What Signal Is the Vatican Sending?

Continued from page 3

On the one hand, we have the obligation of the local bishop to apprise public authorities when he has reasonable certitude that a criminal act has been performed. The other side is that you can't turn a bishop's office into an adjunct of the district attorney's office, so the bishop becomes a kind of deputy DA and any allegation, no matter what its credibility or source, is turned over to civil authority.

In trying to fix this mess, we can't forget the principles of natural justice and the principles of both civil and canon law. If there's one theme running through Cardinal Re's letter to Bishop Gregory, it's that we can't do this in a mechanical, simplistic way. There has to be room for the exercise of judgment and episcopal leadership.

Allen: Canon law says before a permanent penalty can be imposed, a priest is entitled to a full ecclesial trial. Dallas makes no provision for that. That's one of the points where there's a clear conflict between Dallas and canon law.

The confidentially issue is another. Canon law envisions that when an accusation is made against a priest, a bishop is to keep that in confidence until he has a chance to ascertain the merit of the accusation, and then make a decision about what level of public disclosure would be most helpful. Dallas has a different idea: as soon as an accusation is made, the bishop ought to turn it over to civil authorities and let them conduct an investigation. He may also conduct his own internal one, but it shouldn't interfere with the civil one. And should be cooperative with the media and requests for disclosure.

How long does an ecclesial trial usually last? Is a priest put on leave while it happens?

Allen: It tends to be a cumbersome, costly process. It can take years, depending on how many resources a priest wants to put into fighting it. When a bishop wants to impose a penalty on a priest, if the priest appeals that to Rome, canon law envisions that during the course of that appeal the priest should be allowed to continue in his assignment pending the outcome of his appeal. Or at least be allowed to function as a priest --a bishop can assign a priest wherever he wants, but can't arbitrarily remove him from ministry and kick him out of the priesthood.

You've got 300 priests removed since the Dallas meeting in June--we know that many have appealed to Rome. We don't know how many, because unlike civil appeal, this is not a public document.

If some bishops have fallen short in the past, is the Vatican concerned they will again?

Weigel: A lot of people have learned a lot in the past 10 years. What we don't want to do is in fixing the problems of the past 25-30 years, put in place mechanisms that whittle away the authority and responsibility of the local bishop for the future. The bishop is the essential instrument in the authentically Catholic reform of the Church. It has to be that way. That's what the Catholic Church is. There's no way around that. Bishops have to reassert the legitimate authority that is theirs by ordination.

What about bishops who did not take action after Dallas?

Neuhaus: That gets back to the question of the oversight of the overseers. If it's not going to be done adequately by the National Review Board proposal of Dallas, there's got to be a new understanding. Clearly, there are some bishops who need to be held accountable for what they've done over the years. So far, I don't think we've been given any indication of how that question will be answered.

Weigel: One thing that has to be reclaimed is the ancient Christian skill of fraternal correction. If people are convinced that their local bishop is being irresponsible, is avoiding a situation that desperately needs attention, they should go to the metropolitan archbishop, who needs to take responsibility for fraternally looking into the situation.

Another question is, does the present Conference structure, which is heavily bureaucratic, create circumstances in which it's impossible for bishops to call each other to a more authentic exercise of their office.

What do you propose?

Weigel: Reexamine the process. Bishops have to stop thinking of themselves as a corporate body like a board of directors. They need far more time together in session

What would you most like to see changed in the norms?

Neuhaus: That bishops be bishops again. They created this mess--not all of them, of course--but the failure of episcopal oversight that let this crisis happen. They have to know there's no institutional fix or new set of norms or anything else that can take the place of their simply having the courage to make sure priests are faithful to the Church's teaching.

Continued on page 5: »