Tracking the American Bishops’ Response to the Sex Abuse Crisis

Before Dallas by Nicholas P. Cafardi, 2008 Paulist Press
Book review by Anne Southwood

Cafardi first delineates Church canon law specific to abuse. He then explains flawed bishop response in light of attachment to protocol and crooked paths available under Church law. A civil lawyer as well as canonist, Cafardi finishes with lessons to be learned from the abuse debacle. Very qualified, he is Duquesne Dean Emeritus and law professor.

Cafardi makes us aware of a history of sexual abuse of children, proven by Church norms relating to it. He gives a concise history of citations from the New Testament through Church Councils and collections like the Burchard and Gratian’s Decretum to the modern 1917 and 1983 Code of Canon Law. Church norms eventually include the penalty of removal of orders from clerics.
 
Why did this not happen in response to the American clerical abuse crisis? Parents had a clear vision of a straight path. Myopic American bishops did not. Wasting a decade hoping for help from Rome, bishops seized on therapy centers as a solution to what the public knew was a horror by the early 90’s. “Treated” priests kept rolling down off that therapy highroad. In 2002 the Boston Globe continually thrust the scarlet letter A at readers. Child sexual abuse by priests was now an avalanche breaking secret file boxes open. Furor forced the American Bishops Conference to put a public face on a horrendous fact in Dallas. The “pastoral” approach centered on offending priests was insufficient. The National Review Board was created. The John Jay Study was commissioned. Cafardi offers a disturbing quote from a bishop in the Report of the National Review Board: there was “a disconnect whereby for some reason at a pastoral level bishops and priests did not grasp how horrified the average parent would be over the thought that his or her child would be sexually abused by a member of the clergy.”

Under Canon Law, bishops must begin a penal process on a “believable” charge of abuse. Canonist Cafardi looks at the reasons why the bishops had not defended the rights of our children, whose rights equal those of accused priests. He is fair and thorough; 150 pages of text are supported by 100 pages of notes. Some of the reasons: the penal process was not adequate to the problem and was not “favored” over other forms of correction in Church law. The process was time consuming and a penalty could not be applied during an appeal. Also, untrained American canon lawyers at that time had to operate within a 5 year statute of limitations. Ultimately, blame and penalty could not be applied to any priest committing a canonical crime if his reason was impaired. Bishops feared loss on appeal.

The author points out two of the roads not taken by bishops as missed opportunities. One is the failure to use regional canonical trials. In his opinion, public knowledge might have prevented further crimes. If lawyers advised against the use, fear of openness to civil “discoverability” was the motivation.  Another avenue might have been to insist the Holy See, now the CDF, assume responsibility it claimed for all crimes relating to sexual abuse of children. A Canon Law Statute of Limitations does not apply to crimes under the purview of the CDF. The American lawyer Levada now occupies the CDF chair formerly occupied by Cardinal Ratzinger. Cafardi insists on the crisis teaching us two important lessons. One is the negative legal value of secrecy. The other is that bishops must do their duty in balancing protection of rights under Church law. We now have an American in the CDF chair. Woulda, coulda? Shoulda!