ORLANDO (FL)
BishopAccountability.org [Waltham MA]
June 10, 2026
By Terence McKiernan
[For immediate release]
Archbishop William Shawn McKnight’s intervention today at the USCCB plenary after the presentation on the revised Charter was welcome. McKnight correctly points out that, if approved, the revised Charter would be problematic both for abuse survivors who have come forward and for survivors who have not yet done so. To alienate the very people on whose behalf the Charter and Norms were originally adopted would be an unforced error, and also a disastrous move, as McKnight made clear, in the run-up to the 25th anniversary of the bishops’ momentous 2002 meeting in Dallas.
McKnight’s proposal to postpone voting and get more input creates an opportunity that the plenary should embrace on Thursday. The Charter was last revised in 2018, a pivotal year in the ongoing clergy abuse crisis, when the McCarrick case and the Pennsylvania grand jury report together put the U.S. Catholic church back into crisis. In the years since, with many AG reports and diocesan bankruptcies, and nearly every diocese releasing lists of accused, a profoundly evolved situation requires a Charter that is equal to the task. Archbishop Gabriele Caccia will watch with interest to see whether the conference is up to this challenge.
As McKnight made clear, the challenge is actually a synodal opportunity to involve the true stakeholders, and not the tired USCCB abuse bureaucracy. If this is done right and survivors are part of the process in every diocese, the U.S. Catholic church could finally get a handle on a crisis that has eluded its grasp for 40 years. Including adult survivors is a must if this impasse is to be transformed into a game-changer.
**
[Below is the statement that BishopAccountability.org sent in the morning of 6/10/2026.]
Statement by Terence McKiernan and Anne Barrett Doyle of BishopAccountability.org on Revisions to the Charter
Updating the Dallas Charter now and then is a good idea, as was done in 2005, 2011, 2018, and now again in 2026. It is interesting that the draft revision published by The Pillar includes a curious statement that the revised Charter “is not intended to be applicable or have any impact in any secular court or proceedings.” One senses the intervention of church lawyers. Perhaps this revision was inspired by New York Attorney General Letitia James’s 2020 Complaint in The People of the State of New York v. Diocese of Buffalo, Richard J. Malone, et al. and the 2022 Stipulation of Settlement, which turned on the Diocese of Buffalo’s failure to implement the Charter. Are we meant to take the Charter and its new revisions with a grain of salt?
There are subtle signs that the bishops are backing away from their commitment to survivors and the value of accountability. The revision removes Pope Francis’s powerful acknowledgment of the survivors’ courage and their “service of love, since for us it sheds light on a terrible darkness in the life of the Church.” Also in the Preamble (emphasis added), the Secretariat no longer “provides the means for us to be accountable,” and the Review Board no longer has “responsibility to assist in the assessment of diocesan/eparchial compliance with the Charter.” In Article 5, the emphatic phrase “even a single act of sexual abuse” has been toned down, in a step away from the Essential Norms’ commitment to zero tolerance. There is a general tone of retreat from the systems and vigor of the original Charter and in particular the original National Review Board.
Instead, a self-satisfied, even self-congratulatory tone has replaced the shock and horror of 2002: “Although sexual abuse continues to be a scourge in society in general, we believe the Church is increasingly becoming a safe place for minors and a place to receive help.” (end of the Preamble) Anyone who has followed the grotesque revelations about Bishop Richard F. Stika and the conviction of Father Anthony Odiong will have their doubts about this sanguine self-assessment. BishopAccountability.org is conducting a survey of priests accused of abusing children in recent years. The data collected so far indicate that about 400 priests have allegedly abused children since 2000, certainly an improvement from the mid-1980s but still quite concerning. CARA’s 20-year summary report states that 548 “credible allegations” involve abuse that occurred or began from 2004 to 2023.
The draft revised Charter shows no awareness of this phenomenon, or of its implications for seminary formation and the vetting of foreign priests. The authors of these revisions seem to have slept through most of the important developments of recent years:
- an understanding that spiritual abuse is ubiquitous
- the recognition conveyed in Vos estis lux mundi that the abuse of adults is a serious problem in the Church
- the emphasis in Vos estis on protections for whistleblowers
- the concern that the Vos Estis system doesn’t effectively address episcopal culpability
- a reckoning regarding abuse by religious sisters
- a belated realization that many religious sisters suffer abuse by priests and by their own superiors
- an urgent concern for abuse of Native Americans and Black Americans
- the criticism by the Holy See of diocesan and religious order lists of accused
- the questions about defining credible or substantiated allegations
Instead, the authors of the latest revised Charter have chosen to highlight unsubstantiated allegations and false allegations, including the restoration of status for priests incorrectly accused. These important due process concerns are already amply provided for in canon law, in the 2018 Charter, and in the Essential Norms. Indeed, the canon law process is still oriented to privilege the priest, and a victim of abuse has inferior status, appearing only as a witness.
The authors of the revisions appear to have full confidence in the reliability of preliminary investigations and the canonical process (Article 5) when reinstating priests, unaware or in denial of the problems with diocesan investigations that have been revealed in reports of attorneys general. This is how the recent Rhode Island Attorney General describes those problems:
Historically, the Diocese’s investigations have been plagued by such issues as open-ended and indefinite timeframes and a lack of clear deadlines; failures to interview complainants, material witnesses, additional potential victims, and even accused priests themselves; inappropriate investigative techniques such as the use of polygraphs on victims; uncertain standards of evidence and credibility; unsupported factual and legal conclusions by the Director of Compliance; a lack of clear, meaningful, regular oversight of the Director’s investigatory decisions; and an overall lack of transparency, including the absence of regular, clear communication with complainants about the status of their cases. (RI AG Report, page 244)
Unless the Charter incorporates the reforms recommended by the Attorney General, the revised Charter’s determination to restore to ministry acquitted priests and priests whose allegations are judged not to have the semblance of truth will endanger children. The current investigation process is not reliable or transparent.
Contacts
Terence McKiernan, President and Co-Director
508-479-9304 cell
mckiernan1@comcast.net
Anne Barrett Doyle, Co-Director
781-439-5208 cell
barrett.doyle@comcast.net
About BishopAccountability.org
Founded in 2003, BishopAccountability.org maintains the world’s largest archive of documents on the problem of clergy sexual abuse, outside the Holy See’s own archives. We conduct research on child sexual abuse by priests and religious and on the management of those cases by bishops and their staffs, superiors of religious orders, and the Holy See. An independent non-profit based in Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, BishopAccountability.org is not a victims’ advocacy group and is not affiliated with any church, reform, or victims’ organization.