By Gretchen Keiser

Archbishop Eugene A. Marino, S.S.J. has begun a review process to determine the facts concerning allegations about priests serving in the archdiocese and to clarify the response of the Church to such allegations.

In an interview May 11, the archbishop said that he had waited until after his May 5 installation to begin seeking factual information about the matter of public allegations of sexual misconduct against priests and questions raised about how the Church responded.

Prior to becoming archbishop, “I deliberately tried to remain neutral” about the matter, he said, although press inquiries began coming to his Washington D.C. office in April, and individuals sent him information. His stance, he said, was that until his installation the responsibility rested with the archdiocesan administrator.

“Now that it is my responsibility, I do not want to go back and read the newspaper accounts or launch any kind of investigation as if something was amiss,” he said. “I want to know what went on so I can be informed. As the archbishop I know I have the responsibility and the right to know what has happened and what is happening.”

The archbishop said he would like to review done “with some dispatch,” but also “with deliberation so that it can be done well.”

One outcome of the review, he said, would be to clarify what the response of the archdiocese was and to refine that response, if the facts show that to be necessary.

In general, he said, his attitude would be to look towards guidance developed by the U.S. Catholic Conference for approaching cases in which allegations of child molestation are made against priests.

In February 1988 the General Counsel for the U.S. Catholic Conference, Mark Chopko, issued a statement on pedophilia. He noted in it that the U.S. bishops had discussed the issue at a meeting three years ago in Collegeville, Minn. and again in 1987. However, he noted that each diocese is separate and independent under church and civil law, so the recommendations of the U.S.C.C. are not binding upon dioceses.

Archbishop Marino indicated that the guidelines need to be applied in light of specific laws that vary from state to state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In general, the guidelines include responding to civil requirements, removing the priest from active ministry, seeking a psychological evaluation of the priest and providing pastoral care to all concerned.

“I would hope the review of these whole matters would eventually produce recommendations for perhaps focusing these guidelines or refining the procedure, if that’s in order,” the archbishop said.

On April 4 a DeKalb County grand jury indicted Father Anton Mowat, a former parochial vicar at Corpus Christi parish in Stone Mountain, on ten counts alleging child molestation. The District Attorney’s office also questioned whether the allegations had been properly handled by archdiocesan officials when they came to light. Father Mowat, a resident of England, was removed from the parish by the archdiocese last October and subsequently left the country. In late April after the county attempted to extradite him to face the charges he was reported to have disappeared from a treatment facility in England.

Various press accounts have also made allegations against unnamed priests who have not been charged in any way.

Asked about his aspect of the situation, Archbishop Marino said that the search for the truth needed to reflect a concern for the rights of all involved and a reverence for confidentiality when that is appropriate.

“We have no fear of the truth,” he said, “but what we have to understand is that we have a responsibility to the truth.”

“Sometimes we have the responsibility to reveal the truth. Sometimes we have the responsibility to preserve the truth,” he said. “In fact, we can sin when we tell the truth, when we have no right to tell the truth. It’s called detraction.”

Scandal involving priests affects people extremely deeply, the archbishop noted; “they expect us to be above reproach,” and trust priests with their personal confidences and their own shortcomings.

“When we fall short of those expectations that people have, when we compromise the dignity, it causes great scandal.”

“I’m not judging that in every case…there is guilt,” he said. “In those instances when there is some form of aberrant behavior, it just seems to shake people more deeply” when it occurs with a priest.

“I guess in one way it’s a tribute to the high regard people have for us, and it should be humbling for us because we know of our faults and our failings,” the archbishop said. “I hope it can be a spur for us to devote ourselves ever more deeply to prayer…so we can more nearly approach the exalted vocation to which we are called.”

Asked whether he thought people needed to extend compassion toward priests, he said he would “make a plea for people’s compassion and understanding in all cases involving our priests,” but emphasized that “at the same time I would make a plea to all of our priests – a recognition that we live in a secular, materialistic world where a consumer mentality threatens to cloud and confuse our judgment.”

“If we’re going to be guides to our people, we have to make ever greater efforts to have a clear, spiritual vision,” he said, adding, in this time “it is more difficult to be the kind of shepherd the Lord is calling us to be.”

In addition, to the injury to people’s trust, the archbishop noted that any allegation such as this immediately brings forth a “conflict of rights” between the rights of “those who stand accused” and “those who claim to have been offended or in some way injured.”

“Some process or procedure needs to go on to resolve and see whose rights prevail,” he said. He added that the effort to resolve the conflict pastorally is further complicated by the possibility of future civil action.

In a separate interview, Father Peter Dora, archdiocesan director of communications, noted that there were specific distinctions between an allegation involving a priest of the archdiocese and one involving a priest such as Father Mowat, who was under obedience to a bishop in England, rather than the archbishop of Atlanta.

“With allegations of this sort, it becomes necessary to remove the priest from access to children, not from an assumption of guilt, but rather as a matter of caution,” Father Dora said. “In this particular case, it was complicated by the fact that removing Father Mowat from his assignment would place him outside archdiocesan authority and control.”

Since Father Mowat was never formally received as a priest of the archdiocese, or incardinated, his relationship with the archdiocese was that of a temporary assignment, Father Dora said. When that assignment was ended in October, his responsibility was solely to his bishop in England.

In the case of a diocesan priest, “you can proceed in a deliberate fashion,” Father Dora said. “He is in a position of obedience to the bishop (of Atlanta) and financially dependent on the diocese.”

The interpretation of the law by the district attorney in DeKalb County was also clarified by the indictment of Father Mowat, Father Dora said.

State law specifies that certain categories of professionals, such as teachers, child care workers, policemen and others, are required to report suspected cases of child abuse, but clergy are not among the professionals listed.

“Since this was the first occasion of the archdiocese to handle this situation since this law was passed, there was no clear guidance on the degree of its application, if any, to our situation,” Father Dora said.

“When allegations were made against another priest, the archdiocese had a clear understanding of the expectations of the district attorney of DeKalb County.”