NEW YORK (NY)
First Things [New York NY]
February 24, 2025
By Michael J. Mazza
he Second Vatican Council taught that bishops are not mere delegates of the pope, regional managers of an international operation headquartered in Rome. On the contrary, bishops have authority directly from God to shepherd those entrusted to their care—to exercise their office as teacher, priest, and ruler.
So the answer to “who’s in charge” of the dioceses ought to be very simple. But is it? A quick glance at publicly available documents should raise serious doubts, particularly regarding the discipline of diocesan clergy. It seems that civil lawyers and risk managers, not bishops, are often running the show.
The Diocese of Manchester signed a Non-Prosecution Agreement in 2002 with the state attorney general, agreeing to require that “all diocesan personnel” comply with the mandatory reporting requirements for child abuse under state law—with no exception for the sacramental seal or the internal forum, raising obvious concerns regarding the inviolable seal of the confessional (canon 983 §1).
The Diocese of Norwich, in the non-monetary commitments it made as part of its recent bankruptcy reorganization plan, conceded that it will direct its employees to cease using the adjective “alleged” before nouns such as sex abuse “claimants” and “victims,” either “verbally or in print,” evidently in perpetuity, notwithstanding the basic legal principle of the presumption of innocence of those accused, a principle now explicitly recognized in canon law (canon 1321 §1).
In another recent Chapter 11 reorganization plan, the Diocese of Winona-Rochester pledged itself to certain “Child Protection Protocols,” including the ongoing public disclosure of those members of the clergy merely accused of abuse, even when made against men who had died years before any claim had been made. Despite repeated Vatican guidance opposing the practice, the diocese still publishes these names on its website, without sufficient civil or canonical process allowing for the proper exercise of the right of defense, and in direct opposition to the natural right of every human being to his good name (canon 220).
The Diocese of Duluth, in its 2019 bankruptcy reorganization plan, vowed to make public confidential church documents relating to investigations of “credible” abuse claims, turning them over directly to the law firm of “Jeff Anderson & Associates,” a law firm well-known for its long history of aggressive litigation against Catholic dioceses. Astonishingly, the diocese even agreed to hand over to the same law firm documents related to claims that were not deemed to be “substantiated,” even though Church law (Art. 28 §2 of the norms under Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela) provides punishments for those who violate these rules of confidentiality.
After having already pledged to the bankruptcy court that it would “cease all financial support and health benefits for priests with substantiated allegations of sexual abuse,” in clear contradiction to a bishop’s obligations under canon law (canon 281), the Diocese of Buffalo entered into a Stipulated Final Order with the state’s attorney general, pledging to prohibit a priest against whom a “substantiated” (but not proven) complaint had been made from holding himself out as a cleric, using titles such as “Father,” or even wearing a Roman collar. None of these restrictions are valid under canon law, which actually requires priests to wear clerical attire (canon 284) as an external symbol of their internal consecration and as a sign to the faithful who are entitled to see their priests as identifiable spiritual fathers. Only after a canonical process has been conducted may a cleric be stripped of the right and duty to wear clerical attire (canon 1336 §3).
In many ways, the Catholic Church in the U.S. is still recovering from the clerical sex abuse crisis. Nearly one-fifth of American dioceses have declared bankruptcy in the face of abuse claims. The bishops appear to have lost much of their moral authority, even among Catholics, as Pope Francis noted in a January 2019 letter to the U.S. bishops. Despite progress since the Dallas Charter, the October 2022 National Study of Catholic Priests revealed that the lack of due process for accused priests has severely damaged priestly morale.
One can sympathize with the bishops’ desire to re-establish credibility. Organizations accused of cover-ups face strong pressure to tighten controls on malfeasance claims. Their leaders should not be surprised if they are asked to produce evidence that efforts are being made to prevent more abuse from occurring. However, these expectations cannot compel leaders to violate members’ fundamental rights or undermine principles of good governance. A crisis of mismanagement caused by neglect is not solved by erring to the other extreme by the arbitrary and capricious use of power.
The bishops of the dioceses in the scenarios didn’t craft these agreements alone. They relied on civil legal counsel, who often lacked sufficient knowledge of canon law or the Catholic faith when shaping policies affecting a bishop’s role. That lack of preparation isn’t solely the lawyers’ fault.
But when such attorneys play hardball with the diocese’s own priests, one wonders who is really calling the shots at the chancery and whether the good of souls is really being fostered. In another large East Coast archdiocese, for example, archdiocesan lawyers have been known to sue accused priests individually, forcing them into the litigation to reduce the archdiocese’s legal damages, even if a claim—such as a fifty-year-old accusation against an elderly priest with a spotless record—appears to be nothing more than a shakedown.
In the wake of the clerical abuse crisis, church leaders may have surrendered too much authority to risk managers focused on eliminating every threat. Seasoned entrepreneurs understand that the moment lawyers run the show, adopting a zero-risk strategy as the business model, the company grinds to a halt. While the surest way for a car company to avoid getting sued is to stop making cars, that strategy is not an option for an institution that has received a divine call to preach the gospel to all nations. Bishops must recognize this truth and seize the helm with the resolve their office demands.