Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar - 01.09.2011, Blaðsíða 15

resisted allocating resources to address sexual abuse by clergy. This confusion
of ethical priorities has slowed the progress on addressing clergy misconduct.
Distorted agendas
Since churches can no longer claim ignorance of the phenomena of clergy
sexually exploiting vulnerable people for its failure to act, it appears in
recent years that the churches’ priority has been avoiding liability. This
represents an institutionalprotection agenda which is supposed to protect the
assets and reputation of the institution. It seeks to protect the church from
its members who are victims and survivors with legitimate complaints of
harm inflicted by its representatives. This agenda will develop policies whose
sole purpose is to protect the institution from liability. It will hand over the
management of its response to complaints to legal counsel. It will allocate
its funds readily to defend the institution in civil litigation. It will look
for a scapegoat , e.g. a focus on gay priests as the heart of the problem for
Catholics. It will shun victims and survivors and attempt to silence them.
It will engage in aggressive litigation efforts to discredit complainants,
withhold documents, and minimize settlements.3 It will resist the necessary
cultural and systemic change that is required internally to authentically
protect the institution by ethically centering its identity and actions.
The question facing faith communities at the institutional level is: how
has the institutional protection agenda worked out so far? The consequences
are stark: the institutional protection agenda has compromised the image
and moral capital of the whole faith community, magnified the scandal,
undermined the credibility of all faith leaders and resulted in enormous
financial costs in litigation and settlements leading to loss of assets and
compromise of mission. The institutional protection agenda does not really
protect the institution in the long run; in fact, it jeopardizes its present and
its future.
But there is another choice of agenda, one congruent with the teachings
of the church. It will instruct its legal counsel to find ways to make
justice for survivors and hold perpetrators accountable. It will develop and
implement policies whose purpose is to protect people from their institution
and from those who would misuse their power. It will encourage liturgies,
when the time is right, that name the sin, confess culpability, remember
the victims, and celebrate justice really made — all of which makes for
healing and restoration. It will allocate its funds for restitution for victims
13