Innocent until proven accused.
When Bishop Michael Saltarelli of Wilmington, Delaware, released the names of twenty priests or former priests of his diocese who had been credibly accused of sexual abuse, I wonder if he imagined the following scenario as a possible consequence.
Members of two groups representing victims of abusive Catholic priests
went door-to-door in the neighborhood, distributing packets of
information accusing a former Catholic priest who has lived there for
10 years.
“Community notification: Protect your children from a credibly accused serial sex offender,” the packet’s cover reads.
The 38-page sheaf of material contained information about Edward F.
Dudzinski, 56, who last month was among 20 former priests accused by
the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Del., of sexually abusing children.
He served in the priesthood in the 1970s and 1980s.
(snip)
“We are not talking about shoplifting here,” called out Paul
Steidler, a Reston consultant and a member of Survivors Network of
those Abused by Priests. “We are talking about the sexual abuse of
children.”
As Steidler spoke, a woman emerged from the house,
carrying blue gift bags and frosted cupcakes to a worn station wagon at
the curb.
“Do you see what they’re doing?” she said to the
roommate, brushing aside SNAP members and journalists. “They’re putting
these things in people’s mailboxes in our neighborhood.”
The
woman, who would not identify herself in an interview later, said that
she and her 10-year-old son have rented a room in the house for the
past eight years and that she trusts Dudzinski. She said the groups’
tactics are a violation of Dudzinski’s privacy.
“It’s very
upsetting for him because other than 30 years ago, he’s never done
anything inappropriate,” she said. “That’s what I’ve been told, that’s
what I’ve observed, and that’s what I believe.”
The other group represented by the pamphleteers is Voice of the Faithful.
Life is not fair. As an instructor of mine once said, “Whenever one of my kids would tell me, ‘Daddy, that’s not fair,’ I would respond to him/her, ‘Of course, life is not fair. A fair is a fancy country picnic.’”
Maybe this ex-priest is healed, maybe not. His former diocese, however, has credible evidence that he sexually abused children. Sexual abuse of such kind is a very big NO NO, and parents understandably are not going to look kindly on a “perv” or former abuser. Toss in the coverups by our bishops over the decades, and one can understand why victims’ rights groups would be more than eager to alert neighborhoods to the presence of a current/former abuser in their midst.
If I had underage children, I would want to know such information. I might not press for the abuser’s moving from my block, but I would want to warn my kids of his presence.
Life is not fair. And that’s my lesson today for every prospective, current, or former sexual/other abuser of children. You simply have to live with it, like it or not.
Really! Accusations do not mean that the accused is guilty. Guilt should be proven before steps against the person are taken.
Then, there is always the role of forgiveness in the rehabilitative process to consider.
Jesus was big of forgiveness.
His alleged followers are proving not to be.
Forgiveness does not exclude efforts to protect children and society from a habitual offender.
However, it is because life is not fair that this country instituted “due process”. Due process is what keeps vigilante groups from convicting people of crimes without evidence and without a trial and without a jury of one’s peers. Due process is the filter that is supposed to keep the innocent from being condemned with the guilty.
What exactly is “credible evidence”? Does it mean there were eyewitness? Documentation of harm at a hospital or other facility? More than one person verifying the allegations? And what was the nature of the accusation? Molestation? Inappropriate touching? Inappropriate language? Rape?
What if the evidence that is thought to be credible now turns out to be wrong after all?
The evidence seen by the diocese might be credible, but the actions were taken by two groups who hadn’t seen any evidence at all beyond a man’s name on a list. The groups involved firmly believe they are taking good steps to protect children, but what they’re really doing is circumventing the law of the land based on what they think might be true.
The issue of distortion and hypocrisy is a major problem with respect to sexual abuse. To read the public and perhaps even more so the Catholic press one can easily get the impression that priests are the only sexual predators roaming the neighborhood.
Real statistics demonstrate however, that sexual abuse, in fact child abuse of all types, is first and foremost executed by the father, then mother, live in companion, brother or know relative, usually male. This, however, is the sexual abuse that never makes the paper unless that is the abuser is a serial abuser.
If one follows the news, all sexual abuse is done by priests or serial abusers. And what is society’s response. Lock them away forever. Notify the neighborhood when a former abuser is released after serving his time, which really means society may ostracize him so that he leaves and moves elsewhere. This form of vigilante justice really means forgiveness is out of the question.
In the meantime, the majority of abusers and most often the problems that create such abuse go unreported or are never dealt with. Are abusive priests and serial abusers not the minority scapegoats which allow all of us to rid ourselves of the guilt we have for doing nothing or very little in the majority case?
First my guess is that “credible accusations” at minimum would mean the same thing at least as probable cause which is what police use to arresrtt. That’s not the same as beyond a reasonable doubt (but even that terminology has its problems as recent literature shows.)
I must read a different press from Mr. Borst – I think the issues of disclosure or lack thereof by the hierarchy as well as the battles by the leadership of the Church to maintain SOL restrictions in civil and criminal matters has led to extensive press coverage. When grand jury reports (such as from Long Island and Philadelphia) appear, then the immensity of the problem -given what folks expect of clergy and the coverups and decptiosn of those who supervise them -is quite newsworthy.
The Bishop in Deleware releasing names of credibly accused apparently gave up the secrecy fight.
The aftermath is about balancing rights with community safety considerations; perhaps Mr. Borst should have a bit more empathy for those who’ve been victimized and a little less for the poor priests. whose Bishops protected them from criminal charges for years so that “scandal” would be avoided.
“Forgiveness” is one thing. “Precaution” (especially where children are involved) is another.
“Better to tie a millstone around his neck…”
I can forgive. It would be stupid to forget.
Mr. Nunz,
You certainly read my post differently than I intended. At no time did I imply empathy with either priests who abuse children or with Bishops who cover up such criminal activity.
I believe I was showing considerable empathy for the abused by pointing out that the majority of abuse is not committed by priests or strangers prowling a neigborhood. The majority of abuse is committed by family members known to the abused person.
By ignoring this fact, we as a society, by not revealing such abuse through news media are as guilty of covering up the true source and extent of the problem as are the bishops in covering up priestly abuse.
I fail to understand how you could have missed that conclusion. I suspect if we had accurate data we would discover that priests as a group in percentage terms are little more likely to be child abusers than all males within any group.
By focusing exclusively on priests as pedophiles are you not ignoring the much larger issue of sexual abuse of minors, that which occurs within the family structure?
In the mid 90′s, when working on a manual for dealing with sex abusers in community corrections, we discussed wheter we should try to deal with the special tiopic of clergy abuse within the difficult framework of cultural influences.
Ultimately, we decided not to at that time, as there were plenty of problems convincing peopel that their ethnic religious or other cultural prejudices powerfully influenced their perceptions in such matters and, because we felt the numvber of clergy abusers would not be a large group.
Noone wants top minimize the problem of sexual abuse of children in the total population!
Clergy abuse is a special subtopic within and has extremely grave consequences for the abused.
If you look, for example, at the National Catholic Reporter’s Abuse Trackers daily entries each day, one will see the media reports focused on clergy, not just priests abuse.
A special Catholic problem was the long standing (and to some extent continuing) coverup of these matters by leadership.
This has raised issues of discovery of the truth and attempts to extend the Statute of Limitations in such matters.
Often, and what I would point to here, is that leadership tries to use the broader issue of sexual abuse in the community to deflect these same issues, in particular, currently, in Los Angeles, Denver, and Hartford.