Counting and Naming Abusive Priests Does counting abusers and victims make the bishops accountable? Or does real accountability require the release of abusers' names, so that vulnerable communities may be identified, bishops' transfer policies scrutinized, and survivors assisted? Can a reliable count of victims be established without the release of perpetrators' names? Should the bishops themselves be doing the counting? In the picture, a survivor-activist at a Linkup conference reads the names of publicly accused priests in the Survivors First database.

As we assess the bishops' upcoming report, summarized by CNN on 2/16/04 and due to be released on 2/27/04, it will be useful to study the survey form that the bishops and their staffs filled out, and to reflect on other ways of counting and accounting for abusive priests and bishops (see first section below).

It is also important to consider the bishops' counting exercise in the context of their previous behavior. They have demonstrated an aversion to scandal and a willingness to cook the books that do not bode well for the John Jay study, and which have seriously limited the information on which that study would otherwise rely (see section two below).

Lists of Priests ... and of Bishops

* Bishops' Surveys - The bishops used these surveys and instructions to collect the counts that will be released on 2/27/04. No names will be released. Roman Catholic Faithful first posted these surveys.

* Early Report - CNN's 2/16/04 report on the results of the bishops' survey.

* Previous Count by the NY Times - In January 2003, the NY Times published the results of a count based on media reports and public court documents. The Times had collected the names of accused priests, but didn't make them public.

* Survivors First List of Accused Priests' Names - The Survivors First database is assembled from media reports, and will soon total nearly 2,000 names.

* Names of Bishops Who Transferred Abusers - As the bishops met in Dallas to approve the Charter, the Dallas Morning News published a database showing that 2/3 of the U.S. bishops had transferred abusers into new parishes.

* One Bishop Has Named His Accused Priests - See the list and Cardinal Keeler's letter explaining it.

* One District Attorney Released a List of Accused Priests - Claiming that now-Archbishop Seán O'Malley had impeded his investigation, district attorney Paul Walsh released a list of accused priests. The list included Fr. Gilbert Simões and José Ávila, now alleged to have abused hundreds.

Problems of Self-Reporting

* Honest Reporting Would Expose the Bishops' Own Responsibility - Can we trust the bishops to report honestly on their abusive priests, when they have not been honest about their own role in the crisis? See the Dallas Morning News database for numerous examples.

* Bishops Don't Want to Name Abusers - Cardinals Egan and Mahony have steadfastly refused to reveal the names of accused priests, despite promises to do so. So have their fellow bishops, with the exception of Cardinal Keeler. See Syracuse bishop James Moynihan's declaration : "You'll never have names."

* Independent Investigators Always Find More Abusers Than Bishops Do - With each new revelation by the Boston Globe and Herald, the Boston archdiocese revised upward their total of abusive priests. In 2002, Bishop Pilla of Cleveland counted 28 abusive priests; when the local prosecutor reviewed the files, he counted 145.

* Bishops Have Destroyed Files on Which Both Counting and Accountability Depend - The many reports of files being destroyed make it uncertain whether the bishops could count abusers accurately, even if they were inclined to. See for example the questionable practices in the Springfield MA diocese, the admitted destruction of files in the Bridgeport CT diocese, the recent confirmation by a Manchester (NH) diocesan official that the files of an accused priest had been "cleaned" as soon as he died (first paragraph of the PDF), and the Suffolk County (NY) grand jury report's description (pp. 28-29) of an abuse report that vanished from Rockville Centre (NY) diocesan files. See also the destruction of files at the Southdown Institute in Canada, where many abusive U.S. priests have been treated.

* Bishops Have Methodically Discouraged and Prevented Survivors from Coming Forward - By confidentiality agreements, diocesan response teams, and refusal to do outreach in affected parishes, the bishops have limited the number of victims who come forward. See for example Sr. Catherine Mulkerrin's suggestions for parish outreach and transparency, rebuffed by her superiors. These practices have served to suppress corroborating evidence and have greatly increased the numbers of priests with "only" one accusation.

* Bishops Have Exempted Credibly Accused Priests from the Charter - If bishops allow a credibly accused priest to serve because the abuse happened long ago, or because he was only a seminarian at the time, or because he was drunk when he abused, can we be confident that they are not excluding abusers from their counting? See for example a current case in the Bridgeport CT diocese.

Please send suggestions for adding documents to staff@bishop-accountability.org.