Seeking to balance a belief in redemption against the outrage of parishioners, U.S. leaders of the Roman Catholic Church on Tuesday revealed proposals to defrock priests who commit new acts of sexual abuse against children, but be more lenient with some who have abused just once in the past.
The long-awaited recommendations, made by a committee of bishops in preparation for a national meeting of bishops next week, sought compromise by splitting the notion of “zero tolerance” into two parts–past and future cases of abuse. But the proposal quickly stirred controversy among the bishops and parishioners who have been waiting for church leadership to draw a clear line against priests who prey on children.
The committee’s 18-part proposed “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” is intended to bring “transparency” and “openness” to the church and convey deep sympathy for victims, said Archbishop Harry J. Flynn of St. Paul-Minneapolis, who chairs the committee.
“We believe that such steps are necessary to restore the calm and the peace of the church in this grave matter,” Flynn said, adding later: “Let the sun shine in.”
Under the recommendations, any new acts of abuse will be answered by dismissal from the priesthood. But a priest accused of one case of abuse in the past might be allowed to stay in the ministry under some conditions–a concept that is certain to be a point of great debate among the bishops in Dallas next week.
To adopt the proposals, two-thirds of the bishops must vote to approve them.
“The committee is well aware that many strongly believe that there should be no such provision,” Flynn said. “However, in the feedback that we received there appear to be a large enough minority of bishops, expert observers and people in the pew who wanted some flexibility that we felt this possibility had to go to the full body of bishops.”
Cardinals William Keeler of Baltimore and Roger Mahony of Los Angeles said the one-strike policy should apply to past and future cases. Keeler said his archdiocese had tried to allow an errant priest to continue to serve, but another claim surfaced against the clergyman and Keeler considered the approach a failure.
“I shall advocate a policy that says one act of child abuse is one act too many,” Keeler said.
The proposal also calls for reporting accusations of sex abuse of children to law enforcement, creating review panels of mostly laypeople to handle allegations in dioceses nationwide, and opening a national office to monitor the dioceses.
The recommendations were mailed to the nation’s bishops last week, and they are expected to suggest changes to the proposal before a final vote during the meeting devoted entirely to the topic of sex abuse June 13-15 in Dallas. Among questions left unanswered by this proposal were precisely what acts constituted sexual abuse, how dioceses might be punished if they violated the new rules, and, perhaps most importantly, how the Vatican will respond.
Reaction is cautious
Some of the nation’s 400 bishops reacted cautiously to the proposal on Tuesday. Cardinal Francis George “wants to study the drafts further before making suggestions concerning them … ,” according to Chancellor Jimmy Lago.
Bishop Joseph Imesch of the Diocese of Joliet said he expects the proposal will be adopted with few amendments and said he believes the central notions likely were vetted by Vatican officials when U.S. cardinals traveled to Rome in April.
Declaring the proposal “extraordinary,” Rev. Thomas Reese, the editor of America, the Jesuit magazine, said, “I think they’ve done a very good job, responding well to all the criticism and apologizing clearly to the victims.”
Like Flynn, Reese suspects the “mostly hotly debated issue” in Dallas will be the question of what to do with priests who have abused once, sometime in the past. “The hardest thing is what to do about priests who abuse 20 years ago and have been good ever since,” Reese said. “Some people will want a wider exception. Some will not want any.”
Under the proposal, a panel of mostly laypeoplesimilar to the one Chicago pioneered in 1992–would consider allegations against a priest.
If the panel of psychologists, doctors, lawyers and others, appointed by a bishop, found that a priest abused a child, even once after the adoption of these rules, the bishop would call for his removal from the priesthood.
If the abuse was in the past, occurred only once, and it was determined the priest was not a pedophile, the panel could consider recommending that he be allowed to stay in the ministry, but under treatment, supervision and away from children.
David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said he was “disappointed” by the provision and described it as a watered-down “sorta-kinda-maybe” version of a “one-strike-you’re-out” rule. How, he asked, can review panels be certain that a priest accused once has actually only abused one person and will never do it again? “Therapists, police, common sense and painful memories all tell us that just once is not likely.”
Acknowledging that the topic stirred a fiery debate even among his eight member bishops committee, Flynn said the idea comes down to a scientific and spiritual balancing act. “We need to believe in the possibility of conversion and we need to believe in the possibility that people can grow, people can turn a corner,” he said.
“Psychologically, medically, we would be fools if we were to say that someone cannot grow,” Flynn said. “At the same time, with a truly defined pedophile, there is such a strong proclivity there that it is next to impossible to expect any kind of growth.”
National review board
Under the proposal, in addition to creating review panels to monitor abuse in each of the nation’s 194 dioceses, the bishops would open an “Office of Child and Youth Protection” in Washington and would create a national review board, including parents.
Each diocese’s actions would be “audited” annually by province and regional authorities, and the national review board would ultimately approve an annual report looking at how each diocese was implementing the new policy.
The prospect of public embarrassment, Flynn said, would be enough to keep bishops following the policies. Asked what other punishment would occur if bishops failed to follow the recommendations of their review panels or other elements of the rules, Flynn said he did not know.
“Public disclosure would be sanction enough,” he said. “I can’t imagine any bishop who would subject himself to that.”
Critics, though, wondered whether that would create enough accountability, particularly since some bishops accused in recent months of relocating abusive priests have not seemed put off by intense, ongoing public criticism.
The proposal calls for a ban on shuffling abusive priests to new assignments without notifying the new parishes of allegations. With any move, a bishop would be required to send the new diocese “an accurate and complete description of the cleric’s record including whether there is anything in the background or service of the cleric that would raise questions about his fitness for ministry.”
In addition, anyone dealing with children or young people would get background checks by law enforcement agencies.
Secrecy, Flynn acknowledged, had proven to be a massive problem in the past, in some cases allowing sexually abusive behavior to be repeated. The proposal calls for an end to confidentiality agreements between dioceses and victims, “except for grave and substantial reasons brought forward by the victim.”
The proposal calls for the U.S. bishops to “inform” the Vatican of the new rules, “to indicate the manner in which we, the Catholic bishops of the United States, intend to address this present crisis.”
Currently, the bishops have guidelines for handling abuse claims, but they aren’t required to follow the guidelines because each diocese reports to the Vatican, not to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. To create a mandatory national policy required of all bishops, the Vatican would need to approve the rules, but it was unclear on Tuesday whether the bishops will seek formal approval.
“We’re going to inform the Vatican,” Flynn said. “Hopefully, we will not need the approval of the Vatican. We will inform the Vatican and wait for that response.”
