Posted on 11-5-2002

Cardinal Crime
by Alan Marston

Sexual exploitation of vulnerable believers is always a temptation and that
is why severe sanctions are put on such activity by all social systems.
Religious orders are given the highest trust value by their believers and
one reflection of that fact is the autonomy given to the hierarchy of such
orders to administer and maintain a high degree of adherence to its primary
attraction, strict moral, ethical and social codes. When people in
authority within a church do not carry out their obligations to sanction
their priests and themselves, the result is a disaster for those who have
placed faith in them. And that is exactly what has happened within the
Catholic Church, most obviously now in the USA, but it would be illogical
to stop there. Are churches the happy hunting ground of sexual predators?
It is highly likely in the light of recent evidence that the answer is yes.

The Vatican has been allowed to retain the status of a nation and it has
used this status plus its vast banking empire to deny, defend, avert,
divert... in short to employ every trick in the political manual in defense
of empire. It's seems that yet again the Vatican will respond to this
latest threat to its power in its own interests and will see complaints by
its believers as a threat to be crushed not a reason for confession,
contrition and remedial action. The Vatican has not noticed that history
has move on since it could act with impunity - or has history moved on?

A report in the NY Times explains how when answering questions under oath
for the first time about what he knew and did in the case of a pedophile
priest, US Catholic Cardinal Bernard Francis Law said today that he was
aware of accusations against the priest as early as September 1984 but that
he turned the matter over to his top aides and never followed up to learn
specifically what they did. Speaking in a deposition ordered by a judge,
the cardinal said he followed the judgment of his deputy and doctors when
he allowed the priest, John J. Geoghan, to be assigned to a parish in 1984,
less than two months after he had been removed from another parish because
of complaints that he was associating with boys. "I relied upon those who
assisted me in this matter to do all that was appropriate," he said.
According to a transcript of the question-and-answer session with lawyers
for 86 people who say they were molested by Father Geoghan, Cardinal Law
said he could not recall seeing documents about the priest that bore
notations the cardinal had written at the time and could not remember
specific conversations about him. In particular, he said he had no
recollection of letters that warned him about Father Geoghan's history of
sexual abuse, including one from one of his bishops who wrote to protest
the priest's reassignment and another from the aunt of seven boys Father
Geoghan had admitted molesting.

Cardinal Law, the archbishop of Boston and the US Catholic Church's most
senior Roman Catholic prelate, was ordered to be deposed this week after
the archdiocese on Friday backed out of a multimillion-dollar settlement
with the 86 Geoghan plaintiffs. Church officials said the deal was scuttled
because of concerns that there would not be enough money to pay the scores
of additional people who have accused priests of sexual abuse in recent
weeks. In taking the rare step of ordering an immediate deposition for the
cardinal, Judge Constance Sweeney of Superior Court, said she was concerned
that the Vatican might reassign him to Rome soon and appoint him to a
position that would give him diplomatic immunity. Today, the cardinal said
that he had recently learned that his status in the church made him a
citizen of the Vatican as well as an American citizen, but he said he did
not currently have ambassadorial status, which is apparently necessary for
diplomatic immunity.

In the first day of a deposition expected to take three days, Cardinal Law
answered questions for about five hours. The deposition was held behind
closed doors in the Suffolk Superior Courthouse in downtown Boston, but a
transcript was made available this afternoon by the court reporter. The
cardinal, who for months has resisted calls for his resignation from angry
Catholics, entered the courthouse surrounded by heavy security. At the
start of the deposition, one of the cardinal's lawyers, Wilson Rogers Jr.,
made a standing objection to the questioning, saying that under the First
Amendment, "the inquiry into the inner workings of the church was
inappropriate." Lawyers on both sides agreed they would hold off asking the
judge to rule on objections until the case went to trial. Father Geoghan
was pulled out of the Dorchester parish the day after the parish priest
complained, but six weeks later he was assigned to a parish in Weston. A
few weeks after that assignment, one of Cardinal Law's bishops, John
D'Arcy, wrote to question why Father Geoghan had been reassigned to a
parish, given his "history of homosexual involvement with young boys." The
cardinal said today he also did not recall reading that letter. Father
Geoghan remained in the Weston parish for nearly a decade, and many of his
accusers say they were molested during that period. At another point in the
deposition, however, the cardinal was asked if, as of September 1984 he was
aware that Father Geoghan had a sexually abusive past.

Mark Keane, a plaintiff who sat in on the deposition, said Cardinal Law
"rattled off names and dates and streets, but he couldn't remember
receiving a letter about a priest abusing boys. He had selective memory."
Mitchell Garabedian, another lawyer for the plaintiffs, said, "I think he's
hiding something and I think he's going to continue to try and hide it."
Lawyers for the archdiocese would not comment. An archdiocesan spokeswoman
issued a statement saying the cardinal had "cooperated fully and answered
all the questions asked of him."