15/06/02
Analysis
Prelates' Doubts May Affect Enforcement
Bishop Wilton Gregory makes a statement after the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a new policy on sexual abuse. (Reuters)
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 15, 2002;
DALLAS, June 14 -- Throughout the Catholic bishops' deliberations today, as they struggled to define sexual abuse, debated the meaning of "credible," and weighed the requirements of canon and civil law, Bishop James R. Hoffman had difficulty keeping his mind on abstractions. He kept thinking about Father Fisher.
At the end of the day, after the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States voted for a policy requiring the removal from ministry of any priest who has committed sexual misconduct with a minor, Hoffman realized he might have to return to the Diocese of Toledo and tell the Rev. Robert J. Fisher that his career is over.
Hard as it was for the bishops to arrive at a nationwide policy, the truly hard part lies ahead: enforcing it. The policy seems stringent. But many of the bishops made clear that they were voting for it with deep misgivings. Some are already thinking about whether they could find other roles within the church for certain offenders.
Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, declared after today's vote that "from this day forward, no one known to have sexually abused a child will work in the Catholic Church in the United States." But the policy doesn't quite say that. It says child sexual abusers will be "permanently removed from ministry" -- and much could turn on the definition of "ministry," which is not spelled out in the document itself.
Hoffman, for example, must now decide what to do about Fisher, 48, who was convicted of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl in 1988, served 30 days in jail and spent four years in therapy and counseling. From 1992 until early this year, he served as pastor of St. Michael's Church in Toledo, with overwhelming support from its parishioners, who were fully informed of his past.
"I know the people at St. Michael's, and with very few exceptions, they're behind him," Hoffman said. "The letters I've received about him have all been very pro, because for 10 years he's done excellent work."
In May, as the sexual abuse scandal reverberated throughout the church, Hoffman placed Fisher on administrative leave, despite protests from parishioners. He told the people of St. Michael's that he would wait for the Dallas meeting to provide guidance on Fisher's future. He said today that he fully intends to carry out the policy adopted here, and he acknowledged that it does not seem to allow much leeway in cases like Fisher's.
But, he said, "I suppose I'll begin by re-reading the whole document. Sometimes you think a document says one thing, but when you leave the room and read it later, it's not so clear."
Before they got to Dallas, the draft policy under consideration by the bishops would have required the "laicization," or removal from the priesthood, of any priest who commits child sexual abuse in the future. It would have allowed an exception, however, for some offenders who had committed a single act of abuse in the past, had undergone psychological treatment and had not been diagnosed as pedophiles. Fisher could easily have fit into that exception.
In Dallas, victims' groups angrily decried the "loophole" for one-time abusers, and the bishops removed it. But in a closed session Thursday night, they also removed the requirement of laicization, which is now left to the discretion of individual bishops. Several bishops said today they expect that laicization will be the norm for future cases, but that some past offenders who are now in their sixties, seventies or eighties might be allowed to remain priests with no public duties, living out their lives in monasteries or retirement homes.
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington said he believes the prohibition on ministry extends to any formal assignment, including administrative work. But Hoffman said he was relieved that he does not have to seek Fisher's dismissal from the priesthood, and might be able to find some constructive role for him.
"One of the things I was wondering about is, I can understand being removed from parochial ministry, but there are a lot of other tasks that people can perform," the bishop said. "Father Fisher has a particular talent in regard to the work he's done with our architecture department. There might be some capacity in which his talents would be used."
The possibility that men such as Fisher could remain priests, possibly in jobs that are not considered "ministry" by their bishops, infuriates victims' groups.
"If you retain the title 'Father,' you still have one of the most important tools of the trade of a sexual predator in the church," said Mark Serrano, a spokesman for the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests.
Michael Bland, a psychologist who gave an emotional address to the bishops on Thursday describing his sexual abuse by a priest who is now teaching at a leading Catholic university, said he believes that one of the reasons some bishops wanted to distinguish between past and future cases is that future cases are abstract.
"It's easy to say that future perpetrators will be laicized, because you don't know who they are," he said. "The past offenders are real people to them."
Several of the bishops argued that some cases involving priests who have committed abuse in the distant past were not the black-and-white situations portrayed by the victims' groups. At the same time, the bishops recognized that anything short of a blanket policy would not win back the trust of lay Catholics.
"The sense is, if you start fudging, or what looks like fudging, people will say you're not serious about the problem," said Cardinal Francis George of Chicago. "That kind of nuance is not fully compatible with the drive to protect children."
The signal achievement of the Dallas meeting is a commitment by the bishops to eradicate the problem of child sex abuse from the ranks of their priests. In many respects, the policy they adopted is tightly worded. It contains an expansive definition of sexual abuse as any act in which an adult uses a minor as an object of sexual gratification, and it requires dioceses to notify civil authorities of all allegations, without first determining whether they are credible.
One of the most respected voices among the bishops, the eminent theologian Cardinal Avery Dulles, rose to complain that the requirement of permanent removal from ministry of all offenders past, present and future seemed "awfully harsh."
Hoffman said he was as committed as any of the bishops to adopting a tough policy, but kept on thinking throughout the debate about having to apply it to Fisher. Policies in many ways are abstractions, but priests such as Fisher are real men. "We all want to protect children," Hoffman said. "And we're all worried about these borderline cases."
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
Analysis
Prelates' Doubts May Affect Enforcement
Bishop Wilton Gregory makes a statement after the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a new policy on sexual abuse. (Reuters)
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 15, 2002;
DALLAS, June 14 -- Throughout the Catholic bishops' deliberations today, as they struggled to define sexual abuse, debated the meaning of "credible," and weighed the requirements of canon and civil law, Bishop James R. Hoffman had difficulty keeping his mind on abstractions. He kept thinking about Father Fisher.
At the end of the day, after the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States voted for a policy requiring the removal from ministry of any priest who has committed sexual misconduct with a minor, Hoffman realized he might have to return to the Diocese of Toledo and tell the Rev. Robert J. Fisher that his career is over.
Hard as it was for the bishops to arrive at a nationwide policy, the truly hard part lies ahead: enforcing it. The policy seems stringent. But many of the bishops made clear that they were voting for it with deep misgivings. Some are already thinking about whether they could find other roles within the church for certain offenders.
Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, declared after today's vote that "from this day forward, no one known to have sexually abused a child will work in the Catholic Church in the United States." But the policy doesn't quite say that. It says child sexual abusers will be "permanently removed from ministry" -- and much could turn on the definition of "ministry," which is not spelled out in the document itself.
Hoffman, for example, must now decide what to do about Fisher, 48, who was convicted of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl in 1988, served 30 days in jail and spent four years in therapy and counseling. From 1992 until early this year, he served as pastor of St. Michael's Church in Toledo, with overwhelming support from its parishioners, who were fully informed of his past.
"I know the people at St. Michael's, and with very few exceptions, they're behind him," Hoffman said. "The letters I've received about him have all been very pro, because for 10 years he's done excellent work."
In May, as the sexual abuse scandal reverberated throughout the church, Hoffman placed Fisher on administrative leave, despite protests from parishioners. He told the people of St. Michael's that he would wait for the Dallas meeting to provide guidance on Fisher's future. He said today that he fully intends to carry out the policy adopted here, and he acknowledged that it does not seem to allow much leeway in cases like Fisher's.
But, he said, "I suppose I'll begin by re-reading the whole document. Sometimes you think a document says one thing, but when you leave the room and read it later, it's not so clear."
Before they got to Dallas, the draft policy under consideration by the bishops would have required the "laicization," or removal from the priesthood, of any priest who commits child sexual abuse in the future. It would have allowed an exception, however, for some offenders who had committed a single act of abuse in the past, had undergone psychological treatment and had not been diagnosed as pedophiles. Fisher could easily have fit into that exception.
In Dallas, victims' groups angrily decried the "loophole" for one-time abusers, and the bishops removed it. But in a closed session Thursday night, they also removed the requirement of laicization, which is now left to the discretion of individual bishops. Several bishops said today they expect that laicization will be the norm for future cases, but that some past offenders who are now in their sixties, seventies or eighties might be allowed to remain priests with no public duties, living out their lives in monasteries or retirement homes.
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington said he believes the prohibition on ministry extends to any formal assignment, including administrative work. But Hoffman said he was relieved that he does not have to seek Fisher's dismissal from the priesthood, and might be able to find some constructive role for him.
"One of the things I was wondering about is, I can understand being removed from parochial ministry, but there are a lot of other tasks that people can perform," the bishop said. "Father Fisher has a particular talent in regard to the work he's done with our architecture department. There might be some capacity in which his talents would be used."
The possibility that men such as Fisher could remain priests, possibly in jobs that are not considered "ministry" by their bishops, infuriates victims' groups.
"If you retain the title 'Father,' you still have one of the most important tools of the trade of a sexual predator in the church," said Mark Serrano, a spokesman for the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests.
Michael Bland, a psychologist who gave an emotional address to the bishops on Thursday describing his sexual abuse by a priest who is now teaching at a leading Catholic university, said he believes that one of the reasons some bishops wanted to distinguish between past and future cases is that future cases are abstract.
"It's easy to say that future perpetrators will be laicized, because you don't know who they are," he said. "The past offenders are real people to them."
Several of the bishops argued that some cases involving priests who have committed abuse in the distant past were not the black-and-white situations portrayed by the victims' groups. At the same time, the bishops recognized that anything short of a blanket policy would not win back the trust of lay Catholics.
"The sense is, if you start fudging, or what looks like fudging, people will say you're not serious about the problem," said Cardinal Francis George of Chicago. "That kind of nuance is not fully compatible with the drive to protect children."
The signal achievement of the Dallas meeting is a commitment by the bishops to eradicate the problem of child sex abuse from the ranks of their priests. In many respects, the policy they adopted is tightly worded. It contains an expansive definition of sexual abuse as any act in which an adult uses a minor as an object of sexual gratification, and it requires dioceses to notify civil authorities of all allegations, without first determining whether they are credible.
One of the most respected voices among the bishops, the eminent theologian Cardinal Avery Dulles, rose to complain that the requirement of permanent removal from ministry of all offenders past, present and future seemed "awfully harsh."
Hoffman said he was as committed as any of the bishops to adopting a tough policy, but kept on thinking throughout the debate about having to apply it to Fisher. Policies in many ways are abstractions, but priests such as Fisher are real men. "We all want to protect children," Hoffman said. "And we're all worried about these borderline cases."
© 2002 The Washington Post Company