Critique of the Dallas Charter
By Msgr. Thomas Green of the Catholic
University of America
Some thoughts on the Charter for the Protection of Children and
Young People, approved on June 14, 2002
(Draft 2 of an earlier draft July 5, 2002, in light of comments
from various canonists)
Purpose: to highlight some significant positive but especially
negative elements in the aforementioned document and to elicit a further
response in light of others reading the same document (see Origins 32/7 [June
27, 2002] 102Ñ106). Some points mentioned in connection with the Charter
are also relevant to the and vice-versa.
Approach: Review the document section by section, highlighting
the positive and negative elements. By negative, I do not necessarily mean
legally problematic factors but also areas that pose questions because the
document does not seem especially clear or complete. The Charter will be
consistently referred to as the document.
Preamble: Ten paragraphs
Positive features
A. There is a helpful identification of some of the key
areas of concern: the nature of the crisis, the damages caused by episcopal
failures to act, the pervasive loss of trust (paragraphs 1-4).
B. The document recognizes some steps taken by the NCCB to
deal with the issue, e.g., the 1993 text Restoring Trust. This is
also true for some individual dioceses (par.5).
C. There is a forceful commitment in principle to pastoral
healing, accountability, and dialogue within the Catholic community (par.
10).
Negative features
A. Methodologically speaking the Charter might
have confined itself to general theological, canonical and pastoral
observations on the bishops response to clerical sexual misconduct while
leaving technical procedural details to the norms.
B. Pending Roman recognitio of the accompanying
norms, universal law prevails over any elements of the norms that may be
contrary to it. Universal law here means especially but not exclusively Books
VI and VII of the code, the April 30, 2001 motu proprio Sacramentorum
sanctitatis tutela and the May 18, 2001 CDF letter accompanying and
spelling out its implications. Elements of the norms not contrary to universal
law may but need not be implemented immediately; but if this is done, diocesan
bishops must issue a decree implementing them as particular law for their
dioceses.
C. It might have been helpful to have spelled out a bit
more the culture of secrecy that is so ecclesially destructive (par. 1).
D. A general observation: the text speaks of
children, minors, and young people. Does
the last term encompass the other two? Or does the term young
people take us beyond minors canonically (under 18; c. 97, 1)? Would it
have been better simply to speak of minors throughout the document unless there
were special reasons for speaking of children?
E. While the bonds of trust within the Catholic community
have been severely strained, it is not clear that the bishops are committing
themselves to serious collaboration with the people of God in addressing the
problem, e.g., by significantly altering governance structures at various
levels to incorporate significant lay as well as clerical decisional input.
F. While it is a less serious concern than the extensive
abuse of minors, what about the tragedy of false accusations and the
deleterious effect on the reputations and lives of those falsely accused? Might
this also contribute to the rather poisonous climate within the Church in some
circles?
G. The document says nothing about the importance of the
bishop-priest (cleric) relationship, which is rooted in the sharing of orders
and a common mission. This relationship is highlighted in canons such as 384
stressing the bishops solemn obligation to protect the rights of priests
while seeing to it that they comply with their obligations. The document fails
to recognize the distinction between the priesthood and the clerical state,
which has significant theological and canonical repercussions. Removing a
cleric from a ministry is not the same as firing an employee from a job. The
document practically speaking does not reflect the thoughtful observations on
bishop-priest relationships articulated in the 1991 NCCB text United in
Service: Reflections on the Presbyteral Council. (Origins 21/26 [December
5, 1991] 409; 411-421).
H. If the bishops are interested in true accountability, it
is strange that, with due regard for an occasional reference to
clerics, the text normally speaks only of alleged priest abusers or
possibly deacons and other persons without any mention of bishop abusers.
Indeed, the document emphasizes priest abusers. Should it simply have spoken
about clerics throughout for consistency sake? Furthermore, and
more significantly, not a word is said about bishops who in the past have
failed to behave responsibly in discharging their supervisory responsibilities
or who in the future may fail to do so. Is not that neglect precisely one of
the major causes of the undercutting of episcopal authority among the faithful?
The National Review Board will approve the annual report of the National Office
for Child and Youth Protection, which may point out dioceses not complying with
the Charter/Norms (articles 8-9); but what are the practical
canonical implications of such a statement for the bishops of said dioceses?
Will they be subject to disciplinary/penal action? If so, by whom? As we know,
technically only the pope can penalize bishops [c. 1405, 1,3*]. Should
intermediary level bodies (conferences) or persons (metropolitans) be accorded
such disciplinary/penal competency in the interests of genuine accountability
and according to the principle of subsidiarity with due regard for possible
appeal/recourse to the pope?
I. Undeniably grievous and at times irreparable harm has
been done to minors and other vulnerable persons within the Catholic community,
and every possible effort must be made to heal and reconcile them. However, the
Preamble might properly have said something about efforts to reconcile the
clerical offenders; after all, one of the integral purposes of the penal system
of a Church committed to reconciliation is the rehabilitation of the offender.
This is said with due regard for the equally important and at times more
pressing need to restore justice, repair scandal, [c. 1341] and deter future
wrongdoing.
J. For a thoughtful and more detailed set of reflections on
some of the key issues raised in the Preamble, see Towards Healing:
Principles and Procedures in Responding to Complaints of Abuse against
Personnel of the Catholic Church of Australia, December 2000. (Hereafter
cited TH). See also Integrity in Ministry: A Document of Principles and
Standards for Catholic Clergy and Religious in Australia, June 1999.
(Hereafter cited IM) (I have not had an occasion yet to seriously to review
these documents, which look quite interesting.)
K. Should there be a generic reference to issues of
overlapping jurisdiction, canonical and civil, in this area (e.g., reporting
obligations) and to the need for bishops and religious superiors to be duly
attentive to the requirements of both? However, we also need to consider
certain canonical qualifications regarding Church observance of civil law [c.
22], e.g., privileged communications such as those subject to the inviolable
confessional seal [cc. 983; 1388]. Such a nuanced approach to civil law is
lacking in the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph of the document,
which says simply: We also note that diocesan/eparchial policies must be
in accord with the civil law.
Part I: Promoting Healing and Reconciliation with
Victims/Survivors of Sexual Abuse of Minors: articles 1-3 (See TM, par. 16-19
(victim); 20-25 (other persons); 26-29 (accused or guilty party)
Article 1: Outreach to victims and families
Positive features:
Helpful mention of varied dimensions of outreach to victims and
varied types of assistance to them and to faith communities adversely affected
by abuse.ÃÃ2. Ú
Negative features: (See TM, par. 1-4 on sexual abuse and 34
on various pertinent definitions of terms.)
A. In an area of church law that stresses strict
interpretation [c.18], one wonders about the very broad definition of sex abuse
taken from the Canadian bishops From Pain to Hope - see the
penultimate paragraph of the document. My concern is not precisely the broad
range of proscribed sexual behavior it envisions; this is regrettably a painful
fact of life. My concern is rather the fact that the penalty for any such
behavior seems to be the same without any discrimination in terms of the type
of behavior. However, our church penal system reflects a sense of
proportionality with the seriousness of the penalty corresponding to the
seriousness of the offense with possibly mitigating factors being taken into
account. Such distinctions seem to be flattened in both the Charter and the
Norms, whereas given the seriousness of the penalties envisioned, we need to
define carefully the meaning of the pertinent delict in question and consider
factors that may impact imputability in breaking the law. As one reads in a
1995 NCCB text on canonical delicts: The norm is whether the act in
question is an external act that qualifies as an objectively grave
violation of the sixth commandment. ... The traditional rules about the
requisites for personal culpability (full use of reason and free consent of the
will) must be addressed ... in deciding about the imputability of the alleged
acts to the accused and the appropriateness of the penalty of dismissal or some
lesser penalty. ...The external act alone does not suffice. It must be a human
act, posited with sufficient internal deliberation and freedom to be gravely
imputable insofar as it results from personal malice or culpability.
(Canonical Delicts Involving Sexual Misconduct and Dismissal from the
Clerical State [Washington: USCC, 1995] 6, 39-40]).
B. There seems to be absent from the text any thought of a
possible ministry to the abuser, however reprehensible the behavior. In a
community seriously committed to reconciliation and healing, this is an
essential element to be taken into account. In fact in articulating certain
purposes of the penal system (c. 1341), the code makes the rehabilitation of
the offender an integral consideration even if in expiatory penalties it is not
as strongly highlighted as the values of restoration of justice, repairing of
scandal (c. 1336), and the deterring of future criminal behavior.
Article 2: Assistance coordinator/diocesan review board
Positive features:
A. The provision for an ecclesially diversified but
primarily lay diocesan review board in principle seems to be a very practical
realization of the commitment to engage a cross section of the people of God in
addressing certain aspects of the sex abuse crisis.
B. The provision for publicizing complaint procedures
regularly seems sound.
Negative features:
A. What are the qualifications of the so-called
assistance coordinator, who is to care pastorally for those
claiming to have been abused sexually as minors? (On the role of a so-called
facilitator, see TM, par.41).
B. The diocesan review board is to assist the bishop in
assessing allegations and fitness for ministry. Does this first role mean
simply the assessment of the credibility of an allegation that is the normal
role of the preliminary investigator (c. 1717)? Or is it understood in a
broader sense, i.e., determining the final outcome of a case? This seems
clearly contrary to current universal law regarding the competent judicial and
administrative penal authorities. What does assessing fitness for ministry
mean? Is this function operative after a priest has been penalized and the
issue of reassignment is being contemplated? Should we assume that the board
has a consultative vote in such decisions? What are the criteria for such a
fitness determination? What are the qualifications for such review board
members, who also are authorized to review diocesan policies? While some should
be skilled in the area of sex abuse of minors, what about canonical or civil
law expertise?
C. The diocesan review board is said to be able to act
retrospectively and prospectively on these matters. What exactly does this
mean? It is also competent to advise (bishops presumably) on all aspects of
responses in such cases. What is meant here?
Article 3: Confidentiality agreements.
Nothing special from my vantage point, although one trusts that
such agreements will be entered into by dioceses/eparchies only after
appropriate canonical and civil law consultation.
Part II: Guarantee an Effective Response to Allegations:
articles 4-7
Article 4: Reporting alleged abuse to civil authorities
(see TM, par. 37)
Positive features: This seems to be in principle a positive
provision that should foster constructive Church-State relationships. (see
earlier comment (j) regarding Preamble)
Negative features:
A. There should be some qualification regarding canonically
privileged communications (see norm 10).
B. Is reporting in cases where no minor is involved civilly
necessary? This is a civil law question about which I am unsure. However, if
there is no civil obligation to report, why should we do so as long as we
proceed canonically where appropriate?
Article 5: Hard to summarize succinctly the various issues
addressed in this somewhat perplexing and lengthy text, at least from my
perspective. (Cf. TM, par. 39 ff)
Positive features:
A. The document generically mentions the need to follow
canonical procedures although this text is located in the middle of the article
rather than at the beginning, and other provisions such as administrative
leave, permanent removal from ministry for one act of sexual abuse, and the
meaning of sexual abuse raise significant questions.
B. The document calls for efforts to restore the good name
of the accused priest or deacon if the accusation is unfounded, and it stresses
offering the offending priest or deacon professionalassistance.
Negative features:
A. With due regard for the aforementioned restoration of an
accused clerics good name, the document should have affirmed a
presumption of his innocence until he is proven guilty. A thoughtful Australian
text offers a possibly useful statement in this regard: All persons are
presumed innocent unless and until guilt is either admitted or determined by
due process. If Church personnel accused of abuse are asked to step aside from
the office they hold while the matter is pending, it is to be clearly
understood that they are on leave and that no admissions or guilt are implied
by this fact. Unless and until guilt has been admitted or proved, those accused
should not be referred to as offenders or in any way treated as
offenders.(TM,par. 26).
B. As is true throughout the document, no reference is made
to complaints against bishops, with due regard for the fact that only the pope
or his delegate can punish them [c. 1405, 1, 3].
C. The second paragraph speaks of relieving the alleged
offender of his ministerial duties once the preliminary investigation so
indicates. Presumably this means that the allegation is a founded one, and
there is probable cause to proceed further by way of a penal procedure. This
decision would be differentiated from situations in which, for example, the
clerics behavior was inappropriate yet not criminal or in which
disciplinary (e.g., removal from pastorate) but not criminal action is
warranted. Yet in all such instances what criteria ground such a decision? Is
this investigation the one conducted by the diocesan review board mentioned in
article 2? Furthermore, unlike canon 1722on similar measures, once the penal
procedure is initiated, no reference is made here to citing the accused or the
promoter of justice. What provisions are made for the support of the accused
cleric [c.281] and for protecting his reputation pending completion of a formal
penal procedure [c. 221]?
D. The formulation regarding a medical and psychological
evaluation for such a priest or deacon seems more forceful (will be
referred ) than in norm 8 (will ask him [priest or deacon] to
undergo appropriate medical and psychological evaluation and intervention, if
possible). In this context it should be noted that Holy See jurisprudence
is clear that no one can be obliged to engage in invasive psychological testing
without the persons free consent.
E. Paragraph 3 speaks of sexual abuse being admitted or
established after an appropriate investigation in accord with canon law.
Presumably this means sexual abuse of a minor, but this is not explicitly
stated. Does such investigation presuppose a formal judicial
process as differentiated from the preliminary investigation? Presumably it
does. However, despite a reference in paragraph 5 to the May 2001 CDF letter on
reserved delicts, the document does not refer to the necessary post-preliminary
investigation referral of a case to CDF before it is processed.
F. Interestingly enough the document does not mention the
primary legal document on reserved delicts, the April 2001 motu proprio
Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela of John Paul II on which the
CDF letter is based. The document refers to the 1995 NCCB instruction
Canonical Delicts, a text providing helpful suggestions on handling
sex abuse of minor cases. However, this rather nuanced text has no special
legislative standing.
G. Paragraph 4 provides that for even one act of sexual
abuse the offending priest or deacon is to be permanently removed from
ministry. This does not seem to be a precise penal category as articulated in
Book VI. Perhaps it is envisioned as a perpetual expiatory penalty depriving
one of various canonical options [c. 1336, 1,3]. It seems tantamount to
laicization even if it isnt such technically. This provisions
sweeping reference to penalizing past, present, or future sexual abuse seems to
take no cognizance of at least two significant universal penal law provisions.
Canon 1341 views penal procedures and penalties as a last, not a first, resort
in dealing with problematic behavior; and the May 2001 CDF letter indicates
that penal actions are prescribed ten years after the alleged victim reaches
his or her eighteenth birthday. Both the Charter here and no. 9A of the Norms
questionably insist on the complete removal from ministry of a priest or deacon
despite their possibly successfully rehabilitating themselves psychologically
and spiritually and serving the people of God faithfully for years.
H. As noted earlier, the penultimate paragraph of the
document broadly describes sexual abuse in light of the 1992 Canadian
bishops text From Pain to Hope. Various types of prohibited and
destructive behavior are mentioned; yet the penalties envisioned seem to be the
same no matter what the nature of the abuse. No allowance is made
for the kind of judicial/administrative discretion in assessing imputability
that canons 1343-1346 among others envision. Universal penal law reflects a
certain proportionality principle: the more serious the offense,
the more serious the penalty. Regrettably such an approach seems absent from
this document and the Norms.
I. Paragraph 4 of this article refers to
prevention as one purpose of professional assistance for the
offender. Presumably this means precluding future delicts but it is not
entirely clear.
J. Paragraph 5, speaking of various options in such cases,
indicates as one option a request from the bishop for involuntary dismissal
from the clerical state. This presumably means recourse to an extraordinary
papal administrative dismissal of a cleric; one might have thought that this
would have been spelled out. What about the clerics right of defense? Or
could it be that the bishop requests his tribunal to dismiss the cleric? Yet
this seems precluded by the fact that the CDF makes the decision regarding the
procedure to be followed in such cases.
K. The text makes no allowance for other alternatives to
dismissal, e.g., personal precept prohibiting contact with minors,
surveillance, declaration of impediment to the exercise of orders, etc. (cf.
Canonical Delicts).
L. Given the potentially serious consequences of a penal
procedure, the necessity of access to canonical counsel should be specified
more forcefully (see cc. 1481,2; 1723). The accused clerics right of
defense against any charges is to be affirmed as forthrightly in theory and in
practice as is the right of the promoter of justice and the alleged victim to
make as persuasive a case as possible for his punishment.
M. Paragraph 6 refers to the non-applying of the penalty of
dismissal in some cases and mentions infirmity as one of the reasons. Does this
refer to the imputability-altering factors specified in canons 1322-1327?
Interestingly the very basic penal reality of imputability does not
seem to be mentioned in either document.
Article 6: Standards of ministerial behavior
Positive features:
The development of well-understood standards of ministerial
behavior seems a positive step forward. Such standards are currently
articulated in various places: New Testament, Vatican II, code, post-code
directories etc. Perhaps a restatement of such might be beneficial. In this
connection see IM passim: eight principles treated in some detail
followed by three appendices and a brief bibliography.
Negative features:
A. How precisely will such standards of behavior (and
appropriate boundaries [presumably in clergy-laity relationships])
be developed?
B. What individuals/groups will be involved in developing
such standards?
C. What criteria will guide this enterprise?
Article 7: Communications policy
Positive features:
The value of openness in our diocesan communications seems an
important consideration in light of the noteworthy credibility gap
that has emerged due to the secrecy of the clerical culture in the past and in
the present.
Negative features:
A. How precisely will such a communications policy be
developed?
B. What individuals/groups will be involved in developing
such a policy?
C. What criteria will guide this enterprise? It needs to
reflect a sensitivity to the exigencies of openness and transparency in
diocesan communications as well as a respect for privacy and confidentiality as
warranted.
Part III: Ensure Accountability of Procedures: Articles
8-11
Article 8: National Office for Child and Youth Protection
(cf. TM, par. 35,1-2)
Positive features:
A. There seems to be a genuine value in structuring such a
national office to aid dioceses and provinces in fostering a safe environment
for minors, i.e., those under 18.
B. Theres some wisdom in regular updates on diocesan
compliance with the Charter (hopefully refashioned during the recognitio
process)
Negative features:
A. The next article speaks of a National Review Board that
will somewhat monitor the work of the aforementioned office and commission
various studies. Are two such national bodies really necessary or is this a
case of over-bureaucratization, for which conferences were criticized during
the 1917 code revision process?
B. What authority does the Office have besides publishing a
list of non-compliant dioceses to address the failures of bishops to be
accountable in this area, a major complaint of the faithful? Who can
penalize/discipline non-compliant bishops? The pope/Holy See alone? See John
Huels, The Correction and Punishment of a Diocesan Bishop, The
Jurist 49 (1989) 507-542. Should there be some provision for a more
significant oversight role by intermediary agencies of accountability, e.g.,
metropolitans (senior suffragans) in provinces? This issue was raised in August
1989 during the work of the CLSA Apostolic Visitation Committee, which
criticized the absence of intermediary level accountability mechanisms in
analyzing the apostolic visitation of the Archdiocese of Seattle during the
tenure of Archbishop Hunthausen. See Apostolic Visitation,
Accountability, and the Rights of the Local Church, The Jurist 49 (1989)
341-346.
C. Given the threefold task of the Child and Youth
Protection Office, there should be criteria for its members other than
expertise in sexual abuse of minors, however indispensable such input. For
example, legal expertise, canonical and civil, seems crucial.
D. What is the relationship of the members of the Office to
the USCCB General Secretary who appoints them? Do they have to clear whatever
they do through him? Whom does he consult, if anyone, in choosing Office
members? The USCCB President/Officers? Is there any role for the USCCB Ad Hoc
Committee on Sexual Abuse in this area (see art. 10 on reconstitution of this
committee)?
Article 9: National Review Board
Positive features:
The commissioning of studies on the current crisis and on the
nature and scope of the problem seems positive in principle.
Negative features:
A. See 2a under article 8.
B. One wonders what recommendations might emerge from the
aforementioned Offices assessment of compliance with the Charter? Might
they have disciplinary or penal implications? See 2b under article 8.
C. What might be criteria for membership on this National
Review Board?
D. Who determines the scope of the aforementioned studies
on various issues? Those who will study such issues?
Article 10: Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse
Positive features:
Given the national scope of the sex abuse of minors scandal, the
reconstitution of this body to include representatives from throughout the
country is a positive development.
Negative features:
A. The functions of this committee may be specified in
USCCB documentation with which I am unfamiliar; but perhaps they should have
been clarified in the document (see, however, article 15 on consultation with
the CMSM).
B. How is this committee to relate practically to the
aforementioned Office and Review Board? This does not seem to be addressed
explicitly in the 2001 USCCB Statutes, Bylaws, Handbook 48-51 (ad hoc
committees).
Article 11: Notification of Holy See: nothing seemingly
worthy of comment.
Part IV: To Protect the Faithful in the Future: articles
12-17
Article 12: Diocesan safe environment programs: nothing
especially noteworthy except a question about how precisely such programs will
be designed.
A. Will some individual/group be primarily responsible for
crafting such? The diocesan review board (art.2)?
B. How broad a consultative process is envisioned? What
about canonically recognized consultative bodies such as presbyteral councils
(cc. 495-501) and diocesan pastoral councils (cc. 511-514)?
Article 13: Background evaluation of ministerial personnel:
nothing seemingly worthy of comment, although one might assume that in such
evaluations distinctly ecclesial sources as well as those of law enforcement
and other community agencies will be relevant.
Article 14: Background checks
Positive features:
This effort at trying to protect the People of God against
unsuitable ministers makes eminently good sense and in some instances is long
overdue.
Negative features:
A. Interestingly enough while this text speaks of
clerics in transition, the somewhat corresponding norm 11 speaks
only of priests and deacons, hence exempting bishops from such scrutiny. Or is
it presumed that the Congregation for Bishops and the Nuncio will take
cognizance of such concerns in the episcopal selection process?
B. This article quite rightly refers to major superiors
whereas the somewhat corresponding norm 11 does not mention them.
C. The document does not adequately distinguish between the
diocesan assignment of a religious cleric over which a bishop has
some control [ c. 682] from the residence of a religious which is
generally not technically within the bishops competence. However, for a
most serious reason the bishop can prohibit a religious from residing in the
diocese; but if the religious superior fails to act, the issue is to be
referred to the Holy See [c. 679].
Article 15: Bishop-religious superior consultation
Positive features:
References to such Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse-CMSM
consultation make eminently good sense given the significant number of
religious clerics ministering in the country. One wonders whether similar
episcopal-religious consultation took place during the drafting of the Charter.
However, such consultation was an integral part of the drafting of the two
Australian documents referred to at the beginning of these reflections.
Negative features:
A. The article should speak about clerical societies
of apostolic life as well as clerical institutes.
B. It should be noted that while the USCCB under certain
conditions has some juridical authority over individual diocesan bishops (e.g.,
cc. 455-456), the CMSM has no such juridical authority over the superiors of
the institutes and societies who are its members.
Article 16: Ecumenical research on sexual abuse of minors:
nothing seemingly worthy of comment.
Article 17: Seminary/religious house visitation
Positive features:
Hopefully a carefully designed visitation may foster the formation
of spiritually and emotionally mature priests and deacons.
Negative features:
A. How will the parameters of the visitation be designed?
B. What will be the involvement of officials of seminaries
and formation houses? Of the USCCB, which has no direct authority over the
houses of religious formation? Of the CMSM?
C. Why the focus solely on priests? What about deacons? And
once again no reference is made to bishops.
National Catholic Reporter, Posted September 19,
2002
|