Media’s Public: Should priests accused of sex crimes be identified in news media?
News sources and media
Archbishop Jose Palma of the Cebu Archdiocese says the problem involving priests is not their problem alone, not just the hierarchy’s and the protagonists’ but of the entire church. [Facebook photo]
Media’s Public: Should priests accused of sex crimes be identified in news media?
What Archbishop Jose Palma said — and didn’t say — about a U.S. website that exposes 82 Filipino priests, nine of whom with ties to Cebu Archdiocese.
PACHICO A. SEARES
Published Jan. 31, 2025 in CJJ and in SunStar under Media’s Public
Some of the headlines the published list set off.
82 PRIESTS UNMASKED. The U.S. based non-profit website BishopAccountability.org has released online its dossier on more than 80 Roman Catholic priests and brothers accused of sexually abusing minors in the Philippines. The exposure, they hope, will shatter the “silence” of the bishops.
Associated Press (A.P.) ran the story datelined Manila Thursday, January 30, 2025. On the same day, Cebu Archbishop Jose S. Palma released a statement reacting to the exposure of the priests. Max T. Limpag — continuing Rappler’s pick-up of the A.P. story and pursuing the Cebu end topped by the archbishop’s statement — wrote that of the 82 priests and brothers accused of sex offenses, at least 10 priests have “Cebu ties.”
It’s a virtual unmasking: BishopAccountability.org published the names and faces of the priests and detailed their alleged sexual assaults, ostensibly to make then answer the complaints against them.
ARCHBISHOP: SEX ABUSE ‘WOUNDS FABRIC OF OUR FAITH.” Palma, in his written response on the issue, “acknowledges that sexual offense of priests involving minors wounds the Catholic faith.” The Archdiocese of Cebu, he says, is “fully committed to support survivors and their families.” For those wounds on faith, Archbishop Palma cites Psalm 147:3, which “assures us that the Lord ‘heals the broken-hearted and binds up their wounds.’”
RELATED: “No one escapes accountability.” Palma and Negros bishop break silence.
What’s the “full commitment” to the complainants about? That they be “heard with justice and accountability,” vows the archbishop.
‘PRO-ACTIVE IN SAFEGUARDING’ WOULD-BE VICTIMS. The Archdiocese has a Safeguarding Office, among the first in the country to be set up, Palma says, as mandated by Vatican’s 2019 “Vos Estis Lux Mundi.” The archdiocese also requires erring priests to take part in an annual program on “safeguarding measures” as condition to continue in active service.
LOOK, THEY’RE FEW. Intended or not, Archbishop Palma’s statement comes out like he’s minimizing the not-pretty impact of the sex-abuse list on the Archdiocese, which he has led since his installation on January 13, 2011. Palma says:
(a) The involved priests with connection to the Archdiocese are few. “Only three are incardinated” and active in the ministry again, Palma says. The others were assigned by congregations and no longer serve the Archdiocese. One was reportedly dismissed as a priest and another “passed away years ago.”
(b) The renewal program the involved priest must undergo is “100 per cent complied with,” a mandatory condition for him to resume duties of the clergy.
WHAT THE ARCHBISHOP DOESN’T SAY. For one, Archbishop Palma doesn’t name the involved priests and give other details that can make his response “satisfactory” to the public.
The Church, to be sure, is restricted by different rules. You don’t think it will accede to the kind of transparency that people expect from their government. And church leaders follow different procedure. The Church has its own system of enforcing accountability and meting out punishment. That is, if the complaint has not reached the prosecutors or the courts.
The archbishop says they’re “safeguarding” would-be victims of sexual abuse by a program that aims to curb the priest’s tendency or propensity to commit sexual abuse. The flaw in that corrective procedure is that the public knows little about how it’s actually done. The result is a state of skepticism.
BRIGHT SPOTS. A few bright spots are there:
— Archbishop Palma addresses the issue in a formal statement, not quite like his predecessor who didn’t directly address the issue of one priest who returned home from the U.S. over a sex scandal.
— The archbishop has not denied that the problem exists; it does, he talks about it. The current developments, he says, “offer both lesson and challenge.”
And reform is required, he concedes, although he says the Church is always “in need of reform,” which doesn’t strike at the crisis on nail’s head. He calls on church members though, sharing the problem with them. “The problem, commonly taken as problem only of the hierarchy and the parties involved in such cases, needs a new paradigm. Any problem that injures the rights of persons is the problem of the whole church.”
And how would that work: some lay members to take part in its internal process of determining guilt and subjecting the priest to the ritual of atonement and renewal?
TO NAME OR NOT TO NAME. The Church has a reason not to name the priests accused of a sexual offense. Archbishop Palma tells the public why, indirectly, when he says “one can only hope that while the guilty be punished, the innocent needs to be spared; sometimes the distinction is overlooked.” That, plus the church bureaucracy’s s nature of being secretive in handling internal affairs, be it in a parish, a bishop’s office, the Archdiocese, or the Vatican.
Naming the priest who might be innocent could be premature and inflict irreparable damage.
Newsrooms also have their rules when to disclose or withhold the name, when probable cause in the crime is found by the prosecutor’s office after a preliminary investigation, in which the priest is heard. Often, there’s no hard-and-fast rule; each case is decided by editors on the bases of the law, their code of standards and balancing of interests. Did you notice that many news sites, which now have access to the names of priests from Cebu who are involved, still did not publish them? That would’ve been unfair and reckless since none of the complaints has yet reached the court.
The law has provisions in cases when names of litigants are withheld, usually to protect the victim who’s a minor. And news outlets generally don’t disclose the name of the woman or child who complains against the priest.
Major item in controversial post.
WEBSITE’S PURPOSE in exposing priests facing complaints of sexual abuse is to push the process of making them answer the charges. Put all of it out in the open, where the public can see them: their names, faces and details of the alleged crime.
Archbishop Palma says the Church is “fully committed” to having the complaints heard “with justice and accountability.” He doesn’t say how. Website managers see things differently, contending that the “silence” of bishops amounts to a cover-up. 