Under proposed revisions to the U.S. Catholic bishops’ policy on priest sexual abuse, a diocese will no longer be required to report allegations of abuse to police unless required to do so by civil law.
The change, one of many revealed publicly for the first time Monday, outraged victims’ advocates–and surprised one of the plan’s framers, Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George.
“I never spotted the difference. I should have,” he said. “I don’t think it was eliminated intentionally.”
In the earlier draft of a new sex abuse policy passed in June in Dallas, the bishops required the diocese to report allegations of abuse of a minor to civil authorities. The revision, hammered out to reconcile the Dallas plan with church law and the Vatican, says only that dioceses should comply with civil law, even though all states do not require such reporting.
The change, George said, was likely made by the U.S. delegation and its advisers. George said the bishops would discuss the matter when they meet to vote on the revisions next week in Washington.
But he worried that if the U.S. bishops make changes, the Vatican will insist on making changes too. “We risk having the whole thing unraveled,” he said.
The revisions released Monday also attempt to clarify the definition of sexual abuse, call for tribunals to judge sex abuse cases and uphold the statute of limitations as stated in church law–or canon law.
As some Catholics expressed disappointment over the revisions, George asked parishioners to wait and see whether the Vatican makes good on its promises to lift the statute where warranted.
“They’re not going to change canon law,” he said. “But they’re saying, `Try us.'”
Vatican wanted revisions
The proposed revisions by a team of four American bishops, led by George, and four Vatican officials came in response to the Vatican’s refusal to grant recognition to the policy passed by the U.S. bishops in Dallas. The Vatican objected to what it saw as a vague definition of sexual abuse and a lack of due process for priests accused of crimes.
Although much of the language is best understood by church lawyers familiar with references to canon law, some of the changes are clearer than others.
In the original draft, sexual abuse is defined as “contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used as an object of sexual gratification for the adult.”
The revised draft states: “The norm to be considered in assessing all allegation of sexual abuse of a minor is whether conduct or interaction with a minor qualifies as an external, objectively grave violation of the sixth commandment,” which forbids adultery, rape and other sexual offenses.
The emphasis of the second definition, canon lawyers say, is on the action rather than the intent to be sexually gratified.
Under the old plan, a lay review board heard allegations and, when found credible, temporarily removed a priest from ministry. A broader investigation followed. If found guilty, the priest was permanently removed from ministry.
Under the revised process, abuse allegations lead to a preliminary investigation, during which a priest remains in ministry. If “sufficient evidence” is uncovered, he is placed on leave.
The bishop brings the case to the Vatican, which determines whether to lift the statute of limitations and send it to a U.S. tribunal. The tribunal decides whether to remove the priest from ministry.
Added layer of bureaucracy
Victim advocates said the revisions effectively gutted the norms by adding a layer of clerical bureaucracy and leaving it to the Vatican to decide when to override the statute of limitations.
Mark Serrano, spokesperson for Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said in a statement Monday that “Victims will feel betrayed by this obvious backtracking from the emphatic promises bishops made this summer in Dallas.”
“They’ve replaced one panel of laypeople with a panel of clerics, backtracked on reporting to criminal authorities, delayed the removal of accused priests and increased their own discretion,” said Serrano.
“We’ve gone from a clear set of common-sense rules back to a complicated murky set of `suggestions,’ in which bishops have more discretion. … Once again, a panel of elderly white men wearing Roman collars has revised the American bishops’ increasingly convoluted sexual abuse policy.”
George asked victims and their advocates Monday to remember that tribunals do not have to be made up only of priests.
“You can have a lay judge,” said George, who consulted canon lawyers. “And canon lawyers can be laypeople.”
But Rev. John Beal, a Catholic University professor of canon law, said that up until now it has been unclear whether a layperson could serve as a judge in a penal case involving a priests. “We have little experience with actually taking a penal case to a tribunal,” he said.
Beal sees the revisions as an improvement on the original. The statute of limitations in canon law–10 years past the age of 18–is a generous one even by civil standards, he said, given the difficulty of proving older cases.
But Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer who urged the U.S. bishops to address priest sex abuse 17 years ago, said the Vatican has a poor record when it comes to openly investigating abuse cases and holding priests accountable.
“If it goes to the Vatican, it goes to the murky realm of secrecy,” said Doyle, a former canonist secretary at the Vatican embassy in Washington.
While the new draft is an improvement in terms of its definitions of sex abuse and due process for priests, he said, it proposes a cumbersome process for investigating abuse. The procedures leave too much power in the hands of bishops who are responsible for requesting waivers of the statute, he said, and it gives too little authority to lay Catholics.
Dioceses, said Doyle, should have been required to report allegations to civil authorities.
“Vatican authorities,” he said, “don’t think the state should get in the middle of a relationship between a priest and a bishop. They don’t think these issues should be dealt with in a civil arena.”
Rev. Michael Fahey, a Marquette University theology professor, said he feared that the revisions would water down the plan but was pleasantly surprised Monday by what he saw as a strengthening of due process by requiring tribunals.
`A wise intervention’
“I think the bishops in Dallas rushed through this thing without thinking it through that carefully. … I think in the long run this is a wise intervention, and you’re talking to someone who would like to see a minimum amount of intervention from people in the curia,” he said. “In this case they’ve actually performed a service.”
Belleville Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the revised plan “substantially confirms the decisions made” in Dallas.
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, auxiliary bishop of Detroit, supports the greater emphasis on due process for priests, but he does not think the statute of limitations should be applied on a case by case basis. “I would go even further and say, `Just lift it,'” he said.
But George doubts the Vatican would accept such a change.
“That’s not going to fly,” he said. “We’re lucky we got what we got on that. I think that was a remarkable thing to do.”
