|
Church in
Crisis Boston scrutinizes Laws depositions
By CHUCK COLBERT
Boston
Dog days in August are not supposed to generate banner headlines
in New England; unless, of course, they pertain to heat waves and baseball. But
even eight straight days of 90 degree temperatures and the Red Sox could not
compete for ink and air time with the release of two-days worth of transcripts,
several hundred pages long, from Cardinal Bernard Laws continuing
depositions, and yet more allegations of sex abuse by archdiocesan priests.
Like Laws depositions, the new allegations raise concerns
not only about Laws handling of allegations of sex abuse during his
tenure, but also about those advising him. For example, a Boston Globe
Spotlight Report found that three days after Bernard F. Law
became archbishop of Boston in March 1984, an anguished parishioner from
Franklin [Mass.] wrote Law a detailed letter alleging that a parish priest had
twice sexually molested his wife and that the parishs pastor and the
local auxiliary bishop treated the couple with hostility.
That letter written by Gregory B. Nash asked Law to meet with the
couple and open his shepherds heart to them. But Law neither
met with nor helped the couple. Instead, he wrote back to Nash on April 3,
1984, saying: After some consultation, I find that this matter is
something that is personal to Fr. [Anthony J.] Rebeiro and must be considered
such. The letter was marked Confidential, according to the
Globe report.
Doubts about charges
WHDH-TV, the local NBC affiliate, reported on a lawsuit, filed by
a man alleging abuse for several years during the 1980s by Fr. Michael Smith
Foster, then a newly ordained priest at Sacred Heart Church in Newton, Mass.
Paul R. Edwards, 35, alleges that Foster began molesting him when Edwards was
15 years old, the Globe reported.
Foster, now a monsignor, is the archdioceses primary canon
lawyer and has advised the cardinal on aspects of canon law pertaining to the
sex abuse scandal. He is also the author of Annulment: The Wedding that Was:
How the Church Can Declare a Marriage Null, and serves as presiding judge
of the Metropolitan Tribunal, which handles annulment cases. Foster is the
highest ranking archdiocesan official to be charged in the sex abuse scandal.
He has denied the allegations, but pending an investigation and resolution to
the charges, he has requested to be placed on administrative leave. Law granted
the request. At the same time, Foster has become a focus of a group of priests
and lay people who have expressed strong doubts about the charges against him
and have raised the issue of what can be done when a priest is falsely
accused.
Those new allegations and Laws testimony generated a variety
of responses and concerns. Interviews with a dozen people, including priests, a
nun, members of the laity, abuse survivors, and spokespersons from the two
major church-reform and victim-survivor advocacy groups, indicate that the
scandal in the Boston archdiocese continues to take a pastoral, financial and
spiritual toll.
On Aug. 13, the day the written transcripts were released to the
public, New England Cable News broadcast more than five hours of videotapes of
Laws deposition taken on June 5 and 7. He was questioned then by Roderick
MacLeish, a Boston attorney who represents Gregory Ford and his parents, Paula
and Rodney Ford, among others, in a civil negligence lawsuit against the
cardinal. The case stems from alleged sexual misconduct by Fr. Paul R. Shanley,
who also faces criminal proceedings in the rape of four boys and who has denied
the charges.
Although Law through his attorneys requested that the depositions
not be released until the cardinal had completed his testimony, a judge denied
the request, citing widespread public interest as a reason for her decision.
A major portion of the deposition focused on the cardinals
handling of priests accused of sexual misconduct and their reassignment to
parish ministry, without notifying parishioners. Both his policy and practice,
Law testified, had been to reassign the alleged offenders.
As a matter of policy
As MacLeish pressed Law on that point during questioning, the
cardinal said, I did not, as a matter of policy in 1984, 85,
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,
94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 2001, go to
parishes on the occasion of dealing with a priest against whom an allegation of
sexual abuse of a child had been made. He added, Did I think that I
should have informed the parish and then done it? No. I simply didnt have
that as part of our response to these cases.
That policy remained in effect until this year when the clerical
sex abuse scandal exploded here, and the archdiocese adopted a
zero-tolerance policy including the notification of and cooperation
with civil authorities. No priest against whom a credible allegation of
sexual abuse of a minor has been made may hold any assignment whatsoever,
Law said during his testimony.
Still, the prevailing pattern over Laws tenure as head of
the Boston archdiocese since 1984 was to reassign priests accused of sexual
misconduct. In at least one case, moreover, Law not only reassigned, but also
later promoted to pastor and area vicar a priest who had admitted to charges of
sexual misconduct.
Law said that he was aware of a 1988 allegation of sexual
misconduct against Fr. David Graham, who admitted molesting an altar boy. The
incident took place 10 to 20 years earlier. Parishioners were not told about
Grahams admission, and Law permitted Graham to continue with parish
ministry at St. Josephs Church in Quincy, Mass. He was allowed to
continue, yes, after intervention by a medical source, Law said under
oath.
By 1990 Law had promoted Graham to pastor. By 1992 another
allegation surfaced, what archdiocesan records refer to as a vague
second-hand complaint. The report of the second allegation made its way
to Laws delegate handling the case and a review board, appointed by the
cardinal. In 1995 Laws delegate recommended that Graham not be involved
with parish or youth ministry and that he be engaged in therapy.
But within seven or eight months the board recommended that Graham
be engaged in ministry without limitations or restriction and full access to
minors. In 1996 Law promoted Graham to area vicar with oversight
responsibilities in more than a dozen parishes in Braintree, Quincy, Milton and
Randolph, Mass.
MacLeish also questioned Law extensively about his handling of the
Shanley case. Despite learning of allegations against Shanley in 1993, Law said
that he did not inform St. Jeans parishioners of them. The cardinal
testified that he had appointed Shanley as pastor there, without asking to see
his personnel files. Those files, kept under lock and key by senior
archdiocesan officials, contained records of several complaints against
Shanley. One dated as far back as 1966 when a fellow priest documented an
accusation that Shanley had molested a boy.
The cardinal testified that he did not know that an archdiocesan
liaison to victims alleging sex abuse by priests wanted parishioners to be
alerted about sexual misconduct. As early as 1994 in fact, Sr. Catherine
Mulkerrin, who at the time was employed by the archdiocese and worked directly
with victims, recommended that church bulletins run notices about priests who
had been accused or admitted to sexual misconduct and had served in various
parishes.
The cardinal went back and forth when asked whether he had seen a
1985 letter, written by Wilma M. Higgs, of Rochester, N. Y., complaining about
a speech by Shanley that approved of sex between men and boys. First the
cardinal said that he had seen the letter, but two days later he said he
believes it likely he did not read it.
Absolutely
devastated
Reactions to the depositions varied. Tom White, development
director for Voice of the Faithful, after reading the entire transcript, said
he was absolutely devastated. He added, He just doesnt
get it. There is a blind spot, something fundamentally missing from his make
up, that you know he wont ever get it; hes so desensitized.
Whats missing is a visceral, instinctual reaction to the
consequences of sex abuse to childrens lives. A parent in any situation
like this would say, Take off the collar; get help. But dont send
them back to the parish.
A different response came from among some of those who watched the
videotapes but had not yet read transcripts of Law deposition. One abuse
survivor, who asked not to be identified, acknowledged with dismay
how well the cardinal came across on television.
Another woman, long active in parish and diocesan ministry and now
with abuse survivors, also said Law looked very good. She added,
He seemed credible, confident and sincere.
She also said that part of Laws testimony, where the
cardinal testified that he was never told about complaints against Shanley
before his tenure began in Boston in 1984, really bother me, she
said. It seems that [Bishop] Daily never fully informed the
cardinal.
It was Thomas V. Daily, now bishop of Brooklyn, who during the
1970s and early 1980s handled many of the complaints against Shanley.
Law testified that he relied primarily on the advice of deputies,
Bishop John B. McCormack, now bishop of the Manchester, N.H., diocese, and
Daily, in the handling of personnel matters.
That testimony prompted Fr. Tom Carroll, pastor of the Jesuit
Urban Center, to write in his weekly insert to the parishs bulletin:
Some of the quotations from the ongoing deposition of Cardinal Law that
have been reported in the press in recent days seem to suggest that the
cardinal, our archbishop and ordinary, has not understood this task of
selection and supervision of his priests as a primary and personal concern in
his episcopal ministry.
Another reaction to Laws deposition and testimony was more
pointed. I was looking at the Catholic Bill Clinton, said Joe
Gallagher, a spokesman for the Coalition of Catholics and Survivors, a local
abuse victim advocacy group. He was at the top of his game, parsing
words.
During a telephone interview Gallagher voiced concerns, shared by
many others, about Laws seeming aversion to accountability. When
Law was a vicar in Mississippi, dealing with abusive priests, it was the
responsibility of his boss, the bishop, Gallagher said. Wherever
hes responsible
its the responsibility of someone
else.
The local media weighing in on Laws deposition was largely
critical. The Boston Herald ran a lead editorial, under the headline,
Cardinals answers no answer at all. A Boston Globe
editorial, The cardinals oath, once again called for Law to
resign.
Fr. Robert Bullock, pastor of Our Lady of Sorrows Church in
Sharon, Mass., said in a telephone interview, that he has noticed a drop in
church attendance. The numbers are very much lower, he said,
appreciably lower.
In addition to concern about the morale of the people, Bullock and
other priests are concerned about the process by which 20 priests accused of
sexual misconduct have been removed from ministry. According to Bullock and one
other longtime observer of the archdiocese, priests are called to the chancery
and with no chance of defense, informed of the allegations and dismissed from
active ministry. Even if a priest denies them, he is told to vacate his
rectory, they said.
Ironically, the church treats people worse than civil
society. If you are accused in civil society, you at least get a lawyer,
said the observer, who asked not to be identified.
Morale among priests is so low and fear so high that Bullock, on
behalf of the Boston Priests Forum, has written a letter to Law, asking
that he address the due process concerns. All of us need to know our
rights, Bullock wrote. What happens to a priest who is falsely
accused? How is the accusation determined to be substantial? Who does the
investigation and what are the criteria?
Bullock also wants Law and the regional bishops to meet with the
priests. Law has not done so since February.
Freelance journalist Chuck Colbert writes from Cambridge,
Mass.
National Catholic Reporter, August 30,
2002
|
|