Docs to be released today on church sex abuse (1pm) here are some notes:
(the website this is posted from is one of the two releasing the info today)
We have worked with the attorneys for abuse survivors who identified almost 6,000 pages of documents they believe should be made public and that best demonstrate how the archdiocese handled allegations of sexual abuse, responded to reports, and dealt with offending priests. Those are the documents that will be posted.
My hope in voluntarily making these documents public is that they will aid abuse survivors, families, and others in understanding the past, reviewing the present and allowing the Church in southeastern Wisconsin to continue moving forward. We can never tell abuse survivors enough how sorry we are for what they endured. My apology goes out to all who have been harmed and I continue to offer to meet with any individual abuse survivors who would find it helpful.
In general, the documents show some of the following themes:
Terrible things happened to innocent children.
People were ill-equipped to respond -- to victims and families, and to perpetrators.
Church leaders and other professionals tried their best to deal with the issue given the knowledge available at the time.
Reports of abuse were often not brought to the archdiocese or civil authorities until decades after they occurred.
The archdiocese consistently showed care and concern for abuse survivors, and paid for therapy for individuals who were harmed.
The incidents of abuse date back 25, 50, even 80 years.
The majority of perpetrators were not known to the archdiocese until years after they committed the abuse.
In the 1970s and 80s, priests were often removed from their parish for “medical reasons,” sent for counseling and, based upon a recommendation from their therapist or medical professional, reassigned to another parish.
Twenty-two priests were reassigned to parish work after concerns about their behavior were known to the archdiocese.
Eight of those 22 priests reoffended after being reassigned.
Civil authorities did not always pursue investigations and neither did the archdiocese.
Even when priests were prosecuted and found guilty or pled no contest, they often received probation as a sentence and did not go to jail.
People often reported concerns about a priest that were not instances of sexual abuse, but rather concerns about unusual or questionable behaviors, such as uninvited attention/affection -- what we know today as possible signs of “grooming.”
In the early 1990s, a more formalized approach of outreach to abuse survivors and in dealing with offenders began to emerge.
http://www.archmil.org/Our-Faith/Blogs/Archbishop-Listecki/JEL-20130626.htm