Bishop Edward Scharfenberger of Albany, N.Y., said today that laypeople, not bishops, should lead inquiries into allegations of misconduct by U.S. bishops. Bishop Scharfenberger was responding to an idea advanced by Cardinal Donald Wuerl in an interview published on Aug. 6 by The National Catholic Reporter. Cardinal Wuerl suggested that the U.S. bishops might create a commission of bishops to investigate rumors of sexual misconduct by other bishops, passing concerns on to a Vatican office.
“Would we have some sort of a panel, a board, of bishops...where we would take it upon ourselves, or a number of bishops would be deputed, to ask about those rumors?” the Washington archbishop asked. “It seems to me that’s one possibility, that there would be some way for the bishops, and that would mean working through our conference...to be able to address the question of sustained rumors,” Cardinal Wuerl said. He added that U.S. bishops could not wait until their November general meeting to find solutions to address the fall out from allegations against his predecessor, Theodore McCarrick. The former cardinal, who was removed from public ministry and later resigned from the College of Cardinals, is accused of sexual assault and harassment.
Bishop Edward Scharfenberger said, “we have reached a point where bishops alone investigating bishops is not the answer.”
Reacting to Cardinal Wuerl’s interview in a statement, Bishop Edward Scharfenberger said, “we have reached a point where bishops alone investigating bishops is not the answer.”
“To have credibility, a panel would have to be separated from any source of power whose trustworthiness might potentially be compromised,” he said.
Bishop Scharfenberger has been vocal in encouraging victims of sexual harassment and assault by any church official to come forward. He publicly supported a priest in his diocese, the Rev. Desmond Rossi, who accused Archbishop McCarrick of harassing him when he was a seminarian.
“Our laypeople are not only willing to take on this much-needed role, but they are eager to help us make lasting reforms that will restore a level of trust that has been shattered yet again,” Bishop Scharfenberger said. “In speaking with them, we all hear their passion for our universal Church, their devotion to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and their hunger for the truth. They are essential to the solution we seek.”
[Explore America's in-depth coverage of Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church.]
Bishop Scharfenberger said a commission should be “led by well-respected, faithful lay leaders who are beyond reproach, people whose role on such a panel will not serve to benefit them financially, politically or personally.”
“These will be people with a deep understanding of the Catholic faith,” he added, “but without an axe to grind or an agenda to push. It will not be easy, but it will be worth every ounce of effort, energy, and candor we can muster.”
Critics have noted that guidelines adopted by U.S. bishops in 2002 for dealing with allegations of the sexual abuse of minors by priests did not include bishops. Those guidelines also do not cover allegations of harassment or sexual assault by church leaders against adults.
Cardinal Wuerl defended the guidelines, known informally as the Dallas Charter, saying they have been effective—but he conceded that now the time has come to consider how to regulate bishops.
“The Charter is working,” the cardinal told N.C.R. “And the instances of child abuse have dropped dramatically, but even more importantly, the whole protection of children within our Catholic institutions has manifested a wonderful commitment on our part. We need to be able to do the same thing now for bishops.”
Yes, Cardinal Wuerl, let’s have the foxes investigate the henhouse. That will certainly give the laity a lot of confidence in the process.
This bishop wrote a letter to his clergy about the abuse on Friday
On Saturday one of his priests homily related how nice the Cardinal was to him.
And what exactly does one thing have to do with the other?
You are absolutely right. Cardinal Wuerl suggests a hierarchical solution that the Cardinal prefers, not the scandalized, distrustful, skeptical public.
While the discussion about the pros and cons of various options for investigation is very good, one thing is certain. The hierarchical Church investigating itself will have no credibility with anyone.
You're good, William, and so right about this one. Does the laity have ANY confidence left?
He's right: we can no longer trust the Bishops to police themselves, which is very, very sad! Jesus, save us from these bad shepherds!
Lay initiative in this area is a good idea, and should also include the role of bishops in their fiduciary responsibilities over the very structures and practices designed to protect the vulnerable. Such a role inclusion can be carried out by the laity under their own initiative under Francis' motu proprio "Like a Loving Mother".
It begins with people of TRUE faith like Bishop Scharfenberger. The Church can be reclaimed from the false prophets but it will take time and the involvement of the laity. Could we be noting the actions of the Holy Sprit here? I wonder.
Cathooter@yahoo.com
That's been the problem with the entire process from beginning to end. In the real world the bishops would have recused themselves years ago.
The laity? The “honorable laity” in my parish in his diocese are the secretive group who sit by themselves at a special table during hospitality. The priest or clergy rush to that table ignoring the other parishioners or giving a quick hi. This select group is pander to by the clergy. They would be the last ones I’d talk to. The pastor, the deacon, are buddy buddy with pastoral council, who would be the selected laity, as they & their family & friends always are .
Bishop Scharfenberger has a laity advisor. Guess whose wife’s picture was in a recent brochure & son mentioned in the diocese publication?
If you work for the diocese there are perks.
And we’re to trust the selected laity. More politics.
The laity? The “honorable laity” in my parish in his diocese are the secretive group who sit by themselves at a special table during hospitality. The priest or clergy rush to that table ignoring the other parishioners or giving a quick hi. This select group is pander to by the clergy. They would be the last ones I’d talk to. The pastor, the deacon, are buddy buddy with pastoral council, who would be the selected laity, as they & their family & friends always are .
Bishop Scharfenberger has a laity advisor. Guess whose wife’s picture was in a recent brochure & son mentioned in the diocese publication?
If you work for the diocese there are perks.
And we’re to trust the selected laity. More politics.
Good idea. Here’s another one... Have Survivors on these panels. Survivors must lead the way, or this is just another “idea”. Survivors would know in about half an hour.
Should they be actual survivors or those who milked the system to obtain full payment for a new house?
James, I think you're being very cynical. I think the survivors have been thoroughly vetted and scrutinized. Read a few books about what they go through to get their cases verified. There may be a couple fakes, but I bet it's only a few.
Sheila, I really like your idea to involve the survivors. Who better to oversee the bishops?
Interesting. A lay jury would do. Juries are pretty honorable. So it would have to be a prosecution by the government, not the church.
Oh sure. Fanatical anti-Catholic bigots can never be wrong when it comes to finding fault with anything connected to the Catholic Church. Certainly. By the way. The Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale.
Tom - this sounds more like a cult than a parish. Maybe the pastor is handcuffed by these folks because they're the ones who keep the lights on. Why don't you push for an elected pastoral council, and then run for a position yourself.
Bishops and lay people are not law enforcement. Leave the investigating to the police.
Sic semper Cannon Law!
Wow! Finally! An article in the Jesuit magazine with which I can agree. Those bishops cannot be trusted to turn in one of their own.
Thank you Bishop Scharfenberger for being a light unto the feet of the faithful -- by recognizing both the appearance of impropriety and the probable conflict of interest in Bishops gathering evidence on Bishops (as it would be in the case of police gathering evidence on police).
I believe you have the humility to see that even Bishops can do wrong -- in just recognition that God is not partial, but impartial, and He knows the human heart post- "the Fall."
Each diocese in America needs to establish a board composed solely of lay men and women. Possibly a layperson from each parish in a vicariate or diocese - certainly without an ax to grind or an agenda to push other than to protect all laypersons regardless of age. To be sure, the vetting process must be objectively thought out. And it should address all forms of abuse, not just sexual.
Maybe this is some progress. But to me, it is all very discouraging, and seemingly unsolvable within the current hierarchical structure, and its political ramifications, very far from the spirit of the Gospel.
This comment comes from Melbourne, Australia where we've had 22 years of church-appointed laymen (lawyer) investigations of abuse allegations since the melbourne Response was established by then Archbishop, now cardinal Pell, a few weeks ahead of a national system. Not one of the hundreds of cases was reported to police by church authorities. "We advised victims that they had an unfettered right to go to police ..." - but often they were also advised in ways that actively deterred a victim - police report.
Two major public inquiries - the most recent a thorough five-year Royal Commission addressing abuse in all relevant institutions (church institutions, all schools, orphanages, sporting bodies etc) found that the two catholic church inquiry systems were seriously inadequate.
No body other than our church could be allowed to talk of an internal inquiry into criminal actions, even if conducted by supposedly independent appointees.
Inquiry into allegations of crime are properly the role of civil authorities.
The church's "leaders" need to come into the real world - acceptance of their efforts to constrain inquiry into domains they control should not be allowed to succeed.
A tragedy for the victims. Now lay persons don't seen as independent. The civil authorities, the prosecutors, as is happening in Chile, would be best.
There should be an investigation by independent civil authorities, not parishioners, not clergy.
we already have lay people to investigate misconduct--they are called law enforcement officials and civil dept. of justice professionals! What we need is more proactive investigation by our local DA's office, instead of waiting for RCC VPs to notify the police. And yes, I heartily endorse the call here for victims to make up the core of such investigative bodies. I also think we need to go to lay people outside RCC in other religions and even atheists who could bring some objectivity to bear on what ails this man-made hierarchical institution that claims to be founded by Christ, tho I never read anywhere that Jesus said "go found a large multi-national corporation with HQ in Rome, and make sure all your VPs take oaths of allegiance and secrecy to the CEO........". If Smith College can put a lowly employee on administrative leave for allegedly displaying racist behavior, then why don't all these Bishops go on admin leave while their misconduct is being investigated by a panel of victims?
I never met a layperson who was active in parish affairs who was anything less than a vicious, venomous, ignorant, passionate, anti-Catholic bigot.
If indeed WE are the Church, then the hierarchy is not more nor less than we. It is obvious to me that the decline in our pews says something about US, not just the clergy and religious, but also about the rest of US in the pews. I don’t know the mechanism. I leave it to those smarter than me. BUT, there needs to be a much more active laity in every parish, in every diocese, indeed even in the Vatican. We cannot blame the hierarchy, clergy and religious for our problems without casting some of the blame on OURSELVES. It is a mindset that is radical perhaps, but only because it upends a view of the Church that has prevailed for a thousand years.
How can we say that the Dallas Charter working when it is clear that bishops are still able to do business in the same old ways...secret pay-offs and cover-ups. For the past 10+ years, the lay ministers and employees in my diocese have been going to mandated sexual abuse trainings. As someone who works with children, I don't begrudge having to take part. It is good training for the work that I do. However, the lay people are not the problem here. It is the culture of clerical secrecy and the loopholes built into church law that still allow members of the hierarchy to walk away from their responsibilities as shepherds and avoid having to do the right thing. Just suppose the bishops of this country allow lay people to take the lead on investigations of clergy sexual abuse. What happens then? Will they listen to these lay people? Will they do what is right? If past experience is anything to go by, the laity will be ignored and they will continue to do business in the same old ways.
Wuerl’s idea of Bishops monitoring Bishops is nonsense.
Bishop Scharfenberger Is both a canon lawyer and a member of the NYS Bar, a fact that the article left out. He knows more about this topic than many bishops. The Albany Diocese has long (even before Bishop Ed came) had a diocesan investigative board headed by laywoman attorney.
Before Bishop Sharfenberger's idea for lay commissions takes root, I think every bishop installed before 2010 should resign. If I, as an average Catholic woman parishioner in New Jersey knew about the McCarrick situation, which I did, it is a given that his fellow bishops knew. He was protected by the clergy club and they should resign.
We have seen years and years of results of the Cardinals and Bishops policing themselves! Clearly THAT DID NOT WORK! How many boys and very young men have to be brutalized (sexual abuse is brutal), before we find a better way! Why have so many..Cardinal Wuerl et al..turned a blind eye? Do they or do they not, believe in God? Because no one who believes in eternal life could ignore and allow, which is what has happened.
No, Cardinal Wuerl, you have no credentials to monitor any person's safety !
We have seen years and years of results of the Cardinals and Bishops policing themselves! Clearly THAT DID NOT WORK! How many boys and very young men have to be brutalized (sexual abuse is brutal), before we find a better way! Why have so many..Cardinal Wuerl et al..turned a blind eye? Do they or do they not, believe in God? Because no one who believes in eternal life could ignore and allow, which is what has happened.
No, Cardinal Wuerl, you have no credentials to monitor any person's safety !
Bishop Edward Scharfenberger gets it. Cardinals Wuerl, Roomie Farrell, Night Night Baby Tobin and Cupich don't. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that they have things to hide?
It seems to me what needs to be done is find out which Bishops and Cardinals have broken their vows. That is the primary sin. Not whether they are gay or straight.
Second, they must study the culture in seminaries and during formation. Again, the question isn’t sexual preference, but have they kept their vows and does the culture promote and help those who feel the urge to engage in sex.
I was in novitiate earlier in my life, but I left because I wanted to be with women my age. I never acted on my urge, but being celibate was not the life for me.
Ok, the Church has purged some of its ranks of the most serious abusers, but it will happen again. The best place to prevent or limit it from happening again is to make seminaries are not masking or condoning sexual relations. If they are, the problem will never go away.
Cardinal Wuerl's suggesting a panel of bishops to address the pedophile problem among other bishops is a very strong indication that he just doesn't get it. Clericalism of the "clergy know best" brand was and is a large part of the problem. To suggest a panel of bishops to resolve the issue, not even recommending the inclusion of some lay members, implies that lay people aren't capable of addressing the problem. This is very condescending.
Laymen, like Nicholas Cafardi. who was a member of the Dallas Charter, have already demonstrated tremendous competence in addressing the real issues surrounding the scandal. Cafardi has also publicly called for an all laymen investigative board to hold bishops accountable. Appointing such a board with actual authority to bring offending bishops to public accountability, would go a long way towards diminishing the blatant clericalism that has contributed greatly to the pedophile scandal and also help restore the level of credibility of our bishops for lay people.
100% correcto
100% correcto
100% correcto
Obviously it is not whether bishops or priests or laypersons are chosen to investigate allegations of clergy abuse but who chooses these persons and from what perspective they would conduct such an investigation. Obviously anyone from a group or society interested in protecting church reputation or persons connected to their groups would be compromised and limited. It is like the police investigating the police - the outcome is already determined. If the church is sincere in impartial investigations it should look to persons outside of the church with an expertise in child welfare or investigations, with an emphasis on seeking the professional support of non-catholic investigators.