What Signal Is the Vatican Sending?

Continued from page 1

Yes, we believe in forgiveness, but let's say somebody is revealed to have done something 20 years ago and says, "I'm terribly sorry and I'm repentant." My feeling is if a priest is truly repentant he ought to think to himself, "I deserve some punishment." To present yourself as a wronged individual even though you admit you did something wrong is sort of like a criminal being in court and saying, "Yes, I did it and I'm sorry but I shouldn't be sent to prison because that's unfair."

Why is the Vatican so concerned about making changes to the charter and the norms (the legal enabling articles that must be approved for the policy to be binding)?

Ward: They're saying the charter doesn't comport with the universal law of the church, the Code of Canon Law. That's what the bishops were asking for-a deviation from the code. To give that deviation to one country and make substantial changes--that has import for the whole rest of the church and the value of the code itself. What the American bishops were doing in a sense was changing the law.

Bishop Gregory said bishops can continue to implement the norms. What does the Vatican response means for priests placed on administrative leave?

Neuhaus: Rome is clearly saying that one size does not fit all. You have to look at the clearly inadequate and infinitely elastic definition of sex abuse that was adopted at Dallas. Not to put to fine a point on it, but by that definition, almost every adult in the world could be accused of sexual abuse. Even if you look the wrong way at a person, and they interpret it in a way different from the way you intended, you're a sex abuser. This is absurd.

In some of these cases, priests are probably guilty. In that case, zero tolerance certainly applies. And bishops can't abdicate their responsibility in making these judgments. But in some cases, when some people have been removed from ministry simply because somebody, often unnamed, has made an accusation--clearly those instances will have to be reviewed.

How might the revising of the norms affect a priest put on leave for a one-time offense? Do you think he should be reinstated?

Weigel: It depends on what the one-time offense was. If it involved the sexual abuse of a child, my view is that there's a permanent disfigurement of the iconography of the man's priesthood. Whatever we believe about the character of his priesthood, he's lost the capacity to manifest that publicly. If, at the other end of the scale, the one-time incident involved a non-coercive one-time sexual relationship and the guy wakes up and says, "Oh my God, what have I done?" and repents and lives an upright life, that's one that requires very careful discernment.

But we need to broaden the discussion. If a bishop knows that a priest is habitually violating his celibacy [homosexually or heterosexually] with consenting adults, the bishop has an obligation to say to that priest "Either this ceases immediately, and you commit yourself to a program of spiritual renewal that will allow you to live the promises you have made to Christ and the Church, or I am going to seek your reduction to the lay state." Protecting children is the issue, but beneath that issue is the integrity of the priesthood, the integrity of celibate chastity.

Continued on page 3: »