What Happens when the Vatican Wheels Grind to a Halt? By Brian Mark Hennessy

Posted on by markmurray1

What Happens when the Vatican Wheels Grind to a Halt?

 

By Brian Mark Hennessy

 

(Note: Prior to the publication of this article on the Mirfield Memories site, approval was sought from the German Jesuit, Father Hans Zollner, who is quoted within the passages below. Father Zollner is a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors created by Pope Francis in 2014, is academic vice-rector of the Jesuit-run Gregorian University in Rome and head of its Institute of Psychology. Father Zollner has expressed his agreement to the publication of the comments attributed to him in the text of the article below.)

 

Hardly a day goes by when I do not read something hopeful from the Vatican on the issues surrounding clerical child sexual abuse. For instance, maybe one day Pope Francis says something encouraging to the press corps – then hopeful comments are issued from Vatican sources at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the effect that Bishops who cover up abuse will be held accountable. On another day we hear that Cardinal O’Malley of Boston and Chair of the Pontifical Commission on Child Sexual Abuse has rebutted some lesser Vatican Official who stated that Bishops do not need to report sexual abuse to the Civil Authorities. Then a Vatican Spokesperson says that both child abuse – and the attempts to cover it up by Bishops and Religious Superiors and protect paedophile clerics from legal civil actions – is now considered actually to be a “crime” (after twenty centuries since Christ said “suffer not little children to come unto me for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven”). Now and then a Bishop is defrocked or a Cardinal is put out to grass. We might even be tempted to conclude from these utterances that the Catholic Church is in transformation. Perhaps we might one day have to concede that the Church has come a long, long way from the old days of cover up, denial, falsehood, silent stonewalling and the denigration of Victims as “money grabbing liars”. We might even have to admit that the days are gone since when their callous impulse was to give greater consideration to the protection of the criminal, paedophile clerics in their midst rather than extend a hand to the suffering Survivors of those same paedophiles’ abhorrent, indulgent and self-gratifying crimes. Sadly, such natal signals of change rarely, in practice, become hard, universal, identifiable “modus operandi” within the Catholic Church. Indeed, there is little evidence of change outside of the limited bounds of the Vatican State – and a little circumspection is required. We need to reflect a little longer before we can make such hopeful predictions. Perhaps, more accurately in practice, we are induced to believe that visible, concrete change is actually happening – whilst the only change is nothing other than the rhetoric – a form of turgid, soporific grandiloquence to dull our minds to the reality that nothing has changed at all.

 

The Jesuit, Father Hans Zollner, said something significant to our very own Mark Murray (a Comboni Survivor) just a week ago in Rome. Father Zollner, summed the  Catholic Church quite precisely when he said: “There are many churches within the Church”! This summation was acutely accurate – for whilst these days the Vatican says the right things (most of the time) – the response of the “other churches” is often either markedly different or non-existant. What else would explain the continued total lack of response by the Comboni Missionary Order to the countless allegations of abuse of child seminarians at their seminaries at Stillington, Mirfield and Elstree in the late 1950s to the early 1980s? In all some 1000 individual incidents have been enumerated – and each one was a “crime” in its own right. The apparently inscrutible Comboni Missionary Order are pathologically unable to admit, acknowledge, comment or apologise to the Victims of that horrendous endemic abuse within their establishments. They refrained from an opportunty to categorically deny, admit or comment upon the allegations within a document even before the worldwide distribution of that document in which the allegations were made in May 2015. They hold the view, it seems, that total silence allows them to hide behind the veil of a significant degree of inscrutible “unaccountability”. The closest they have ever got to admitting that the abuse (that living members of their Order are perfectly well aware of and have historically admitted) was when they were forced to respond to the British press after a civil suit against them was settled out of court. They then stated that:  “if” the abuse ever happened, it was so long ago that they do not believe that the “truth can now be established”! Well, I, for one, know the “Truth” of the abuse that happened to me because it did happen to me – as do all those other children, now men, who were similarly abused know of the “truth” of the abuse inflicted upon them. I have said to the Comboni Missionary Order before – and I repeat it here – “Truth” is not the monopoly of clerics because they wear a white collar around their necks! The Comboni Missionary Order are in denial because they are in their own little conceited, egocentric and narcissistic world – which is leagues apart from the reality of the real world.  They are in their “own little church”. That little church exists in their own little minds – and it seems that the church of their own little minds is inpenetrable and impervious even to the discourses of Popes and Vatican Congregations. Despite the Vatican’s hopeful pronouncements, the wheels of change of the Vatican wagon, if there is one, have ground to a halt and are bogged down in the mud at the gates of the Comboni Missionary Orders’ establishments at Sunningdale, Rome and Verona – and none within those gates are willing or able, it seems, to give that wagon a push over the threshold.

 

Moreover, a document highlighting the facts of this horrendous abuse at the Comboni Missionary establishments within the United Kingdom was forwarded to every Bishop in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland – from whence the sexually abused child seminarians were offered up by hopeful parents to the care of the Comboni Missionary Order. There was not a single response from those Bishops – except one – who asked what he was supposed to do with it. Clearly, “it” was not their problem. They had their own little Church in their own little corner of Britain – and “it” was nothing to do with them. I sent a copy of the document also to the heads of all the Religious Orders in Great Britain – to the abbots, hierarchs and provincial superiors who were, likewise, overwhelmingly silent as they crept around the cloisters of their own little “other world” churches. I even sent the document to the Bishops’ Conferences throughout the world – targetting most specifically those countries where the Comboni Missionary Orders were active. Silence was the loud reply – to use a well worn phrase. Furthermore, a copy of that same document was sent to the majority of the thousand or so ordained priests of the Comboni Missionary Order. I had three responses. Two of those clerics, who admitted that they had not read the document, decried it as false. The third – just one out of the many, many hundreds of clerics of the Catholic Church, from Cardinals to lowly priests in mission countries, who were in receipt of the document – said that he had actually read the document slowly, as his English was imperfect, over a period of three hours “and he felt ashamed”. I treasure that response from that humble, enlightened Christian man because he was the only cleric I encountered who was connected to the Church of the Gospels – and he had the spiritual grace to recognise the light of the “truth” of that document. He alone had made all my efforts to inform the clerics of the Catholic Church of the immense suffering of the Comboni Survivors of child sexual abuse seem worthwhile. Eventually, at the hand of a Cardinal – whom I had long badgered into action – a copy of the document reached the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. That was six months ago. They have not responded – because they, most certainly, are another little church – the ramparts of which – I am on the outside.

 

As the Jesuit, Father Zollner, implied, these little churches consider themselves to be independent. I deduce that they proceed according to their own distorted sense of dignity, rules, philosophy and erroneous interpretation of the meaning of the Evangelists’ Gospels. They do not listen to nor heed what the Vatican says. They are autonomous. Thus there is no central Vatican control over their thinking and conduct. The Pope has power and influence over them in theory only – because they – within their little minded church – have decided not to be held to account by him. In practice, the Catholic Church is captainless and rudderless and constantly in tension – as all their little churches pull in different directions. Whilst the Comboni Survivors have always had a hope that the Catholic Church would eventually get a grip of the Comboni Missionary Order – I reluctantly admit that I think it never will – because the structure of the Catholic Church has shown itself to be incapable of doing so.

 

That begs the questions – what happens when the wagon wheels of the Vatican come to a halt – and what hope is there for the Comboni Survivors? The Catholic Church has failed them. There is no global, functional, just, auditable, accountable, victim-friendly, avenue open to Survivors of clerical sexual abuse within the Catholic Church – and, therefore, their only hope of a just hearing is in a constant recourse to civil action. Such action will not affect the mindset of the Comboni Missionary Order. There is no hope of that – but, ultimately, the Comboni Missionary Order should be aware that “Civil Action” will impoverish them. Indeed, that is what has happened and is continuing to happen. They know it themselves already – for the level of donations to their “mission” diminishes month by month. For further proof of the direction in which they are heading, the Comboni Missionary Order need only to look to the state of the Catholic Church in the United States. There, Catholic parish congregations are turning away from financially supporting their priests and bishops. This is the result of those clerics’ denials, their cover ups, their inaction against and protection of paedophile clerics – and their constant recourse to the justice system to avoid changes of statutes of limitations for the Victims’ civil pursuance of justice for the crimes committed. They are, as yet, unready for meaningful Christian dialogue with the Survivors of clerical Abuse – and for taking the caring steps needed to ensure that each and every victim is heard and provided with justice and closure. The dioceses of the US Catholic Church face widespread bankruptcy.

 

Eventually, financial bankruptcy will be the only lesson from which the Comboni Missionary Order will learn also. They seem to be able to cope in their little church mind with their moral bankruptcy, but their financial bankruptcy will be their turning point. Then, to rebuild their little other world empire of their minds – they will have to learn the fundamental lesson that rejecting the pleas for real dialogue with victims, denying and covering up child abuse and protecting paedophiles doesn’t pay their bills. If they don’t ever get to understand that– then they will, eventually, cease to function – and even cease to exist. Distasteful as it may seem, the Comboni Survivors will be doing the Comboni Missionary Order a favour, therefore, in terms of the eventual survival of the Order, to assist the Order in their headlong dash to a Cretaceous-like extinction at the point of financial bankruptcy. That can be achieved by the Comboni Survivors through civil legal action, continued maximum adverse publicity and other forms of direct action. One such action would be to let their donors know that the Comboni Missionary Order is spending their hard-earned weekly wages on doing everything conceivable to hide the truth of their history of child abuse, of their failure to report child abuse to the civil authorities – and their historical protection of and moving of paedophile clerics to third world mission countries where they could continue to abuse untold numbers of other innocent children unchecked. Thus, parodoxically, the Comboni Missionary Order should be grateful that, where they themselves have failed so manifestly to understand the reality of their diminishing chances of continued existance and its causes, the Comboni Survivors are willing to put considerable efforts into enforcing the lesson upon them.

 

There is a short-cut of course. The Comboni Missionary Order of Verona , Italy, can consider aligning itself to the Christian principles of the Gospels. I suggest also that, rather than remaining enclosed within that little church of their own little minds, they study the distant proclamations and principles of that other Church – the eclectic, universal, Catholic Church of Pope Francis, who was, after all, elected as their Supreme Pontiff. (It was on 13th March 2013 – in case they missed it)! It is a Church to which they appear to have forgotten that they belong, but can I assure them it does still exist. Whilst they are at it, the Comboni Missionary Order would do well to study the ernest undertakings and pronouncements of Cardinal O’Malley who was appointed by their Supreme Pontiff to chair the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. This Vatican based Church, of which I talk, has much to say – including that the cover up of child sexual abuse and the protection of paedophile priests by Religious Superiors – both at Provincial and Curia levels – is a “crime” that warrants dismissal from the clerical state.

An article in the “National Catholic Reporter”, dated 17th June 2016 by Father Thomas P Doyle

Posted on by markmurray1

An article in the “National Catholic Reporter”, dated 17th June 2016 by Father Thomas P Doyle

(Abridged and paraphrased by Brian Mark Hennessy)

 

(Dominican Fr. Thomas P. Doyle is a canon lawyer and longtime advocate for victims abused by Catholic clerics. He has givien support to the Comboni Missionary Survivors (also known as the “Mirfield 12 Group”) on many occasions and has encouraged them in their campaign for justice against the Comboni Misionary Order. Father Tom Doyle is also co-author of the 2006 book “Sex, Priests and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church’s 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse.” In the article below Father Tom Doyle draws some notable conclusions from Pope Francis’ recent Apostolic Letter on Bishop Accountability)

Pope calls bishops’ negligence a crime: this is important

When it comes to holding bishops and religious superiors responsible for the cover up of clergy sex abuse, Pope Francis’ Apostolic letter of 4th June on  ecclesial accountability is not only a distinct improvement over the proposal made a year ago to establish a tribunal to hold bishops accountable, it is possibly the most positive and hopeful signal to come out of the Vatican to date.

 

For the very first time the Catholic Church has acknowledged that

clerical sexual abuse is a crime.

 

The apostolic letter has some remarkable positive points that deserve mention:

 

    • Negligence can be punished if it has hurt individuals and/or the community. It is vital that the disastrous impact on the Christian communities because of the bishops’ actions of lack thereof be acknowledged for what it is.
    • The norms for removal do not demand that the pope have “moral certitude” of the culpability of the bishop. He can be removed or forced to resign for failure in the diligence required of him. This is a far cry from having to prove “grave moral culpability.” These factors can go a long way in eliminating the possibility of lengthy litigation or protracted appeals which many feared would be the undoing of a tribunal process.

The U.S. bishops were criticized for not including superiors of religious communities under the Dallas Charter and Essential Norms: The pope plugged that hole in his Apostolic Letter – making it clear that major religious superiors, that is, provincials and superiors general, can also be subjected to this process.

 

  • Unilateral removal is now a distinct reality and distinguishes between removal and an “invited” resignation. Victims, survivors and others have rightly criticized this pope because, rather than removing several U.S. bishops who were blatantly guilty of dereliction of duty, he allowed them to resign or retire. Everyone knew what was really happening yet it served as an insult to the victims and others so gravely wounded by these prelates’ intentional actions.

 

Looking at the bishops’ and popes’ histories one would be hard pressed to see this since the deeply engrained clerical narcissism has made it nearly impossible for the ecclesiastical leadership to see the “problem” and the victims from any other perspective than their own.

Critics of this letter and last year’s tribunal plan claim that the pope already has the authority to remove bishops at will. This is true. He can remove a bishop (and a Religious Leader) or to force his resignation without any kind of process and without giving a reason. Bishops are freely appointed by the pope and just as freely removed. Canon 1389 of the Code refers to abuse of authority and negligence in office. The actions of scores of bishops and cardinals clearly fall within the parameters of this canon.

What is so special about this latest development is the acknowledgement that the negligent and irresponsible actions of many bishops (and Religious Leaders) were willful and potentially criminal. This is a mind-blowing change from the past where every effort was made to protect and exonerate the bishops above every other consideration.

The change in attitude is radical and had to have been inspired by a source other than the Vatican curia. That source has to have been, without a doubt, the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. The commission has been insisting that accountability of bishops is of top priority. Calling bishops (and Religious Leaders) on the carpet for neglecting to act properly in the face of sexual abuse by clerics has not only been a top demand from victims and non-victims the world over but it has been a demand that has been actively stone-walled since the crisis first became publicly known over 30 years ago.

 

A clear example of the deep-seated hypocrisy that remains is the opposition of U.S. bishops in several states to changes in state legislation that would be more favorable to victims of sexual assault. The archbishops of New York (Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Philadelphia (Charled Chaput)  are leading the other bishops in their respective ecclesiastical provinces in vicious battles to prevent any change that would benefit all sex abuse victims. At the same time, these bishops are making public statements about how they support victims of sex abuse.

 

The duplicity and dishonesty of these and other prelates is blatantly obvious to all. Yet there has been no Vatican intervention to tell them to cease and desist.

 

NCR columnist Michael Sean Winters wrote “The document helps confront the last, critical piece of the puzzle in any effective strategy to confront the scourge of sex abuse: episcopal accountability.” He is correct, but only to a limited degree. Thus far all the steps taken by bishops and popes have been administrative — promulgation of more protocols and processes. At first these were aimed exclusively at the clergy abusers but now the pope has set his sights on the bishops. That the papal sights should have been on the bishops since the problem surfaced goes without saying.

However, the last critical piece is not administrative or judicial. It is deeply attitudinal.

The most glaring and scandalous deficiency has been the almost complete lack of papal and episcopal leadership in the compassionate and pastoral care of the countless victims world-wide whose lives have been so deeply wounded not only by the sexual abuse itself, but by the dishonest, uncaring and destructive manner with which victims have generally been treated by the official church.

It will take more than papal pronouncements to bring about the changes in direction that are essential. It will take a fundamental change in attitude and this will not be evident as long as the hierarchy still believes that the church is a stratified society with the bishops on top and the vast majority of believers on the bottom, whose only duty, according to Pope Pius X, is to obey and docilely follow the bishops.

Taking actions against bishops (and Religious Leaders) is crucial. Yet it is equally vital to look deeply into the nature of the church and the meaning of priesthood to uncover the causal factors for the disastrous way the institutional church and the hierarchy have consistently and systematically mishandled this nightmare. To do so would mean taking very great risks because not too deeply beneath the surface the bishops and the church’s governmental system would have to deal with the toxic virus of clericalism. Pope Francis has clearly projected a fundamental attitudinal change with his remarks and actions that openly take on clericalism, a disease that has held the church captive for centuries.

ENDS

Hell, Hope and Healing – Final Part by Brian Mark Hennessey

Posted on by markmurray1

Hell, Hope and Healing – Final Part

 

(Note: Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea is the author of “Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church” and a psychologist who has been working with sexual abuse survivors for 30 years. In the American Catholic Journal entitled the “National Catholic Reporter”, (which can be accessed on-line at NCRonline.org.), Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea has published four parts of an article entitled “Hell, Hope and Healing”. Mary has stated: “I am grateful to the National Catholic Reporter for publishing this series. By doing so, it has opened doors to the field hospitals that Francis wants us to staff in our churches and has hung a red cross on the doors of NCR. For me, it is tremendously rewarding to offer a psycho-educational series on ACEs that may raise consciousness and that provides resources for the many readers who have experienced ACEs or who know others who have. I have been so privileged to accompany ACE survivors on healing journeys. My work has changed my life, imbuing with it grace, hope and awe for the resilience of the human spirit”).

 

(This parapharse of the final part of Mary’s article has been posted on the Mirfield Memories site by Brian Mark Hennessy. It should be noted that a number of aspects of this article relate specifically to the United Staes of America, but the information is none the less valuable):

 

When someone decides to embark on healing from adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and/or when concerned loved ones of a survivor want to help that person begin to heal, it can be confusing to know how to start. This last article in the series focuses on finding the best healing resources. It is a slice of all the resources available to someone and does not represent either endorsement or rejection of any particular source. Many of the resources listed here provide links to still other sources of information or help.

 

First Responders

 

The sad truth is that abusive families or institutions are unlikely ever to consistently put the interests of children before their own, no matter how many laws are passed or promises made.

 

We are the best hope of preventing child abuse and responding to it quickly when it occurs.

If enough of us believe that every child is our child, that we are responsible for the safety of every child we know, we can be the most effective instruments of change. If we believe, with Pope Francis, that churches are field hospitals, then we are the nurses, paramedics, doctors and, of course, the patients in our own communities. Any one of us can pick up the phone at any time if we know or suspect a child is being abused or neglected. It’s anonymous and it is the right thing to do. Use it if you know or suspect that a priest, a teacher, a bus driver, your best friend’s husband, your next-door neighbor or, yes, your own Uncle Louie is abusing or neglecting a child. There are no good excuses not to call. You can save a life and even a soul.

 

Choosing a therapist

It can be a daunting task to begin looking for a therapist to assist in the journey of recovery from sexual abuse or other ACEs. It may be difficult to know what to ask, what not to ask, what are generally appropriate treatment parameters, etc. Since it is important to work with someone you trust, as well as someone you “click” with, the following guidelines may be helpful.

 

Consultations:

You are looking for another human being whom you can trust to guide you through the sometimes treacherous shoals of recovery from ACEs. You have both the right and the responsibility to gather data to help you make a good decision. It is not unusual for someone to have one consultation session with at least three therapists before choosing someone with whom to work. Most therapists will charge for a consultation, and it is money well spent to be sure you make a choice that is healthy for you.

 

What to ask at a consultation:

In addition to being a person in need, you are a consumer. Again, you have the right and the responsibility to ask a potential therapist enough questions to get a sense of the way he/she works and how comfortable you are talking with him/her. Ask about the therapist’s years of experience. How many years has this person practiced as a psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical social worker or other kind of mental health professional? Are they licensed in the state in which they practice? Ask about the therapist’s trauma training. What specific training and/or supervision has the therapist had in working clinically with abuse survivors? Until the 1980s, there was little formal training available in trauma. Since then, many academic programs and postgraduate institutes have added trauma courses. Other therapists have sought out seminars, conferences and supervision with clinicians more experienced with sexual abuse survivors.

 

 

Personal therapy:

Most clinicians feel it is imperative to have gone through their own therapy before or during their professional careers. Some postgraduate programs require that the therapist be in treatment during training. Some people disagree with me, but I think it is a fair question to ask a potential therapist if they themselves ever have been in treatment. It is not fair to expect the therapist to talk about how long they were in therapy or for what reasons. Most therapists also will not say if they themselves were abused, at least until well into treatment, if at all, and this is appropriate boundary setting.

 

Approach to therapy:

This can be a little tough to answer, but you can ask a therapist how they generally work. What do they think is important in therapy: changing behaviors, changing beliefs, identifying how past relationships continue to be played out unconsciously in the present? Are they active therapists who engage in a “conversation” or are they quieter, speaking mostly to make interpretations? There are no right or wrong answers here, but the responses help you get a feel for what it might be like to work with this person.

 

Therapeutic frame:

What is the therapist’s cancellation policy? It is not unusual for a therapist to charge for missed sessions depending on the circumstances, and insurance cannot be billed for those sessions. What is the person’s policy regarding between-session contact if you are having a difficult time? Is the therapist available for more than one session per week if you need it? What is the fee, and how does the therapist expect to be paid? For instance, some therapists collect only the copay from insured patients and wait for insurance to pay them the rest. Others want to be paid in full and let you collect the insured portion of the fee. Again, there is no right or wrong, but it’s good to know ahead of time.

 

Psychiatric referrals:

Does the therapist work with a psychiatrist who is also knowledgeable about trauma and to whom the therapist can refer you if medication is needed? Don’t be surprised if it is needed. Many survivors of sexual abuse greatly profit from antidepressants, anti-anxiety agents or mood stabilizers for various periods. One has to suffer to recover but not beyond what is necessary to do the work of therapy. Medication often allows someone to make better use of treatment and recover more quickly. We know now that trauma affects the brain, not just the psyche. The new medications help a lot.

 

Limits of confidentiality:

Review the limits of confidentiality with your potential therapist. All therapists will break confidentiality if you are a lethal threat to yourself or someone else. In those cases, the therapist must do everything possible to protect your life and/or the life of another person. If you tell the therapist that a child is being abused, by you or by anyone else, he/she must report it. If you are in litigation, you should know that your therapist’s records and/or sworn testimony legally can be subpoenaed. The therapist can argue client privilege, but if ordered by a judge to comply with the subpoena, she/he can be held in contempt of court for not going along. Beyond those limitations, the contents of your sessions and any other information about you should be held in confidentiality by therapist. In no cases, beyond these mentioned, should a therapist share information about you or your treatment without your written and very specific permission.

 

ENDS

 

If any Comboni Survivor recognises the impacts of adverse childhood experiences in this series of articles and feels that he needs professional assistance, then they may contact Mark Murray on this site who will strive to assist by suggesting appropriate counselling services. Alternatively, Survivors of childhood abuse in the United Kingdom can seek the assistance of their local General Practitioner Doctor who will be able to refer them to an appropriate specialist. The following Organisations within Great Britain welcome contacts from all those in need of help to overcome the impacts of many forms of abuse and neglect. This site makes no specific recommendation, but persons seeking help are advised (without any liability of this site) to consider contacting any of the following organisations as appropriate to their needs:

 

Reporting Abuse as a first Responder in the United Kingdom – always call the Police on the 999 emergency Police number or the 101 non-emergency Police number.

 

Alcoholics Anonymous (GB) : help@alcoholics-anonymous,org.uk or Tel 0800 9177 650

 

UK National Drugs Helpline: 0800 77 66 00

 

Drug Wise: Twitter @DrugWise UK, or Tel 077121 52 99 36, or harry@drugwisw.org.uk

 

Drug Rehabilitation: info@openmindsrehab.com or Tel 01978 312 120 (daytime) or 07736 248 851 (nights)

 

Narcotics Anonymous UK helpline: 0300 999 1212

 

Lifeline heloline: 0161 839 2054

 

NSPCC – Action for Children: Help@nspcc.org.uk

 

NSPCC – Adult Callers: 0808 800 5000, Childline 0800 1111

 

National Helpline: help@stopitnow.org.uk or Tel 0808 1000 900

 

NAPAC Supporting Recovery from Childhood Abuse: info@napac.org.uk

 

  Survivors Trust : 0808 801 0818

 

National Suicide Prevention Samaritans UK & ROI  Hotline: +44 (0) 8457 90 90 90 (UK – local rate) Hotline: +44 (0) 8457 90 91 92 (UK minicom) Hotline: 1850 60 90 90 (ROI – local rate) Hotline: 1850 60 90 91 (ROI minicom) Website: samaritans.org E-mail Helpline: jo@samaritans.org

 

Survivors UK, Unit 1, Queen Anne Terrace, Sovereign Court, The Highway, London E1W 3HH: info@survivorsuk.org

 

 

Rape Crisis England and Wales: rcewinfo@rapecrisis.org.uk

 

Mind – the Mental Health Charity for those who have suffered Sexual Abuse:

Adult Helpline 0844 847 7879, Parent and child helpline 1800 155 1800

 

Bishops’ Conference of Scotland Catholic Safeguarding Organisation: tcampbell@scottishcatholicsafeguarding.org.uk

 

 

National Office for Safeguarding children in the Catholic Church in Ireland, St Patrick’s College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare: ann.doyle@safeguarding.ie and teresa.devlin@safeguarding.ie

 

 

Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland: sbnisupport@hscni.net

 

 

Tusla – Child and Family Agency, Brunel Building, Heuston South Quarter, Dublin, Republic of Ireland: info@tusla.ie

 

 

The Church’s Child Protection Advisory Service: info@ccpas.co.uk

 

 

Terence McKiernan, Bishop Accountability Organisation: terry@bishop-accountability.org and ann@bishop-accountability.org

 

United Kingdom Childrens’ Helplines  There-4-Me Childline UK – 0800 1111 Muslim Youth Helpline – 0808 808 2008 Childline Scotland – 0800 44 1111 NSPCC: English – 0808 800 5000 Welsh – 0808 100 2524 Bengali – 0800 096 7714 Gujurati – 0800 096 7715 Hindi – 0800 096 7716 Punjabi – 0800 096 7717 Urdu – 0800 096 7718  Breathing Space – 0800 838587 Connexions – 080 800 13 2 19 Brimingham Space – 0800 072 5070  Samaritans – 08457 90 90 90 Runaway Helpline – 0808 800 70 70 Careline – 0181 514 1177 Youth 2 Youth – 020 8896 3675 Girls Space – 0800 072 5070 Get Connected – 0800 808 4994 Support Line – 020 8554 9004 Muslim Youth Helpline – 0808 808 2008

 

Survivors of sexual abuse living in the United States of America and Canada are advised, (without any liability of this site), to consider making contact with the following help organisations and professionals who are able to assist…..

 

Alcoholism: Alcoholics Anonymous meetings exist throughout the world and the doors are always open to newcomers. Start here to find a meeting in your area: www.aa.org/pages/en_US/find-local-aa. Once you get comfortable, look for a sponsor who honors your trauma background. If you are the loved one of an alcoholic, start here to find local Al-Anon or Alateen meetings: al-anon.org/find-a-meeting.

 

Other substance abuse: Narcotics Anonymous meetings also are held in many places. Start here to find a meeting: www.na.org/meetingsearch.

 

Childhelp: A resource about child abuse and neglect for kids, parents and teachers is at www.childhelp.org.

 

International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation: a resource for professionals and the public. Its website includes a “find a therapist” link here: www.isst-d.org/default.asp?contentID=18.

 

International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies: Though primarily a resource for professionals, it does offer a “Find a Clinician” link at www.istss.org/find-a-clinician.aspx.

 

MaleSurvivor.org: This is, in my opinion, the best resource available for male sexual abuse survivors. It is directed by clinicians, survivors, academics, researchers and advocates who serve for limited terms. MaleSurvivor.org offers recovery weekends, a great reading list, resources for finding a therapist, safe chat rooms for survivors, and more.

 

Mental Health America: an advocacy and support agency with local affiliates all over the country (www.mentalhealthamerica.net). It offers a wealth of information about mental health issues and can help you find local affiliates and other mental health resources. They also have online mental health screenings that help individuals and loved ones get a sense of what mental health issue they may be confronting.

 

National Center on Elder Abuse: As more people are living longer, elder abuse is becoming a greater national problem. This group (www.ncea.aoa.gov) has online resources about elder abuse. Their elder care locator will help you find the local agency to whom to report elder abuse: eldercare.gov/Eldercare.NET/Public/Index.aspx or 800-677-1116.

 

National Domestic Violence Hotline: Resources for survivors and individuals in current domestic violence situations, including abusers: 800-799-SAFE, or www.thehotline.org.

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: A 24/7 resource for anyone thinking about suicide and for friends and relatives concerned about a loved one: 800-273-TALK, or www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org.

 

RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network): RAINN is a good resource for those who have been sexually assaulted as adults or as young people: rainn.org/get-information.

Sidran Traumatic Stress Institute: Sidran’s website offers a host of information for survivors and for loved ones (www.sidran.org/resources/for-survivors-and-loved-ones), an extensive reading list (www.sidran.org/resources/essential-readings-in-trauma) and links to many other resources (www.sidran.org/resources/links).

 

Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests: SNAP (www.snapnetwork.org) is an effective social justice advocacy organization that works to prevent child sexual abuse, especially by clergy.

 

SNAP Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, PO Box 6416, Chicago, IL 60680-6416: davidgclohessy@gmail.com

 

 

SNAP USA: snap.dorris@gmail.com and bdorris@SNAPnetwork.org

 

Terence McKiernan, Bishop Accountability Organisation: terry@bishop-accountability.org and ann@bishop-accountability.org

 

Voice of the Faithul, Boston USA: office@votf.org

 

United States of America Childrens’ Helplines: National Runaway Switchboard– 1-800-621-4000, Childhelp USA – 1800 422 4453, Covenant House – 1800 999 9999

 

 

List of International Helplines for our Worldwide Readers

 

Europe

Albania Child Helpline- +355 4 2308 20

CISMAI Italian Network of Agencies against Child Abuse: segreteria@cismai.org

Save the Children Italy: info@savethechildrenitaly and info@crin.org

Save the Children –Brussels, Geneva & Addis Ababa advocacy offices: info@savethechildren.be, geneva.info@savethechildren.org and fwandabwa@savechildren.org

CBM Christian Child Protection: contact@cbm.org and press-international@cbm.org

GESPCAN German Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect: library@nationalcac.org

 

ISPCAN The International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect: ispcan@ispcan.org

Austria Telefonhilfe fur Kinder und Jugendliche – 147

Belgium Kinder- en Jongerentelefoon Vlaanderen VZW – 0800 15 111 ChildFocus – 110, Ecoute Enfants – 103 Bosnia and Herzegovina  Udruzenje roditelja tesko bolesne djece u BiH CLL line – 00387 65 341 298  

Bulgaria National Hotline for Children  – +359 2 981 93 00 

Croatia Hrabri telefon (Brave Phone)– 0800 0800

Cyprus Hotline for missing children – 116 000

Czech Republic The Safety Line – 800 155 555

Denmark BørneTelefonen (Children phone) – 35 55 55 55

Estonia Patient groups – 126., AIDS helpline – 645 5555, NGO Lifeline – CONFIDENCE WHEN LIFE TÜDINUILE – 655 8088 or 1707, “Psychology Crisis intervention” NGO Lifeline (Prof. Psychologists) – 631 4300, YOUNG LINE CHAT – 646 1111, Tallinn Family Centre -6556 088 Finland, Child and Youth Phone – 0800 120400

France, Allo Enfance Maltraitee  – 119

Germany, Kinder- und Jugendtelefon Nummer ggen Kummer e.V.  – 0800 111 0333 Greece, Hamogelo – 1056

Hungary, Kek Vonal – 06 80 505 000

Iceland, RedCross– 1717

Ireland, Child Line – 1800 666 666 Italy, SOS il Telefono Azzurro-19696

Latvia, Child Helpline – 800 9000 or 116111

Lithuania, Childline – 8 800 11111

Luxembourg, 12345 Kanner- Jugendtelefon – 12345

Macedonia, SOS Helpline for Children and Youth – +389 2246 6588

Malta, Supportline – 179 

Netherlands, Landelijk Overleg Kindertelefoon – 0800 0432

Norway, Røde Kors telefonen for barn og ungdom (Red Cross Helpline) – 0800 33 321

Poland, Helpline.org.pl – 800 100 100

Portugal, SOS Criança– 27 793 16 17 / 800 20 26 51

Spain, Fundación ANAR – 900 20 20 10 Sweden, BRIS – 0200 230 230 Switzerland, 147 Telephonhilfe fur Kinder und Jugendliche – 147

Serbia, NAcionalna DEcija Linija- NADEL Srbija – 0800123456

Slovakia Linka detskej istoty: 1116 111, www.ldi.sk (child helpline) Hľadané deti: 116 000 (missing and sexually abused children)

Slovenia, Tom National Telephone Network – 080 1234 Turkey, ALO – 183 Ukraine, The Odessa Samaritans Peer Line – 482 221 744

Asian Continent

Armenia Child Protection Hotline – +3741240150 or 240160

Azerbaijan ETIMAD Sumgayit – 23131

Belarus Smorgon Information Centre on children rights education/SICCRE  – +375 1592 33 129

National helpline for domestic violence victims – 8-801-100-8-801

Brunei Helpline Kebajikan – 141  or+673 238 0664;+673 238 0667;+673 238 0668 

Hong Kong, Against Child Abuse Hotline – +852-27551122

Iran, The Helping voice – +98-21-850 1414 or +98-21-850 1415

Kazakhstan, Child Helpline – 150

Korea, South, Hot Line 1391 / Rescue Line for Children – 1577 or 1391, Youth Hotline – 1388 

Mongolia, Friends 1979 – 1979

Nepal, Child Workers in Nepal – 427 1000 Pakistan, Madadgaar Children and Women Help Line – 111 911 922

Russia, Hotline for Children, Teenagers and Parents (Magadan) – +7 41322 20878, Moscow Childline – +7 095 735 8484, Teenage social-psychological support (Tomsk) – +7 83822 244442

 

SE Asia & Asia Pacific Region

 

National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Australia: contact@napcan.org.au., SNAP Australia: snapspaner@gmail.com, Australia Kids Help Line – +61 7 1800 55 1800

 

New Zealand Safeguarding Organisation: admin@safeguardingchildren.org.nz

New Zealand, The Kids Help Foundation Trust  – 0800 942 8787, Youthline Charitable Trust  – 0800 376 633, Kidsline – 0800 543 754

 

India, Childline India Foundation -1098

Indonesia, TESA – 129 

Japan Childline Support Center Japan (NPO) – 0120-99-7777

Philippines, Bantay Bata 163 – 163

Philippines Save the Children: Address: Supporter Care team Midland Building, 1040 EDSA, Magallanes Village, Makati City 1232 Call us: Please call (02) 851-3702 or (02) 853-2142, Fax us: Send us a fax on (02) 853-0215

For volunteer and internship:Volunteer.PH@savethechildren.org

Singapore, Tinkle Friend – 1800 2744 788

T’ai-wan, 113 woman and children protection helpline– 113

Thailand, Saidek – 1387

Vietnam, Childline – 1800 1567

 

 

Near East and Africa

 

SASPCAN South African Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect: admin@childlinesa.org.za

ANPPCAN African Network for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (Uganda & Ethiopia) regional@anppcan.org

Enfants Solidaires d’Afrique et du Monde: info@esamsolidarity.org

Botswana, Childline Botswana- 0800 3900 900

Egypt Hotline for Children – 16000

Gambia 199 Helpline – 199

Israel, L.O./Combat violence against women – 09952 8927 Jordan, 110 for Families and Children – 110

Kenya, Chidline- 116

Namibia, Lifeline/Childline Namibia – 926461226894

Nigeria, Human Development Initiatives – 0806 353 1872

Palestine, Sawa Child Protection Helpline – 121 

South Africa, Childline SouthAfrica – 08000 55555 Senegal, Centre GINDDI – 800 88 88

Uganda, 0800 111 222

 Zimbabwe, Childline – 961

Yemen, YMHA – 236622

 

Caribbean, Central and South America

 

Antigua & Barbuda Friends Hotline Antigua and Barbuda – 800 4357

Argentina 102 Childhelpline – 102

Brasil TECA – +55 21 2589 5656, 123Alô! – +55 21 2197-1500 

Chile Fono Infancia – 800 200 818

Colombia Telefono Amigo – 106

Costa Rica LÃnea Cuenta Conmigo– +506 800 2244-911 Dominican Republic Linea Telefonica para Auxilio – 538-6151

Jamaica, Friends Hotline – +1-888-991-4505 or 977 5754 Mexico, Acercatel – 01800 110 10 10

Panama, Tu Linea – 147

Paraguay, FONO Ayuda – 559 200 or 147 Peru, Fundación ANAR – +51 0800 22210 Trinidad & Tobago, Childline – 800 4321 ot 131

Uruguay, Linea Azul Servicio Telefónico – 800 50 50

 

 

Mark Murray in Verona — by Brian Mark Hennessy

Posted on by markmurray1

Mark Murray in Verona

By Brian Mark Hennessy

 

In his final paragraph of his narrative at Santa Marta in 2014, His Holiness, Pope Francis said, “Jesus comes forth from an unjust trial, from a cruel interrogation and he looks in the eyes of Peter, and Peter weeps”. This is the reference to Peter who had thrice denied that he knew Christ – and the cock crowed as Christ had foretold that it would. That Cock continues to crow within the Catholic Church as clerics obfuscate, as secrecy covers the truth, as the avoidance of scandal denies justice, as Victims like Christ himself are falsely accused, ill-used, have suffering upon suffering heaped upon them by a sometimes un-Christian, malicious priesthood which is akin to that of the Pharisees and Saducees who were bent on preserving their hierarchical dominance, their self-deception of moral superiority and the comforts of their “way of life”. Peter wept for his sins of denial and gained Redemption. Yet, there will be no Redemption for those clerics of the Catholic Church who continue to deny the sexual abuse of children in their care.

 

The Comboni Missionary Order of Verona, Italy, have been severely wounded by the accusations of numerous incidents of sexual abuse of minors by clerics of their order – yet they show none of the repentance of Peter. They have not yet taken the trouble to undergo the rigorous and painful self-examination necessary to grow morally and spiritually enough in order to accept the reality that members of their Order abused kids and that they knew about, did nothing about it – and have concealed it and denied it ever since. The psychologist, Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea, puts it well: “The earliest response of the (Church) institution is to preserve its long-held identity as a source of goodness and godliness. Yes, its leaders acknowledge in a vague way that of course there is sin within the church, but the sense is always that sin is somehow a general thing and not assigned to specified actors in the church drama. I sin, you sin, we all sin is an implied mantra that attempts to diminish the criminality and evil of priests who sexually violate kids, and of bishops (and religious Superiors) who protect perpetrators and cover up abuse. Church officials lie, deny and project blame on victims, on parents of victims, on a sexually liberated and sexualized culture, on bad apple priests, on the ’60s and on the media. They can see the enemy and it is not them”.

 

A British Admiral, famously, once put a telescope to his blind eye and announced, “I see no ships!” and he then proceeded to disobey his orders. The Comboni Missionary Order in their cruel, moral blindness have claimed, “I see no Victims!” and they have then proceeded to ignore every moral creed, Church Canon, Civil Law, obligations to the Bishops’ Conferences of the British Isles, their undertakings to Safeguarding Practices and their very own Code of Conduct. Their Redemption, that can only be gained through Gospel-inspired humility. Yet any repentance on their part is a far distant hope, as the following tale witnesses:

 

A meeting between Mark Murray, one of many Survivors of clerical sexual abuse at the Comboni Missionary Order’s Mirfield seminary, Yorkshire and his Abuser, Father Romano Nardo, had always been denied by the Superior Generals of the Comboni Missionary Order, but Mark never gave up on the possibility of the chance of achieving an understanding as to why the abuse had taken place – why this man who had so befriended him as a child – had then cruelly betrayed his trust and destroyed his innocence. Thus in April 2015, Mark Murray took it upon himself to journey from North Wales to Verona in Italy in a final attempt to confront his Abuser. Mark has been in trauma for the most part of his life. For his own peace of mind Mark needed to know “Why?” this priest, who had already admitted that he had taken the boyhood Mark Murray to his bed, had committed the long series of sexual crimes against him. He knew those crimes had taken place – because they happened to him – and the details of the abuse recurred constantly in his mind. Since Mark had first made the allegations of abuse, the Order had brought Mark’s abuser back from Uganda investigated the allegations and then confined him to the Mother House of the Order for some two decades so that he had no further contact with children – and that priest had accepted his confinement without apparent complaint. It can be logically deduced the neither such confinement by the Order nor acceptance of it by the abuser would have been reasonable behaviour if there was not good cause!

 

As Mark Murray arrived at the Verona Mother House, he walked through the open gateway and up the path and then straight in through their first set of sliding doors. There he asked the receptionist if he could go and pray in the chapel; she said that he could – and opened the next set of doors and pointed him in the direction of the chapel door. He entered the chapel and walked around it and then sat at the back on one of two chairs. He composed himself and then decided “This is it!” and that that was the moment he needed to face Father Nardo. So he went back to the receptionist and, using the name of Christophoro, the Italian equivalent of his third name, he asked her to see Padre Romano Nardo. He listened as the receptionist was speaking on her intercom and announcing to Father Nardo that Christophoro was here in the chapel. Whilst Mark was sitting there in the chapel, he was crying in his heart, not knowing what to do. Father Nardo was on his way and he was afraid of losing his courage at the last moment. Then the sound of a cuckoo, and the yaffing call of a Green Woodpecker distracted him, calmed him and gave him strength.

 

When Father Nardo entered the room, he looked at Mark Murray in complete shock. Then, after a few seconds Mark said, “ Do you remember me?” Father Nardo appeared unable to speak and initially stood in silence, saying nothing, but then mouthed inaudibly the word “No” and so Mark said “I am Mark Stephen Christopher Murray.” There was no response from the priest, who then sat down next to his unexpected visitor. The two remained there, side by side in silence, for a long time – each struggling to recall the events of the sordid past that they had experienced together. “Do you remember Mirfield?” Mark persisted. “Look at me! Look at me! Can you look at me?” After a while, Mark then said, “Do you realise what effect the abuse you did to me has had on my life, my wife’s life and my children’s life? You abused me. I spent many years thinking I would wake up one morning and start abusing children because I was abused by you.”. Father Nardo got off his chair and knelt on the floor mumbling : “If it is my fault that you bear a heavy cross, I believe I should ask the Lord for forgiveness, for having erred. I’m sorry. I’m very sorry. If what happened in your life was caused by me and if what you are saying is true, I am truly sorry and ask for forgiveness”. Mark Responded, “I came here to forgive you”. Mark Murray then told Father Nardo to get the Superior or someone in authority. Father Nardo left the chapel. Mark waited for about ten minutes and as Father Nardo had not returned, he went outside and discovered Father Nardo walking up and down the corridor. He was on his own and then another man appeared. Mark noticed that he was a member of the Order, but he recollects that this man had more the manner of a “Security Official” than a cleric. The “Official” could not speak English and so Father Nardo had to translate what Mark was saying to him. It was a surreal experience Mark later remarked. Mark asked the “Official”, if he knew who he was. Nardo translated and , yes, the “Official” knew his identity. The two clerics argued then about how Mark had managed to get in the house and why Father Nardo had come down to see him. Soon after this, Mark left saying that he would be back the next day to speak to Father Sanchez. As it was stated then that Sanchez, the Superior General, was in Rome, Mark said, “Get him to fly back from Rome. Get the Superior of this house here tomorrow. I will be back”. He left, shaking, crying and struggling to retain his self control.

 

The next day, Mark returned to the Verona Mother House of the Order and he was let in. This time a different Priest arrived who said that he was the Vice Superior of the house. He was surly in his manner and Mark was already on his guard for an unpleasant encounter. It was hot and Mark asked for some water. The response from the Vice-Superior was that there was no need for Mark to be there and he then threatened Mark with the Italian law of trespass for being on private land. When Mark asked the priest if Father Nardo was there, the priest said that he was not. The priest again threatened Mark with the force of Italian law and in a game of semantics, the Vice Superior changed tactics and said words to the effect of, “Father Nardo is not here. You can see he is not here. He is not in this room. Can you see him?”. After further unsatisfactory exchanges, Mark turned to leave with the Priest calling after him in slanderous and defamatory words to the effect that Mark was just another “money grabber”. Mark said that he would return in the evening at 6.00 pm. The Priest told him that the Superior of the house, who was apparently in Bari in the South East of Italy, had decided to come back early to see him and Mark should be happy that he had decided to do so. Mark responded, “How dare you tell me when I can be happy”. The Vice Superior laughed in sardonic derision at Mark and smirked as Mark turned to leave.

 

Mark returned at 6.00pm as arranged and introduced himself as Mark Murray. The Vice Superior and the “Official” arrived and Mark was led into a side room where he was to wait. Mark asked for a glass of water and said that he wanted to see the Superior of the House and the Superior General, Enrique Sanchez. At that point the “Official” left. The Vice Superior remained in the room standing. He rubbed his eyes, refused to answer questions and distracted himself by fiddling with the door handle. Mark told him that he was the most arrogant man that he had ever met. The Vice Superior laughed scornfully and replied that Mark was the first person in all his 75 years of life that had ever told him that he was arrogant. The Priest had not liked that charge of arrogance. Mark noticed how mortified and taken aback he was and so he said to the Vice Superior, “You have no empathy, nor understanding about the psychological abuse you and your order continue to do to many men that were abused by your priests at Mirfield. How do you sleep at night?” The Vice-Superiors response was, “I sleep very well”.

 

The “Official” then returned with the message that it was not the Superior of the House that Mark needed to speak to, but the Superior General, Enrique Sanchez, who was in Rome. The Vice Superior and the “Official” then went outside and had a conversation in Italian. On entering the room again, the “Official” informed Mark that the Order’s legal representative was on his way. He arrived about 5 minutes later – obviously having been briefed of Mark’s presence beforehand. Mark left the room and asked the legal representative if he spoke English, but the man intimated that he did not. Mark repeated that he wanted Enrique Sanchez “to come here to Verona and tell him why he was harbouring a child abuser in the Verona Mother House”. They were taken aback by this charge and they countered by threatening Mark again that he had broken the Italian law on privacy by entering a private house – to which Mark responded that he had entered through an open door. They then said that Mark had broken a law by not using his full name, albeit “Christopher” was one of his names and presumably, he can use which of his names that he wants, and they said that they were now on the phone to the Carabinieri. Mark left.

 

The Superior General never came to speak to Mark, but the Superior of the House, who had cut his holiday short arrived back in Verona and a meeting was arranged for the next day. On arrival, Mark noted immediately that the Superior had a more relaxed manner than his deputy and he introduced himself as “John” and offered Mark coffee. Nevertheless, it was a relatively brief meeting and the outcome was not positive. Mark said, “I saw Nardo yesterday” and the immediate response from the Superior was, “You are not supposed to see him.” Mark asked, “Why not?” and the response was, “Because he is here for a special reason – he is not well and so he cannot see anybody. The only person you should be in touch with is Father General. Here we want privacy; we are sick persons. We do not want you to encounter anybody here. I do not know anything (else). The only thing I know is we do not want you to meet anybody here.” Mark then said, “I met Nardo here two days ago.” and the rejoinder from the Superior was, “You were not supposed to – he is not well.” The Superior continued and asked, “Do you know Father Martin Devenish?” Mark’s reply was , “Yes.” “You deal with him?” inquired the Superior. “I do not.” was Mark’s answer and he continued, “He threatened me with the police last time I spoke with him.” The Superior then moved the conversation again – on to the inevitable subject – and asked, “How can the institute apologise? For what?”   “The abuse!” Mark responded. To that the Superior said, “I cannot say anything.” Mark’s reply was, “That is all I get. Everyone says to me, “I cannot talk (to you). The only person that has talked to me was Nardo. You are not talking to me!”. “(That is) because I have nothing to say,” was the Superior’s response. Mark was feeling frustrated at the lack of any substantive response and stated, “You have a man here in this house who abused children!” The Superior replied, “And he is taken care of.” Mark continued, “I came two days ago and he came down stairs to see me!”. The Superior replied blandly, “Somebody made a mistake.” The Father Superior continued, “Rather than concentrating on an apology you should look towards the future with a positive attitude. (Being) here will not help you in any way. So it does not pay for you to stay in Verona because you (will) not see anybody.” Mark responded, “I am here until I see someone who apologises.” The reply from the Priest was, “You will be waiting in vain.” At this Mark asked in exasperation, “Why are (the Comboni Missionaries) so frightened of apologising? You (only) say you will pray for me!” The pious rejoinder of the priest was, “There is nothing greater than prayer.”It was not what Mark wanted to hear and he said in a determined tone, “It has not helped me!” Then the final words of the Father Superior were, in the circumstances, a lame, “I hope it helps!.”

 

Mark realised that since his arrival nothing had changed. Their cold hearts remained frozen. Their ears were still deaf to cries for help and the need for suffering to be addressed. The Order’s denials to his plight had been re-stated with the same indifference that the Order had displayed for years previously. It had been demonstrably stated, in fact, that his needs were subordinate to those of the paedophile priest who had abused him as a child and who had scarred his life ever since. He had been offered not one word of comfort or hope. He had received none of the assurances he had been seeking. There was no breakthrough, no offer of apology, no reconciliation, just prayers and more prayers. In an unwilling moment of frustration, resignation and a sense of failure, he said a curt, “Goodbye!” and left. Mark thought to himself “More prayers!” He did not want their prayers. He had had enough of their prayers over the years. Their prayers were just a convenient and pious “cop out” that shirked their true responsibilities to the Victims of this world. Their prayers had not assuaged his anxieties and suffering. An apology, just might have been the start of a new beginning. An apology turned out to be a hope too far!

 

The meetings described above are worthy of comment for what happened was not just a chilling exposition of the arrogance and pitiless behaviour of clerics in our own age, but it was a role reversal of sorts. The former Victim had metamorphosed and was now a man of courage. He had arrived unannounced in the den of the Abuser and those protecting him and he had suddenly caught them off guard. The Abuser, Father Romano Nardo, could not look Mark Murray, the Victim, in the face. When people avert their gaze they pretend not to see what they have just seen and pretend not to realise what they have just realised. For a man accused of crimes, his mind would then have harboured the fear of losing, in the future, the things that he now has. Father Nardo was wounded by the meeting and in trauma. He had suddenly had to deal with the confusion that his self-deception of a lifetime had been a lie. He had thought this moment would never come and that his life-time of comfortable self-belief would have continued until he was committed to his grave. He had made an “if” apology, but what was that apology for? He had not conceded his guilt. That would have destroyed him totally and he was not able to endure that. So his “if” apology was not a specific apology for crimes committed, but it took the form of a vague and evasive comment which had no precise meaning. In those moments, he had been faced with a myriad of mental tasks to grapple with. His mind was unable to grasp control of the unexpected dilemma of his “guilt” for crimes and suffering. So, he must have wrestled in his mind with his options, which were to remain silent or to walk away.

 

The Vice Superior of the Order, who perceived himself to be the giant in his own cloister, was diminished in stature and displayed the apparent, unconcerned behaviour that many men demonstrate when they are faced with unexpected and disturbing odds that had not been  previously encountered. He suddenly could not continue to play his role in the Order’s game of “deafness to the cries of victims” any more and his contempt for the abuse Survivor was akin to those pointless efforts that are made when someone of self-perceived esteem is confronted by a degree of strength and determination to which he is unused. Thus he sought to retain control by derision and by taunting the Victim of his Order’s neglect, insensitivity and indifference. There is another word for this kind of arrogance. It is called “Revictimisation”.

 

The Superior of the Order’s Mother House was more relaxed and pleasant to Mark Murray. However, his words were not what Mark had wanted to hear for what he said in effect was. “Go Home. You will get nothing from us. Buck up and get over it!”. That is not the sort of advice one would expect from a concerned and well-intentioned pastor, but more the language of someone who is totally disinterested in the person being addressed. This is important to note in the overall context of this document. Mark Murray is a Victim who has contemplated suicide. The Comboni Missionary Order know this as it is in his statement. In the United Kingdom, suicides amongst men of all ages have been increasing year on year and currently they account for almost 80% of all suicides. It has been deduced by substantial research that one of the most significant factors contributing to male suicides is the pressure of society on men to repress anxieties and get on with life. “Man up!”, “Grit your teeth”, “Grin and bear it” and “Get a grip” are the common expressions aimed at men anguished by a dilemma or problem. Thus what this research reveals is that a man’s induced inability to talk about his anxieties to another person and his failed attempts to manage those anxieties within himself is one of the main contributory factors of a male person’s suicide. In effect, therefore, the Comboni Missionary Order’s failure to accept any responsibility for the abuse of minors at their Mirfield seminary, coupled with their determined efforts to have no dialogue with Victims about it at all is a most damaging strategy. Mark Murray had arrived in Verona after many decades of suffering from anxieties about his abuse. He needed to talk about it. He had made many attempts to get a dialogue going and one by one they had refused to talk to him. That continuous failure of care of the Order that had at times been hostile, is what had forced him to make his trek to Verona unannounced. What happened? He was told to go away and sort it out himself. That is not just devastating revictimisation. For some, such disinterested denial of dialogue could be a “death sentence”.

 

Unknown to the Order, the Italian Media Company, La Repubblica, had expressed a wish to cover the story of Mark Murray’s visit to Verona to seek dialogue with his Abuser. A co-operation on the visit thus ensued betweeen them and was ultimately revealed to the Order. The subsequent actions of the Order in the days following this confrontation appears to demonstrate that they may have glimpsed the realisation that their game of denial was at an end and that a new unpleasant and unfamiliar reality called the exposure of the “truth” was rushing towards them with gathering speed. Soon, the exposure of a sordid history of lies and cover-up might mean that their control of their little Veronese empire might be at an end and that then only moral oblivion awaited them. Their arrogance and pride and false self-esteem, in which they had found such comfort, had become the harbinger that would foreshadow their own ultimate downfall. Their response to Mark Murray’s visit and their fear of exposure to the world at large was to try to scare him off. Thus they informed La Repubblica news outlet who was running the story of Mark’s visit to Verona, that they intended to sue Mark Murray on the grounds that:

 

 

  • Firstly, they claimed that Mark had entered the Mother House using a false name to gain entry, albeit Christopher is one of his names and he can choose, presumably, whichever of his names he wishes to use.
  • They claimed that he was drunk, because their lack of understanding and empathy failed to assist them in the realisation that what they were witnessing was not drunkenness, but the reactions of a man whom they had denied for two decades – and that this venture to seek an apology, truth and reconciliation had taken enormous courage and emotional control – and thus there had been a severe toll on him in terms of strain, agitation, frustration. foreboding and fear of both failure and a loss of courage.
  • They claimed that his drunkenness had forced them to call the Carabinieri – albeit they told him that they had called the police because he was trespassing on private property. In respect to that claim of trespass that had been made by them, they appear to have neglected that he had walked through an open gate and an open door and talked to the receptionist, who then allowed him to enter the chapel and who subsequently called Father Nardo to meet him. Moreover, their claim of trespass was stridently false in relation not only to the first visit of Mark, but also for the remaining visits, because the Comboni Missionary Order had agreed for him to return for further meetings at specific times, which he had done.
  • They claimed he might return and injure Father Nardo for which there was not a shred of evidence – for the two had sat in silence side by side in the Chapel for most of the visit and had exchanged only a relatively few quiet words.
  • They claimed that Father Nardo had now been victimised and that Mark Murray was the persecutor, albeit Mark Murray was only asking for an apology, which is what a Victim would ask for and he did not make any threats. Father Nardo may have suffered “trauma”, but he was not the “victim”. He was the Abuser of the Victim.
  • They claimed that Mark Murray and all the other claimants associated with him, were only trying to extract money from the Order, albeit Mark Murray did not mention the word “money” once, but what he did say was that he wanted an “apology”.

 

Before these events, Mark Murray was invited, along with two other survivors, by the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service to address a Conference in Rome that will be attended by the English speaking Bishops of the world and by professionals and experts in the field of Clerical Child Abuse. After his invitation was announced, the Comboni Missionary Order of Verona, Italy, have, through the courts of Verona, initiated prosecution proceedings for crimes that Mark Murray committed against Father Romano Nardo and the Order whilst he was in their house in Verona.  The journalist, Marco Ansaldo, who covered the original story in the Italian News outlet “La Repubblica”, has also been summoned. It seems that to save themselves from the difficult process of rigorous and painful self-examination, the Comboni Missionary Order of Verona, Italy, have decided to discredit both the Victim of Child Sexual Abuse and his Messenger.

 

As Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea has said of Clerics of the Catholic Church who seek to conceal the sexual abuse of children, “I sin, you sin, we all sin is the implied mantra that attempts to diminish the criminality and evil of priests who sexually violate kids, and of bishops (and religious Superiors) who protect perpetrators and cover up abuse. Church officials lie, deny and project blame on victims, on parents of victims, on a sexually liberated and sexualized culture, on bad apple priests, on the ’60s and on the media. They have seen the enemy and it is not them!”

 

Well – the sexual abuse of children surely is a sin theologically, but it is also a crime – and covering up a crime and protecting paedophiles is complicity in the crime. The populations of the world understand that and civil institutions of the world acknowledge that in their legal systems. The Catholic Church and its Bishops and Religious Leaders cannot claim extra-terrestial exemption – and they will be brought to account – if not in the Law Courts that can impose sanctions – in the much more devastating Court of public opinion.

Hell, Hope and Healing — part three – by Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea – paraphrased and abridged for this site by Brian Mark Hennessy

Posted on by markmurray1

Healing through Post Traumatic Growth

(Note: Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea is the author of “Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church” and a psychologist who has been working with sexual abuse survivors for 30 years. In the American Catholic Journal entitled the “National Catholic Reporter”, (which can be accessed on-line at NCRonline.org.), Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea has published the third of four parts of an article entitled “Hell, Hope and Healing”. Mary’s article has been paraphrased and abridged for this site by Brian Mark Hennessy)

 

Too many children and teens are faced with soul-battering betrayals, abuse, neglect or terrifying family dynamics that send normal developmental pathways, including those related to the brain, off the rails.

If healing can occur from the truly devastating consequences of adverse childhood experiences — including sexual abuse by clergy — can survivors also experience meaningful growth through their confrontation with trauma? Can post-traumatic growth also occur in institutions that fostered abuse, as well as in the advocacy organizations that have worked on behalf of survivors? Let me be very clear: No one ever is “better off” because they were abused or suffered other adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Every child and adolescent is entitled to a “good enough” childhood where suffering is manageable and betrayal is minimal. Unfortunately, too many children and teens are faced with soul-battering betrayals, abuse, neglect or terrifying family dynamics that send normal developmental pathways, including those related to the brain, off the rails. At the same time, none of us gets from the cradle to the grave without a full measure of suffering in some way or another. Studies have shown that the meaning we derive from our suffering and how we carry the remnants of that suffering into the future determines to a great extent what kind of life we live and how fulfilled we are by it.

Through a tragic loss of innocence early on in life, these survivors accept that life is not fair and therefore demonstrate greater resilience when it is not.

 

Over the last decade or so, researchers have begun to study post-traumatic growth, defined by Lawrence Calhoun and Richard Tedeschi, University of North Carolina, psychologists and post-traumatic growth experts, as “positive psychological change experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances.” Trauma survivors who achieve post-traumatic growth develop a perspective on life that is balanced and pragmatic. Through a tragic loss of innocence early on in life, these survivors accept that life is not fair and therefore demonstrate greater resilience when it is not. They embrace the reality that there really is no justice for a survivor of ACEs because a shattered childhood can never be returned whole. Continued anger and resentment for them is, as the saying goes, like swallowing poison and hoping the other guy dies; these survivors do not want to give more of their soul space to the trauma or to those who caused it. Post-traumatic growth thus engenders a greater appreciation of life and a changed sense of priorities that privilege living and loving and making life work. While trauma survivors who experience post-traumatic growth maintain a clear sense that really bad things can happen in life, they also feel that having survived the original trauma(s), there is not much else they cannot handle. Again, that does not mean that they will not hurt — terribly sometimes — but they have a confidence forged in the fires of trauma recovery that they will also survive and even thrive through future losses, betrayals and traumas.

“Victimization occurs when a person or group exerts destructive power over an innocent person or group”

.

When adverse childhood experiences are exposed, perpetrators, abusive or neglectful families, enabling institutions and others are often traumatized also. Here it is important to differentiate between “victimized” and “traumatized.” Trauma is a response to an experience, including but not limited to one that is victimizing. Even a perpetrator can be traumatized when she/he is exposed for victimizing another. Life is changed forever. Shock, anger, fear and other post-traumatic symptoms may ensue, including minimization, denial and dissociation. A central issue here is whether individuals or groups can engage with a traumatic experience in a way that promotes growth. Or do they harden defenses and avoid the kind of self-examination, pain and mourning that a victim has to endure in order to heal, become resilient and grow? Post-traumatic growth here emerges primarily from rigorous self-examination and a painful mourning process. The Catholic church is an institution traumatized by the sexual abuse crisis. The earliest response of the institution was to preserve its long-held identity as a source of goodness and godliness. Yes, its leaders acknowledged in a vague way that of course there is sin within the church, but the sense was always that sin was somehow a general thing and not assigned to specified actors in the church drama. I sin, you sin, we all sin was an implied mantra that attempted to diminish the criminality and evil of priests who sexually violated kids, and of bishops who protected perpetrators and covered up abuse.

Church officials lied, denied and projected blame on victims, parents of victims, a sexually liberated and sexualized culture, bad apple priests, the ’60s, the media. They had seen the enemy and it was not them.

It is still happening today, as when Germany’s Cardinal Gerhard Müller recently excoriated the Oscar-winning movie “Spotlight.” In his mind, the movie led to the generalization of blame for sexual abuse by some priests onto the shoulders all priests, and it was too hard on bishops who did not respond appropriately to reports of abuse. To be fair, another prelate*, Malta Archbishop Charles Scicluna, once the Vatican’s chief prosecutor and deeply involved in investigation of the sex abuse crisis, said that all bishops and cardinals should see the movie to understand that reporting the crimes, not silence, “will save the church.”

Arrogance and clericalism abounded as a church official worked hard to restore power, control and an idealized view of the church and its clergy.

The 2,000-year-old monarchy refused for a very long time and, in some places, still refuses to embrace self-examination and mourning, and it hoped that this, like so many past scandals, would just blow over. It didn’t and it hasn’t, and that’s a good thing. There is also now a papal commission mandated to develop policies and procedures on sexual abuse. Victims, experts and clergy on that commission are talking with each other and are listening to each other. They are getting to know each other as people and not as straw figures. They are determined and most are hanging in even when the going gets discouraging. Many are justifiably doubtful about the ultimate success of this commission, but its members deserve suspension of judgment about the outcome until there is one, and they deserve support for their mission.

It is too soon to tell whether the hierarchy of the Catholic Church can or will grieve and repent enough for the destruction visited upon all of the people of God through sexual abuse of its youth.

Still, it is too early to determine if or when the church will do enough self-examination, engage in enough honest investigation of all the root causes of sexual abuse, and submit to a thorough enough mourning for the church that never was and can never be again. It is too soon to tell whether the hierarchy can or will grieve and repent enough for the destruction visited upon all of the people of God through sexual abuse of its youth. It would be indicative, for example, of real post-traumatic growth and institutional change if bishops and provincial superiors were clearly instructed to report all known or suspected abusers to secular authorities like the police and child protective services.

If church officials who cover up abuse lost their jobs, it would reassure Catholics that the church is convinced that covering up abuse is just as sinful and criminal as committing it.

Perhaps the most hopeful sign of potential change is the election of Pope Francis. The cardinals knew who he was when they elected him. And he has not stopped surprising. Although he has been imperfect, contradictory and even at times infuriating when it comes to sexual abuse, he also has attacked the kind of clericalism and ecclesiastical arrogance that fueled decades, even centuries, of the vilest sexual violations of the young. Welcoming the homeless into the Vatican; washing the feet of women; caring for the incarcerated; taking a relatively passive position on homosexuality; embracing other religions and even atheists as fellow travelers; rehabilitating previously excoriated “dissenters”; chastising bishops to get out on the street and pastor; modeling humility, humor, joy and mercy; reminiscing with the press about once having been in love.

 

All are death by a thousand cuts to the hierarchical hubris that enabled priests to soul-murder the young, with bishops and provincial superiors serving as accessories.

Whilst there are reasons to hope and reasons to remain doubtful that the church is capable of post-traumatic growth, it is understandable that many victims and advocates judge change to be too slow and too circumspect.

(If any Comboni Survivor recognises the impacts of adverse childhood experiences and feels that he needs professional assistance, then they may contact Mark Murray on this site who will strive to assist by suggesting appropriate counselling services. Alternatively, Survivors of childhood abuse can seek the assistance of their local General Practitioner Doctor who will be able to refer them to an appropriate specialist).

Bishop Accountability in the News — by Brian Mark Hennessy

Posted on by markmurray1

Bishop Accountability in the News

  1. Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron of Guam accused of sexual abuse.

Very recently, the Vatican announced that the pope had signed off on new measures to remove bishops who fail to respond to abuse allegations. A previous article on these pages reported the event in detail. Pope Francis told the Catholic newspaper La Croix. “As a result of committing child sexual abuse, a priest, whose vocation is to lead a child to God, destroys him. He disseminates evil, resentment and distress.” It appears that Pope Francis meant what he said – for following mounting accusations of sexual abuse against Archbishop Apuron of Guam, the Vatican has already announced that Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, who has led the Agana archdiocese for 30 years, must yield his authority – and a Vatican official has been named to oversee the Catholic Church on the Pacific island territory while charges of sexual abuse against children in the 1970s are investigated.

2. Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain is Challenged by his own Review Board

An open letter in the form of an online petition has challenged Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain to address what it charges is the archdiocese’s “incomplete response” to the “clergy abuse crisis.” claims “more is needed if we are to truly protect our youth, heal the wounds caused by this horrific evil, and address the continued alienation of Catholics from their Church.” The letter specifically asks:

  • For the public release of “all files, memoranda, settlements and communications related to credible claims of abuse by all clergy and religious who have ministered in this archdiocese or will do so in the future”;
  • For the empowerment of “a reconstituted Review Board” that would have “broad, independent access to all Church files concerning clergy abuse of minors,” and the “authority to investigate and make recommendations as to policy and discipline for all matters relating to such abuse in the Archdiocese — past, present and future”;
  • That the majority of a new Review Board be “selected by the laity and all of its recommendations made public unless the Archbishop explains in writing to the Catholic community the reasons for not doing so.”
  1. Canon Law Professors Criticises the Vatican for Backing Away from Appointing a Tribunal to Judge Bishops’ Failures

 

Pope Francis’ move to grant several Vatican offices authority to initiate removal of Catholic bishops negligent in their response to clergy sexual abuse has drawn mixed reviews from canon lawyers and survivors’ advocates, who say the pontiff’s action may not go far enough in stemming the abuse crisis. Some experts are expressing confusion over why the pontiff chose not to go forward with a proposal from his Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors for a new tribunal tasked specifically with judging bishops in their handling of sexual abuse and instead directed four existing Vatican congregations to take on the work.

 

In one example, a canon lawyer at the Catholic University of America, Kurt Martens, tweeted that the pope had promised the creation of that new tribunal more than a year ago. With Saturday’s publication of the motu proprio Come una madre amorevole (“Like a loving mother”), that tribunal “seems to get first class funeral,” he said. Mitchell Garabedian, a lawyer in Boston who has been representing clergy sexual abuse victims for decades and was portrayed by Stanley Tucci in the recent film Spotlight, was likewise skeptical. The new law, he said, “is fundamentally flawed because the Catholic Church will once again be investigating itself with regard to clergy sexual abuse. History has shown us that the Catholic Church is incapable of objectively investigating itself in clergy sexual abuse cases,” said Garabedian. “The fox is once again guarding the hen house and children are at risk.”

 

The U.S. based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) has issued two separate statements saying they are “highly skeptical” of the new measure. In a statement Sunday they said that while the original plan was to have one specific agency handle bishops who are negligent in sexual abuse matters, “now, instead, it’s supposedly going to be existing agencies … none of which has ever taken real action, or even showed interest in complicit bishops. It’s just like the U.S. bishops’ ‘Dallas Charter,'” said the group, referring to the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” that the U.S. bishops signed in 2002 following intense reporting on the sexual abuse crisis in the Boston archdiocese. “When bishops talked about it, they used clear and tough language,” said SNAP. “But when they wrote it, they got all legalistic and watered it down considerably. Similarly, when Francis talked about holding complicit bishops responsible, he used clear and tough language,” they continued. “But when he finally wrote something, he backed off his own strong words considerably.”

 

Removal of Bishops or Heads of Religious Communities Negligent on Sexual Abuse — by Joshua J. McElwee, Rome

Posted on by markmurray1

Francis gives Vatican authority to initiate removal of bishops negligent on sexual abuse –  by Joshua J. McElwee,    Rome

The new measure, comprised of five short articles, allows “the competent congregation of the Roman Curia” to begin investigations of local bishops, eparchs, or heads of religious communities when the congregation suspects a leader’s negligence has caused “physical, moral, spiritual or patrimonial” harm.

——————————————————————————————-

 

Pope Francis has signed a new universal law for the global Catholic church specifying that a bishop’s negligence in response to clergy sexual abuse can lead to his removal from office.

The law also empowers several Vatican dicasteries to investigate such bishops and initiate processes of removal, subject to final papal approval.

The move, made by the pontiff in a formal document known as a motu proprio on Saturday, appears to represent a significant moment in the worldwide church’s decades-long clergy sexual abuse crisis.

In case after case in the past, the Vatican and church officials would dig in to protect bishops even when there was substantial documented evidence of negligence on their behalf. Now, the pope has formally mandated that the church’s offices in Rome must prosecute bishops who fail in protecting children.

“Canon law already foresees the possibility of removal from the ecclesial office ‘for grave causes,'” Francis states in a short preamble to the new law, given the Italian name Come una madre amorevole (“Like a loving mother.”)

“With the following letter I intend to specify that among those ‘grave causes’ is included negligence of bishops in the exercise of their office, particularly relative to cases of sexual abuse against minors and vulnerable adults,” he continues.

 

 

Marie Collins, a member of Francis’ Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors and an abuse survivor, told NCR she welcomes the new procedures and “hope they will succeed in bringing the accountability survivors have waited for so long.”

“The most important aspect of any new procedure is its implementation and that is what we must wait to see,” she said.

Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the head of the commission, called the motu proprio “clearly an important and positive step forward.”

“We are grateful that our Holy Father has received the recommendations from our Commission members and that they have contributed to this new and significant initiative,” he said.

The new measure, comprised of five short articles, allows “the competent congregation of the Roman Curia” to begin investigations of local bishops, eparchs, or heads of religious communities when the congregation suspects a leader’s negligence has caused “physical, moral, spiritual or patrimonial” harm.

“The diocesan bishop or the eparch or whoever has the responsibility for a particular church, even if temporarily … can be legitimately removed from his position if he has by negligence, placed or omitted acts caused serious harm to others, whether their physical persons or the community as a whole,” states the first article.

“The diocesan bishop or eparch can be removed only if he has objectively been lacking in a very grave manner the diligence that is required of his pastoral office,” it continues, specifying: “In the case of abuse against minors or vulnerable adults it is sufficient that the lacking of diligence be grave.”

The law obliges the Vatican to notify the local bishop or leader of the investigation and to give him the possibility to produce relevant documents or testimony.

“To the bishop will be given the possibility to defend himself, according to the methods foreseen by the law,” it states. “All the steps of the inquiry will be communicated to him and he will always be given the possibility of meeting the superiors of the congregation.”

 

 

The law states that “if it becomes necessary to remove the bishop” the congregation involved in the matter can either proceed “to give, in the shortest time possible, the decree or removal” or “to exhort the bishop fraternally to present his resignation within 15 days.”

“If the bishop does give his response in that time, the congregation can release the decree of removal,” it states.

All decisions by Vatican congregations, the law states, “must be subjected to the specific approval of the Roman Pontiff.” The pope, it continues, will be assisted in making his decision “by a special association of legal experts of the designated need.”

The new law appears to modify a suggestion Francis was given last year by the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors to create a new tribunal at the Vatican to judge bishops who respond inappropriately to sexual abuse claims.

Where a new tribunal would have likely required much time and effort to create, the law deputizes current Vatican offices to undertake that work.

The U.S.-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests said in a statement they were “highly skeptical” of the pope’s new law.

“A ‘process’ isn’t needed,” said the group. “Discipline is what’s needed. A ‘process’ doesn’t protect kids. Action protects kids. A ‘process’ is helpful only if it’s used often enough to deter wrongdoing. We doubt this one will be.”

Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican’s chief spokesman, said in a note Saturday that four Vatican congregations would be charged with investigating prelates: for Bishops, for the Evangelization of Peoples, for the Oriental Churches, and for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

The Vatican’s chief doctrinal office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, will not be involved with the new law “because it is not a matter of crimes of abuse but of negligence of office,” Lombardi said.

The spokesman also said that the “special association” that is to assist the pope in deciding on these matters will be a new group of advisers and “you can foresee that this association will be composed of cardinals and bishops.”

The new law is to take effect Sept. 5.

[Joshua J. McElwee is NCR Vatican correspondent.

His email address is jmcelwee@ncronline.org. Follow him on Twitter: @joshjmac.]

 

HOPE FOR THE HEALING OF SURVIVORS — By Brian mark Hennessy

Posted on by markmurray1

HOPE FOR THE HEALING OF SURVIVORS — By Brian mark Hennessy

“Sexual abuse has been called “soul murder” and sexual abuse by clergy is an icon of spiritual felony”.

( Note: Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea is author of Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church and a psychologist who has been working with sexual abuse survivors for 30 years. In the second of a four part article in the National Catholic Reporter, (which can be accessed on-line at NCRonline.org.), Mary discusses the commonality and damage of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), including clergy sexual abuse. In the article below (abridged and paraphrased by Brian Mark Hennessy) Mary focuses on the hope that most trauma survivors can heal because of inherent or learned resilience and through access to forms of healing resources).
Resilience: Since the 1980s, when child abuse and domestic violence emerged from society’s skeleton closet, researchers and clinicians have rightly prioritized the tremendous wounds caused by adverse childhood experiences. One of the ways in which Survivors can cope with the severe trauma of abuse is the learning of the skills of resilience. Resilience researchers have investigated the genetic, biological, social and spiritual factors contributing to resilience. They and others have identified a number of factors that appear to endow an individual with resilience:

• Above average intelligence.
• An internal locus of control. A sense that the individual can determine his/her own fate, even when trauma occurs.
• An optimistic cognitive style. Resilient individuals tend to be able to find the silver lining in even the darkest, most thunderous clouds. They are able to imagine a time when life will be better.
• A close, safe relationship with at least one adult not involved in the trauma. This is an area in which abusive priests were often the most despicable and damaging. Children known by predator priests to be in difficult home situations, or kids who came to the priests for advice or comfort about other traumas, were often selected as victims. Instead of responding to an already hurting young person with kindness and mercy, abusing clergy too often became another trauma for the child or teen.
• A consistent faith and/or cultural traditions that provided hope and a steady belief system. Once again, we see the travesty of priests whose sexual violations robbed victims of a faith-based building block of resilience to life’s challenges.
• A good sense of humor, even when life is tough.

 

“It is important to note, however, that all researchers point to sexual abuse while young as a particularly pernicious adverse childhood experience that results in multiple times the risk of experienced in other trauma-related challenges”.

 

Telling the narrative: Unlike the first time around, the survivor has control of the timing and pace of being “in” the original adverse experience when telling their experience. Memories can be painful and sometimes are at first acted out as much as “remembered” in the way we usually think of that. It may be in therapy that survivors put some of their traumatic experiences into words for the first time. Doing so begins to structure the memories, gradually taking some of the affective heat out of them.

”It is essential for a trauma survivor to tell their story to another who bears witness to it”.

 

Differentiating between past and present: Something happening in 2016 that is sufficiently evocative of some aspect of the earlier experience creates a kind of time travel. Survivors then experience themselves as if the ACE is happening right now. They feel and act in ways that confuse them and those around them. In therapy, the survivor gradually is able to register and process a situation as it is now and to react accordingly.

 

“With post-traumatic stress disorder, time is distorted”.

Integrating the personality: One of the wonders of the human psyche is its ability to cope with the awful. When trauma has been especially severe, the mind may split experience into a variety of compartments representing elements of ACEs that would be too overwhelming to process, store or remember as a whole. . In therapy, survivor and clinician identify dissociated aspects of the personality and work with them to foster a more unified internal world for the patient.

 

”Dissociation allows some aspects of the personality to grow and even to thrive while other parts remain trapped in timeless terror, rage and helplessness.”

Re-entering the body: Many survivors of abuse and/or neglect are alienated from their bodies. Some coped as children by leaving their bodies during traumatic times.

 

Patients describe having been on the ceiling looking down at the child being abused or standing at the door with their hands over their ears as “he” was penetrated anally by a priest.

Repairing the sense of self: I have never encountered a survivor patient who did not in some way blame her/himself for the early trauma. The viciousness of the patient’s self-loathing is often breathtaking. Putting guilt and shame where it belongs — on the shoulders of the adult who committed harm or enabled someone else to harm — loosens internalized attachment bonds to figures that once were loved and vitally important to the survivor. The patient is in a predicament: Selfblame protects those attachments but requires cognitive and affective contortions that deplete resilience; relinquishing self-blame and self-hatred and putting the adverse experience in proper perspective with blame placed on the responsible adults is a loss of attachment bonds that is terribly painful. It also can evoke long-held-at-bay rage that the survivor has usually turned against the self.

 

Anger, rage and a demand for restitution often marks a period of trauma recovery that is important in restoring wholeness.

Mourning: Perhaps the most soul-searing yet most necessary component in trauma therapy is the survivor’s mourning for the childhood that never was and never will be. Survivors almost universally feel cheated at some point in therapy. They have suffered, cried, raged, worked hard to heal and there is no restoration, no making it up, no justice. As one patient cried out,

“This is too much. I can’t stand it — I won’t — you can’t make me. I can deal with the abuse — maybe, perhaps. But the idea that I can’t go back, that my childhood is broken forever — I can’t live with that. I won’t know that I never was and never will be just a kid.”

When the survivor seems to have completed a mourning process and is functioning well on most days in most ways, the good trauma therapist begins almost to turn the tables on the survivor. Having spent perhaps years encouraging the patient to relate their narrative, feel the pain and loss, have empathy for the terrorized child they once were, and mourn the childhood that is gone forever, we guide the patient into considering what life can be now, reminding them (if it is true) that no one is traumatizing them now. It is here that the therapist can help the survivor build or expand on resilience.

It is another tragedy of the Catholic sexual abuse crisis that faith was often shattered along with body and mind boundaries.

(If any Comboni Survivor recognises the impacts of adverse childhood experiences and feels that he needs professional assistance, then they may contact Mark Murray on this site who will strive to assist by suggesting appropriate counselling services. Alternatively, Survivors of childhood abuse can seek the assistance of their local General Practitioner Doctor who will be able to refer them to an appropriate specialist).

INCREASE IN REPORTS OF ABUSE FROM THE GODDARD INQUIRY

Posted on by markmurray1

INCREASE IN REPORTS OF ABUSE FROM THE GODDARD INQUIRY – BY SANDRA LEVILLE FROM THE GUARDIAN

The scale of child sexual abuse in England and Wales is being exposed by evidence from thousands of victims, with cases being passed to police at a rate of 100 a month by the public inquiry set up following the Jimmy Savile scandal.

Simon Bailey, Norfolk’s chief constable and head of the national coordinating unit Operation Hydrant, said his team was expecting to be given 30,000 reports of new child sexual offences by the Goddard inquiry, and predicted the rate of referrals of allegations of abuse would increase.

The chief constable said that given the trajectory of the number of reports, police would be investigating about 200,000 cases of child sexual abuse by 2020, giving an insight into the extent of child sexual abuse in Britain over many decades.

Bailey added: “It is fair to say I am surprised by the extent of abuse being exposed, it is shocking. In trying to get a message across to the public about the scale of this, it is important to remember that behind each of these figures there is a victim.

“We are seeing a significant rise in the number of referrals each month from the Goddard inquiry, and these allegations relate to abuse in a range of institutions from the church, to schools, the scouts and hospitals.”

Justice Lowell Goddard is running 13 investigations into institutional abuse, which include inquiries concerning Westminster, the Catholic Church, Church of England, and Lambeth borough, and concerning grooming and sexual exploitation in Rochdale, Devon, Cornwall, Oxford and Rotherham, and at the Medomsley detention centre in Durham.

Another 12 investigations will be pursued during the inquiry. Most of these 25 investigations will lead to public hearings.

Gabrielle Shaw, chief executive officer for the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said: “We have lifted the lid on a hidden problem, now survivors are coming forward in large numbers. These people were failed by institutions in childhood. They deserve to be heard now. Why were signs of child abuse ignored, unrecognised or unreported? The insight survivors have is vital in shaping how our institutions protect children in future.”

On Thursday, the Goddard inquiry opened new offices in Manchester as part of its nationwide “truth project”, which invites victims of abuse to give detailed testimony of their experiences. In many cases these experiences have stayed unspoken about for decades.

Two thousand victims have already contacted the inquiry to give details about experiences of child sexual abuse, and about 600 have already indicated that they would give their full testimony to the truth project.

In Australia where a royal commission into child abuse is being held, the numbers of people who have come forward has surpassed predictions. Bailey said that the same would be true of the Goddard hearings.

Referrals to Bailey’s team on Operation Hydrant stem from allegations made by victims contacting the inquiry and through the investigations being carried out by the inquiry team.

“These referrals are allegations which are new to the police,” said Bailey. “Where there are criminal investigations they will be passed to the relevant police force. What we are seeing is that the face of crime has fundamentally changed and it means we have had to move our resources to crimes against the vulnerable [and concerning] child abuse, adult abuse and rape.”

The huge increase in reports of child abuse to the police – a rise of 80% between 2012 and 2015 – was continuing, Bailey added. Police forces across England and Wales investigated 70,000 cases of child sexual abuse last year and 25% of the investigations were into non-recent abuse.

The chief constable said that the rise in investigations was due not just to increased reporting but to more children being abused, with the internet acting as a facilitator for paedophiles to contact children. He has commissioned research in an attempt to establish whether this is correct.

The enormous draw on police resources of these investigations comes as a severe spending squeeze on police budgets continues.

Last week Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, issued new guidance to remind police that her lawyers would not make charging decisions in relation to dead perpetrators, implying that police were not aware of the ruling that the dead could not be charged with criminal offences.

Bailey defended the police from criticism. “It is vital that the police investigate allegations of child sexual abuse thoroughly and proportionately, whether the alleged crimes took place last week or many years ago,” he said. “Victims who report abuse by someone who is now dead have the same expectation that their allegations will be taken seriously and that they will have recourse to justice. Police also need to determine whether the alleged offender may have worked with others who are still alive and could pose a risk today.”

He added that age was no bar to people committing child abuse, citing examples of cases in which men in their 90s were under investigation for abuse.

This week, Theresa May, the home secretary, spoke out against those who said police should only concentrate on current crimes. “Perpetrators must never be allowed to think that their horrific acts will go overlooked or go unpunished … Victims and survivors … deserve to be heard now, just as they should have been years ago, and they deserve justice, just as they did then,” she said.