|
Child Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Catholic Church
Comments on the Draft Final Report of the Cardinal's Commission for the Protection of Children
Massachusetts Citizens for Children - July 15 2002
The Commission's draft report supports recent amendments to the Massachusetts child abuse reporting law in stating that clergy, staff, volunteers and other agents of the Church shall report to state and local officials all known or suspected cases of child abuse within 24 hours. This is a fundamental change in Church policy that if strictly adhered to will ensure the early identification and prevention of child sexual abuse by Church clergy, staff and volunteers.
The Commission's report makes no mention, however, of internal Church protocols to address violations of this new reporting policy by those in high-level and supervisory positions at the Archdiocesan or local parish levels. Given the history of complicity in past failures of Church authorities to report known cases of child sexual abuse, the detailing of specific expectations of accountability and consequences for failure to report at these levels of the Church hierarchy would have significantly strengthened the Commission's report.
In its report the Commission proposes several structures charged with the tasks of 1.) receiving and reviewing reports of abuse, and 2.) conducting investigations about those allegations. While the Commission's recommendations are intended to address "the need for institutional and systemic changes," Massachusetts Citizens for Children (MCC) is concerned that the proposed web of structures could actually discourage reports to civil authorities and cause confusion or interference with the investigative roles of the police, the Department of Social Services and the District Attorney.
The proposed structures described include: the Office of the Delegate, Child Protection Teams in every parish, a Review Board, a Victim Outreach and Advocacy Program and two other internal "teams" to investigate accused clergy and accused non-clergy within the Church.
Victim Advocacy and Outreach Program
The Victim Advocacy and Outreach Program is intended to encourage adult survivors of clergy sexual abuse to come forward to receive a variety of advocacy services and referrals to mental health treatment providers. While these intentions are laudable, a number of concerns must be raised.
Independence/Conflict of Interest:
- Can an "independently incorporated program" with an "independent board" be truly independent if it is established by the Archdiocese and must report its findings and recommendations directly to the Archdiocese?
- Would confidential information about clients and subsequent evaluations about their need for services be shared with the Archdiocese?
- How could such clients' confidentiality be protected if these clients subsequently decided to pursue legal action against the Church for past abuses?
- Would outreach to identify past victims and provide them with services be seen as a coercive way to discourage future legal action by these same victims?
Program Issues:
The Commission report states that "the program will be staffed and managed by qualified professional lay staff", yet a major emphasis is the training of volunteers to "provide compassionate support through the healing process."
- Is the program's proposed use of volunteer advocates to provide direct support services and case management appropriate given the complexity of these cases?
- Given the deep anger felt by so many victims of Church-related sexual abuse, how can the proposed Victim Outreach and Advocacy Center expect to succeed in drawing victims to its services?
- Would victims be better served and their confidentiality ensured if outreach, evaluation, advocacy and treatment services were offered to them from independent mental health service agencies and providers under fiscal contracts with the Archdiocese to provide these services?
Receiving Reports:
The draft report calls for the Victim Advocacy and Outreach Program to train Archdiocesan staff to respond to reports of abuse allegations including: "to gather essential information, prepare intake report forms, and pass the reports on to the appropriate Archdiocesan staff person." A fundamental question must be raised:
- Why is there a need to establish a training system for Archdiocesan staff to receive reports of known or suspected abuse when the primary function of receiving/screening reports of current and past child abuse are the legal responsibility of the police, the Department of Social Services and the District Attorney?
Office of the Delegate
The Commission's draft report calls for "any person" (presumably any Church member) to report suspected abuse to its Office of the Delegate for the Archdiocese. The Office is to be the keeper of all related records including intake forms, the complainant"s detailed description of the allegations, the investigative report and accompanying affidavits and documentation.
Child Protection Teams
Additionally, "Child Protection Teams" are proposed in every parish. Their function is to advise Church members who wish to make a report in "determining the appropriate avenue for reporting or in completing the report." It is unclear whether the Commission means "the report" to be the one for the Office of the Delegate or to the Police or DSS. In the latter cases, reports of child abuse or sexual assault are filed routinely by citizens without the need for their filing of a formal written report to the police or a formal 51A form submitted to DSS.
(Labeling these parish reporting advisory groups as "Child Protection Teams" (CPTs) is inappropriate since this term is used in Massachusetts to describe an existing system of multidisciplinary teams whose composition and function are related to the assessment, evaluation and treatment planning associated with substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect.)
While recommendations that the Office of the Delegate and the Child Protection Teams receive reports of abuse may be intended to assist individuals seeking to report, MCC believes they raise a number of questions:
- Would these intermediate structures, in fact, create unnecessary triplication and make the process of reporting child abuse more cumbersome and intimidating to potential reporters?
- Would individuals be discouraged from reporting at all, if they knew they might have to share their concerns with two Church-related bodies before making the required third call to the civil authorities?
- Would these multiple reporting mechanisms open the door to the potential "screening out" of suspected cases by individuals who are not legally charged with this function?
- Is there the possibility that a person making a report to the Office of the Delegate and/or subsequently to the Child Protection Team could be advised not to report to civil authorities?
- What would be the impact both legal and political if even one such report were discovered to have been "screened out"?
- If all callers to the Office of the Delegate and/or the Child Protection Team are to be referred to the police, DSS, or the District Attorney anyway, what purpose does it serve for callers to be directed to these Church-affiliated reporting mechanisms?
- Who benefits from establishing these ancillary reporting mechanisms?
- Would it be more appropriate for the police, DSS and/or the District Attorney to provide first notification to the Archdiocese about reports they receive/investigate involving abuse by Church personnel or volunteers?
- Would this notification be a more appropriate trigger to launch any internal investigation by the Archdiocese?
- Would it be appropriate for the police, DSS, and the District Attorney to develop protocols outlining how civil and internal investigations will be coordinated in the future?
MCC believes that the message from the Church to its clergy, staff, volunteers and Church members should be straightforward and clear:
1. Known or suspected cases of child abuse involving family members should be reported directly to the Department of Social Services;
2. Known or suspected cases of child abuse involving non-family members should be reported directly to the police;
3. Cases involving adult survivors of past childhood abuse committed by Church personnel should contact the District Attorney.
Educating Church members about these three key facts would be a more effective way to support parishioners, clergy, staff and volunteers in their legal obligation to report child abuse. An ongoing education effort could include posters and brochures with local reporting phone numbers prominently displayed in all Church vestibules, schools, and meeting halls. Publishing these three key facts as a permanent feature in each Church’s weekly Sunday bulletin would be another way to make reporting information clear and consistent.
Review Board
A key structure proposed by the Commission is the "independent Review Board" whose role includes examining reports of child abuse; investigating cases of alleged abuse; training clergy, staff and volunteers to conduct investigations; and, in certain cases, hiring third party investigators.
Investigations:
While the Commission report indicates that the Church will not interview child victims and will "cooperate fully with civil authorities to minimize trauma from disclosures and investigations", it also states that the Archdiocese through the Review Board will conduct "effective investigations." This raises other key questions:
- In order to conduct "effective investigations," will the Review Board interview family members and witnesses?
- What will be the impact of these interviews and investigations on child victims and on the civil investigations being conducted by the police, DSS or the District Attorney?
- What are the specific purposes served by these Archdiocesan-directed investigations?
- What are the potential problems that could result from uncoordinated, multiple investigations?
Receiving Reports:
The proposed Review Board's function is also to receive anonymous complaints about alleged abuse. The Commission's report indicates that these calls will be "recorded, trended, and reviewed" by the Board.
- Why should the Review Board solicit and/or receive reports of alleged abuse, anonymous or otherwise, when current systems (police and DSS) and their trained intake workers are already charged with the legal responsibility to receive such complaints?
When an anonymous reporter decides to place a call, it may be the only call he or she will make. Vital information may be lost if that call is improperly handled. All reports of alleged child abuse should be received by police or DSS intake workers trained and skilled in information gathering. There is simply no need for a Review Board to serve as an intermediary between the caller and the appropriate civil authorities charged by law to receive reports of child abuse. Abused children can not run the risk of having disclosures about their abuse handled by ancillary systems that have no legal mandate to perform those functions.
Composition/Selection of the Review Board:
The "Archbishop's independent Review Board" is a misnomer since its proposed formation and functions are not independent.
- Can the Review Board be independent when as the Commission's report states, its nine-member Board, as well as its chairperson and its officers are selected by the Cardinal and his Cabinet?
- Can the Review Board be independent when only one of its nine members may be a victim of sexual abuse or a family member of a victim?
- Can the Review Board be independent when the Board's administrative staff serves as a liaison to the Cardinal?
- How can the Review Board fulfill its function of determining the reassignment of clergy who have been accused of sexual abuse or sexual misconduct when their recommendations to the Cardinal are solely consultative?
- Is the Review Board proposed in the Commission's report intended to be a new entity or is it the same Review Board established in 1993 by the Archdiocese?
- If it is the same, who are its members and how many of them were involved in reviewing past cases of sexual abuse by clergy and other Church personnel in which the Review Board recommended the reassignment of sexual offenders?
Other Teams
The Commission recommends that any accused clergy meet with a "team" consisting of the Archbishop or his designee and a pastoral advocate within 48 hours of the receipt of the complaint. The accused may bring a lawyer to the meeting. It also indicates that in cases involving non-clergy Church personnel or volunteers, the Office of the Delegate or the Victim Outreach and Advocacy Program will inform the Human Resources Supervisor who will notify the accused within 48 hours and set an appointment to meet. The persistent question remains:
- What is the potential impact of internal Church-led investigations on the investigations launched by the police, DSS and the District Attorney?
Prevention
The Commission's report states that prevention of child sexual abuse is the Archdiocese's ultimate objective. It states that it "shall be the policy of the Archdiocese to educate clergy, staff, volunteers, parents, and other adults about the nature of the problem, what to watch for, and the appropriate responsive actions." Children are to be provided "school-based and religious education curricula" that teach personal safety skills. While, as described above, numerous structures are proposed to address reports and investigations, there are no structures proposed to develop prevention education plans for the Archdiocese, nor to implement and oversee them.
- What body will plan, implement and oversee these trainings?
- How will trainers and training curricula be selected and evaluated?
- What is the timeline to reach all those requiring training?
Conclusion
The Commission in its draft report has attempted to redress the wrongs of the past committed by priests and the Archdiocese by proposing policies and a number of structures intended to help the faith-based community and the general public regain trust in the Archdiocese. Abiding by the new amendments to the child abuse reporting law and implementing prevention education are important new directions supported in the Commission's report. The proposed web of structures to receive reports of abuse and investigate alleged cases, however, may work against the best interests of children and adult victims by complicating, delaying or obfuscating what should be a clear path to reporting, healing and closure.
Massachusetts Citizens for Children
July 15, 2002
|
