The Catholic Church must be required by law to give the names of clergy who are guilty of sexual abuse to the police.
By James Riswick
Assistant Opinions Editor
Former priest John J. Geoghan of the Boston archdiocese has been accused of sexually abusing more than 130 children in a span of 30 years. If this isn’t disturbing enough, the Church was well aware of these accusations and transferred him to six different parishes in that time span. Geoghan is currently serving up to 10 years in prison for molesting a child, with two more trials pending, and has now cost the archdiocese more than $35 million in civil suits alone.
Despite the Boston archdiocese’s promises to prevent future cases of sexual abuse, it should not be up to them to disclose these cases. Too many children have been hurt as the result of dioceses across the country quietly sweeping these cases under the rug in an attempt to save face and keep the keep the dwindling population of priests stable.
These various dioceses are not only endangering children, but as the nephew of a Catholic priest, I can say they’re giving genuinely decent, caring priests a horrendous black eye. The law must require clergy of all religions and denominations to immediately report acts of sexual abuse to authorities. Silently moving guilty priests from parish to parish is no longer an option — not that it ever should have been in the first place.
Although Geoghan is an extreme case, it is hardly an isolated one. More cases of pedophilia by priests are being reported across the country as well. Only last week, the bishop of Palm Beach, Fla. admitted to “inappropriately touching” a boy 15 years ago.
In Orange County, Father Michael Pecharich was dismissed after a former alter boy accused the priest of sexually abusing him 19 years ago. According to the L.A. Times, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney forced the resignation of 10 priests more than a week ago because of accusations of sexual abuse. It was not revealed whether those priests’ names were turned over to the authorities.
Under current California law, however, the church does not necessarily have to disclose names to the police.
In fact, only 12 states have laws requiring clergy to report cases of sexual abuse. Fifteen states, including California, have laws that require clergy to report abuse, but not if the information was obtained through confessional. That means that these 10 priests in L.A. could get off without punishment.
The 23 other states that don’t have any such laws leave it up to the church to decide whether to disclose cases of sexual abuse. But as the Boston diocese has proven, this honor system does not work. According to the Boston Globe, after Geoghan was caught molesting children in 1984, Cardinal Bernard Law immediately moved him to another parish where he continued his same habits. The Boston archdiocese also recently disclosed that they had secretly settled other molestation cases involving 70 priests. These disclosures have led to the removal of 10 priests and the turning over of about 90 priests’ names to authorities.
Sure, the Boston diocese has now committed itself to eliminating pedophilia, but there are still countless other diocese in the 23 states without clerical disclosure laws. This is also not to mention the countless other cases that have gone unreported over the years, and the equally high number of molesters that hide behind the church.
Although it would still be up to individuals within the church to report sexual crimes, they would be required by law to report to government authorities. No longer would they just report to a bishop who would most likely sweep the information under the rug.
This is clearly a matter of separation between church and state, but one that is also far from straight forward. By covering up child molestation, the church is interfering with the state’s protection of its citizens. However, by disregarding the sanctity of a clergy-penitent confessional, the state is interfering with the church. Normally I would say that the security of confessional should be maintained, but the safety of children should be the priority. It probably could be construed as unconstitutional, but it certainly is the right thing to do.
The rights of child molesters and those who protect them should not be held above the children they hurt. The names of molesters should be immediately reported to authorities, period. It simply doesn’t matter that the molester is a leader in the church and it definitely shouldn’t be the church’s decision of whether to turn him in or not.
Because of the separation of church and state, the problem of clergy molesting children should be dealt with by the church.
By J. Douglas Stevens
Staff Writer
The archdiocese of Boston is hesitant to provide authorities with the names of past and present priests accused of sexually abusing young children, and its concerns are justified.
The priests in question are protected under Massachusetts law which states that members of the clergy are not required to report suspicions of sexual misconduct unlike doctors, teachers and other professionals.
Separation of church and state. It is a principle on which our country was founded. It allows religious bodies to operate independently, without interference from local, state or national authorities. The church is allowed to police itself, more or less.
So why are Boston district attorneys going to such great lengths to involve themselves?
By forcing the disclosure of names, Boston’s district attorney is only rehashing painful memories and drawing attention to dead issues (in many of the cases the statute of limitations has expired, meaning it is too late to press charges).
The pressure to disclose the names comes after the conviction of 66-year-old former priest John Geoghan, who sexually assaulted a 10-year-old boy in 1991. Since that accusation, 130 people have come forward claiming to have been abused sometime over the course of his 36 years in the priesthood.
This and other recent cases have led the Massachusetts Legislature to consider a bill to lift the confessional-related exemption priests have in reporting sexual abuse, but until that happens, the district attorney must legally respect the pastoral privilege.
District attorneys are calling for full cooperation in cases involving more than 90 priests going back more than 40 years. This retroactive attempt at justice is nothing more than a publicity stunt by the district attorney at the expense of the Catholic church.
Catholicism in the largest religious sect in this country and Boston is the fourth-largest archdiocese, behind New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, making them a prime target for criticism.
The priesthood is among the most venerable positions a man can assume. His duty in the church and responsibility to its members is quite a lot for one man to bear.
Those not a part of the priesthood cringe at the vows taken by each priest, especially the vow of celibacy. One who undertakes such a solemn oath must be extremely dedicated and willing to sacrifice. Why then would strikingly large numbers of priests be so quick to renege on that vow? And do so in such an unconventional and despicable manner? Those who did are not common criminals, but sick individuals in need of rehabilitation.
This, however, does not excuse their actions, nor does it help ease the pain inflicted upon the children who were abused.
Prosecuting a 40-year-old sexual abuse case will do nothing for the victim, now an adult with better things to do than relive a childhood nightmare. It could be severly traumatic for him, and a waste of time for everyone else. If the statute of limitations has expired, why bring it up? It serves no purpose.
But something can certainly be done to protect children in the future. With growing public scrutiny, churches in Boston, and hopefully across the nation, will be on the look out for warning signs of sexual abuse.
The problem must be addressed from the inside. Since the Catholic church is its own entity, sheltered from the affects of local or national policy, it must take responsibility for its actions and do a better job policing its priests.
I propose a sort of committee, whose job it would be to meet with priests on a regular basis, assessing performance, mental health, and interaction with members of the church. They would be the ones to investigate accusations of abuse.
This would minimize further incidents of abuse, and assure government authorities that they shouldn’t concern themselves with matters of the church.
March 14, 2002