|
|
|
The Most Reverend Sean Patrick O’Malley Boston, MA 02135-3193
As advocates for victims of sexually abusive clergy, we welcome you to the Archdiocese of Boston and pledge to do all we can to assist you in promoting justice and healing for all who have suffered at the hands of predatory priests. Since we must work together to realize our common goals, we ask you to join our efforts to make it safe for all victims to come forward. And we urge you to recognize that this climate of safety cannot be created until the Archdiocese abandons its longstanding practice of attacking victims who file legal claims. In our view, the surest way for you to show your commitment to victims is to rectify the Archdiocese’s continuing mistreatment of Paul R. Edwards, a survivor who was savagely maligned by Archdiocesan officials after he publicly accused the late Rev. William J. Cummings and Monsignor Michael Smith Foster of sexual abuse. Since you may not be aware of the tactics that Archdiocesan attorneys used to intimidate Edwards into dropping his lawsuit, please allow us to describe their approach to his case. First, in order to destroy Edwards’ reputation, agents of the Archdiocese unleashed a flood of false rumors about his past. Then, in order to imply that Edwards’ charges stemmed from his own emotional difficulties, the RCAB’s lawyers collected second-hand aspersions from his long-estranged father, thereby exploiting the family problems that had driven him into the arms of his abusers when he was a child. In view of the damage done to Edwards in this process, it is imperative that you understand exactly how the RCAB’s strategy unfolded after the case was filed. In August 2002, immediately after Edwards accused Foster and Cummings, Foster hired a formidable legal and public relations team. This group, along with Linda Amicangioli, a London-based public relations specialist and friend of Foster, quickly organized a campaign to sabotage Edwards’ credibility in the press. Almost all of the stories about Edwards that these people fed to the media—that he had “lied” to his friends when he was seven years old, that he had pretended to be deaf in high school—were not merely untrue or impossible to verify, they were entirely irrelevant to the investigation of his charges against the two priests. Moreover, the few reported “facts” that might have been germane to an evaluation of Edwards’ credibility—that he had lied about visiting Foster’s quarters, lied about working as a police officer, and lied about his medical history—all turned out to be false. Thus, in the course of the Church’s internal inquiry, Church investigator Sean Connor confirmed, contrary to repeated reports in the Boston Globe, that Edwards had spent time in Foster’s bedroom, had worked as a police officer, and does suffer from a debilitating spinal disease. The circulation of this misinformation should have been dismissed as a weak attempt to derail a legitimate lawsuit. Unfortunately, the RCAB’s attorneys were assisted both by irresponsible reporters at the Globe and by the ineptitude of Eric J. Parker, Edwards’ former lawyer, who failed to protect his client’s rights. Indeed, Parker was so intimidated by the negative media coverage and by threats raised by the RCAB’s attorneys that he pressured Edwards into signing a consent to withdraw the case with prejudice even though, in his own words, he “completely believed” that Edwards was telling the truth. Moreover, on August 27, 2002, when Parker browbeat Edwards into signing the consent, Edwards was confined to a psychiatric ward at the Massachusetts Medical Center, where he had checked in after becoming distraught by the Archdiocese’s virulent campaign against him. The RCAB’s attorneys may claim that they should not be blamed either for the Globe’s misreporting or for Parker’s malpractice, but it is clear that they engineered the withdrawal of the lawsuit, not by gathering any salient evidence, but by manipulating the media, terrorizing Edwards, and taking full advantage of Parker’s incompetence. The RCAB’s undoing of Edwards did not end there. Having effected the withdrawal with prejudice and deprived Edwards of his right to seek legal redress, the Archdiocese’s lawyers still had to find some way to justify Foster’s return to service. Achieving this goal was problematic, not only because they had failed to shed any serious doubt on Edwards’ charges, but also because Edwards had passed a lie detector test after his case was withdrawn. Meanwhile, even though the Archdiocese had publicly stated that no other accusations had been made against either Cummings or Foster, a second lawsuit against Cummings was received in early September, in which it was alleged that Cummings had assaulted a ten-year-old boy in 1982, the same year in which Edwards was attacked. In addition, in the course of the Church’s investigation, Edwards provided clear and consistent accounts of both the Cummings rape and of Foster’s long-term sexual misbehavior. In contrast, Foster stumbled. He failed to explain, for example, why he had allowed his supporters to spread what he knew to be lies about Edwards. He also admitted, contrary to previous statements, that he had “no clear recollection” if Edwards had ever told him of the Cummings rape. Finally, Foster never indicated why he had repeatedly violated Archdiocesan policy by inviting Edwards into his bedroom at Sacred Heart. To overcome these obstacles, Foster’s handlers came up with two affidavits that are remarkable not only for the outlandish claims they make, but for their failure to cite any evidence. The first, which was written by Foster’s lawyers, was signed by Dr. Ned Cassem, a Jesuit priest and psychiatrist who served on Cardinal Law’s Commission for the Protection of Children. Cassem, who never met Edwards and had no direct knowledge of his medical history, described Edwards as a “psychopath” or a “sociopath” and also declared, “Paul Edwards represents a threat to Michael Smith Foster’s personal safety and that of others.” Noting that “Edwards is an accomplished bow hunter and has taken taxidermy classes,” Cassem further stated that he had advised Foster to “wear a Kevlar vest” and “learn how to use a gun.” Edwards has no history of violence and has never been in trouble with the law. Consequently, to explain why he believed that Edwards was a danger to Foster, Cassem stated that Edwards had “attacked Michael Smith Foster with the filing of his lawsuit.” Of course, if we were to follow this logic, it would suggest that restraining orders ought to be issued against all those who file legal claims. Given the baseless nature of Cassem’s statements, it is not surprising that Sean Connor, who had interviewed Edwards in person, wrote a memo suggesting that the affidavit was “fraudulent.” In a handwritten response, Cassem defended his opinions by complaining to Connor, “You are stuck on the wrong issue here—what are the FACTS, not what is the down and dirty truth. You sounded like an enemy of Msgr. Foster.” Although it is not clear which Dr. Cassem preferred, the “FACTS” or the “down and dirty truth,” it is plain that his illogical affidavit served no purpose other than to promulgate the fiction that Edwards’ own psychological problems had inspired him to make his claims. In the second affidavit, Joseph L. Doherty, one of Foster’s lawyers, adopted a similarly unethical approach. Doherty’s affidavit, like Cassem’s, relies on innuendo to suggest, without proof or support, that Edwards’ allegations reflect some sort of psychological disturbance. Since Doherty, like Cassem, had no direct knowledge of Edwards’ medical history, he based his conclusions on negative remarks that had allegedly been made by Robert Edwards, Paul Edwards’ estranged father, but that Robert Edwards was apparently unwilling to swear to himself. Like the articles in the Globe, Doherty’s second-hand assertions contain almost no information that touches on the truth or falsity of Edwards’ claims. Instead, since Robert Edwards’ cruelty toward his son, which is evident throughout the affidavit, drove Paul Edwards from his home while he was still underage, most of Robert Edwards’ reported comments focused on his son’s supposedly unreasonable demands for attention during his childhood. For example, to lend color to the contention that Paul Edwards had “loved being injured” since before the age of five, Doherty stated that Robert Edwards had told him, “Paul not only exaggerated perceived physical injuries and illnesses as a child, but also sustained numerous true physical injuries in sports and in school, such as broken arms or a separated shoulder.” The ostensible aim of recounting comments such as these was to imply that Paul Edwards’ “love” of injury led him to pretend that he had been harmed by Foster and Cummings. However, if there is any relevance here, it is that Robert Edwards’ pitiless attitude toward his son conforms precisely to the pattern of neglectful parenting that characterizes the background of many victims of childhood sexual abuse. The irony is that Doherty’s attempt to exploit the fissures in the Edwards family serve, not to undermine Paul Edwards’ credibility, but to strengthen his case. This strategy certainly would have backfired if anyone trained to deal with childhood sexual trauma or concerned about Edwards’ well being had been on the scene. However, as victims’ advocates and legal experts have repeatedly pointed out, the Archdiocesan review process is fatally flawed because it does not allow independent observers to step in to protect victims’ rights. In keeping with this absence of independent oversight, Foster was reinstated without explanation on October 30, 2002. Almost no information pertinent to the allegations was ever presented; Foster was never asked to explain the inconsistencies in his response to Connor’s questions; and the Archdiocese shut down the investigation even though Edwards’ charge against Cummings had never been addressed. Since then, survivors and advocates have repeatedly called for a reopening of the Foster investigation and for a determination of the Cummings case. The most pressing issue is, of course, that the crimes committed against Edwards have yet to be properly examined. However, we also need to know why Cassem was permitted to intervene in an ongoing investigation while serving as a member of the Law Commission, and why Archdiocesan officials allowed him to render medical opinions even though he had no access to any medical records or objective facts. We also need to learn why the Archdiocese failed to disclose the second lawsuit against Cummings even though Church officials had earlier attempted to discredit Edwards by stressing that no additional accusations had been received. We may get answers to these questions when the Archdiocese fulfills Edwards’ recent request for access to all information generated in the course of its investigation and to all documents related to decisions made in response to his allegations. However, even though Edwards’ right to this information is explicitly specified in the Archdiocese’s newly instituted Policies and Procedures for the Protection of Children, the Archdiocese’s historical unwillingness to reveal its inner workings gives us reason to fear that Church officials might not honor Edwards’ request. Fortunately, your firm commitment to transparency and compassion inspires us to believe that the Archdiocese’s previous practice of secrecy, as well as its attitude of hostile disregard for victims, may have finally come to an end. Under the old guard, as evidenced in the Archdiocese’s mishandling of the Edwards’ case, the watchwords towards victims seemed to be “Crush them if you can.” Now, under your leadership, we are confident that the Archdiocese will do everything in its power to stand up for those who have been injured both by abusive clergy and by the Church’s failure to deal openly and fairly with sex abuse claims. Thus, we are counting on you to do all you can to restore Paul Edwards’ reputation, promote his emotional well-being, and enable him to exercise his fundamental rights. By undoing the injustices inflicted on Paul Edwards, you will show the world in general, and survivors in particular, that you have truly come to repair this Church.
Cc: The Priests’ Forum |
