By Robert M. Hoatson, Ph.D.


I am an ex-Irish Christian Brother, ex-priest, survivor of sexual abuse, and advocate for thousands of sexual abuse victims for over a decade.  Recently, I saw the movie, 50 Shades of Grey, but not for reasons one might suspect.  I saw the movie because a preview I read mentioned that the title character was a victim of childhood sexual abuse.  I was not interested in being titillated with images of intimate sexuality, nudity, or pornography.  I was most intrigued by how the film would depict the life of a childhood sexual abuse victim, and I was not disappointed.

The movie I saw on opening night in a packed New York City theater was not about sex, despite all one might read about 50 Shades of Grey.  The fifty shades of Christian Grey were unfortunate shadows hovering over a young, handsome man who seemingly had never received any counseling, psychotherapy or sympathy for the sexual violation of his innocence as a boy.  The movie was about the “break” in the psyche of Christian Grey which led him to fear intimacy, vulnerability, passion, and friendship.   Christian Grey needed an intervention by a compassionate advocate to help him understand how his life had ironically cycled out of control despite his efforts to control everything and everyone. 

50 Shades of Grey is not a movie about kinky sex.  There is hardly anything sexual about the movie.  It is about abuse of power and its aftermath.  Christian Grey, a wealthy, handsome young man at the peak of his manhood is incapable of developing an intimate and meaningful relationship with a beautiful young woman who tries everything (including becoming somewhat of a sex slave) to get to Christian’s soul.  What she did not realize was that her boyfriend’s soul had been murdered as a child and, as a result, he could not emote as most normal human beings can emote.

I am hoping psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and other mental health professionals will view this movie and weigh in on its psycho-social and psycho-sexual implications.  The “toys” that Christian Grey possessed (women, cars, helicopters, ropes, chains, handcuffs, etc.) never brought him peace, security, or satisfaction.  They exacerbated his profound loneliness, a loneliness that can be traced back to his childhood when an adult’s sexual abuse isolated him from the rest of humanity and made him feel shame and guilt.

I haven’t read a single review, summary, or article that warns prospective viewers that 50 Shades of Grey might be triggering to those who have suffered childhood sexual abuse.  Nor have I read a single article deciphering the reasons why Christian Grey had 50 shadows hanging over him.  In fact, the titillation factor seems to have taken over for the millions who have read the book and seen the movie, but as far as I am concerned, there was nothing titillating about the movie.  There was sadness, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder in the film, at least that’s how it struck me.  I felt sympathy for both characters because the female could not get through to the male to prove her genuine love, and the male was incapable of being loved through no fault of his own. 

When I left the theater after watching 50 Shades of Grey, I was disappointed that the real spark of love between Christian and Anastasia was never formalized in a love scene or in an act of intimacy.  I had a hope as the movie progressed that Anastasia and her obvious love for Christian would bring him around, but he was not capable of accepting her love.  I wondered as I sat through the movie if Anastasia would get to the heart of the matter and recommend to Christian that he be seen by a trauma specialist.  Perhaps had Christian been able to trust (one of the principal traits taken away from a childhood sexual abuse victim) Anastasia, he could have come around.  Unfortunately, that never happened, and he continued to live in his isolated world.

Robert M. Hoatson, Ph.D.
Road to Recovery, Inc. (offering compassionate counseling to victims of sexual abuse)
P.O. Box 279
Livingston, NJ 07039
862-368-2800

By Catholic Whistleblowers Steering Committee

Catholic Whistleblowers appreciates the efforts of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors to hold accountable those bishops and religious major superiors who have failed to deal with priests who have sexually abused minors. We especially commend the two members of the Commission who are victims / survivors of clergy sexual abuse, Irishwoman Marie Collins and Englishman Peter Saunders, for their strong and publicly stated commitment to truth, justice, and healing.

Yet, we also note that the Commission does not need to reinvent the wheel. The Code of Canon Law already provides the way for Pope Francis to deal with these bishops and religious superiors.

Indeed, the pope has power and authority over all of the Church which he is always able to exercise freely (cc. 331, 333, §1 and 590, §1). And nothing in Church law prohibits the application of Church law by the pope regarding bishops and religious superiors.

Simply said, the actions that a diocesan bishop can take regarding a priest against whom there is an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor also are available for the pope to use in holding accountable bishops and religious superiors. To begin, the allegation against the bishop or religious superior would be that through his culpable negligence he has harmed people by not dealing with the abusive priest (c. 1389, §2). Next, just as the diocesan bishop would begin a penal process to investigate the allegation, so too the pope should begin a penal process regarding the bishop or religious superior to investigate their actions (cc. 1717-1731). Then and so as to prevent scandal , while the investigation is going on, just as the diocesan bishop can do regarding the priest, so too the pope can temporarily remove the bishop or religious superior from office and prohibit him from the public exercise of ministry (c. 1722).

Of course, the investigation must run its course so that justice may prevail.

Hence, Catholic Whistleblowers calls upon Pope Francis to use his already existing power and authority to hold accountable those bishops and religious major superiors who have failed to deal priests who have sexually abused minors. Doing so will help to prevent further scandal and to begin the long road to rebuild trust among the people in the Church’s leaders.

Take a moment today to read this article from the National Catholic Reporter: 
"Pope issues scathing critique of Vatican bureaucracy in pre-Christmas meeting"

Statutes of limitations serve the common good of society because they force legal recourse to take place within a time frame that allows all the parties to present, explain, and prove their position, thereby serving the cause of justice. The Catholic Church’s law uses statutes of limitations (referred to as prescription in the Code of Canon Law) similar to the use of them in state legal systems.

In the course of the last thirty years throughout the country, however, as the sexual abuse of minors has become a matter of public concern and people have become more aware of the difficulty that victims / survivors have in finding their voice to report the abuse, the church’s law and the states’ laws regarding the statute of limitations have changed.

But, the Catholic bishops in the United States usually have not followed the example of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI who made important changes to the statute of limitations for clergy sexual abuse of minors in the universal law of the church.

               Changes in Church Law

According to the Code of Canon Law as it was promulgated in 1983, the statute of limitations for the crime of clergy sexual abuse of a minor was five years from the date of the offense and the age of a minor was set at below the age of 16 years (cf. canons 1362, §1, 2° and 1395, §2). This includes both actions against the church’s crime of sexual abuse of a minor and also actions seeking compensation for damages inflicted by the cleric (in the United States these are referred to as actions in “criminal” law and in “civil” law).

During the late 1980s and the 1990s, as the quantity of clergy sexual abuse cases increased and the reality that victims / survivors might require many years before being able to voice an allegation, it became clear that the five-year statute of limitation and the age of a minor were inappropriate.

So, on April 30, 2001, Pope John Paul II changed the law so that the age of a minor became below 18 years of age and the statute of limitations was changed to the victim being 28 years of age at the time the allegation is made known to the church, regardless when the crime took place (10 years beyond reaching adulthood at age 18). Please note that this change took place before the 2002 Boston Globe stories and the bishops’ meeting in Dallas.

Next, in 2003 Pope John Paul II implemented another change. Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger obtained from Pope John Paul authority, known as a faculty, for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to use as the statute of limitations in cases of clergy sexual abuse of minors the victim’s age being no more than 38 years at the time the allegation is made known to the church (thus, 20 years after the victim’s 18th birthday).

Moreover and this is very important, in 2003 the CDF also was authorized to raise the victim’s age limit beyond age 38 if necessary, on a case-by-case basis. For example, if at the time of making an allegation the victim’s age is 45, for that case the age in the statute of limitations can be changed to 45. This authority provides the means for the Church to deal with allegations of clergy sexual abuse even after the time of the statute of limitations has passed. The CDF can change the statute of limitations to fit the needs of each case.

Hence, with these changes in the law, it appeared that the statute of limitations would never again prevent the Church from dealing with an abuser priest, no matter how long in the past the crime occurred. The statute of limitations could be waived if necessary. Finally, on May 21, 2010 Pope Benedict XVI formalized into church law the authority that John Paul had granted to the CDF in 2003.

These 2001 and 2003 changes in the statute of limitations are explained in an important Vatican document: Circular Letter to Assist Episcopal Conferences in Developing Guidelines for Dealing with Cases of Sexual Abuses of Minors Perpetrated by Clerics. This document was issued on May 3, 2011 by Cardinal William Levada, then the Prefect of the CDF. Here is the link to that document.   (See: II)

But, one important question still remained. Were these changes in the church law retroactive, or were they only for crimes committed after the changes in the law? This question is important in light of canon 9 of the Code of Canon Law that stipulates that new laws deal with the future, not the past, unless there is a specific provision in the new law concerning the past. Although the CDF has been questioned about this point, no authoritative answer has been provided.

However, a review of available information on specific clergy abuse cases shows that laicizations of priests were granted in 2004 or later where the publicly alleged crime of clergy sexual abuse of minors took place more than five years before the processing of the case by the CDF. Thus, these cases of older crimes, so to speak, appear not to have been processed according to the 1983 law but rather according to the changes established in 2001 or 2003.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the 2001 and 2003 changes in the church’s statute of limitations in cases of clergy sexual abuse of a minor have a retroactive effect that helps to remove abuser priests from the ranks of the clergy, no matter how long ago the crime took place.

In addition, the USCCB’s Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection confirms this conclusion in a 2013 statement: “There is no statute of limitations for removing a cleric who has sexually abused a minor from public ministry in the Catholic Church”. Here is the link to that statement.  (See: # 13)

So much for what the Vatican has done. But, how might these changes in church law influence life within American courts? There is some important work that can and needs to be done.

For advocacy purposes when dealing with state legislatures, some further analysis of the data that is available would be worthwhile, perhaps on a diocese-by-diocese basis. Indeed, this further analysis would help in making presentations to committees of state legislatures where a change to the statute of limitations is being considered because the data from such an analysis might demonstrate that clergy sexual abuse cases from within the state have been handled by the church using an updated statute of limitations and in a retroactive way. Consequently, it could be argued that the Catholic bishops should be supporting comparable changes in state laws.

Finally, concerning the church law, It also is very important to note that the changes in the church’s statute of limitations concern both the crime of sexual abuse of a minor or vulnerable adult and also actions to recover compensation for damages incurred because of the crime, thus regarding both “criminal” law and “civil” law, as we would say in the United States.

               Changes in state laws

State laws have a history similar to the church’s experience. In 1983 (the year that the Code of Canon Law was promulgated), the states’ statutes of limitations for sexual abuse of a minor (although varying from state to state) were a relatively small number of years and not linked to the age of the victim. Also, the statues could vary depending if the action sought was a criminal action or a civil action.

But in the years following 1983, most states have changed their statutes of limitations allowing the victim more time to report the sexual abuse. Most of these changes altered the timing for a victim to bring a criminal complaint, but some changes also addressed the timing to file a civil action. In addition, while most of these changes in the law apply to the future, to crimes committed after the legislative change takes effect, some changes in state laws have a retroactive impact.

               Bishops’ approach to changes in states’ statutes of limitations

Generally, the Catholic bishops in the United States have opposed or at least have not been very supportive of changes to the states’ statutes of limitations that would ease victims finding legal recourse of the sexual abuse committed against them. But this approach by the bishops lacks in two regards.

First, the bishops fail to show a pastoral concern for the victims / survivors by not acknowledging that for many of the victims they were not able to speak up sooner and that the wheels of justice need to be patient.

Second, the bishops fail to acknowledge the wisdom of the two popes who changed the statute of limitations in the universal law of the church. Now there is a flexible statute of limitations for clergy sexual abuse in church law so that no allegation is barred by time, but the bishops in the U.S. seem to oppose or at least not strongly support most changes to the statute of limitations for actions in state courts.

Many bishops in the United States present themselves as being disciples of Pope John Paul and of Pope Benedict, yet they don’t follow the teaching of these two popes when it comes to changing the states’ statutes of limitations. Why not? Is there some yet-to-be-discovered explanation for this attitude?

By Sister Sally Butler OP

It is hard for many people to accept that women are also sexual abusers of children.  And it's probably harder for some to realize that there are Catholic sisters who commit such heinous crimes.  But we know of at least 1,000 cases recorded in this country which must be dealt with.

The most prominent organization of American nuns ,  the LCWR (Leadership Council of Women Religious) is in the spotlight right now because it is under investigation by the Vatican.   Although the LCWR enjoys strong support from American Catholics in this struggle, there is an embarrassing problem for the nuns on another front:  for over ten years, SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) members have asked to speak to their general assembly at LCWR's annual conference. These are victims of childhood sexual abuse by nuns.  The survivors want to tell their stories and to offer preventive strategies to the religious orders.  But, since 2003, LCWR has refused to allow this.  No clear excuse is ever offered, beyond "This is not the venue. "

For details, I refer to the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests:

"For at least eight years, victims of child-molesting nuns and members of SNAP have repeatedly urged America's largest organization of nuns to expose the truth about child sex crimes and cover ups by women religious. But the LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious) continues to essentially rebuff us and them.

Now more than ever, since they're being attacked by bishops like we have been (and are being), nuns should be sympathetic to our plight. It grieves us to have to keep prodding them to take long-overdue, simple steps to protect the vulnerable and heal the wounded. But how can we do otherwise?"

Contact: Steve Thiesen, Iowa SNAP Director and SNAP Board Member

Selections from A SNAP chronology:

2002 - LCWR refuses to participate in USCCB’s “Policy for the Protection of Children”

August 24, 2002 - LCWR National Board issues statement on sexual abuse

June 12, 2004 - Nun survivors meet for the first time in Denver at SNAP Conferenc

July 13, 2004 - Hand-delivered to LCWR and USCCB from nun survivors regarding Plan of Hope, Respect, and Open Healing. Also requested nun survivors be allowed to speak at LCWR-CMSM Joint Assembly in Ft. Worth. To date, we received no answer from USCCB.

August 5, 2004 - Letter to LCWR from SNAP expressing dismay over their decision not to let us speak

August 9, 2004 - E-mail to National Review Board to intervene on our behalfAugust 13, 2004 - LCWR Press Release: Response of LCWR President Sister Constance Phelps, SCL saying we can’t speak in Ft. Worth

August 19 to 22, 2004 - Joint LCWR – CMSM Assembly in Ft. Worth, TX. Nun survivors attempt to attend event but are refused.

October 3, 2004 - Meeting with LCWR Leadership in Chicago

November 22, 2004 - LCWR letter to SNAP refusing to work with SNAP members who are survivors of sexual abuse committed by nuns and sisters

August 2, 2005 - Not allowed to speak at LCWR National Conference in Aneheim, CA; we are present – we delivered letter

August 17, 2006 - Not allowed to speak at LCWR National Conference in Atlanta, GA; we are present – we delivered letter

August 24, 2007 - LCWR contacts us to meet to talk but LCWR does not provide an agenda after numerous requests; Not allowed to speak at LCWR National Conference in Kansas City

September 19, 2007 - LCWR responds to SNAP, denying all five requests

August, 2008 - LCWR rebuffs us via letter; SNAP holds night-time vigil

October 9, 2008 - SNAP meets with Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious in St. Louis; requests are denied

February 23, 2009 - SNAP asks to speak at the LCWR conference in New Orleans

March 26, 2009 - LCWR denies all of SNAP's requests

August 11, 2009 - Not allowed to speak at LCWR Conference in New Orleans; we deliver letter

August 14, 2010 - Not allowed to speak at LCWR Conference in Dallas; we are present

August 16, 2011 - LCWR National Conference in Garden Grove.  We are present

It appears that the sisters are heeding the same legal advice that  American bishops have followed:  they continue to deliberately ignore the victims and their horrifying stories.  A pastoral approach offered with compassion, one expected of religious women, has been replaced by an arrogant dismissal.  People who have always admired sisters are confused and disappointed.

We can, however, always expect miracles!  Your support for the survivors can best be expressed by writing to LCWR's President, urging her to to re-visit the topic with love and compassion:

Sister Carol Zinn SSJ
LCWR
8808 Cameron Street
Silver Spring MD 20910

Let's hope that this is the year that the LCWR's leadership .....
(A) reaches out to their supporters with an honest explanation of their hostility to the victims and a declaration of a change of heart, moving forward, and
(B)  offers a warm invitation to the SNAP members who are victims of nun-abusers to speak to
the general assembly in August, 2014.

Years ago, when it was harvest time, all of the farmers in a region would gather together to harvest their crops, going from one farm to another until it was done.  It was also a grand social gathering, with the women working together to feed everybody, and the little children too young to help playing together in the barnyard.  On one such occasion, when everybody had come in from the fields for dinner, someone noticed that five-year-old Sara was missing.  They searched the barn and all of the surrounding buildings, but there was no sign of her.  Then they split up and went through the surrounding fields calling her name – again with no success.  After many hours of futile searching, someone suggested that they all join hands and walk across the fields like a human chain.  Eventually they stumbled upon her, all curled up in a little ball, but it was too late.  She was dead.  Someone remarked, “If only we had joined hands sooner, maybe we could have saved her!”

Through the numerous responses we have received since our Catholic Whistleblowers website became public, it has become evident that there are many Catholics who want to see some decisive action to protect our children from harm.  Since the Dallas Charter, bishops have made repeated promises to do better, but cover-ups have continued right up to the present day.  When bishops shield abusive priests instead of immediately taking action to remove them from ministry, one abuser can have multiple victims. That is not acceptable!  It’s not just the abusers who should be removed.  Every bishop who fails to protect children from abusers should also be removed from office.  That, however, is easier said than done!  Many heroic individuals have been trying for years to get their bishops to care more about the wellbeing of children than they do about their reputations, and they have been badly maligned every step of the way.

It is the hope of the Catholic Whistleblowers that we can motivate the Catholic laity to all join hands and work together to protect our children.  Bishops are quick to assure us that they have the problem under control and that there are very few current cases of abuse.  What they fail to acknowledge is that it often takes a victim of sexual abuse twenty or more years to speak out about his/her abuse, so God only knows what is really going on at this moment.  What we do know, however, is that numerous bishops have been less than forthright in their accounts of current abuse, with no structure in place to verify their less-than-transparent accounting.  The problem will not be resolved by the bishops.  In spite of all the negative publicity some of them have received for covering up child rapists, they never hold one another accountable.  Instead of relying on them, we all, as members of the Body of Christ, need to work together to force our bishops to realize that they were called to serve us—the Church—and that they are accountable to us for their ongoing failures to protect our children from criminal abuse.  For them to remain in office after allowing such criminal activity to occur is an abomination.

There are many reform minded groups with a long list of issues that need to be addressed.  The abuse of children, however, is not just one more issue.  It is a horrendous crime!  But covering it up is even worse.  While the act itself is usually the result of a serious psychological disorder, covering it up and allowing those dastardly deeds to continue is nothing short of diabolical.  Regardless of whether we are liberal or conservative, progressive or traditional, all people of conscience must join hands and work together to hold our bishops accountable for protecting our children.  As we prepare for a synod to discuss family life, this topic should be everyone’s top priority. 

I once visited friends at an Army base where the chapel had a problem with bats.  Every evening, bats could be seen flying around the chapel, which was quite annoying to the parishioners.  This went on for quite some time, causing lots of complaints.  One day, some of the men decided to take a look in the belfry to see if the bats were living up there.  When they opened the trap door in the ceiling of the vestibule, an avalanche of bat guano cascaded down all over them.  The problem had been going on for years for all of that guano to accumulate, and it was a serious hazard to everyone’s health.  But until they investigated, no one had any idea of the enormity of the problem.

I have long thought of that story as being symbolic of the state of the Church.  We have all been aware of various kinds of pesky “bats” flying around throughout the centuries.  People complained about the “bats”, but until fairly recently we had no idea where they were coming from or of the true nature of the problem.  Since the sex abuse crisis started to become public knowledge in Lafayette, LA an avalanche of “guano” has begun pouring out of the belfry, poisoning everyone in the whole Church.  It’s a horrible mess, but at least now we know what we are dealing with, and now we can start cleaning up the mess.