| 
      
		
		DOES THE VATICAN UNDERSTAND?
		
		
		The Concern About Money
		
		
		 
		
		
		September 15, 2007
				 | 
			 
		 
		 
		
		Cardinal
		Tarcisio  
		Bertone, 
		Vatican Secretary of State, can hardly be accused of being ignorant 
		about the status of the Catholic Church. He has, however at the very 
		least, displayed a lack of information about the realities of the sex 
		abuse crisis in the United States when he addressed the issue before the 
		125th Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus in 
		Nashville, Tennessee in August 2007. 
		
		He singled out 4 
		issues for consideration and comment—“the business (money to victim’s 
		lawyers) around this scandal is really un-bearable.” 
		
		“The percentage of 
		(priests) involved in these scandals is very small.” 
		
		The impression 
		that the Catholic Church is the only organization with the problem of 
		abuse “is un-acceptable.” 
		
		He challenged 
		other organizations to “face this same problem with their members, with 
		an equal degree of courage and realism as the Catholic Church has done.” 
		
		
		Point 1. 
		
		Already 
		by 1988 I had read and reviewed letters and reports of 1,800 adult men 
		and women who alleged that they had been sexually abused by a bishop, a 
		priest, or a member of a religious order (male and female) when they 
		were minors. Not one—I repeat not one—of those files requested money. 
		Everyone had a need to be heard, understood, and believed. Each of them 
		had a concern that his or her perpetrator might be continuing to harm 
		others and was looking for means and assurances to protect others from 
		further abuse. 
		
		Some had contacted 
		bishops. The record of those visits—the lack of response or in some 
		cases blame and verbal attacks hurled against victims—does not make 
		edifying reading. Some bishops offered payments for counseling, but 
		money was given with demands of secrecy under threats of legal 
		retribution. 
		
		Why has monetary 
		compensation escalated? The short answer is “indignation.” As the facts 
		of the scope and degradation of sexual abuse by priests and bishops has 
		been exposed, not only Catholics, but the general population in the 
		United States became concerned and enraged at the hypocrisy and 
		arrogance of the Catholic hierarchy. A majority of people in the United 
		States consider Catholic bishops to be “liars” and untrustworthy. 
		
		Many case 
		histories tell the real story: A 1997 trial of Fr. Rudy Kos and the 
		Dallas, Texas diocese under bishop Charles Grahmann ended in a jury 
		award of 119.6 million dollars to 12 victims of abuse. This amount far 
		exceeded monies sought by the plaintiff’s attorneys. In fact, lawyers 
		for the victims wanted to settle the case for half-of-one-million 
		dollars. The church lawyers (under the bishop’s direction) insisted on a 
		jury trial. The jurors and the public were dismayed and disgusted when 
		the details of how the bishop and his staff had dissimulated, conspired 
		to deceive, covered up the abuse and facilitated it. Kos is in prison. 
		Bishop Grahmann remained in office until this year. The Catholic Church 
		lost much more than a trial and some money—it was a serious blow to its
		“bella figura” and credibility in the whole country. 
		
		Another situation 
		demonstrates the complexity of the crisis of sexual abuse and money in 
		the United States. Msgr. Michael Harris (they called him Fr. Hollywood) 
		resigned from the priesthood after he was accused of abusing boys at his 
		high school in Orange County, California. The first young man to come 
		forward with allegations was Ryan DiMaria.   
		
		He approached the 
		diocese for financial help with his bills for psychotherapy when he 
		suffered a suicidal depression caused by the abuse. His request was a 
		modest 300 thousand dollars. The church was resistant and reluctant to 
		honor an allegation against one of its prominent and clerically 
		well-connected priests. It was only after DiMaria was shunned and 
		humiliated that he turned to a lawyer. (Other victims came forward 
		later.) 
		
		A suit was filed 
		in 1997 and a court trial was anticipated. The investigation led to 
		complex clerical interrelationships; depositions of other clerics who 
		had some knowledge of the perpetrator’s activities were taken. One 
		deponent was G. Patrick Ziemann—bishop of Santa Rosa, California and 
		former auxiliary to Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles. He had already 
		resigned after an allegation and monetary settlement for sexually 
		abusing one of his priests was made. 
		
		In August of 2001 
		Cardinal Mahony was slated to be deposed in the case. It was then that 
		negotiations between church lawyers and the victim’s representatives got 
		serious. The church finally settled the case for 5.2 million dollars. As 
		a result Mahony’s deposition was canceled. 
		
		Bankruptcy 
		ordinarily is presumed to have money as its principal concern. This is 
		not proving to be accurate in cases with United States dioceses. 
		
		The link between 
		legal fees and the church’s fight to keep bishops from facing time on 
		civil courts’ witness stands is prominent. The diocese of Davenport, 
		Iowa filed for bankruptcy—a legal procedure that stays all ongoing 
		investigations—the day Bishop Lawrence Soens was to stand trial for the 
		abuse of minor boys. Over 20 male victims were lined up to give 
		testimony. 
		
		The San Diego 
		diocese became the fifth in American to file for bankruptcy protection 
		the night before Bishop Robert Brom was slated to be the first witness 
		in one of several trials of priests for sexual abuse. Brom, himself the 
		object of allegations from a seminarian in Minnesota, will face demands 
		to produce documents related to those incidents when he takes the 
		witness stand in any trial. Secret documents lurk behind every defensive 
		move by church lawyers. 
		
		The Federal Judge 
		in charge of the San Diego case has threatened to throw the bankruptcy 
		claim out of court and has already remanded 42 of the abuse cases that 
		had been stayed to proceed to trial. 
		
		The settlement of 
		660 million dollars allocated for abuse victims in Los Angeles was also 
		about more than money. Cardinal Roger Mahony has a number of suspicions 
		of conspiracy to hide abuse and questions of possible perjury for 
		statements made in a deposition and on the witness stand in the 
		conviction of Fr. Oliver O’Grady hanging over his head.   
		
		Two criminal cases 
		against Los Angeles priests are pending and the cardinal will certainly 
		be called as a witness if they go forward.    
		
		Without doubt the 
		money that the clergy sexual abuse crisis is costing the church is a 
		matter of concern. The Doyle-Mouton-Peterson report gratuitously offered 
		to the US bishops in 1985 predicted a cost of one billion dollars if the 
		problem of abuse was ignored. It was ignored; the price tag is already 
		over 2 billion.   
		
		To any objective 
		observer of the crisis another question about money occurs: how much 
		money has the church spent on its lawyers and public relations?  
		 
		 
		
		
		Point 2. 
		
		The 
		percentage of priests in the United States who have abused minors is 
		neither small nor negligible. Already in 2002 Boston recorded 7.6 
		percent of its priests had abused minors; New Hampshire admitted to 8.2 
		percent at the same time. Records show that 11.5 percent of all the 
		priests active in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in 1983 have been 
		reported abusers. Los Angeles’s major seminary in Camarillo California 
		proved to have 30 percent sexual abusers in its1966 and 1972 graduating 
		classes.   
		
		In 1986 23 percent 
		of the priests active in the diocese of Tucson, Arizona were noted for 
		sexual abuse. 
		
		The investigation 
		that the USCCB entrusted to the John Jay School of Criminal Justice 
		delivered its report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the 
		United States on February 27, 2004. The hierarchy clings to the 
		assertion in that report that 4.36 percent of priests (4,392) active 
		between 1950 and 2002 were credibly reported for abuse. However, over 
		500 additional priests have been credibly accused since that time. 
		
		The J-J Study 
		speaks for itself. In the years between 1960 and 1984 between 9 and 11 
		percent of active priests in the US are reported abusers. This is the 
		most reliable measure of the percent of US Catholic priests and bishops 
		who get sexually involved with minors and the vulnerable. This draws an 
		accurate picture of the capacity of the clerical culture to produce, 
		foster, and tolerate sexual abuse in this country. 
		
		
		Point 3. 
		
		The 
		cardinal is correct that many organizations have problems with sexual 
		abusers in their midst. What does that have to do with bishop and priest 
		abusers? The sins and failings of others in no way lessen the 
		culpability of bishops or alleviate the responsibility of the church to 
		be accountable for clerical abuse. St. Peter Damian named it in 1049.
		
		 
		
		The argument of 
		other’s failings rings hollow from a church that claims superiority over 
		other churches that are either “incomplete” or “defective.” The gospel 
		directive to remove the beam from one’s eye before complaining about the 
		mote in the other fellow’s remains a sound moral directive.   
		
		
		Point 4. 
		
		It is a 
		pretense; it is a figment to pose that the Catholic bishops of the 
		United States (or Rome for that matter) have singly or collectively 
		faced the problem of sexual abuse by its priests and bishops 
		“courageously and realistically.” Such a statement is dishonest and 
		defies the documents and recorded facts. 
		
		Not one move by 
		any American bishop or the USCCB has so far constituted an independent 
		moral initiative or affirmation of accountability. Every action 
		regarding clerical sexual abuse in the United States has been reactive, 
		principally to public pressure—victims’ movements and exposure, legal 
		challenges, revelations by the secular press, and resultant  widespread 
		public indignation. The church has not done one thing it has not been 
		forced to  do by these pressures. 
		
		Secrecy, cover up, 
		conspiracies to hide offending clerics, and public relation offensives, 
		with efforts to discredit victim’s advocates and others are well 
		documented in 12 Grand Jury investigations all of which have found that 
		the bishops are incapable of dealing with the problem. Time and again 
		all reports note the preference of the bishops to protect clergy, avoid 
		scandal in preference of care of victims and the prevention of abuse. 
		
		The Catholic 
		Church’s neglectful record of sexual abuse among its ranks stands. Even 
		its current behavior is neither courageous nor realistic. Public 
		relations remain paramount. 
		
		The problem of 
		clerical sexual activity and abuse is far from over in the United States 
		Catholic Church. It is historical in epic proportions, but it is not 
		“history” as Cardinal Bertone would have us believe. 
		
		[A.W.Richard Sipe 
		has been an expert witness in over 250 civil and criminal cases of 
		sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and is the author of 7 books about the 
		celibacy of Catholic priests in the US including Sex, Priests, and 
		Power: the Anatomy of a Crisis (1995) and Sex, Priests, and 
		Secret Codes: the Catholic Church’s 2000 Year Paper Trail of Sexual 
		Abuse (2006) with Fr. Thomas Doyle, and Patrick Wall.] 
      
            Back to Top  |