In an earlier essay on this site—and building upon the insights of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and Avery Cardinal Dulles—I argued that the norms of the Dallas Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, as presently implemented, are straining the theology of priesthood. In their desire to act quickly and to silence critics, the American bishops resorted to stringent measures that had the palpable effect of demoralizing priests and leading to a theologically unhealthy chasm between the episcopacy and the presbyterate.
The measures of the Dallas Charter do not apply (for canonical and administrative reasons) to the bishops themselves, so the uneasy specter of a double standard constantly hovers over the discussion. But perhaps new guidelines, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a circular letter dated May 3, 2011, can help the American bishops as they re-examine the Charter at their June meeting.
Let it first be said that both the CDF guidelines and the Dallas Charter share a single commendable purpose: to protect children from abusers. No plausible argument can be made that these documents mask or conceal the crime and sin that is sexual abuse. Some criticize these statements for being inadequately interested in the actual protection of minors. But one is left with the distinct impression that certain observers would be satisfied only if the hierarchical structure of the Church were itself overthrown.
The entire circular letter issued by the Congregation is worthy of study, but I will concentrate on the section labeled “The Support of Priests.” The passage starts with a simple sentence: “The bishop has the duty to treat all his priests as father and brother.” Given the connotations that “fatherhood” evokes, both naturally and theologically, this direct statement is a salutary reminder to bishops. They cannot regard a priest accused of abuse—or even convicted of it—as if they “do not know the man,” or as if he were simply a legal and financial burden, rather than always a son and a brother.
The document goes on to say that priests themselves must be well informed of the damage done to victims of abuse. Priests, then, cannot close their eyes to this horrendous tragedy, as if it were too ugly to concern them or as if the issue belongs at the margins of the Church’s life. The body of Christ has been deeply wounded by child abuse, and priests must stand with their bishops at the forefront of the healing process.
It is particularly heartening to see the Vatican guidelines assert a plain truth: “The accused cleric is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven.” This is a principle enshrined in the secular law of the United States and in most democracies around the world. The Dallas Charter, too, states clearly that priests are to be accorded “the presumption of innocence.” In actual fact, however, once an accusation deemed credible by various opaque criteria is leveled, the machinery of the Charter quickly engages and the accused priest—all too often—is hustled out of his assignment as if he were a convicted criminal.
Priests have rights, both civil and canonical, and a rush to judgment cannot be sanctioned. Child abuse is an abominable crime, but the appropriate response to an accusation must be equitable and judicious. Recent studies show that between 2009 and 2010 false or unsubstantiated accusations against priests rose by over forty percent. This statistic alone should give bishops pause when a weakly supported accusation emerges. The sword of Damocles should not dangle from a frayed thread.
Finally, the CDF document notes that even with the presumption of innocence, “the bishop is always able to limit the exercise of the cleric’s ministry until the accusations are clarified” (emphasis added). This is an important sentence, showing the influence, I believe, of the procedures adopted by the German Episcopal Conference in 2010. The German guidelines state that an accused priest should be removed from ministry involving children but, after professional evaluation, he may still be able to engage in certain public aspects of priestly life.
The careful use of the word “limit” indicates that a truly just and even-handed response to an accusation of abuse must be based on a precise consideration of the circumstances surrounding it. Not every accusation ought to result in the priest’s immediate suspension from public ministry. Instead, the new CDF document opens the door to a prudent narrowing of the ministry of accused priests, thereby ensuring both a proper level of protection for minors as well as a necessary presumption of innocence for priests.
The recent CDF document takes child abuse with utter seriousness, balancing the demands of justice with the Church’s theology of priesthood. As the bishops re-examine the norms on abuse at their national meeting, one hopes they will find in the Vatican guidelines a principled source for theologically fortifying the Charter.
Rev. Thomas G. Guarino is professor of theology at Seton Hall University.
RESOURCES
Thomas G. Guarino, The Priesthood and Justice
Circular Letter to Assist Episcopal Conferences in Developing Guidelines for Dealing with Cases of Sexual Abuses of Minors Perpetrated by Clerics
Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People
Comments:
I do not believe excommunication is the appropriate punishment for these crimes, nor does the Holy See. The Vatican sometimes imposes the penalty of requiring the priest, celebrating Mass privately, to offer that Mass once a week for his victims, in reparation for his crimes.
These instances suggest that bishops will, at the very least, need clear, precise and stringent guidelines as to how a cleric may be allowed to remain in public ministry in a limited fashion while posing no threat to former or potential victims.
As a practical matter, given the current environment of well-organized and media-savvy victim advocacy organizations, my opinion is that it's probably not possible in the US to keep credibly-accused clerics in active ministry. It will still be best, for all parties concerned, and especially for former and potential victims, that clerics who are credibly accused be suspended from public ministry until the matter can be investigated and resolved. This policy would not be at variance with the recent CDF guidelines - surely "to suspend" is one subset of "to limit".
Having said that - the bishop's paternal and pastoral responsibility for his clergy should not cease when they are credibly accused. But this love and concern needs to be made manifest in appropriate ways - in ways that protect former and potential victims, and also protect the reputation and the finite financial resources of the church.
were for " particular friendships with girls". Read the jury details on a host of priests another of whom molested a girl in traction in a hospital until she rang for the nurse with a free hand. These men need to see the severe meaning of "father"
as Christ Himself spoke about unless you edit Christ carefully...."be afraid of him who can destroy both body and soul in hell"...." any branch in me who does not bear fruit, He will take away".....He will take away....He will take away.
Further, neither CARA nor our system should be lumping "false" and "unsubstantiated" allegations together as a couplet. One problem in Philly was that
"unsubstantiated" proved to be a very subjective judgement call such that the diocese had to call in an ex prosecutor partly to review that area of dismissal since one case involved multiple accusers and yet ended up as unsubstantiated because one accuser got a date several days off from the actual date.
The 40% increase in false or unsubstantiated allegations (10% to 17% from 2009 to 2010) can mean less than it seems depending on whether "unsubstantiated" is the bulk of that figure. Let CARA give a figure for "false" allegations on their own and "unsubstantiated" separately.
When a bishop is so busy that he does not personally know every priest in his dioscece, then it is no wonder that he is not there to help his brother priest in their daily struggle to love God and neighbor. Then a bishop has become no different from any other bureocrat in business and government everywhere. What we are doing in this culture of death is trying to solve by force of impersonal law what can only be done with a God based worldview. May God have mercy on us.
Both he and Cardinal Krol according to the grand jury repeatedly transferred known...known offenders to new parishes.
Acting "fatherly" in the sense of indulgently has precisely been the second scandal.
'diabolical disorientation' ( phrase borrowed from teh Fatima visionary, Sr.Lucy.)
Not wanting to be one selling coal to New Castle ..yet, wish authorities in The Church at all levels too would speak out and lead more in what She is best at - in
prevention using the spiritual armaments that could also help the society at large !
We are a Church that has been blessed with the dogma of The Immaculate Conception ,highlighting the truth about God's mercy bringing the prevention of the effects of The Fall , into the lives of a faithful couple and their daughter and what that has brought into our world and what God intend to continue to do , through her ..
Using and making available the sacramentals in The Church , to all who could benefit , which is all of us ....atleast weekly Holy hour of Eucharistic Adoration for the parish , led by the priests , incense in hand ..and Bishops also leading by example at all available occasions ( which could even be at all parish visits ) , reminders on fasting , esp. from pollution of the media which could be the prime agent as the cause of the disorienataion ..reminding parishioners too to do same ..
Youth encouraged and even given assignments , in using The Word as The Sword of The Spirit ..
not ignoring the gift for our times - Divine Mercy devotion and the Icon
any parish or diocese , where there has been an accused priest ,using same esp. as an occasion , to call out for more of such means , including the St.Michael prayer... devotion to Holy Name of Jesus ..
and may be our Lord would use all such means , to do away with the confusion among all His children , far and wide and help with Godly wisdom and strenght at all levels !
Come, Holy Spirit , come , through the powerful intercession of The Immaculate Heart of Mary !
It is a good and necessary thing that those wolves in sheep's clothing are exposed but weak and frightened hierarchy should not be yielding to mob hysteria over this issue and abandoning faithful religious without support.
That is why I receive with some irony Fr. Guarino's comment: "But one is left with the distinct impression that certain observers would be satisfied only if the hierarchical structure of the Church were itself overthrown.”
I doubt that is what the critics want. They want the hierarchical structure to cease to be an automatic shield for episcopal dereliction. The Church badly needs some sort of lay control over the internal power structure the episcopate has become.
The rest of my present thoughts on the matter are largely summed up in a comment I posted on ncregister.com on April 26, which I repeat here:
With a review of the Charter scheduled, and with some trepidation, I feel it’s time to divulge my own findings about the Charter that resulted from an investigation that was prompted by the removal of a priest from ministry in my diocese that seemed wrong on many levels. My findings consist mostly of deductions and they’re all based on publicly-available documents, with no contributions from private revelations or information. My purpose here is not to point the finger at anyone or assess blame, but only to contribute to a greater understanding of the truth and help chart a path away from any error that may exist. Finally, I do not claim to be a canon lawyer or theologian - at best I’m a geek who happens to be Catholic. While providing the supporting evidence that leads to the following conclusions may be a challenge should someone want to see it, I’ll do my best to comply with any requests. Or perhaps I’ll get lucky and find that everyone else already knows all these things and I’m just the last person to figure them out.
- The Charter’s zero-tolerance policy leads to the possibility that it may require the removal of a priest from ministry that cannot be justified according to standard moral principles such as the Principle of the Double Effect.
- Despite many claims to the contrary, it does not appear that all elements of the bishops’ steps to address the sexual abuse of children have been approved by the Vatican, particularly some coercive powers granted to the National Review Board.
- The combination of the Charter and specific responsibilities and privileges delegated to its attendant structures the Office of Child and Youth Protection and the National Review Board conflict with the exercise of specific provisions of Canon Law.
- The admitted strategy behind the Charter - to use public pressure to ensure that bishops make the right decisions in matters whose details remain private - is logically flawed to the extreme.
- The bishops’ own surveys meant to measure the public’s response to the steps they’ve taken to combat abuse were very accommodating to those who thought those steps should go further, but didn’t account at all for the possibility that some respondents might think those steps went too far, hence they aren’t a true measure of the public’s perception of their policies and practices.
- The fact that even with the Charter in place two different bishops made radically different decisions about the same case (Diocese of Grand Rapids, Michigan) shows that the Charter fails to achieve its goal of ensuring a consistent response to abuse cases.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/philadelphia-and-the-dallas-charter/#ixzz1OSR2Fp00
I am not as intimately familiar with the Charter as you are, but my impression of it accords with yours. I agree it is too hard on innocent priests.
I'm not mainly concerned with the Charter, though. I'm mainly concerned that bishops are getting off scot free--although it's true that most of the really guilty prelates are deceased or retired. Still, what about the situation let them get away with this, even into today? After coughing up almost $5 billion to cover their derelictions they have still not even apologized. Something is still badly wrong.
On the NY Times website there is currently an article by that woman columnist Catholics love to hate, and who is very critical of the Church. The article is her account of her interview with an Archbishop Martin of Ireland, who considers the Church’s response to the sex-abuse crisis woefully lacking. Martin was scheduled to become a cardinal but the Pope passed him over apparently because of his criticisms. I agree with everything Martin and the columnist say. This is still a towering scandal and it is getting worse rather than better. This hierarchy needs to be called to account and somehow someone has to figure out a way to do it. That NY Times columnist is doing us a public favor in pursuing this matter.
Here is another unpopular source from June 3,2011 that a Kansas City diocese was warned a year ago about questionable behaviour of a priest just arrested and at some point knew that this particular priest had child porn on his computer but against the Dallas charter...the diocese did not act....but someone did because he is under arrest:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/long-and-sad-clergy-abuse-saga-takes-local-turn



†