News headlines in recent years have periodically reported on Catholic priests accused of various types of misconduct, including financial crimes and sexual abuse, among other allegations.
Much of the public will only be aware of the beginning and the end of such controversies — when a clergyman is accused of a misdeed and when he is ultimately either found guilty of it or cleared of any wrongdoing.
But U.S. dioceses have complex and at times lengthy ways of addressing such allegations — processes that ensure both a full treatment of the alleged misconduct and the rights of priests to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
‘The smoke of truth’
Monsignor William King, JCD, serves as an assistant professor of canon law at The Catholic University of America. His academic expertise includes the study of both canon and civil law as well as the study of “temporal goods” such as Church finance and corporate structure.
King told EWTN News that bishops who receive allegations of wrongdoing against priests must first determine if there is sufficient credibility to the allegations, a principle he said in canon law is known as “fumus veritatis,” or “the smoke of truth.”
“It’s not proof [of the allegations] in any way,” King said, “but if there’s sufficient suspicion that it might be truth, then the bishop would accept that allegation” and launch what is known as a “prior investigation” meant to gather facts.
Amid the start of the process, King said, a bishop may or may not remove the priest from ministry if he “felt that it was necessary for any of several reasons.” After that he would appoint an investigator, who may or may not be a priest, to lead the inquiry.
“That person is bound to secrecy so as to protect the reputation of the priest, and any of the accusers and witnesses,” King said.
Such an investigator has “pretty broad powers” to ask questions of, and seek evidence from, those connected to the case. After that process, he or she would bring the results to the bishop.
The prelate would likely then speak to his canon law experts. He may also talk with mental health experts and could potentially order the priest to submit to a psychological assessment. “That’s not uncommon, and depending on the nature of the allegations, it might be appropriate,” King said.
After the fact-finding and consultation process, the bishop will decide whether or not to move forward with a criminal or penal process. In some cases, the ordinary may opt instead for a “penal remedy.“
“It could be a warning or rebuke, or a ‘penal precept’ — a formal document that prohibits the priest from undertaking certain actions or doing certain things,” King said. A precept, he said, can be used even in cases where no crime is committed, to ensure that the actions that led to the controversy are not repeated.
If a penal process is instigated, the preferred method for most bishops is to convene a tribunal; in some cases, a prelate may opt for a less formal “administrative process.” Either option involves the calling of witnesses, testimony from both the accuser and the accused, and the collection of additional evidence.
Tribunals are usually overseen by three judges, King said; they must be priests, and “they would typically be brought in from other dioceses.”
Tribunals are meant to determine both whether a priest committed a crime, King said, as well as whether or not the crime itself is “fully imputable” to the priest.
Sexual abuse allegations: Rome must be notified
The process is largely the same whether the allegations involve claims of administrative or professional misconduct or if they involve accusations of sexual abuse, King said.
However, allegations against a priest of abuse of a minor are “reserved to the Holy See,” he said. In those cases, following the results of a preliminary investigation, a bishop is obligated to send a summary of the case, including the evidence, to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, specifically its special disciplinary section.
“[The dicastery] will review that and instruct the bishop as to what type of process should be followed — administrative or judicial,” King said.
“When the bishop sends the initial dossier or file over, most of the time he will make a recommendation” as to which process should be followed, King said. A bishop in certain cases may recommend “no process, or another remedy or way of addressing the situation.”
The dicastery “will take that into consideration. But ultimately, they make the determination, and the bishop is bound to follow their direction,” King said.
The Vatican can approve or reject a diocese’s decision if the matter is reserved to Rome, King said. In all other cases, it is resolved domestically either via administrative process or tribunal.
A priest, King said, can appeal a diocese’s decision to the Roman Rota if he wishes.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.