Managing sex offenders - Updated

9/26/2019 12:05 am - I've added some additional thoughts at the bottom of the post, in response to some objections raised in the comments.

-----

The Albuquerque Journal is reporting that a confessed abusive San Francisco Archdiocese priest is living on parish grounds in Taos, NM (h/t Jim McCrea).  He should be banned forthwith - and then all branches of the church must formally renounce any/all responsibility for his whereabouts and activities.

TAOS – The evening of Sept. 14, Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in Taos held a “healing Mass” for victims of clergy sexual and other abuse.The next day, an admitted child sex abuser priest from California attended another special parish function – this time to celebrate the opening of the new proposed Benedictine monastery on the grounds of church property – just across the street from a public elementary school. Archbishop of Santa Fe John C. Wester officiated.

The priest in question, Milton Walsh, is described in the article as "a retired priest who isn’t permitted to “present” himself as one".  It seems that recently he has been exploring the possibility of a monastic way of life:

The Taos monastery, located in a refurbished convent, is to be the new home for a group of Benedictine monks with whom Walsh stayed last year at the isolated Monastery of Christ in the Desert near Abiquiu in northern New Mexico.A Journal reporter in mid-August asked for Walsh at the new Monastery of San Juan Diego in Taos and was told he would move in on Sept. 8, and in the meantime he was staying at the Madonna Retreat Center on the Archdiocese of Santa Fe campus in Albuquerque. The center is adjacent to the St. Pius X High School campus.On Sunday, the Rev. Simeon Cook, who had lived at the Christ in the Desert Abbey where Walsh stayed, also attended the Taos monastery ceremonies. He told the Journal he heard that Walsh “may be trying it out” at the new monastery. If so, Cook said, he thought Walsh could “make a contribution” there.

The article has additional details of Walsh's offense, as well as some quotes from the victim's lawyer.

There are several aspects of this story that warrant observation:

Walsh's status according to the Dallas Charter norms.  For the sake of discussion, let's assume that Walsh's victim filed a report with the Archdiocese's Independent Review Board, and that the church authorities found him guilty of abuse according to the Dallas Charter and related Norms.

What discipline do those norms prescribe for clergy judged to have committed abuse?  "Diocesan/eparchial policy is to provide that for even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor—whenever it occurred—which is admitted or established after an appropriate process in accord with canon law, the offending priest or deacon is to be permanently removed from ministry and, if warranted [my emphasis], dismissed from the clerical state." [Dallas Charter, Article 5].

Note that this provision envisions two possible punishments: one relatively lighter ("permanently removed from ministry"), and one relatively more severe ("dismissed from the clerical state").  It seems clear, based on the news story, that Walsh was given the lighter of these two sentences:

Mike Brown, spokesman for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, told the Journal Walsh is a “retired, out-of-ministry priest of the Archdiocese of San Francisco.” Though still a priest, Brown said Walsh “may not present himself as a priest.”

Why was it determined that Walsh's abuse didn't warrant the harsher punishment of dismissal from the clerical state?  The story doesn't answer that question definitively, but we may glean that it may be because Walsh didn't seem like a serial abuser:

The Archbishop of San Francisco back then said in a deposition that Walsh wasn’t “a serial perpetrator” and he didn’t think he would reoffend.

What is the difference between "'removed from ministry" and "dismissed from the clerical state"?  In some ways, there is no difference: the man in question is not eligible for a ministry assignment such as pastor or parochial vicar, may not exercise any priestly liturgical functions such as presiding at mass or hearing confessions; and so on.  May he sign his name as "Rev. Walsh", or ask people to address him as "Fr. Walsh"?  May be wear clericals?  Does he stay on the diocese's payroll?  For one dismissed from the clerical state, the answer clearly is (or should be) "No" in all cases; one dismissed from the clerical state is no longer entitled to clerical benefits, nor permitted to lead a clerical way of life.  But if he's removed from ministry while retaining his clerical status?  I believe the answer becomes "Maybe" to those questions.

'Victims should report abuse only to the police, not the church'.  This advice commonly is given by those who try to look out for victims' best interests.  To be candid, I've never thought it was good advice.

In my view, better advice is that a victim should always report instances of abuse both to the secular authorities and to the church.  This is because sex abuse of a minor is a crime (and sin) that violates both public criminal laws and the church's own internal policies and regulations.  The criminal and civil justice systems are responsible for the public sphere, while the church is responsible for its own internal functioning.  Ideally, the sex offender would be punished and monitored in both spheres.

Given the church's dismal track record of protecting its own children, it's more than understandable that victims and their advocates don't trust the church to handle accusations appropriately and effectively.  However, it's important to note that the criminal and civil justice systems are imperfect, and limited in some ways.  Among the limits are statutes of limitations that prevent the justice system from prosecuting or entertaining lawsuits against perpetrators when the acts in question were outside the statutory time limits.  In addition, criminal investigations can take time (during which an offender may offend again), and may not result in charges being filed, nor in a successful prosecution.  It also should be pointed out that, after a convicted offender has served his sentence, he is released back into the general public where he may abuse again.

In Walsh's case, he was charged in criminal court - but those charges later were dismissed when the California law under which he was charged was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.  Therefore, even though Walsh has admitted to sexually abusing a minor, he is not constrained in secular society as most sex offenders are.  He does not have a conviction for sexual abuse on his criminal record, and he is not required to register as a sex offender.  Walsh is free to go anywhere or do anything he wishes - except insofar as the church's disciplinary measures constrain him within the church.  Given the justice system's inability to act against Walsh, those church disciplinary measures may be the only thing standing between Walsh and potential victims, at least within the boundaries of the church.

'Send abusers to a monastery, to live out the rest of their days in prayer and penance'.  This sentiment also is common.  The idea is: if the abuser is isolated in a monastery, he won't be in active ministry, and he won't be near any children.  And it seems compassionate: the offender can spend the rest of his life in a prayerful atmosphere where he can beg God for mercy.

The reality is more complicated, as this story illustrates.  When most of us think of monasteries, we think of walled fortresses on a rocky isle in the Irish Sea or atop a mountain.  But many of them are not that isolated.  Some are in urban areas; some are close to residential areas, schools, parks or other places where children congregate.

In Walsh's case, the Monastery of Christ in the Desert sounds like our popular imagination's idea of an isolated house of prayer.  But it seems some of those monks are moving into a building on the grounds of this parish in Taos, which also is across the street from a school.  And Walsh apparently has contemplated making that same move to the parish building.

Monks are not organized to monitor the activities of sexual abusers.  It's not a skill that we should assume the possess.  The church shouldn't attempt to burden them with this task.

What to do about cases like Walsh's?  Walsh's circumstances support an argument I've made from time to time over the years: when a cleric is judged guilty of sexual abuse, he should be removed from the clerical state in all cases.  At that time, the institutional church - dioceses and religious orders - should renounce all responsibility for his future actions.  He should be banned by the church from working for the church, and from any physical or virtual presence on church property.

This policy would make society at large responsible for these sex offenders.  It might be objected that it doesn't seem fair to burden society with these criminals.  The reply, of course, is that society already is burdened with managing sex offenders.  To see who they are in your neighborhood, consult your state's or municipality's sex offender registry.

We don't make school districts responsible for the continuing care of teachers and coaches who abuse, nor corporations responsible for the continuing care of employees who abuse.  My recommendation is that the church put itself on the same legal footing with these other institutions.  The church is no better, and perhaps even worse, at managing sex offenders than these other institutions would be.  The church should stop trying.

Walsh should be dismissed from the clerical state.  Then he should be given to his family and the community to figure out what to do with him.

Update 9/26/2019 12:05 am - A few commenters below have objected to the harshness of my recommendations here.  I am not saying they're wrong; I admit that I'm not entirely comfortable with those recommendations myself.  But I think they're rational and logical.

The mantra that seems to prevail in public opinion these days - and church leaders have adopted it, although they have a good way to go before their word is to be trusted on this matter - is that the highest priority in this matter is the protection and safety of children; this requirement takes precedence over all other considerations.  I'm suggesting that the measures I'm describing here are in line with that rule of thumb.

Church authorities have tried to keep offender priests in the fold while simultaneously keeping them separated from children.  They've failed spectacularly.  The experience of the Catholic church has been that it is virtually impossible to keep priests physically isolated from children.  Children attend Catholic schools.  They attend religious ed classes.  They belong to youth groups.  They attend mass - there are even children's masses.  They are altar servers.  They sing in church choirs.  Their parents bring them to church campuses and even to rectories.  They are admitted as patients to Catholic hospitals.  They run and bike around neighborhood parishes.  At one time, they lived in Catholic orphanages.  And so on.  Children are everywhere.

Bishops have tried to make other priests responsible for keeping an eye on offender priests. That also has failed catastrophically.  Short of physically shackling offenders to their watchers, priest watchers can't watch offenders all day every day.  They have day jobs.  They need to go places and do things.

In the popular imagination, the Catholic church is conceived of as a single, centrally administered monolithic organization.  According to that view of the church, it should be theoretically possible for "the church" to keep track of offenders.  But that view of the church is entirely too simplistic.  The church is not a single, monolithic organization.  It's a voluntary association of many different entities.  Sex offender clergy, and their enablers in church leadership, have exploited this reality of the church to evade accountability for abuse.  It used to be that, when a priest became known to a parish as a sex offender, he was moved to another parish, where he abused again.  Some offenders have long strings of parish assignments, with victims at every stop along the way.  If a bishop decided that he was done with an offender, the offender may relocate to another diocese.  Some offender priests have relocated to other countries, with clergy shortages, where priests are highly in demand.  We've learned that navigating the labyrinth that is the organizational church is one of the hallmarks of abusers.

This is why Walsh's affiliation with the Christ in the Desert Monastery raises a red flag.  We've learned that dioceses and religious orders don't coordinate very closely or effectively.   For Walsh to begin hanging out at this monastery is somewhat worrisome.  That he'd then look to transfer to a monastery directly across the street from a school - that's more than worrisome; it's a giant red flag.  That is how predators behave.

But what about simply going to mass?  Can't Walsh attend mass?  Aren't children safe in an environment with several hundred adults?  Perhaps Walsh should be allowed to attend mass.  But I'd argue that he'd need to be monitored.  The parish would need to keep an eye on him all the time.