Denver, Colo., Sep 12, 2018 / 01:00 pm (CNA).- A Vatican summit on abuse prevention next February will gather the presidents of bishops’ conferences from around the world. While a Sept. 12 statement from the Vatican said the gathering’s theme would be the “protection of minors,” a Vatican spokesperson clarified that the meeting would discuss “prevention of abuse of minors and vulnerable adults.”
Wednesday’s announcement of the meeting has raised questions about who the Church considers to be a “vulnerable adult.”
The USCCB’s “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People,” does not use the term “vulnerable adult.”
Nor do the “Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons,” which are binding Church policies for addressing sex abuse allegations in the United States.
Several dioceses, do, however, define the term in their own sexual abuse policies.
Policies of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis say that: “‘Vulnerable Adult’ means persons with physical, mental or emotional conditions that render them unable to defend or protect themselves, or get help when at risk of harm.”
In the Archdiocese of Louisville, “an adult 18 years or older is considered vulnerable when, because of impairment of mental or physical functions, that person is unable or unlikely to report abuse or neglect without assistance.”
The Archdiocese of Miami defines a “vulnerable person” as “a minor under 18 years of age or a person whose ability to perform normal activities of daily living is impaired due to a mental, emotional, long-term physical or developmental disability or dysfunction, or brain damage, or the infirmities of aging.”
The Archdiocese of Washington’s policies for child protection say that “a vulnerable individual over the age of seventeen (17) is also covered by this policy…when such a person is unable or unlikely to report abuse without assistance because of impairment of physical or mental function or emotional status.”
Edward Mechmann, director of the Safe Environment Program in the Archdiocese of New York, told CNA that the archdiocese considers a vulnerable person to be “a person of any age who lacks the capacity to give consent due to a mental or developmental condition or disability.”
The Code of Canon Law does not use or define the term “vulnerable adult.” However, the Church’s 2010 “Norms on delicta graviora” say that “a person who habitually lacks the use of reason is to be considered equivalent to a minor” with regard to allegations of clerical sexual abuse.
The February summit was announced in the wake of clerical sexual misconduct allegations across the Church involving minors, as well as allegations of misconduct that targeted seminarians, priests, and other adults.
On Aug. 14, a Pennsylvania grand jury released a report documenting 70 years of sexual abuse allegations in six dioceses in that state. On Sept. 12, a report from the German bishops’ conference documented allegations of clerical sexual abuse during a similar time period.
On June 20, the Archdiocese of New York announced that it had deemed credible an allegation that Archbishop Theodore McCarrick had serially sexually abused a teenage boy in the 1970s. Subsequent reports, however, allege that McCarrick had serially sexually coerced and assaulted seminarians and young priests during decades of his episcopal ministry in New Jersey and Washington, D.C.
Mechmann told CNA that the term “vulnerable adult” as his archdiocese defines it, “would not include seminarians. It is really aimed at protecting people who have developmental disabilities or cognitive disabilities, for instance someone who is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.”
“A sound diocesan policy, however, would also encompass any kind of non-consensual sexual conduct, even if it is not strictly covered by the Charter,” Mechmann added.
The Archdiocese of New York’s “Policy on Sexual Misconduct” includes in its definition of sexual misconduct “any sexual act with another person without consent,” as well as “any sexual conduct that is a violation of civil law.”
Deacon Bernie Nojadera, executive director of the USCCB’s office for child and youth protection, told CNA that several U.S. dioceses use the definition of “vulnerable adult” provided by civil law.
That definition often refers to a “dependent adult,” he said.
Nojadera noted that “there is nothing in [the Charter] that talks about differential of power. So if you’re looking at differential of power, that’s not addressed in the Charter.”
“That’s where applicability of state law comes in, with regard to the differential of power. A lot of dioceses are looking at their state laws and trying to apply them accordingly,” he said.
With regard to allegations of abuse involving seminarians and other adults, he said he thinks “it would be wise for those types of situations to also be brought forward” at the February meeting of bishops.
“I would hope that there would be a seat at the table for seminarians and for that issue to be addressed,” he told CNA.
In addition to the abuse of minors, vulnerable adults, seminarians, and other adults, Nojadera noted other situations that could, in his view, be addressed, mentioning the difficulties faced by the children of priests, the use of corporal punishment in the Church, and situations involving religious orders.
He also mentioned the importance of consulting with victims of clerical sexual abuse.
“I would hope that survivor victims were invited to this table as well, to be able to address [the meeting],” he said.
Nojadera said that his office often looks for insights from victims of clerical sexual abuse, calling their perspective “invaluable.”
“There’s an awareness that those who have not been abused do not have.”
He also encouraged broader lay involvement in discussions about sexual misconduct in the Church. “The lay faithful have been offering to help and contribute to the solution to this,” he said.
Nojadera said he hopes the February summit will take an expansive view of abuse-related problems in the Church.
“I think we have an opportunity here to just talk about abuse in general. Period.”
“Hopefully,” he said, “they’ll have an opportunity to see the big picture.”
[…]
It could very well be that the Chinese are interpreting the agreement broadly in an open way according to their sense of it. Meaning they think what they’re doing is right that helps their cause -box in Catholicism and deny it more and more and spread Sinicization. They can thereby provide more openings and space to the Holy See/Vatican, to do the dialogue lifestyle that it/they are announcing from its/their own side. (Sorry.)
The appointment of the bishop without the Holy See’s participation would just be an incidental flap.
It could be that the scene that has come into being is worse than that. Such that where instead of the Holy See/Vatican being somewhat blinded to it in a naievty, it/they are actually interested to acquiescing in the Sinicization and willing to accept the boxing-in of the faith so that it/they can profess novelties from its/their own side.
Again the appointment of the bishop without the Holy See’s participation would just be an incidental flap.
Why is/are the Holy See/Vatican complaining in public about the appointment when the terms of the Provisional Agreement are secret and the bishop will be doing the same types of things -Sinicization- that the other patriotic bishops do that the Holy See/Vatican approves of in those appointments?
It could be said that the complaining in public is legalistic but non-formalistic yet has a good intention to smell like the sheep and not insult the faith of the CPC or the worldliness of the non-clericalist patriotic bishops; however, making the observation would not advance anyone’s understanding or give sense to sorting out the vagaries at work.
This is simple. The Chinese regime will press the limits of everything it believes is in their interests. Period.
Duh!
Breaking news – China broke an agreement!!
This just in – The sun rose in the east!!
Film at 11.
Rule #1: Don’t dialogue with the devil. He always lies. Shame on the Vatican for not condemning the incarceration of Cardinal zen who begged the pope not to negotiate with the CCC.
Occasional protest by the Vatican, whether it’s about Church suffocating China policy, Pope Francis’ letter of admonition to the German Synodal way, his recent disregard of the Synodal way visit to the Vatican, abortion described as hiring a hit man – has no significance insofar as what must be considered papal policy that actually supports: a Marxist socialist Church in China, the Synodal way agenda to normalize same sex, women priests, and abortion rights.
Papal appointments, suggestions, lack of serious intervention to correct these errors within the Church in Germany, its doctrinal distortion within China, throughout the universal Church are viable evidence of complicity. Unlike secular institutions the Church leadership may not restructure, modify its mission eliminating what Christ revealed. This is true primarily with the Roman pontiff, who is obliged by the description of his Office, the Chair of Peter, to correct this subversion of Apostolic doctrine and its practice.
Intransigence by the Vatican to correct this apostasy is unfortunately accommodated by the intransigence of lower ranked clergy bishops presbyters deacons to effectively respond, as did Fr Thomas Weinandy OFM Cap in his 2017 letter to Francis clearly outlining the serious issues related to his papacy. We, especially clergy, are not free of the moral responsibility to address this dilemma from the pulpit and any other amenable means.
Where I say “papal policy that actually supports” I don’t refer to explicit Vatican support of CCP policy toward the Church, rather a variation of support more in line with a less than faith inspired accommodation.
I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
After the Vatican took such pains to signal their total and complete supineness before the Chinese dragon, China treated them with the contempt due a spineless and pusillanimous non-entity!
Who could have ever predicted it?
(Sigh.)
Jesus deserves so much better.
It’s not like the Vatican cares. Bergoglio and McCarrick knew fully that they were betraying Chinese Catholics. A Communist is less trustworthy than a druggie.