SNAP letter to Jeff City bishop re: new lawsuit
9/19/24
Dear Bishop McKnight:
Once again, brave victims of predator priests are stepping forward, instead of continuing to suffer in shame, silence and self-blame. And once again, your response is bureaucratic and legalistic, instead of helpful and pastoral.
As you well know, you have repeatedly promised to be 'open and transparent' about abuses and cover ups. (In fact, 'transparency' about abuse is a requirement of the official US Bishops Conference national abuse policy.)
But it's been a week now since five brave survivors have accused four or five of your priests of child sex crimes and adult sexual misconduct in a court filing.
For the past seven days, despite your ‘transparency’ pledge, you have refused to revealed anything about these alleged predators, including
--which (if any) of the four or five clerics is alive and which are deceased
--which (if any) still works in a parish
--which (if any) works now for another Catholic entity
--where any or all of the still-living ones are now
--their last known whereabouts
--where they worked in your diocese
--when and where they were ordained
--whether any of them have been defrocked
--whether there have been earlier reports of abuse against any of all them
Do you believe that parents, parishioners, prosecutors, police and the public have no right to this information? If so, how does that square with your duty to be ‘open and transparent’ about abuse?
Your secrecy, in fact, hurts your own staff. One of the newly-accused is identified in the lawsuit as 'Fr. Dave.' It’s clear that neither the victim nor the attorney knows his full name.
Right now, there are three priests on your website whose first name is David. Surely they feel uncomfortable knowing there’s an alleged child molester, identified only as ‘Fr. Dave’ in the diocese. Your silence is essentially casting doubt on them.
You could - and of course should - share what you know about this ‘Fr. Dave’ with the public. By doing so, you would be bringing some level of healing to this victim. You would be potentially protecting other vulnerable kids who may be around him (assuming he’s still alive).
And you would be helping at least two - and maybe all three - priests named David on your website. Surely any innocent Jefferson City area priest whose first name happens to be David would be relieved if you were to clarify that he is not the ‘Fr. Dave’ who allegedly assaulted at least one child.
(You may claim you don’t know who the accused ‘Fr. Dave’ is. If that’s the case, why not put notices in parish bulletins, sharing what details are in the lawsuit, and asking your flock if they can help shed some light on his identity?”
Sadly, your secrecy goes beyond just these four or five newly-accused priests. Your official ‘credibly accused’ abusers list is woefully inadequate and unhelpful. Consider how your colleagues post information about their child molesting clerics.
Some bishops post their predators’ photos.
Some reveal the predators’ ‘last known whereabouts.’
Some indicate where they were ordained.
Many disclose when the first abuse report against a priest was made.
Many tell exactly what was done by church officials in response to these reports.
Many include nuns, monks, seminarians and lay people who are credibly accused.
And many reveal all of the locations to which their predator priests were assigned.
This last bit of information - where the child molesting clerics worked - is crucial. It’s the bare minimum.
If you took over a chemical company and learned that toxic materials had been dumped in dozens of sites, your first obligation would be to tell people “Here’s where the dangerous and potentially dangerous chemicals are or were.”
Why then won’t you have the prudence and decency to tell the public where the sex offending clergy are or were?
Five years ago, one of your public relations staffers claimed that some victims ‘have asked that predator’s work histories be kept hidden ‘because the abuse usually happened in small communities.’
Frankly, we just don’t believe this. We’ve heard from and helped thousands of clergy abuse survivors for more than 30 years. Almost without exception, victims want MORE information known about their perpetrators, not LESS. (It’s noteworthy that you’ve never disclosed how many survivors supposedly expressed this wish.)
And even if one or two wants this secrecy, you have an obligation to kids who are still at risk of abuse today and to adults who were abused and are still suffering in shame, silence and self-blame. Sharing the work history of their perpetrators often helps survivors feel some relief and validation. Many survivors have also come forward and gotten help after seeing the name and assignments of the cleric who molested them acknowledged by church officials or other sources.
One last point about your secrecy: To one local news outlet, in response to the latest abuse lawsuit, one of your public relations staffers told a news outlet "Out of respect for the judicial process, we will decline to comment at this time.”
Again, Bishop, how do you justify this given the national bishops’ requirement and your own promise of ‘transparency,’ and given decades of devastating - and continuing - secrecy surrounding clergy sex crimes and cover ups?
For the protecting of the vulnerable and the healing of the wounded, please Bishop McKnight, provide as much information as you can about all the proven, admitted and credibly accused abusers who are or were in your diocese.
David G. Clohessy
Former national director of SNAP
Current volunteer director of Missouri SNAP
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
Prevent Abuse LLC
7234 Arsenal St., St. Louis MO 63143
314-566-9790 (cell)