Loyola Chicago Talk:

"Establishing a Strategy for a Safe Environment"
Justice Anne M. Burke
September 20, 2004

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for that gracious introduction.

Let me begin by saying how please I was to receive your invitation to speak here at Loyola University. This community, in the true Ignatian spirit of its founder, began transforming the landscape of Chicago while the smoke from the Great Fire was still in the air. Loyola University is a Chicago treasure, each day helping real Chicagoans discover their deepest talents. It is no accident that the waters of Lake Michigan wash up on your campus, here, or that the Water Tower, itself, is on your downtown doorstep. You are a gateway to the city's gleaming past and a light for its future.

Because you have such a dominant influence on the academic and commercial life of our city; and because you provide critical leadership within the legal and medical community; and because, ultimately, your mission is the mission of the Church - I have been anxious to speak to you.

While my work on the National Review Board of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is coming to an end, I believe that my colleagues and I have a critical responsibility to share with Catholics around the country both some of our findings and our personal experiences during the past twenty-seven months.

In addition to the straight-forward manner in which we sought to engage the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops around the issue of the sexual abuse of minors by members of the Catholic clergy, I believe that the process, itself, that unfolded for the board raised some significant questions about the role and participation of the laity in the larger life of the Church in our nation. I know this is an important issue for you on a variety of levels. Certainly, the events that have shaped the clerical sexual abuse scandal raises both the moral and legal dilemmas for which any Catholic academic community would pose deep questions. And in the aftermath of this scandal, the upheaval that the larger ecclesial community faces also raises critical questions of significant weight and measure. And what institution engaged in the process of education new generations of educated lay Catholics would not have profound questions concerning the involvement of American Catholic laity in the resolution of this horrific and heartbreaking scandal?

I hope that I can address some of your questions and cautions and misgivings in this presentation. But even more importantly, I hope that I can encourage you to pursue your concerns, particularly those regarding the institutional culture which begat this scandal. Each one of us, by our very membership in the Church, has been affected by the disaster that unfolded. Further, I hope that I can provide you with a sense of what it was that motivated the members of the NRB to engage in the work of the past two years.

I would have to say that it was undoubted our interest in creating safe environments for children that was our primary goal. In addition, understanding the actual proportions of the abuse crisis was a further goal of our efforts. I would have to say that throughout all we have done, it has been the actions and sacrifice of the lay Catholics of the United States that underpinned of all that we did these past two years. The role of the laity, itself, has evolved into a substantive issue in its own right at this place and time.

I would also like to take a moment here in the beginning of my remarks to state loudly and most publicly the enormous affection and debt of gratitude to the tens of thousands of faithful priests in our nation who helped to civilize our nation, our neighborhoods and our homes. For their comfort, vigilance, holiness, hard work and friendship, we extend our deepest love and admiration. Such gratitude is meager, especially in light of the pain and embarrassment they bear personally caused by the failings of others. I do not think we can say that enough. My husband has a favorite saying that has always been a part of his public life. "You'll never remember the words of your enemies, but you'll never forget the silence of your friends." I think that those men who have loved the priesthood and the people of God have been heroic. Say something to let them know of your respect. Honor them.

Finally, this afternoon I would like to speak about our work and then perhaps even more importantly, discuss where the dynamic of that work might take us.

I want to say something about our 12-member board at the beginning. I am no stranger to hard working boards, but in all honesty, this one took the cake for its determination, drive and expenditure of energy, stress, sleepless nights and air miles. Each member of the board is an active Catholic, who loves and respects the Church, but who at no point was ever intimidated by its power structure or unwilling to challenge its leadership.

I think I knew from the beginning that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops selected the people they did for the National Review Board because of our individual reputations. I do not think I appreciated then, more than two years ago now, how much our identity as laity would be both a positive and problematic characterization.

The board was assembled in a highly volatile period - June 2002 - when so many missteps by members of the hierarchy were enraging the laity. I believe it was probably in a moment of panic that the bishops felt compelled to approve "The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People" and to empower a "lay only" board to examine the crisis. It did not take very long for the issue of the all-lay composition of the board to be questioned. And once our work was fully underway, individual bishops began to have reservations about the fact that there was no clerical presence on the board. Of course many bishops were genuinely pleased with the construction of the board, but you did not have to go far to hear the swipes, complaints and suspicions of some, discreet though they thought they were.

As a rational, thinking individual and a legal professional, I had to come to recognize personally the different between the Church and the hierarchy. I hope we all do.

From the start, the format for our work, the process by which we worked and the direction of our work were all defined by our board members. No one in Washington laid out any plan for us or suggested a course of action for the board. Board members were independent thinkers, accomplished in their professions that often complimented our individual expertise and abilities. For example, Leon Penneta was a member of Congress for 19 years and later Chief-of-Staff in the Clinton White House, Bob Bennett remains one of Washington's most tough-nosed lawyers, as well as President Clinton's personal attorney, Bill Burleigh was CCEP of Scripps, Alice Bourke Hayes was the President of the University of San Diego, as well as an eminent researcher, Petra Jimenez Maes is Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court, Nick Cafardi is both a canon and civil lawyer and Dean of Duquesne Law School, Dr. Michael Bland, a Chicago psychologist, is an abuse victim and former priest, Dr. Paul McHugh holds the Chair of Behavioral Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Jane Childs is the former President of the Kentucky Catholic Conference, Pam Hayes is a well known New York civil rights and criminal defense attorney, and Ray Siegfried is a noted Catholic philanthropist, well-known particularly at the University o Notre Dame. All of us are "type-A personalities," at home sorting through complex tasks.

During our first year, former Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma chaired the group. After his very public departure, I was selected interim-chair. I am looking forward to a discreet exit.

I have my suspicions that some of the bishops may not have envisioned the full scope or impact of what they set in motion at their June 2002 meeting in Dallas, or what ultimately our board has accomplished. But I believe it is important to acknowledge that they did not flee from the challenge of the issue. Some of them may have preferred it if our board was less aggressive, less intrusive, more controllable or just more easy-going. It just never happened. Some of them might now have wanted a female, Southside, Chicago-Irish Appellate Court Justice who finds taking no for an answer unacceptable.

But this past February 27, with the release of the two reports on the sexual abuse of minors by members of the Catholic clergy - one, the first statistical analysis ever, and the other, our board's findings on some of the causes and context of the crisis, I do believe the bishops of the United States took a brave, but necessary step.

There were no smiling faces on that day in Washington, there was little to smile about. On the other hand, and maybe this is just my own compulsion for always searching for something to cheer about, but I do believe that there was good news to celebrate that day. The issue of abuse of course is horrific. The longer I spend studying it and talking about it with others, the worse I felt. But at the same time, I have really been encouraged by the fact the something concrete was underway that has the authority and power to ensure that such abuse cannot happen again; and that cases that do arise in the future will be dealt with in an appropriate manner, no matter who is in charge. The Catholic bishops of the United States set in motion a process to help achieve this, in many ways at great cost to themselves.

In the beginning, after what appears, in hindsight, some elements of pure genius, the board's earliest accomplishments revolved around our efforts to structure sub-committees - Bob Bennet Chair of the Causes and Context Committee and Bill Burleigh Chair of the Communications Committee. Our first goal was the establishment of the Office of Child and Youth Protection, at the USCCB, together with the search for the director for that office. After an extensive national process, Dr. Kathleen McChesney, the number three in command structure at the FBI was chosen.

One of Dr. McChesney's first tasks was to oversee the first-ever audit of every diocese, archdiocese and eparchy for the purpose of evaluating the structures and procedures at the local level for the protection of children and youth. She was assisted in this process by William Gavin and Associates, together with 55 former agents of the FBI. They know how to ask the best questions and get the best answers. Yes, some bishops and diocesan officials were off-put by the process. You may recall that the results of that audit were released in January.

What did we discover? The vast majority of dioceses are taking the issue very seriously. They are working with diligence to shore up any gaps in the screening of employees in schools and institutions at every level of employment from coast to coast. What is remarkable about this is the level of compliance that we achieved. To bring about a nationally centered audit like this is unprecedented. I had no idea before we started this how jealously independent every diocese is and how very reluctant bishops have been historically to create any type of national accountability on any issue. Each diocese, I came to understand, is a kingdom unto itself. Its geographical autonomy is sacrosanct. Even the Conference of Bishops can really only make suggestions on how things should be done - at least up until Dallas. The issues of sexual abuse by members of the clergy have reset that clock.

The Charter enacted in Dallas is binding on every diocese. Bishops are not free to dissent from the policy, as one bishop discovered. Refusing to cooperate with the audit, he told us he would only do so if the Pope himself ordered him directly. IN the end, he did cooperate. Some of us heard rumors that communications from high places within the Vatican made it clear everyone was to cooperate. He cooperated with the audit. So I think we can conclude, he got his call. However, this same bishop later did not co-operate with the John Jay study, threatening to sue us if we pursued him. If I were in Catholic in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, I would have my own set of questions for His Excellency.

But, the precedent for the audit has been set. It was the first of many. We are serious, and dioceses across the country will come to see the effects of their good efforts year to year. The audit is a goal toward which every must work.

I wanted to tell you this, as a preamble to the dated released in the two reports of last February. Together with the audit, they are a part of the process in understanding a serious issue. And, as I see it, part of a process for re-establishing a sense of trust and hope among Catholic people in the United States.

Let me now address those two reports and examine their impact, not only on the institutional character of the Catholic Church, but even more importantly, their impact on the lives of ordinary Catholics, pew-by-pew and parish-by-parish.

I would like to address those two reports now so that you might better understand the framework that went into developing them. I believe they have profound impact on the lives of ordinary Catholic people everywhere.

When first looking at the horrific issue of clerical sexual abuse, one of the very first realities that reared up was the fact that there were very little substantive or trustworthy facts available to anyone. No competent stastistics existed. Bishops did not share such information with each other, or with anyone else. So the National Review Board had no way of knowing what the bottom line was in the numbers of accused clerics. Were we talking 10% of the clergy, 50%? Were instances of abuse larger in the larger archdioceses? Were there places around the country in which higher instances of abuse occurred?

In the months that followed Dallas, we could answer none of these questions. We knew that the first order of business was a very necessary statistical analysis. Important data had to be gathered. All of this, for our purposed, was a part of the mandate of our appointment from the USCCB under the Charter.

The board made the decision to select the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City to carry out this study. It would be the first of its kind. I will be frank with you and tell you that it was suggested to us by the hierarchy that we should select a Catholic University to conduct this research. Of course, the board would not even entertain such a notion. We knew from the outset that even the appearance of evidence tampering could not be allowed. We felt that at least with a secular institution we would have a fighting chance. This may have been our first real skirmish with the hierarchy. In resolving this critical issue, we also helped to resolve any question of the board's independence and freedom to conduct our work with transparency and credibility. It was probably then that we realized how very important it was that we were a total lay board, working as lay people, with out constituency, outside the stifling influence of Episcopal judgment and control. I believe this ultimately paid off for us when we released the reports in February.

Let me give you something that before last February no one - no cardinal, no bishop, no board member, no state's attorney, judge, attorney or victim - could have told you before. And that is the honest, truthful, hard-nosed answers to the questions we sought. By now you may be familiar with them.

Out of 109,694 priests in active ministry between 1950 and 2002, -- 4, 392, or 4% of them have been accused of engaging in the sexual abuse of a minor.

10,667 victims reported instances of abuse.
81% of the victims were male. 19% were female.
During the time-frame of the study, the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were the highest decades presently reporting abuse.

Of the numbers of reported cases, 50.9% of the victims were between the ages of 11 to 14 years.
27.3% were between the ages of 15 and 17.
16% were between the ages of 8 and 10.
6% were between seven years of age or younger.
4 victims were 1 year old.

$527 million was expended by the Church in settlements to victims at that time.

What can I say after that? Of course this is gruesome and grotesque - terrible acts of personal violence done to the most vulnerable in our midst. But as least now, at this moment in our history, we can speak with clarity about this great assault, with accuracy and specificity. We now know what we are confronting. 4% is an appalling number, but it is not 20% or 30%. We could never be able to move forward without knowing the real picture.

We also could not move forward without knowing how this unspeakable crisis came about. And this moves me into the finding contained in our own board's report. We spent hundreds and hundreds of hours interviewing a wide section of individuals. More than seventy-five cardinals, archbishops, chancery office personnel, educators, victims, perpetrators, writers, journalists, civil authorities and experts-in-the-field were interviewed over the course of our work.

In addition, Bob Bennett, Bill Burliegh and I made two trips to Rome, on in December and one in the New Year where we had some dramatically frank conversations with the most senior, high-ranking Curial Cardinals. What we discovered, must to our surprise, was their sincere interested in meeting with us face-to-caf鮠 Meetings with Curial Cardinals are not readily scheduled. We were overwhelmed at their interest and candor. In addition, it was obvious that they were being told just what senior American prelates wanted them to know. They acknowledged the selective flow of pertinent information, at times, between Rome and the United States. And we could also sense the manner in which some American church leaders were adding their own spin to what was unfolding here.

After all our investigation, twenty-months worth, what have we discovered?

First, we learned that the nature of this crisis is two-fold - both the sexual abuse of minors by members of the clergy, and the failure of many Church leaders to adequately respond, contributed to the cause of the crisis.

We also learned that dioceses and religious orders did a poor job of screening candidates for the priesthood, and that seminaries did not adequately form candidates for the priesthood. We believe that these facts, together with the environment created in these Church institutions, are significant contributing factors in why so many priests abused minors.

Another discovery was that neither the presence of homosexually-oriented priests, nor the discipline of celibacy, "caused" this crisis, though perhaps they may be been contributing factors. These issues must be studied further as directed by the Charter. In the next weeks, the board will be releasing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a future epidemiological study that will see to further explain the causes.

But perhaps the saddest discovery answers our question of why so many leaders failed to respond to the seriousness of the problem over a period of many decades. What was it? Fear of scandal, threat of litigation, failure to understand the extend of the harm suffered by victims, reliance on treatment programs for abusers, putting the interests of priests above victims, and the failure of the utilization of canon law to remove priests from ministry.

On again, the failure of leadership expanded both the continued instances of abuse by many priests, and the victimization of the abused. These leaders have a lot to answer for.

In light of what we learned, the board has made six recommendations that we believe can help to prevent such abuse from happening in the future.

First, the Church must ensure better screening, formation and oversight among those preparing for the priesthood.

Second, the Church must become more sensitive to those making the allegation of abuse. The welfare of victims must be a priority. The Church cannot be paralyzed by the fear of litigation. It must act decisively giving priests due process and victims protection.

Third, there must be a wider accountability of bishops and Church leaders. Bishops must be challenging to other bishops to be responsive in preventing abuse, and local diocesan councils should be revitalized while even developing some type of accredited visitation of each diocese.

Fourth, consultative board of the laity should be considered. The role of the laity should be expanded, playing an active role working with the hierarchy to bring about open governance in the Church.

Fifth, interaction with civil authorities must be improved. All allegations must be reported to proper civil authority.

Sixth, further study and analysis of what we have discovered must come about. The bishops must move ahead with a comprehensive scientific study relating to the incidence of sexual abuse in the larger society.

My friends, this is just a start. These are observations that are patently clear in the light of what has transpired over the last half century in the Church in the United States.

I know that this is a lot of information to process. Our board, and many others, will be working with this information for a long time to come. But it is possible to draw some conclusions, even at this moment.

With all the data collected, we recognize that this is not an issue confined to the Catholic Church. It is a part of our culture. As my friend Scott Turow wrote me, "Those who think that these issues have Roman Catholic borders are going to be sadly surprised in coming days." As both a lawyer and a writer of fiction, I think Scott offers all of us some important perspective.

This work is just beginning. We believe the issues of the sexual abuse of minors are so significant an issue that other institutions should be encouraged to self-examine their own organizations so that a fuller societal picture of this horrifying issue can be drawn.

For Catholics, this is not simply a failure on the part of some priests, but rather an issue that points to the failure, more significantly, on the part of bishops and Church leaders who did not act appropriately.

Bishops have acknowledged their mistakes. A very prominent one, Bernard Cardinal Law of Boston, with intense pressure from the laity, resigned because of his failures. Around the country bishops are engaging victims with more support and sensitivity. Bishops are taking practical steps in their dioceses to ensure abuse does not continue. So it is possible to say that minors are safer today than they were in the past.

And finally, we can conclude that trust has been deeply eroded within the Catholic community. And also that trust can only be restored through a painful healing process that we believe has begun in the willingness of the bishops to ask the laity to commission the publication of these reports. The healing process is also evident in their willingness to take the steps necessary to change attitudes and policies engrained in the institutional character of the Catholic Church.

Most of all, because the Catholic Church is first and foremost a community of faith, we know that the healing process can only begin through our commitment to renewed vigilance, prayer and a commitment to meaningful reform. That's where I believe your input is so critical right now. You must help us hold the bishops feet to the fire on these needed reforms. All that has been accomplished has come about because of the mandate of the Charter. Under it, our board was constituted and the studies set in motion and the audits instituted. But the Charter will be reviewed in the months ahead. And there are mischief-makers at work attempting to put an end to the freedom and accountability that flowed in with that Charter.

Make no mistake about it - there are individuals within the hierarchy who have never been happy with what was set in motion in Dallas. At the time, they were in a panic. They saw the opportunity for a quick-paced solution - 12 lay Catholics, each with a national reputation for professional excellence, and they ran with it. I always presumed that many bishops though we would be beset with internal conflicts of ham-strung with the direction of our scope, and become little more than window dressing.

But a miracle happened. The board worked with an unusual harmony through the two-year process. We also worked with due diligence.

At this juncture, we find ourselves at a turning point, today, in which forces within the hierarchy are seeing to derail much of what has occurred. Last June, some of my colleagues and I met with the Executive Board of the Bishop's Conference and spoke about where we saw our board's work going in the future. Leon Penneta, Bob Bennett, Bill Burleigh and myself all officially left the board in June, but stipulated that we would remain until our replacements arrived.

So with the prospect that the NRB would face a large transition, particularly, among some of the stronger voices of the group, some bishops chose to take advantage of this fact in their closed meeting. There the bishops voted to table the next audit, the 2004 audit, until they could discuss it at their November meeting. This would ensure, effectively, there will be no 2004 audit. In addition, they also tabled further efforts to put out the Request for Proposal that would set in motion the additional epidemiological study. These overt machinations to sabotage the work of the NRB, I am proud to say, failed. WE raised "holy hell" and managed to get our point across to the bishops that all would be lost to such devious delays were put into effect. No one would ever trust them again. I am pleased to report that the 2-4 audit is currently underway. But what does it say about the seriousness of the bishops or their believability that a gang of them would even try to pull such shenanigans.

Sadly, there is contingent of bishops who would love to do away with the Charter that they felt forced to vote for in Dallas. There are those who would very much like it if the transparency of the past two years would just vanish. The board has been attacked from certain factions in the past two years on all fronts. The atmosphere is often contentious, with bishops attempting to discredit members of the board behind the scenes. There are those who would go to any length to discredit me personally and the board in general.

We know about those who would do away with reforms because there are many wonderful bishops who refuse to tolerate this behavior in their colleagues. They have been generous in their defense and encouraging in their support. I would hate to tell you the number of times in which, frustrated and angry, I have had to remind certain members of the hierarchy that it was they who came to us and requested our assistance.

There are some who would make it seem that somehow we thought all this up on our own and have been out to highjack their Church.

Well I have news for them. It is not "their Church." It is "Christ's Church." It is a gift, given to all of us by the Lord. This is why I think our role is so important as a free and independent voice for common sense and vigilance.

Over a series of meetings with the Ad Hoc Committee of the USCCB in the weeks ahead the bishops' June meeting, we came to a reasonable solution to this impasses on where we go from here. They formally reconsidered those actions and affirmed the critical necessity of the 2004 audit within the timeframe needed for it completion.

What we need now is your voiced echoing the need for continued transparence and continued commitment to the process that Dallas 2002 began. Make no mistake about it. There are those who believe that what we have accomplished thus far is all that was needed to make the issued disappear. What a sad commentary on our leadership and on their truthfulness. No wonder things disintegrated as badly as they had in our country by the time of Dallas.

Many of the same individuals who helped to bring about this crisis are still in the driver's seat. And they are more than happy to see some of us depart from the board. Some are already saying that they insist that clergy become a part of the board. You do the math. How much freedom and independence do you think we would have if there were members of the clergy on the board?

It is vital that important Catholic academic institutions, Like Loyola University, insist on expanded roles of significant leadership for the laity within the Church in our country. We are, after all, a people who believe in the on-going mystery of grace, the life of God at work in human history. In spite of the long litany of horror that has befallen the Catholic Church; we believe that grace will transform the terror of the present, not by magic, but by our willingness to engage the truth. For ultimately, what the Church has been engaged in the past twenty-seven months since Dallas is the embrace of the truth - the often times frightening reality of what humans are capable of creating four ourselves.

The work of embracing the truth is also affirming, enriching and life-giving. I hope that despite the shame, shock, pain and anger, you judge us, the members of the National Review Board, by what we do and say. Only this can fee all of us from being prisoners of the past, its paralysis and its failure. We can change things, once we are willing to know them - heartache and all.

Thank you for your willingness to listen to this difficult subject. Thank you for being so attentive. Most of all, thank you for all you do to keep the Church transparent, challenged and honest.