U.S. Bishops Adopt New Protocols for Holding Themselves Accountable for Sex Abuse
By Michael J. O’Loughlin
U.S. Catholic bishops voted overwhelmingly in Baltimore on Thursday to adopt new protocols aimed at holding themselves accountable for committing sexual abuse themselves and for mishandling accusations of abuse made known to them. While the new protocols are designed to include laypeople at every stage of an investigation—they advise that bishops “should” include laypeople by way of an office in their chanceries—lay reform groups and victim advocates say they are unsatisfied, as the new rules stop just short of requiring such involvement. In response to a new Vatican law enacted in June, detailed in the motu proprio“Vos estis lux mundi,” which requires bishops around the world to create structures aimed at bishop accountability, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops voted to create a third-party reporting hotline; to adopt a procedure for receiving those complaints and include laypeople to investigate them; and to compile into one place existing measures that restrict the public ministry of retired bishops who leave office “for grave reason.” Bishops also approved a code of conduct that they say binds them to the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. According to one new protocol, a metropolitan bishop, who oversees bishops in a geographic area, “should” appoint “a qualified lay person to receive reports” from the hotline about misconduct by a bishop. If the report is deemed credible and if the Vatican orders an investigation into a bishop, the metropolitan “should appoint an investigator chosen from among the lay persons previously identified by the province.” Additionally, the metropolitan bishop “should also make use of qualified experts” who are “chosen predominantly from among lay persons.” Cardinal Blase Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago and an adviser to Pope Francis who participated in the February meeting at the Vatican of bishops from around the world to discuss sex abuse, drafted the amendment that strengthened the language about including laypeople in investigations. But because the Vatican’s own law stops short of mandating lay involvement—though it does say laypeople can be involved—some U.S. bishops said they could not require lay involvement. Many bishops pointed out that they already rely on lay expertise for assistance in many areas and that it would be highly unlikely to to conduct an investigation without laypeople. The measure passed by a vote of 218 to 1, with two bishops abstaining. Kim Smolik, the chief executive officer of the lay reform group Leadership Roundtable, said she was “pleased that multiple bishops requested to specify lay involvement in the documents” but that the organization was “disappointed” such involvement was not mandated. She said that while the Vatican’s law does not require lay involvement, it was “an open door for each region of the world to be able to enact and involve the laity at the level which they felt was necessary.” “The motu proprio is a floor, not a ceiling,” Ms. Smolik said. “We hoped the bishops would treat it that way and require an institutionalized lay involvement.” She added that her organization, which has hosted recent meetings with top church leaders on the issue of accountability, hopes bishops will enact an auditing procedure to measure the implementation of the new rules and address the “root causes” of what she called a “leadership crisis.” The victim advocacy group Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests said in a statement that without mandating lay involvement and requiring that all allegations of abuse or mismanagement be reported to civil authorities, the new protocols lack bite. “Without these mandates, there is no guarantee that reports will be routed to police and investigations will be transparent and public. Instead, all reports can remain secret and insulated within the church’s internal systems,” the statement said. According to the new rules, the metropolitan bishops are required to report allegations of criminal conduct to civil authorities as required by laws in their jurisdictions. In a press release issued Thursday, the U.S.C.C.B. urged victims of abuse not to wait until the implementation of the reporting system before making their claims known. “Individuals who may have been abused should contact local civil authorities to file a report as soon as possible, and may also report to Church authorities by existing means, such as Victims’ Assistance Coordinators,” the statement said. “After reporting to civil authorities, individuals can also register a complaint with the metropolitan for issues related to sexual abuse or an abuse of power.” [What do you think about the bishops’ response to sexual abuse? Let us know in our short reader survey] Bishops rejected a proposed amendment made by Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento that would have required an “independent, transparent” audit of the new protocols after a three-year trial period. The committee charged with drafting the proposal said the amendment’s intent was “worthy” but said it is “outside the scope” of the Vatican’s new rule. In discussions about the amendment, some bishops expressed concern that without an audit, it would be unclear how the three-year trial period fared. Bishop Shawn McKnight, the head of the Diocese of Jefferson City, Mo., told the assembly he believed lay involvement should be “mandatory.” “I believe we should do that because it’s the Catholic thing to do,” he said. Many bishops applauded in response. Bishops adopted the protocol during a special meeting—normally the bishops gather for a retreat in June—after efforts to vote on accountability measures were delayed in November at the request of Vatican officials until after the global meeting of bishops in February. Another protocol enumerates existing restrictions that a bishop can place on an emeritus bishop who leaves his office because of abuse or allegations of mismanagement. In a 212-to-4 vote, with one bishop abstaining, bishops adopted a policy giving them the ability to restrict the ministry of retired bishops who left office “for grave cause.” Those retired bishops can be restricted from preaching and administering the sacraments publicly. In addition, the current bishop can request that the retired bishop reside outside his former diocese and certain limitations can be placed on his retirement income, especially funds for travel and secretarial assistance. Bishops can also request that the retired bishop be denied his right to be buried in the diocese’s cathedral. The measures are “non-penal restrictions” because only the pope can “impose penalties on bishops who have committed offensive acts,” a document from the U.S.C.C.B. explains. But bishops can place some restrictions on other bishops and the new protocols aim at taking action to limit the public presence of a disgraced prelate.
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.