‘I’m reminded of the Salem Witch Hunts.’
NCR‘s Joe Feuerherd reports on the issue of due process for priests who are accused of sexual abuse.
Four years ago, an adult woman informed her local diocese that a
recently ordained priest had groped her. No criminal or civil charges
were filed, but the initial investigation showed that the accusation
was plausible – that it could have happened, recalled Father Michael
Sullivan, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., a priest and canon lawyer who
previously served as judicial vicar in the Crookston, Minn., Diocese.
A
diocesan review board, said Father Sullivan, eventually determined that
the accusation “was a trumped-up charge.” The priest, said Father
Sullivan, had “spurned her affections,” informing her “that I’m a
celibate and we’re not going there.”
Still, said Father Sullivan, the bishop rejected the review board’s
determination and did not allow the priest to return to public
ministry. The priest has appealed the bishop’s ruling, but the case,
said Father Sullivan, is “swallowed up in Rome.” The priest currently
receives no pay or medical benefits from the diocese, said Father
Sullivan.
The details differ from case to case, but it’s a story Father Sullivan
says he has heard countless times. Due process for priests accused of
abuse, he said, is a sham.
Read the rest right here.
He said/she said cases, in both the criminal and civil context, are among the hardest to litigate, for the party alleging impropriety and also for the party defending against it. The cases more often than not lack CSI-type evidence and turn entirely on the perceived credibility of the accuser and the accused. Such cases are even more difficult to assess in the sex abuse context where the accused is an adult authority figure, and the accuser is a child or teenager without any indicia of authority. Add the media interest that surrounds clerical sex abuse allegations, and the resulting situation can be rife with legal problems, including due process violations. The burden of proof for the accuser should not be impossibly high, but neither should the constitutional and canon law protections afforded an accused be set at a lower bar. We don’t know all the facts in the cases mentioned in the link in Grant’s post, so it is very difficult to assess whether the due process rights of the accused priests were honored. (The priest who admitted possession of child pornography has a substantively different due process problem, and arguably a less convincing due process argument, than do priests who deny in full the charges against them.) IMO each allegation must be weighed on a case-by-case basis, affording the accused and the accuser a fair and adequate opportunity to present their evidence. In the end, however, if the evidence is not sufficient to meet the accuser’s burden of proof, then, as in all U.S. federal and state cases, the accused’s presumption of innocence has not been rebutted. Will this mean that some clerical sex abusers will escape civil, criminal, or canonical liabilty? Yes, but (and I may take flack for this), the integrity of the legal process is more important than the result in an individual case.
One extreme to the other. The integrity of the law is impaired all the time. The law always favored the rich and powerful over the poor and weak.
Once a serious accusation against a priest was ignored or glossed over. There have been many reassignments in the past of priests because of accusations by former lovers. Now it just has to be stated.
It is easy to rush to judgment one way or the other. My concern is that this does not deflect attention from the continuing attitude of the bishops to stonewall on justice to the survivors.
I consider the article by Mark Sargent on this subject a major blunder and disservice. Where were Catholic lawyers when the victim accusers received nothing but abuse from hierarchs and parishioners alike?
It was the Boston Globe and not them that broke the unconscionable agreements on the handling of pedophilia.
No one should be falsely accused. Yet where are these voices when Votf cries out for help in the uphill battle for reform against a recalcitrant hierarchy?
What is most frightening, most disturbing, and most disappointing in all of this is the lack of faith on the part of the bishops. They are men driven by fear, and that is sad.
As the article stated, if the bishops would follow Canon law as it is written and as they should, there would have been a lot less problems in the past and a lot less problems now.
The actions of the bishops clearly indicate that they have no faith in Canon law. They have no concern about justice – and not a qualified justice of “justice for the victims” or “justice for the innocents”, but justice that truly serves all concerned.
The priority in their minds appears to be “protect the Church at all costs” which is a mantra they repeat without ever realizing that if they would show faith in the process, show faith in the Canon laws as they are written, then the Church WILL be protected.
And Bill raises a very good point that I’ve wondered about for a long time – the good and faithful priests who serve God and Church with honest hands and heart should be pounding on the doors to the Vatican demanding their vocation be defended.
Theirs should be the loudest voices of all in encouraging the bishops to be true leaders in the Church and not a crowd of quivering ninnies who need both hands and a map to find their own behinds.
To: William Collier
In your post, you wrote,
“The cases more often than not lack CSI-type evidence…” and “IMO each allegation must be weighed on a case-by-case basis…”
What do “CSI” and “IMO” mean?
Thanks.
Gene–
“CSI” means “Crime Scene Investigation.” I was referencing the TV shows in which investigators perform forensic analysis on physical evidence collected at crime scenes–fingerprints, hair, carpet fibers, body fluids, etc. Such evidence is largely absent in many so-called “he said/she said” cases.
“IMO” is blogging shorthand for “in my opinion.” When the blogger is feeling especially polite (or perhaps all-knowing), he or she may type “IMHO” for “in my humble opinion” or “IMNSHO” for “in my not so humble opinion.” There are many such shorthands that make typing (especially for a two-finger typist like me) a little easier–e.g., “BTW” for “by the way.” I didn’t know anything about this web lingo until my kids clued me in several years ago.
If you’re interested, here’s a link with a list of such terms:
http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm
A warning, however. Given the freedom of expression that pervades the web, some of the expressions reduced to shorthand are off color, to say the least. Thankfully, none of the posters at dotCommonweal ever make use of such offensive shorthand.
I thank Wiliam Collier for his cool and dispassionate appraisal of the post and article. It’s unfortunate that some continue to cry the heated (to use an expression kicked around here lately) and hyperbolic “witchhunt.’ (Those of us who’ve visited Salem and the local theatre there have seen a portrayal of awful injustice without eveidence leading to death).
Since NCR has been cited, I would note their editorial of the previous week to this article, viz. “Little Genuine Progress On Sex Abuse.”
The conclusion derves to be cited here in full:
“In the five years since Dallas, hundreds of US priests have been laicized or “removed from public ministry,” Not a single bishop -enabler, to our knowledge, has met a similar fate.We support “safe environment programs.” We agree that priest abusers should not have the opportunity to molest again, we appluad the consciousness raisin gthat has occurred.
But we contend that until individual bishops take responsibility for what occurred on their watch and tell the community, apart from grand jury investigations, what role the bishop played in transferring priests, countersuing victims and secretly tapping the trteasury to pay for silence, there will be no real justice or genuine progress.”
I think that gets the issue and the priority right! Unfortunately, i have little hope that will happen.
There is a moral dry rot about honesty and responsibility in these matters by hierarchs who like Rove and friends will fight subpeonas or like Wolfowitz bring in high powered attorneys so they can keep on doing what they think their job is. They are no better even if we might think the bishops” calling means something else. And they will use a modicum of truth to maintain the spin to continue
Perhaps an example of institutional sin due to fear of our bishops?
Yup.
I do not like that poor investigations are done or that a priest cannot know the name of his accuser.
But I understand why a bishop holds the name in confidence. There have been cases where the priest filed a civil defamation suit against the survivor, which alerted the parents of victims who were unaware of abuse. A survivor comes forward in confidence, but the only way the bishop can protect that confidentiality is not to reveal the identity to the accused – who might sue or do who knows what about it.
As for canon law, Rome deserves some censure because the Vatican refused to streamline procedures for bishops as they requested in 1989. They wanted their own administrative process or norms but were denied, because Rome was annoyed at the results of the separate norms created for marriage annulments. Too many annulments, so no special norms for sexual abusers. (Vows of Silence p. 64-67)
Those norms did come in 2002 though. Amazing what can happen after the facts are exposed. Same for the Dallas Charter: dioceses could not be bound by a national guideline, but suddenly it’s possible.
I do want fairness for priests, and Collier’s message about cases being handled on an individual basis is apt.
But do not insult my intelligence and reinstate a priest after determining that the groping of a minor was not done for purposes of sexual gratification – as happened in Houston in 2003.
In some ways we all suffer from the acute awareness we have of sexual abuse of minors. Children are the life of the world. This is why Jesus said: ” Of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
So it is terrible when people who genuionely love children have to be careful to moderattheir affection less someone suspect them of evil intentions. Too many priests refrain from hugging children for that reason.
Similarly, someone who has an ax to grind or who is a rejected lover might easily endanger the reputation of an innocent priest.
But what must be stressed and stressed is that priests have always had their advocates while the victims have just recently been given understanding and support where formerly there was contempt.
And I am ashamed of the fact that too many Catholics will not move to support Votf or Snap. Will Mark Sargent and those who support him tell us what they have done positively to help victims.
And there might good reason to believe that the only way real reform will come to the church is through Votf.
The victims road is still tenuous as stories crop up all the time to show this.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007704280338