Bishops' plan fails to resolve Catholic Church's sex-abuse scandal
Charles Rice
Right or Wrong?
One flippant proof for the divine origin of the Catholic Church is that, in 2,000 years, the priests and bishops have been unable to kill it. Whatever the Vatican decides on the norms for diocesan priests adopted by the bishops, the sex abuse scandal is no cause for discouragement as to the Church or clerics in general. The religious orders have adopted less rigorous rules for their priests. The bishops at Dallas, however, gave us a virtual manual on how not to handle a crisis. We can note only a few points here.
First, the bishops refused even to authorize a study of the relevance of dissent and clerical homosexuality to the abuse problem. Michael Novak, a former dissenter, described the reaction to Paul VI's Humanae Vitae in 1968: "Immediately, a host of theologians, clergy and lay people publicly dissented. Then, more afraid of being called `conservative' than of being faithful to Catholic teaching, the bishops ... refused to exercise their teaching authority. ... Dissent-as-rebellion spread from one aspect of the Church's sexual teaching to others. It grew and grew. Soon enough, homosexual rings were operating freely in several important seminaries. Over the years, scores of ... seminarians were seduced and corrupted."As Father Richard John Neuhaus noted, "The overwhelming majority of the [clerical] sexual abuse cases involve adult men having sex with teenage boys and young men, and by ordinary English usage we call that a homosexual relationship." This subject is worthy of the bishops' attention.
Second, the bishops imposed sanctions on their priests while they insulated themselves from any personal and financial accountability for their own involvement. Nor did they put their own jobs on the line. Why did they not oblige every bishop who has knowingly authorized the continued ministry of a priest guilty of sexual abuse to submit his resignation to the pope? The pope would decide whether to accept that resignation. The bishops who caused this crisis should at least volunteer to get out of the way.
Third, the bishops imposed a one-size-fits-all system of permanent separation from ministry "for even a single act of sexual abuse ... of a minor — past, present or future," even of elderly priests who might have committed one misdeed, many years before, and have served with distinction since. Impersonal "zero tolerance" is a dubious Christian response, but it does play to the media.
Fourth, the bishops painted a bullseye on the backs of their good priests, whom they exposed to permanent removal from ministry pursuant to vague criteria. The bishops' definition of "sexual abuse" does not require any "physical contact" or any "discernible harmful outcome." Such abuse can be found "whether or not it is initiated by the child." It applies to "contacts or interactions between a child and an adult where the child is being used as an object of sexual gratification for the adult." Neither a presumption of innocence nor a burden of proof is specified. How can a priest disprove an accusation framed in such vague terms? The potential for intimidation and blackmail is obvious.
And a priest's continuance in ministry after the adoption of the bishops' policies could create tort liability on the theory that the priest had thereby assumed a duty to avoid the vaguely defined "sexual abuse." An "alleged offender" will be relieved of his "function" merely on the bishop's finding that the allegation is "credible." Evidently, only after he is so relieved will an "investigation in harmony with canon law" begin. Good priests, subjected to this regime, may now be inclined to act with a caution inconsistent with the energetic performance of their ministry.
Fifth, the bishops created uncertainty as to the terms "minor" and "child." They generally describe the problem as "sexual abuse of minors." As amended in 2001, Canon 1395, § 2, cited by the bishops, authorizes punishment of a cleric who has sex with a "minor" below the age of 18. But the bishops define "sexual abuse" as activity between "a child and an adult." At common law, a "child" is a person below 14. In most states, however, the age of consent is 16. Is a person above the legal age of consent a "child?" Is the bishops' emphasis on the "child" an implicit green light for sex between homosexual priests and males who are post-pubescent or above the legal age of consent? In its civil law implications, the bishops' work product at Dallas is replete with ambiguities and invitations to litigation.
Neuhaus made the basic point: "If bishops and priests had been faithful to the Church's teaching and their sacred vows, there would be no crisis. That is the fact quite totally evaded at Dallas." However, as John Paul II said in his homily at World Youth Day in Toronto: "Do not be discouraged by the sins and failings of some of [the Church's] members. ... Think of the vast majority of dedicated and generous priests and religious whose only wish is to serve and do good."
Charles Rice is a professor emeritus on the Law School faculty. His column appears every other Tuesday. He can be reached at plawecki.1@nd.edu.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, September 3, 2002
