“There is a larger pattern of protecting priests first, rather than protecting children.”

Those 13 agonized words came from a bishop who testified before the National Review Board, a panel of distinguished laity appointed by the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Their blistering report on the causes and context of the church’s clergy sex abuse crisis, published in February 2004, detailed “an attitude that priests and bishops are apart from and superior to the laity.” They called it “clericalism.” Others, including clergy, now describe it similarly.

Harnessing clergy sex abuse of children does not eliminate that attitude. It is a pervasive mindset, a way of life and of relationship that was exposed and put in strong relief by the scandal.

In “Clericalism: The Death of Priesthood,” Father George B. Wilson, S.J., says we, the fawning laity, helped foster this attitude and we all are responsible for correcting it.

Flash back to 2002 after the Boston Globe blew the whistle. Bishops hurried to a gathering in Dallas, focused on the abusers and took needed steps to prevent recurrence of clergy sex abuse of children. They adopted their “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” which, if fully implemented, should help greatly. The bishops also gave a sincere but nonspecific apology for their own failures.

Article 7 of the charter obliges bishops to be “open and transparent in communicating with the public about sexual abuse of minors by clergy.”

“It’s much better to go the transparent route than not,” Bishop William S. Skylstad told The Spokesman-Review after returning to Spokane. His refreshing embrace of transparency proved to be rather transient.

To be fair, the Spokane Diocese was soon up to its ears in lawsuits. The exigencies of litigation, including advice of counsel as to privileged communications, put transparency on the shelf.

In late summer of 2006, the diocese reached an agreement for resolution of all claims and signaled its intent to be more transparent. Partial disclosures of diocesan failures to protect children were made to selected groups, and very preliminary work began on drafting written disclosures for the people. In April 2007, that work was stopped.

The diocese’s lead trial lawyer had told me that of 180 claims of abuse, over 90 percent would have had a better than 75 percent chance of establishing at trial that the diocese “knew or should have known” that the priest abuser was an unacceptable risk to children. So I asked Bishop Skylstad to restart the work, to disclose what could fairly and justly be reported about the diocese’s alleged failures to protect children over five to six decades of abuse. Without that information, lessons cannot be learned, recommendations for reform cannot be made.

In August 2007, Bishop Skylstad denied my request. He said healing efforts were under way, emotions were high and disclosures would be “counterproductive” at that time. The bishop declined to say whether or when disclosures might be made in the future.

Bishop Skylstad has been the Catholic bishop of Spokane for about 18 years. Disclosures likely would reference some living senior clergy. Bishop Skylstad’s mandatory retirement date is March 2, 2009.

For him, the right time for disclosures has not come.

Between December 2004 and April 2007, Bishop Skylstad and the diocese were immersed in bankruptcy. Bishop Skylstad gained support for a $48 million settlement without disclosing more than a fraction of what the diocese could fairly and justly report about its alleged failures to protect children other than disclosures in relation to the prolific abuser Patrick O’Donnell. Not the right time.

Between December 2007 and April 2008, Bishop Skylstad held 30 parish meetings to apologize, atone and lament about clergy sex abuse of children. He accomplished those without disclosing what the diocese could fairly and justly report about its alleged failures to protect children. Not the right time.

Disgust, mistrust, anger and alienation are the inevitable consequences of clericalism and undue secrecy in the church. The bishops specifically agreed to be open and transparent in communications about clergy sexual abuse of children. Yet Bishop Skylstad declines to have the diocese disclose what it could fairly and justly report about its alleged failures to protect children from five to six decades of clergy abuse.

Postponing transparency in the church: Today, it’s about the hierarchy’s response to clergy sex abuse. Tomorrow? You name it, most reverend bishops, and someday do tell us – when the time is right.