More transparency sought from Philadelphia archbishop
Monsignor William Lynn, the first U.S. church official convicted for failing to prevent other priests from sexually abusing children, is awaiting sentencing. The former secretary for clergy for the Philadelphia Archdiocese was found guilty last month.
With the landmark trial over, the church faces calls for transparency.
Philadelphia’s Archbishop Charles Chaput and many others across the country give the public, including affected parishioners, little information about alleged child sexual abuse by priests, says Anne Barrett Doyle, the co-director of bishopaccountability.org.
“Chaput, though, is even less transparent than many bishops in the category of priests removed for alleged violations of the ministerial code. There we see the archbishop giving absolutely no information,” she said. “Elsewhere in U.S. dioceses, most bishops will say at least whether the ministerial misconduct fell in the category of financial misconduct or sexual misconduct with an adult.”
Doyle said in the wake of grand jury reports and the landmark priest abuse case, this is a significant time for the Philadelphia Archdiocese and area Catholics.
“What’s extraordinary is that Chaput is even less transparent than his fellow bishops at a time when he is obliged to be setting an example of very high and complete transparency in order to win the public’s trust,” she said.
Archdiocese representatives have routinely refused to elaborate on why individual priests were found unfit for public ministry. But, Doyle says, without more information, parishioners may speculate and worry about the details of the priest’s trouble.
In May, Chaput said, he could not provide more details about the cases because he said he needed to “balance the need for transparency with the pain already felt by victims — pain which we acknowledge and do not wish to compound.
“It’s important for the victims themselves to control to whom, when, and how extensively they disclose their accounts, and we support whatever that decision may be,” Chaput said.
SOURCE






4 Comments
What Jim failed to notice is that the rapist is free to rape again when the victim doesn’t press charges. Jim, you are usually so sharp to notice these failures in stories. What happened? And the monsignor makes an egregious moral error by appearing to support the military “system”of injustice.
Carl — normally, you are so sharp when you read the comments of others — what happened? The Monsignor simply was saying that the victim had the OPTION (did you miss that word?) of either going through the chain of command or using “restricted reporting.” Apparently, in many cases the victim chose the latter, as they did not want to be subject to charges themselves. Carl, do you have a problem with giving the victim options? Are you a fascist who wants total government control over every little detail? If so, just vote Obama back in.
I was an Army chaplain for 26 years and the Army allowed rape victims the option of “restricted reporting”. This meant that the victim could get medical, psychological and spiritual assistance without going through the chain of command, without pressing charges against the perpetrator. The victim could thus retain control over what happened to the info given. In the chain of command, the rapist would be prosecuted [not always successfully] but the victim would also be subject to punishment for underage drinking, drug use, being in the mens’ barracks, etc. etc. It was very important to rape victims that they retain control over the info and the process; without that control, they would not report anything and would receive no help at all.
Thanks for that information, Monsignor.