.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE HAS APPEARED IN THE RECORD May 1, 2002

More than just suspicion over Catholic Church

The Boston sexual abuse scandal has done much more than just cause a dark cloud of suspicion to linger over the Catholic Church. On the basis of all what has been said and written about the crisis, even the most loyal core of church activists are extremely shocked. Court-imposed awards, hefty settlements and reductions in donations have already resulted in drastic cuts in church programs and money for the desperately poor and chronically sick. Under the shadow of the scandal, the chronic shortage of priests caused in large part by the Church's unyielding stand on celibacy, will reach critical proportions. With fewer seminarians, more and more parish churches will have to close down.

Allegations can cloud the facts

Even as a trained lawyer and career prosecutor (albeit retired) I must confess that sorting out the facts from the many allegations is proving to be an extremely difficult if not an impossible task. As to the many articles and editorials on the subject of the crisis, they are inclined to be more generous with expressions of outrage, estimates and opinions than with comprehensive statistics and hard facts. Moreover, hardly a day goes by without reports of more sordid sexual assault convictions, lawsuits, criminal complaints and investigations. With references to cover-ups, hush money and safe houses where rogue priests were allegedly hidden from the police, you would think that it was the CIA and not the Church that was in serious trouble. Difficult to determine extent of problem

While allegations and convictions of rape and sexual depravity against Catholic priests are nothing new there are still no accurate statistics available capable of disclosing the true extent of the problem. The Church has yet to reveal all of its information, and is unlikely to release abuse victims from orders of silence contained in legal settlements.

This also makes it difficult to determine with any degree of accuracy whether the incidence of abusing children or minors is any greater among similar professions, such as teachers and social workers. According to one news report (that failed to identify its source), the total cost of lawsuits and settlements involving "600 pedophile priests" over the last 15 years is $1 billion.

In the Boston diocese alone, it has been reported that the church will have to pay $40 million to settle the 140 pending sexual molestation claims against priests, and possibly tens of millions more as claims continue to pile up. In a nationwide review of Roman Catholic dioceses released a few days ago, it was reported that the Associated Press found that at least 177 priests suspected of molesting minors have either resigned or been taken off duty in 28 states and the District of Columbia since the clerical sex scandal erupted in January.

While at first glance all these figures are extremely troublesome we must keep in mind that there are approximately 46,000 priests in the United States who serve in 20,000 dioceses. Percentage wise, although of little consolation, the known number of cases hardly reflects the type of widespread sexual abuse of children that is so often reported by the media. This is particularly true if we include the other 20,000 priests in the U.S. who are married and, although no longer clerics, occupy an organizational position in the church.

Natural temptation to judge on basis of allegations

Despite the presumption of innocence there is a natural temptation to evaluate the extent of the problem on the number of complaints and investigations involving sexual abuse. In California and Massachusetts alone, it is estimated that 550 people have made new allegations of abuse this year. For all of the U.S., one report claimed that approximately 2,000 priests are now being investigated. With law enforcement authorities pressuring their dioceses to turn over records of abuse complaints, the national total could skyrocket.

Keep in mind that many of the priests involved in the complaints are probably in their 60s and 70s or even older, the reason being that whenever there was a complaint about a priest molesting little boys, the tendency was to turn it over to the bishop instead of being investigated by the police. Such priests were often regarded as "sinners" who "deserved" to be given the opportunity to confess and change their ways.

Some suggest that the Church's refusal to convey the sexual complaints to the legal authorities was based on the victims' wishes. Such an explanation hardly seems compatible with the Church's zealous deployment of lawyers whenever victims decided to sue. The most crucial question, the most serious question, and definitively the one, which has sparked so much outrage, has to do with the conduct of church administrators. Why would they shelter suspected sexual abusers and place them in positions where they could prey on other victims? Although Cardinal Bernard F. Law of Boston remains the centre of the scandal on this very point, the practice of quietly moving priests from one unsuspecting parish to another was certainly not limited to his archdiocese. In November 2000 a Roman Catholic archbishop in the U.K was plunged into somewhat the same controversy. He had ordained a priest, despite being warned that the latter posed a danger to children. The priest went on to assault two nine-year-olds and was jailed for eight years. The archbishop apologized for the "distress, anguish, hurt and betrayal" to the victims of the priest and subsequently tendered his resignation. Last September, a bishop in France was sentenced to a three-month suspended prison term after he was accused of covering up for a pedophile priest.

All about protecting the Church's image?

There is more than one reason why priests suspected of sexual misconduct were allowed to remain in active ministry. The lack of any universal tolerance-zero policy made this possible. No doubt, to some degree, the Church acted on the organizational instinct to protect its image. Although such a reaction is common with governments, universities, hospitals and probably every major corporation, it is important to remember that actions or conduct that amount to obstruction of justice are criminal even when the sole purpose is to avoid a public scandal. Were the priests quietly transferred to other dioceses because the church hierarchy failed to understand the devastating consequences of sexual abuse? Some experts seem to think so. Judging from how, prior to the 80's, our own justice system failed to adequately respond to crimes of sexual abuse no matter who the offenders were, such an opinion may not be all that wrong.

Was it to keep the sordid details secret so that church donations wouldn't dry up? This was likely true in some cases. Next week: Part II: Is celibacy relevant to the crisis?