 |
David
Clohessy is the St. Louis, Missouri-based national director and spokesman for
the Survivor's Network of those Abused by Priests, the largest and oldest
self-help group for victims of clergy molestation in the United States.
|
What
has Pope Francis really done to protect children and help survivors? David
Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP)
will tell you in this revealing Q&A (davidgclohessy@gmail.com)
Q
& A on Pope Francis and the abuse/cover up crisis by David Clohessy
Q:
Francis has done more about the abuse crisis than his predecessors. Isn't that encouraging?
A:
First, we should judge church officials NOT by what their terrible predecessors
did but by what responsible officials would do. It's little comfort to a girl
who's been raped under Francis to say "Well, under Benedict, there might
have been an even smaller chance of your predator being ousted."
Neither
Benedict nor Francis has exposed a single child molesting cleric or really
punished a single complicit church official. They've made lots of reassuring
talk but taken little meaningful action.
Q:
But several bishops have been forced out because of abuse. Isn't that good
news?
A:
We don't think this is true. A tiny handful of bishops (Finn in Kansas City,
Nienstedt and Piche in St. Paul) have resigned. Were they forced out? Who
knows. Continued Vatican secrecy means that no one can be sure whether they
were forced and if so, what the real reason or reasons might have been.
There's
nothing new about bishops resigning, while keeping their titles and paychecks
and honors. A pope firing bishops would be new. And it would deter wrongdoing.
But it didn't happen under Benedict and it isn't happening under Francis.
Q:
What about the Paraguay bishop? Francis ousted him.
A:
That's true. But within hours, the official papal spokesman said that this move
was NOT because the bishop mishandled abuse. (Bishop Rogelio Ricardo Livieres
Plano had promoted Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, who has been described by bishops
from Switzerland to Pennsylvania as 'dangerous,' 'abnormal,' and 'a serious
threat to young people' and against whom a $400,000 settlement was paid.)
The
bishop was ousted because he alienated his brother bishops, called them gay in
public, etc. (see:
http://www.snapnetwork.org/rome_evidence_suggests_bishop_not_ousted_due_to_abuse)
Q:
But three US bishops accused of concealing abuse have resigned just this year.
Isn't that progress?
A:
Again, not a single one of the world's 5,100 bishops found the courage to say
"Finn enabled abuse" or "Neinstedt endangered kids." That
would have been progress.
Real
progress will happen when 1) dozens of complicit bishops are openly defrocked,
demoted or at least disciplined and denounced, and 2) Catholic officials say –
clearly and publicly – that it's because they enabled or concealed child sex
crimes.
We're
glad these three aren't in office any more. Their resignations have temporarily
made some Catholics and victims feel better. Their resignations, however, are
not signs of reform. They are signs that these prelates are so clearly
discredited that the Vatican had no choice but to let them step down.
Q:What
about the new papal commission?
A:
Pete Saunders and Marie Collins are wonderful people. But this panel is based
on a deceptive premise: that Vatican officials must "learn more"
about abuse and cover up. They don't. They need courage, not information.
They've dealt with this crisis for centuries in private and for decades in
public. They know what to do.
This
panel perpetuates the self-serving myth that Catholic officials need more
information. What they need is courage. They usually refuse to do what's right
because they are monarchs and like their power and the status quo more than
anything else.
Over
the past 20 years, thousands of lay people, including dozens or hundreds of
clergy sex abuse victims, have sat or still sit on church abuse panels but
these panels have produced little if any real reform.
Q:
The first-ever Vatican criminal trial will happen soon involving the Polish
archbishop. Your thoughts?
A:
There is an open, impartial, time-tested process for adjudicating child sex
cases. It's called the secular justice system. That's where these cases belong,
not in some new, untested, biased, self-serving internal church process.
Catholic officials have always fought long and hard to keep child molesting
clerics out of the criminal process. This is just the latest iteration of that
dangerous pattern.
Q:
Francis set up a process to hold complicit bishops accountable. Isn't that
progress?
A:
No, he has not. He has SAID he'll set up a process. He hasn't done it yet. So
at best, this is yet another promise by yet another prelate about yet another
procedure that may never be used. And at worst, it's disingenuous.
Again,
every pope can oust any bishop for virtually any reason. Pope’s don’t need more
processes. (No new procedure was needed to get rid of the Bishop of Bling.)
If
history is any guide, this tribunal will likely (and grudgingly and belatedly)
be used once or twice – with great fanfare. Then, as public pressure wanes, it
will return to "business as usual." (see our June 10 statement on our
website)
We
believe thousands of Catholic officials are hiding predators, promoting
enablers, stonewalling police, destroying documents, deceiving parishioners and
playing legal hardball against survivors. So even if a handful of prelates are
disciplined, this is a tiny, tiny drop in an enormous ocean of corruption.
If
this new "process" results in dozens of complicit bishops being
ousted from office, we will be encouraged. But again, there is no shortage of
church processes and panels and procedures and protocols.
There
IS, however, a shortage of courage by church officials, who still refuse to use
the vast power they have to stop, expose and prevent clergy sex crimes and
cover ups.
Remember:
The pope has virtually limitless power. By now, he could have sacked dozens of
complicit bishops. He has, however, sacked no one. Nor has he demoted,
disciplined or denounced even one complicit church official – from Cardinal to
custodian, because of abuse cover ups. None of his predecessors did either.
So
in the face of this widespread denial, timidity and inaction, let's be prudent,
stay vigilant and withhold judgment until we see if and how this panel might
act.
Imagine
a huge oil company that had never disciplined a single manager and won't admit
it's drilling offshore. If it sets up an internal panel to recommend possible
manager discipline to its CEO, few would get excited.
That's
what we have here. Catholic officials have disciplined virtually no one for
ignoring, concealing or enabling abuse, anywhere on the planet. And Catholic
officials won't admit there are deliberate cover ups, instead disingenuously
claiming "mistakes," "oversights," and
"miscommunication." Not one Catholic official on the planet found the
courage to publicly blast Bishop Robert Finn of Missouri who was convicted of
withholding evidence of child sex crimes from the police, even though more kids
were hurt as a result of his law-breaking.
If
you can't properly name a crisis, you're likely unable to fix it.
Kids
need a courageous church culture, not another church committee. Kids need brave
behavior by church officials, not more bureaucracy. Kids need church members
and staff to bring evidence to prosecutors, not to Vatican officials.
Church
officials still fight civil lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, governmental
investigations and independent institutions like the United Nations. So at one
level, this looks again like an effort to stone-wall secular authorities,
saying "Back off. Go away. We're dealing with this internally."
Accountability
necessarily involves consequences for wrongdoers. Whether a new, untested,
Vatican-ruled process will mean consequences for wrongdoers remains to be seen.
This
move will give hope to some. But hope doesn't safeguard kids. Punishing men who
endanger kids.. That is not happening. And that must happen – soon – if the
church is to be safer.
Q:
What would you like to see Francis do?
A:
Turn over every document about clerics who commit and conceal child sex crimes
to law enforcement. Insist that bishops lobby for, not against, secular
legislative reforms to protect kids. And quickly, publicly and harshly fire
dozens of complicit bishops.
(Note:
on 3/7/13, we listed 20 steps Pope Francis should take in this crisis:
http://www.snapnetwork.org/rome_snap_s_20_steps_for_pope_francis
Put
the phrase "Francis should" – in quotes – in our website search box
and find 28 statements outlining what we'd like to see him do.)
With
lightning speed, Francis ousted a German bishop who mismanaged church money.
But with glacial speed, Francis ignores bishops who endanger children and
protect predators.
He's
making major strides in improving church finances, governance, and morale. But
he's posturing on abuse and cover ups. He's making nearly no meaningful strides
to actually prevent abuse and cover ups.
If
anything, Francis' popularity has perhaps made children more vulnerable in the
church, because so many people wrongly assume that since Francis seems to be an
activist, he must be taking action to stop abuse and cover ups. But he's not.
There
are few differences between popes John Paul II, Benedict and Francis. All three
apologized to and met with victims, only after horrific disclosures were made
that couldn't be ignored. All three, however, have refused to take proven steps
to expose those who commit or conceal clergy sex crimes. All three have
promoted priests and bishops who have protected predators and endangered kids.
Each
new pope has worked harder than his predecessor to convince parishioners, the
public and the press that he's "fixing" this crisis. But none of them
have taken the kind of clear, strong and decisive public steps needed to really
make a difference.
Thank
you, David for telling us how cruel, deceptive and ineffective the Pope really
is.
