Here is the "Response to the Grand Jury Report" of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Prof. Marci Hamilton, the constitutional-law advisor to the grand jury, has this to say about the response:
The Archdiocese's "response" to the report should be subtitled, "It's All About Us." Setting aside the throw-away opening and closing paragraphs, its 60+ pages continues the callous disregard of children that has been repeatedly evident since this controversy began.
Unbelievably, the Archdiocese's repeatedly tries to make it sound as though the lack of indictments absolves it of criminal and moral responsibility. But the truth is, they got off on a technicality. . . .
I have not read the grand jury's report. I have reviewed, though, the Archdiocese's response, and do not share -- at least, not yet -- Professor Hamilton's dim view of it. What's more, the response raises, in my mind, serious concerns about the extent to which the grand jury appears to have gone beyond the investigation of unlawful (and inexcusable) abuse, to matters of religious doctrine. According to the response:
Members of the hierarchy of the Archdiocese were pursued relentlessly on subjects that were both irrelevant to the sexual abuse of minors and impinged on religious liberties of the Catholic Church, as protected by the First Amendment. These included areas of doctrine, formation of priests, discussions which took place among meetings of Bishops of the United States, and relationships between Cardinals and the Pope. So wide ranging, irrelevant, intrusive and offensive were the questions that counsel for Cardinal Bevilacqua twice sought to terminate his interrogation.
The response also insists:
The report is a lop-sided piece produced after a 40-month discriminatory investigation of the Archdiocese. It reflects what was a destructive process of colossal proportions aimed not at seeking answers, analyzing information or designing remedies. No –the direction from the very outset was one of exceptional hostility driven by fixed opinions, unbridled cage rattling and insidious pre-judgments about the Catholic Church. The proceedings culminated in a vile, mean-spirited diatribe against the Church and the Archdiocese. [fn: The insidious tone and negative assumptions made about the Catholic Church are reminiscent of the days of rampant Know-Nothingism in the 1840’s in Philadelphia and elsewhere in the Northeast. . . .] While the grand jury in concept was instituted historically as a shield against the monarchical abuse of power, it was used here as a sword to attack the Church and its leaders. No one will ever know what exculpatory information was provided but not disclosed, what other information was available to the grand jury, or what other possibilities were left unexplored. The report just has no room for the voice of the accused Church.
Most disturbing is the manner in which the District Attorney’s Office levels outlandish accusations of “cover-up” and “concerted efforts to conceal” sexual abuse by priests. Although the report does not formally indict a single person, it seeks to “convict” in the court of public opinion the Archdiocese, two Archbishops, various members of the Church hierarchy over the past fifty (50) years, and countless other priests, religious, and lay persons of participating in an evil conspiracy to hide the sexual abuse of minors. As discussed in greater detail in this response, these charges – based upon half-truths, false assumptions, and innuendo – are categorically false.
Let there be no mistake. There is no excuse for the sexual abuse of children and young people. This Response does not seek to excuse what is inexcusable. The report prepared by the District Attorney’s Office, however, so offends traditional notions of fairness that the Archdiocese is compelled to publicly make this response. The report is rife with mistakes, unsupported inferences, and misguided conclusions.
I do not know the facts. I do know enough, I think, to agree with those who have concluded that great evils were perpetuated by some priests, and that Church leaders and lawyers failed badly -- horribly -- in responding to those evils. Still, I hope that everyone -- and, in particular, the media -- will read both the report and the reponse, and at least entertain, consider, and investigate the possibility that the Archdiocese was not treated fairly, the facts not reported accurately, or the religious freedom of the Church treated carefully, in this process.
Rick
