Clergy witch hunt? - Due process for accused priests is a sham, critics say

Religions > Atheism > Clergy witch hunt? - Due process for accused priests is a sham, critics say

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"J Young"
Date:	29 Apr 2007 07:42:25 PM
Object:	Clergy witch hunt? - Due process for accused priests is a sham, critics say

A little long but necessary reading for Catholic-bashers everywhere.
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=23881&section=Cathcom
By Joe Feuerherd
4/25/2007
National Catholic Reporter --
WASHINGTON (National Catholic Reporter) - Four years ago, an adult
woman informed her local diocese that a recently ordained priest had
groped her. No criminal or civil charges were filed, but the initial
investigation showed that the accusation was plausible - that it could
have happened, recalled Father Michael Sullivan, Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Minn., a priest and canon lawyer who previously served as judicial
vicar in the Crookston, Minn., Diocese.
A diocesan review board, said Father Sullivan, eventually determined
that the accusation "was a trumped-up charge." The priest, said Father
Sullivan, had "spurned her affections," informing her "that I'm a
celibate and we're not going there."
Still, said Father Sullivan, the bishop rejected the review board's
determination and did not allow the priest to return to public
ministry. The priest has appealed the bishop's ruling, but the case,
said Father Sullivan, is "swallowed up in Rome." The priest currently
receives no pay or medical benefits from the diocese, said Father
Sullivan.
The details differ from case to case, but it's a story Father Sullivan
says he has heard countless times. Due process for priests accused of
abuse, he said, is a sham.
Nearly five years after the U.S. bishops approved national policies to
remove sexually abusive diocesan priests from public ministry, critics
of the process say the system is broken - shielding some abusers from
the consequences of their actions while simultaneously failing to
ensure the rights of the accused, who are presumed innocent under both
church and criminal law.
As written, the procedures (called "canonical norms") approved by the
Vatican in 2002 and promulgated by the bishops provide a seemingly
fair-minded step-by-step process for bishops and the Vatican's
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to determine the
credibility of an abuse accusation. The procedures also provide for
measures to remove the offender from ministry if the charges are
proved. The norms call on dioceses to establish written policies to
deal with accusations against clergy and to report credible
allegations to local law enforcement.
Under the procedures, a diocesan official designated by the bishop
(typically the chancellor or vicar general) conducts an initial
investigation to determine if an allegation is "credible" or
"substantive."
"That level of being 'credible' is a low level of certainty," said
Michael Ritty, a canon lawyer who has worked with accused priests on
about 250 such cases over the past five years. "I have seen it as low
as the priest happened to be in the [same] parish at the time this
person made this allegation - that it was geographically possible.
That might have been the only proof [necessary] to go forward."
In fact, in many cases, the standard of judging credibility is even
lower than that, said Father Sullivan, who chairs the board of Justice
for Priests and Deacons, a seven-year-old organization whose 90
affiliated canon lawyers have assisted approximately 540 priests and
deacons, the vast majority of whom face allegations of sexual abuse.
Presumption of guilt
"The assumption is that [the allegation] must be correct because
nobody would [come forward] otherwise and therefore the priest ends up
being perceived as guilty almost all the time because it is pretty
difficult to prove you have not done something," said Father Sullivan.
"So the presumption has switched from [the accused] being innocent to
being guilty," said the priest. "I'm reminded of the Salem Witch
Hunts."
Others dispute the idea that an accusation is tantamount to a guilty
finding. Five years ago 90 percent of abuse allegations against
priests were found to be credible, a number that is down to 40 percent
today, Patricia O'Donnell Ewers, chair of the National Review Board
established by the bishops to oversee implementation of diocesan child
protection plans, told a parish gathering in North Naples, Fla., March
29.
In 2006, 630 "credible allegations" of sexual abuse by clerics against
minors were reported, according to the 193 dioceses that responded to
a Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate survey released
earlier this month. The vast majority of cases reported relate to
abuse that allegedly occurred prior to the 1990s.
"A total of 22 priests or deacons were returned to ministry in 2006,
based on the resolution of an allegation made during or prior to
2006," CARA reported, while "156 priests or deacons (36 identified in
2006 and 120 identified before 2006) have been temporarily removed
from ministry pending completion of an investigation."
A flawed process
If an allegation is deemed credible in the preliminary investigation,
the case is then referred to the diocesan review board. Across the
nation, diocesan review boards are largely lay committees established
as part of the 2002 reforms. Their job is to investigate, to gather
evidence (through interviews and documentation) and to give the bishop
their opinion as to whether the accusation is substantive.
"The priest is supposed to receive canonical advice at this time and
be able to review the charges against him so he can respond to them,"
said Father Sullivan, but he is instead frequently blind-sided,
forbidden in some cases from even knowing the name of his accuser or
the nature of the accusation.
"In multiple cases from around the country there are instances where
the priest is asked to answer the question, 'Are you guilty or
innocent?' and the priest doesn't even know the charge" because
diocesan officials fear violating the privacy rights of the accuser,
said Father Sullivan. The review board then makes its recommendation
to the bishop, who is free to accept it (which is substantially easier
when the cleric acknowledges guilt), reject or modify the board's
advice. If the bishop finds the accusation credible, he typically
removes the priest from public ministry - a fate nearly 1,000 priests
have faced since 2002, according to studies conducted by the John Jay
School of Criminal Justice.
Then the bishop, in a votem sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, urges a particular course of action, ranging from a
recommendation that the priest enter a private life of "prayer and
penance" at a diocesan-owned facility; that a canonical trial be held
to determine guilt or innocence; or, in some cases, forced
laicization.
The parties then await a response from Rome. This time of waiting,
clergy advocates say, is particularly trying for the accused. The
priest, despite a technical presumption of innocence, may be the
subject of diocesan news releases and media reports of his "removal
from public ministry," and in some cases is left without a salary,
housing or health insurance.
Typically, say experts who assist clergy in the process, the priest
proclaiming his innocence and awaiting Rome's judgment is removed from
his current assignment and told to live off church-owned property or
is offered housing at a remote location, such as a retreat center or
retirement home for priests. He is forbidden to present himself
publicly as a priest - to say Mass, hear confessions, and preside at
funerals or weddings.
Some dioceses continue to pay priests a salary, others don't.
"In theory they should be [compensated], but in practice they rarely
are," said Father Sullivan. If he is not offered or rejects an offer
of church-sponsored housing, the priest could reside with family or
friends, at a summer home, or in a private apartment. The diocese will
not typically pay the cost of an apartment, said Father Sullivan,
because that would result in an accused priest receiving compensation
in the form of rent that is greater than he received prior to the
accusation.
The 'guilty' priest
Then there are priests, like Rick Boyd, who acknowledge the
accusations, but argue - if they are allowed to - that mitigating
circumstances should have some impact on their punishment.
In 1984, Boyd, then an associate pastor in the Diocese of Crookston,
Minn., was arrested and convicted of possessing child pornography
received through the mail. He served no prison time, but instead
received six months of treatment at a counseling center for priests.
For nearly two decades following his release from the center, Boyd
served as pastor of three parishes in Crookston, thinking, he told
National Catholic Reporter, that the episode was behind him.
No additional charges were ever made against him, said Boyd. And the
counseling helped him confront his behavior, he added, which he says
resulted from the sexual abuse he suffered as a child. "I was a happy
priest," he said.
And he would remain so until 2003 when, near the height of the
national clergy sexual abuse scandal, a group of parishioners familiar
with Boyd's 1984 conviction demanded that Bishop Victor Balke remove
him from ministry.
Boyd, 57, then left the diocese and spent part of the next two years
studying canon law at The Catholic University of America and receiving
additional counseling. During that time, Boyd said, he was unaware
that the diocesan review board was investigating his case. His
advocate, canon lawyer Father Virgil Helmin, was kept in the dark
about his case, said Boyd.
He was subsequently laicized.
He has appealed his dismissal.
"Procedurally, neither Rev. Helmin or I were informed of any of the
precise allegations against me; I received no formal citation," Boyd
told a Vatican official in a July 2006 letter. "Neither Rev. Helmin or
I were ever given an opportunity to give any canonical input or even a
personal comment. Rev. Helmin was denied permission to view any
documents. It appears that Rev. Helmin was advocate in name only, and
he was never able to exercise his office."
Concluded Boyd, "I was never given an opportunity for a right of
defense and there was no actual due process given to me."
In a statement provided to National Catholic Reporter, Msgr. Roger
Grundhaus, Crookston Diocese vicar general, said: "In the mid-1980s
Rick Boyd was arrested and convicted of possessing a large stash of
child pornography and of receiving it in the mail. He pled guilty to
the charges.
"He was then sent for treatment and fulfilled the requirements of his
probation.
"He was placed back in ministry.
"After the bishops of the U.S. published their charter and norms in
2002, and when it became known to the bishop of Crookston that the
possession of child pornography was equivalent to child abuse, his
file had to be submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith for their disposition.
"They responded with a dismissal from the clerical state."
Boyd currently lives with friends in Minnesota, still hoping to get a
response from the Vatican.
A desire for secrecy
"I think the overwhelming majority of suspended priests are still
priests and that is very advantageous to bishops," said David
Clohessy, national director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those
Abused by Priests. "What many bishops fear most is a defrocked
predator who sings, who discloses how much bishops knew and how little
bishops did about abuse."
He continued, "In a perverse kind of way, bishops treat abusive
priests and abuse victims somewhat the same: paying money to both in
the hopes of buying secrecy. Bishops want abusive priests to still be
under their control so they'll keep their mouths shut.
"I think bishops gravitate toward this kind of bare minimum mushy
middle approach so when pressed by victims or prosecutors or
journalists they can say, 'I've done all I can do. I immediately and
publicly removed him from ministry. The harshest penalty, defrocking,
is up to the Vatican, but I've done all I can do.' And then to the
priest's supporters and fellow priests, he can say, 'I have no choice
but to suspend him from ministry, these are not my rules.'"
Though the process is slow, said Ritty, a canon lawyer, "Rome will
generally do what the bishop has asked for. If the bishop has asked
for a trial, they will authorize a trial, if the bishop has asked for
an administrative penal process they will follow that, and if the
bishop has asked for an outright ex officio laicization - dismissal
from the clerical state - they may go ahead and do that."
A common outcome, said Ritty, is what amounts to a settlement. "I
think there are a number of priests who have felt that things have
come down to one person's word against another's, that they don't have
the emotional, psychological or spiritual energy to fight the charges
that have been brought against them, and they [in agreement with their
bishop] have opted for early retirement."
And what of the accused priests who request a canonical trial - a full-
fledged judicial process where three canon lawyers (typically priests)
hear testimony from the accused and the accuser, where the diocesan
promoter of justice serves as prosecutor and the accused has a right
to counsel?
Ritty has participated in four such trials since the norms were
approved in 2002 and anticipates that about a dozen more cases will go
to trial. "The quality of the judging has been good," said Ritty. "The
priests who serve the role of judges have taken their roles seriously.
They investigate and ask questions appropriately and try to weigh
everything in making their judgments."
What should happen?
Canon law is not the culprit here, said the priest advocates. "Had the
bishops actually been following canon law ... they would have dealt
with [sexual abuse by clergy] when it came up" in the 1980s and 1990s,
said Father Sullivan. "Sexual relationships have always been seen as a
violation of the sixth commandment and that should have been an
impediment to functioning as a priest. So if they had done canonical
processes years ago, and even currently, then the priest would have
been removed."
He continued, "I don't think the norms were essential had they been
doing canon law. But they had not been doing canon law for so many
decades that [the norms] became, in the eyes of the bishops at least,
necessary."
A California civil attorney who has defended four priests charged with
abuse, three of whom he said faced accusations that had little or no
basis, said that for "these men who are wrongfully accused and where
the claim itself is found to be without basis, there needs to be an
expedited process. The diocese should pay for a quick review because
these men do not have the financial resources to wait years and it is
unfair to expect someone who lives on $1,000 a month to have a legal
defense fund - and that's basically what they are asking these priests
to have."
And what of the guilty, particularly those who cannot be prosecuted
because the criminal statute of limitations has expired in their
cases?
"These men should be living in independent remote treatment facilities
run by professionals and the neighbors should be notified," said
SNAP's Clohessy. "Bishops don't particularly like this approach
because they would much rather that abusive priests be watched over by
forgiving, naive, loyal brother priests than by a serious professional
who might, if they saw suspicious behavior by one of their charges,
call 9-1-1 instead of the chancery."
.

User: "John D. Wentzky"
Title: Re: Clergy witch hunt? - Due process for accused priests is a sham, critics say	30 Apr 2007 07:17:14 PM

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:DsuZh.10295$3P3.8343@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News SIqZh.20222$vD4.15548@bigfe9,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

No, quite true.

What is this resistance you have against due process rights which
leads to illicit government control as happened to me recently?

Due process does not, and never will, allow drunkards to weild guns and
cars where the public safety is concerned.

I wasn't drunk, you fool.
I wasn't wielding a gun either.

If you don't like that, then I suggest you stay at home when you drink, or
at a friends house, certainly not behind the wheel of a car.

I suggest you stop defending perverted criminal cops, you idiot.
.

User: "Andrealphus"
Title: Re: Clergy witch hunt? - Due process for accused priests is a sham, critics say	30 Apr 2007 07:23:02 PM

In News LHvZh.7071$TD3.3533@bignews5.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:DsuZh.10295$3P3.8343@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News SIqZh.20222$vD4.15548@bigfe9,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

No, quite true.

What is this resistance you have against due process rights which
leads to illicit government control as happened to me recently?

Due process does not, and never will, allow drunkards to weild guns
and cars where the public safety is concerned.

I wasn't drunk, you fool.

That will be for a jury to decide.

I wasn't wielding a gun either.

There is no difference between a gun, and a car, in the hands of a drunkard.

If you don't like that, then I suggest you stay at home when you
drink, or at a friends house, certainly not behind the wheel of a
car.

I suggest you stop defending perverted criminal cops, you idiot.

I suggest you go and file your charges. Time's a wasting!
.

User: "John D. Wentzky"
Title: Re: Clergy witch hunt? - Due process for accused priests is a sham, critics say	30 Apr 2007 07:59:00 PM

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:GLvZh.5639$Ut6.5366@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News LHvZh.7071$TD3.3533@bignews5.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:DsuZh.10295$3P3.8343@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News SIqZh.20222$vD4.15548@bigfe9,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

No, quite true.

What is this resistance you have against due process rights which
leads to illicit government control as happened to me recently?

Due process does not, and never will, allow drunkards to weild guns
and cars where the public safety is concerned.

I wasn't drunk, you fool.

That will be for a jury to decide.

There is no evidence of DUI.

I wasn't wielding a gun either.

There is no difference between a gun, and a car, in the hands of a
drunkard.

I wasn't drunk.

If you don't like that, then I suggest you stay at home when you
drink, or at a friends house, certainly not behind the wheel of a
car.

I suggest you stop defending perverted criminal cops, you idiot.

I suggest you go and file your charges. Time's a wasting!

There is no statute of limitations in the fraud case against Giovanni.
.

User: "Andrealphus"
Title: Re: Clergy witch hunt? - Due process for accused priests is a sham, critics say	30 Apr 2007 08:05:13 PM

In News ViwZh.7085$TD3.6861@bignews5.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:GLvZh.5639$Ut6.5366@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News LHvZh.7071$TD3.3533@bignews5.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky
at johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:DsuZh.10295$3P3.8343@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News SIqZh.20222$vD4.15548@bigfe9,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

No, quite true.

What is this resistance you have against due process rights which
leads to illicit government control as happened to me recently?

Due process does not, and never will, allow drunkards to weild guns
and cars where the public safety is concerned.

I wasn't drunk, you fool.

That will be for a jury to decide.

There is no evidence of DUI.

That will be for a jury to decide.

I wasn't wielding a gun either.

There is no difference between a gun, and a car, in the hands of a
drunkard.

I wasn't drunk.

That will be for a jury to decide.

If you don't like that, then I suggest you stay at home when you
drink, or at a friends house, certainly not behind the wheel of a
car.

I suggest you stop defending perverted criminal cops, you idiot.

I suggest you go and file your charges. Time's a wasting!

There is no statute of limitations in the fraud case against Giovanni.

Then go and file your charges. What are you waiting for?
.

User: "John D. Wentzky"
Title: Re: Clergy witch hunt? - Due process for accused priests is a sham, critics say	30 Apr 2007 08:13:34 PM

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:dnwZh.2475$296.1028@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News ViwZh.7085$TD3.6861@bignews5.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:GLvZh.5639$Ut6.5366@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News LHvZh.7071$TD3.3533@bignews5.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky
at johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:DsuZh.10295$3P3.8343@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News SIqZh.20222$vD4.15548@bigfe9,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

No, quite true.

What is this resistance you have against due process rights which
leads to illicit government control as happened to me recently?

Due process does not, and never will, allow drunkards to weild guns
and cars where the public safety is concerned.

I wasn't drunk, you fool.

That will be for a jury to decide.

There is no evidence of DUI.

That will be for a jury to decide.

Whether there is evidence or not?
The laws preclude them from attributing any guilt to me with regard to any
of the charges against me.

I wasn't wielding a gun either.

There is no difference between a gun, and a car, in the hands of a
drunkard.

I wasn't drunk.

That will be for a jury to decide.

The laws preclude them from attributing any guilt to me with regard to any
of the charges against me.
Taking these charges to trial is a crime in itself.
Malicious prosecution via false charges is a very serious crime.
.

User: "Andrealphus"
Title: Re: Clergy witch hunt? - Due process for accused priests is a sham, critics say	30 Apr 2007 08:21:03 PM

In News AwwZh.7091$TD3.1452@bignews5.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:dnwZh.2475$296.1028@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News ViwZh.7085$TD3.6861@bignews5.bellsouth.net,, John D. Wentzky
at johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:GLvZh.5639$Ut6.5366@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News LHvZh.7071$TD3.3533@bignews5.bellsouth.net,, John D.
Wentzky at johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:DsuZh.10295$3P3.8343@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In News SIqZh.20222$vD4.15548@bigfe9,, John D. Wentzky at
johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

No, quite true.

What is this resistance you have against due process rights
which leads to illicit government control as happened to me
recently?

Due process does not, and never will, allow drunkards to weild
guns and cars where the public safety is concerned.

I wasn't drunk, you fool.

That will be for a jury to decide.

There is no evidence of DUI.

That will be for a jury to decide.

Whether there is evidence or not?

The state will have a chance to present their evidence, your side will have
a chance to refute or block said evidence. That's the way it works.

The laws preclude them from attributing any guilt to me with regard
to any of the charges against me.

You will have a chance to bring that up at your trial.

I wasn't wielding a gun either.

There is no difference between a gun, and a car, in the hands of a
drunkard.

I wasn't drunk.

That will be for a jury to decide.

The laws preclude them from attributing any guilt to me with regard
to any of the charges against me.

That will be for the court to decide. You will, of course, have a chance to
present your arguments then.

Taking these charges to trial is a crime in itself.

You can also bring that argument up.

Malicious prosecution via false charges is a very serious crime.

Then file your charges. Why are you blathering on about it here?
.

User: "John D. Wentzky"
Title: Re: Clergy witch hunt? - Due process for accused priests is a sham, critics say	30 Apr 2007 08:34:55 PM

"Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:3CwZh.2485$296.879@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...