| Dear readers, Throughout the long decades of Catholic priests abusing children in secret, the Catholic church kept records. In secret files in bishops’ offices across America, the records were all there, detailing which priests had been accused of hurting their parishioners. When the Boston Globe brought the crisis of clergy abuse to light in 2002, horrified Catholics demanded to see those files. Some dioceses, including the Archdiocese of Baltimore, agreed to publish lists of the names of all the priests who had been “credibly accused” of abusing children. In the months since the Pennsylvania grand jury report on clergy abuse last summer, a report which relied on those same secret files, far more lay people have demanded that their dioceses release lists of names, and more dioceses have come forward with lists. Anyone turning these secret files into public lists faces questions about whom to include. Dioceses have made different choices about whether to include priests who were part of religious orders rather than under the auspices of the local bishop, or whether to include visiting priests from other dioceses who worked in their region as well. And one of the most vexing questions: What to do about priests who died before their alleged victims ever came forward to report the abuse? Is it fair to sully the good name of a man who never had a chance to defend himself? Is it harmful to the victims to not publicly acknowledge their abuse solely because the man who hurt them has died? The Archdiocese of Baltimore made a decision on that question 17 years ago. And then, yesterday, that decision changed. You can read our story on that choice below. Thanks for reading, Julie Zauzmer, religion reporter | 
Twitter
Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment