Until Judgment Day

by Christine McGuire

  Emma spooned cereal into her brother’s mouth. He pushed most of it out past his lips.

  “Cold out there, huh?” she asked her mother.

  “We’re walking,” Kathryn said.

  “It’ll prob’ly rain too.”

  “No taxi.”

  Kathryn walked over and wiped cereal off her son’s face and lifted him into her arms, sending him into a squirming spasm of delight, followed by frantic but futile sucking.

  “What if rain gets on Davey’s face?”

  “Nice try, Em. I arranged with the concierge for an all-day loan of a baby carriage. Go shower while I change your brother’s diaper, then we’ll take a walk and see the sights.”

  “Me and Davey’d rather see the sights from the backseat of a taxicab.”

  “Davey and I would rather see the sights from the backseat of a taxicab,” Kathryn corrected.

  “I’m glad you see it our way,” Emma said and grabbed the phone. “I’ll call one.”

  Kathryn laughed and set the phone back in its cradle.

  “Cheapskate,” Emma accused.

  “If we’ve gotta walk all the way to—” Emma leaned over the table and traced a forefinger across the map, “Tuileries Gardens, be sure you dress Davey nice and warm.”

  The concierge greeted them in French, then disappeared into a back room and returned pushing an old-fashioned baby carriage with removable rattan basket and red-and-white polka dot fold-up top. It had fat rubber wheels and a shelf underneath onto which Kathryn loaded a diaper bag.

  He held the door for them and told Kathryn what she believed equated to “have a nice day.”

  It was overcast but reasonably comfortable outside and the sweet air smelled of baking bread, fresh-brewed espresso, and distant rain.

  Emma checked the baby. He was sleeping with his thumb stuck in his mouth. She fiddled unnecessarily with his blanket, as dictated by her budding maternal instincts, then claimed her usual right to push the buggy.

  They strolled down Rue de Rivoli to Rue St. Florentin, then jogged toward the water through the east end of Place de la Concorde.

  Beyond the Obélisque and upstream they could see the Seine, swollen and brown with muddy runoff from the past week’s storm, roiling angrily around the pilings that supported the Pont Alexandre III bridge.

  A maze of concentric circles connected by metal bracing that radiated from the motor-driven hub, La Roue de Paris rose from the concrete pad of Place de la Concorde like a spindly white spider web. A Saturday morning crowd was lined up to buy tickets to ride the self-proclaimed “largest wheel on the continent.”

  At two hundred feet high, it towered above the landscape, the lone remnant of a decorative Ferris wheel promenade that had bordered the Champs Élysées during Paris’ 2000 millennium show.

  Kathryn sat on a cast iron and wood bench on the bank of the Seine, humming and rocking the baby, pondering the mysterious cycle of life and death, while Emma bought her tickets. She rode the Ferris wheel three times in a row.

  Afterward, they ate sandwiches at a sidewalk café and walked the length of the Champs Élysées, a spectacularly wide, spotlessly clean thoroughfare lined by quaint cafés, ritzy theaters, and upscale shops. It was the place Parisians went to see and be seen as much as to shop, eat, and be entertained.

  They toured Place Charles de Gaulle and the Arc de Triomphe, built to greet Napoleon’s soldiers as they returned home victorious after the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805.

  By late afternoon Davey became restless and grumpy, and jet lag sapped their energy, so Kathryn and Emma took turns pushing the buggy back to the hotel. It seemed uphill but wasn’t. They ate dinner at the Brasserie.

  Over crème brûlée, Kathryn said, “I love you, honey.”

  “I love you, too.”

  “Did you have a nice day”?

  “Yes but I’m tired. What are we doing tomorrow?”

  “Something special. You remember what tomorrow is?”

  Emma turned serious. “It’s my dad’s birthday.” She thought for a moment. “And Davey’s dad, too.”

  Epilogue

  SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 30

  PARIS, FRANCE

  IT RAINED SUNDAY, so after breakfast Kathryn called a taxicab. They attended mass at Notre-Dame Cathedral. Afterward they lit three candles and said private prayers, then rode in a Mercedes-Benz cab to Rotonde de Ledoux in the Esplanade du Bassin de la Villette and bought tickets aboard a Canauxrama flat-bottom boat.

  As the boat entered the center of the channel they moved to the low-lying stern, crossed themselves, and removed the top from a pewter urn.

  On November 30, the forty-eighth anniversary of David Granz’ birth, they scattered his ashes and as the Seine sucked them down into its muddy bottom, said goodbye for the last time to their husband and father.

  Writer’s Note

  THEASSOCIATED PRESS has reported that at least three hundred civil lawsuits alleging clerical sexual abuse have been filed against Roman Catholic dioceses across the United States. Almost 250 Roman Catholic priests have either resigned or been stripped of their duties in twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia.

  On June 14, 2002, the National Conference of Bishops approved a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. The following statement of norms was approved on November 10, 2002:

  ESSENTIAL NORMS FOR DIOCESAN/EPARCHIAL POLICIES DEALING WITH ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS BY PRIESTS, DEACONS, OR OTHER CHURCH PERSONNEL

  PREAMBLE

  On June 14, 2002, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. The charter addresses the Church’s commitment to deal appropriately and effectively with cases of sexual abuse of minors by priests, deacons, and other church personnel (i.e., employees and volunteers). The bishops of the United States have promised to reach out to those who have been sexually abused as minors by anyone serving the Church in ministry, employment, or a volunteer position, whether the sexual abuse was recent or occurred many years ago. They stated that they would be as open as possible with the people in parishes and communities about instances of sexual abuse of minors, with respect always for the privacy and the reputation of the individuals involved. They have committed themselves to the pastoral and spiritual care and emotional well-being of those who have been sexually abused and of their families.

  In addition, the bishops will work with parents, civil authorities, educators, and various organizations in the community to make and maintain the safest environment for minors. In the same way, the bishops have pledged to evaluate the background of seminary applicants as well as all church personnel, who have responsibility for the care and supervision of children and young people.

  Therefore, to ensure that each diocese/eparchy in the United States of America will have procedures in place to respond promptly to all allegations of sexual abuse of minors, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops decrees these norms for diocesan/eparchial policies dealing with allegations of sexual abuse of minors by diocesan and religious priests or deacons.1 These norms are complementary to the universal law of the Church, which has traditionally considered the sexual abuse of minors a grave delict and punishes the offender with penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.

  Sexual abuse of a minor includes sexual molestation or sexual exploitation of a minor and other behavior by which an adult uses a minor as an object of sexual gratification. Sexual abuse has been defined by different civil authorities in various ways, and these norms do not adopt any particular definition provided in civil law. Rather, the transgressions in question relate to obligations arising from divine commands regarding human sexual interaction as conveyed to us by the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. Thus, the norm to be considered in assessing an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor is whether conduct or interaction with a minor qualifies as an external, objectively grave violation of the sixth Commandment (Canonical D
elicts Involving Sexual Misconduct and Dismissal from the Clerical State, USCC, 1995, p. 6). A canonical offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (c. 1395, §2) need not be a complete act of intercourse. Nor, to be objectively grave, does an act need to involve force, physical contact, or a discernible harmful outcome. Moreover, “imputability [moral responsibility] for a canonical offense is presumed upon external violation…unless it is otherwise apparent.” (C. 1321, §3). Cf. Cc 1322-27. 2

  Norms

  1. Having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See on _____, 2002, and having been legitimately promulgated in accordance with the practice of this Episcopal Conference on ________, 2002, the Norms constitute particular law for all the dioceses/ eparchies of the United States of America. Two years after recognitio has been received, these norms will be evaluated by the plenary assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

  2. Each diocese/eparchy will have a written policy on the sexual abuse of minors by priests and deacons, as well as by other church personnel. This policy is to comply fully with, and is to specify in more detail, the steps to be taken in implementing the requirements of canon law, particularly canons 1717–1719. A copy of this policy will be filed with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops within three months of the effective date of these norms. Copies of any eventual revisions of the written diocesan/eparchial policy are also to be filed with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops within three months of such modifications.

  3. Each diocese/eparchy will designate a competent person to coordinate assistance for the immediate pastoral care of persons who claim to have been sexually abused when they were minors by priests or deacons.

  4. To assist diocesan/eparchial bishops, each diocese/ eparchy will also have a review board which will function as a confidential consultative body to the bishop/eparch in discharging his responsibilities. The functions of this board may include

  A. Advising the diocesan bishop/eparch in his assessment of allegations of sexual abuse of minors and in his determination of suitability for ministry;

  B. reviewing diocesan/eparchial policies for dealing with sexual abuse of minors; and

  C. offering advice on all aspects of these cases, whether retrospectively or prospectively.

  5. The review board, established by the diocesan/ eparchial bishop, will be composed of at least five persons of outstanding integrity and good judgment in full communion with the Church. The majority of the review board members will be lay persons who are not in the employ of the diocese/eparchy; but at least one member should be a priest who is an experienced and respected pastor of the diocese/eparchy in question, and at least one member should have particular expertise in the treatment of the sexual abuse of minors. The members will be appointed for a term of five years, which can be renewed. It is desirable that the Promoter of Justice participate in the meetings of the review board

  6. When an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or deacon is received, a preliminary investigation in harmony with canon law will be initiated and conducted promptly and objectively (c. 1717). All appropriate steps shall be taken to protect the reputation of the accused during the investigation. The accused will be encouraged to retain the assistance of civil and canonical counsel and will be promptly notified of the results of the investigation. When there is sufficient evidence that sexual abuse of a minor has occurred, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith shall be notified. The bishop/eparch shall then apply the precautionary measures mentioned in canon 1722—i.e., remove the accused from the sacred ministry or from any ecclesiastical office or function, impose or prohibit residence in a given place or territory, and prohibit public participation in the Most Holy Eucharist pending the outcome of the process.

  7. The alleged offender may be requested to seek, and may be urged voluntarily to comply with, an appropriate medical and psychological evaluation at a facility mutually acceptable to the diocese/eparchy and to the accused.

  8. When even a single act of sexual abuse by a priest or deacon is admitted or is established after an appropriate process in accord 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. (C. 1395, 2).3

  A. In every case involving canonical penalties, the processes provided for in canon law must be observed, and the various provisions of canon law must be considered (cf. Canonical Delicts Involving Sexual Misconduct and Dismissal from the Clerical State, 1995; Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001). Unless the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, having been notified, calls the case to itself because of special circumstances, it will direct the diocesan bishop/eparch to proceed. (Article 13, “Procedural Norms” for Motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, AAS, 93, 2001, p. 787). If the case would otherwise be barred by prescription, because sexual abuse of a minor is a grave offense, the bishop/eparch shall apply to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for a derogation from the prescription, while indicating appropriate pastoral reasons. For the sake of due process, the accused is to be encouraged to retain the assistance of civil and canonical counsel. When necessary, the diocese/eparchy will supply canonical counsel to a priest. The provisions of canon 1722 shall be implemented during the pendency of the penal process, in accord with Article 15 of this motu proprio.

  B. 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 lead a life of prayer and penance. He will not be permitted to celebrate Mass publicly or to administer the sacraments. He is to be instructed not to wear clerical garb, or to present himself publicly as a priest.

  9. At all times, the diocesan bishop/eparch has the executive power of governance, through an administrative act, to remove an offending cleric from office, to remove or restrict his faculties, and to limit his exercise of priestly ministry.4 Because sexual abuse of a minor is a crime in all jurisdictions in the United States, for the sake of the common good and observing the provisions of canon law, the diocesan bishop/eparch shall exercise this power of governance to ensure that any priest who has committed even one act of sexual abuse of a minor as described above shall not continue in active ministry.5

  10. The priest or deacon may at any time request a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state. In exceptional cases, the bishop/ eparch may request of the Holy Father the dismissal of the priest or deacon from the clerical state ex officio, even without the consent of the priest or deacon.

  11. The diocese/eparchy will comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and will cooperate in their investigation. In every instance, the diocese/eparchy will advise and support a person’s right to make a report to public authorities.6

  12. No priest or deacon who has committed an act of sexual abuse of a minor may be transferred for ministerial assignment to another diocese/ eparchy or religious province. Before a priest or deacon can be transferred for residence to another diocese/eparchy or religious province, his bishop/eparch or religious ordinary shall forward in a confidential manner to the local bishop/eparch and religious ordinary (if applicable) 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. This shall apply even if the priest or deacon will reside in the local community of an institute of consecrated life or society of apostolic life (or, in the Eastern Churches, as a monk or other religious, in a society of common life according to the manner of religious, in a secular institute, or in another form of consecrated life or society of apostolic life). Every bishop/eparch or religious ordinary who receives a priest or deacon from outside his jurisdiction will obtain the necessary information regarding any past act of sexual abuse of a minor by the
priest or deacon in question.

  13. Care will always be taken to protect the rights of all parties involved, particularly those of the person claiming to have been sexually abused and the person against whom the charge has been made. When an accusation has proved to be unfounded, every step possible will be taken to restore the good name of the person falsely accused.

  Footnotes to Revised Norms

  1 In applying these Norms to religious priests and deacons, the term “religious ordinary” shall be substituted for the term “bishop/eparch” mutatis mutandis.

  2 If there is any doubt whether a specific act qualifies as an external, objectively grave violation, the writings of recognized moral theologians should be consulted and the opinions of recognized experts should be appropriately obtained (Canonical Delicts, p. 6). Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop/eparch, with the advice of a qualified review board, to determine the gravity of the alleged act.

  3 Removal from ministry is required whether or not the cleric is diagnosed by qualified experts as a pedophile or as suffering from a related sexual disorder which requires professional treatment.

  4 See canons 35–58, 149, 157, 187–189, 192–195, 277§3, 381, 383, 391, 1348, 1740–1747.

  5 The diocesan bishop/eparch may exercise his power of governance to take one or more of the following administrative actions: (cc. 381, 129ff):

  a. He may request that the accused freely resign from any currently held ecclesiastical office (cc. 187–189).

  b. Should the accused decline to resign and should the diocesan bishop/eparch judge the accused to be truly not suitable (c. 157), then he may remove that person from office observing the required canonical procedures (cc. 192–195, 1740–1747).