Posted on 04/19/2002 11:21:03 AM PDT by sinkspur
Officials say breach of abuse policy falls on cleric; he says move 'unfair'
Officials of the Catholic Diocese of Dallas said this week they were stunned that parishioners of St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church appeared to be "making a martyr" of their priest while vilifying the officials for taking a tough stance on child abuse.
In a rare joint interview, Bishop Charles V. Grahmann, Coadjutor Bishop Joseph Galante and Chancellor Mary Edlund offered a fuller explanation for the Rev. Stephen Bierschenk's reassignment for failing to do criminal history checks on church employees and volunteers.
"The puzzle is why the people aren't rising up in anger that this priest was not looking after the protection of their children," Bishop Grahmann said. "You know very well that if there had been any sexual abuse, people would be saying we hadn't done enough to prevent it."
Bishop Galante said: "The parish reaction is a throwback to the old days when dioceses protected priests and institutions before children. Well, those days are gone."
Father Bierschenk acknowledged Thursday that he hadn't fully instituted the diocese's 4-year-old safe environment policy. When he learned of his reassignment last week, he initially accepted the decision. But after a show of support from parishioners, he decided to contest the transfer.
"I have rights as a priest, and my goal is to protect them," he said. "They're trying to make an example out of me. It's completely unfair."
He said the transfer was illegal under canon law. With the help of an attorney from his parish, Father Bierschenk has filed a formal complaint with the bishop.
If the bishop doesn't reverse his decision, the complaint can be forwarded to the Vatican.
Father Bierschenk is the second priest this month to be reassigned for failing to implement the sex abuse policy. Earlier, the Rev. Efren Ortega was removed from St. James Catholic Church in Oak Cliff.
No other diocese in the country has taken similar steps against priests. U.S. bishops are promoting the Dallas policy as a national model.
Diocesan officials said statements made by Father Bierschenk to national media prompted them to speak out. The priest said he had been overworked, understaffed and made a simple mistake. He also said he received no warning that his 13-year post at the parish of 10,000 members was at stake.
Officials said the priest, who had several years to implement the policy, was minimizing his mistakes and offered some documentation as proof:
• Last fall, the bishops informed priests in writing that failing to implement the policy was a failure to live up to their pastoral duties. Father Bierschenk said Thursday that he remembered the letter but didn't make the policy a priority.
• Last fall, priests were told that Praesidium, an independent company in Arlington, would conduct audits of the diocese's 66 parishes and 35 schools to ensure the policy was being followed. Father Bierschenk said he was aware an audit but thought the diocese would help him correct problems.
• On Sept. 4, Father Bierschenk signed a document stating that all church employees and volunteers were completing criminal background checks though that wasn't the case. The priest also indicated to the diocese that he didn't need help putting the policy into place. Father Bierschenk said Thursday that he didn't read the document carefully before signing it.
• Officials said Father Bierschenk attended only one of four meetings about the policy mandated for clergy. He failed to notify the bishop as to why he missed two of the meetings.
• At a Jan. 24 clergy meeting attended by Father Bierschenk, Bishop Grahmann said he warned priests that there would be serious consequences – even the reassignment of priests – for failing to implement the policy. Father Bierschenk said he didn't remember any such discussion.
• Father Bierschenk said he told diocesan officials last week that he had not read the policy closely and didn't know he needed to screen all employees.
"After all the years of work and communication we've made around this policy, it was upsetting to hear he didn't know what his responsibility was," Ms. Edlund said. "He was unable to provide any explanation other than, 'I'm busy and it's not a priority.' "
The large outpouring of support for Father Bierschenk from his parish has outraged some child molestation victims of former priest Rudolph "Rudy" Kos and members of the parishes that he served. Mr. Kos was handed a life sentence in prison five years ago, and the diocese unveiled its policy the following year.
"It shocks me that a priest who lived through the pain of what happened in this diocese before would be so cavalier today," Bishop Galante said.
Father Bierschenk's supporters said the diocese is being heavy-handed.
"The punishment doesn't fit the mistake," said Sam Zurawel, 31, who is part of a coalition of supporters. "He should have been given time to correct the issues."
Other parishioners said the priest should step down quietly. "He made a mistake, and we forgive him," said Sharon Gibney, a parishioner for 10 years. "But we also need to back our bishop for finally doing what needed to be done for our children."
A March 19 audit showed the church offered no documentation of interviews, screening forms, reference contacts or screening forms for employees and volunteers, including religious education teachers and a youth minister on staff for a year. The diocese and the priest are at odds over the number.
Father Bierschenk said he didn't think some people needed screening since they were longtime friends. The diocese's policy mandates screening for all employees as well as volunteers who work with children and vulnerable adults.
Hundreds of people rallied in support of Father Bierschenk at the church this week. Others are gathering nightly for prayer. Stacks of pre-printed letters protesting the transfer are being handed out to parishioners.
Father Bierschenk will remain a pastor but at a much smaller congregation: St. Michael's in McKinney. The transfer is effective May 3.
The Fr. Efren Ortega defense: we don't need to screen the sisters because they are so holy.
Steve thought these guidelines were for other parishes,and other priests, not for him. Now, all he's concerned about is protecting his "rights".
Bishop Grahmann's words are important:
"You know very well that if there had been any sexual abuse, people would be saying we hadn't done enough to prevent it."
It says more about the adults of the parish who support a man who lies to his bishop and thinks diocesan policies don't apply to his parish than it does to the man. If you think a bunch of eighth-graders who had already picked out their confirmation names made this sudden switch on their own, you're naive in the extreme.
Read this article carefully. And read the only quote from the priest: he's concerned about himself, when he put himself in the situation to begin with.
The Vatican won't touch this. Not in a thousand years.
Within the youth programs, we've been following other policies that are designed to protect all kids. The most effective has been to ensure that there are always two adults in the classroom. Up until the last couple of years, that's been difficult (not enough teachers). This year, every class has had 3 or 4 teachers.
When you consider that each grade has close to 500 kids participating, that's A LOT of teachers. The estimated # of volunteers at our church is close to 600. That's a lot of paperwork, too.
That's a lot of volunteers! How many families in your parish? Who's your pastor?
I'm your neighbor, over at St. Michael's in Bedford. We've got a similar policy; I've been background-checked because I lector at Saturday Mass every three weeks.
Makes me wonder if the day will come when they try to create "licenses" for clergy with credentialing criteria, background checks, etc. Remember, there were times when it seemed they would never be involved in some of the things they are now involved in regulating. Church.....State???
In the Boston area we are trying to get rid of about 5 Bishops for protecting Criminal Homosexual Priests for a period of about 40 years, thousands of childrfen have been abused in the most Horrible way.
So far it has cost the Boston Diocese over 50 million and they appear to be going to spend and other 50 million or more..
Any cleric who does not take this seriously should be summarily fired and defrocked.
Father Bierschenk had a real sense as to who might be a predator BEFORE THEY WERE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING TO ANY CHILD and he acted quickly and decisively.
I guess Father should've hired somebody to do his background checking for him like the bishops did.
See post #10
Read this correctly: Any vestige of Traditional thought is to be extinguished. At any cost.
Are you saying that the "traditional thought" of transferring pederast priests from parish to parish ought NOT to be extinguished? At any cost?
Paul Harvey read a story today that said that Canon Law imposes harsher penalties on priests who have sexual liaisons with women than those with minor children. In fact, Canon Law recommends that these men be "rehabilitated and returned to ministry."
This shouldn't surprise anybody.
A shepherd is supposed to protect the sheep, not the barn.
Taking a tip from any successful corporate structure been bitten once too many times by Title Legislation claims, they could "outsource" this surveillance and paper-pushing to one who specializes in Human Resources, no holds barred prying and cutting edge political correctness.
Given the notoriety of this scandal to date and the general direction (toward the State) to which folks seem to be looking for fixes ... perhaps the Catholic Church could lead by example and open themselves to a working relationship with the local branch of the FBI or some other government entity charged with ensuring The Peoples' Security.
Pastors don't want it. Liberal pastors, conservative pastors, they both view anything from the chancery office as an intrusion on their authority as parish leaders.
I agree with you, however. An outsourcer could do the job, but might be cost prohibitive.
And, as you say, Father might be just a bit nervous what his own background check might reveal.
We joined the parish when we moved here 5 years ago. I've been teaching on Weds nite (6th grade - Old Testament) for the past four years.
Msgr. Broderick is great! This is a busy parish, with at least 20 different groups to volunteer in. I like teaching, because I learn more with each lesson, and it hasn't gotten tedious yet. 6th graders won't let you get away with a boring class!
If you're ever in the area, check out our new church! It holds about 1,500, and it's a beautiful, peaceful place. Check out our website: stannparish.org
I have and all the related articles too. It sounds to me that the Bishop imposed a deadline and then acted 3 weeks before the deadline. How does that tag the priest for as disobedient? According to the parishioner (who knows more about this than any of us) all of the background checks have been completed BEFORE the deadline.
Each church operates with hundreds of volunteers these days. It requires 55 Eucharistic Ministers per weekend to serve all of the Masses at my church -- that means 200 volunteers for the month, not counting weekday Masses and visits to the bedridden. Then there are the CCD classes with at least 2 teachers per class, and the regular school classes, and the 5 choirs, and the lectors, and the cantors, groundskeepers, Parish Festival organizers, newsletter, bulletin, Parish Council, etc., etc. I think you get the picture. Of course some people do double and triple duty, but the volunteer staff still represents hundreds of people. As far as I know, NOBODY has had a background check. Father George wouldn't begin to have time -- he's the only priest on staff and is aided by one clerk in the office.
My daughter works as a Minister of Music and Liturgy in a Catholic Church in another state. Believe me, the politics and jealousies that go on between the hierarchy and the parish priests are just as brutal as any in Washington, DC. between the Democrats and the Republicans. It sounds like this CONSERVATIVE parish did not meet the demands of the Bishop; and it probably does not have anything at all to do with background checks, if reality was known.
A decade ago I lived in Washington State, and we were trying to build a new church. The Bishop wanted kneelers eliminated and moveable chairs in the sanctuary. The parish and the Bishop fought about this for at least five years with our pastor trying to act as mediator. The Bishop always could have the final word because he controlled the pursestrings (The Diocese loans the money for new churches or remodeling.) We finally compromised with a semi-circular design (wanted by the Bishop) and pews with kneelers (disdained by the Bishop.) I think the only reason we got that design was because some other crisis distracted the Bishop (such as Rome investigating him because of his liberalism and his own disobedience), and the parish council slipped the parish-favored design through the process when he wasn't looking. The Bishop was NOT pleased, and he sent his newly appointed assistant (the new co-Bishop assigned from Rome to watch him) to the dedication and didn't bother to come himself.
Our Pastor was always in slightly less than boiling water with the Bishop. He'd been on the fast track up the ladder in a large, urban parish and had been transferred to our small, country parish as punishment for some transgression years before.
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.