“Doubts” grow on Merz op-ed
Last week Grant Gallicho posted here about a Boston Globe op-ed by Judge Michael Merz, head of the lay-led National Review Board that is supposed to ensure that the bishops follow their own policies on child protection. Merz’s view that the hierarchy was doing a good and no one should have any worries–and that any bishops who did anything wrong should not resign–was immediately questioned in many quarters. Now Voice of the Faithful, the lay reform group that grew up in reaction to the scandal and whose protests and efforts were part of the reason the NRB was created, has issued a response to Merz’s op-ed that questions its accuracy. VOTF’s leadership says it is “deeply disappointed” in Merz’s statements and continues:
Catholic bishops complicit in the clergy sex abuse scandal do indeed need to resign or be replaced. Unlike Judge Merz, we at VOTF do not assume that those responsible for coverups and scandal are in any way qualified to lead the cleanup.
Judge Merz’s remarks are especially troubling in light of the requirements for his Review Board to monitor compliance of the bishops with the USCCB’s Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. Self-reporting by diocesan officials is not the same as a verifiable assessment, and it is troubling to learn that the NRB regards such unverified results as evidence of “forceful” response by the bishops or of their commitment to the programs. True commitment should include verifiable participation and independently audited results in all dioceses and penalties for those bishops who do not comply.
Finally, we do not agree with Judge Merz that the Church is demonstrating an “unrelenting … quest to ensure that all children” are safe when the President of the USCCB, Cardinal Francis George, was forced this year to acknowledge serious failures in his own diocese to immediately remove priests credibly accused of molesting children.
Whether the Governor of Illinois (or Larry Craig or Ted Stevens or a host of other politicos) or Cardinal George and other hierarchy who abetted known pedophiles or sex abusers, there seems to be a tremensous hole in their integrity:
Like the old Irish mayor of brooklyn in disgrace in”Hogan’s Goat” cryimg out “Keep me office -Keep it I will till the day I die.” there is an INTRANSIGENT sense to hang on despite al lelse.
What a Christmas blessing it would be if news of resignations filled the air – maybe even Judge Merz.
As long as “the faithful” remain indifferent to the situation and continue to put money in the collection plates, there will be no change. Seriously, I feel somewhat embarrassed or self-conscious in making this simple observation.
Money talks, and the bishops know this hard truth. They likewise know full well that if they can steer discussion to other topics (even controversial ones involving liturgy, etc.) or simply keep a low profile, such tactics work.
Just keep donating money and remain indifferent. Your bishop will, I assure you, appreciate your participation in the life of the church!
Joesph,
Since the Boston expose in 2002, I have, and all have heard the idea/call to withhold the money to get the Bishop’s attention. It has not happened because Catholics,whether progressive, conservative, VOTF or CUFF all have a fond and enduring love of their parish and community. Not unlike their own family! To withhold is not happening and will not happen. We’re all co-dependents..
the first step away from co-dependency is DETATCHMENT.
The ‘big ignore’[of bishops] is working but will take more time.
Hearty congratulations to VOTF national for its statement on Merz’s op-ed, part of which says:
“Self-reporting by diocesan officials is not the same as a verifiable assessment, and it is troubling to learn that the NRB regards such unverified results as evidence of “forceful” response by the bishops or of their commitment to the programs.”
The Gavin Group, which does the USCCB audits, is careful to point out in its findings that it is dependent on the information provided to it by dioceses, hence the “self-reporting.” The standard disclaimer reads:
“The conclusions reached as to the compliance of your Diocese with the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People are based on the completeness and accuracy of the information furnished by the Diocese to The Gavin Group, Inc. during the course of this audit.”
The compromised nature of unverified results can be seen clearly in comparing the USCCB results against truly independent, verified audits performed by the NH Attorney General over the last five years. This has been an unparalleled opportunity by which to judge the bishops’ work. The results are startling.
First, the bishops are not interested in a full accounting.
-USCCB auditors have had no right of access to pertinent information. The annual report put out by the Office of Child and Youth Protection (OCYP), the National Review Board (NRB), and the USCCB notes: “Although audits were performed on site, the auditors did not have access to personnel files or other confidential materials..” 1.
-USCCB audits/surveys DO NOT COUNT ALLEGATIONS against the following abusers:
-religious order brothers (Benedictine, Franciscan, etc.) since technically they are not considered clergy 2.
-victims of seminarians who did not go on to ordination 3.
-mentally handicapped victims whose abuse did not begin before their 18th birthdays 4.
Post continues below with more research.
Footnotes:
1. No access to personnel files http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/annualreport.pdf (p. 5 of 72) hard copy p. 6, para 2 under “Completeness/Accuracy”
2. Religious brothers excluded http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/annualreport.pdf p. 60 (70 of 72) Appendix C, 2nd paragraph under “Allegations” and p. 61 (71 of 72) top of page
3. Seminarians excluded http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/FinalSurvey.pdf p.9 of 33, last question, bottom of page
4. Mentally handicapped http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/FinalSurvey.pdf p.12 of 33, 2nd para under Victim Survey
Let’s compare the USCCB audit to the NH AG audit. It is important to research the dates of audit visits to achieve valid comparisons.
Based on an August 2004 on-site visit, the Gavin Group wrote of the Diocese of Manchester, NH, “The diocese is found to be compliant with all Articles of the Charter for the Protection on (sic) Children and Young People.” 1.
By contrast, TEN MONTHS LATER, the AG found:
“The Diocese has exhibited a general level of ineffectiveness in enforcing compliance with the Agreement and its own policies. This ineffectiveness has resulted in: repeated missed deadlines for implementation of the policies, incomplete training, incomplete written acknowledgements, lack of background checks, and unfilled positions…
The level of compliance with the policies and agreement at the local level is inconsistent at best. No site was 100% compliant…in one parish only 16% of employees or volunteers who worked with children had a sex offender registry check completed…
Even at the diocesan level, compliance was not 100%. Eight and one-half percent of priests had not signed the acknowledgements – an express requirement that should have been completed more than 2 years ago.” 2. Only one paragraph in a five-page letter mentioned some accomplishments.
The referenced Agreement is a non-prosecution agreement Bishop McCormack signed to avoid prosecution of the Diocese for criminal endangerment of children. It calls for implementation of a sexual abuse policy in accord with the USCCB’s Dallas Charter.
Without belaboring the point, the divergence in findings between bishop and AG highlight the shortcomings of the bishops’ efforts.
It is worth noting that in the first four bishops’ annual audits from 2003 through 2006, dioceses were given two tries at the apple. An initial audit in late summer or early fall would reveal certain deficiencies, which then led to a list of required actions. If the required actions were completed by the end of the year, then the diocese would be in full compliance.
Nationally, about 74% of dioceses would be in compliance in the first round, but by the end of the year usually over 95% or more would make the second round.21. It was the second round results that were trumpeted in full court press each year. There is no such leeway in the AG audits; the first grade is the actual result.
In addition, bishops had movable goals by which to measure compliance. One year a diocese could be in compliance as long a training program had been SELECTED, even if it was not implemented. The next year the goal moved to implementation by some unspecified margin.
The lack of measurable standards was even cited as a concern in an annual report.
This is not to discount the reporting, screening and training programs that dioceses have activated, but the focus has been on making the bishops look good, without being fully transparent.
Our group wrote the Gavin auditors with very specific instances where the Charter was violated in our opinion. See http://www.catholicsandsurvivors.net/new_hampshire_catholics_for_mora.htm for exhaustive detail.
We were told that some of our concerns were invalid because we cited the preamble of the Charter instead of one of the 17 articles. Comparing our letter to the bland compliance results is an exercise in frustration.
I am left with the distinct impression that the audits and Charter provisions are as much for display as substance. Exposure by courts and media forced them to act.
Even Cardinal George’s scathing independent (Defenbaugh) audit http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/chicago/2006_03_Defenbaugh_Report.pdf
and (Childers) http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/chicago/2006_03_07_Childers_ReportOn.pdf report on his monitoring program
make abundantly clear what the Gavin Group failed to find – not for lack of skill no doubt, but for the fact that the conditions under which they were allowed to operate were so fully circumscribed by the PR imperatives of the bishops.
Footnotes:
1. USCCB 2004 audit results for Manchester – http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/dioceses04/manchesternh.shtml scroll to compliance section
2. AG 2005 – transmittal letter http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/Letter.pdf p. 2, 2nd and last para; p. 3, 1st and 2nd para. AG 2005 – report http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/033006diocese_report.html entire report, but esp. Executive Summary at p. 5 of 39, beginning at para 6, through end of p. 6 at http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases/pdf/NH_AG_Final_Report.pdf
Judge Merz has turned out to be a great disappointment for those of us who held out hopes that he, as chairman of the NRB, would be open to seeing the whole, complex picture of Catholic clergy abuse. He has talked to survivors, been provided with voluminous documentation and has made public statements that gave the impression that he “got it.” His Op Ed demonstrated that he either didn’t comprehend what he had seen and heard, is in a deep state of denial or has ended up being just another waterboy for the bishops. Their goal is not to bring healing and justice to victims but to regain their lost power and influence. It now looks like Judge Merz shared that goal. His statement that complicit bishops not be asked to resign but take responsibility for fixing the problem is incredible. The bishops have had 25 years to fix the problem and all they have done is try to put bandaids on it according to their terms. They have not listened to those most knowledgeable. Rather, they have rejected and defamed any one person or organization that dared to criticisize them. Judge Merz has been a glaring disappointment because it is clear that he, like the bishops, is so enamored of the entire clerical myth that he is willing to support their twisting of truth to serve their own sefl-serving ends.
“Judge Merz has been a glaring disappointment because it is clear that he, like the bishops, is so enamored of the entire clerical myth that he is willing to support their twisting of truth to serve their own sefl-serving ends.”
We can safely say that we are in a “post hierarchical age” in the Catholic church. Bishops and the Pope will have to earn their respect. Ex opera operato will have to give way to living the faith. The video tape destroyed the myth of Communism for the Soviet Union. The Internet assures that the bishops must answer to a new bar. They unilaterally rejected the call to transparency that Catholic people demanded. But their actions are under a stronger light because of this age of instant reporting and visual evidence. They are forced with transparency they did not or would not choose. If they choose service over dominion and dogma they have a chance to keep the people with them. Otherwise their dissolution is certain if not as swift as we would like.
Sex in of itself is taboo issue generaly in our time. Im talking about real sexual drive. It’s ultimate place in our collective as indeed an art of and part of our communication, but it scares the hell out of people does it not? In everyones room there is an aspect that holds expresive sexual truth unless there is unrealisticly unhealthful repression in place.
In the old back rooms of the powerful, secretive dialouges take place that reflect the reality of perverse and shameful gatekeepers of the status quo so holding the line against bringing warped practices of the undue deviant to light for examination and ultimatley curative prescription by society.
Back sliding into “Doubt” as would seem to be an upshot of this film merely keeps things as they have been for the powerful the perverse, the mentaly ill.
As an over-educated by default consumer of the dominant culture I only presume other less educated people cannot see the emporers new clothes worn by this judge in his continuation of the cover up.