JUSTICE FOR PRIESTS: A FLAWED DALLAS CHARTER

A FLAWED
DALLAS CHARTER

by Reverend James Dallen, STD

http://www.justiceforpriests.org/

June, 2011 Newsletter

Two years after the panicked U.S. bishops wrote the Dallas Charter, Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote a perceptive and prescient critique in America (21 June 2004; available on the Justice for Priests and Deacons web- site). While he pointed out many flaws, his primary focus was the failure of the Dallas Charter and the bishops to protect the rights of priests. Seven years later it is even clearer that, where once bishops ignored the rights of accusers, they now ignore the rights of the accused.

Writers, lawyers, bloggers, and even bishops have pointed out the Charter’s flaws. Most criticisms center on the following points, some of which are discussed in more detail in this Justice for Priests and Deacons Newsletter and in past issues.

“Zero tolerance” has become a slogan, maybe even a mantra. One violation— whenever, wherever, whatever the circumstances—means permanent removal from ministry and/or laicization. Though the bishops have criticized the criminal justice system for a “one size fits all” attitude on punishment, their own Charter shows no sense of proportionality. The clerical equivalent of capital punishment has been invoked whether or not there was any sub- sequent or present danger, whether a child was violated or a boundary crossed.

All that is needed is a “credible allegation.”

What that means has never been clear. Practice, in many cases, regards it as meaning no more than “it could have happened,” even if there is no evidence beyond the accuser’s claim. Following that determination, priests are so pressured to undergo a psychological evaluation that it’s doubtful that their consent is freely given, and issues that are uncovered may have nothing to do with the original allegation.

The review board then makes its recommendation. But, unlike review boards in other professions, few priests serve on diocesan review boards, nor are priests treated like other professionals. In many instances, the bishop has already acted to remove the priest from ministry, so an allegation in some sense credible is effectively determination of guilt.

Removal from ministry after a credible allegation does carry with it the assumption of guilt, whatever may be said to the contrary. The possibility of restoring the priest’s reputation is almost nil, no matter what might be said subsequently. Administrative laicization rather than a canonical trial deprives priests of their right to a good reputation, to due process for determining guilt or innocence, to an appropriate defense, to financial support and benefits. For all practical purposes the bishop acts as arresting officer, prosecutor, jury, judge, and appellate court.

But not as a defense attorney—that is not provided.

Unusually, the Charter is retroactive. Even if there was only one offense years ago, even if that offense did not involve a child, even if the priest returned to ministry after successful therapy, even if there has been no subsequent problem, the priest nevertheless receives the ultimate punishment. The rationale for a statute of limitation (civil law) and prescription (Canon Law) is ignored. The action taken is more vindictive than protective or punitive.

Bishops take little or no responsibility to support or super- vise those removed from ministry. Laicization protects the institution from future liability (and from providing support to the former priest), but it offers no protection to children. Priests in prison receive little or no pastoral care. Nor do the diocesan audits check whether those who have been re- moved from ministry are monitored.

It is also too obvious that bishops are treated differently than priests. Both the past and present culpability of bishops in not removing abusers or not complying with audits is ignored. Yes, “only Rome can act” to discipline or remove a bishop, but there’s such a thing as fraternal correction, private and public confrontation, and, ultimately, even
shunning. How often do bishops criticize the practice of their fellow bishops?

Accused bishops are treated differently than priests: they remain in office and have financial resources for their
defense. Bishops who admit guilt resign but apparently are not otherwise penalized—perhaps they will be for questioning doctrine or policy but not for violating children.

There is no doubt that the Church as a whole, both clergy and laity, has failed miserably to provide appropriate
protection to children. We are desperately trying to make up for that and to prevent it from happening again. But un- justly destroying priests will accomplish neither, nor will the growing alienation between bishops and priests help the situation.

Most importantly, the flawed Dallas Charter does not reflect who we are and want to be as Church. The Dallas Charter must be revised. Church law must respect the rights of both accuser and accused. No bishop can be allowed to say, when canon law or priests’ rights are invoked, “I don’t have time to be bothered with that.” That is why Justice for Priests and Deacons exists. That is why we are providing this Newsletter. We hope you will find it enlightening and helpful.

REV. JAMES DALLEN, S.T.D.
PRIEST OF THE DIOCESE OF SALINA, KANSAS; EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES, GONZAGA UNIVER- SITY, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
†
“With sympathetic understanding and practical help, the bishops should take care of priests who are in danger of any kind or who have failed in some way.” Decree on Bishops, Vatican II, #16
†
“In a brotherly spirit priests should be hospitable to each other, showing kindness and sharing their goods, with special concern for any who are sick, in distress, over- worked, lonely, or exiles from their homeland, and all who endure persecution.” Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Vatican II, 8