(Posted June 23, 2003)
Sharon Doty, Esq.
Consultant, Transition Management, LLC
There are few issues that have stirred up the faith community more than the discussion of what to do with priests who molest children—particularly those whose offenses occurred years ago. The decision of the bishops to include a provision in the Charter on the Protection of Children and Young People (Charter) that allows a priest to remain in the priesthood has generated many questions and many strong opinions. In this article, we will attempt to discuss the questions raised by this controversial provision in the Charter.
Our intent is to give a voice to the concerns, to clarify any misconceptions about the Charter provision, and to offer some analysis of the bishops’ decision. In the end, it is up to each of us to resolve this issue for ourselves.
Questions about this issue arise in four basic categories:
Why would the Church allow anyone who ever abused a child to stay in the priesthood?
This question demonstrates the frustration of many people surrounding this issue. It seems there should be a better way to deal with priests who have abused children. For many people it simply doesn’t seem right to allow a man to stay in the priesthood if he has ever had a sexual interaction with a child.
Although this seems reasonable, there are several complicated issues that arise for the bishops. In the Charter, they attempted to address the various contingencies and situations they must deal with in the resolution of these matters.
Make no mistake, however, that the Charter implements a policy of “zero tolerance” for priests who molest children. It says, "for even a single act of sexual abuse ... of a minor—past, present, or future—the offending priest or deacon will be permanently removed from ministry, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, if the case so warrants..." [i]
This zero tolerance policy applies to any priest who has sexually molested any child at any time. This means that whether the incident happened three months ago, or 30 years ago, the offending clergy will be permanently removed from ministry. “Removal from ministry,” however, can take many forms.
For example, Article 5 acknowledges the canonical penalties that can be imposed. The most serious canonical penalty is the laicization, or removal from the clerical state, of the offending priest. In order to follow through with these penalties, the bishops must carefully follow the guidelines set forth in canon law.
Laicization is not always a workable solution. In that case, the Charter states, "If the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state has not been applied (e.g., for reasons of advanced age or infirmity), the offender ought to lead a life of prayer and penance. He will not be permitted to celebrate Mass publicly or to administer the sacraments. He is to be instructed not to wear clerical garb or to present himself publicly as a priest."
In making the decision whether to pursue laicization, the bishops must consider several factors. In addition to the age and health of the offending cleric, the bishops had to develop a workable solution to the problem of what to do about priests who abused but are no longer subject to criminal or civil prosecution.
The Church has been chastised by the faith community and the media for its failure to deal responsibly with clergy who were abusing children. The primary complaint is that the Church moved clergy around rather than taking them "out of circulation" and away from children. Maintaining control and oversight over offending clergy is the solution they selected.
There are two primary reasons that the Church should maintain some control over offending clergy in situations where the statute of limitations has expired:
First, there is the pastoral responsibility of the Church to the faith community. The Church has a moral and ethical responsibility to stop the abuse and prevent it from happening again. The Church must assure the faith community that it is taking steps to prevent this from ever happening again. Maintaining ongoing control over the actions of offending clergy who are not subject to prosecution is the only way that the Church can prevent future abuse.
Many think that the best thing for the Church to do is to simply throw the clerics out. After all, that is what we do in other venues and what other churches have done. However, laicising a priest who is not subject to public scrutiny does not prevent the abuse from occurring again—it simply sends the offender “down the road” to do it again in another environment. The Church has a higher responsibility. The Church must maintain control over the comings and goings of offending clergy who are beyond the reach of the law.
Because of their past failure in this area, some have difficulty trusting the bishops to keep a diligent watch. However, it is their job and their responsibility. And, the fact that they have made some poor decisions in the past does not absolve them of their pastoral responsibility to everyone concerned. In many ways, it increases their duty to maintain a careful watch and to take the necessary steps to protect children within the Church.
Second, the Church has a responsibility to the greater community. Laicized clerics are free to come and go as they please. They are no longer under the Church's guidance and supervision. If they are not prosecutable, they cannot be labeled as sex offenders. Therefore, any one of them could move into your neighborhood unidentified, unrecognized, and unsupervised. In that case, nobody's children would be safe. Allowing an unsupervised child molester to wander freely around our communities is no different than reassigning him to a new parish without warning anyone of the risk.
By keeping them within the structure of the Church, and forbidding them to represent themselves as "priest" or to participate as priests in any public arena, the Church is living up to its duty to prevent child sexual abuse. Better that they be living under the careful supervision and watchful eye of a highly sensitized church, than living alone, perhaps unemployed, next door to you or to your child's school.
What is the Church’s justification for keeping priests whose offenses are recent enough to be prosecutable?
The Charter provides for the removal of offending priests from any ministry without exception. However, remember that in canon law as well as in the courts of the United States, an accused is innocent until proven guilty. The decision to prosecute is made by the civil authorities, not the Church. As the Charter clearly states, that decision does not impact the Church’s responsibility to protect the community if a priest is determined to be guilty of the alleged offenses.
How does the Church, which has done such a poor job of managing this problem in the past, think it can now be responsible for monitoring the activities of priests who are a risk to children?
Perhaps because the Church is aware of the difficulty and the many pitfalls of monitoring offending clergy, it is best suited to the task. No one knows better how “not” to do the job and no group is under more public scrutiny.
In any case, there is nobody else who can take on the task. If priests are removed from clerical status, the Church has no further say in what they do, where they go, or how they act. These offending priests would be left to their own devices with no one watching out for them. It is the Church’s job to take action to prevent future abuse.
How can we ask a local faith community to continue to give their money to support a priest who has abused one of its own children?
This is a difficult issue to address. Each member of the faith community must decide for himself or herself whether the contribution they make to the good work of the Church should be diminished because they are unhappy that some small portion is used to house, feed, and support offending priests who are aged or infirm. Some are unwilling, which is unfortunate.
The Church’s good work in the world needs our support. The cost of running our parishes, schools, and programs has not changed because of a few “bad apples” in the priesthood.
The Church asks people in the faith community to be responsible stewards of the gifts God has given them and to provide the Church with the wherewithal that it needs to do God’s work on earth. As with any request, each individual must answer for himself or herself.
However, to be responsible stewards requires that we see the consequences of our withdrawal of financial support.
Will that priest in the nursing home or the monastery be laicized and sent on his way? No …
Will other programs of the Church suffer? Yes …
Are you willing to risk the programs and services to children, young people, young adults, seniors, the poor, and others, in order to assure that none of your contribution is used to support an offending priest? That is a question you must answer for yourself.
Conclusion:
The issues that arise during a discussion of what to do with offending priests who are outside the jurisdiction of the law are complex and frustrating. The bishops have developed what they consider to be the best answer to a difficult and challenging problem. Not everyone will agree with the bishops’ approach. However, we can all acknowledge that for the bishops to turn their backs on the consequences to the community if they simply wash their hands of offending clergy would be irresponsible.
Bishops must provide pastoral support for and leadership to each and every member of the faith community—victims, offenders, faith communities, families, and all others. It is their ministry. The shepherd must care for all the flock, even those who stray. And, as unpopular as it may be on a case-by-case basis, keeping known offenders under the watchful eye of a highly sensitized Church is a much more effective way to protect children than some of the other alternatives.
[i] Article 5: We repeat the words of our Holy Father in his Address to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers: "There is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young."
When an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or a deacon is received, a preliminary investigation, in harmony with canon law (CIC[i][i], cc. 1717-1719; CCEO[i][i][i], cc. 1468-1470), will be initiated and conducted promptly and objectively. If this investigation so indicates, the diocesan/eparchial bishop will both notify the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and apply the precautionary measures mentioned in CIC, canon 1722, or CCEO, canon 1473—i.e., relieve the alleged offender promptly of his ministerial duties. The alleged offender may be requested to seek, or urged voluntarily to comply with, an appropriate medical and psychological evaluation, so long as this does not interfere with the investigation by civil authorities. When the accusation has proved to be unfounded, every step possible will be taken to restore the good name of the priest or deacon.
When sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or a deacon is admitted or is established after an appropriate process in accord with canon law, the following will pertain:
-
Diocesan/eparchial policy will provide that for even a single act of sexual abuse (see Article 1, note *) of a minor—past, present, or future—the offending priest or deacon will be permanently removed from ministry, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, if the case so warrants. In keeping with the stated purpose of this Charter, an offending priest or deacon will be offered professional assistance for his own healing and well-being, as well as for the purpose of prevention.
-
In every case involving canonical penalties, the processes provided for in canon law must be observed (cf. Canonical Delicts Involving Sexual Misconduct and Dismissal from the Clerical State, 1995; cf. Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001). For the sake of due process, the accused is to be encouraged to retain the assistance of civil and canonical counsel. When necessary, the diocese/eparchy will supply canonical counsel to a priest or deacon.
-
If the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state has not been applied (e.g., for reasons of advanced age or infirmity), the offender ought to lead a life of prayer and penance. He will not be permitted to celebrate Mass publicly or to administer the sacraments. He is to be instructed not to wear clerical garb or to present himself publicly as a priest.
-
At all times, the diocesan bishop/eparch has the executive power of governance, through an administrative act, to remove an offending cleric from office, to remove or restrict his faculties, and to limit his exercise of priestly ministry. Because sexual abuse of a minor is a crime in all jurisdictions in the United States, for the sake of the common good and observing the provisions of canon law, the diocesan bishop/eparch shall exercise this power of governance to ensure that any priest or deacon who has committed even one act of sexual abuse of a minor as described above shall not continue in active ministry.
[i][i] CIC is the abbreviation for the Latin term Codex Iuris Canonici, which refers to the Code of Canon Law in the Western Church. There have been two codes in the Western Church, both issued this century. Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917, and its replacement, the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1983. This definition was taken from page 247 of Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, Revised Edition, Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Editor. Copyright 1998 by Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, Indiana.
[i][i][i] CCEO is the abbreviation for the Latin term Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, which refers to The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. This definition was taken from The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Latin-English Edition), as prepared by the Canon Law Society of America with the approval of the Eastern Catholic eparchs in the United States.
