Volume 26, Number 1    April 2004

National Review Board tough on bishop accountability

by Linda Pieczynski

“The Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States” by the National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People is, in itself, an important symbol of what the church could become if lay people had a meaningful role in the governance of the church. It contains candid views on why the crisis happened and recommendations for change.

The real theme of the report is stated in the section on episcopal accountability. “The exercise of authority without accountability is not servant-leadership; it is tyranny.” The board pointed out that the crisis is “one of the episcopacy as much as it is a crisis of the priesthood.” The report makes recommendations for bringing the sex abuse crisis to some type of closure and also for changing the church to prevent future abuse.

What should be done

First, it urged the bishops to show increased sensitivity in responding to allegations of abuse by meeting in person with victims whenever possible, and by rethinking their litigation strategies. Too often bishops have listened to their attorneys and distanced themselves from the victims instead of fulfilling their pastoral duties.

Second, the board said the bishops must abide by the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People adopted in Dallas in June 2002 and the norms approved by the Vatican to retain their credibility. Chairperson Anne Burke suggested that boards like the National Review Board should exist in every diocese. The report calls for the audits of dioceses to be done annually to ensure compliance.

The report found that church leaders kept information from parishioners and other dioceses, pressured victims not to inform the authorities and failed to let other bishops know the full story when a priest was transferred to another location. Too great an emphasis was placed on the avoidance of scandal. Thus, ending secrecy is critical. The board claimed, “Even today, some bishops and priests fail to address the issue of clerical sexual abuse in a sufficiently open manner.” A few members of the review board have even said publicly that the bishops need to release the names of the offenders. Call to Action has called for this in its Campaign for Full Disclosure as well as the release of all data gathered by the dioceses and given to the John Jay researchers for the statistical study.

Selection of bishops

Third, the National Review Board’s greatest contribution to renewal of the church is its unequivocal endorsement of lay participation in the selection of bishops. Noting that only priests who “don’t rock the boat” can hope to advance to the position of bishop and that outspoken bishops are rarely promoted to archbishop or cardinal, the board proclaimed, “The process needs greater lay involvement, both in putting forth the names of priests who might be considered for the episcopacy and in vetting those who have been put forward, to ensure that a wide net is cast when selecting bishops.”
The report said that the bishops should trust and make better use of the consultative and deliberative bodies already established by canon law. For example, diocesan and presbyteral councils, diocesan finance councils and the college of consultors must have a meaningful role in advising the bishops and not be mere window dressing. The board noted the lack of power by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over its bishop members. It suggested a process of accreditation for dioceses similar to what colleges and universities undergo. While the report urges bishops to engage in “fraternal correction” of their brother bishops, it is doubtful that this will have any meaningful effect on the most arrogant members. The board does call for the bishops to appeal to the Vatican to take action against such a bishop, but given Rome’s reluctance to act in the current crisis against the worst offenders, a response from the Vatican doesn’t appear realistic.

Where the process fails

The report expresses concern that the charter and norms are inadequate in setting forth a procedure for determining when a priest should be removed from ministry. The review board believes that the best practice is to place a priest on administrative leave pending the results of an initial investigation by an independent investigator who would then report to the law review board.

While noting the deficiencies of a zero tolerance policy, the board pointed out that “for the immediate future the zero-tolerance policy is essential to the restoration of the trust of the laity in the leadership of the church, provided that it is appropriately applied.” The board believes that the faithful do not trust the bishops to enforce a more nuanced policy.

Laicizing abusers

The board was very concerned with the deficiencies of the canon law process whereby laicization only occurs after a lengthy process. The board believes that an expedited process is necessary.

The report does not directly address the church’s teachings on sexuality and the role it has played in the crisis. It calls for closely scrutinizing the role of homosexuality in the priesthood, and calls for screening seminarians regarding their ability to be celibate. It recognizes the reality that some men may be attracted to the priesthood because they see it as a way to avoid struggling with their sexual identities.

The board also demands that celibacy be looked at closely to determine the role of, extent of compliance with, and consequences of this discipline. While celibacy is a gift for some, “celibacy is a terrible burden for others, resulting in loneliness, alcohol and drug abuse, and improper sexual conduct,” said the board. It noted that that as vocations declined, bishops may have felt pressured to ordain a certain number of priests and a reluctance to turn away individuals not well suited to the priesthood for psychological reasons.

Unanswered questions

The board’s recommendation for a comprehensive scientific study relating to the causes and context of sexual abuse should be a priority for the bishops. It is the only way to answer important questions such as: Were there more male victims because of the percentage of homosexual priests in ministry or was it a matter of access because prior to the 1990’s only boys were altar servers? (Other scientific studies have shown that 70 percent of the men who molest boys under 13 are heterosexual). What effect does church teaching that homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder have on the psyche of gay priests? Do the priesthood and its demand for celibacy attract sexually immature men? Improper screening of candidates is cited as a major causative factor of the crisis. If the bishops do not fund such a study, any decisions made on whom to admit to the priesthood will be based on mere speculation.

Clericalism came under attack by the review board and receives part of the blame for the crisis. The board believes that the attitude that “priests and bishops are apart from and superior to the laity” resulted in misplaced loyalty. This caused some bishops and priests to look the other way when a brother priest engaged in sexual activity.

Forgiveness without consequences also came in for criticism. “Forgiveness is not incompatible with consequences,” said the board, pointing out the nature of penance in Catholic Church teaching.

The report was very critical of the bishops for failing to comprehend that sexual molestation is a criminal act that needs to be reported to the police. While not addressing the issue of mandated reporting by clergy, the board believes that all complaints should be referred to the civil authorities.

One task the report did not deal with is how the bishops should be held accountable for their misdeeds. The board emphasized that while the bishops adopted a zero tolerance policy toward offending priests, there is no zero tolerance policy for bishops who knowingly moved predators despite knowledge of the risks. Furthermore, there has been no action taken by the Vatican against Bishop Fabian Bruskiewicz of Lincoln, Neb., despite his arrogant refusal to cooperate with the John Jay study. While it is not stated explicitly, one is left with the impression that the National Review Board believes that until the bishops who knowingly moved sexual predators from parish to parish resign their positions, it will not be possible to regain the trust of the Catholic faithful.

CTA is pressing the U.S. bishops at their June meeting in Denver to approve annual audits of their own compliance with adopted measures against sexual abuse. To learn how you can help, check the CTA website regularly: www.cta-usa.org

In their own words

Here are a few striking quotes from the National Review Board’s report:

“Too many bishops… failed to respond… forthrightly and firmly. Their responses were characterized by moral laxity, excessive leniency, insensitivity, secrecy and neglect.

“Too many church leaders did not deal with victims in a pastoral fashion…Victims were marginalized and, in effect, re-victimized.

“To allow a predator priest to remain in ministry out of fear of litigation is simply immoral.