Print Issue: November 21, 2002

Revised Norms Provide 'A Greater Precision And Clarity,' Canon Law Expert Says

Father Jim Schillinger (Photo by Michael Alexander) Sister Sharon Euart, RSM (NC Photo)

By Gretchen Keiser

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Father Jim Schillinger, president of the Atlanta Priests' Council, was an official observer at the plenary meeting of the U.S. bishops.

His perspective on the bishops was sympathetic.

"There is severe pressure for them not to stumble now, not to go slow" in addressing the sexual abuse crisis, he said.

National priests' organizations and some priests felt that at Dallas bishops were moving "a little too fast in reaction to pressure from the press and from every side."

He thought the differences in the documents adopted at this meeting were not that great from the Dallas versions, but the support voiced for the overwhelming majority of priests not accused was resounding.

"It has been abundantly clear these are men who care deeply about their priests. They know the vast majority of the priests they work with are good men doing a good job," he said after three days of listening at open sessions of the bishops' meeting.

While bishops spoke often of their commitment to permanently remove from ministry any priest or deacon who sexually abused a minor, they also emphasized that the revised norms better ensure due process for anyone who is accused.

"We (priests) all know there are totally unfounded allegations" as well as legitimate cases, Father Schillinger said. "One of the things they are trying to ensure is that (the charter and norms) respect the rights of everybody."

The pastor of Immaculate Heart of Mary Church, Atlanta, also appreciated the struggle voiced in debates as to whether and how faith that is built upon forgiveness and true conversion can coexist with "zero tolerance" policies.

"It's gratifying to see the bishops wrestling with the whole notion of redemption. At what point can you say - enough. Is it possible for a guy who committed an awful act 20 or 30 years ago and turned his life around to make a contribution to public ministry? I heard, in a small way, bishops saying, can a guy move from that awful place to light?"

"It says to me that their hearts are open - to the victims, to the good priests, but their hearts are also open to the guys who screwed up, who are sick."

Atlanta native Sister Sharon Euart, RSM, a canonical consultant who provided explanations of the revised norms and charter in a telephone interview, said she did not see the changes as weakening the documents adopted in Dallas.

"I don't think it is a backing down at all. It is making it juridically parallel to where civil law would interface with canon law. There is a greater precision and clarity in the revised norms. In Dallas, under greater time constraints, perhaps they did not have the time or the input to have (the norms) written with precision."

The former associate general secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Sister Euart elaborated on the debate over cases of sexual abuse of minors where the statute of limitations has run out. It was the U.S. bishops who in 1994 asked for special Vatican permission to make the statute of limitations run longer to try and address the special circumstances of these cases, she said.

What began as a U.S. request was made universal church law in 2001.

Now the revised norms additionally say that when the 10-year statute of limitations following a victim's 18th birthday has expired, U.S. bishops "shall" ask for special Vatican permission to pursue the cases anyway and, if appropriate after due process, apply canonical penalties like dismissing a priest or deacon from the clerical state.

"In these cases you could say there is no statute of limitations," she said.

However, "the exception (to the statute of limitations) is not necessarily automatic. I don't think it would be prudent to assume in every single case, it would be extended."

In the Dallas documents the predominantly lay review board to be appointed in every diocese to assist the bishop appeared to have a stronger mandate and more openness than in the revised norms' language.

For example, the revisions specify that the board is to function as a "confidential consultative body to the bishop/eparch in discharging his responsibilities," and details in the earlier version were tightened or eliminated.

The principle in canon law that underlies these revisions is that "the final decision remains that of the diocesan bishop," Sister Euart said.

However, because some bishops did not remove notorious priest abusers from ministry, trust in the bishops as sole decision-makers has been shaken.

"I don't think all the bishops are responsible for it, but all the bishops are having to pay the price for this," she said.

"While the bishops are required to have a review board and seek the advice of the experts on that board, it still remains the bishop's judgment who he appoints to that board," she said. "The hope of people is the bishops will take advantage of the very best counsel."

In addition, the bishop "is required to consult the board, but he doesn't have to follow it," she said.

However, "most bishops today would think it unwise not to follow the advice of the board, unless there were very serious reasons."

"The words are there now," Sister Euart concluded. "The charter is there. The norms are there. What will improve confidence in the bishops and their credibility as a body will be actions. I think actions will determine the credibility of what they have put down in words . . . When they come through this, seeking expert consultation, involving lay people, they'll be stronger for it."