Letter
to Dr. Mary Jane Doherty, Chairperson of the Archdiocese of Boston
Review Board
[See Massachusetts Watchdog Group Discloses New Names
of Accused Priests, by Jay Lindsay, Associated Press, July 28,
2011, for news coverage of this letter.]
July 27, 2011
Mary Jane Doherty, Ph.D.
Chairperson, Archdiocese of Boston Review Board
c/o Regis College
College Hall 210
235 Wellesley Street
Weston MA 02493
Dear Dr. Doherty,
Two years and four months ago, you received a public
letter from Cardinal O'Malley pledging "greater transparency"
and assuring you that "in the very near future," he would
launch a revised policy "in the area of disclosing information
about accused clergy and the status of cases against them."
With no explanation or apology, the cardinal has failed to keep
this promise. He has ignored his obligation to you, to the public,
to innocent priests, to the victims of the unnamed priests, and,
perhaps, to vulnerable children.
In O'Malley's eight years as archbishop, he has paid monies to 850
victims but informed the public of only four or five accused priests
whose allegations were not previously known. How many reported priests'
names is he keeping from the public? Dozens? Scores? A hundred?
This is a silence of epic proportions – irresponsible, immoral,
and dangerous.
Because the archbishop will not break his silence, we are asking
you to break yours.
Attached are two civil complaints recently found on file at the
Suffolk County Superior Court. They are not new filings, meaning
that the archdiocese has known of these allegations for years. So
we were dismayed to discover many additional allegations against
accused priests previously known to have just one or two victims.
And we were even more disturbed to find the names of 10 accused
priests whose names have never been made public.
• John Doe Nos. 30-68 and Mary Roe Nos. 6-8 v.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston et al.
• John
Doe Nos. 1-29 and Mary Roe Nos. 1-5 v. Roman Catholic Archbishop
of Boston et al.
Dr. Doherty, did you and your review board review the allegations
against each of these clerics? Are you satisfied that each allegation
was investigated thoroughly? And that you received all relevant
information about each case?
Our concern is sharpened by two factors:
1) Your board's record of clearing an unusually high percentage
of accused priests. In 45% of the cases
you reviewed in the first two-and-a-half years of O'Malley's
administration, you "did not find probable cause that sexual
abuse of a minor had occurred," according to an archdiocesan
report. Forty-five percent is four times the national diocesan
average of "false or unsubstantiated" cases reported
in 2005 by the USCCB.
2) The firestorm over recent
revelations of mishandling of clergy abuse cases by the archdiocesan
review board in Philadelphia. A grand jury found that the current
review board left dozens of substantively accused priests in ministry.
Could this be happening in Boston too?
When you are considering a case against a living priest, especially
one who is still in ministry, it is crucial that you rule broadly
on the side of the caution. Children's lives depend on it. What
standard was used in those cases in which you decided that alleged
abuse was 'not probable?'
And why has there been almost no disclosure of credibly accused
priests who are deceased? Does the archdiocese not understand the
price survivors pay for this secrecy?
Every day that a known, admitted or suspected abuser's name is kept
secret by your review board and the archbishop is another day of
shame, self-blame, and depression for those who as children suffered
the priest's sexual assaults.
Every day that a known, admitted or suspected abuser's name is kept
secret by your review board and the archbishop is another day that
a mother in this archdiocese lays sleepless, trying in vain to understand
what went wrong with her precious daughter or son.
Every day that a known, admitted or suspected abuser's name is kept
secret by your review board and the archbishop is another day that
an overwhelmed and baffled spouse struggles to cope with a partner
who is withdrawn, addicted, angry, or unable to keep a job.
Every day that a known, admitted or suspected abuser's name is kept
secret by your review board and the archbishop, the legal time period
in which a victim can pursue justice gets one day shorter. Prosecutors
from Boston to Philadelphia have identified this as a key reason
church officials don't inform the public of accused predators –
perhaps what the archbishop meant in his March
2009 letter when he called transparency a "complex issue."
And potentially, every day that a known, admitted or suspected abuser's
name is kept secret by your review board and the archbishop, innocent
children are at risk.
You and your board are the laity's eyes and ears inside the chancery.
You personally have been integral to the archdiocese's process for
handling allegations for many years. We need your independent and
authoritative voice. Other review board chairs – in Philadelphia,
Kansas
City, and Gallup
NM – have started to speak out. We urge you to join them.
Please begin by clarifying, to the best of your knowledge, the status
of the allegations in the attached complaints, especially those
that allege criminal behavior by a cleric whose name is still unknown
to the public.
Sincerely,
Anne Barrett Doyle / Terence McKiernan
Co-Directors
BishopAccountability.org
|