Church's rules on abuse criticized
By Richard N. Ostling
Associated Press
Sex between clergy and adult women is a more serious offense than molesting minors under an obscure but important body of Roman Catholic rules known as canon law, experts in the field agree.
Church law also emphasizes restoring wrongdoers to active priesthood over removing them from the clergy. And some canonists even complain that the system grants abusers more protection than their victims.
Taken together, the church laws on sex abuse may provide some insight into the thinking of U.S. bishops as they have handled the waves of molestation charges hitting the church.
"The Code of Canon Law" is the compilation of church rules and regulations, which sets the policies for Catholic bishops as they run dioceses and for superiors of religious orders. It includes how church leaders are to deal with errant priests.
The current code was issued by Pope John Paul II in 1983 but was mostly completed in the 1970s when clergy sex abuse scandals were rarely mentioned.
National media exposure of the problem didn't begin until 1985 — the same year the Canon Law Society of America, the organization of U.S. specialists in the field, published its exhaustive commentary on the new code. The commentary doesn't have any binding power over the bishops, but it reflects the consensus view among experts and shapes the way bishops and their advisers understand church law.
The code's canon 1395:2 specifies that sex between priests and minors is an ecclesiastical crime. Yet the 1985 code commentary stated that an initial charge of molesting "is not viewed as seriously" as "concubinage" (cohabiting with a woman) or "attempted marriage" (a priest's civil marriage, which the church does not recognize).
The distinction is apparent because a priest involved with an adult woman is penalized with suspension, while one who molests a minor faces lesser and undefined "just penalties," the commentary says.
The Canon Law Society produced a revised commentary in 2000 that says this about molestation: "Somewhat surprisingly, the code does not seem to view such delicts (offenses) as seriously as other violations of clerical continence."
The Rev. Thomas J. Green of the Catholic University of America wrote the commentary on sex abuse for the 1985 and 2000 editions. He thinks the canon seems to distinguish between a priest's "ongoing relationship" with a woman and "what could be an individual act. The seriousness of the breach might be more clear."
The Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canonist who has advised hundreds of Catholics taking molestation claims to civil court, says that canonical thinking on sex abuse is misguided.
"Even occasional acts of sex with a minor are far more devastating than habitual sexual contact with a consenting adult of either gender," he says. Canon law thinking shows "more concern for the clerical establishment than for the victim."
Monsignor Kenneth Lasch, a canon lawyer for the Paterson, N.J., Diocese, agrees. He believes the commentary downplays the damage clergy abuse does to the Catholic community.
Lasch says he's also "alarmed by the accent on the future of the minister rather than concern for the victim," referring to this passage in Green's 1985 commentary:
"While the well-being and future ministry of the offending cleric are key considerations, due cognizance also has to be taken of the damage done to the community and individuals within it."
The 2000 commentary shifts the emphasis somewhat.
It still says the priest's "dignity, well-being and future ministerial options are key legal-pastoral considerations." But it now states that bishops must "seriously consider" the damage to vulnerable individuals and "legitimate community outrage."
Green says both commentaries reflect canon law's emphasis on restoration of errant priests and that "any penalties are seen as a last resort."
