Home
Our Mission
Our Goals
Who We Are
Where We Are
Child Protection
Survivor Support
Survivor Testimony
Clergy Support
Prayerful Voice
Positions
Statements
Educating Ourselves
Coming Events
History
Site Index
Contact Us
Links |
Voice of the Faithful
2 Greenhill Road, Coleraine, N. Ireland, BT51 3JE
18th February, 2008
Most Rev William Lee
Episcopal Secretary
Irish Bishops' Conference
St Patrick's College
Maynooth
Co Kildare
Dear Dr Lee,
Betrayal
"Bishops
placed the interest of the church ahead of children …"
The Ferns Report (page 256), October 2005.
Among the undersigned are survivors of clerical sexual abuse who seek
healing within the framework of their Christian faith. They, and the
rest of us, find it deeply disturbing, and inexplicable, that, since the
Ferns report was published, not a single bishop of the Irish Church has
commented on this verdict - to point out that every one of the children
abused in Ferns was a full, baptised member of the Catholic church.
How could the
most innocent and vulnerable members of our church ever have been
considered expendable by any of its leaders - by those especially
charged with a duty of spiritual care for all children?
How could two successive bishops of an Irish diocese (and Ferns is so
far the only Irish diocese that has been publicly scrutinised) ever have
thought that the interests of the church could be 'placed ahead of
children'? (Q1)
We now know also that child sexual abuse by clergy is first recorded in
the archives of our church in 309 (the Council of Elvira), and that at
different times before the modern era, severe sanctions were placed
against clergy who behaved in this way.
Now, day after day, global news media inform us that those Irish bishops
who quite recently endangered children were far from exceptional. Using
the Internet, any Irish teenager today can, in a matter of hours,
discover that, in at least twenty-five countries across the globe,
Catholic bishops prioritised 'the church ahead of children'. This
happened not in the distant past but in recent decades - causing
lifelong trauma to countless innocents. A US investigation has
established that two thirds of US bishops behaved in this way.
What theological misunderstanding of 'church' could have led to this
practice right across the Catholic world? (Q2)
To 'place the interest of the church ahead of children' in such a way as
to endanger them is, logically, to sacrifice the lives and
happiness of children.
Certain that the answer cannot be 'the church' we ask: for what
exactly were those children sacrificed? (Q3)
Why does one of the bishops who did this (Bernard Cardinal Law,
disgraced former Archbishop of Boston) still enjoy a position of honour
in Rome? (Q4)
The Failure of Catholic Bishops to Learn and to Teach
We have heard it said in extenuation of this catastrophe that bishops
did not know until very recently (i) that child sexual abuse has
appalling and usually lifelong psychological consequences for its
victims, and (ii) that many perpetrators of that abuse are likely to be
compulsive in this behaviour and therefore permanently dangerous to
children.
But since we now know that the phenomenon of clerical sexual abuse of
minors has been documented in church records as early as 309, and also
that St Peter Damian warned the papacy in the mid 11th century of the
moral and spiritual damage caused to children by such abuse, any such
claims raise further profound questions.
As the magisterium has always claimed an overarching teaching competence
in relation to sexual and spiritual matters, it follows logically that
it has always had a duty to study these matters intensively. How then
could it have failed to learn - over seventeen centuries - (i) that
sexual abuse of children causes intense, lifelong anguish, (ii) that
clerical child sexual abuse adds a further dimension of intense
spiritual suffering - a personal hell on earth - and (iii) that child
abusers are typically compulsive in their abusive behaviour?
If the magisterium did indeed fail to learn these things over such a
long period, what are the implications of this for its claimed teaching
authority - especially in light of Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 ?
(Q5)
If the magisterium needed to hear these things from secular
psychology and psychiatry, how can this recommend its own expertise on
matters of the human soul? (Q6)
And if the magisterium did indeed know or suspect these things, and
suppressed this suspicion or knowledge, what are the implications of
this for its claimed moral authority? (Q7)
When most bishops behave as though they have no need to address any of
these questions - and deliberately avoid any occasion when they could be
asked - they make it virtually impossible for survivors to trust them,
or to believe in their sincerity and competence.
Not to provide such occasions, in the midst of the greatest crisis to
befall our church in living memory, is to betray the church as a
community, and to betray even the leadership office that bishops hold.
It represents a flight from leadership, reality and responsibility - and
an inexcusable prolongation of the pain of survivors.
'Denial' as a Factor
As some of us have experienced from clergy a reaction of denial and
concealment (e.g. 'To report the abuser would hurt the body of
Christ!') we strongly suspect that this reaction may also have been
deeply embedded historically in the church as an institution, and may
provide at least part of the explanation for the longstanding failure of
bishops to deal with the issue.
This too needs to be subjected to intensive investigation - because
continuing denial prevents the discovery of truth, the delivery of
justice and the achievement of healing. It will also wittingly or
unwittingly enable further abuse.
Denial is a state of mind that forbids further investigation of
difficult yet critical issues.
Has the magisterium been in denial of the gravity of clerical child
sexual abuse, and of its compulsive nature for perpetrators - for
seventeen centuries? (Q8)
And was it this culture of denial that delayed the implementation of
adequate child protection measures by the church leadership until the
secular media made total denial impossible in our own time? (Q9)
The known historical sequence certainly permits that conclusion. For
example, although Irish bishops took out insurance against liability for
clerical child abuse in 1987, no child protection measures were adopted
until 1996 - after the first major Irish child abuse public
scandal in 1994 (the Brendan Smyth affair).
We ask the Irish Bishops' Conference to look frankly at this sequence,
and to comment upon it:
309 the magisterium knows about clerical sexual
abuse of children;
c. 1051 St Peter Damian warns the papacy of the damage caused to
children by clerical sexual abuse;
1994 Ireland learns of this phenomenon - through the secular media;
1995/6 the Irish magisterium begins to act to protect children.
To have any hope
of stemming the loss of trust and confidence that is now racking the
church the conference must not ignore this sequence. To do so would be
to raise further strong suspicions about the ongoing strength of denial
- the enemy of truth, justice and healing - among the appointed leaders
of the church.
Secrecy as a Danger to Children
It is already clear that many thousands of children have been endangered
and harmed by the withholding by bishops and other church leaders of
vital information about dangerous clergy from parents. This practice was
a betrayal of families, despite the magisterium's regular protestations
about the critical importance of the family to the church and to
society.
While warmly welcoming the transparency offered by Bishop Eamonn Walsh
to the Ferns inquiry, and that granted by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin to
the Dublin inquiry, we are deeply disappointed that so far there has
been no general recognition by bishops of the danger posed by church
secrecy to children and families, or any promise of a diminishment or an
end to it.
Indeed, according to a number of different sources the following solemn
promise is still required of a Cardinal at installation:
"I [name and surname], Cardinal of the Holy Roman
Church, promise and swear to be faithful henceforth and forever, while I
live, to Christ and his Gospel, being constantly obedient to the Holy
Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme
Pontiff Benedict XVI, and of his canonically elected Successors; to
maintain communion with the Catholic Church always, in word and deed;
not to reveal to any one what is confided to me in secret, nor to
divulge what may bring harm or dishonour to Holy Church; to carry out
with great diligence and faithfulness those tasks to which I am called
by my service to the Church, in accord with the norms of the law. So
help me Almighty God."
Unable to
authenticate this text, and aware that it is a translation of the
original Latin, we nevertheless believe that in the wake of the Ferns
report - and the recent High Court challenge to the Dublin inquiry - it
gives serious cause for concern. We ask:
Do all Irish bishops accept that many children have been harmed by
clerical secrecy in the past, and that for their sake no leader of the
church should ever define the interests of 'Holy Church' as standing
apart from and above the interests of children and other vulnerable
members of the people of God? (Q10)
Unaccountability as a Factor
All abuse - whether sexual, spiritual, emotional or physical - is an
abuse of power.
Attaching as it does a superior dignity and authority to the Catholic
priest, Catholic clericalism empowers the priest above all lay members
of the church. This is part of the power imbalance that has too often
been exploited abusively, not just towards children but towards
vulnerable adults who come seeking spiritual care. In no way accountable
to the people of God, a minority of clergy have abused this power simply
because they could do so with impunity.
It was this lack of accountability to the faithful also that led to the
mishandling of abuse by so many bishops - further imperilling all
vulnerable members of the church community.
Recognising that, in the case of the Ferns and Dublin inquiries, two
Irish bishops have accepted the principle of accountability to external
state investigation, why has no Irish bishop yet addressed the obvious
connection between the lack of clerical accountability to the faithful
within the church, and clerical abuse, including the
administrative abuse that harmed children who would otherwise have been
safe? (Q11)
This failure also strongly supports a conclusion that the magisterium
generally is still in denial over the causes of abuse.
Sooner or later, unchecked power is always abused. We do not believe
that recent moves towards child protection in the Irish church (which
have not yet anyway been approved by the papacy) are adequate. We
strongly believe that abuse is institutionalised within the church
through the absence of structures that would make clergy in any way
directly accountable to those they serve. We do not believe that
children and vulnerable adults will ever be as safe as they should be in
the church until this issue of clerical accountability has been
addressed.
Nor do we believe that Catholic bishops can recommend to Irish children
the principle of moral accountability until they have accepted it
themselves.
The Need for Action
In October 2007, Archbishop (now Cardinal) Sean Brady delivered a sermon
in Wilton, Cork, in which he emphasised his personal commitment to the
programme for dealing with the issue of clerical child abuse proposed by
Pope Benedict in 2006. This called for the uncovering of the causes of
abuse, for justice to survivors, and for healing. Having read this
sermon one of our survivor members responded spontaneously as follows:
"We know them by their ACTIONS and so far all we
get is rhetoric.
If they want to 'understand' have they gone on training courses? =ACTION
Have they visited survivors to hear their story? = ACTION
Have they written prayers about it? = Action
Have they given funds to clergy abuse groups? = ACTION
Have they had a memorial service? = ACTION
Have they built a monument? = Action
Have they challenged their lawyers about gag orders? = ACTION
Have they given money for survivor retreats? = ACTION
Have they knelt at the feet of survivors repenting their closed eyes &
ears of years past?
= ACTION
Have they opened files to independent people and admitted what THEY did
or did NOT
do? =ACTION
Have they sponsored conferences? =ACTION
Have they held a national day of prayer for survivors of sexual abuse?
(=ACTION)
Have they funded research into the needs of survivors of clergy abuse?
(= ACTION)"
Recognising that individual bishops may be able to
answer some of these questions in the affirmative, we ask the conference
to understand that survivors often feel there has been a lamentable
failure of the Irish hierarchy generally to travel outside the comfort
zone of their own scripts. These are almost always delivered in contexts
of immunity - where none of the questions we have asked above can be put
freely by members of the faithful, and especially by survivors, or by
relatives of those who have not survived.
And, when potentially fruitful action is proposed - as in the Irish
bishops' document 'Towards Healing' of February 2005 - this seed
bears no fruit - not even an invitation from bishops to priests and
people to read this document together. Two years later it had
disappeared totally from view. In place of a climate of confident
discussion and learning in our church there is still in most dioceses a
deep and awful silence on these issues - another major consequence of
leadership failure.
This makes it impossible for us to trust that Irish bishops generally
are yet capable of taking the risks necessary for the discovery of the
whole truth, and for the forwarding of the causes of understanding,
justice and healing - the programme given them by Pope Benedict XVI in
2006.
Christian leadership does not shrink from those steps that are necessary
to prove its courage and sincerity to those it has wronged. It does not
hide behind lawyers or seek refuge in PR advice.
It does what Jesus did: it seeks an enduring companionship with the
broken and listens to whatever they may wish to say.
The actions that will lead to real healing can only be negotiated
freely between the leaders of the church and those they have failed to
protect. When will this process begin? (Q12)
Betrayal
'Betrayal Trauma' is a recognised psychological and
spiritual injury, caused chiefly by a betrayal of trust by those to whom
total trust is awarded. It has been defined as follows:
Betrayal
trauma occurs when people or institutions that are depended on for
survival violate human trust. An example of betrayal trauma is
childhood physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.
Believing that this is the best succinct
description of the impact of this catastrophe upon its victims, we have
no doubt that they have been betrayed by the institution upon which they
too depended - for spiritual care and for survival of all the challenges
of life. They never expected that the most severe challenge they would
ever experience would come from the leaders of the church that taught
them to hope and to believe in the goodness of God. In seeking to come
to terms with this catastrophic betrayal we discover betrayal of other
kinds also:
Betrayal of the values of the Gospels that bishops
are sworn to uphold;
Betrayal of parents and the family, the cornerstone of the church's
life;
Betrayal of the Church itself, the happy home we have almost lost;
Betrayal of the office of bishop, to which we once looked as a moral
bulwark in an increasingly dangerous world.
Having waited in vain for the Irish Conference of
Bishops to address this betrayal, and especially the questions that
arose out of the Ferns Report over two years ago, we send this letter
now in the faint hope that the conference will not respond in the same
totally inadequate way to the forthcoming report of the state inquiry
into the handling of clerical abuse by the Archdiocese of Dublin.
Deeply frustrated by an inexplicable failure to address issues that may
well frustrate all the hopes that may rest upon another papal visit to
Ireland, we place those issues again in the public domain.
Seeking truth, understanding, justice and healing we ask the Irish
conference of bishops urgently to face, investigate and explain this
betrayal, responding honestly to the questions we ask here - especially
those numbered Q1-Q12.
The Prospective Visit to Ireland of Pope Benedict XVI
Unknown to the vast majority of Irish Catholics, the betrayal described
above was actually ongoing (e.g. in Ferns) when Pope John Paul II
visited Ireland in 1979. Knowing this now, Ireland is a vastly different
place. It is therefore unthinkable that Pope Benedict XVI could visit
Ireland in the near future without alluding to that betrayal, or that he
could leave it at the end of such a visit with these questions (Q1-Q12)
still unaddressed.
And were he to leave Ireland without meeting, in dialogue, a
representative gathering of survivors, this could only be regarded as a
papal endorsement of that betrayal and as final proof that our church
leaders pay only lip service to the principle of the equal dignity of
all members of the church.
Such a visit would therefore signal not a revival of the Irish church
but the final triumph of denial and evasion, and the end of any prospect
of a 'New Evangelisation' in Ireland in its aftermath.
Yours sincerely,
Acting Coordinator, p. p. those named below
Carol Brady
Patrick McCafferty (Rev) Patricia
O'Conaill
Pat Callan
Connolly McLaughlin
Sean O'Connor
Siobhan Carroll
Teresa Mee
Martin Ridge
Marie Collins
Bryan Maguire
Sean Walsh
Marie Crowley
Gerry Mulligan
Bernadette Wyer
Kevin Kelly
Irene O'Beirne-Maguire Danny
Duddy
Margaret Kennedy Sean O'Conaill
|
VOTF™
Mission Statement
To provide a prayerful voice, attentive to the Spirit,
through which the Faithful can actively participate in the governance
and guidance of the Catholic Church.
Our Goals
1. To support
survivors of clergy sexual abuse.
2. To support priests of integrity
3.To shape structural change within the Catholic Church.
|
