Bishops adopt abuse policy
Posted on 06/15/2002 7:09:20 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Bishops adopt abuse policy
Accusations must be reported to police; victims' groups say documents fall short
06/15/2002
U.S. Catholic bishops voted overwhelmingly Friday to remove any priest guilty of child molestation from his duties, no matter when the abuse happened, but they stopped short of mandatory defrocking of those priests.
The charter also requires bishops to report any child abuse accusations to civil authorities.
"From this day forward, no one known to have sexually abused a child will work in the Catholic Church in the United States," Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said after the vote of 239-13 was announced.
The bishops voted to make the "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People" immediately binding. They now will seek endorsement from the Vatican, where some high-ranking officials have balked at provisions, such as mandatory reporting.
"My understanding is that the Holy See understands the situation in the United States and will accept what we propose," said Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop of Washington, D.C.
The policy, which also applies to deacons, did not go as far as some abuse victims and other advocates wanted to require defrocking of all priests who abuse minors. But it moved further than an earlier draft that allowed some flexibility in restrictions on some priests guilty of a single, long-ago abuse.
Some abuse victims called the bishops' plan an accommodation for sexual predators. The Rev. Gary Hayes, president of the Survivors of Clergy Abuse Linkup, shrugged when asked if the new policy could be considered "zero tolerance."
"It's like a chocolate and vanilla swirl," he said. "It's not quite one or the other and it's both."
Said David Clohessy of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests: "At the end of the day, the bishops are defining this as a bad-apple problem. It's not a bad-apple problem. It's a barrel problem."
The Dallas conference began Thursday with Bishop Gregory rebuking some of his colleagues for shielding predator priests. Afterward, the bishops faced harsh criticism from guest lay speakers and victims of clergy sexual abuse. They urged disciplinary actions for bishops who had mishandled cases and a greater role for laity in the church.
"This is a defining moment for us as bishops," Archbishop Harry Flynn, head of the bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse, said as Friday's session began, "a moment for us to declare our resolve once and for all to put a plan in place ... to root out a cancer in our church."
Sharp division
The bishops voted by secret ballot at 3:45 p.m. after an arduous day of debate that pointed to sharp division in three areas:
What constitutes sexual abuse.
Whether all abuse allegations should be reported to civil authorities.
Whether priests who had abused once in the past should be allowed to remain in restricted ministry.
Under pressure from abuse victims and from Catholic laity, the bishops opted for the strictest policies on the table. They also said each bishop must adjust his diocese's policy to correspond with local civil laws concerning abuse of minors. In addition, they called for an end to confidentiality clauses in legal settlements, unless for grave reasons demanded by victims.
The most controversial issue and for many bishops an emotional one was removing priests involved in past allegations. Under the charter, the priests are forbidden from any ministry, even in limited ways in nursing homes, hospitals or other settings. They cannot wear clerical garb, lead public worship or present themselves publicly as priests.
Some of those priests might be returned to layman's status. The bishops are working to develop a process to expedite laicization.
'Common good'
"It hurts to say I support zero tolerance," said Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, who reflected the sentiment of many bishops openly grieving the loss of abusive priests who seemed to have rehabilitated their lives. "At the same time, in our present crisis we must place the common good of our church first."
The bishops' vote came after an extraordinary six months of clergy sex-abuse scandals that have led to the removal of more than 200 priests, three bishops and an archbishop. In April, Pope John Paul II summoned top U.S. bishops and cardinals to Rome, where he said there was no room in the priesthood for anyone who abuses children.
Members of religious orders do not fall under the direct authority of the bishops and will not be affected by the policy. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles said bishops must push religious orders to adopt similar standards.
"Otherwise, we find ourselves in the situation that diocesan priests are called to one standard and religious priests are called to another standard," he said. "We must keep in mind that half the priests in the United States are religious priests."
Definition of abuse
The bishops agreed that their definition of sexual abuse should not be equated with the definition in state laws, nor should it be in opposition. Archbishop Justin Rigali of St. Louis sought to soften the bishops' definition by removing a phrase he said was too vague:
"A child is abused whether or not this activity involves explicit force, whether or not it involves genital or physical contact, whether or not it is initiated by the child, and whether or not there is discernible harmful outcome."
The voice vote after lengthy debate was too close to call, so a count was taken.
The majority, including Dallas Bishop Charles V. Grahmann and his coadjutor, Joseph Galante, favored the more stringent language. The minority protested that the measure made priests vulnerable to accusations.
"The definition goes too far," said Bishop John Yanta of Amarillo. "You're inviting a lot of frivolous allegations. What if people don't like a priest who hugs? Hispanics and Italians are very tactile people. They like to touch. Is that abuse?"
Archbishop Roger Schwietz of Anchorage, Alaska, a member of the bishops' Vocations Committee, said bishops were split on whether any allegation of child abuse should be reported to civil authorities.
"Some bishops didn't want to make the language too strong for fear of not protecting priests," he said. "But other bishops, including myself, felt a stronger document would elevate the reputation of priests."
Some bishops said it's the job of law enforcement, not bishops, to investigate child abuse. Cardinal Mahony argued that turning over all allegations to civil authorities may be doing priests a favor.
"I've had two false accusations against me within the past two months," he said. "I welcome the police intervention because it helps you get it over with quickly."
Debate, then vote
At 3:10 p.m., the bishops finished amending the document. They then spent 35 minutes arguing for its passage or defeat.
Cardinal Avery Dulles of New York, a theologian who is not a bishop, said the document was gravely flawed for two reasons. He argued that the definition of sexual abuse was too broad and left priests open to "looks and touches" that might be interpreted by courts as sexual molestation.
He also said the document established an adversarial relationship between bishops and priests. "Priests won't confess their sins and won't feel free to come to their bishops as their spiritual fathers," he said.
Bishop Grahmann of Dallas spoke in favor of the charter's passage.
"I strongly support that, for even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor, that the offending priest will not remain in ministry or receive a future assignment," he said. "We owe this to the church and to society."
After the vote was taken, the bishops stepped into the hallway and ate ice cream bars as they waited for the final tally. A two-thirds majority, or 190 votes, was needed to pass the charter. Although 284 bishops were eligible to vote, only 252 participated.
After the outcome was announced, the bishops stood and applauded.
The conference ends Saturday, after a morning of prayer.
Staff writer Jeffrey Weiss contributed to this report.
E-mail shogan@dallasnews.com
"Defrocked" is a word the media insists upon using but is not part of the Church's own vocabulary, since it is relatively imprecise. Rather, the Church would use the word "laicized" to describe a man who had been a priest and had requested from the Holy Father to be freed from his promises made at ordination and, thereby, returned to the lay state. While "once a priest, always a priest" remains the rule, a laicized person no longer has the obligations or the rights of a priest.
Then there is the person who has been dismissed from the clerical state. Dismissal from the clerical state is one of the penalties in Canon Law that can be applied if a priest has been found to commit one of the crimes described in The Code of Canon Law to which this penalty has been assigned.
Some media outlets also use this term to describe priests who have been removed from active ministry or who have been denied faculties to celebrate the sacraments for any number of reason, but who have not yet sought laicization nor been dismissed from the clerical state.
In all of these cases, the person can still partake in the sacramental life of the Church.
Excommunication, on the other hand, is a penalty described in The Code of Canon Law for certain offenses which deprives one of the right to participate in the sacramental or hierarchical life of the Church.
Answer provided by:
Have you actually read the Charter or are you basing your statement on what was written in this article?
And so, the GAY PRIDE RAINBOW TRIANGLE still flies on the official Diocese of Cleveland website. Lord have mercy on us.
The good revelation though is that through Bishop Bruskewitz amendment it is now clear how many bishops are on the Left Hand of Darkness.
I believe it was the Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich who said we needed to "pray that the Church of Darkness leaves Rome".
So I pray to the Father in heaven and beg him to send the Church of Darkness out of Rome.
But this is only one of the problems. Next.
1) Yet to be seen is, how will the policy be followed?
2) What about 'zero tolerance' for the cover-uppers?
3) Practicing homosexuals accepted in seminaries.
He's right about it being a defining moment.
Unfortunately, what they "defined" was their own unwillingness to adopt a zero tolerance policy.
They did the least they thought they could get away with.
I'm waiting for that shoe to drop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
