By Jerry Filteau
Catholic News Service

Washington — Archbishop Harry J. Flynn of St. Paul-Minneapolis told journalists June 4 that a proposal in the draft of a national sex-abuse policy which would allow possible return to limited ministry for some priests who have sexually abused a minor only once in the past “is going to be hotly debated” when the U.S. bishops gather June 13-15.

Without saying so directly, he indicated there is likely to be a strong consensus among the bishops for a general policy of laicizing virtually all priests who abuse minors—anybody guilty of more than one offense in the past and anyone with even one offense in the future.

“Our foremost goal is to protect children and young people. One essential way to do that is to say clearly, ‘If you abuse, you are out of the priesthood,’” he said.

The debate among the bishops, he said, is going to center on a proposal to allow a narrow exception for some priests with a past record blemished by only one offense.

Archbishop Flynn, head of the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse, briefed national media in Washington as the draft “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” drawn up by his committee was made public, just nine days before the bishops were to begin debate on it in Dallas.

The charter would require dioceses to establish mostly lay review committees to assess all abuse allegations. It would require them to report any accusations to civil authorities if the victim is still a minor when the allegation surfaces. It would form national structures to help dioceses implement the policy and to report annually on the quality of their compliance.

Also to be debated and voted on by the bishops is a proposed set of legislative norms which, if adopted and subsequently approved by the Holy See, would give key elements of the charter the force of church law in the United States.

The charter, for example, specifies that a diocesan review board is to be mostly lay people not in the employ of the diocese and spells out the board’s tasks and relation to the bishop. The legislative norms specify that it is to be composed of at least five persons, the majority lay and not employed by the diocese, but to include at least one priest and at least one person with special expertise in child sexual abuse. The norms also specify that board members are to be appointed to five-year terms, which are renewable.

The charter and legislation are to apply not only to U.S. Latin dioceses, but also to the country’s eparchies, or dioceses of Eastern Catholic churches.

On the contentious issue of making exceptions to the laicization norm for certain priests with single past offenses, Archbishop Flynn stressed that it will be up to the bishops in Dallas to determine whether that proposal is adopted or rejected.

“The committee is well aware that many strongly believe that there should be no such provision,” he said. “However, in the feedback that we received, there appeared to be a large enough minority of bishops, expert observers and people in the pew who wanted some flexibility, that we felt this possibility had to go to the full body.”

“I think this will be the most closely debated item at our meeting,” he added.

He stressed that as proposed in the draft, the exception “can only apply to a cleric who has had treatment, has not been diagnosed as a pedophile and has had only a single act of abuse in his past.”

In addition, he said, “The diocesan review board would have to make an evaluation and recommendation to the bishop and the victim/survivor would have to contribute to that evaluation. A cleric who was retained in ministry would have to have his situation disclosed to those with whom he would live or serve. However, ministry that involves contact with children or young people would always be out of the question.”

The archbishop described the proposed formation of a national Office for Child and Youth Protection at the bishops’ national headquarters and of a national review board as “means of accountability” that mark “a large step forward from what we did during the last decade.”

“We established good principles then (in 1992),” he said, “but we didn’t provide for a way to be accountable to our people and to one another nationally for what is so clearly a national—even international—problem.”

Referring to the proposal’s civil reporting requirements, he said, “The reporting issue has been among the most emotional, and also least understood, issues in the current controversy about the church’s response to sexual abuse of minors by clergy.

“I do not think that many people fully understand that reporting does not necessarily result in prosecution,” he added. “Far from it. However, the ad hoc committee fully agrees that when it comes to investigating civil crimes, the investigation should be left to the proper law enforcement authorities.”

Besides mandating reporting if the victim is still a minor, the proposal calls for full cooperation with civil authorities on reporting in cases where the victim is no longer a minor. It says dioceses in all cases will “advise and support a person’s right to make a report to proper authorities.”

Many of the media questions to Archbishop Flynn focused on skepticism about describing provisions of the charter as mandatory when there are no specific enforcement procedures or sanctions forcing a bishop to implement them.

“This charter is going to demand an enormous amount of accountability on the part of every single bishop,” he said.

Referring to the proposal for public yearly national reports on compliance in each diocese, he predicted that “public disclosure would be sanction enough” to bring bishops into compliance.

“I can’t imagine any bishop, for legal or other reasons, saying ‘I’m not going to follow that,’” he said.

Although the charter contains no definition of sexual abuse, he said that the diocesan review boards, containing professionals like attorneys, doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists, would be competent to “determine what is or is not sexual abuse” in their assessment of specific cases.

From Page 1



cization norm for certain priests with single past offenses, Archbishop Flynn stressed that it will be up to the bishops in Dallas to determine whether that proposal is adopted or rejected.

“The committee is well aware that many strongly believe that there should be no such provision,” he said. “However, in the feedback that we received, there appeared to be a large enough minority of bishops, expert observers and people in the pew who wanted some flexibility, that we felt this possibility had to go to the full body.”

“I think this will be the most closely debated item at our meeting,” he added.

He stressed that as proposed in the draft, the exception “can only apply to a cleric who has had treatment, has not been diagnosed as a pedophile and has had only a single act of abuse in his past.”

In addition, he said, “The diocesan review board would have to make an evaluation and recommendation to the bishop and the victim/survivor would have to contribute to that evaluation. A cleric who was retained in ministry would have to have his situation disclosed to those with whom he would live or serve. However, ministry that involves contact with children or young people would always be out of the question.”

The archbishop described the proposed formation of a national Office for Child and Youth Protection at the bishops’ national headquarters and of a national review board as “means of accountability” that mark “a large step forward from what we did during the last decade.”

Referring to the proposal’s civil reporting requirements, he said, “I do not think that many people fully understand that reporting does not necessarily result in prosecution,” he added. “Far from it. However, the ad hoc committee fully agrees that when it comes to investigating civil crimes, the investigation should be left to the proper law enforcement authorities.”

Besides mandating reporting if the victim is still a minor, the proposal calls for full cooperation with civil authorities on reporting in cases where the victim is no longer a minor. It says dioceses in all cases will “advise and support a person’s right to make a report to proper authorities.”

Many of the media questions to Archbishop Flynn focused on skepticism about describing provisions of the charter as mandatory when there are no specific enforcement procedures or sanctions forcing a bishop to implement them.

Referring to the proposal for public yearly national reports on compliance in each diocese, he predicted that “public disclosure would be sanction enough.”

“I can’t imagine any bishop, for legal or other reasons, saying ‘I’m not going to follow that,’” he said.

About 8,000 people attended the hearings, and nearly 800 offered their opinions. Another 2,000 questionnaires were submitted via the Internet, Hartigan said.

“Much of what was said was very well thought out,” Hartigan said. “It was a great success.”

The hearings were conducted independently, and no archdiocesan representatives were scheduled to attend.

Once the report is submitted to the cardinal, sometime before his June 11 departure for Dallas, it will be posted on the lawyers guild Web site, www.clgc.org, Maureen Hartigan said.

The bishops’ meeting comes shortly after the archdiocese announced that it had removed three more priests from ministry following decades-old allegations of sexual abuse of minors, including former vicar for administration Father R. Peter Bowman.

Bowman, 73, served as vicar for administration from 1995 to 2000, and was retired and living at St. Teresa of Avila Parish on the North Side when he was removed. He also had been a popular pastor at St. James Parish in Arlington Heights, where a gymnasium was named after him.

Parishioners were informed May 25 and 26 that Bowman had been accused of misconduct with a minor boy more than 45 years ago at St. Denis Parish on the Southwest Side.

The same weekend, parishioners at St. Celestine Church in Elmwood Park were informed that their associate pastor, Father Donald Mulsoff, 58, had been removed from ministry because of two allegations that Mulsoff had abused minors more than 25 years ago, when he served at St. Catherine of Alexandria Parish in Oak Lawn and Mary Queen of Heaven Parish in Cicero.

A week later, Father Marion Sneig, a retired priest serving as a chaplain at the Addolorata Villa nursing home in Wheeling, also was removed from ministry after allegations of misconduct with two minors more than 40 years ago. The archdiocese first received allegations against Sneig in 1987, before the current policy went into effect, and Sneig remained in parish ministry under supervision until he retired in 1992.

Earlier this year, former chancellor Father Robert Kealy and Father Richard Fassbinder, the retired pastor of Prince of Peace Parish in Lake Villa, were removed from ministry, and a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Father Sleeva Raju Policetti, who apparently fled to his native India after law enforcement authorities began investigating reports that he had a sexual relationship with a teenage girl.

Columban Father Clarence Beckley returned to ministry at St. Philomena Church after a brief investigation of allegations that Dwyer characterized as “a misunderstanding.”

While law enforcement authorities have supported archdiocesan claims that it has handled abuse allegations appropriately, Cardinal George has come under fire from the Chicago chapter of the National Organization for Women because of a comment he made at the U.S. cardinals’ meeting in Rome that attempted to draw a distinction between a “moral monster” such as former Boston priest John Geoghan who repeatedly victimized children and a priest who has one inappropriate encounter with a teenage girl. The cardinal said that both were wrong, but perhaps in the second case, there was more possibility of reform.

Cardinal George met with representatives from the Chicago chapter of NOW May 31 to discuss concerns about the welfare of all sexual abuse victims. After the meeting, the cardinal said he was surprised by what the NOW representatives said about it, especially after they had apologized for misrepresenting the meaning and intent of what he said in Rome.

“Despite their apology, NOW’s press release again misrepresents my remarks and my intentions,” said Cardinal George. “I am profoundly disappointed that what seemed to me to be a friendly and helpful conversation has been transformed in Chicago NOW’s press release into a series of demands, some of which were not even mentioned in our conversation.”