From my arrival as your archbishop almost four years ago, I have promised you I would be up front about things, especially about the ongoing painful, embarrassing and sad scandal of the sexual abuse of minors by clergy.
What we needed even more, though, was for him to get out in front and wrap up all these claims fast.
For the last two years or so, I've been telling anybody who would listen that, sooner or later, cases of abuse committed more than three decades ago by two former Archdiocese of Milwaukee priests in California would have serious impact on us here at home.
Was it somebody's job to try to resolve those cases, as opposed to warning us about them?
We have recently been informed that a case against Siegfried Widera, a deceased priest of the archdiocese who fell to his death in 2003, would come to trial in Los Angeles in November.
If there's some reason why the lack of a trial date made it harder to resolve these cases, he hasn't provided it. He sure leaves the impression that it's the Archdiocese that feels more pressured now that a date's been set.
This whole process will have negative and harmful effects on many of us ...
And yet it goes on, even though he's been here four years.
This should have all been done decades ago. But, as I have said, that was yesterday and beyond my control.
It wasn't yesterday, it was before he arrived in 2002 and, we thought, took control.
And the financial impact? Who knows?
Is knowing someone's job? Can we hear from them?
Our finance office and our Archdiocesan Finance Council, made up of dedicated, mostly lay, professionals, are on top of things.
That could mean they have "sign here" stickies on an undated petition for Chapter 11.
Yes, we are insisting that our insurance providers come forward;
I would like to hear more about any coverage issues our Archdiocese's insurers have raised.
Because of the importance of this issue and my own personal commitment to keeping you informed, I asked my staff to compile information on the California cases and have provided that information in this edition of your Catholic Herald. That’s also why many of you who are reading this and do not regularly subscribe to your Catholic Herald, have received this issue.
When I most recently suggested this, I said
...issues going to everyone would, of course, prominently display subscription information.
By "would, of course" I meant "obviously should"; it didn't.
IIRC, were not some insurer-objections based on 'wilful'? i.e., "You KNEW that Fr. X was a bad guy and STILL put him back into the parishes..."
ReplyDeleteI think Rhode covered that stuff. May be in the JSOnline archives, or call Marie and ask.