Thomas Moran [Consultant, Canon Law Consultations]: "In order to better appreciate the recently published "Guide to Understanding Basic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations," some background information might prove helpful. The Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus (June 28, 1988) established the CDF as the competent agency of the Roman Curia to examine delicts against the faith and "more grave" delicts against morals or committed in the celebration of the sacraments. This constitution also indicated that, whenever necessary, the CDF would proceed to declare and impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of law. In so doing, Pastor bonus recognized the judicial competence of the CDF as an Apostolic Tribunal. The Motu Proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (April 30, 2001) promulgated norms governing the "more grave" delicts reserved to the CDF. However, the substantive and procedural norms themselves were published after the publication of the motu proprio. A CDF letter dated May 18, 2001 further addressed the subject of the "more grave delicts" against morals, which included the sexual abuse of minors.

The CDF guide identifies three significant preliminary procedures:

First, it emphasizes that the local diocese investigates every allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric. The purpose of this investigation is to determine whether there is evidence to suggest an offense occurred. When there is sufficient evidence that the sexual abuse of a minor has occurred, the case is then referred to the CDF. The local bishop transmits all relevant information to the congregation along with his opinion regarding the pertinent procedural and penal aspects of the case.

Second, it stipulates that the civil laws relative to reporting crimes of sexual abuse to the appropriate authorities should be followed. In the aftermath of the recent scandal in the United States, Catholics demanded greater accountability of church authorities. Victims have the right to report abuse to the civil authorities. Rather than impeding this right, local ecclesiastical authorities are to make reporting such offenses a priority. This rather proactive approach to reporting and cooperating with civil authorities is a positive step toward greater accountability. However, the issue of canonically privileged communications merits further discussion relative to reporting.

Third, the preliminary portion of this document indicates that before, during, and after any canonical proceeding, the local bishop, in virtue of his office, possess the executive power of governance that would allow him to prohibit an accused cleric from exercising his ministry either by removing him from office or by restricting his faculties. While, the criminal nature of such offenses and the obligation to protect minors seemingly require executive action, such restrictions should be utilized prudently and only when due cause is verifiable. Additionally, the local bishop must honor the cleric's right to be heard and his right to recourse against the decision to limit his ministry by executive decree.

After reviewing a case presented by a local bishop, as well as any necessary supplementary information, the CDF may authorize a judicial trial at the local level. In a judicial trial, the accused enjoys various procedural rights including the right to counsel, the right to present a defense, and ultimately the right to appeal the decision of the court to the CDF. Papal derogations from the norms promulgated by Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela also allow for the possibility of non-trial solutions:

• An accused priest who repents and recognizes that his behavior is incompatible with ministry may request a dispensation from clerical obligations and laicization from the pope.

• In particularly grave cases (where there has been a civil criminal conviction or the evidence is overwhelming), the pontiff may decide to dismiss one from the clerical state ex officio. Generally, the CDF makes this request on the basis of the recommendation of the local bishop. Because the decision of the pope is not subject to appeal, provision must be made for the offending cleric's right of defense.

• In those cases where the facts are grave and clear, the CDF can authorize the local bishop to impose a sanction by using the administrative penal process articulated in the code. If the bishop decides the penalty is dismissal from the clerical state, he needs the "approval" of the CDF. In such administrative processes, the accused is to be afforded the opportunity to exercise fully his right of defense as well as his right to appeal the decision to impose a penalty to the CDF.

In those cases where the non-dismissed cleric has admitted his crimes and agreed to live a life of prayer and penance, the CDF authorizes the local bishop to issue by executive decree a penal precept (an injunction) that would either prohibit entirely or restrict the accused cleric's ministry. Violations of such precepts (i.e., non-compliance) are subject to canonical penalties, including dismissal from the clerical state. Some have questioned whether such penal precepts effectively amount to a dismissal from the clerical state. Although significant restrictions would be warranted relative to access to minors, one might consider whether prayer, penance, appropriate therapy, and adequate supervision might allow such an individual to engage in some form of meaningful, albeit very limited, ministry.

Finally, the CDF alluded to a limited revision of the Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela. Although the procedures described above will remain inherently the same, other related issues warrant attention. First and foremost, the healing and ongoing pastoral care of victims and families must remain an ecclesial and canonical priority. Church authorities must continue to acknowledge and honor the canonical rights of both the victim and the accused in processing abuse cases. Relative to reporting alleged offenses to civil authorities, greater consideration must be given to communications protected by canon law, namely, the seal of confession and professional secrecy (confidentiality). Further, church authorities must carefully balance the alleged offender's right to reputation and privacy and the right of the community to be informed about criminal behavior.

Because of their obligation to protect minors, church authorities must strive continually for greater transparency and accountability as they exercise their pastoral and governance responsibilities. Since the salvation of souls must be the supreme law of the church, ecclesiastical authorities ought to remain committed to examining disciplinary options that will enable them to minister effectively to those who have offended. Due to the substantial demands placed on it by the worldwide sexual abuse scandal, the CDF should make every effort to increase its staff in order to handle the influx of new cases in a timely manner. Since justice delayed is justice denied, every effort must be made to process these cases promptly and efficiently. Also, scholarly research regarding canonical procedures and penalties should be encouraged. Ongoing research and access to the jurisprudence of the CDF will enhance the ability of local authorities to handle these cases fairly, compassionately, and competently."