Church in
Crisis
Norms concern order leaders
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Rome
A last-minute move to include religious order priests in the sex
abuse norms adopted by the U.S. bishops in November potentially violates the
autonomy of religious life, according to a stance adopted by both the American
and the international umbrella groups for men’s orders in the Catholic
church.
In part, the orders fear being forced into a rigid zero-tolerance
policy. Last August the orders backed the bishops’ commitment to permanent
removal of abusers from public ministry, but left open the possibility that
such a priest could be treated and returned to an assignment within the
community itself.
At the same time, spokespersons for the orders took pains to
stress their “complete agreement” with the goal of protecting
children from abuse, and insisted they do not want to create a public
confrontation between bishops and religious.
The concerns were voiced Nov. 31 at a Rome assembly of the Union
of Superiors General, the worldwide umbrella group for men’s orders, and
in Vatican meetings in early December with representatives of the Conference of
Major Superiors of Men, the American federation of men’s orders. On Dec.
1, the worldwide group voted to give full backing to the position taken by the
Conference of Major Superiors of Men.
The objection raised by religious order priests illustrates the
complexities that can arise in enforcing the norms agreed to by the bishops in
Washington last month. In addition to the autonomy issue, the superiors of
religious orders have raised questions about the need for national standards
for enforcing the norms.
The top officers of the American federation, Conventual Franciscan
Fr. Canice Connors, president, and Marist Fr. Ted Keating, executive director,
came to Rome to present their objections as the Vatican moves toward granting a
recognitio, or formal legal approval, to the American norms.
Worries voiced by Connors and Keating include that diocesan
bishops might try to compel superiors to divulge confidential information on
priests or might seek to block even an internal assignment with the order or to
revoke a priest’s authorization to say Mass, even within the community.
Some bishops may also seek to prevent international members from entering the
United States. In addition, religious communities generally do not have
canonical tribunals as dioceses do, hence it’s not entirely clear how
religious superiors are to proceed with cases against their members.
Religious order priests were not covered by the norms adopted by
the U.S. bishops in Dallas in June. However, when the norms were revised by a
joint U.S./Vatican “mixed commission,” religious priests were
included through a little-noticed change in the document’s first footnote.
Leaders in religious life discovered the switch only on Nov. 5, prompting
urgent requests for dialogue with the U.S. bishops and an appeal to the
Vatican.
In 2001 there were 30,655 diocesan priests in the United States
and 15,386 religious order priests. Well-known orders include the Franciscans
and the Jesuits.
Connors stressed that the concerns do not amount to a challenge to
the protection of children.
“Please understand that in no way are we bringing into
question anything at all about the suffering of the victims or the terrible
crime of sex abuse,” Connors said.
Keating described independence as the “key issue.”
“Much as the bishops would like to say there’s only one
authority in the United States, only one set of norms, to speak honestly out of
the Code of Canon Law the religious ordinaries have a legitimate
autonomy of their own,” he said. He pointed to Canon 586.1, which promises
a “true autonomy of life” to religious orders.
That autonomy, the leaders say, has historically allowed them to
play a prophetic role in the church, taking stands that would be difficult if
the orders were under the direct control of diocesan bishops.
Connors told the Union of Superiors General that he and Keating
learned while visiting the bishops’ Web site that the norms as revised by
the “mixed commission” included religious order priests. A sentence
had been added to the first footnote reading: “In applying these norms to
religious priests and deacons, mutatis mutandis, the term
‘religious ordinary’ shall be substituted for the term
‘bishop/eparch.’ ”
This happened, Connors said, without consultation with the
Conference of Major Superiors of Men or other leaders of religious
communities.
Connors said he then wrote to Belleville, Ill., Bishop Wilton
Gregory, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, requesting urgent
dialogue. That led, he said, to a Nov. 10 meeting with Cardinal Francis George,
the senior American participant in the mixed commission. George heard the
concerns but did not propose changes to the norms that went before the U.S.
bishops for a vote on Nov. 13. He did allow Connors and Keating to include a
set of proposed revisions in materials submitted to the Vatican as part of the
review process.
Vatican sources told NCR that while the Congregation for
Institutes of Consecrated Life, the office that deals with religious orders, is
generally sympathetic to the concerns raised by Connors and Keating, additional
revisions to the norms are unlikely for the moment. The Vatican would prefer to
await the two-year review already called for by the U.S. bishops.
Connors and Keating drew an appreciative response in their session
with the Union of Superiors General. One superior general said he had been
contacted by U.S. diocesan priests to express gratitude for the stand taken by
the Conference of Major Superiors of Men in Philadelphia in August, when it was
decided that priest abusers would be removed from public ministry but not
necessarily from their communities.
“We simply told the public that we could not suddenly tell
you that there’s some sin or some act that is beyond conversion, beyond
repentance, for which we will throw men out without further conversation,”
Keating said at the Union of Superiors General meeting.
“Our position is that we have all the authority we need to
preserve the integrity of our members,” Connors said.
Given that changes in the norms are unlikely in the short term,
Connors said that he and Keating met with 15 U.S. bishops Nov. 14 and elicited
an agreement for a commission, to be composed of four bishops and four
representatives of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, to develop a
national protocol for dealing with these issues.
Keating said that different bishops are sending different signals.
In Cincinnati, for example, Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk initially requested
data on all priests with accusations, then changed course after speaking with
religious superiors and consulting with attorneys. Keating said that Pilarczyk
explained that if he had the information it could be subpoenaed. He added that
possession of such records might increase a diocese’s civil liability.
“Picture the confusion all over the United States, as we deal
with this bishop by bishop and committee by committee,” Keating said.
“That’s why we’re so concerned.”
John L. Allen Jr. is NCR Rome correspondent. His e-mail
address is jallen@natcath.org
National Catholic Reporter, December 13,
2002
|
