Review of Catholic Church in Colorado is miserably weak

By Quentin Young
Daily Camera
March 23, 2019

https://bit.ly/2CzCcNJ

Archbishop Samuel Aquila speaks on Feb. 19 in Denver as Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser stands by during a press conference to address sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Photo by AAron Ontiveroz

The Colorado attorney general and Catholic Church last month announced an agreement that established an inquiry into allegations of sexual abuse of children by clergy. This is Colorado's contribution to a broader search for truth that's occurring in states across the country. In some states, law enforcement officials are aggressively pursuing relevant information, but that's not happening in Colorado. In fact, the terms of the agreement are so favorable to the church and so incommensurate to the gravity of crimes uncovered in numerous other dioceses that it's doubtful to result in an honest account of abuses that took place in Colorado.

The agreement between Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and the state's three archdioceses sets up an "independent review" conducted by a so-called special master, a position that was assigned to former Colorado U.S. Attorney Robert Troyer. Troyer is charged with reviewing diocesan files and records, which the church has agreed to make available for the review, and he's supposed to complete by Oct. 1 a report that describes substantiated allegations of abuse.

The shortcomings of the arrangement are numerous.

First, the "independent review" is not altogether independent. In the language of the agreement itself the review was established "in the spirit of compromise and cooperation." That's the opposite of independent. Troyer will be required to meet with church representatives at least once a month to update them on his progress. Before he issues his final report, Troyer must submit a draft of the document to the church, whose officials will have the opportunity to suggest changes. An investigatory entity that consults with the subject of its investigation and grants the subject influence over findings cannot claim impartiality.

The agreement is miserably weak on compliance. It says Troyer will have unfettered access to all relevant church files and records, but he will not have subpoena power. And the church is entitled to withhold documents it deems "privileged," such as attorney-client communications and "work product." It's not clear that the church, at least within the scope of the agreement, would suffer any repercussions were it to keep secret those documents that Troyer is entitled to see. And anyway the terms give the church the right, upon written notice, to walk away from the agreement whenever it wants.

The agreement is full of loopholes. The most glaring is that it applies only to diocesan clergy while excluding religious-order clergy. Jesuit and Franciscan clergy, for example, are not included. As noted in a recent Denver Post story, nine of 28 priests and brothers — roughly a third — who during the last 70 years have been publicly accused of sexually abusing children are non-diocesan priests. That's a big blind spot. Another is that, absent additional evidence, the review will dismiss any allegation if it was made after the accused priest died. That creates enormous potential for credible allegations to be disqualified, given that the review period goes back to 1950.

It's useful to recall why we're talking about an inquiry into the Catholic Church in the first place. The church virtually everywhere it has ministered across the globe has seen its clergy accused of sexual abuse against minors, as has been revealed since at least 2002, when the Boston Globe in a series of stories exposed not only abusive clergy but also cover-ups by the church. In 2014 the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child released a scathing report that described "clerics having been involved in the sexual abuse of tens of thousands of children worldwide." Last August, a Pennsylvania grand jury released a report that said about 300 priests had sexually abused more than 1,000 children in that state. The Washington Post columnist George Will recently contemplated whether "the Catholic Church committed the worst crime in U.S. history," and he noted that "nationwide stonewalling and cover-up continue by the church."

The scale of abuse is hard to fathom. And the response of church leaders is almost as unconscionable as the sexual crimes they persistently try to cover up. After decades of attempts by the church to shield accused abusers and protect church power, any investigatory collaboration with it is ludicrous. "'Do not trust the church' about voluntarily surrendering archives," Will wrote, quoting Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro. Colorado didn't get the message.

The shocking Pennsylvania grand jury report prompted attorneys general in states across the country to launch their own inquiries, but their methods varied. The attorney general in New York issued subpoenas to the state's eight Catholic dioceses while the attorney general in New Jersey established a task force that was granted subpoena power through a grand jury.

Colorado preferred a much lighter touch. Unlike other attorneys general, Weiser has only limited power to convene a grand jury. The Democrat's Republican predecessor, Cynthia Coffman, who had begun talks to establish the independent review, was quoted in The Colorado Sun as saying the state's attorney general could convene a grand jury only for cases involving matters such as "drug trafficking organizations, auto theft rings, financial fraud that occurs in multiple jurisdictions." She was making the point that the Catholic Church case isn't eligible, yet Shapiro, the Pennsylvania attorney general, suggested that investigators should go after perpetrators in the church "the way you would typically charge the mob."

The attorney general in Missouri, who similarly couldn't convene a grand jury, established an "independent review" of files that the church volunteered to make available — an approach akin to that in Colorado, and it was slammed by a former federal prosecutor who was representing victims of abuse. The attorney general instead should have convened local district attorneys who could use their own subpoena powers to compel release of documents, the former federal prosecutor said. Whatever Weiser's legal limitations, he did not have to adopt what amounts to honor-system reliance on the church to produce material.

Much good could result from the independent review. If Troyer does obtain evidence of a crime that was committed within the statute of limitations, investigators may refer for prosecution individual cases to district attorneys where the crime was alleged to have occurred. The attorney general is creating a hotline where victims can report instances of abuse. And the agreement calls on the dioceses to create a settlement program that will pay reparations to victims of abuse committed by clergy named in Troyer's report (though victims who accept payment must waive their right to sue in the future).

But overall the review fails to reckon with the monstrous matter at hand. The website bishop-accountability.org, a repository of information about the Catholic Church abuse crisis, lists 17 priests in the Denver archdiocese alone who have been publicly accused of abuse, including Dorino DeLazzer, the former pastor of Sacred Heart of Mary Church in Boulder. Jeb Barrett, the leader of SNAP Colorado, a network of abuse survivors, says he knows of 30 clergy (none currently active) in Colorado accused of abuse. If other states are any guide, there are many victims who have yet to come forward.

One of the stated purposes of the review is to assess the dioceses' response to allegations of sexual abuse. Yet it asks Coloradans to trust that, after a decades-long pattern of cover-up and denials, the Catholic Church is capable of participating in an honest investigation of its own conduct. There is every indication that it is incapable of such a task, and to pretend otherwise only perpetuates the grievous harm so many victims have already suffered. The review might prove successful beyond expectations. But if instead it acts to give cover to some perpetrators, Coloradans should refuse to call the case settled and continue to demand a full accounting of the truth.