BishopAccountability.org
 
  Revision of Abuse Policy up for Debate

By Carol Eisenberg
Newsday
March 6, 2005

It was every school official's worst nightmare. At 4:20 p.m. on a late January school day, a fax came to Manatee Schools Superintendent Roger Dearing in Bradenton, Fla., warning that one of his assistant principals had been accused of molesting two boys while a Catholic seminarian 30 years earlier.

By 4:45, Dearing had placed the longtime educator on administrative leave. Within two days, the assistant principal had resigned.

Why weren't those allegations - contained in a civil lawsuit in Massachusetts and a complaint to the Portland, Maine, Diocese - known to Dearing?

Victims' advocates say that's one of the largest holes in the so-called "one strike and you're out" policy adopted by the nation's Roman Catholic bishops in June 2002, and now under review in the United States and Rome.

"If a bishop asked me, 'What is the quickest, cheapest, most effective step I could take to protect the safety of children today,' I would tell them that it would simply be to put the names of the known and suspected molesters up on diocesan Web sites," said David Clohessy, national president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Church at crossroads

That's just one of the agendas competing for the bishops' attention as they prepare quietly for a vote on whether to renew the landmark policy this June.

Three years after the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People was passed at the height of the sexual abuse scandal, the Catholic Church is at a crossroads.

The charter accomplished much of what it was supposed to do - forcing the suspension of more than 700 accused priests, and making most church workers undergo criminal background checks and special training in child safety. Still, there have been glitches, from the long and cumbersome reviews of abuse allegations to the lack of oversight of some men removed from ministry but not laicized.

In contrast to the very public debate on the policy in Dallas, there is little discussion now about how it may be revised.

"My sense is, the bishops just don't want any more public showdowns on this," said a source who has followed the process. "If anything gets changed, they want to be able to blame the Vatican."

Debate over naming

Several leading prelates have publicly committed themselves to renewing what many consider the charter's centerpiece - the provision requiring the permanent removal of any man found to have sexually abused a minor. A draft circulating among the bishops upholds that, but does not require the names of such priests to be posted, as victims have urged.

But whether anything resembling that draft will be approved is unclear, particularly since some Catholic leaders question whether zero tolerance is compatible with Gospel teachings of repentance and redemption.

"Some of the measures adopted went far beyond the protection of children from abuse," theologian Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote last June in the Jesuit magazine America, condemning the policy's inflexibility and vague definition of sexual abuse.

Perhaps nowhere are such concerns greater than in Rome. A delegation of American prelates who visited the Vatican last month to discuss the policy have declined interviews.

"There's great unease about the charter at the Vatican," said David Gibson, an expert on the church. "And it's not just the Vatican. ... There's also real unease among priests who feel they got sold down the river."

Many priests continue to argue that it's unfair to remove men on the basis of a single allegation that may be 20 or 30 years old and, therefore, nearly impossible to prove - or to defend against. Some also criticize the painfully long review process, as well as the policy's vague definition of sexual abuse, which can include nonphysical contact.

"Justice delayed is justice denied," said the Rev. Robert Silva, president of the national Federation of Priests Councils, which hears priests' concerns around the country. "We have cases that have been out there for two or three years, where the priest claims he's innocent and there's been no action on the case."

Request for database

Victims and lay advocates are lobbying for the naming of proven abusers. Some go further, pointing out that naming those suspected of abuse often spurs other victims to step forward. After the Archdiocese of Baltimore revealed the names of 56 accused priests in 2002, 62 more people filed complaints.

Naming those accused also may be the only way to keep men removed from ministry from finding other jobs with children, advocates say. They point to the suspended Missouri priest who got a job as a greeter at Disney World, and a defrocked St. Louis priest who became a school counselor and was subsequently arrested for possession of child pornography.

While a handful of bishops post those names now, most, including Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio and Rockville Centre Bishop William Murphy, do not go beyond informing affected parishioners. Alone among the New York-area prelates, New York Cardinal Edward Egan has said he will publish such names, but only at the conclusion of the church's investigative and legal processes. None of New York's cases is resolved.

"Putting these guys out of ministry certainly protects the church, but it doesn't protect children unless we take steps to make sure that those who may hire these men in the future are aware of their conduct," said Nicholas Cafardi, chairman of the national lay panel advising the bishops on abuse.

Cafardi said his group probably would recommend a national database of abusers - limited to those with substantiated charges after an investigation.

Protection vs. due process

The norms of the Dallas charter, introduced by American Catholic bishops in the aftermath of the church’s sexual abuse scandal, have been criticized by both victims’ advocates and defenders of accused priests. Victims groups have said they want to see abusers removed from the priesthood, not just active ministry. Others, however, believe the bishops have suspended the due-process rights of the accused.

The protocols

Once a credible allegation of abuse of a minor is made ...

1. Alleged offender is relieved of any ecclesiastical ministry or function. A canon law investigation begins.

2. If the allegation involves a priest or deacon, he is asked to undergo medical and psychological evaluation.

Once allegation is admitted or established ...

1. Offending priest or deacon is permanently removed from ministry,"zero tolerance."

2. Priest or deacon may ask to be removed from holy orders, "laicization."

3. If laicization is not pursued (for reasons of age or in.rmity), the offender is to lead

a life of prayer and penance. He is not to celebrate Mass publicly, wear clerical garb or present himself publicly as a priest.

4. The diocese will report to civil authorities any allegation (unless canonically privileged) of sexual abuse of a minor. It will cooperatewith public authorities

about reporting cases when the alleged victim is no longer a minor.

5. Before a priest or deacon is transferred to another diocese, anything in his background that would indicate him to be a danger to young people will be forwarded to the new residence.

6. If an accusation is proved to be unfounded, steps are taken to restore the reputation of the person falsely accused.

SOURCE: NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER

 
 

Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.