Pope Reduces Sanctions Against Some Paedophile Priests

A Report by the Associated Press in The Catholic Herald

Pope Francis has quietly reduced sanctions against a handful of paedophile priests, applying his vision of a merciful Church even to its worst offenders in ways that survivors of abuse and the Pope’s own advisers question. One case has come back to haunt him: An Italian priest who received the Pope’s clemency was later convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against children as young as 12. Fr Mauro Inzoli is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him, The Associated Press has learned. The Inzoli case is one of several in which Francis overruled the advice of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and reduced a sentence that called for the priest to be laicised, two canon lawyers and a Church official told AP. Instead, the priests were sentenced to penalties including a lifetime of penance and prayer and removal from public ministry.

In some cases, the priests or their high-ranking friends appealed to Francis for clemency by citing the Pope’s own words about mercy in their petitions, the Church official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the proceedings are confidential. “With all this emphasis on mercy … he is creating the environment for such initiatives,” the Church official said, adding that clemency petitions were rarely granted by Pope Benedict XVI, who launched a tough crackdown during his 2005-2013 papacy and laicised some 800 priests who raped and molested children.

At the same time, Francis also ordered three longtime staffers at the CDF dismissed, two of whom worked for the discipline section that handles sex abuse cases, the lawyers and Church official said. One is the head of the section and will be replaced before leaving on March 31. Vatican spokesman Greg Burke dispelled rumors that sex-abuse cases would no longer be handled by the congregation, saying the strengthened office would handle all cases submitted. Burke said Francis’ emphasis on mercy applied to “even those who are guilty of heinous crimes.” He said priests who abuse are permanently removed from ministry, but are not necessarily dismissed from the clerical state, the Church term for laicisation. “The Holy Father understands that many victims and survivors can find any sign of mercy in this area difficult,” Burke said. “But he knows that the Gospel message of mercy is ultimately a source of powerful healing and of grace.”

Francis has repeatedly proclaimed “zero tolerance” for abusive priests and in December wrote to the world’s bishops committing to take “all necessary measures” to protect them. But he also recently said he believed sex abusers suffer from a “disease” – a medical term used by defence lawyers to seek mitigating factors in canonical sentences.

Marie Collins, an Irish abuse survivor and founding member of Francis’ sex-abuse advisory commission, expressed dismay prior to her recent resignation from the Commission, that the congregation’s recommended penalties were being weakened and said abusers are never so sick that they don’t know what they’re doing. “All who abuse have made a conscious decision to do so,” Collins told AP. “Even those who are pedophiles, experts will tell you, are still responsible for their actions. They can resist their inclinations.”

Victim advocates have long questioned Francis’ commitment to continuing Benedict’s tough line, given he had no experience dealing with abusive priests or their victims in his native Argentina. While Francis counts Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley as his top adviser on abuse, he has also surrounded himself with cardinal advisers who botched handling abuse cases in their archdioceses. “They are not having zero tolerance,” said Rocio Figueroa, a former Vatican official and ex-member of the Peru-based Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, a conservative Catholic lay society rocked by sex scandals. The Vatican recently handed down sanctions against the group’s founder, Luis Fernando Figari, after determining that he sexually, psychologically and physically abused his recruits. His victims, however, are enraged that it took the Vatican six years to decide that the founder should be isolated, but not expelled, from the community.

“It’s really shameful,” said Pedro Salinas, who blew the whistle in 2015 on abuse within the organisation. The sanctions against Figari, Salinas said, amount to a “golden exile, where he can live comfortably with all his needs taken care of.” The Church official stressed that to his knowledge, none of the reduced sentences had put children at risk. Many canon lawyers and Church authorities argue that laicising pedophiles can put society at greater risk because the Church no longer exerts any control over them. They argue that keeping the men in restricted ministry, away from children, at least enables superiors to exert some degree of supervision.

But Collins said the Church must also take into account the message that reduced canonical sentences sends to both survivors and abusers. “While mercy is important, justice for all parties is equally important,” Collins said in an email. “If there is seen to be any weakness about proper penalties, then it might well send the wrong message to those who would abuse.”

It can also come back to embarrass the Church. Take for example the case of Inzoli, a well-connected Italian priest who was found guilty by the Vatican in 2012 of abusing young boys and ordered to be laicised. Inzoli appealed and in 2014 Francis reduced the penalty to a lifetime of prayer, prohibiting him from celebrating Mass in public or being near children, barring him from his diocese and ordering five years of psychotherapy. In a statement announcing Francis’ decision to reduce the sentence, Crema Bishop Oscar Cantoni said “no misery is so profound, no sin so terrible that mercy cannot be applied.” In November, an Italian criminal judge showed little mercy in convicting Inzoli of abusing five children, aged 12-16, and sentencing him to four years, nine months in prison. The judge said Inzoli had a number of other victims but their cases fell outside the statute of limitations. Burke disclosed to AP that the Vatican recently initiated a new canonical trial against Inzoli based on “new elements” that had come to light. He declined to elaborate.

Amid questions about how the battle against abuse was faring, Francis recently named O’Malley, who heads his sex-abuse advisory commission, as a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But it’s not clear what influence he can wield from his home base in Boston. Francis scrapped the commission’s proposed tribunal for bishops who botch abuse cases following legal objections from the congregation. The commission’s other major initiative – a guideline template to help dioceses develop policies to fight abuse and safeguard children – is gathering dust. The Vatican never sent the template to bishops’ conferences, as the commission had sought, or even linked it to its main abuse-resource website.

THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE POPE

Vatican Abuse Commission Expresses Frustration to Australian Royal Commission

By Kieran Tapsell – Writing for the National Catholic Reporter

(Kieran Tapsell is the author of Potiphar’s Wife: The Vatican’s Secret and Child Sexual Abuse, and a submission to the Royal Commission: Canon Law: A Systemic Factor in Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church. He gave evidence about canon law as part of a panel Feb. 9, 2016.)

On March 1, Marie Collins, the only abuse survivor on Pope Francis’ Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, resigned because “what was happening behind closed doors was in conflict with what was being said to the public.”

On Feb. 23, three other members of the Pontifical Commission, Baroness Sheila Hollins of Great Britain, Bill Kilgallon from New Zealand and Kathleen McCormack from Australia gave evidence in a panel to the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and expressed their frustration with the Vatican. Their views were personal, and did not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Pontifical Commission as a whole.

Justice Peter McLellan, the chair of the Royal Commission, told the panel that the work they were doing was of “fundamental importance to individual countries” because the work of the Royal Commission indicates that real change in the culture and practices of the church in Australia will only occur if “it’s coming from Rome.”

After several hours of questioning in which the panel spoke about resistance in Rome to the work of the Pontifical Commission and its lack of resources, McLellan observed: “The picture you all paint, from an outsider’s point of view, is of a world organization which is struggling to come to terms with the safety of children and its responsibilities in that area.”

A surprising feature of the evidence from the panel was the lack of attention to the reform of canon law, both in relation to cooperation with the civil authorities and to the church’s disciplinary system. An Italian professor of canon law who couldn’t speak English was appointed to the Pontifical Commission, but he resigned. Baroness Hollins told the Royal Commission: “I don’t know the full reasons, but we were told that he had decided he couldn’t make the contribution that was needed.” An American canon lawyer in Rome gave some assistance, but then had to return to the United States. There is no canon lawyer on the now 15-member Commission.

Since 1996, the Catholic Bishops’ Conferences of Ireland, Great Britain, the United States, and Australia have wanted mandatory reporting under canon law, but have been continually rebuffed by the Vatican. In 2002, the United States bishops put a proposal to the Vatican that included mandatory reporting, but, like the Irish bishops in 1997, were told it did not comply with canon law. Eventually a compromise was reached whereby bishops were instructed to obey civil reporting laws, and that instruction was extended to the rest of the world in 2010. The Vatican seemed more concerned about bishops going to jail for breaching reporting laws than about the protection of children who were unfortunate enough to be living in states with inadequate civil reporting laws.

In 2014, the United Nations Committees on the Rights of the Child and against Torture queried the Vatican’s representatives as to why the Vatican did not impose mandatory reporting under canon law. Pope Francis’ casuistic response in September 2014 was that mandatory reporting would interfere with the independence of sovereign states. Canon law interferes with the sovereignty of independent nations as much as the rules of golf. Mandatory reporting under canon law would only interfere with that sovereignty if a country prohibited the reporting of child sexual abuse to the police. No such country exists.

In February 2016, Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the president of the Pontifical Commission stated that “even beyond these civil requirements, we all have a moral and ethical responsibility to report suspected abuse to the civil authorities.” This was a welcome announcement suggesting that the Commission might convince Pope Francis to change his mind about mandatory reporting. However, on Dec. 6, 2016, the Pontifical Commission published its guidelines for national protocols on child sexual abuse. O’Malley’s statement was not included.

When asked about mandatory reporting, Kilgallon answered along the lines given by then-Vatican spokesman Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi on May 16, 2011: the church cannot impose mandatory reporting because some countries have repressive regimes. The irony of Lombardi’s response is that in 2010, when he announced the direction for bishops to obey civil laws on reporting, there was no suggestion of an exception for repressive regimes.

Opponents of mandatory reporting under canon law seem to be unaware of the church’s history. In 1842, the Holy Office under Pope Gregory XVI issued a direction that the universal requirement for penitents to denounce priests who solicited sex in the confessional henceforth did not apply in the lands of “schismatics, heretics and Mohammedans,” the repressive regimes of the day. It’s really very simple. Kilgallon agreed that an exception to mandatory reporting could be made for such countries, but that was only his personal opinion.

On Feb. 22, Br. Ambrose Payne from the De La Salle Brothers told the Royal Commission that Pope Francis’ rhetoric about “zero tolerance” of child sexual abuse did not match the reality imposed by canon law. Canon law requires a religious brother to receive a “canonical warning” before he can be dismissed. Payne said it was “a bit late” to require warnings after the abuse had occurred. The abuser has to offend again after a canonical warning has been given before he can be dismissed.

Similar problems arise with the disciplinary canons dealing with priests. Not a word has changed in Canon 1341 that requires a bishop to try and cure the priest before he is put on a canonical trial. Not a word has changed in Canon 1321, which two Vatican appeal courts interpreted as meaning that a priest cannot be dismissed for paedophilia because he is a paedophile. Not a word has come from the Vatican indicating that these canons are being interpreted differently from the past.

Zero tolerance in a professional context almost invariably means dismissal, but Pope Francis’ claim that the church has a “zero tolerance” policy is not borne out by the figures he presented to the United Nations: only one quarter of all priests found to have sexually abused children have been dismissed. That’s a 75 percent tolerance, not zero.

The buck for canon law stops at the popes, and Pope Francis can change it with the stroke of a pen. The lack of consistency between his rhetoric and his reluctance to reform canon law on child sexual abuse could turn out to be the major blot on his papacy. When Collins resigns and Kathleen McCormack describes her work at the Pontifical Commission as “like water on a rock, we’ve just got to keep at it,” there is not much room for optimism.

MARIE COLLINS – LONE SURVIVOR ON VATICAN ABUSE COMMISSION RESIGNS IN FRUSTRATION

By Joshua J. McElwee  Mar. 1, 2017

(Joshua J. McElwee is a US National Catholic Reporter. Email: jmcelwee@ncronline.org.)

(Paraphrased by Brian Mark Hennessy)

The only active member of Pope Francis’ new commission on clergy sexual abuse who is an abuse survivor has resigned from the group due to frustration with Vatican officials’ reluctance to cooperate with its work to protect children. Marie Collins, an Irishwoman who has served on the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors since March 2014, announced her resignation in a press statement Wednesday. In a separate exclusive statement for the National Catholic Reporter, explaining her choice, Collins says that she decided to leave the commission after losing hope that Vatican officials would cooperate with its work following a failure to implement a series of recommendations.

Collins says her decision to resign was immediately precipitated by one Vatican office’s refusal to comply with a request from the commission, approved by Pope Francis, that all letters sent to the Vatican by abuse survivors should receive a response. “I find it impossible to listen to public statements about the deep concern in the church for the care of those whose lives have been blighted by abuse, yet to watch privately, as a Congregation in the Vatican refuses to even acknowledge their letters!” Collins writes in the statement. “When I accepted my appointment to the Commission in 2014, I said publicly that if I found what was happening behind closed doors was in conflict with what was being said to the public, I would not remain,” she states. “This point has come. I feel I have no choice but to resign if I am to retain my integrity.”

In her March 1st statement for the National Catholic Reporter, Collins also expressed frustration that a sample template of guidelines for safeguarding children developed by the commission has not yet been published. She says that a Vatican office had created its own sample template and refused to join efforts with the Commission to reach an agreed text. Collins also mentions that the Commission’s request, approved by the Pope, that the Vatican create a new Tribunal to judge bishops who act inappropriately in sexual abuse cases was not acted upon. While that Tribunal was announced by O’Malley in June 2015, it was never created. In place of the proposed Tribunal, Francis signed a new universal law for the Church in June 2016 specifying that a bishop’s negligence in response to clergy sexual abuse could lead to his removal from office. The law, given the name “Come una madre amorevole” – (“As a loving Mother”), also empowers four separate Vatican Curia offices to investigate such bishops and initiate processes of their removal.

Collins is the third of Francis’ 17 original appointees to the commission to leave its work. The only other abuse survivor on the commission, Englishman Peter Saunders, was placed on leave from the group in February 2016, because of friction between Saunders and other members of the commission. Claudio Papale, an official at the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, resigned from the Commission in May 2016. His resignation was not initially made public. Upon inquiry from NCR at the time, a Commission spokesperson said Papale had resigned for personal reasons.

In a statement on Wednesday, the Commission said it had “deep appreciation” for Collins’ work. In her own press statement Collins said she would continue to work with the group in helping with training projects for priests and bishops. Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the head of the Commission, said in a statement that he had expressed to Collins “our most sincere thanks for the extraordinary contributions she has made as a founding member. With the members of the Commission I am deeply grateful for Marie’s willingness to continue to work with us in the education of church leaders, including the upcoming programs for new bishops and for the dicasteries of the Holy See,” said O’Malley. “Our prayers will remain with Marie and with all victims and survivors of sexual abuse.”

Dominican Fr. Thomas Doyle, an expert on the church’s response to clergy sexual abuse, said in an interview that he thought Collins’ resignation would cause the Commission to lose trustworthiness among survivors and advocates who have pushed for decades for the Church to better protect vulnerable people. “Its credibility is going to take a nose-dive,” said Doyle. “If they don’t have a survivor on that Commission, it’s akin to the Board of Directors of the American Medical Association being made up of bureaucrats and no doctors. Here you have an issue that really has to have input from survivors,” he said. “Quite frankly, the clerical world does not understand what this is all about.” Doyle continued that he thinks the Commission needs to be given the power to rewrite its mandate in order to be more effective. “They are a consultative Commission,” he said. “They have no power. There has to be some mechanism where they can get by the Curia an get things done”.

Krysten Winter-Green, a member of the abuse Commission, said in an interview that she finds it difficult to conceptualise a Commission of this nature without the benefit of the voice of survivors or victims. “I think it will take some time to really look at the composition of this Commission and forge a path ahead,” said Winter-Green, who is a native New Zealander, living in the U.S. and providing consulting services for religious congregations. She echoed Collins’ frustration with the reluctance of Vatican offices to work with the abuse Commission. “I think there’s been a lack of cooperation, I would say, by some Congregations in the Curia,” she said. “I really do not know where it comes from, but I do know that it does a grave disservice to survivors and victims and it doesn’t really promote the healing and care that the Commission is about. If this commission is going to really accomplish what His Holiness wants it to accomplish, then I think we need to take a very, very serious look at where we are presently and where we see this Commission going in the future,” said Winter-Green. Asked what she might say to an abuse survivor who thinks it is not appropriate for a Vatican commission on abuse to not have a member who is a survivor, Winter-Green responded: “I would have to agree. I would strongly encourage survivor participation. In fact, I would go so far as to say I would insist on survivor participation.”

THE SWINGS OF THE VATICAN COMPASS

BY BRIAN MARK HENNESSY

The resignation of former Victims of sexual abuse from the Pontifical Commission, discussed in the above article by Joshua J. McElwee, are discouraging. From time to time it is difficult to establish clearly what direction the Catholic Church, under the leadership of Pope Francis, is heading. The Vatican compass swings wildly almost day to day in different directions – and we wonder where and when it will settle once again on its course – and what that ‘sometimes elusive’ course might be. We wonder too, who is to blame for the turgid progress of the cause of Victims of abuse. Is Pope Francis too weak? Is this or that Cardinal trying to continually undermine him? Why is there no clear and absolute direction?

It is of further note that, surprisingly to the understanding of most lay-persons, the nature of the governance of the Catholic Church and the responsibilities of the Pope, individual Bishops and Religious Leaders of the Traditional Orders is most unlike that of Civil Governments and Business Institutions with which the majority are familiar. In the latter, you have a top to bottom hierarchical structure by which laws and policies are handed down with legally binding, crystal clear, word for word and unchanged clarity. The Catholic Church is not constituted like that – and the Pope, even when regaled with the triple crown and the Keys of Saint Peter, is far removed from a status anything like that of a “constitutional monarch”.

By way of explanation and example, on the 20 July 2011, the Irish Dáil passed a motion on the “Cloyne Diocese Child Abuse Report” which, among other things, deplored “the Vatican’s intervention which contributed to the undermining of the child protection framework and guidelines of the Irish State and the Irish Conference of Bishops”. What had the Vatican done to cause such outlandish offence we may ask? Simply, the Vatican had declared that one Irish Bishop, who had decided not to follow either the Dail’s processes and nor those of the Conference of Bishops, was within his rights to decline to do so.

The response of the Vatican to the charge by the Dail was that it should be “borne in mind that the social organization of the Catholic Church throughout the world, is a communion of many particular Churches – for example, Dioceses and their equivalents, such as Territorial Prelatures, Apostolic Vicariates and, Military Ordinariates – (to which we can add Religious Orders). The Church, it was stated, is not like that of a modern State with a central government – nor is it comparable to that of a federal State. In the Church, the individual Bishops are neither representatives nor delegates of the Roman Pontiff, but of Christ Himself, albeit, as Catholic Bishops, they are to act in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the other Bishops throughout the world. This, the Vatican stated, is the principle of “episcopal collegiality”, as described by the Second Vatican Council. Hence, while the diocesan Bishop is to act in conformity with universal canonical legislation, it is the Bishop himself who is primarily responsible for penal discipline within his own Diocese and jurisdiction. In the Catholic Church, this particular relationship among the various Dioceses within the one Church is expressed by the term “ecclesial communion” and it has been particularly evident since the Second Vatican Council, which placed special emphasis on the proper responsibility of each Bishop”.

The response continued, “Without having to refer either to the Holy See or to the Episcopal Conference, and provided the Bishop respects the requirements of the universal law of the Church and the just laws of the State, each individual Bishop has the right and the obligation to take whatever initiative he deems necessary in order to promote charity and justice in his Diocese. In this context, with due respect for the prerogatives and responsibilities of individual Bishops, the Holy See has the sole (and, therefore, limited) responsibility of ensuring the unity of faith, sacraments and governance in the Church, and the processes of maintaining and strengthening of the ecclesial communion. Only when this unity and ecclesial communion is compromised, is the Roman Pontiff enabled to act directly, or through the offices of the Roman Curia, to seek to rectify matters”’.

In other words, what was stated to the Irish Dail is that, within the unusual context of the Catholic Church, the local Bishop reigns supreme – for the most part. The Pope is, theoretically, just another Bishop – like any other Bishop – and his diocese is Rome. Despite his election as Pontiff of the Catholic Church, he is not an absolute ruler, nor even a benevolent despot, but his remit is that of the Shepherd of his Flock and a caring Teacher- who sometimes has to resort to carrying a light in the darkness to guide – and who, extraordinarily, at other times, needs to persuade and gently goad his helpers in the right direction. This unusual “constitution” of the Church probably explains the Pope’s inability (and sometimes his apparent reluctance or even his failure) to make or demand the rapid changes for which the outside world has an expectation. In the context of the Church today which, demonstrably, has polarised extremes of view (eg: the Cardinal Burkes to the right and, perhaps, for the sake of the argument, the Cardinal O’Malleys to the left) Pope Francis himself, as Bishop of Rome, both cannot and should not himself be adjudicating, as a matter of routine, in another Bishop’s local diocesan matters. As the Pope’s title, “Primus inter Pares” proclaims, amongst both Patriarchs and his fellow Bishops, he is merely the “First amongst Equals”. Thus, behold the often-confused signals and the snail-like speed of change that, most surprisingly even to avid “Vatican Watchers”, can be anything other than “influenced” by any Pope in the Catholic Church – should he even chose to intervene. Call it a “dog’s dinner” if you wish, but it is not about to change.

Having said that, despite all the setbacks such as the resignation of Marie Collins that we perceive at a distance, there is one thing that Pope Francis can do – and has been doing with steadfast determination – and that is to sow the seeds of change that will bear fruit in the long term – perhaps the very long term. The evidence for this are the continual and sometimes dramatic changes Francis has made in the senior appointments to the Curia, his shrewdness in the establishment of a very select group of Cardinal advisors and his wisdom in the appointments of new and progressive bishops that he foresees will ensure that his own successor will continue on the same path of his current work of reform – slow as that process appears to be. At the Vatican it is not so much personal success in the short term, but the success of the “long game” that pre-occupies every Pope. That is the direction – the true North – in which the Vatican Compass needs always to be fixed. This scenario means also, of course, that some hopeful Hierarchs will be overlooked or sidelined in the process. Yes – clerics can be ambitious too – and that needs to be managed also. Accordingly, some have been put out to pasture by Pope Francis already – with nothing much more to do than ruminate on what might have been – if only.

It is of interest, in this overall context, that Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, was recently appointed by Pope Francis to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Boston’s Cardinal O’Malley, a Franciscan, already sits on the council of cardinal advisers who assist Pope Francis in the reform of the Roman Curia. This new appointment of O’Malley to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the dicastery of the Curia that sits in pole position at the Vatican, is not “instead of”, but “in addition to” leading the Commission for the Protection of Minors. Undoubtedly, this new, additional responsibility of Cardinal O’Malley’s will be seen by some as a sign of the adamant resolve of the Pope in the fight against clerical sexual abuse and the deadly prevalent disease of clericalism. It most probably is. Unbeknown to the casual observer, therefore, Pope Francis may have already reset the Vatican Compass on the course of a new and steadfast future. He has publicly warned the Curia recently not to work against his will by rearguard actions and threatened to make radical changes in the staffing of Curial posts in the case of those who obstruct him. Possibly, Francis sees O’Malley as the “spearhead” of this reformation of the CDF. O’Malley may also be the stuff that an ageing Pope may wish to see in pole position, either as King Maker or as Papal Candidate, when a Conclave is summoned to replace himself as Pope. However, only in the future will the laboriously slow revolutions of the Vatican wheels reveal to us the destination, devoid of all tangential deviation, to which the genial, but determined, Pope Francis has long since set a course.

CARDINAL PELL MUST HAND IN HIS RED CAP – AND POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT

By Brian Mark Hennessy

There is no point “beating about the Australian bush”, the Royal Commission findings on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in Australia are shocking – and are shocking beyond all expectations. This is a Black Day in the history of the Roman Catholic Church as a whole – not just the very “pits” of Australian clerical Catholicism.

In any organization, social or corporate or political, those that controlled the agenda of an edifice which has crumbled so shockingly will “take the rap” and resign. Cardinal Pell of Australia, created the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne on 16 July 1996 and in receipt of a Cardinal’s pallium from Pope John Paul II on 29 June 1997, must except responsibility for his part in the colossal failure of the Catholic Church in Australia to protect children from the cruel degradation of paedophile clerics – and hand in his Cardinal’s tassled, red cap to Pope Francis now. Pope Francis, must accept it and demote him. If he does not do so, this Pope will become a part of the story – and thus from there-on-in, the credibility of the Pontiff, the Vatican Curia and the Catholic hierarchy of Bishops will crumble into dust and ashes.

The very fact that the Australian Bishops will be called to give evidence under oath is witness to the fact that it is known that they covered up clerical child sexual abuse in Australia consistently. Not only that – it speaks volumes about the current view by the Royal Australian Inquiry that these bishops have already forfeited their moral rectitude to tell the truth. Rather than being the very epitome of rectitude and righteousness, they have become the purveyors of a callous cover up and, by their actions of simply moving pedophiles around within their dioceses, the complicit perpetrators of even more child abuse.

Let us not forget the statistics in these cases of abuse:

• Seven per cent of Australia’s Catholic priests have been accused of abusing children in the six decades since 1950, according to new data from the royal commission.
• Up to 15% of priests in some dioceses were alleged perpetrators between 1950 and 2015, with abusers most prevalent in the dioceses of Sale and Sandhurst in Victoria, Port Pirie in South Australia, and Lismore and Wollongong in New South Wales.
• The numbers were even worse in some national Catholic orders. By far the worst was the order of the St John of God Brothers, where a staggering 40% of religious brothers are believed to have abused children.
• 22 % of Christian Brothers and 20% of Marist Brothers, both orders that run schools, were alleged perpetrators.
• More than one in five priests in the Benedictine community of New Norcia were alleged perpetrators
• 17.2% of clergy were accused of crimes against children in the Salesians of Don Bosco order.
• Between 1980 and 2015, 4,444 people alleged incidents of child sexual abuse relating to 93 Catholic Church authorities.
• The abuse allegedly took place in more than 1,000 institutions.
• The average age of victims was 10.5 for girls and 11.6 for boys. The overwhelming majority of survivors were male.
• Almost 1,900 perpetrators were identified and another 500 remained unidentified.
• Thirty-two per cent of abusing clerics were religious brothers, 30% were priests, 29% were lay people and 5% were religious sisters.
• 37% of all sessions held by the Inquiry with survivors from all institutions related to abuse in the Catholic Church.
• Children were ignored or worse, punished.
• Allegations were not investigated.
• Priests and religious [brothers] were moved. The parishes or communities to which they were moved knew nothing of their past.”
• Documents were not kept or they were destroyed. Secrecy prevailed as did cover-ups.”

Everyone will remember today and going forward the interview of Cardinal George Pell when, in response to a question from the Australian Royal Commission in a video link from Rome,

“Ridsdale’s offences were ‘a sad story’ but had not been of much interest to me when they were happening in the 1970s in regional Victoria. I had no reason to turn my mind to the evils that Ridsdale had perpetrated”.

Many and countless Victims of Catholic Clerical abuse around the world have heard the same stories before – and many versions of them. Victims globally have been harassed, disbelieved, castigated, libeled, ignored, even blamed, victimised and re-victimised. Enough is enough! Heads must roll. Cardinal Pell – must show himself to be a man rather than the deaf church mouse he showed himself to be as a Hierarch in Australia in the past – and recently as a Vatican Curia Cardinal when questioned about clerical sexual abuse in Australia. He must quit now to save Catholicism and the Pope in the hearts and minds of world-wide Christendom.

TRUTH AND HUMILITY ARE THE CORNERSTONES OF THE MORAL EDIFACE

(Brian Mark Hennessy reports on an exemplary case of facing the truth with brave humility and compassion for victims of sexual abuse. Brian Hennessy has written a “Forward” in italics below and also the ultimate “Notes”. The central article is a paraphrase of a report by the Catholic News Agency dated 26^th January 2017 which was reported in “CRUX”)

“FORWARD”

You need to be brave to be humble and, very often, telling the truth is both the bravest and most humble act that we, as human beings, commit to. Such a combination of self-effacing morality dignifies the spiritual essence of our humanity. In a world when all men, women and children are equal, there is an accompaniment to “truth” and that is “justice”. You cannot have one without the other. Nevertheless, in this human world, understanding truth is complex and often difficult to discern – and never more so when two seemingly honest and respectable individuals have different versions of the facts of a truth that requires determination. The wise King Solomon managed to discern the truth in a dispute over who was the mother of a child by his human understanding of motherhood, but most disputes are more complicated than that. It is uniquely refreshing, therefore, when an individual or institution embraces a totally moral route, searches for the truth of alleged wrongdoings and humbly admits that truth when it has been established.

PARAPHRASE OF REPORT BY THE CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY FEATURED IN “CRUX”

The determination of the allegations against Luis Fernando Figari Rodrigo (born July 8, 1947 in Lima, Peru), a Peruvian Catholic layman, who was the founder and former superior general of the Society Sodalitium Christianae Vitae (SCV) is a case in point. Figari, who had been accused of “sexual abuse, mistreatment, and abuse of power” was exposed in 2015 in a book, “Mitad Monjes, Mitad Soldados”, (Half Monks, Half Soldiers), by the author, Salinas. Figari denied all the allegations in the book, but Alessandro Moroni Llabres, elected as the Superior General of SCV in 2012, embarked on a journey of moral determination to seek the truth. Indeed, he set up an Ethics Commission for Justice and Reconciliation in November 2015, after the original allegations had been made, so that the victims “could be welcomed and served in the first instance by highly respected and objective persons.” In doing so, he set aside any fears of damage to the reputation of the Institute and he openly embraced the Victims of the alleged abuses. In April 2016, that Ethics Commission’s report detailed an internal culture of extreme “discipline and obedience by the founder, Figari, which was forged by extreme physical demands, as well as physical punishments, constituting abuses which violated the fundamental rights of individuals.”

Sodalitium Christianae Vitae is a society of apostolic life which was founded in 1971 in Peru, and granted pontifical recognition in 1997. In addition to Peru, the community operates in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, the United States, and Italy. In the past few days, the Catholic News Agency has reported that the Institute has announced that 66 persons were victims of abuse and mistreatment by members of their Peruvian Sodalitium Christianae Vitae community. The still current superior general of the community, Alessandro Moroni Llabres, said, on January 21, that the society has set aside more than $2.8 million in reparations and assistance for victims. Moroni further said that “besides the norms proper to the judicial and canonical spheres, there is a necessary moral sphere.” In that respect, he reiterated the community’s pronouncements recognizing “all the harm done by Figari” – and in his condemnation of Figari’s actions, declared him a “persona non grata”. He added that, “We have also asked for Figari’s removal from our community and we have sent all the information on his case to the Holy See where Figari’s trial is proceeding in Rome. We are waiting for the final pronouncement by the Vatican authorities”. Moroni continued, “We have also recognized that some members of our community have done much harm and we have taken very concrete measures to clarify the truth about all these cases –  and this is most important thing – we are maintaining our commitment to making redress to those who suffered because of this. Those persons continue to be our priority.”

Moroni said the Ethics Commission had presented 32 cases to the Sodalits, and that another team of international experts in abuse investigations and the care of victims had discovered another 71 cases, “and so we have attended to a total of 103 persons. Of this total, sufficient elements have been found to consider 66 persons as victims of abuse or mistreatment of various natures. To determine if a person can be considered a victim,” he said, “we did not require any technical or scientific means of proof, such as would be required in any juridical investigation. Rather, we made a moral evaluation, considering the verisimilitude of the testimonies that were received. In case of doubt, we have opted to trust the persons who have given us their testimony. Among monetary compensations, medical or psychological assistance, help to return to the workforce, and support for some persons whose cases did not correspond to this process (but who had urgent needs) we have approved for this purpose an amount that so far totals more than $2,842,000,”

In a brave, humble and unique statement, Moroni concluded, “For us, the principal responsibility does not fall upon the Vatican or the Peruvian Church. Nor does the principal responsibility fall on the Attorney General’s Office; the principal responsibility of seeking the truth and repairing the damage is ours. Beyond the lofty complexity of the judicial and canonical processes, today we want to reaffirm that we are determined to fulfil our moral responsibility, with all its consequences. The community asks forgiveness from “everyone who has suffered any kind of abuse or mistreatment on the part of a member or ex-member of the Sodality. Welcoming the truth, however painful it may be, and making reparation to those who have suffered enables us to go forward on the path of service to which God calls us.”

“NOTES”

The brave response of Alessandro Moroni Llabres to the allegations made against Figari, the former Founder and Superior General of Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, could not be further removed from the response of the Comboni Missionary Order of Verona, Italy to allegations of criminal sexual abuse of child seminarians at their Mirfield Seminary in England. The Combonis, also known as the Verona Fathers, have ignored the Victims of the childhood abuse consistently, failed to investigate the allegations against clerics of their Order and refused to have any dialogue with the Victims. Indeed, the Combonis have gone to extreme lengths of publicly denying that the abuse, which was reported to them and has been known to them for almost five decades was true. Moreover, this denial flies in the face of assertions by living members of their Order that the allegations were factual. Their denial is a symptom of their cowardly arrogance – the very opposite of “Truth” and “Humility”. Indeed, rather than embracing the truth with brave humility and embracing the victims, the Order, even went to the length of falsely accusing one Victim of crimes in the Criminal Tribunal of Verona in Italy in a macabre attempt to conceal the ‘Truth” that they have a cowardly fear of embracing.

REPORT ON THE INQUIRY INTO HISTORICAL ABUSE

IN NORTHERN IRELAND.

(Paraphrased by Brian Mark Hennessy from an article published by BBC News on 20^th January 2017).

Sir Anthony Hart, the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Inquiry into Historical Abuse released his report this week. The Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry (HIA) studied allegations of abuse in 22 homes and other residential institutions between 1922 to 1995. He declared that children’s homes run by some churches, charities and state institutions in Northern Ireland were the scene of widespread abuse and mistreatment of young residents.

These were facilities run by the state, local authorities, the Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland and the children’s charity Barnardo’s. However, the largest number of complaints related to four Catholic-run homes. There was also sexual abuse carried out by priests and lay people, he reported.

Sir Anthony Hart, recommended a tax-free Government-funded compensation award ranging from 7,500 up to 100,000 pounds Sterling should be paid to the Victims. In addition, he recommended a permanent memorial at Stormont and a public apology to abuse survivors. He added that 12 people who had given evidence had since died and it was only “just and humane” that their spouses or children should receive a payment of 75% of the total lump sum. Other recommendations made were the establishment of a commissioner for survivors of institutional abuse and specialist care and assistance tailored to the needs of the victims.

The HIA heard evidence from hundreds of people who spent their childhood in residential homes and institutions. A total of 493 applicants engaged with the inquiry, in one form or another, and while the majority were seen in Belfast, others were seen in the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and Australia.

Setting out the findings of his report, the retired judge said the largest number of complaints received related to four Sisters of Nazareth homes. ‘Children were raised in bleak lovelessness’ in Sisters of Nazareth homes, one commentator has remarked. It found nuns had physically and emotionally abused children in their care. Sir Anthony said it was not uncommon for children to have Jeyes Fluid, a brand of disinfectant, put in their baths. Many of the incidents relating to sexual abuse were known by members of the clergy who did nothing to stop them. In a statement, the Sisters of Nazareth apologized, stating the ‘Deepest regret’ to anyone who had suffered abuse while in their care. “It was always the desire of the order to provide a safe place for children and when we failed on any occasion, we want to express our deepest regret,” the Order said. “This has been a traumatic time for those survivors and victims who have come forward, however, we sincerely hope it has also been an opportunity to find some relief.”

Sir Anthony said the inquiry had “stripped away decades of half-truths masquerading as facts, in relation to Kincora and what state agencies did or did not do regarding the abuse there. “Thirty-nine boys were abused at some point during their time at Kincora,” he said. Three men, William McGrath, Raymond Semple and Joseph Mains, who were senior “Care Staff” at Kincora, were jailed in 1981 for abusing 11 boys. Sir Anthony said when the police became aware in 1974 of complaints against McGrath, the investigation was “inept and inadequate”. He said a proper investigation into McGrath may have meant the children who were abused after 1974 could have been spared. Nevertheless, Sir Anthony also found no evidence that security agencies were complicit in the abuse that took place at Kincora. Sir Anthony said that the boys were let down by those three individuals, who committed sexual abuse “of the gravest kind” to teenage boys in their care. He added that the majority of the young boys at Kincora between 1958 and 1980, who gave evidence, said they were not sexually abused during their time there.

The HIA inquiry found that the Norbertine Order failed to take steps to expel Fr Brendan Smyth, from the priesthood despite being aware that the Northern Ireland-born cleric had committed dozens of offences against children over a 40-year period. The Irish Norbertines said in a statement that they recognised the “tragic harm and hurt” caused to innocent children by Fr Brendan Smyth. A spokesperson for the Norbertines said they “again unreservedly apologise most sincerely for the hurt and harm caused to so many young people, while also accepting that our management of the man concerned (Smyth) and the accusations presented to us was grossly inadequate.”

The inquiry also heard from adults, who as children, were sent from Northern Ireland to live in Australia. Sir Anthony said the HIA inquiry was the first in the UK to look at the child migrant scheme and said some of those who were sent away had been abused before they (left) and others believed the scheme itself was abusive. Sir Anthony said they had been unable to establish exactly how many children were sent to Australia, but at least 138, under the age of 13, were sent and, possibly as many as 144.

The head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Archbishop Eamon Martin, “apologised unreservedly” to all those who had suffered in church-run institutions. “I am ashamed and I am truly sorry that such abuse occurred, and that in many cases children and young people felt deprived of love and were left with a deep and lasting suffering,” he said.

Margaret McGuckin, who has been the public face of the campaign for survivors of historical institutional child sex abuse, said that the report was what they had “waited for for a lifetime. Today we are believed. As young children we tried to complain about our abuse and no one would listen,” she said.

Jon McCourt, from the Northwest Survivors group in Londonderry, said that Sir Anthony Hart had listened and that political representatives now had to listen. He stated, “In particular, the religious orders and these holy devout Christian people disbelieved us and even bullied us more for daring to complain, today we have been vindicated. We want the rest of the delivery of what the HIA report entails. Don’t let us down now.”

(Comment by Brian Mark Hennessy: Survivors of clerical abuse at the Mirfield Seminary in Yorkshire, England – (to whom this blog is dedicated) – which was an institution run by the Comboni Missionary Order of Verona, Italy, will recognize chilling similarities with the contents of the above report. “Children raised in bleak lovelessness” at the Nazareth homes is one comment that struck me, an ex-Mirfield boy, for I have heard similar comments from other members of the “Comboni Survivor Group”.

Then more familiar too, was“the tragic harm and hurt” suffered by the boys in the Norbertine’s homes. It has a clear parallel with the Mirfield seminary where all forms of alleged abuse, ranging from inappropriate touching to rape, have been alleged – and whose victims have been dealing with the complex psychological effects ever since.

Moreover, there is also a striking parallel in the action taken by the Comboni Missionary Order to the response of the Norbertines, who were aware of the abuse being perpetrated against children in their care, but they did not respond in any way to the abuse that they were aware of. Similarly, following reports of sexual abuse that took place within their institutions at the Mirfield seminary, the Comboni Missionary Order of Verona, Italy, (from the local Rector, to the London Province Provincial Superior and, indeed the Superior General of the Order at the time) did nothing at all regarding making mandatory reports to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as required by Canon law. Nor did the inform the West Yorkshire Police, which they were bound to do under the Law of Misprision that was effective at the time. Nor did they offer assistance to the Victims and nor did they report the abuse to the Welfare Authorities. Indeed, in the case of the Comboni Missionary Order, three of the priests whose abuse of seminarians were known to them from reports – were simply moved on to other locations where they would also have unfettered access to children – and where, theoretically, at least, they would have been able to continue their abuse of children unchecked).

CLERICAL ABUSE ISSUES – ROUND UP

(PARAPHRASED FROM PRESS STORIES BY BRIAN MARK HENNESSY)

NETWORK ABUSE – THE ITALY BASED INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION REPORTING ON CLERICAL PAEDOPHILES PUBLISHED THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ON 11TH JANUARY 2017

(Translated and paraphrased by Brian Mark Hennessy. Whilst having no cause to doubt the facts presented in this article, this Blog is unable to guarantee the veracity of its content. Readers must make their own conclusions.)

Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on December 17, 1936, Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope Francis on March 13, 2013, when he was named the 266th pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Bergoglio, the first pope from the Americas, took his papal title after St. Francis of Assisi of Italy. It is alleged that documents have been delivered into the hands of Pope Francis denouncing Don Nicola Corradi and 14 other priests. There has been no response from the Vatican. Consequently, dozens of documents clearly demonstrating that the church authorities knew of priests accused of molestation by members of the Antonio Provolo Institute for the Deaf in Verona have been filed a few days ago with the public prosecutor of Verona Criminal Court.

The first precedent in Italy for this case was created in 2012 in Savona when the judge for preliminary investigations, Fiorenza Giorgi, deduced that there was a clear case of omission by the bishop, Dante Lafranconi, who, despite knowing of the pedophile tendencies of one of his priests, did nothing to prevent the continuation of abuse against other children. The legal principle that convicted the Italian Bishop was found in the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Criminal Code which reads “failing to prevent a crime for which it is a legal duty to prevent, is equivalent to causing the crime”. This legal principle, in a different formula, is also found in article 108 of the Argentine Penal Code, according to the lawyer Carlos Lombardi, and that situation could also prove legal responsibility against the Argentinian Provolo Institute for the Deaf in the diocese of Mendoza and La Plata. This has raised a number of questions as to whether Pope Francis, when Archbishop of Buenos Aires, was also informed on the scandal relating to the Provolo Institute in Verona and whether he knew of the dangers to children associated with the priest, Don Corradi. The children in the Argentinian Institute have stated that “They wailed as the two Roman Catholic priests repeatedly raped them inside the small school chapel in remote northwestern Argentina”. Sadly, only their tormenters would have heard their cries since the other children at the school were all deaf.

According to a report by Network Abuse, Pope Francis was informed three times of abuse by Don Corradi and also of at least 14 other priests accused of abuse by former students of the Institution, but the then Archbishop Bergoglio wanted to maintain the pretence that nothing had happened. Now, we are told that the Holy See has sunk into a “shameful and deafening silence typical of the Church that talks the talk, but does not walk the walk”. On May 9, 2014, the leading Italian News outlet, “TGcom 24 Mediaset ” released a video produced by “Network ABUSE” and it was taken up by all the Italian national newspapers and many others around the world – and was aimed directly at Pope Francis. A copy was delivered to the Vatican Secretariat of State. It included the names of 17 victims – former students of the Provolo Institute – and a list of names of the abusing clerics – including that of Don Nicola Corradi. However, no response to those victims was received –  and so on 20th October 2014, the Association of the Antonio Provolo Institute for the Deaf at Verona sent registered letters to the Bishop of Verona Giuseppe Zenti, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Pope Francis. In that letter were the names of Don Corradi and the 14 other priests accused of abuse (four of them hidden in Argentina). No response was received. Thus, letters with the same content repeating the allegations were delivered once again to the Vatican on 28th October 2015. On this occasion, however, they were placed directly into the hands of Pope Francis by one of the victims of the Institution named Joseph. It so happened that, in very recent days, Pope Francis has again declared that, “The church is crying for the pain brought about by priests!”.  To the victims of abuse – and to all those who still trust the Church, such cries are “outrageous”, said Francesco Zanardi, the President of  “Network ABUSE Onlus”.

Francesco Zanardi continued, “It is sad to see that, despite the severe indictment that the UN Commission on the Human Rights of the Child made against the Vatican in 2014, the church continues to protect its image and to give scant regard to the care of victims and of associations that protect them. They continue to refuse dialogue. The management of pedophile clerics can no longer remain in the hands of the Catholic Church Hierarchy. If Pope Francis really wants to seriously address the problem, there is only one avenue open to him – which is to insist on the requirement that Bishops (and Religious Hierarchs) refer all allegations against clerics to the law authorities and the courts of the civil states in which the offences were committed”.

THE PRICE PAID BY FATHER JOHN GALLAGHER FOR REPORTING ABUSE

Terry Spencer of the Associated Press has reported in the News Outlet “CRUX” that a priest from West Palm Beach is suing his former diocese. Father John Gallagher, a Catholic priest filed a suit on Wednesday against his former diocese, saying that the bishop pushed him aside and lied about him because he made a call to a law enforcement agency after another priest showed child pornography to a teenage boy and cooperated with the investigation. He said that Bishop Gerald Barbarito of the Palm Beach Diocese forced him from the church where he worked and publicly called him a liar after he refused to cover up for the other priest, Joseph Palimattom, who was convicted of showing obscene material to a minor, spent six months in jail and was deported home to India.

Gallagher told The Associated Press that his case shows the church has not reformed as promised after it became public knowledge that church leaders had covered up sexual abuse by priests for decades around the world. “Any priest could be in this situation,” Gallagher said. “Any priest in this situation should know that if it happened to them, they will not get the support of the church. You will be ostracized.”

The diocese declined specific comment on the lawsuit, but pointed to Barbarito’s previous denials of Gallagher’s allegations. In those statements, made last year after Gallagher went public with his accusation, Barbarito says that he and other church officials acted appropriately when Gallagher informed them of Palimattom’s crime. “We not only immediately reported the incident to the police and state attorney, but cooperated as fully in the investigation as we could,” Barbarito said in one statement that was read in churches throughout the diocese. “Father Gallagher’s harmful assertions are an embarrassment to my brother priests as well as to me.”

Gallagher, 49 and a priest since 1992, came to the United States from his native Northern Ireland in 2000 and became the head priest at Holy Name of Jesus in West Palm Beach in April 2014. That following December, Palimattom arrived from India and was assigned to be Gallagher’s assistant. According to the lawsuit, church officials in India did not tell Gallagher that Palimattom had been previously accused of sexually abusing children.

Gallagher says in the lawsuit that on Jan. 5, 2015, three weeks after Palimattom’s arrival, a 14-year-old boy complained that Palimattom had shown him sexually explicit photographs of naked boys who were approximately 6 years old. Gallagher says he immediately confronted Palimattom, who admitted showing the photographs to the teen. The conversation was witnessed by a retired Palm Beach County sheriff’s detective and his wife, the church’s office manager. “His (Palimattom’s) answer was, ‘I’ve done this before, I have gone to confession, been told to say my prayers and everything will be OK,’” Gallagher said Wednesday.

Gallagher says he and the retired detective contacted the state attorney’s office and were told that the teen’s father had already reported Palimattom, who was arrested the next day. He said he then called the diocese and was told that the normal procedure would be to send Palimattom home to India. He says he was also told not to offer too much information to investigators, but he says he recounted his entire conversation with Palimattom to detectives. He also turned over a security video showing the conversation.

The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office issued two commendation letters to Gallagher thanking him for his assistance. Chief Deputy Michael Gauger and Detective Debi Phillips each wrote that in previous investigations of sexual abuse the local church had not cooperated, so they were pleased by how helpful Gallagher had been. (Two previous bishops of the diocese resigned after admitting to sexually abusing boys before arriving in Florida).

Gallagher said he then wrote letters to high-ranking Catholic officials, saying Palm Beach Diocese officials had tried to cover up the Palimattom case. He said Barbarito retaliated by driving him from Holy Name of Jesus by turning the Spanish-speaking portion of the parish against him. He said that in May 2015 when he was hospitalized for a possible heart attack, Barbarito showed up in his room and berated him, accusing him of faking. He said that when he was released, he found that he had been locked out of the parish.

After some Holy Name of Jesus parishioners publicly protested his dismissal, Barbarito had diocesesan priests read a statement in January 2016 at all Masses saying Gallagher was spreading falsehoods. On a Facebook page, one diocese official wrote Gallagher “is blatantly lying and in need of professional help as well as our prayers and mercy.” Similar statements were made to local news media.

Gallagher said Wednesday that he is unsure if he wants to remain a priest. “Why would I ever trust them again?” he asked.

GOODNEWS FOR SURVIVORS IN SWITZERLAND

Christa Pongratz-Lippitt, the Austrian correspondent for the London-based weekly Catholic magazine “The Tablet”, has written the following article for the US National Catholic Reporter concerning the Swiss Bishops’ Conference positive act of setting up of a fund for abuse cases outside statute of limitations.

The Swiss Bishops’ Conference has set up a special compensation fund for victims of clergy sexual abuse whose cases are barred by statute of limitations. Victims who were abused years ago and whose cases, according to both state and church law, fall under the statute of limitations were particularly distressing for the Swiss bishops, Lausanne Bishop Charles Morerod told the press in Sion, Switzerland. “For far too long, the church turned a blind eye on these victims who are in a particularly difficult situation and have not been provided with any reparation,” Morerod, president of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference, said, “The conference decided to create a fund for those victims who no longer had the right to seek redress in court”.

The bishops put aside an initial sum of 500,000 Swiss francs (US$493,500) for the special fund. All Swiss dioceses, the Union of Religious Major Superiors of Switzerland, and other church organizations in the country are contributing to the fund. An independent commission has been set up to decide on the amount of compensation each victim should receive, Morerod said. Many of the recorded cases dated back to the 1950s but the Swiss bishops and religious superiors said they continue to be grateful for every report of sexual abuse by clergy or church employees. They called on victims to keep coming forward, deserving justice even if the abuse occurred long ago.

Before the press conference, all 11 members of the bishops’ conference, representatives of the religious superiors group, and a delegation of victims gathered at Valère Basilica in Sion for a penitential service. The 12th-century basilica, which is situated on a hill, has been a place of pilgrimage “to which people have brought their burdens and troubles for centuries,” Morerod said. He added that “zero tolerance” and “complete transparency” were called for as far as clergy sexual abuse was concerned. He thanked the public for pressuring the church regarding the abuse. One of the victims at the service, a woman in her 50s, came forward and related her life story in a broken voice. Her father had been a priest and she had four half-siblings who all had different mothers. The bishops and religious superiors joined her in saying, “We pray that clergy sexual abuse may never again be swept under the carpet, belittled or relativized.”

The bishops then knelt and, led by Morerod, prayed, “A grievous sin committed by individual members of the church but facilitated by certain patterns of behavior and thinking in the church has come to light. The sin has several levels: the abusive act, the complicit silence and the failure to render assistance to the victims. We feel responsible and thank the victims for opening our eyes.”

The Swiss bishops’ conference updated its sexual abuse guidelines for the third time in 2014. They now include religious groups and activities not previously under the responsibility of the dioceses. New church employees have to undergo a check of their criminal record. The new guidelines also aim to ensure better transparency when priests are moved from one diocese to another.

SHARING STORIES OF SEXUAL ABUSE “HELPS TO HEAL THE HURT”

(Augustinian Fr. Paul F. Morrissey (author of “The Black Wall of Silence) wrote the following article for the National Catholic Reporter. Sharing stories of sexual abuse ‘helps to heal the hurt’).

Having the horror heard helps to heal the hurt.” My stepmother, Dot, shared her wonderfully alliterative mantra with me years ago as we pondered the benefits of a person going to a counselor when stuck in pain. In her wise and eye-twinkling way, Dot, whose husband had been struck by a car and killed many years before, leaving her with 12 children to raise, was telling me how she had survived.

After my mother died suddenly from brain cancer at 64, my father, Tom, was traumatized with grief and seemed to be on his way “out of the picture,” as he used to say of others who had died. One of my nine sisters, Kate, challenged him to get up and start living again. “Because at least you had a life before Mama, but we never did,” she reminded him. My father not only started to live again, five years later he married Dot. Between the two of them, Dot with her 12 kids, and Tom with his 14, they had 26 mostly grown children. Talk about having the horror heard!

Dot’s mantra shows how she understands people getting over the pains of life. They need to be heard. If someone is willing to listen to the horrors that befall us, it feels like we are not alone. We can bear it and even find meaning in it. As St. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “Bear one another’s burdens and so you will fulfill the law of Christ.” I believe this is one of the keys to understanding and healing the sexual abuse wounds in the church. It isn’t that people are just looking to bash the church, or that they want to wallow in victimhood. They desperately need to be heard so that the hurt can be healed in God’s way. When I experienced this phenomenon recently, Dot’s almost hokey way of describing our primal human need came back to me.

At first I had resisted the invitation. The “Circle of Healing” would be dealing with the clergy sexual abuse crisis and cover-up in the Catholic church. Even though this gathering would take place in a beautiful, sunny, comfortable living room of someone’s Victorian home in Philadelphia, I wondered what the real agenda was. I knew the facilitator who had invited me, a former member of my religious order’s novitiate class over 50 years ago, and I trusted him. But as one of perhaps only a few priests participating, would I be a target for the anger of any survivors of abuse there? Could I really listen to all of their grief on a Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.? I phoned my friend and shared my fears. As a former director of the Voice of the Faithful organization, he assured me that it would be a safe process, one where all 12 participants could get in touch with the feelings we have about the crisis. This would be an opportunity for me to share my own feelings as well, but only what I felt comfortable sharing, and listen to other Catholics who have been struggling to be faithful to the church.

A few survivors of sexual abuse by priests would be present. The goal was to provide an opportunity to begin healing, not necessarily forgiveness, to whatever extent this grace came to each participant. It would even help the church as a whole, he said, in this small step of faith taken by some of its members. Yet, who heals the priests, I thought? Even though still wondering about what I would feel safe sharing or hearing, I decided to attend. It turns out that I was helped in my own healing process. First by being welcomed as a person, not so much as a priest who represents the organization in which the abuse occurred. Like everyone, I was invited to be present and speak as one who has his own unique history with the church.

As the “talking stick” was passed around, I began to feel my two-sided experience of the abuse and cover-up crisis. First, I have my own personal spiritual-sexual journey with its joys and wounds, including experiences long before I became a priest on up to the present. Second, as a priest I am in a position of authority in the church, even one of “them.” I realized that I needed to express and receive forgiveness on both of these levels, if I felt safe doing so. Surprisingly, I felt this safety, almost like I had “come home”, as each participant spoke so honestly about themselves. There was no “cross talk” after each person took a turn speaking, but I could sense in their listening the love and respect they had for each other and for me. Most of all, I discovered that I needed to hear the stories of the group’s three survivors of sexual abuse. I wanted to see their faces and to hear their pain, their sense of betrayal and anger at their church leaders, even if this was in a way that included me. Each of their faith journeys was astounding, even more their continued involvement in the church. I came away with more hope for the church. Our people are stronger in their faith than we may think.

Yet, more than my own experience of this Circle of Healing, it seems important to recount the words of one of the survivors. Jim had wept at times when he spoke, and I reconstruct what follows from conversing with him afterward. He has graciously granted me permission to publish this so it might help others. As a victim of clergy abuse, one often wonders why you were picked. Why did Father pick me? He was the assistant pastor in charge of the altar boys. Sadly, he had access to many boys. I know there were others. How many I have no idea.

One of the participants mentioned choosing vulnerable kids and I was certainly one of those. Growing up in an alcoholic family was extremely difficult. When I was 8, 9 and 10, I was often awakened by my parents arguing one floor below. It was so loud and frightening that I would hide in the bedroom closet with a pillow held over my head. I prayed to God for the fighting to stop. It never did. After a while I stopped praying. When I was 11, a group of boys were playing in a wooded area near our homes. One of the boys decided he needed to relieve himself and peed against a tree. Another boy followed. One of the boys who was there lived across the street from me. He was an only child. I don’t know what he told his mother but when I got home, I was sent to my room. When my father got home, I was beaten for almost an hour on my bare backside with a belt. I refused to admit I had peed in the woods because I had not. At one point, I remember my father saying he was going to beat the queerness out of me. I was an 11-year-old Catholic kid. I had no idea what he was talking about. It took me years to realize that the beating had nothing to do with me. My father was beating his own demons.

Less than a year later, I was molested by a Catholic priest. How did he molest me? By trumping up a false charge and spanking me on my bare backside. Coincidence? I think not. When I was in seventh grade, the priest who molested me gave a class on the birds and the bees to the boys in my class. Someone was writing four letter words on the blackboard between classes. So, they decided to have a sex talk. Father didn’t talk about pedophilia or how some people get a kick out of spanking little boys.

What can you say to this man? During the day of sharing I felt myself avoiding his glance. And yet I wanted to reach out to him, but how? A hug could be dangerous I thought, given his history. So, I sidled up at a coffee break and thanked him, yet didn’t shake his hand. This mix of feelings, a paralysis even, is what stymies the church from offering any system-wide approach to healing for our people. Anything the clergy does will be suspect. So, we hire lawyers to keep ourselves safe and it all winds up being tried in courts. But has anything really been reconciled by this? I believe that a way for the church to move forward and build trust again, possibly discover forgiveness in God’s time, is through these Circles of Healing. But this model by itself is too small, with too few able to be helped. Somehow, we’ve got to magnify this experience of healing for the church as a whole. Some brave bishops need to participate in this process. What would be crucial to be determined ahead of time is confidentiality. For example, would anything the bishops heard or said be grounds for legal claims and issues? It is daunting to even think of these issues and potential complications. But if we do nothing, we remain in the present model, most of it reduced to court cases and settlements, jail sentences, no real reconciliation, and the church locked in a “no trust” path. Surely something can be done differently. A Circle of Healing could be a start. If we are willing to listen to each other’s pain and sense of betrayal, we may begin to heal and discover our awesome ability to set each other free. Having the horror heard helps to heal the hurt.

ENDS

Pope declares ‘zero tolerance’ for sexual abuse in Catholic church —  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/03/pope-declares-zero-tolerance-for-sexual-abuse-in-catholic-church

Pope Francis to World’s Bishops: Have Courage to Protect the Innocent

‘Forward’- by Brian Mark Hennessy

A number of news outlets have published a letter written to the Bishops of the World on 28^th December 2016, the Feast of the Holy Innocents, but which has only just been released to the public by the Vatican. Pope Francis has said the Church “weeps bitterly” over minors sexually abused by priests and how such cases have been mishandled, saying it is a “sin that shames us”. It is another of the landmark homilies of Pope Francis on a range of world issues affecting children and it deserves to be repeated in full in this blog – which is dedicated to the long list of Victims of Child Sexual Abuse at the Comboni Missionary Order’s Mirfield Seminary in Yorkshire, England. In his letter, Pope Francis says that the clerical sexual abuse of minors – “is a sin that shames us. Persons responsible for the protection of those children destroyed their dignity. We regret this deeply and we beg forgiveness. We join in the pain of the victims and weep for this sin. The sin of what happened, the sin of failing to help, the sin of covering up and denial, the sin of the abuse of power”. Regrettably, it is imperative that I comment that the Hierarchy of the Comboni Missionary Order of Verona, Italy, has not heeded the words of Pope Francis on the subject of child sexual abuse in the past and continually fails to acknowledge events of sexual abuse that have been known to them for some five decades.  I anticipate that they would do so only grudgingly even if Pope Francis, through his Curia and on pain of sanctions determinedly endeavoured to coerce them to comply.

 The letter of Pope Francis sent to the Bishops of the world on

December 28, 2016, Feast of the Holy Innocents, Martyrs.

Dear Brother,

Today, on the feast of the Holy Innocents, as the words of the angel to the shepherds still resound in our hearts – “I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour” (Lk 2: 10-11) – I feel the need to write to you. We do well to listen to that proclamation again and again; to hear over and over again that God is present in the midst of our people. This certainty, which we renew each year, is the source of our joy and hope. In these days we experience how the liturgy leads us to the heart of Christmas, into the Mystery which gradually draws us to the source of Christian joy.

As pastors, we are called to help foster this joy among the faithful. We are charged with protecting this joy. I ask you once again that we not let ourselves be robbed of this joy, for we can be disillusioned at times, not unreasonably, with the world around us, with the Church, or even with ourselves, and feel tempted to indulge in a certain melancholy, lacking in hope, which can lay hold of our hearts (cf. Evangelii Gaudium 83).

Christmas is also accompanied, whether we like it or not, by tears. The Evangelists did not disguise reality to make it more credible or attractive. They did not indulge in words that were comforting but unrelated to reality. For them, Christmas was not a flight to fantasy, a way of hiding from the challenges and injustices of their day. On the contrary, they relate the birth of the Son of God as an event fraught with tragedy and grief. Quoting the prophet Jeremiah, Matthew presents it in the bluntest of terms: “A voice is heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children” (2:18). It is the sobbing of mothers bewailing the death of their children in the face of Herod’s tyranny and unbridled thirst for power.

Today too, we hear this heart-rending cry of pain, which we neither desire nor are able to ignore or to silence. In our world – I write this with a heavy heart – we continue to hear the lamentation of so many mothers, of so many families, for the death of their children, their innocent children.

To contemplate the manger also means to contemplate this cry of pain, to open our eyes and ears to what is going on around us, and to let our hearts be attentive and open to the pain of our neighbours, especially where children are involved. It also means realizing that that sad chapter in history is still being written today. To contemplate the manger in isolation from the world around us would make Christmas into a lovely story that inspires warm feelings but robs us of the creative power of the Good News that the Incarnate Word wants to give us. The temptation is real.

Can we truly experience Christian joy if we turn our backs on these realities? Can Christian joy even exist if we ignore the cry of our brothers and sisters, the cry of the children?

Saint Joseph was the first to be charged with protecting the joy of salvation. Faced with the atrocious crimes that were taking place, Saint Joseph – the model of an obedient and loyal man – was capable of recognizing God’s voice and the mission entrusted to him by the Father. Because he was able to hear God’s voice, and was docile to his will, Joseph became more conscious of what was going on around him and was able to interpret these events realistically.

The same thing is asked of us pastors today: to be men attentive, and not deaf, to the voice of God, and hence more sensitive to what is happening all around us. Today, with Saint Joseph as our model, we are asked not to let ourselves be robbed of joy. We are asked to protect this joy from the Herods of our own time. Like Joseph, we need the courage to respond to this reality, to arise and take it firmly in hand (cf. Mt 2:20). The courage to guard this joy from the new Herods of our time, who devour the innocence of our children. An innocence robbed from them by the oppression of illegal slave labour, prostitution and exploitation. An innocence shattered by wars and forced immigration, with the great loss that this entails. Thousands of our children have fallen into the hands of gangs, criminal organizations and merchants of death, who only devour and exploit their neediness.

To illustrate this point, there are at present 75 million children who, due to prolonged situations of emergency and crisis, have had to interrupt their education. In 2015, 68% of all persons who were victims of sexual exploitation were children. At the same time, a third of all children who have to live outside their homelands do so because forcibly displaced. We live in a world where almost half of the children who die under the age of five do so because of malnutrition. It is estimated that in 2016 there were 150 million child labourers, many of whom live in conditions of slavery. According to the most recent report presented by UNICEF, unless the world situation changes, in 2030 there will be 167 million children living in extreme poverty, 69 million children under the age of five will die between 2016 and 2030, and 16 million children will not receive basic schooling.

We hear these children and their cries of pain; we also hear the cry of the Church our Mother, who weeps not only for the pain caused to her youngest sons and daughters, but also because she recognizes the sins of some of her members: the sufferings, the experiences and the pain of minors who were abused sexually by priests. It is a sin that shames us. Persons responsible for the protection of those children destroyed their dignity. We regret this deeply and we beg forgiveness. We join in the pain of the victims and weep for this sin. The sin of what happened, the sin of failing to help, the sin of covering up and denial, the sin of the abuse of power. The Church also weeps bitterly over this sin of her sons and she asks forgiveness. Today, as we commemorate the feast of the Holy Innocents, I would like us to renew our complete commitment to ensuring that these atrocities will no longer take place in our midst. Let us find the courage needed to take all necessary measures and to protect in every way the lives of our children, so that such crimes may never be repeated. In this area, let us adhere, clearly and faithfully, to “zero tolerance”. 

Christian joy does not arise on the fringes of reality, by ignoring it or acting as if it did not exist. Christian joy is born from a call – the same call that Saint Joseph received – to embrace and protect human life, especially that of the holy innocents of our own day. Christmas is a time that challenges us to protect life, to help it be born and grow. It is a time that challenges us as bishops to find new courage. The courage that generates processes capable of acknowledging the reality that many of our children are experiencing today, and working to ensure them the bare minimum needed so that their dignity as God’s children will not only be respected but, above all, defended.

Let us not allow them to be robbed of joy. Let us not allow ourselves to be robbed of joy, but guard it and nourish its growth.  May we do this with the paternal fidelity of Saint Joseph and guided by Mary, Mother of tender love, so that our own hearts may never grow hard.

With fraternal affection,

FRANCIS

From the Vatican, 28 December 2016

Feast of the Holy Innocents, Martyrs