Posted on 06/19/2002 9:48:22 AM PDT by Polycarp
American zero tolerance policy headed for trouble in Rome, sources say By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. Though no one is quite ready to say so publicly, there is a growing consensus in Rome that the “zero tolerance” stance on sexual abuse slated for adoption by the U.S. bishops is likely to run into difficulty in the Vatican. Many Vatican officials, believing that the U.S. bishops are in effect making policy decisions with a gun to their head, are quietly warning that Rome is likely take a more cautious, less stringent approach. The policies adopted in Dallas will have to come to Rome for approval. The American cardinals pledged to submit any new national standards to the Holy See for review, formally called a recognitio, in the final communiqué from their April 23-24 summit with the pope. Moreover, Vatican approval is necessary for the policies to have binding force, since documents of bishops’ conferences are, from the point of view of canon law, merely advisory. “Zero tolerance is going to have a hard time here,” one Vatican official told NCR June 14. The official expressed reservations about imposing forced laicization on the basis of one offense. “’One strike and you’re out’ assumes that it’s a complete swing,” the official said. “But let’s face it, there are cases in which someone makes an accusation and later retracts it. Are you going to defrock every priest against whom there is even one allegation?” A common perception in several Vatican offices is that the American bishops are acting under the weight of enormous pressure, especially from the media and from victims’ groups, and are hence being driven into policies that may not reflect their best judgment. “They’re being forced into a conclusion rather than sorting things out in a dispassionate way,” another official said. “The church is about reconciliation. Its highest priority can’t be driving out the pedophiles.” Several Vatican sources pointed to the May 18 article of Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda in Civilità Cattolica as one good summary of their concerns. Ghirlanda, a renowned canon lawyer at Rome’s Gregorian University, argued that in responding to charges of sexual abuse bishops must balance the rights of the alleged victim against those of the accused cleric. Ghirlanda made several specific points that may run contrary to the policies presently under consideration by the American bishops: • There should be no “public intervention” against a priest by a bishop, which could include releasing information to the media or handing over files to the police, without a “moral certainty” of guilt, or unless the good of the community demands it. • Priests should not be compelled to undergo psychological testing to determine their propensity to commit sexual abuse. • If a bishop decides to reassign a priest who has previously been found guilty of a sexual offense, he should not inform the new parish of the priest’s past. The comment assumes that under at least some circumstances, a priest guilty of a sexual offense can continue in ministry. Ghirlanda does not distinguish between sexual abuse of minors and of adults. • A bishop is neither morally nor legally responsible for the criminal acts of one of his priests, unless he failed in his obligation to form the priest properly. • Victims should direct accusations to sexual abuse against priests to the bishop, not to ad hoc panels set up to handle such complaints. • Bishops should not turn over accusations of sexual abuse to the civil authorities simply to minimize liability in a lawsuit that the victim might file. One canon lawyer who works with several Vatican offices told NCR that he picks up a “cautiousness,” a “reserve,” in the curia about the policies under consideration by the U.S. bishops. “There is a real sense that all this may not pass muster,” the canon laywer said. Another Vatican official said one frustration for some curial officials is the apparent desire of the American bishops to create new policies and procedures rather than following the steps outlined in canon law for imposing discipline upon a priest who commits sexual abuse. “The bishops may say it’s too complicated,” the official said. “But how many of them have actually tried it? My guess would be it’s a small number.” “We have a canonical procedure for all this, and to some extent it’s been ignored,” the official said. On the other hand, this official said it’s too early to tell whether these reservations will be strong enough to overcome what is likely to be strong pressure from the United States to approve the new policies. “People have their problems with it,” the official said. “Whether they’re willing to make an issue out of it remains to be seen.” John L. Allen Jr. is NCR’s Vatican correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@natcath.org.
|
“The bishops may say it’s too complicated,” the official said. “But how many of them have actually tried it? My guess would be it’s a small number.”
“We have a canonical procedure for all this, and to some extent it’s been ignored,” the official said.
Why has the Canon Law approach been ignored?
According to Michael Rose, in his talk last night in Altoona, the Canon Law approach has been ignored because the canon law proceedings would shed too much light on the gay infrastructure that undergirds the coverup up the homosexual abuse crisis in the Church.
Thus the bishops are afraid of using the Canon Law approach because it will reveal the homosexual network within a diocese, and in many instances (my opinion) will out bishops themselves.
Thus do not expect Rome to cater to demands of the US hierarchy to change the process.
Rome also knows the US bishops will use the "new" proposals they are requesting to prosecute/persecute conservative/orthodox priests critical of bishops.
AB
Isn't this part of the problem?
Um, this wasn't in the plan the US bishops passed. They were to remove a priest from ministry, but not to necessarily move for forced (or voluntary) laicization.
SD
\ Ghirlanda made several specific points that may run contrary to the policies presently under consideration by the American bishops:
• There should be no “public intervention” against a priest by a bishop, which could include releasing information to the media or handing over files to the police, without a “moral certainty” of guilt, or unless the good of the community demands it.
That means the pedophile is allowed to get away with it?.
• If a bishop decides to reassign a priest who has previously been found guilty of a sexual offense, he should not inform the new parish of the priest’s past. The comment assumes that under at least some circumstances, a priest guilty of a sexual offense can continue in ministry. Ghirlanda does not distinguish between sexual abuse of minors and of adults.
In other words, dont tell anyone their new priest buggers little boys and is KNOWN to be a pedophile??
• A bishop is neither morally nor legally responsible for the criminal acts of one of his priests, unless he failed in his obligation to form the priest properly.
Allowing pedophiles to run a church is not a moral failure??
• Bishops should not turn over accusations of sexual abuse to the civil authorities simply to minimize liability in a lawsuit that the victim might file.
How about to prosecute the pervert, instead? Can they turn the pervert over to the civl authorities for that instead?
Volume V of Canon Law Digest
“Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers”.
This corrupt organization needs to cease it's existence!!! An organization that thinks like this is past redemption!!!
Take your allegations to the bishop only, don't go after the priest.
The bishop will take care of notifying the authorities.
• Bishops should not turn over accusations of sexual abuse to the civil authorities
No, wait. The bishop won't be calling the cops, but the church
will compensate you for your pain and suffering.
• A bishop is neither morally nor legally responsible for the criminal acts of one of his priests.
No, wait. The church is not going to be paying you a dime, but
the priest will be punished.
• If a bishop decides to reassign a priest who has previously been found
guilty of a sexual offense, he should not inform the new parish of the priest’s past.
No, wait. Nothing will be any different from the way it was. If anything,
following these rules will 1) stop any more compensation to victims,
2) stop any involvement by civil authorities, 3) allow pedophile
priests to continue their predation.
That's quite an improvement.
I've been trying to figure out what could possibly be behind all of the footdragging on the part of the Church..and I can only come up with a few possibilities:
1) Liberalism and moral relativism have taken over the church. The leadership now believes that molesting children is not inherently evil, but rather somehow a topic of "situational ethics". In addition, since no one is really responsible for their crimes (its society's fault), then we should not be too harsh with these priests.
2) The church is awash in homosexual priests with various deviant pasts..and they are "covering" for their fellow priests who have gotten caught.
3) The church is worried about the priest shortage, and knows that if all of the deviant priests are kicked out, the problem will become untenable.
4) The church continues to hope that it can sweep these cases under the rug to avoid embarassment.
None of these excuses even comes close to being legitimate. Zero tolerance is the only possible moral policy. An accused priest should be put on paid leave while the situation is investigated (and assumed to be innocent until proven guilty). If guilt is proven, the priest should be defrocked and all records turned over to the legal authorities. Any other policy on the part of the church is immoral and unacceptable.
As a life-long orthodox Catholic, I am appalled at this attitude! Just last week the pastor of my parish was removed for sexual child abuse (the same day the bishops voted on the new policy). What we didn't know then, and I've found out since (not through the archdiocese, though) is that he had an adopted son living with him in the rectory when he was at a previous parish! Now why, after 14 years in this parish, did none of us have any idea that he had an adopted son?! This would have been a serious warning to watch him extra carefully. I'm livid at the bishops!
Yet, I don't believe because of the bishops. I believe in spite of them!
I have been trying to answer this same question and came up with the same four reasons!
According to Michael Rose, in his talk last night in Altoona, the Canon Law approach has been ignored because the canon law proceedings would shed too much light on the gay infrastructure that undergirds the coverup up the homosexual abuse crisis in the Church.
Canon law already provides that a priest can be removed from the active ministry for ONE sin against the Sixth Commandment with a person younger than 18*.
*Universal law says 16, but particular law for the US says 18 until at least 2009.
Why do the bishops think they need new authority, when they don't enforce the law they already have?
Moreover, this policy is not "zero tolerence", it's got a "one free strike grandfather clause".
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.