Abuse victim gets apology from [Archbishop] Burke

What Tim Fischer wanted more than anything else was an apology.

He wanted someone to say "I'm sorry" for the fact that when he was 11 years old he was raped by the late Rev. Norman Christian, a Roman Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of St. Louis who was removed from ministry in 1995.

So, in his settlement with the archdiocese, Fischer, now 43 and an electrician from Crystal City, asked for an apology, in writing, from Archbishop Raymond Burke. That was in mid-December. Fischer got his letter on Saturday. But more than 30 victims and their parents have been waiting for apologies from [Archbishop] Burke, some for a year or more.

First, before anything else: it is completely inappropriate and it demonstrates a lack of respect to refer to the Archbishop of St. Louis by merely his last name - Burke. This is a particular pet peeve of mine. Certainly the Post will not experience an insurmountable increase of ink and paper if its writers were to use the title of Archbishop? Perhaps, this is how 'jounalists' are taught these days? I find it offensive and unprofessional. Maybe it provides an insight into the story?

With respect to the story, are these victims and their families looking for an apology from the criminal perpetrator himself, the Archdiocese, previous episcopal leadership, or the current archbishop?

It would seem that all victims of crimes would prefer apologies from those who perpetrated the crimes as well as those who, by their actions or inactions, help to facilitate, in any way, the criminal's deviant and horrible offenses. It just seems like common sense (of which I make no claim), that an apology from my brother (or from my parents) for a wrong committed against me by my sister would be lacking somehow. This is not imply that the expression of sorrow or regret would not be welcomed as sign that one has been wronged and that others empathize with the victim.

It is certainly understandable, therefore, that Church leaders would express regret for the failings of others in the Church who caused such pain and grief. Expressing sorrow for the pains inflicted upon others by some criminal priests is an act of reconciliation for the victims, their families, the Church and the community. That being said, I was left with the impression from the article that Archbishop Burke is somehow responsible when, in fact, he had nothing to do with these acts of depravity. Perhaps, it is due to my somewhat jaundiced view of many media articles about Archbishop Burke these days?

Nevertheless, it seems the simplest, and perhaps the most meaningful, thing a bishop can provide - a note of apology - is surprisingly difficult to obtain.

No mention is made of the fact that there may have been legal reasons why "notes of apology" might have been delayed. But then again, in order to maintain a unreasonably critical view of the Archbishop or the Church, demands are made that an individual need not consider, or that one ignore, the pertinent facts or circumstances. Suggestion and innuendo make much better reading, it seems.

This article in the Post had the potential to be a story which could have helped in the healing process. Instead, it focused on things which can only result in delaying that process. Perhaps, an upcoming article will focus on the positive things which are being done to help victims , their families, and the general community. It would seem that more people would prefer aout the positive steps which are being taken rather than about problems or delays.

Link