What Impedes the Revelation of the Truth?

By Jim Connell
Catholic Whistleblowers
August 7, 2013

http://www.catholicwhistleblowers.org/Thoughts.htm#Butler_Victims

What stops the bishops from providing thorough explanations and detailed information about the clergy sexual abuse crisis confronting the Church? Here are my top five picks.

1. The Cardinals’ Oath. This is an oath taken by each new cardinal as he is about to receive his red biretta. For example, here is a key portion of that Oath (printed pages 20-21) as spoken by Cardinal Timothy Dolan and 21 other new cardinals on February 18, 2012: “I, N., Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear, from this day forth and as long as I live ….. not to make known to anyone matters entrusted to me in confidence, the disclosure of which could bring damage or dishonor to the Holy Church …..”

Surely, this oath contributes to the crisis. In other words, if the cardinals promise to be silent, and if other bishops follow their example, can truth and justice ever be served? Can this crisis ever be resolved? Also, do all bishops take an oath similar to the Cardinals’ Oath? Secrecy must not reign. The Pope needs to release the cardinals from this oath and secrecy, and require them and all the bishops to speak the complete truth.

2. Attorney-Client Privilege. At least by the late 1980s bishops were becoming aware of an increasing number of allegations against priests. So, what advice did the attorneys give? Did they help to shape the strategies used by bishops.

The attorney-client privilege means that an attorney cannot divulge information provided by a client. But, the client holds the privilege and can waive the privilege, thus releasing the attorney from that restriction, either totally or partially. Consequently, if each diocesan bishop would waive the privilege in respect to clergy sexual abuse, the attorney for the diocese and the attorney’s firm would be free to speak about the advice that was given when the first cases of clergy sexual abuse were brought to the attention of the attorney or the firm, as well as regarding cases in more current times.

What did the attorneys say? Did they inform the bishops that these actions were crimes and that the police should be notified? We need to know what the attorneys said. It’s a major part of the needed and yet-to-be-told truth.

3. Embarrassment and loss of reputation. All too frequently, victims/survivors and their supporters were not believed, traumatized, and regarded as the ones having done wrong. But, the victims are the victims! They were sexually assaulted by priests. They loved the Church and were involved in the Church, which is why they were available to be preyed upon. Why, therefore, this reaction by so many Church leaders? Why hide the truth and be so defensive? As one parishioner asked me: “Father, how much worse can the truth be as compared to what our minds dream up as our imaginations run wild?” So, what’s under the lid? What’s the secret?

Could what is under the lid and remaining sealed in the secrecy of embarrassment and loss of reputation actually be additional scandal: scandal involving bishops, priests, and lay persons; scandal involving civic leaders; scandal involving the use of Church funds? But, who knows for sure just what is under the lid? Whatever it is, it must be very embarrassing because the bishops in the United States have spent billions of dollars and yet have not resolved the crisis.

I am reminded of the report concerning the priests’ sexual abuse crisis in the Archdiocese of Dublin (Ireland). In July 2009, a Commission of Investigation headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy issued a Report into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. In Chapter 1 of this report, Section 1.15 states, “The Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.”

Obviously, “what’s under the lid?” is a global question needing immediate papal intervention.

4. “The love of money is the root of all evils” (1 Tim. 6:10). Money itself is neutral; it can be used in good ways or it can be used in bad ways. The love of money is greed. Under the guise of a “fiduciary responsibility” which is only part of justice, not the whole of justice because the common good also must be considered, the clergy sexual abuse crisis frequently was addressed by Church leaders, especially in the early years of the crisis, with pragmatic approaches to protect money and reputations, rather than with pastoral approaches of listening to those involved, welcoming the truth, and requiring justice.

Indeed, the pragmatic approaches used were not relational involvements that would foster healing. Rather, from the moment that the first crimes of clergy sexual abuse became public, the chores of public relations seem to have prevailed over pastoral care and the details of civil and church law. Saint Paul is correct, “the love of money is the root of all evils”. It can even quiet voices that should be public and vocal explaining the truth, such as those of the bishops.

5. Mental reservation [“I did not lie; it was a mental reservation”]. On February 9, 2012, I was in a federal bankruptcy courtroom in Milwaukee, attending a hearing concerning the Archdiocese of Milwaukee’s Chapter 11 reorganization petition that had been filed in January 2011.

At one point the judge called for a recess. While I was standing in the corridor, a victim/survivor asked me to explain what the Church means by the term “mental reservation”. I explained that the term refers to speaking words that are literally true, but when spoken within a specific context would be understood by the listener to mean something other than the literal meaning of the words.

However, if the “mental reservation” deliberately deceives and deprives one of information to which there is a right, then the “mental reservation” would be a lie, a sin, violent, and destructive of society. It would not contribute to a relational involvement that would foster healing.

Only a few minutes later a different victim/survivor also asked me to explain the term “mental reservation”. I had not thought of that term for many years, and now two people asked me to explain it within minutes of each other. Why? Is “mental reservation” a technique used by some Church leaders to deceive victims/survivors? Remember that Jesus taught “let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Anything more is from the evil one” (Mt. 5:37).