Pope: 'No Place' for Priests Who Abuse Minors

VATICAN CITY — A week of high drama in Rome concluded with the American cardinals proposing “zero tolerance” for priestly sexual abuse of minors and joining with Pope John Paul II in calling for a new crackdown on theological dissent, especially in the formation of priests.

The message being delivered from Rome: Dissent, and the failure to screen out homosexual candidates for the priesthood, are at the root of the clergy sexual abuse crisis.

The American cardinals met April 23-24 in the Apostolic Palace with the heads of the eight most senior Vatican departments, including the Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who chaired the sessions.

The Holy See had never before convened such a meeting, and while the atmosphere inside was described by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago as “very serious, even somber,” pandemonium reigned outside as the full weight of the American media descended upon Rome. Cardinals faced media stakeouts at their residences, and otherwise obscure Vatican journalists became hot properties for American television.

The library of the papal apartment was the site for John Paul's address to the cardinals, which minced no words. Calling sexual abuse of the young a “crime” and an “appalling sin in the eyes of God,” the Pope said that some decisions taken by bishops have been “shown to be wrong.”

While the Holy Father was not specific about which bishops' decisions have been errors, the two most egregious examples of priestly misconduct in the current scandal have involved two former priests in the Archdiocese of Boston, John Geoghan and Paul Shanley. In both cases, the priests remained in active ministry for many years after allegations of repeated abuse of young boys were presented to archdiocesan authorities.

“People need to know that there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young,” said the Holy Father. “They must know that bishops and priests are totally committed to the fullness of Catholic truth on matters of sexual morality, a truth as essential to the renewal of the priesthood and the episcopate as it is to the renewal of marriage and family life.”

“You are now working to establish more reliable criteria to ensure that such mistakes are not repeated,” John Paul said. “At the same time, even while recognizing how indispensable these criteria are, we cannot forget the power of Christian conversion, that 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.”

Zero Tolerance

In their final communiqué (available on the Internet at www.-vatican.va/roman_curia/cardinals/doc uments/rc_cardinals_20020424_final-communique_en.html), the cardinals echoed the Holy Father's words, and then proposed a “set of national standards” that would be binding upon all “dioceses and religious institutes” in the United States.

National standards can only be binding with the approval of the Holy See. Cardinal Sodano indicated during the closed sessions that he would be “receptive” to such a proposal.

“Zero tolerance” for the sexual abuse of minors was the key issue in the standards, and there remained uncertainty about what the cardinals have actually proposed to take to the June meeting of the U.S. bishops' conference, which will vote on new policies. Zero tolerance refers to permanent removal from ministry, not necessarily “defrocking,” which means “dismissal from the clerical state.”

At a concluding press conference, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington said that zero tolerance would apply to all future cases of sexual misconduct with a minor. Cardinal George opposes such a blanket approach — likening it to “mandatory sentencing” policies which do not take into account the particular circumstances of a crime — but acknowledged to reporters that the bishops would likely adopt it.

“There is a difference between a moral monster like John Geoghan and a priest who, perhaps under the influence of alcohol, is involved with a 17-year-old girl who returns his affections,” said Cardinal George. “Both are crimes, but in terms of the possibility of reform, they are very different sets of circumstances.”

On the question of the retroactive application of the so-called “one strike and you're out” policy, again there was disagreement. But Bishop Wilton Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the U.S. bishops' conference and chief spokesman during the week, said that there was a “growing consensus” to apply it to all cases, no matter how long in the past.

Asked whether a priest who has ever had a credible accusation of sexual abuse made against him could remain in ministry, Bishop Gregory relied, “No. Personally, I would say no.”

In addition, the cardinals proposed quicker procedures for dismissing priests guilty of sexual abuse. While a bishop has full power to immediately and indefinitely remove a priest from ministry, dismissal of a man from the “clerical state” requires due process in a canonical trial and the approval of the Holy See.

Like baptism, the “sacramental character” of ordination remains forever in the soul of a priest, but dismissal means that he no longer enjoys the rights of priests, nor does his bishop have any further obligations to support him.

Cardinal McCarrick said the Americans wanted “expeditious” procedures for dismissals and a “reasonably rapid response” to any subsequent appeals.

Reporting of accusations to the police would become mandatory under the proposals, even where local law does not require it.

“If all that we have proposed were implemented, many dioceses would not have to do anything new,” said Bishop Gregory, noting that his own diocese was one of many that adopted such procedures in the early 1990s.

Dissent and Homosexuality

While the center of attention was on notorious pedophile priests, the final communiqué pointed out that “almost all the cases involved adolescents and therefore were not cases of true pedophilia.”

“Together with the fact that a link between celibacy and pedophilia cannot be scientifically maintained, the meeting reaffirmed the value of priestly celibacy as a gift from God to the Church,” the cardinals said.

The fact that most cases involved homosexual relations between priests and teen-age boys brought the delicate issue of homosexuality in the priesthood to the fore.

On the eve of the summit, papal biographer George Weigel made the case for an even broader discussion, linking what he called the “serious problem of homosexually oriented clergy who are not living chaste celibate lives” to the wider “culture of dissent that has contributed immeasurably to the ecclesiastical atmosphere in which sexual misconduct festers.”

The final communiqué supported the Weigel analysis, with the cardinals saying that there are “doctrinal issues underlying the deplorable behavior in question.” While ignored for the most part by the world press, it was a landmark statement. It was the first formal — albeit implicit — admission by members of the hierarchy that American bishops have not been sufficiently vigilant on matters of doctrine.

“The Pastors of the Church [the bishops] need clearly to promote the correct moral teaching of the Church and publicly to reprimand individuals who spread dissent and groups which advance ambiguous approaches to pastoral care,” wrote the cardinals.

Looking toward root causes, the cardinals also proposed that a “new and serious Apostolic Visitation of seminaries” be made “without delay.” An apostolic visitation is the periodic formal appraisal of seminaries. This proposed special evaluation would focus particularly “on the need for fidelity to the Church's teaching, especially in the area of morality, and the need for a deeper study of the criteria of suitability of candidates to the priesthood.”

Observers understood this as a thinly veiled call for cleaning up those seminaries which may turn a blind eye, or even encourage, sexual activity, particularly homosexual activity. During the course of the week, stronger words were spoken on homosexuality than ever heard before in such a public forum.

“[We have to make sure] that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men,” said Bishop Gregory.

Bishops' Responsibility

Perhaps because the cardinals headed toward the most severe option available in dealing with clergy sexual abuse, they issued a message of support to all the priests of the United States, expressing “deep gratitude for all that you do to build up the Body of Christ in holiness and love.”

The cardinals also admitted that it was the bishops who bore responsibility for the crisis.

“We are fully aware that the focus is on the credibility of bishops and our leadership,” said Bishop Gregory.

“This is a crisis of the holiness of priests and the honesty of bishops,” agreed Cardinal George.

“We regret that episcopal oversight has not been able to preserve the Church from this scandal,” confessed the bishops in the message to priests. “The entire Church, the Bride of Christ, is afflicted by this wound — the victims and their families first of all, but also you who have dedicated your lives to the priestly service of the Gospel of God.”

Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, who has been at the center of the storm because of criticism of his handling of Geoghan and Shanley, never appeared before the press during the summit. But he reportedly took responsibility for much of the current crisis in a preparatory meeting with his brother cardinals.

“He said that if he had not made some terrible mistakes, we probably would not be here,” revealed Cardinal George. “He apologized for it. He said nothing about resignation and we did not ask him.”

Day of Penance

The cardinals' summit stressed that prayer and penance must be at the core of the Church's response to sexual abuse.

Earlier, in response to a question, Cardinal McCarrick said that he had personally been fasting for a month and a half as penance.

Stated the final summit communiqué, “It would be fitting for the bishops of the USCCB to ask the faithful to join them in observing a national day of prayer and penance, in reparation for the offenses perpetrated and in prayer to God for the conversion of sinners and the reconciliation of victims.”