|
In February 2004, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles took the extraordinary step of reporting in detail to the public
on its handling of the problem of sexual abuse by members of the clergy. This Report to the People of God,
set out the full scope of the problem over the past 75 years and explained the Church’s evolving understanding
of its dimensions.
This evolution in understanding provides the context for the development of policies by the Archdiocese to deal with sexual abuse by the clergy.
For many years, the best thinking of psychologists and other health care professionals held that a person who sexually abused young people could, with proper and extensive counseling, be “cured” to the extent that he would be able to function in society without posing a danger. For its part, the Church primarily viewed clerical sexual abuse as a moral weakness and a sin, a matter to be handled in a way that was primarily pastoral.
It was also a matter to be dealt with, for the most part, out of public view. There was a very real sense in the Church – and in the broader society – that sexual abuse, by its nature, was a violation that should be dealt with privately to avoid even further suffering by its victims. (Later, as awareness of the issue grew, there would be those who would interpret the Church’s emphasis on secrecy as a desire to shield itself from scandal. In this regard, says the Report to the People of God, “the Church needs to examine its conscience to assess to what extent that may have been a motivation for non-disclosure.”)
The perception that incidents of sexual abuse by clergy were isolated and that sexual abusers could be cured changed rapidly in the late 1980s and 1990s. Awareness grew that the problem was both more widespread than previously thought and much more complex, demanding a more sophisticated and decisive response. Still, officials in the Church, drawing on the best expert medical advice, grappled with the question of what course to follow with a priest, deacon or brother found to have abused young people. In some cases, it was felt, the abuser, after treatment, could safely be returned to a strictly supervised ministry.
All debate ended in 2002.
Zero Tolerance
In February 2002, Cardinal Roger Mahony approved a firm policy of zero tolerance:
|
“The Archdiocese of Los Angeles will not knowingly assign or retain a priest, deacon, religious or lay person to serve in its parishes, schools, pastoral ministries or any other assignment when such an individual is determined to have previously engaged in the sexual abuse of a minor. If the Archdiocese determines that a priest or deacon has engaged in such conduct, that person will be removed from all clerical offices and all pastoral or educational ministry and will not be reassigned. Since he will never return to active ministry, he will be encouraged to seek a dispensation from the obligations of the priesthood or the diaconate and to return to the lay state.”
|
|
Immediate Action
If a report of sexual abuse of a minor is made to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, three steps are taken immediately:
- The appropriate civil authorities are notified so that an investigation can begin;
- Counseling assistance and referrals, at Archdiocesan expense, are offered to the person making the complaint and to that person’s family; and
- If upon initial internal investigation the report is considered credible, the accused cleric is removed from all active ministry as the investigation continues. If the allegation is found to be true, the cleric will never be allowed to return to any active ministry or pastoral office.
On its website, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles provides detailed information about its extensive Safeguard The Children efforts and about its policies and procedures regarding sexual abuse.
|
|