More of interest at Mirror of Justice, with continued reporting of discussions at Villanova in which the conclusion is, basically: no new procedures or innovative programs were needed by any bishop to deal with abusive clerics. Canon law not only provides for but requires episcopal action. Not to mention the Gospel. But canon law will do.

Specifically, Cafardi avers that if Holy Mother Church had followed her own law, no grand jury anywhere would have had any work to do.  Cafardi explained that can. 1717 requires investigations of a sort systematically avoided in Philadelphia when allegations of a delict reached the chancery; the canon creates a right in the putative victim to have the matter investigated by the bishop (or his delegate).  Cafardi further explained that, subject to can. 1341, can. 1718 would require a bishop, who, having investigated, has reason to believe a delict involving abuse by a priest of a youth has occurred, to proceed to a canonical trial that could result in the imposition of a just canonical penalty.  Can. 1341 prefers the use of "fraternal correction" where that can sufficiently "restore justice," but the tradition stretching back through all the centuries, Cafardi demonstrated, is against the idea that fraternal correction is sufficient in cases of this sort.