More on clergy child abuse and the grace of releasing a deposition

If you followed all the links through my August 12 post, about the $12.7 million payout for clergy child abuse in the Chicago Archdiocese, you would have eventually found a link to Cardinal George's deposition. I would have posted this link in my post as well, but I couldn't open and read the deposition (it's over 500 pages -- be forewarned) on my office computer even though I have Adobe Acrobat Professional 7.0 here.

My initial conclusion was that the link was defective... but I found later I could open it up at home using plain old Adobe Reader 8.1. Apparently the link requires the more recent update.

I haven't read all of the deposition yet, though I intend to. To put it mildly, it is distressing and depressing to read (in press accounts) about how persons in authority messed up time and again and how children suffered as a result.

There is one hard truth about child abuse: No one does this once. The only sure way to prevent future recurrence is to isolate the abuser -- permanently -- from all situations where he (or she) might get a child alone. The law must be allowed to run its course. That means, and should mean, jail for an abuser discovered in a timely fashion. For a person in religious life who avoids jail, because (for example) credible allegations surface too late for criminal prosecution, that means constant vigilance by his peers. Forever. And an absolute prohibition against any further assignment where children are regularly present. Family must be informed, lest the abuser turn on his own nieces or nephews for lack of any other potential victims. Is it a mark of Cain? A scarlet letter? Sure. It has to be.

And then that word... "credible." From what I've read about the Cardinal's deposition, the meaning and application of this word was a major sticking point for him.

My view is that "credibility" must not become a shield behind which a popular priest can be allowed to hide. Of course the abusing priest (or teacher or coach or boy scout leader -- this isn't just a Catholic clergy problem, you know) is charming, seemingly affable, often well-liked -- these are the very qualities that permit him to gain access to a child, and to work his will on a child when access is obtained. While no one wants to see a good man brought down by a malicious rumor, I say better a hundred good men are lost than another child abused.

That's the exact opposite of the ideal of our American criminal justice system, built as it is on a premise (handed down to us by our Founding Fathers... not the Warren Court) that it is better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man is jailed.

So what should be a "credible" accusation? I'm not ready to posit a hard and fast rule. I do know that it's not 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' I do know that for any allegation -- before ever considering 'credibility' -- the civil authorities must be notified, and allowed to do their work. I know too the diocese must not simply rely on the authorities to investigate, particularly with allegations that do not surface until years after an alleged event. In our unhappy world, the civil authorities have more than enough current crime to tax their resources.

So, for the older allegations, do the names, dates and places match up? That alone may strongly support a finding of credible. Are there multiple allegations? Do additional people come forward when the first accusation is made? (This doesn't happen only once.) Rumors, hearsay, queasy feelings, all sorts of things that have no probative or evidentiary value in a court of law may be -- and should be -- taken into account in determining whether an accusation is or is not "credible."

Why would I advocate a standard so un-American and anti-legal? Because in religious life, in particular, men and women accept the authority of their bishops or religious superiors over their lives and careers. Fr. O'Malley may want to stay at St. Dominic's -- but when the Bishop says it's time to pull up stakes, off Fr. O'Malley must go. We are not punishing the accused man by pulling him out of a parish and putting him into an office or a library, under close supervision, while investigations are made; the priest is merely being obedient to his vows. His suffering and embarrassment, if unjust, may be offered up to God. And if it is warranted... well, I happen to believe his suffering will be much worse in the next life.

Will there sometimes be baseless, misguided and even intentionally malicious accusations?

It certainly is possible; ours is a sinful world.

The best protection a faithful priest has against baseless or malicious accusations is common sense... and transparency. This is nothing special: In order to be a Cub Scout leader, years ago now, I had to receive training about protecting children and protecting myself, too. The rules were of the common-sense variety: Always keep another adult close by. Never be alone with any one child. Stay visible. Keep the door open.

It's a shame, certainly: Watch "Going My Way" or "The Bells of St. Mary's" again and consider the scenes that would have to be re-imagined or deleted entirely to protect Fr. O'Malley or Sr. Mary Benedict against later allegations of abuse. But Fr. O'Malley and Sr. Mary Benedict would adapt with ease. Most -- surely the vast majority -- of our real-life priests and nuns can adapt as well. Are adapting. Have adapted. It is only the abusers who would truly chafe when common sense precautions are required.

So let's require them.

And, in the meantime, although I know I will be aggravated with Cardinal George when I read his deposition -- I may be calling for his head -- still, I am grateful for his courage in allowing the deposition to be made public. Having taken this step, I think Cardinal George might be the first to agree that whether his career founders because of his testimony is unimportant; what is important is that the Church learns... and heals.