In light of the upcoming Papal visit to the U.S., I have a question:
When does Zero Tolerance begin?
Here are some hypotheticals to help illustrate my question:
If you found out that a new priest in your parish had admitted to his superiors (but not the parish) that he had sexually abused a child, would you be upset?
What if you found out that the abuse occurred before the priest had been ordained?
What if the archbishop told your parish and other parishes that the abuse was a “consensual dating relationship?”
What if you found out that the priest had been a teenager when he sexually abused a seven-year-old boy?
What if you knew that another archdiocese had kicked the priest out, citing Zero Tolerance?
What if you found out that despite the admission, your local archbishop gave this priest faculties in your archdiocese (that is, permission to act as a priest) and the archbishop said that the priest was not a risk to children?
Would you be upset? Would you want this priest around your children?
So when does Zero Tolerance begin? Does it begin at ordination? Does it begin at puberty? Does is begin at birth?
These are questions we should all be asking in Chicago.
** and a note: if any priests are quietly removed without the full truth, that’s definitely not Zero Tolerance.
Only 330 of the 575 who filed claims will get compensation. The archdiocese lawyers worked hard to get a ton of cases tossed—like that of advocate Peter Isely—because he was a longtime outspoken critic and survivor. I guess if you help other people get justice, the Archdiocese makes sure you get no compensation of your own.
The 330 survivors will receive $21 million.
Documents exposed in the bankruptcy showed a widespread cover-up. From FOX 6:
These documents detailed Cardinal Timothy Dolan and the Vatican’s role in sexual abuse cases and demonstrated how church officials and the Vatican repeatedly denied sexual abuse survivors justice by failing to act with urgency on reports of sexual abuse, often waiting years to remove a priest from ministry who had credible allegations of child sexual abuse.
But what the bankruptcy will be best known for is the infamous “cemetery fund.” From The Wall Street Journal:
In 2007, four years before the archdiocese filed for bankruptcy, Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan, now Cardinal Dolan of New York, transferred about $55 million to a new trust created to provide for more than 1,000 acres of cemetery land. The land serves as the final resting place for more than 500,000 people, according to the archdiocese’s website.
The archdiocese contends that the funds have always been intended to provide for its cemeteries. But in a letter to the Vatican the same year the trust was created, then-Archbishop Dolan suggested the transfer would help defend the funds against future lawsuits.
“By transferring these assets to the trust, I foresee an improved protection of these funds from any legal claim and liability,” he wrote in the letter, a copy of which The Wall Street Journal has viewed.
A number of years ago, a family reached out to me asking for help. Their son had been abused by a priest named Gerald Funcheon, and the family wanted to know what happened to the Crosier cleric.
At the time, I looked at the resources available. I saw a priest with huge holes in his assignment record and a couple of lawsuits. Other than that, he had simply vanished.
Funcheon was also the first predator exposed under Hawaii’s civil window. His video deposition—where he talks about abusing kids in Hawaii and elsewhere—was made public a few years ago.
Funcheon now lives is a facility for offending clerics in Missouri. But he’s free to do whatever he wants.
His victims? They are the ones who suffer for Funcheon’s crimes.
When I said, no—that I am, in fact, a volunteer with the organization—the writer said, “That’s good. You wouldn’t want to be seen as a professional victim.”
I swallowed hard, and let it drop.
Here’s the rub: SNAP is constantly being bashed by its opponents for being “professional victims.” But since when is taking a stand, demanding change and accountability, and running an organization been “being a professional victim?”
No one looks at other great victim-based organizations like the National Center for Victims of Crime or RAINN: The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network and says, “If you really care about the cause, you would work for free.” You certainly don’t look at your child’s teacher and say, “If you truly believed in education, you’d refuse a paycheck.”
So why do people look at SNAP’s full time, professional (and sorely underpaid) staff differently? It’s time for that view to end.
*******
Which leads me to my next point: SNAP is successful. So successful, in fact, that its opponents have taken to SLAPP lawsuits to attempt to silence and bankrupt the organization.
A SLAPP is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
While most SLAPPs are legally meritless, they can effectively achieve their principal purpose: to chill public debate on specific issues. Defending a SLAPP requires substantial money, time, and legal resources, and thus diverts the defendant’s attention away from the public issue. Equally important, however, a SLAPP also sends a message to others: you, too, can be sued if you speak up.
In a new SLAPP lawsuit, SNAP leaders, an alleged victim’s parents, St. Louis police officers, and city officials are being sued by a St. Louis priest, Fr. Xiu Hui “Joseph” Jiang.
In June 2012, Fr. Jiang was arrested for repeatedly molesting Lincoln County girl and was also charged with “victim tampering.” The tampering charge was due to the fact that he gave the girl’s parents a check for $20,000 to ensure their silence. The parents turned the check over to police.
He also admitted to molesting the girl, according to press reports.
In November 2013, those charges were dismissed. Unfortunately, this is all too common in child sex abuse prosecutions.
The motivation for Jiang’s SLAPP lawsuit? From KMOX:
Barbara Dorris of The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) tells KMOX that she believes the suit is intended to send a message.
“Our fear is that this is a way to intimidate victims, witnesses and whistle-blowers…into silence,” says Dorris. “If you tell the truth, we will sue you and I think it’s intended to silence people.”
SNAP has never been terribly popular. They expose cover-up. They show how victims and the public have been betrayed by beloved religious leaders. They talk about ugly truths that keep children safer from abuse. They demand that wrong-doers—even well-loved wrong-doers—be held accountable.
And they have changed the world in the process.
Their first amendment right to continue in their work should never be silenced by a SLAPP.