Monica Applewhite, a leading expert in the field of sexual abuse who has helped the Church on screening, prevention, policy development and other issues, recently gave a lengthy interview with the National Catholic Register. The interview is worth reading in full, but here are some highlights from the USCCB media blog
Calling sexual abuse “a society-wide problem most people would prefer not to address”, Applewhite lays out what she believes the Church has done right to combat it:
The Church in the U.S. is the first large-scale organisation to take two important steps toward healing and prevention of future incidents of abuse. We are the first to conduct a full prevalence study to determine how many incidents, how many victims and how many perpetrators of abuse there were from 1950 to 2002.
The John Jay College [of Criminal Justice] conducted this comprehensive research, and it is published on the USCCB website. Anyone who truly wants to know “the problem” we are facing should review the findings.
Secondly, the Roman Church is the first institution of its size to implement a full programme of accountability to ensure the implementation of its reform efforts. Again, an outside team, the Gavin Group, has conducted the audits of the dioceses.
Large-scale organisational change, deep cultural change simply does not happen without accountability.
She adds that the change in the Church’s approach to dealing with an offending priest began to change for the better well before the Dallas Charter in 2002.
As laws changed, as understanding of sexual abuse and sexual offenders developed, so did the procedures of the Church in most local dioceses and communities.
It was 1992 when the bishops first began following the “Five Principles”, which included pastoral outreach to victims, investigations and open communication with communities.
Published in 1992, the bishops’ five principles were:
1) respond promptly to all allegations of abuse
2) relieve the alleged offender promptly of his ministerial duties and refer him for appropriate medical evaluation and intervention
3) comply with the obligations of civil law as regards reporting of the incident
4) reach out to the victims and their families
5) deal as openly as possible with the members of the community.
What changed in 2002 was a dramatic improvement in uniformity, both within and across dioceses and religious communities. The toughest situations have always been when the allegation is against an extremely talented and charismatic priest, religious or lay minister. These are the situations in any organisation that are the most divisive, the most difficult and the most likely to be handled improperly.
When the allegation seems impossible, in the absence of accountability, there is often a temptation to hope the situation will just “go away”.
In 2002, listening to stories of victims who were abused by just this type of offender, the bishops and religious superiors made commitments that would end “the exceptions”. These commitments and the associated accountability also addressed the fact that some leaders had simply elected not to follow the guidance of the five principles, and that also brought greater uniformity to the handling of allegations.
On the subject of criticisms that remain regarding the Church’s handling of this, she offers:
Much of the public criticism of the Church’s early handling of cases stems from a lack of knowledge about the historical context of this phenomenon.
I have seen newspaper articles criticising officials for not reporting acts of abuse to the civil authorities during years when there were no child protective services and the particular behaviours involved were not criminalised yet.
It is fair for criticism of decisions made in the 1960s and 1970s to focus on interpretation of moral behaviour, weakness in the resolve of leaders or even the disregard of procedures set out in canon law.
By the same token, it is essential to separate this from expectations that are based on the laws and standards of today.
We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s, discovered it caused real harm in 1978, and realised perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s. During the 1970s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders – sending them to treatment instead of prison.
At the time, it was believed they could be cured with relative ease. This is a very young body of knowledge, and as we sort through both valid and questionable criticisms, we must consider the historical context of any given episode.
Regarding the work that remains to be done, the most pressing concern for me is the lack of protocols to guide the supervision and accountability for priests and religious who have been accused or found to have sexually offended in the past or who have completed their obligations to the criminal justice system.
There continues to be a belief that ageing and the passing of time will render these men safe. I understand we cannot supervise them if they are no longer a priest or religious, but as long as they are, we should strive to know how they spend their time and whether they are upholding the limits that have been placed on them.
On Pope Benedict’s personal history of handling abuse, she says:
From my perspective, deep change in the culture of the Vatican began with Cardinal Ratzinger and has been solidified since he became Pope Benedict XVI.
When I began working with priests who had sexually offended, they would sometimes try to intimidate me with threats that if they “sent their case to Rome” to appeal how they were treated, that they would “win”.
This was in response to my developing systems to hold them accountable for how they spent their time, who they visited and whether the people in their lives were aware of the sexual abuse they had committed.
Many times I heard, “You are in violation of my rights!” They clearly felt they had the upper hand.
Since that time, and particularly since 2000, the balance of power has shifted. I have since worked with many priests and religious who have sexually offended against minors, and if you ask them today, they would be very unlikely to assume that “Rome” is on their side.
Today, clerical and religious sexual offenders recognise they can be laicised for their crimes or for a failure to adhere to obedience. This gives us much more leverage in terms of ensuring adherence to safety provisions.
Several men I know have “tested” the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and found no tolerance for sexual abuse in the priesthood and no sympathy for the cleric who disagrees with programmes of prayer and penance. Evidence of where Pope Benedict XVI stands can be found in the following examples:
1. He was the one who declared the use of Internet and other forms of child pornography to be a delictum gravius (a “grave delict”) – the same as a contact offense with a minor. He came to this conclusion at a time when many criminal jurisdictions were still debating the criminality of Internet pornography.
2. When he [became Pope], he appointed Cardinal [William] Levada (right) from the U.S., clearly the country most likely to produce a stringent successor. As the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Levada has continued the legacy of increasingly strong response to sexual offenses by priests and religious.
3. The victims of sexual abuse who met with the Holy Father here in the U.S. were deeply touched by their meeting. They said they felt like he knew their cases personally. It is possible he did or that he has just known so many that are similar. I give great credibility to those victims who met with him personally. If they say he “gets it”, I am inclined to believe them.
It is also important to know that in Pope Benedict XVI we have the individual who has seen more cases of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church than perhaps anyone else in the world. I believe he knows how serious the problem is, and that he understands the sacrifices that have to be made to fix it.
She says this issue will probably have an impact on Pope Benedict’s legacy, but not necessarily in a negative way.
Now that so much information is coming forward I believe two things will happen.
First, we will all be privy to the information we need in order to understand how much Pope Benedict’s resolve and commitment have already changed the system within our Church. We needed a pope that did not mind being considered “tough” and that is what we have. Instead of change happening “behind the scenes,” we will know about it.
Second, all of the media attention and worldwide interest will give Pope Benedict just the political opportunity and leverage he needs to change the Church culture of silence and protection throughout the world much faster. He won’t have to “sell” change in the way he would have if this had not happened. Many of the barriers he has encountered for more than a decade will be broken down.
I believe this will solidify his legacy as the agent of change and restoration of the Church for which he would want to be remembered.
The full interview can be found at www.ncregister.com/register_exclusives/change_in_vatican_culture