I was just told that the Bishop and the Vicar General have called me to the chancery for a meeting tomorrow afternoon but have not told me what it is about. I am afraid what this might mean, but I cannot get a canon lawyer to go with me on such short notice. What should I do?

     Canon lawyers generally suggest to their clients in this type of situation that they "Go and listen." If at the meeting an accusation is raised, or if it appears your ability to function as a minister is in jeopardy, you have every right not to agree to anything. In fact, you can remain silent and simply not respond to any accusations or threats that are communicated to you. If you are asked to go for a psychological assessment or attend counseling, you should remain calm and politely affirm that you will think and pray about it and get back to them after you have consulted a canon lawyer. If you are pressured to give an immediate answer - particularly if they ask you to resign some position you have - politely insist that you need time to think and pray about it and that you will get back to them after you have consulted a canon lawyer.
     Many priests feel tempted to try to "explain it all away," naively trusting their own ability to defuse a situation that, unknown to them, could be already very serious.  In so doing, such priests can cause themselves serious damage by making statments that could be used against them in any subsequent forum by people who don't care one iota for the priest's best interests. For example, in the case of an accusation, acknowledging that you knew the complainant, that he or she came from a troubled family, and so forth could impair your defense.  Everything said at these meetings, and everything in the canonical investigation, is discoverable civilly.  So remember: you have the right to remain silent, both canonically and civilly - and you should!
     In most cases the bishop is honestly seeking to help everyone involved by ascertaining the reliability of reports he has heard. Priests in crisis may even need the assistance that is being offered, and simply being obstructionist could be perceived as obnoxious conduct that could hurt you or others down the road. That said, you should remember that you have rights that cannot be disregarded because of an artificially imposed immediacy. Hence the need for calm, cool, and collected discussions - with the benefit of canonical counsel, which is your right according to the law. A bishop who sincerely cares about his priests, and all those involved, will respect your rights and encourage you to seek canonical and/or legal counsel.

     If you need a referral to an experienced canon lawyer specializing in advocacy for your specific situation, please contact us immediately. 

     A diocesan canon lawyer who may happen to be present at the meeting is not your canon lawyer. He or she may be a fine person, even one of your closest friends, but does not fundamentally represent your interests, which is what you need at what may be one of the most important moments of your life. He or she represents the bishop and the diocese, and it is their job to do everything in their power to protect the bishop and diocese, not you. If you are given documents, you may take them, but do not sign anything without first speaking to a canon lawyer.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

Recently I requested a meeting with our new archbishop. I have an accusation against me that I have vehemently denied even in the press, however the archbishop responded to me that on advice of his canon lawyers, and in order to protect my rights, he should not meet with me or speak to me directly. 

     It is unusual that a bishop's canonists would urge him not to speak with his priest in order to "protect" the priest's "rights." In view of the fact that under canon law it is the bishop's responsibility to investigate allegations of misconduct, either personally or through an investigator, and in view of the fact that canon 384 specifically states that "with special solicitude, a diocesan bishop is to attend to presbyters and... protect their rights and take care that they correctly fulfill the obligations proper to their state," it is troubling that a bishop would be advised not to speak with his priests. The advice that your bishop is receiving seems to be much more concerned with issues of civil law in that as long as the archbishop can claim "ignorance" about anything related to an accused priest, he protects himself and the diocese from any civil lawsuits. However, such an action certainly appears to be an abandonment of his responsibilities as a diocesan bishop and pastor to his priests. Cf. “The Christian Faithful” by Robert J. Kaslyn, S.J., in New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law, pp. 333-334.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

Doesn't the bishop have an obligation to support his accused or laicized priests?

     For the most part, yes. As a matter of justice, bishops must provide remuneration for the exercise of a cleric's ecclesial ministry (canon 281) that provides for the necessities of life and so that those whose services they need (e.g., mechanics, doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc.) can be paid equitably. Additionally, a suitable livelihood includes income sufficient for continuing education (c. 279), retirement (c. 281, §2) charitable giving (c. 282, §2), and vacation (c. 283, §2). Further, bishops also have a duty to provide for the "decent support and social assistance" of his priests incardinated in their dioceses (c. 384). (The distinction between "basic sustenance" and "remuneration" is made even more clear in canon 390 of the Eastern Code.) Even after a penalty has been imposed - except that of dismissal from the clerical state - "provision must always be made so that [the cleric] does not lack those things necessary for his decent support" (canon 1350, §1). And even in the case of a dismissal from the clerical state, the bishop is still obliged - in charity, if not justice - to take care of such a person "who is truly in need because of penalty" (canon 1350, §2).

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

My bishop has given the personnel files of all of us priests to a private law firm without the knowledge or consent of any of us priests.  None of us has yet to be accused of any crime, nor were the files subpoenaed.  We were told by the Vicar General that we do not have the right to review our own files or submit rebuttals to any false accusations that may be contained in our files.

     Among the obligations of a diocesan bishop is the responsibility to protect the rights of his priests, which is specifically noted in canon 384 of the Code of Canon Law.  This obligation must also be respected by a vicar general, whose responsibility it is to assist the diocesan bishop in the proper governance of the diocese.  Among the rights enjoyed by all of the Christian faithful is that of a good reputation.  Canon 220 specifically states: “No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.”  Canon 128 addresses the responsibility of repairing illegitimate damage to a person’s good reputation: “Whoever illegitimately inflicts damage upon someone by a juridical act or by any other act placed with malice or negligence is obliged to repair the damage inflicted.”  The placing of a false or unproven allegation against a priest in his personnel file without having afforded him the opportunity to submit a response or rebuttal could certainly be interpreted as such an act that has been placed “with malice or negligence.”

     With regard to the right of a priest to review his personnel files, canon law does provide for what is commonly referred to as a “secret archive” (as in "set apart") for the maintenance of documents “which pertain to the spiritual and temporal affairs of the diocese” which must be “properly filed and diligently secured” (canon 486, §2).  While access to these files is limited and generally requires the permission of the bishop, there is a specific exemption (see Canon 487, §2) that provides that “interested parties have the right to obtain personally or through a proxy an authentic written copy or photocopy of documents which by their nature are public and which pertain to their personal status.”  In view of accepted principles in canon law, a diocese cannot establish a policy which simply ignores these principles of universal law.

     If an individual’s personal reputation has been damaged, canon law does provide means by which a person can seek the repair of such illegitimate damages.  Depending on the nature of the actions that are responsible for such damage, the procedures to be followed might involve either an administrative procedure or a judicial process.  Obviously, a priest who is concerned that his rights have not been properly protected or provided for should seek the services of a competent canonical advisor in order to address this matter in an appropriate manner.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

Can a priest sue his bishop for defamation of character, slander, etc?

     The question of a priest suing his bishop in the civil forum for defamation of character or for slander is a very sensitive issue that could result in the imposition of penalties on the priest.  The 1917 Code of Canon Law specifically provided that persons who take recourse to the civil authorities to impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction incur an excommunication imposed by the law itself that is reserved to the Holy See (cf. 1917 Code of Canon Law, canons 2333 and 2334).  While the 1983 Code of Canon Law did not incorporate the exact wording of this earlier norm of law into the present Code, this matter is addressed in canon 1375 which provides that “those who impede the freedom of ministry, of election, or of ecclesiastical power . . . or who greatly intimidates . . . one who exercises ecclesiastical power or ministry can be punished with a just penalty.”  The threat or actual filing of a civil lawsuit by a priest could be interpreted as such an act of intimidation, which could result in the priest’s being “punished with a just penalty.”  There is clearly an expectation that the resolution of such issues raised in this question be resolved in the ecclesiastical forum.  If a bishop is ignoring the rights of his priests or has illegitimately damaged a priest’s good reputation, the procedures that are a part of the law of the Church should certainly be pursued as a means of resolving these issues rather than threatening legal action in the civil forum.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

In the Bishop's latest communication to me he referred to a "verdict of Rome," and is requiring that I seek voluntary laicization. I told the bishop that I would like to appeal the "verdict." However, my bishop got very annoyed. He has denied me any further information including refusing to tell me who at the "Vatican" is the source of the verdict.  He also refused to assist me regarding the process of an appeal. He reluctantly told me to look for an advocate to make the appeal but will not help me in any way.  If I am not aware of the process, which the bishop followed to find me guilty, is my case appealable?  What is required to be an advocate and can I take it up by myself, for example?

     Father, you can and certainly should appeal the bishop's action. It appears that you have been denied your rights to participate in the process or to see any determinations reached by the Congregation responsible for the decision in your case. We recommend that you immediately enlist the services of a qualified canonist for the purpose of presenting such an appeal to the appropriate Congregation in Rome, specifically taking issue with the procedure that has been followed and the actions of the bishop.  This advocate shouldn't just be any canonist, but one who has a degree in canon law and who is familiar with the principles of law that govern such cases.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

Is the Church offering a safe residential support effort to remove their priest from the community before they offend again?

     In a case where a priest needs support in order not to re-offend, the Church has adopted the policy of removing them and leaving the priest to his own resources, which are greatly limited if any at all. This of course causes an enormous risk to the well-being of the priest who is trying to overcome his weakness because he is suddenly thrust into a deep personal crisis. Abuse happens most often during personal crisis when an abuser is most vulnerable. Not to mention the obvious one who could be abused. There are places for priests who need support and a place to live separated from the situations that cause their temptation and fall. However, in the current environment in the Church very few bishops will offer this option of Prayer and Penance to them, preferring rather to laicize them and thus be done with the “liability” of having to take care of the priests.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

Is the process that is in place for any diocese or archdiocese different at all when the priest is not a parish priest but a member of an order such as the Jesuits? I am not totally clear on the relationship between these orders and the archdiocese and who has authority over what.

   The USCCB Essential Norms address offenses only involving diocesan clergy and are not directly applicable in the case of an accused priest who is the member of a religious institute or society of apostolic life.  The responsibility for addressing allegations made against an “order priest,” therefore, falls to his Superior or Provincial – depending on the nature and structure of the individual institute or society.  This is addressed in the very first footnote of the Essential Norms which states, “In applying these Norms to religious priests and deacons, the term ‘religious ordinary’ shall be substituted for the term ‘bishop/eparch’ mutatis mutandis.” The Conference of Major Superiors of Men addressed this matter at their annual Conference in Philadelphia in August of 2002 and issued a statement addressing this matter.

   In responding to allegations of this nature involving an order priest, the “religious ordinary” is obligated to comply with the Norms concerning the more grave delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and follow the procedures which that Congregation has outlined in its norms.  If an order priest has had an assignment in a diocese and been answerable to the diocesan bishop by reason of this assignment, the bishop may elect to remove him from his assignment and even insist if the matter is sufficiently grave that he no longer exercise ministry or even reside in the diocese. This is a right that a diocesan bishop has with regard to order priests in his diocese by reason of canons 679 and 682, §2. Cf.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

I am a pastor, and my bishop is seeking to move me.  Just a routine move, but I am dead set against it for my own reasons.  It just does not seem right for some reason.  Plus, I am happy here.  I have heard that pastors cannot be moved without their consent.  Is this true?

It is important to know whether or not a priest was appointed pastor for an indefinite period of time or for a specific period of time.  This would depend on diocesan policy that has been established in accord with the principles in canon 522.  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has established the right of a diocesan bishop to appoint a pastor to a six-year term of office.  Assuming that the bishop did assign a pastor to such a six-year term of office, that pastor really has no basis for objecting to the re-assignment.  

While there is nothing in the Code of Canon Law that specifically provides that a pastor cannot be moved without his consent, if this priest was appointed as a pastor for an indefinite period of time as provided for in canon 522, he could possibly argue that he has the right to remain in his parish.  However, given the principles established by the USCCB in the United States, this would be a difficult argument to make. 

Depending on the current relationship between the priest and his bishop, the pastor could talk to his bishop directly and express his desire to stay at the parish if at all possible.  It’s best to have these discussions with the bishop well in advance of the annual priest personnel board assignments meeting.   

A pastor should consider that an argument with his bishop in a case like this could cause a rift between the priest and his bishop.  This could have serious consequences for future priestly assignments, which would make future priestly life for the pastor more difficult. 

Can.1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty: ...

2° a person who otherwise does not obey a legitimate precept or prohibition of the Apostolic See, an ordinary, or a superior and who persists in disobedience after a warning.

In effect, the priest's refusal to abide by the "precept" assigning him to new parish allows his bishop to impose such a just penalty if he persists in this disobedience following a warning.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

I have seen various diocesan websites that have published a list of names of "accused" priests, sometimes using the terminology "credible accusation." What does “credible” mean? Is there a consistent definition?

     The phrase “credible accusation” is not used in canon law. It does not appear in either the 1983 Code of Canon Law or the 1990 Code for the Eastern Churches. Pope St. John Paul II did not use it in his 2001 Apostolic Letter Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, which reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the competence to hear cases involving certain "more grave delicts" such as the sexual abuse of minors by clerics. In 2010, when some of the norms that had accompanied the 2001 Letter were revised under the papacy of Benedict XVI - in a document known as the Normae de gravioribus delictis - the phrase "credible accusation" never appears. Nor has the phrase ever been mentioned in any of the several iterations of the USCCB's Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and the related Essential Norms (sometimes referred to as the "Dallas Charter" - not when it was first issued in 2002, nor in any of its subsequent revisions (in 2005, 2011, and 2018).

     So where does the term "credible" come from? As defined by some dioceses, it seems to have been taken from the psychological profession, whereby a statement made directly from a client to a therapist is termed "credible," regardless of the objective truth of the statement. Of course, credible in this context has nothing to do with actual proof, but the ambiguity of terms like "credible" or "substantiated" (another term foreign to canon law) can provide bishops with a great deal of flexibility in distancing themselves from accused priests and deflecting public pressure.

     At best, the term "credible" may be an attempt to convey the meaning of an expression found in canon 1717, §1, of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (i.e., “saltem veri similem”), which can be translated in various ways. In July 2020, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a practical guide (called a "vademecum") for handling accusations of sexual abuse of minors committed by clerics. In it, they rendered the relevant Latin term "saltem verisimilis" (the phrase used in Article 16 of the CDF's Norms) as "plausible." (see, e.g., Vademecum, #16). Thus, if an accusation is at least plausible, the bishop is required to take certain further steps, at least when it has to do with a report of sexual abuse involving minors. Some dioceses use the concept that an accusation must have "at least the semblance of truth" before a preliminary investigation begins.

     The reason this is so important is that words matter, especially when it comes to the law. Words such as "credible" and "substantiated" have in some dioceses been essentially equivalent to "geographically possible" (as in Father X was in the same zip code as the accuser during the time the alleged offense was to have occurred) to "not completely impossible" (as in the accuser was not manifestly insane when he or she made the accusation). In other dioceses they have meant something much more substantial, but the problem is that when such inexact words are used without a context and are given wide diffusion through the media, the all too often and sad result is an immense damage to the priest's reputation.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

How is it that our bishop can publish a list of accused priests on the diocesan website, some of which are dead? Isn't there a canon that protects the good name of a priest? Can a bankruptcy judge order the publication of the names of accused priests, even if those accusations were "settled" out of court and never really taken seriously by anyone?

     The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts issued a letter dated 15 September 2016 regarding publication on a website of a list of those clerics condemned for having abused minors. The Response (Prot. N. 15512/2016), signed by the Cardinal President and the Bishop Secretary of the Pontifical Council, states the principles under which such a disclosure would and would not be licit.  It also expressly states by way of example when such a disclosure would constitute defamation in violation of the norm of Canon 220 ("No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy."). It notes in particular that the balancing between the right of an accused to his good name and the right of the community to protect itself from harm does not ever permit the publishing of names of dead people who have been accused, given that a proportionate reason for the harm to the fame of the deceased person "cannot exist" ("non può esistere") in such cases.

     With respect to bankruptcy proceedings, one should keep in mind that there are many interested parties in such a proceeding that necessarily involves complicated issues touching both civil and canon law. Any claim that "the bankruptcy judge made me do it" with respect to the publication of names must be scrutinized very carefully, given that important goods are at stake - i.e., the right to the good name of the clerics involved, the right (and duty!) of the bishop to follow canon law, and the right of the faithful to see to it that their bishops administer the temporal goods of the diocese in full compliance with both civil and canonical law. The advice of a good canon and/or civil lawyer is extremely important in such a situation.

I have a priest friend who was removed in 1998 from ministry after being accused of misconduct with a minor. After six months in treatment center, he was given a clean bill of health and reassigned to "limited" ministry (chaplain to a convent and writing). When the sexual abuse scandal broke in 2002, he was removed from ministry. Since then, he has been living on his own in an apartment and working part time. Recently, he was offered a settlement package (a sum of money now and pension sharing at 65) if he would petition for laicization. He was told if he did not petition for laicization, he would be laicized by the ordinary. His laicization was granted. At the meetings to discuss the settlement and laicization, he was never told that the bishop was considering publishing his name and the reason for his laicization in the press. The bishop claims the reason for publishing the names is "transparency." My priest friend feels that any progress he has made to heal and move on with his life will be lost. He has already moved out of his apartment and will probably lose his part-time job. My question is: can the bishop publish his name? Isn't laicization a private act? Is there anything he can do to prevent this?

     This is a very difficult situation. The short and direct answer is, no, laicization is not a private act.  The fact that a priest has voluntarily sought laicization or been dismissed from the clerical state is a public act in the Church. While laicizations are generally not communicated to the faithful, the bishop does have a right to communicate the fact to the faithful for the common good of the Church. However, his decision to communicate this fact and the detrimental effects that it is having on your priest friend's life are relevant, especially if he loses his source of income because of the bishop’s actions.

     Your friend's canon lawyer will help him to explore possible options under canon law, including some or all of the following:

- Canon 128 of the 1983 Code, which provides:  "Whoever illegitimately inflicts damage upon someone by a juridic act or by any other act placed with malice or negligence is obliged to repair the damage inflicted.”
- Canon 220, which provides: “No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.” 
- Canon 1389, §2, which provides: "A person who through culpable negligence illegitimately places or omits an act of ecclesiastical power, ministry, or function with harm to another is to be punished with a just penalty."

     Such a case would pose special challenges under canon law. It would have to go to Rome and arguing the illegitimacy and culpability of the bishop’s actions would be difficult points to make. Any possibility for future actions under civil law would have to be discussed with a civil lawyer as well as with a canon lawyer sensitive to how a civil proceeding could affect the canonical proceeding.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

The allegations against me have never been investigated, they are simply accepted on face value, even though the bishop knows that they are false. How many other priests have had the allegations against them actually investigated?

     The problem of the Church not investigating allegations in a competent fashion is a very common problem. Some dioceses do not have trained investigators in place; others simply depend on police reports; and others just hope that everything will "go away" and do nothing. The unfortunate result is that some men are left hanging, or unconfirmed and uncorroborated police reports are considered "proof" that an allegation is true and proven. At the same time, there are some dioceses out there that handle these matters correctly and competently. Any time an accused priest feels that his case is not being properly investigated, he has the right to take the matter directly to the Vatican Congregation in Rome that is responsible for the matter and seek their direct intervention. It is very important to seek the services of a canon lawyer in preparing such a petition, as it will be important to present all available exculpatory proofs and a strong canonical argument related to the charges.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

I have heard that many of these accused priests are falsely accused. Is there any evidence to support this?

     In a word, yes. There are many specific examples of priests who have been falsely accused, and an internet search quickly produces examples such as Cardinal George Pell (Australia), Msgr. William McCarthy (New Jersey), and Fathers Charles Engelhardt (Philadelphia), Ed Perrone (Detroit), Gordon MacRae (New Hampshire), Eugene Boland (Ireland), Jose Antonio Molina (El Salvador), among others. Beyond that, the 2004 John Jay Report, commissioned by the USCCB, reported that 17% of the annotated surveys completed by U.S. dioceses detailing accusations of child sexual abuse against priests and religious were ultimately deemed “not credible.” This same 17% rate applied in calendar year 2010, according to the USCCB’s annual report of sexual abuse claims, with 71 of the 428 new “credible” accusations reported that year being found, by year’s end, to be either “unsubstantiated or determined to be false.” The rate of unsubstantiated claims was even higher according to the 2018 Annual Report; 7 of the 26 claims that year (i.e., 27%) were "unsubstantiated" and 3 more were "unable to be proven."

     Sadly, the possibility of false accusations persists even after death. The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), a research group that audits various aspects of the Catholic Church in the USA, found for the year 2010 (to pick one year as an example) that over 43% of all clerics who were accused of abuse in the US that year were already dead. And how a priest adequately defends his good name after he has died is a fair question.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

After being falsely accused, removed, and kept out of ministry so long that rumors have spread, I feel that my reputation is shot. Why should I even bother fighting back now - how can I ever regain my good name?

This is a fair question and one that highlights the important good that is at stake when the Code of Canon Law addresses a person's righ to a good reputation (canon 220).  Such a right is very closely tied to the right to life itself, as both Scripture and Tradition attest, and there is no question that losing one's reputation can be devastating.  Nevertheless, the Lord Himself was falsely accused, unjustly imprisoned, and subjected to a farcical trial - He even promised that we sinners who dare to follow Him should expect similar treatment, at least in some way.

     The list of canonized saints throughout Church history who have been subjected to false accusations is very long indeed, including not only the "red" martyrs who have died for the faith but also many "white" martyrs who have suffered abuse from people within the Church.  Saints such as Philip Neri, Lorenzo Ruiz, Gerard Majella, John Bosco, Miquel Pro, and Padre Pio all had to suffer false accusations, but they did not give into despair.  And neither should you.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

Is it your perception that the charter and norms of the U.S. bishops do not adequately protect priests against false accusations?

     The Essential Norms were originally promulgated in 2002 and were later reviewed and revised several times, most recently in 2018. Some of the most common concerns voiced with the Norms are not the norms themselves, but with the failure of bishops - and of canonists appointed to serve on tribunals - to abide by the principles not only of the Essential Norms but also the general law of the Church, including the 1983 and 1990 Codes of Canon Law. Experienced canonists have complained frequently about trials in which the rights of the accused priest are ignored, including the failure to admit exculpatory proofs as evidence in the trial. Some tribunals have also refused to provide an accused priest's advocate with a copy of the proofs so that he or she can prepare an adequate defense brief, despite the fact that the Code specifically provides that an advocate is to be provided with a copy. The prevailing attitude seems to be that any accused priest has to be kept out of sight and away from ministry, which appears to be more important than reaching a just resolution of his case. Many canonists have compared this situation with "kangaroo courts," which simply find anyone and everyone guilty on the basis of an accusation.  What needs to be done, in our view, is to employ properly trained and impartial canonists to serve on these tribunals instead of individuals who seem to be out to further their own position by helping bishops remove any and all accused priests from ministry.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

I struggle with what to tell lay people about a priest who has been "temporarily removed from ministry"? Such priests appear to me to be treated almost like lepers, seemingly falling off the face of the earth while they are under "investigation," and usually prohibited by the chancery (and/or the diocesan lawyers or insurance company) from saying anything themselves. When the diocese tells us nothing about his situation, it only makes the situation more awkward for us priests, especially when the lay faithful ask us about the accused. As a brother priest, I want to reach out to him but have to honestly admit (to my shame) that I am afraid of doing so lest someone find out about it and somehow think I have "associated with an abuser." 

     You are not alone! Such situations, where the community's "right to know" about a person's status intersects with a person's "right to privacy," can indeed be difficult. The lack of clear and honest communication that respects the reputations of all involved - the accuser, the accused, the victim, et al. - is, sadly, very common in many dioceses in the U.S. right now. What can an individual priest do? May we suggest what you yourself have intimated from your conscience, i.e., reach out to your wounded brother in some appropriate way. Whether he is (i) truly guilty of serious misconduct and is ultimately removed permanently, (ii) responsible for some conduct perhaps unbecoming of a priest but is not guilty of what he has been accused of, or (iii) completely innocent and is simply being railroaded for some reason, it is very likely that he is suffering and alone. As a priest of Jesus Christ "Friend of sinners," you are in a good position to understand that, and the Lord will certainly reward those who show compassion to those in need. Many active priests contact MOM for advice and counsel on how to support their accused brothers. In keeping with the mission of MOM, we do everything we can to facilitate friendship, fraternity and support for priests.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

Have priests sued their accusers to clear their names?

The stories of Fathers William Graham (Duluth), Joseph Jiang (St. Louis), and Roy Herberger (Buffalo) are some examples of priests who have taken steps in civil court to clear their names. This is a very complicated and fact-specific enterprise, and one that should not be taken without a good deal of advice from canon and civil lawyers as well as a great deal of prayer.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help. 

Does having a canon lawyer really make a difference for an accused priest like me?

Our experience has shown that having a canon lawyer can make an enormous difference. Otherwise, an accused priest is at the mercy of what could be the arbitrary whim of someone in power. As a matter of fact, some dioceses have tried to force accused priests into accepting "laicization." We would be happy to help you acquire canonical counsel if you find yourself in this situation.
When you have your own canon lawyer represent you, it means that someone who is credentialed and qualified to do so represents your interests vis-à-vis the diocese. You retain such counsel by officially appointing him or her by means of a document stating and that you sign. There is often a fee involved, but this is no different than paying fees for other professional services such as medical care or financial advice. And there can be quite a bit more at stake when it comes to your priesthood.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

Are dioceses paying for canon lawyers and are they also paying for them in the preliminary stages as well? My diocese says they will not pay for me to be represented and that other diocese are not paying either.

     Contrary to what you may have been told by your diocese, many dioceses are, in fact, paying for a canon lawyer, even in the preliminary stages of the process. The bishop has a duty to protect the rights of his priests (canon 384) and it is hard to see how a priest's rights can be protected if he does not have canonical counsel at the preliminary stage, where the die is often cast.

     Article 5 of the USCCB's Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (revised, 2011) provides that a cleric (i.e., a priest or a deacon) "accused of sexual abuse of a minor is to be accorded the presumption of innocence during the investigation of the allegation and all appropriate steps are to be taken to protect his reputation. He is to be encouraged to retain the assistance of civil and canonical counsel. If the allegation is deemed not substantiated, every step possible is to be taken to restore his good name, should it have been harmed."

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

My canonical advocate and I are pulling our hair out because of our bishop's "foot dragging" concerning my case. What can we do?

     Whenever there seems to be any type of "foot dragging", lack of information, or refusal to discuss a case, the priest and/or his advocate should immediately send off a defense brief to the appropriate Congregation in Rome. Even if the only information you send to Rome is that you simply deny the allegation, you should raise the issue about your right of defense.

     The above suggestion is based on a real case where a bishop refused to share any information prior to sending the case to the CDF. In fact, the bishop gave the impression that he was not going to take any further steps until the case was reviewed by the CDF and direction given to him. In reality, the bishop was seeking - and ultimately received - a "laicization" of the priest by means of an administrative procedure. (If there had been a canonical trial, the priest would have had a better opportunity to defend himself.) Thus there was no right of defense and no communication with the priest or the advocate about this possibility. The result came as a complete surprise and was contrary to the information shared by the bishop. Thus the importance of making sure you and your canon lawyer stay in touch with Rome should the need arise.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

I am in agony!  I was removed from ministry and like my brother priests, I was never told the accusation, and never had an opportunity to speak to my bishop. A kangaroo court called a review board meeting accused me of things I never did, and then I was told that my bishop wrote to Rome asking what to do and I was told to wait, "it would all work out fine." The next thing I know, I'm being laicized! Now I have a canon lawyer (I was never told to get one) because I just "trusted" my bishop and was obedient and waited as his vicar of clergy told me what he wanted me to do. Please tell me, is it possible or advisable to write the CDF on my own, and will they even open the letter and read it?

     The CDF will open your letter, and they will read it, and they will put it with your case file for consideration. Your problem is not unique. Many cases are sent to Rome from the diocese without any response from the priest being accused, so the Congregation working on your case might assume that you and the bishop have worked it all out and that you are aware of the process that's taking place. We strongly suggest that every priest that has a case in Rome writes the relevant Congregation. Furthermore, we also advise that you don't wait for the bishop to send something to Rome, but rather that you, after consulting a canon lawyer, write to Rome immediately explaining your situation. You should receive a "protocol number", which simply means that there is a formal case in Rome regarding your situation. Make sure you follow up with phone calls and faxes. If you are in Rome, call and go meet someone from the CDF. Here is how to contact them directly, though it is also may be a good practice to use the papal nuncio in Washington, D.C. when communicating with the Roman dicastries as well. Your canon lawyer should be able to advise you in this regard.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11
00120 Cittá del Vaticano, VATICAN CITY
Phone: (+39) 06.69.88.32.96

Congregation for Clergy
Piazza Pio XII, 3
00193 Roma, ITALY
Phone: (+39) 06.69.88.41.51

Congregation for Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life
Piazza Pio XII, 3
00193 Roma, ITALY
Phone: (+39) 06.69.88.41.21

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

Does it matter canonically if someone pleads guilty to a lesser charge in a state criminal trial? For example, what if a charge of a non-sexual misdemeanor is accepted in order to avoid the risk of being found guilty and going to jail?

     Our experience has suggested that someone in this situation should be very careful about agreeing to a plea of a "lesser charge" instead of pleading not guilty to the original charge. Canonically, the fact that you have pleaded guilty to a lesser offense can be used against you in the ecclesiastical forum and canonical penalties can be imposed on the basis of your admission of guilt. Before you enter into any sort of plea agreement, it is very important that you discuss the matter fully with your attorney and with a canon lawyer.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

My diocese refuses to tell me of what I am accused of doing, refuses to provide a place to live, much less funds for an advocate. Thus, I have been forced to move into a smaller and poorer living situation and am now taking on debts that I’m afraid I won’t be able to pay back. Am I the only one experiencing this kind of treatment? Is my situation unique?

     Unfortunately, your situation is not unique. Some dioceses are cutting back on salaries and/or benefits for accused priests and refusing to fund canonical advocates (let alone other legal representation). Some have even refused to pay additional costs for living expenses like room and board. Like you, many accused priests are mounting debt, especially credit card debt, because the diocese has them in limbo. If they can get work, it is at minimum wage because the higher paying positions require references and work history (securing meaningful work is next to impossible when you have to admit that you have a pending investigation or you have been placed on leave by your bishop for an accusation of child sexual abuse). We are here to help in whatever way we can, which includes providing references for a canon and/or civil lawyer, who might be able to assist you.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

Are anonymous accusations accepted in all dioceses? Does an accused priest have the right to face his accuser?

     Anonymous allegations create a significant problem in the area of providing for the right of defense of the accused.  Although it is not explicitly stated in the Essential Norms or in the Code of Canon Law that an accused individual has the right to face his accuser, it can certainly be argued that if a person accused of a serious offense is not afforded the opportunity of knowing the identity of his accuser, his ability to respond to the charges or to defend himself can be greatly hampered.

     The 2011 Norms governing the procedures followed in such cases before the CDF appear to imply that, with one exception (regarding certain delicts involving the sacrament of penance), an accused does generally have the right to know the identity of his accuser. It should be added that in July 2020, the CDF published a Vademecum describing guidelines for handling cases of sexual abuse of minors committed by clerics. With respect to a notice of a delict received by a bishop from an anonymous source, the CDF maintains that such anonymity "should not automatically lead to considering the report as false" (#11). Nevertheless, the Vademecum goes on to state that "for easily understandable reasons, great caution should be exercised in considering this type of notitia, and anonymous reports certainly should not be encouraged."
Specific policies of dioceses vary in this regard; but any diocese that elects to investigate anonymous allegations will have the added burden of dealing with the question of the accuser’s credibility and of assuring that the accused cleric's right of defense is adequately provided for.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

My father died suddenly in my arms in the ICU room, and I promised him I would take care of my mother who is 82 and has had three heart attacks and two strokes. Can the bishop take away my faculties if I take a leave to care for my dying mother?

     Most every diocese has a policy which provides for a sabbatical or leave of absence for medical or personal reasons. You should speak to the bishop or the Vicar for Clergy of your diocese and request permission to take a leave or sabbatical for these family reasons. It would be surprising for a bishop to remove a priest's faculties simply due to the fact that he is caring for his aged and infirmed mother. However, if a priest abandoned his assignment and had not sought the bishop's permission to provide care for his mother in these circumstances, the bishop could possibly impose a penalty for such actions which would include the removal of faculties.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

Can I be "laicized" against my will?

     First, the term "laicized" does not accurately capture the richness of Catholic teaching on the priesthood, and thus should be avoided. A validly ordained Catholic priest remains a priest forever, "according to the order of Melchizedek," even into eternity.
     Second, all members of the faithful - including priests - have a right to defend themselves against canonical charges made against them. Any effort - whether under a canonical penal trial or under an administrative procedure - must respect a priest's right to defend himself. If such a right is not adequately respected, the decision can be declared invalid. In general, cases are fact-specific and thus it is best to have the services of a good canon lawyer and/or civil lawyer when defending oneself against charges, as early in the process as possible. Reasonable fees are a sound investment, and we may be in a position to help.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

What does it mean for me if I am "reduced to the lay state"?

     The phrase "being reduced to the lay state" does not reflect the fullness of the radical equality of the baptized in the hierarchical Church established by the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead, it is better to use the phrase "dispensed from the obligations of the clerical state" to describe someone who was ordained but who no longer is required to live as a cleric, with all of the rights and duties such a state involves.
     Generally, loss of the clerical state means that someone is no longer permitted to exercise the power of holy orders. He is neither required to do such things as recite the divine office nor is he eligible to receive compensation from the diocese. This does not necessarily mean, however, that he is free to marry; only the pope can grant a dispensation from the obligation of clerical celibacy. (cf. Canons 291 and 292.)
     Nevertheless, the Church provides that even if a priest has been dispensed from the obligations of the clerical state, and even if he lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he may validly and licitly absolve a penitent who is in danger of death from any censures and sins. (cf. Canon 976).

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

Can a bishop simply "fire" one of his priests? It seems like all they want to do with those of us accused is make us go away. I've never even been able to talk to my bishop directly.

     Unfortunately, some bishops do not talk to priests that have been accused. Through diaconal ordination a deacon becomes "incardinated" in a diocese; this is very much like being adopted into a family - the priest becomes like an adopted son in that particular church family, and the bishop is a father to the priest. If a disciplinary problem later arises, the bishop cannot simply "fire" the priest any more than a parent can dismiss one of the family members. For better or worse, they are in this together.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

Can these "imposed" laicizations be appealed? I regret that I've forgotten most of that Canon Law from seminary during the last century. The Church is meant to give us hope. I refuse to give that up. Even commandments can be understood humanly and humanely.

     There have been some dismissals from the clerical state that were approved "in forma specifica" by the pope. In such cases there can be no appeal under canon law. In addition, certain Vatican Congregations (such as the CDF or the Congregation for Clergy) have been given the authority to dismiss a priest from the clerical state under certain circumstances. If such a dismissal is not approved "in forma specifica" by the pope, such a dismissal can be appealed. The Holy See also has a process for the "rehabilitation" of a dismissed or "laicized" priest. Provided that this process has not been forbidden in a specific case, any such priest can seek "rehabilitation" if he finds a benevolent bishop who will support him. While most bishops appear reluctant given the present environment to take on a priest who has been accused of sexual misconduct, there may be some bishops willing to give certain priests a chance to return to ministry.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

Given the specifics of my case (including the age of my accuser at the time of the alleged incident and the applicable law at the time) I don’t think I can be permanently removed from the priesthood. Nevertheless, my bishop has “offered” me a sum of money and continued benefits for one year if I request "laicization." If I don’t, he says he’ll have me laicized anyway and I’ll get nothing. Can you please clarify canonically what is happening here and elsewhere? Can I go to another country for ministry?

     Norm 8 of the USCCB Essential Norms provides that when even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or deacon is admitted or is established after an appropriate process in accordance with canon law, the offending priest or deacon will be removed permanently from ecclesiastical ministry, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, if the case so warrants.

     In the case of the single offense that supposedly occurred decades ago, a penal dismissal from the clerical state may not be an option based on the principles of canon law. However, bishops are making use of Norm 8 to justify administrative decisions not to re-assign a priest to ministry.  While a bishop can “invite” a priest to seek laicization – although in the present case, perhaps the term “bribe” might be a more accurate description – it is unlikely in a case of this nature that Rome would agree to an involuntary laicization.  However, as has been mentioned many times throughout these FAQ, it is extremely important for the priest to seek competent canonical advice and to act proactively by presenting a defense on his own initiative to the appropriate Congregation in order to protect his right to participate in the investigation and consideration of his case.

     It should also be noted that not all bishops are taking the approach of insisting on laicization or dismissal in the case of a single thirty year old offense which did not involve a minor under the age of sixteen.  If it can be ascertained through therapeutic or other means that the priest is not a threat to the safety of the Christian faithful, some bishops can and have re-assigned priests to non-public forms of ministry.

     A priest is always free to seek ministry in another diocese or in another country, and a number of bishops will give serious consideration to such requests.  In such cases, however, the priest’s candor with the bishop whom he is approaching in this other diocese is most important given that Norm 12 of the Essential Norms does require that before such a diocesan/eparchial priest or deacon can be transferred for residence to another diocese/eparchy, his diocesan/eparchial bishop shall forward, in a confidential manner, to the bishop of the proposed place of residence any and all information concerning any act of sexual abuse of a minor and any other information indicating that he has been or may be a danger to children or young people.

     A significantly important argument that a priest can make when approaching a benevolent bishop in another diocese, especially if a single offense has occurred decades ago, is the statement that Pope John Paul II offered to the American Cardinals in 2002 when addressing them concerning the policies that the bishops were drafting at the time in anticipation of the Dallas meeting of the USCCB.  While commending the work of the American bishops, the Holy Father also stated: 
At the same time, even while recognizing how indispensable these criteria are, we cannot forget the power of Christian conversion, that radical decision to turn away from sin and back to God, which reaches to the depths of a person’s soul and can work extraordinary change.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

Concerning an accused priest afraid of being laicized who is 76 and will be ordained 50 years in February, there is a provision in the Essential Norms stating that because of age, one should not be defrocked. Does that mean he can't be?

     Norm 8b of the Essential Norms merely states that if "the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state has not been applied (e.g., for reasons of advanced age or infirmity), the offender ought to live a life of prayer and penance." This does not confer on an elderly or infirm priest a right not to be dismissed from the clerical sate. It merely states that there may be reasons why a penalty may not be applied. A priest in this situation may be instructed not to wear clerical garb or to celebrate Mass publicly, for example.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

I wrote a letter to the Holy Father requesting laicization. I received notice that the letter and request had been accepted. The chancery called me several times to sign the rescript, which I do not believe I have done to this day. I am wondering if I am officially laicized or not, or if signing the rescript is a necessary component to make the laicization effective or if simply the writing of the letter was sufficient to laicize me.

     Your laicization did become effective on the date that the decree was issued. The purpose in seeking the signature of the priest is simply to maintain a record that he has been informed of the fact that the dispensation was granted as well as possible conditions and restrictions in the dispensation.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

The chancery just told me that my case will be handled by way of an “extrajudicial administrative procedure.” What does this mean? Is it the same thing as a trial?

     After a preliminary investigation (cf. c. 1717), an Ordinary may decide that further criminal proceedings are appropriate. He is to make this decision, generally speaking, only after he has determined that “fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude” are not enough to repair scandal, restore justice, and to reform the offender (cf. c. 1718, c. 1341), and only after he consults with two judges or other experts of the law.

     Assuming the particular delict in question is not reserved to the Holy See by reason of its gravity (e.g., the clerical sexual abuse of a minor), in which case the bishop cannot act with receiving direction from Rome, the bishop can proceed in one of two ways: either by (i) a judicial process or (ii) an extrajudicial administrative penal procedure. The former, also known as a canonical penal trial, is favored under the law because it affords greater protection for the rights of the accused and a greater level of security that the truth will emerge as a result of the process.

     Despite this clear preference for the judicial route, many dioceses in the United States these days routinely take the latter approach instead. Ordinaries may, “whenever just causes preclude a judicial process,” elect to use the administrative procedure (cf. c. 1342). Just as its name suggests, an administrative procedure is not a judicial trial, and the rights of the accused are subject to fewer guarantees.

     That said, all is not lost for an accused priest when an administrative procedure is used. First of all, the accused must be informed of the accusation, must be given access to the proofs, and must be given an opportunity for self-defense (including access to a canon lawyer). All decisions must be made only after the Ordinary has reached “moral certitude” about the guilt of the accused, which is essentially the canonical equivalent of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in U.S. criminal trials. Most importantly, perpetual penalties (e.g., the privation of an office or being “laicized”) cannot be imposed by means of an administrative decree (unless the bishop has been granted permission from Rome to do so in a specific circumstance (see FAQ: Can a Priest be Laicized without a Trial?)) Clerics also have the right to seek recourse against an adminstrative decree.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

What about the “special faculties” belonging to the Congregation for the Clergy or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Don’t these provide a means by which a priest can be “laicized” without a trial?

     While Pope Benedict XVI did indeed grant the Congregation for the Clergy in 2009 certain “special faculties” by which a priest could be returned to the lay state without a judicial trial, the three specific circumstances in which this can occur are supposed to be reserved for certain, limited, and relatively grave situations. These involve, for example, clerics who (i) are living with women or who have attempted marriage, (ii) have abandoned their ministry for more than five consecutive years, or (iii) have engaged in illegal behavior raising issues of "special gravity" and the "need or urgency to avoid an objective scandal" (other than the sexual abuse of minors, which continues to be dealt with by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). The Congregation for the Clergy has insisted on protecting the rights of priests even in these three types of situations, so the likelihood of going through such a process unwittingly, or without being afforded the right of canonical counsel, is low.

     Similar special faculties have been granted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for canonical delicts involving the clerical sexual abuse of a minor. So yes, it is possible for a bishop to have permission from Rome to initiate an extrajudicial administrative procedure against a cleric in specific cases involving that kind of delict. A priest or deacon in such a situation, however, enjoys the same due process rights as described above.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

I have heard horror stories about how priests have been "railroaded" by diocesan review boards. Is there any point to fighting this?

     There are definitely horror stories about how accused priests have been railroaded by diocesan review boards. However, a person is innocent until proven guilty, both in civil courts and even more so in the Church. Defending yourself in a canonical process could take some time, even perhaps a couple of years, but your priesthood is worth fighting for. Think too of all the souls to whom you have ministered and perhaps brought into the Church - what would they think if they heard that you were accused and failed to even put up a fight over the accusation? Your family, your faithful, your brother priests - and we at Men of Melchizedek - are here to help you. You are not alone!

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

Is the diocesan review board supposed to investigate priest accusations?

     The diocesan review board is not supposed to be an investigative body, but rather a consultative one. Their responsibility is to review the investigative materials that are gathered by the designated diocesan investigator and then provide consultation to the bishop, who ultimately remains responsible for whatever decision is made.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

This is the first time I hear of the "monitoring." Is this happening in more than one diocese? Does this mean you can function in full ministry now? How often do you see this 'monitor'? Can he just drop in on a surprise visit?

     First, there is no reason to simply "cave in" to monitoring, especially if there has been no canonical action taken against you. If you are not under a penalty, impediment, or irregularity -- which has been formally declared in a canonical action of some sort, you can challenge the bishop's attempts to monitor you as a violation of your right to privacy under canon 220 ("No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.") A canon lawyer should be more than happy to help anyone interested in preparing a letter to his bishop to begin such a challenge. Please contact us if you need a canon lawyer.

     As for the procedures, many dioceses and religious orders utilize monitoring. Monitoring can be handled by a priest, a diocesan official, or a professional investigator of some sort. Typically the visits are weekly and yes, they are unannounced visits. The reason for this is to ensure that your conduct is appropriate at any given moment. It also has value, however, for the one being monitored since there is a quantifiable record against any suspicions of restrictions violation.

     All that being said, monitoring should be reserved to those that are in most need of it because of grievous continued inappropriate behavior. These priests are usually very accepting of the restrictions that are placed on them having full knowledge of their personal need for supervision. Unfortunately, there are examples of gross abuse of the monitoring program by dioceses and religious orders. They are now implementing monitoring for just about any priest that has been accused even if nothing has been proven, or the behavior was so long ago the priest has proven himself over many years without ever re-offending.

     We are aware of a monitoring case in which a priest who had never been formally placed under any sort of canonical penalty was subjected to a system of monitoring. The priest appealed the matter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and the CDF responded that the bishop's actions were inappropriate since no formal process had ever been undertaken in this priest's case and such monitoring constituted a violation of the right to privacy expressed in canon 220. Again, a priest could address this matter by getting a canonist willing to present a petition to the Archbishop asking that his decision to initiate this monitoring be revoked.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

How does one find out who is on a diocesan review board? And why aren't those names out there in public?

     The USCCB's Essential Norms, 4 and 5, address the role and responsibility of the Review Board.  Norm 4 speaks of this group as a “confidential consultative body to the bishop,” and Norm 5 addresses who should serve as members of this board. There is no requirement in either the Essential Norms or in the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People for the bishop to make the names of this “confidential” body public. That said, there is also no restriction against making the names public, and many bishops have chosen to do so.

     There have been unfortunate instances in which individual members of a diocesan review board have failed to fulfill properly the responsibilities entrusted to them, and this has resulted in the bishop being provided with faulty and even prejudiced consultation. For this reason alone, it would seem that an accused priest should be informed of the identify of board’s membership or at least have the right of requesting that the bishop make sure that unfair bias does not affect the impartiality of any advice the board provides. If a conflict of interest or proven bias were to exist on the part of a board member, an accused priest would certainly have the right to address this issue in his defense.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

I have a priest friend who is looking for some counseling help, but he is scared to death to go to the bishop or any other brother priest, especially anyone associated with the diocese. He is afraid, and I think his fears are well-founded, that the minute you let the bishop or diocese in, he or they will remove the priest and his name will be disseminated all over the media and elsewhere. Furthermore, treatment centers are just as bad since they report to the bishop and are paid for by the diocese and I've heard some very sad stories about these places. Do you have any advice on him seeking counsel? Are there any good priest psychologists that can be trusted and are loyal to the teachings of the Church and the Holy Father?

     There are very few priest psychologists/psychiatrists available. Many qualified Catholic mental health professionals help priests in this country. To find a Catholic therapist in your area who share your convictions in integrating the truths of the Catholic faith into their practice, we highly recommend visiting our Therapy and Counseling Services page for a list of competent mental health professionals for clergy. Residential treatment is rarely indicated unless a priest is suicidal or severely incapacitated. We have priests go to psychologists from other parts of the country, take hospitality near a counselor's center and participate in intensive 4 day per week outpatient psychotherapy. Also, many priests are treated over the phone from different parts of the country, and this has been very successful. The most common conflicts in priests are those of loneliness, low male confidence, anxiety, and mistrust. We would recommend priests read the article from Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons who wrote in The Priest on resolving loneliness in priestly life - click here to read: IDENTIFYING, RESOLVING LONELINESS IN PRIESTLY LIFE.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

I have two questions regarding psychological support from treatment centers that serve priests. First, isn't it a conflict of interest for a treatment center to do an assessment on a potential patient? Shouldn't there be an independent assessment that recommends treatment if needed? Second, I went to a treatment center at the request of my bishop out of obedience and because he said it would show cooperation to the authorities in order to avoid further litigation even though I am 100% innocent and a victim of a false allegation. And, the report that came back from the center was outrageous! It said I had a preponderance to alcoholism and that could lead to abusive behavior. I have also talked to other priests that have had similar experiences at treatment centers where they were sent for evaluations. Independently, I sought the opinion of three other psychologists, all of whom gave me a clean bill of health. When I later showed them the report form that I had received from the treatment center, they flatly disagreed with it. They had no prior knowledge of my evaluation at the center.

     There does seem to be a conflict of interest in treatment centers offering assessments and then recommending treatment, which they will perform. Second, treatment, whether at a center or with an individual psychologist can be extremely beneficial for a priest that is suffering from a disorder and is looking for help. We have many priests that have attended treatment centers and have had very positive results and are very happy with the service and care they received. However, in some cases when a priest is under a false allegation and is told by his bishop to go for treatment to a center, the center's evaluation and final reports often suggest a "preponderance" or "exhibits behavior common" to some disorder or multiple disorders. This is not the case when priests see individual psychologists where they can get a second or third opinion. The most reasonable practice is for the priest or bishop to recommend more than one evaluation from separate unassociated mental health professionals that will not administer treatment, then make a decision on whether further evaluation or even treatment is needed.

     Finally, remember that according to Church teaching as laid out in the Code of Canon Law (Canon 220), a priest can reject psychological testing and the bishop is obliged not to hold that against him. In addition, when you go for evaluation, it is your right to choose who will or will not see the report they issue. This is important, you can review the report first and then decide whether you want it disseminated or not. Fr. Gregory Ingels, J.C.D., gave a talk to the Canadian Canon Law Society in 1999 that was later published in Studia Canonica addressing the issue of a priest's right not to be compelled to undergo a psychological assessment or forced therapy or treatment. We strongly recommend that you read:  Protecting The Right To Privacy when Examining Issues Affecting the Life And Ministry of Clerics And Religious.
 
     An excerpt from this document is below:

Eventually, the bishop issued an ultimatum and ordered the pastor under obedience to submit to a psychological assessment at a well known facility which the bishop specifically named. The pastor considered this directive an undue intrusion on his right to privacy as expressed in canon 220, and so he initiated the process for recourse by asking that the bishop reconsider his decision. When the bishop refused and again directed the pastor to undergo the psychological assessment, the pastor then placed a petition for hierarchical recourse before the Congregation for the Clergy. The response issued by the Congregation for the Clergy on October 8, 1998, sustained the recourse placed by the Pastor. In part, the decision stated, "It is the consistent teaching of the Magisterium that investigation of the intimate psychological and moral status of the interior life of any member of the Christian faithful can not be carried on except with the consent of the one to undergo such evaluation, as is clearly written about in the instruction of the Secretariat of State in their August 6, 1976 letter to Pontifical Representatives. Therefore this Congregation concludes that Your Excellency can not, in this case, under pain of obedience, oblige your priest...to undergo psychological evaluation.

I attended therapy sessions with a counselor recommended by the archdiocese. For many months we engaged in a therapeutic relationship until she requested at one session that I sign a "HIPAA form." Unless I signed the form, she said, I could no longer receive therapy from her. Until this point, I had never seen this form and asked that I take a copy with me to think it over. She told me that the form was not to leave her office. The form had a space to "fill in" a person and/or entity to whom information could be revealed. She indicated that this would be in emergency types of situations. When I told her that I would like to insert my parents' names there, she told me that I must write, "the archbishop or his appointed delegate." She said that because the archdiocese was paying for my insurance, I had to put this in the space provided. For nearly an hour I agonized over this form, and then tried to fill out the back of it in a space indicated where one could limit the type of information that could be revealed. I tried to limit it as much as possible. At the end of the session, because I wanted at that time to continue therapy with her and felt that there was no other choice, I did indeed write "the archbishop or his appointed delegate."

     You should consult a civil lawyer to inquire whether you were unduly pressured into signing the HIPAA form. If the civil lawyer believes that you were unduly pressured into signing the form, then perhaps there would be a way for the civil lawyer to seek reparation for the damages that you have suffered as a result of this compelled action. Under canon law, a priest cannot be compelled to reveal information arising from his medical or therapeutic treatment, even to his bishop or so-called "appointed delegate." Sadly, this is a back-handed tactic often used by some bishops or chancery officials to get priests to sign off on psychological information that they can't directly ask the priest to give canonically. In addition, just because a third party is paying for your insurance, does not give them a legal right to violate your right to privacy, thus your therapist was completely out of line.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

Our archdiocese is having some of our removed priests go through continued therapy even after they have completed previous programs successfully and have never had another issue. Some of these continued therapy programs are group sessions with convicted sex offenders, which the archdiocese is forcing them to participate. Not only are the men not convicted, but the others in the group are prison experienced offenders unrelated to the Catholic church. These priests are very stressed about having to continue this therapy.

   Many dioceses keep their accused priests in therapy to protect themselves legally. If a priest were to commit a crime, the diocese would not be charged for negligence because they kept them out of ministry and in therapy. The priest and the therapist would be blamed for the crime, not the diocese. Forcing non-convicted priests to participate in therapy with convicted offenders creates a situation where innocent men are treated as convicted criminals. This is a violation of their right to be innocent until proven guilty. It also sends a message to the public that even though these men have not been convicted, the Church still views them as criminals. If a diocese wants these men to be in therapy, it should be individual therapy, not group. There should also be a limit to the length of therapy which is determined by the priest and therapist, not the diocese. In addition, canonically priests have the right to choose their own therapists. They cannot be forced to go to any specific therapist by their diocese. The problem here is that the diocese, lawyers and insurance companies are calling the shots. They are not experts in mental health, so there is no real foundation for their decisions other than fear of lawsuits.

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

I am an associate pastor and wonder how I should handle certain sensitive issues with my pastor. For instance, what if there are tensions in our working and/or personal relationship? What if he orders me to do things that I know the bishop does not want me to do? What if orders me to disobey canon law, liturgical norms, or the rights of the faithful? What if parishioners bring their complaints about the pastor to me? There is not a lot of guidance from the chancery on such matters and frankly, I don't know what to do.

     You bring up several good questions. They are issues we have experienced in counseling your brother priests. Of course, these are very fact-based and sensitive matters, so one suggestion might be to find a mentor (either in your diocese or in another one) who can help you navigate these issues. They are difficult, yes, but they are hardly new! Many of your priest brothers have been through these types of situations before and can help you overcome them as well. On these and many other issues it is essential that young priests continue to receive sound formation - especially within the first few years after ordination - on matters involving everything from interpersonal relations to parish finances to canon law. If you feel uncomfortable, unable to find an experienced priest as a mentor, or lack confidence in having a brother priest as a mentor, please contact us for confidential assistance. 

NOTE:  The Frequently Asked Questions presented here are for general background information only.  Individual circumstances may vary and may compel different answers.  To properly evaluate your circumstance, we strongly urge priests to contact us in advance of taking any action.  All of your communications will be held in strict confidence.  MOM charges no fees and turns away no priests it can help.

How do I find out if I am a Mandated Reporter?

Mandatory reporting is determined by individual State statutes (See chart below). Mandatory reporting statutes in some States specify the circumstances under which a communication is "privileged" or allowed to remain confidential. Privileged communications may be exempt from the requirement to report suspected abuse or neglect. The privilege of maintaining this confidentiality under State law must be provided by statute. Most States do provide the privilege, typically in rules of evidence or civil procedure. If the issue of privilege is not addressed in the reporting laws, it does not mean that privilege is not granted; it may be granted in other parts of State statutes.

This privilege, however, is not absolute. While clergy-penitent privilege is frequently recognized within the reporting laws, it is typically interpreted narrowly in the context of child abuse or neglect. The circumstances under which it is allowed vary from State to State, and in some States it is denied altogether. For example, among the States that list clergy as mandated reporters, Guam, New Hampshire, and West Virginia deny the clergy-penitent privilege in cases of child abuse or neglect. Four of the States that enumerate "any person" as a mandated reporter (North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Texas) also deny clergy-penitent privilege in child abuse cases.

In States where neither clergy members nor "any person" are enumerated as mandated reporters, it is less clear whether clergy are included as mandated reporters within other broad categories of professionals who work with children. For example, in Washington, clergy are not enumerated as mandated reporters, but the clergy-penitent privilege is affirmed within the reporting laws.

According to 2019 data from the United States Children’s Bureau, twenty-eight states include clergy on their list of mandated reporters. Most of these states also include exemptions for clergy who learn about suspected abuse via “pastoral communications,” such as in the context of confession. 

The chart below provided by the Child Welfare Information Gateway summarizes individual State statutes. To access the statutes for your specific State or territory, visit their State Statutes Search at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/state/ 


3 Clergy are not mandated reporters in Washington, but if they elect to report, their report and any testimony are provided statutory immunity from liability.