Critics Worry About Independence of Lay Panel Reviewing Catholic Sex Abuse

c. 2005 Religion News Service CHICAGO _ When the nation’s Catholic bishops adopted new policies to clamp down on clergy sexual abuse in 2002, they appointed a review board of prominent lay Catholics to help monitor the bishops’ progress. But three years later, as the bishops meet here this week to renew those same policies, […]

c. 2005 Religion News Service

CHICAGO _ When the nation’s Catholic bishops adopted new policies to clamp down on clergy sexual abuse in 2002, they appointed a review board of prominent lay Catholics to help monitor the bishops’ progress.

But three years later, as the bishops meet here this week to renew those same policies, some are concerned that the bishops are tightening the screws on the National Review Board and trying to limit its independent voice.


Critics say the bishops still have not regained the trust of their flocks, and warn that they should not try to muzzle the voice of lay Catholics who need a measure of independence in order to be taken seriously.

The board’s independence “is critically important to resolving these issues and regaining credibility. The bishops have no credibility,” said Bob Bennett, a Washington lawyer who left the board last year.

“If we go back to secrecy and the arrogance of power, they are going to pay a greater price.”

The bishops will vote Friday (June 17) on a revised Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, the package of reforms adopted after the scandal erupted in Boston and spread nationwide.

In the section dealing with the review board, the bishops made several revisions, including:

_ Requiring any new member of the board to be approved by his or her local bishop, who would have veto power.

_ Allowing the possibility that religious sisters and brothers, as well as clergy, could replace lay Catholics on the board in the future.

_ Clarifying that the board should be “consultative” and advisory only. “The National Review Board is a consultative body. It is not an `independent lay review board,”’ a note in the charter says.


_ Making the board “accountable” not only to the bishops’ president _ currently Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, Wash. _ but to the bishops’ Executive Committee.

David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), said allowing priests on the review board would be a “terrible idea, just terrible.”

“Anything that compromises the board’s independence is a huge step backward,” he said.

Illinois Appellate Justice Anne Burke, the former chairman of the board, said limiting the panel’s independence would be “short-sighted,” and wondered if the bishops were “pulling the wool over people’s eyes.”

“There was some unhappiness with our independent stature, and apparently they feel the need to (limit that), and that’s unfortunate,” she said.

Indeed, many bishops expressed frustration that the board had become too independent-minded and autonomous. The panel’s first chairman, former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, resigned under pressure after he publicly compared some bishops’ stall tactics to the Mafia.

The board’s vocal members minced no words.

“The inaction of those bishops who failed to protect their people from predators was also grievously sinful,” the board said in its 2004 report. “Somehow, the `smoke of Satan’ was allowed to enter the church, and as a result, the church itself has been deeply wounded.”


Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb., for one, last year compared the board to “burn(ing) down the barn just to get rid of the rats.” He has not cooperated with any of the board’s activities.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver said last year that the board exists “at the service of the bishops. It does not and cannot have supervisory authority.” At the same time, Archbishop Henry Mansell of Hartford, Conn., warned that the board was basking in “a dynamic of autonomy.”

Keating, in an interview, said the board always knew it was a “creature of the bishops conference,” but always did its work with “independence with a small i.”

“To make a statement that you’re not independent, even with a small i, is not helpful,” said Keating, now an insurance lobbyist in Washington.

Most of the board’s original members _ who were also the most high-profile and outspoken _ have been rotated off because of term limits. Its new chairwoman is Patricia Ewers, the former president of Pace University in New York.

Church leaders, meanwhile, say the revised job description for the review board is simply formalizing long-standing policy. Chicago Cardinal Francis George, vice president of the bishops’ conference, said the new policies make the “relationships clear” for both sides.


“It makes clear that this is not an alternative governance of the church,” George said. “It never was.”

And at least some current board members do not appear concerned. Dr. Paul McHugh, a respected psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said the changes seem to be much ado about nothing.

“No one has said one word to me about what I can say to anyone,” McHugh said in an interview.

MO/PH END ECKSTROM

Editors: Search the RNS photo Web site at https://religionnews.com for file photos of Bennett, George and Keating.

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!