Almost two years ago Fr. Stephen Burke of St. Anthony's Antiochian Church in Spring, TX was charged with possession of child pornography (see here). Last week that case was dropped after, I am told, the state found that it didn't have enough evidence to take the case to trial (court case info here). In the years that I have run this blog I have seen many instances of downloaded child pornography, abuse, and violence at the hands of clergy. I say in the same breath that I have seen a dizzying number of those accusations proved to have been completely baseless.
One priest last year was accused of going on vacation and, while visiting a church, chasing a woman around the temple and then assaulting her. That case was dropped when it became obvious her story was a despicable attempt to get money out of the diocese. A few years back a priest was allowed to concelebrate at a parish until it was reported by the media that he was involved in a case of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, providing alcohol to him, and other similar charges. The press got hold of this and lambasted the pastor for letting the priest celebrate services with him. It was of course not noted that the priest was not actually charged with anything and that he was only indirectly related to the case. I could go on for quite a while actually, but I think the point is made.
We, on the one hand, must protect our children from those who would prey upon them, but at the same time clergy deserve to be judged and not pre-judged for their crimes. It is a fine line between these two. The Orthodox Church is not equipped to keep paying the salaries of these accused men and yet, for many of them, this is their entire livelihood. Where does an accused cleric go when he has been separated from his flock for the intervening years (rarely faster than that) between accusation and adjudication? Often to financial ruin and complete ostracism. The Bible is replete with stories of accusation, perjury, and lying (the serpent in the garden, Joseph and his brothers, Susanna and the two elders, Ananias and Sapphira). It is a problem with no ready resolution (as its frequency in the Bible attests), but with a tremendous ability to do harm if handled without care.
If I learn more about Fr. Stephen's case I'll append an update to this post.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Protecting children, protecting priests
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Could you give more information about this comment: "One priest last year was accused of going on vacation and, while visiting a church, chasing a woman around the temple and then assaulting her. That case was dropped when it became obvious her story was a despicable attempt to get money out of the diocese."
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to Archpriest Michael Abdelahad? http://pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Person&id=818
If not, what priest are you referring to?
No. This gentleman: http://www.borowec.com/theday.html
ReplyDeleteOh. I thought your were talking about Orthodox clergy. I believe that priest is Ukrainian Catholic (eastern rite Roman Catholic).
ReplyDeleteI agree that accusations should be treated seriously, adjudicated impartially, and that we should not prejudge guilt. However, it is my experience that child and vulnerable adult sex abuse accusations against clergy generally are not treated impartially, that accusers are typically scorned by church leaders and parishioners alike, and that there is a serious issue with many Orthodox jurisdictions in allowing known sexually abusive clergy to remain in positions of trust.
Take for example Metropolitan Phillip of the Antiochian jurisdiction -- he has knowingly protected, enabled and funded a bishop who is a registered sex offender to remain in a position of trust where he could abuse again despite this bishops conviction as a sex offender (see my article about this here: http://stanshinn.com/orthodoxy/essays/against-clergy-sexual-misconduct/).
I agree with your point that charges against clergy should be treated justly. But we will not have justice for clergy who are falsely accused until church leaders also seek justice for the victims of clergy abuse. Sadly, clergy abuse charges are generally mishandled by American Orthodox church leaders.
With regard to child sexual abuse by Orthodox clergy, I'm not aware of any case where the charges were found not to be true. Please let me know if you know of any information to the contrary.
I'm calling this out because your article could be read to indicate that no action should be taken to remove clergy who are accused of child sexual abuse or who have indicators (such as possession of child pornography) which make them a risk to children.
Responsible church leaders will take reasonable steps to vet accusations against clergy, then, if the claims are credible, suspend such clergy pending a full investigation, act quickly to complete a full investigation of the allegations, and not allow children to be endangered. This is not wrongly judging, but rather acting impartially to protect children.
Stan, would you help spread the word about this petition? It seems as though parishioners want to do what the clergy is unable to do: clean house.
DeleteThanks.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/983/755/643/defrock-charles-michael-abdelahad/
He is indeed a UGCC priest. I am also aware of the Antiochian issue. In Texas we have had a number of abuse claims (to my knowledge all proved true) against Orthodox clergy and monastics. It is a sad reality as is the fact that - against contemporary thinking - the married priesthood is a panacea to the problem.
ReplyDeleteAs a parent of many children (aged 1 to 11 years) it was not my intent to state that we should leave children at risk. Having just finished religious education training from the Greek Archdiocese/OCEC I was shocked to learn that we continue to not require screening or child protection training of Sunday school teachers to say nothing of our clergy. My point was that we don't have the resources to put a priest in a room to do "busy work" while the courts determine his guilt. What then should we do with these men?
This would be a perfect opportunity for the Assembly of Bishops to act on an important topic with universal, uniform application. They would be lauded for their efforts and I can't see any push back from the laity if they put in reasonable processes for handling incidents. It shouldn't stop there of course (vetting, training, clear communications, protection of the victims, due process for clergy accused), but it's an important start.
"This would be a perfect opportunity for the Assembly of Bishops to act on an important topic with universal, uniform application."
ReplyDeleteI totally agree! :-)
"we don't have the resources to put a priest in a room to do "busy work" while the courts determine his guilt. What then should we do with these men?"
First off, it should not be left up to the civil authorities alone to determine church discipline -- the church should conduct their own investigation, in concordance with screening mechanisms they should also have in place for prospective and current clergy. If a member of the clergy is credibly accused, let church officials investigate, and if the claims are credible, then send the accused clergy to professional evaluation (which will likely include residential evaluation at St. Luke's institute which has a good track record of diagnosing sexual abuse / sexual dysfunctional issues).
If St. Luke's give a report which calls the clergy into question with regards to the safety of vulnerable adults or children, then the Church has the responsibility to act to remove the clergy from a position of trust. They should not wait for years for a court conviction to act. Certainly a public school for example will not wait -- they will act within days (such was the example in a case of a teacher accused of child molestation at my daughters school -- there is no court conviction, his trial has yet to take place, but he was immediately barred from access to the school).
In cases where there is ambiguity -- charges are credible but an investigation and St. Luke's evaluation shows no risk factors -- then options include moving the clergy to an administrative role. At any given time in America, with the 1,000 or so Orthodox clergy, I would hope we would have no more than a handful of clergy standing accused, not tried, and having no negative St. Luke's report. In these cases, if the Church Leaders were just, they would ensure the clergy's pay was protected till the truth could be determined in the courts. Certainly church leaders will pay millions to try and protect known criminals such as former priest Nicholas Katinas; much better that they should reform their ways, screen clergy, institute child safety programs, quickly admit guilt when they've been negligent (as they had in the Katinas case -- they could have saved millions if they'd simply told the truth early on), and move these millions to deal justly with cases which would include accused clergy as you've mentioned.
I really doubt there are many cases where things are ambiguous. More typically church leaders don't do a decent investigation, and leave accusers and accused alike in a bind.
It is a topic worthy of discussion -- thanks for raising it.
Excellent post and excellent comments. Unfortunately the track record is that the "men in black" will protect the members of the club. A third party, objective assessment is an absolute requirememt. Full disclosure and erring on the side of caution is the only way to deal with allegations in our day and age.
ReplyDeleteIn response to s-p, the 'track record' is not that simple. To be honest, in my time I have seen most accused clergy punished to the fullest extent that the bishops can take the matter without violating the web of civil laws that intersect these issues. In several cases, the victims refused to testify, which is usually how abusers operate: they know who is passive enough not to complain too loudly. I don't know of any cases in the Antiochian Archdiocese where an accused priest was permitted to continue serving while charged, nor permitted to serve after convicted. There are even a few cases where the DAs didn't file charges and still the priest was out.
ReplyDeleteFr. George wrote:
ReplyDelete"To be honest, in my time I have seen most accused clergy punished to the fullest extent that the bishops can take the matter without violating the web of civil laws that intersect these issues."
Perhaps you could comment on my prior statement then:
Stan wrote:
"Take for example Metropolitan Phillip of the Antiochian jurisdiction -- he has knowingly protected, enabled and funded a bishop who is a registered sex offender to remain in a position of trust where he could abuse again despite this bishops conviction as a sex offender (see my article about this here: http://stanshinn.com/orthodoxy/essays/against-clergy-sexual-misconduct/)."
To my knowledge, the Antiochians STILL fund and enable this man (I'd love someone to show me that this is not the case).
In addition to this, Metropolitan Phillip, rather than acting to protect children, transferred then-priest Fr. Gabriel Barrow, who had child abuse claims against him, to the GOA (this information is also listed in the above) where he remained in a position of trust for several years before finally being defrocked by the GOA.
For that matter, the last I checked, the Antiochian jurisdiction is the lone jurisdiction which has failed to publish policies and procedures for dealing with clergy abuse claims.
Surely you would agree that all these things are problematic and that given these issues (plus many more documented on Pokrov.org, plus additional information I could cite as well) the Antiochian jurisdiction should not rest easy thinking they generally handle clergy abuse claims and child safety issues correctly.
Stan, finding the Antiochian Archdiocese's officially published policies on sexual misconduct took me about 5 seconds on Google.
ReplyDeleteExcellent! It is good to know they've finally made public their policies. I will alert Pokrov since they aren't aware either that the Antiochians have finally published these publicly:
ReplyDeletehttp://pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Group&id=52
This is a good first step. Note this quote:
"Possibility of Continuing in or Return to Ministry Following Admission or Discovery of Guilt. In the case of both a cleric and lay worker, there is no possibility of continuing in or returning to ministry. In the case of a cleric, the Archdiocese will immediately initiate appropriate canonical procedure."
Metropolitan Phillip needs to follow this particular part of the policy. In the matter of Bp. Demetri, a registered sex offender, Metropolitan Phillip blatantly ignored the policy.
Yes, "finally." Back in good ol' 1999.
ReplyDeleteMethinks this suffers from "Where is the Outrage?" syndrome, where the outraged are quite ready to accuse "no one" of doing anything, etc., but the reality is that plenty is going on, but none of the outraged are actually ready to do the research—something as simple as, for instance, asking the Archdiocese for a copy of their policies or even doing a brief Google search.
That particular PDF file has been on the antiochian.org website for at least five years, and of course this version of it was distributed widely nearly thirteen years ago. Surely someone could have somehow found a copy of it somehow before!
It seems to me that certain folks are highly willing to publish and maintain publications of accusations, but without bothering to do any follow-up or, it would seem, even an investigation before such accusations are published. Guilty until proven innocent, as it were, but with no intentions of ever proving anything at all.
Fr. Andrew, as I mentioned initially, last time I checked (and I haven't checked this year) it was not on the web site. The PDF was created in 2007. Sometime thereafter it appeared on the website. Neither myself nor Pokrov (presumably) was aware they published it; no press releases or anything else I'm aware of alerted the general public to this policy.
ReplyDeleteMy point is this: with Metropolitan Phillip publicly lobbying (despite common sense and despite this policy) to keep a registered sex offender funded and in a position of trust, and with the dangerous move to transfer Fr. Gabrial Barrow to the GOA and remain silent despite known abuse allegations, I don't see how you can say this policy is being consistently followed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying any such thing. Whether it's being consistently followed or not would require my being privy to a lot of stuff that isn't any of my business or remotely within my authority.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, my suspicion is that this document could have been announced on national television, and certain folks wouldn't know anything about it. The purpose is to collect and publish accusations and insinuations, not to bother with anything like the truth.
As for this specific document, it has been publicly on the website since at least 2008 (though quite likely before). (I am a minor editor for a small portion of the website and can therefore check revisions.)
Even apart from the at least four years it's been online, did anyone actually contact the Archdiocese to ask for a copy?
Quite frankly, sir, I don't think your folk are checking very hard.
Now that Abdelahad has been found guilty of Assault and Battery (biting his victim) and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (a shod foot, severe kicking to cause permanent physical damage to the victim), do you think, Fr. Andrew, that perhaps Met. Philip might want to consider defrocking (or whatever it's called by the Antiochians) this priest? Or perhaps Met. Philip should give him a raise and send him to another parish, with the admonition (of course), "Try not to get caught this time."
ReplyDeleteThe Antiochians have the wonderful distinction of now having two felons in their group of MIB.
I think that Metropolitan Philip should do what seems best to him to do. I'm certainly not one of his advisers, nor is Fr. Michael remotely within the scope of my authority.
ReplyDeleteThat is the problem with Churches these days. They do what seems best for their clergy - and not what is the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteAbdelahad has no right to ever be in a position of authority, as a priest, in any church or any denomination. He gave up that right when he began abusing a parishioner in his care.
If you feel the same, please consider signing this petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/983/755/643/defrock-charles-michael-abdelahad/