In Dallas, Chicago's Cardinal Francis George said he would support the U.S. bishops' sex-abuse norms reluctantly.

Now the Vatican has weighed in on them regarding some of the same concerns Cardinal George had in June. He assessed the Vatican's Oct. 18 letter about the Dallas policy in a conversation with Register correspondent Wayne Laugesen.

What is your take on concerns expressed by the Vatican about the sexual-abuse policy the bishops devised in Dallas?

I suppose they have the same concerns the American Canon Law Society has. This violates the Code of Canon Law as we now have it, and we knew that when we passed it. That's why we asked for instructions on how to proceed, and now they're saying we'll get together and talk about it. The Vatican always sticks close to the code, so we'll have to see how much they're willing to alter the code for a particular purpose, but I think they are willing or they wouldn't have had a mixed commission. They would have just rejected it.

The Vatican seems concerned with the appeals process.

It's all part of due process, of respecting people.

The bishops have said they want to place victims first, yet the Vatican would like some more focus on due process for priests. Do you worry that public discourse about the appeals process might look disrespectful to the victims?

What if it's a false allegation?

The Vatican has also expressed concern about the statute of limitations, which is nonexistent under the Dallas policy.

The statute of limitations can be changed. We just put aside the statute of limitations and said anyone who's had something like this in his background at any time would not be able to stay in public ministry. There are other instances in the code where there is no statute—solicitations in the confessional, for example. So the statute of limitations is imposed by the code; it can also be changed.

Should it be changed?

That should be looked at, because this is such a grave pastoral problem, and once somebody has been proven to have this in his background it makes it very difficult to pastor.

Let's say it's 30 years in a priest's background, and he has completely reformed. Are you saying those 30 years should have no bearing on what happens to the priest?

No, it should. But that's something that can be discussed only once you say there is no statute of limitations. In other words, the statute of limitations is a priori, so you can't even consider it if it happened 30 years ago and you have a statute of limitations. Effectively our policy ignored the statute, and that's against the code.

The Vatican also expressed concern about the requirement out of Dallas that bishops must turn over all allegations to civil authorities. What are your thoughts on that?

The problem is, a bishop becomes someone who reports a priest to public authorities and that traditionally has not been something a bishop has done. But I think they've come to understand the need to do that in American civil law now, depending on how the bishop receives the allegation. So again, that's something that's also going to have to be worked out by the mixed commission.

Are you comfortable turning over every single allegation that comes your way? Some allegations must be incredibly silly and without foundation, aren't they?

I think, personally, that this reporting requirement is necessary in order to restore trust. The argument against bishops being involved in this at all is that sometimes in the past they passed on an abuser into another set of circumstances instead of reporting the abuse to the public authorities. And therefore, in that circumstance, I think it appropriate they do that [report to civil authorities]. Granted, 99% of the time they passed it on to civil authorities and the civil authorities said we can't do anything because the civil statute of limitations has run out. But it's still important to pass it on, I believe.

I spoke to a bishop at the Dallas conference who said he gets calls every week from the same delusional drunk who accuses priests of attacking her and molesting her in the streets. This woman is ill, and her complaints clearly aren't credible. It seems odd that such complaints must be turned over to civil authorities.

That's not a serious allegation, what you're talking about. An allegation has to be turned over with some sense that this is possibly happening. When you have someone who effectively isn't responsible, you don't pay attention to almost anything they say. That's not an allegation, what you described.

So, it's your understanding that bishops can use common sense and personal judgment—in following the Dallas policy—in deciding whether to contact civil authorities?

I would think so. Otherwise police won't listen to you when you call. But you have to be cautious about that and not excuse yourself too easily from reporting to the civil authorities. This is a very serious situation in which children have been abused, and it's not something we should play around with.

In dealing with the sexual-abuse crisis, bishops have had a major public-relations crisis on their hands as well. Does the Vatican understand this aspect of the crisis—meaning the need for bishops to answer to an angry American public?

Some do. The Holy Father certainly understands. Beyond that, whether each individual understands and to what extent they judge the relative importance of public opinion versus canon law, etc., I don't really know.

How much should the U.S. bishops worry about public opinion?

Public opinion is part of the equation around pastoral effectiveness, so yes, we have to be concerned about it.

Why not do just what canon law says, and to heck with what the secular world thinks about it?

Of course we have to do what canon law says, but we also have to look at the situation in which we're supposed to be pastoring. What the canonists say is “if you bishops had attended to this earlier on and tried some of these people as canon law provides for, we wouldn't have this mess.” I think they might have a good argument there.

Will this partial rejection of the policy cause a rift between American bishops and Rome?

The Vatican has done exactly the right thing. They've said we accept it in principle, but we have problems with details, particularly around canonical process, and therefore we're going to iron them out with a mixed commission. So they're bringing the American bishops into the discussion.

So you don't expect a rift, hard feelings or stalled negotiations?

Well, we'll see what the mixed commission comes up with. But this is not a rejection. This is being characterized as a rejection, and it's not a rejection. People who write that it's a rejection should be fired. It's irresponsible, because this is not a rejection. Look, you hand in a term paper, and the teacher throws it back in your face and says, “I reject it.” Or the teacher makes a few corrections and says, ”Might we talk about some of these problems in your term paper?” That's what's happened. That's not a rejection.

Might you be on the mixed commission?

We'll find out.

Will you explain all of this to your flock anytime soon? Will you try to tell them just what's going on with the Dallas policy and the Vatican?

No, I'll wait to see what happens. There's no hurry.

Will meeting the Vatican's concerns water down the bishops' policy?

I don't think so. There's certainly zero tolerance for the sexual abuse of minors. The problem is, what do you do with the priests? Of course there's zero tolerance for the behavior; absolutely.

At the Dallas conference, you said you would support the policy reluctantly because it was flawed.

Yes. Now's the time to get the flaws out of it. We had to put aside canonical process in order to do this. And a bigger flaw is in the Pope's own concern for forgiveness as a dimension of the Church's ministry, and how does that function with this policy? Now, you can have someone forgiven and still he shouldn't minister. But, more explicit attention to that is needed on that subject. We have to think that through.

The Pope seems to be more forgiving than American society, which wants heads to roll.

No, he said there should be no place in the priesthood for those who are a danger to children. He's not saying they can't be forgiven, he's just saying they don't have a place. They have a place elsewhere. They're not out of the Church. They're forgiven by God, but there are consequences to forgiven sin. It's called satisfaction, sometimes, in moral theology.

How are you doing with the application of this process in the Archdiocese of Chicago?

We've abided right down the line on this. We are in complete conformity with the Dallas charter in the Archdiocese of Chicago.

Will this change anything regarding how you are currently handling sexual-abuse cases?

No. What we have are five people who are appealing my decision, and they have a right to do that, and now, hopefully, we'll have a process for appealing. Before, we didn't know what to do. We asked for instructions.

Now you'll get them?

I believe so.

So this comes at a good time for you?

Very good.