Transparency as a means to rebuild trust within the Church: a case study in how Catholic dioceses and eparchies in the United States have responded to the clergy sex abuse crisis

Abstract

The United States comprises 197 dioceses and eparchies. With the sexual abuse crisis affecting every one of those dioceses in some way, the clarion call from the laity and media for transparency within the Church became deafening. In the midst of this crisis and the calls for more transparency, a central question arose: how transparent are U.S. dioceses about their handling of clergy sexual abuse? This led to further questions regarding how many dioceses have had a review of clergy files and released the names of clergy abusers; how many make it easy to report abuse; and how many have a complete online resource as their response. At the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) fall 2018 meeting, the chair of the National Review Board (NRB), Francesco Cesareo, Ph.D., offered five key recommendations to increase accountability and transparency. In light of these recommendations, FAITH Catholic researchers reviewed and analyzed what steps U.S. dioceses are taking to achieve transparency. We concluded by developing criteria to enable diocesan leaders to understand more clearly what U.S. dioceses are already doing, or not yet doing, related to implementing those recommendations.

Keywords:

• Transparency
• Catholic
• clergy
• abuse
• bishops
• communications

Introduction¹

The horror of the Catholic clergy abusing minors is a global scandal, causing untold harm to victims/survivors. Calls for the Church to change and become more transparent in its handling of abuse continue unabated. This case study explores how the 197 dioceses and eparchies in the United States have responded to this specific demand for more transparency. How transparent are U.S. dioceses about their handling of clergy sexual abuse? How many have released the names of clergy abusers? How many have opened up their clergy files for an independent review? How many make it easy to report abuse? How many have a complete online resource for their response? By looking at the responses of dioceses in the United States, this case study provides context and perspective for Church leaders and communicators throughout the world regarding transparency in the handling of abuse.

Section 1: the scope of the crisis

The sexual abuse of minors by clerics is a centuries-old horror in the Church. Going back to the early Church, the problem not only existed but warranted a written condemnation. In their article entitled The Roman Catholic Church: A Centuries Old History of Awareness of Clerical Child Sexual Abuse (from the First to the 19th Century), published in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, authors Faisal Rashid and Ian Barron refer to a first-century document, the Didache. It has a commandment that the clergy shall not corrupt boys and shall not commit fornication. They mention that in the Council of Elvira in 309, ‘38 out of 81 canons passed in the council were related to deviant clerical sexual behaviors’, including clergy sexual abuse of minors. They continue, stating, ‘Canon 9 of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD debarred unchaste priests from exercising ministry’ (Rashid and Barron 2018, 780).

In his 1048 work, Liber Gomorrhianus, St. Peter Damian condemned these acts and recommended severe penalties for clerics caught in them, basing his punishments on the rule for the Monastery of Compludo:

A cleric or monk who seduces youths or young boys or is found kissing or in any other impure situations is to be publicly flogged and lose his tonsure. When his hair has been shorn, his face is to be foully besmeared with spit and he is to be bound in iron chains. For six months he will languish in prison-like confinement and on three days of each week shall fast on barley bread in the evening. After this he will spend another six months under the custodial care of a spiritual elder, remaining in a segregated cell, giving himself to manual work and prayer, subject to vigils and prayers. He may go for walks but always under the custodial care of two spiritual brethren, and he shall never again associate with youths in private conversation nor in counseling them. (Damian 1982, Ch. XV)

While the offense was taken seriously, and the punishment was severe, the text did not call for the removal of the cleric from the monastery. However, other Church leaders did call for removal from the clerical state and civil punishment, including execution. Rashid and Barron quote from Pope Pius V’s 1568 Apostolic Constitution, Horrendumilludscelus, where he stated, ‘Whoever commits such an execrable crime (bestiality, pedophilia, sodomy, etc.), by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity, and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss’.

After this, the Spanish Inquisition treated these crimes harshly. Rashid and Barron cite a 16th-century example of a priest who sodomized a 13-year-old boy. The priest was removed from the clerical state and handed over to the civil authorities, who executed him. This was not the case everywhere. The authors also point out that the Church kept records of cases:

Spanish and Mexican tribunals citing evidence of those whose proceedings had been completed, resulting in handing over of various sentences to the involved clerics in 3775 cases of clerical solicitation between 1723 and 1820. Haliczer (1996) highlighted the majority of these as involving sexual crimes against children during confessions and in seminaries. (Rashid and Barron 2018, 786)

Throughout the twentieth century, isolated reports of abuse began to receive media attention in the United States, Ireland, Chile and much of Europe (Wikipedia 2019; Boston Globe 2002). In the 1940s, the Order of the Paraclete was established to treat priests with ‘personal difficulties’, including those with pedophilia. Its founder, Father Gerald Fitzgerald, wrote in 1952 to Bishop Robert Dwyer of Reno, Nevada,

I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual (Zoll 2009).

His advice was not widely adopted by bishops because of hurdles in canon law, a belief that psychological treatment would cure an abusive priest, and other reasons.

In its 2010 report, John Jay College of Criminal Justice included a historical review of how U.S. bishops responded to clergy sexual abuse of minors. By 1985, ‘almost all of the dioceses in the United States had experienced cases of sexual abuse of minors by priests’ (John Jay College Research Team 2010).

Since 1950, how have bishops dealt with these cases? Between 1950 and 1979, 34.8% of priests with complaints of sexual abuse of a minor against them were reprimanded and returned to ministry. Another 33% were referred for evaluation. Only 12.4% were suspended or placed on administrative leave (John Jay College Research Team 2010).

The John Jay College report also included a survey of bishops in the U.S. regarding ‘Causes and Context’ of the crisis. Bishops who served in the 1980s and 1990s tended to focus more on the clergy-abuser and less on the victim/survivor. They pointed out their previous attempts to understand and address the problem. ‘Such attempted actions included ineffective psychological treatment, inadequate processes to help priests leave the priesthood, and complex canon law processes for suspension’ (John Jay College Research Team 2010). The bishops complained that it was not easy to remove a priest from the clerical state and impossible to remove them for abuse of minors ages 16 and 17. Plus, they had other reasons for handling the cases the way they did. The John Jay report stated:

More than 80 percent of pre-1985 reports of sexual abuse were made to the diocese within a year of the incident, and three quarters of the reports were made by the victim or a family member. The most common request was that help be provided for the priest-offender. Often, the families did not want publicity nor did they wish to confront the priest; in other cases, families were pressured by church leaders to keep the inci- dent confidential. Under such circumstances, a course of action toward a canonical trial or a criminal indictment was not very likely.

Canon Law did allow the removal of an abuser from the clerical state. The 1983 updated Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II stated that

A cleric who in another way has committed an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants (Code of Canon Law 1983, Can. 1395, § 2).

Bishops who were not yet in their positions in the 1980s and 1990s had a different take than their more senior colleagues in the episcopy. The John Jay report ‘Causes and Context’ survey concluded,

Bishops not in position in the late 1990s were far more likely to acknowledge that the earlier diocesan protective focus on the priest-abuser eclipsed the most serious dimension of clergy abuse: harm done to the victim. The failure to recognize the harm of physical or sexual abuse was not atypical in American society generally in the late 1970s and 1980s; this was a time when the understanding of the rights of women and children was just developing. Although neglect or blame of victims was commonplace, the Catholic laity would not be able to accept this behavior from church leaders.

Indeed, the public was not accepting. It was due to public exposure of abuse in the 1980s and 1990s in the U.S., from cases in Lafayette, Louisiana and Fall River, Massachusetts, that the bishops’ conference in the United States began to ‘develop and strengthen anti-abuse policies’. The conference’s document urged bishops in the United States to comply with civil law, cooperate with investigations, and to be transparent (Daniels 2018; Berry 1985).

In 1992, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) in the United States developed recommendations for how dioceses should respond to complaints of clergy sexual abuse of minors. These five principles were not mandatory:

1. Respond promptly to all allegations of abuse where there is a reasonable belief that abuse has occurred.

2. If such an allegation is supported by sufficient evidence, relieve the alleged offender promptly of his ministerial duties and refer him for appropriate medical evaluation and intervention.

3. Comply with the obligations of civil law as regards reporting of the incident and cooperating with the investigation.

4. Reach out to the victims and their families and communicate a sincere commitment to their spiritual and emotional well-being.

5. Within the confines of respect for the privacy of the individuals involved, deal as openly as possible with the members of the community.

These changes called for swift action, outreach and care for victims, transparency and cooperation with civil authorities. It showed that Church leaders were trying to address the problem. However, too many bishops were still referring priest abusers for treatment versus suspending the priest, calling the civil authorities and conducting an investigation. According to John Jay report, from 1990 to 1999, 45.6% of priests with complaints of sexual abuse of a minor against them were still being sent for treatment and evaluation. Only 20.6% were suspended or placed on administrative leave. On a positive note, only 3.8% were being reprimanded and returned to ministry, an improvement compared to 34.8% who returned to ministry from 1950 to 1979 (John Jay College Research Team 2010).

The significant change did not really occur in the United States until the abuse exploded into a national crisis in 2002. When the Boston Globe exposed the scope of the painful reality of clergy sexual abuse of minors within the Archdiocese of Boston (Robinson 2002), it became clear to the public that the problems of clerics abusing minors were not a matter of isolated cases of a few sinful clerics here and there. Evidence mounted that the scope was broader and more multifaceted than the public understood. We would soon learn that the scope of the crisis was global, it extended beyond perpetrators to those in positions of trust, it is ongoing which has resulted in an erosion of trust for bishops, and it has negatively impacted participation in the life of the Church.

The scope of the crisis is global

First, geographically, the extent of the scandal went beyond Boston. The John Jay College concluded that, from 1950 to 2002, approximately 11,000 allegations of abuse were made against 4% of the 110,000 priests who had served in the United States. The report stated, ‘the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95% of the dioceses and approximately 60% of religious communities’ (Terry et al. 2004, 26). Around the same time period, revelations of clergy abuse in Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, and Austria meant the crisis was not just a problem for the United States (Wikipedia 2019). The scope of the crisis is global.

Both St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have apologized for abuse in the Church. St. John Paul II, in an address to U.S. cardinals and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) leaders, stated, ‘There is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young’ (Pope St. John Paul, II 2002). Pope Francis stated that ‘everything possible must be done to rid the Church of the scourge of the sexual abuse of minors and to open pathways of reconciliation and healing for those who were abused’ (Pope Francis 2015). After the February 2019 Vatican summit on clergy sexual abuse, Pope Francis said during his Angelus message that abuse is ‘a widespread problem on every continent’. The Holy Father asked bishops throughout the world ‘to face it together, in a co-responsible and collegial way’ (Harris 2019). In his 2019 motu proprio, Vos estis lux mundi, the Holy Father stated, ‘the crimes of sexual abuse offend Our Lord, cause physical, psychological and spiritual damage to the victims and harm the community of the faithful’ (Pope Francis 2019).

The scope extends beyond just the perpetrators to those in positions of trust

What the abusers did was bad enough. Compounding the problem was that some Church leaders covered up these crimes rather than reporting them to civil authorities. A culture of secrecy within some chanceries led to an apparent mindset of cover-up over transparency, self-policing over-reporting to civil authorities, and legal maneuvering over caring first for victims.

In June 2018, the Archdiocese of New York announced an investigation into one of America’s highest-ranking leaders, then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. More questions arose. How could a sexual predator rise so high through the ranks of the hierarchy?

One month later, in July 2019, a grand jury report on clergy sexual abuse within six dioceses in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania stated:

We heard the testimony of dozens of witnesses concerning clergy sex abuse. We subpoenaed, and reviewed, half a million pages of internal diocesan documents. They contained credible allegations against over three hundred predator priests. Over one thousand child victims were identifiable, from the church’s own records. We believe that the real number – of children whose records were lost, or who were afraid ever to come forward – is in the thousands.

Most of the victims were boys; but there were girls too. Some were teens; many were prepubescent. Some were manipulated with alcohol or pornography. Some were made to masturbate their assailants, or were groped by them. Some were raped orally, some vaginally, some anally. But all of them were brushed aside, in every part of the state, by church leaders who preferred to protect the abusers and their institution above all (Office of Attorney General Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2018, 1).

The betrayal seemed to be at all levels of the Church, and it even extended into what most people consider the safest place of all, the home. Reverence among the faithful for the clerical state meant some children were not believed and others feared the reaction of their parents. After telling his parents of being sexually abused by their priest, a victim from Pennsylvania said his parents not only did not believe him but sent him to his abuser for counseling. ‘The priest said to me’, the victim recalled years later, ‘go ahead and tell. Nobody will believe you. Your mother and father already know about this and that’s why they sent you to me’ (Ruland 2018).

Abuse of children among those from the Church is sadly part of the larger problem of abuse in America and ignores the reality of it. The John Jay study stated, ‘According to the Endangerment Standard, one child out of every 25 in the United States has been maltreated’. Cruelty to children happens all too often in the United States. ‘Of those who were maltreated, 29% of children were abused and 77% were neglected. Of the 29% who were abused, 22% were sexually abused’.

The scope of the crisis is ongoing

The crisis continues despite many successful efforts made by the Church to address the issue. U.S. dioceses have worked to reduce dramatically the number of cases of abuse. After the scandal broke in Boston early in 2002, the USCCB swiftly adopted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (Charter) by June of that same year (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2018). According to the USCCB, the Charter ‘directs action in all the following matters’:

• Creating a safe environment for children and young people;

• Healing and reconciliation of victims and survivors;

• Making prompt and effective response to allegations;

• Cooperating with civil authorities;

• Disciplining offenders;

• Providing for means of accountability for the future to ensure the problem continues to be effectively dealt with through the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection and the National Review Board.

To expand upon that last point, dioceses participate in annual audits to determine compliance with the Charter. The goal of these audits is to verify that dioceses are creating a safe environment for children, to make sure abusers are no longer active in ministry, to increase transparency, and to rebuild trust through lay review boards. It all seemed to be working. According to the 2018 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, ‘48% of alleged offenses occurred or began before 1975, 40% between 1975 and 1999, 6% after 2000, and 7% had no time frame’ (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2019, 37).

These positive changes outlined in year after year of annual audit reports became overshadowed in 2018 with the combined news reports about then-Cardinal McCarrick and the release of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report. After the release of the devastating volume of details of abuse from the grand jury report, the scandal erupted anew in the United States. The scope of the report, with all the gut-wrenching details, led Catholics, the media, and the public to ask questions of bishops across the country: Did this happen here in our diocese? Are similar horrors documented in our diocesan files? What has our bishop kept secret?

Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley stated on 16 August 2018, ‘The clock is ticking for all of us in the Church leadership, Catholics have lost patience with us and civil society has lost confidence in us’ (Boston Pilot 2018). At the November 2018 meeting of the USCCB in Baltimore, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, papal nuncio to the United States, addressed the U.S. bishops. ‘We must accept our responsibility as spiritual fathers’, he told them. Referring to the 2002 Charter not being enough to address the crisis he stated, ‘There is always more to do, and we bishops must not be afraid to get our hands dirty in doing that work’ (Zimmermann 2018).

The scope of the crisis has caused an erosion of trust for bishops and clergy

Trust in the bishops and clergy has eroded in nearly all branches of American society, including civil authorities, the public-at-large, and people in the pews. By December 2018, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro stated that officials from 45 states have sought ‘assistance in pursuit of alleged misconduct by Catholic priests and related efforts to conceal that abuse by the Church’ (Johnson 2018). As of 22 October 2019, states had launched investigations into clergy sexual abuse and the cover-up of Church leaders. After a simultaneous raid by the Michigan State Police for clergy files from all seven Michigan dioceses, Attorney General Dana Nessel levied a harsh assessment against the bishops. ‘Some of the things I’ve seen in the files makes your blood boil, to be honest with you’, Nessel told the Associated Press. ‘When you’re investigating gangs or the Mafia, we would call some of this conduct a criminal enterprise’ (Perry 2019). This level of public hostility from an elected official against Church leaders was unprecedented in the state. Essentially, an elected official was comparing successors of the apostles with mob bosses.

A Pew Research Center report dated 11 June 2019 stated, ‘about eight-in-ten U.S. adults say the recent reports of sexual abuse and misconduct by Catholic priests and bishops reflect “ongoing problems that are still happening” in the Church’. Despite the fact that more than 90% of the cases were old and happened before the year 2000, the public thinks otherwise. Additionally, Pew reports that 48% of the U.S. public thinks sexual abuse and misconduct is ‘more common among Catholic priests and bishops than among leaders in other religious traditions’ (Pew Research Center 2019).

Among U.S. Catholics, confidence in the bishops has also eroded. In the June 2019 Pew study, only 36% of Catholics say the U.S. bishops as a whole have done an ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ job responding to the crisis. Catholics rate their own bishop higher at 49%. Pope Francis fares only a little better at 55%. A Gallup poll published in January 2019 shows that only 31% of Catholics rate clergy as highly honest, down from 48% in 2017. Only 44% of Catholics have confidence in organized religion, an eight-point drop (Brenan 2019). A YouGov poll claims 54% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Catholic Church (Frankovic 2018).

Could the bishops have done something about this decades ago? In his article in the Boston College Law Review, Rev. John Coughlin, O.F.M., thinks the answer is yes. He writes, ‘the discipline of the clergy for sexual offenses is not novel in the history of the Catholic Church, and canonical structures have long been in place to address the problem’. He continues to claim that within Canon Law the bishops already had the authority to investigate and remove priests for clergy sexual abuse of minors but instead for decades chose the therapeutic course versus the canonical remedy of removal. He writes,

In clear or notorious cases, however, permanent dismissal may be imposed on a guilty cleric through a simple administrative procedure. Again, the 1917 Code afforded procedural provisions similar to those of the 1983 Code. … It does seem clear, however, that over the course of several decades, many – and perhaps most – bishops declined to implement and enforce the rule of canon law. This failure violated the normative principles of natural and divine justice (Coughlin 2003).

The scope of the crisis is negatively affecting participation in the life of the Church

The scandal is causing Catholics in the United States to question their commitment to the Church. According to a March 2019 Gallup poll, ‘Thirty-seven percent of U.S. Catholics, up from 22 percent in 2002, say news of the abuse has led them to question whether they would remain in the Church’ (Jones 2019). This is an indication that this most recent flare-up of the scandal is having a more negative effect than when the scandal erupted in 2002. Whether Catholics leave or not, for this reason, is an open question. However, the fallout from the scandal combined with other downward trends in involvement with organized religion means that the Church’s mission is being directly and negatively affected.

According to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), weekly Mass attendance is down. In 2000, 30.8% of Catholics attended Mass each week. In 2018, only 21.1% attended weekly. Though more people in the United States now identify as Catholic, an even greater number have left the Church. In 2000, there were 71.7 million Catholics in the United States. In 2018, there were 4.6 million more Catholics, or 76.3 million. However, over the same time period, the number of former Catholics has more than doubled. In 2000, there were 11.7 million people who identified as former Catholics; by 2018, that number had reached 26.1 million (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate 2019).

In summary, the scope of the clergy abuse crisis is global and far-reaching. It extends beyond the perpetrators to those in positions of trust. It is ongoing, it is eroding trust in Church leaders, and it is negatively affecting participation in the life of the Church. The greatest negative impact is obviously the pain and suffering of the victims/survivors of abuse. However, surveys and Mass attendance indicate that the negative impact extends beyond those direct victims to the body of the Church itself.

Section 2: the call for transparency

Now that we have explored the scope of the crisis, its history, and negative impact in the United States, this section looks at what victims and the public are asking of the Church, specifically in the calls for more transparency. These demands come from individual victims and advocacy groups, not just from within the United States, but from around the globe.

A victim in North Carolina told local media, ‘One incident is too many and the effects wear on the human psyche for years. I am almost 57 and my tears still flow, they do’, stated John Mohr. He wants the public to know the name of every priest who has been credibly accused (Latos 2019).

Ending Clergy Abuse (ECA) and Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) are examples of watchdog and victim advocacy groups that have formed around the world. These groups have called for a federal investigation of the abuse and cover-up in the Catholic Church (Ending Clergy Abuse 2018).

Co-leader of SNAP Connecticut, Gail Howard, told local media that her group has asked diocesan leaders to ‘publish on their website the names of all priests who have been convicted, or credibly accused, of sexual assault’ (Aherne 2018).

In a conclusion in the 2010 John Jay College report, the need for transparency is stressed:

The lack of external transparency, coupled with the lack of external accountability, further led to concern by the public about the church’s response to this serious problem.

The church has now begun a system of change, but organizational changes take years, and often decades, to fully implement. To fully achieve change in the Catholic Church, all diocesan leaders must be committed to transparency about their actions, ensure that the immediate and appropriate responses to abuse become routine, and ensure that such actions are adopted on a national level by all church leaders. Most diocesan leaders have taken clear steps toward addressing this problem, yet some dioceses have continued to lag behind in their response to and transparency about priests known to have allegations of abuse against minors. (John Jay College Research Team 2010)

At the February 2019 Vatican summit on abuse, Nigerian Sister Veronica Openibo, congregational leader of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus, stated,

Let us not hide such events anymore because of the fear of making mistakes. Too often we want to keep silent until the storm has passed! This storm will not pass by. Our credibility is at stake. Jesus told us, ‘Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea’ (Mark 9:42). We must face this issue and seek healing for the victims of abuse. The normal process for clergy – in the past and still in the present in some areas – was/is to give support to ‘one of us’, to avoid exposing a scandal and bringing discredit to the Church. All offenders, regardless of their clerical status, found guilty should be given the same penalty for the abuse of minors (Catholic News Service 2019).

Also at the Vatican summit, Cardinal Reinhard Marx called for transparency in the Church: ‘It is necessary to redefine confidentiality and [pontifical] secrecy … It is not transparency which damages the church, but rather the acts of abuse committed, the lack of transparency or the ensuing cover-up’ (O’Connell 2019a).

Speaking to the press after the Vatican summit, Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta said: ‘Silence is a “no go” in the Church today … We have to break away from the code of silence; we must break away from any complicity to deny; only the truth will make us free’ (O’Connell 2019b). Archbishop Scicluna is the adjunct secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican body responsible for dealing with the clergy sexual abuse crisis.

Amidst all these calls for transparency in response to the crisis, is there evidence that transparency makes a difference in rebuilding trust? In her research titled, ‘Trust Me, Trust Me Not: An Experimental Analysis of the Effect of Transparency in Organizations’, published in the Journal of Public Relations Research, Giselle A. Auger describes two types of transparency. The first is the organization’s reputation for transparency. The second is its efforts to communicate transparently. Looking at the relationship between both types of transparency, Auger’s research concludes that organizations demonstrating both types of transparency achieved ‘more than twice the levels of trust and positive behavioral intentions than organizations that demonstrated neither type of transparency’ (Auger 2014, 325).

In his article titled, ‘Making Transparency Transparent: The Evolution of Observation in Management Theory’, Ethan S. Bernstein of Harvard Business School writes that the term ‘transparency’ has grown in use to become one of the most widely used terms.

In 2009, it was deemed the tenth-most-used word in global print and electronic media (GlobalLanguageMonitor.com, 2009). It appeared in over 27,000 academic articles between 2000 and 2009, 15 percent of which were related to management, a sixfold increase in the percentage from the previous decade …. (Bernstein 2017, 23)

Later in his article, Bernstein points out the necessary relationship between trust and transparency:

One would expect trust to have something to do with the balance between transparency and privacy, and so it does, but the relationship is complicated. As observers, the more we see, the more easily we can trust. But as the observed, the more that is seen of us, the less we feel trusted. When others tell us we need to be observed to be trusted, that doesn’t feel like trust at all. But if someone tells us they don’t want to be observed, we tend not to trust them. (Bernstein 2017, 53)

This dynamic outlined by Bernstein is almost perfectly displayed in comments made by then-president of the USCCB, Bishop Wilton Gregory, to the Religion Newswriters Association in 2003,

I think the media coverage last year did help the church to take some steps that will wring this terrible stain out of her life to the extent that sin and crime can ever be fully eliminated, … However, the way the story was so obsessively covered resulted in unnecessary damage to the bishops and the entire Catholic community (Smith 2003).

While acknowledging that Church leaders would not have done this on their own without media scrutiny, Bishop Gregory, in his next breath, scolded the media for doing damage to bishops.

Section 3: response of bishops in the United States

We have explored the scope of the crisis and what victims and the public are looking for from the Church, specifically to be more transparent. This section explores how bishops in the United States have responded. As mentioned earlier, in 1985, bishops were aware of the problem. Most U.S. dioceses had cases. In 1992, the NCCB adopted the five non-binding recommendations for how a diocese should handle claims of abuse. Then, U.S. bishops asked the Vatican for some changes.

In 1994 the Holy See granted an indult to the Bishops of the United States: the age for the canonical crime of sexual abuse of a minor was raised to 18. At the same time, prescription (canonical term for Statute of Limitations) was extended to a period of 10 years from the 18th birthday of the victim (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2001).

Vatican officials realized there was a need to do more.

Efforts to combat clerical sex abuse began in earnest in 1988, when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a letter to St. John Paul II shedding light on how the procedures laid out in canon law made it difficult for bishops to laicize abusive priests (Catholic News Agency 2014).

In 2001, further changes came from the Holy Father.

‘In Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, a 2001 motu proprio, St. John Paul II transferred authority for investigating abuse cases from the Congregation for Clergy to Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, so that they could be dealt with more speedily (Catholic News Agency 2014).

After the crisis erupted in 2002, the U.S. bishops responded with the comprehensive Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. It was first adopted by the USCCB in 2002 and was updated in June 2018.

Guidelines from the 2002 USCCB Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People

Relevant to the research being presented in this case study are the following provisions from the Charter:

• Victims’ assistance coordinators are in place throughout our nation to assist dioceses and eparchies in responding to the pastoral needs of the abused.

• Diocesan/eparchial bishops in every diocese/eparchy are advised and greatly assisted by diocesan and eparchial review boards as the bishops make the decisions needed to fulfill the Charter.

• Safe environment programs are in place to assist parents and children – and those who work with children – in preventing harm to young people. These programs continually seek to incorporate the most useful developments in the field of child protection.

• Dioceses/eparchies are to have policies and procedures in place to respond promptly to any allegation where there is reason to believe that sexual abuse of a minor has occurred. Dioceses/eparchies are to have a competent person or persons to coordinate assistance for the immediate pastoral care of persons who report having been sexually abused as minors by clergy or other Church personnel. The procedures for those making a complaint are to be readily available in printed form and other media in the principal languages in which the liturgy is celebrated in the diocese/eparchy and be the subject of public announcements at least annually.

• Dioceses/eparchies are also to have a review board that functions as a confidential consultative body to the bishop/eparch. The majority of its members are to be lay persons not in the employ of the diocese/eparchy (see Norm 5 in Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons, 2006). This board is to advise the diocesan/eparchial bishop in his assessment of allegations of sexual abuse of minors and in his determination of a cleric’s suitability for ministry. It is regularly to review diocesan/eparchial policies and procedures for dealing with the sexual abuse of minors. Also, the board can review these matters both retrospectively and prospectively and give advice on all aspects of responses in connection with these cases.

• From the USCCB Diocesan Review Board Resource Booklet (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2003), greater clarity is provided regarding the standard for determining a credible allegation: In advising the bishop/eparch, the review board will have to determine whether all the available evidence meets the threshold of a credible allegation. Except for cases in which an act is acknowledged or admitted (in which case the review board is assessing severity or notoriety), review boards have applied a variety of standards: believable and plausible, reasonable and probable, or a preponderance of the evidence. A diocesan canonical advisor will have to assist the Board in setting the proper threshold.

• Dioceses/eparchies are to report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities with due regard for the seal of the Sacrament of Penance. Diocesan/eparchial personnel are to comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and cooperate in their investigation in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in question.

• Dioceses/eparchies are to cooperate with public authorities about reporting cases even when the person is no longer a minor. In every instance, dioceses/eparchies are to advise victims of their right to make a report to public authorities and support this right.

• There are to be clear and well-publicized diocesan/eparchial standards of ministerial behavior and appropriate boundaries for clergy and for any other paid personnel and volunteers of the Church with regard to their contact with minors.

• Dioceses/eparchies are to be open and transparent in communicating with the public about sexual abuse of minors by clergy within the confines of respect for the privacy and the reputation of the individuals involved. This is especially so with regard to informing parish and other church communities directly affected by sexual abuse of a minor.

• The Secretariat is to produce an annual public report on the progress made in implementing and maintaining the standards in this Charter. The report is to be based on an annual audit process whose method, scope, and cost are to be approved by the Administrative Committee on the recommendation of the Committee on the Protection of Children and Young People. This public report is to include the names of those dioceses/eparchies which the audit shows are not in compliance with the provisions and expectations of the Charter. The audit method refers to the process and techniques used to determine compliance with the Charter. The audit scope relates to the focus, parameters, and time period for the matters to be examined during an individual audit (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2018, 7–13).

Article 10 of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People calls for a National Review Board to review an annual report of diocesan compliance with the Charter and make recommendations that emerge from it, and offer its own assessment regarding its approval and publication to the Conference President. In response to the 2018 resurgence of the crisis, the National Review Board advised that more needed to be done than what was in the Charter.

Francesco Cesareo, Ph.D. is chairman of the National Review Board and president of Assumption College in Massachusetts. He complained that dioceses ‘get great marks on the audit and the next thing you know there's a grand jury report pointing out all the terrible things occurring there’ (Smith 2018). The re-eruption of the crisis in 2018 in the United States led the National Review Board to make the following recommendations in addition to those that were previously included in the Charter. Dr. Cesareo offered key recommendations to the U.S. bishops to increase accountability and transparency.

Summary of the fall 2018 NationalReview Board recommendations

1. Increase transparency of how abuse was handled

2. Review clergy files going back to 1950 and make findings public

3. List clergy who have been credibly accused of sexual abuse and how each case was handled

4. Establish a review process involving laities, such as the review board or an external firm

5. Increase the accountability of bishops

There are many aspects of transparency that could be researched regarding the diocesan response to the crisis. In light of these recommendations from the National Review Board, we developed criteria to identify what U.S. dioceses are already doing, or not yet doing, in terms of implementing those recommendations. We were able to develop findings on four of the five recommendations. The last recommendation to increase the accountability of bishops is not part of this research.

This research sought to answer the following questions. How transparent are U.S. dioceses about their handling of the clergy sexual abuse? How many dioceses have had a review of clergy files and released the names of clergy abusers? How many make it easy to report abuse? How many have a complete online resource for their response?

Research on this topic was first published in 2019 by FAITH Catholic, America’s largest publisher of Catholic magazines, in its publication, Content Evangelist, the magazine for Catholic communicators. FAITH Catholic publishes magazines for 41 dioceses in the United States and provides crisis communications consulting for Catholic dioceses and organizations. Content Evangelist researchers set out to learn what dioceses are doing to be transparent. This research has been updated as of January 2020 for release in Church, Communication & Culture.

Research Methodology

Researchers examined all 197 dioceses and eparchies in the United States. The methodology involved website reviews, and telephone calls or emails to assess levels of transparency. From what could be reasonably ascertained through sources dioceses are making public, our researchers made a determination of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for areas of focus for this study. The research was first conducted in February 2019 and concluded in April 2019. It was updated in January 2020. In the two months of research in early 2019, it became clear that increasing numbers of dioceses were publishing names and becoming more transparent. But the most significant change occurred between April 2019 and January 2020. In this time, the number of dioceses with a comprehensive online response to abuse jumped from 74 to 176, or a 138% increase. Another notable increase is the number of dioceses that have made public the list of clergy abusers – that number has increased from 65 to 77%.

(Changes made by dioceses in these categories after January 2020 are not included in this report.)

Findings

For the first recommendation of the National Review Board to increase the transparency of how abuse was handled, we evaluated diocesan websites on several factors: ease of how to report abuse, ease of accessing the victim assistance coordinator, ease of finding information about child protection efforts and, finally, does the diocese have a transparent online response to abuse?

Most dioceses do well with what has been asked for in the Charter: 187 out of 197 dioceses make clearly visible on their diocesan website how to report abuse. Ten dioceses do not have this information available within three clicks of their homepages. Small text or a link at the bottom of the homepage did not meet our criteria as ‘clearly visible’. Next, we looked at how easy it was to access the victim assistance coordinator. For 185 dioceses, that information was available within three clicks. Finding safe environment programming information was also easy to find on 164 out of 197 diocesan websites, clearly visible on the home page.

Models of best practices: response websites

A growing trend and best practice is a comprehensive online response to abuse, which we refer to as a ‘response webpage’. An increasing number of dioceses have become very transparent about how they are handling abuse by gathering many elements into a single online presentation. Elements include reports about how abuse is handled and the status of allegations; a list of abusers; a report on the process for handling abuse; information about how the diocese’s lay review board works; diocesan policies; and pastoral resources for victims and others. If a majority of these elements were present, we determined the diocese had met our definition of having a response webpage. Out of 197 dioceses, 176 dioceses met the criteria for having a dedicated response website. Since the first phase of research was concluded in April 2019, that number increased by 102 by January 2020.

Elements identified to qualify as a comprehensive diocesan response webpage

1. The diocese’s response is primarily organized and accessible from one place online, such as a separate website or section of the diocesan website

   • The purpose of gathering a diocese’s response to one place helps the public find elements more easily. Otherwise, the bishop’s statement might be in one place on the diocesan website, policies in another, and the release of names in third place.

2. Be easy to find from the home page

   • Many dioceses have branded the response webpage and included graphics that make it not only easy to find, but also make clear the purpose of that section of the site. Examples include the Archdiocese of Boston’s response website, which has a heading, ‘Protection, Prevention and Healing’ on a dedicated website https://commitment.bostoncatholic.org. In the Archdiocese of Newark, the heading on the archdiocesan home page https://www.rcan.org. is ‘Healing’, which links to the response site https://healing.rcan.org. The heading on the response website is ‘Our Commitment to Transparency and Healing’.

3. The site is updated regularly

   • Our researchers checked to see if there was a sign that the site would be updated regularly versus being a static site.

4. How to report abuse, clearly identifying that civil authorities should be contacted immediately

   • According to the Charter, all dioceses should make it easy to report abuse. Many dioceses use the ‘Safe Environment’ branding and ‘Promise to Protect, Pledge to Heal’ graphics provided by the USCCB Committee on Child and Youth Protection on their homepage. From that graphic or heading, they link to the diocesan victim assistance coordinator and information about how to report abuse to civil authorities. We think a best practice is to provide direct contact information to civil child protection agencies and local law enforcement agencies within the diocese.

5. How to access the victim assistance coordinator

   • Provide the phone number and email of the victim assistance coordinator and briefly describe the role.

6. Pastoral resources and outreach for victims/survivors

   • The Diocese of Erie provides an extensive set of downloadable resources such as home training materials for parents and response kits for schools and parishes (Diocese of Erie 2019).

7. Summary of the child protection efforts

   • This element usually involves a description of safe environment training of diocesan personnel including priests, deacons, seminarians, pastoral ministers, and employees of parishes, schools, and agencies. Also included are criminal background check processes for these individuals.

8. Statement and/or video from the bishop conveying sorrow to victims/survivors and commitment to the protection of children

   • Most abuse within a diocese probably did not happen under the current ordinary. But, as shepherd of that local Church, many bishops have disclosed if abuse occurred in his diocese, apologized to victims and made a commitment to transparency and zero tolerance for abusers in ministry in the diocese.

9. Diocesan policy against abuse in compliance with the Charter and other relevant policies including a stated zero-tolerance policy for abuse

   • Each diocese is asked to have its own policy regarding abuse and these should be made public on the response site.

10. Code of Conduct for clergy, employees, and volunteers

    • Each diocese should make public its code of conduct for all clergy, employees, and volunteers.

11. Diocesan report or FAQ section on how the diocese has handled abuse

    • We recommend the best practice of the diocese providing an FAQ section or report on its process for how it handles abuse. What happens when an accusation is made? What is the process? What is the status of each accusation?

12. Definition of terms

    • Response sites should have a definition of terms. Each ordinary has his own policies and local norms and may define terms differently.

13. What happens when abuse is reported? What is the process the diocese uses to investigate?

    • All allegations should be reported to civil authorities. However, because some claims may be older and past the statute of limitations, civil authorities may not investigate. More and more dioceses have hired former law enforcement officials to investigate claims and make a report to the bishop and his diocesan review board. Making that process public is a helpful component of transparency.

14. List of clergy with credible allegations of abuse, including the status of each case/clergy member

    • Perhaps one of the most significant acts of transparency is for the diocese to disclose the names of clergy who have abused. The publication of those names communicates that the diocese places the needs of victims above protecting the Church from scandal. By seeing abusers’ names made public, it helps other victims to realize they are not alone and to come forward to find healing. This research explores how dioceses have presented this sensitive information.

15. How the diocesan review board works

    • One of the most important developments to involve laity in addressing this problem is the role of the review board. These response websites should explain their role so the public understands that the bishop is not alone in determining the validity of allegations.

16. Audit reports from the Charter, as well as statistics about how clergy, staff, and volunteers are trained

    • Since the audit conducted by the USCCB is really a result of dioceses’ self-reporting, it is not independently verified. As helpful as this audit report is, this is why the National Review Board recommended an independent review of how abuse was handled in each diocese. That report should be made public.

17. Financial reports, such as the cost of abuse, care for victims, and litigation

    • Part of transparency is to disclose the cost of abuse and what the diocese is doing to care for victims. The Church operates with the funds provided by parishioners. Trust is eroded when there is a lack of transparency about how that money is being spent.

18. Funds or compensation program details for victims/survivors

    • In several dioceses, the diocese funds an independent organization that determines victim compensation. Disclosing how that works is an important aspect of transparency.

19. Frequency and scope of background checks for clergy lay professional staff, and volunteers

    • As a part of ensuring the parishes, schools, and agencies are safe from convicted abusers, the diocese should disclose its practices for conducting criminal background checks for all Church workers.

20. Explanation of the screening of seminarian candidates and the formation of seminarians

    • What sort of screening is occurring to make sure an abuser is not admitted into the seminary? This sort of disclosure helps instill trust that the Church is doing all it can to rid the clergy of future abusers.

21. Links to other websites, columnists, videos, and content on abuse, hope, and healing

    • Catholic publishers and communicators have provided many resources that dioceses can use. Bishop Robert Barron provides an example of these resources on his Word On Fire website (Barron 2019).

22. Prayer resources

    • Catholic TV of the Archdiocese of Boston held a Day of Penance and Prayer for abuse titled ‘Together We Rebuild’. According to Catholic TV, these videos are available for dioceses to link to and include devotions, penitential prayers, the rosary and more (Catholic TV Network 2018).

23. Papal encyclicals and letters

    • Seeing how the Holy Father is responding is helpful for a diocese to communicate. Posting a link to Pope Francis: Letter to the People of God (Pope Francis 2018) would be an example.

24. USCCB resources

    • The Committee for Child Protection at the USCCB has many resources and many dioceses link to this site: http://usccb.org/about/child-and-youth-protection/

25. Links to legal or public documents related to action taken against the diocese

    • The Pennsylvania Grand Jury report was posted on the Diocese of Erie’s response webpage. This sort of disclosure demonstrated that the bishop not only wanted to cooperate with civil authorities, but also wanted the truth to come to light, no matter how painful.

26. Available in English and Spanish, other relevant languages for the diocese

    • The Diocese of Laredo response page titled, ‘Devoted to Heal and Protect’ presents all materials, reports, and resources in both English and Spanish (Roman Catholic Diocese of Laredo 2018).

Transparency in how abuse was handled

• 197 total dioceses in the United States

• 187 make it easy to report abuse online

• 176 have a complete response webpage on abuse

How many dioceses have had a review of clergy files?

All U.S. dioceses report having a lay review board. Mostly, those boards exist to fulfill the Charter requirement to advise the bishop on whether or not an allegation is credible. Many dioceses are expanding the role of lay review boards to help the diocese become more transparent about the overall process and provide expert, independent review of the policies and processes of the diocese’s response to abuse, including a review of all clergy files.

Out of 197 dioceses, 140 dioceses either have announced or completed a review of clergy files. Of those 140 dioceses, 21 had either an internal review or the independence of the review was not readily apparent. Independent reviews were either announced or completed by 119 U.S. dioceses, or 60%. Included in that number are 97 dioceses where the civil authorities were invited to review files, already have reviewed them, or have expressed the intention to conduct an investigation or review of clergy files. As of October 2019, attorney generals in 22 states are investigating clergy abuse: California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, D.C. and West Virginia.

Dioceses that have reviewed clergy files

• 197 Total dioceses in the United States – all 197 have a lay review board.

• 140 dioceses have had or announced a review of clergy files:

• 21 had either an internal review or the independence of the review was not readily apparent.

• 119 dioceses have had an independent review of clergy files

• 97 dioceses have had or are having civil authorities review files.

How many dioceses have published names of clergymen credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor?

Our researchers found that 151, or 77%, of dioceses have made lists of clergy abusers public online. The presentation of this material varies. Very few dioceses list the names of all clergy who have allegations against them, credible or not. On the opposite side of the spectrum, a few dioceses list only those clergymen with substantiated claims, those having admitted wrongdoing or who have been convicted.

Most dioceses list those with credible allegations, meaning that the bishop, in consultation with a lay review board, believes the allegation is true. In many reports, it is clearly explained that a name appearing on the list does not mean the cleric has been found guilty in a legal sense. Here, the word ‘credible’ is key. Critics claim dioceses are ‘covering up for abusers’ when they do not release all names of clergy members who have had any allegation, regardless of whether it is credible or demonstrable without any validity or merit. Diocesan leaders have expressed concern about destroying the reputation of a priest who may be innocent. That concern underlies the decision to refrain from naming some accused clerics. Some dioceses also include other categories of sexual abuse and misconduct.

Example definitions of key terms

Clarity is a critical component of transparency and is essential in this process. It is our position that the best presentations of lists are clear about the process and the definition of terms that would place a name on the list. The definition of the term ‘credible’ would appear to be unambiguous – ‘offering reasonable grounds for being believed’. How to define sexual abuse? We recommend using your diocese’s civil statute for defining crimes like sexual abuse.

For example, a diocese in Texas published a definition of ‘Sexual abuse of a minor’ as defined in the following chapters of the Texas Penal Code: Chapter 20A: Human trafficking offenses; Chapter 21: Abuse of a Child, Public Lewdness, Indecent Exposure, Bestiality, Indecency with a Child, Improper Relationship between Educator and Child, Invasive Visual Recording, Unlawful Disclosure or Promotion of Intimate Visual Material, and Voyeurism; Chapter 22: Sexual Assault, Aggravated Sexual Assault; Chapter 43: Obscene Display or Distribution, Obscenity, Sale, Distribution, or Display of Harmful Material to a Minor, Sexual Performance by a Child, Employment Harmful to Children, Possession or Promotion of Child Pornography, Electronic Transmission of Certain Visual Material Depicting Minor, and Possession or Promotion of Lewd Visual Material Depicting Child.

The USCCB Annual Audit report for the Charter offers the following definitions of key terms (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2019, 23–24):

• ‘Clergy’ is defined as the body of all people ordained for religious duties. In the context of the Charter, clergy includes priests and deacons.

• ‘Investigation ongoing’ describes an allegation in which the diocese/eparchy has started an investigation, but has not yet completed it and has not yet determined credibility.

• ‘Laicized’, or more correctly, ‘removed from the clerical state’, results in the cessation of obligations and rights proper to the clerical state.

• ‘Minor’ includes children and youth under age 18 and any individual over the age of 18 who habitually lacks the use of reason.

• ‘Priests’ includes religious order or diocesan priests in active or supply ministry in a diocese/eparchy (including retired clerics who continue to celebrate occasional sacraments).

• ‘Sexual Abuse’ in context to the Charter involves a ‘delict against the sixth commandant of the Decalogue committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years’. In addition, as of 2011, it includes ‘the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of 14.

• ‘Substantiated’ describes an allegation for which the diocese/eparchy has completed an investigation and the allegation has been deemed credible/true based upon the evidence gathered through the investigation.

• ‘Survivor/victim’ refers to any victim of clergy sexual abuse while he or she was a minor, as defined above.

• ‘Unable to be proven’ describes an allegation for which the diocese/eparchy was unable to complete the investigation due to a lack of information.

• ‘Unsubstantiated’ describes an allegation for which an investigation is complete and the allegation has been deemed not credible/false based upon the evidence gathered through the investigation.

Many dioceses list the status of clerics such as ‘deceased’, ‘laicized’, or ‘removed from ministry’. Many give more detail such as previous assignments, dates of incidents of alleged abuse, date reported to the diocese, and date reported to law enforcement. Many dioceses include an FAQ section to accompany the list of names. How the names are categorized also varies, with lists being separated by ‘diocesan’, ‘extern’, ‘religious’. Some lists include lay abusers and religious sisters.

Perhaps one of the most sensitive issues is the posthumous accusation of abuse. Up until the current crisis, most bishops have been opposed to releasing a complete list of clergy abusers because of the complexity of this issue. How can it be just for the diocese to publicly name a priest who cannot defend himself? Dioceses have addressed this in a variety of ways. The Diocese of Pittsburgh has a separate category titled, ‘Clerics who were deceased when an allegation was made against them’. The Archdiocese of Detroit has this designation after the name of the cleric: ‘Deceased, posthumous credible allegation’.

Examples of titles used by dioceses for the list of abusers

• Credibly accused clergy

• List of clergy offenders

• List of offenders

• List of accused priests/sisters/brothers

• Admitted, proven or credibly accused clergy perpetrators of clergy sexual abuse

• List of all clergy with credible and substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of minors

• List of substantiated claims of clergy sexual abuse of or sexual misconduct with a minor

• Priest credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor

• Allegations of clergy sexual abuse of minors

• Publication of names of clergy credibly accused of sexually abusing a minor

Examples of how dioceses categorize lists of accused

• Diocesan priest

• Extern priest

• Religious priest

• Incardinated

• Religious sister/brother

• Lay (some have prior job title or role)

• Clerics who are living and have been removed from ministry

• Clerics removed from ministry who are now deceased

• Clerics who were deceased when an allegation was made against them

• Suspended from ministry while under investigation

Examples of how dioceses label the status of accused clerics

Deceased

• Deceased, posthumous credible allegation

• Deceased, previously removed from ministry

• Deceased, previously laicized

• Complaints received after the death of a cleric

• Complaints unresolved due to the death of a cleric

Laicized

• Convicted/laicized

• Incarcerated

Removed

• Permanent prayer and penance

• Permanently removed from ministry

• Restricted and faculties removed

• Suspended: referring to clerics barred from ministry pending an investigation

• Administrative leave: referring to clerics barred from ministry pending an investigation

• Dismissed or expelled: in the process of being laicized

• Resigned

• Laicization pending

Unknown

Some dioceses have lost contact with a cleric who has been accused.

Other list elements associated with an accused name

• Current status: deceased, removed, laicized

• Past assignments

• Description of the accusation against the clerics

• Dates of birth, ordination, removal and/or death

• Date of the alleged incident

• Date reported to the diocese

• Date reported to law enforcement

• Action taken by the diocese

• Number of allegations

Examples of statistics provided

• Number of total allegations

• Number of clerics accused

• Number deceased, removed or laicized

• Number of total clergies

• Percentage of all clergy accused or with credible claims

• Total cost of care for victims, litigation, and settlements

A summary

• 197 total dioceses in the United States

• 95% make it easy to report abuse online

• 71% have had or have announced a review of clergy files

• 60% have had an independent review of clergy files

• 89% have a complete response webpage on abuse

• 49% have had or are having civil authorities review files

Section 4: analysis – five proposed long-term responses to the crisis

Most U.S. dioceses have already released the names of abusers. Most express deep sorrow and care for victims/survivors and promise to increase transparency into their processes. But what about when the current crisis passes? What is the Church’s long-term approach? The scope of the crisis also requires a long-term response.

We risk repeating the mistakes of the past if we forget them. Many communities and cultures have developed responses to move on after a crisis of this scale. How has Germany addressed its Nazi past or the United States addressed the stain of slavery, or South Africa addressed apartheid? Likewise, how does the Church move into a long-term strategy of addressing this deep wound to the Body of Christ?

Among diocesan leaders and communicators from across the country, some ideas have surfaced for ways individual dioceses, and dioceses collectively could begin to look down the road at a strategy. Following are a few of those ideas.

1. Annual Mass of healing and reparation: The Holy See or bishops’ conferences could establish a new feast day or dedicate an existing one, such as the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows or the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, for the healing of those hurt by the Church and the reparation of sins of those in authority in the Church.

2. Annual audit: Every diocese could commit to an annual audit and publish an accounting of compliance stating policies regarding abuse, naming and providing the status of all clergy who have abused children, and disclosing what the financial cost has been. An external lay group or lay review board could prepare annual reports of compliance in the same way financial audits are reported routinely. These annual audits would need to be verifiable and public. When the next crisis comes, diocesan leaders can point to these efforts. In the United States, most dioceses have an outside accounting firm to conduct an annual audit of the diocese’s finances. Those audits are made public by most dioceses. This sort of financial transparency helps provide accountability for diocesan leaders and builds an environment of trust. As described earlier in research by Giselle Auger, there are two ways organizations build trust through transparency. The first is the organization’s reputation for transparency. The second is its efforts to communicate transparently. Conducting periodic independent audits of how each diocese handles abuse, and publishing the results, would do that. As happened in the aftermath of South Africa’s apartheid policy, we also must face the facts about what has gone wrong in the Church and set up systems for accountability.

3. Memorial, prayer garden, or monument: Each diocese might create a place for people to go, pray, remember, and heal. A dedicated space can be a powerful sign that we, as a Church, will not forget or repeat past sins. Would the Church benefit from meaningful ways, similar to Germany’s Holocaust museums, monuments and memorials, to remember our painful past?

4. Educational and catechetical content: Educators and catechists can enlighten future generations about this scandal to prevent it from being forgotten. We need a long-term approach, similar to the way we teach American history. Educators present the positive achievements of American democracy and capitalism in history classes, but they also teach students about the dark periods of the past – such as slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples.

5. Communications: Catholic communicators can help the Church become more transparent, not just to restore trust in the short term, but by continuing these practices over the long term. This case study showed how dioceses are consolidating into one place a single complete response webpage for policies, audits, prayer and healing resources. This research found 176 U.S. dioceses already have sites like this in place. These online resources would include statements from diocesan leaders about clergy sexual abuse of minors, the Charter, any new document on clergy chastity or bishop accountability, policies on the vetting of the clergy, human resources policies, and any other resources to demonstrate transparency and accountability.

In the meantime, how do diocesan communicators practically move forward?

For the Church to be more transparent, it needs to communicate effectively. Catholic communicators can help create a culture of transparency within dioceses. With their professional communications skills, counsel, candor, and prayer, they collaborate with Church leaders to get the truth out. The bishop is best served by those who advise transparency and accountability from the local Church, the shepherds. Because if the people can’t trust Catholic leaders, how can the Church’s primary mission of evangelization occur?

It is always better for the bad news about the Church to come from the Church and to be put into a full and proper context. Secular media can’t be counted on to do that. A diocesan communicator or Catholic journalist can be. Fact-checking, providing insight into sources, and verification of the truth or falsehood of statements provide the public with reliable information. That builds trust in the Church. Transparency happens when bishops allow their diocesan communicators and journalists to see source documents, vet statistics, question claims, and interview subjects with direct knowledge of the facts. The discipline of verification is not disrespect or disloyalty; it is the opposite. Catholic communicators have an obligation to respectfully question bishops, attorneys, and chancery officials. They have a duty to verify that facts are indeed facts.

Conclusion

The Church exists to proclaim the Gospel message of salvation through Jesus Christ. When future crises erupt, a culture of transparency can enable the Church to better retain the trust and thrive in fulfilling the mission. This case study explored the roots of the clergy sexual abuse crisis in the Church and its scope. Though the crisis first came to light in the Archdiocese of Boston nearly 20 years ago, it extended far beyond that. The crisis is global and ongoing, extending beyond the perpetrators to those in positions of leadership and trust. It has eroded trust in bishops and clergy and has negatively affected participation in the life of the Church. Primarily, it has affected victims/survivors. Their lives are forever altered. The clarion call for justice demands that the Church cares for victims first and no longer hides the truth about abuse. This clarion call for justice is a call for transparency.

This case study explored how dioceses in the United States have responded to the crisis. How have they embraced transparency in order to rebuild trust? Though the 2002 Charter for the Protection of Youth and Young People improved safety and accountability in the Church, the recent 2018 re-eruption of the crisis led many dioceses to become far more transparent than what the Charter requires. Nearly all U.S. dioceses encourage reporting abuse to civil authorities and make it easy to report abuse to dedicated diocesan victim assistance coordinators. To counter the public perception that there are secret files, a majority of dioceses have had an external review of clergy personnel files, conducted by laity or civil authorities. Finally, the biggest move toward transparency is that most dioceses have now made public the list of clergy who have credible claims against them of sexual abuse of a minor. Most dioceses have launched comprehensive response websites that present in one place the diocese’s response to abuse. These pages present the apology of the ordinary, ways the diocese cares for victims, the steps the diocese has taken to make parishes and schools safer, policies, codes of conduct, list of clergy abusers, audit reports showing how the diocese handles claims, and pastoral resources.

This case study closes with a look to the future. How can the Church make sure we never forget, lest we repeat the sins of the past? Catholic communicators have a role in this. Actually, they have an obligation to do this. When Christ rose from the dead, he still bore the wounds of the crucifixion. The resurrected Christ could have appeared immaculate, without wounds. The wounds remained as a reminder of what sin does to the Body of Christ. Resurrection is the ultimate sign of hope, healing and love. Christ, the healer, is made manifest through these acts of transparency. He alone heals. May we be his hands and feet for that healing to continue.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Patrick M. O’Brien

Patrick M. O’Brien is founding president and CEO of FAITH Catholic, America’s largest publisher of Catholic periodicals and one of America’s largest Catholic marketing and communications services companies. FAITH Catholic serves 41 dioceses and numerous Catholic organizations in the United States with magazine publishing, communications consulting, web solutions, parish resources and marketing services. From 2009 to 2019, Bishop Earl Boyea appointed O’Brien to lead the Diocese of Lansing’s communications, marketing and technology. Prior to forming FAITH magazine for the Diocese of Lansing, O’Brien worked in advertising, serving clients such as Case, Caterpillar, Pfizer, Rhone Poulenc and Lincoln Mercury. O’Brien graduated from the College for Creative Studies in Detroit with a BFA in 1993 and completed two years of graduate work at the University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein Seminary.

Notes

1 The author wishes to acknowledge and thank Elizabeth Martin Solsburg and Ann Jacob for their work in editing this manuscript; Patricia Powers, PhD for her theological review; and Christina Carlson, Susan Parker and Ann Jacob for their research.