|
www.catholicsandsurvivors.net Please reply to info@catholicsandsurvivors.net
Boston, MA 02135-3193
December 8, 2003
Dear Archbishop Sean, We are grateful that Archdiocese has finally settled with Paul R. Edwards in response to his sex abuse allegations against the late Rev. William J Cummings. We are, however, saddened to learn that the Archdiocese has elected to ignore Mr. Edwards’ account of the suffering that he endured at the hands of Monsignor Michael Smith Foster. We are also anxious to find out if you have decided to shut your eyes to the egregious violations of canon law and common decency that forced Mr. Edwards to drop his original lawsuit and led to Monsignor Foster’s reinstatement on October 30, 2002. Having struggled to resolve hundreds of cases involving priests who preyed upon children, you must know that the most terrifying aspect of the abuse is the overwhelming power that these predators exercise over their victims, a power that expresses itself not only in superior physical strength, social status, and spiritual authority, but also in the perpetrators’ ability to operate freely outside the rule of law. Although you may argue that the Church has changed its ways by agreeing to abide by civil and criminal statutes, what transpired in the Edwards case shows that priests such as Monsignor Foster remain beyond the reach of any discernable rules of acceptable behavior. Indeed, in this case, Monsignor Foster and his supporters not only refused to follow the norms that usually apply to investigations and flouted basic stipulations of canon law, they responded to Mr. Edwards efforts to exercise his rights under the Archdiocese’s Policies and Procedures for the Protection of Children by surreptitiously changing the policy so that all victims are now deprived of fundamental rights. Our question to you is, are you going to carry on the Archdiocese’s longstanding tradition of revictimizing victims by simply pretending that this misconduct never occurred? Monsignor Foster's effort to defend himself by viciously attacking Paul Edwards' character and credibility clearly contravened the Code of Canon Law, canon 220, which is cited in Article 7 of the Policies and Procedures for the Protection of Children, On the Protection of Rights: "No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her privacy," as well as canon 1717 §2, which is cited under the same heading: "Care must be taken so that the good name of anyone is not endangered from this investigation." Likewise, even the most cursory examination of the Archdiocese's mishandling of Edwards' complaint would show that Monsignor Foster's defenders violated the basic principles that are supposed to govern Archdiocesan investigations, for example, according to Article 9, 3.1, the rights of the complainant include the "right to have one’s good name, rights, and privacy protected." A similar defiance of ordinary standards of ethical conduct characterized the Archdiocese’s attempt to change the meaning of your letter to us on September 12, 2003, in which you stated that you had “ordered a full review” of the Edwards case. After your promise was reported in the press, your spokesperson, the Rev. Christopher Coyne, maintained that the term “full review” did not mean a “full review,” but only an examination of Mr. Edwards’ allegations against Rev. Cummings. Since then, even though the Archdiocese had earlier pledged to explain Monsignor Foster’s reinstatement, it has never provided any reason for its dismissal of Edwards charges. Instead, Rev. Coyne has simply insisted, without providing any reason or justification, that the Foster case is closed. While watching Church officials lie and stonewall in response to sex abuse charges is nothing new, we think that it is important to note that the Archdiocese’s assault of Mr. Edwards’ reputation occurred, not in the distant past when the hierarchy apparently did not know any better, but in 2002, after the sex abuse crisis in the Church had come to dominate the national press. Thus, during the fall of 2002, when one of Monsignor Foster’s most powerful allies, Dr. Ned Cassem, a Jesuit priest and former chief of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, advocated for the Monsignor by falsely maligning Mr. Edwards as a “malingerer” and a “felon,” it was clear that even in the midst of public outcry about the mishandling of sex abuse complaints, the Archdiocese was still operating under the principle that priests can safely ignore prevailing standards of ethical behavior because no one will hold them responsible for their misdeeds. If you countenance the underhanded tactics that Dr. Cassem and many others used to rob Mr. Edwards of his basic rights and restore Monsignor Foster to service, we can only infer that Archdiocese reserves its license to change or transgress both secular and sacred codes of conduct whenever it pleases. Under these circumstances, we must expect the culture of lawlessness that led to so many horrific crimes to reassert itself, and we will be back to business as usual in the Boston Archdiocese. Since we are still awaiting the results of your review of the Edwards case, we still do not know which path you will choose. Consequently, having requested you to take action over three months ago, we respectfully ask that you let your views of the Archdiocese’s handling of this matter be known without delay.
Yours truly,
Cc: The Victims’ Rights Committee for the Archdiocese of Boston Survivors First Rev. Sean M. Connor, Delegate of the Archbishop Deacon Anthony Rizzuto, Director, Office of Child Advocacy, Implementation, and Oversight Kathleen McChesney, Office of Child & Youth Protection, USCCB Thomas Hannigan, attorney, Ropes & Gray
|
