NRB Conference in Chicago Shows the Board is Willing, But are the Bishops Able?

Catholic Citizens of Illinois ^ | 7/29/2003

[boromeo]

NRB Reports on Future Plans, Audit Success, and Responsiveness by Bishops, but the Sex Abuse Crisis Is Still Far From Being Resolved

7/30/2003 3:36:00 AM By Karl Maurer Catholic Citizens of Illinois www.catholiccitizens.org

Chicago (July 29) - The National Review Board (NRB) to assist the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops announced their progress and plans at a media conference today in Chicago. To date, two thirds of all dioceses have responded to the NRB's information request, and 25% have been audited as to compliance with USCCB norms for safeguarding children from sexual abuse.

NRB member Bob Bennett noted that "children are safer, but not safe enough." Bennett cautioned that "unless the US Bishops are fully committed... and put the protection of children as their very highest priority, then much of our work will be wasted... In the last analysis, it depends on the Bishops of this country to be shepherds of their flocks to get intimately involved with this great crisis." The NRB is targeting to release several reports of its findings in December of this year and January 2004.

In attendance at Tuesday's conference were William Burleigh, Robert Bennett, Esq., Dr. Michael Bland, Ray Siegfried, Nicholas Cafardi, Esq., Jane Chiles, Pam Hayes, Esq., Dr. Alice Hayes, and Dr. Paul McHugh. Board members Justice Petra Maes and Leon Panetta did not attend.

Earlier in the day, the NRB issued a press release available at the www.usccb.com addressed to "the Catholic Faithful of the United States." The NRB's report noted that former FBI Kathleen McChesney (who was also in attendance) had retired from her post as the third highest ranking official in the FBI to become the executive director of the "special task force" established by the bishops to supervise compliance with the Dallas charter. The office has been fully functioning since January 1, 2003, and is staffed heavily with former FBI and federal agents. Chairman Anne Burke noted that the needs for professionalism and timeliness were factors in taking this approach.

Jane Chiles reported on the activities of the Office for Child and Youth Protection, which is charged with implementing "safe environment programs" that are intended to "guarantee the safety of any child in a Church setting."

The NRB's written statements described these policies as "a set of state-of-the-art guidelines sent to the nation's dioceses for creating safe environment programs which ensure that children and youth who worship, study or participate in church-sponsored activities can do so in the safest and most secure settings possible. This program includes assistance to dioceses in establishing written codes of conduct for church personnel, the essential cornerstone for any safe environment policy; in conducting background investigations, and in setting up comprehensive training programs to orient all personnel involved in work with children."

Ms. Chiles reported that the NRB task force has already met with people of "great renown" in the area of child abuse, with a focus on prevention, to identify a range of programs currently available. The report also stated that Kathleen McChesney has discussed these programs personally with practically all of the 195 dioceses in the US.

A set of standards has been established defining what NRB expects a "safe environment" to be. Ms. Chiles indicated that the training programs were being made available to parents, teachers, clerics, and the community, and included "safe touching" programs so children will be familiar with the sort of behavior they need to beware of.

Ms. Chiles did NOT comment on the fact that several parents in Boston and across the country have determined these "talking about touching" programs to be obscenely graphic and entirely INAPPROPRIATE for children. How the feedback of parents will be evaluated as these so-called "safe-guards" are implemented remains to be seen. Ms. Chiles did note that there was a concerted effort to identify programs that represented "best practices", indicating that parental feedback would be considered regarding "worst practices" foisted on Catholics in the name of "safety."

With regard to verifying bishop compliance with the Dallas charter, the written report of the NRB stated that NRB "auditors are looking at the adequacy of such things as policies for responding to abuse complaints, outreach programs for victims of abuse, the independence and use of lay review boards, policies for removing priests who have abused the innocent, safe environment programs and many other facets of the commitment to cleanse the Church of these scandals at every level."

To accomplish this task, former FBI agent William Gavin's firm, Gavin Group, was contracted to perform the compliance audits. To date, a staff consisting of over 50 auditors and ex-FBI agents have completed reviews of safety policies in 45 dioceses. Burleigh indicated he believed the group was making excellent headway, and were working at a rate of roughly 10 dioceses per week.

NRB board member Ray Siegfried was pleased with the progress so far, saying the auditors were "well on their way to completing a very successful audit and compliance review... ensuring the safeguarding of our children from now on, and forever."

Mr. Siegfried offered assurances that the auditors were not choirboys, but were being hard-nosed in terms of evaluating compliance with Dallas directives related to preventing abuse. Declining to name names, he noted that several dioceses were way ahead in terms of developing compliance programs, but he cautioned that the work was just beginning.

At the end of the audit process, the NRB will issue detailed reports with respect to their compliance with the Dallas charter, to which he frequently referred. To the extent that certain bishops have been less than cooperative, or a diocese is not in compliance, those facts will be made known.

As for weaknesses detected in compliance programs during audits, Mr. Siegfried noted the auditors are empowered to make recommendations for needed improvements, and insist that those improvements be made within 30 days. "We do NOT want them (i.e. the US Bishops and their diocesan safe guarding programs) to go a full year with a bad area of compliance."

Because of the nature of the compliance programs being installed, the audits have concentrated on interviewing diocesan personnel and bishops. This has frustrated several sexual abuse 'survivor group' members, who complained to the media that they have tried to contact auditors unsuccessfully. Several board members noted that it was not the role of the auditors to field inquiries from parents or victims, but to ensure that there are adequate programs in place on a diocesan level to respond to such questions going forward.

Kathleen McChesney noted that a serious challenge for her audit function was determining the right procedures and protocols to apply after the initial audits are completed. McChesney suggested that the cycle of ensuring continued compliance will probably take the format of annual self reporting with on-site audits occurring over the a three year cycle which is more common in US governance systems.

Just who will perform the review and oversight of compliance is a critical question that is unanswered at this point. Technically, the NRB’s mandate expires in June of 2004. After that date, the NRB is no longer empowered to send in audit team to monitor compliance, unless of course the bishops extend the NRB's authority.

Ms. McChesney noted that the NRB is a creation of the USCCB, but is independent of the US Bishops with respect to validating compliance. She noted that the use of third party, independent auditors was deliberate. She cautioned that if the audit function related to compliance with the Dallas charter norms were moved to a committee inside the USCCB, it is arguable that 'independence' could be compromised, undermining the integrity of the reporting procedures the USCCB is supposed to be protecting.

Ms. McChesney said after the formal NRB presentation that she expects the NRB mandate will be extended in some way beyond June of 2004, and that the bishops will institutionalize some sort of independent review function, which she supports. "People are looking for accountability, and it will take a number of years to make certain that all the procedures will be in place optimally." McChesney believes that identifying and duplicating successful programs will be a key role her office plays in standardizing "best practices" throughout the country.

Chairman Anne Burke noted that the work of the auditors is a vehicle and platform for the US Bishops to share programs and protocols that work effectively. Presumably, this will work both ways, with auditors identifying bad programs and policies that lead to ineffective programs, and allow a "cover-up" atmosphere to continue at either seminaries or parishes with histories of sexual abuse.

Dr. Alice Hayes noted that several reports will be issued by the NRB within the next six months, one of which seeks to aggregate data related to the abuse scandal. The John Jay College of Criminal Justice is doing the preparation. In their written statements the NRB noted that, "the John Jay research team has expressed its satisfaction with the present rate of cooperation (by bishops) and expects the results, when finalized, to reflect the historic situation in the vast majority of dioceses/eparchies since 1950, although not in all. The lengthy process of analyzing the data and producing the required statistical picture will then follow."

So far, roughly two thirds of the bishops have responded in full or in part to the university's requests on behalf of the board. Dr. Hayes noted that the data on programs implemented was self-reported by the individual bishops, but that individuals assembling the data will be involved in verifying its accuracy. The John Jay report when completed will include some sense for the number of victims, the number of perpetrators and the legal costs involved. In spite of the fact that the initial June 30 deadline for bishops submitting data to John Jay has passed, board members indicated that most of the tardy respondents have asked for, and been granted more time to ensure the accuracy of their submissions.

Clearly the most contentious and anticipated phase of the NRB's research will be their reports, to be issued later this year, on the "causes and context" of sexual abuse, a report specifically requested in Article 9 of the Dallas charter. Bob Bennett noted that the 'causes study' would be a two-part process consisting of an investigatory phase and followed by what he called an 'epidemiological' study.

The written comments of the NRB noted that the investigatory, phase one process includes interviews with "cardinals, archbishops and bishops; from representatives of religious orders; from victims and their representatives; from priest perpetrators; from law enforcement officials; from seminary leaders and recent seminarians; from canon law authorities; from physicians and authorities in psychiatric treatment; from authors and researchers; and from others who possess certain expertise in facets of the problem."

The results of these interviews will be made public in January of 2004, and will incorporate the statistical results being accumulated by John Jay University, as well as other facts available.

A concern for orthodox Catholics is what will be done with these ‘facts’ once the so-called "experts" get their hands on them. We have already witnessed the wholesale destruction of chastity, decency, moral behavior and innocence in Catholic schools as a result of radical sex education programs imposed by liberal bishops on the advice of “experts.”

The written report of the NRB noted, "once the "nature and scope" findings are available and the board's own Phase I research has been accomplished, the foundation will have been laid for a further and more detailed study into the causes and context, particularly on those issues which require broad-based statistical data and analysis before conclusions can be firmly reached. The second phase permitting this more analytic assessment of the crisis will require several years to complete and to cost upwards of $4 million. It would be undertaken by secular academic institutions with special expertise in the field."

NRB board member Dr. Paul McHugh stressed his dedication to making sure that children were safe. "An important function of prevention -- recognized by the Bishops -- will be an appreciation of the kinds of individuals who were responsible for this abuse."

McHugh promised that "first class scientific means" would be used to determine the causes of sexual abuse, to understand it and prevent it from happening in the future. He also indicated that all information would be made public, but cautioned that the study would be very expensive and time consuming. Requests for Proposals (RFP's) are being prepared, and the study, which McHugh indicated with be individual, confidential and research driven, could take years to complete and ultimately cost "several million dollars."

McHugh believes the scientific approach requires that the underlying data be assembled, hypothesis established as to causes of the abuse crisis, and then comparisons of offending vs. non-offending priests made to validate the hypothesis. At that point, the risk facts leading to sexually abusive behavior can be identified and prevented.

McHugh confirmed that one of the outcomes of the study would be profiling system of sorts, which would allow the church to identify high-risk individuals and their behaviors. These profiles will then be used in filtering seminary candidates and monitoring priests through their lives in service of the Church.

McHugh noted that the scientific challenge before the NRB was accurate description of the problem and then how to use the data to protect children. "We're not going to have to wait for 3 or 4 years to get relevant information that can be asked of applicants to the seminaries," noted McHugh. He noted that seminaries across the country have already implemented questionnaires and interview processes that are considerably more selective as a result of the scandal.

Indeed, as described in Michael Rose's best selling book, Goodbye Good Men, many seminaries have long used questionnaires as screens to identify and weed out orthodox candidates with heterosexual beliefs. The result is seminaries where the majority of the faculty, staff and students are homosexuals, or homosexual cliques dominate and corrupt the vocational training process.

To be sure, the gross abuse of scientific data, questionnaires and screening processes has directly resulted in hundreds if not thousands of predatory homosexual priests being unleashed on unsuspecting Catholic parishes. While situation is improving in the diocesan seminaries, the large and small seminaries of the religious orders continue to be disproportionately populated by dissenters of all stripes.

While answering questions from reporters following the meeting, Kathleen McChesney noted that, "clearly, there was a long history of people taking advice from physicians, lawyers and so forth that was wrong."

Several groups have consistently criticized the alleged scientific and medical advice that the Catholic bishops have relied on over the years as being corrupt. Dr. Judith Reisman has recently published several articles linking the clinical work at Johns Hopkins University, with which Dr. McHugh has a long affiliation, with the fraudulent research and methods of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, the so-called father of the sexual revolution.

Based on Kinsey's now discredited and biased research, laws restricting pornography and sex crimes were abolished in the 1960's by virtual all 50 states. In spite of this fraud, so-called sex education programs written by Kinsey Institute graduates and his disciples continue to be used in seminaries and Catholic schools around the world. The extent to which these Kinsey-inspired "experts" who contributed to the homosexual abuse of children will be allowed to formulate "reforms" is a serious and legitimate concern.

In his closing comments, Bill Burleigh stated that the ultimate goal of the NRB was a "church that was cleansed of scandal and reunited in holiness." Faithful Catholics, to whom the NRB's letter was addressed, can only pray that the NRB's definition of 'scandal' is broad enough to encompass dissent from church teachings on sexual morality (and homosexuality in the priesthood specifically) as the source of the scandal. It is discouraging to note that the word "homosexuality" was not included in the documents released to the media.

The only time 'the word' was mentioned was by Crusade magazine editor Preston Noell, who asked, "if homosexual behavior will be one of the areas that will be analyzed to see if the priest later on engaged in criminal behavior,” to which Bob Bennett gave a curt, "yes", and moved on to the next question.

As for openness by the US Bishops, Bob Bennett was asked what he thought about Bishops Gregory and McCarrick meeting privately with several leading dissenters in Washington DC a few weeks ago. He responded, "I didn't know about the meeting, I wasn't invited, and I can't comment because I don't know their agenda."

NRB member Bill Burleigh noted he wasn't invited either. "I don't want to pick a fight," said Burliegh, "but I think it was a self-appointed group that certainly wasn't representative of the (Catholic) Church that I'm a member of."

Burleigh said that he did not feel that the group was trying to compete with the NRB, and that Bishop Gregory had told the NRB that he was there to only to listen, and that his attendance of such meetings "in now way subverts the work of the NRB."

"I was told by a participant that there was only a brief reference to the clerical abuse crisis, and that the people who called the meeting wanted to discuss the management -- or the lack of good management - (in the Catholic Church.) But if you ask me," said Burleigh, "I would rather that meeting had not taken place."

Speaking to reporters after the conference, David Clohessey of the victim's group SNAP was concerned that the bishops were too involved in the process, in spite of the NRB's efforts to remain independent. By his observation, the bishops wrote the charter, the bishops picked the NRB board, the bishops are "self-reporting" the results in answer to most of the studies, and the bishops are the only ones who will be influencing continued compliance once the auditors are gone. In his view, the intimate involvement of the bishops in "solving" a scandal that they had previously gone to great lengths to cover up was problematic.

While Clohessey did not contest that the NRB was on pace to complete what they said they were going to do, he was unsure that their efforts were enough make a meaningful impact, or to get the job done. "My biggest concern is that the bishops will take a narrow, legalistic, letter-of-the-law approach to the (Dallas) charter, rather than a rational look at what will make kids safe. It seems like the bishops have laid out the field, made up the rules, and hired the umpires. If they want to make this church a healthy and safe place, they have to get beyond that."

In the final analysis, it is unclear whether the bishops or the NRB will have the political will to confront homosexuality in the priesthood as the leading cause of the scandal. Over 90% of the abuse victims have been teenage boys. Had the bishops abided by the Vatican directives of 1961 regarding non-admission of homosexuals into seminaries and the priesthood, there would be no sex scandal as we know it today. Unfortunately, the involvement of Johns Hopkin's Dr. McHugh (where the 'treatments' applied to sexual predators are highly questionable) implies that the bishops may have an inclination to do what they have done before, which is to call in the "experts" and wash their hands of the situation.

But desperate times call for desperate measures. Perhaps this time, the dissenters and their patrons at the USCCB, who for years have manipulated and corrupted the Catholic Church, have finally gone too far. In the end, the bishops may have no other choice but to break down and enforce the codes of sexual morality expressed in the Catholic Catechism, the traditions of the Church, and the natural laws of God.