The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
to National Review Board
December 12, 2004
Dear Mr. Cafardi:
Congratulations on your appointment to chair the National Review
Board. We are writing on behalf of the thousands of victims of clergy
sexual abuse in our organization with the hope that we will be able
to develop a close and productive relationship with you and the
This description, we feel, is an understatement.
The bishop's decision, we fear, is nearly a total reversal of what
bishops pledged in Dallas in June of 2002, of what took place in
2003 and 2004, and of the bare minimum steps of what Catholics and
victims deserve and have come to expect.
As you know, for the last two years, small teams of "auditors" have visited every diocese in America. They have looked for evidence that bishops are living up to the commitments they made to respond better in sexual abuse cases (as spelled out in the Dallas Charter). In the years ahead, thanks to this new decision, we suspected fewer than 10% of all dioceses will receive such visits.
Anyway you "spin" it, that is a stark backtracking from an important pledge. And it has taken place barely two years after the promise was made. The end result: we'll all just have to take bishops at their word that they are living up to the Charter. No outside person or body will be able to ascertain whether this is in fact true. We're basically back to square one, where we have no choice but to trust in many of the same men whose repeated deceit and misconduct led to the molestation of thousands of innocent Catholic youngsters.
We are also troubled by the deceptive way in which the matter was
described both before and after the meeting. Again, according to
the Philadelphia Inquirer, "The system, which will take effect
next year, was presented by a bishops' committee as one of several
"tweaks and fine-tunings" in the implementation of the
child-protection charter adopted in 2002.
You can stare in a mirror and call it an x-ray. But that doesn't
make it so. You can use a written self-survey and call it an audit.
But that doesn't make it so.
Before, during and after the June 2002 US Conference of Catholic
Bishops meeting in Dallas, annual audits were repeatedly and emphatically
promised by dozens of bishops.
These audits, we were told, were a sign of how seriously bishops now took sexual abuse and would ensure that they would not "backslide" on their public commitments to do better in future. By the frequent use of the word "annual" we were of course led to believe that these audits would take place every year.
From the outset, we felt that the Charter was vague and weak. We've doubted the effectiveness of an "audit" process based purely on the voluntary cooperation of historically secretive bishops. We've worried about the effectiveness of "auditors" who were basically getting paid by the bishops they were supposed to be auditing. We were upset that auditors spoke with only a handful of victims across the country.
Still, in our view, even a flawed "audit" is better than no audit at all. Even a brief visit by an audit team is better than no visit at all.
The Decision Itself
Last Wednesday, by a 189-35 vote, bishops adopted an audit process for 2005. Sadly, it is a drastic departure from what has been promised.
Under this new plan, only those dioceses that were found "not in compliance" will have on-site audits next year. According to last week's Pittsburgh Post Gazette, for example, "This third audit would be streamlined, with dioceses that already have a clean bill of health able to submit self-reports." http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04323/413542.stm
In 2003, 90% of America's dioceses passed these audits. http://www.snapnetwork.org/usccb_reports/010704_most_dioceses_pass.htm
Therefore, it is logical to assume that when the final results are in for the 2004 audits, roughly the same pattern will hold true. So instead of having 100% of the dioceses visited, roughly 10% of the dioceses will be visited. Again, by any standard, this effectively guts the only process that even approaches real oversight.
Without auditors physically visiting dioceses, a church official can safely check "yes" or "in compliance" to every single box on a "self-report" form, knowing that no one will check the accuracy of his responses.
Would we let building owners with terrible safety records conduct unsupervised, written, self-surveys on their compliance with fire codes? Would we let convicted drunk drivers get behind the wheel of school buses based on conduct unsupervised, written, self-surveys? How can we in good conscience, after just two short years, allow bishops to "grade" their own compliance with their own weak, vague policies?
Given the horrific crimes that have taken place, often with the complicity of bishops who are still in office, this reckless move simply invites backsliding.
Adding insult to injury, some in the hierarchy describe this process as "self-auditing." In our view, the phrase "self-audit" is an oxymoron. No doctor tells a cancer patient, after one decent check up, 'OK, from now on you can do annual self x-rays at home.'
We need to be strengthening oversight, not weakening, oversight. This is premature and reckless backsliding.
Before the November meeting, a media advisory appeared on the USCCB web site. It listed topics to be discussed at the Washington conference. The advisory contained just one phrase about the audits: "The agenda will include. . . permission requested by the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse to proceed with plans for a 2005 audit process. . ." (http://usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-203.htm)
No mention was made of any modifications, large or small, to the audits.
At the meeting itself, material provided to bishops before the
vote was downright deceptive.
After the meeting, no news release was forthcoming that explained
what the bishops had done.
And Catholic news agencies are presenting last week's action inaccurately. "Catholic bishops OK new round of audits," claims a Catholic News Agency headline. The story continues: "Church leaders also authorized a third-round of annual audits of all U.S. dioceses to determine whether they are complying with the bishops' policies on preventing clergy sex abuse." (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=2489)
Again, no mention is made of the fundamental change in the process. The Catholic News Service is reporting that the bishops "Approved streamlining the process for the 2005 diocesan audits related to sex abuse." (http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn111904a.htm) Again, no mention of the drastic reversal that was made.
We echo the concerns of Portland (Maine) Bishop Richard Malone. On the floor of the Bishops Conference meeting last month, he said "I do have a bit of concern about the reception of self-reporting by our people, at least by many of them at this point. I don't believe that in every case we have enough distance from the crisis to be confident that our credibility is adequately restored for self-reporting to be accepted as trustworthy, at least generally."
Please, Mr. Cafardi, use your new position as Chair of the National Review Board to prod the bishops to reconsider this ill-fated and self-destructive back-pedaling.
Letting this decision stand will further erode the trust of the laity in the church hierarchy, will deepen the already severe betrayal many victims feel, and will enable some bishops to withdraw from the relatively belated and begrudging steps toward reform that they have been forced to take.
It is risky and unwise. Please help see that it is at least re-examined in a full, careful public discussion, if not fully reversed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests