|
What follows is the
summary of the report that Susan Smith presented at the Steering Committee meeting in Wallingford on October 29, 2003:
--
Commission: Nine members, three professors, two lawyers, one
child-welfare advocates, one management specialists,
one pediatrician, one
specialist in treatment of sex offenders. At least two non-Catholics.
-- Commission’s
“Charge”: to review of current policies and procedures
regarding “clerical misconduct” and
recommending revisions thereto.
-- Past Practice
-- Investigation by the archdiocesan Office
of Clergy. If allegations
deemed “credible,” whether or not it met legal definition of “sexual
abuse,”
investigation continued. OC provided “care, comfort, and other assistance
deemed necessary
to the victim.” “Generally,” determination of credibility
depended admission by alleged abuser.
Psychiatric evaluation, even if
allegation denied.
-- Discipline: “frequently”
retirement or resignation. Laicization
“rare.” “Few cases” where abuser assigned duties
involving no contact with
children.
-- Compliance with Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law
and
Reporting Requirements
-- Requirement that “persons whose employment or profession
(including
clergy) brings them into contract with children” make child abuse
reports, when they have “reason to suspect”
that a child that they have seen in
their professional capacity has been abused.
-- Recommendation:
provide training and expand information
provided to parents, children, and archdiocesan and parish personnel.
-- Role of Diocesan Personnel
-- Replace OC with “lay personnel with appropriate professional
credentials
(psychiatry, psychology or social work) to receive and review
allegations of abuse by clergy.”
--
identify “individuals to interview the priest...about whom the
allegations have been made. These individuals...should
have no personal or
prior relationship with the priests...about whom the allegation has been
made.”
--
Receiving Reports--Treatment of Victims
Recommendation: “The Archdiocese should assign a specific
individual
to assist the victim through the reporting and investigative process
and to serve as the ongoing contact for the victim
with the Archdiocese. This
person is not responsible for the Archdiocesan investigation but provides
assistance
to the victim during and after the investigation. The victim
assistance role should include facilitating communication
between the victim
and the Archdiocese, assisting the victim in accessing treatment services
(including payment for
treatment), keeping the victim apprised of the
procedural status of the investigation and promoting the speedy processing
of
services provided by the Archdiocese to the victim.
-- Communication Policy
-- “The
Archdiocese should seek input from and consider the needs of
the victim and the victim’s family as it provides guidance
to local price
personnel when allegations have been made and are under investigation.
-- “The Archdiocese
should develop a process and a standard
statement for use in informing parishes and school communities when
allegations
of abuse have been substantiated. The victim and the victim’s
family should be ;consulted prior to any public
statement regarding the
outcome of the investigation....”
-- Provisions for notifying parishes regarding
allegations pertaining to
former clergy.
-- The Archbishop’s Role
-- “...As
the shepherd of parishes and Catholic laity, the Archbishop’s
role includes reaching out to victims...to provide
support and comp0assion.
-- Recommendations:
-- “The Archbishop should offer
to meet personally with victims
and their families in a place that is mutually agreeable.” ==
--
“The Archbishop should assure that there is no transfer into
or out of this Archdiocese of any priest....if
that individual has any confirmed
abuse allegation or is the subject of an ongoing investigation....”
--
“The Archbishop should not participate in the investigation
other than assure that the Archdiocese’s
policies and protocols are followed.”
-- Investigation
1. Coordination of Public
Authorities and Archdiocese
-- Obligation of Archdiocese to conduct investigations, even though
matter referred
to public authorities.
-- Comment on lack of investigative skills by OC personnel.
-- Recommendations
-- Archdiocesan investigations particularly important, when
statute of limitations bars public authorities.
-- “The Archdiocese should contract with a qualified outside
secular source for its investigations,
including investigations about high
ranking officials of the Archdiocese. The investigative entity should have the
ability to coordinate its investigation with qualified mental health
professionals...as well as with qualified
investigative staff with experience in
conducting these types of investigations.
-- Selection of
qualified mental health providers by
bid-and-proposal method and repeated every five years. .
--
Final Disposition
-- “...remove a priest from all priestly ministry...if civil or canonical
authorities
find the priest guilty of sexual abuse of a minor.”
-- “The Archdiocese and its Review Board should
read and review the
results of all civil and Archdiocesan investigations when considering the
future of the priest...who
is subject to the investigation.”
-- “The Archbishop should seek Review Board consideration all
allegation
that have been made since February 2002 as well as any allegations
previously determined ‘not credible’ where
the priest remains in the
Archdiocese and currently has access to children.”
-- “The Archbishop,
in consultation with the Review Board, will make
his own final determination regarding the future ministry of an accused
priest
even in cases where the civil or canonical authorities conclude that a priest is
not guilty of the sexual abuse
of minors, or that the statute of limitations for
bring an action has expired.”
-- Review Board, equivalent
to National Review Board, to:
i. Audit compliance with policy, and
ii. Make recommendations to
Archbishop regarding appropriate
discipline for violating clergy.
Summary prepared by:
Susan M. Smith
(610) 892-8878
Smith2290@aol.com
|
