BishopAccountability.org
 
  Priest-Abuse Policy Likely to Stay As Is
Catholic Bishops Meeting over 1-Strike Rule

By Margaret Ramirez
Chicago Tribune [Chicago IL]
June 15, 2005

At a meeting in Chicago this week, the nation's Roman Catholic bishops are expected to retain the church's zero-tolerance policy requiring that all priests who have committed even one act of sexual abuse be removed permanently from ministry.

Yet only three years after the church's abuse scandal erupted, some leaders are discussing whether the policy should eventually be modified--especially in cases of limited offenses committed years ago followed by an unblemished record.

Such talk, however preliminary, worries victims' advocates who say easing the policy would restore power to the hands of their abusers. Several Catholic lay groups plan to protest at the meeting, demanding that bishops who knowingly protected abusers be disciplined.

In an interview last week, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, vice president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, voiced his support for zero tolerance and said bishops will recommend keeping the policy.

"We've all had the experience, of several years, of working with this. The norms have served us well. And I think most bishops understand that," George said. "If the sexual abuse is very clear, this makes somebody, from my perspective, unsuitable for ministry and so that remains the case."

Bishops drafted the rule, also referred to as the "one-strike policy," in 2002 amid waves of abuse allegations and charges of church cover-ups.

The Vatican approved it in December 2002 for a two-year trial period as part of a child protection charter and a related canonical law document that are officially known as the "Essential Norms." Bishops say the policy has led to the removal of nearly 700 abusive priests.

The three-day bishops meeting, which begins Thursday at the Fairmont Chicago hotel, is the first time the bishops have convened to revise the documents since they were adopted.

The bishops are expected to approve a broader definition of sexual abuse that will cover priests who buy or disseminate child pornography. They also will be asked to approve spending $1 million in reserve funds toward an in-depth study of the "causes and contexts" of the abuse crisis. The study is expected to focus on whether abuse might be related to homosexuality, celibacy and other issues.

Though the zero-tolerance rule is not expected to be altered, comments released by the bishops' ad hoc committee on sexual abuse noted the policy had been the subject of "a great deal of comment" among members reviewing the norms.

"Many, perhaps a majority, wish it could be modified in the future," the document said, concluding that the policy "needs to be retained for now."

Bishop Joseph L. Imesch of Joliet said he wants bishops eventually to reconsider the one-strike policy--even if this is not the right time. "The bishops talk about it among themselves," Imesch said. "None of us are happy with `one strike, you're out.' None of us can come up with a good alternative."

Rev. Robert Silva, president of the National Federation of Priests' Councils, is also unhappy with the rule. But he agrees it is too early to object, as the bishops still must demonstrate they are carrying the burden and not shirking their responsibility.

"I would like to see that zero-tolerance policy moderated in such a way that individual cases would be handled in a way that there is some discretion," Silva said. "But I don't think that's going to happen. I don't know that it would be timely to do that. It is still a concern that there is no discretion allowed."

Victims' advocates want to uphold zero tolerance but say the policy needs to be better monitored and enforced. They also say several proposed changes to the abuse policy would weaken the norms.

"We believe the zero-tolerance policy is only enforced sporadically, at best," said David Clohessy, executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. "To a degree, what the document says is less relevant than what bishops do. We believe it is a weak and vague document and at various junctures in the past three years has been weakened even more, and that's likely to happen again this week in Chicago."

At the meeting, bishops are expected to add text stating: "A priest or deacon who is accused of sexual abuse of a minor is to be accorded the presumption of innocence during the investigation of the allegation."

Another revision changes how bishops handle abuse committed long ago. Canon law provides a 10-year statute of limitations for such crimes.

The original text of the norms said bishops "shall apply" for a waiver of that statute to prosecute offenders "because sexual abuse of a minor is a grave offense." The proposed revision says bishops "may apply" for such a waiver.

Monsignor Ronny E. Jenkins, assistant professor in the school of canon law at the Catholic University of America and a consultant to the bishops conference, said the revision was made because in many cases victims have come forward with information on a priest but said they were not interested in pursuing prosecution. In those instances, without cooperation from the victim, it proves impossible to have a canonical trial.

"It didn't make sense to say that in every single case the bishop must apply for this waiver," Jenkins said.

That change is disturbing to victims, Clohessy said, as "it restores discretion to the very men who so severely for decades abused their discretion."

One proposed revision commended by victims' groups would drop a detailed definition of sexual abuse in favor of a broader version that defines abuse as any offense with a minor that violates the 6th Commandment on adultery.

"We didn't want to limit this to a laundry list of offenses," Jenkins explained. "If we limited the definition to specific acts of abuse, it's difficult to determine where you put something like child pornography."

Several groups, including SNAP and Voice of the Faithful, have drawn up their own list of proposed revisions.

One recommendation includes adding text that would discuss consequences for bishops who knowingly kept child abusers in ministry.

Victims' advocates also are demanding that bishops publish names of abusive priests and ex-priests on their diocesan Web sites. Several bishops have already taken such steps, including those in Baltimore; Los Angeles; Milwaukee; Tucson, Ariz.; and Spokane, Wash.

Nationwide, the financial fallout from the abuse crisis has been severe. This month the diocese of Covington, Ky., agreed to a $120 million settlement to compensate victims abused as children by priests and other employees, the largest settlement related to the crisis.

In 2003 the Boston archdiocese, where the scandal first erupted, settled with 552 victims for $85 million.

So far, three dioceses have filed bankruptcy claims because of abuse allegations: Tucson, Portland and Spokane.

The Chicago archdiocese paid $18.2 million in settlements for sexual abuse cases last year. Since 2002, 19 of its priests have been removed from ministry.

Any changes passed by the bishops at the Chicago meeting will go to the Vatican for approval. But George said he is hopeful Pope Benedict XVI will accept the revisions.

 
 

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