Letter from Bulletin of June 23, 2002
THE TWELFTH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME
Dear Parishioners,
On Friday June 14th, barely minutes after the U.S. Bishops had voted and adjourned in Dallas, KGO T.V. was here to interview me on my reaction to the bishop's conclusions. A sound-bite (more accurately a "nibble") of what I said was aired that evening. What do I think anyway? It's still hard for me to be clear or certain but my first reaction is "hopeful". That close to 300 bishops, unaccustomed to working collaboratively let alone productively with each other, were able to accomplish as much as they did in just three days is itself hopeful; that most of the conference with detailed debate and disagreement was aired minute by minute on national T.V. is hopeful. When measured alongside the petition 1,239 of our parishioners signed along with many other parishes, the U.S. bishops behavior and decisions as a first step are hopeful.
Our petition asked that victims and their concerns be put first. The bishops began their conference by listening to actual survivors; they put the obligation to reach out to victims first in their "charter" document; they publicly admitted to failure and apologized . . . as a first step, hopeful. Our petition asked for a mandatory national policy about abuse of minors. The bishops seem not only to have voted in but to be committed to a common national policy, regardless of specific Vatican approval; it includes reporting any allegation to civil authorities, a local coordinator and review board in each diocese and no confidentiality agreements unless requested by victim/survivors and even then only for a serious reason . . . as a first step hopeful (the fact that our own Diocese has had much of this and more in place for a good number of years is more than just hopeful). Our petition asked that a national study of past incidents of abuse of minors be commissioned and that an independent means to monitor Dioceses' implementation be established. The National Review Board chaired by former Governor Frank Keating aims in that direction. Keating has stated that they will review Dioceses annually, commission a study of past abuse cases and that he will pressure any bishop who has shielded a predator to resign . . . as a promise and first step, hopeful. Our petition asked that serious related issues be publicly discussed. Here, I believe it is too early to tell since the three day meeting had to be narrowly focused; whether the discussion will be broadened and supported remains to be seen.
Despite my cautious hopefulness, there are clearly some key concerns: (1) the "zero tolerance" many called for was toughened to cover all past cases of abuse of minors without the exception allowed in the first draft for a single case long ago. At the same time it was softened to mean "permanent removal from ministry" and the equivalent of "loss of license to practice" but not mandatory laicization. I suspect that "softening" vote was the result of compassionate concern for elderly and feeble priests now remote from any public activity, pastoral concern about releasing offenders from any kind of Church responsibility and supervision, and most of all pragmatic concern that the Vatican would either veto or stall endlessly around the issue of wholesale mandatory laicization; (2) "permanent removal from ministry" will be defined only by actual practice. It may prove to be either compassion and balance in rare cases or else an irresponsible loophole; (3) the accountability of bishops who allowed some horrific cases of abuse to continue and who have singlehandedly exposed almost all Dioceses to the real possibility of bankruptcy remains an unanswered question. With the unfair advantage of hindsight practically no Diocese can be described as perfect, but some few have not just been imperfect but outrageous. I still await some "responsible resignations"; (4) at least one commentator has expressed the fear that the dynamic that led some bishops to failure and cover ups was concern for the "reputation" of the Church and preservation of the present structure without change; is the same dynamic producing the present "solutions"? Let's hope it is not that but integrity and authentic pastoral concern; (5) of the approximately 46,000 priests in the U.S. this charter applies directly only to the 30,600 diocesan priests. 15,400 are religious (Jesuits, Benedictines, Salesians, Dominicans, etc.) not under the bishops' jurisdiction. A meeting of religious superiors in August still must establish how the Dallas conclusions apply to them. Let's remain hopeful, watchful, prayerful and concerned.
Your Pastor,
Brian T. Joyce