Bishops to review policy on clergy and sexual abuse

Observers expect a lively debate as church officials gather in Dallas.

By SHARON TUBBS, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published June 13, 2002

As Catholic bishops from across the country begin a conference in Dallas today, millions of Americans await the outcome of a proposal outlining safeguards to deal with the clergy's sexual misconduct, perhaps the church's most pressing scandal in modern times.

There is likely to be lively debate on, and amendments to, the draft unveiled by the Ad Hoc Committee on Sex Abuse of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last week. Some theological experts and victims' advocates say the bishops have their work cut out for them as they try to agree on specific procedures to deal with clergy abuse.

For one, coming up with a proposal to the Vatican's liking may not be easy. An increasing cultural gulf divides Catholics in America and Europe, where church officials struggle to understand the aggressive media, the seven-figure lawsuits and the public calls for "zero tolerance" now surrounding the issue in the United States. Pope John Paul II must approve the Dallas proposal for it to become mandatory practice in the United States.

Second, some say the bishops' draft leaves some issues unsettled, not the least of which is what to do with the bishops themselves.

"Will they come up with punishments for bishops who don't implement these policies?" said Thomas H. Groome, a religious education professor at Boston College and the author of What Makes Us Catholic. "And should they (those punishments for bishops) be retroactive?"

"There are a number of people who think the real issue is the coverup of the bishops, and there's no proposal to address that," said Joe Favazza, associate professor of religious studies at Rhodes College in Memphis. "We're really at the crux of the whole crisis. You're asking the bishops, in a sense, to punish themselves. . . . And I just don't foresee that forthcoming in this body (in Dallas)."

The proposal addresses the misconduct of clergy who abuse children and calls for the defrocking of every priest who commits a single act of sexual abuse once the new policy takes effect. Priests who have been determined to be pedophiles because of past abuse could also be defrocked.

However, a priest could stay on if he was found to have abused only a single minor in his past, had undergone psychological treatment and been found not to be a pedophile, and had the backing of a lay-dominated sexual abuse committee that heard from both the victim and the priest. The priest's record would be fully disclosed to those involved in his new ministry.

That clause -- allowing the abuser of one minor to stay on -- is expected to be hotly debated at the conference, which ends Saturday. Some, including Bishop Robert N. Lynch of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, have called for a zero tolerance stance.

Others aren't so sure, including Groome. The Catholic scholar noted a case in the Boston area where a priest had a relationship with a minor when the priest was a 19-year-old seminarian and the minor was 16. That was more than 30 years ago and, to the church's knowledge, the priest had no other reports of indiscretions since, Groome said. In the wake of the scandal, the victim came forward and the priest was suspended. Groome said he believed such cases should be reviewed individually by the sexual abuse committee before action was taken.

Canon law, the standards that govern the Catholic church, already says that the church regards sex between priests and minors as a crime. A priest can be defrocked, or laicized, if his bishop recommends as much to the pope and the pope agrees.

That is rare, theologians say. Wrongdoers more likely are removed from their ministerial duties and continue to receive health benefits from the church.

The point of the bishops' proposal is to implement a swift administrative process, rather than the traditionally lengthy judicial process for sexual misconduct. Some are questioning whether streamlining the process would deny a fair trial for priests who dispute misconduct claims.

"Has not the history of our country been that we consider ourselves ruled by laws rather than by people?" said the Rev. Arthur Espelage, executive coordinator for the Canon Law Society of America. "In one sense, this whole issue is being tried in the newspaper, and the jury is the American people."

Rome has sent mixed signals about dealing with misconduct. Pope John Paul II told U.S. cardinals gathered there in April that "there is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young."

But after the Rome summit, an Italian Jesuit magazine reviewed in advance by the Vatican said bishops should not refer an abuse allegation to police until the bishop had reached a "moral certainty" that the priest was guilty. The article said that if a priest is reassigned after a molestation incident, his past should not be disclosed.

"It's a funny situation," said Thomas Reese, editor of America, a national Catholic weekly magazine. "Here we have Rome sounding like the ACLU," seeking due process for the accused.

American bishops, on the other hand, are "sounding like people who are being sued" and want to put a swift end to molestation, Reese said.

Cultural differences between Europe and America may play a role in how the abuse measure is handled.

"First of all, Rome doesn't always understand America," said Chester Gillis, professor of theology at Georgetown University in Washington. "They may be thinking that canon law trumps American law."

Differences in the legal systems also could be a hindrance.

"They (Europeans) have a hard time understanding the legal system here," Reese said. Europe does not have the kind of tort system that exists in the United States, he said, and the multimillion-dollar lawsuits filed against bishops and dioceses here seem foreign to Catholics overseas.

Europeans, as well as people in other parts of the world, regard young people as adults at a younger age. For instance, a provision in canon law that speaks about minors' age of consent describes that age as 16. That provision was changed in the United States at the request of American bishops, however, so that the age of consent is 18, in keeping with U.S. law.

"The bottom line is that the American bishops will have to honor the culture (of America)," Groome said. "No matter what the canon law says, the American bishops are going to have to abide by the law of the United States.

"Whether that would also be appropriate in Syria and Cameroon is probably debatable."

- Information from the Los Angeles Times was used in this report.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.