When a report of a priest sexually abusing a child surfaces, almost without fail, bishops provide one fact- how long ago the offense allegedly happened. And they HARP on that fact: "The alleged incident took place 23 years ago." They usually refuse to say where it allegedly happened (in a school, on a trip, or in the sacristy). They won't specify if it was a girl or a boy. They'll stay silent about whether it was one instance of abuse or dozens. They refuse to say if this was the first accusation against that particular priest. Nor will they reveal where the alleged abuser is now.
Often, they won't even say if there was a report from one victim or 20 victims. But they'll almost always say, loud and clear, right up front: "The alleged incident took place 23 years ago." As if to suggest, "Geez, that's long ago. Hopefully, the abusive priest is dead, or in prison, or maybe is too old to hurt anyone now or has gotten better." Or as if to suggest, "How's anyone going to be able to sort the truth out when the crime supposedly took place so long ago?"
Bishops believe that this disclosure - when the crime is said to have occurred - will be helpful to them in two ways:
- It will help portray them in a better light (because it reportedly took place under one of his predecessors, not under any current church supervisor.)
- It will help mollify the flock (because it implies that all clergy abuse is in the past and no current priest poses any threat at all to kids right now).
In other words, Catholic officials would have you almost believe (though they would never phrase it this way) that a report of 'old' abuse is in some way 'good news.' We at Horowitz Law, of course, see this radically different response to an 'old' report of a child sex crime. It's, of course, BAD news, as is every single abuse of a child, at any point, anywhere, by anyone.
To us, it means:
- A likely predator has gone undetected for a long time, which has enabled him to potentially hurt many more kids.
- One or more victims have been suffering and perhaps carrying this awful burden alone for years and years with little or no natural relief.
- The cleric's colleagues, supervisors, and church members who saw or suspected his inappropriate behavior have had years to search their consciences, summon some strength, and make a call to the police (even anonymously). Or quietly drop an unsigned letter to a prosecutor. Or discreetly tip off a journalist. Or share an incriminating church document -again anonymously - with law enforcement. Or do anything to expose the criminal and stop these alleged crimes.
Any information like this - or SUSPICIONS like this - if they had been shared with law enforcement - might have stopped this predator from assaulting others. That's quite a different way of looking at this, isn't it? And a far more prudent and responsible way of looking at this.
We at Horowitz Law believe - perhaps with a bit more optimism than we should - that the very piece of information that bishops feel is good for them - the date that the crime reportedly happened, that enables them to suggest while many clergy sex crimes happened long ago, things are better today - may very well end up making bishops look worse, not better. Reports of rape, sodomy, and molestations by priests, nuns, brothers, monks, seminarians, bishops, and other church employees and volunteers are still being made almost daily. Don't take our word for it. Go to BishopAccountability.org and click on "Abuse Tracker." You'll see a daily run-down of some - just some - of the many news accounts of clergy sex crimes and cover-ups. How often are these accusations actually being made promptly and publicly by the Catholic hierarchy? We'll, of course, never know. Bishops claim, "We're transparent these days. We disclose everything." But can anyone believe that?
If that were true, church officials would disclose not just the year that a child sex crime reportedly occurred but would also disclose ALL the parishes where the alleged offender worked. And where he or she is now. And whether one accuser or 21 accusers have stepped forward. And whether this is the first allegation against this particular cleric. If that were true, church officials wouldn't be exposed, time and time again, as having left predators OFF their 'credibly accused' abusers lists.
-
-
- EXAMPLE: New Orleans Archdiocese
- EXAMPLE: San Diego Diocese
- EXAMPLE: All Florida Dioceses
-
If this were true - that the Catholic hierarchy is being 'transparent' on abuse - church officials would provide, as a handful of bishops do, photos of the alleged abusers on their websites. And just this month, if Catholic officials are truly being 'transparent' on abuse, their flock wouldn't have had to endure the shame and outrage generated by a story just a few weeks ago about a pastor who had to resign because he asked a deacon to destroy a colleague's laptop which had "possible child abuse images" on it.
You get the point. There is plenty of evidence of clergy sex crimes and cover-ups in the past. And nearly every day, more such evidence surfaces. But most disturbingly, evidence surfaces of CURRENT abuses and cover-ups nearly every day. And that evidence completely undercuts the continual claims by church defenders that this crisis is 'in the past.' And that's why our clients sue bishops and other church supervisors: They want this horror to stop.
Horowitz Law is a law firm representing victims and survivors of sexual abuse by religious authority figures and other clergy. If you need a lawyer because you were sexually abused by a member of a religious organization, contact us today at 888-283-9922 or [email protected] to discuss your options today. Our lawyers have decades of experience representing survivors of clergy sexual abuse nationwide. We can help.