Preventing child abuse must outweigh fears about Catholic Church - Social Affairs & News from Ireland & Abroad | The Irish Times - Mon, Mar 31, 2014

Preventing child abuse must outweigh fears about Catholic Church - Social Affairs & News from Ireland & Abroad | The Irish Times - Mon, Mar 31, 2014



Marie Collins speaks about being the only survivor on Vatican commission.



Good Luck Marie...you are going to need it!  You have my support.

Irish abuse protesters complain at treatment by Vatican police

Irish abuse protesters complain at treatment by Vatican police



Just a reminder of 2010 when myself & Brendan Butler were 'detained' in St Peter's square. This in light of new Vatican commission on child abuse

Italy's bishops pass Vatican-backed rule that child molestation does not have to be reported - Europe - World - The Independent

Italy's bishops pass Vatican-backed rule that child molestation does not have to be reported - Europe - World - The Independent



Very counter to new Vatican commission....are we dealing with two-faced Vatican policies.  worrying and alarming and DOES NOT bode well for commission which I still think a waste of time, but ....well I was going to say 'but I'm trying to be hopeful'.  But I'm a doubting Thomas.  SHOW me real ACTION and I'll believe in it.

British paper suspends writer who looked forward to Benedict's death :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

British paper suspends writer who looked forward to Benedict's death :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)



not the first person to call benedict a 'rat', many survivors of abuse do so as well.

Church faces two dangers on safeguarding children - Social Affairs & News from Ireland & Abroad | The Irish Times - Sat, Mar 29, 2014

Church faces two dangers on safeguarding children - Social Affairs & News from Ireland & Abroad | The Irish Times - Sat, Mar 29, 2014



This is a quite shocking assertion; that the appointment of Marie Collins to the Vatican commission is to



 'be taken as acknowledgement of the role taken by Diarmuid Martin in combating child abuse'



Marie Collins was CHOSEN, not Diarmuid Martin.  She was chosen for who SHE is, not for what Diarmuid Martin did. 



This is, in my view an insult to Marie Collins, a survivor of Clergy Sexual Abuse, who in her own right challenged the Church and made changes.  SHE made changes. 



But for survivors NONE of our Church leaders who have done anything.



To so blatantly deny the role of survivors in challenging the Church and to ascribe Marie Collins appointment as an 'acknowledgement of Diarmuid Martin combating child abuse' is unbelievable.  

 





George Pell: Vatican said enemies of the church made abuse allegations

George Pell: Vatican said enemies of the church made abuse allegations



Now we know the views of the VATICAN

Child sexual abuse and the churches: A story of moral failure? – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Child sexual abuse and the churches: A story of moral failure? – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)



an interesting lecture giving some stats comparing catholic church priest offenders and Anglican priest offenders...and other issues.

George Pell Australia evidence to royal commission

Pell, is now moving to Rome, (where they bring all their Cardinals/Archbishops/Bishops - to reward them for the 'fine' work for The Church) .  However see his testimony from 24th and 26th March http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/

Here he ADMITS 'The Church' took precedence over a victim. 

and now Rome rewards him and sets up it's own Commission.  As one Australia posted 'thank God Pell wasn't chosen to be on it".

Church watchdog denies omissions in abuse report - Independent.ie

Church watchdog denies omissions in abuse report - Independent.ie



This is Ireland!  The guy who did so much Ian Elliott now challenging from outside.



This is what happens when the Church has the alleged 'responsibility for safeguarding'.  In the UK under Eileen Shearer The Church Safeguarding board published annual reports given statistics (not always accurate - but a start) the she left 'for personal reasons' and a lay man , (Church lackey to most of us survivors) took over.  He never liked us survivors and chose to endlessly rebuff us.  When Cumberlege did her review of Nolan she 'gave back ' responsibility to Bishops to run the show.  Since then there has been ever LESS transparency, not more! and the annual 'reports' give little information.  Transparency mean 'economy with the Truth' for the Catholic church.



And this all comes out as Rome sets up a commission on child abuse!  The startling reality of what is happening on the ground is either NOT seen by Rome or condoned. They have a huge job if Diocese such as here in Ireland or in Australia (see Pell's testimony to Royal Commission in Australia').  Rome needs to call these guys to account but won't because they say each Cardinal/Archbishop/bishop rules independently of Rome!



If that is the case 'what point Rome?'

Child sex abuse royal commission: George Pell publicly apologises to victim John Ellis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Child sex abuse royal commission: George Pell publicly apologises to victim John Ellis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)



hypocrite - he can do this just as he swanny's off to Rome!  disgusting.

Rein in the Archbishop! advice to vatican commission

Sent by Peter Isley of SNAP USA

Veteran reporter Marie Rohde in the National Catholic Reporter writing today about the so-called “treatment fund” being proposed by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to the bankruptcy court, which, if approved, would grant Archbishop Listecki’s hand-picked “doctor” virtually complete control over the mental health treatment to be dripped out to survivors of childhood sexual assault by clergy. The fund is being proposed as a way of denying compensating victims for their injuries. ... So the organization which caused the trauma and committed the fraud which has landed them in federal court should be put in control of the treatment contracts and costs of the people they harmed? Hilariously, as inferred by the archdiocese, they need to be put in charge of the fund so as to prevent its fraudulent use by victims seeking help. With 575 cases of fraud filed against them for covering up for child molesters, I guess the archdiocese is, in fact, quite knowledgeable about fraud. Dr. Terry Young, who Listecki wants to operate the fund, has no documented experience or background whatsoever in the field of sexual trauma or working with survivors. Young lists on his website and blog 10 focus areas of practice. None of them have to do with sexual abuse. There is not even one posting on his blog about the topic. He does, however, list “priestly formation” as one of his specialties, teaches at Marquette, and offers his psychological services from a “Christian” perspective. Young tells NCR he “was not selected for his beliefs.” Why else, then? That he does not say.

NCR story here: http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/survivors-supporters-voice-concerns-over-milwaukees-bankruptcy-reorganization
Earlier SNAP statement here: http://03409bc.netsolhost.com/snapwisconsin/2014/03/06/federal-judge-asked-to-approve-therapy-plan-requiring-victims-to-disclose-confidential-treatment-records-to-archdiocese/

Vatican Commission on Child Sexual Abuse

Vatican Commission on Child Sexual Abuse

‘Being Positive- Building Trust’

My first ‘reaction’ to this commission was a gut wrenching ‘oh no!’, a visceral feeling of ‘not again’.  This stems from my 25 years ‘working with’ the Catholic Church in the UK first with CSSA (Christian Survivors of Sexual Abuse) which I set up and then with MACSAS – Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors, which I also set up.

As a committed Catholic when I set up CSSA in 1989 I focused on meeting Bishops and those in ‘authority’ who could listen to what victims of abuse were saying. In 1989 I had the privilege of having as my Bishop, Bishop Victor Guazzeli, in East London.  He was naïve about the issues but tried to ‘reach out’. Coming to our first survivor conference, attending our first survivor’s liturgies and generally being a kind and supportive Bishop. It was he who facilitated  with Cardinal Hume that CSSA have an interdenominational National Service  in Westminster Cathedral in September 1994.   This service, entitled ‘Why Do You Weep’ was the first and last of it’s kind in a Catholic Cathedral. It was written by survivors for survivors. All the Bishops present and Cardinal Hume were in the front row of the cathedral congregation, whilst we, survivors, wrote and produced a beautiful service. Only WE were on the sanctuary. 600 people attended.

About this time Bishop Budd in Plymouth was spearheading policies for safeguarding children (this before Nolan). After the Nolan Commission; to which CSSA survivors contributed and gave evidence a safeguarding team was set up with Eileen Shearer, a child protection specialist as head. CSSA was often in communication with Eileen, often on committees, often sharing our situation. Eileen had full communication with us.

Then she resigned, ostensibly for ‘personal reasons’.  After this a lay man took over and thereafter communication with CSSA was ceased.

All this time I remained a solid Catholic, I was Eucharistic Minister, Catechist for first communions, was secretary to my Church SVP conference and President of another SVP conference for Deaf People. I was in a full time work as a social worker and lecturer. So I was an active Catholic survivor. Very active.

However as CSSA’s was repeatedly rebuffed and battered in our attempts to communicate with the Church officials my heart and love for ‘Church’ diminished.  Not my faith, my faith was very strong, and remains so today.

This got worse when MACSAS – ‘Minister & Clergy Sexual abuse Survivors’ was formed.  We never set out on an adversarial route.  We always wanted a ‘working relationship’ but it was simply a steel door defensive position which we could not break through. Everything we said was perceived as ‘attacking’ the Church.

Victims of Clergy sexual abuse came to us with horrendous stories of what can only be described as disgraceful behaviour from the Church officials. Who took a position of denying allegations, refusing to meet victims and when they did humiliating them or frightening them , even emotionally ‘blackmailing them’ that they would ‘destroy the Church’, ‘destroy a priest’, ‘destroy their own family…’, victims were made to feel THEY were the cause of such a terrible act and even worse was complaining about it.

After years of hearing victims stories and years of attempting to be on working parties and groups, we decided collectively the Church Hierarchy had really no intent on allowing us ‘in’ in any shape or form.    Facing what was going on was simply a non-starter.

This is why I react with scepticism to the Vatican Commission.  If victims could not be heard locally how can they be heard at the ‘head office’ so to speak?

But I have always wanted MY Church to do better.  I have longed to see change; longed to see victims loved and supported. So I cannot, if my own faith means anything, deny that there might be something about to happen.

But if truth be told…this has to be proven.  I am like doubting Thomas…show me…show me…

I feel for Marie Collins, the only victim-survivor commission member.  Many survivors are already arguing “she doesn’t represent us”, others saying “Great Marie, tell them to do this, that …”, while she is lauded as being almost single headedly likely to achieve what most victims groups worldwide have not, after 30 years, managed to achieve – i.e. change the way the Church treats victims. This is a terrible burden.

Because I respect and admire Marie Collins I hope not to burden her with any such expectations. Precisely because I know how hard her task is going to be.

But can I offer anything in my ‘sceptical mood’; can I help at all?

I decided one thing I could do was encapsulate as best I can what victims seem to want of the Church Hierarchy.

·        Who takes the centre stage?

·        Humility

·        Truth

·        Honesty

·        Transparency

·        Accountability

·        Reparation

·        Action

·        Pastoral Care

 

Who takes the centre stage?

 

It must be shown that the person at the centre is the victim. Not ‘the church’, not ‘the Pope’, not ‘the Vatican’, not clergy, not Bishops, not Cardinals, not the commission members.

Victims must have input to the commission. Victims must be heard. The Pope should invite survivor groups to Rome. We should sit around the table of Rome, we should tell Pope Francis the pain we feel and the harm done.  The ‘father’ of our Church must become ‘mother’. With a nurturing and willingness to bear that pain we will bring. Victims should be centre stage.

 

Humility

This, of course requires humility, the humility Jesus showed, the respect Jesus showed. Power must diminish in our presence. Victims must express their anger, hurt and pain in Rome. Not just one victim, but many. 

 

In 2010,  200+ victims were corralled by armed paratroopers and prevented from entering St Peters, some who individually ‘escaped’ and entered St Peters were surrounded, detained and passports removed for over an hour. I was one of them. Sitting in my wheelchair in St Peter’s, freezing cold, for over an hour, surrounded by intimidating police, I looked at St Peters and could not find Jesus.  My heart sank so very low that day.

 

This shames Rome. The whole of St Peters should be filled with victims. We should be invited to Rome, we should be there….

Truth

There can be no movement unless Rome through this commission somehow demonstrates, and by that I mean, proves, it is telling ‘The Truth’. Victims, solicitors, courts and enquiries have all experienced and can document, prevarication, lies, cover-up, movement of offender clergy, destroying of files and a deliberate effort by Church Hierarchy to hide the TRUTH.

It is going to be a monumental task to persuade us that now, in the year of the Lord, 2014 that ‘Truth’ will at last prevail.

So how can the commission begin? At the very outset the commission must confess this lack of truth. There must be a firm ‘confession’ to the people who have been directly harmed that they, the Church Hierarchy, covered-up.

No more excuses, no more denial. When every statement is pre-fixed with “we didn’t understand sexual abuse in those days”, or “we are on a steep learning curve”, or “this was a long time ago”; we hear denial, a lack of admission/confession of ‘The Truth’. The rhetoric will have to change.

Unless this ‘confession’ is made, then victims will know that ‘Truth’ is being compromised and trust cannot be built.

Honesty

This is, of course, how Truth will be heard. Honesty requires a deep commitment to Truth. A deep belief that NOTHING can be, should be, will be, hidden. The commission must ensure that all ‘lies’ of the past be confessed as a way of proving a renewal of ‘honesty’. There can be no dialogue without honesty.

Transparency

The commission cannot work knowing that files of alleged clergy sex offenders are under wraps in Rome. It cannot work knowing that there are still clergy sex offenders in Ministry, (many in foreign deprived areas of the world, such as Africa, the Philippines, and South America). 

Every ‘hidden’ clergy sex offender must be brought back for full investigation.

Every Vatican held ‘secret’ file must be given to solicitors, police and victims who are taking civil action.

The commission’s deliberations, recommendations or any advice will not bear fruit on a barren tree.  The Tree of Rome is not healthy, not alive, whilst the poison of secrecy fertilises its roots.

Accountability

The acknowledgement that Truth was not paramount in the past must be joined with accountability.  Those who held the secrets, forced the secrets, denied the truth, hid sex offenders, moved sex offenders, denied reports from victims, threatened victims, intimidated victims, frightened victims must be held to account. They must go.  A clean sweep of the ‘stench’ of cover-up must be visible and thorough. Nothing short of this will allow the Commission to achieve goals of change.

Furthermore every hidden clergy sex offender must be brought to account. Every clergy sexual offender must never be allowed back into ministry. There can be no room to allow ‘risk’ to another child. Even if perceived ‘small’, this is risk. No risk is the bottom line. 

Reparation

Now is the time to consider victims as ‘centre of the stage’. The Church must show its full aims and objectives are entirely focused on the victim. This means the Church must reconsider every court case that has been taken and fought (often viciously and harmfully against the victim) despite them knowing a priest was, in Truth, a sex offender.

It must cease these legal shenanigans, these farcical charades which are only designed to humiliate victims and save the Church.

If there is credible evidence a priest was/is a sex offender than reparation is due. Period. 

Action

‘By your actions you will be known’. ‘Action not words’

ACTION has been delayed…for too long have victims laboured for ACTION.

Words of condemnation or promises of Action; are not enough.

Services and apologies are not enough.

It’s time to DO what needs to be done. The commission must not delay. Time is of the essence both for protecting children and reparation for victims.

Too many victims have committed suicide, died or given up under the onslaught of Church in-action.

There’s no denying ‘safeguarding of Children’ within the Church is better than it ever was.  However now’s the time for Victims to be ‘centre stage’. Their needs are paramount too.

Pastoral Care

Many victims have left the Church.  We no longer attend. Sometimes this means faith in God has been lost, sometimes faith in God is still strong (my case) but we are ‘homeless’ because of the hurt. This does not mean the Church can abandon them. They are still the responsibility of the Church.

I was not abused by a Catholic Priest, my sister was. I was abused as a child by a family member, we were Mass going, practicing Catholics. When I went to a priest to talk about my childhood as an adult, the pastoral care I received from Catholic Priests was humiliating, judgemental, blaming.

Though  I sought help when an adult woman, I blamed for being abused when I was 12.

So Pastoral care of ALL victims of Child Sexual Abuse must be ‘Christ-like’, ‘affirming’, ‘caring’ and non-exploitive.

My Doctorate research on ‘Clergy sexual abuse of adult women’ (2009) found Catholic Clergy deliberately choosing and manipulating adult victims of child sexual abuse into sexual contact with the priest they sought help from.

Research shows nuns at the mercy of marauding Catholic priests worldwide.

If the commission is to have value then ALL sex offending by clergy needs to be addressed.

For every person who seeks pastoral care from a clergyman must be safe.

Pastoral Care therefore must have policies and procedures guaranteeing safety from sexual exploitation, safety from emotional harm, physical harm, financial harm and spiritual harm.

That is the task of the Church.

There is a lot more I could add but this is written from my heart.  As a way of trying to envisage ‘light at the end of the tunnel’.  Trying not to be negative.  Trying to HOPE that the hour and the day has come.

I will do everything I can to support Marie Collins. I know she will be doing her best on the Commission. I trust her heart.

Now it’s up to the commission to allow me and others trust their hearts.

Dr Margaret Kennedy PhD

Magsken57@gmail.com Tel: 0868786937

Author of ‘The Courage to Tell’ - CTBI 1999

Founder of CSSA & MACSAS (UK)

Doctoral Thesis ‘The Well from Which We Drink is Poisoned – Clergy Sexual Exploitation of Adult Women ‘

Pope's new abuse commission is another promise waiting to be broken | National Catholic Reporter

Pope's new abuse commission is another promise waiting to be broken | National Catholic Reporter



I am afraid this is my view too.  though here in Ireland people think Marie Collins will have great 'power to change'.  Much that I think Marie has challenged and done SO MUCH good, I don't think any woman has 'power' in the Vatican.



Fools Paradise to even think it!

National Confidential Forum — Survivor Scotland

National Confidential Forum — Survivor Scotland



Looks interesting

National Secular Society - The English Catholic Church and the Sex Abuse Crisis

National Secular Society - The English Catholic Church and the Sex Abuse Crisis



new book out highly recommended.

COMUNICATO DELLA SALA STAMPA: ISTITUZIONE DELLA PONTIFICIA COMMISSIONE PER LA TUTELA DEI MINORI

COMUNICATO DELLA SALA STAMPA: ISTITUZIONE DELLA PONTIFICIA COMMISSIONE PER LA TUTELA DEI MINORI



Vatican press release on the new child abuse commission.

Pope Francis appoints first anti-child abuse panel members | World | World | Mail & Guardian

Pope Francis appoints first anti-child abuse panel members | World | World | Mail & Guardian



There is an error in article Sheila Hollins (not Collins) from UK



One survivor Marie Collins from Ireland, a great campaigner, advocate but of all the other wouldn't say any of them hold credibility on child sexual abuse 'expertise'.  Being a psychiatrist does not mean you are a child abuse specialist.  Certainly theologians and Cardinals DO-NOT have child abuse knowledge , quite the contrary.



The commission looks desperately short on REAL specialists in the field.  Certainly no-one here is of a more robustly challenging nature. They don't chose THEM!



I just don't see THE POINT of the commission...



Just open your files 'your holiness' - demand transparency, uncover the secrets, report the abusers, co-operate with the law and offer justice to victims.  It ain't that hard.  This commission is a waste of money.

JOANNE McCARTHY: Applying the Jesus test | Newcastle Herald

JOANNE McCARTHY: Applying the Jesus test | Newcastle Herald



Commission of inquiry in Australia : Clergy Sexual abuse.

He stole my childhood, says victim abused from the age of 12 by his parish priest - Independent.ie

He stole my childhood, says victim abused from the age of 12 by his parish priest - Independent.ie



7 years not long enough.

Francis Hoefgen: Portrait of an abusive priest

Francis Hoefgen: Portrait of an abusive priest



the mind boggles!  the way these abusive clergy THINK!

After Seeing His Family Crumble, Vindicated Whistle-Blower Has Little to Smile About - NYTimes.com

After Seeing His Family Crumble, Vindicated Whistle-Blower Has Little to Smile About - NYTimes.com



terrible what so-called 'Holy' people do and cause so much suffering to the innocent.

this is a Jewish case



it's NOT good reading!

Clergy Sexual Abuse - Sunday Nights NLR - (ABC)

Clergy Sexual Abuse - Sunday Nights NLR - (ABC)

gosh this was 4 years ago.  time flies.  don't know if you can down load it!

Pope Francis must meet with victims of abuse. Association of Catholic Priests

Pope Francis must meet with victims of abuse. Association of Catholic Priests

Institutional abuse campaigner Christine Buckley dies - The Irish Times - Tue, Mar 11, 2014

Institutional abuse campaigner Christine Buckley dies - The Irish Times - Tue, Mar 11, 2014



Very sad news indeed.  A true fighter!

Former head of child abuse audit may sue bishop - Religious News & Affairs | The Irish Times - Sat, Mar 08, 2014

Former head of child abuse audit may sue bishop - Religious News & Affairs | The Irish Times - Sat, Mar 08, 2014



and who would I believe...Ian Elliott....a man who nearly but didn't turn around the Catholic Church in Ireland.  This guy worked his socks off to get the Catholic Church to change.  Now he's gone....there is little change!  It's reverting....backwards...



But survivors thank you, Ian, for all you've done and tried to do.

Fr Flannery , the ACP and victims of Catholic Clergy sex offenders.

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 5^th 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