Baltimore, Md., Nov 13, 2018 / 03:05 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Speaking on Tuesday at the USCCB’s Fall General Assembly in Baltimore, Dr. Francesco Cesareo, chairman of the National Review Board, told those present that while efforts taken by the bishops to combat the sexual abuse crisis have been noticed, there is still much work to be done.
Although it was “regrettable” that the Vatican had canceled the planned vote on sex abuse reform measures, Cesareo said the National Review Board will continue to stand by their recommendations to the body of bishops.
“Your response to this crisis has been incomplete,” Cesareo said bluntly, pointing out that the secular media and authorities have filled in gaps when it comes to increased transparency and accountability for those in positions of authority. He said it was “shameful” that abuse had been hidden from the public and “allowed to fester” until it was uncovered by secular sources.
What’s worse, he added, was how many innocent people have suffered due to the “inaction and silence” of some of those present. Bishops “must put the victim first when allegations come forward,” he said. “How many souls have been lost because of this crisis?”
Like Apostolic Nuncio Christophe Pierre, who addressed the USCCB on Monday, Cesareo did not mince words when describing how the bishops have betrayed the trust of the faithful and would now have to work to regain that trust. Many Catholics are “angry and frustrated” and will not be satisfied with prayers, he explained.
“They seek action that signals a cultural change from the leadership of the Church,” he said. The bishops must “embrace the principles of openness and transparency” that were outlined in the Dallas Charter from 2002, and “come to terms with the past.” Until the bishops acknowledge the truth about what occurred, they will not be able to experience reconciliation, said Cesareo.
In terms of recommendations on what to do now, the National Review Board said that each diocese should, as soon as possible, review all files regarding clergy abuse allegations dating back to at least 1950. If it is possible, the dioceses should also share the results of this review with the public.
This process should result in a list of clergy who have faced a credible accusation of abuse against a minor or vulnerable adult, and an analysis of how their cases were handled by the bishop and their diocese. In order to increase credibility, Cesareo recommended that the laity be involved in some capacity in this investigation.
Cesareo acknowledged that many bishops have already gone through this process, either through a review of files or an investigation with the state’s attorney general. For this, Cesareo said he was “grateful for your proactive steps to restore credibility” and that this was a “true marks of the leadership the Church so desperately needs.”
Bishops must be accountable for failures within their dioceses, he said, pointing out that while plenty of priests have been punished for sexual abuse, “the accountability of bishops has never been fully addressed.” In order to address this accountability, Cesareo said there is a need to investigate allegations that concern bishops, as well as to enforce consequences among those who have “failed in their responsibility to protect the vulnerable.”
Currently, the National Review Board said they are “unaware of any mechanism” that the USCCB uses to enact consequences against culpable bishops as well as “any sense of meaningful fraternal correction.” Cesareo said that perhaps the USCCB could bar those bishops from membership and prohibit them from attending national meetings as a form of punishment.
In addition to these steps, Cesareo said that the Dallas Charter should be “revisited,” and that the audit process be strengthened. Bishops, he said, should also be included under the charter.
During a question-and-answer period after Cesareo’s presentation, numerous bishops came forward to ask questions or to share stories.
Notably, Cardinal Seán O’Malley of Boston, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, suggested that the definition of “vulnerable adult” be expanded to include seminarians. That suggestion appeared to be well-received.
Earlier this year, O’Malley came under fire after it was shown that his secretary had ignored a letter of complaint against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick because the complaint concerned adult seminarians, not minors. O’Malley has since promised to update his policy regarding letters.
In his first public comments since his resignation was accepted by the pope, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Washington, recalled the bishops’ meeting in 2002, when the sexual abuse crisis in Boston was unfolding. That meeting, he recounted, considered by St. John Paul II as a “moment of purification,” for not only the bishops themselves, but for the institution of the Church.
And while Wuerl acknowledged that the bishops have come quite a ways since that time, they “still have a long way to go,” he said.
Wuerl offered praise for Cesareo’s points stressing the need for accountability and personal responsibility amongst the bishops.
“Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility, and we simply need to say, this needs to be done. Institutionally, it’s easier. Personally, it’s where that purification has to be a part of the process,” he said.
[…]
Honor to this President for standing up for Palestinian rights and for warning our nation against the inordinate influence of Israel.
May God grant salvation to President Jimmy Carter.
Yes, let’s pray for his soul. But let’s not forget that Carter—in addition to being pro-abortion, pro-“gay marriage”, and slanderous towards pro-lifers—praised Castro and Cuba, China, Tito (“a man who believes in human rights”), Kim Il Sung, Yasser Arafat, and the PLO, Mengistu, Cédras, Assad, and Hamas. Jimmy was most inept (whereas Joe is mostly corrupt), but he was also a sanctimonious embarrassment far more often than his hagiographers (that is, the legacy media) will ever admit. For more, see my July 2009 post at Insight Scoop.
Upon Carter’s election, the astute and long-time Singapore President Lee Qwan Yew wrote (of world leaders) in his own autobiography, “we knew we would just have to put up with him for four years.”
And, on the domestic scene, we recall that it was President Carter who gave us the cabinet-level position U.S. Department of Education, surely as a reward to the teachers’ unions that helped him get elected (formed on May 4, 1980, as a result of the Department of Education Organization Act–Public Law 96-88–of October 1979; President Jimmy Carter signed the bill into law.) The gift that keeps on giving.
Educationally speaking, Shakespeare gives us a clue: “The fault is not in our ‘stars,’ but in ourselves” (“Julius Caesar”). That is, the fault is not in those who are elected but in those who elect them. The corporate Peter Principle transferred to the gummint.
Yes, the establishment of the Department of Education was foolish. Yet, who kept it going, despite, as I recall, promises to the contrary? Oh, yeah, his successor, that “great conservative” Ronald Reagan.
Bravo! Sick to death of the hagiographies popping up everywhere.
Not that Pres. Carter endorsed this policy, but something to keep in mind from the late, great Huey Long:
“I don’t know much about Hitler. Except that last thing, about the Jews. There has never been a country that put its heel down on the Jews that ever lived afterwards.”
— Huey Long
For all his faults, Huey had some wise insights. May he & Jimmy Carter rest in peace.
Palestine must earn nationhood. Terrorism must never be rewarded. For over three quarters of a century, the only thing that Palestinians have excelled in is their ability to inflict incalculable suffering on a global scale, not only on others, but also on themselves.
It will only be by a direct intervention from God Himself that the hearts and minds of radical Islam will be converted.
It is for this we must pray.
Aside from rationalizing numerous acts of Islamic terrorism, possibly to downplay and make his years of cowardice not seem so bad while president, the post-president, “great humanitarian,” Carter met with leaders of the terrorist group Hamas. He embraced Nasser al-Shaer, the man who ran the Palestinian education system, brainwashing children into believing Jews are the descendants of pigs and dogs. He laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat, the most notorious terrorist thug of the 20th century.
Oh I forgot. Francis seems to indicate the Islamic world can’t do much that is morally wrong. He once reminded us that beheading children was the equivalent of domestic abuse, which he assumed was done by Catholic men since he read it in an Italian newspaper.
Freemasons defend the reputation of fellow members. Not suggesting that is what Bergoglio is doing at all, what so ever.
Thanks for your counter-witness, Carl. I confess my (naive) views of Carter have hitherto been based on the so-called mainstream media.
If Carter was mainly inept, what does that make Francis with his (supposed) assessment of him?
I volunteered in Jimmy Carter’s campaign & he was the first president I ever voted for . (And the last Democrat.) He really was a decent & faithful man in many ways but a very incompetent president.
In the beginning we believed he was a solid Christian believer but over time he veered off in some strange directions. God rest his soul.
Good question. I think there are a few factors involved. First, Pope Francis had to say something nice; it would be uncharitable to do otherwise. Secondly, Francis (I’m guessing) knows very little about Carter’s faith, life, policies, etc. Some of that is to be expected, as the Pope isn’t supposed to be an expert on all previous and current world leaders. But, thirdly, his remarks (praising “the deep faith” of Carter) just follow the standard, mainstream line, which is par for this pope and his inner circle. Fourth, I think that Francis is so keen on politics and political gestures that he probably believes Carter was a good president of deep faith. After all, that’s what the media legacy is trying to feed us here, even though the record says otherwise. Fifth, I think both men, in real ways, are 1970s liberals who have “evolved” on certain stances. Carter (as noted already) ended up embracing a hazy form of liberal Protestantism—or, better, of Protestantized liberalism—and jettisoned core moral beliefs, which in turn meant dismissing any sort of traditional, biblical Christian anthropology.
The bottom line, for me, is that Carter was mostly a disaster as POTUS and while he did some good things afterwards, he was a pro-tyrannical, pro-abortion, pro-“gay marriage”, post-1970s liberal whose Christianity was thin at best.
Carter’s was a failed presidency and American voters rejected him and his policies. I find it amusing and laughable how the leftists (inclusing Bergoglio) are tripping over themselves to canonize this man. Some of us are not fooled by the posturing. The guy was book smart but had the leadership skills of an idiot.
Carter was not a good President. I voted against him twice. He let the Iranian Shiite fanatics push him around, that said, he did become a decent ex President with the Habitat for Humanity business. I recall seeing a picture of him years ago, after he left the White House, wearing a tool belt and hammering nails at a construction site. I thought that was nice that he found some task that he can accomplish.
🤭
Agreed on his presidency. It was, overall, a train wreck. Carter was a nice guy, and that meant that he did some nice and good things. But “nice” isn’t the same as principled or strong, and Carter (in my estimation) was neither of those.
Jimmy Carter’s single greatest accomplishment was in giving the United States of America eight years of Reagan.
👍
I took your recommendation, Carl, and read your 2009 article. I believe I am now sufficiently inocculated against the current media and papal hagiography.
I do think Habitat for Humanity does good work.
Respectful farewell to Jimmy Carter. RIP.