« Report from the Social Justice Committee | Main | Catholic Legislative Network »
Our Children are our Most Valuable Treasure
February 26, 2008
Listed here are 18 essential questions and answers about the Clergy Abuse scandal.
1. When did people become more aware of the terrible sin and evil of the sexual abuse of children?
Isolated incidents were reported for as long as we have been keeping records, but two historic events, one in Louisiana and the other here in Manhattan Beach, focused attention on this being a more widespread problem beginning in the 1980s:
The first was the indictment of Father Gilbert Gauthe, a priest of the Diocese of Lafayette, who turned out to be a serial pedophile; the publicity surrounding this case beginning in 1984 raised everyone’s awareness that even clergy could be a danger to children and youth.
The second was the case beginning in 1983 here in southern California involving many staff at the Virginia McMartin Preschool. After three years of testimony, no one was found guilty of sexual abuse in those cases. But the notoriety in the media over those years heightened everyone’s awareness to this problem in society, and led to California enacting new laws for the mandated reporting of suspected child abuse.
2. But didn’t the sexual abuse of children by clergy start before the 1980s?
Sadly, yes. Most likely there were cases of clergy sexual abuse down through the centuries. We know now that a small percentage of adults, particularly males, are prone to this type of immoral behavior. Unfortunately, this category has included a small percentage of clergy.
3. Why did it take the Catholic Church so long to acknowledge this problem and begin to deal with it directly?
The perpetrators of child sexual abuse function in an atmosphere of lies, deception, secrecy, manipulation, and threats. Neither the Church nor anyone else received more than isolated notice of the problems as they were occurring.
The Church dealt with immoral conduct among its clergy as a spiritual failure, but one that could be corrected through spiritual remedies such as prayer, retreats, and spiritual counseling. When no further reports of misconduct were received, the Church assumed, frequently wrongly, that its approach had been successful.
That is the same way that much of society in general dealt with alcohol abuse and sexual misconduct during most of the 1900s. The conduct was kept quiet and the offenders were offered some counseling and/or spiritual advice.
Through the lenses of 2007 we now know that this approach was wrong. Such evil and immoral conduct had much deeper roots, and spiritual advice was inadequate to change the person; in fact, the sin and evil of pedophilia and ephebophilia cannot be cured by any means known today.
4. Prior to the 1990s, didn’t the Archdiocese over the years intentionally move guilty priests from one assignment to another?
Working under the understandings of these years—that this immoral behavior could be adequately corrected with spiritual counseling—unfortunately some priests were given other ministry assignments. And we now know that many of those priests re-abused in subsequent years.
This is a tragedy for the lives and well-being of the victims, and Cardinal Mahony has expressed his apologies many times that he, his predecessors, and the Archdiocese relied upon the knowledge and practice of those years—resulting in abuse which very likely could have been avoided.
5. During the 1990s, how did the Archdiocese of Los Angeles deal with the sexual abuse of minors?
Like public schools, youth organizations, foster homes, and other Churches, the Catholic Church believed that this serious immoral conduct could be “cured” so that the offender could be returned to priestly and pastoral ministry without danger to young people.
All of us now know that this remedy was wrong. In the 1980s clergy accused of such sexual misconduct were sent to specialized treatment Centers for evaluation and treatment. Those Centers usually made one of two recommendations: either that the clergyman be permanently removed from ministry, or that the he be returned to “limited priestly ministry” which avoided direct contact with children and youth. Those latter recommendations led to the placement of several priests in this Archdiocese into partial ministry assignments.
Knowing what we do now, we realize that this was a serious risk that should not have been taken. Although only a few allegations of misconduct occurred with those priests, we realize that there is no such thing as “limited priestly ministry” for such offenders.
6. Why didn’t the Archdiocese call the police whenever a priest or employee of the Archdiocese was accused of the sexual abuse of a minor?
In retrospect, perhaps the Archdiocese should have reported all cases of suspected child abuse to the proper law enforcement agency. Before reporting was mandated, it was the policy of the Archdiocese to generally leave those decisions to the families of the children involved.
In many cases, the families of those abused did not want the police involved for their own personal reasons. It is probable that those families did not wish their children to be forever identified as having been abused.
As noted, in the mid-1980s California enacted laws whereby teachers, psychiatrists, psychologists, and counselors became mandated reporters. If their work with a person uncovered a suspicion of child abuse, they were required to file a report with law enforcement or child protective services.
Gradually, many other groups of people in California were added to the list of mandated reporters. All clergy in California became mandated reporters in January, 1997.
Today, the Archdiocese automatically files a report with law enforcement whenever it receives a report of suspected sexual abuse of minors by any employee of the Church.
7. Why did the Archdiocese continue to raise legal roadblocks during these past five years?
New issues and questions arose during the course of this scandal which had not been tested fully in the Courts: to what extent was the Church permitted to reveal information that the priests involved believed was confidential?; can the government become involved with the internal governance of the Church? And, are there special communications in the Church, for example, between a bishop and his priests, that are privileged?
Had these legal issues and challenges not been raised by the Church, then the rights and privileges of all Churches, their internal communications, and their ability to function in a pluralistic society, could possibly be in jeopardy.
8. Why did the Archdiocese and Cardinal Mahony refuse to turn over the personnel files of accused priests and others? Wasn’t the Church covering up for priest-perpetrators and its own conduct?
Criminal Cases: In those cases involving criminal investigations, all of the files were made available to the Courts immediately. As the Court made its rulings on the appropriateness of the request by the District Attorney, each document was in turn delivered to him, except for a total of 15 documents contained in the files of two priests. There were different legal opinions about whether those documents were privileged or not. The Courts agreed with us on one of the final documents. When the legal process was concluded, 14 of the final 15 documents were given to the District Attorney.
Civil Cases: California has very strict privacy provisions in both the State Constitution and other State laws which apply to all employers, not just the Church. The Church does not own the personnel files of employees; rather, the Church is a custodian of those files. The individual employee—whether clergy or lay—has the right in California to claim various privileges with those files. For example, documents are privileged between an attorney and client, between a doctor and client, between psychiatrist/psychologist and client, etc. The Archdiocese is bound to respect the rights of each employee to raise privacy and privilege challenges about documents in their personnel file.
During the civil litigation, the Courts routinely worked through the issues and the documents were all delivered in due course, according to the rulings of the Court.
In all 553 cases involved in the civil lawsuits, a protocol has been worked out whereby a retired State Supreme Court Justice will review and resolve any challenges to anything in a personnel file before it is released to the plaintiff requesting it and to the public.
9. Why did it take so long for the Archdiocese to reach the two major settlements in the outstanding lawsuits?
Recall that the California State Legislature in 2002 enacted a law whereby anyone [except persons who claimed abuse in public schools or other government programs] who alleged sexual abuse when that person was a minor could file a lawsuit during the entire calendar year of 2003—regardless of whether such a lawsuit would have been barred by the statute of limitations. During 2003 and the following years, some 600 civil lawsuits were filed against the Archdiocese.
The details of each case were required to be investigated before the cases could be evaluated and understood. In most instances critical witnesses were deceased and memories vague. This information was critical to understand which claims were credible and which Insurance Companies might have had coverage for years covering a 76-year period between 1931 and 2007.
The Archdiocese would have preferred to enter this global settlement a long time ago, but it was simply not possible until the plaintiffs lowered their demands and the Insurance Companies and the many Religious Orders agreed to participate at levels large enough to permit settlement.
10. Isn’t it true that the fear of jury trials, the testimony of Cardinal Mahony, and the uncovering of mistakes by the Church led to the settlement on the very eve of those trials starting?
No. It was the Archdiocese that was pushing for trials. Some 90% of civil lawsuits are settled on the eve of trial, especially when major insurance coverage is involved. Settlements are an effort by both sides to find a middle ground between the best and worst probable outcomes and both sides frequently need a pending trial to achieve a settlement.
Cardinal Mahony had already given testimony in the form of depositions. He had no personal knowledge of any of the events in first few cases to go to trial, and very little in the rest because those cases involved abuse prior to his becoming Archbishop .
11. What settlements have taken place over the years?
Over the past decades, the Archdiocese settled various lawsuits with insurance funds and Archdiocesan funds, totaling some $10.5 million.
In November 2006 the Archdiocese settled 45 lawsuits for $60 million, with $40 million of that coming from reserve investment funds of the Archdiocese. These cases were those which occurred prior to 1950 when no insurance policies could be located, or after 1986 when no insurance for this misconduct was any longer available.
In July 2007 the Archdiocese reached a global settlement in principle for the 508 remaining civil lawsuits for $660 million. To reach this amount, the Archdiocese is contributing $250 million, the Insurance Companies $225 million, Religious Orders and other defendants $60 million, and other defendants $125 million [this latter amount is guaranteed by the Archdiocese, but is not currently due, and a large portion of this amount should be obtained from remaining defendants who chose not to participate in the global settlement].
12. When did most of the alleged abuse take place in the Archdiocese? When was the alleged abuse reported to the Archdiocese?
There are 254 perpetrators named as defendants in the 553 claims, almost all of which were filed in the years 2003 and 2004. Except in a very few incidents, the filing of the claim was the first information the Archdiocese ever had of the abuse. Over 90% of these incidents occurred in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The number of incidents peaked in 1981, and began decreasing noticeably as the Archdiocese implemented its various new policies and procedures to deal with this problem. The Archdiocese continues to implement many programs to prevent the sexual abuse of minors, and will have that a priority for all the years to come.
13. How will the Archdiocese find $250 million to settle these lawsuits, and will parishes and parish schools be affected?
No parish or parish school properties will be sold to reach the global settlement amount.
It will take great sacrifices to reach the sum of $250 million. Over fifty Archdiocesan properties will be sold, beginning with the Archdiocesan Catholic Center on Wilshire Blvd. It is hoped that these properties will net at least $125 million.
With few remaining general investment funds available, various internal and external loans will be made. The plan is to repay those over the coming years from new income and with a major reduction in pastoral services offered from the Archdiocese.
Make no mistake about it: with the loss of so many investment accounts to pay these two major settlements, the amount of annual income from those investments will drop sharply. The Archdiocese will no longer have that regular revenue stream which has been so essential to the operations of the Archdiocese over the years.
The Council of Priests and the Deans are being asked to recommend what pastoral services need to be reduced or eliminated, what can the Archdiocese afford to do in the coming years, and how the core ministries and services of the Archdiocese can continue with sharply reduced revenues.
14. When did the Archdiocese develop Policies and Procedures to deal with allegations of the sexual misconduct of minors?
This process began in 1986 with the appointment of the first Vicar for the Clergy. The first formal Policies and Procedures were approved by the Council of Priests in 1987. They were subsequently strengthened and tightened over the years with the learned experience of each year.
15. When did the first Lay Board begin evaluating these allegations and making recommendations?
The first Board was appointed in 1993, consisting of four lay members and four clergy members.
In 1994 that Board recommended that from this date forward any clergyman found to have abused a minor sexually would never be returned to any type of ministry—limited or not. This was the first “zero tolerance” policy of the Archdiocese.
Unfortunately, that policy was prospective—meaning that all cases from that date forward would be subject to zero tolerance and removal from ministry. However, there were seven priests at that time who were in limited ministry and were allowed to retain that status. In 2002 they, too, were removed fully from ministry, but in retrospect it would have been safer to have taken them completely out of ministry at the time they were found to have abused a minor.
16. Did the Archdiocese continue to improve and implement its Policies and Procedures over the years faithfully?
Yes, the Policies and Procedures became clearer and stronger—no one, clergy or lay, would be allowed to serve in any ministry or apostolate of the Archdiocese who was found to have abused a minor. Over the years, many priests were removed from ministry and almost all were returned to the lay state—either through their own request or by the request of the Archbishop.
The rule is very clear: no one—clergy, Religious, laity—will be permitted to serve in any capacity in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles who has been found to have ever sexually abused a minor.
17. In the year 2002 when the national spotlight was on clergy sexual misconduct, what special steps did the Archdiocese take to protect children?
In June of 2002, the Bishops of the United States adopted two important documents: The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and The Essential Norms for Diocesan Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons.
Both documents have been subsequently enhanced and improved to make certain that the Church is a safe place for everyone—but especially, for children and youth.
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles improved its own written Policies and Procedures to include all of the key elements from the Charter and the Essential Norms.
A new Board was established called the Clergy Misconduct Oversight Board. This Board is comprised of primarily lay members with various backgrounds of expertise and experience. This Board is fully independent and has its own professional investigator to review all new allegations of sexual misconduct involving clergy. The Board makes its recommendations directly to the Archbishop, and every recommendation to date has been approved and implemented.
18. What other broad steps are being taken to make certain that all of the programs, ministries, and apostolates of the Church are safe for everyone, especially children and youth?
Besides those steps just mentioned, a number of special initiatives have been taken to ensure that the Church is safe for children and young people:
• Priests, teachers, employees, and volunteers who work with children and youth are required to be fingerprinted and/or their backgrounds checked for any misconduct in the past;
• Cases of suspected child abuse are reported at once to law enforcement;
• Through the Victims Assistance Ministry Office, counseling and pastoral services are offered directly to victims in need of those services;
• Some 50,000 employees and volunteers across the Archdiocese have participated in one of the Safeguard the Children programs, such as the Virtus program; these programs help adults spot potential abuse and prevent abuse occurring;
• Over 200,000 children have participated in “good touch, bad touch” programs to make them alert to possible abuse and to equip them to take immediate steps to report possible abuse;
• Special brief informational items are sent out each week to parishes to keep parishioners as informed as possible;
• The Archdiocese maintains an updated website to help educate all Catholics, and to provide an avenue for people to contact staff in the Archdiocese charged with protecting children/youth and reaching out to victims and their families; www.la-archdiocese.org Click on the “Protecting Our Children” site and you will find the various Reports, contacts, links, and other aids to help prevent child abuse. One of the training programs most widely used in our Archdiocese is the Virtus Program: www.virtus.org
Topics: Archdiocese |