Paraphrase of Remarks of Various Prelates Dallas 2002

Paraphrase of Remarks of Various Prelates

USCCB Meeting, Dallas, Texas, June 14, 2002

(Taken from Video Tape)

Archbishop Harry Flynn (of St. Paul and Minneapolis): The focus of our policy is on rooting out the cancer of clerical sexual abuse...Our purpose is to protect children. The Charter is a pastoral document. The most important article is Article 5, which says that no priest or deacon who has abused a minor – past, present, or future – can remain in ministry.

Discussion on the “Canadian Definition” of Sexual abuse: This definition was proposed as an amendment during the executive session on June 13 and not accepted. It was re-introduced by Cardinal Egan on the floor on June 14^th.

Archbishop Justin Rigali (of St. Louis): It says “interactions” can constitute sexual abuse. Are we talking about a word or a glance?

Bishop Joseph Galante (Coadjutor of Dallas) for the Committee: What we had in mind was the showing of pornographic films.

Archbishop Michael Sheehan (of Santa Fe): “Whether or not it involves genital or physical contact” is too broad.

Bishop Robert Banks (of Green Bay): Is this definition given in the Charter a legal definition or a framework for action?

Bishop Wilton Gregory (President/Bishop of Belleville): It is the latter. It is a guide for the review board of the individual diocese to use.

Bishop Michael Pfeifer (of San Angelo): We have to use a definition which is in accord with the civil law of our state.

Bishop Gregory: That is why the last sentence of the definition needs to be included.

Archbishop Justin Rigali (of St. Louis): proposed an amendment to delete: “a child is abused whether or not this activity involves explicit force, whether or not in involves genital or physical contact, whether or not there is a discernible or harmful outcome.” The amendment failed by a vote of 87-156.

Cardinal Roger Mahony (of Los Angeles): Almost half of the priests in the United States are religious. It is important that the religious orders adopt a similar standard when the superiors of religious orders of men meet in August 2002.

Archbishop William Levada (of San Francisco): What was the mind of the committee in not including religious priests in this document?

Archbishop John Myers (of Newark) for the Committee: The committee didn’t feel that we should be legislating for religious.

Discussion of the requirement of Article 4 that “Diocese/Eparchies will report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities.”: The discussion centered on whether to insert the word credible before “allegations”

Bishop Thomas Doran (of Rockford): I am concerned about turning over frivolous accusations. The canonical system says that we are to establish moral certitude. We are all sworn to uphold that.

Bishop William Murphy (of Rockville Center): “Credible” is hard to define.

Mr. Mark Chopko (General Counsel of the USCCB): Reporting requirements vary in the different jurisdictions, but in general the threshold is very low. Civil authorities want to determine for themselves whether an allegation is credible or not.

Bishop Howard Hubbard (of Albany):

I would argue that the proposed policy (of zero tolerance), understandable as it may be from a public opinion perspective, is not consistent with who we are as a faith community that teaches forgiveness and compassion and reconciliation.

Past sexual misconduct should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In New York, thirties years ago the state was facing a crisis of drug abuse. We passed what became known as the Rockefeller Drug Laws requiring mandatory sentencing to prison for those convicted of any drug offense. The results have been disastrous. The prison populations swelled, people were sentenced to prison for twenty years for relatively minor drug crimes, and the drug problem remains as great as ever. Now the legislature is planning to repeal the mandatory sentencing law. We can’t address a complex problem with a simplistic solution.

A few years ago we bishops produced a document on restorative justice in society. We called for the rehabilitation of criminals and their re-integration into society. Are we now failing to apply to the Church what we have recommended our citizens to embrace in society. Are we abandoning restorative justice with a “one size fits all” approach? Some offenders have been rehabilitated and have served well for many years.

These are draconian measures. A retroactive penalty in law violates a fundamental principle of justice. We have made an unjustified assumption that one who sexually abuses must do so again and again.

In our packets we have a paper by Dr. Frederick Berlin of Johns-Hopkins University Medical Center, one of the foremost experts in the sexual abuse of children. He says that many offenders can be rehabilitated and minister without risk to children in some supervised situations. In fact, he says that it is more responsible for the Church to do this rather than dismissing these priests and putting them out in society without continuing treatment or supervision. We have heard only one side of this issue.

I am greatly dissatisfied with Article 5... We have heard moving testimony from victims of clerical sexual abuse...We are all concerned about bringing healing to those who have been abused... However, I do not believe the abused can determine the penalty for the abuser. The bishop must determine what is appropriate. We have deflected the primary anger of the Catholic people, which is towards the bishops onto the priests.

We have to face the issue of the resignation of bishops who have failed in their responsibilities. There is already a precedent in Ireland where the Holy See has accepted the resignation of a bishop. Some were so cowed by the fear of a public scandal that they failed to use the canonical procedures, which were available to them.

My concern for the future is the relationship of the priest to his bishop. Many priests have in the past admitted to their faults and have been treated and have returned to successful ministry for many years and now are going to be basically excluded from ministry. I believe this is an injustice. They have incriminated themselves without being told their rights. We have retrospectively placed penalties on them which I don’t believe are fair.

We have a greater risk with a newly ordained priest than we do with a priest who committed some act of abuse long ago in his second year of priesthood and has now given twenty-eight years of faithful ministry. We have arrived at a standard of unforgiveness. That is dangerous to the future relationships between priests and bishops – the confidentiality of the relationship and the trust that should be there. We need a standard of forgiveness.

This document is one of the most important that we have considered in many years. We are under great pressure to have a final document before we conclude our session today. Yet, we are voting on this document without an opportunity to read it in its entirety and quietly reflect on it.

I am the only member of this group who is not a bishop, so maybe I have a unique perspective to comment on some things. If I had a vote on this document, which I don’t, I would have to vote against it.

The definition of sexual abuse is so broad that when it comes to Article 5 of the Charter we are depriving priests of ministry not only for heinous crimes but for looks and touches that might be interpreted by some court as amounting to a molestation. It does not even require any genital contact. It doesn’t require any harm to the victim. It says the victim could have even initiated the behavior and it is still considered sexual abuse. This is a very broad definition to use and then to apply the penalty of taking them out of ministry for the rest of their lives is very harsh.

The document as a whole sets an unfortunate distance between a bishop and his priests. It creates a very adversarial relationship between a bishop and his priests. The priest can no longer go to his bishop as a father with a problem that he has. He has to be careful what he says to the bishop because the bishop is going to throw him out of the ministry for life (if he admits to sexual abuse). I think it will have an effect on the sacrament of Penance because priests will feel reluctant to confess these sins. They certainly won’t be able to come to the bishop and express their real difficulties.

In Article 4 (of the Charter) it seems to say that all the confidential files are going to be turned over to the district attorney, even when not required by law. We have heard that the action of some district attorneys has been unconscionable, but we are going to cooperate anyway. We have no idea of the rights of a priest to fight an unjust process about the public authorities getting ahold of confidential files and secret information that they have no right to. For the bishop to turn over this information may be against canon law.

There are many elements in the document which require further reflection. I hope that there will be the opportunity to revise it in the future if it is adopted in the form in which it exists today.

We all know that the core element of this document is that one act of abuse by a priest is enough to remove him from ministry. I believe that we must show Christ-like compassion to our priests who have committed an act of misconduct on a minor. We must respect his rights in an procedure for a priest who has been involved in misconduct. At the same time, we know that as we say in the rite of ordination, we call him “our son.” We must continue to have that compassion and forgiveness like any parent to love their son or daughter who has committed a failure.

It hurts to say that I support zero-tolerance. I wish I did not have to do that. I wish the circumstances were different. At the same time, in our present crisis. We must place the common good of the Church first. Not in any way thinking less of our priests but we have to think of the priority. And by the common good of the Church I mean the victims, the protection of children, the moral authority of the Church, the avoidance of scandal. And I think we have to give very strong support to this document so that we can give assurance as much as possible to our people –especially parents and their children – and to all society that our children and youth will be safe as much as humanly possible. We need strong support for this document to begin the process of healing and reconciliation within the Church and with all society...

When I came here I was in favor of the document, but after hearing the discussion I am against it. I don’t have a vote, but I would vote against it. I think it is seriously flawed.

The only strong point of this document is that it is a starting point for healing, but it is very defective. It is a quick fix. We are not as sensitive to our priests who are abusers as we should be. Christ came for sinners. We haven’t.

Our challenge is between now and this November to come up with something that will strengthen the document. We have dealt with the earthquake and the fire, but that isn’t the complete answer.

I also believe it is necessary that we pass this policy at this moment, with its flaws – and some of them are very deep flaws indeed. I believe that implementing it will involve sacrifices in ways that we cannot fully appreciate right now, but that we have to be united around it because we are going to be watched as to how we do indeed implement it. So that, even with all our reservations and that pain that is going to be part of our lives as we go forward –and not so much our lives as the lives of some of our priests – nonetheless, I think that if we don’t implement it together then all the work that has gone into it will be lost. The unity which has been very precariously put together -- imperfect though it is – will be completely dissolved.

If in fact this crisis that we are going through now enables us to step back and look at the larger context then it might be providential. (He went on to talk about the role of the Church in the American culture, which is, in many ways, hostile to Catholic beliefs) Our culture is secularized Protestantism, self-righteous and decadent at the same time...We have listened to the voices of harsh critics on the right and on the left, but we need to listen to everyone’s voice.