A few things caught my attention, which I placed in bold red.
1. The claim that “victims of sexual abuse require years or decades to recognize they were abused and report it” is classic availability bias. As Father Gordon has shown, there were thousands of sex offenders in prison, and the time lapse between victim and and abuse reporting was within weeks or months, not years or decades. The only exception were Catholic priests.
Even Father Brouillard was reported within weeks by the victim, which was the reason why Archbishop Flores transferred him to the U.S. When Jon Fernandez, the Superintendent of the Guam Department of Education, was accused of sexual harassment, the report was within two months. In fact, even Tim Rohr admitted that he reported the attempted sex abuse of his priest to the bishop in his diocese only a day after it occurred. It did not take him years or decades to report it.
2. The John Jay study commissioned by the U.S. Bishops revealed that the highest percentage of accusers of Catholic priests came forward not in the 1960s to 1980s when the abuse was claimed to have occurred, but between 2002 and 2004 when Catholic dioceses entered, or were forced into, mediated or “blanket” settlements.
When CCOG and Tim Rohr published their sex abuse ad in May, 2016, only 4 alleged victims came out and all of them accused Archbishop Apuron. Only one came out in the public hearing accusing Father Louis Brouillard. Four months later, on September 23, 2016, Governor Eddie Calvo signed the bill into law, allowing alleged victims to sue the alleged abusers and the institution for MONEY. After that, we suddenly see a whole horde of alleged victims filing lawsuits, most of them targeting Father Louis Brouillard who already confessed.
3. The insurers took the position that bishops and dioceses had prior knowledge of the history of most of the priests accused in the 1990s. Despite obtaining the files, the insurers ended up providing coverage because the written records simply did not support the insurers’ own availability bias, i.e., that the bishops knew of the abuse and covered it up. The majority of the claims, the insurers found, surfaced for the first time as money was being demanded, and not when the abuse was alleged to have occurred. The one who knew about the sexual abuse of Father Louis Brouillard and covered it up was Archbishop Flores. Archbishop Apuron should not be held liable for what Archbishop Flores did.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DUE PROCESS FOR ACCUSED PRIESTS
Father Gordon J. MacRae
This article is expanded from a commentary by the same author entitled “Crime and Punishment” published in the November 2008 issue of First Things.
Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 for his work on a phenomenon in psychology and marketing called “availability bias.” Kahneman demonstrated the human tendency to give a proposition validity just by how easily it comes to mind. An uncorroborated statement can be widely seen as true merely because the media has repeated it.
Also in 2002, the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal swept out of Boston to dominate news headlines across the country. Many commentators writing on the scandal have, knowingly or not, employed availability bias to justify draconian revisions in law and policy. The revelations of priestly scandal have evolved a number of examples of availability bias—snippets of ostensible fact repeated so often in the news media that they assume the visage of unassailable truth.
Among these is a claim that civil statutes of limitations for victims of sexual abuse to sue for monetary compensation must be extended or discarded. The claim that “victims of sexual abuse require years or decades to recognize they were abused and report it” is classic availability bias. This mantra has bolstered the interests of self-serving contingency lawyers and various agenda-driven groups using the scandal for their own ends, but the premise lacks both context and proof.
The prison system in which I have spent the last 14 years houses nearly 3,000 prisoners. Estimates of those convicted of sexual offenses range from 25 to 40 percent. This translates into a population of up to 1,200 sexual offenders in this one prison with thousands more in the state’s parole system or otherwise monitored by the state as registered sex offenders.
Three among these thousands of convicted men are Catholic priests, one accused a few months after claimed offenses in the early 1990s while the other two faced charges from decades ago.
The thousands of other men convicted of sexual abuse are accused parents, grandparents, step-parents, foster parents, uncles, teachers, ministers, scout leaders, and so on, and for them the typical time lapse between abuse and the victim reporting it was measured in weeks or months, not years—and certainly not decades. There is simply no evidence to support the claim that victims of sexual abuse require decades to come forward. With but rare exceptions, only Catholic priests face the daunting and sometimes hopeless task of defending themselves against sex abuse claims that are many years or decades old.
So what sets the accusers of priests apart from other claimants? The John Jay study commissioned by the U.S. Bishops revealed that the highest percentage of accusers of Catholic priests came forward not in the 1960s to 1980s when the abuse was claimed to have occurred, but between 2002 and 2004 when Catholic dioceses entered, or were forced into, mediated or “blanket” settlements.
The quality of due process for priests accused during mediated settlements is highly suspect. A New Hampshire contingency lawyer recently brought forward his fifth round of mediated settlement demands. During his first round of mediated settlements in 2002—in which 28 priests of the Diocese of Manchester were accused in claims alleging abuse between the 1950s and 1980s—the news media announced a $5.5 million settlement. The claimants’ lawyer, seemingly inviting his next round of plaintiffs, described the settlement process with the Manchester diocese: “During settlement negotiations, diocesan officials did not press for details such as dates and allegations for every claim. I’ve never seen anything like it.” (NH Union Leader, Nov. 27, 2002). “Some victims made claims in the last month, and because of the timing of negotiations, gained closure in just a matter of days.” (Nashua Telegraph, Nov. 27, 2002).
That lawyer’s contingency fee for the first of what would evolve into five rounds of mediated settlements was estimated to be in excess of $1.8 million. At the time this first mediated settlement was reached in 2002, New Hampshire newspapers reported that at the attorney’s and claimants’ request, the diocese agreed not to disclose their names, the details of abuse, or the amounts of individual settlements.
In contrast, the names of the accused priests—many of whom were deceased—were publicized by the Diocese in a press release. Despite the contingency lawyer’s widely reported amazement that $5.5 million was handed over with no details or corroboration elicited by the diocese, the claims were labeled “credible” by virtue of being settled. Priests who declared the claims against them to be bogus—and who, in two cases, insisted that they never even met these newest accusers—were excluded from the settlement process and never informed that a settlement had taken place. The priests’ names were then submitted to the Vatican as the subjects of credible allegations of abuse. The possible penal actions—for which there is no opportunity for defense or appeal—include possible administrative dismissal from the priesthood, but without any of the usual vestiges of justice such as a discovery process, a presumption of innocence, or even a trial.
The U.S. bishops have rightly campaigned against so-called “window legislation” proposed in a number of states to extend or remove civil statutes of limitations, and then retroactively apply the extension so that Catholic Church entities can be sued while public institutions—e.g. public schools—remain exempt. Such legislated “windows” would allow lawsuits to proceed long after the statutes allowing them have expired. The mantra chanted in support of such legislation is that victims cannot report abuse for many years or decades. The premise is baseless, and the proposed legislation has but one target, the Catholic Church.
Catholic dioceses and institutions are entirely justified in opposing such duplicitous laws. At the same time, however, many in the Church have demanded of our bishops—and, sadly, with some success—that they lobby the Holy See for dispensation from “prescription”—the statute of limitations in canon law—so that accused priests can be removed from ministry, and even dismissed without trial from the clerical state—decades after the Church’s own statute of limitations has expired. As Archbishop Charles Chaput has wisely cautioned, “Statutes of Limitations exist in legal systems to promote justice, not hinder it.” (First Things, May 2006).
The mediated settlement process has continued year by year since the explosions of 2002. To date, the U.S. Church has lost $2.6 billion in abuse claims, but are the ongoing claims just? In the 1990s, the Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press published a trade journal for personal injury lawyers entitled Sexual Abuse Litigation: A Practical Recourse for Attorneys, Clinicians and Advocates. The book is a manual for obtaining profit from sexual abuse claims. One chapter, for example, is entitled “The Needle in the Haystack: Uncovering Insurance Coverage in Sexual Abuse Litigation.” Each chapter concludes with a list of “practice tips” describing in detail the most effective ways to find and sue deeper pockets than those of the alleged molesters themselves.
The “practice tips” address ways to claim negligent supervision of clergy (especially Catholic priests), to present claims in ways that will circumvent existing civil statutes of limitations, and in using the power of the state to bolster civil claims with simultaneous criminal prosecution. The book also includes a number of ways to bring claims while avoiding quagmires such as controversial “repressed and recovered memory” by claiming newly discovered injuries instead of newly discovered memories. In a chapter that seems to be a harbinger of what was to come for the Catholic Church, the book describes ways to manipulate media coverage to pressure institutions into mediated settlements without an in-depth discovery process or even filing a claim in a court of law. Sound familiar?
The “mass mediation” precedent for settlement of claims against Catholic priests was first established in 1992 when the insurers for the Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, sought to end some 80 lawsuits involving Fr. James Porter in claims alleged to have occurred up to three decades previously. At the time, insurers tried to deny coverage of the decades-old claims that were beginning to emerge around the country. The insurers took the position that bishops and dioceses had prior knowledge of the history of most of the priests accused in the 1990s. Despite obtaining the files, the insurers ended up providing coverage because the written records simply did not support the insurers’ own availability bias, i.e., that the bishops knew of the abuse and covered it up. The majority of the claims, the insurers found, surfaced for the first time as money was being demanded, and not when the abuse was alleged to have occurred.
The relationship between insurance coverage and claims against priests is certainly clear in the historical record of this issue over the last 20 years. Insurers of Catholic dioceses ceased to provide coverage for claims alleged to have occurred after 1990 or so, but could not deny the coverage retroactively into the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. It is an interesting note that the lowest percentage of claims against priests were alleged to have occurred subsequent to 1990 when insurance coverage came to an official halt. As the Howarth book cited above makes clear, “insurance” is spelled s-e-t-t-l-e-m-e-n-t. Only a few commentators have cited the inherent danger mediated settlements have posed to priests, and can pose to the Catholic Church in the wake of “window legislation.”
Yet another example of availability bias is the widely held belief that no one would claim to have been sexually abused just for money—not even for lots of money, and not even when few questions are asked. Remembering the shocking false claims for compensation after the 9/11 attacks, I put the proposition to my fellow prisoners. Would any of them consider falsely accusing a priest for money? It got a good laugh—and then a reminder that I am surrounded by men who have taken lives for far less money than what was gained by those who took my reputation and freedom.
Fr. Gordon MacRae is in prison for claims alleged to have occurred in 1983, and for which he maintains his innocence.
Diana, due process is tricky. Fr. MacRae was not given a canonical trial to clean his name. Archbishop Apuron has his own canonical trial going on in Vatican right now! You cannot say he did not have the due process. We'll see a conclusion very soon.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:15 am,
DeleteFather MacRae was labeled "guilty" by the media and his diocese without due process of a trial. It is the same with Archbishop Apuron. He was labeled guilty by the Junglewatch Nation without the due process of any trial, canonical or civil.
Diana, this is not what Fr. MacRae is talking about. He talks about priests in prison.
DeleteDiana @ 12:05 PM get your facts straight. You wrote that Fr. MacRae was labeled "guilty" by the media and his diocese without due process of a trial. If you had done your research (as you say David Lujan and the media should do) you would have discovered that according to the National Catholic Register, "Father MacRae, whose story is told on the These Stone Walls blog, has been incarcerated in the New Hampshire State Prison since his September 1991 CONVICTION on one count of sexual assault and four counts of felonious sexual-assault charges."
DeleteFR. GORDON MACRAE WENT THROUGH A TRIAL AND WAS FOUND GUILTY.
The article also says that Fr. MacRae "turned down a plea deal that would have carried a maximum three-year prison term. Maintaining his innocence, he TOOK HIS CHANCES AT TRIAL, which ended in after 10 days of testimony."
Fr. Gordon MacRae WAS SENTENCED TO PRISON BY A JUDGE not by the media and his diocese as you claim.
Will you publish this? I doubt it but at least I can say that I tried to correct your ignorance,
Dear Anonymous at 2:13 pm,
DeleteI believe you misunderstood. Father MacRae was already judged guilty by the media and his diocese BEFORE he went to court. That means he was already judged by the media and his diocese WITHOUT due process of a trial. He had not gone to trial yet, and already he was judged guilty. According to Father MacRae in his own words:
"One asked me one day how the Church defended me. I told him that the Church did not defend me at all, that from the moment I was accused I was suspended and entirely on my own for both finding and funding a defense."
http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2017-05-04T07:50:00%2B10:00&max-results=8
This is what also happened to Archbishop Apuron. The moment he was accused of sexual abuse by Roy Quintanilla, the jungle had already judged him guilty without due process of a trial. And when he came out proclaiming his innocence, the jungle called him a liar. His canonical trial is not yet done, and he is still judged guilty without due process of a trial.
All criminals say they are innocent even after they've been found guilty. Just like guilty people don't run away. If you noticed, huge criminal news are often published before, during and after any trials begin. Of course with the exception of canonical trials.
DeleteOf course the diocese did the right thing by removing accused priests and there by starting a caconical teial. All accusations SHOULD be taken seriously and acted on immediately. I believe Rome has heard the Sunday protesters. Don't you think?
Dear Anonymous at 7:51 pm,
DeleteThis is a false statement. Father Broulliard took responsibility for his actions. There were some priests and bishops who admitted their wrongs and stepped down.
You misunderstood. Father MacRae was JUDGED "guilty" by the media and His diocese in the same way when you accused Archbishop Apuron of running away. Archbishop Apuron is not a fugitive, but you already labeled him a "fugitive". You had already labeled him guilty. The canonical trial is still going on.
All accusations should be treated seriously, but EVERYONE, even a criminal, deserves the respect of being treated like a human being no matter how cruel and terrible a crime they committed or are accused of committing.
DeleteDiana, Fr. MacRae would not be in prison based on public opinion or by view of a few adversaries. He went to jail because of conviction at court. Abp Apuron wont go to prison either based on whatever "jungle nation" opines. If he goes to jail must be based on a court decision. You confuse media bias with court judgement.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:45 am,
DeleteHis prison term was not what I was talking about. I was talking about what happened BEFORE he even went to trial. I was talking about how he was treated BEFORE his trial. Yes, Father Madras was found guilty in a court of law, but he was already labeled guilty by the media and His diocese BEFORE the trial even began.
In the same way that Archbishop Apuron is going through....the Archbishop was already labeled guilty BEFORE the outcome of the canonical trial.