By John-Henry Westen
ST. PAUL, April 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The University Club in St. Paul Minneapolis, was crowded just prior to Easter with 150 attendees at the groundbreaking meeting of a new society aiming to have the Archdiocese of St. Paul – Minneapolis put an end to sexual misconduct by the clergy. Dr. David Pence, the founder of the DocSociety (Defenders of Church Society formerly known as the Dan O’Connell society) spoke at the meeting outlining the need for a return to a faith-based approach rather than a lower standard dictated by the courts.
The archdiocesan policy on sexual abuse by clergy can be found in a pamphlet posted on the archdiocesan webpage. “If you or someone you know has been sexually exploited by a member of the clergy . . .,” opens the pamphlet. (https://www.archspm.org/brochure.htm) It defines “Ministry-related sexual misconduct refers to three related forms of misconduct:
– Sexual abuse which is sexual conduct between a church leader and a minor or vulnerable adult.
– Sexual exploitation which is sexual contact between a church leader and a person who is receiving pastoral care from the church leader.
– Sexual harassment which is unwanted sexual conduct or language between co-workers in the church work setting.
Dr. Pence calls these categories totally inadequate. In the archdiocese, he says, “the disciplining of Catholic clergy in sexual matters has substituted the standards of civil law and notions of consenting adults for the Catholic and canon law standards of obedience to the Sixth Commandment and respect for the Sacraments of Holy Orders and Marriage.” He points out also that the definition of sexual exploitation at the office hinges on consent, by saying sexual conduct or language are forbidden only if “unwanted.”
Dr. Pence lays the blame for the mismanagement of sexual misconduct cases among priests in the diocese on Vicar General Fr. Kevin McDonough.“The real rule in the Kevin McDonough disciplinary era is: don’t get caught with kids, don’t say bad things to women at the office, and don’t mess around in confessional or counseling sessions. The advice is not ‘be pure,’ but ‘abide the law and be discreet,’” says Pence. The policy of the diocese, says Pence, boils down to “In general, there will be no sanctions for violations of chastity as long as the matter is consensual.”
Not so, says the archdiocese’s spokesman Dennis McGrath. Asked by LifeSiteNews.com, “So, there would be sanctions for a priest who is in consensual sex outside of these areas?” McGrath replied, “Absolutely”.Â
“Of course we would deal with (a priest) involved in consensual sex. Now, first of all that’s not a crime . . . but it does break vows of chastity. We’d investigate . . . If it proved to be true, that particular priest would be dealt with . . . He would be called to face the archbishop, he would be disciplined, he would be sent to an institution for discipline.”
With regard to McDonough, McGrath told LifeSiteNews.com, “Fr. McDonough, our Vicar General has been one of the models of disclosure, of transparency, and of victims advocacy.”
However, a transcript from court testimony given by Fr. McDonough, seems to contradict the archdiocesan spokesman. In a July 15, 2005 transcript from a case of clergy sexual misconduct, Fr. McDonough explained, “When the matter is consensual generally speaking the priest is not subjected to a sanction but is given pastoral help.”
Another area of contention between the archdiocese and Pence is the reinstatement of priests caught in sexual improprieties. McGrath told LifeSiteNews.com that such priests could be reinstated. After, “he confesses his sins . . . renews his vow of chastity. And only then, after having taken time for reflection, prayer, reconsideration, would he be allowed to continue with his priestly roles.”
Asked if the same policy of reinstatement would hold true for homosexual sexual encounters, McGrath replied, “Tough to say, but it probably would, but I’m not qualified to talk on that.” He added, “A distinction would not be drawn between heterosexual and homosexual breaking of the vow of chastity, but I’m not the authority on that.”
On the subject of reinstatement of priests involved in sexual misconduct, Dr. Pence says, “We do say that some sins of a priest render him ‘infamous’—incapable of ever serving in a public and liturgical role as priest again.” He noted that “The Church sees the clerical state itself in terms of a special obligation to guard the Sixth Commandment and states that a cleric who continues in an external sin against the Sixth Commandment which causes scandal is to be punished with suspension. There is nothing in this language that refers to the very modern and secular notion of ‘consenting adults.’”
Church law on the matter can be found in Canon Law. Canon 2359, paragraph 2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, states:
“If they (clerics) have committed an offense against the sixth commandment with minors under sixteen years of age, or been guilty of adultery, rape, bestiality, sodomy, traffic in vice, or incest with blood-relatives or relations by marriage in the first degree, they shall be suspended, declared infamous, deprived of every office, benefice, dignity, or position that they may hold, and in more grievous cases they shall be deposed.”
The 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1395, paragraph 2 states:
“A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.”