I started reading the most recent John Jay College Report on Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests which was presented to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  I was immediately reminded of the Mark Twain quote about using statistics to prove a point:  “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”  I am not quite finished reading the report, but Twain’s quote is already relevant to this study which on its face is flawed.  I will reserve my final comments until I finish reading the entire report.  However, in the meantime, I am including below a recent article from a Boston Professor who was involved in the 2002 Boston Clergy Abuse scandal.  Here it is:

Priest abuse study called ‘deeply flawed’

Walter Robinson led the Boston Globe Spotlight team that broke the clergy abuse story, netting a Pulitzer Prize in 2003.

May 23, 2011

Researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice this month released the results of a study, commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002, examining the causes of the sexual abuse crisis within the Church. The report, which places blame not on church leaders but on the permissive culture of the 1960s and 1970s is “deeply flawed” says Walter Robinson, distinguished professor of journalism at Northeastern University, who led the Boston Globe Spotlight team that broke the clergy sex abuse story, netting the paper the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2003.

What is your immediate takeaway from the John Jay study, which says the sexual abuse crisis was the result of cultural changes in 1960s and ‘70s?

Like everybody else, I was drawn to what you could call this “third-rail conclusion” that the supposed surge in the incidence of sexual abuse by priests in the ’60s and ’70s was somehow caused by the permissiveness of that era. The report cited such things as divorce, drug use, crime and premarital sex as somehow being instigating factors that made priests abuse children.

The fact of the matter is that the data is deeply flawed. So to draw any kind of conclusion like that is, I think, unwarranted. It is more likely that the incidence of abuse of minors by priests was just as prevalent in the ’20s, ’30s, ’40s and ’50s as it was in the ’60s and ’70s. But the numbers John Jay College has don’t support that because a lot of records in a lot of those dioceses from those earlier decades had been destroyed. Also, in those earlier decades, people did not come forward. And by the time people did start to come forward, in the late 20th century and early in this century, many of the people who were abused in those earlier decades were dead. That’s a more logical explanation for what happened, and it obviously further undermines this notion that the permissiveness of the ’60s and ’70s had anything to do with the abuse.

What are the flaws that you believe skewed the results of the study?

The study is based upon reporting by the dioceses and the archdioceses in the United States to the John Jay College that was done over time. Some of those dioceses were simply not forthcoming. A recent example of that can be seen by looking at the Philadelphia archdiocese, where, as recently as this February, there were 37 priests with credible allegations against them who were still in ministry.

In other dioceses, many of the records had been destroyed. In the Boston archdiocese, for instance, there were well over 200 priests who were identified as having had credible allegations against them between 1950 and 2002, which is the period under study. In the New York archdiocese, there were only 49 priests [with allegations], and the reason for that is that the New York archdiocese had, sometime before this scandal broke, destroyed all of their earlier records. That’s the most obvious example of a diocese that didn’t even have data to submit, even if it wanted to be forthcoming.

What do you think the results of this study would mean to victims of sexual abuse and to the Catholic community at large?

The good news is that any time there is this much attention — even if it involves a flawed study — that’s brought to bear on a subject of this magnitude, it tends to spur a lot of discussion and perhaps helps add to the impetus for change within the Church and the way they deal with sexual abuse. So that’s a good thing. The bad thing about this study is that, by pinning the blame for this on things that happened outside the Church, such as cultural changes of the ’60s and ’70s, it once again reinforces the view that the Church and the archbishops and cardinals are being let off the hook. This study ignores the real reason why the rate of abuse was so high for so long — Church officials did nothing to stop it, and in many cases, by transferring priests from one parish to another, effectively facilitated the abuse of thousands of children.

I have met Sister Maureen on several occasions. If you ask me, what the Church needs are more nuns like her. She has been active in the successful effort to change the Statute of Limitations for Child Sex Abuse in Delaware which also resulted in “window legislation”that allowed older cases to be pursued by survivors who had been victimized over the past decades by members of the clergy in Delaware. She is a frequently asked to speak on the subject of the Sex Abuse Crisis in the Catholic Church whether it be as a guest on Larry Kane or before a small group of survivors meeting at a church in Germantown. Where ever she is, she adds a measured voice of reason and compassion in her quest to make the Catholic Church accountable for its past sins in the hopes of improving the faith that she calls her own. To that end, she has been a significant figure in the Voice of the Faithful whose website you can find linked to this site. I hope that Sister Maureen can continue her mission. Below is the letter that she sent to the Bishop in Wilmington after one of her attempts to make Catholics aware of the crisis facing their Church.

May 8, 2011

Bishop W. Francis Malooly
Chancery Office
Catholic Diocese of Wilmington
1925 Delaware Avenue
Wilmington, DE 19806

Dear Bishop Malooly,

On Sunday, May 01, 2011, along with two other women and one man, I stood outside St. Ann’s Parish Church in Wilmington, Delaware at the corner of Gilpin and Union.

We were there with handouts asking parishioners to take the pledge – a pledge to protect children, and to sign a petition attesting to the same:

www.pledgetoprotectchildren.org

With papers in hand, we stood equally spaced one from another in front of the church waiting for Sunday’s 9:30 A.M. Mass to conclude.

As the parishioners started to exit the church and make their way down the walk in our direction curbside, we said, “Good Morning, would you like to take the pledge to protect children? There is a website on-line which will give you more information about the pledge.”

The parishioners were invariably polite and responsive, taking a flyer and moving on while talking to other parishioners on a glorious spring morning.

Shortly after Mass goers started exiting the church, Msgr. Thomas Cini, presently Moderator of the Curia for the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington as well as the pastor of St. Ann parish, came round the corner of Gilpin Avenue, presumably from the rectory, and appeared to be on a course heading directly for us.

Msgr. Cini first worked his way to each of the other women before coming to me.

He was confrontational with all of us, demanding to know who we were. To one he said, “Oh, you’re that SNAP woman,” referring to the group, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Then he stood directly in front of me with his face inches from mine and in an aggressive and demanding voice said, “Who are you?” I said, “I’m Sister Maureen as you well know.” Cini then told me to call the next time to get his permission before coming and distributing anything at his church. I told him I didn’t need his permission and he said, “Yes, you do.” I repeated, “No, I don’t.” He then threatened to call the police which I suggested he do as he walked to the gentleman to my right, the fourth person of our little band of senior citizens.

Msgr. Cini never did ask the subject matter of the papers in my hand.

I mention this very public confrontation for a number of reasons —

As I thought about what had happened, the feelings I had experienced when Msgr. Thomas Cini confronted me began to wash over me again – his aggressive manner and stance, the invasion of my personal space with his face inches from mine, his provocative and bullying attitude. I felt the same adrenaline coursing through me and I realized that Msgr. Cini’s entire body language was telling me that I was close to being physically assaulted. He was harassing and attempting to intimidate me and his rant told me that he was that close to losing control.

I wonder how many others advocates, adult victims of childhood sexual abuse and members of their families have been verbally assaulted and harassed by church officials or diocesan clergy while doing nothing more than standing outside their own parish churches and attempting to bring attention to the sexual assaults and violations they have endured whether ten, twenty or fifty years ago or when trying to bring attention to their adult sons or daughters who had attempted or committed suicide as a result of sodomy and rape in childhood.

One member of our fearless little band was married in the very church we now stood before. Her seven children were baptized, received the other sacraments and graduated from St. Ann as she herself did along with her sister, brother and uncles. Yet she was made to endure the verbal abuse and harassment by Msgr. Thomas Cini for taking a position, in all good conscience, regarding the sexual abuse of children.

How unbelievable is that?

I am forced to ask, “Is such behavior by our priests the exception or the norm?” Has all that much really changed since 2002?

We know from the 2011 Grand Jury Report that not much had changed in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia between its release and the 2005 release of a previous Grand Jury Report.

We also know that the sexual exploitation of individuals, especially women and children, is far from being adequately addressed in society as a whole, by religious denominations generally or by the institutional Roman Catholic Church in particular.

Is it really any different in the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware?

Bishop Malooly, are you aware of the kind of behavior Msgr. Thomas Cini exhibited? Is it to be tolerated? Are there others like him? One has to wonder whether Msgr. Cini has a history of such boorish, crude and harassing behavior in regard to individuals be they women, including nuns, or men?

It certainly would behoove you as bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington to look into this matter.

In any case, the four of us deserve an apology.

Sincerely,

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish SNDdeN
(maturlishmdsnd@yahoo.com)

Cc: Monsignor Thomas Cini, Moderator of the Curia
Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Apostolic Nuncio

SNAP Responds to USCCB Report

Statement by Joelle Casteix of Newport Beach CA, western regional director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (949 322 7434, jcasteix@gmail.com)
Little in this document is really new. Not surprisingly, it confirms the same tired, self-serving rationalizations that bishops began trotting out years ago. This report is the latest, and perhaps most shrewd, effort by bishops to shift blame and make excuses. They’re counting on us having short memories and being swayed by the patina of academic respectability.

As the AP reports, the document says that “homosexuality, celibacy and an all-male priesthood did not cause the scandal.” What did and does cause this crisis is clear – timid, self-serving bishops who are obsessed with their comfort and reputations, so work very hard to keep clergy sex crimes and cover ups covered up.
As the New York Times reports, “The researchers concluded that it was not possible for the church, or for anyone, to identify abusive priests in advance.” But the real question is: Why was and is it not possible for bishops to quickly oust predators once they started molesting? That’s what really needs to be addressed.
As the AP reports, the report claims abuse “peaked in the 1970s,” then began declining. This is perhaps the most absurd and damaging assumption. All but a few victims are only able to report child sex crimes decades later. Because of this inevitable lag time, it’s irresponsible to pretend anyone has any real sense of how many clergy sex crimes happened in recent years or are happening now.

Bishops desperately want us to believe that their long-standing, deliberate, repeated recklessness and deceit were just simple “mistakes” because they just “weren’t aware of” or “didn’t understand” abuse. That is deceit heaped on more deceit. Even more, they want us to fixate on abusive priests, not callous bishops.
Bishops are highly educated men with extensive staffs and resources. But even high school drop-outs have, for decades, known that child sex abuse is wrong, illegal and hurtful. Even teenagers know that we are to call police and prosecutors. But bishops didn’t call the police about abuse. And most still don’t call the police. And the Vatican doesn’t require them to call the police.

How much bishops knew about the causes or treatment of pedophilia is irrelevant. For decades, every one of them knew it was illegal. And nearly every one of them endangered kids by refusing to call the police or tell the truth. Nearly every one of them protected known and suspected child molesters instead of protecting children. Nearly every one of them used their position of authority and power to keep victims silent and marginalized.
What needs to be studied, but bishops ignore, is the inexcusable and on-going cover up of clergy sex crimes by top Catholic officials.
Wrongdoers often childishly point to other wrongdoers, saying “See, they’re naughty, too.” Such bald-faced diversionary finger-pointing may be smart public relations, but it’s morally irresponsible.

We don’t need Catholic officials to distract us about other individuals or institutions that have mishandled child sex crimes and cover-ups. We need Catholic officials to seriously reform their own institution and stop current and future child sex crimes and cover-ups. It’s unseemly for bishops to spend parishioner donations on a document designed to restore bishops’ shattered reputations when true reform, transparency and child safety do not cost a nickel.
We don’t need Catholic officials to distract us by splitting hairs about whether most child molesting clerics are pedophiles or ephebophiles.
Bishops brag that they have adopted policies and procedures. Recent developments, however, show how worthless those policies and procedures are:

–In February, a Philadelphia grand jury found that 37 priests with credible allegations of abuse or inappropriate behavior towards minors were still in active ministry, despite the fact that just days earlier Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali said that no priest with credible accusations were working in the diocese. Five men (four priests and a teacher) were criminally charged, including the monsignor who was responsible for covering-up for predator clerics.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2011/01_02/2011_02_11_NPR_PhillyDA.htm

–That grand jury concluded that the archdiocese “continues to engage in practices that mislead victims, that violate their trust, that hinder prosecution of their abusers and that leave large numbers of credibly accused priests in ministry” and the policies and practices allegedly “designed to help victims (are) instead helping the abusers and the archdiocese itself.”

– In New Jersey, a Catholic school employee (Jose Feliciano) was accused of improper sexual contact with a child and murdering a priest. Just weeks ago, it was revealed that, along with one third of the other parish employees , the alleged criminal was never fingerprinted or subject to a background check.

http://chatham.patch.com/articles/slain-priests-notebook-shows-accused-murderer-was-facing-termination

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20110502/NJNEWS/110502028/Suspect-priest-s-murder-never-got-background-check-diocese-attorney-says-?odyssey=nav%7Chead

–In Kansas City, a priest named in two child sex abuse and cover-up lawsuits within the past six months remains in a parish. (Fr. Michael Tierney)

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2011/03_04/2011_04_27_Mansur_GroupUrges.htm

–In Fresno, a priest deemed guilty by a jury of molesting a boy remains in a parish. (Fr. Eric Swearingen)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125420225&ps=cprs

–In St. Louis, a priest who’s been accused three times of molesting at least three boys (none of whom know one another) is still in ministry (Fr. Alex Anderson)

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2004_07_12/2004_08_26_Townsend_DioceseSettles.htm

–In Stockton, a judge has ruled that there is enough evidence to schedule a July civil sex abuse trial against a priest who is still in active ministry (Fr. Michael Kelly)

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110420/A_NEWS/104200318

–In Wyoming, a bishop against whom at least six child sex abuse lawsuits have been settled remains a bishop. (Bishop Joseph Hart)

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2008/07_08/2008_08_23_McCarthy_SettlementLeaves.htm

http://www.bishopaccountability.org/assign/Hart_Joseph.htm

–In March in Boston, Cardinal O’Malley’s delegate said that there were 40 priests who have been accused of abuse but never named publicly. To date those names still remain secret.

http://www.bostoncatholic.org/uploadedFiles/BostonCatholicorg/Offices_And_Services/Offices/Sub_Pages/Archdiocesan_Pastoral_Council/2010_apc_minutes_031110.pdf

–Last year in New Jersey, a Catholic chaplain was ousted from his hospital job after a newspaper disclosed that he had been found guilty of molesting a boy in a criminal case in 2003. Although the verdict was overturned on a technicality, a judge ordered that the priest not be allowed around minors unsupervised (Fr. Michael Fugee), but Newark’s archbishop quietly put the offender in a hospital anyway.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2009/09_10/2009_10_16_Diamant_ArchdioceseRemoves.htm

Child molesters gravitate toward jobs involving kids. Institutions tend to protect themselves. So the Catholic hierarchy doesn’t stand out because of child molesting clerics. Its stands out because of complicit bishops.

Here’s the bottom line: Other institutions have also mishandled abuse. None, however, ignores and conceals child sex crimes like the Catholic hierarchy. Other institutions must do more to better protect kids. The Catholic hierarchy must do much, much more.

(SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is the world’s oldest and largest support group for clergy abuse victims. We’ve been around for 23 years and have more than 10,000 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. Our website is SNAPnetwork.org)

Contact – David Clohessy (314-566-9790 cell, SNAPclohessy@aol.com), Barbara Blaine (312-399-4747, SNAPblaine@gmail.com), Peter Isely (414-429-7259, peterisely@yahoo.com), Barbara Dorris (314-862-7688 home, 314-503-0003 cell, SNAPdorris@gmail.com)

http://chatham.patch.com/articles/slain-priests-notebook-shows-accused-murderer-was-facing-termination Feliciano’s name appears on this list, but there is no indication that he had passed the required background check. Of all the names on the list, approximately one-third had not been fingerprinted, according to defense attorney Neill Hamilton Mullaney testified that in 2009 the Diocese of Paterson, of which St. Patrick’s Parish in Chatham Borough is a part, was undergoing an onsite audit of safety standards for employees and volunteers in regular contact with minors.
The Diocese of Paterson, Mullaney said, adheres to the standards set forth in the Dallas Charter, properly known as the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, drawn up by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 2002 and recognized by the Vatican in 2003. The charter was modified by the USCCB in 2005 and recognized by the Vatican again in 2006.

Among the standards outlined in the charter are that all employees and volunteers who have regular contact with minors pass a full background check, including fingerprints. They must also attend a safe environment program and sign a Code of Pastoral Conduct.
Before 2009, the diocese asked that all 111 parishes within its purview submit information on their employees and volunteers working with children to the diocese directly. The diocese entered the information into a monitoring program.

In March 2009, Mullaney said the diocese decided to ask each parish to appoint a coordinator who would be responsible for adding and updating the information directly instead of sending it through the diocese. “We thought this was a much more accurate way to maintain the database,” Mullaney said.
Feliciano was listed in the database as a person who had regular contact with minors but had not fulfilled the necessary Dallas Charter standards, including the background check.

Mullaney said he was given an Excel spreadsheet after Hinds’ death entitled “Youth Contact Eligibility List” by John Eriksen, who received it from Marian Hobbie, the principal of St. Patrick School.

According to testimony from Mullaney, this spreadsheet lists the names of various volunteers and employees at the school and parish with corresponding columns to show whether they have been fingerprinted, attended the mandatory training and signed the code of conduct. It also denotes in what capacity they work in the parish, such as youth ministry, religious education, etc.

The purpose of the list was to identify those who had regular contact with minors and see which of them had completed the requirements of the Dallas Charter, Mullaney said. If they did not fulfill the standards, they were no longer eligible to continue having contact with minors, according to Mullaney.
Feliciano’s name appears on this list, but there is no indication that he had passed the required background check. Of all the names on the list, approximately one-third had not been fingerprinted, according to defense attorney Neill Hamilton.

“It shows that St. Patrick’s in Chatham was grossly out of compliance,” Mullaney said.

The list did not have a date on it and Mullaney said he did not know who compiled the information. “I never saw it before Father Hinds’ death,” he said.
“Before 2009, every parish was required to provide their information to the diocese. This Excel spreadsheet was probably how St. Patrick submitted their information,” Mullaney said.For immediate release Wednesday, May 18

*****

Statement by David Clohessy, Executive Director of SNAP 314 566 9790 SNAPClohessy@aol.com
4 fallacies in new bishop’s abuse report – SNAP responds
Predictably and conveniently, the bishops have funded a report that tells them precisely what they want to hear: it was all unforeseeable, long ago, wasn’t that bad and wasn’t their fault.
It gives bishops even more reasons to do avoid what they desperately want to avoid: questioning celibacy, married priests, secular laws, serious reforms or their own virtually limitless power as kings in a medieval monarchy.
Here are four of the most crucial fallacies in the document:
–The crisis is and was unforeseeable, the report claims, because child molesters don’t have forked tongues or devil tails and can’t be easily detected. Fair enough. But the report essentially dodges the crucial question: Why don’t bishops quickly out and oust child molesting clerics the first time they sexually assault a child? (And why then, if predators can’t be spotted in advance, do bishops tout their alleged seminary “screening” processes as panaceas?)
–The crisis was long ago, the report claims, because the bishops say so. Never mind the fact that only a handful of five and ten year olds march down to the police station and promptly report their own victimization, so it’s dreadfully misleading and dangerous to assume clergy sex crimes have gone down in recent years.
–The crisis isn’t all that bad, the report suggests, because many of the kids who are or were violated had experienced puberty. Never mind the fact that child sex crimes, no matter at what age, are always illegal, immoral and hurtful. So the hair-splitting between pedophiles and ephebophiles (a distinction that seems to matter to few besides bishops) is, for the most part, at best irrelevant and at worst distracting.
–Most important, the crisis isn’t the bishops’ fault, the document implies. It was what the New York Times calls the “Blame Woodstock” defense. At best, this is naïve. At worst, it’s deceptive. There are at least three reasons why it may appear to some that abuse ‘peaked’ in the 60s and 70s. The first is that victims during those years are old, strong, smart, healthy and desperate enough to finally be able to report their horrific pain. The second is that bishops are much more willing to disclose clergy sex crimes that are beyond the reach of the criminal and civil justice system than more recent clergy sex crimes that could result in prosecution and litigation and embarrassment. And bishops are more willing to acknowledge child felonies committed under their predecessors than themselves.
Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the bishops’ ‘take-away’ here is: “We don’t have to change a thing.” Thankfully, most people realize that’s nonsense. Most people understand that a feudal system lacking any ‘checks and balances’ is inherently unhealthy and that a culture premised on sexual abstinence and secrecy and self-perpetuation is inherently problematic.
Finally, David Gibson writes that the apparent jump in abuse cases in the 1960s and 1970s, the authors found, was essentially due to emotionally ill-equipped priests who were trained in earlier years and lost their way in the social cataclysm of the sexual revolution.”
Lost their way? Please! The writing on the wall seems clear: We fear that bishops are going backwards and laying the groundwork to recycle and restore proven, admitted and credibly accused child molesting clerics to ministry. Because, if those child sex offenders merely “lost their way,” they can clearly be “rehabilitated,” right?
Countless times over the past decade, bishops have claimed “We used to be naïve about abuse. Now we understand it better.” But if that’s the case, how can they, or anyone, attribute heinous, repeated sexual assaults on innocent, vulnerable kids as some priests “losing their way.”
(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 10,000 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. Our website is SNAPnetwork.org)

Contact – David Clohessy (314-566-9790 cell, SNAPclohessy@aol.com), Barbara Blaine (312-399-4747, SNAPblaine@gmail.com), Peter Isely (414-429-7259, peterisely@yahoo.com), Barbara Dorris (314-862-7688 home, 314-503-0003 cell, SNAPdorris@gmail.com).

Barbara Dorris
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests

Forward email

This email was sent to dmonahan@jdllm.com by snapdorris@gmail.com |
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests | PO Box 6416 | Chicago | IL | 60680