Take Action
Take Action
Take Action
25 State Attorney Generals Investigating the Church
25 State Attorney Generals Investigating the Church
When the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report came out in August 2018, I called for action. What happened in Pennsylvania happens in every parish and community in America. I mobilized the SNAP network of survivors and supporters to immediately call for a grand jury in every state. The public outrage and the mobilizing efforts of the SNAP network compelled other states to begin their investigation. Presently there are 25 states investigating, most with hotlines.
When the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report came out in August 2018, I called for action. What happened in Pennsylvania happens in every parish and community in America. I mobilized the SNAP network of survivors and supporters to immediately call for a grand jury in every state. The public outrage and the mobilizing efforts of the SNAP network compelled other states to begin their investigation. Presently there are 25 states investigating, most with hotlines.
FBI Investigation
FBI Investigation
The FBI is actively interested in hearing from survivors of clergy sexual abuse. There are certain criteria that have to be met:
The FBI is actively interested in hearing from survivors of clergy sexual abuse. There are certain criteria that have to be met:
- Were under 18 at the time of the abuse,
- Were abused after November 29, 1985,
- Were born after 1978,
- The abuse involved inter-state or international travel, the production of pornography, or payments,
- The perpetrator is still alive.
- Were under 18 at the time of the abuse,
- Were abused after November 29, 1985,
- Were born after 1978,
- The abuse involved inter-state or international travel, the production of pornography, or payments,
- The perpetrator is still alive.
If you or someone you know matches these criteria, please either contact the FBI at (215) 521-3647 or contact SNAP and we will forward your complaint to our FBI contact for you.
FBI tells bishops to preserve documents.
If you or someone you know matches these criteria, please either contact the FBI at (215) 521-3647 or contact SNAP and we will forward your complaint to our FBI contact for you.
FBI tells bishops to preserve documents.
Bankruptcy and Compensation Plans
and Independent Reconciliation and Reparation Programs (IRRP)
There are benefits for survivors receiving awards through bankruptcy and compensation plans, however, there are major limitations. Below are some of the pros and cons of bankruptcy and negotiated awards through the bishop’s compensation.
Cons
1. It lets the Bishops off the hook for responsibility of decades long coverup of hundreds of child rapists and sexual abusers.
- there is no accountability; a perpetrator remains hidden and the coverup of bishops is not disclosed
- there is no public notification of disclosure of sexual predators as other victims may be unable to come forward. Example, a person comes into the compensation process with an accusation, but they are not aware that a dozen other victims have come forward to being abused by the same predator. The predator may remain in ministry. The bishops continue to hide predators and cover up their complicity in the rape and sexual abuse of the vulnerable, so the cover up continues.
2. There is no accountability under the rule of law.
- There is no discovery; no subpoena power
- There is no testimony under oath; question for bishop, “Did you destroy documents? Is this all the documents? Do you know of other cases of abuse by the same predator? Etc.” We saw in the PA grand jury report, in the coverup in Buffalo Diocese, and in the IL Attorney General investigation coverups of a grand scale by the bishops. We cannot trust the bishops to tell the truth. They have been covering up predators for decades.
3. There is no prosecution or consequence for perpetrators or the bishops who cover up for them.
4. Will the opt out in some of these plans hurt victims who did not make claims? What is they were ignorant of the claim or out of state? It appears it many are. Will this compensation program and process curtail, limit, or prohibit future civil and criminal action?
5. The church controls the information, so they control the process. They have the power. A victim comes into the process as an individual facing the largest institution in the world.
6. The bishops want to pay out money now rather than face the consequences of SOL reforms where they may face greater liability.
7. By making using this process they keep exposure of crimes restricted. They do not want the public disclosure of how much sexual abuse has happened and how bishops covered it up.
Pros
1. Not everyone is eligible for civil awards due to restrictions in SOL laws, with bankruptcy there is no statute of limitations so if abuse happend decades ago you can still file for a settlement.
2. Not everyone can endure a civil trial.
3. Not everyone can or wants to be public.
4. A solution for those that have no option which probably addresses most victims and survivors. Survivors in Montana or North Dakota, what options do they have?
5. Reconciliation programs have no nondisclosure agreements, which means that the victim can reveal the name of the abuser and the amount of the settlement, and some have, or have had their attorney do so. However, disclosures after the fact are rare.
Victims move across the country and are unaware of compensation funds. The US is a mobile society, we all move around. Even if notices were sent they will probably miss a sizable number of victims who never hear of the program because of geographic movement.
Other Elements & Demands For Bankruptcy And Compensation Plans
If there is going to be a bankruptcy/reconciliation/compensation approach it should:
- Be coupled with an enforceable representation that all files have been opened by a given diocese; testimony under oath, full discovery, and subpoena power
- Be overseen by a third party with legal authority unattached to the church
- Contain no confidentiality clauses
- Cause the perp’s name to be added to a national database of catholic abusers
- Provide a full work history of an abuser’s background
- Be advertised in each parish and diocese, nationally and internationally where the abuser worked or was assigned (this would include rehab assignments like St. Luke’s) and current status.
- Predators and those bishops who cover for them must be held accountable
And, if money is purportedly limited, then a diocese must pass a means test by providing an audited financial statement so that the public can be assured a given diocese is not shortchanging such a fund – that happens with bankruptcies.
The Oakland diocese had over $1 Billion in assets and no debt when the 2006 litigation against it (56 claims) was settled. They were crying poor until we published their asset list. The San Diego diocese declared bankruptcy. Advocates for survivors hired forensic accountants to comb through assets of the diocese and discovered hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden property.
Supporting Note by David Clohessy
Does the compensation program limit the ability of victims to file/claim in the future if they don’t participate now?
- The answer is YES. you don’t get a nickel unless you sign a legal document that precludes you from ever suing the church. . .
- And another HUGE con is that there’s no chance for discovery or depositions, so all the secrets remain secret (unlike in litigation)
- This ALSO means church officials can put perps back in ministry EVEN after paying victims, saying “these are two diff systems: the ‘determining credibility’ system and the ‘paying compensation’ system (see Fr. Timone case from three months ago in NYTimes.)
Here’s what BishopAccountability.org says about it: Timone was accused in 2002 and 2003 of abuse in the late 1960s-early 1970s of teenage boys he was counseling. Suspended while archdiocese investigated, then returned to ministry. One of his alleged victims died by suicide in 1/15. The subject of two IRCP settlements in 2017 related to the allegations. Allowed by the archdiocese to continue the public ministry. Suspended in 12/18 after publicity. NY archdiocesan review board to revisit the case. Had also been working at times as a chaplain, spiritual advisor and teacher at John Paul the Great Catholic University in CA, and assisting at a Rancho Santa Fe CA parish. The NY archdiocese told the University 12/18 that Timone had never been accused and was fit to serve, even though he was then being investigated. Longtime chaplain for Courage and Encourage International, an apostolate to help homosexuals “live chaste lives.”
Observation By Ray Drachman
A bankruptcy filing stops litigation. No more documents turned over to victims’ or their attorneys. No more depositions. No testimony in open court that reveals how much officials knew about abuse and how little they did to stop abuse. No more tough questions under oath. No more having to face a deeply wounded victim or victims across a conference room table or in a courthouse.
Bankruptcy and Compensation Plans
Bankruptcy and Compensation Plans
and Independent Reconciliation and Reparation Programs (IRRP)
and Independent Reconciliation and Reparation Programs (IRRP)
There are benefits for survivors receiving awards through bankruptcy and compensation plans, however, there are major limitations. Below are some of the pros and cons of bankruptcy and negotiated awards through the bishop’s compensation.
Cons
1. It lets the Bishops off the hook for responsibility of decades long coverup of hundreds of child rapists and sexual abusers.
- there is no accountability; a perpetrator remains hidden and the coverup of bishops is not disclosed
- there is no public notification of disclosure of sexual predators as other victims may be unable to come forward. Example, a person comes into the compensation process with an accusation, but they are not aware that a dozen other victims have come forward to being abused by the same predator. The predator may remain in ministry. The bishops continue to hide predators and cover up their complicity in the rape and sexual abuse of the vulnerable, so the cover up continues.
2. There is no accountability under the rule of law.
- There is no discovery; no subpoena power
- There is no testimony under oath; question for bishop, “Did you destroy documents? Is this all the documents? Do you know of other cases of abuse by the same predator? Etc.” We saw in the PA grand jury report, in the coverup in Buffalo Diocese, and in the IL Attorney General investigation coverups of a grand scale by the bishops. We cannot trust the bishops to tell the truth. They have been covering up predators for decades.
3. There is no prosecution or consequence for perpetrators or the bishops who cover up for them.
4. Will the opt out in some of these plans hurt victims who did not make claims? What is they were ignorant of the claim or out of state? It appears it many are. Will this compensation program and process curtail, limit, or prohibit future civil and criminal action?
5. The church controls the information, so they control the process. They have the power. A victim comes into the process as an individual facing the largest institution in the world.
6. The bishops want to pay out money now rather than face the consequences of SOL reforms where they may face greater liability.
7. By making using this process they keep exposure of crimes restricted. They do not want the public disclosure of how much sexual abuse has happened and how bishops covered it up.
Pros
1. Not everyone is eligible for civil awards due to restrictions in SOL laws, with bankruptcy there is no statute of limitations so if abuse happend decades ago you can still file for a settlement.
2. Not everyone can endure a civil trial.
3. Not everyone can or wants to be public.
4. A solution for those that have no option which probably addresses most victims and survivors. Survivors in Montana or North Dakota, what options do they have?
5. Reconciliation programs have no nondisclosure agreements, which means that the victim can reveal the name of the abuser and the amount of the settlement, and some have, or have had their attorney do so. However, disclosures after the fact are rare.
Victims move across the country and are unaware of compensation funds. The US is a mobile society, we all move around. Even if notices were sent they will probably miss a sizable number of victims who never hear of the program because of geographic movement.
Victims move across the country and are unaware of compensation funds. The US is a mobile society, we all move around. Even if notices were sent they will probably miss a sizable number of victims who never hear of the program because of geographic movement.
Other Elements & Demands For Bankruptcy And Compensation Plans
Other Elements & Demands For Bankruptcy And Compensation Plans
If there is going to be a bankruptcy/reconciliation/compensation approach it should:
- Be coupled with an enforceable representation that all files have been opened by a given diocese; testimony under oath, full discovery, and subpoena power
- Be overseen by a third party with legal authority unattached to the church
- Contain no confidentiality clauses
- Cause the perp’s name to be added to a national database of catholic abusers
- Provide a full work history of an abuser’s background
- Be advertised in each parish and diocese, nationally and internationally where the abuser worked or was assigned (this would include rehab assignments like St. Luke’s) and current status.
- Predators and those bishops who cover for them must be held accountable
And, if money is purportedly limited, then a diocese must pass a means test by providing an audited financial statement so that the public can be assured a given diocese is not shortchanging such a fund – that happens with bankruptcies.
The Oakland diocese had over $1 Billion in assets and no debt when the 2006 litigation against it (56 claims) was settled. They were crying poor until we published their asset list. The San Diego diocese declared bankruptcy. Advocates for survivors hired forensic accountants to comb through assets of the diocese and discovered hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden property.
Supporting Note by David Clohessy
Supporting Note by David Clohessy
Does the compensation program limit the ability of victims to file/claim in the future if they don’t participate now?
- The answer is YES. you don’t get a nickel unless you sign a legal document that precludes you from ever suing the church. . .
- And another HUGE con is that there’s no chance for discovery or depositions, so all the secrets remain secret (unlike in litigation)
- This ALSO means church officials can put perps back in ministry EVEN after paying victims, saying “these are two diff systems: the ‘determining credibility’ system and the ‘paying compensation’ system (see Fr. Timone case from three months ago in NYTimes.)
Here’s what BishopAccountability.org says about it: Timone was accused in 2002 and 2003 of abuse in the late 1960s-early 1970s of teenage boys he was counseling. Suspended while archdiocese investigated, then returned to ministry. One of his alleged victims died by suicide in 1/15. The subject of two IRCP settlements in 2017 related to the allegations. Allowed by the archdiocese to continue the public ministry. Suspended in 12/18 after publicity. NY archdiocesan review board to revisit the case. Had also been working at times as a chaplain, spiritual advisor and teacher at John Paul the Great Catholic University in CA, and assisting at a Rancho Santa Fe CA parish. The NY archdiocese told the University 12/18 that Timone had never been accused and was fit to serve, even though he was then being investigated. Longtime chaplain for Courage and Encourage International, an apostolate to help homosexuals “live chaste lives.”
Observation By Ray Drachman
Observation By Ray Drachman
A bankruptcy filing stops litigation. No more documents turned over to victims’ or their attorneys. No more depositions. No testimony in open court that reveals how much officials knew about abuse and how little they did to stop abuse. No more tough questions under oath. No more having to face a deeply wounded victim or victims across a conference room table or in a courthouse.
Releasing Names, Credible Accusations, and the Church Review Board
What is Credible? Why is the Church Releasing Names Now?
A bankruptcy filing stops litigation. No more documents turned over to victims’ or their attorneys. No more depositions. No testimony in open court that reveals how much officials knew about abuse and how little they did to stop abuse. No more tough questions under oath. No more having to face a deeply wounded victim or victims across a conference room table or in a courthouse.
The bishops only release these names as they are under duress because of the exposure of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury, the investigation of the Illinois Attorney General, and public outrage. They did not release names because of any moral compass. Rather they were compelled to do so.
Please note the grand church reform creating a reporting of sexual abuse, the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, enacted in 2003, was the result of the publication of the crimes committed in Boston by Catholic clergy and exposed by the Boston Globe Spotlight investigation. Again, the Church officials were compelled to reform because of the exposure of widespread sexual abuse, not any moral compass.
Keep in mind the Church officials should have released these names a year ago, five years ago, ten years ago. Why were they hiding these predators?
The Impact of Releasing Names
Naming names can help a victim by providing a public acknowledgment of an abuser. The abuser is named. It can provide an opportunity for a victim to tell a family member, a close friend, a counselor. It can help a victim understand that they are not alone, that it is not their fault. Publishing the names helps to rid our culture of the harmful ideology of placing blame, guilt, and shame on a victim. So, releasing the names can serve as a beneficial service to your community, and especially victims.
And, releasing the names provides an opportunity for those victims whose abuser is not listed to come forward and name the crime and the criminal.
Releasing the names is a small step in comparison to the responsibility of the Diocese to reach out to every parish, every victim and offer support, help, and comfort.
We rely on civil society to protect its citizens. Here is our listing of twenty-four states taking on investigations of the church. We can’t rely on the church to tell the truth. We can’t rely of the church investigating itself.
Limitations of Diocese Releasing Names
And they release a minimal amount of information to hide the extent of not what is helpful for the community or the well-being of victims. Here is a quote of importance: “If your goal is protecting kids and healing victims, your lists will be as broad and detailed as possible. If your goal is protecting your reputation and institution, it will be narrow and vague. And that’s the choice most bishops are making,” said David Clohessy, the former executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, who now heads the SNAP St. Louis chapter.
Releasing the names is a small step in comparison to the responsibility of the Diocese to reach out to every parish, every victim and offer support, help, and comfort. Releasing the names also provides an opportunity for those victims whose abuser is not listed to come forward and name the crime and the criminal.
Problems with Current Releasing of Names
- When the Diocese releases its list, it must be complete. It must include those clergy abusers who are women religious, i.e., nuns. Nuns abuse as well. And those minors and adults who were abused.
- The disclosure must include the many religious order priests such as the Jesuits, Franciscans, Salesians, Christian Brothers, etc., who minister or teach in the Diocese. They must be included—most bishops will not include these abusers. Their excuses for this exclusion are self-serving and vapid.
- Some dioceses do not list the names of deceased clergy.
- Some dioceses do not list names of clergy who were abused in other dioceses and moved to current dioceses.
- The cover-up continues until they are exposed. The hundred or so bishops only release these names as they are under duress for the exposure of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury and the investigation of the Illinois Attorney General. The cover up is systematic with all bishops. See Buffalo.
- Recently the church has embarked on various ‘compensation’ plans and bankruptcy plans. Here the church controls the information and holds the power. Sure, some victims are helped but the names of the abusers remain hidden and secret. And too many victims are excluded due to the church’s denial because they deem the accusation ‘not credible.’ This mechanism hides more abusers. (Please keep in mind when a courageous victim comes forward many others come forward as well. For instance, when I came public, fifteen of my classmates came forward as being abused by the same predator. Or note when the victims of Nassar, or Weinstein, or Cosby, where one victim steps forward hundred other victims also step forward.) So, hiding clergy abusers by Church officials limits other victims from stepping forward.
We rely on civil society to protect its citizens. Here is our listing of twenty states taking on investigations of the church. We can’t rely on the church to tell the truth.
Naming names can help a victim by providing a public acknowledgment of an abuser. It can provide an opportunity for a victim to tell a family member, a close friend, a counselor. It can help a victim understand that they are not alone, that it is not their fault. Publishing the names helps to rid our culture of the harmful ideology of placing blame, guilt, and shame on a victim. So, releasing the names can serve as a beneficial service to your community, and especially victims.
Releasing Names, Credible Accusations, and the Church Review Board
Releasing Names, Credible Accusations, and the Church Review Board
What is Credible? Why is the Church Releasing Names Now?
What is Credible? Why is the Church Releasing Names Now?
A bankruptcy filing stops litigation. No more documents turned over to victims’ or their attorneys. No more depositions. No testimony in open court that reveals how much officials knew about abuse and how little they did to stop abuse. No more tough questions under oath. No more having to face a deeply wounded victim or victims across a conference room table or in a courthouse.
The bishops only release these names as they are under duress because of the exposure of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury, the investigation of the Illinois Attorney General, and public outrage. They did not release names because of any moral compass. Rather they were compelled to do so.
Please note the grand church reform creating a reporting of sexual abuse, the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, enacted in 2003, was the result of the publication of the crimes committed in Boston by Catholic clergy and exposed by the Boston Globe Spotlight investigation. Again, the Church officials were compelled to reform because of the exposure of widespread sexual abuse, not any moral compass.
Keep in mind the Church officials should have released these names a year ago, five years ago, ten years ago. Why were they hiding these predators?
The Impact of Releasing Names
The Impact of Releasing Names
Naming names can help a victim by providing a public acknowledgment of an abuser. The abuser is named. It can provide an opportunity for a victim to tell a family member, a close friend, a counselor. It can help a victim understand that they are not alone, that it is not their fault. Publishing the names helps to rid our culture of the harmful ideology of placing blame, guilt, and shame on a victim. So, releasing the names can serve as a beneficial service to your community, and especially victims.
And, releasing the names provides an opportunity for those victims whose abuser is not listed to come forward and name the crime and the criminal.
Releasing the names is a small step in comparison to the responsibility of the Diocese to reach out to every parish, every victim and offer support, help, and comfort.
We rely on civil society to protect its citizens. Here is our listing of twenty-four states taking on investigations of the church. We can’t rely on the church to tell the truth. We can’t rely of the church investigating itself.
Limitations of Dioceses Releasing Names
Limitations of Dioceses Releasing Names
And they release a minimal amount of information to hide the extent of not what is helpful for the community or the well-being of victims. Here is a quote of importance: “If your goal is protecting kids and healing victims, your lists will be as broad and detailed as possible. If your goal is protecting your reputation and institution, it will be narrow and vague. And that’s the choice most bishops are making,” said David Clohessy, the former executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, who now heads the SNAP St. Louis chapter.
Releasing the names is a small step in comparison to the responsibility of the Diocese to reach out to every parish, every victim and offer support, help, and comfort. Releasing the names also provides an opportunity for those victims whose abuser is not listed to come forward and name the crime and the criminal.
Problems with Current Releasing of Names
Problems with Current Releasing of Names
- When the Diocese releases its list, it must be complete. It must include those clergy abusers who are women religious, i.e., nuns. Nuns abuse as well. And those minors and adults who were abused.
- The disclosure must include the many religious order priests such as the Jesuits, Franciscans, Salesians, Christian Brothers, etc., who minister or teach in the Diocese. They must be included—most bishops will not include these abusers. Their excuses for this exclusion are self-serving and vapid.
- Some dioceses do not list the names of deceased clergy.
- Some dioceses do not list names of clergy who were abused in other dioceses and moved to current dioceses.
- The cover-up continues until they are exposed. The hundred or so bishops only release these names as they are under duress for the exposure of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury and the investigation of the Illinois Attorney General. The cover up is systematic with all bishops. See Buffalo.
- Recently the church has embarked on various ‘compensation’ plans and bankruptcy plans. Here the church controls the information and holds the power. Sure, some victims are helped but the names of the abusers remain hidden and secret. And too many victims are excluded due to the church’s denial because they deem the accusation ‘not credible.’ This mechanism hides more abusers. (Please keep in mind when a courageous victim comes forward many others come forward as well. For instance, when I came public, fifteen of my classmates came forward as being abused by the same predator. Or note when the victims of Nassar, or Weinstein, or Cosby, where one victim steps forward hundred other victims also step forward.) So, hiding clergy abusers by Church officials limits other victims from stepping forward.
We rely on civil society to protect its citizens. Here is our listing of twenty states taking on investigations of the church. We can’t rely on the church to tell the truth.
Naming names can help a victim by providing a public acknowledgment of an abuser. It can provide an opportunity for a victim to tell a family member, a close friend, a counselor. It can help a victim understand that they are not alone, that it is not their fault. Publishing the names helps to rid our culture of the harmful ideology of placing blame, guilt, and shame on a victim. So, releasing the names can serve as a beneficial service to your community, and especially victims.
Credible Accusations
Remember the use of “credible accusation” is a church term they constructed. It has no legal meaning. It can mean something different to every bishop.
- One bishop declined to remove a priest because he abused a girl who was sixteen but canon law (at the time—I think it has been increased to eighteen now) said that fourteen was adulthood so no abuse. Therefore, no report to the police and no credible accusation was advanced.
- Recently, the Sioux City Diocese (where I was abused) said that nun abuse did not fit into their definition of abuse and therefore was not credible. Here is a letter from a victim in the Sioux City Diocese telling me:
" . . . said that the authority of the Review Board is limited to PRIESTLY SEXUAL MISCONDUCT!!!! So he won’t be able to include me or my report on their Diocesan List. But, the good man, will propose to their wonderful Review Board, that a paragraph be added to the statement preceding the link to that list, acknowledging the fact that there was 'abuse committed by members of their religious communities working in their diocese and there are victims who are not included on their list.'"
- Also, in Sioux City, the church defines ‘credible.” The church received an accusation from a child, the diocese attorney interviewed the mother and not the child, who said there was no abuse. So, no report to the police, no investigation, and the accusation were deemed not credible!
- Many bishops will not define sexual abuse of adults or other vulnerable persons as ‘credible.’ This can include those seeking counseling from a priest, military personnel, disabled, etc.
We cannot condemn ‘credible accusations’ as there is no alternative. If weak criminal and civil child protection laws exist, and weak SOL laws, then there is no legal alternative. So, survivors are left with exposing the predator. Sometimes the church agrees and labels the accusation ‘credible.’ In which case, we have a public acknowledgment.
Some used “substantiated allegations,” and “established allegations.”
Criteria for Releasing Names
- Release the names of all those clergy (priests, monks, bishops, nuns) who have worked in the diocese. Those who are convicted, admitted guilt, credible accusations, etc.
- Release the names of all the visiting and religious order priests who have served in the diocese. Most times the bishops fail to list the Jesuits, Salesians, Christian Brothers, who taught or ministered in the diocese.
- Description of the accusations. Number of accusations
- Present status, defrocked/laicized, retired, on leave, etc.
- Present status, location
- Oversight, such as group home, of those who have abused.
Civil Society, not the Church gives full accounting of the sexual abuse in the Church. See for example the amazing work of Bishop Accountability who has documented sexual abuse around the world. Their database documents over 7,000 clergy predators in the USA!
Credible Accusations
Credible Accusations
Remember the use of “credible accusation” is a church term they constructed. It has no legal meaning. It can mean something different to every bishop.
- One bishop declined to remove a priest because he abused a girl who was sixteen but canon law (at the time—I think it has been increased to eighteen now) said that fourteen was adulthood so no abuse. Therefore, no report to the police and no credible accusation was advanced.
- Recently, the Sioux City Diocese (where I was abused) said that nun abuse did not fit into their definition of abuse and therefore was not credible. Here is a letter from a victim in the Sioux City Diocese telling me:
" . . . said that the authority of the Review Board is limited to PRIESTLY SEXUAL MISCONDUCT!!!! So he won’t be able to include me or my report on their Diocesan List. But, the good man, will propose to their wonderful Review Board, that a paragraph be added to the statement preceding the link to that list, acknowledging the fact that there was 'abuse committed by members of their religious communities working in their diocese and there are victims who are not included on their list.'"
- Also, in Sioux City, the church defines ‘credible.” The church received an accusation from a child, the diocese attorney interviewed the mother and not the child, who said there was no abuse. So, no report to the police, no investigation, and the accusation were deemed not credible!
- Many bishops will not define sexual abuse of adults or other vulnerable persons as ‘credible.’ This can include those seeking counseling from a priest, military personnel, disabled, etc.
We cannot condemn ‘credible accusations’ as there is no alternative. If weak criminal and civil child protection laws exist, and weak SOL laws, then there is no legal alternative. So, survivors are left with exposing the predator. Sometimes the church agrees and labels the accusation ‘credible.’ In which case, we have a public acknowledgment.
Some used “substantiated allegations,” and “established allegations.”
Criteria for Releasing Names
Criteria for Releasing Names
- Release the names of all those clergy (priests, monks, bishops, nuns) who have worked in the diocese. Those who are convicted, admitted guilt, credible accusations, etc.
- Release the names of all the visiting and religious order priests who have served in the diocese. Most times the bishops fail to list the Jesuits, Salesians, Christian Brothers, who taught or ministered in the diocese.
- Description of the accusations. Number of accusations
- Present status, defrocked/laicized, retired, on leave, etc.
- Present status, location
- Oversight, such as group home, of those who have abused.
Civil Society, not the Church gives full accounting of the sexual abuse in the Church. See for example the amazing work of Bishop Accountability who has documented sexual abuse around the world. Their database documents over 7,000 clergy predators in the USA!
Review Boards - Who Decides Credibility of Accusations?
Lastly, the diocesan review board is a sham. It is created by the bishop and serves him. They are not independent. They merely advise the bishop who approves, or not, any finding they may come up with.
The first national Catholic review board chairman was Frank Keating was a former FBI agent and governor of Oklahoma. He quit after a couple of months saying that the national review board was useless. Here is Wikipedia selection on Keating and the Catholic review board:
June 2002: Keating, a practicing Roman Catholic, was named chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops National Review Board examining sex abuse by Catholic priests.
June 16, 2003: Keatingstepped down from the Review Board. The resignation came days after Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony criticized Keating for comparing some church leaders to the Mafia. In his resignation letter, Keating said, “My remarks, which some Bishops found offensive, were deadly accurate. I make no apology…. To resist Grand Jury subpoenas, to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain away; that is the model of a criminal organization, not my church.”
(Anecdotes concerning the review board. Jim Jenkins was on the S.F. Archdiocese review board and got disgusted and left. Joelle Casteix mentioned that when she took victim calls for the diocese, she found out later that none of them were referred to the review board.
A victim who was raped and sexually abused in the San Francisco Archdiocese was told that the Statute of Limitation (SOL) law prohibited reporting to the police, but was not true. The Church strung her along until the SOL did run out. She had received limited support until the SOL expired; she lost her ability to achieve justice.
Most survivors, dozens, maybe hundreds have told us that the review board is worthless. They say, that contacting the church leads to re-abuse. The church officials deny, dismiss, and ignore complaints. They protract conversations, and limited benefits, to time out so that SOL laws expire. Many times, they will give support to therapy to only ‘authorized’ therapists. Some demand periodic and detailed reports on the therapy of victims. Or they will give therapy support for a year when the victim needs a lifetime of help and support. Keep in mind only a small percentage of victims ever come forward.
Review Boards - Who Decides Credibility of Accusations?
Review Boards - Who Decides Credibility of Accusations?
Lastly, the diocesan review board is a sham. It is created by the bishop and serves him. They are not independent. They merely advise the bishop who approves, or not, any finding they may come up with.
The first national Catholic review board chairman was Frank Keating was a former FBI agent and governor of Oklahoma. He quit after a couple of months saying that the national review board was useless. Here is Wikipedia selection on Keating and the Catholic review board:
June 2002: Keating, a practicing Roman Catholic, was named chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops National Review Board examining sex abuse by Catholic priests.
June 16, 2003: Keatingstepped down from the Review Board. The resignation came days after Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony criticized Keating for comparing some church leaders to the Mafia. In his resignation letter, Keating said, “My remarks, which some Bishops found offensive, were deadly accurate. I make no apology…. To resist Grand Jury subpoenas, to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain away; that is the model of a criminal organization, not my church.”
(Anecdotes concerning the review board. Jim Jenkins was on the S.F. Archdiocese review board and got disgusted and left. Joelle Casteix mentioned that when she took victim calls for the diocese, she found out later that none of them were referred to the review board.
A victim who was raped and sexually abused in the San Francisco Archdiocese was told that the Statute of Limitation (SOL) law prohibited reporting to the police, but was not true. The Church strung her along until the SOL did run out. She had received limited support until the SOL expired; she lost her ability to achieve justice.
Most survivors, dozens, maybe hundreds have told us that the review board is worthless. They say, that contacting the church leads to re-abuse. The church officials deny, dismiss, and ignore complaints. They protract conversations, and limited benefits, to time out so that SOL laws expire. Many times, they will give support to therapy to only ‘authorized’ therapists. Some demand periodic and detailed reports on the therapy of victims. Or they will give therapy support for a year when the victim needs a lifetime of help and support. Keep in mind only a small percentage of victims ever come forward.
