Which sex-abuse problems did the bishops attempt to address in Baltimore?
Until now, the US bishops have had no formal process for reporting, investigating and ensuring accountability for accusations against themselves - that is, against bishops who commit abuse or who don't report abuse. This is a well-known gap in the Dallas Charter (see below for a bit more on this). Of course, the poster child for abusive American bishops is Theodore McCarrick, formerly cardinal archbishop of Washington DC but now laicized as a result of multiple offenses he committed against minors and adult seminarians. Another case, that of retired Bishop Michael Bransfield of the Wheeling-Charleston, WV diocese, also has come to public notice in the last few months, with a former seminarian filing a lawsuit against Bransfield, claiming that Bransfield abused him. There have been other instances of bishops who have resigned because of accusations of abuse, or because they have mishandled abuse allegations against their priests; and many other accusations have been made against various bishops for mishandling and concealing allegations of abuse committed by priests.
What solution did the bishops propose?
The heart of the new proposal is to establish a third-party-administrated abuse reporting hotline for victims to report instances of abuse committed by bishops, or abuse by others which bishops have mishandled. According to Dennis Sadowski of Catholic News Service:
In a series of three votes June 12, the bishops voted overwhelmingly to authorize the implementation of a system that would allow people to make reports through a toll-free telephone number as well as online.The purpose of the national hotline is to receive allegations, make a record of them, and forward them on to metropolitans, i.e. archbishops who are in charge of church provinces, to investigate. Here is Sadowski:
All reports would be funneled through a central receiving hub, which would then be responsible for sending allegations to the appropriate metropolitan, or archbishop, responsible for each diocese in a province and to the papal nunciature in Washington, Picarello explained. The U.S. has 32 metropolitans.How does this proposed process relate to Pope Francis's new universal guidelines for reporting abuse by bishops?
The metropolitans will be responsible for reporting any allegation to local law enforcement authorities as the first step toward investigating a claim.
This new American process is being constructed pursuant to Francis's motu proprio from last month. According to Gerard O'Connell in America, here is what happens when the Metropolitan receives an accusation:
If the accused is a bishop, the metropolitan receives a mandate from the Holy See to investigate ... The motu proprio insists that the Vatican offices must give timely responses to the metropolitan or other person responsible for a case. It envisages the possibility for the involvement of qualified lay persons in this work. The metropolitan must provide a report every 30 days to the Vatican ... It also decrees the duty of the bishop or religious superior, or others with responsibility, to ensure the protection of all documentation relating to reports of abuse. It sets time limits for the opening and completing of an investigation, 30 and 90 days, respectively, and outlines the process leaders should follow once an investigation is complete.Doesn't the Dallas Charter already allow victims to report bishops?
No. The Dallas Charter, adopted by the US bishops in 2002 in response to an earlier iteration of sex-abuse scandals, provided a standard set of requirements for individual dioceses to investigate accusations against priests and deacons of committing sexual abuse of minors. Bishops were intentionally not included in the Charter's provisions because, under canon law at that time, individual bishops and national conferences did not have authority over bishops; only the Holy See could investigate and discipline a bishop. But Francis's motu proprio (executive decree) from last month, Vos estis lux mundi, opened the doorway for these new guidelines by which metropolitans within a country can investigate bishops.
At the time the bishops adopted the Dallas Charter, they also issued a Statement of Episcopal Commitment which was not legally binding but which constituted the bishops' voluntary pledge to, among other things, report any sex-abuse infractions by other bishops to the Holy See. This new process presumably will supersede that Statement. Unlike the Statement, this new process is legally binding on the bishops, because it's the United States implementation of Francis's motu proprio, which has the weight of church law.
It's also important to note that the Dallas Charter and its accompanying Norms apply only to the sexual abuse of minors. Pope Francis's new motu proprio for bishops applies, not only to the sexual abuse of minors, but also of vulnerable adults (among whom seminarians are named as a category covered by the new law). The new law also covers possession of child pornography.
Do these votes at their meeting complete the bishops' task?
No. The hotline itself doesn't exist yet. The bishops voted to have it in place by May 31, 2020, but several bishops have stated that the conference can't wait nearly that long to implement it. The details of the hotline process still need to be worked out: a third party service will need to be selected and contracted to provide the service. The National Review Board, established by the Dallas Charter to audit dioceses' compliance with the Charter, has stated publicly that it would like to take on responsibility for accepting accusations against bishops, but it seems that the USCCB is going to go in a different direction.
The bishops also realize that accusations against bishops may come in via other routes than the new national hotline. For example, an accusation against a bishop could conceivably be made directly to a metropolitan. So dioceses will also need to establish their own processes for handling accusations against bishops that come to them directly.
While the new national hotline will provide a way for victims to report accusations against bishops, it's important to note that reporting an allegation is just the first step. Each metropolitan archdiocese now will have to create a process and assign resources to conduct investigations into each allegation received. The processes for the communication back and forth between the archdioceses and Rome also will need to be established.
I assume that the final determination for disciplining miscreant bishops will rest with Rome, not the American bishops.
The bishops meet again in November, and by then, the conference expects to have a detailed and specific plan written, which will be voted on for final approval.
Call me slow-witted, but I don't understand all this reporting. To whom does this info go? Some shadowy "third parties" that make the whole process even less transparent than it already is. Can there be degrees of opacity?
ReplyDeleteThe only reporting that needs to be done is to the cops.
Jean - as a way to amuse myself, I considered (am still considering) doing a flow chart diagram of the process as I understand it - I agree it is fairly complex. If I get around to it, I'll post an image of it, and anyone who is interested can critique it.
DeleteAmong the reasons for the complexity is that the US bishops are trying mightily to involve laypersons in the solution, and to introduce an element of independence into the process - hence the requirement for a third party.
I agree that the cops should be informed - and the metropolitan is supposed to do this, as the very first step upon receiving an allegation. But the cops may not be able to handle everything that needs to be handled. For example, if an adult seminarians claims that he slept in the archbishop's bed (a la McCarrick) - is that a crime? It may not be. But it's certainly a violation of church law, thanks to Francis's new executive decree. The church must deal with all these allegations itself - and also cooperate fully with law enforcement.
Thanks. So, like any employer who has to referee workplace rules that may not be crimes but affect the ability of people to do their jobs.
DeleteI get the "third-party administered hotline." Call someone non-Catholic secretary in an office run by an important-looking lay Catholic. Maybe a lay Catholic lawyer of some prominence. Then the lay Catholic passes things on to the metropolitan. And at that point, aren't the bishops right back into the business of judging (or protecting) themselves?
ReplyDeleteWhat the bishops need to do is insert lay people, Catholic or non-, at the point where a decision has to be made of whether the accusation is credible. And that person gets to make recommendations to the metropolitan as well as to make referrals to law enforcement. As I understand it, we have something like that in this diocese for priests. He was a judge, not Catholic, whom everyone reveres. I don't know who it is now. It can be one revered person or, better, a mixed group of people with a reputation for probity. If all the laity has to do with this is handle paper in a ministerial role for decision-making bishops or metropolitans, we are still at Square One.
Beyond the lay role in determining credibility of accusations, there ought to be a supercourt of lay lawyers and canon lawyers (who could be clergy) to review the metropolitan's decision.
Oh. You'd never get that past canon law as interpreted in Rome. But if we are talking about what it would take, that's one way.
"Then the lay Catholic passes things on to the metropolitan. And at that point, aren't the bishops right back into the business of judging (or protecting) themselves?"
DeleteYes, that's the nub of it.
It's become commonplace among victims' advocates to recite the slogan, "Bishops can't police bishops". Fair enough. Let's unpack what that has meant historically, though. Until now (or the near future), bishops within a national conference have had no formal authority to police one another. That is not to say that they didn't have a fraternal duty to correct and report one another. But the formal responsibility for policing - investigating, prosecuting, judging and punishing - belonged to the Vatican. Let's agree that both the brother bishops and the Vatican have done a poor job, both fraternally and formally.
As Jack points out, this new process spreads responsibility among multiple parties: an independent third party; the metropolitan; the nuncio; and at least one dicastery in Rome (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Now the metropolitan rather than Rome does the investigating. Does that development help ensure justice? To the extent that responsibility no longer is concentrated in one opaque place, it just might.
Here is my own take on it: if I have to pick between the American bishops or Rome to get this right, I choose the Americans. Why? - because they're more virtuous? Well, they might actually be more virtuous than the Roman bureaucracy, but that's damning with faint praise. But over the last 20 years, what we've learned in the US is that accountability is driven by victims, their advocates and the media (and now, perhaps, state governments, although that's still very much a work in progress). I don't love it that that's the only way to bring accountability about - but I trust that American bishops will be held more accountable than Roman bureaucrats.
The Pope’s norms require the involvement of metropolitans, nuncios and Rome. That is a good balance of local, national, and worldwide perspectives, with at least three church officials being involved very early.
ReplyDeleteThe bishops added lay involvement at the very beginning at the metropolitan level, and also at the national hot line level. It also encourages lay involvement as experts in the investigation, and that their titles be included in the report.
There is nothing like the clergy review boards for priests that would make a recommendation to the metropolitan; it is solely the metropolitan who writes a report and has a vote (i.e. recommendation) which he sends to Rome.
The Roman norms also hold bishops accountable for cover-up. What constitutes cover-up, how to report it and how to investigate it is not very clear in either the papal or bishops documents.
As a gay man, I am sick and tired of closeted, duplicitous (i.e, dishonest · untruthful · lying · mendacious · insincere · false · deceiving · dissembling · disingenuous · untrustworthy · unscrupulous · unprincipled · two-faced) bishops giving the rest of us a bad name. Abuse knows no sexual orientation and should be dealt with immediately, no matter the ontological status of the abuser. Throw the bastards out NOW!!!!
ReplyDelete