The following letter was written by Rev. Robert M. Hoatson, Ph.D., founder and president of Road to Recovery, Inc. to the National Review Board's Office of Child and Youth Protection.
December 22, 2007

Judge Michael Mertz, Chairperson
National Review Board
Office of Child and Youth Protection
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 Fourth St, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20017

Dear Judge Mertz and Members of the National Review Board:

As a priest, survivor of clergy sexual abuse, and advocate for hundreds of survivors of clergy sexual abuse, I feel I must respond to your recently-released report to the Catholic Faithful of the United States regarding the protection of children, teenagers, young adults, and vulnerable adults in the American Catholic Church. Unfortunately, I neither share your optimism nor agree with your conclusions.

The overall tone of the report is of concern to me. There is no acknowledgment of the “epidemic” of clergy sexual abuse that has been exposed and continues to be exposed to this day. The National Review Board was established because the bishops of the country were incompetent to act legally, ethically, and morally toward those who were abused. My experience, research, and immersion in the recoveries of survivors indicate that the climate and culture that created the problem in the beginning are still in place and very much the prevailing practices. The Catholic bishops of the United States, for the most part, have never been held accountable or their illegal, immoral, and unethical methods and practices.

It is understandable why you would be hesitant to confront your bosses. Governor Frank Keating was “eliminated” as the first Chairperson of your group, and perhaps you fear the same response if you act wisely, independently, and transparently. It is clear to me that you will never have the authority to act as you need to act.

As for the “diversity of the Board,” which you noted in the second paragraph of your report, there are no survivors or survivor-advocates on the Board, there are no “experts” in the field of clergy abuse survivors, such as Fr. Tom Doyle or Dr. Richard Sipe, and there are no parents or family members of survivors on the Board. What do you mean by diversity; that there are men and women on the Board? That does not equal diversity as it relates to the mission and purpose of the Board or the needs of survivors of clergy sexual abuse.

As for the accomplishments that you listed:

1. Safe environment programs are well and good. However, they do not guarantee that bishops are not transferring criminal abusers around their diocese and inter-dioceses.

2. Diocesan procedures to respond promptly to allegations do not guarantee that bishops treat survivors with care, compassion, and honesty. There still is a climate of secrecy, cover-up, and lack of transparency in diocesan offices, especially that of the bishop.

3. Publishing reports of credible allegations is great, except it does nothing for the vast majority of survivors who cannot report their abuse because they have had bad experiences with Church authorities, are too damaged to come forward, or are thoroughly convinced (rightly so!) that the Church is similar to a Mafia-like organization that simply protects its own.

The Board has not reached out in any way, shape, or form to survivors to ask them what they think, feel, and believe about the Church’s attempts to clean up its act. Survivors’ advocacy groups, such as Road to Recovery, Inc., SNAP, and others are not included in your deliberations or those of the bishops.

As for the research projects that have been conducted or are currently being conducted:

1. The current study, Causes and Contexts, has been carefully nuanced to avoid an analysis of what needs to be known. It was made clear to me at a Voice of the Faithful Conference workshop that this study has eliminated the most important focus groups: survivors, survivor families, and survivor experts and advocates. It also will not include a key group that can provide invaluable information; namely, priest-survivors who have lived in the seminary system, been abused in the seminary or clerical system, and know the “inner workings of the system.”

2. It is clear to me that the Causes and Contexts study will not expose the clerical culture and sexual dysfunctionalism of the seminary/rectory system; rather, it will skirt (again!) what has to be uncovered if the Church is going to recover from its addiction to power, authority, sex, and clericalism.

3. Please do not spend time on perpetuating the “pity party for priests.” You seem to want to give deference in research reports to priests who covered up, remained silent, and very often saw the sexual abuse of children taking place. My experience in the religious life and priesthood leads me to conclude that almost no religious brother, sister, priest, or deacon is immune from the knowledge of, participation in, or looking the other way from the sexual abuse of children.

4. Your report apparently ignores (again!) the ongoing needs of survivors. I work with over 200 survivors of clergy sexual abuse. Many are not healed, will not be healed, and cannot access treatment because of unreliable or non-existent policies and programs of dioceses. For example, one survivor met privately with a bishop who promised the survivor that he would finally get the house he has wanted for his family and him. The bishop promised him a substantial settlement, separate from the “mass settlement” that was being negotiated. When the survivor went to his “settlement meeting,” he was told he was part of the mass settlement and that he was scheduled to receive a settlement much lower than he was promised. Because he felt betrayed, this man’s PTSD was triggered, the pain returned, and he spent his entire settlement on drugs!

5. In New Hampshire at the beginning of December, clergy abuse survivor Leeland Eisenberg held hostages at the campaign headquarters of Hillary Clinton. During the previous months, he phoned every psychiatrist in New Hampshire looking for a therapist who would accept third-party payments from the Archdiocese of Boston. None would accept the payments! So, Lee took to drinking and drugging to help his head stop spinning, and ended up in Hillary Clinton’s headquarters to bring attention to the state of mental health care in his State.

Your report said nothing about the ongoing needs of survivors, such as housing, food, mental health care, and a host of other needs. If you ask some of us who are “in the trenches,” we will tell you what needs to be done.

While I am not confident that you will respond to this letter in any meaningful way, it is my hope that “something will get through” eventually, so effective change can take place in the midst of the evil and corruption.

Sincerely,

Rev. Robert M. Hoatson, Ph.D.
Founder and President

CC: Members of the National Review Board
Teresa Kettelkamp, Director of the USCCB Office of Child and Youth Protection
Members of the Bishops’ Committee on Child and Youth Protection