At the 2000 General Assembly, Kay Montgomery, Vice President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, apologized to victims and survivors of clergy misconduct. I was in that assembly, and was profoundly moved. It was one of those rare moments when I could literally feel a weight coming off of me. It was so clear to me that she was sincere. And I believed her. Completely.
But something has gone wrong since then. I don’t know what has caused this, but there's enough evidence that I'm sure this is so. The momentum in her words has disappeared and the direction appears to have been lost.
I could guess as to why. Perhaps there would be some point to that. The better the diagnosis, the more likely one is to treat an illness. But I’m too far removed, and so it would be only that – a guess.
The crux of why I say something has gone wrong is in the final words: “The Association has largely failed the people most hurt by sexual misconduct, the victims and survivors. Other denominations have done better. These brave and bruised people have, more often than not I suspect, been left lonely, confused, afraid, angry and betrayed. Un-ministered to.... I am profoundly sorry. And I pledge that this gap, this failure, will be remedied.” She went on to say, “This past year we experimented with a nascent advocacy program. Inspired by the Panel's report, we will change and learn and in this untended area, we will bend toward justice.”
For five years after hearing those words I simply trusted, without questioning, that the association was tending to this area. I didn’t expect overnight miracles. Then in the fall of 2005 I became a support person to a current complainant. I was both shocked and dismayed to discover how little progress had been made. Early on, I would tell the complainant how much better things would be now. Mind you, I never told her it would be easy. In my opinion there isn’t any way anyone can make speaking up about abuse easy or painless. Nonetheless I had little doubt that the process had to be better, that “the mission of service" would now reach people like her.
In some ways the process actually had improved markedly. While the advocates Ms. Montgomery had spoken of had been diluted to liaisons, nonetheless this was an enormous improvement. In other ways, however, the process had become, if anything worse. There was less evidence of compassion than had been there before and there was a dangerous inclination to minimize. Most telling of all, the complainant was still not given a copy of the findings.
And yet, I hesitate to say this was a failed or empty apology. I want to give the association a few more years. Is it possible that by 2010 the leadership will get serious about fulfilling their promise of 2000, and maybe even reaffirm their apology to more recent complainants? I think it is possible. Not easy, mind you, but easier than being a complainant.
For now, I want to remember the sincerity I heard in Ms. Montgomery’s voice and the healing I felt when rereading her words. I don’t know what the barriers are that the UUA faces, but I hope and believe that I am not alone in doing what I can to pull these barriers down and truly bend the association towards justice.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would think that an educated "guess" from you, as to why the UUA has failed to live up to its "pledge" to do better and "bend towards justice" as promised in its official apology to victims of clergy misconduct, would be of some value. Could you share your best "guess" with us? I have my own "guesses" about that but would like to know what yours are.
One thing that I have noticed is that, when sexual misconduct has been addressed at all by the UUA and individual UU congregations, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on protecting children, seemingly to the detriment of dealing with sexual misconduct involving adults which represents the vast majority of sexual misconduct cases. Unless I misread you, you have yourself noted that the UUA now seems to be trying to minimize cases of sexual misconduct involving adults. . . Any thoughts about that apparent trend?
I truly don't know what took the leadership off course. There is a danger in speculating of unnecessarily getting people's backs up. It's such a difficult topic that even those who have done nothing wrong and aren't being accuse of anything can get very defensive. So what happens if I start speculating and it turns out I'm wrong?
All that's left are the blander possibilities. At least one of these bland reasons, however, I do think is strong contenders. It is that there are not an adequate number of people in leadership who "get" misconduct. I've watched the light bulb go on for lots of people, and it's amazing the variation. Some people have it explained to them once and understand deeply right away without ever having experienced it, even indirectly. Others can experience misconduct themselves and still not get it. Most people are somewhere in between. I was. Even after I'd experienced it, it took me several months to really understand what was going on.
It seems to me that the answer to that conundrum is for the Board to put someone in charge of reviewing the processes, who has a strong record of understanding and is trusted by a variety of stakeholders, including victims, staff, and the MFC. I don't think there are many people that qualify but there are a few.
Post a Comment