‘Endemic to the culture’ - Closed consultation process raises concern before Charter vote

Some have questioned whether the bishops are ready to vote on a safeguarding document at all.

When the U.S. bishops’ conference gathered in Dallas in the spring of 2002, they were in a crisis.

The Boston Globe had published reports in the months prior on the extent of clerical sexual abuse of minors in the diocese, and the transfer of abusers and cover-up of allegations which came subsequently.

Archbishop Shawn McKnight speaks during a USCCB discussion. Credit: YouTube / USCCB.

Those stories set off a firestorm. Indeed, many bishops were shocked by what they read, and all of them felt overwhelming pressure to pass something which would give an indication that they took seriously the scope of the scandal they faced.

The result was a set of moral commitments among the bishops, published as the “Charter for the Protection of Young People,” known as the Dallas Charter, and then in the “Essential Norms,” which set canonical policy in response to those commitments.

The Dallas Charter was meant to address the totality of a crisis as the bishops understood it. And given that they were stepping into new territory, the bishops incorporated into their document a plan to revise the text every seven years, in light of ongoing lessons in the life of the Church on safeguarding.

But this week, when bishops discussed revisions to that document during a June 10 plenary meeting in Orlando, the chair of the conference’s committee on child protection — who also helmed a revision working group — said that drafters followed the instructions of consulted bishops to keep the scope of the document narrowly defined.

“When the review began in fall 2021, it was with the instruction that the Charter is not to deviate from its current focus on minors and clergy. The Committee on the Protection of Children and Young People received feedback from the body of bishops at least three times reiterating that the Committee was to keep the Charter focused exclusively on the abuse of minors by priests and deacons,” said Bishop Barry Knestout, chairman of the USCCB’s committee on child and youth protection.

“As a result, other than the footnote references, the revised Charter before you does not address in detail, cases of sexual abuse involving adults or abuse perpetrated by others in Church service. These matters are more appropriately addressed in canonical processes and are outside of the scope of the Charter,” the bishop added, noting his expectation that Vatican itself is preparing documents on safeguarding, and that other USCCB committees might soon issue a “new document separate from the Charter focusing on standards of professional behavior for both clergy and laity with adults, including vulnerable adults.”

Knestout said the revised Charter document under consideration “maintains the intent and focus of the original charter,” while making “notable additions,” including a glossary, and “the integration of the right of an accused to the presumption of innocence.”

But sources close to the conference have told The Pillar that the bishops’ approach on the text has been contentious among experts and groups consulted on the document, with bishop-drafters receiving feedback that a revision to the charter should take up a broader rethinking, so that a new version would more directly acknowledge the scope of the abuse crisis as it has become understood in recent years, including the abuse of adults, abuses of power, and episcopal misconduct or cover-up.

Indeed, soon after the U.S. bishops discussed the document briefly on Wednesday, the victim-advocacy group Awake urged the bishops to reconsider the limited scope of their revisions.

“The words we choose matter, and there are several small language updates in the Charter revision that communicate a greater awareness of the needs and experiences of survivors,” said Awake director Sara Larson in a June 10 statement.

“Unfortunately, these proposed revisions do not address an urgent issue: the abuse of adults by Catholic leaders. Adults continue to experience devastating abuse in situations of vulnerability like confession, spiritual direction, pastoral support, religious life, and employment, yet there are very few safeguards in place to protect adults from abuse in the Church. Many survivors who have been abused as adults have been deeply wounded not only by the abuse itself, but also by the refusal of some Church leaders and community members to acknowledge that what occurred was, in fact, abuse. In the last two decades, the Church in the United States has made real progress in its commitment to protecting children, and it is high time for the US bishops to seriously commit to protections for adults,” she said.

“This cannot wait,” Larson added.

In his Wednesday presentation, Knestout urged waiting on that issue, suggesting that that the Vatican itself is preparing documents on safeguarding, and that other USCCB committees might soon issue a “new document separate from the Charter focusing on standards of professional behavior for both clergy and laity with adults, including vulnerable adults.”

Sources close to the revision process told The Pillar that while some organizing bishops have preferred a limited scope for the Charter document, experts consulted by the conference have suggested several times that because the Charter is seen as the bishops’ landmark document on safeguarding, the omission of adult abuse in that specific text will likely be seen by victims as ignoring the problem of adult abuse, regardless of whether other documents on the topic will eventually also be published.

And sources in the process have told The Pillar that the revised Charter text has seen other criticism, with members of the National Review Board and other experts reportedly telling bishops that additions emphasizing due process are good, but that the text has not incorporated other lessons learned about safeguarding, including the importance of trauma-informed pastoral care and restorative justice programs for addressing the totality of loss suffered by the victims of abuse.

While the revised text was ultimately given support from members of the National Review Board in a consultative vote on the subject, members reportedly told drafters that without suggested additions, the new emphasis on due process could make the document seem to victims unduly balanced toward institutional and clerical protection, and against a commitment toward healing and integration into the Church for victims.

The consultation process has been at times contentious, and The Pillar has confirmed that after the USCCB required the National Review Board to sign non-disclosure agreements concerning their work, one board member was in April dismissed from service for declining to do so.

The USCCB declined to comment on questions concerning the dismissal. But the effect of it was chilling among consultants, sources said, given pledges of transparency on safeguarding issues, and the Vatican’s discouragement from the use of non-disclosure agreements in matters pertaining to clerical abuse cases.

Sources close to the revision process also say the drafters have faced additional pushback over the apparently limited scope of their consultation on the revision process. While Knestout said that bishops themselves had been frequently consulted, it is not clear whether victims’ advocacy groups have been consulted, and victims themselves were reportedly able to provide feedback only if they were consulted directly by individual bishops or their staff members, a process unlikely to occur in some dioceses, and one that many victims would find intimidating, given their experiences.

The result, numerous sources have told The Pillar, is a draft text that has been criticized to bishops as a “step back” in the sense of both support and solidarity bishops have pledged to victims.

Given those issues, some experts have questioned whether the bishops are yet ready to vote on a safeguarding document at all.

Among them is Archbishop Shawn McKnight, who in February 2025 proposed to the bishops’ conference “a new statement … recognizing the historic character of the Charter [for the Protection of Children and Young People] but also incorporating recent universal legislation and the wisdom of 25 years of experience.”

McKnight provided a draft document to the bishops’ conference, developed with a group of canonical experts, that would have seen the bishops commit more concretely to responding both pastorally and legally to alleged victims of abuse, protecting whistleblowers, communicating decisions, as well as protecting the due process rights of priests.

While some elements of the McKnight proposal were incorporated into the draft Charter revisions presented to bishops this week, others were omitted, and the revised Charter did not reflect his call for a unified document addressing the broad scope of abuses within the Church.

And on Wednesday, McKnight himself rose to express concern about the revised Charter text under consideration.

“I’m worried how the language presently in the draft will impact our known victims as well as our unknown victims. “

“It is too important for us in light of what has happened in the last 25 years, especially the summer of 2018, as well as the new [Vatican] legislation that we have, to ignore that and the impact on our renewal of commitment today,” McKnight said.

The archbishop asked whether the USCCB would permit suspending the vote on the text, “so that we bishops could take the draft as presented back to our own presbyteral councils and our own review boards to get a wider consultation from the people who are helping us and who have to live under what we’re going to morally commit ourselves.”

Knestout rebuffed the suggestion.

“There has been consultation occurring for about five years. There has been input received on multiple occasions from all the bishops, that we have had this reviewed, and in the process of looking at the revisions, they did discuss and did vote to support this revision as presented, so that has already taken place. And we have heard concerns that were raised by yourself and others throughout the whole process.”

“I’m not sure what it would add to extend that consultation beyond this,” Knestout said.

For his part, McKnight said that more consultation would be a more “synodal” process, and that it had been four years since bishops themselves were consulted.

“There’s a lot that has happened even since then — some public cases — but also a lot of new bishops have been appointed since that time. And we [bishops] haven’t seen the kind of consultation that, behind closed doors, the committees have been dealing with,” the archbishop said.

“That’s the difficulty I see here. It is endemic to the culture that we have as a conference, too. Perhaps the importance of this document would justify doing something a little different in terms of getting better feedback and buy-in to what we intend to do, making it very clear, and not creating more ambiguity — that does not help.”

In short, McKnight suggested that the process will matter as much as the outcome, especially for victims of abuse within the Church. That credibility is found in transparency and broad consultation — and that the bishops’ conference, from his view, had not done enough on that front.

And survivors’ groups and other experts have said, too, that if the bishops aim to make the Church seem like a source of grace again for those who have been harmed within her walls, there is still more work to be done.

Whether other bishops will agree remains to be seen.

When the bishops debate the Charter revision on Thursday, McKnight could well move formally to postpone the vote to their November meeting, at least. If he does, it’s unclear whether other bishops will support him.

But what is clear is that, in the eyes of observers, there’s a lot at stake.