Bishop Hubbard Speaks at
Albany Law School
December 3, 2002
First, let me acknowledge that this matter of the abuse of minors by
Catholic priests is a scandal of monumental proportions that has shaken
the church to the core, shocked the general public, angered and
embarrassed our own Catholic people, besmirched the reputations of the
vast majority of priests who have never offended in this regard and
undermined substantially the credibility of the leadership of the Roman
Catholic Community.
Although I have some criticism of the way the media has covered the
story, especially with regard to blurring the time frame as to when the
problem occurred, and measuring bishops’ decisions by psychological
knowledge and other insights that were years later in coming, I in no way
want to sugarcoat the problem or deflect blame for this scandal onto the
media or to those, both within and without the church who have been
critical of priests and bishops or who seek to employ this scandal to
advance agendas unrelated to the problem at hand. Indeed the media did not
create the problem but exposed it, and the damage has been inflicted not
by critics of the church, but by the reprehensible behavior of some
priests and the failure of bishops like myself to deal with this
misconduct in the most appropriate way--either because of ignorance, fear
or the misguided attempt to protect the church from scandal; in fact, the
moral ineptitude in giving greater priority to the church’s image than
to the protection of children has now become the scandal.
With this prefatory comment, I will try to offer a quick snapshot of
how the issue has been dealt with in the Diocese of Albany by my
predecessors and myself--not in any sense as an excuse but only as a
descriptive explanation of what occurred in practice.
Let me state initially that the issue of clergy sexual misconduct was
never condoned, ignored or taken lightly in our diocese--although, as is
now painfully evident, it was not always handled appropriately.
History
In the 50's, 60's and 70's, sexual misconduct by priests was looked
upon primarily as a spiritual or moral problem. It was viewed as a
violation of the Sixth Commandment and as evidence of the priest having
lost his moral or spiritual bearings.
Thus, if an allegation of sexual misconduct was brought against a
priest, my predecessors sought to address it immediately. However, since
the issue was diagnosed as a moral/spiritual problem, a moral/spiritual
remedy was applied. The priest would be sent to a treatment center, which
was more a retreat-like setting, where the focus was on getting the
priest's spiritual life in order. Unfortunately, little, if any, attention
was paid to the emotional and psychological underpinnings of the problem
and its oftimes compulsive or addictive character.
Hence, upon completion of the program, the bishop would restore the
priest to ministry, thinking that the problem had been addressed
appropriately, but not realizing that there was the definite possibility
of re-offense.
By the late 70's, when I was appointed bishop, the insights of the
behavioral sciences had begun to document the deep-rooted emotional and
psychological dysfunction which often underlies the problem of sexual
abuse and the need for extensive psychotherapy in order to treat the
behavior effectively. The residential treatment centers where I sent
priests accused of sexual misconduct, then, while having a spiritual
component, focused primarily on the psycho-sexual and other behavioral
issues which led to the misconduct. I followed carefully the
recommendations of the therapeutic centers. If a priest was deemed to be a
genuine risk for re-offense, he was not restored to ministry. If restored
to ministry, the conditions for the priest's aftercare and the
limitations, if any, upon his ministerial assignment were observed.
In 1993, in accord with guidelines developed by the National Conference
of Catholic Bishops, we in Albany published our policies on clergy sexual
misconduct and established a Diocesan Sexual Misconduct Panel. That panel,
composed primarily of lay people not employed by the diocese, reviewed
allegations of sexual misconduct and made recommendations as to whether a
priest should be restored to ministry following rehabilitation. While this
reassignment policy was well intentioned and many priests were
rehabilitated successfully, I must acknowledge that we bishops presumed
wrongly that our Catholic people would appreciate the value of maintaining
priests in ministry if the abuse seemed firmly in the past, if they had
been treated and competent professionals deemed they did not pose a threat
to anyone, and if they were now offering effective service to the people.
I now realize that the safer or more prudent course is the one adopted in
Dallas wherein no priest is ever to be reassigned to public ministry
following misconduct with minors.
Further, in retrospect, I regret that when these priests were removed
or restored to ministry, there was no public notice to the community. Far
better, I think, is our current policy whereby, in June of this year, we
announced the names of six priests we were removing from ministry
permanently because they had sexually abused minors. That transparency
comports much better not only with parishioners’ right to know but with
children’s right to be protected and the victim’s need to have his or
her trauma validated.
With regard to reporting cases of clergy sexual misconduct to the
criminal authorities for investigation, most of the allegations were
received years after the occurrence, well beyond the criminal and civil
statute of limitations. Our policy was to advise the victims and their
families that they had the option of bringing the matter to the
authorities themselves and we would cooperate with the law enforcement
process. Never did we deter victims from doing this. The diocese, however,
did not take the initiative to report the allegations to criminal
authorities, partially because in a majority of the cases the very reason
the victim had come to the diocese, and not to the public authorities, was
that they did not want to make the matter a public one. Also, many times
the victims through their attorney insisted on confidentiality. Further,
in several of the incidents, the matter itself was brought to my attention
by criminal or civil authorities.
In this latter regard, I would suggest there has been a change over the
past few decades in the way child abuse is handled by law enforcement. In
the not too distant past, there was a sense that this issue should not be
dealt with too publicly. It was ugly, and publicity was thought to have
the potential of re-victimizing the minor. As a result many cases went
unprosecuted. Obviously things have changed for the better.
Current policy
Our diocese’s current policy--based on the recommendation of 12 local
district attorneys--is to hand over to criminal authorities any credible
allegations within the statute of limitations. For any allegations of
abuse beyond that time frame, we have retained the services of a former
BCI investigator to discern the facts and report to our Diocesan Sexual
Misconduct Panel.
Recognizing the deep and lasting trauma of sexual abuse, our diocese
since the 1980’s has been offering counseling for victims and their
family members irrespective of culpability, and in some cases settlements
for the emotional and psychological damage endured. These settlements did
in the past include confidentiality agreements, which has reinforced the
image of cover-up, but, even more significantly, impeded some victims from
telling their story to others, which can be a significant step in the
healing process. Our diocese decided more than a year ago that there would
be no confidentiality agreements in the future, and the Dallas meeting in
June affirmed that as national policy.
In tracing the history of sexual abuse, it should be understood that
most of the reported incidents of clergy misconduct with minors took place
prior to the mid 1980’s. In our diocese, for example, even with all of
the widespread publicity over the past eleven months, and the
encouragement for victims to come forward, we are only aware of three
incidents which have occurred in the last sixteen years.
These statistics, I believe, which are pretty much paralleled
nationally, are not a matter of mere coincidence. While we in church
leadership have responded too slowly and tentatively, nonetheless we have
made serious efforts to address the issue.
With regard to the recruitment of candidates, for example, over the
past two decades we have had an aggressive program in place to root out
individuals who might be prone to act out inappropriately.
The formal process for acceptance into the seminary is quite thorough,
requiring multiple references, a criminal background check, extensive
psychological testing, and interviews by three psychologists.
Once admitted to the seminary, a candidate for priesthood is regularly
monitored and evaluated throughout his five to six years of training and
is offered courses and programs which would have been considered taboo a
quarter of a century ago: sexuality, addiction and the struggle to be
celibate.
I offer this background on seminary admission and formation policies to
underscore that over the past quarter of a century the church in general
and our diocese specifically have been putting into place policies and
procedures that will screen out people who are not emotionally or
psychologically capable of assuming the position of sacred trust which
priesthood entails.
These policies, I believe, are proving effective. Among priests
ordained for the Diocese of Albany over the past twenty years, there has
only been one accusation of misconduct with a minor. One case of such
reprehensible behavior, of course, is one too many, but compared to the
number of allegations of misconduct which have come to light against those
ordained at an earlier time, there is a markedly significant difference.
Also, in the early 90’s we along with other dioceses throughout the
country put into place comprehensive guidelines about sexual misconduct
and conducted workshops and seminars for those already ordained about
standards of ministerial behavior and boundary issues, as well as clear
policies for offering spiritual, pastoral and counseling assistance to
victims.
US Catholic Bishops Charter
The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young Adults, adopted by
the Catholic Bishops this past June in Dallas is designed to build upon
these efforts. Locally, we have hired a victim’s assistance coordinator
and are in the process of employing a coordinator to oversee the
implementation of the Charter’s policies, which will not only address
the problem of clergy sexual misconduct, but of sexual misconduct by
anyone representing the church, salaried or volunteer, as well as the much
wider problem of sexual abuse within the general society, of which the
approximate 2% of Catholic priests involved is but a small subset.
Unfortunately it is estimated 1 out of every 8 males and 1 out of every 5
females is sexually abused before the age of 18, usually by a family
member or trusted person in the individual’s life.
My hope, then, is that the crisis we’ve been through in the church
over the last year may have the indirect but beneficial effect of focusing
our resources on this broad societal problem and its solutions.
With regard to offending priests, I would note that the policy adopted
at Dallas in June was reiterated last month in Washington, namely that a
priest who has engaged in even a single act of sexual abuse will be
removed permanently from any public ministry in the Church and may be
dismissed from the clerical state.
To insure the due process rights of the accused priests, once an
allegation is received, a preliminary investigation is to be conducted,
and here the misconduct panel can be most helpful. If it is deemed that an
act may have occurred, the priest will be placed on administrative leave
and this action will be made known publicly.
Then the bishop must apply to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith at the Vatican to receive a dispensation from the statute of
limitations, if such is applicable (which is ten years beyond the victim’s
18th birthday), and ask permission to conduct a Tribunal or Canonical
Trial. It is anticipated that this request both to waive the statute and
to empanel a Tribunal will be granted readily in the great majority of
instances, although the Vatican might reserve cases involving multiple
jurisdictions.
Throughout the process, the accused priest has the right to both civil
and canonical representation. The result of this process will be made
public. This revised process is not intended to delay or thwart justice
but to accomplish the same purpose as our own penal system: justice for
the victim and due process for the accused. The rights of both can and
must be protected. While I suspect there will be some difficulties
initially in employing a process with which many are unfamiliar,
ultimately I am confident that the new procedure and protocol will respect
the rights of both victims and the accused. These procedures will be
church law for all Dioceses in the United States and, along with the
Charter, will be reviewed after a two year period, as well as monitored
and evaluated by the National Review Board headed by Governor Frank
Keating.
Three other notes: the preliminary Church investigation is not designed
to hinder or impede any criminal investigation, and can be delayed so as
not to obstruct the efforts of law enforcement and civil authorities.
Second, even if the priest is convicted in criminal court and sent to
prison, he still remains a priest, although one without an assignment.
Hence the process I just outlined would still be necessary in a church
court to remove the priest from ministry permanently. We will cooperate
fully with law enforcement and civil authorities in such investigations
and comply with all reporting requirements. Also, even if the Canonical
Tribunal process exonerates the priest, the bishop has been given the
authority to bar the priest from public ministry, if in his judgment the
act of misconduct has occurred or the common good demands such protection.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I reiterate my apology for the way I and other bishops
have mishandled this issue. I acknowledge that mistakes were made, which I
regret deeply and am committed to rectify. Most especially, I regret that
too little attention was given to the plight of the victims of the heinous
crime of clergy sexual misconduct. While church authorities like myself
always knew such behavior was morally wrong, and in many instances a
crime, we in the church (as in the wider society) were not aware of the
devastating and lifelong consequences for victims resulting from this
violation of sacred trust.
It was only gradually that I and others in church leadership began to
appreciate the tremendous long-term damage which victims suffer at the
hands of their offenders. Having reviewed the scientific research and more
significantly, having met with victims of clergy sexual misconduct, I have
come to understand more fully that such misconduct is not only painful and
traumatic at the time of its occurrence, but can lead to lifelong problems
with trust, intimacy and sexuality.
Very often victims feel guilty, as if they were the ones who did
something wrong, and thus become filled with shame and self-loathing.
Since victims are frequently reluctant to reveal the misconduct to others,
they suffer the trauma alone, often filled with rage, anger, hopelessness
and despair, much of the time unaware of the source of and reason for
those feelings. When left untreated, these deep wounds can result in low
self-esteem, poor interpersonal relationships, substance abuse and
suicide. Also, since the perpetrator was a trusted representative of the
church, victims tend to identify his behavior with the church itself,
which not infrequently leads to the loss of faith and even to the
rejection of God.
I sincerely hope that the transparency now required and the pastoral,
spiritual and psychological assistance now available will encourage
victims and their families to come forward and to receive the help they
truly deserve. I pledge to do all in my power to insure this happens.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Howard J. Hubbard
Bishop of Albany
Back
