The Opaque “Transparency” of the Richmond Diocese

cartoonvillainLet’s use our imaginations. A couple of fairy tale characters.

One: A hard-hearted scheming bishop. He hates some of his priests. He wants to see them suffer. So he includes their names in a published list of sex abusers.

Two: A princely, zealous, loving bishop. He longs for the faithful people of his diocese to live in open, pure chastity. Free of sexual abuse.

The princely bishop carefully studies all the clergy files, to determine if any contain information that would help the public. When he finds something against a priest, he gives the accused the chance to answer.

Then he publishes a list. It helps people heal. And it puts fear into the hearts of potential predators.

Trick is: How to tell these two characters apart, in real life? In a fairy tale, the one would wear a black cape and twiddle his fingers together maniacally. The other would look like Tom Brady in a Roman collar.

But we don’t have the luxury of type-casting. Here in the real world, we must seek evidence, in order to distinguish villain from prince.

The bishop of our beloved Diocese of Richmond summoned us priests to a mandatory meeting. Last week, his Vicar-General wrote us:

“Bishop Knestout will provide pastoral resources to assist in responding to questions and concerns relating to the release of a list of the names of priests who have served in our diocese and have a credible and substantiated accusation of sexual abuse of a minor.”

His Excellency himself did not attend the meeting today. Too busy.* He provided us with the “resources” via certain members of his staff.

Tom Brady

If you’re like me, dear reader, you would arrive at such a meeting with questions, like:

When will the diocese publish the list?

What information will it include? Just names? Summaries of specific cases? Will any additional documents accompany the publication of the list? Legal proceedings, etc?

Why did His Excellency decide to publish this list? And why now?

Guess what? Nope. No answers to any of these!

Okay. So the prince won’t tell us: when, what, or why. How about: Who or how?

Who exactly is working on the compilation of this list? The Vicar for Priests? No.

Who then? Some skilled people.

Will the diocese’s list include only those clergymen tried and convicted in a court of law (or admittedly guilty)? Or will it include any priest accused by anyone ever? Or is there some clear criterion in between, which will settle the question of what names appear?

Answer:

Does “sexual abuse of a minor” include “grooming” activities?

Answer:

Will the diocese’s list correspond to the list already available at bishop-accountability.org?

Answer:

Have we asked victims whether they want to see this list published?

Answer:

Actually: Some victims say that publishing lists can help heal souls. Others say that it’s just a publicity stunt that only makes the victims feel worse. Do we have any evidence to go on, to try to settle that dispute?

Answer:

Mark Herring

…Dear reader, you may remember that our Virginia State Attorney General recently opened an investigation into the dioceses of Virginia. And he published a hotline for victims to call.

Has that hotline received calls? A lot of calls? Involving new cases or old ones?

Has the diocese even asked the Attorney General about that?

Answers from the diocese at today’s mandatory priests’ meeting:

[crickets]

…Now, the fact is: good people have already worked hard to give the public a great deal of information about sexual abuses that have occurred in our diocese. The bishop-accountability list I mentioned above has links to newspaper articles. And you can go to the “tapatalk” of the Survivors’ Network, and search the names on the bishop-accountability list. Lots of information.

But information is only as good as the trustworthiness of the person who provides it. Who can we trust? Do we have a supreme judge in our diocese whom we can trust to do the right thing? About criminal violations of the Sixth Commandment?

Forgive me for slipping into cynicism. But the entire exercise of today’s mandatory meeting, and the imminent release of the list–it all seems to me like a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from something else.

Sacred Heart cathedral Richmond.jpg

Our bishop came to us a year ago. In our cathedral, he sang the praises of his mentor, the prelate who had ordained him to the episcopacy. Donald Card. Wuerl.

Turns out: That mentor has participated in the on-going cover-up of Theodore McCarrick’s sexual abuse of seminarians. Turns out that Donald Wuerl lies. Shamelessly. He lied to one of Theodore McCarrick’s victims two weeks ago.

We Catholics desperately want to trust our shepherds. We want to trust that they know what they do. And do it honestly.

But today’s mandatory meeting? I would sin against honesty if I did not report this: It consisted of morale-sapping groupthink propaganda. I left the meeting as dispirited and angry as I have ever been in my life.

This is “transparent?” If so, what does opaque look like?

—–

* Bishop’s brother died today. May he rest in peace.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “The Opaque “Transparency” of the Richmond Diocese

  1. I admire you for speaking with the courage of your convictions. Too often we find us Christians .- Catholics- defending our priests, our bishops and Cardinals out of a mistaken sense of loyalty to ‘the Church’. This is not only harmful to “the church”‘ but is serious disloyalty to Christ.
    “….As for me and my family I will serve the Lord…..” does not include priests, bishops or cardinals, nor the structure nor the traditions but justice, truth, righteousness .
    Prayers for the Body of Christ..

  2. Your post structure is confusing.. You may want to tighten it up. I am not sure if you are giving answers or answering questions that are not there with other questions.

    Just to clarify, BishopAccountability.org will only put out the names of credibly accused priests that have been publicly acknowledged. In my case, my perp priest was not included on the list until I finally caught the Pennsylvania Diocese that protected him in a lie (shocking, lies from the Chancery). As a survivor, I wanted his name published, I wanted the world to know he was a predator. Names not on the list at Bishop Accountability include the clerics that protected the predators. My experience has been that the Bishops and their minions do not communicate directly with survivors unless they are forced into it. Bishops are very good at apologizing to microphones but avoiding us like we were lepers. Your late Bishop DiLorenzo, was familiar with the predators in Scranton while he was an auxiliary bishop there, including the priest that preyed on me.

    Parishioners always seem to feign shock and dismay at the revelation of the Bishops’ bad behavior. The “Faithful” who sit in the pews and write off victims as people looking for an easy pay-off are as complicit in the child sex abuse crisis in the church as the prelates that protected them.

    I would be really surprised if you talked to one survivor before posting this mess.

    1. I apologize for writing in such a confusing manner. The idea was to illustrate that the diocesan officials at the meeting did not offer answers.

      I have in fact talked to survivors. And I’m glad to hear from you.

  3. Once again we see the episcopate of the church, obfuscate and shift the focus, then demonize the messenger.
    Personally, I am tired of their not taking responsibility and fixing accountability . This is a continuing problem and will not be solved until some of this oversight authority in the Church is shifted to to laity. Bishops ca run a diocese like their own fiefdom….whatever…..

  4. Personally, while I’m sorry the bishops brother died the day of the meeting, it seems to me the meeting should have been rescheduled….
    I will say…. I had no trouble following your post father mark…. but I would like to think over the years, I have had time to get used to it.
    I do want to say… that while I was not the victim of priest abuse I was assaulted at one time….I did report it, to try and help keep it from happening again. In the same line, if, I was the victim of clergy abuse, I would want the name made public to try and keep it from happening to others…. yes I know many are deceased, but you can’t well post a half list either…
    Just my .02…. will be interesting to see what happens the week of feb 21, but I’m no longer optimistic….my prayers daily are for the church and her shepherds….

  5. “Parishioners always seem to feign shock and dismay at the revelation of the Bishops’ bad behavior. The “Faithful” who sit in the pews and write off victims as people looking for an easy pay-off are as complicit in the child sex abuse crisis in the church as the prelates that protected them.” Michael

    No one here is feigning “shock and dismay” Michael, that is your pain speaking. All true believers/members of the Catholic church are mourning and suffering for the horror that is amidst us. Who here has ever even hinted that victims are looking for an “easy pay off”? I for one forgive you your broad stroke painting us faithful this way, but I must call you out with regard to your attack upon Fr. Mark. You clearly don’t know him or else you would never make such claims or attack him in this way. I’m profoundly sorry for the suffering that you and all other victims continue to endure because of and at the hands of Gods ministers, but check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s