Archbishop Palma’s statement: Encouraging but we need action

Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma said the problem on sexual abuse by the clergy needs a “new paradigm.” Palma issued the statement in reaction to the publication by a US watchdog of a list of 82 priests and brothers publicly accused of the sexual abuse of minors. Of the 82, 10 have links to Cebu.

Palma said the “sexual abuse of priests involving minors deeply wounds the very fabric of our faith life and community and cause irreparable damage to the lives of the victims.” He then said that the problem needs a new paradigm and that the whole church should be involved and not just the parties of a case.

These are encouraging words if not for the context – Archbishop Palma is set to retire in March. He has reportedly sent his notice to the Vatican that he will be turning 75 in March, the mandatory age of retirement of bishops.

What meaningful action can be done from now till then? None, several people told me. Archbishop Palma is already looking forward to his retirement, one Church official said. In our most recent interview, Archbishop Palma said he would send Dicastery of Bishops Prefect Robert Francis Cardinal Prevost one week before the date a reminder that he would be turning 75 on March 19.

So that statement is probably all that we’ve got.

I requested a press conference or even just an arranged interview but I was told that the statement is “sufficient for now.” I was also asked to reflectively read it, thus this reflection.

1) I thought the statement too detached, too theological. But I understood the context when somebody told me that it was obviously written with the Vatican in mind, not the victims.

2) I agree with retired Cebu Daily News editor-in-chief Eileen Mangubat that it was vague on many parts. We can’t even agree on the number of priests with ties to Cebu. Who are the three that Palma described as in active ministry? Does it include the “unnamed priest 2” who is reported to be still in active ministry by the reporter whose story formed the basis of this specific listing?

3) I also agree with lawyer Michal Gatchalian, himself an abuse victim, that it was too long a statement without apologizing to the victims. It took the horrific abuses of minors as a subject of a theological exposition. You couldn’t say sorry?

4.) The archdiocese knew of two other cases that resulted in a conviction of the priests and a plea bargain to a lesser offense for a more lenient sentence and it did not include it on the statement. Knowing that the archdiocese knew about these cases makes the apology less sincere. You couldn’t acknowledge them?

5) What is the status of the late Monsignor Cris Garcia? Was he really laicized in 2017 as indicated on the database?

6) Palma rightly points out that the Archdiocese is “among the first in the Philippines to formally set up a Safeguarding Ministry office as mandated by Vos Estis Lux Mundi in 2019.” He offers no other details about the ministry. It would have been better if he talked more about what the archdiocese did to meet the mandates of Vos Estis Lux Mundi.

7) How do we operationalize the “new paradigm?” What changes will it bring into existing structures and procedures? Will the Archdiocese be much more open to the media? Will it schedule more press conference and arranged interviews not just with the archbishop but with other church officials?

What was needed were 3 As – apology, acknowledgement, and assurance. There was no apology. Acknowledgement wasn’t full. And somehow I don’t get that assurance that if anything happens to a minor again, the full force of the archdiocese would be harnessed to protect the victim and hold the perpetrator accountable.

Support this blog and independent reporting on Cebu

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *