals, etc. – Folks are advocating that the SOL be narrowly changed or that a window be opened for a period of time so that some type of recourse is available to those who have been hurt. I would also support financial/tort limitations in terms of revising SOLs.
My point is not legal – what is the best pastoral approach? Defending, reinforcing SOLs is not my idea of bishops acting pastorally.
Carolyn – you have more expertise in this area. Can you enlighten us on this issue?
“There are good reasons for statutes of limitations, and to change them to go after a specific group does strike me as unjust.”
Yes, I agree.
“Of course, I don’t believe for a minute that the Church is fighting changes for the sake of justice. It’s fighting the changes so that no more priests will be exposed to the laws.”
I think the institutional church has a varity of motives. Chief among them, in my view, is that bishops and other diocesan leaders have an important obligation to be responsible stewards of the financial assets entrusted to their care. Clearly, if new windows of liability were opened up, the results for dioceses would be financially catastrophic. I can understand that a lot of folks don’t particularly care, or think that interests of justice or vengeance trump such considerations. But the hard fact is, these competing interests are all legitimate and need to be balanced.
I’d like to think that church leaders also do have a genuine concern about the integrity of our system of justice, and might oppose setting aside statute of limitations on principle, even if they didn’t have a pressing interest in the outcome.
Frankly, I’d be surprised if, at this point, any bishop is interested in covering up for any abusive priests (or any other cleric or employee). They just want them to go away, preferably without any liability or hassle.
” suppose those fighting eliminate the statutes of limitations may be doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, but I still think they are wrong. ”
Well put. :-)
“Can we afford that sort of naivete in the head of the National Review Board?”
Your characterization may well be right, Susan. On the other hand, the judge may be speaking from his personal experience – in the course of fulfilling his obligations, he may see genuine reasons for a sort of muted optimism.
“As someone involved in behavioral health for the last 25 years, SOLs are outdated and fly in the face of documented studies, experience, and treatment of those who have been sexually abused. This is a larger legal issue involving states, school districts, hospitals, etc. – Folks are advocating that the SOL be narrowly changed or that a window be opened for a period of time so that some type of recourse is available to those who have been hurt. I would also support financial/tort limitations in terms of revising SOLs.”
I do understand, Bill, and agree that there may be something to capping or limiting awards in some way (although I see it as kind of a mixed bag). I also agree that the limits in some SOLs are way too short, and for that reason would support extending them *for cases of abuse that occur after the law has been changed*.
The issue of retroactively opening a window is a separate issue.
Bill D. beat me to it.
Prof. Hamilton makes a compelling case for SOL repells in these matters – the common good and the safety of children.
The Law exists to protect the community and its system is to aim to ensure that,
Tp categorize atempts, any or all, to change SOL in criminal matters as “unjust” is gratuitous.
Briefly in my own experienc ewith the courts and such matters, we have increasingly gained knowledge in terms of both offense, offender and handling of offender.
My experience as well says we need to move forward into best practices for what we know today. Hence the need for SOL change in such matters.
As to Judge Merz and to any apologist he has, there is already strong reaction against him not only here but in the victim community. I think that will grow and undermine further credibility in the Bishops’ creature of the Review Board, that, in the end, essentially answers to the Bishops, but, I think less to the church!
Oh, since the Merz comments were linked to the opening of the movie “Doubt,” -a movie opening to mixed reviews it seems – one might nevertheless find the interview with author John Patrick Shanley at NPR this morning interesting.
For anyone who’s still reading, I saw the film last night–the Globe review is, in my view, largely mistaken. ‘Doubt’ is worth seeing. It’s overdirected at points, but the quality of the material is such that those hiccups can be overlooked. More reviews here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10009492-doubt/
I think this one gets it right: http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema/doubt
More reviews of Doubt linked at Abuse Tracker this morning.
Much of this thread has been about Judge Merz’s (awful, I think, ) op-ed and the SOL question.
Maybe a thread on the real theme of Doubt – uncertainty and certainty – should get a thread of its own – maybe using Dignitatis Personae as an example.
Anthony Lane is one of the doubtful:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/12/15/081215crci_cinema_lane?currentPage=2
Too bad he didn’t write an actual review. My favorite movie critic gave the film four stars (I wouldn’t):
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081210/REVIEWS/812109991
I guess our feelings about the movie are shaped to some degree about how we feel about dealin gwith change and uncertainty.
The review in America by Fr. Tueth is reall yworth a read whether you agree or not.
But the questions the movie raise will continue to underline some of the discussions we hav ehere.
So, the northeast power outage that lasted from late Wednesday night until late this afternoon meant no dotCommonweal in the interim. Silence (its own blessing nonetheless), reading by flashlight, wearing a coat and winter hat to bed early on, cooking in an ancient fondue pot with sterno, candles, prayer and gratitude for a mini generator…an experience to be sure.
Some thoughts on
1) Doubt
- but, but most of the abusing priests grew up and were trained pre-Vatican II.
I also have a slight problem with the premise of the play that there is justifiable doubt about the existence of abuse. Understandably you do not want cardboard caricatures, but the focus may insinuate doubt in general about sexual assault. I gather the question is not answered definitively in the film, and I wish it were. Insinuations of maybe, maybe not, fail to honor reality. Maybe I am too literal, but what does a survivor come away with?
There is an eerie resemblance to reality in Chicago where Rev. Daniel McCormack, now in prison, gave an African American mother tuition money while he was abusing her son. His mother was not interested in pursuing the matter, despite the principal’s profound suspicions which she reported to the archdiocesan school board in vain. Read the principal’s report at
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/depo/2008_01_30_Cardinal_Francis_George/2008_01_30_Cardinal_Francis_George_arch_Exhibit_111_A.pdf . p. 3 of 5
I hope to see the movie, while being mindful of what my research over the years found to be true.
2) SOL reform
– essential to protect children and give access to justice. Bishops purposely ran out statutes to prohibit prosecution and liability (clever tactic when distressed parents came forward – tie them up in talks/counseling etc. until deadlines pass – then, oops you’re too late); likewise, violate the reporting law, but keep the secrets long enough to evade redress. So, when windows legislation comes along, it is ironic to see such strategies fail.
When a window opened up in CA, 300 additional perpetrators were identified, with thousands of pages of secret church documents exposed or soon to be released (if Mahony et al abide by settlements). Since priests can have long histories of abuse, children are safer when identification is made.
Once the criminal SOL has expired, the only way for a survivor to publicly name his or her perpetrator is to file a civil action that allows media to name that person. The window opened that avenue, and brought some measure of treatment, healing and justice to hundreds of survivors.
Bishops work much harder to prevent abuse, and sit up straighter when their pocketbooks are on the line. Some do not oppose extension of the criminal SOL (no money is at stake), but oppose civil SOL extension. Why should accountability be timed to apply in one case but not the other? Either justice is due, or it isn’t.
When informed about a young man dying of AIDS who had been molested around 5 or 6, a NH bishop was interested only in whether the SOL had passed. No reaching out, just liability concerns. Often a bishop (McCormack of course included) would inquire if a victim was taking “a litigious stance” when reporting to the church. I do not believe such cynical responses deserve legal immunity, especially when artificial time limits pertain, with no relation to actual abuse recovery patterns.
Then, there is George himself. Guilty as sin by his own admission, and free as a bird for failing to report. He beat the clock since 2003 (think that was the date), but there may be a legal remedy if I read another statute correctly. I am not a lawyer but wrote about his case at http://votf.org/vineyard/Nov19_2008/survivor.html and if any legal minds wish to review, please do so.
I find too often that courts are not about a search for the truth or justice, but an adversary proceeding where tying up an opponent in expensive Bleak House maneuvers is the game. That hard assessment is built on following survivors’ cases since 2002, and attending a law school conference on how to pursue actions against diocesan scorched earth tactics.
Watch Marci Hamilton speak at Princeton on SOL when her book “Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children” was published last May. It’s 70 minutes long but Marci’s talk and the Q&A answer many questions.
http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=FV-9480