Tuesday, February 07, 2006
GROUP SAYS DES MOINES DIOCESE IS TRYING TO "OUT" ABUSE VICTIM
When the sexual abuse scandal first broke in the Globe, a contributor to a message board I used to frequent asked what would happen when the Catholic world discovered that the abuse victims were homosexuals?
It sounded bizarre at the time, but I've never forgotten the question. What would the Catholic world think if such a discovery were made?
That question came to mind once again as I read this story from Radio Iowa:
A support group for people who were abused by priests is charging that the Des Moines Catholic Diocese is trying to "out" a plaintiff in a recent case. Paul Koeniguer is an outreach director for SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and he says when people bring accusations they don't always want to become a public figure. He says many victims are intimidated, as they've been abused and had a crime perpetrated against them, and they're not yet ready to identify themselves -- and being named publicly would feel "like they're re-victimized a second time."
Continue reading...
In most crime scenerios it is the victim we learn about long before the perpetrator. The evening news carries pictures of the victim, talks about the name of the victim, and describes the crime scene. Only in the case of a child victim is the identity kept secret sometimes. Even then the victim is sometimes identified.
The sexual abuse scandal is being treated somewhat differently. In this crime victims are being sheltered. If the victim is still a minor, there is good reason for that. Even if the victim is a teenager, it is probably justified. But mostly what we see are victims who are adults, since they are describing something that took place a long time ago. Psychological defences against revealing names are presented. Is the same care taken with women who are raped? Or do their names appear along with the story of the crime?
It seems disingenuous to me to refuse to divulge the names of adult victims unless you are also going to refuse to divulge the names of the priests being accused. If all names are kept secret, the story will dry up and go away. It takes names to make this a story.
If the names are not divulged...
1. The perpetrators benefit.
2. The scandal continues unabated because the news media has no story and thus nothing will be revealed.
3. The victims will keep their anonymity.
4. The Church can be sued, and the facilities that parishioners worked for will be taken away from them, even though they had nothing to do with the crime.
If all of the names are divulged...
1. The news media has a story.
2. The victims will be able to sue.
3. Victims, and not just the perpetrators, will shoulder a measure of accountability for the conditions that they have created by bringing the crime to the eyes of the public and the law years after it took place.
If only the names of the accused are divulged...
1. The news media still has a story.
2. Victims will be perceived as "children" in the eyes of the public even though they may actually be adults today.
3. There will be an unbalanced exposure of the event in the media since the life of the priest accused is an open book, but we know nothing about the life of the victim.
4. Priests will be vilified, and sometimes they will be innocent of wrongdoing since trust in the Church and the priesthood is being compromised.
5. All of our attention will be focused on the perpetrator, and there will be no opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the victim.
6. No responsibility for large settlements, that appear to be bloodthirsty when parishes have to be closed, will have to be shouldered by the victims; thus the door is wide open to greed.
