BishopAccountability.org
 
  Scandals in the Church: the Bishops' Conference
Bishops Set Policy to Remove Priests in Sex Abuse Cases

By Laurie Goodstein and Sam Dillon
New York Times
June 15, 2002

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/15/us/scandals-church-bishops-conference-bishops-set-policy-remove-priests-sex-abuse.html

DALLAS, June 14— The nation's Roman Catholic bishops decided today to bar any priest who has ever sexually abused a minor from ministerial duties, acknowledging in anguished debate that with the eyes of the world on them they could no longer offer any protection to predator priests.

The decision -- the centerpiece of a binding national policy intended to deal with the devastating sexual abuse crisis in the church -- means that any priest known to have ever abused a child, no matter how long ago, may no longer serve as a pastor or chaplain in a parish, school, hospital or nursing home. He may retain the title of priest, but he will no longer be allowed to dress in clerical garb or to say Mass anywhere but in private. [Text, Page A12.]

The bishops retreated, however, from a previous stance that would have taken the more punitive step of asking the pope to defrock -- or reduce to layman's status -- every egregious and multiple offender.

Defrocking can be a cumbersome process taking years in Vatican courts, and the compromise will leave bishops free to decide whether to invoke this measure case by case.

"From this day forward," said Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "no one known to have sexually abused a child will work in the Catholic church in the United States. We bishops apologize to anyone harmed by one of our priests, and for our tragically slow response in recognizing the horror of sexual abuse."

The bishops also committed themselves to alerting civil authorities to all accusations of sexual abuse of a minor by members of the clergy. Despite strong objections from some bishops, they adopted a broad definition of abuse to include even situations that did not involve force or direct physical contact, but were still coercive. It was unclear how the bishops' decisions would be received in the Vatican, though they seemed cautiously optimistic that the policies would be endorsed. A Vatican spokesman said earlier today that there would be no reaction to the decisions in Dallas until Vatican officials could carefully examine them.

In addition to the policy changes, Bishop Gregory announced formation of an outside review board, led by Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma, a Catholic, to monitor compliance.

Many victims of priests said they were disappointed that the bishops failed to insist that all priests who had abused minors be defrocked.

"You take away their ministry, take them out of their jobs, but they are still Roman Catholic priests," said Mark Serrano, a public relations executive in Washington and a member of the board of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests.

David Clohessy, director of the survivors network, said the bishops had made progress, but expressed skepticism about how thoroughly the new policies would be carried out.

"On paper, there is no question that the church has made more extensive promises and recommendations than ever, but it's still on paper," Mr. Clohessy said.

Recalling 1992, when the conference passed previous recommendations on child abuse, Mr. Clohessy said, "Those statements looked impressive, too."

The new policy differs in several ways from the draft a committee of bishops released 10 days ago, which many bishops and victims had criticized as not going far enough. In particular, the new version eliminates a distinction between past and future cases of abuse; the earlier draft suggested the possibility of handling older cases with greater leniency.

Today's sexual abuse policy -- formally called the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People -- was approved by the bishops on a secret ballot, with 239 voting for it, 13 voting against and 32 abstaining. There are 195 dioceses in the United States, and some have auxiliary bishops who also voted.

Despite the lopsided vote, a significant number of prelates took to the microphones to argue passionately against a zero-tolerance approach, against the broader definition of sexual abuse and against forwarding all accusations to the civil authorities.

Some dissenters argued that instituting the measures could irrevocably change the relationship between a bishop and his priests. Others contended so unforgiving an approach contradicted Catholic teaching that for every sinner there is the possibility of repentance and redemption.

Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany rallied a last-ditch challenge to the provision barring abusers from the ministry, arguing that the New York legislators who passed the one-size-fits-all penalties for drug traffickers known as the Rockefeller drug laws later found such measures often harmed more than they helped.

Bishop Hubbard noted that only last year the bishops' conference had approved a pastoral letter calling for American society to rehabilitate criminals and seek what is known as restorative justice. "Do we advocate this biblical concept for the community at large, but not for our own priests?" he asked.

Just before they voted, the bishops fell silent when they saw Cardinal Avery Dulles move to the microphone. A theologian at Fordham University elevated to cardinal, Cardinal Dulles has no vote but wields tremendous influence.

The bishops' document "puts a very adversarial relationship between the bishop and the priest," Cardinal Dulles said. "The priest can no longer go to his bishop in confidence with a problem that he has. He has to be very careful what he says to the bishop because the bishop can throw him out of the ministry for his entire life."

But most other American cardinals, like Bernard F. Law of Boston and Edward M. Egan of New York, voiced support for the document.

Whether the Vatican will support the bishops' new measures remains to be seen. The committee of bishops drafting the policy called the charter a "pastoral document" and said all dioceses would be required to follow it. But the bishops do not plan to submit the charter to the Vatican for approval, said Bishop Joseph A. Galante, coadjutor bishop of Dallas and a member of the drafting committee.

The bishops approved a second document of "norms" that will be submitted to the Vatican for approval. The norms include all requests for changes in church law that are needed for the American bishops to enact their new policies. Many deal with speeding the process for removing a priest from the ministry.

In asserting that the Vatican would approve their new policies, many bishops cited Pope John Paul II's statement in April that no abusers ought to be allowed to serve in the priesthood. But, as Bishop Gregory said to the bishops discussing Vatican approval this evening, "I would never go to the Holy See assuming I have a slam dunk."

At a news conference tonight, Bishop Gregory said that the new national review board, to be led by Governor Keating, would undertake a study of the extent and causes of the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, including numbers of abusers and victims, and would help police adherence to the new charter.

Other board members named today included Robert S. Bennett, a prominent Washington lawyer who defended President Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case, and Justice Anne Burke of the Illinois Court of Appeals. Justice Burke is an expert on child welfare issues.

The board will eventually include 15 to 20 more members, and Mr. Keating said that they would include some victims of sexual abuse by priests.

Mr. Keating was asked whether his committee would call on the pope to remove bishops whom it found to have systematically covered up abuses by priests in their dioceses.

"Yes, I think that should be done," he replied. "The reality is that this is not only a horrible sin to do these things, but it is also a criminal act. To suggest that somebody like that would get away in the eyes of the church is inconceivable to me."

The bishops were plagued by critics who said the new charter had no enforcement mechanism. The bishops tried to respond to that by instituting the national review board, along with regional boards that will monitor the dioceses for compliance.

The charter also calls for every diocese to appoint a review board, mostly of laypeople, to hear accusations of abuse and help bishops decide what measures or penalties are needed for the priests in each case.

Efforts by some bishops to use this crisis to further the favorite causes of the church's right or left flanks were rejected. Bishops turned down an amendment by Auxiliary Bishop Thomas J. Curry of Los Angeles to set up a commission to study increased involvement of laypeople in all aspects of church life, and rejected another by Bishop Fabian Brusketwiz of Lincoln, Neb., calling for an examination of the role of gay priests in the sexual abuse crisis.

Ultimately, the bishops agreed that instituting a no-ministry-for-abusers policy was needed to recover the church's good name.

"It hurts to say I support zero tolerance," Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua of Philadelphia said. "I wish I didn't have to do that. I wish our circumstances were different. But at the same time in our present crisis, we must place the common good of our church first."

Photos: Cardinals Anthony J. Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, left, and Bernard F. Law of Boston rose to applaud yesterday after the bishops' conference approved a policy to deal with sexual abuse by members of the clergy.; Members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops marked ballots yesterday in the vote to remove from the ministry any priest who had ever sexually abused a minor. The policy was adopted. (Pool photographs by Eric Gay)(pg. A13); Cardinal Edward M. Egan addressing the bishops yesterday. (Pool photo by Rick Wilking)(pg. A1)

 
 

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