Print This Article

The Bishops and Priest Sex Abuse - Here In Colorado
Originally published in E-Leaven, November 19, 2009, Issue 20

Editors' note: The US Bishops are at their annual fall meeting this week, and seem to be “feeling their cheerios.” At least that’s the impression one gets from a report on the meeting sent out yesterday morning (Nov. 18) by the National Catholic Reporter. Under the headline “Bishops claim moral authority amidst widespread 'confusion,” NCR reports that: “While acknowledging some lingering damage from the abuse scandal, the bishops here have forcefully asserted their role as moral arbiters for the nation's 67 million Catholics. In fact, church members who seek independence from the Catholic hierarchy are "less than fully Catholic," Cardinal Francis George, the bishops' president, said Monday.”

Of particular interest for this issue of Leaven is the fact that the Bishops heard a preliminary report from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice on the study of the sexual abuse crisis which they had commissioned. The key “news” item in that report is the finding that there is no direct link between homosexual orientation and abuse – or, said differently, instances of abuse are as significant among heterosexuals as among homosexuals. Also of special interest, given the substance of this issue, is a comment by Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, S.D. Noting the [reported] decline in accusations against Catholic priests, Cupich said the report shows that "the worst of this is behind us ... I think it's safe to say that there is no safer place for a child today than in the Catholic church."

We suspect that Jeb Barrett, Director of Denver SNAP (The Survivor’s Network of those Abused by Priests) might disagree with Cupich’s seemingly self-serving claim. Our issue presents an article by Barrett about a current legal case against the Pueblo Diocese. Following the article are Barrett’s answers to questions posed by Leaven. The article and the answers make a lengthy report – focusing especially on continuing episcopal efforts to cover up their handling of past abuse and the dangers for the present of such failure in “transparency.” Given Barrett’s special mention of Archbishop Chaput, we’ll be sending a copy of this issue to Chaput and will later report any response we receive.

In October 2009, another in a long and seemingly endless series of child sex abuse and cover up lawsuits was filed in Colorado. A man reported having been molested by two Pueblo priests—Fr. Andrew Burke and Fr. John F. Martin. This is the first public suit against Martin and the second against Burke.

Every single case is of course terribly tragic, and represents another once healthy and innocent child who has almost certainly carried horrific pain within himself or herself for decades.

But what makes the recent litigation suit especially noteworthy is how church officials are responding to it.

Last month, the Pueblo Diocese successfully persuaded a judge to seal Burke's personnel file. Now they are trying to seal also any depositions that might be taken in the current case. Meanwhile, as this takes place, Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput, Colorado’s top Catholic official, sits silently.

There are just four problems with this. First, it further hurts already wounded adults who, as kids, were molested, abused, raped. Second, it endangers innocent children who might yet be molested. Third, it thwarts healing by lay Catholics. Finally, it violates the church's national abuse policy, which allegedly mandates "openness" and “transparency” in clergy sex cases.

Most victims of clergy sex crimes cannot or do not take legal action against the clerics who have assaulted them or the bishops who concealed the wrongdoing. However, those who do so file lawsuits out of a strong desire to see that the truth be exposed. When bishops seek and win gag orders that prevent such disclosure, they essentially rub more salt into the already deep and wounds of clergy sex abuse victims.

Such disclosures not only help us to understand past crimes, they almost always help in deterring future crimes. Time and time again, when victims, prosecutors or journalists gain access to diocesan records on pedophile priests, such documents reveal the names of church staffers who ignored or concealed information about predators. Surprisingly often, those complicit church workers have risen within the Catholic hierarchy, or left the church to take similar positions around kids in schools, camps, day care centers or social service agencies. Common sense and painful history tell us that if someone conceals crimes and gets by with it, he is likely to do so again. So children continue to be at risk when a complicit priest becomes a bishop or leaves the priesthood and becomes a public school principal, continuing to cover-up sexual misconduct.

It isn’t only the victims who are hurt by bishops' secrecy. Millions of America Catholics continue to feel outraged, disillusioned and saddened by the church's on-going child sex abuse and cover up crisis. How can they begin to heal when the very practice that caused the scandal—secrecy—is still commonplace? How can they begin to feel reassured when they see their generous donations funding the same shortsighted and self-serving legal defense strategies that have ultimately led to massive jury verdicts and widespread public scorn?

Finally, on a purely moral and philosophical level, how can church officials reconcile legal maneuvers to protect themselves and their secrets with the US bishops’ child sex abuse policy of 2002, in which they pledged to be "transparent" in such matters regarding predator priests?

When the court granted the church hierarchy's request that the alleged predator's files be sealed, we in SNAP publicly called on Chaput to denounce this clear and inexcusable retreat into further secrecy. We appealed to Chaput for help because he is the highest-ranking church official in Colorado, and he is likely the shepherd for some of Burke's victims who were abused elsewhere but are now living in the Denver area. He has a website, diocesan newspaper, dozens of parish bulletins, and many staff, who could spread the word about Burke and beg anyone he hurt to come forward and get help.

Chaput could do what Jesus did and would do—do all he can to alleviate pain. On the other hand, he could duck, dodge, and deny his power and his duty. He could do what’s easiest, act like a bureaucrat, and 'pass the buck' to Pueblo church officials, Burke's official employer; or he can rise to the occasion, act like a true leader and pastor, and reach out to the wounded, doing all he can to find and offer help to those molested by Burke or any other church employee—priest, nun, seminarian, bishop or lay worker. Even though Chaput is not formally a party to this litigation, he could and should denounce the efforts of his Colorado colleagues to keep secrets about Burke’s misdeeds. It is wrong for church officials to violate their promises and hide records about predator priests. Chaput knows this, and he can and should publicly denounce the Pueblo Diocese’s secrecy order. Can Chaput force his Pueblo colleagues to stop playing legal hardball and start being honest? No. Can he express public disdain when church bureaucrats in his state play legal hardball and act dishonestly? Yes.

We beg Colorado's bishops, each of them, to chart a new course, show real courage, stop splitting tiny hairs, parsing small words and making arbitrary distinctions. We beg them to act like real shepherds and invite anyone who saw, suspected or suffered clergy sex crimes to come forward and get help. For the healing of victims and all Catholics, they can and should do what is right—but nothing changes if nothing changes.

Questions posed by Leaven with Barrett’s responses:

# 1: What were the diocese’s reasons for requesting sealing of records and what were the court’s reasons for agreeing with the request and what effect does such a decision have on the litigation?

We believe the Diocese’s motives are to avoid public embarrassment, outrage and awareness of the way they (mis)handled pedophile priests and how they have responded to the problem of clergy sexual abuse. In the motion, they argued privacy reasons of the priest, but we are talking about a deceased priest who shot himself when media first wrote about the abuse. The facts of the abuse were already public knowledge -- the only new facts were their handling of the priest.

Attorneys for the victims were able to get the records for use in litigation so they can question certain witnesses about the contents of the file, but the greatest impact on litigation is that when the media have access to the records and report on any cover-up, other witnesses often come forward.

It has been our experience that the Church will go to great lengths to keep their secrets secret. They fear that people will find out just how much they knew and how little they did to protect innocent kids. It is a known fact that every major settlement has come just days before a case was due to go to trial. Church officials would rather settle than be forced to testify in open court.

When cases like this go to trial, discovery is then possible, documents are revealed, and the truth comes out—but Church officials fear the truth. So, when records are sealed, children continue to be at risk. On the other hand, openness and transparency allow predators to be named and children protected.

The Pueblo Diocese will likely tell you that their rationale is something like this, “We need to protect the privacy of all involved until we can arrive at the truth.” But where is the truth if not in their records?

Impact of court’s decision: The court's order effectively prevents the media from detailing the cover-up, so witnesses may be less likely to come forward. More importantly, without being publicly shamed for how they have handled this situation, the Diocese is less likely to handle a similar situation any differently the next time it comes up.

# 2: Can you give us more detail about the USCCB’s “transparency” policy – what did the Bishops agree to (their wording and reasons) and are Pueblo and Chaput in conflict with the letter of that policy, or only with the spirit of the policy?

The USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) revised the Dallas Charter (the church’s national child sex abuse policy) in 2005, and in this document we can no longer find the word "transparency" any place. But given their promises to the world in June of 2002 (and frequently since then), to be “open and transparent” in child sex cases, they have violated the spirit and letter of the policy. The document is 41 pages long and written in a blend of legal/bureaucratic/church language. Of course, the hierarchy and their attorneys will now tell us that it should not take either as an "official policy," which would be to say that they will protect the most innocent and vulnerable members of our community.

# 3: Could you give us some sense of the time involved in this litigation – when are hearings, etc. scheduled; when is some decision projected?

It is almost impossible to project how long this litigation will take, since church officials often delay proceedings for as long as possible. They bury victims and their attorneys in paperwork and motions, not in an attempt to find the truth, but to discourage and overwhelm them in the hope they will make a mistake or simply give up. They will spend thousands of donors’ dollars on legal maneuvers, rather than help the victims. It has been our experience that their goal is not justice, by keeping their secrets. They fear that parishioners and the community will find out how much they knew all along, and how little they have done to protect kids. If we had to bet, we’d bet the case settles eventually, but it will be at least a year from now. One case in Pennsylvania lasted 17 years!

Top of Page