Procedures were set in place which, however, were not really adequate to meet the goal. The procedures were purely administrative, i.e., actions by the bishop; and purely administrative procedures are designed to correct, not to impose a permanent penalty such as removal from ministry for life. Despite this weakness, the Dallas norms set out uniform policy on the use of independent review boards, on cooperating with civil authorities, on the spiritual and psychological care of victims. Part of the Dallas norms, because part of the universal law of the Church, was the reporting of each case, if the review board found some cause to accept an allegation as having substance, to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. This is because the Church considers the sexual abuse of a minor by a priest to be a sin as grave as the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament.

When asked to recognize the Dallas norms as particular law for the United States, the Holy See said they would like to talk about a few difficulties, difficulties the U.S. bishops knew were in the norms even as we passed them in Dallas. Four bishops were named by the president of the U.S. Conference to go to Rome and talk with four bishops of the Roman Curia. Since the difficulties were, for the most part, shared concerns, the talks resulted in many improvements which strengthened the Dallas norms. In Rome, the definition of sexual abuse was clarified. It defines abuse in terms of external actions condemned by the sixth commandment and avoids excessively psychological verbiage. Most of all, the procedures for working with both the accuser and the accused were clarified.

To all the administrative measures in the Dallas charters, the Rome revision adds the use of Church tribunals. Tribunals are necessary, in Church law, to impose a permanent penalty. Tribunals were not put into the norms in Dallas, because almost all the reported cases of sexual abuse of minors are about actions which occurred 15 to 40 years ago and the statute of limitations in canon law, similar to the statute of limitations in civil law, did not permit a court to hear the case. Nonetheless, avoiding tribunals deprived the accused of an adequate forum for self-defense and prevented the bishops from imposing a permanent penalty. Tribunals can be a part of the norms now, because the Holy See agreed to lift the statute of limitations on a case by case basis. Adding tribunals to the norms strengthens them. Review boards no longer have to make the kind of investigations only a court can pursue. Cases can be settled definitively in a way that insures greater justice. And all the means of reaching out to victims and pursuing the ministry of healing put in place by the bishops in Dallas remain in place, as do the administrative measures in case a tribunal cannot be used.

Moving from Dallas to Rome to Washington, the U.S. bishops will consider the revision of the Dallas Norms during their annual fall meeting the second week of November. If they vote them as presented, they will be sent back to Rome for approval as particular law. If they change them very substantially, the Roman Curia will also have to look carefully at the changes from the U.S. I hope that the norms will receive the U.S. bishops approval and a quick “recognition” by the Holy See.

Besides Dallas, Rome and Washington, there is a fourth city involved, the city and counties that are of greatest importance to me as Archbishop of Chicago. Of great comfort to me in these last several weeks has been the assurance of prayers from many Catholics in the parishes I’ve visited and from many who write. Everyone wants procedures that reach out to victims for healing and bring justice to those who have sinned. Since even forgiven sin has consequences, tribunals offer the possibility of bringing closure in a fair way to these cases. People will understand this, I believe, if it is adequately explained. Unfortunately, explanations are sometimes distorted to meet an a priori narrative. When Rome’s request for a joint commission to clear up the Dallas difficulties was first announced, it was interpreted as a rejection. When it became clear that Rome was not rejecting the Dallas norms, the story shifted to their being weakened. When people come to see that the norms are, in fact, strengthened, perhaps they will also see the extent to which distorted reporting by some and dishonest accusations by others have as their goal not the protection of victims of sexual abuse but the punishment or even destruction of the Catholic Church.

What of the future of the Church as a result of this scandal? A still unresolved question is that of the bishops who transferred abusing priests. A larger unresolved question is that of how the discrediting of the Church as a moral force will weaken the Church’s mission in the years to come. Renewing the Church’s mission in the world was the purpose for which Blessed Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. On the occasion of this anniversary, Cardinal Avery Dulles recently pointed out that a more careful reading of the documents and teachings of the Council would help all Catholics understand how the Council called for a renewal of mission. This seems to me good advice for providing a sure rudder as the Church navigates some stormy seas.

Finally, of course, the only complete response to a crisis in the Church is a deepening of our faith in Christ and the moral reform that comes from surrendering one’s life completely to him. Protocols and norms are necessary, as are the commandments of God and the Church; but the full impact of the mysteries of faith handed on in the Church is felt only in the act of surrendering oneself to Christ in his body, the Church. If fewer do that now because they are deterred by the sins of priests and bishops, not only the Church is weakened. Our strength in this crisis and in all circumstances is our prayerful unity in Christ. You are always in my prayers; please keep me in yours.