| Bishop Accountability
|
||
|
Egan Resources – June 2003 By Daniel J. Wakin In an unusual act of defiance, a Roman Catholic pastor in Westchester County has publicly criticized Cardinal Edward M. Egan for transferring him to another parish, saying the cardinal was ignoring the wishes of parishioners and acting out of personal animosity. The pastor, the Rev. James E. Borstelmann, 61, of St. Joseph's parish in Croton Falls, said in interviews last week that he had refused the transfer to a church on Staten Island and was even thinking of moving to another diocese, under a bishop who was "more pastoral than bullying." [Photo Caption: The Rev. James E. Borstelmann and Sister Mary Mazza at St. Joseph's Church in Croton Falls, N.Y. Father Borstelmann is challenging his transfer to another parish, which church officials say is a routine rotation. Photo by Suzanne DeChillo, The New York Times.] A number of parishioners have rallied around Father Borstelmann. They have formed committees, said they are withholding contributions, and have written letters to Cardinal Egan and the news media, saying that positive responses in an evaluation of the priest were cast aside. "I am absolutely horrified, disappointed and disillusioned that you have ignored the overwhelming majority of my parish," one parishioner, Maureen Lux, wrote to the cardinal. The spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, Joseph Zwilling, said Father Borstelmann's transfer was in keeping with a policy of moving pastors after two six-year terms in one parish. He said the archdiocese allows extensions under certain circumstances, like advanced age or knowledge of a needed language, but they do not apply here. He rejected outright any suggestion that the cardinal had acted out of personal reasons. "Cardinal Egan does not have it in for anyone," he said. "That's simply not true." Indeed, it is not uncommon for parishioners to bemoan the departure of a well-liked pastor. There is no dispute from the archdiocese that Father Borstelmann has done well in leading the sprawling, growing parish of more than 3,000 families over his two six-year terms. For example, the number of children in religious-education classes has risen to 1,150 from 320 during his tenure, and the number of ministry programs has grown to 47 from 17. It is rare, however, for priests to publicly criticize their bishops. The dispute emerges into sharper relief given the lingering criticism that Cardinal Egan is aloof and autocratic, an image his defenders say is unfair. Father Borstelmann said two issues fed the friction between him and the cardinal: the fate of the parish's declining elementary school and the role of a pastoral associate in the parish, Sister Mary Mazza. He provided a copy of an April 10, 2002, memorandum to him from Bishop Robert A. Brucato, the vicar general of the archdiocese. The memo said Bishop Brucato wanted to meet Father Borstelmann to discuss the cardinal's decision that the school be kept open and his order that Sister Mazza "not be a member of the paid or volunteer staff of the parish or its activities." Father Borstelmann said he had agreed with a recommendation by experts from the archdiocese that the number of grades be cut because the school was down to about 100 students and was hemorrhaging money. But many parents were angry. They complained to the cardinal, who overruled the priest. Father Borstelmann had no choice but to go along with the decision. But he refused to fire Sister Mazza. "That's unjust," he said. "I would not do it." He said the cardinal relented on the issue of Sister Mazza, but Father Borstelmann said he was sure the cardinal declined to extend his term at St. Joseph's because of the two issues. "That's my guts," he said. "I can't prove it." He said he never received an explanation about why the cardinal wanted Sister Mazza out. "Obviously there was something that rubbed him the wrong way," he said. "There's some sort of retaliation for not firing her last year." He also said it was possible the cardinal was trying to put distance between him and Sister Mazza. The priest said he had had to contend with a rumor spread by his opponents that he and the nun are sexually involved. "It's a lie," he said. "People who don't like us, don't like the way I lead, are looking for ways to sabotage and undermine and destroy." Sister Mazza, who is 58 and lives in an apartment over the parish's early-childhood center, said she came to St. Joseph's 11 years ago after Cardinal Egan, then bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., ordered her fired from St. Thomas parish in Norwalk. She said she was told at the time by her pastor, who has since died, that Bishop Egan felt she was too assertive in her pastoral work. "What Cardinal Egan would tell you is I am the pastor here and not Jim, which is an outright lie," she said in a telephone interview Friday. "This parish was dead until Jim came here." What Father Borstelmann and his supporters say particularly rankles them is the sense that Cardinal Egan disregarded the will of the people, an echo of the criticism many Catholics in the pews have expressed toward the church hierarchy in the wake of the priest sexual abuse scandal last year. Father Borstelmann said the archdiocese's own evaluators relayed information that 9 out of 10 parishioners wanted him reappointed, which he said Cardinal Egan ignored. "The whole evaluation was a sham if he had his mind made up already," the priest said. "That was abusive to the people." Mr. Zwilling sharply disputed Father Borstelmann's account. He said the evaluations are simply a way of understanding what the parish's needs are, and what a pastor's strengths are in advance of his next assignment. They are not a "plebiscite" on whether to keep a pastor. "Every six years, are we going to have parish elections?" he asked. "That would be chaotic." He said the very fact of the evaluations meant that parishioners' voices were heard. A new marketing program has been started to save the school, he said. As for Sister Mazza, Mr. Zwilling said there had been "some issues with her work" in Norwalk, but that he was unaware that the cardinal had demanded her dismissal from St. Joseph's. "Father Borstelmann is being treated the way most every other pastor is being treated, that after your term is over, a pastor would receive a new assignment," the spokesman said. He is one of 15 pastors being reassigned this month, Mr. Zwilling said, and is free to ask for another post if he does not want the transfer. Father Borstelmann said he did not fear the consequences of speaking
out. "I'm secure where I stand," he said. "What can he
do to me? Punish me? I have all my options in line." By Daniel J. Wakin A year after America's Roman Catholic bishops promised a new openness in addressing a sexual abuse scandal, Cardinal Edward M. Egan has declared that he will not publicly disclose the outcome of the internal investigations of New York Archdiocese priests accused of molesting minors. The cardinal said in a private meeting last month with the archdiocesan priests' council that he would remain silent on the fate of 13 men suspended since April 2002. A spokesman for the cardinal confirmed the policy yesterday. [Photo Caption - Cardinal Edward M. Egan met with priests last month. Reuters.] "If it becomes public, that's fine, but we will not be the ones to make it public," said the spokesman, Joseph Zwilling. After local prosecutors opted not to charge 12 of the priests -- one is still under review -- a lay review board appointed by Cardinal Egan took up their cases. The cardinal has said that after hearing the board's recommendation, he will decide the suspended priest's cases, which could mean returning them to the ministry or barring them for life. He also said at the May 1 meeting that he preferred to tell the priests his decision once all the cases were reviewed, to "minimize the negative stories" that were inevitable. He changed his mind, though, after most of the priests at the meeting said it was better not to wait to tell priests how their cases were decided. The cardinal still warned that delays were likely. "If the priest is to be returned to active ministry, he will simply be given a new assignment so that he can quietly resume his priestly work," the cardinal said at the meeting. He said that not announcing his decisions would mean that "no harm will be done to any priests." The minutes of the meeting were obtained by The New York Times. The cardinal's position has infuriated victims of sexual abuse, their advocates and some priests, and it emphasizes many bishops' dilemma in seeking to address the scandal and at the same time protect their priests' rights and privacy. Victims of abuse and their supporters said this week that the cardinal's decision was a betrayal of the bishops' pledge at their historic meeting in Dallas last year to treat all issues regarding accused priests in an aboveboard way. They added that by not publicizing the names of priests the church has concluded are sexual abusers, the cardinal's decision could even put children at risk when those those priests undertake new lives. "Here we are again, same old secrecy, same old cover-it-up," said David Cerulli, co-director of the New York City chapter of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. "It's so hard for me to believe after all this time that they haven't learned." Some priests objected to the cardinal's policy because they felt it unfair not to announce that a priest had been effectively cleared. "A priest has a right to have his good name re-established," Msgr. Harry J. Byrne, who represents retired priests on the council, said in an interview this week. Information concerning the 13 priests was turned over to prosecutors last year by the archdiocese. The prosecutors, citing lack of evidence or the statute of limitations, chose not to pursue charges. Mr. Zwilling defended the cardinal's policy, saying that any public statement about a priest's status, whatever it is, runs the risk of causing more harm. He denied that it contradicted the bishops' stated spirit of openness. "We are doing what we believe is best for all parties involved, and with our primary goal being the protection of children and young people," he said. He said that "internal matters" have delayed notification of priests, but he expected that the cardinal would start talking to them within a couple of weeks. There is no consistent policy nationwide on how bishops make known their decisions on the future of priests accused of sexual abuse, and it is too early to detect any patterns, national church officials said. Some dioceses have publicly announced that priests accused of abuse have been permanently removed from ministry, although those priests have a right to appeal to a church tribunal. When priests have been restored to the ministry, the announcements have sometimes been very public. In San Francisco, for example, the diocesan newspaper announced that a priest who was accused of sexual abuse was to return to the pulpit. In the Diocese of San Bernardino in California, a spokesman called local reporters to let them know about another priest was return to the ministry. In other cases, dioceses have confirmed that priests are back on limited duty after reported asked for information. The minutes of the meeting of the council, a representative body of priests from across the diocese that is supposed to meet monthly, were turned over to The Times by more than one person who believed it was healthy to have the issue aired. The minutes indicated that priests accused of abuse might ultimately reveal the outcomes of their cases themselves. "His eminence expects that this could happen, especially by someone not being returned to active ministry," the minutes said. In that case, the archdiocese will issue a statement, the cardinal said at the meeting. In what was described by participants as a long and sometimes tense meeting, some priests challenged the cardinal, saying it was better to be public about his decisions. In another instance, the priests actually voted to oppose the cardinal on the question of whether he should notify priests individually or wait until all 13 cases had been decided. One participant said such a vote was unusual. Monsignor Byrne recalled the cardinal's belief that word would surface inevitably, and that the archdiocese should wait until then to say anything. "It would get 'smoked out,' that was the phrase he used," Monsignor Byrne said. "I said better than letting things get smoked out, the church was better off to make a public announcement," he said, adding, "Frankly, I said to the cardinal, the bishops have never been ahead of the curve." In April 2002, the archdiocese announced that six priests had been removed from their positions without identifying them. Seven more have been suspended since, Mr. Zwilling said. In most cases, their names surfaced in news reports, and the names were confirmed by the archdiocese. When pastors were suspended, the archdiocese sent a representative to discuss the priest's case with parishioners. One priest who was named by the archdiocese when suspended was Msgr. Charles M. Kavanagh, a pastor and the archdiocese's chief of fund-raising. His accuser, Daniel Donohue, said Cardinal Egan's decision added to his own frustration with the lack of resolution of his case, considered one of the most difficult to decide. "This is another way for them to not be accountable," he said.
"I walk with the truth. If they have truth on their side, there's
nothing to fear." By Daniel J. Wakin Cardinal Edward M. Egan announced yesterday that he would make public the name of any priest permanently removed for sexually molesting children, a change from what his spokesman had said was the cardinal's position. The spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, had said Tuesday that the cardinal would not make the names public, a position that angered many abuse victims and others hopeful that the church would be more open about misconduct by priests. Indeed, Cardinal Egan, according to records made by his personal secretary, had told priests at a meeting last month that his policy was not to disclose the outcome of a lay review board's investigations into 13 priests the New York Archdiocese had suspended. Yesterday, though, the archdiocese said it wanted to clear up what it described as confusion regarding the cardinal's policy. Mr. Zwilling said that, in fact, it had been the cardinal's plan all along to identify the priests he suspends permanently, after the review board makes its recommendation. Mr. Zwilling said the cardinal had even said so in a column in last August's issue of Catholic New York, the archdiocesan newspaper. In the column, the cardinal wrote that "the pertinent facts of those cases" that lead to definitive removal of priests from the ministry would be made public. Mr. Zwilling said his Tuesday statement was based on his original understanding of the cardinal's preference, a reading of the minutes of the cardinal's meeting with the priests on May 1 and conversations with other officials of the archdiocese. The present position of the cardinal, whatever its precise evolution, pleased many people yesterday, including victims and lay Roman Catholics who had hoped that the church would make good on its pledge last year to be candid and public in its handling of the sexual abuse scandal. "It's a good step, a bare minimum step, and of course we hope he would go beyond that," said David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, based in Chicago. For example, Mr. Clohessy said, bishops should go to every parish where abusive priests have served and urge parishioners to report any suspicions to police. All sides have given considerable weight to the question of openness in any response to accusations of sexual abuse. The American Roman Catholic bishops, at their pivotal meeting last year, promised to deal more honestly and publicly with victims, many of whom have said a church culture of secrecy has caused reports of priests' sexual abuse to be covered up. On the other hand, many priests who have been accused and not criminally prosecuted have been left uncertain about their final status. Mr. Zwilling did say Cardinal Egan would not change his intention, stated at the meeting of the Priests' Council, to make no announcement about suspended priests who are returned to the ministry. Such a priest might not want the publicity, Mr. Zwilling said. "If the priest chooses to make it public, we will comment, but we will not be the ones to initiate the publicity." It may never be known exactly how and why Cardinal Egan came to the position he announced yesterday. Mr. Zwilling said issues discussed in the Priests' Council meeting last month were not clearly defined in the minutes, adding that four or five priests he spoke with differed from one another in recalling what the cardinal said. One topic the priests had discussed was the very accuracy of such minutes, he noted. In any case, the minutes, which indicate lengthy debate on the issue, make it clear that the cardinal does not want to announce the permanent dismissals of priests. The minutes say: "A discussion ensued as to whether the names of the priests in question will be released, noting whether or not they will return to active ministry. The cardinal responded by saying that it would not be his policy to do this. He does not want to be the one to do any damage to a priest." The minutes say that, as an aside, Cardinal Egan said he issued a statement last year about the resignation of Bishop James McCarthy over sexual improprieties with women only because the bishop had made a public statement himself. The minutes say that if any priest should "make his status known publicly -- and His Eminence expects that this could happen, especially by someone not being returned to active ministry -- then, the Archdiocese will issue a statement." The minutes were prepared by the cardinal's personal secretary, Msgr. Gregory Mustaciuolo, who is also secretary to the Priests' Council. More than one individual, concerned that the issues should be aired, gave the minutes to a New York Times reporter. Mr. Zwilling acknowledged that the minutes were at odds with the position the cardinal declared yesterday. Still, he said, the difference did not mean the cardinal had changed his position on full disclosure. "The cardinal agrees that the minutes do not reflect" a policy of announcing dismissals, Mr. Zwilling said, adding that he could not explain the source of the confusion because he was not at the meeting. Priests expressed concern at the meeting about men facing accusations who had been left "in limbo" awaiting word on the church's decision. Cardinal Egan said at the meeting that he wanted to wait until the review board had handled all 13 cases before informing the priests. He backed down after encountering strong opposition at the meeting. Yesterday's statement said Cardinal Egan had already begun to meet with
some of the priests whose cases had been settled. By Laurie Goodstein In Roman Catholic dioceses from New York to California, many bishops are still torn between their public promises to resolve the child sexual abuse scandal with openness and accountability and their instinct to protect their assets, priests and reputations. Last month, the bishops of California, led by Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles, met in private and unanimously passed a resolution saying they would not fill out the surveys for a study that the American bishops themselves had commissioned to assess the extent of the abuse problem in the church. In New York, Cardinal Edward M. Egan told a council of priests that he would not reveal the names of priests accused of abuse or how their cases had been resolved. In each case, these bishops eventually agreed to release the information, Cardinal Egan in the glare of publicity and the California bishops under pressure from a national review board of Catholic laypeople. The board, led by former Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma, was formed last year by the bishops at their meeting in Dallas and given responsibility to study the causes of the scandal, make recommendations on child protection programs and help keep the bishops accountable. Though some bishops have responded to the survey, distributed this spring, others, like those in California, have raised questions or asked for revisions. "Those bishops who are not cooperating must start acting like pastors and shepherds of their flock, and stop acting like risk assessment officers of insurance companies," said Robert S. Bennett, a lawyer in Washington who leads the review board's task force evaluating the causes of the crisis. "In the church there has been a culture of secrecy, and it has gotten them in a lot of trouble. And the time has come where they have got to understand that it will not work anymore, and that they must be open, they must be transparent and they must be accountable." At their meeting in Dallas last year, when the abuse issue that bishops wrestled with for two decades had exploded into an intractable scandal, the bishops passed a "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People." In it, they committed themselves to following a national policy for judging accusations of abuse, removing molesters from the ministry and preventing abuse. Despite the imposition of a national policy, the bishops who are to gather at their semiannual meeting on Thursday in St. Louis have interpreted the new rules in each of their 195 dioceses in their own ways. It is hard to gauge the compliance of what are essentially 195 separate governments -- the review board has just begun what it is calling an audit to do that -- but it is clear that the record is uneven. Each diocese is supposed to have its own abuse review board in which a majority of members are not the bishops' employees or allies. In Metuchen, N.J., Bishop Paul G. Bootkoski appointed an abuse victim who belongs to the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, a group disdained by many bishops for its assertive victims' advocacy. In Arlington, Va., review board members resigned when Bishop Paul S. Loverde disregarded their recommendation to remove an accused abuser from ministry. In the diocese of Orange, Calif., Joelle Casteix, who said she had been abused by a lay teacher at her Catholic high school in the 1980's, was invited to join the reconstituted sexual abuse advisory board, long known as the Sensitive Issues Committee. Ms. Casteix, who runs a marketing agency, attended six meetings and found, she said: "There was open discussion about how to make sure documents did not get into the hands of D.A.'s and plaintiffs' lawyers. There was active discussion about the statute of limitations because they did not want any more victims coming forward and suing." In December, she resigned from the board, citing disillusionment. Some bishops have met with victims and listened to their accounts of pain and betrayal, while others have refused to do so because of litigation. Some have cooperated with prosecutors while others have withheld files and information. "I believe the bishops have tried to be as open and as forthright as possible," Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in an interview this week. "Are there individual cases where people would disagree or individuals would say they wish that more information had been given? I suspect that is the case. But I think the bishops learned that the more forthright you are, the better off it is for all parties concerned." Bishop Gregory, who spearheaded the charter's passage, said that bishops were aware that they would be judged by their colleagues' performance. "We are judged by our worst-case scenario, not our best," he said. The Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit journal America, said, "I think the bishops are committed to keeping the abusive priests away from kids, but they really don't want all their dirty laundry exposed." In September, Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore posted on the archdiocese's Web site the names of 56 priests credibly accused of abuse in Baltimore and the $5.6 million the archdiocese had paid in settlements, legal fees and counseling. Cardinal Keeler urged anyone with information to come forward to the archdiocese. About 60 more victims and family members have done so, Steve Kearney, director of communications, said. Cardinal Keeler, who declined to be interviewed, quietly tried to convince his brother bishops of the advantages of disclosure, several church officials said. But very few dioceses have provided an equally thorough accounting, according to interviews with many church officials and victims' advocates. Dioceses in Chicago and Belleville, Ill., were cited as thorough. Jim Post, president of Voice of the Faithful, the Catholic reform group founded at the height of the crisis last year, said, "The fact that the leadership Cardinal Keeler showed on this issue was not emulated by others has probably been the single biggest disappointment in this." Voice of the Faithful has pressed bishops to open the church's accounting and decision-making to laypeople. On that platform it has grown since December to 180 affiliates across the nation from fewer than 100, Mr. Post said. Eight bishops have banned the group from meeting on church property in their dioceses, but one of them, Bishop Thomas V. Daily of Brooklyn, reversed his prohibition on May 1, saying he found the group members to be sincere and loyal Catholics. Group members say the church hierarchy has shown little interest in giving the laypeople greater say. In Philadelphia, where Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua will soon retire, the Voice of the Faithful chapter sent a letter to the pope's representative in Washington, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, in March. They invited the apostolic nuncio to "communicate with members of the Church in Philadelphia as you prepare to make your recommendation" to succeed the cardinal. The chapter said it never got a response. "The message it sends to me is we apparently don't count for very much," Walter J. Fox, a Voice chapter officer in Philadelphia, said. The apprehension of the California bishops over the survey is one gauge of institutional resistance to change. The study is being conducted by academic researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan. They mailed every bishop an extensive survey asking for information about abusive priests in their diocese. The priests and victims are not identified by name, and the results of the study will be cumulative and will not offer a breakdown of the results by diocese. But the California bishops said they feared the information could be subpoenaed or inadvertently released, which could leave the bishops vulnerable for having violated California's privacy laws, said Edward E. Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, which represents that state's 12 dioceses. The impact of the last year and a half of turmoil also varies from diocese to diocese. Donations are down in Boston, where the scandal started, and up in Baltimore. In the Diocese of Santa Rosa, Calif., which had a big sexual abuse scandal several years ago, Bishop Daniel F. Walsh disclosed the diocese's finances on its Web site, and gave his finance council veto power over his decisions, said Frank J. Butler, president of Foundations and Donors Interested in Catholic Activities, a Washington-based group. "Where there seems to be good, strong pastoral leadership, openness
and high levels of credibility and trust, the people are responding,"
he said. "And where they're not, the situation seems to be deteriorating." Editorial It's hardly surprising that former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating created quite a stir the other day when he compared Catholic bishops who've refused to cooperate with the watchdog panel on sexual abuse with Mafia dons practicing a code of silence. But Keating's forced resignation as chairman of the commission - under pressure from Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony and other panel members - is a serious mistake that will further undermine the U.S. church's credibility in dealing with this still festering scandal. To be sure, Keating's words were blunt - deliberately so. Asked in an interview about the refusal of some bishops - including New York's Edward Cardinal Egan - to co-operate with the commission, which was set up last year, Keating made clear that he had zero tolerance for those who weren't living up to their promise of zero tolerance of sexual abuse. "To act like La Cosa Nostra and hide and suppress, I think, is very unhealthy," said Keating. "Eventually, it will all come out." But though he might have come up with a better comparison, Keating's complaint is completely on-target. Indeed, it's the same one he and others have been making since the bishops established the commission. Often-hysterical media coverage notwithstanding, only a small minority of priests have engaged in improper conduct with children. But the percentage of bishops who tried to cover up those crimes - by shifting offending priests from parish to parish, without alerting congregants - may be as high as two-thirds. From the outset, Keating - a former FBI agent - made no bones about how he felt on the issue: "If someone obscures, absolves, obstructs [a] criminal act . . . they also are accessories to the crime." But the commission, he felt, was moving far too slowly - and some of the commission members, in turn, apparently thought Keating was stepping on too many toes. Which is why a move reportedly was afoot at this week's semi-annual bishops' conference to remove Keating. Instead of being pushed, though, Keating chose to jump. Too bad. For while the Catholic Church ultimately is responsible, as a private institute, for policing itself, Keating would have played a critical role in reversing the crisis of confidence that many Catholics have today in their church. Sadly, that crisis won't be resolved any time soon. By Daniel J. Wakin One defiantly appeared at a church in his priest collar for his birthday party. Another remains in isolation at a vacation home in Maine. Yet another has shuttled between the homes of his two sisters, depending on friends and family for money. At least 13 Roman Catholic priests of the Archdiocese of New York are living in suspended animation, some for more than a year, after being removed from ministry because of past accusations that they sexually abused minors. It is a frustrating state inhabited by scores of priests across the country who were caught up in the clerical abuse scandal. Now, Cardinal Edward M. Egan has begun meeting with these 13 men to answer a critical question: can they return to the altar, or will they be permanently banned from acting as priests? As he has promised, the cardinal has remained silent about their fates. The cases of three men show how the lingering limbo has left all sides unhappy -- the priests' friends and family who have fought for them; accusers who feel that justice delayed is justice denied; and Catholics in the pews who want beloved pastors back or finality to the crisis. For his part, Cardinal Egan is feeling the weight of his task, said a spokesman, Joseph Zwilling. He feels obligations to protect children, to protect the rights of his priests, to assure victims that their cases are taken seriously and to look out for the interests of parishes, Mr. Zwilling said. "These are painful situations for everyone involved," he said. "This is not a task that he is looking forward to, but it is one that is necessary, and it's a responsibility he knows is his alone." Mr. Zwilling said he did not know which priests the cardinal had spoken to, or how many. Many of the cases, involving decades-old and sometimes ambiguous allegations, have been difficult to resolve, church officials say. In the meantime, the suspended priests are yearning for some sort of resolution, friends say. At the least, priests who are banned could then file appeals. One priest, the Rev. John W. Lennon, reached the retirement age of 75 in the interim, and his replacement as pastor at St. John the Baptist in Yonkers was announced on Sunday. The parish council voted not to hold a 100th anniversary party for the parish, scheduled for next Monday, unless Father Lennon's status is made final. "He is not a happy man," said Vincent Vanadia, president of the parish council and a longtime friend. "He sits by the phone waiting for the cardinal to call him and tell him to come back -- which is where I think most of that depression comes from, because he hasn't gotten that call." Father Lennon, who has a large and vocal group of supporters, has stayed mainly at his vacation home in Maine. Cardinal Egan has said that if a priest who was cleared had retired, he might allow him to return briefly to a parish to reaffirm his good standing. The Rev. Anthony Eremito, whose accuser is a priest in New Jersey, has been unable to find work because of the abuse charge, said a friend, John Gildea, who said he was speaking on the priest's behalf. Mr. Gildea said Father Eremito had no permanent address and has stayed with his two sisters, borrowing money from them and friends to supplement his priest's stipend. "He keeps busy," Mr. Gildea said. "He does do a lot of praying" and a lot of reading about the Gospels, he said. Like some of the suspended priests, Father Eremito did not want to speak publicly while Cardinal Egan is weighing their fates. "Right now, you stick your head above trenches, you're liable to get it shot off," Mr. Gildea said. In one case, a priest is acting as if he has been cleared. He is Msgr. Charles M. Kavanagh, once one of the most influential clergymen in the archdiocese. He was in charge of fund-raising for the archdiocese and pastor of St. Raymond's, a major parish in the Bronx. A former student accused him of inappropriate touching, and the monsignor was ousted in an unusually public manner a year ago. Like the other suspended priests, he was barred from appearing in public in his collar. But guests at a birthday party for Monsignor Kavanagh several weeks ago at a hall at St. John and St. Mary's Church in Chappaqua said he appeared in his collar and priestly clothes. The Rev. George Kuhn, who attended and confirmed that Monsignor Kavanagh wore full clerical garb, said the monsignor gave a heartfelt speech thanking the 200 or so guests for coming. "He's doing well because he knows in the depth of his heart who he is and what his ministry is all about," Father Kuhn said. "He knows, and I know, that he's been cleared by the cardinal's committee. That's leaked hearsay information, but I believe it." Mr. Zwilling, the archdiocese spokesman, said he did not know how many priests Cardinal Egan had spoken to or who they were. He said that if Monsignor Kavanagh wore his collar at the party before being restored, it "would have been contrary to directives he had been given." John C. Dearie, a former state assemblyman and a friend of Monsignor Kavanagh's, said the monsignor and the cardinal met at length on Tuesday at the cardinal's residence on Madison Avenue, but the matter remained unresolved. They are to meet again next week. In an earlier interview, Mr. Dearie expressed some frustration with the cardinal's handling of the matter. "It's time to step up and recognize that while there may be different circumstances surrounding each of these situations, you're the leader and you've got to recognize the ones that are unfair," he said. He called on the cardinal to loudly pronounce Monsignor Kavanagh's innocence. "What store on Fifth Avenue do you go to, to get back your good name?" he asked. Cardinal Egan said last week that he would let a cleared priest slip back into ministry without any public announcements. Those who are permanently suspended will be named in the archdiocesan newspaper Catholic New York. The next publication date is July 3. Monsignor Kavanagh's accuser, Daniel Donohue, said the monsignor's party appearance made him angry and led him to assume the priest was back in good standing. "Are they saying I was not telling the truth?" he asked. "Are
they saying they did not have enough information? I don't see any justice
in this. All I see is intrigue and no clarity. It's the whole process
that is bogus." Editorial America's Roman Catholic bishops gather today in St. Louis for their three-day spring meeting and they may find the task of dealing with the church's sex abuse scandal even more challenging than they did one year ago when they approved historic reforms to deal with the issue. The problem facing the clerics is that one year has passed and not all of the American church's 195 dioceses have fully signed on to the reforms. A goodly number of bishops continue to dance around the "zero tolerance" policy and not confront the sexual molestation of minors by priests. The American church's foundations remain shaky. Some bishops still refuse to cooperate with local law enforcement officials while others have been intransigent about making information public about offending clerics. To add to the problems facing the bishops, former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, who headed their National Review Board of 13 prominent lay Catholics which monitors the efforts of the bishops in dealing with clerical child molesters, resigned earlier this week under pressure from some bishops. And then on Wednesday Bishop Thomas P. O'Brien of Phoenix, who earlier this month made headlines when he was spared being criminally charged for allowing pedophile priests in his diocese to continue working with children, resigned after being charged by police with leaving the scene of a hit-and-run fatality in which he allegedly struck and killed a jaywalker. Indeed, the credibility of the bishops with their American flock and the general public may have ebbed to a lower level today than where it stood one year ago when the scandal was a crisis. During their three days in St. Louis, the bishops must take concrete actions to reassure lay Roman Catholics that those in their ranks will be held strictly accountable for how they have dealt with this scandal. They can: * Keep the National Review Board fully independent and assure that Keating's replacement as chairman will have a free hand and that the board can continue its work to determine how many clerics have been implicated in abuse and the accountability of bishops in handling abuse cases. * Recommit themselves to transparency and full disclosure and make certain that every bishop is on board with that commitment. For instance, Cardinal Edward M. Egan of New York, who has yet to accept responsibility for his actions in moving offending priests around to different churches in the Diocese of Bridgeport when he was bishop here, continues his obfuscatory habits in New York. Last week, he said he wouldn't disclose the names of priests fired for sexually molesting children. It was only after public outrage surfaced that Egan reversed himself. Since last year's Dallas meeting, there have been strides in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church. * The "zero tolerance" policy on sexual abuse passed muster with The Vatican and was implemented. An estimated 500 priests have been removed from ministry. The National Review Board and an Office of Child and Youth Protection have been established. * Here in Connecticut, the Diocese of Bridgeport and Bishop William E. Lori have offered a model in how best to implement the "zero tolerance" policy. Lori, one of the architects of the policy, has instituted reforms, acted swiftly to remove offending priests and substantially increased input from diocesan lay people. Yet, even the diocese still balks at releasing documents involved in a major court settlement made with abuse victims before Lori arrived in Bridgeport. Much work remains for America's Roman Catholic bishops. Their meeting in St. Louis won't possess the immediacy of the reforms
crafted in Dallas last year, but the decisions the bishops make during
the next three days could carry as much importance in restoring credibility
of the church's hierarchy. By M. Franco Salvoza Newspapers are experiencing varying degrees of success in efforts to unseal court files containing details from clergy sex abuse lawsuits. Even though a June Roman Catholic bishops' conference in Dallas ended with a zero-tolerance policy for sexual abuse and an atmosphere more conducive to accountability and disclosure, some news organizations still face considerable legal hurdles in their attempts to unseal court records. Many media outlets have already successfully gained access to sealed files of suits brought, in some cases many years ago, by victims abused by Roman Catholic priests. Public interest and outrage at the published revelations about cases and, often, their subsequent coverups triggered calls for disclosure of more sealed files. Various lawsuits and requests for court records in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Kentucky and Illinois state that the public has a strong interest under the First Amendment in learning about possible predatory activity and coverups by diocese officials, and that these interests are more important than the privacy interests of victims and clergy. ''It's a story that, if anything, was too long undercovered, or un-covered,'' James M. Naughton, a practicing Catholic and president of the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists in Florida, told The Boston Globe. ''It's certainly true that most religious organizations have seldom been subjected to the kind of scrutiny that the Catholic Church is being subjected to now, but it is not at all clear that any of them have covered up abuses by clerics to the same extent. The disclosures have to go on.'' Rules for sealing and accessing court files vary by state and with the type of file requested, but often files such as arrest warrants contain criminal information that is supposed to be a matter of public record. However, judges may seal certain files when a party's attorneys can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so. In many abuse cases, attorneys for church officials convinced judges to seal records, while the clergy covered up evidence of lawsuits and transferred the alleged perpetrators to distant parishes.
In early July, Justice Robert D. Krause of the state superior court in Providence ruled that the First Amendment could not protect the church from requests for information about sexual abuses. In his ruling, Krause ordered the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence to open records it had sealed regarding sexual abuses and said that its claim that the information was privileged was wrong. Furthermore, he dismissed the diocese's argument that "such information or any such communication deserves or merits confidentiality as expressions of religious freedom." The diocese had relied on First Amendment religious rights as part of its argument for refusing to turn over documents to Catholics who alleged sexual abuse and brought lawsuits of their own.
In February, The Boston Globe successfully forced disclosure of records of more than 80 hidden clergy abuse suits settled between 1992 and 1996 in Suffolk County Superior Court. Citing a "legitimate public interest," Superior Court Judge Ralph D. Gants lifted impoundment orders that had eliminated any public record that the suits had been filed, including information about the impoundment hearings themselves. The Globe learned of the settled lawsuits after a search of more than 1,000 civil lawsuits involving attorneys known to have had roles in cases involving the clergy. The newspaper discovered the existence of the impounded cases when the court's computer system blocked access to them. However, a judge delayed the release of important depositions of Cardinal Bernard F. Law, a central figure in the scandal in Massachusetts, and Manchester, N.H., Bishop John McCormack, citing the possibility of impairment to a fair trial. Using a court order, the Boston Herald successfully obtained a file sealed by church officials concerning a suit against James A. Porter, a former priest in the Fall River Diocese, a southeastern Massachusetts diocese including Bristol County and Nantucket. The file, which contained hundreds of pages and had been sealed for more than 10 years, included a letter from Porter to the Vatican outlining his homosexual involvement with young boys and a request to leave the church.
In a written opinion and perhaps the strongest statement regarding the issue, Superior Court Judge Robert F. McWeeny on June 12 criticized the state judiciary's role in delaying the release of files he had unsealed and even accused it of "complicity" in a "cover-up." Citing an "extraordinary" public interest in clergy abuse lawsuits, McWeeny ordered that files sealed by the Bridgeport diocese for settled lawsuits be made public in early May. "Connecticut courts have facilitated this process in the following manner: sealing the files over the objections of the victims; delaying the trials; thus encouraging the plaintiffs to enter into settlement agreements containing confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions; and preventing any timely adjudication of the merits,'' McWeeny wrote in his opinion. In particular, McWeeny criticized the courts for delaying release of seven of 23 boxes of records he had ordered unsealed in early May. The Hartford Courant, The New York Times and other newspapers filed lawsuits in May for court files from 23 suits settled between 1993 and 1999. McWeeny found in favor of access to these files for the newspapers, stating that the public interest outweighed the "privacy rights of clerics and their church," a decision which the church appealed.
The state attorney general's office filed a brief on behalf of The (Louisville) Courier-Journal to unseal records regarding as many as 130 sexual abuse lawsuits by victims of priests in Kentucky. Archbishop Thomas Cajetan Kelly of Louisville had filed a motion to seal court documents concerning sexual abuse lawsuits, citing a state law allowing the court to seal molestation cases older than five years for the protection of minors. The Courier-Journal intervened to suppress that sealing, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional because the First Amendment prohibits that sealing. Assistant Attorney General Scott White filed a brief on behalf of the newspaper. "The issue is one of openness," White wrote. Intervention and unsealing the records are necessary to "ensure the public's meaningful access to these cases." The statute was intended to protect the alleged victims, not a religious institution like the church, and the priests permitted their identities to be released. "None of the alleged priests involved have moved to intervene to assert any privacy interest," White wrote. However, the church argued that the law only sealed records until the judge determined the merits of the case. Once a priest is identified, it said, it would be difficult to restore his reputation in the public eye. The lawsuits originally alleged that the archdiocese of Louisville was negligent in hiring and transferring abusive priests.
Attorneys for the Chicago Tribune successfully unsealed documents regarding as many as 16 sexual misconduct allegations against priests working in the Joliet, Ill., diocese since 1994. Will County Judge Herman Haase ruled June 19 that the public has a right to see the documents, since they relate to sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests. He briefly delayed the release of the records until June 21 to black out the names of victims, their parents, and those not suspected of any wrongdoing. Bishop Joseph Imesch and other church officials fought vigorously to keep the records closed to "ensure the privacy" of victims, they said in a statement. By Laurie Goodstein St. Louis - In a closed-door meeting they described as "a day of prayerful reflection," the nation's Roman Catholic bishops began a re-examination of the sexual abuse crisis by asking themselves how the American church had strayed so far from its ideals. To focus the discussion, bishops said they had polled themselves in the last few months, and fixed on these problems as their priorities: the low attendance of Catholics at Mass and confession; the corrosive effects of American culture on faith; and the confused identity and spirituality of many bishops and priests. To consider these and other ills, the prelates today debated a proposal to hold a plenary council, a major assembly of bishops, priests and laypeople that the church in the United States has not seen since 1884. Some bishops argued today for smaller forums that could be organized more quickly, like "listening sessions" with laypeople, or a synod of bishops. The earliest a plenary council would be held is three years from now, and the bishops will not even decide whether to move forward on the proposal for at least a year. But no matter the outcome, today's meeting made clear that the sexual abuse scandal had prodded the bishops into a collective reassessment of the church in the United States -- a step some laypeople have been urging for years. Bishop Allen H. Vigneron, who initiated the call for a plenary and was recently named bishop-elect for the diocese of Oakland, Calif., said in an interview, "The problems of a year ago dealing with the abuse of children and young people by clergy indicate that we need to regain a clear focus about our identity and life as a church and as pastors in the church." "The question is," he said, "what weaknesses in our life have been disclosed to us by the crisis?" When told of the bishops' agenda today, leaders of some Catholic lay groups said they were surprised to hear what had emerged at the top of the bishops' list of concerns. Some questioned whether the bishops would adequately involve laypeople in the discussion, but agreed the bishops were raising legitimate issues. "My generation of baby boomers was brought up at a time when it was a sin not to go to Mass on Sundays, it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays," said Linda Pieczynski, spokeswoman and former president of Call to Action, a Catholic reform group with 25,000 members and 49 chapters across the country. "Our children are not getting out of the sacraments what my generation got out of it." But others said the bishops were trying to deflect attention from their own responsibility for the crisis. "The biggest issue facing the bishops is their credibility," said Barbara Blaine, a leader of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. Bishop Vigneron was among eight theologically conservative bishops who last year called for a plenary council as a galvanizing event that would return the church to the path of tradition and orthodoxy. They envisioned a council focused on the theme of how to recommit bishops, priests, religious and laypeople to lives of holiness and purity. The proposal gained the backing of 107 bishops. But as Bishop Vigneron acknowledged, some of those bishops signed because they wanted a debate on the proposal, not because they necessarily supported the theological framing of the event. The idea has clearly captured the imagination of many bishops, but there has been no straw vote yet to indicate how many would support it. But with the bishops discussing a plenary council today and again at their meeting in June 2004, Catholics across the country are likely to hear about and weigh in on the debate. Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of Milwaukee said that in today's meeting, the bishops had thrown the net much wider than the theme of holiness because, he said, "We need to examine our whole mission." He said the bishops had found today's discussions "rewarding," even exhilarating after more than a year burdened by the sexual abuse controversy. "We felt like bishops, we felt like pastors, we felt like priests," he said. "There was almost a sense of relief, of 'This is great.' " There have been three plenary councils before in the United States, all in the 19th century, all in Baltimore. The plenaries produced the catechism, the codification of church teaching that Catholics know as the "Baltimore Catechism." Cardinal William Keeler, archbishop of Baltimore, said in an interview that if the bishops decide to have a plenary, he would invite them to hold it in Baltimore. He said he was still making up his mind about whether he favored the event. Others also said they were not yet persuaded. Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago, said, "We need more information about what it would entail" including the expense, and who would participate. "I wonder if this is the time," said Cardinal Edward M. Egan, archbishop of New York. "We have other things on our plate to deal with." Pressed for examples, he mentioned vocations to the priesthood, parish life and teaching church doctrine to young people. The Rev. Philip J. Murnion, director of the National Pastoral Life Center, said in a telephone interview that the church needs a plenary, but only if the agenda includes issues of concern to the right wing in the church, like personal morality, and the left wing, like a church structure that excludes women and laypeople. "What puzzles me is why the bishops needed to have this conversation
in a closed session," he said, "since what this is about is
how to have a more open discussion about the needs of the church." By Paul von Zielbauer Hartford - Connecticut's Appellate Court ruled today that a state judge erred last year in deciding that sealed court files containing specific allegations of sexual abuse by several priests in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport should be opened to the public. Though today's decision was technical and narrow -- it concerned only whether the lower-court judge had acted properly in ruling that the files were eligible to be unsealed, not the propriety of opening church-related court records to the public -- it represented a victory for the diocese. For the time being, the decision gives the diocese the power to keep secret the names of the accused priests, as well as the allegations against them by parishioners. Although Judge Robert F. McWeeny of State Superior Court ordered that the files be opened, the Appellate Court took the unusual step of keeping them sealed while church lawyers appealed the decision. The diocese, in a statement posted on its Web site today, called the Appellate Court ruling "another step along the difficult path to justice and reconciliation." The diocese, it said, "will continue to take decisive measures in response to allegations and to comply with all civil and church laws," the statement said. "The Diocese of Bridgeport is dedicated to protecting the innocent and consoling all those who have suffered." The sealed files include transcripts of depositions by Cardinal Edward M. Egan, the archbishop of New York, which raised questions about his handling of abuse allegations when, as bishop, he led the Bridgeport diocese from 1988 to 2000. The New York Times petitioned Judge McWeeny last year, along with The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and The Hartford Courant, to open the 23 court files. The Times's lawyer, George Freeman, said today that it would "strongly consider" appealing today's ruling. "We thought that the Judge McWeeny decision was very powerful in that it fully understood the importance to the public in making these old sex-abuse files and settlements public," Mr. Freeman said. "We think it's very unfortunate that the Appellate Court seemed to rely on some procedural technicalities to trump the public's ability to access these files." The three-judge appeals court panel ruled that Judge McWeeny erred in granting the newspapers' motions to open the court files because state law allows such motions only within four months after a case is resolved. The Times, which was first to file an appeal, did so in March 2002, more than a year after plaintiffs in the 23 lawsuits against the diocese had withdrawn their complaints and settled out of court. In June 2002, when Judge McWeeny granted emergency motions by all the newspapers involved, he argued that despite the four-month rule, the court still maintained jurisdiction over the files, if not the parties, involved in the case. He also criticized the church's efforts to keep the substance of the resolved court cases secret. "The judicial system should not be a party to a cover-up by denying access" to a matter of such widespread public interest, Judge McWeeny wrote at the time. He took issue, too, with the Appellate Court's decision to keep the court files sealed while it reviewed his decision to open them. As the appeals panel noted in its decision today, Judge McWeeny warned against the "facilitation of a cover-up by the courts." The Appellate Court today described Judge McWeeny's warnings as "misguided," an unusual intra-judicial rebuke. Ralph G. Elliot, a lawyer for The Courant, said he was troubled by the precedent that he said the new ruling established today. "What the court decided is that, in effect, if you don't know about
the problem within four months of the end of the case and don't seek to
open up the case again within four months of the end of the case, you're
in trouble," he said. "It has terrible ramifications." A three-judge panel in Hartford reversed a state judge's ruling that the "extraordinary" public interest in clergy abuse required the opening of 23 sealed court files from cases settled between 1993 and 1999 with the Bridgeport diocese. The decision was based solely on a state procedural law that places a four-month deadline on motions to open court files after a case is resolved. The appellate court said any First Amendment right of access to judicial documents was barred by the state law's time requirement. The Hartford Courant, The New York Times and other newspapers filed lawsuits in May 2002 to gain access to the files. "It sweeps far more than it needed to sweep," Courant attorney Ralph G. Elliot said. "The appellate court believes that a state statute can trump the right of citizens who feel that their constitutional rights have been violated by sealing orders." Any individual who is unaware of a sealing order loses the ability to challenge the order in a Connecticut court four months and one day after the case closes, Elliot said. The appellate court kept the files sealed while church lawyers appealed state Superior Court Judge Robert McWeeny's order to open the files. McWeeney warned the appellate court that "the judicial system should not be a party to a cover-up by denying access" to information of such widespread public interest. McWeeney also said the court system facilitated a cover-up by sealing files over the objections of victims and encouraging victims to enter settlement agreements with confidentiality provisions. McWeeny's criticisms and warning earned him harsh words from the appellate panel. It called his allegations "misguided" and "imprudent." Court settlement agreements kept secret, or under seal, are one of the reasons news stories exposing sexual abuse in the church took so long to surface. In January 2002, The Boston Globe discovered that the Archdiocese of Boston secretly settled molestation claims against 70 priests over 10 years. The number of victims is difficult to identify because of the secrecy surrounding the settlements. The Bridgeport diocese said in a statement posted on its Web site that the appellate court decision is "another step along the difficult path to justice and reconciliation." "The Diocese of Bridgeport will continue to take decisive measures in response to allegations and to comply with all civil and Church laws," the statement said. The newspapers have not decided yet whether they will appeal the ruling. (Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.; Media counsel: Ralph Elliot, Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, Hartford, Conn.) -- KH
|
||
Original material copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution. |
||