Trust and Confidence

In a recent issue of America, Archbishop Harry Flynn of St. Paul and Minneapolis reviewed the accomplishments of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (10/18). While there is much to praise in his article, I would respectfully but emphatically disagree with two arguments he made.

Archbishop Flynn states: To keep children safe and to restore trust and confidence, it became necessary to remove all offenders. The charter’s one-size-fits-all approach makes no distinction between rape and a kiss or an inappropriate touching over the clothes. It makes no distinction between a serial predator and one-time offender. It makes no distinction between an offense committed yesterday and one committed 40 years ago. This makes no sense and is unjust. It panders to those who thirst for vengeance. The church cannot yield to vengeance. To do so is to betray the Gospel.

Also, the charter has an all-or-nothing approach to ministry. Given the concerns about returning offenders to parish ministry, why would it not be sufficient, in appropriate cases, to assign an accused priest to ministry that involves no contact with children?

The church teaches that ordination results in an ontological change. A person takes on a new identity. He is a priest forever, not merely an employee who can be fired. It seems that the credibility of the bishops has been so damaged by the poor judgments of some bishops that all are afraid to make any distinctions or to exercise any judgment.

Archbishop Flynn says that accused priests are afforded the protections of canon law. This is simply not true. In my experience with helping hundreds of priests, when a priest is accused he is guilty until proven guiltier.

Dioceses routinely engage in the practice of name and shame, whereby a priest against whom there is found to be a suspicion of misconduct with a minor is publicly named and removed from ministry. Once the bell of child abuser is rung, it can never be un-rung.

Often the diocese will announce that an accusation is credible or even substantiated. Such a finding is based mostly on the impressions of the initial interviewer of the accuser, with little investigation and no cross-examination. Such a process is contrary to canonical due process and fundamental fairness. It is small comfort to have a canonical trial after a public lynching.

Many canonical processes will turn out to be inconclusive. In the secular courts, that would result in the accused being freed. But an accused priest cannot return to ministry unless he can prove the allegation to be false. Once an allegation has been declared to be credible, the burden of proof shifts in effect to the priest to prove his innocence. Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany did this successfully through an independent investigator, but it cost his diocese over a million dollars. Evidently Bishop Hubbard saw that a canonical process would be inadequate to clear his name. An ordinary priest who is accused does not stand much of a chance. All priests are vulnerable. There is a double standard.

In the past two years, the bishops have accomplished a great deal in addressing the problem of sexual abuse of minors. However, when the bishops review the charter, they must correct these two injustices.

Finally, in sharp contrast to Cardinal Avery Dulles’ previous article in America entitled Rights of Accused Priests (6/21), Archbishop Flynn’s article illustrates the difference between Cardinal Dulles’s assertionthat making decisions must be based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the authentic teachings of the church, and in this case as found particularly in the Code of Canon Lawand continuing to base decisions on the inadequate charter.

Joseph Maher

Zero Tolerance and the Power of Grace

The Oct. 18 issue of America carries two thought-provoking articles: What Has the Charter Accomplished? by Archbishop Harry Flynn, and Where Do We Go From Here? by Thomas P. Rausch, S.J. Those pose the questions, where are we and where are we headed? The we is generically the church in the United States and in particular the Catholic bishops. The articles might be called a glimpse of history in the making, a presentation of perspectives. I offer some further perspectives.

The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People has indeed accomplished much, as Archbishop Flynn details. But I question his perspective about speed and haste. It was speedily written but hastily approved. The time for discussion was very limited in Dallas. Much of its content had not been adequately discussed in previous general meetings, particularly the handling of priest abusers and what became eventually the coverup in the reassignment of guilty priests. But more proximately we bishops did not give adequate attention to all of the three points made by Pope John Paul II in his address to the cardinals at their hastily called meeting in Rome. Two points were covered: the expelling of priest abusers from active ministry and the consciousness of the bishops’ actions having a positive influence on society in general, where sexual abuse of the young is a major blight.

But the Holy Father’s first point was not discussed in any way that would have an influence on the overall discussion. Pope John Paul stated: You are working to establish more reliable criteria to ensure that such mistakes are not repeated. At the same time we cannot forget the power of Christian conversion, the radical decision to turn away from sin and back to God, which reaches to the depths of a person’s soul and can work extraordinary change.

That gets to the very heart of reconciliation of everyone. The discussion in Dallas about zero tolerance for priest offenders was not adequately discussed there. Indeed, the discussion was cut off by a motion and vote from the floor. Such a vote was in order and had to be respected. But it is my opinion that it catered to an aspect of haste which sidetracked any discussion of zero tolerance for those past offenders who over many years of priestly ministry demonstrated that they did turn away from sin and back to God and did reflect in their lives that they had gone through an extraordinary personal change, thanks to the power of the grace of God.

Frequently, lay Catholics who have lost a good priest because of abuse that happened years ago ask, Do not the bishops believe in forgiveness, conversion of soul and reconciliation?

Archbishop Flynn makes a distinction between forgiveness of sin and the consequences of sin. He is clear that every sin can be forgiven, but on consequences he simply says that expulsion from ministry and possibly the priesthood is one consequence. But it is a consequence for reformed and reclaimed priests because the bishops say so.

Therein is another consequence: priests who feel abandoned by their bishop, priests who now have no trust in their bishop, priests who feel they cannot turn to their bishop on anything personal or spiritual.

Where do we go from here? The tone of Archbishop Flynn’s article is not encouraging. He seems to discourage any amendment of the charter on zero tolerance, even the narrow consideration of the plight of reformed priest abusers. He sounds this note especially in citing the thinking of the National Review Board that for the immediate future this policy is essential for the restoration of the trust of the laity in the leadership of the Church, provided it is appropriately applied.

With all due respect for the very good contributions of the National Review Board, I fail to see zero tolerance as essential to restoring trust. What we should recognize is that zero tolerance, in being applied indiscriminately to all past offenders, has created a new group of victims, those Catholics who have lost their good pastor in their parish or their good chaplain in a nursing home. The indiscriminate application of zero tolerance will not re-establish trust in the bishops.

The Holy Father suggested that the bishops set an example for society. Perhaps the bishops can draw some inspiration from the bold move made by President Gerald Ford when dealing with the resignation of President Richard Nixon and the disastrous Vietnam debacle. He pardoned Nixon. Then he established a National Clemency Commission to deal with deserters and draft dodgers in the Vietnam War. His words are telling in his proclamation establishing the commission:

In furtherance of our national commitment to justice and mercy, these young Americans should have the chance to contribute a share to the rebuilding of peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Desertion in time of war is a major, serious offense; failure to respond to the country’s call to duty is also a serious offense. Reconciliation among our people does not require these acts to be condoned. Yet, reconciliation calls for an act of mercy to bind the nation’s wounds and to heal the scars of division.

About 15,000 young people applied for clemency. About 13,000 were granted clemency. Another 1,000 or so were granted clemency but only after a time of community service. About 900 were denied clemency.

Some political observers say these actions contributed to President Ford’s loss in the next presidential election. That might have been the price he paid for following the call of justice, mercy and reconciliation.

Without question the bishops, through the charter and the norms, have established as their primary focus the victims of sexual abuse and their protection. But the task of reconciliation is far from complete.

Where do we go from here? In my opinion we must jettison the word and the concept of zero tolerance. Rather, we must return to the Holy Father’s focus on the power of Christian conversion and the power of grace to transform lives. From that will come trust, mutual trust among all of our people. That is the mission of reconciliation which, St. Paul reminds us, is the mission entrusted to us by Jesus Christ.

(Most Rev.) Francis T. Hurley