De bisdommen hebben documenten en soms complete dossiers vernietigd die verwezen naar kindermisbruik. In drie van de zeven bisdommen gebeurde dat systematisch, in de andere incidenteel.
Ook zes van de negen onderzochte congregaties en ordes hebben systematisch ‘geschoond’. De meeste stukken zijn al jaren geleden verdwenen; in enkele gevallen is het mogelijk recent gebeurd.
Dat blijkt uit de bijlage van het eindrapport dat de commissie-Deetman vorige week heeft opgesteld over het seksueel misbruik van minderjarigen in de Rooms-Katholieke Kerk. In haar conclusies maakt de commissie hier geen melding van.
Het vernietigen van dossiers bevestigt berichten van vorig jaar. Toen gaf toenmalig bisschop Bluyssen van Den Bosch tegenover NRC Handelsblad toe in de jaren 70 dossiers te hebben vernietigd. Ook de inmiddels overleden bisschop Ter Schure gooide belastende dossiers weg. Hij was bisschop van Den Bosch van 1985 tot 1998.
De bisdommen die systematisch stukken vernietigden, zijn Den Bosch, Breda en Roermond. In het archief van het bisdom Den Bosch werden door de commissie-Deetman helemaal geen stukken over zedenzaken meer aangetroffen. In Breda waren “duidelijke aanwijzingen” dat archivalia over ontspoorde priesters zijn verdwenen. In Roermond blijken alle gevoelige stukken tussen 1972 en 1995 verdwenen. In het jaar 1972 trad bisschop Gijsen aan. Hij bevestigde tegenover de onderzoekers dat in zijn opdracht de stukken zijn vernietigd.
Bij de andere bisdommen konden sommige dossiers of afzonderlijke stukken niet worden teruggevonden. Bij het aartsbisdom Utrecht doet “de afwezigheid van geschreven materiaal in bepaalde bekende gevallen van misbruik vermoeden dat af en toe een brief of aantekening al of niet opzettelijk buiten het archief is gehouden”, aldus de onderzoekers.
Ook congregaties en ordes hebben systematisch geschoond. Bij de salesianen gebeurde dat mogelijk onlangs nog. Dossiers van salesianen tegen wie aanklachten zijn ingediend, blijken leeg of geschoond. Dat geeft volgens de onderzoekers “te denken”.
De onderzoekers:
“Frappante voorbeelden hiervan zijn die van een pater, naar wie vrijwel zeker in 1967 een intern onderzoek werd ingesteld en die in 2010 het misbruik (anoniem) in de media heeft toegegeven, en van een pater, tegen wie vele meldingen zijn binnengekomen, maar wiens dossier geen stukken meer bevat tussen 1958 en 1969, precies de periode waarop de meldingen betrekking hebben.”
NCR
Dec. 29, 2011
By Joshua J. McElwee
Advocates warn deposition may spur ‘chilling effect of victims’
Kansas City, Mo. -- The leading advocacy group for child victims of clergy sex abuse may be compelled to turn over 23 years of internal documents, correspondence and email to the attorneys of an accused priest unless Missouri state courts act to quash a court-ordered deposition.
David Clohessy, head of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, known as SNAP, has been ordered to appear for deposition in a county court case involving allegations of sexual misconduct against Kansas City diocesan priest Fr. Michael Tierney.
Victims’ advocates say if Clohessy is compelled to appear, it could have wide-ranging impact on the ability of victims of clergy sex abuse to identify their accusers and tell their stories without revealing their names in public.
Also at stake is the confidentiality of emails between reporters and victims’ advocates that may reveal sensitive information and names of sources. In a court filing, the Missouri Press Association said Clohessy’s deposition would “eviscerate the free-press guarantee” of journalists.
Clohessy has been ordered to turn over all documents and correspondence, including emails, from SNAP’s files referring to Tierney or the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese. He is also ordered to submit all documents containing references to either Tierney or the diocese fr
om:
Clohessy has been ordered to turn over all documents and correspondence, including emails, from SNAP’s files referring to Tierney or the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese. He is also ordered to submit all documents containing references to either Tierney or the diocese from:
- Press releases or press release drafts;
- Correspondence with members of the press;
- Correspondence with the lawyer representing the alleged abuse victim;
- Correspondence with members of the public.
Clohessy has also been ordered to submit:
- Any documents or correspondence that “mention or refer to any priest currently or formerly” associated with the diocese;
- Any correspondence with the victim named in the lawsuit;
- Any correspondence from members of the public “that discuss or relates to repressed memory.”
According to court filings, defense lawyers for priests and former priests named in six other sex abuse lawsuits have requested to “cross-notice” Clohessy’s deposition in order to have access to his testimony.
Court records indicate that Clohessy and his group first attempted to quash the deposition by filing motions with Jackson County, Mo., Circuit Court Judge Ann Mesle, citing concerns of confidentiality for sex abuse victims and the rights of freedom of speech and assembly.
The records indicate Mesle overruled those concerns Wednesday, Dec. 28, ordering Clohessy to submit himself for deposition Monday, Jan. 2.
Clohessy and his group appealed Wednesday, Dec. 28, to Missouri’s Court of Appeals for the state’s Western District to try to quash the order. That appeal, court records indicate, was denied Thursday.
Following the denial by the appeals court, Clohessy’s lawyer said he and his client are “going to take every legal option we can” to prevent the deposition and are investigating filing for review with the Missouri Supreme Court.
...
Marci Hamilton, noted for her decades of work with clergy sex abuse victims, said the subpoena is “one of the uglier moves I’ve seen by any organization in these cases so far.”
Saying that SNAP “is the least” of the organizations that would be affected by Clohessy’s submission of documents, Hamilton, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law at New
York’s Yeshiva University, said the “end result” of the order would be “a huge chilling effect on helping child sex abuse victims at every stage.”
Referencing attempts during the civil rights era to force the NAACP to release the names of its members, Hamilton said the U.S. Supreme Court had made clear in those cases that the government cannot force private organizations to release the names of its members.
“I think it’s plainly unconstitutional and, were I involved, I would be advising any organization faced with this kind of a subpoena to refuse to provide the information because it is unconstitutional, inappropriate and cruel,” said Hamilton, who is the author of Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children.
Asked whether Mesle’s allowing of certain SNAP documents to be read in private would protect victims, Hamilton said those revelations would still “send a really serious and sad message to victims that when they come forward…a judge may well read about the details of their abuse.”
[...]
Joshua J. McElwee is an NCR staff writer. His email address is jmcelwee@ncronline.org
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten