Spotlight Review by Professor David O'brien

David O'Brien
November 27, 2015

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTrackerArchive/2015/11/#123240

[note: This article does not link to a web site.]

David O’Brien is Loyola Professor of Catholic Studies Emeritus, College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass.

“Spotlight” brings well-deserved honor to the Boston Globe editors and reporters who in 2002 broke open the crimes of sex abuse by Boston priests and cover-ups by Boston’s Archbishop. The issue of clerical sex abuse first surfaced with a 1984 case in Louisiana. Slowly victims and a handful of victim advocates exposed one after another local case until the Globe exploded the issue. In the months that followed investigative reporters, district attorneys and grand juries, and victims and their attorneys, forced the release of evidence of horrific crimes and cover-ups across the country. As the recent resignations of bishops in Kansas City and St Paul make clear, that process of exposure, disgrace, delayed financial and criminal accountability, and stubborn efforts to protect bishops, is far from over.

The Catholic priests and people of Boston can share only a little of the honor that comes with recognition of the Globe’s good work. A small group of Boston priests helped bring about the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law, but most priests, and clerical organizations, kept silent. The most effective organization of victims, featured in the film, Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) found leadership from victims in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Worcester journalist Kathy Shaw developed a national archive of documentation and Boston activists sustained that important work with Bishop Accountability. But these and other advocacy groups received little financial support from Catholics and even less political support when they asked legislatures to modify statutes of limitation. They still render great service but, lacking popular support, they remain far outside the life and work of the organized American church.

But in 2002 ordinary church-going Boston Catholics did respond to the Spotlight report. Led by Catholics in Wellesley they launched Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), hoping to organize Catholics to support victims, affirm good priests, and work for reform in the Church. A July, 2002, Boston rally drew thousands to Hynes Auditorium and, helped by national publicity, local groups appeared in cities across the country. Under pressure from the media, the Bishops adopted a new “zero tolerance” policy and appointed a National Review Board of prominent lay Catholics. New advisory boards were set up in many dioceses as well.

But in Boston and elsewhere the Bishops ignored, at best, Voice of the Faithful, drew back from their earlier efforts to build parish and diocesan structures of shared responsibility, and carefully limited to work of the new advisory bodies. The diocesan abuse committees would help construct policies to protect children and, at the Bishop’s discretion, they might offer advice on new charges of abuse. But rarely if ever were they granted access to older files, older court cases, legislative strategies or strategies for dealing with grand juries, civil suits or financial payoffs. They reported to the Bishop, who reported to other Bishops, but rarely if ever did they see fit to report to the public. The National Review Board did much better, overseeing a flawed but helpful study of the scope of the problem and independently exploring it’s “causes and context”. In 2004 they issued two reports. One, detailing the extent of the problem, was widely reported. The second, a preliminary suggestion of causes and consequences in need of further study, was almost totally ignored. New national Review Board members decided to direct their attention to child protection; they took little interest in causes and consequences. No one asked them to do more.

Of course Catholic lay leaders responded generously when asked for help, as they did in Boston when Sean O’Malley arrived to replace Cardinal Law. Boston College alumnus Geoffrey Boisi gathered prominent business and professional leaders to offer advice on request on matters of church management. But the vast majority of priests, religious and laity declined to join or support independent groups like SNAP and VOTF and very rarely took any interest in monitoring new committees or new policies. Liberal Catholics offered kind words but little else; their attitude was captured by a magazine cover of a big ear with the banner “Are the Bishops Listening?” Conservatives helped the bishops shape an official narrative that blamed abuse on secularism and sexual permissiveness and praised the Church for its new found openness and care for children and their families. The Bishops were listening alright, but not to voices calling for reform, for there weren’t any they needed to listen to.

What might have been done? Priests associations, lay people serving on church committees, and professionals employed by the Church might have monitored the work of the national and local review boards. They might have asked those committees to report to the public and answer questions about their access to information and their role in decisions. Religious orders of priests should have let the public know that they were not covered by the new policies and established their own transparent review boards—and used their independence to push for reform. Instead of listening to mean-spirited attacks on trial lawyers assisting victims, Catholics might have organized attorneys to offer free or low cost assistance. Small advocacy groups could have been available to raise the costs if church leaders penalized employees who told the truth. Catholic colleges and universities, far more independent than other Catholic institutions, could have highlighted the problems of clericalism, misuse of authority and sheer ignorance opened by the National Review Board’s 2004 report. To its credit Boston College has tried to create forums for discussion of serious problems in the Church, though like other Catholic institutions it seems paralyzed when dealing with the fallout from the scandal.

A few weeks after the Spotlight team’s report of January, 2002, a great Boston priest predicted that “first there will be the explosion, then the erosion”. So it has been. What he could not have predicted is the almost universal denial of responsibility. Perhaps “Spotlight” will encourage Catholics who love the Church to think again, as they did in 2002, about what should be done.

“Spotlight” deserves the high praise of reviewer Maurice Timothy Reidy. He thoughtfully reflects that "the abuse scandal is something that all Catholics have to recon with" and the film "in its own way calls on all Catholics to take responsibility for the church". A few Catholics tried hard to do just that, notably through Voice of the Faithful. Not only did bishops refuse offers to help but very few American Catholic priests, religious or laity moved from anguish to action. Few sent checks and even fewer organized to support victims and demand change. By February, 2004, when the first National Review Board offered a preliminary agenda for reform, no one noticed. Change came mostly from the work of victims and their advocates, district attorneys and grand juries. With very few exceptions Catholic journalists asked almost no hard questions, priests councils and religious orders were silent, and Catholics employed by the church and church-related institutions like universities did next to nothing. The bishops, with the help of invited, confidential advisers, were allowed to shape the post-Spotlight story. To their credit they have adopted policies that will limit future abuse. They have also carefully limited the role of local and national advisory bodies and easily diverted attention from what the first Review Board called “causes and context” to which we could add consequences. Internal church issues, even issues of massive irresponsibility and near universal denial, much less problem of “erosion” that followed the 2002 Boston “explosion” (to use the words of a prominent Boston priest), are of interest to few people. Mr. Reidy properly thinks Catholics should take responsibility for their Church but, as a wonderful Jesuit replied when asked about that: “But Dave, they won’t let you!”

So far that seems to be the final word.