The Other Side of the Scandal

By Ginger Berlin

Considering statistics on false accusations, widespread dismissals of Priests on orders from Catholic Bishops is questionable. A 1986 study by Child Welfare League reported 60% of all accusations of sexual abuse were proven false. In 1995 the stat rose 15 percent: “there were 3,200,000 reports of alleged child abuse and neglect in America.... Of those, only 16% incorporated sex abuse complaints. Of those, 75% were deemed unfounded, without foundation.” (Tong, Dean. Ashes to Ashes Families to Dust. False Accusations of Child Abuse: A Roadmap for Survivors. 1996)

The scandal has two sides; the horrid behavior of a guilty Priest and numerous innocent Priests being abandoned by their Bishops in that they are not given both the civil and Canonical right of due process -despite the Vatican ordering American Bishops to adhere to Canon law. This is the other ignominy of the scandal.

This disgrace rests solely upon the collective shoulders of the Bishops. They first ignored a grave problem; perhaps out of fear, embarrassment and lack of knowledge to adequately resolve the crisis. Then primarily because of massive media coverage they rushed for a quick fix to regain control and confidence. Their knee-jerk policy in many dioceses remains in violation of the Vatican’s, The 'Essential Norms' that specifically state: “ensuring that the true facts are ascertained, the approved Norms protect inviolable human rights -- including the right to defend oneself … uphold the principle, fundamental in all just systems of law, that a person is considered innocent until either a regular process or his own spontaneous admission proves him guilty," The Bishop’s collective disobedience and desire to remain autonomous from the Vatican is costing innocent Priests.

There is a two-fold problem; Bishops haven’t defined “credible evidence” and they deny accused Priests the right of due process. Justice embraces the quest for the truth. Without fully defining what the Bishops coin credible, truth will never be revealed. Without due process, justice is not righteous. Justice also includes the rights of one accused; this is an integral aspect of our civil judicial system and is the intrinsic value of due process as defined in Canon law. Failure to adhere to prescribed rules of law devalues and casts a shadow of great doubt upon an authentic victim, and an innocent Priest will undoubtedly suffer. We must hold a Priest to a higher standard, but that never should be construed to equal a lesser standard of rights. Current procedures omit the righteousness of law.

I interviewed Joe Maher, founder and President of Opus Bono Sacerdotii, (work for the good of the priesthood). Opus Bono Sacerdotii -a non-profit organization works within “authentic Church teaching and the Holy Father” that supports accused Priests by offering legal representation, housing, food, transportation and bodyguards. Part of the problem Maher stated is, “Bishops in America have become corporate CEO’s who have lost the meaning of their ordination … it has become a career … absent of the charity and discipline of the gospel.”

I asked Maher if there was a definition in the Bishops policy that defines “credible evidence.” He responded, “You won’t find one –there isn’t one.” Maher further explained U.S. Bishops don’t comprehend Canon law due process. A detailed explanation is available on their website: http://www.opusbonosacerdotii.org “Many Bishops,” said Maher “are ambiguous, they do whatever they want . . . all too often affirm each other. They claim to have a process, but it is not due process.” The procedure of immediate removal of a Priest based on the undefined “credible” allegations and the refusal of due process is what Maher calls, “immoral, unethical, against Canon law and illegal.” Countless Bishops played the political game to ascend into their prestigious position and comfortable lifestyle, which has given rise to their complacency and ambiguity. Bishops align themselves with victims groups not because of justifiable reasons, but said Maher, “because of headlines.”

Some innocent Priests are told to voluntarily sever themselves from their ministry and the dioceses will pay them $20,000. Maher related other facts; a reporter approached Maher and asked, what was going on, explaining that a diocese had sent his newspaper files, photos, and accusations before Priests themselves are informed. In another documented incident, a family wanted their child baptized on a specific date. The Priest was unable to administer the Sacrament on that date. Ignoring this, the family arrived at the church only to be told it was not possible. In anger the grandmother something to the effect of, “I know how to fix you.” Subsequently, an allegation of abuse followed. Regardless of the documentation the Priest was placed on administrative leave. Where is the credible evidence? Where is due process?

Bishops forget two key factors. How can allegation of an act taken place over thirty years ago or even ten adequately be substantiated? Can the true facts be ascertained? Specifically because time eliminates accuracy, (the reason statutes of limitations are in effect) the credibility of an accuser must be a component of the investigation. Currently that is omitted in the scheme of investigation. The accuser’s credibility, the accusation, all facts supporting the allegation must be provided to the accused first and certainly substantiated prior to being forced on administrative leave.

The other aspect disregarded is acknowledged scientific studies. Pedophiles and ephebophiles continually repeat the horrendous act. Many studies report, “The fixated pedophile's and the ephebophile's sexual desire is intense and recurrent . . .” (America, 25 April 2002) The U.S. Department of Justice particularly regarding sexual abuse states, “Crimes of abuse are not usually isolated incidents; instead, they take place over a period of time, often with increasing severity.” (Law Enforcement Response to Child Abuse. March 2001) One must ask, how come the vast majority of accused Priests do not have recent accusations and/or accusations that span throughout their vocation that have increased in severity? Think victim is too devastated to come forward? Consider this: from 1980 to 1990 the “reported cases of child sexual abuse reached epidemic proportions,” with a reported 322 percent increase. (Sorensen & Snow, 1991) Evidently people do make such a claim.