Go-To Investigator on the Dallas Charter

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/go-to-investigator-on-the-dallas-charter/

Archbishop Chaput discusses his approach to combating sexual abuse.

by JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND 06/21/2011 Comments (13)

Priests aren’t being “thrown under the bus,” if the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” is followed correctly, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver affirmed.

During their spring general meeting last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops approved minor changes to the charter, known popularly as the Dallas Charter, and related norms. The bishops, meeting in Seattle, resisted calls by some victims’ groups for a broader review of their framework for guarding against child sexual abuse by priests and other Church personnel.

Bishop Blase Cupich, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on the Protection of Children and Young People, argued that the recent John Jay College of Criminal Justice report on the causes and contexts of the clergy-abuse crisis, and ongoing annual audits conducted by dioceses throughout the nation, confirmed that the reforms are working and should remain in place. He predicted that the conference would review the framework within two years. In 2010, the USCCB confirmed just seven new cases of child sexual abuse.

Archbishop Chaput has confronted the problem of clergy sexual abuse in his diocese. He also addressed the broader impact of clergy misconduct on a global religious order as the Vatican’s U.S. apostolic investigator of the Legion of Christ. He has emerged as one of the Vatican’s “go-to” episcopal investigators.

Last year, when allegations of sexual misconduct involving minors were leveled against two Denver priests, Archbishop Chaput immediately placed each priest on administrative leave. He publicly noted their record of service and stressed the assumption of innocence for the accused. But he also defended his prompt action, describing it as “a necessary course to protect people’s trust in their parish and in the archdiocese. In this case, and in any other such case that may occur in the future, we follow diocesan and national policies that exist to serve the safety of our people and to respect the suffering and dignity of victims. These priorities are vitally important, and they will not change.”

Pope Benedict XVI also appointed Archbishop Chaput to conduct an apostolic visitation of the Diocese of Toowoomba, Australia, after Bishop William Morris drew the Vatican’s scrutiny with the release of a pastoral letter that expressed his openness to ordaining women and married men, if Rome altered its policy on these issues. Recently, Bishop Morris was removed from office.

Archbishop Chaput spoke with Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond at the U.S. bishops’ meeting.
In a televised interview on 60 Minutes, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, suggested that as the Church continues to grapple with the scourge of clergy sexual abuse a process of purification has taken hold. Your thoughts on his comments?

There is a pervasive fear in the hearts of many priests that they will be unjustly accused. It makes them less free and hesitant with young people. Whenever there is a new outbreak of scandal, it brings all these fears rushing back.

But if these fears are dealt with appropriately, they can draw the priests into a greater trust of God, leading them to be more authentically faithful to their vocation and give themselves over to the Church.

The crisis is an opportunity for humility for the whole Church. Priests must either embrace this difficult experience, or its impact could be spiritually bad for them.
How has your experience as a bishop addressing allegations of abuse against priests in your diocese, and as a Vatican-appointed investigator, honed your understanding of effective leadership in the Church on this issue?
Real leadership is about more than making people feel good about themselves. It also means that you give them guidance and direction in a loving way.

This issue raises a question about being a true father. If a bishop experiences the fatherhood within his own vocation and office, he will not only demand what Christ calls from all of us, but live that call himself.

What I have noticed in investigations is that sometimes Church leaders haven’t been willing to call people to the Gospel, and instead affirm people where they are. It’s hard for any father — whether of a family, a parish or a diocese — to confront this challenge. It requires authenticity; it requires a deep spiritual life.
Some critics say that the Dallas Charter’s “zero tolerance” policy has led Church leaders to throw priests under the bus. Are the rights of priests adequately protected?

I do not think that priests are thrown under the bus. They are removed because they could pose a danger to young people.

If we follow the norms accurately, they do protect the rights of priests. Sometimes a priest will be removed from ministry, but it doesn’t mean he is guilty; it is just that the Church is investigating the situation for the good of the priest and the community. People label this as unfair, but as long as we understand that it’s not a judgment, the rights of the priest are protected.

If a bishop is cavalier, he may also pose a danger to young people. The Holy Father would have to look at that, and I am sure that he would act. If we are serious about protecting children, we may need to be serious about that. The bishop is ultimately responsible.

But it’s also important to recognize that in the Church we also see the bishop as the father of the family of the Church. Fathers can make mistakes and not be removed from their families, and the way to respond is not like hiring and firing in a business.
In the wake of fresh scandals in Philadelphia, critics have asserted the system is still broken and that the Dallas Charter needs to be beefed up. Some experts have suggested that the mandated annual audit needs additional scrutiny, possibly by opening up personnel files to confirm that transferred priests, teachers and others have actually received the safe-environment training, etc.

Part of the difficulty is that the Church is learning to do this. It takes time to know what to do. It has been a time of learning, and that is because no one has done it before at this level. It’s a family. And if you want to see the worst place where this kind of abuse happens, it’s in families.

It’s not realistic to expect perfection. We can have a very good program with good people and mistakes will still be made. When that happens, it’s important not to jump to the conclusion that the Dallas Charter doesn’t work.

The child-protection officer needs to keep the bishop and other people in the loop. The bishop is the final authority, and it’s up to him to make sure that everyone is working together and it doesn’t just become routine.

The required audit is very important. If a bishop follows the requirements of the charter, he will conduct a regular review of new reports and diocesan procedures. That is what the audit does for us. It gives confidence that you did all you could do.

I am satisfied with the audit process. Regarding the suggestion of additional scrutiny and checking up on people, I would hate for this to lead to an atmosphere of suspicion of everyone involved.
At this meeting, the bishops formally incorporated Vatican norms that make the possession of child pornography an actionable offense. There is still debate about how to approach boundary violations, which became a concern after experts learned that sexual predators “groom” prospective victims with affectionate behavior.

It is important that child pornography be included in the norms. Child pornography is a sign of abuse, and it’s important that it be taken seriously.

Boundary violations are a worrisome sign. There are degrees of boundary violations. If there is a pattern, we take it to our team. I have no objection to having boundary violations going to the lay review board.

There are potential dangers with expanding the scope [of actionable offenses]. If any changes are made, the guidelines should be written very clearly so that the bishops and others know what their responsibilities are.
Would you summarize your personal guidelines for handling accusations against priests?

I trust the response team and the child-protection officer — these non-clerical “outside” advisers can give me objective advice; I have determined that they are trustworthy.

The child-protection advisor knows his task: to protect me and my senior staff from clericalism in our judgments. I have never acted contrary to the advice of my response team, and I never will.

I come from a consultative background drawn from the Capuchin tradition. I brought that to my perspective of how things should be run by me as a bishop.

Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.

Comments

Post a Comment

Re: throwing under the bus—
What assurances or protections are in place to prevent any disgruntled parishioner, neighbor, employee, volunteer, etc from lodging a false accusation?  Given the extreme difficulty in absolutely “proving” or even worse difficulty in “dis-proving” an allegation, exactly how long can a priest be expected to hang in “limbo” with his faculties suspended and his name and reputation damaged by the mere allegation?
This process really is the reverse of the criminal process observed in most civilized nations, that of “a presumption of innocense until and unless proven guilty.”  The priest is immediately put on leave and his faculties suspended.  He is at the mercy of any “witnesses” who may come forth anonymously and say anything they wish to say—while the priest is required to agree never to take civil action against any of them.  Thus, providing they can make it all sound believable; they can lie with little liklihood of consequence.  Further, the priest must somehow try to prove that the allegation is false.  This is quite the challenge!  For example, how many of you reading this can “prove” you did NOT kick a dog in the last 48 hours?  Think about it.  If there has been even a few seconds in the last 48 hours in which you were not within eyesight of a witness, you could have kicked a dog; therefore you cannot prove you did not do so. While the protection of children and other vulnerable persons is of extreme importance…and is imperative; the manner with which accused clergy are treated is broken and in need of attentive repair.  They are, in fact, thrown under the bus…unless the accuser recants.  By then, the physcial, emotional, and reputational damage is forever done.

There is no comment about the male on male issue/statistic and especially the gay network in the priesthood.
There are priests I know who still see it as a huge issue.

Mr Lee is absoluely correct.
I would add a question that should have been asked to the bishop: “Do you pay your (innocent) priests a living wage while they are investigated?” I think we all know the answer to that. Further, where do accused priests stay while the investigation drags on and on? The priest obviously does not want to stay with his sister and her five sons or his elderly parents, so where does he stay (the bishop should try to get an open ended lease from a landlord wo usually needs a specific time commitment by the tenant) and how does he pay for it? Should the priest search for a new career or wait in limbo while the church “investigates”? The list of unaddressed problems goes on.
The archbishop claims that priests have not been thrown under the bus. They have been. Further, the council of bishops has been able to do what Martin Luther, Henry VIII and a host of others could not do: They have changed priests from consecrated men and turned them into “employees at will”. The church’s many enemies must be looking up from their eternal homes and smiling at this.

Thank you Father Jim Smith for telling it like it is!!!  Good, solid priests who are accused of almost anything can be and are thrown under the bus under the current system.  I’m not talking about the abuse of minors….. try an angry parishoner alleging almost anything to the bishop.  The priest can lose his domicile immediately.  He can be out on the street!  No paycheck and there is no unemployment to help him pay his car payments and student loans, etc.!  Frequently, the priest must find the money to hire a canon lawyer and/or psychiatrists to determine if he is a ‘healthy’ priest.  If these priests can afford a canon lawyer (which is doubtful) who pursues their case with the diocese and Rome, they can be looking at years of unemployed waiting. They are humiliated and their reputations are in taters because most Catholics assume that it is an abuse allegation.  My son is a priest, I know.

While I have great respect for Archbishop Chaput, I strongly disagree with him that priests are not being thrown under the bus.  Anyone with an axe to grind can accuse any priest of sexual abuse.  How can a priest possibly defend himself?  With the presumption of guilt at the heart of the flawed Dallas Charter, true justice is very hard to obtain.  Archbishop Chaput is not facing reality if he really believes that removing a priest from ministry when there is an unproven accusation does not destroy that man’s reputation forever, even if he is later reinstated.  The bishops have betrayed their priests.  As a priest, I live with the constant awareness that at any time, someone could accuse me and my life would be ruined.

“I do not think that priests are thrown under the bus. They are removed because they could pose a danger to young people.”
I have tremendous respect for Archbishop Chaput, but I believe the facts refute this particular assertion.  Particularly, regarding the removal of a priest in the diocese of Grand Rapids, Michigan by bishop Walter Hurley in 2007 (see links below) who had been permitted to remain in ministry by the prior bishop even after the Charter was instituted in 2002 and several other priests in the diocese were removed from ministry, the Grand Rapids Press reported that, “Hurley said he had no choice but to remove him under provisions of the U.S. bishops’ charter on sexual abuse issued in 2002.”  Bishop Hurley said, as quoted in the same article, “There obviously was a belief [the priest] did not represent a danger to anyone,…I don’t know of any bishop that would maintain somebody in a position if they really believed they were a danger to young people.”
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/01_02/2007_01_08_Deiters_PriestRemoved.htm
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/01_02/2007_01_10_Honey_PriestsLetter.htm

As long as the Roman Catholic Church persists in the celibacy requirement for priesthood, the resulting suppression of sexuality will all too often result in unhealthy outlets. Celibacy is all the more illogical in light of the fact that an estimated 20% of Roman Catholic priests worldwide are married,(from Eastern European countries, and already married priests who convert to Roman Catholicism from other denominations (usually Anglican or Lutheran)).

Children have been harmed because of priests who were not faithful to their vocation. The Church has also been harmed. I completely agree with archbishop Chaput.

It is common in the secular world to suspend people while an investigation is pending. That is not throwing people under the bus. It is prudence.

While my deacon husband was in formation, he was told,by a diocesan attorney, what could happen if an allegation was made against him. His response? He shrugged and said that it is not any different from what would happen to him in his secular job.

Are priests sometimes unjustly accused? Probably. But the priesthood is not a job; it is a vocation. Padre Pio knew this. He was unjustly vilified. His response was one of humility and obedience. Padre Pio did not rail that he was being thrown under the bus.

This whole sexual abuse scandal really started in the Diocese of Lafayette, La back in the 80’s with a former priest, Gilbert Gauthe.  The then Bishop, Bishop Frey had earlier reports of such behaviour long before Gauthe was removed from his position.  This priest like many others had been moved from one parish to another and even at one point was appointed the chaplain for the Boy Scouts.  Annnd, the Bishop had already heard “unofficial” reports and guess what still moved this priest around.  I mention this case because we mostly just look at what some people think is the start of the exposure in the Diocese of Boston cases.  It is hard for me to believe that Bishops in the 80s who were having such problems in their own diocese could not have figured out that this was a grossly immoral serious problem with these priests.  I know that some Bishops say that they did not know what to do or that they did not realize how serious of a problem that this was but I consider them more responsible then the priests that committed these heinous acts.  It is not unlike incest cases where the mother or father did not protect their child or children from such heinous acts.  I still think that any Bishops who were in their position during the time anyone of their priests commited these awful acts should themselves also be investigated and removed from office till the investigation is complete. Obviously, some of these priest would not have continued if their Bishop had removed them from their positions sooner.

That being said I do commend Bishop Chaput for his obviously well thought out and willingness to seek info from proper sources.  One thing that I thought made a lot of sense was that priest’s should have a very close relationship with God to accept any challenging issues that come their way – not just the accusation of child abuse.  We are all forgetting the spiritual side of this issue.  I can see where priests do feel that they are thrown under the bus.  I know that they are ostrasized and persecuted just from the accusation.  I hope that Bishops can learn how better to deal with our dedicated and wonderful priests by the examples of priests that commit suicide, die of broken hearts and loose faith in the Catholic Church’s process.  There has to be a more loving and compassionate way.  I have heard horror stories of how our priests are treated by their Bishops and staff even before the investigation is completed.  With all of this horribleness, I stay because it is the one true Church founded by our Lord and the sacraments.  There have been many other times that scandals have rocked the Church.  The Church is only human. I pray for our priests everyday incuding those that have committed such horrible crimes.

This imbroglio will in the long run have a hugely negative impact on vocations.  As it becomes increasingly self evident that priests have no protection against false accusations, only young men with a martyr complex will seek ordination.  And Episcopalians such as myself, who might have considered the Personal Ordinariates as an opportunity to serve in an orthodox Christian Church, will peer over the edge of the frying pan at the fire and say no thanks.  The institutional reaction to the evil of abuse is an evil just as bad.

I think one precision is to distinguish whether the charges are made privately or publicly, whether it is about the distant past or the present, whether it is regarding the young or adults. The Jesuits just suspended a priest in Maryland AFTER HIRING A DETECTIVE WHO REPORTED THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE. The investigation then can go on. This makes sense.

from Bill Foley

I would like to make a practical suggestion for those are to be ordained in the near future. Maintain a daily journal of your activities by the date and the time. This can be most useful if an unjust accusation should ever arise.

This is truly a very difficult situation. On the one hand, if a Bishop does not suspend a Priest during the investigative process, he is condemned and if he does, he is condemned. I know one Priest who was suspended after a blatantly false allegation. This priest said nothing negative, he only said he was innocent and then went to stay in a Benedictine Monastery to pray and to wait.  He was found to be innocent and he says his faith is deeper, that he was never worried about the outcome because He know God would never abandon him. I do think there should be provisions made for Priests who are suspended while the investigation takes place. The “lavender” Priesthood is a great worry and concern for young priests…I hope that issue will be addressed soon – very soon.