While some progress has been made in bringing the issue of clerical sexual abuse out of the realm of secrecy and back-room dealings, the Roman Catholic Church has continued to resist calls to provide lists of its personnel who have been internally disciplined as a result of credible allegations of sex abuse.
We believe it is vital that this policy changes, and changes immediately.
The reasons that change is needed are derived from the need to protect potential future victims from being harmed, to provide vindication of survivors, and to provide justice for the Church’s past failings.
First, there is the matter of protection of individuals who may encounter the offender in the future. We know that sexual offenders tend to have a high rate of recidivism. This is precisely the reason that many states have passed “Megan’s Laws” which inform the public of the whereabouts of convicted sexual predators. Because a number of offenders in its clergy have been protected from the legal system by the Church itself, these same individuals are able to pass “under the radar” of such legislation. The Church has an obligation to correct this subversion of the criminal justice system, which it brought about.
The issues extend beyond acts such as pedophilia and forcible sodomy. Currently, a priest who has been barred from ministry or even laicized for having used a counseling relationship to pursue a sexual relationship with a parishioner can still seek professional credentials as a counselor or a teacher. In the absence of some systematic disclosure of his transgressions, he may be able to continue his abusive behavior in the secular context.
Second, and no less important, is the matter of abuse survivors’ vindication. These arguments apply even to offenders who are long-deceased, but who have left behind them a legacy of pain and division.
Most survivors who have told the truth, particularly at the time of their abuse and particularly as children, have suffered extensively as a result of their candor and cries for help. We know of a large number of cases where children were accused of lying and punished for daring to make such accusations. One girl was made to stay in a closet until she recanted her story. Others were ostracized by parish or school communities or had their personal reputation destroyed as a result of speaking about their victimization. Still others continue to suffer psychological trauma and are not always themselves sure if their recollections of abuse are real or the product of a disturbed psyche. These individuals have a right to expect the Church to step forward and corroborate their stories and their memories.
Third, the Church owes its communities the truth so that they may heal and move forward.
Communities in which the offenders served have a need to know the truth in order to begin or complete their healing process. Many of the offenders ironically are well-loved and charismatic ministers. They are therefore beloved in their parishes and schools. Accusations of sexual abuse tend to sharply polarize communities in which the offenders serve. Two camps arise, those who believe the accusations and those with stubborn and unshakable faith in the accused. We know of parishes where such divisions over a single abuser have existed for more than quarter of a century. They have torn friend from friend and parishioner from parish. The Church owes it to such communities to tell the truth, and to offer help and counsel to those for whom the truth is difficult to hear.
In many communities where an abuser has been in their midst, the memory of that abuser is obscure, the stuff of rumors, whisperings, and secrecy. We know of pastors who, when asked about their predecessor who was removed for sexual abuse, disavow all knowledge of those circumstances, even though they were fully aware of them. Such attempts to obfuscate the historical truth can only breed distrust for and contempt of the community leaders. By publishing the names of credibly accused clerics, the Church establishes that it is not hiding the historical truth from the people whose faith it wishes to retain.
In spite of all of these reasons to be forthcoming, Dioceses almost uniformly resist disclosure.
Dioceses have argued that such information is a personnel matter, and is thus afforded special protection under privacy laws. They further argue that creation of a public record is a matter for the legal system. We must disagree. Perhaps in other circumstances the argument from privacy would hold up. However we would point out that the Catholic Church historically has done everything in its power to keep such ‘scandals’ out of the legal system and out of the public eye. Essentially, they have consciously thwarted the legal system which, in other circumstances, would be tasked with protecting the public by creation of a public record of an individual’s crimes. Furthermore, they have been very successful in doing so. As such, they have knowingly and intentionally deprived the public and their faithful of information which in other circumstances and concerning a secular citizen would have become freely available.
In addition, the Catholic Church is by no means an ordinary employer. It does dispense work assignments and handle payroll matters as would other employers-of-record. And in this respect it has the same obligations to its employees as do other employers (obligations such as withholding payroll taxes, etc.).
However the Catholic Church claims, and rightfully so, yet another dimension in its relationship with its clerics. In addition to hiring, indeed before hiring, it sacramentally ordains its ministers. The state has no interest in this dimension, the status of a cleric’s ministry and is in fact excluded from playing any role by the US Constitution. Just as a priest could not sue in a secular court for restoration of suspended sacramental privileges, a priest could not prevail in a case where the Church revealed the circumstances surrounding his suspension from ministry. It is in this latter, sacramental role that the Church should reveal the names of clerics who have been credibly accused and disciplined in connection with their work of ministry.
Therefore, we maintain that the standard by which secular employers are measured does not apply, and that the argument from employee privacy is weak at best.
Having dispensed with the Church’s standard argument for keeping credible allegations secret, we call upon the Church to immediately and centrally publish a list of all priests, living and dead, who have been disciplined for sexual abuses, along with a count of known victims of each.
We believe it is a vital step if the Church is to maintain any credibility as a teacher of ethics and morals.