NEWS COVERAGE: SKEPTICAL EYES

How Bishop Howard J. Hubbard responded over the past 25 years when priests were accused of the sexual abuse of children and how he ministered to the victims continue to be the focus of articles in local daily newspapers.

In an editorial in our Feb. 20 issue, we asked readers to approach such coverage "with squint-eyed skepticism" rather than "wide-eyed gullibility" because much of the coverage has been repetitive, slanted and out-of-context. (The editorial can be read at www.evangelist.org. Click on "archives" and then on "editorials.")

In the three weeks since that editorial, the coverage has continued apace, and has expanded to include The New York Times and William F. Buckley's nationally syndicated column. Therefore, it's an appropriate time to return to the subject and to apply some squint-eyed skepticism to the stories. We will do so by asking some questions we suspect our readers have -- and supplying some answers:

Q. One of the victims, who is suing the Albany Diocese, secretly tape-recorded confidential sessions involving the Bishop and others, and provided the tape to the media. How does the Bishop come off in the tapes?

A. The published transcripts show the Bishop as a compassionate and sympathetic counselor who sought to help a severely troubled victim in his recovery. As The New York Times characterized the report: "The tapes offer a rare glimpse into the private emotions of the victim and the efforts of the bishop to deal with him....They reveal a bishop listening patiently and insisting he is doing all he can to help." The Bishop acted as a mediator so that the victim could confront his abuser, which is sometimes helpful in recovery. It is encouraging to hear that the Bishop was so personally involved in a heart-breaking encounter. He could have chosen to be aloof from the process; instead, he was directly involved.

Q. Has the Bishop ever spoken to that victim about getting an attorney?

A. Many times over the course of endless hours of conversation, the Bishop affirmed the victim's right to hire an attorney and that the Diocese would not interfere with that right.

Q. Stories keep appearing about incidents that occurred 20 or 30 years ago. Why hasn't the Diocese responded to those stories?

A. In fact, the Diocese has responded -- repeatedly and publicly. Nearly a year ago and several times since in The Evangelist and elsewhere, the Bishop has spoken and written about how the Church, not only here but throughout the U.S., dealt with child abuse by the clergy. He has apologized on several occasions for the failures of the past and announced the comprehensive program to ensure that the problems never occur again. A misconduct review panel has been established, a victims' service coordinator and special investigator have been appointed, and a diocesan-wide education program has been launched to protect children.

Q. What about the stories of priests who were reassigned when they were known to be abusive?

A. Bishop Hubbard has publicly renounced the approach he and other Church leaders followed in the past -- that is, restoring to ministry those priests who had sexually abused minors but who had successfully completed a rehabilitation program supervised by medical professionals. The Bishop has apologized publicly for the problems related to this approach and said the Diocese will no longer reassign to public ministry a priest who has engaged in misconduct with minors. He has also expressed regret that when these priests were removed or restored to ministry, there was no public notice to the community. For that reason, beginning last June, the Diocese adopted a policy of announcing the names of priests who have been removed from ministry permanently because they sexually abused minors. The new policy protects parishioners' right to know, children's right to be protected and the victim's need to have his or her trauma validated.

Q. If we don't get the context you have just provided in the daily newspapers and other media, what should we do?

A. Approach them with even more squint-eyed skepticism.

(03/06/03) [[In-content Ad]]