Fr Flannery, the ACP and victims of clerical sexual
offenders .
This reflection by Dr Kennedy Phd follows on from
the publication on the ‘Association of Catholic Priests’ website the ACP
discussions with the NBSCC.
Published on website 5th March 2014
The following items were raised by the ACP members:
1. Audits of dioceses and Religious Communities. We
stressed that this put the members of the NBSCCC in a very powerful position,
since, because of the publicity each tranche of audits receives, they amount to
a public rating of the bishop or superior. And the content of the audit can
have major impact on the lives of individual priests. We attempted to impress
on them the seriousness of their role, and encouraged them to act with
compassion.
2. We raised the difficulties around historical
allegations, and the fact that many older priests are excluded from ministry
because of a mistake or mistakes they made in their earlier life, and where
there was no pattern of re-offending. We questioned the justice of this, and
the witness it gives from a Church, one of whose core teachings is mercy and
forgiveness.
3. We brought up once again the reality of false
allegations, as we are experiencing them in our work with the ACP.
4. We acknowledged that the process by which
priests are asked to step aside from ministry when an allegation is made
against them has improved, and we discussed how it could be made even better.
We had what the politicians would call ‘a frank and
open discussion’, and we did not agree on every issue. But we concluded that
meetings between us are useful and important, and that they should be
continued.
ACP Leadership
____________________________________________
Dr Margaret Kennedy PhD responds to ACP
‘representations’ (posted on ACP website)
It seems to me
that the ACP 'representatives' (2!) have failed utterly to reflect on how their
'representation' impacts on the hearts, minds and souls of victims of clergy
sexual abuse. The Church has always taken a position of 'paramouncy' for
CHILDREN when issues of protection of children arise. The ACP does not reflect
in its 'representation' the harm done to victims of clergy sexual abuse ,
instead it uses words such as 'mistakes' for child rape, buggery and sexual
violation. It is time priests understood the nature of 'mistakes' and realise
that the use of this language minimizes the very great harm done to children
and young people. Having 'compassion' seems to equate with 'forgetting' what
older sex offender priests have done, 'letting them off', ignoring the acts of
violation they committed. We in fact have no way of knowing whether or not
there were 'patterns of reoffending' by older priests since transparency has
not been the marker of the Bishops to date. Many were never even reported to
police, and many never even investigated by police.
Bringing up
the old chestnut of 'false allegation' is a serious slander on the 92%-97% of
victims whose story is true. Time after time research shows very low statistics
of around 2% - 7% (depending on the research modality) of alleged 'false
allegations'.
Could it be that the ACP in 'bonds of
brotherhood' have stepped beyond the 'bonds of justice'. If the ACP really want
to heal wounds, really want to be a force of ministry for victims of clergy
sexual abuse then it needs to 'wake up' to this constant 'compassion' for
perpetrators and move towards 'compassion for truth, honesty, transparency, and
justice.' The ACP has done themselves a huge disservice and in these comments
have not represented the large number of good priests who reject this insular,
tight, inward looking 'bonds of brotherhood' at the expense of all the good
that has been achieved in opening up and transparency by the some in the
Church. It is disappointing in the extreme to hear the 'flavour' of this
discourse. It surely won't be mending hurt souls! But of course that was not
the intention.
Later….Fr
Flannery adds a clarification
CLARIFICATION
I wrote the above report on behalf of the ACP. I fully accept that the
word ‘mistake’ was not the best choice of word in the circumstances. Let me
explain what I was attempting to say:
Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, in a recent interview, described the
traditional seminary training as very damaging of the human person, taking
young men in to junior, followed by senior, seminary, and sending them out as
priests in their mid-twenties with the emotional and sexual development of
teenagers. “It was inevitable that they would be attracted to teenagers”, he
said.
At the meeting we were referring to cases like this, where these very
immature young priests got into a relationship of this nature.
In some cases this was the only time in their lives that they crossed
the line. There were no further allegations made against them.
I believe that depriving these men of ministry and publicly shaming them
is a questionable form of justice.
Tony Flannery
Dr Margaret Kennedy’s response to Fr Flannery’s ‘clarification’.
Fr Flannery is digging himself into an even
deeper hole in his ‘clarification’. It
is true certain people trying to understand clergy sexual abuse reach for
‘reasons’ that pardon the offender.
The theory of ‘sexual immaturity’ as ‘cause’
of clerical sexual abuse first muted by Richard Sipe and used by others,
Flannery here quotes Bishop Robinson; however these are ‘theories’ that can be
challenged.
Flannery is suggesting that clergy sex
offenders and abusers of the past are to be viewed as ‘teenagers’, not ‘adults’
at all. In this theory therefore the
priest and child are equal ‘partners’ and no crime is committed. (teenagers are
children in law and as such are protected by law and in past years the age of
consent was 21!). Over 21 you were
deemed adult with adult understanding of ‘right and wrong’. Priests were not exempt from the status of
‘adulthood’! Nor exempt from criminal
law statutes.
Neither Sipe, nor Robinson, both of whom I
know and have met , have ever postulated that such sex offender priests should
be absolved of their crime due to ‘sexual immaturity’ a suggestion both Fr
Flannery and the ACP seem to make.
Fr Flannery therefore ‘clarifies’ such abuse
of power and sex as ‘relationships’ not crimes. He tries to rationalize an
‘equality’ between teenager (victim) and alleged ‘teenager’ (sex offender)
priest! He rejects all notion of
priestly power, status, honour and deifying that was common (and still is,
though diminishing) in past time times, particularly strong in Ireland, which
gave priests POWER to abuse without sanction or criticism, let alone reporting
or prosecution.
He conveniently leaves out how such allegedly
‘sexually immature’ priests were adequately mature enough to manipulate, coerce
and threaten many a teenager into acquiescence and powerlessness. ‘The fear of God’ was powerful, as priests
were seen as God himself, or at least had the close ‘ear’ of God.
These alleged ‘sexually immature’ priests
certainly knew what they did was wrong and certainly knew how to silence
victims. Indeed sex was forbidden in canon law (celibacy) and with children
since the council of Elvira; The
exact date is disputed, but some scholars believe it was held either about
300–303 or in 309.
Sex
with children (at that time) under 21, then under 18, was a criminal act. Something Flannery wants deleted from the
history. He also tries to obliterate the
cover-up that left these sex offender priests in ministry for so long, and some
are STILL in ministry.
Fr
Flannery then writes on his Blog after angry responses to the ACP’s
‘representation to the NBSCCC (see Association of Catholic Priests ‘comments’
section. (Underscored
sections to be discussed by Dr Kennedy)
How can we balance justice
for both abused and clerical abuser?
I see I have drawn the ire
of certain spokespersons for the victims of clerical sexual abuse by the report
on the ACP website of our meeting with the NBSCCC. (The report can be
found in its category on the ACP website) I was trying to highlight an
issue that I regard as needing some open discussion in this whole sorry saga of
clerical child sexual abuse. Priests who, having come out of the seminary
with the emotional and sexual maturity of a teenager, due to the terribly
restrictive nature of the recruitment and training, got involved in some form
of relationship with a teenage girl. Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, in a recent
talk, suggested that as a result of the training this was something that was a
real possibility. These types of relationships, I presume, varied
greatly; sometime doing a great deal of harm, and other times causing lesser
damage. I suggested that a priest, who managed to put that period of his
life behind him, and who had no further allegations of any nature against
him, maybe should not now be publicly shamed and removed from his ministry
– often forty years or more later. This is not to diminish the pain that the
person making the allegation may have suffered because they may not have been
able to put the experience behind them. However I think that it is
necessary to distinguish between justice and retribution.
Some of my friends tell me
I am a fool to engage in this type of debate. They say that there is one
dominant narrative on this topic, and it is impossible to challenge it even in
the slightest. They are probably right, and I find myself comparing it in some
way to my experience with the Vatican, who also had one way of looking at
things and insisted that this way could not be challenged.
But since I myself
experienced sexual abuse as a young boy over a period of time, I believe that
maybe I have some right to have my say on the topic.
A couple of things I have
learned from this whole experience.
·
It is impossible to measure
fully what effect sexual abuse in your early year has had on you. I have no
doubt that it influenced my life, and probably was an underlying factor in some
of the major decisions I have made.
·
I would never want to call
myself a victim. Psychologically that would, I believe, be a very
damaging self-image to have. It could so easily cause a person to get locked
into that part of one’s life, and never be able to move on. That would have a
devastating effect on one’s growth and development, which to me is the
primary purpose of life.
·
While it certainly affected
me, I don’t tend to regard that experience as the most difficult of the many
problems I have had to face in the course of my life. I am not suggesting
that should be the case for everyone; I am only saying what it has been for
me. I am conscious of the fact that anything up to half a million people
in this country have experience child sexual abuse. We only hear from a
tiny fraction of those, so it is hard to make any generalised statements
without further research.
·
There is a tendency among
some to measure degrees of suffering, and to suggest that one form of trauma is
worse than another. I do not agree. Suffering is a very personal thing,
and only the individual can measure the degree of difficulty a particular
suffering brings to his or her life.
·
I think I can truly say
that I genuinely do not hold any bitterness or resentment against the man
who abused me, and is now long dead. I hope he is at peace. Life has
taught me, as it teaches many, that bitterness and resentment are destructive
of the person, and every effort should be made to overcome them.
So that is where I am
coming from. In my work with the ACP over the past three years I have listened
to the stories of a great many old priests whose lives have been shattered by
the visitation of an accusation from the distant past. It is not in my nature
not to feel sympathy for them, and to question the quality of justice that is
being operated at present by the Church in dealing with them. While in the past
it tried to deny the reality of abuse of children by priests in order to
preserve the good name of the institution, I believe the way it treats certain
priest is now also unjust, and is done for the same motive.
Dr Margaret Kennedy responds to Fr Flannery’s position as stated
on his blog.
I will here
respond to Fr Flannery’s comments which I have underlined above since I have
addressed the issues of alleged ‘sexual immature clergy’ earlier.
In the title
of his blog he refers to a group of people as
‘Abused’: I'd say to
Father Flannery 'mind your language' . We are NOT 'abused' we are ‘abused PEOPLE'
. Our label is Human Person, children teenagers who were abused. We do NOT end
up in some separate category 'abused', a bit like the times of the leper.
Fr Flannery suggests that
old priests; ‘who managed to put that period of his life behind him, and who had no further allegations of any
nature against him, should not be publically shamed or removed from
ministry.
This is a highly dangerous
position. Fr Flannery basis his theory on ‘immaturity’ rather than ‘sex
offending’. He conjectures that there were no further offences beyond the
‘immature’ ‘once off’, again conjecture.
Many of these priests were
never reported, never investigated, never known about. Many WERE known about
(e,g, Brendan Smyth) and allowed with impunity to continue in ministry to abuse
again and again. We do not positively
know whether or not Fr Flannery’s cohort of ‘immature ‘priests were/are life-long
closet paedophiles, sex offenders, abusers!? How does he know? It is pure conjecture.
Fr Flannery wants us to be clear about the ‘necessary to distinguish
between justice and retribution’.
No, Fr Flannery’s position is that we must accept old priests came from
seminaries as ‘immature teenagers’ and therefore should not be subjected to
JUSTICE at all! He excuses the sex
offences. Victims and survivors are not seeking ‘retribution’ in the sense of a
call to ‘string ‘em all up’ (without any justice at all) as Fr Flannery
implies, we call for honesty, justice, transparency, openness and above all a
clear knowledge of how sex offender priests operated in the past and still do.
Without the knowledge of sex offender behavior we will continue to have
Fr Flannery’s of the clerical caste excuse priests as somehow harmless ‘immature
teenagers’.
Fr Flannery then suggests he has rights to his discussion… ‘But since
I myself experienced sexual abuse as a young boy over a period of time, I
believe that maybe I have some right to have my say on the topic’
Of course Fr Flannery has ‘rights to have his say on the topic’, we all
do, but he has no additional rights because he was abused himself. He is using his status as ‘abused person’ to
flog a dangerous theory that old priests were merely ‘immature teenagers’. That’s how he wants to portray past sex
offender behavior and that is denial. Straight after his admission of being abused himself he decries the label
‘victim’.
- I would never want to call myself a
victim. Psychologically that would, I believe, be a very damaging
self-image to have. It could so easily cause a person to get locked into
that part of one’s life, and never be able to move on. That would have a
devastating effect on one’s growth and development, which to me is
the primary purpose of life.
Fr Flannery
dislikes the word ‘victim. 'Victim' is a
perfectly adequate word to use and holds no stigma whatsoever, nor does it mean
we are tainted by 'victimhood' or again having a label or 'disease'. Nor does
it mean that if we call ourselves a ‘victim’ that we have chosen a ‘damaging
self-image’ or become ‘locked in’ never able to ‘move on’. This again is an erroneous use of the word
‘victim’. It is also patronizing and judgmental. Many victims, yes, VICTIMS, cannot move on, not
because they identify as victims, no, but because the harm of
child/teenager rape, buggery, sexual assault has severely impacted on their
lives. To ignore this simplifies the discourse of harm and places the onus of
recovery on the victim, himself/herself.
The word
'victim' means just that; we were victims of a predatory priest. We were not at
fault, we did nothing wrong!
Saying we were
victims does not mean we are victims forever. At the time of our abuse
we WERE victims! So why worry over the word 'victim'.
When those who
have been sexually abused continue to talk about their abuse or campaign for
safety of children, or criticize Church authorities, we are not ‘locked in to
victimhood’. This seems to be Fr
Flannery’s thesis, inference. We are NOT operating from a ‘damaged
self-image’. The label ‘victim’ is NOT a
self-image.
The damaged
‘self-image’ was planted by the sex offender so that he could get off
scot-free! It was necessary to damage the victim’s self image so that they
would not talk. It was deliberate harm.
Damaged
self-image remains in those who were abused who believe still, that they caused
it, or were at fault, or could have done something about it, or who feel dirty,
tainted, repulsed by their own sexuality, body and intimacy. That is a damaged self-image, damaged often
by the very priests Fr Flannery posits as ‘immature teenagers in an adult
body’. Using the word ‘victim’ does not damage self-image, it
liberates from self blame. .
Interestingly
Fr Flannery shifts the ‘blame’ for a damaged self-image away from the
perpetrator and onto the victim who continues to call themselves a victim. They harm themselves, is his theory, by
calling themselves ‘victims’ and not ‘moving on’.
I suggest this
part of his discussion that victims don’t ‘move on’ is related to his need to
exonerate old priests who according to him were ‘immature teenagers in adult
bodies’ who only transgressed once! If we
‘moved on’ he could proceed to exonerate sex offenders.
Yet he follows the ‘victim’
discussion by saying we cannot really know how those who have been abused feel
….so it is hard to make any generalised statements without further research. Yet he already states his views on
‘victims’.
His final
message he preaches (yes, it all sounds like a sermon) is:
·
I think I can truly say
that I genuinely do not hold any bitterness or resentment against the man
who abused me, and is now long dead. I hope he is at peace. Life has
taught me, as it teaches many, that bitterness and resentment are destructive
of the person, and every effort should be made to overcome them.
This is
sanctimonious and devised as a cruel jibe towards victims unable to feel as he does. Just because he feels this
was this doesn't mean WE should. Does he want us all on guilt trips? We are NOT good Catholics!?
·
that bitterness and
resentment are destructive of the person, and every effort should be made to
overcome them.
This I can
resonate with to a certain degree, but I am not about to tell victims they have
no right to be bitter, no right to be resentful…their lives as children and as
teenagers were met with a blow so devastating that simplistic pontifications to
overcome ‘bitterness and resentment’ is simply not my role to advise. Much bitterness and resentment has stemmed
from how the CHURCH HIARARCHY has handled the victims allegations, have dragged
victims through the mill of courts, litigation, secrecy, pressure and
deliberate stonewalling , obfuscation and bullying
After sexual
abuse by a priest, followed by denial and abuse by the hierarchy, followed by
cover-up and secrecy, bullying and gag-orders, I’d say every Catholic victim
has every right be to bitter and resentful.
Fr Flannery’s PREACHING
style is offensive, he shows none of the compassion he has for ‘old priests’
who were ‘immature teenagers’ (according to him) whom we are all pillorying,
unjustly and viciously towards victims. Instead he preaches how victims should
behave, feel and ‘move on’.
May I suggest
Fr Flannery spend much more time with victims as he seems to be sorely divided
from them.
Dr Margaret
Kennedy PhD
Specialist
Consultant and advisor on Clergy Sexual Abuse
Victim &
Survivor
No comments:
Post a Comment