Diocese still secretive about abuse

When, pursuant to court order, the Diocese of Bridgeport this month released some 12,000 pages of documents pertaining to the abuse of minors in the diocese, it also filed with Waterbury Superior Court a “Revised Privilege Log” identifying over 1,000 pages of documents it believes are still exempt from disclosure and the purported legal basis for its position.

If one reads the argument accompanying that log closely, it appears that the diocese believes that documents created as a result of counseling sessions between priests in which abuse is discussed are exempt from disclosure. The logical extension of this argument is that not only is the document protected, but also the communication itself. Thus the priest-recipient of such communication would not seem to be required, in the view of the diocese, to report the abuse or abuser to state authorities.

If this analysis of the diocese’s position is correct, its much heralded “Safe Environments Program” is nothing more than a hollow promise to parishioners. That program provides that anyone who has “actual knowledge of or [has] reasonable cause to suspect abuse or misconduct against a minor” is required to report such knowledge or suspicion to one of its Victim Assistance Coordinators or the Department of Children and Families Hotline, and in the case of a “mandated reporter,” to the police within 12 hours of becoming aware of an incident or concern.

Further, the Diocese argues that it, alone, is empowered to make decisions regarding the assignment of its priests, and that the civil authorities are precluded from inquiring into or obtaining documents relating to such decisions. Once again, the logical extension of this argument seems to be that the diocese believes that if it has obtained information regarding abuse by one of its priests only through counseling sessions or by other means that it views as constitutionally protected, it may reassign that priest to a position involving supervision of and/or contact with children, and that such decision and the documents on which it is based are not reviewable by the courts.

If such a position were taken by any other institution in society, it would be rejected on its face.

I believe that the laity of the diocese should demand that Bishop Lori clarify, in a transparent manner, the claims made on behalf of the diocese by its lawyers in this log and confirm that all clergy (outside the seal of confession) and employees of the diocese are in fact both required and encouraged to report either actual instances of abuse or suspicions that abuse may be occurring. We have seen too many instances in the past where priests ignored sleepovers at the rectory by young guests of their fellow priests, or other instances where the circumstances were such as to alert any reasonable person to the inherent dangers they posed.

The people of the diocese should also demand a clear statement from their bishop regarding the recent revelations regarding Monsignors Genuario and Wissel, of Greenwich. Rather than hide behind an elliptical statement issued by his long-time flack on his last day as an employee of the diocese, Bishop Lori should state directly whether the allegations involving these two priests were referred to the Diocesan Sexual Misconduct Review Board, how it investigated the complaints, who, if anybody, was called as a witness and the basis for its recommendations. Such apparently secret proceedings, if in fact they took place, fail any reasonable test of transparency.

Further, if a thorough investigation took place and the complaints were not found to be credible, the bishop should explain clearly why he authorized settlements that apparently cost the diocese $40,000, and why such settlements were not publicly disclosed. There should be no room in these matters for the doctrine of “mental reservation” so artfully employed by the Irish hierarchy in their dealings with their own abuse crisis.

If the bishop truly believes the positions asserted on his behalf in the log by his lawyers, he is sacrificing any claim he may have to moral leadership by an overly broad claim of privilege under the law. But that is perhaps the position we can expect from an organization that seems unwilling to deal with its members in an open, transparent and accountable manner as educated, adult members of the People of God.

Daniel B. Sullivan is co-chairman of the Voice of the Faithful in the Diocese of Bridgeport.

Do You Know Where Your Donated Money Is Going?

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia recently announced that it is closing two of its high schools, only months after announcing a five-year, $200 million fundraising campaign. At the time that campaign commenced, Auxiliary Bishop Joseph McFadden was quoted as saying, “Right now, we’re making ends meet.” To me, that comment, juxtaposed with the high school closings, sounds inconsistent with a $50,000 contribution by the Archdiocese to the effort sponsored by the Diocese of Portland, Maine to nullify marriage for same-sex couples in that state.

 But, Philadelphia was hardly alone. Records required to be filed under the government ethics and election practices laws of the state of Maine reveal that as of October 20^th, Catholic archdioceses and dioceses throughout the United States had contributed over $200,000 to the Ballot Question Committee (“BQC”) organized by the Diocese of Portland to overturn a statute passed by the Maine legislature and signed by its governor, a Catholic, authorizing same sex partners to marry. On last November 3, the initiative was approved. Those same records indicate that the Diocese reported that more than $250,000 raised by the BQC was categorized as “General Treasury Transfers,” which seems to indicate that those funds came directly from the Diocese of Portland.

 Whatever we as Catholics may think of the premise of this legislation, I wonder whether any of us knew that our diocese was sending money to Maine to overturn this law? Did our bishop tell us that he was sending a portion of our contributions out-of-state to lobby on behalf of a political initiative? Does he do this on other matters? If so, what might they be? In the interests of openness, accountability and transparency, we as Catholics have the right, perhaps even the obligation, to ask these questions, and demand an answer.

 Another interesting question to ask is whether this is a way to divert dollars from an organization that is qualified to receive tax-exempt contributions, such as the Catholic Church, to an organization that does not itself enjoy that status.

 In addition to Philadelphia, the Diocese of Phoenix also contributed $50,000. Other dioceses, among them St. Louis, Newark and Youngstown, each contributed $10,000. Two other entities, the Catholic Foundation of Northeast Kansas, and the Diocesan Assistance Fund, of Providence, RI, each also contributed $10,000. In the case of these last two contributions, it seems pertinent to ask whether or not any disclosure was ever made to those who were solicited to support these organizations that part of their donations would be sent out of state to support political activities, rather than to support the poor, the schools and the other social justice works typically carried out by such organizations.

 While these are some of the larger donations, the records through late October indicate that almost fifty dioceses sent funds to Portland to aid in this effort, as well as many clergy and bishops who appear to have contributed out of their own resources. Among these were Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, CT and Bishop William Lennon of Cleveland, who was formerly assigned to Boston, both of whom sent $1,000. Such a widespread, coordinated effort raises the question of whether this campaign was orchestrated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 Additionally, the Knights of Columbus contributed over $50,000 to Stand for Marriage Maine, the principal organization that worked to overturn this law and the sole direct recipient, other than for incidental expenses, of the more than $550,000 raised by the Portland Diocese to promote an agenda that is, at its core, profoundly discriminatory.

 For a list of those who contributed to the Portland Diocese’s BQC through 10/20/09, see:

http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/public/entity_financial_transactions.asp?TYPE=BQC&ID=4528

 Please check it, to see whether your diocese participated in this effort.  And think twice, before you write that next check to your parish church or annual bishop’s appeal.

Daniel B. Sullivan

Co-Chair, Voice of the Faithful in the Diocese of Bridgeport

Secrecy, Power, Honesty, Humility

The Diocese of Bridgeport, still blithely spending the money of the Catholic faithful, has appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Presenting itself as a victim of injustice, the Diocese alleges that its First Amendment rights have been violated by the order of the State Supreme Court to unseal court records relating to priestly sexual abuse and episcopal cover-up. The Diocese further claims it has not been treated fairly by a succession of state courts that have heard the case. The Diocese complains that all of this happened long ago and that the newspapers only want to rehash old news.

In the eight years that have elapsed since the sexual abuse cases were settled in 2001, the Diocese has taken its case to court and lost consistently. It is difficult to believe that the diocesan right to due process of law has somehow been neglected. In the course of those years the Diocese has spent countless thousands of dollars – shall we say millions? -contributed by the people that could better have been spent to alleviate the suffering of the poor and needy. The diocesan spokesman, Joseph McAleer, refused to state how much money the Diocese has spent on this legal battle.

This is not about the First Amendment. This is not about the intrusion of the government or the media into the internal affairs of the Catholic Church. The First Amendment guarantees the separation of church and state. It does not guarantee the Catholic Church the right to conceal criminal behavior on the part of the clergy, the bishops, and their subordinates.

This is about secrecy. It is not about the priest predators whose names are known. It is about concealing from the public eye the conduct of bishops and their subordinates, who, when informed that some of their priests had committed crimes, chose to hide them rather than report them to the police. This is about bishops and their lieutenants who knowingly loosed the criminals on an unsuspecting public by transferring them from parish to parish without telling anyone. This is about Bishop Walter W. Curtis who shredded documents concerning guilty priests because he did not want anyone to know about their crimes. This is about the diocesan official who described the pretext to be used to explain the transfer of a guilty priest.

This is about the arrogance of power. This is about Bishop Edward M. Egan who airily disclaimed any responsibility for his priests by declaring that they were self-employed, independent contractors. Even he soon realized how foolish that was and sent a letter to all the faithful attempting to clarify his statement. This is about the black wall of silence. This is about bishops and priests closing ranks to prevent anyone from knowing their guilty secrets. This is about the right of the Catholic faithful to know that their priests and bishops are honest, moral, and upright men, not criminals or abettors of criminals.

Above all, this is about little boys and girls whose innocence was ripped away by priests whom they were taught to trust. This is about bishops, who, on learning of these crimes, paid off the boys and girls, now grown to adulthood, under the obligation that they not tell anyone.

This is not about saving the reputation of the hierarchy. This is about the great sin committed in our midst. This is about the duty of the Diocese to confess that sin publicly; to do public penance for that sin; to publicly ask forgiveness of the children whose defenseless bodies were violated; to publicly ask forgiveness of the Catholic community.

This is the time to stop wasting money on legal stonewalling. This is the time for the Diocese to abandon forever its policy of secrecy and to exhibit the humility of Jesus Christ, the head of the Church.

A Plea for Honesty and An End to Secrecy

Everyone who believes that justice must be served will welcome the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court to release court documents relating to sexual abuse by priests of the Diocese of Bridgeport. Depositions and other documents detail the efforts of Bishops Walter W. Curtis and Edward M. Egan and their subordinates to cover up the cruel exploitation of children by pedophile priests. Without warning pastors or people, the bishops routinely transferred dangerous child predators from parish to parish. From 1993 when the first lawsuit was filed, the Diocese engaged in a pattern of stonewalling to avoid compensating the survivors. Turning away from the concept of the Church as Christ’s Body, Bishop Egan disclaimed any responsibility by declaring that a priest is a self-employed independent contractor. Realizing the absurdity of that claim, he later wrote a letter to all the faithful explaining that he didn’t really mean it. In 2001 and 2003 the Diocese paid $37,700,000 to settle cases of sexual abuse against 32 priests from 1953 to 2003. Since then additional sums have been paid. Fifty years of shame!
In reflecting on this tragic chapter in the history of the Church, one must ask: where is the outrage? Why did so many priests shamefully mistreat innocent little boys and girls, causing them untold psychological and spiritual harm? Why did the bishops allow this to happen? Why did they not expel such predators from the priesthood? Why did they place the interests of the institutional church above those of the little ones whom Jesus welcomed to his side? Did they not hear Jesus when he said: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea” (Mt 18:6)? Why did priests who knew about predators in their company not expose them? Why were the Catholic faithful guilty bystanders allowing this disaster to happen?
How many countless dollars has the Diocese expended in litigation over the years since 2002 to prevent the truth from coming to light? How much of the Bishop’s Annual Appeal is used for this purpose? What good works of Christian charity might have been accomplished with that money?
The Diocese’s latest appeal to the Supreme Court rested on a flimsy charge that Judge Jon Alander of the Superior Court who ruled in favor of unsealing the documents was not impartial because he was serving on a commission to improve the judicial system. Although the Supreme Court rejected that argument, the Diocese is now considering further options.
Why not opt for honesty? Open the documents and allow the truth to be heard and read. In their conferences at Dallas and Washington in 2002 the bishops spoke about the need for accountability and transparency. While paying lip service to transparency, they have steadfastly resisted publication of court documents and church records that will reveal the extent of their complicity and that of their subordinates in the crime of sexual abuse of children. Their massive failure of moral leadership has destroyed the implicit trust of the faithful, who, not surprisingly, greet every pronouncement of the bishops with skepticism. A study by the Pew Forum in 2008 reported that an ever-increasing number of Catholics, especially young people, are abandoning the Church. The efforts of the bishops of Bridgeport to conceal the truth about priestly sexual abuse of children surely contribute to that loss. When bishops threaten to withhold the Eucharist from Catholic politicians whom they accuse of not adhering to Church teaching, one might ask why the bishops should even celebrate Eucharist until they admit to their culpability in abetting priest predators?
For too long the Diocese has used delay, denial, deceit, and dishonesty to avoid accepting responsibility for the greatest sin that has afflicted the Church in many centuries. The time for honesty and transparency is at hand. Until every stone is lifted and the light shines brightly on every dark spot concealing some secret, this crisis will not be over and the bishops will not regain the trust of the people that they so foolishly cast aside.
by Joseph F. O’Callaghan

ALMS FOR THE POOR – feeding ten thousand in 2009

Feeding the poor

The “largest private provider of charity and education in Fairfield County” is an undisputed claim of the Diocese of Bridgeport. The Bishop’s Stewardship Report (June 2008) notes current “extraordinary economic hardship” has “many people” with “nowhere toturn” for services in Fairfield County including “the core services-feeding the hungry …counseling the troubled.”

As hopeful and faithful Catholics looking “to the common good of society and to the dignity of each person,” Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) in the Diocese of Bridgeport maintains a Voice of Compassion (VOC) fund that makes annual grants to charities of 100% of contributions. Programs are selected by a volunteer laypersons serving as a grants committee. An open and transparent record of grants since 2003 is located at www.votfbpt.org under “finances” as part of VOTF’s accountability process.

In the spring of 2008 the 2007 VOC committee invited all grant recipients to tell a brief story about their services to the poor and needy at the Annual Conference at Fairfield University. Subsequently an increase in contributions to VOC 2008-09 was noted. The Grants Committee this year focused 75% of funds to food programs and 25% to programs supporting victims of sexual abuse. Six food programs and 3 abuse victim support programs were selected and each was invited to attend the VOTF Conference to share their story of helping the needy and to receive a check for program financial support.

Thomas Merton Center in Bridgeport and New Covenant House of Hospitality in Stamford were invited to attend, share their story of need and service to the poor and receive a check for at least $1,500. These two programs that had previously received funds from VOC declined the invitation this year explaining that they were part of Catholic Charities. (It is important for the reader to realize that a food program can translate fifteen hundred dollars of cash into almost $10,000 of buying power or 5,000 meals when a food pantry works with the CT Food Bank.) VOC funds did not go to waste but were promptly allocated to other programs that recognize the dignity of all people and the dire circumstances facing the poor in all places.

Catholic Charities of Fairfield County, Inc. received Federal, State of CT and United Way funds to support varied programs amounting to 65% of its 2007-08 budget. Did these funding sources raise no issues, political, moral, doctrinal, or otherwise, on the part of the leaders of Catholic Charities or the Diocese? And while the Diocese spent nearly $1,500,000 in fund raising expenses last year, the checks from Voice of Compassion have cost neither the donor nor the Diocese one penny.

This situation is curious and a question lingers, “Why is the Diocese, which allocates 30% of Catholic Charities funding to ‘food services,’ refusing funds for two important food programs from faithful Catholics, involved in parish and community ministry, in a time of historic need?” What do you think of this stewardship news concerning “the household of God here in Fairfield County?”

 

John Marshall Lee 4-05-2009

VOC Alms

WHO OWNS OUR CHURCH?

Statement on SB 1098 by Voice of the Faithful in the Diocese of Bridgeport

March 11, 2009

As everyone is very much aware, SB-1098 proposed by the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly has provoked a firestorm. Much of the commentary has been intemperate and unthinking. In such a heated atmosphere reasonable discussion of the issues is nearly impossible. The Committee cancelled the public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, March 11 to allow the Attorney General to review the constitutionality of both the existing statute concerning Religious Corporations and Societies and the amendment embodied in SB 1098.

Voice of the Faithful did not originate the billand, in fact, first learned of it two days after it was introduced. Neither did VOTF have any contact with Senator Andrew McDonald or Representative Michael Lawlor, the co-chairs of the Committee and sponsors of the bill, prior to its filing.

The existing statute contains general provisions concerning religious corporations and particular provisions for specific churches, namely, the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, the Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America and the Roman Catholic Church. Each of the churches in question provided the language that it wished to be included in the statute. One might ask why the State enacted a statute that conferred special status on these mainstream religious bodies, but ignored many others. There are no provisions concerning the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Mormons, or many smaller Protestant churches; nor are there any provisions concerning Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and the many other non-Christian religions represented in Connecticut. One might ask why there should even be a separate statute for religious corporations and societies at all. 

As we go forward, Voice of the Faithful in the Diocese of Bridgeport believes that a reasoned and respectful dialogue between the bishop and the Catholic community concerning lay participation in parish administration is essential. We believe that the laity should have a real say in the administration and financial management of their parishes, not the limited advisory role envisioned by Canon Law. The laity, who constitute the great majority of the Catholic faithful and who contribute the funds essential to the sustenance of our parishes and our priests, presently are effectively excluded from exercising any decisive authority over parish administration and finance.

Connecticut’s current law relating to Roman Catholic parish corporations was enacted in the 1950s and is based upon laws going back to the middle years of the nineteenth century. That law established as ex officio members of the parish corporation the bishop, the vicar general and the pastor. These three ex officio members appoint two lay trustees annually, and may also remove them for cause or for no reason at all. As appointees serving at the pleasure of the clergy, the lay trustees are neither truly representative of the lay members of the parish nor able to act independently. In fact, the same may be said of the vicar general and the pastor, who under Canon Law owe a duty of obedience to the bishop and also hold their positions at his pleasure. The provisions of the current law reflect an outmoded nineteenth-century conception of the Church. Since the Second Vatican Council of the early 1960s the Church has developed a more expansive understanding of itself as the People of God, embracing all the faithful: bishops, clergy, religious and laity.

The establishment of a board of directors composed of the bishop and the pastor, as voting members, as well as elected representatives of the parish congregation conforms to the Second Vatican Council’s description of the Church as the People of God. Participation by a specified number of laypersons elected annually by the parish congregation would acknowledge the responsibility of the laity for their parish and enhance their sense of ownership and community. The transfer of temporal responsibilities to the laity would liberate the bishop and the pastor so that they may focus on their primary role as spiritual leaders, charged to preach the Gospel and to provide spiritual guidance for their people. Allowing the laity to participate more fully in the governance of the Church, especially in those areas where laypeople have expertise, would not demean the authority of the bishop or the pastor. Presently pastors are often overwhelmed by the burden of administration and financial management. At a time when the shortage of priests threatens the celebration of the Eucharist, the center of Catholic worship, the Church should welcome the willingness of the laity to assume such responsibilities.

Now is the opportunity for the bishop to engage all the faithful of the diocese in dialogue aimed at “creating better structures of participation, consultation, and shared responsibilities,” as called for by Pope John Paul II in his admonition to the bishops of the world in September 2004.

 

The Eucharist: The Gift of Life

The recent exchange of letters between Frs. Greg Markey and Nicholas Calabro in Fairfield County Catholic (2/7 and 2/21/09) http://www.bridgeportdiocese.com/fcc.shtml should prompt every Catholic to reflect on the meaning of the Eucharist in our lives.

During his last supper Jesus commanded his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood and to do so in his memory (Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:19-20). He also stated that, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (Jn 6:53-54). The Eucharist, then, is Jesus’s gift to us, the gift of life that nourishes and sustains us. By partaking of the Eucharist we are made one with Jesus, as members of his Body.

The concept of the Eucharist as Jesus’s life-giving and life-sustaining gift to his people was obscured during the medieval centuries. As the distinction between clergy and laity was emphasized, reception of the Eucharist became so infrequent that the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 had to order every Catholic to receive the Eucharist at least once a year (canon 21). The placement of the Eucharist on the layperson’s tongue, in contrast to the ancient practice of communion in the hand, treated the communicant as a child who could not be trusted to receive the Eucharist with reverent care. In the 17^th and 18^th centuries the Jansenists distorted the meaning of Eucharist by stressing the unworthiness of the faithful to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

Are we to believe, with Fr. Markey, that Jesus gave his command to take and eat only to the twelve Apostles as newly ordained priests, and not to the laity? If one follows Fr. Markey’s logic, then it would seem that Jesus did not offer his Body and Blood to laypeople. Moreover, the statement that Jesus spoke only to twelve newly ordained priests reflects a simplistic and anachronistic understanding of the origin of the priesthood. Biblical scholars point out that in the New Testament Jesus is the High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-15) and that only after his death, as the Church differentiated itself from its Jewish roots, did the ministries of presbyter and bishop emerge. Used interchangeably, those terms eventually evolved into the offices of priest and bishop with which we are familiar. Arguing that reception in the hand is an indult or exception to the rule requiring reception on the tongue, Fr. Markey adopts a legalistic stance. That stands in marked contrast to St. Paul’s affirmation: “our qualification comes from God, who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:5-6). Exhibiting a pastorally sensitive approach more consonant with St. Paul, Fr. Calabro treats the Catholic people as adults, offering them the Eucharist on the tongue or in the hand as they wish and trusting that they will receive it reverently and respectfully.

For all of us the Eucharist gives life and we ought not to erect unnecessary obstacles to its reception.