Francis addresses the sexual abuse of minors - Updated

Update 5/21/2019 10:33 pm: At the bottom of the post I've referenced some views posted by Philip Lawler at First Things.

-----

On May 9, Francis issued motu proprio (that is, via an executive order) some universal church laws to address critical shortcomings in the church's handling of cases of the sexual abuse of minors.

Gerard O'Connell in America reports:

[The edict] obliges bishops in every diocese to establish, by June 2020, a system that is accessible to the public for the reporting of any of the following: the sexual abuse of minors or vulnerable adults; the use of violence or intimidation (whether with minors or adults) to engage in sexual acts; the possession or distribution of child pornography; and the cover-up of such conduct by bishops or religious superiors.

Among the important provisions:

• All clergy and religious now have a clear and binding mandate to report all instances of abuse or the cover-up of abuse to church authorities.  (According to O'Connell, "Hitherto, it was left to the consciences of individuals to do so.")  This obligation to report to church authorities is in addition to the obligation to report to civil authorities
• Among the crimes to be reported include a number of offenses related to child pornography, such as possession or distribution
• Those who are to be protected under these new provisions included minors as well as vulnerable adults.  Among those specifically named as protected are seminarians and women religious
• Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation by superiors
• If the one accused of abuse or cover-up is a bishop, Francis has instituted a "metropolitan model" to investigate the accusation (a bit more about that below).  
• Provision is made for qualified laypersons to be part of the investigation of bishops
• Time limits are imposed for beginning and completing an investigation, and when bishops are the subject of an investigation, monthly reports must be filed with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Holy See
• Victims are to be kept apprised of progress, and are to be treated with dignity and compassion throughout the process
• Those accused are to be accorded the presumption of innocence

In some respects, the impact of these laws will be more far-reaching in other parts of the world than in the United States; the US church is recognized as being somewhat "ahead of the curve" in how it has handled abuse accusations, at least since the Dallas Charter and accompanying norms went into effect some 15 or so years ago.

But we in the United States should not congratulate ourselves in having our houses already in order.  These new laws certainly will address shortcomings in how certain situations have been handled in the US.  For example, had these new laws been in effect, they could have served as a legal remedy for the abuse allegedly perpetrated against seminarian victims by former Cardinal McCarrick.

The "metropolitan model" for investigating bishops is similar to a proposal to the American bishops by Cardinal Cupich last November as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) wrestled with the question of what to do when its own members, most notably McCarrick, has been accused of abuse.  A metropolitan is the head of a church province.  A church province is a grouping of dioceses, which in the United States often but not always coincides with the borders of a state.  For example, I live in the Illinois province, which consists of the six dioceses within the state's borders.  The head of a province generally is the archbishop (or cardinal) within the province.  The Illinois province is headed by Cardinal Cupich.  If a bishop in Illinois is accused, Cardinal Cupich would, under these new laws, be empowered by the Holy See to investigate the accusation.  If the metropolitan himself is accused, or if it seems inappropriate for the metropolitan to investigate, then the Holy See will handle the investigation, apparently by assigning the responsibility to someone else.

Commonweal's editors wrote a mostly positive editorial about the new laws, writing that "it should be received neither with cynicism nor complacency", and characterizing it as "one of the most decisive actions Rome has taken since the emergence of the sex-abuse crisis decades ago."

What’s essential to keep in mind is that Francis’s motu proprio is a necessary and constructive next step when it comes to handling sex abuse and its cover-up. It provides fundamental rules that apply to the entire church rather than a patchwork of procedures tailored to every diocese worldwide. This is in keeping with the “healthy decentralization” Francis has encouraged since the start of his papacy. Nothing prevents local bishops or bishops’ conferences from doing more than the document requires—it is a floor, not a ceiling. In the United States, lay involvement has generally been deemed an important part of the Dallas Charter’s success, a key element of transparency and accountability in handling accusations of abuse against the lower clergy. When the USCCB meets in June, they certainly should consider the use of qualified lay people to investigate bishops accused of wrongdoing. 

The editorial also calls out some criticisms and shortcomings:

Anne Barrett Doyle, a co-director of BishopAccountability.org, acknowledged that the decree makes important changes, but laments that it does not specify penalties for those found guilty of abuse: “[I]t’s still entirely possible for a bishop to punish a child-molesting priest with a slap on the wrist and to keep his name hidden from the public.” The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), while admitting the motu proprio includes “some good things,” also issued a statement criticizing it for not mandating that bishops report abuse to law enforcement, though it does require bishops to comply with the relevant civil laws in their jurisdictions. “We would have been far more impressed if this new law required church officials to report to police and prosecutors instead,” SNAP said. “Oversight from external, secular authorities will better protect children and deter cover-ups.” Others have complained that the document does not demand lay involvement in investigations, and so matters are left to church officials.

While acknowledging that these long-time observers and critics of the institution's handling of sex abuse make some points worth considering, the editors conclude, "these new rules amount to a significant step forward in the church's handling of sex abuse."  And O'Connell at America concurs, writing,

The motu proprio, which is universally binding and relates to both the Latin and Eastern Rite Churches, is a truly significant response to what is a global problem for the church and marks an important milestone in the pope’s effort to eradicate abuse and provide justice and healing for the victims.

Update 5/21/2019, 10:33 pm: Over at the First Things Web Exclusives blog, journalist Philip Lawler makes an important point: these new provisions will be effective only if the church officials charged with enforcing them are committed to justice for victims and accusers.  After praising the new provisions for reporting abuse and the cover-up for abuse, he notes that much of the document focuses on the specific cases where the accused is a bishop.  He then suggests a thought experiment: suppose these provisions were in effect when former Cardinal McCarrick allegedly was abusing seminarians.  He writes,

Under the new system, a complaint against a bishop should be brought to the attention of the metropolitan archbishop in the region. But McCarrick was the metropolitan archbishop—first in Newark, then in Washington, D.C. In such a case, the new policy stipulates that the complaint should be sent to the Holy See. But reports about McCarrick were conveyed to the Vatican, and for years nothing happened. Later, when McCarrick retired, complaints might have been made to his successor, Cardinal Donald Wuerl. But again, Wuerl was informed. 

The sad history of the McCarrick scandal demonstrates that policies are only as reliable as the officials who enforce them. If Catholics have lost confidence in their bishops, the procedures set forth in Vos Estis will not reassure them.

Lawler also echoes the criticism from Anne Barrett Doyle from bishopaccountability.org that the Commonweal editorial quoted above: the new provisions would be stronger if just penalties are specified.  Lawler again turns to the McCarrick case to illustrate:

Notice that when Pope Benedict XVI finally took disciplinary action against McCarrick, the penalty was mild; already retired, McCarrick was asked to withdraw from public life. More to the point, the ecclesiastical sanction was generally ignored—both by McCarrick, who continued to maintain a high public profile, and by his friends at the Vatican—and eventually overturned by Pope Francis. Moreover, the penalty was imposed secretly, so that McCarrick’s punishment (such as it was) could not have deterred other prelates from misconduct. 

Lawler is not optimistic that these new provisions will be effective.  Let us hope, as Jack notes in the comments, that the years of victims, attorneys and the media, and now perhaps the government, holding church officials accountable will induce them to turn a new leaf.