|
|
|
|
On July 30, 2003, the Archdiocese of Boston published a new version of its Policies and Procedures for the Protection of Children, which it had originally promulgated on May 30, 2003. The only discernable purpose of these revisions is to prevent victims of clergy sexual abuse from obtaining information relating to the Archdiocese's internal investigation of their claims. These revisions do not conform to any previously publicized schedule of updates to the policy, nor were they ever officially announced by the Archdiocese. As reported by WBUR, the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe,* neither the Law Commission, which was appointed in 2002 to help the Archdiocese develop a new sex abuse policy, nor the eleven-member board that was later appointed to oversee implementation was informed of the alterations. A new "Decree of Promulgation," which was issued on June 26 by Bishop Richard Lennon, the interim leader who took over after Cardinal Bernard Law's resignation, stated that "certain revisions to the text have been completed and approved." However, Archdiocese officials have yet to identify anyone who approved of the policy document that was posted to the Archdiocese web site at the end of July. Evidence gathered by the Coalition of Catholics and Survivors suggests that the document was slightly revised in June, but that the major changes that we recently discovered were not made until several weeks later, after a complainant, Paul R. Edwards, attempted to obtain his records in late July. The Archdiocese's conflicting answers to questions makes it difficult to trace the timeline. However, all available evidence indicates that the new limitations placed on complainants' access to records came in direct response to Edwards' request for information related to the Archdiocese's internal review of his allegations against the late William J. Cummings and Monsignor Michael Smith Foster, a top canon lawyer with significant influence over the policy that has been changed.
Here is the text of Paul Edwards' request for his file:
Susan Gallagher, a member of the Coalition of Catholics and Survivors, which has been advocating for Edwards over the past year, helped Edwards draft his letter by supplying him with relevant passages from the Archdiocese's policy document. In anticipation of Edwards' request, Gallagher called the Rev. Robert Oliver, who played a central role in writing the Policies and Procedures, as well as the Rev. Sean Connor, the RCAB's investigator of sex abuse cases, a few days before the letter was sent to see if the Archdiocese would give Edwards access to his file. Neither Oliver nor Connor provided any definitive answer, but neither mentioned that the policy had been changed. In her conversations with both Oliver and Connor, Gallagher made it clear that Edwards' request was based on specific stipulations in the Policies and Procedures that provided complainants access to "information generated in the course of investigations," as well as "an opportunity to examine written documents used in making decisions." Gallagher also pointed out to both Connor and Oliver that these stipulations were particularly important in Edwards' case because the Archdiocese shut down its investigation without reaching any conclusions about his allegations against Cummings and without providing any explanation for its reinstatement of Foster last year.
On the evening of July 27, two days after Edwards sent his letter, the
Archdiocese created a new version of the Policies and Procedures, and on
July 30, this new version was posted to its website. In keeping with
this scenario, on September
17, the homepage of the Archdiocese indicated that the policy had been
updated on July 30, 2003, the day of Sean Patrick O'Malley's installation
as the new Archbishop of the Archdiocese.
Late on September 17, immediately after Archdiocese officials were alerted to this information, the Archdiocese website was changed. Now, the hyperlink to the Policies and Procedures indicates that the update was made on June 30, 2003. To explain this chain of events, Archdiocese officials claim that the new policy was completed and printed in June, but that they didn't get around to posting the web version until July 30. Also, they apparently did not distribute the June version to anyone, including the members of the advisory board, although some members received copies in August, after the July version had been placed on the Internet. In other words, there is no evidence to support the contention that these substantial revisions were made in June, and a great deal of evidence that suggests that the policy was not significantly altered until the end of July. Selection from screen shot, 9/17/03
The Revisions The revisions in the July 30 document specifically target the stipulations cited in Edwards' request for his file. In the previously published version, Article 4, subsection 2.6 specified that both the accuser and the accused would be given access to information related to the investigation of allegations:
In the new version, subsection 2.6 has been deleted and the list of persons given access to information has been moved to subsection 3. The complainant, the accused person, and their legal representatives have been removed from the list:
Article 7, subsection 3.1, which Edwards also cited in his request for his records, has been similarly changed. The previously published policy stipulated: Competent and unbiased persons will uphold due process by a fair, objective, and thorough examination of the complaint. The complainant and the person whose conduct is being investigated will receive due notice of investigations and proceedings, an opportunity to examine written records that will be used in making decisions, and protection of the right to hierarchic recourse and appeal, in accord with the norms of Church law. In the new version, subsection 3.1 remains the same except that the phrase, "an opportunity to examine written records that will be used in making decisions," has been deleted.
Article 8, which was not mentioned in Edwards' letter, has also been rewritten. In subsection 2.1, the previous version listed "the right to due notice of proceedings and an opportunity to examine written records of proceedings and decisions" among "the rights and obligations of persons involved in an ecclesiastical investigation."
In the new version, the phrase, "an opportunity to examine written records," has been deleted from subsection 2.1, which addresses the rights of accusers, and moved to subsection 2.2, which deals with the rights reserved to accused Church employees: Further, the rights and obligations of an accused person include:
Another subsection, appearing under Article 9 of the previously published policy, which also was not cited in Edwards' letter, has undergone the same revisions. In the old version, under the heading, "Rights and Obligations of the Complainant and the Accused Cleric," subsection 3.1 specified that complainants had a "the right to due notice of proceedings and an opportunity to examine written records of proceedings and decisions."
In the new version, the phrase, "the right to examine written records of proceedings and decisions," has been removed from the list of complainants' rights and placed in subsection 3.2, which deals specifically with the "rights of accused clerics." In other words, access to written records has been taken away from accusers and reserved to accused priests.
Immediate Implications
The Archdiocese's latest effort to deprive victims of basic rights not only indicates a return to old patterns of secrecy and deception, it also conveys contempt for Attorney General Tom Reilly's findings in his comprehensive report on clergy sexual abuse. Commenting on the May version of the RCAB's Policies and Procedures, Reilly concluded that the system "protects priests at the expense of victims and, in the final analysis, is incapable of leading to timely and appropriate responses to sex abuse allegations. It is imperative that the Archdiocese provide a rigorous investigation and discipline that does not favor alleged abusive priests over their victims." (p. 18)
In direct defiance of the Attorney General's recommendations, the Archdiocese has chosen to strengthen the position of predatory priests by further weakening victims' limited ability to pursue their claims.
The RCAB may try to justify its actions by pretending that giving accusers access to information jeopardizes the good name of priests who are subjected to false allegations. However, we should keep in mind that the information made available to accusers under the old policy was strictly limited to facts relevant to specific investigations. If those facts proved the falsity of the charges, disclosure would restore, rather than damage, the accused priest's reputation in the public eye.
We should also note that there has not been a single false allegation received in the Archdiocese of Boston since the scandal broke in 2002. There has been one case of misidentification, and cases in which there was insufficient evidence to prove allegations, but in the one case that was judged to arise from a false accusation, that of Paul Edwards, was actually never resolved.
Moreover, the RCAB changed its policy on access to information immediately after Edwards attempted to exercise his rights. While Archdiocese officials may try to defend this as pure coincidence, it should be remembered that Edwards accused Monsignor Michael Smith Foster, a powerful canon lawyer with direct influence over the policy that has just been changed.
Indirect Implications
While this surreptitious shift contradicts Archbishop Sean O'Malley's media image as a friend to those molested by clergy, it accords with the imperious terms of the memorandum of understanding created in negotiations between victims' lawyers and the Archdiocese.
Despite repeated media reports that the memorandum calls for the Archdiocese to fund "lifetime therapy" for victims, the document does not mention secular psychological services. Instead, as if the Archdiocese might otherwise abandon its pastoral mission, the memorandum only promises victims continued access to spiritual counseling and spiritual direction.
Likewise, despite the widespread impression that the settlement agreement represents a significant change in the Archdiocese's traditional efforts to maintain complete command over victims, the memorandum of understanding pulls a few more victims into the Church's internal power structure, but fails to permit any independent experts to step in to make certain that victims' rights have been respected and that allegations have been properly addressed.
Thus, like the Archdiocese's new Policies and Procedures, the terms of the settlement agreement preclude secular supervision and fly in the face of the Attorney General's report. Clearly, now is the time for Tom Reilly, as well as political leaders, child advocates, anti-violence groups, legal experts, psychological services providers, and ordinary citizens, to stand with victims to help us stop the Archdiocese from recreating the system that allowed so many predators to commit so many vicious crimes.
Let’s Not Repeat the Past: Support Independent Outreach, Advocacy & Oversight For Victims of Clergy Sexual abuse |
