Abuse allegations in Alaska
Report from the Anchorage Daily News:
A group of 43 Alaska Natives who say they were sexually abused by Catholic priests and church volunteers have sued the Jesuit order, alleging that remote Alaska villages became a worldwide dumping ground for clergy with histories of abuse.
…Some of the events alleged in the stream of lawsuits stretch back into the 1940s, and others happened as recently as 2001. But much of the abuse took place in the 1960s and 1970s, Wall said.
The new suit contends that pedophile priests unsuited to serve anywhere else were dumped on Alaska and put in remote villages with little or no law enforcement, making it virtually impossible for anyone to report them.
The paper has a link to the lawsuit (a .pdf) — truly grim stuff, but I suppose you’d expect as much. The suit describes a situation where one serial abuser was knowingly “supervising” another, so as you can imagine, the alleged abuse is widespread and long-lasting. And there’s another suit coming, the story says, representing 60 more victims. (The diocese of Fairbanks might be a defendant too, if they hadn’t filed for bankruptcy last year.)
The danger is that we can become inured to these stories that we forget the paradigm change happening in our times. In our midst. It is only because the hierarchy is not able to squelch complaints and shame the accusers the way it used to that we have all this coming to light.
We have to make it clear to the bishops that a new way is in play and that they need to stop self aggrandazing and distracting us or hiding behind other issues when they are the issue. The specific call of Votf for these bishops to resign must be our focus and let the bishops know loudly and clearly that accountablility is demanded. Here are the bishops and the reasons:
1. Bernard Cardinal Law implicitly acknowledged his guilt by resigning his office as Archbishop of Boston under the pressure of public outrage in late 2002. We now call upon him to resign explicitly and formally from all official, titular or
honorary positions of the Catholic Church.
2. Bishop William F. Murphy, presently head of the Diocese of Rockville Centre in Garden City, New York, previously served under Cardinal Law in the Archdiocese of Boston, and was directly involved in the assignment and transfer of priests there. A Report by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dated July 23, 2003, on the sexual abuse of children in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, concluded that “There is overwhelming evidence that for many years Cardinal Law and his senior managers had direct, actual knowledge that substantial numbers of children in the Archdiocese had
been sexually abused by substantial numbers of priests. Any claim by the Cardinal or the Archdiocese’s senior managers that they did not know about the abuse suffered by, or the continuing threat to, children in the Archdiocese is simply not credible.” (P. 25) The report further concludes that: “Top Archdiocese officials regularly addressed and supported the perceived needs of offending priests more than the needs of children who had been, or were at risk of being, abused.” The report further states that “…even with undeniable information available to him on the risk of recidivism, Bishop Murphy continued to place a
higher priority on preventing scandal and providing support to alleged abusers than on protecting children from sexual abuse.” In light of these findings, we call on Bishop Murphy in good conscience to resign his current position.
3. Francis Cardinal George of Chicago has testified under oath in a court deposition that in 2006, long after the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that he now serves as president instituted clear and explicit guidelines for the reporting of sexual abuse to public authorities, he decided to ignore such guidelines, placing the interests of priests above the safety of the people he is in office to protect. As a consequence of his decisions, it is absolutely clear and a matter of public record that one priest, since convicted, was able to continue abusing children. In light of these known facts and sworn testimony, we believe Cardinal George must in good conscience resign his position as Archbishop of Chicago and as President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
4. Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, Ohio, pleaded no contest in 2003 on behalf of the Archdiocese for its failure to report felony acts of sexual abuse in 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982, making Cincinnati the first diocese in the U.S. to be convicted in connection with clergy sexual abuse. Archbishop Pilarczyk was not in a position of authority in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati during the years when the archdiocese, according to Hamilton Country Prosecutor Mike Allen, “knowingly failed to report” sex crimes involving minors and members of the archdiocese. However, Pilarczyk was the sitting ordinary during the 18-month investigation during which the archdiocese repeatedly asserted that it had reported all crimes to the authority, when the court clearly found that the archdiocese had not reported such crimes. Pilarczyk was the sitting ordinary
responsible for the implementation of a legal strategy built on lies. In light of his plea, we call on Archbishop Pilarcyzk in good conscience to resign his current position.
5. Bishop John B. McCormack, currently the Bishop of the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, was formerly a priest in the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, where he was directly involved in the evaluation of many cases of sexual abuse. During his years of service in Boston, he worked in close contact with or in positions of authority over several priests revealed to be notorious serial predators, including the Rev. Joseph E. Birmingham the Rev. John Geoghan and the Rev. Paul Shanley. In a court deposition, the Jesuit psychiatrist Dr. Edwin Cassem testified that McCormack deceived him by failing to share critical information about past abuse by priests such as Shanley, leading Cassem to make inappropriate recommendations about treatment. Written evidence shows that McCormack was aware of abuse by John Geoghan four years before McCormack admitted knowing such facts. Although Sr. Catherine Mulkerrin recommended repeatedly to McCormack in 1992-1994 that parishes where allegedly abusive priests had served should be notified of allegations, no such notifications were ever made. Survivor depositions place McCormack in the St. James Rectory in Salem, where sexual abuse occurred, and in conversation with Rev. Joseph Birmingham in full view of the victim on Birmingham’s bed. Despite this record, which includes many other documented lies, dodges and disavowals, McCormack said to parishioners in New Hampshire in 2004, “I have apologized
for what I have done and failed to do, and acknowledged that my responses to people who reported being harmed were inadequate.” In light of his extensive record of failing to protect children, and in recognition of his own admission of
culpability, we call upon Bishop McCormack to resign his office.
6. Roger Cardinal Mahony, currently the Archbishop of Los Angeles, was the Bishop of Diocese of Stockton, California from 1980-1985. During this time, a priest named Oliver O’Grady was working under the supervision of Mahony. As documented in the film “Deliver Us from Evil,” O’Grady subsequently acknowledged repeated notorious acts of sexual abuse of minors. In a 2004 videotaped court deposition, Mahony repeatedly denied that his transfers of O’Grady from parish to parish were a consequence of O’Grady’s sexual abuse of children under his care. Mahony was evasive and unresponsive under direct
questioning by public authorities during this lengthy deposition. In subsequent legal proceedings involving the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Mahony employed similar strategies of evasion, delay and denial over many months before finally agreeing to a financial settlement with survivors. In light of his tortured legalistic efforts to avoid any admission of culpability, we call on Cardinal Mahony in good conscience to resign his current position.
What is our duty as lay people at this point? I can’t believe that it is simply to throw up our hands in despair.
Two things I’m sure of – to forgive is not to forget, and to forgive is not to let things stand as they are.
Appreciate Bill & Ann’s frustration. But, this particular story raises other valid concerns and issues – not necessarily bishops and the Vatican but religious orders (remember, they had some special sections in the Dallas Charter).
For those active in SNAP, VOTF, etc. much of this story is “old” news. Some of this surfaced with the Fairbanks Diocese bankruptcy but settlements via the diocese are separate from the Society of Jesus.
This is not the first instance of a religious community creating sexual abuse issues by “dumping” personnel e.g. Franciscans in Santa Barbara, CA; most notorious recently are the steps taken by the Salesians (note – many of B16′s top dicastery heads are Salesians); Christian Brothers in Canada, Australia, and Ireland.
The LA archdiocesan sex abuse case settlement was held up by the Salesians. Other orders agreed to be a part of the settlement but the Salesians continue to fight – link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_/ai_n24978372
Religious orders – one of the advantages in these situations is that most orders take life long responsibility for their priests,brothers…..so, if one is found guilty but is not imprisoned, the order can basically put them into a house with oversight. It will be difficult to untangle the allegations against the various Jesuit provinces, past provincials (many who are no longer living), and proving any type of deliberate, organized plan to “dump” priests into Alaska.
From my personal experience and prior to 1985, these allegations have a basis in fact; intent is another question; lack of knowledge; pre-1985 mindset in both church and psychological community.
I suspect it’s true that in the past, parishes in the boonies or very poor parishes would be used as “dumping grounds” for clergy with many problems.
It’s still hard for me to see that criminal activity of sexual abuse was so easily covered up as opposed say to a priest who fell into bed drunk every night.
Bill M. is right to note the 5 hierarchs that vOTF has called on (again) to resign.
What truly bothers me is how these folks are so blithe in paying no attention to such calls – they only answer up the line and continue to damage credibility of leadership.
Bill Mazella:
I rarely agree with you on many things, but on this, hey, you’re the bomb Bill. I am constrained to live in Los Angeles and thus have Mahoney in charge of everything. To me he is a creep of monumental proportions who spent a fortune on his ugly cathedral while doing everything in his power to impede and obfuscate the abuse investigations.
It appears that in Los Angeles and in Santa Fe known abusers were disproportionately assigned to Hispanic parishes, in which the abused children 1.sometimes did not speak Englsih 2. lived in an Hispanic culture which considered any sort of homosexual activity, even by a victim, especially disgraceful 3. were sometimes illegal immigrants who could not go to the police. Such is out bishops’ referential option for the poor.
When I worked within the VA healthcare system, I recall a medical center director making disparaging remarks about “Chinks” and others. When the news broke, he was removed from his position although not from VA employment (instead, transferred to some kind of “advisory” role in a regional office).
Where is executive accountability here?
The positive outcome of all this is that the hierarchy will never be the same again. They will be much more accountable. They will continue to have their defendors, a good number who are on their payroll or are financially dependent as vendors whether architects or vestment makers and sellers etc. The Constantine revolution is over in that sense.
Vatican II showed how the royal priesthood is the priesthood of all believers. Pedophilia coverup proved this is no uncertain terms. Cardinal George complained that we are destroying the church. He is right in the sense that we are destroying the wrong concept of the church.
We have never had better times for church renewal.
Any person who was aware of the abuse and did not report this criminal behavior to the proper authorities, is guilty of enabling the abuse. If the evidence exists, shouldn’t those who were found guilty of enabling the abuse be held accountable? Regarding the cases already settled, why wasn’t this part of the settlement?
To get a bird’s-eye view of the mindset in the Bad Old Days (and even now in some parishes and dioceses), the movie “Doubt” points out the rigidities and ambiguities that prevailed in the clericalist culture of Catholicism in the 1940s through the 1960s (give or take).
Hello Bill (and all),
“The specific call of Votf for these bishops to resign must be our focus and let the bishops know loudly and clearly that accountablility is demanded.”
I think you could help me out by answering a question I have had on my mind for some time: What do the members of VOTF hope to achieve by continuing to issues calls such as these encouraging certain bishops to resign from office?
Please bear with me here. I absolutely mean no disrespect to you or to anyone in VOTF. I’m sincere in asking this question. (And for private reasons I do not belong to VOTF, so I’m turning to you and perhaps others here who are also familiar with the work of VOTF to help increase my understanding.)
I try to be charitable, but my distinct impression is that the Roman Catholic bishops in this country have no interest whatsoever in the stated recommendations of any lay organization, especially an organization like VOTF that is willing to issue public statements critical of certain bishops. Indeed, I get the impression that at least some of these bishops think it would be wrong even to acknowledge the public statements of lay organizations like VOTF. I admit I’m speculating, but I suspect that the attitude of some bishops towards VOTF parallels that of Pope Pius XI in the 1930s towards the then budding ecumenical movement in Christianity, namely, that it would be a mistake to get entangled in such movements because this would tend to give them some legitimacy in the eyes of the Church hierarchy. (I hope you realize that I think VOTF in fact deserves such legitimacy.)
Anyway, advance apologies for what one could take to be an impolite question. I’ll look forward to your response.
Peter – excellent point and well written analysis/question. To be honest, I also share your question but sympathize with VOTF frustration and attempt to focus this issue on the bishops rather than on continuing to talk about sexual abuse as a crime, perpatrators, seminary training, even the Dallas Charter.
If we have learned anything since 1985 and especially since 2002 with Boston, the media has played a significant part in compelling bishops/dioceses/insurance companies to release records, admit that crimes were committed, and that mistakes have and are being made.
Will calling for these bishops/cardinals to resign a waste of time? Probably but it serves a purpose by keeping a light on these bishops, planting both the idea and the action that the church is more than just bishops, and hopefully & eventually pushing the USCCB to addressing the real issue – bishops, the curial system, and that (intentionally or not) the cover-up is worse than the crime. Look at what happens in Ireland over the next month – the government audits will be published, there are divisions between bishops/cardinals now, doubt that the Irish church (the people and finally the priests) will stand for the status quo when the actual numbers are published and seen.
Suggestion – the Dallas Charter was a first step. We need a Truth and Reconciliation Board, independent, supported by the USCCB and the Vatican to:
a) change the legal approach used today;
b) shift to a pastoral approach that does not depend upon SOL laws but does allow for financial limits on awards;
c) agrees on an internal system that opens up personnel files following criteria that only makes public what is necessary.
“…that it would be a mistake to get entangled in such movements because this would tend to give them some legitimacy in the eyes of the Church hierarchy.”
Quite right, Peter. It is called “Damnatio Memoriae” , destruction of memory, so that hopefully no one will remember that such an organization existed. There have been many great movements in the history of the church but we have little to go since their writing were destroyed and any accounts of them. We only know of some of them because of the writings of approved writers against them. Even in our own day it is astounding how many do not know who Schillibexx, Congar and Kung are.
In the 70′s “Call to Action” was actually formed in response to bishops encouraging the laity to get involved. JPII, Law and others put a stop to that. Rome keeps touting the Charismatic Movement since it successfully turned it into an orthodox group. On the other hand, Rome has persistently praised orthodox group even when they are involved in questionable behavior. Legionnaires of Christ and Opus Dei, for example. In fact it was only in the face of overwhelming evidence that Benedict censured Maciel, the Founder of the Legionnarires.
The great thing about VOTF is, while it seeks to work with the bishops, it realizes it does not need the bishops to be authentic.
To answer your question, Peter, just the fact that a Catholic group calls for specific bishops to resign is an enormously significant move. Especially since it is done after careful deliberation.
VOTF has a chance since it is doing what the bishops will not seriously do. Reform the church and make bishops accountable.
The problem for VOTF as for any movement is to sustain interest and to keep people with differences working together. Monarchy is easy to sustain even if it is barren. Tepidity last forever.
Taken in this light VOTF is a smashing success. Considering the herculean challenge it is truly remarkable. This could be a turning point in church history. Abusing children can stir people like nothing else.
why is VOTF taking a at those particular bishops? Because their behavior has been the worst. Add to that Cardinal George (Who heads the list) was elected head of the American bishops’ council, which is an indictment of a majority of the members of that group. All of the worst ones need to resign or be removed from office as a lesson to the other bishops’ that such outrageous , even criminal behavior will not be countenanced in bthe Church.
Will VOTF be successful? Not directly. But it demo ds the laity of our obligation tosomehow get thee criminals (if not criminal enablers, then what are they?) out of office.
But how to do it? There’s much talk of MLK this week. What he do? I’m quite certain that he would use the same approach to children’s rights as to civil right– he would shame the guity.
But how? By massive public protests on the perpetrators home grounds. Picket those bishops’ homes? The chanceries? Invent a symbol of solidarity with the children? Speak to the individual bishops we know letting them know ESA fly what we think of their behavior? I did that once, and the poor old man just shook his head in agreement and convinced me he was repentent.
oops yet again.
That should have been “let tgem know exactly …”
I should add that I’m a member of VOTF. I recognize that some people in it want to broaden its mission, which I do not think is prudent at this time. But all in all I think they are the most rational group trying to meet our obligations as laity and non- bishop priests.
Prayer alone is not sufficient. (I also ask myself: what would Thomas Merton do?)
The Canadian Catholic church experienced the issue of abuse in schools run by religious orders in the 80″s.
I am very familiar with the entire ‘residential school” phenomenon in which many allegations of abuse by priests, nuns and religious were reported by the students.
Religious orders and religious communities, did pay settlements to the survivors of residential schools and recently the Prime Minister of Canada offered an apology to First Nation communities who were subject to the Indian Act which mandated schooling for children just last June.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/pm-statement.html
The federal government has paid some settlements, and so have religious orders. In Canada, at least, it is important to understand that relgious orders and churches were the delivery agents of education policy that was the civil government’s responsibility. So both institutions are responsible.
As far as lessons learned, it is important to move forward toward cultural healing – not an easy task. While many still practice the CAtholic faith, very few aboriginal people are priests, sisters and/or religious. Also some do not know their traditional cultural, spiritual and religious practices as it was explicityly discouraged by residential schools. It is important, therefore, for First Nation’s people to tell their story and for governments and churches to listen. Then we can move forward. Below is a link from the Aboriginal Healing Foundation in partnership with other groups federal and private, which tells the story. It was on display in several citites in Canada. We brought our then 7 year old daughter to the display and talked about it. Ironcially we asked the Catholic school (publicly funded) if they would like to display it and the first response was that children might not be ready for that. I think it was more of a case of teachers and adminstrators not being ready to talk about it as I didn”t find anything at all inappropriate or offensive in the display. Judge for yourselves.
http://www.wherearethechildren.ca/en/homepage.html
PS
The introduction of the Prime Minister’s speech in Parliament in JUne of 2008 which gives some of the background and context of the issue:
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to offer an apology to former students of Indian residential schools. The treatment of children in Indian residential schools is a sad chapter in our history.
In the 1870′s, the federal government, partly in order to meet its obligation to educate aboriginal children, began to play a role in the development and administration of these schools.
Two primary objectives of the residential schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture.
These objectives were based on the assumption aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal.
Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child.”
Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country.
Most schools were operated as “joint ventures” with Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian or United churches.
The government of Canada built an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes, often taken far from their communities.
Many were inadequately fed, clothed and housed.
All were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities.
First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools.
Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools and others never returned home.
The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian residential schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language.
While some former students have spoken positively about their experiences at residential schools, these stories are far overshadowed by tragic accounts of the emotional, physical and sexual abuse and neglect of helpless children, and their separation from powerless families and communities.
It looks like this thread has shifted to the US VOTF call for resignation of 5 prominent bishops and its effectiveness. (Please note I leave aside the debacle curently in Ireland with Ireland’s VOTF and Bishop Magee, etc. -something we haven’t talked about here.)
Bill M. is right -the hierarchy are trying to wear down critical groups by avoidance.
They may well succeed over time, but at what cost???
If one listens to the anger inside VOTF, it is directed at a hierarchy that falls far short of their ideal of manly (willing to be responsible, open and deal with problems) leadership that is selflessly loving of those they serve (not concerned with their own status or only answering up the line, but truly pastoral.)
So Cardinal George, for example, whose resignation has been called for by the group several times is seen as intellectually bright but unwilling to take real resposnibility and to be diffident in the face of criticism.
So in the long run, confidence in leadership will continue to erode. Insistence on “positive orthodoxy” will be seen as keeping the status quo without dealing with pastotral needs.
Drift, implosion or whatever will continue.
It seems logical to assume, that if there is evidence that can prove that some bishops were involved in enabling the abuse, they must be held accountable by the Court. What is the reason the Court did not hold these bishops accountable? If the Court had sufficient evidence that these bishops were guilty of enabling the abuse and failed to act upon this evidence, the Court is also guilty of enabling abuse.
Process question.
what is a Bishop or superior (Fr. General is ultimately responsible according to the suit) supposed to do with this:
“The allegations brought against me are false. I firmly deny them. I want the victims and entire community to know that,” Sundborg said in his statement.
He served as provincial, or leader of the Society of Jesus, Oregon Province, from 1990 to 1996, the suit says. The province includes Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho.
“The complaint filed by the plaintiffs’ lawyers represents an unprincipled and irresponsible attack on my reputation,” Sundborg responded in his statement. “Let me be clear — my commitment to justice and reconciliation for all victims remains steadfast. The sexual abuse by Catholic priests is one of the most shameful episodes in the history of our church.”
Personally, I am highly skeptical but our legal tradition is that someone is innocent until proven guilty.
The court of public opinion is another matter altogether.
Bob – if you read my post above, you will note that I referenced the current Ireland dilemma.
The Canadian experience – government & religious orders – was repeated in Australia, Ireland, and England.
Question – why has not bishop been indicted or jailed? We continue to see a cultural pattern in which district attorneys – state of local – are unwilling to indict a bishop directly with the goal of imprisonment for cover-up, conspiracy, etc.
We have a number of legal experts and SNAP/VOTF experts on this blog – suggest that they could weigh in on this issue. Besides calling for resignations, why is the legal community unable or unwilling to indict bishops? Is there inadequate proof? Is it a “bishop said – we said” situation?
Nancy -
Very good point. In some cases I think we should add the district attorneys and the newspapers to the list tcwith the courts.
In New Orleans one of the first notorious cases broke in the 1980s. The archbishop, with the assistance of the district attorney (a dutiful Catholic) tried to cover it up. But the local paper, the Times-picayune, refused to bury the story. (Let me add,
as a hat tip to conservatives, that in many ways the T-P is a very conservative paper.) And, of course, the Boston Globe was heroic.
There has been plenty of negligence and absence of the courage to speak out. Sins of omission we used to call them.
Ann, just as a clarification, I believe Jason first wrote his newsmaking stories for the local paper in Houma-Thibodeaux, about Gilbert Gauthe. Jason really deserves great credit, and other al papers later on, and of course the Globe really had the ambition and muscle to pry off the lid. I’d also note that many of the God Beat quickly grew tired of the stock phrase about “when the sexual abuse scandal broke in January 2002,” since it had really broken in the mid-1980s, and continued to break in dribs and drabs, but few wanted to listen.
The culture of collaboration between authorities clerical and secular also changed over time, but another major obstacle was the debacle of the McMartin daycare sex abuse case of the 1980s, which was the longest and most expensive criminal trial in history at the time and ended in no convictions, lots of smeared reputations, and a huge learning curve for experts and police on how to determine truth or fiction, and how to prosecute these cases.
Authorities were so scared of being wrong for so long that they wouldn’t pursue these cases very vigorously, and the delay contributed to the subsrquent issue that Nancy raised, that most bishops and priests cannot be prosecuted (in civil OR church courts) because the statute of limitations has run out .
Mr. Gibson – thank you for your corrections to history. If you read my contributions, I use the year 1985 as the end or the “beginning” especially for those of us in formation in Texas and Louisiana. Knew many of the players in the Lafayette diocese event and then 7 years later was much too close to the Dallas sex abuse trial of Rudy Kos, Bishop Grahamann, and the chancellor, Rehkemper (who blamed the parents).
There are a number of complex issues going on here – calling for resignations? Is it effective?
a) unfortunately, the real crime and sin in this period is structural and systemic – it is curial and clerical authority buttressed prior to 1985 by ignorance, a different mind-set, a different system of formation, etc.
b) please note that in 2002 in Boston, one reason that we saw effective action leading to the resignation of Law was the combined efforts of most priests in the archdiocese. The Boston Globe supported those priestly voices. Today, we continue to see the media but not the priests – but when your career, your appointment to a parish, your chance to be a pastor, your future is in the hands of one bishop…..how many priests are willing to risk speaking out? There is not priest union to balance the clerial authority system. Do we hear or see much from the National Priests’ Council?
c) most of my contacts are religious priests but even in religious communities, speaking out breaks the “code” – disloyalty, turning on a brother, disobedience can be alleged, numerous ways that you can be passively “punished”.
d) the real crime is that after 20+ years, the average Catholic is sympathetic but tired of the news of abuse. They want to move on. So, am reminded of the famous historical phrase – all it takes for evil to flourish, is for good people to remain silent and do nothing.
e) this has been reinformced by 20 years of JPII bishop appointments, turning back the clock, highlighting other issues, playing a game of divide and conquer – focus diocese by diocese but do not allow this to reach the national or international level.
In most ot today’s papers, you can read about the national frustration with Madoff & others who have destroyed the integrity and effectiveness of our financial system – some are calling for horrendous punishment for them. Other articles have highlighted the issue of torture – some call for trial and hangings; others caution patience. Are the issues of torture, financial deception/corruption any different than sexual abuse? At the heart each of these issues had authority figures – what will we do as a society, government to hold them accountable? how is this any different than sex abuse and church authority figures? My guess – they will be slapped on the wrist, a few may wind up like Cardinal Law, but most will be swept under the rug.
Unfortunately, that is the challenge for Call to Action, VOTF, etc.
When I saw this post, I sent it to a religious who has been a good friend for 25 years. She spent many years as a missionary in Alaska and El Salvador. When I received her reply, I asked her if I could share parts of it with the readers of dotCommonweal. She said yes.
Gene:
There are indeed cultural barriers ministering to aboriginal communities – not the least of which is the fact that the Church has, at times in its history, been closely identified with the colonizing presence “civilizing” the savage Indians. Acceptance of the “stranger” is a two way street.
But I do not see that as justification, even tacitly for abusive behaviour. Besides, many of these priests were in fact in community and not alone. According to the affadavit:
Father Grief also knew of Joe Lundowski’s abusive acts, and he too warned me not to be alone with Brother Joe. I tried to protect myself, but I was only a child.” 15. Brother Lundowski’s sexual predation of children accelerated after he and Father Endal were transferred to St. Michael and Stebbins 1968.
Not only was there a community but according to the affadavit Father Grief suggested that J Doe not be alone with Brother Joe. Sheesh what a solution!!! Giving the responsibility for the abuse back to a 10 year old child.
With all due respect, stop making excuses for their behaviour!!!