The Worthy Adversary

Category: Politics

  • Dissecting Dolan’s Apologists

     

    Documents recently exposed in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee showed that NY Cardinal Timothy Dolan paid predator priests $20,000 to quietly leave the priesthood. Yeah, really.

    The response from Dolan? Cue the crickets. But that doesn’t mean that Dolan’s apologists have also clammed up. In fact, they have been very loud in defending Dolan, saying, “Well, at least he got rid of these bad apples.” If you want to read those articles, you can look them up. I really don’t want to drive traffic to them via my links.

    I am not going to rehash the same news you can find on a million other websites. I am also not going to restate the 9,000 fine points of the public safety hazard Dolan caused. Every point is painfully obvious to anyone with a soul. Instead, this post is about why the apologists are dead wrong.

    1) This ain’t the Wizard of Oz, sister. So quit trying to divert my attention.

    The Catholic League, Archbishop Charles Chaput and others always like to say, “There’s nothing to see here. Abuse is way worse in public schools. It’s a liberal conspiracy.” Here are my responses: Yes there is; Maybe; and Hell, no.

    Lady Justice carries a sword and scales. Do you know why?  So that she may not remove the blindfold from her eyes. Justice must remain blind, whether you wear the clerical collar or are a federal politician. What murderer could stand before the court and say, “Gee, maybe I killed one person, but look at Hitler. He killed millions.” It’s a ridiculous argument and should be viewed as such.

    I am going to give the apologists the same answer that my father gave me every day of my life until I moved out for good: “I don’t care what ‘everyone else’ is doing. You need to obey MY rules.” Dolan was WRONG. He BROKE THE LAW by not reporting abuse. He covered up for abusers. He must be held accountable. Period.

    2) If it’s okay to pay predator priests $20K, why didn’t you pay good and honorable priests the same amount when they choose to leave the priesthood?

    I know a number of former priests (and have talked to a couple before writing this. I encourage others to comment or contact me). I do not know a single good, honorable priest who was given a dime when they left the priesthood. A friend of my father’s and former LA priest Terrence Halloran (who reached out to me and has been an amazing and honest source of information and support), left the priesthood in 1967 because he fell in love. When I asked him, he said, “I didn’t even get paid for November 1967, my last full month in ministry.” He was also handed a bill (eventually forgiven by the Archdiocese of LA) for his education.

    Patrick Wall, a former priest and my friend and colleage (and according to the Official Catholic Directory 1994-1996 a judge/advocate for the Tribunal for the Archdiocese of Minneapolis/St. Paul – you can look it up. In fact, I INVITE you to, because it will be subject of a later post) was also handed a bill for his education when he left the priesthood. It was huge and it was never forgiven. He didn’t say that he was leaving to become an advocate for victims. He didn’t molest kids. He was just sick and tired of covering up for child molesters. His first job outside of the priesthood was as a nurses aide in a rest home. Now, the church is trying to say that he was never a judge/advocate. But the OCD never lies.

    These two good and honorable men were forced to enter the secular world with no savings, no support, no slush fund, no “wink and nod,” no annuity. So quit telling me that Dolan did the right thing by paying predators off to go away.  Twice-convicted child predator Oliver O’Grady is set for life, so why did Patrick Wall have to empty bedpans to eat?

    3) This has nothing to do with politics

    Yes, the bishops are suing the Obama administration regarding the Affordable Health Care Act. That is their right and duty under the Constitution. And yes, many liberal voices have spoken out for victims against the cover-up of abuse … but so have conservatives. So let’s cut to the chase: Sex abuse and cover up are not about politics. I know victims who have been ardent supporters of the cause who worked in the George H.W. Bush administration, victims who are Republicans, Libertarians, unaffiliated voters, and conservative Catholics. Some of my own biggest supporters are the mega-conservative Catholics who attending Latin services. Don’t tell me that this is a liberal conspiracy. Just as many Republicans were sexually abused as Democrats. Yes, the leadership of SNAP leans to the liberal side. So what? My husband is a Republican. (And I love my husband much more than I love David Clohessy. Sorry, David.)

    4) Predator public school teachers get paid off all of the time. Why aren’t you going after them?

    Yes, predator public school teachers get paid off all of the time. And I hate it, so I fight against it every time I can. But the public sector doesn’t use God, moral authority, eternal damnation or excommunication via lynch mod to hide abuse. The Catholic Church must be held to the same “higher standard” that that they demand of their faithful. Especially when they use tax dollars.

    That being said, the public sector MUST be held to account. That requires money, political power, influence and connections. It means fighting unions and the status quo. Heck, the U.S. Catholic Church itself doesn’t have the money to expose sex abuse in governmental organizations. It’s a grassroots movement in its infancy. But the real change will have to come from the inside with victims coming forward and demanding justice …just like the real change in exposing sex abuse in the Catholic Church came from victims and Catholics.

    We can continue the discussion in the comments or on Twitter at #CardinalDolan

    Find me on Twitter @jcasteix

     

     

     

  • Four Myths About SNAP’s ICC Complaint

    In September, victims of sexual abuse “upped the ante,” making a serious move to expose and prevent clergy sex crimes and cover-ups at the global level.

    How? SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (of which I am a member), filed a more than 80-page complaint (with 20,000 pages of documentation) with the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The goal? Prevent future sexual violence and to hold Vatican officials responsible for the rape of hundreds of thousands of children by Catholic clerics.

    Many applauded. But it didn’t take long before our actions were trashed by critics, who have tossed around four principal objections that lack factual basis.

    Here are four myths about SNAP’s ICC complaint:

    • The crimes are best brought before local courts. Sadly, that’s impossible and cannot achieve our goal. Too many victims are mired in shame and self-blame; too many predator priests are cunning and powerful; too few police have the resources to act; and too few prosecutors have the will or power to act effectively. There are many local prosecutors who have done tremendous work for victims, but they simply do not have the jurisdiction to hold every responsible party accountable for their crimes.
    • Many of the clergy crimes happened before the ICC was created in 2002. That’s true, but that does not mean that the crimes have stopped. Victims’ accounts, grand jury reports, legal documents, history, psychology and common sense convince us that hundreds of priests, bishops, nuns, seminarians and other church workers are sexually assaulting innocent kids and vulnerable adults right now. An ICC investigation, we are convinced, would document these on-going crimes (much like US grand jury probes and Irish government inquires have done with other recent clerical wrongdoing.).  California alone has shown us that the crimes and the cover-up have continued to this day, despite church “reforms.”
    • The church is “decentralized” so the abuse and cover up aren’t really orchestrated by the Vatican. That claim contradicts the obvious, military-like, top-down church structure as well as centuries of church practice. To cite some examples: the Vatican swiftly punishes and excommunicates theologians who deviate from official church teaching or priests who advocate for women’s ordination. Priests and bishops take vows to obey and protect the mother church.  Certain papal edicts are considered infallible. The pope and bishops have the theological right to deny “wrongdoers” access to the sacraments, and therefore, heaven. Only the Vatican can appoint bishops, allow bishops to retire, defrock priests, and approve major financial decisions in dioceses worldwide. The Code of Canon Law is the centralized legal system of the faith that (many in the church believe) trumps civil law. If that’s not centralized power, I don’t know what is.
    • The ICC only deals with overt, brutal killings by rogues during wars. But that’s simply not true. It’s designed to address violence that is “widespread” and “systematic.” Its jurisdiction covers open slaughter by public officials and hidden violence by private employees. It covers those who explicitly order underlings — or quietly but consistently enable them — to rape and torture the powerless. The court can’t pursue only politically safe and unpopular dictators, while ignoring more popular rulers when both contribute to and cause massive suffering.

    Historical, systemic and ground-breaking change can only happen through bold and brave measures. People like Martin Luther, Rosa Parks and the students in Tiananmen Square defied convention, risked their lives and stood up for justice. Our move is not as bold or as risky as theirs, but our drive to protect children and seek justice is just as strong. We don’t see to destroy the Catholic faith – in fact, many of our members are faithful Catholics who are just as disgusted as we are with the abuse and cover-up. Our beef is with the men and women who have twisted the Catholic faith to allow our most precious resource — our children — to be led like lambs to slaughter. I think that even Jesus would be hard pressed to find anything wrong with that.

     

  • A Rigali in Chaput’s Clothing

    We must demand more from Archbishop Chaput – more transparency, more support for legislative change, and more accountability.

    While many Philadelphia Catholic pundits are cheering the recent appointment of Denver Archbishop Chaput to replace Cardinal Rigali, victims remain rightfully wary.  We’ve seen first hand how easy it is for church officials replace a priest, vicar general, or bishop and then claim that a local abuse crisis is “over.”

    But as we all know, Philadelphia’s crisis is far from over.

    No one can predict the future. But after a careful examination of Archbishop Charles Chaput’s career in Denver, we implore Catholics to be wary, law enforcement to remain vigilant, and law makers to never lose sight of the recommendations that the most recent grand jury report made earlier this year – especially since Chaput has acknowledged he hasn’t read the 2005 report, and refuses to comment on whether he has even glanced at the 2011 document (more on that below).

    During this tenure in Denver, Chaput was cheered by many for what a “progressive” view on dealing with abuse in the church.  The truth was far different. Far, far different.

    In 2006, when Colorado legislators tried to expand archaic statutes of limitations for victims of child sexual abuse, including a civil window for older victims, Chaput spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and used the pulpit to kill the legislation.  In 2008 when another bill was proposed in the legislature, his (paid) spokespeople called the laws “inherently unfair,” even though an integral part of the law completely removed the civil statute of limitations for all children who were sexually abused from 2008 onward.  What about that is unfair?

    While fighting the legislation, Chaput played a game well known in politics: “I’m bad, but so are they.” To do this, his lawyers did a simple search of Colorado public school teachers who has been arrested for sexual abuse. Then they put the names in a list, publicized it, and then claimed that Chaput had unearthed a scandal of molestation in the public education system.  The PR stunt was a slap in the face of clergy sex abuse survivors.  Why? Because the teachers on Chaput’s list were already exposed and  arrested, unlike the vast majority of the predator clerics in the Catholic church.  The teachers on Chaput’s list were not carefully hidden by their superiors, shuttled from parish to parish, covered-up by church officials, and allowed to molest more kids.

    In fact, according to Bishop-Accountability.org, the leading database of documents chronicling the sex abuse crisis in the US Catholic Church, Chaput has been less than forthcoming in naming accused clergy.  In 2004, when the first national John Jay study on abusive priests was released, Chaput fudged the math. He only reported diocesan priests, and didn’t submit any information on religious order priests who – like himself – make up more than half of the priests in the diocese. (Remember, Chaput is a religious order priest, a Capuchin OFM).  Then, he only submitted the names of priests that the diocese had “confirmed” had abused kids, not the number of total accusations.   That sounds oddly similar to the problem in Philadelphia, when Cardinal Rigali said that no molesting priests were in ministry, just months before the grand jury found 37 accused priests working in parishes.

    In 2009, when Katia Birge, an adult victim of rape, came forward to tell diocese officials how she was abused by a diocese volunteer, Juan Carlos Hernandez, she was vilified in the press.  Blaming the victim is an old and tired game.  Fortunately in this case, it did not work.  In the process of her battle, the media discovered that the Archdiocese of Denver did no background checks on volunteers who take adults and children on trips.  Chaput also refused to confirm if he did background checks on domestic priests.

    Child victims of abusive priests such as Leonard Abercrombie (who molested numbers of children, including three brothers) and Harold White (who abused his own godson) have had to endure far worse.  It hasn’t been a picnic in the Archdiocese of Denver.

    Finally, and probably most disturbing, Chaput has admitted that he has not read the 2005 Philadelphia Grand Jury report.  There has been no confirmation as to whether he has read the 2011 report.  How can anyone lead an Archdiocese if crisis if they refuse to acknowledge and study the key documents that exposed at least 37 perpetrators in ministry?

    Philadelphia is at a crossroads.  The latest grand jury report was a tipping point – handing down indictments, vindicating victims, and pushing for serious legislative change.  Catholics are rightfully outraged.  But we urge them to not become complacent.  Instead, they must demand more from Archbishop Chaput – more transparency, more support for legislative change, more accountability – than has ever been asked from any other Philly cleric.

    The only way that children will be protected now and in the future and the only way that victims will heal is if everyone – law enforcement, Catholics and legislators – remain vigilant, demand change and enforce transparency.   We – victims, children and the larger community – cannot afford a Rigali in Chaput’s clothing.


     

  • The Plague on Both Your Houses, Boehner and Pelosi

    I don’t really like talking politics.  But today, it’s all about politics.

    Roll Call reported last week that Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner had agreed upon a new House Chaplain: a Jesuit priest from the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus (Oregon Jesuits), Fr. Patrick Conroy. Victims were outraged. Why? In March, the Oregon Jesuits settled more than 500 cases of child sexual abuse for $166 million. In 2007, the same order was forced to pay $50 million to 110 other victims. Most of the victims were Alaska Native children, from poor villages with no running water, no access to support and services, and no escape from predators. In fact, the Oregon Jesuits’ own documents show that they intentionally “dumped” perpetrator priests in these villages where the kids were less likely to report abuse.

    Apparently, it took Boehner and Pelosi some time to catch up on the news. Roll Call reported today that Pelosi is claiming “John didn’t tell me” and Boehner is saying, “But he’s a good guy.”

    Here is where they are BOTH terribly wrong:

    • Pelosi’s people read the papers, the internet and the news feeds. The Jesuit settlement was the top story when it was announced … in MARCH. This is not old news. She just thought that no one would care and that the national media would not catch on.  That’s where she messed up.
    • Boehner made his fatal error by claiming that simply because Fr. Conroy is an Oregon Jesuit, it does not mean that he’s tainted by the scandal. Sure, Fr. Conroy may be a really nice guy. He may not have abused a child, but also he didn’t call the cops when he should have. Here’s another take:  if Fr. Conroy had worked for ACORN, do you think that Mr. Boehner would be so forgiving? Not so much. Yes, ACORN broke the law, but I am pretty sure their employees didn’t molest more than 600 kids and then cover it up.

    What can these two do to make it better? Where do I begin?

    1. They can do what our national politicians have refused to do: Meet with, embrace and speak out for the victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, instead of continuing to meet publicly with the same bishops and cardinals who have covered up abuse,
    2. They can sit down and go through the tens of thousands of pages of documents (examples here or here or here or here or here … I could go on) that prove the abuse and cover-up,
    3. They can look at the numbers and the documents to see how the Catholic Church intentionally dumped criminals in our communities.  Then, Church officials relied on our government social services programs and taxpayer dollars to pay for the care of the victims, while they were busy covering up crimes. You want to talk about “taking advantage of the system?” Then look no further than your local bishop, and
    4. They can rescind the nomination of Fr. Conroy. Immediately.

    Finally, they can see, firsthand, that something needs to be done.

    I think everyone can agree upon that.