The Worthy Adversary

Category: Clergy Abuse Crisis

  • Apuron’s victims: Locked in a room with a priest on a run

    Apuron’s victims: Locked in a room with a priest on a run

    Fr. Justin Wachs was hiding out. After getting caught sexually harassing a parishioner in 2014—touching her without permission and leaving her suggestive notes— he quit his job as pastor in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

    Church officials thought the “geographic solution” would be best: get him as far away from Sioux Falls as possible. They even had a job for him: investigate allegations of sexual abuse.

    Where did he end up? Guam and Hawaii. Locked in rooms with the victims of Archbishop Anthony Apuron … rooms where their attorney, David Lujan, was not allowed.

     

    I have been very vocal in my criticism of the Canonical Trial of suspended Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron.

    Archbishop Anthony Apuron
    Archbishop Anthony Apuron

    For those of you just catching up, Apuron has been accused of child sexual abuse by at least four boys. He’s out of the office for now, replaced by Detroit native Coadjutor Archbishop Michael Byrnes.

    The trial process, which will take months—if not years—to complete, is not a criminal process like you or I know it. It is not public, there is no jury, there is no prison sentence.

    In fact, I believe that in the end, the decision will be to allow Apuron to live a life of “prayer and penance” on the mainland. And I am betting that the decision will be kept secret.

    What does that mean? Whatever Apuron wants it to mean.

    Remember: this is not a criminal proceeding. No one is going to drag him off in handcuffs. Most likely, he will collect his retirement and frolic around the mainland, untouched.

    For Apuron’s Victims, Tribunal is No Joke

    But there are a lot of people who take the Vatican process very seriously. Apuron’s victims testified in front of the tribunal—without their attorney present. That took a great deal of trust. A great deal of trust in their church. A great deal of trust in the process.

    But what if that trust had been misplaced?

    What if one of the men in the room had resigned from his parish for sexual harassment claims just three years ago?

    KELO in Sioux Falls just published a three-part series on the case of Fr. Justin Wachs. They published unwarranted and inappropriate letters that the priest sent to an employee. They showed memos from meetings the employee had with diocese officials in the hopes of getting the harassment to stop.

    They interviewed the alleged victim, who discussed what happened afterward: the priest’s retaliation that led to his eventual resignation.

    And they even mentioned where he has been recently: on Guam, investigating cases of child sexual abuse.

    Fortunately, that’s not the only place you’ll see his name.

    According to a May 8, 2017 Guam Post article about the Tribunal interviews with Apuron’s victims:

    [The victims] spent several hours each with five individuals, including Cardinal Raymond Burke, notary Father Justin Wachs, Father James Conn and two attorneys who represented Apuron …

    Father Wachs told Apuron’s accusers the judges could find Apuron guilty, find him innocent or find there is not enough information allowing Apuron to appeal …

    [The victims] were told the proceedings would not be shared publically, but the Vatican’s decision on Apuron would. Father Wachs assured them a decision is expected by “early summer.”

    Well, we know that the “early summer” statement was not the first of Wachs’s truth-stretching.

    And now we know that the Vatican takes the Canonical Trial about as seriously as I do.

  • Some Good News in the Saga of Bruce Wellems

    Some Good News in the Saga of Bruce Wellems

    This week, a lawyer for the Claretian Missionaries announced that Bruce Wellems was forced to petition the Vatican to give up his collar.

    That’s right. He can’t be a priest.

    For those of you who have been following this blog, that’s huge news. But for this person, it’s vindication:

    Eric Johnson, victim of Bruce Wellems, age 7

    That’s Eric Johnson. Bruce Wellems was 15 when he sexually abused seven-year-old Eric. I don’t say “allegedly,” because Wellems has admitted it.

    Eric has been fighting for years to expose what happened to him and to get some semblance of justice.

    According to the Chicago Tribune:

    “I could have chosen to remain anonymous, but I did not, which was not easy for my family nor myself. Yet I continue to push for justice,” [Eric Johnson] said. “[Wellems] is a danger to the kids and the community.”

    Wellems contends that his good work since the time he abused Eric should make up for his past. But here’s the rub: Not once has he apologized for what he did to Eric and/or may have done to others. Not once has he understood the lifelong pain that sexual abuse causes victims.

    In fact, in 2014, when I first learned of the allegations from documents that had been leaked to SNAP, the Survivors Network—but before I met Eric—we did an event in San Gabriel after Wellems had been booted from a parish there by Archbishop Jose Gomez. Parishioners had been led to believe Wellems’ removal was due to a misunderstanding in a “consensual dating relationship” when he was a teenager.

    The parishioners said they were informed that Wellems was asked to resign after a record surfaced of inappropriate behavior with another minor when Wellems was 15 years old.

    In the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Wellems made the following statement:

    Wellems said in a statement he is still a priest and is on sabbatical in Chicago. He said while he supported the mission of SNAP, he was disappointed in the accusations made by the organization that had “no factual basis.”

    “I am appalled and disappointed in their poor judgment to reveal my juvenile past, thus discrediting my good work. Worse still for me, in their quest to protect victims, I feel as if SNAP, with this announcement, is victimizing the thousands of families in the parishes where I have worked,” Wellems said. “These people have made great strides to be transparent and understand what it is to be healthy faith communities.”

    He made himself the victim.

    Eric was a second grader. Wellems—as a teenager—used sex as a tool to overpower and victimize a little boy. And not once has Wellems apologized. That makes him very, very dangerous.

    So yes, there is some good news. But there is also troubling news:

    Wellems still runs a nonprofit that works with at-risk youth in Chicago. Rumor has it that fallout from the recent legal settlement is ruffling feathers and that his future there is at risk.

    He has also been “cut loose,” so to speak. The church is washing its hands of him. Now, unfortunately, it will be up to people like Eric and me (once again, the burden is on the victim) to keep a look out and make sure that Wellems doesn’t wash ashore at another youth-serving organization.

    Ideally, the church would strip Wellems of his collar and put him in a secure location, where he would have no contact with youth. But that would be common sense, no?

    We have to accept the little victories where we get them.

     

  • The Ins and Outs of the IRCP Part 4: Hamlet’s Dilemma

    The Ins and Outs of the IRCP Part 4: Hamlet’s Dilemma

    To register, or not to register? That is the question.

    For those of you just catching up, the IRCPs, or the Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Programs, are programs for certain survivors of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of New York and the Diocese of Brooklyn.

    A bridge connects two IRCPs

    If victims qualify, they may get financial compensation. But the victim will have to sign away later civil rights if they become available. The victim will also not have access to the priest perpetrator’s secret personnel file or learn about the cover-up of abuse. The plan is run by an independent administrator.

    However, the victim CAN publicize the name of the perpetrator. And the compensation is nothing to sniff at. Numbers are in the six figures and can go a long way to help many people rebuild lives.

    It’s a big trade off.

    The question

    Should you register online?

    No. If you think the plan is an option for you, you should shop around a find the right lawyer first and have that lawyer complete the process for you.

    Why?

    There are a number of reasons:

    1. Cardinal Dolan and Archbishop DiMarzio have had teams of lawyers for decades whose sole intention has been to ensure that survivors don’t get justice. Are you going to go into that fight alone?
    2. Kenneth Feinberg and his team are only working with the information that Dolan and DiMarzio selectively choose to disclose. Don’t you think it’s wise to go in with someone with experience working with clergy sex abuse cases in New York and who can push back in case your claim is denied?
    3. The process is not easy, nor is it victim-friendly.

    ~ and ~

    At the end of the IRCP process, a lawyer will be chosen for you to help you go through the final agreement. Will that attorney have your interests at heart? Who knows …

    DiMarzio and Dolan. They have more lawyers than you do.

    For those who balk at fees: Yes, lawyers usually charge somewhere between 30% and 40% of your final settlement. But if you go in alone and are denied, that’s it. You’re toast, unless you have something else you can show to “prove” your case. A lawyer has a ton more resources, years of institutional knowledge, data, researchers, a team of experts at his/her disposal, past and current legal cases, other attorneys, and legal knowledge … much more than a single survivor.

    On a whole, victims who have legal representation tend to get larger awards than those who do not.

    Finding a good attorney is not rocket science. Ask around for referrals. Find experts who have handled these cases in New York. Then start making calls.

    Choosing a lawyer is like dating. You need someone who “gets” you, returns your phone calls, and hasn’t been a jerk to your friends. It’s okay to interview a few and if you just don’t like someone, say to yourself: “Meh. He’s a mouth breather. Next!”

    All joking aside: This is the lawyer who may help put your perpetrator behind bars. This is not a decision to take lightly.

    The IRCP may not be for you

    The IRCP is not for everyone. It’s enabler and predator friendly. Or, you may not qualify—most survivors in both dioceses do not.

    But if you do use the plan, PLEASE publicize your perpetrator.

    My prediction: The Diocese of Rockville Center will be the next to announce a plan.

    If you were a part of the IRCP in New York, received a settlement, and were NOT represented by an attorney, give me a shout: jcasteix@gmail.com. I am trying to put together a list of all of the perpetrators who have been named in the program. Your privacy will be protected.

     

  • The Ins and Outs of the IRCP Part 3: Who is Kenneth Feinberg?

    The Ins and Outs of the IRCP Part 3: Who is Kenneth Feinberg?

    Sorry for the gap since Part 2. I was on vacation. Then I ended up on the news. 

     

    He’s been called The Master of Disasters, a brand unto himself, and the Compensation Czar.

    Kenneth Feinberg (pictured above), the man who, with his assistant Camille Biros (read this recent New York Times article about her), is in charge of determining who is eligible for compensation in both the New York Archdiocese’s and Brooklyn Diocese’s Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Plans.

    He handled compensation for the victims of 9/11, the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion, the Penn State sex abuse scandal, the Boston Marathon Bombings … the list goes on and on.

    But these disasters were different. Penn State officials were subject to civil and criminal trials. BP was subject to huge civil litigation with the Deepwater Horizon explosion. One of the Boston Bombers died; the other was given the death sentence in the criminal courts.

    Not only were these scandals settled in the courts before Feinberg got them, but they are also over. Done.

    The Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in the State of New York is neither. It is not over and victims have been barred from using the civil courts for justice. The scandal is not done.

    It gets worse.

    All of the evidence that the church has in their files will remain secret. Even from Feinberg. He has to trust Dolan is telling him the truth and giving him all of the information he needs.

    The IRCP is different from any plan Feinberg’s office has administered before.

    Due Diligence

    Earlier this year, Barb Dorris and I reached out to Feinberg’s office. We wanted to meet with him in order to be able to do our due diligence for victims who were coming to us with questions about the IRCP.

    I expected the kind of response I usually get from church officials: crickets. Or, a delayed patronizing response, informing me that I am an idiot.

    His response was immediate and respectful. He wanted to meet and invited us to bring others. He was open to talking on the phone. He was frustrated because victims didn’t want to talk to him (we had to explain that a friend of Dolan’s is no friend of victims).

    At our in-person meeting, Barb and I brought the leading minds in the clergy sex abuse cover-up scandal victims’ “movement.” We needed people far smarter than us to help inform him of the huge problem he is facing. (I won’t name names here, unless they say it’s okay).

    Did Feinberg fully grasp what we were telling him—that Cardinal Dolan is one of the biggest enablers of sex abuse and cover-up in the United States? That Dolan is most likely sitting on a treasure trove of evidence of child sex abuse? That this plan is a ploy to rob victims of their civil rights? That quite possibly, this plan may keep abusers in ministry, keep enablers from being held accountable, and rob victims of their civil rights?

    I don’t know.

    But at least he took our meeting and listened to us. If I were to call him tomorrow, I am sure he’d meet with me right away. I have tremendous respect for that.

    Do I have much respect for the plans themselves or the bishop and cardinal who are heading them? No.

    I wouldn’t swap places with him and Camille Biros for all of the money in the world. But Kenneth Feinberg has earned my respect.

     

  • The Ins and Outs of the IRCP Part 2: Phases and Deadlines

    The Ins and Outs of the IRCP Part 2: Phases and Deadlines

    Part two of this series was originally going to be a little about IRCP plan administrator Ken Feinberg, but since the Diocese of Brooklyn has posted its official IRCP website (full of legalese), I thought I would go over some of the details here. *

     

    DiMarzio and Dolan. Putting victims in corrals and excluding the majority.

    Brooklyn IRCP

    Bishop DiMarzio and the Diocese of Brooklyn are currently in Phase One

    The only survivors who qualify are those to whom the diocese has reached out directly. (That’s why we knew this announcement was coming – You can’t call a bunch of survivors and not have the word get around)

    Whom did they call? People who had come forward to them in the past with complaints of abuse by priests or deacons of the Diocese of Brooklyn.

    Does it count if their parents/teachers/neighbors/therapists complained? I don’t know.

    This phase does NOT include victims abused by teachers, order priests, nuns, brothers, volunteers, or employees of the Diocese of Brooklyn … beginning to see the problem?

    It only gets worse when we look at the Archdiocese of New York.

    If you have not been contacted by the Diocese of Brooklyn, there is nothing you can do in Phase One. But if you were sexually abused in the diocese, you can register for Phase Two. That will probably begin sometime in September, when Phase One ends.

    If you register for Phase Two or are considering it, call an attorney. Throughout the process, you will be up against the Diocese of Brooklyn and their attorneys and need to be on equal footing with the law firm of Kenneth Feinberg (more about him in a later post). You are NOT the diocese’s primary interest or their client.

    Don’t go in alone.

     

    Archdiocese of New York IRCP

     

    Cardinal Dolan and the Archdiocese are in Phase Two. The deadline for that phase has been extended to November.

    Sexual abuse victims qualify if they were abused by clergy (not deacons) of the Archdiocese of New York. Also: no teachers, volunteers, religious order priests, nuns, brothers, or employees.

    It’s also important to note that diocesan priests make up only about half of the priests of the archdiocese at any given time over the past 50 or so years.

    It looks like a big program, but it only helps a fraction of victims.

    If you think you may qualify, you should explore your options … and call an attorney.

     

    Your call to action

    If you do participate in this program, you have the right to talk publicly. But the church knows that 99.9% of victims do not know how to do a media event, don’t have the time to reach out to other victims, and don’t want the burden of collecting all of the data on who has been credibly accused, etc.

    But I do.

    If you have participated in this program and were not represented by an attorney, please contact me at jcasteix@gmail.com. Do NOT let the church keep you silent.

    If you are an attorney and have represented survivors in the IRCP, give me a shout. Let’s get those names out there.

    Remember, the Archdiocese of New York is not releasing information or evidence about abuse and cover-up, so they don’t really want to help victims.

    And if they try to sell this as “reform” to the NY Legislature, we need to push back.

     

    * Disclaimer:

    This post does not take the place of legal advice. I am not an attorney. In fact, I encourage anyone who think that they might qualify for this program to call an attorney with experience in New York in handling/settling these cases.