The Worthy Adversary

Tag: Marci Hamilton

  • How many accusations does it take to rename the parish hall?

    Fr. J. Michael Henry has a hall in his honor. And the number of his alleged victims just keeps growing.

    Fr. Joseph Michael Henry (also known as J. Michael Henry and Mike Henry), was a longtime priest in the Diocese of Honolulu. Most of his time was spent at St. Anthony’s Parish in Kailua on Oahu’s Windward Coast—a small-town parish with a school, preschool and active charity league.

    Fr. Henry was first exposed as a predator in 1991 lawsuit by a Kailua boy named David Figueroa. In addition, Figueroa charged that after Henry abused him, another priest at the parish, Joseph Ferrario, took advantage of the vulnerable boy  and began to abuse him as well. Fr. Joseph Ferrario became Bishop of Honolulu in 1978. Henry died in 1974. Ferrario died in 2003.

    Soon after Figueroa came forward, another Kailua boy stepped forward to say that he, too, had been molested by both priests. The initial reason Mark Pinkosh came forward was to support David. Later, he realized that it was vital for his own healing and keeping other kids safe. David’s case was thrown out on the statute of limitations, NOT the merits of the case.

    Fortunately for Mark and other victims of child sexual abuse in Hawaii, a new civil law, sponsored by Senator Maile Shimabukuro, gives Mark a chance to use the courts to seek justice, truth and accountability. While both Ferrario and Henry are dead, the people who covered up for them are not. Neither is the legacy of pain they caused.

    This week, Mark spoke publicly about his abuse and encouraged others to come forward. His attorneys were there with him to talk about the tragedy of the abuse and cover-up.

    Mark Pinkosh, age 8

    I have also spoken with another victim of Fr. Henry, who is still considering whether or not he should come forward.

    Which leads me to my problem. When television crews interviewed a St. Anthony’ parishioner, here is what she said about Fr. Henry:

    He was very good to the children … nothing could make me believe (the allegations).

    Not even two victims? What about if the victim I spoke to comes forward? What if other kids come forward?

    And …more that 20 years after Henry was accused of sexual abuse by the two boys, this sign still hangs in the parish:

    How many more victims have to come forward before they rename the hall? And believe the children?

  • Call me crazy, but priests who admit to sexually assaulting ANYONE need to find a new job …

    I mean, c’mon. Fr. Davila pled GUILTY. He wouldn’t pass the diocese background check, yet he’s in a parish:

    Bishops Robert Brom and Cirillo Flores say that they have addressed all of the pastoral concerns. Really? How about the concerns of the victim?

    ************************************

    For immediate release: Tuesday, June 12

    For more information: David Clohessy (314.566.9790, SNAPclohessy@aol.com), Joelle Casteix (949-322.7434, jcasteix@gmail.com)

    Victims ask US bishops to censure CA colleague

    “Denounce San Diego’s recklessness,” SNAP begs

    They’re upset that a convicted priest is back in a parish

    Clergy sex abuse victims are urging America’s Catholic bishops to denounce San Diego’s top church official for restoring a priest to ministry barely a month after he pled guilty to molesting a teenage parishioner.

    In a letter sent today to the prelates, leaders of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, express concern about Fr. Jose Alexis Davila of San Diego. In April, he pled guilty to battery for groping a then-19-year-old parishioner at her home. He was given three years’ probation. A month later, San Diego Bishop Robert Brom quietly put Davila back into active parish ministry at St. Jude’s Catholic Church.

    “It’s hard to imagine a more reckless move,” said Joelle Casteix of Newport Beach, Western Regional Director of SNAP. “This basically sends the message that you can assault teenagers and go unpunished.”

    According to a press release last week from the Diocese of San Diego, officials there “have no reason to believe that women or children are at a risk because of [Davila’s] return to ministry.”

    Leaders of SNAP argue instead that his conviction shows that Davila is still a threat. They also believe that the decision to put Davila back into a parish so soon after being convicted of a sex crime flies in the face of the bishops’ sex abuse policy, and are hoping that other members of the church hierarchy will recognize the problem and work to fix it.

    “A decade ago, America’s bishops pledged to ‘correct’ each other when clergy sex cases were mishandled,” said Barbara Dorris, SNAP Outreach Director. “That’s what we want to see here. If wrongdoing is ignored, wrongdoing is encouraged. So we’re hoping that – formally or informally – at least a few bishops will be brave enough to publicly say ‘The San Diego Catholic hierarchy is acting irresponsibly.’”

    America’s bishops hold their semi-annual meeting this week. They are scheduled to discuss their ten-year old national abuse policy. SNAP wants that policy “radically revamped” to include penalties for “church officials who “ignore, hid and enable child sex crimes.”

    (SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is the world’s oldest and largest support group for clergy abuse victims. SNAP was founded in 1988 and has more than 12,000 members. Despite the word “priest” in our title, we have members who were molested by religious figures of all denominations, including nuns, rabbis, bishops, and Protestant ministers and increasingly, victims who were assaulted in a wide range of institutional settings like summer camps, athletic programs, Boy Scouts, etc. Our website is SNAPnetwork.org)

    Contact – David Clohessy (314-566-9790, SNAPclohessy@aol.com), Barbara Blaine (312-399-4747, bblaine@snapnetwork.org), Barbara Dorris (314-862-7688, 314-503-0003, SNAPdorris@gmail.com), Joelle Casteix (949-322-7434, jcasteix@gmail.com), Peter Isely (414-429-7259, peterisely@yahoo.com)

     

     

  • Another Lay Review Board Thrown Under The Bus …

    Serve on a Diocese lay review board, and you can go to jail. Or at least that’s what Kansas City-St. Joseph Bishop Robert Finn says.

    Bishop Finn and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph are each being charged with one misdemeanor of failure to report suspected child abuse. The charges stem from the case of Fr. Shawn Ratigan, a priest in the diocese who now faces 13 federal counts of child pornography. According to legal accounts, whistleblowers, and media reports, Bishop Finn knew about Ratigan’s suspicious behavior for at least a year, possibly more, and sat on Ratigan’s child pornography collection for six months before turning it over to the police.

    Finn also didn’t inform his own lay review board until six months after Finn learned of the pornography and a month AFTER he finally notified the police. This is a year after the school principal wrote Finn a detailed letter outlining Ratigan’s suspicious behavior, including the facts that parents had found toys in his house and children’s underwear in his bushes.

    The lay review board learned about the principal’s letter in the media. Not from Finn.

    Yesterday, lawyers for Finn stated that charges should be dropped because he is NOT a mandatory reporter. According to the Associated Press:

    Finn claims Vicar General Robert Murphy and a diocese review board — not the bishop — were responsible for reporting suspected images of child pornography to the state.

    Wait. Did I miss something? Now it’s the review board’s fault? Even when Finn keeps them in the dark (on purpose) or gives them incomplete and faulty information?

    I have written about the utter failure of law review boards in the past. These boards were expressly created to have NO power. Don’t believe me? From the 2001 Essential Norms (revised):

    4. To assist diocesan/eparchial bishops, each diocese/eparchy will also have a review board which will function as a confidential consultative body to the bishop/eparch in discharging his responsibilities. The functions of this board may include

    a. advising the diocesan bishop/eparch in his assessment of allegations of sexual abuse of minors and in his determination of suitability for ministry;

    b. reviewing diocesan/eparchial policies for dealing with sexual abuse of minors; and c. offering advice on all aspects of these cases, whether retrospectively or prospectively.

    See that part about “confidential and consultative”?  That means that the bishop can tell them whatever he wants and doesn’t have to take their advice. As a former board member myself, I know.

    How else do bishops keep lay review boards as powerless as possible? In Los Angeles, members of the review board admitted only knowing about “hypothetical” cases (while an admitted perpetrator was a board member). In Philadelphia, review board members had no idea about more than two dozen accused clerics still in ministry, until a grand jury report exposed them.

    The head of the Philadelphia Lay Review Board, Ana Maria Catanzano, went so far as to say that they were chartered to only review cases where civil or criminal litigation were not involved.

    So they weren’t even given cases to review that fell under the reporting statute.

    Who is supposed to report? The bishop. In fact, if you carefully review the norms, under #11, you will see this:

    11. The diocese/eparchy will comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and will cooperate in their investigation. In every instance, the diocese/eparchy will advise and support a person’s right to make a report to public authorities. (from the footnotes: The necessary observance of the canonical norms internal to the Church is not intended in any way to hinder the course of any civil action that may be operative)

    That means that a criminal report must be made before ANYTHING else is done.

    But Norm #9 is my favorite:

    9. At all times, the diocesan bishop/eparch has the executive power of governance, within the parameters of the universal law of the Church, through an administrative act, to remove an offending cleric from office, to remove or restrict his faculties, and to limit his exercise of priestly ministry.

    Because sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric is a crime in the universal law of the Church (CIC, c. 1395 §2; CCEO, c. 1453 §1) and is a crime in all civil jurisdictions in the United States, for the sake of the common good and observing the provisions of canon law, the diocesan bishop/eparch shall exercise this power of governance to ensure that any priest or deacon who has committed even one act of sexual abuse of a minor as described above shall not continue in active ministry

    So, Bishop Finn, the buck stops with you. You have the “executive power of governance” over an institution required under law and moral obligation to report child sexual abuse. And you blew it.