Old Roman Catholic Church of North America --

Back to New Perspectives Main Page

These are EXCERPTS ONLY. To get the full story every three months, please subscribe to New Perspectives for only $14 per year!

Deus Caritas
A message from the Presiding Bishop of the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America, the Most Reverend Francis P. Facione, Ph.D.

All persons of good will, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are concerned over allegations of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests in many dioceses around the country. They are concerned for the victims who have come forth as well as for the priests, both proven and alleged, to have violated a sacred trust. As the pervasiveness of the problem becomes clearer, these expressions of concern have become mixed, understandably and justifiably, with bewilderment, a sense of betrayal, and moral outrage. Without question, those responsible for such reprehensible behavior must be made accountable for it and to the victims, who have every right to seek civil redress for the harm inflicted upon them. Without doubt, we are witnessing a Church in the midst of a crisis created largely by its own bishops and clergy.

For, as cases continue to come to light, it is evident that the problem transcends the violation of a sacred trust by offending clerics. It includes decisions by many bishops to cover up these activities in order to preserve the image of the institution and to avoid scandal to the faithful. In practically all cases thus far reported, the offending priests or other cleric had received a new assignment to another parochial situation and in most instances, the predatory behavior continued. A recent study by the Dallas Daily News (June 12, 2002) reveals that at least 111 diocesan bishops were involved in cover-up. In a response to the study, Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, a spokesperson for the Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed no surprise at the numbers. "The bishops made what they thought were prudent decisions at the time," he said. "The decisions were made on the best advice available." This, of course, was the line of defense taken by many bishops when the scandal first broke, along which they asserted that they had lacked in complete information about the problem of pedophilia and related abnormal behavior. In fact, the bishops had received a comprehensive study that warned of a developing problem as early as 1985. "The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Manner" was prepared by the late Father Michael Peterson, a physician and founder of the St. Luke Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland, a psychiatric hospital serving clergy and religious; Dominican Father Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer; and Mr. F. Ray Mouton, Jr., an attorney. The authors of this study warned that the Roman Catholic Church faces "extremely serious financial consequences" and "significant injury" to its image because of the sexual molestation of children. They offered many recommendations for action and included a caution that clerics accused of abuse should not function in any priestly capacity. The bishops received that report at their 1985 meeting in Dallas, Texas, but by all accounts failed to act decisively. Seventeen years later, in June 2002, the bishops, ironically, again met in Dallas. This time, in the wake of public outcry, and to no small degree, facing the specter of the multimillion-dollar lawsuits, the bishops and their advisers did take action. The "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People" is a comprehensive policy that provides mechanisms for assisting victims of abuse and their families through psychological and spiritual counseling, support groups, and other social services.

The Charter requires dioceses to report to public authorities all allegations of sexual abuse of minors and to cooperate in investigations of abuse. It supports the rights of victims to make reports to public authorities, and pledges that dioceses will cooperate with public authorities about reporting in cases when the person is no longer a minor. Under terms of the Charter, each diocese will have a review board, the majority of whose members will be laypersons not employed by the diocese. The function of the review board is to assist the bishop in assessing allegations of abuse and fitness for ministry, and will regularly review diocesan policies and procedures for dealing with sexual abuse of minors. The bishops established an Office for Child and Youth Protection whose several functions will be monitored by a review board, to include parents, which will be appointed by the conference president and report directly to him. Dioceses will evaluate the background of all diocesan and parish personnel who have regular contact with minors, and will utilize the resources of law enforcement and other agencies in this process.

The Charter further pledges that dioceses will employ adequate screening and evaluative techniques in deciding fitness of candidates for ordination, support mechanisms to strengthen priestly formation programs, and develop systematic ongoing formation programs. It also mandates that for even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor, past, present or future, the offending priest or deacon will be permanently removed form ministry, according to the norms of canon law. If the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state is not imposed (for reasons of advanced age or infirmity), the offender is to lead a life of prayer and penance but will not be permitted to celebrate Mass publicly, to wear clerical garb, or to present himself publicly as a priest.

In the Preamble to the Charter, the bishops acknowledge their mistakes and role in the suffering endured by victims of clerical sexual abuse. Indeed, in his conference address, the conference president, Bishop Wilton Gregory, apologized to all the victims of abuse, and their families saying, "It is we who need to confess; and so we do....We are the ones, whether through ignorance or lack of vigilance, or-God forbid-with knowledge, who allowed priest abusers to remain in ministry and reassigned them to communities where they continued to abuse." Bishop Gregory did not address the issue of sanctions for those bishops involved in the cover-up and reassignment of offending clerics, nor does the Charter adopted in Dallas. This must be addressed within the precincts of the Vatican. That said, on this side of the Atlantic, indications are that concerned clergy and laity will continue to press for sanctions, with some calling for the resignations of the complicit prelates. Writing in the New York Times on June 15, 2002, Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma, appointed to chair the review board, concurred with Chicago's Francis Cardinal George in his insistence that the bishops beheld accountable for what has occurred-and what will occur- on their watch. "In any case," he continued, "where a bishop is found to have provable knowledge of illegal activities, he should also be held legally accountable as an accessory to the crimes involved." While numerous legal issues, particularly those surrounding statutes of limitations, may make the criminal prosecutions are not outside the realm of possibility. Whether prosecution will occur remains to be seen.

As does the viability of the entire Charter adopted by the bishops in Dallas, which will be reviewed by various functionaries in the Vatican prior to its approval by Pope John Paul II and implementation by the American Roman Catholic hierarchy. Given the views expressed by various Vatican officials, it will be interesting to observe just how long that process might take and what "recommendations" for change Vatican officials may make, for in the most part, these officials lack justice and of American society in general. Notable among them are Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, Archbishop Julian Herranz, and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone. In an article appearing in the May 18, 2002 issue of La Civilta Cattolica, Father Ghirlanda, Dean of the Canon Law faculty at Rome's Signatura, expressed the view that "[It] does not seem pastoral behavior when a bishop or religious superior who has received a complaint informs the legal authorities of the fact in order to avoid being implicated in a civil process....A bishop may not require a priest to submit to psychological testing to determine his propensity for committing sexual abuse." Fr. Ghirlanda further recommended that if a bishop decides to reassign a priest who has committed sexual abuse after he has undergone treatment, the priest's new parochial community should not be informed of his past!

Equally curious are comments made by Archbishop Herranz, head of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. Archbishop Herranz, the sole member of Opus Dei to head a Vatican office, speaking at the Catholic University of Milan, Italy on April 29, rejected the idea of cooperation with civil officials investigatingcfomplaints of sexual abuse and urged that secrecy must be maintained at all costs. His Excellency also called monetary damages for clerical misconduct unwarranted and criticized what he termed a climate of "exaggeration, financial exploitation and nervousness" in the United States. In the same address, he also suggested, "certain media outlets seek to sully the image of the Church and the Catholic priesthood, and to weaken the moral credibility of the magisterium."

Echoing comments made by Archbishop Herranz, Archbishop Bertone, the number two figure in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the only Holy Office), in an April interview with 30 Giorni, and Italian Catholic magazine, said "In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offense of pedophilia is unfounded." He added, "if a priest cannot confide in his bishop for fear of being denounced, then it would mean that there is no more liberty of conscience."*

So, can persons of goodwill expect definitive action by the Vatican on the Charter? Only time will tell. Surely, if the American bishops desire to restore what Bishop Gregory terms "parishioners badly shaken faith in the Church hierarchy" they will, as a body, "advise" Vatican officials to act promptly in this matter. Clearly, if the image of the Church, the Catholic priesthood and the moral credibility of the magisterium that has been sullied, not by the American media as charged by Archbishop Herranz, but rather by violations of a sacred trust committed by a small percentage of priests and the curious actions of bishops who covered up these activities, is to be restored, then it would seem imperative that as a first step in the process to re-establish the Church's moral authority and a respected voice in the national arena, the Vatican act promptly to approve the Charter in substantially the same form as adopted in Dallas.

Should there be undue delay ay the Vatican or if major changes are "recommended" that subvert the intent of the Charter, one can expect the moral outrage of concerned persons to increase. Bewildered Catholics, in particular, seek answers and demand change in the way the Church conducts its affairs. They seek a more open and collaborative model of governance that includes laypersons, men and women, at the highest levels. What they do not want or need is a warmed over Ultramontanism that relegates laypersons to a third class citizenship in the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

*This is not to say that such views are confined to Roman quarters. In comments at the Dallas meeting, but before the vote on the Charter, Avery Cardinal Dulles, a Jesuit theologian, expressed the view that the proposed policy "puts a very adversarial relationship between the bishop and the priest. The priest can no longer go to his bishop in confidence with a problem he has.. He has to be very careful what he says to the bishop because the bishop can throw him out of ministry for his entire life."

Exactly.

The Old Roman Catholic Church in North America
info@orccna.org