Posted on 03/06/2017 4:00:38 PM PST by ebb tide
[Editor’s note: In the wake of the resignation of the last clerical abuse survivor to serve as an active member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, Irish lay woman Marie Collins, Crux editor John L. Allen Jr. published an analysis suggesting that the outcome may have been both inevitable and desirable.
Collins objected via social media, and Crux offered her the opportunity to reply. The following is that response.]
Firstly I want to thank Crux for offering me the right of reply. Although in the article I am combined with Peter Saunders, I am here speaking only for myself.
I was quite disturbed reading this article as in many cases John Allen purports to know my feelings and how I was thinking in certain situations. I found this not only to be inaccurate, but also patronising.
The statement that my resignation was “inevitable” is certainly not true. There was no “inevitability” of my leaving, unless Allen knew in advance that there were men in the Roman Curia who would be obstructing the commission, and I would refuse to cover it up!
I accepted my appointment to the Pontifical Commission with every intention of remaining for my full term.
The article seems to imply that because I was sexually abused by a priest in childhood I am incapable of independent thought or action, that I must always be looking over my shoulder concerned how my words or actions might be seen by survivors outside the commission. It also stated that I was put in a “politically untenable spot.”
If Allen knew me and my record in working for child protection over twenty years, he would know I have always kept completely clear of “politics,” both Church and survivor politics. I have concerned myself solely with bringing better understanding of the effects of abuse on a victim’s life and better protection of the vulnerable.
I have always followed my own conscience and not seen myself as a representative of any group. This at times has angered some survivors, but that has never swayed me from my determination to be independent.
Allen states that my selection for appointment to the commission was partly in order that “credibility in the survivor community would translate to the papal commission.” If this is true (I do not know who are the sources for this) it would indicate enormous deceit in those who spoke to me on behalf of the pope before I accepted my appointment.
I was clear then I had no intention of being a “token” survivor there to add “credibility.” I was assured strongly this was not the case.
I was being asked in order to bring my personal understanding of abuse as a survivor into the Commission as this perspective was of vital importance to the work.
I had been chosen specifically because of my experience of working on safeguarding policy development, having been involved in the setting up of a diocesan child protection office, my involvement in educational projects on child protection and the response to my participation in the 2012 Symposium on abuse held in the Gregorian University.
Therefore I was qualified to work on policy development, to impart understanding of the survivor experience and had shown in the past my ability to work with the Church. If all this was a lie, then shame on those men of the clergy who made these statements to me. It would validate every accusation that the Church only cares for optics not the reality.
At no point during my time with the Commission did Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston [president of the commission] or members of the commission treat me with anything other than respect as an equal, working for the better protection of children. I certainly never felt my contribution was seen as only as a name on the member list!
Allen states that it was “dicey” at times for me to “figure out how much to say in public.” I can say without hesitation that at no time did I have any difficulty in discerning what I could or could not say in public. I at all times respected the confidentiality rules as per the statutes of the commission, and would not have accepted my appointment if I had felt I was not capable of so doing.
The statement that survivors “will never be satisfied” in the context of the article implies that I would never be satisfied and that this in some way was the motivation for my resignation. If all dioceses in the Church replicated the policies and their implementation as some dioceses have, e.g. the Archdiocese of Dublin in Ireland, then we would be in a much better place.
What I do say is no one in the Church or the secular world should ever be complacent about the safety of children or vulnerable adults.
Finally, Allen says in regard to survivor input to the commission in the future, that now I have resigned, “it could actually mean a transition to a more honest, freer, and less personally conflicted way of doing it.” I would assure anyone who is interested that I at all times was honest, free and did not spend my time “personally conflicted.”
The article clearly uses a familiar device - when in difficulties divert attention away from the actual problem. Survivors on the commission are not the problem - the resistance to change by clerical men in the Curia is the problem!
It’s not the Curia that’s the problem, if only because Francis has nothing to do with them, has disempowered most of them, and relies on his hand-picked gay mafia to advise him. Thanks to BXVI, the curial offices were trying to do their best, and then Francis took it away from the CDF, surrounded himself with homosexuals and clerics with sexual abuse in their backgrounds, pardoned others...and now the press is blaming the Curia?
The concrete reason for Collins’s resignation, who herself had even been abused as a child, is the case of a Chilean bishop who[se] had demanded Collins’ resignation. Since this was not done after repeated requests, she took her own step to protest according to this threat. However, bishop’s benefactor is not the Congregation of Faith, but Pope Francis himself. This concerns the Bishop of the Chilean diocese, Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid. Francis himself had appointed him Bishop of Osorno in 2015. Immediately, victim organizations were indignant at the appointment. However, Francis stood by Bishop Barroso Madrid, and in Rome, he even assured the Chilean faithful who wanted to bring to this to his attention (see The Bishop of Osorno has a super lawyer, Pope Francis, including a video of the correction). The bishop is not accused of sexual abuse, but a priest, Fernando Karadima, who is very well known in Chile.
Yikes! Just wow...
My God save our Holy Mother Church †
More and more, I’m thinking the only solution may be for faithful Catholics to break away and excommunicate the Vatican hierarchy.
Well, not a perfect solution, but it has to be better than the risk of exposing children to rape if you want the Sacraments, right?
>>Barros, who was personally appointed by the pope, is accused of having been present during the abuse and of shielding the Rev. Fernando Karadima, a charismatic, high-profile Santiago priest — and serial abuser of young boys — from investigation.<<
https://www.pri.org/stories/pope-appoints-chilean-bishop-accused-child-sex-cover
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I'm curious as to why she was selected, when over 85% of the abuse victims in the US, and over 90% in Australia, were boys. Hiding something?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.