Bishop Hubbard Speaks at
Siena College
April 3, 2003
I agree wholeheartedly that our faith community has suffered a serious
and scandalous wound [as a result of the child abuse scandal], and we have
yet to understand fully its true nature, depth and scope.
There is the two-fold scandal of the breach of sacred trust by individual
priests and the way bishops like myself have mishandled such misconduct,
because of ignorance, fear or the misguided attempt to protect the Church
from scandal.
Indeed, this moral ineptitude in giving greater priority to the Church's
image than to the protection of children has now become the scandal.
Laity's call
I join in the call for the laity to step up and assume their birthright
as full, adult members and leaders in our faith communities. This has been a
constant theme through my episcopacy; and, if there is a ray of light to
emerge from this tragedy, I hope it will be an even more informed and active
laity.
Such a development should result in a willingness to address seriously
and constructively the important ecclesial issues addressed [at this
symposium]: the nature of authority in the Church, the role of hierarchy and
the discipline of celibacy. I am confident that such a candid discussion
would bear rich fruit and be guided by the Spirit.
I pray further that this greater involvement on the part of laity will
not only be related to this misconduct scandal itself, but also be about how
to make our faith communities the dynamic and caring wellsprings of
spirituality, love, justice and service God intends them to be.
Transparency
I would like to focus my remarks on some of the complexities involved in
translating that vision to reality. For example, I concur with the call for
transparency and accountability about the number of perpetrators, victims
and costs associated with the scandal.
Here, I believe, is where the National Review Board, chaired by former
Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, can make an enormous contribution by
ascertaining those figures.
The Albany Diocese embraces the principles of transparency articulated in
the Charter. Since Dallas, our policy has been -- and continues to be -- the
following:
-
public identification of priests who have been removed or suspended;
-
public reporting on the aggregate dollar value of settlements reached;
-
public reporting on the costs of assessment and treatment of clergy
offenders, counseling for victims and their family members, and legal
and consultant fees; and
-
public reporting on all of the programs in place to prevent sexual
abuse from recurring and to create safe environments for children.
In conjunction with the study to be conducted this spring by the National
Review Board, our Diocese is committed to releasing all the cost figures.
Challenges
But there are some practical challenges that must be addressed. Some
still insist that the Church is hiding information when, for instance, we
decline to identify individuals under investigation who are the subject of
yet unsubstantiated allegations, or when we decline to reveal information
shared by victims in confidential meetings.
The goal of transparency clearly is not to punish the innocent,
traumatize victims or invade properly confidential meetings. The goal, as we
see it, is to protect the community against abusers, and give the laity and
the public access to information on -<thorn> and, therefore, greater
control over -- the Church's management of these matters.
In the Albany Diocese, we've taken the step of reviewing all allegations
with the Diocesan Review Board; it is composed of nine members, seven of
whom are laity, not in the employ of the Diocese. If an accused priest is
believed to pose an imminent threat to the community or if the information
provided by our investigator leads to the assessment that there are
reasonable grounds to believe the abuse may have occurred, the priest is
placed on administrative leave and that action is made known publicly.
In addition, we will send to the Board for review all proposed
settlements with victims to ensure that they are fair and just to all
parties. All of this comports with the Church's commitment to transparency.
Accountability
With regard to accountability, I believe the National Review Board can
make an enormous contribution by commissioning scientific research on the
data it compiles.
Catholics and other members of the public have raised legitimate
questions about the underlying causes of sexual abuse by clergy. Those
questions deserve answers based on careful research, not anecdotal evidence
or preconceived assumptions.
In a presentation at this symposium, for example, one person hypothesizes
that the problem of the sexual abuse of children is higher among priests. A
well researched study would help to determine if that assertion is factually
true; at the moment, it remains speculative. Hence, I welcome the results of
studies, such as that of the John Jay School of Criminal Justice, which the
National Review Board has already commissioned.
Media coverage
The media's coverage of the scandal is also marked by complexity. On the
one hand, the media are to be credited for exposing the scandal and for
pursuing it persistently.
On the other hand, media accounts often fail to provide context about
where and when the problem occurred, how it was handled, and what has been
done or is being done to address it.
Further, as Peter Steinfels of The New York Times has observed, many in
the media consistently cite authorities or experts who have an advocacy
position on this issue, but fail to offer the spectrum of opinions on a very
complex subject.
Missing stories
More specifically, our Diocese has been making a concerted effort to
respond to victims by:
-
hiring a victims assistance coordinator and an investigator,
-
expanding the membership of our diocesan review board,
-
developing training programs for parish staff and volunteers, and
-
arranging for criminal background checks for employees and volunteers.
Those efforts seek to build upon some long-standing policies and
procedures relative to the screening and education of our clergy and
programs for safe environments. Yet, most media attention continues to focus
on allegations 20, 30 and 40 years old, and the legal action surrounding
them. The Church's constructive response to victims is a vastly
under-reported story.
Legalities
Another complexity involves the question of the Church's legal
responsibility, and how it should participate in the process of determining
the nature and extent of its liability.
As Mark Sargent, the dean of the Villanova University School of Law,
observed in the June 2002 issue of Commonweal, legal responsibility must be
disentangled from moral responsibility, because although certainly related,
they are not coextensive.
Prof. Sargent says: "The Church's institutional and moral
responsibility for the creation and perpetuation of this scandal is obvious.
The integrity of the Church, and particularly of the hierarchy, will be
measured by its willingness to respond to this profound moral crisis.
Acceptance of that moral responsibility, however, does not mean that every
Church institution must always accept the level of legal responsibility as
defined by every plaintiff's lawyer."
We in the Diocese of Albany recognize and fully accept our moral
responsibility to right the wrongs suffered by victims of clergy sexual
abuse; but that does not mean that we naively accept the validity of every
plaintiff attorney's claim about the abuse itself and its attendant
circumstances, how a Church institution or individual within the Church were
complicit in the abuse or negligent in dealing with it, and what level of
compensatory and punitive damage is justified until such assertions are
subject to thorough scrutiny.
To take this posture is not to deny that there was sexual abuse by
clergy, but simply to recognize that not every claim is necessarily
meritorious, or at least meritorious to the extent asserted, and that the
Church may be justified in mediating or, if necessary, litigating some
claims.
Lawsuits
There are many other important issues involving lawsuits stemming from
clergy sexual abuse, which space does not permit me to address, and about
which, quite frankly, there are no facile solutions.
For example, should current knowledge of "best practices"
necessarily be the standard for determining legal liability for decisions
made 20 or 30 years ago; or if liability is conceded how does one assess the
monetary compensation?
Even among professionals in the field there is plenty of room for
reasonable disagreement about how much even a just claim is worth.
Key question
In this latter regard, a speaker at this symposium states that "we
must put the spiritual and personal welfare of those wounded ahead of
everything else, including the welfare of our respective institutions."
Does that mean that leaders of a Diocese must be willing to sacrifice the
welfare of the Church -- and all of the spiritual, academic, healthcare and
social programs provided by the Church in society?
Bringing financial or institutional ruin to the Church, even in a
well-intentioned attempt to right the wrongs, would deprive Catholics and
the broader society of the Church's spiritual leadership and its
humanitarian, healthcare, educational and social services.
What about the other wounded populations we serve? Do we abandon our work
with children with AIDS? our advocacy programs for the developmentally
disabled? our outreach programs for the victims of domestic violence? our
housing programs for the homeless?
I would note also that the resources of the Church are far more limited
than many may suspect.
Balance needed
What's needed, I believe, is practical guidance and counsel to Church
leaders in striking the appropriate balance:
-
How much of our resources should properly be devoted to providing a
compassionate and comprehensive response to the crisis, including
compensation to victims; and
-
How much to continuing to support all of the other important Church
programs that serve society in an uncertain economic climate
characterized by increasing human needs, reduced philanthropic giving,
and glaring budget deficit at the local, state and federal levels?
Trust
Similarly, it has been suggested that until the Church deals
constructively with the misconduct scandal, its leaders are not in a
position to exercise moral and spiritual leadership in our Church and
society. It has been said to us, "Physician heal thyself before you
speak of healing and salvation."
I agree that only by constructive action with regard to the sexual
misconduct issue can Church leaders re-earn the trust of Catholics and the
public.
In the meantime, however, I believe for the Church to go silent, to
suspend its spiritual and moral leadership in other realms -- as a voice
against the war with Iraq, for example, or as a champion for the poor in the
face of the current government budget deficits -- would be wrong, and
ultimately destructive to the mission of the Church; not a victory over
sexual abuse but a victory for all who would eliminate spiritual, moral and
ethical perspectives from the public square.
Here, again, I would suggest a balanced approach is necessary. The Church
must re-earn its position of trust, in part, by continuing to be a voice of
morality, hope and faith. Church leaders face the practical problem of
finding the right balance.
I would welcome practical suggestions on how bishops and others in our
Church might continue to assert the proper level of spiritual leadership
while recognizing the natural skepticism/cynicism of some audiences due to
the scandal.
Victims
A final complexity I would cite is the issue of treatment for victims.
Much to the shame of the Church, we too long denied or minimized the
needs of victims and their families. This failure to reach out to those
abused, and to provide psychological, pastoral and spiritual care led to
disastrous consequences for many victims, including, as I can attest to from
firsthand interaction with victims: free-floating anger...guilt...low
self-esteem...alcohol and substance abuse...the loss of motivation for
education or career advancement...the inability to form trusting, intimate
relationships...and the loss of faith.
Fortunately, most Church authorities now recognize the need to provide
professional and pastoral assistance to victims/survivors, and many have or
are benefiting from such outreach. The guilt or stigma associated with
having been abused is gradually being removed and victims are reclaiming
broken dreams and shattered lives. This is certainly a great blessing, and
both the press and survivor groups deserve much of the credit.
Adversaries?
Because of sad past experiences, however, and the lack of trust in
authority figures, which is an understandable consequence of child sexual
abuse, there has often developed an adversarial relationship between
victim/survivor groups and Church leadership. At times, that makes a
pastoral response on the part of the Church difficult, if not impossible.
I hope that, prospectively, ways can be found for Church leaders and
members of victims' groups to work more cooperatively and collaboratively in
the healing process.
The concept of restorative justice as the foundation for a process of
healing and reconciliation may be an area where we can find common ground.
Many facets
In conclusion, in raising these issues of complexities, I am not trying
to minimize the terrible harm that has been done by clergy sexual abuse, to
absolve the Church of its responsibility, to deflect criticism, or, God
forbid, to suggest I have the answers.
Rather, I am merely trying to point out that there are multiple facets to
this issue which must be assessed and weighed carefully in developing and
implementing appropriate responses.
Hopefully, through the type of presentations and respectful dialogue we
have had today, we can find suitable mechanisms and solutions that will
genuinely contribute to healing for victims and their families; to the
protection of our most precious heritage, our youth; and to reform and
renewal within the Church.
Bishop Howard J. Hubbard
Back
