Why the Grand Jury Probe Should Be Welcomed, Not Criticized

By MARCI A. HAMILTON
Thursday, Feb. 5, 2009
FindLaw

Recently, it was announced that Los Angeles United States Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien was starting a grand jury investigation into allegations of a child sex abuse coverup by the Catholic Church’s Los Angeles Archdiocese. The announcement was met with consternation and defensive cries from various Catholic quarters. Before they drown out the larger public good, however it is worthwhile to spend some time with the facts – which, I will argue, show that a grand jury investigation is exactly what should be occurring now.

Professor Kmiec’s Argument: The Claims of Abuse Were "Well-Litigated"

Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec (who has also been a guest columnist on this site) quickly posted a lengthy critique on Catholic Online, arguing that "wading into this already well-litigated matter gives every appearance of ‘piling on.’" In support of his claim, he pointed to the fact that the Archdiocese settled civil claims with over 500 victims for a total of $660 million. The fact, though, is that the claims never were "well-litigated." Kmiec is right about one thing: The end result was a settlement, not hundreds of trials, which would have released mountains of information to the public.

The apparent reasons behind the settlement are very pertinent: First, early on, the church hierarchy succeeded in getting many claims consolidated together, so as to avoid individual litigation. Many survivors wanted their day in court and opposed consolidation, but this procedural move by the hierarchy meant that large collections of cases were treated as though they were single cases with judges overseeing many at one time. That way, the hierarchy could argue to reduce per-person claims, because the size of the total award would be large no matter what and the hierarchy could more effectively and efficiently control what information about the coverup would be released.

Second, the Archdiocese settled essentially on the eve of trial, when it appeared that the Cardinal would have to testify regarding his obvious knowledge of a great deal of abuse. In other words, the settlement was a tactic to keep a further lid on damaging information. Thus, despite the settlement, relatively little information, especially given the amount that is still under the sole control of the Archdiocese, has reached the public.

Kmiec still claims, however, that the public has enough information. He writes: "What’s more, the hypothetical prosecution cannot really be said to promote greater disclosure, as the Cardinal already issued a 2004 report giving individualized detail of priests accused of abuse." Yet that report is better described as a mere outline. Moreover, and more importantly, as part of the Los Angeles settlement, Cardinal Mahony promised to release millions of pages of files on the abusers, the abuse, and the coverup. Survivors insisted on it as a necessary element of the settlement.

These promises have not yet been worth the paper they were printed on. Mahony’s lawyers, on behalf of their client, have been in court ever since the agreement was signed, to oppose release of each of the papers, one by one. As Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley has said, "Three years ago, I urged Cardinal Mahony to provide the fullest possible disclosure of evidence of sexual abuse by clergy. Despite two court rulings ordering full disclosure, Cardinal Mahony continues to claim ‘confidentiality privileges’ that no court has recognized." Few citizens know that the Archdiocese’s lawyers still continue to drag the plaintiffs’ lawyers to court on a regular basis to evade Mahony’s promise to reveal all of the relevant secrets. It is not over, and the reason it is not over is because of the continuing tactics of truth-evasion practiced by Mahony.

The Church’s Claims of a New "Zero Tolerance" Policy Are Belied by the Evidence

Kmiec goes on to claim that "under Rome’s supervision, which the Holy Father personally reasserted just months ago in his visit to America, abusers have been defrocked and a ‘zero-tolerance’ policy is in place." But Kmiec is simply too smart to make such hollow claims. If zero-tolerance is the policy, then the Cardinal has made a mockery of it.

The facts speak for themselves. In 2006, Los Angeles police questioned church and school officials about Daniel Murphy Catholic High School’s Dean of Students, John Malburg, against whom current child sex abuse allegations were being asserted. (Malburg comes from a prominent Los Angeles family.) Yet, despite receiving clear notice from authorities that there were claims of abuse asserted against Malburg, the Archdiocese did not suspend him and kept the information secret. When Malburg was arrested and charged six months later, and parents complained that they had not been timely alerted about the allegations, the Archdiocese blamed the police, saying that they had asked that the information be kept secret. The LAPD, in the Los Angeles Times, said it had never made such a request.

And Malburg is far from the only example demonstrating the Los Angeles Archdiocese’s and sadly the larger Church’s continuing tolerance – and, indeed, protection – of alleged child abusers. Fr. Nicholas Aguilar Rivera allegedly abused at least 26 boys in Los Angeles in a mere nine months. In August 2007, church records about Aguilar were released to the public. The records indicated that then-Msgr. Thomas Curry notified Aguilar about the release of the records, leading Aguilar to escape to Mexico to avoid prosecution, where there are credible allegations that he went on to molest more children. The upshot? Far from being demoted for violating the "zero-tolerance" rule, Curry was promoted to be one of Mahony’s auxiliary bishops, and was never disciplined for putting more children within reach of a priest whom evidence strongly suggests is a serial pedophile.

Then there is Franciscan monk Gerald Chumik — an admitted child molester who has been a fugitive from his native Canada for fourteen years. Until 2005, Mahony had permitted Chumik to live in the Los Angeles Archdiocese; Chumik left only because the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests and others demanded that he be turned over to the authorities. Even in the face of these reasonable demands, Mahony did not go to the authorities; instead, he let Chumik move to Missouri.

This is not remotely zero-tolerance. Rather, it is just plain tolerance of pedophiles. Mahony has not made a clean break from the internal culture and rules requiring coverup and secrecy, and his actions and omissions have obviously created danger for children in other states and countries. According to Kmiec, though, "this is not the equivalent of a federal public or corporate corruption offense meriting 20 years in the federal pen." Explain that to the kids evidence strongly suggests were abused by Malburg, the Mexican kids believed to have been abused by Rivera, or to Chumik’s acknowledged victims, wherever they may be. Explain that to the parents at Malburg’s school who surely trusted in all of the public assurances from the Pope on down about zero-tolerance, whose children attended school with a credibly accused pedophile and were told nothing about it until the authorities were involved.

Other Arguments Against the Grand Jury Investigation Are Also Completely Unconvincing

Others came to Mahony’s defense as well, including Professor G. Robert Blakey of Notre Dame Law School, who said the investigation was "outrageous" because the alleged conduct at issue is unrelated to the federal government. That is a mistake, though. It is a fact that predator priests often have been sent across state or national boundaries (see above). The national and international movement of pedophiles makes the task of a full investigation by any local district attorney impossible. Moreover, many of the perpetrators have taken their victims across state lines, frequently for "vacations" or camping trips. The United States should have been involved long ago, and one can only speculate what took the Department of Justice so long to consider investigating what are obviously federal crimes.

Professor Nicholas P. Cafardi, of Duquesne University School of Law, called the inquiry "an intrusion into the church’s First Amendment rights." For him, "It’s time for this to be over. L.A. has settled with all of their claimants." Yet it is crucial to recall that one of the very reasons the victims participated in the civil settlement was to obtain the release of the Archdiocese’s records on abusers – and recall that they continue to wait as the Archdiocese balks, claiming non-existent privileges. The First Amendment is no dispensation from the law or decency. Moreover, since when do crime victims have to choose between civil and criminal justice? Those molested deserve compensation from those responsible, those at risk deserve protection, and the rest of us deserve real justice in criminal court.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the Archdiocese issued a statement referring to picketing abuse survivors as "an angry mob" and asserting that "there is no priest currently in the ministry in the archdiocese who had been found to have abused a minor." Yet the latter point offers no comfort: As I explained above, there were virtually no trials and no "findings" in the settlement involving hundreds of victims, likely because the Archdiocese did not want its sins, omissions, and crimes spelled out.

Religious Rules Against Airing "Scandal" Cannot and Should Not Be Enforced in Our Secular Justice System

Finally, it is most telling that the Archdiocese’s defenders would become so worked up over the start of a grand jury investigation. They are opposing the gathering of information and evidence. Why do they care so much, if all the information to be released is out, as they claim? And why do they care so little about children that Mahony’s recent, appalling record regarding credible child-abuse allegations does not give them pause?

The answer likely lies in culture and theology. There is an internal rule within the Church against "scandal." That is, believers are not supposed to bring shame to the Church by airing its dirty laundry in public. The same principle can be found in Orthodox Judaism, in which it is known as chilul hashem. The phrase literally means "desecration of God’s name," but is used to prohibit giving the community a bad name. The parallel is notable, for certain Orthodox Jewish organizations have become the latest religious groups whose secret coverup of child sex abuse is being exposed to the public. Despite their very different religious beliefs, the two religious groups’ organizational operations with respect to child sex abuse within their community are strikingly similar. Each has something to learn from the other. The Orthodox can learn that internal control of sex abuse never works and the Catholics can get over the destructive tendency to cling to notions of persecution when in fact they are simply on the wrong side of the law.

If U.S. Attorney O’Brien has hit upon a "novel" legal strategy, as has been alleged, so be it. We have an epidemic of child sexual abuse, which is attributable in part to a lack of imagination and sometimes political will on the part of prosecutors and courts. O’Brien should be applauded for joining the small group of federal prosecutors who are now taking a stand for children who suffer abuse in religious settings. Let’s hope that, in the Obama Administration, more U.S. Attorneys will take the same courageous stance. Making children a top priority would be a true change in federal policy.

Marci Hamilton is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and author of Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children (Cambridge 2008). A review of Justice Denied appeared on this site on June 25, 2008. Her previous book is God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press 2005), now available in paperback.

by Timothy Lytton
December 7, 2009
Huffington Post

News Coverage of Cardinal Edward M. Egan’s cover up of clergy sexual abuse in the 1990s while he was the bishop of Bridgeport would be shocking if it weren’t so familiar. The list of high ranking Catholic Church officials who failed to report credible allegations of child sexual abuse by priests to law enforcement includes the most prominent prelates of this generation: Cardinal Joseph Bernadin in Chicago, Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua in Philadelphia, and Cardinal Roger Mahony in Los Angeles.

The Egan case does, however, highlight one feature of this ongoing scandal that is frequently overlooked: the role that civil lawsuits have played in uncovering most of what we know about clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and in motivating Church officials to address the problem.

To begin with, plaintiffs’ have lawyers compelled Church officials to produce secret files concerning abuse allegations and to provide sworn testimony about their own failures to adequately address the problem. Media reports about Cardinal Egan’s failures in Bridgeport are based on more than 12,000 pages of memos, church records, and testimony from 23 lawsuits against the diocese. Indeed, most media coverage of the scandal–dating back to the early 1980s–has been based on these types of litigation documents.

Civil lawsuits have also shaped our understanding of the clergy sexual abuse scandal as an institutional failure on the part of Church leaders. Throughout the scandal, some within the Church have attempted to focus attention exclusively on the perpetrators, suggesting that clergy sexual abuse is merely a matter of "a few bad apples." Others have argued that the whole matter has been blown out of proportion by plaintiffs’ lawyers and their clients seeking to make money off of the scandal by filing lawsuits. One also frequently hears suggestions that news coverage of the scandal is motivated by anti-Catholic media bias. Indeed, Cardinal Egan’s successor, Archbishop Timothy Dolan leveled this very accusation against the New York Times this fall.

By contrast, civil lawsuits have focused attention on the failures of Church officials. Plaintiffs’ lawyers sue large institutional defendants because they are better able to pay large settlements and judgments, and so clergy sexual abuse lawsuits have emphasized the failure of diocesan officials–especially bishops–to protect children from known abusers.

Media coverage of the scandal has been heavily influenced by this framing of clergy sexual abuse as an institutional failure on the part of Church officials. Litigation and trials have traditionally provided the type of drama that makes them attractive to journalists seeking to draw in readers. In addition, documents filed in court and sworn testimony provide the kind of credible sources of information that journalists like to rely upon.

By framing clergy sexual abuse as a problem of institutional failure on the part of Church officials, civil lawsuits have also motivated dioceses around the country to institute new programs to prevent sexual abuse before it occurs and to report credible allegations of sexual abuse when it does happen. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reports that over 90 percent of dioceses have instituted such programs and have trained over 7 million people in preventing, investigating, and reporting child sexual abuse.

It is inconceivable that so many U.S. bishops would have instituted such ambitious efforts to address clergy sexual abuse in the absence of the intense media coverage and public attention generated by civil lawsuits–not to mention the liability exposure.

It has been 25 years since the first civil lawsuits were filed against Catholic Church officials for clergy sexual abuse, and much progress has been made as a result of them. That leading prelates such as Cardinal Egan are still fighting so hard to hide the record of their misdeeds indicates that there is more work to be done and that civil lawsuits against Church officials may still have a role in uncovering the truth, highlighting the misdeeds of officials, and providing much needed pressure for reform.

www.NPR.org
By Frank James

The Philadelphia Inquirer
October 23, 2009

The best way for Wilmington’s Roman Catholic Bishop W. Francis Malooly to demonstrate his stated concern for "all victims of sexual abuse by priests of our diocese" would be to give those victims their day in court.

Instead, Malooly’s eleventh-hour decision Sunday to file for bankruptcy protection effectively halted the first of eight clergy sex-abuse trials set to start the next day. That will have the net effect to further delay or perhaps thwart many victims’ long quest for justice.

The bishop wrote to the diocese’s 230,000 faithful that the "painful decision" to file for bankruptcy was intended to ensure that funds are available so that all of the victims get a fair settlement.

In other words, the bishop claims he doesn’t want one big verdict to deplete the church coffers and leave nothing for the other victims.

Puh-leeze.

Malooly denied that church leaders were trying "to dodge responsibility for past criminal misconduct by clergy - or for mistakes made by Diocesan authorities."

If true, it’s a welcome change from a church hierarchy that for decades has shielded predator priests by moving them from parish to parish. But an idiom recited by the many fine nuns in parish schools comes to mind: Actions speak louder than words.

Given the real-world impact of the bankruptcy claim, there’s no way around the perception that Delaware church officials have ducked for cover - in what one attorney for an abuse-case plaintiff called "scandal prevention."

Indeed, the first trial in a civil damages lawsuit brought by a former altar boy, John M. Vai, 57, would have revealed chilling testimony about violent sex acts by a priest from 1966 to 1970, according to Vai’s attorneys.

Now, those embarrassing allegations and many others won’t be aired in open court for months and months, if at all. Nor will the public hear any details of church leaders’ efforts to cover for predator priests.

As time goes on, it becomes increasingly difficult to mount legal claims like these because they rely heavily on victims’ testimony about long-ago abuse. So the danger is that justice delayed will mean justice denied.

The diocese’s move represents a stunning rebuke to Delaware state lawmakers, who, in 2007, voted to clear the air on the state’s clergy sex-abuse scandal.

Dover lawmakers opened a two-year window permitting civil suits by adult victims of sex abuse, even though the alleged assaults occurred years ago and the statute of limitations had lapsed.

Patterned after a California law, the measure put the First State in the forefront to give abuse victims their day in court. It gave hope to victims’ advocates in Pennsylvania, who have been stymied in their push for similar legislation in Harrisburg. That effort is opposed by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the state Catholic Conference, and others.

In Philadelphia alone, hundreds of abuse victims have been awaiting justice since a scathing grand jury report in 2005. The report concluded that 63 archdiocesan priests had sexually abused children and that top church leaders helped cover for some.

But church officials across the nation continue to fight statute moratoriums with specious claims that victims’ lawsuits will lead to parish closings, and several dioceses have resorted to the dubious bankruptcy claim.

If nothing else, the Delaware bankruptcy filing appears premature. After all, diocesan officials won’t even know the full scope of their financial liability until the abuse cases go to trial.

Legal experts said the diocese - which is a separate entity from Wilmington parishes and church schools - could have awaited the outcome of the trials before claiming it is broke.

Had Wilmington church officials allowed the civil cases to go forward, they would have avoided the perception that the cover-up continues.

French ‘Minister of Culture’ Frederic Mitterrand Finds Childhood Sexual Abuse Still Not Acceptable—Even to ‘Sophisticated’ European Morals.

By Kelly Clark, Child Sexual Abuse Attorney
Portland, Ore.

American political junkies often use a phrase to describe a politician’s secure standing with the electorate: “He’s a shoe-in—that is, unless he gets caught sleeping with a dead woman or a live boy.”   In other words,  Senator Bulbousnose will surely win, unless, that is, he steps across the unspoken final lines of decency we all know about—necrophilia and pedophilia being two  of them.

So, there are two things that amaze me about the unfolding scandal in France: first, that the Minister of Culture, Frederic Mitterrand, would think that his lurid book accounts of “paying for boys” in Thailand could fly under the radar and not matter to his public career; and, second, that it almost did.

In case you haven’t read about this unbelievable story, here is a quote from the Times Online, dateline October 8:

“President Sarkozy’s new Culture Minister, Frédéric Mitterrand, was struggling to save his name and possibly his job last night amid a storm over his past accounts of paying “boys” for sex. The nephew of the late President Mitterrand, who is openly gay, was thrown on the defensive after opposition politicians homed in on a memoir in which he described his delight in visiting brothels in Bangkok.

“I got into the habit of paying for boys … The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide,” he wrote. The autobiography, La mauvaise vie (The Bad Life), was a critically acclaimed bestseller in 2005 and Mr Mitterrand, 62, a popular television presenter, was praised for his honesty. It rebounded on him this week after he leapt to the defence of Roman Polanski, the filmmaker, who was arrested in Switzerland for extradition to face a Los Angeles court for having sex with a girl aged 13.”

Now, let’s ignore the obvious about-face he has done in the last day or so, trying to play down what he has written. After all denying the obvious is what politicians do– although trying to say that admitting that he paid for sex with boys doesn’t mean that he paid for sex with boys may set a new standard.

No, I want to ponder the two aspects of all this that I mentioned above.  First, how did someone who wrote this—in 2005—get  appointed to a high post in a European government?  Surely he did not think no one would notice: he is, after all, the highly visible nephew of former President Francios Mitterrand and a TV personality in his own right.  No, it seems he was doing what a lot of celebrities do, which is to write a lurid autobiography “revealing all” to boost sales through shock value.  Surely he intended the world to know that he was tantalized and hooked by the Asian sex trade. He wanted people to know…

No, what is amazing to me is that he thought that this admission would shock people in no different way than, say, talking about drunken nights on the town or lurid sexual escapades of the kind we have grown used to with celebrities.  But that  he thought he could just cruise on in as Minster for Culture—that’s so rich in irony I can’t even know where to start— after admitting to deep-seated pedophilic behaviour is just stupefying. I don’t know whether this says more about the man’s flawed political judgment,  or about how far Western standards for decency have fallen.  After all, let’s not forget, that this book was published 4 years ago and up til now there had been no blow up.   He actually thought he could get away with it.

This brings me to the second source of amazement—he almost did. In fact, had it not been for the controversy over Switzerland’s arrest and the US’s extradition demands of filmmaker Roman Polanski for sexually abusing a 13 year old girl, we old-fashioned types in the US might not ever have heard about Mitterrand’s pedophilia.  But the fact that Europe heard about it and there was no uproar for nearly five years surely says something fundamental about the way those ‘sophisticated’ societies think (the condemnation by the avant garde of the US in fashionable circles for Polanski’s arrest is no less indicative).  Is it really okay for a major public personality now become public minister to have engaged in pedophilia?  Note that there is no indication that he has acknowledged in sorrow the wrongness of his behavior, sought help, amended his way of life.  This is not a story about a guy who couldn’t find forgiveness when he asked for it. This is about a guy who didn’t—apparently didn’t—even realize that what he had done was fundamentally wrong… even by the standards of Senator Bulbousnose… even by standards of European ‘sophistication.’  

Boy—no pun intended—did Mitterand get the surprise of his life. There are still some things that politicians, even in Europe,  can’t do. Thank God.

www.OregonLive.com

by Paul Mones, guest opinion
Tuesday June 02, 2009, 8:30 AM

Our state legislators are in the midst of dealing with one of the worst fiscal crises in recent memory. No doubt they will have to make many tough, unpopular decisions this year. However there is one legislative decision they need not fret over because it is a no-brainer. House Bill 2827 is a simple piece of legislation that gives an extra measure of justice to victims of child abuse.

In the words of one of the bill’s co-sponsors Chris Garrett (D-Lake Oswego ) - the other sponsor is Rep. Andy Olson (R-Albany) - this bill "will ensure an effective civil remedy for victims of child abuse."

The bill extends the present statute of limitations by giving victims until the age of 40 to file an action against their abuser, requiring that claims be initiated by the time the victim turns 40 years old or within five years of when the injury or the connection between the abuse and the injury is discovered. The bill has unanimously passed the house but curiously has not received the same overwhelmingly positive reception in the Senate.

The extension of the statute of limitations makes common sense because it recognizes that most child victims of sexual abuse cannot confront their debilitating problems until they are mature adults. Moreover, most victims can’t even make the connection between the abuse and their psychological problems until they have some real distance from the time period of their abuse.

Child abuse is the perfect crime because its victims are too powerless, too confused to help themselves when they are actually being abused. These children travel quietly through their days interacting with teachers and passing police officers, friends and neighbors, never revealing the anguish of their existences. And if by chance someone asks them how they are being treated at home their responses will be uniformly the same: OK.

As adults we expect all human beings to escape or at least want to escape when someone injures them, but for victims of abuse, the reverse occurs. And that is in fact perhaps one of the most insidious aspects of child abuse: It binds the child closer to the abuser. The abuser’s threats and intimidation engender in the child not only fear but self-blame and embarrassment - all of which turns a child’s survival mechanisms topsy-turvy. Emotional attachment and sexual violence become so inextricably confused that even when the abuse is reported, the child will often kick and scream as they are being removed from their draconian environment by a social worker.

The other aspect that makes child abuse a perfect crime is that most adults continue to believe that child-rearing is a private matter. They don’t want a relative, friend or neighbor telling them how to raise their child so they won’t intervene in someone else’s family. While we all cherish our right to privacy, our devotion to this cornerstone of democracy is strangling the lives of thousands of children every year. Abusive parents and caretakers thrive on isolation and that is exactly what their relatives, friends and neighbors give them.

Daily, people turn a blind eye to the screams, bruises and frightened eyes of battered and molested children. Their reaction actively reinforces the offender’s omnipotence and tells the child you’re on your own, no one is going to help you. By powerful social training we are more likely to intervene on behalf of a dog being kicked by its owner than a child being mistreated by a parent. As Americans we routinely gawk at the suffering of car accident victims but we avert our eyes and ears when we see a child being backhanded in a supermarket.

It is often only when a child becomes a mature adult that he or she has the strength and emotional resources to confront the scourge of their past.

We have done much in Oregon over the past few years to protect victims of abuse, the most recent example being the passage of HB 2062, which will prevent schools from silently moving sexually abusive teachers one district to another. If the Senate saw fit just several weeks ago to join the House in ending the scandalous practice of allowing sexually abusive teachers from negotiating sweetheart deals with their school districts, then it surely should see the wisdom in HB 2062.

Paul Mones is an attorney and a children’s rights advocate.

In reference to the recent developments regarding the Northwest Jesuits bankruptcy filing, Kelly Clark, Portland attorney who represents a number of clients who were abused by priests and nuns of the Catholic Church, has released this statement on the filing of the bankruptcy on Tuesday by the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus.

"We have expected this bankruptcy filing for some time now.  We know that the Oregon Province– which covers Alaska, as well as Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana—had in recent decades an overwhelming problem with priest abuse of children, especially of native children in Oregon, Washington and Alaska. Frs. James Poole and Frank Duffy alone account for dozens, perhaps hundreds, of broken and abused children.

"We also know from various court cases and depositions in those cases that the Province often sent troubled or abusive priests from place to place, especially to Alaska, even with the knowledge that they had abused kids. Now they are facing hundreds of claims.  Now these secret crimes and secret cover ups will see the light of day.  Now, finally, for some of these victims who have carried the shame and brokenness of childhood sexual abuse, justice will be done."

"My clients would say this to anyone who would blame them for the Jesuits’ financial trouble:  ‘The Jesuits should look in the mirror; they have no one to blame for their predicament but themselves. What the Jesuits are seeing is simply the consequences of their own actions.’ "

Stay tuned for further developments and a possible public statement and press conference on Wednesday or Thursday, from one or more of attorney Clark’s clients who were abused by Frs. Poole and Duffy.

For More Information, contact Kelly Clark at 503.306.0224 or at kellyc@oandc.com

Check out the NAPSAC February 2009 Newsletter by clicking here!

Visit NAPSAC at www.sapn.nonprofitoffice.com

NAPSAC, the National Association to Prevent Sexual Abuse of Children, and the NAPSAC Foundation are organizations dedicated to ending childhood sexual abuse in three generations through awareness, education and the advocacy of children’s rights through legal reform.

NAPSAC is an organization dedicated to ending the sexual abuse of children through awareness, education, and the advocacy of children’s rights through legal reform.

NAPSAC represents a future of hope where children will be allowed to enjoy their childhood and where society stands firmly against those who cause pain and violence against the innocent. There is no singular solution to this problem. NAPSAC believes it is with this three-key strategic plan, outlining the necessary steps to ending childhood sexual abuse in three generations, is what we must all follow to create a safer America for our children.

By JOHN R. EMSHWILLER
www.WallStreetJournal.com

LOS ANGELES — Federal authorities are investigating the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles to see whether top church officials tried to cover up the sexual abuse of minors by priests, said a person familiar with the matter.

A federal grand jury has issued subpoenas and begun calling witnesses in the probe, which began late last year, said this person. The investigation is still in its early, fact-gathering stage, and it isn’t known whether any criminal charges will result.

Thomas O’Brien, the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, declined to comment on the investigation.

J. Michael Hennigan, a lawyer for the archdiocese, said in an email on behalf of church officials: "The Archdiocese has received requests from the U.S. Attorney’s office for information about a number of individual priests, two of whom are deceased; none of whom remain in ministry. We have been and will continue to be fully cooperative with the investigation."

Cardinal Roger Mahony, who heads the archdiocese, the largest in the U.S., has been criticized by victims’ groups for his past handling of sexual-abuse allegations against priests. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office has been investigating allegations of such abuses for several years.

District Attorney Steve Cooley criticized the archdiocese in 2007 for its "institutional moral failure" to "supervise predatory priests." A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office said their investigation is still open.

Catholic Church leaders said they have done much to address the priest sexual-abuse problem. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, set up a national review board in 2002 aimed at "preventing the sexual abuse of minors in the United States by persons in the service of the Church," according to the organization’s Web site. Individual dioceses "have made significant strides to instill practices that will ensure the safety of children in the church," said the organization’s Web site.

The district attorney’s investigation began in 2002, around the same time that internal archdiocese emails about priests accused of abuse surfaced in the media.

Over the following two years, dozens of alleged victims stepped forward, with many filing lawsuits. They claimed the archdiocese shielded priests accused of molestation by keeping the allegations secret and allowing them to keep working, sometimes moving them from one parish to another.

In 2004, the archdiocese, which covers three Southern California counties containing more than four million Catholics, issued a report on the priest sex-abuse scandal. Cardinal Mahony apologized to victims and acknowledged "my own mistakes during my 18 years" as the archdiocese’s leader.

In 2007, the Los Angeles archdiocese agreed to pay $660 million to 508 alleged victims, among the largest settlements in the U.S. priest scandal.

No senior Catholic Church officials have been criminally charged in the national scandal. But representatives of abuse victims alleged that senior officials helped perpetuate the crimes by ignoring or covering up evidence of misdeeds. They have argued that prosecuting senior church officials would help stop future abuse.

"Everything else has been tried with minimal impact except charging an individual bishop. That would have to an impact," says David Clohessy, national director for the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, a nonprofit victims-advocacy group based in Chicago.

A spokeswoman for the Catholic bishops conference said her organization has seen no evidence that senior church officials were involved in criminal acts. "Enormous strides have been made" in recent years by the Catholic church in dealing with the priest-abuse problem, she said. More than 1.8 million clergy and other church personnel have been trained to create a safe environment for children and to prevent abuse, she said, and a similar number of background checks also have been done on clerics and other church workers.

The federal investigation in Los Angeles is the latest chapter in government’s efforts to grapple with the priest-abuse scandals in the Catholic Church that have struck in waves over the past three decades.

Numerous individual priests have been criminally charged and convicted in abuse cases, and Catholic dioceses around the U.S. have agreed to settle civil lawsuits.

While most of the investigations have been done by state and local officials, federal investigators also have gotten involved at times. In 2005, the Archdiocese of Boston resolved a federal criminal investigation into whether the church officials had withheld information about an allegedly abusive priest. The archdiocese, which denied any criminal wrongdoing, agreed to new disclosure requirements and audits regarding its child-protection practices.

Write to John R. Emshwiller at john.emshwiller@wsj.com

The U.S. attorney in L.A. reportedly launched a grand jury probe to see if the prelate failed to adequately deal with such priests. A church lawyer says he was told Mahony is not the inquiry’s target.

By Scott Glover and Jack Leonard
January 29, 2009
www.LATimes.com

The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles has launched a federal grand jury investigation into Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in connection with his response to the molestation of children by priests in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the case.

The probe, in which U.S. Atty. Thomas P. O’Brien is personally involved, is aimed at determining whether Mahony, and possibly other church leaders, committed fraud by failing to adequately deal with priests accused of sexually abusing children, said the sources, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation.

Written by Kelly Clark, attorney
September 3, 2008

Note: These occasional blogs are my personal reflections on the work we do at this law firm on behalf of child abuse survivors, and are not the views of any client, partner or lawyer at O’Donnell, Clark, and Crew LLP.

No one was more hopeful than I, fifteen months ago at the conclusion of the bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Portland.I believed– and I now see that I WANTED to believe– the promises of Archbishop John Vlazny, of his advisors and his lawyers.Those promises talked of treating victims of sexual abuse by priests with compassion.They offered hope that, in the future, the Archdiocese would be open and forthcoming about the records of past criminal conduct by pedophile priests and the bishops who covered up for them.Archbishop Vlazny himself led a mass of healing and reconciliation, again offering words of sorrow, repentance and new beginnings As I say, I believed these words.I stood shoulder to shoulder with the Archbishop and his lawyers, congratulated him on doing the right thing in resolving cases and in making the hard decisions to open the files of the past. See news articles here. I gave presentations and wrote articles on it all. See here. As a person of Christian faith, albeit a very flawed and broken one, I was particularly pleased that we– my clients, other abuse survivors and their lawyers– had held out for a nearly unique commitment and promise from the Archbishop that he would open the files of the past.  I believed this church could not achieve healing and reconciliation for itself, its members and its victims without shedding its old habit of secrecy, and so I was delighted at the promises.  I was even proud, thinking that my clients, other abuse survivors, and I and other lawyers had really accomplished something, that we had helped change an institution that had failed to live up to its own best ideals, and certainly to the example and words of its Lord. A new era of openness; I foolishly called it. Well, how things change. Now—over a year later—now that the lights of the TV cameras are off, now that the media and the public aren’t watching, now that the Archdiocese does not need the cooperation of plaintiffs or their lawyers to get out of a self made mess of a bankruptcy, now that the plaintiffs bring claims one at a time– instead of dozens and scores at a time, as before–my, my how things have changed.

Compassion for victims? The Archbishop and his lawyers are litigating new cases like any other powerful corporation with a pack of insurance lawyers. He has attempted to force plaintiffs to use their full names in public litigation, breaking the time-honored practice, virtually unanimously agreed upon by all institutions facing child abuse cases (Boy Scouts, the Mormon Church, schools, etc), that recognizes that plaintiffs in these cases are crime victims, are covered with the shame of child abuse, and do not need or deserve to be identified publicly. For news coverage of this incredible move, click here. When confronted publicly about this in court papers and by the news media, the Archbishop and his spokespersons have responded in ways that are, at best, simply disingenuous–claiming all they were doing was leaving it up to the Court. Well, that just isn’t so. The fact is, courts NEVER raise the issue on their own. It was the Archbishop’s move, and only that, that tried to force survivors to use their names publicly. Fortunately, a humane and common sense federal judge saw through the tactic, and refused to countenance it

A new era of openness? The Archbishop and his lawyers have fought full disclosure of the files of the pedophile priests tooth and nail, and even as late as July, 2008, were filing papers in bankruptcy court and in federal court to protect the files of such notorious pedophiles as Fr Thomas Laughlin. Even in the process of mediation and arbitration of the issues relating to openness, the Archdiocese sought to secret the entire briefing and arbitration of the agreement to release files.Yes, that’s right– in a proceeding where the sole issue was the Archbishop’s promise to open old files and change old ways, he sought to have the proceeding itself kept secret! And, although the Archdiocese and its lawyers quickly point to the “thousands; of pages of documents they have publicly released, a comparison of that which they have publicly released with that which is actually in the files that they routinely must turn over to plaintiffs in litigation, shows that they continue to be quite selective in what they release. Just one example suffices; concerning Laughlin. In litigation they turn over thousands of pages of documents, because they have to.Yet, as of summer 2008, what they have posted publicly on the internet concerning Laughlin is sparse and selective.Even more staggering, as recently as late July 2008, they filed papers in bankruptcy court ON THE SIDE OF FR LAUGLHIN, as he personally objects to further public release of his files. Once again– as with bishops going back 40 years–a bishop of the Archdiocese of Portland sides with Fr. Laughlin against the interests of abuse survivors and against the full truth coming out.

Choosing a new way? In the face of new claims of abuse against some of the same old perpetrators–Laughlin, Grammond, etc– the Archbishop refused offers of pre-litigation mediation time and time again, instead choosing to litigate each case as vigorously and aggressively as possible, ignoring the cruel impact that such a tactic has on abuse survivors, who most of all want and need closure and justice. He even had his lawyers resist early and global mediation suggested by the federal judge overseeing the new litigation, arguing instead for a litigation-heavy approach that undoubtedly was intended to wear down victims with the brutal tactics and unending delays of litigation.

The fact is that, for the Archdiocese of Portland, nothing has changed.  In my view, the Archbishop has broken, or stretched to the breaking point, virtually every one of his bankruptcy promises. It is really no different than the bishops before him, and their promises to “handle; problems of abusive priests.After years of litigation, we learned what that meant: it meant nothing.It appears now, as to Archbishop John Vlazny’s promises at the conclusion of the bankruptcy, it still means nothing. No one is more disappointed than I. 

By RICHARD KOE

Christian News Northwest

    PORTLAND — More than 70 pastors and church leaders got a heavy dose of information about sex offenders in the church and faith community at a seven-hour advanced workshop on Oct. 25 at the Quality Inn & Suites in northeast Portland.
    The main message they received from four featured speakers — a treatment specialist, lawyer, and police members of a child abuse team — was to simply report any incident of child sex abuse in a church or faith community, and let the professionals investigate and follow up.
    The conference was organized and co-sponsored by Eric Bahme of Eastside Foursquare Church and Jim Cottrell of Freedom House, Noting that some 3,500 churches nationally have responded to allegations of sexual misconduct in programs involving children and youth the past 10 years, they said the conference sought to help reduce the rate of child victimization in the faith community.
    Cory Jewell Jensen, co-director of the Center for Behavioral Intervention in Beaverton, treats adult sex offenders and provides training or consultation to the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse as well as law enforcement and advocacy groups.
    She suggested a safety plan for churches regarding child sex offenders who may frequent their organization, such as treating everyone the same, training the pastor and staff, reviewing work contracts, checking a person’s history, requiring workers to sign a release, and encouraging offenders to keep up their training.
    Churches have been too forgiving and gullible and need training, Jensen noted. Leaders should be informed of any sex offender in their midst, and share that information with other churches and within their denomination.

(more…)

Kelly Clark, Esq.
O’Donnell and Clark Annual Firm Dinner
September 19, 2007,
Monarch Hotel
Clackamas, Oregon.

A Defense of Our Work.

Mark asked me to speak to you tonight about the work on the child abuse cases that I and the litigation team at O and C have done for the last several years. Many of you know something about these cases, some of you probably know very little. Anyway, I told MOD I was happy to do it, but that it didn’t seem to me to fit the general context of our dinners– which have always been concerned with some aspect of public policy. "Well," he said, "you blame everything else on the Democrats; I’m sure you can find some way to blame them for child abuse." Hmmm… tempting.

As I thought about it, however, it did occur to me that, while these cases against churches, schools, youth groups and such do not lend themselves directly to a political discussion, yet there are aspects of this work that, I have come to believe, do raise interesting questions of public consequence. It will be my goal tonight to explain what is at stake in these cases, why it is important to bring them– first of course for the survivors, for whom it is all about justice and healing. But also, more to the context of our dinner, why it is important for society that the institutions of trust in which these cases usually happen regain and retain our trust. For I will argue that these institutions of trust– elsewhere called Mediating Structures, elsewhere called 1000 Points of Light– are a critical component of any free society, an important guardian of liberty. And I will also argue that the litigation we bring against them is necessary, a radical surgery, but one unavoidable if the infection of child abuse is to be healed and these entities cleansed.

Now if it sounds like this thesis is a bit defensive, I confess defensiveness. So often I am confronted by those who, of course do not condone child abuse, still seem confused or even angry that we would regularly sue such rightly revered institutions as the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, the Mormon Church, schools, athletic leagues, youth organizations and others. I know very few people who are not loyal to one or more of these groups, and I often sense they are troubled in some way that they seem not to be able fully to articulate. Well, I will try tonight to articulate what it is that troubles them, and you, about these cases, and at the same time to offer a defense of our work– an apologia pro labore sua, to borrow a phrase from John Henry Newman.

(more…)

The Register Guard
Op-Ed
by Kelly Clark
April 29, 2007

Amidst all the congratulations going around these last days concerning the long-awaited resolution of the Archdiocese Bankruptcy, I have noticed a particular tendency among nearly all involved to want to move on and put the past behind us. At one level, I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments. It is time for this Archdiocese to heal. As a lawyer who has represented over one hundred individuals with claims against the Catholic Church, including forty-one in this Bankruptcy, I have pledged my assistance to the Archbishop, and to his lawyers, in doing whatever I can do to facilitate that healing. The Archdiocese needs it, the larger faith community needs it and our city and state need it.

At the same time, however, the duty I have to the courageous men and women I have represented requires me to remind the community that, while it is all well and good to say let us move on, it is not that simple for the abuse survivors. Between the long delays of the bankruptcy, the breathtakingly broad gag orders, and the natural tendency of child abuse survivors to stay silent, their voices have not been heard in many, many months. As I have listened over the last fifteen years to the stories of boys and girls now men and women who were abused by priests, teachers, nuns, and others they trusted from a Church they loved, and then as I have heard comments from the community these past days and months, I am reminded that there is still much misunderstanding about the nature of priest sexual abuse and its impact. The people who came forward to name their abuse have struggled too hard, for too long, too courageously, to let any misconceptions about what happened to them go unanswered. The misunderstandings and myths we have often heard about child abuse and its survivors in the past years need to be corrected.

(more…)