WASHINGTON (DC)
First Things [New York NY]
March 18, 2025
By Thomas G. Guarino
Cardinal Wilton Gregory has now retired as the archbishop of Washington, D.C. In 2001, Gregory was elected president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The following year, the abuse crisis erupted in Boston, and the American bishops, under Gregory’s leadership, approved the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, colloquially known as the Dallas Charter. In an interview, Gregory cited the episcopal approval of the Charter as a “pivotal moment” for the Catholic Church, at which time the “people of God breathed a sigh of relief” that the bishops were finally taking action.
It may indeed be argued that the Charter was crucial for clearing up the abuse problem in the Church. As Bill Donohue, long-time president of the Catholic League, has argued in his informative book The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse, the American Church has done more than any other institution to overcome the scourge of abuse. At the same time, Donohue is fully aware of the damage that the Charter’s implementation has wrought on Catholic priests in the United States: “The average detainee in Guantanamo Bay has more rights than the average accused priest in America does today.”
This situation—the dearth of due process for priests—has opened a yawning chasm between bishops and priests. The National Study of Catholic Priests, an investigation conducted by the Catholic Project at the Catholic University of America, testifies to this chasm. Interview after interview attests to priests living in morbid fear of a false accusation. As a result of this, only 24 percent of Catholic priests trust the American episcopacy. This grave disconnect between priests and bishops is unhealthy for the life of the Church.
The primary cause for this cleavage is the draconian implementation of the bishops’ Charter. It should be remembered that when the Charter was passed in 2002, the country was in the grip of a moral panic, thinking that abusive behavior by Catholic clergy was widespread and the subject of a massive episcopal cover-up. Traumatized by the unrelenting attacks against them—and in an attempt to acknowledge the profound suffering of abuse victims—the bishops implemented procedures that were excessive, little informed by either Catholic theology or natural justice.
Cardinal Avery Dulles, at that time the premier Catholic theologian in the United States, warned that the procedures emanating from the Charter were so harsh that an “adversarial relationship” would come to prevail between bishops and priests. The bishops, he lamented, had “opted for an extreme response.” He cited several problems stemming from the Charter: “credibly accused” was a term without a clear definition; there existed no proportionality between offenses and punishments; and priests were excluded from ministry for elongated periods of time, which Dulles termed “forced laicization.” The Charter and its subsequent procedures were well-meaning. But a man of Dulles’s theological intelligence saw immediately that it strained both justice and Catholic theology.
In many dioceses, it has become standard practice to suspend any priest who is named in a civil complaint, no matter how bizarre, aged, or flimsy that complaint might be. This is a particularly dangerous practice because—without necessarily any evidence to prove a man’s guilt—the priest is called to the chancery office, stripped of his ministerial faculties, instructed to vacate his parish residence, and made to resign any offices he holds. The Charter stipulates that “a priest or deacon who is accused of sexual abuse of a minor is to be accorded the presumption of innocence during the investigation of the allegation.” But many priests are removed from ministry upon accusation alone—and for years at a time—apart from any investigation.
The presumption, clearly, is of guilt, with the priest treated, de facto, as if he were an abuser. All priests support a “zero tolerance” policy for those truly guilty of abuse. But zero tolerance for those merely accused? Is it any wonder that priests’ trust of the episcopacy is at an all-time low?
There are other festering issues. For example, canonists have called into question terms such as “credible” and “substantiated.” The meaning of the former term is variable from diocese to diocese. And the latter term is no more precise. “Substantiated” is often used when an allegation has been deemed “credible.” But “credible” means capable of being believed. How does “believability” alone make an allegation “substantiated”? The uncertainty and lack of clarity surrounding contemporary standards has sapped the morale and spirit of countless American priests.
Further, a judgment that a cleric has been “credibly accused” means, in most cases, that the priest’s name will be published on the internet. The Holy See has repeatedly warned against this practice, most recently in a letter from the Dicastery for Legislative Texts. But the concern of the Holy See for priests’ reputations—priests, it should be remembered, who have been found guilty of no crime—has been ignored by the American episcopacy. Now that it has been made explicitly clear, will it be observed in the United States?
Why, one might ask, would bishops allow all of this? Why would church leaders expose their own men to severe penalties when many accusations are flimsy, weak, and unsupported by evidence? One reason, of course, is that the bishops were under extraordinary pressure from many groups, including politicians and the media. The bishops were accused of widespread misprision—and the intense societal pressure brought to bear on them caused panic, followed by an excessive reaction.
As Cardinal Wilton Gregory retires, we rightly salute his many achievements as priest and bishop, including his fervent desire to end the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. But we also call to mind not only the successes of the Dallas Charter but also the significant damage left in its wake. Today, the most vulnerable members of the Catholic Church are its priests who—in a heartbeat and absent any evidence—can be deprived of an untarnished, selfless, life-long ministry. The American bishops must find the courage to emend the Charter and its procedures, despite the criticism they will undoubtedly receive. Only then will justice be properly served and trust in the episcopacy restored.