Efforts to educate Catholic priests on what to do when accused of abuse draw criticism

A new initiative by a group representing US Catholic priests to inform clerics of their canonical rights when accused of misconduct, including sexual abuse, draws criticism from survivor advocates, who say it could help to cast the accused priests in too sympathetic a light.

But the clergy behind the effort of the Association of American Catholic Priests, or AUSCP, say it’s necessary. Over the past 20 years, they say, diocesan leaders have failed to respect the rights of priests under canon law – in some cases allowing accused clergymen to languish in administrative “limbo” for years while the civil and ecclesiastical authorities are investigating the allegations made against them.

“And in so many cases, it is practically impossible to prove their innocence, because it is quite difficult to prove a negative,” the father said. Mike Sullivan, a Minnesota pastor, canon lawyer and member of the association’s mutual support task force, told NCR.

This working group, after almost two years of consultation with bishops, canonists and priests, has wrote a document which delineates the rights of clergy under the Code of Canon Law when accused of wrongdoing, including sexual abuse.

The association sends this document, along with a wallet-sized card, to the more than 30,000 diocesan and religious priests in the country who are listed in the Official Catholic Directory.

“We don’t take a position on whether someone is guilty or not guilty. We say there is due process, here’s what it is, and we’ll help you get there if you don’t. don’t get this help from your diocese,” said Fr. Stephen Newton, a Holy Cross priest who is the association’s executive director.

But while they agree that due process is important, clergy sex abuse survivors and their advocates are expressing concern that an overemphasis on the plight of accused priests risks returning to the days when the church routinely dismissed victims and protected priests who abused them.

“I understand the anguish of priests who are wrongfully accused and ripped from a parish without any explanation. But for all this anguish they experience, it is minor compared to the pain, loss and betrayal experienced by the survivors, their families and their parish communities,” said Donna Doucette, executive director of the reform group Voice of the Faithful, which was founded in Boston after the 2002 report on abuse and cover-up in that archdiocese.

Michael McDonnell, spokesperson for the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, quoted to research what he said underscores the reality that the ranks of clergy sex abuse survivors outnumber those of falsely accused priests “by an order of magnitude.”

“We recognize that anyone charged with a crime in America has the right to due process,” McDonnell told NCR. “We also reaffirm that we believe the survivors and that we will support those who come forward with allegations of abuse because, far more likely than not, their stories are true.”

AUSCP-affiliated priests told NCR they were not seeking to distract survivors or hinder investigations into clergy sex abuse. They said priests convicted of abusing children and vulnerable adults should be held accountable for their crimes.

“I don’t try to have guilty priests [acquitted]it’s not my job,” said Sullivan, one of the founders of Justice for priests and deaconsa Las Vegas-based organization that advises clergy on their canonical rights.

Sullivan and other association leaders said accused clergy still had rights under canon law, and they suggested church leaders often ignored those rights, especially over the past 20 years. that have passed since the American bishops adopted the Charter for the protection of children and young people in June 2002.

“Maybe the pendulum swung too far the other way,” the father said. Ed Palumbos, a priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, who is chair of the association’s Mutual Support Task Force. Palumbos said he believes the Catholic Church in the United States is “changing course” in how it adjudicates clergy sex abuse cases.

“What we’re seeing is that when guys are accused, rightly or wrongly, they’re immediately summoned to the chancery office, and it’s almost a situation where you’re guilty until proven guilty, which is the exact opposite of what is fair and just,” Palumbos said. says NCR.

Nicholas Cafardi, a civil and canonical lawyer unaffiliated with the AUSCP, told NCR that he viewed the initiative as “an attempt to bring the pendulum a little more towards the middle, where it should be.”

“The problem is that priests are called to the chancellery as soon as [an allegation] happens and before there has been any preliminary investigation. Technically, that’s not supposed to happen. The investigation must be conducted before taking action against the priest,” said Cafardi, who suggested that US Catholic bishops today “are extremely scared.”

“No bishop wants to keep someone who turns out to be a child abuser in place,” he said. “The problem is that not all of the charges are true.”

The group’s advocacy for the canonical rights of clergy accused of sexual abuse presents unique tension points for a relatively progressive Catholic organization and has worked with clergy survivor groups to advocate for accountability in the church.

“A lot of [association members] are members of our organization. We have a very good relationship,” said Doucette, who noted that the Voice of the Faithful and the association jointly published a white paper 2019 on clericalism. She told NCR that their groups worked together to gather feedback at the Synod of Bishops on the Family in 2014 and collaborated on initiatives relating to the role of women in the Catholic Church.

Doucette said Voice of the Faithful is not involved in the AUSCP Priests’ Rights Project. Doucette added that, as she has done in the past, she attended the AUSCP Annual Meeting This year. It was held June 20-23 in Linthicum, Maryland, and featured keynote addresses from two bishops: Lexington, Kentucky, Bishop John Stowe and Cardinal Peter Turkson, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences. of the Vatican.

“I think the fear among the clergy is that the hierarchy doesn’t care whether they did it or not,” Doucette said. “[The bishops] just want to make it disappear, and the priest will be trampled in the process. It’s a problem, and I think you have to look at each case. There’s no easy answer to that.”

Newton, the association’s executive director, told NCR that the group’s initiative aims to educate priests about their canonical rights. He said the association would support clergy who feel confused and isolated when accused of wrongdoing.

“We can refer [accused priests] to canonical lawyers. We may also refer them to civil attorneys if appropriate,” Newton said. “We are not involved at all as an association in the case of the priest, in one way or another. But we want the person to know what they can do and what works and what doesn’t.”

The association’s wallet-sized card asks priests, if they receive an unexpected call from their chancery, to ask why they are being asked to report to the diocesan headquarters. The card says to “ALWAYS” bring a “trusted priest friend”.

Citing canon law, the card advises priests not to sign anything at the chancery or resign from office, and to have their friend take notes. The accused priest has the right to demand that the diocese pay his canon and civil lawyers, he says. The card also notes that priests have the right to remain silent and indicates that their friend must ask and answer questions.

“I mean, I don’t want to make it difficult for bishops and dioceses, but if I wanted to stay a priest, there’s no point in spilling my guts,” Sullivan, the canon lawyer who told NCR, said. that diocesan officials often tell accused priests that they had better be open.

“So most priests tend to think of it as a bit of a confession,” Sullivan said. “But it’s not kept a secret, and I don’t know how [talking] benefits you. Priests don’t have to cooperate; therefore they should bring someone to speak on their behalf.”

That might be good advice from a legal standpoint, but from a survivor’s perspective, it sounds like a clergyman being granted “a license to obstruct,” a said Terence McKiernan, co-founder and president of BishopAccountability.org.

“This will be seen by survivors as a special plea for the people who, in many cases, are in fact the perpetrators,” said McKiernan, who told NCR that the association’s initiative risks alienating priests. to any responsibility, whatever the evidence against them.

“I can understand why quite a few priests — left, right and center — feel like they’ve been thrown out with the bathwater. It’s a very difficult environment for them,” McKiernan said. “But if you want to fix that environment, do you really want it to be harder to make the church a really safe place?”

Cafardi said the Code of Canon Law, as written, “is very fair” and allows a diocese to investigate allegations while respecting the rights of a priest. The problem, he said, is that the code “is not always followed” and results in situations where priests are effectively in “limbo” as their business languishes for years.

“It’s more or less a diocesan prison,” said Cafardi, who said he thinks an initiative like AUSCP’s should have been started years ago.

“It is right that a priest’s canonical rights be protected,” he said, “just as it is right that we listen to victims to determine if their stories are true.”