• Sharon Euart, R.S.M.,
• Daniel E. Pilarczyk
• Rev. Robert Imbelli
• Thomas L. P. O’Donnell, Esq.
• Michael Novak
• Lisa Sowle Cahill

At their June 2002 spring assembly the U.S. bishops approved the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and the accompanying Essential Norms which provide a normative structure for many of the articles contained in the charter. These documents contain the blueprint for future action in the dioceses and eparchies of this country. Some provisions of the charter already exist in many dioceses, others will require modification or revision of diocesan policies, still others call for new initiatives and new diocesan policies. For all dioceses, however, the charter is the new standard.
      I join my voice to those who acknowledge the significance of the steps taken by the bishops in Dallas to ensure the protection of our children and young people in the future. At the same time, I believe there remain some as yet unfinished or unaddressed canonical issues that impact implementation of their decisions.
      Pending the approval of the Norms by the Holy See, efforts to apply the provisions of the charter or the norms within a diocese must be consistent with the universal law of the church. For example, the bishops’ decision to prohibit permanently any priest who ever sexually abused a minor from serving in church ministry (Art. 5; N. 9) raises concern regarding its consistency with our existing canon law’s statute of limitations, which allows alleged victims up to age 28 to bring a claim of sexual abuse against a priest. The Dallas charter permits allegations by persons older than 28 to be brought forward. The current statute of limitations, however, continues to be law unless or until it is changed by the Holy See. Therefore, any implementation of this provision in U.S. dioceses and eparchies should be done carefully and cautiously with attention to the existing universal law of the church.
      I have a general concern about the application of the norms in a manner that is attentive both to our principles of due process and the procedures that respect such principles. The charter briefly mentions “due process” as the basis for “encouraging” the accused to retain civil and canonical counsel (Art. 5), yet the very foundation of our church’s canonical tradition is built on the recognition and protection of basic human rights. The universal law of the church clearly reflects this tradition in its procedural norms by ensuring, for example, that the allegation of sexual abuse of a minor be supported by credible evidence, that the reputation of the accused be safeguarded, that the accused be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and to defend himself prior to judgment, and that a process for appeal be provided the accused.
      It seems to me that the bishops’ priority of ensuring the safety and protection of children and young people can be well served by a faithful observance of the church’s law in order that, as Pope John Paul II stated when promulgating the revised Code of Canon Law,“ the mutual relations of the faithful may be regulated according to justice based on charity, with the rights of individuals guaranteed and well-defined.” It is my hope that as bishops initiate efforts in their dioceses to respond to the charter and the norms, they will do so with this purpose in mind.

Sharon Euart, R.S.M., is a consultant on canonical matters who was associate general secretary of the NCCB from 1989-2001.

^ Top of the Page

From more than one bishop’s perspective, the Dallas meeting of the USCCB was a very painful experience. Most of us felt, going into the meeting, that we had been doing a pretty good job dealing with our sex abuse problems. Policies were in place and were being followed. Things were pretty well in hand.
      Now we were being told that that wasn’t good enough any more. Offending priests whose tendencies were apparently under control were no longer to be allowed to remain in ministry of any sort. Decisions that had previously been taken by bishops more or less on their own were now to be shared with boards made up mostly of lay persons. Civil law was to be involved even in cases that, to some, didn’t seem to require the involvement of civil law.
      Many bishops did not leave Dallas with a sense of fulfillment. Some felt that they had been dragged under by a few of their brother bishops who, for whatever reasons, had not made appropriate decisions. Tasks awaited them at home that they did not look forward to tending to. Action had been called for and action had been taken, but it wasn’t the kind of action that made everybody—or anybody—particularly happy.
      Yet I think that we did accomplish something, something important, something that all of us may be able to be proud of. We agreed, more or less unanimously, that the well-being and protection of children has to be a primary element in the life of the church. The canonical rights of priests are not to be swept aside as if they are of no importance, but those rights have to be looked at in the context of the confidence and well-being of our children and their parents. When the requirements of the charter are fully implemented, every bishop in the country will be able to say that no priest who has ever abused a child is active in the ministry of the local church.
      A second thing that we accomplished is an increased involvement on the part of lay women and men in the decision-making process. Obviously no review board can canonically force the bishop into decisions that he cannot conscientiously make. But the structured presence and participation of parents, jurists, and psychological experts will make bad decisions a lot less likely. Some bishops may say that they already had all the help they needed, but clearly not every bishop did, and increased input by the right people can only make for wiser outcomes.
      Finally, I think the bishops’ work in Dallas may have something to offer everyone in our contemporary society, and that something is an awareness that we have all had a lot to learn and assimilate. Twenty years ago bishops didn’t know as much about child abuse as they do now. Neither did the healing professionals. Neither did the victims, for that matter. Now we are much more deeply aware of the damage that child abuse inflicts, of the nature of the inclination on the part of offenders, and, perhaps most important of all, of the prevalence of child abuse throughout our society. These are things that we have needed to know, things that the Lord has brought to our attention in a way we could not overlook: through the misbehavior of His church’s priests and bishops.
      Now we know these things. We all know. And, while we all share the conviction that the church has to clean up its house, we must also be aware that abusing children is not something that is done only by creepy guys in Roman collars, but also by fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and teachers and counselors and coaches and family friends. That’s not an easy lesson to learn, nor one which we welcome. Maybe that’s why the Lord has brought it to our attention in the painful way that He has: to make sure that we all learn the lesson He wants to teach us.

Daniel E. Pilarczyk is the Archbishop of Cincinnati. He was president of the NCCB from 1989-1992.

^ Top of the Page

The Letter to the Ephesians is the great New Testament writing on the church. It combines, in magnificent synthesis, a cosmic ecclesial vision with concrete practical imperatives. It confesses that “there is one body and one Spirit . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (4:4-5). And it exhorts believers to “grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.” They are to do so by “speaking the truth in love” (4:15). Realizing its difficulty, the author reiterates: “Putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with one’s neighbor, for we are members one of another” (4:25). In Dallas the American bishops began to heed Ephesians.
      The Dallas meeting represents a start towards acknowledging and speaking the truth in the face of irresponsible evasion and self-deception regarding the problem of clergy sexual abuse. It offers the promise of a hierarchy more accountable to the presbyterate and laity. Thus it marks the first step in a long journey toward restoring the credibility of the bishops as a body. But, of course, everything depends upon the actions that flow from the words: whether the document signifies a genuinely new attitude or merely damage-control.
      At the same time elements of the charter and norms raise real concerns amongst priests. The Dallas process, while necessary, was also rushed and undiscriminating. The definition of “sexual abuse” is unrealistically broad. The capitulation to the frenzy of “zero tolerance” jeopardizes crucial evangelical realities like discernment, repentance, and conversion. The already frayed bonds between bishops and their brothers in the presbyterate run the risk of sundering completely. Cardinal Avery Dulles, s.j., worried, in his intervention, that the document “puts a very adversarial relationship between the bishop and the priests.” There is no question that many priests today feel abandoned and bereft.
      Countless practical steps need to be taken in the months ahead, some of them spelled out in the Dallas document. Regarding priests and bishops frank and open dialogue must take place, beyond the formal, often controlled, confines of presbyteral councils. Priests’ views must be sought and listened to in matters directly affecting them, not least in the selection of their bishop. As John Paul II acknowledges in Novo millennio ineunte, the spirituality of communion that must animate the church’s mission requires credible structures. Such structures are too often lacking.
      But Ephesians is addressed to all believers. Thus it is incumbent upon all to discern our personal collusion with untruth. Cardinal George of Chicago, in what the London Tablet called the “best speech of the debate,” began to raise the all-important issue of the culture in which we live and its sometimes rancid fruit. We need to move beyond merely denouncing the “clerical culture” (fast becoming a too facile sound bite). We need to examine seriously the pervasive therapeutic and consumerist culture that insinuates into our lives, distorting perceptions and values regarding sexuality, personal responsibility, and so much more. Ephesians calls all believers to the unremitting discernment of spirits we frequently lack the wisdom and courage to undertake, much less apply to ourselves. For, as Scott Appleby reminded the bishops in Dallas, “one of the most devastating effects of sin is the sinner’s inability to recognize his or her behavior as sinful.” Who of us, cleric or lay person, can claim immunity?
      Finally, our discernment ought not fail to confront the demonic elements of the present crisis. As Ephesians insists: “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the governing principles and powers that control this present darkness, against the spiritual realities of evil in the celestial realms” (6:12). What we have witnessed is the demonic desecration of childhood innocence and eucharistic holiness. Even the pagans recognized that the worst corruption is the corruption of the best. Though individuals certainly remain culpable and complicit, it is Satan’s purposes that are ultimately being served. Beyond structural change, we also require exorcism.

Rev. Robert Imbelli, a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, is associate professor of theology at Boston College.

^ Top of the Page

Surviving as a Catholic in the Archdiocese of Boston in 2002 makes one appreciate how Londoners must have felt during the blitz of 1940. The media assault has been unrelenting and at times excessive. But our church left itself open to this and we cannot ultimately blame our critics. Here and elsewhere terrible wounds have been inflicted on the body of Christ not only by the abusers (sick or sinful) but also by some of our episcopal leaders. The tragedy is this: The bishops who have failed us are not bad men. They are good and decent men who through ignorance, negligence, and moral blindness have enabled terrible harm to befall victims and a crisis of trust to engulf the church.
      The bishops in Dallas undertook their difficult task under enormous pressure, not the best milieu in which to fashion wise policy in a complex matter. They succeeded in two significant respects. First, they listened and responded to victims and to thoughtful critics in an unprecedented public way. Bishop Gregory’s remarkable address was an acknowledgment of guilt and a call for repentance and amendment. Second, the measures they adopted were oriented principally toward the protection of children and young people, a beginning step in restoring trust in the church. The “zero tolerance” policy is to be applied retroactively (unlike in the earlier draft) to remove permanently from ministry any priest who has been guilty of a single offense even decades ago and despite a subsequent unblemished record of exemplary service. What are the major steps still to be taken? I suggest these:

• We need a clearer understanding of the facts. The National Review Board is to “commission a comprehensive study of the causes and context of the current crisis” and “a descriptive study . . . of the nature and scope of the problem . . . including such data as statistics on perpetrators and victims” (Art. 9). Outrageous as are the cases of abuse reported, it is important to remember that the number of priests involved is a tiny minority, probably comparable to the percentage of abusers in society as a whole, and that the large majority of reported cases go back many years. It is also important to identify the relatively small incidence of pedophilia, as distinguished from abuse against teenage boys and young men. The roles, if any, of celibacy and homosexuality in this problem need to be thoroughly and objectively assessed.
• We need to be sure that the new policies are adopted and followed in every diocese and that the responsibilities of the new Office for Child and Youth Protection and the National Review Board are carried out diligently.
• The bishops need to repair the frayed bonds of trust with their priests, many of whom feel not only denigrated by the widespread suspicion occasioned by the scandal but even abandoned by the bishops in their anxiety to satisfy a public clamor for stern simplicities. It is imperative that our priests, who have earned strong support from the laity, be treated justly and be accorded a fully collaborative role with the bishops in the task of rebuilding our communities of faith.
• The accountability of the bishops needs to be addressed. Here again the media frenzy has left the impression that most, if not all, bishops have engaged in toleration and cover-up of abuse by priests. In fact, many bishops have dealt with this problem in a forthright and reasonable manner over the years, conscientiously adapting their practices to the evolving medical understanding of the behavior involved. There are, nonetheless, some bishops who have failed badly and the faithful of their dioceses know it. They have lost the trust of their people beyond retrieval. They should resign or be replaced. How this may happen is far from clear. There may be an understandable tendency for a bishop to view his situation in terms of whether he has intended the evil which has ensued from his actions (or inactions). That is a relevant issue for his confessor or spiritual director, but the issue for his continuation in episcopal office is a different one, namely, whether he has the trust and confidence of the people which is requisite to leading them effectively. I would hope that every bishop ensnared in the present crisis would humbly and prayerfully seek discernment (and honest advice) as to whether he can any longer credibly “teach, sanctify and govern” the faithful of his diocese.
• Finally, the bishops need soon to return to the broader issues of lay participation in the life of the church that they acknowledged in the conclusion of the charter: “. . . we do wish to affirm our concern especially with regard to issues related to effective consultation of the laity and the participation of God’s people in decision-making that affects their well-being.” What forms enhanced lay consultation and participation should take admit of a wide variety of solutions, from making more responsive and effective those means and structures which already exist (or are supposed to exist) in dioceses and parishes, to creating new ways for the voices of the lay faithful to be heard. If the bishops do not soon lead a discussion of this central issue, it will happen without them. And that would not be good for the solidarity of the church, upon which prudent reform ultimately depends.

Thomas L. P. O'Donnell, Esq., is of counsel to the Boston law firm Ropes & Gray where he was the managing partner from 1984-1990.

^ Top of the Page

On the whole, the bishops must have done some things pretty well after about 1992, because the terrible eruption of scandals, many of which did not become national news until ten years later, seems to have been brought to an end, or substantially decreased. Almost all the stories in the news in 2002 date back a decade or more.
      Yet once the scandals broke, the bishops seemed without leadership, and totally without public relations skills. And the really deep sources of the scandals still had not been addressed.
      So . . .Where are we after the Dallas meeting? In hanging their priests out to dry without giving them moral support, and without the presumption of innocence and due process, and then throwing them to the wolves in the press and the prosecutors’ offices, the bishops did themselves no honor. In accepting the definitions of the crisis (‘pedophilia’ and ‘cover up’) and its solution (‘zero tolerance’) given by the press, the bishops showed little courage. In failing to consider the problem theologically, and to confront the radical dissension on sexual teaching in the American Catholic Church, the bishops failed in their teaching function. In short, they continued along the same path that led us into this crisis in the first place.
      Bishop Gregory’s opening address was no doubt the high point of the meeting— brave and true and fearless, as far as it went.
      The Lay Commission set up by the bishops after Dallas included several persons who have gone on the public record in dissent from important elements of Catholic teaching. There, too, the bishops seemed theologically insouciant.
      It is obvious that the bishops are scared to death of being thought ‘conservative,’ and were easily led around by that fear–which the press fed upon. That helps to explain why they did not give the subject of the fairly flagrant homosexuality in the seminaries, among some priests, and among some bishops, anywhere near the attention the facts so far reported in the press warrant.
      Virtually all the sexual abuse so far reported has been the molestation of young men and teenage boys. And it is not only the question of the youth of partners—of keeping gay practices among the clergy “within boundaries”—that constitutes the scandal, but also the violation of fidelity to solemn promises, and the flagrant contradiction to the Catholic teaching bishops and priests are commissioned to stand for.
      The truth is that many charged with teaching Catholic thought and ethics do not hold to the Catholic sexual ethic. In Boston recently, not far from the cardinal’s residence, attendees at Mass have heard sermons urging the church soon to accept homosexual sex equally with heterosexual, and in another nearby church speedily to ordain women. My evidence for this is hearsay, but the report is wholly credible, since many conversations (and arguments) reveal those to be widespread sentiments among some clergy and some theologians.
      The distinguished Catholic writer Garry Wills, touting his new book Why I Am a Catholic in an interview in the Boston Globe, describes the Vatican’s teaching on sex as “nutty.”
      Comments by two bishops recently ensnared in the crisis and now resigned, and by many of the clergy involved in the scandals, indicate considerable confusion in their own minds about what is right and what is wrong. In other words, few seem to be pleading human weakness but, rather, the uncertainty and confusion bred by widespread dissension. Some think open homosexual sex indicates moral “progress.”
      It seems to me, further, that the effort by some progressives to define the crisis as one to be solved by ‘reform in church structures’ and the ‘inclusion of lay people in church decision-making’ are red herrings. In Protestant communions where lay participation in decision-making is commonplace, one sees no diminution in doctrinal uncertainty and in sexual confusion. The fundamental issue is what is believed; it is the content of the faith; it is the well-grounded theology of the body. It is substance, not procedures.
      It is progressives who want to ‘turn the clock back,’ keeping it at about 1966, just after the council closed, before the critical texts of the council documents had come out, before what had actually been agreed upon could be distinguished from initial press reports based on “the spirit” of Vatican II, and as if we had learned nothing since.
      For one thing, the ‘sexual revolution’ is not where it was in 1966. Things now look much more like the gloomy future predicted by Humanae Vitae in 1968 than the future predicted by the sexual liberationists of those days.
      The crisis is a crisis of faith.
      Another sign of that is the ease with which figures as varied as Scott Appleby and David O’Brien have been urging on us some degree of Gallicanism—keeping Rome over there, irrelevant, while our progressives continue to lead the church here as they have done since the council.
      Why do they not see that ignoring Rome on vital matters of faith is exactly what has led the American church into such widespread intellectual confusion about the human body? Why do they not see that it is precisely the progressive view of ecclesiology, and the progressive way of reading Vatican II, that has caused catechetics here to be so empty of substance, and so confused about the tradition of Catholic sexual teaching in particular? The progressives inherited a thriving church, teeming with vocations and alive with young people who knew their faith deeply and thoroughly, and have reduced it to a mere shadow of itself and to abject public humiliation.
      I believe in working to establish common ground, but that requires coming to see how we lost it, and how deep the crisis among us really is.
      The new book on this crisis by George Weigel, The Courage to be Catholic, would be a good book to read together, to draw out the reasons for our divisions. They are real, and they are deep, and they have borne tragic fruits.

Michael Novak holds the George Frederick Jewett Chair in Religion and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

^ Top of the Page

"During Dallas," many Catholics and others were moved and encouraged by Wilton Gregory’s powerful apology and plea for forgiveness on behalf of his fellow bishops. “After Dallas,” gratitude gave way to disappointment, as the realization slowly dawned that this expression of sincere remorse might not be followed by an equally strong requirement of episcopal accountability for wrongs done in the past or future.
      The focus of the bishops’ “zero tolerance” policy is on offending priests. For priests, this raises legitimate questions about fairness of implementation, especially adjudicating accusations of priests who may be innocent and possibly allowing some past offenders to continue ministry in exceptional circumstances. Some priests feel that their bishops have betrayed their bond and common mission in an attempt to placate an outraged laity, indefatigable press, and defensive Vatican.
      For many laity, the bishops’ quick refocusing of the sex abuse crisis on policy consequences for individual priests, and the decision of some bishops to delay or protest implementation, or to appeal around the episcopal consensus to the Vatican, perpetuates the impression that some of those in charge have still not realized that their key concern should be past victims and children who may be endangered in the present or future. Nor do the bishops seem ready to make far-reaching structural changes.
      It will be a shame if the ecclesial discussion of sexual abuse reverts to an inner-circle concern of and for the ordained, rather than opening up fully to the vulnerability of their young victims and the horror and sense of betrayal experienced by all Catholic parents. Parents want assurance that the kinds of institutional behavior that allowed past abuse will be abolished in the future. For the bishops, the task after Dallas is to establish credibility and trust, with both priests and laity. For the laity, the challenge will be to work steadily with priests to bring about needed reform, even if bishops make half-way reforms or put concrete changes on the back burner.
      Vatican II-era Catholics, clergy and lay, may be tempted to slip back into the top-down model of authority and teaching with which we grew up, but many Catholics after Vatican II will walk away from an organization that cannot offer a meaningful experience of Christian faith and practice, including admiration for and trust in the leadership. For the younger generation, authority equals earned respect, and compliance with authoritative demands presupposes that their source is morally credible. It is up to all of us to make sure the Catholic church earns respect and is credible.
      The bright light showing the way through the tunnel ahead is the reinvigoration of Catholic community already going on in local parishes, as people (laity and priests together) across quite a broad spectrum of Catholicism decide that from now on, things are going to be different.
      Still, at least two challenges remain. One is to keep a healthy and productive balance between tradition and renewal, as well as between institution and local faith community. The “common ground” many find in their reaction against abuse and cover-ups must not be torn apart by divisive blame-casting and fights over sexual ethics, married priests, and ordination of women.
      Another is to make the reform movement truly inclusive and dialogical, not only in the sense of “right to left” politics, but as meeting the concerns and needs of younger as well as older Catholics, and of African American, Asian American, and Latino Catholics, the latter of whom are fast becoming our majority. These groups may have different attitudes toward priests and bishops, institutional norms, local practices, and sexual behavior than the white, middle-class Catholics whose opinions on the sex abuse crisis have claimed most media attention. “Common ground” includes all of us.
      After Dallas, laity, priests and bishops need to listen to one another’s points of view and expand our appreciation of what we hold in common. We must work immediately for renewal, within church structures, as well as in new organizations. We can build on the grassroots momentum for change in the experience of local communities, moving from the parish, pastor and parish council on up to the USCCB.

Lisa Sowle Cahill is J. Donald Monan, S.J. Professor at Boston College, where she has taught theological ethics since 1976.

^ Top of the Page