2007 Annual Report

Findings and Recommendations
MARCH 2008

Report on the
Implementation of the

Office of Child and
Youth Protection
•
National Review
Board
•
United States
Conference of
Catholic Bishops

Charter for the
Protection of
Children and
Young People

Contents
Preface by Cardinal Francis George
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Letter from Judge Michael Merz
Chair, National Review Board
Letter from Ms. Teresa Kettelkamp
Executive Director, Office of Child and Youth Protection
Letter from Mr. William A. Gavin
President, Gavin Group, Inc.
Letter from Dr. Mary Bendyna, RSM
Executive Director, Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate

SECTION I
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2—METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER 3—AUDIT FINDINGS

SECTION II
CHAPTER 4—2007 CARA SURVEY OF ALLEGATIONS AND COSTS: A SUMMARY
REPORT
CARA Questionnaire for Dioceses and Eparchies
CARA Questionnaire for Religious Institutes
SECTION III
CHAPTER 5—STATUS OF THE 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 6—2007 RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
2005 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People

Preface
Cardinal Francis George, OMI
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Roman Catholic bishops and Eastern Rite eparchs have continued to work diligently to
implement the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, a covenant they
made in 2002 with their people, their priests, and the public at large. In the Charter, the
bishops and eparchs committed themselves to introduce policies and procedures to ensure
the protection of children and youth and to strengthen and improve their response to
allegations of the sexual abuse of minors by clergy.
Since adopting the Charter, the voices of victims of sexual abuse by clergy have been
heard and local ordinaries have learned firsthand the lifelong impact and trauma of sexual
abuse at the hands of trusted leaders of the faith community. Through meetings with
victims of abuse, members of their families, and parish communities affected by
allegations of abuse, bishops and eparchs have participated in the healing of individuals
and communities. As part of the agreement to promote healing and reconciliation with
victims/survivors of sexual abuse of minors, each diocese/eparchy has called on the
services of respected members of the community to serve on diocesan review boards
whose primary function is to be a confidential consultative body to the bishop/eparch.
Chief among its duties is to advise the bishop on the suitability for ministry of a cleric
against whom an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor had been made.
In an effort to guarantee an effective response to allegations of sexual abuse of minors,
reporting agreements with civil authorities are in place, and codes of conduct govern
ministerial behavior of clerics, paid personnel, and volunteers into whose care children
are committed.
A major commitment of diocesan/eparchial resources, both personnel and revenue, was
required to establish or improve existing safe environment programs. Selecting training
programs consistent with Catholic moral teaching, setting up training sessions, and
keeping records of training participants appeared daunting in 2002. In 2007, safe
environment training has become part of how dioceses and eparchies protect children
entrusted to our care. In a similar way, systems to evaluate the backgrounds of clergy,
paid personnel, and volunteers who have unsupervised contact with minors are now part
of the modus operandi of our dioceses and eparchies.
The 2007 Report on the Implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and
Young People details the accomplishments of 190 dioceses and eparchies and the
challenges that remain. With the help of many diocesan and eparchial personnel who are
passionate about protecting minors and restoring trust in the Church, the provisions of the
Charter are being implemented.

National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People
3211 Fourth Street NE • Washington DC 20017-1194 • 202-541-5413 • fax 202-541-5410

March 2008
Cardinal Francis George, OMI, President
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Your Eminence:
Article 10 of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People provides that the National Review
Board, among its other responsibilities, is to review the Annual Report of the Office of Child and Youth
Protection. The Board has done so and recommends publication of the 2007 Annual Report as it is forwarded to you with this letter.
As the Administrative Committee prescribed in 2006, the audit period for all dioceses and eparchies is now
standardized on the customary July 1–June 30 fiscal year. During 2007 all dioceses and eparchies (except
those who refused to participate) were audited for the period beginning with the various dates when their
last audits ended and ending as of June 30, 2007. Thus the audits reported in this Annual Report are for
varying lengths of time from twelve to twenty-two months.
In 2006, the Board recommended auditing Charter compliance at the parish level. During 2007, this recommendation was implemented on a voluntary pilot basis in nine dioceses and one eparchy. We believe
the results justify extending the parish-level auditing and we hope that bishops will agree with us. Examination of parish implementation by the auditors can provide bishops with important management information
as they work to implement the Charter.
The greatest challenges for compliance are posed by Article 12 on safe environment training. We believe
the mobility of the population to be trained makes 100% compliance difficult, but note proudly that millions of American Catholics have received this training since 2002.
In December 2007, the Board published an open letter to the American Catholic Faithful, which is
reprinted in the Annual Report. Principally authored by Dr. Patricia O. Ewers, my predecessor as Chair,
the letter reports on the Board’s work since Dallas and its view of the major challenges ahead. In my view,
the Conference owes Dr. Ewers a debt of gratitude for summarizing so well where we stand after five years
of hard work at implementing the Charter.
Unfortunately, the bishop of the Diocese of Lincoln continues to refuse to participate in the audit process; this year, he is joined by four Eastern Catholic eparchs. The Board is continually reminded that this
conduct, though undoubtedly within an ordinary’s canonical power, scandalizes the faithful, who cannot
understand resistance to a simple measure for the protection of children.
Very truly yours,

Michael R. Merz

Chair

Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection
3211 Fourth Street NE • Washington DC 20017-1194 • 202-541-3060 • fax 202-541-3088

March 2008
Cardinal Francis George, President
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Judge Michael R. Merz, Chair
National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People
Your Eminence and Chair Merz,
As we conclude the fifth annual audit for compliance with the Charter for the Protection of Children and
Young People and prepare for the 2008 audits and audit workshops, there should be no doubt in anyone’s
mind, even in the minds of the staunchest critics, that the Church has accomplished much since the inception of the Charter in June of 2002. Nor should there be any doubt in anyone’s mind that the Church’s
efforts must continue unwaveringly.
The question now is, “What next?” Two issues quickly come to my mind: (1) incorporation of the Charter
and its articles into who we are as Church, indeed, into the daily fabric of the Church and (2) issue fatigue.
Incorporation of the Charter and its articles into who we are as Church, indeed, into the daily fabric of
the Church
Policies, procedures to quickly respond to allegations of abuse and to protect children from harm, outreach
to victims, background evaluations for those who have ongoing unsupervised contact with children, open
and transparent communications policies, absence of confidentiality agreements that hold the victim to
silence, refusal to transfer abusers without notification to the receiving bishop about the abuser’s potential
danger to children or young people, and safe environment training—all must be standard operating procedures at the diocesan/eparchial level and, where applicable, in parishes and schools. We should not think
of outreach and safeguards to protect our children as anything but how we routinely conduct business now
and in years to come. We can never return to past ways.
Issue fatigue
Issue fatigue is a normal part of addressing any crisis. We must guard against relaxing our standards and
must remain vigilant in our efforts to reach out to victims and protect our children. There are many parables and stories in the Bible that stress vigilance and staying awake. Such vigilance is always needed when it
comes to protecting children from predators. Not remaining vigilant leaves our children open to harm and
will erode all the good that has been accomplished.
The Church’s efforts to protect children and reach out to help victims heal must continue and must not be
diluted in any shape or form. With much of which to be proud, there is still work to be done.

Sincerely,

Teresa M. Kettelkamp
Executive Director

G
G

THE

avin
roup, inc.

Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY • http://cara.georgetown.edu
2300 WISCONSIN AVENUE, NW • SUITE 400 • WASHINGTON, DC 20007

March 1, 2008
Francis Cardinal George, OMI, President
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
The Honorable Michael R. Merz, Chair
National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People
Dear Cardinal George and Judge Merz,
In November 2004, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) commissioned
the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University to design
and conduct an annual survey of all dioceses and eparchies whose bishops and eparchs are
members of the USCCB. The purpose of this survey is to collect information on new allegations
of sexual abuse of minors and the clergy against whom these allegations were made. The survey
also gathers information on the amount of money dioceses and eparchies have expended as a
result of allegations as well as the amount they have paid for child protection efforts. The
national level aggregate results from this survey for each calendar year are reported in the
Annual Report of the Implementation of the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young
People.”
The questionnaire for the 2007 Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs was designed by CARA
in consultation with the Office of Child and Youth Protection and was only slightly different
from the versions used for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 Annual Surveys. As in previous years,
CARA prepared an online version of the survey and provided bishops and eparchs with
information about the process for completing it for their diocese or eparchy. In collaboration
with the Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM), major superiors of clerical and mixed
religious institutes were also invited to complete a similar survey for their congregations,
provinces, or monasteries.
Data collection for 2007 took place in December 2007 and January 2008. As of February 1,
2008, CARA received responses from 194 of the 195 dioceses and eparchies of the USCCB and
159 of the 218 clerical and mixed religious institutes of CMSM, for response rates of 99 percent
and 73 percent, respectively. CARA then prepared the national level summary tables and graphs
of the findings for 2007, with comparisons to 2004, 2005, and 2006, which are presented in this
Annual Report.
We are grateful for the cooperation of the bishops, eparchs, major superiors, and their
representatives in completing the survey for 2007.
Sincerely,

Mary E. Bendyna, RSM
Executive Director
Phone: 202-687-8080

•

Fax: 202-687-8083

•

E-mail: CARA@georgetown.edu

PLACING SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AT THE SERVICE OF THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1964

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction
The 2007 audits represented the second and final phase of the transition to a standardized audit
year July 1 to June 30.
When compliance audits were introduced in 2003, the audit period varied from diocese to
diocese. Data collected in the audit process at the national level were not comparable because the
audit period varied.
In March 2006, at the request of the National Review Board, with full support of the Committee
for the Protection of Children and Young People, and in consultation with the Office of Child
and Youth Protection (OCYP), the Administrative Committee approved a recommendation to
standardize and change the audit period to conform to the commonly used diocesan fiscal and
parish program year, defining the audit period from July 1 to June 30. This change will be fully
implemented in the 2008 audits. In light of the change in the audit period, the 2007 audits
covered a twelve to twenty-two month period commencing in most instances the first day of the
2005 audit and ending in all instances on June 30, 2007.
During the six-month interval from July 1, 2006, to December 5, 2006, the Gavin Group, Inc.,
conducted focused audits on those 18 dioceses and eparchies that were non-compliant in 2005, as
well as the 11 dioceses/eparchies that requested a full audit.
In 2007 there were full on-site audits for all dioceses/eparchies; and because of the abbreviated
audit cycle for a number of dioceses/eparchies in 2006, the 2007 audit period for many
dioceses/eparchies was almost two years in length. This is a key point to keep in mind when
reviewing the allegation statistics.
Also important to note is that, as part of a pilot project, nine dioceses and one eparchy further
consented to have the Gavin Group auditors conduct detailed interviews in parishes to determine
the extent of Charter understanding and compliance at the parish level. The parishes were
selected by agreement between the archdiocese, diocese, or eparchy along with the auditors, with
consideration being given to selecting from a variety of parishes—such as suburban, urban, and
rural parishes. Additional information regarding the parish audits is included in Chapter Two.
The standard audit period will be fully implemented in 2008, with the audit period for all
dioceses/eparchies commencing on July 1, 2007, and ending on June 30, 2008.
There were 190 dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 audit process. Those
dioceses/eparchies that declined to participate in the audit process are
Diocese of Lincoln
Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Eparchy—New Jersey
Eparchy of Newton for Melkites—Roslindale, Massachusetts

Eparchy of St. Peter the Apostle Chaldeans—El Cajon
Eparchy of St. Josephat for Ukrainians—Parma
Of the 190 diocese/eparchies that participated in the 2007 audit process, 178 were found to be in
full compliance with every Article of the Charter. The following 12 dioceses/eparchies who
participated in the 2007 audit process were compliant with every Article of the Charter, with the
exception of those specifically noted. Additionally, an asterisk denotes that the diocese/eparchy
achieved compliance with a particular Article after the audit but prior to the publication of this
Report.
Archdiocese of Anchorage, Alaska
Diocese of Baker, Oregon
Diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts
Eparchy of St. Nicolas, Chicago, Illinois
Archdiocese of Denver, Colorado
Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, Texas
Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico
Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York
Archdiocese of San Francisco, California
Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma
Archdiocese of Military Services

Articles 4* and 12
Article 12
Article 12
Article 12
Article 12
Article 4*
Article 13*
Articles 12 and 13
Article 12
Articles 12 and 13
Article 12
Article 12

Below are several observations from the 2007 audit reports:
•

OCYP and the Gavin Group have received more compliments about the audit teams and the
audits themselves than were received in prior audit periods.

•

In the transition to a standard 12-month audit format, the date on which the audit period
ended moved up from December 31 to June 30. When the audit period ended on December
31, dioceses that may have been declared non-compliant had time to rectify the point that
rendered them non-compliant, thus bringing them into compliance prior to the publication of
the audit report. Concluding the audit cycle on June 30 does not allow a grace period for
bringing a diocese into compliance.

•

The OCYP executive director offered to visit dioceses/eparchies with non-compliance issues
to help them to come into compliance if the area of non-compliance was one in which she
could be of assistance, such as Articles 12 or 13.

•

In some instances, bishops have learned of compliance issues only at the time of the audit;
their staffs have not kept them informed of developments. The need for staff to keep the
bishop informed about compliance issues will be stressed during the 2008 audit workshops.

In Section I, Chapter Two on the Audit Methodology and Chapter Three on the Audit Findings
provide further detail concerning the 2007 audits. Section II contains the results of the Center for
Applied Research in the Apostolate’s 2007 Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs for the

dioceses, eparchies, religious institutes, societies of apostolic life, or separate provinces. This is
the fourth year of this survey, and trends are now able to be identified and assessed. Section IV,
the Appendices, contains the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People as well as
the CARA questionnaires for the dioceses and eparchies, and for the religious institutes.
The compliance audit process is a valuable tool to help the dioceses/eparchies identify the
Charter-related actions they are doing correctly as well as being a help to identify areas that need
to be strengthened.
When it comes to the goals of the Church to reach out to those who are hurting and to protect
children, the Church should avail herself of all available tools that can best help her to reach that
goal. One of the best tools is the audit process.

CHAPTER TWO

2007 Methodology and Limitations
Type of Audit—In 2007, at the direction of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
and the Office of Child and Youth Protection (OCYP), 190 dioceses and eparchies received a full
on-site audit at the request of their respective bishop/eparch. The Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska;
the Eparchy of St. Peter the Apostle for Chaldeans; the Eparchy of Newton for Melkites; the
Eparchy of St. Josaphat of Parma for Ukrainians; and the Eparchy of Our Lady of Deliverance of
Newark for Syriacs refused to participate in the 2007 audit.
As in past years, approximately two weeks before the scheduled on-site visit, the full set of audit
documents were submitted by the diocese/eparchy (D/E) electronically to the auditor(s), who
reviewed them for completeness and consistency with prior audit materials. Any omissions or
inconsistencies identified during that review were brought to the attention of the D/E and either
were resolved telephonically and/or by e-mail prior to the on-site visit or were scheduled for
discussion during the on-site visit. During the on-site audit, the auditors verified the responses
through telephonic contact or personal interviews with the responsible D/E employee—as
designated on the Audit Instrument—prior to or during the on-site visit, reviewed supporting
documentation furnished by the D/E, and conducted in-person and/or telephonic interviews with
parish priests/personnel to determine the availability and understanding of relevant process and
materials at the parish level.
Parish Participation—In addition, as part of a pilot project, the bishop/eparch of nine (9)
dioceses and one (1) eparchy also consented to have the Gavin Group auditors conduct detailed
interviews in parishes to determine the extent of Charter understanding and compliance at the
parish level. Interviews included the pastor; school principal, if applicable; and staff member(s)
designated to coordinate the safe environment program training. Most interviews were conducted
in person although some were conducted telephonically. Those having parish visitations included
the Diocese of Austin, the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the Archdiocese of Boston, the Eparchy of
St. Nicholas of Chicago for Ukrainians, the Diocese of Covington, the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles, the Diocese of Portland in Maine, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, the Diocese of
Springfield in Illinois, and the Diocese of St. Petersburg.
Workshops—In preparation for the 2007 audits, 13 workshops were held across the country
from December 2006 through March 2007. All 195 dioceses and eparchies were invited to send
representatives to these workshops. Representatives of 182 dioceses/eparchies attended these
workshops, for a 93% response rate.
In addition, the OCYP developed an Audit Training Manual, based on the 2005 revised Charter,
which was designed to assist the dioceses/eparchies in their preparation for and compliance with
the Charter. The manual included copies of the 2007 audit documents and set out the minimum
requirements for each Article. That manual was distributed to the attendees and discussed at the
workshops.

Format—The 2007 audit documents followed the format of 2006 audit documents with one
significant modification. The statement “The use of the term ‘victim’ or “‘victim/survivor’” on
this audit document does not imply that the diocese/eparchy submitting this information
recognizes the veracity of the claim” was added to the Audit Instrument immediately before
Article 1 as well as on Chart A. This was added as a result of a suggestion from one of the
workshops.
With regard to Article 12 (Safe Environment Programs) and specifically the category of
Children/Youth on Chart C, dioceses/eparchies were again allowed to estimate how many people
are eligible in each category and the approximate number who have received such training.
Where there were gaps between those estimates, dioceses/eparchies were asked to account for
those gaps and close them however possible.
Training—As in prior years, the Gavin Group, Inc., of Boston, Massachusetts, utilized men and
women experienced in management, investigations, and compliance to conduct these audits.
Auditor training was held in Charlotte, North Carolina, for one full day in June. All auditors
assigned to the 2007 audits were in attendance for the full session. The Audit Training Manual,
the audit process, and audit documents were discussed in detail, including parameters of what
was to be considered compliant and noncompliant for each question. Suggestions for identifying
and informally resolving issues, and instructions on how to handle matters that cannot be
informally resolved, were discussed. Guest speakers included representatives from OCYP, who
provided an overall perspective of the audit process; an auxiliary bishop from Philadelphia, who
attended the training as a representative of the bishops’ Committee for the Protection of Children
and Young People; and the Chair of the National Review Board.

Limitations/Problems Encountered
Completeness/Accuracy—As in past years, these audits relied on the completeness and
accuracy of the information provided by the diocese/eparchy to reach conclusions. Although
performed on site, the auditors did not have access to personnel files or other confidential
materials.
Dates of Audit Periods—As mentioned in the Introduction, based on a recommendation in
2006, the 2007 audit period brought the statistical data collected during this audit up to date as of
June 30, 2007. The audit period for those 11 dioceses/eparchies that underwent full on-site audits
in 2006 was July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. For all other dioceses/eparchies, the audit
period was the first day of their 2005 audit to June 30, 2007.
Definitions—The definitions utilized in 2006 for Articles 12 and 13 were not modified. Because
the Charter is silent on clear definitions, some dioceses/eparchies grouped persons outside of the
specified definitions, which impacted the statistical accountings.
Number of Victims/Accused—Because of the extended audit period in all but the 11
dioceses/eparchies audited in 2006, the number of victims/accused reported in 2007 is
significantly higher than would be expected for a twelve-month period. A number of dioceses

were dealing with class action lawsuits and/or bankruptcies during this period, including the
Diocese of Spokane and the Diocese of Portland in Oregon, which were unable to provide
information on many victims/accused in 2005 because of restrictions placed on them by the court
but which did report those numbers in the 2007 audit.
Standard for Compliance on Article 12 (Safe Environment Programs)—When the 2005
audits were conducted under the original version of the Charter, several dioceses had not yet
selected a training program and, even more significantly, had not fully implemented one. In
2005, the language in Article 12 was revised to include a statement: “Dioceses/eparchies are to
maintain ‘safe environment’ programs which the diocesan/eparchial bishop deems to be in
accord with Catholic moral principles.” Dioceses and eparchies were asked to provide a
statement, either written or verbal, that the safe environment program that they utilized was
approved by the bishop/eparch. This was critical in those instances where a diocese/eparchy
offered no safe environment training for children/youth attending religious education classes but
rather relied on training, mandated or otherwise, provided by the public school systems. In a
number of instances, dioceses/eparchies were unable to identify the program(s) used by the
public school system(s) and whether those were approved.
Statistics—While the dioceses/eparchies were instructed to identify a “snapshot in time” (i.e., on
or around the end of the audit period) and to use the statistics available on that date for Charts C
(Article 12, Safe Environment Programs) and D (Article 13, Background Evaluations), there was
still significant confusion.
Workshops—Those dioceses/eparchies that did not send any representatives to the workshops
had more difficulty completing the audit documents than those that did attend. However, many
of those in attendance at the workshops were not the persons actually responsible for collecting
the information and completing the documents for submission to the Gavin Group, Inc., which
may explain the problems of incomplete and incorrectly completed forms.

CHAPTER THREE

Findings
TO PROMOTE HEALING AND RECONCILIATION WITH
VICTIMS/SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 1. Dioceses/eparchies are to reach out to victims/survivors and their
families and demonstrate a sincere commitment to their spiritual and emotional
well-being. The first obligation of the Church with regard to the victims is for
healing and reconciliation. Each diocese/eparchy is to continue its outreach to every
person who has been the victim of sexual abuse* as a minor by anyone in church
service, whether the abuse was recent or occurred many years in the past. This
outreach may include provision of counseling, spiritual assistance, support groups,
and other social services agreed upon by the victim and the diocese/eparchy.
Through pastoral outreach to victims and their families, the diocesan/eparchial
bishop or his representative is to offer to meet with them, to listen with patience and
compassion to their experiences and concerns, and to share the “profound sense of
solidarity and concern” expressed by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in his
Address to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers (April 23,
2002).
NOTE
*
In accord with Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (SST), article 4 §1, sexual abuse, for
purposes of this Charter, shall include any offense by a cleric against the Sixth
Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor as understood in the Code of Canon Law, c.
1395 §2 (“A cleric who in another way has committed an offense against the sixth
commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly
or with a minor below the age of sixteen years [raised in SST to eighteen years which has
been the age of majority for the USA since 1994], is to be punished with just penalties, not
excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants”) and the Code of Canons
of the Eastern Churches, c. 1453 §1 (“A cleric who lives in concubinage or gives permanent
scandal by publicly sinning against chastity is to be punished with a suspension, to which,
other penalties can be gradually added up to deposition, if he persists in the offense”).
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 Involving Sexual
Misconduct and Dismissal from the Clerical State, 1995, 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.

________________________________________________________________________
All dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 compliance audits were in
compliance with Article 1.

Article 1 of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People requires
dioceses/eparchies to reach out to victims/survivors and their families in an effort to offer
healing and reconciliation. This expectation applies to recent cases of abuse as well as
cases that have occurred in the past. In addition to the offer of outreach, the
bishop/eparch or his representative is directed to offer to meet with victims and their
families.
Article 1 of the Charter calls for outreach to victims of sexual abuse as a minor
committed by anyone in church service; the compliance audit focuses on victims of
clergy sexual abuse. This report does not comment on the efforts of dioceses/eparchies to
assist with the healing of those abused by church workers who are not members of the
clergy.
While all audited dioceses/eparchies have outreach programs in place and the
bishops/eparchs reach out to victims of abuse, the scope and range of the outreach varies
from diocese/eparchy to diocese/eparchy. In places where victims continue to come
forward in steady numbers, full-time staffs are in place to respond to the healing needs of
victims and their families. When the number of new victims coming forward is smaller,
oftentimes victim assistance services are provided by professional counselors with whom
the diocese/eparchy contracts.
Dioceses/eparchies report that outreach was provided to 3,273 victims/survivors and their
families. This outreach included 951 victims/survivors and family members who came
forward during the 2007 audit period and 2,322 who came forward during previous years
or audit periods.
In general, healing initiatives focus on psychological/therapeutic counseling and spiritual
care. Identifying providers skilled in working with victims of child sexual abuse is often
challenging. Determining the length of time for effective healing support is another
challenge faced at the diocesan/eparchial level. To help them sort through these issues,
some dioceses/eparchies are using outside agencies or appointing treatment review
boards to make recommendations about the extent of treatment and the credentials of the
therapists. While there is no single standard for treatment protocols, dioceses/eparchies
are challenged to offer consistency from one place to another in the healing support they
offer.
The 2007 audit indicated that dioceses/eparchies continue to offer individual counseling,
healing weekends, retreat days, facilitated support groups, and spiritual direction for
victims and their families. Requests for the spiritual components of healing are becoming
more frequent.
Reaching out to victims of clergy sexual abuse can be restricted when the
diocese/eparchy learns of the abuse from an attorney. Oftentimes the legal process can
impede the offering of healing support. One way in which dioceses/eparchies circumvent
this limitation is by writing to the victim’s attorney to request that the attorney convey the
offer of pastoral assistance from the diocese to the victim.

The 2007 audit also indicated effective cooperation between and among
dioceses/eparchies when a victim was abused in one diocese/eparchy and now lives in
another part of the country. Most often, the diocese/eparchy of which the abusing priest is
a member assumes responsibility for healing support and works out a repayment
arrangement with the diocese/eparchy in which the victim resides.
Recognizing that healing can take many forms, and that the needs of victims can take
many forms, dioceses/eparchies are offering outreach in the form of rent, transportation,
no-interest loans, and employment counseling.
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 2. Dioceses/eparchies are to have policies and procedures in place to
respond promptly to any allegation where there is reason to believe that sexual
abuse of a minor has occurred. Dioceses/eparchies are to have a competent person
or persons to coordinate assistance for the immediate pastoral care of persons who
report having been sexually abused as minors by clergy or other church personnel.
The procedures for those making a complaint are to be readily available in printed
form in the principal languages in which the liturgy is celebrated in the
diocese/eparchy and be the subject of public announcements at least annually.
Dioceses/eparchies are also to have a review board that functions as a confidential
consultative body to the bishop/eparch. The majority of its members are to be lay
persons not in the employ of the diocese/eparchy (see Norm 5 in Essential Norms for
Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by
Priests or Deacons, 2002). This board is to advise the diocesan/eparchial bishop in
his assessment of allegations of sexual abuse of minors and in his determination of a
cleric’s suitability for ministry. It is regularly to review diocesan/eparchial policies
and procedures for dealing with sexual abuse of minors. Also, the board can review
these matters both retrospectively and prospectively and give advice on all aspects
of responses in connection with these cases.
________________________________________________________________________
All dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 compliance audits were in
compliance with Article 2.
Article 2 requires that dioceses/eparchies have a mechanism in place to respond promptly
to allegations of clergy sexual abuse. In addition to confirming that such a mechanism is
in place, the auditor also confirms that the diocese/eparchy has a victim assistance
coordinator and reviews his or her qualifications. According to this Article, a diocesan
review board must be established, and its role and composition are to be reviewed during
the audit period. Finally, the auditor is to look at the process for filing a complaint and to
confirm that this process is well publicized.
These procedures, as well as the name and contact information for the victim assistance
coordinator, should be easily accessible by the public within a diocese/eparchy. When a
victim finally finds the courage, often after many years of pain, to reach out to the
diocese/eparchy and report the abuse, it is vital that the diocese/eparchy respond quickly
and that the opportunity for healing begin positively. The Charter states that the

procedures for those making a complaint are to be readily available in printed form in the
principal languages in which the Liturgy is celebrated in the diocese/eparchy and that the
procedures are to be the subject of public announcements at least annually. Finding the
name and phone number for the diocesan victim assistance coordinator should not be
difficult or challenging for any victim. To have this information easily identifiable on the
diocesan Web site, in church bulletins, through special brochures, in diocesan
newspapers, and on parish bulletin boards serves two purposes aside from Charter
compliance: it sends a message to the victims that the Church cares about them, and it
reinforces the commitment of bishops/eparchs to help heal the pain that has been caused
by clergy sex abuse.
As of June 30, 2007, all dioceses/eparchies had established procedures for reporting
incidents of clergy sexual abuse of a minor. These procedures can be found on diocesan
Web sites, in diocesan newspapers, in parish bulletins, and in pamphlets and brochures.
This information should be readily accessible to victims and to the Catholic population at
large.
Victim assistance coordinators are in place in all dioceses/eparchies. The coordinators are
often the first point of contact when a victim comes forward with allegations. The
coordinator is responsible for determining the interest of the victim in receiving pastoral
outreach and connects the victim with appropriate resources. Often the coordinator works
with the victim as the preliminary investigation is conducted. Many victim assistance
coordinators have prior experience working in the social service program of the diocese.
Others have been hired specifically for this work and bring a background of work with
victims of trauma and abuse. Most victim assistance coordinators do not provide direct
counseling services; rather, they ensure that the victims, and often their families, are
connected with services that will promote healing and reconciliation. Again, the contact
information for the diocesan/eparchial victim assistance coordinator should be easily
found in prominent places in the diocese/eparchies.
Diocesan review boards have been established in all dioceses/eparchies that participated
in the 2007 audit. Often small eparchies with a significant geographic spread use the
resources of the diocese closest to the parish where the complaint is received. The
diocesan review board serves the bishop as a confidential and consultative body. The
diocesan bishop/eparch determines how the review board will function. Review boards
have an average of eight members who bring a range of professional experience to their
work. The Charter specifically states that the majority of review board members will be
lay persons not in the employ of the diocese/eparchy. Diocesan review boards often
include a psychologist/counselor whose experience includes working with children who
are victims of sexual abuse. Other professions often represented include a member of the
legal profession, a member of law enforcement, and an educator. All review boards are
expected to include a respected pastor of the diocese/eparchy.
In addition to reviewing policies and procedures for handling allegations of clergy sexual
abuse, in some dioceses/eparchies, the bishop/eparch requests that the review board
review codes of conduct and cases of child abuse reported against lay employees and
volunteers. As the number of allegations decreases, it has been noticed that some

diocesan review boards have not met in over a year. It is recommended that diocesan
review boards consider the diocesan policies on an annual basis to ensure that they are
current, as well as to review how the Charter is being implemented in the
diocese/eparchy. These reviews can provide valuable insight to the bishop/eparch on how
well things are working and also identify areas that need to be strengthened. Issue fatigue
is commonplace, but being aware of its danger can help prevent the dioceses/eparchies
from becoming lax in their effective Charter implementation. This, in turn, helps to
ensure the continued effective outreach to victims and the protection of children by the
Church.
Procedures for making a complaint are readily available in printed form in all of the
dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 audit. The real test here, however, comes
when a victim seeking help enters a church building, goes on the diocesan/eparchial Web
site, reads the diocesan/eparchial newspaper, or picks up a church bulletin. Can she or he
find these procedures? If not, the Church’s outreach needs improvement.
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 3. Dioceses/eparchies are not to enter into settlements which bind the
parties to confidentiality unless the victim/survivor requests confidentiality and this
request is noted in the text of the agreement.
________________________________________________________________________
All dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 compliance audits were in
compliance with Article 3.
Article 3 bars a diocese/eparchy from entering into confidential settlement agreements
with victims. However, if requested by the victim, such agreements may still be entered
into, and the victim’s request will be noted in the agreement.
At the request of the victim/survivor, a small number of dioceses have entered into
agreements that contain confidential aspects. For the most part, victims have asked that
the diocese maintain confidentiality about the financial terms of the settlement, but not
about the circumstances of the abuse.

To Guarantee an Effective Response to
Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors
______________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 4. Dioceses/eparchies are to report an allegation of sexual abuse of a
person who is a minor to the public authorities. Dioceses/eparchies are to comply
with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual
abuse of minors to civil authorities and cooperate in their investigation in accord
with the law of the jurisdiction in question.
Dioceses/eparchies are to cooperate with public authorities about reporting cases
even when the person is no longer a minor.

In every instance, dioceses/eparchies are to advise victims of their right to make a
report to public authorities and support this right.
________________________________________________________________________
Of the 190 dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 audit, 188 were found to
be compliant with Article 4.
The following dioceses were found to be non-compliant with Article 4 as of June 30,
2007:
• Archdiocese of Anchorage*
• Archdiocese of Denver*
*Both archdioceses took actions that brought them into compliance by December
31, 2007.
Article 4 requires that each diocese/eparchy report any allegation of clergy sexual abuse
of a person who is a minor to the public authorities, comply with all applicable civil laws,
and cooperate with the investigation conducted by civil authorities.
During the 2007 audit period, participating dioceses/eparchies reported 55 allegations of
abuse of minors who were minors when they reported the abuse. All allegations in which
the accused and the alleged victim are identified have been reported to civil authorities.
Handling allegations of abuse/boundary issues/poor judgment on behalf of minors who
are minors at the time of the report raised specific challenges. Article 4 stipulates that all
allegations of clergy sexual abuse of a person who is a minor be reported to civil
authorities. The investigation of these allegations requires great skill and objectivity. In
the judgment of the auditors, all allegations or suggestions of the sexual abuse of a person
who is a minor are to be turned over to civil authorities for investigation.
Of the 55 allegations, 12 were determined to be credible; 24 were found to be unfounded
and fell in the categories of poor judgment, boundary violations, or not meeting the
definition of sex abuse; and 6 were still under investigation at the time of the audit. There
were 13 allegations categorized as “Other” because the investigations could not be
completed due to insufficient information. Twenty-nine of the allegations involved
females as victims, and 25 involved males as victims; the gender of one alleged victim is
unknown. Two of the accused with credible allegations entered into plea agreements with
prosecutors and the courts and then left this country or returned to their country of origin.
Two are awaiting trials, two are on probation, one is in jail serving a life sentence, and
one fled this country to his country of origin.
This Article also requires dioceses/eparchies to cooperate with civil authorities when the
person reporting abuse is no longer a minor and, in all instances, to advise victims of their
right to report directly to public authorities. Many public jurisdictions have instructed
dioceses/eparchies to limit their reports to cases that fall within the local statute of
limitations. Other jurisdictions require that all cases be reported, including cases when the
accused is deceased or when the incident of abuse happened many decades ago.

________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 5. We affirm the words of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in his
Address to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers: “There is no
place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young.”
Sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric is a crime in the universal law of the Church
(CIC, c. 1395 §2; CCEO, c. 1453 §1). Because of the seriousness of this matter,
jurisdiction has been reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
(Motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, AAS 93, 2001). Sexual abuse of a
minor is also a crime in all civil jurisdictions in the United States.
Diocesan/eparchial policy is to provide that for even a single act of sexual abuse of a
minor*—whenever it occurred—which is admitted or established after an
appropriate process in accord with canon law, the offending priest or deacon is to be
permanently removed from ministry and, if warranted, dismissed from the clerical
state. In keeping with the stated purpose of this Charter, an offending priest or
deacon is to be offered therapeutic professional assistance both for the purpose of
prevention and also for his own healing and well-being.
The diocesan/eparchial bishop is to exercise his power of governance, within the
parameters of the universal law of the Church, to ensure that any priest or deacon
subject to his governance who has committed even one act of sexual abuse of a
minor as described below (see note) shall not continue in ministry.
A priest or deacon who is 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 not proven,
every step possible is to be taken to restore his good name, should it have been
harmed.
In fulfilling this article, dioceses/eparchies are to follow the requirements of the
universal law of the Church and of the Essential Norms approved for the United
States.
NOTE
*
In accord with Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (SST), article 4 §1, sexual abuse, for
purposes of this Charter, shall include any offense by a cleric against the Sixth
Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor as understood in the Code of Canon Law, c.
1395 §2 (“A cleric who in another way has committed an offense against the sixth
commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly
or with a minor below the age of sixteen years [raised in SST to eighteen years which has
been the age of majority for the USA since 1994], is to be punished with just penalties, not
excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants”) and the Code of Canons
of the Eastern Churches, c. 1453 §1 (“A cleric who lives in concubinage or gives permanent
scandal by publicly sinning against chastity is to be punished with a suspension, to which,
other penalties can be gradually added up to deposition, if he persists in the offense”).
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 Involving Sexual

Misconduct and Dismissal from the Clerical State, 1995, 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.

________________________________________________________________________
All dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 compliance audit were found to
be compliant with Article 5.
Article 5 requires that all dioceses/eparchies have a policy to conduct a prompt and
objective preliminary investigation of an allegation of clergy sexual abuse. The Article
includes steps to be followed, as outlined in canon law, when an allegation is found to be
credible, is admitted, or is established.
The process for conducting a preliminary investigation is determined by each local
bishop/eparch. Processes vary from one diocese/eparchy to another. If the priest/deacon
accused in an allegation is in active ministry, he is often removed and placed on
administrative leave while the investigation is undertaken. In some cases, he is placed on
restrictive ministry or remains in active ministry until the preliminary investigation is
complete.
Within the limitations of confidentiality, privacy, and civil and canon law, the auditors
examine all allegations that have been made during the audit period. In 2007, 1,504
victims made allegations of clergy sexual abuse in dioceses/eparchies that participated in
the audit process. These allegations identified 977 clerics (priests and deacons).
Of the 1,504 victims reporting clergy sexual abuse in the 2007 audit period, 55 were
minors when they reported the abuse. All cases were reported to civil authorities for
investigation. Of these, 24 were determined to be unfounded or were disproved by civil
authorities and diocesan review boards; 12 were credible, 6 were still under investigation
at the time of the audit, and 13 were categorized as “Other” due to insufficient
information.
The number of victims who came forward and the number of accused during this audit
period are higher than the numbers reported in the 2005 audit period because for most
dioceses/eparchies, the 2007 audit period covered a two-year period. Eleven dioceses
participated in full on-site audits in 2006.
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 6. There are to be clear and well-publicized diocesan/eparchial standards
of ministerial behavior and appropriate boundaries for clergy and for any other
paid personnel and volunteers of the church in positions of trust who have regular
contact with children and young people.
________________________________________________________________________
All dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 compliance audit were found to
be compliant with Article 6.
Article 6 requires all dioceses/eparchies to establish and publicize standards for behavior
of both clergy and other church workers who have regular contact with children and
young people. “Regular contact with children and young people” is defined by each

diocese/eparchy. These definitions address the frequency of contact in terms of hours per
week or month. Even though the definitions vary, the fact that efforts are in place to
clarify the meaning of “regular contact” indicates that protecting children remains the
goal.
What many dioceses/eparchies have done to avoid the challenge of defining or discerning
the definition of “regular contact with children” (keeping in mind the need to protect all
children anytime they are under the care of the Church) is to require that anyone who has
contact with children receive a copy of the diocesan/eparchial code of conduct.
“Grooming” children for future abuse is something against which all need to guard.
Knowing the expectations of the diocese/eparchy, being aware of grooming behaviors
and signs of abuse, and knowing to whom suspicious behavior should be reported are
things everyone who has contact with children should know.
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 7. Dioceses/eparchies are to be open and transparent in communicating
with the public about sexual abuse of minors by clergy within the confines of respect
for the privacy and the reputation of the individuals involved. This is especially so
with regard to informing parish and other church communities directly affected by
ministerial misconduct involving minors.
________________________________________________________________________
All dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 compliance audit were found to
be compliant with Article 7.
Though Article 7 is one of the shorter Articles, this Article requiring that the
diocese/eparchy be open and transparent in communicating with the public about sexual
abuse of minors is one of the most important. It is important for credibility purposes and
for avoiding a backslide into an environment of secrecy. Most importantly, openness and
transparency are critical for the protection of children. Not being aware of possible
predators in our midst decreases the hedge of protection for our children—something that
should never be done.

To Ensure the Accountability of Our Procedures
(Articles 8-11 are not included in the audit process)

________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 8. By the authority of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse is renewed, and it is now
constituted the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People. It
becomes a standing committee of the Conference. Its membership is to include
representation from all the episcopal regions of the country, with new appointments
staggered to maintain continuity in the effort to protect children and youth.
The Committee is to advise the USCCB on all matters related to child and youth
protection and is to oversee the development of the plans, programs, and budget of
the Office of Child and Youth Protection. It is to provide the USCCB with

comprehensive planning and recommendations concerning child and youth
protection by coordinating the efforts of the Office and the National Review Board.
________________________________________________________________________
Membership of the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People
(CPCYP) includes the following bishops as well as the region they represent:
Bishop Gregory M. Aymond (Chairman)
Bishop Richard J. Malone (I)
Bishop Howard J. Hubbard (II)
Bishop Joseph R. Cistone (III)
Bishop Mitchell R. Rozanski (IV)
Bishop Thomas J. Rodi (V)
Bishop R. Daniel Conlon (VI)
Bishop Thomas G. Doran (VII)
Bishop Paul J. Swain (VIII)
Bishop William J. Dendinger (IX)
Bishop Edward J. Slattery (X)
Bishop Stephen E. Blaire (XI)
Bishop George L. Thomas (XII)
Bishop David L. Ricken (XIII)
Bishop J. Kevin Boland (XIV)
Bishop William C. Skurla (XV)
Bishop Blase J. Cupich (Chair-Elect)

Term expires November 2008
Term expires November 2008
Term expired November 2007
Term expires November 2009
Term expires November 2010
Term expired November 2007
Term expires November 2009
Term expired November 2007
Term expires November 2009
Term expires November 2008
Term expires November 2008
Term expired November 2007
Term expires November 2008
Term expires November 2008
Term expires November 2008
Term expires November 2009
Term began in November 2007/Expires in
2011

In November 2007, the terms of four members expired:
Bishop Howard J. Hubbard (II)
Bishop Thomas J. Rodi (V)
Bishop Thomas G. Doran (VII)
Bishop Stephen E. Blaire (XI)
Upon the recommendations of their metropolitan archbishops, the following bishops
accepted the invitation by Bishop Aymond to participate in the CPCYP:
Bishop Robert J. Cunningham (II)
Term expires November 2010
Bishop George J. Lucas (VII)
Term expires November 2010
Bishop Ronald W. Gainer (V)
Term expires November 2010
The representative for Region XI is still pending at the time of this Report.
The CPCYP is also assisted by the following consultants:
Rev. Msgr. Edward Burns, Executive Director of the Office of Priestly FormationVocations
Rev. Msgr. Ronny Jenkins, Associate General Secretary of the USCCB
Rev. Paul Lininger, OFM Conv., Executive Director of CMSM

Ms. Helen Osman, Secretary of Communications for the USCCB
Mr. Anthony Picarello, General Counsel, USCCB
Very Rev. Thomas Picton, CSSR, President of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, RSM, Director of the Office of Media Relations
The CPCYP meets jointly several times a year with the National Review Board to discuss
matters of child and youth protection, specific policies, and best practices.
During the 2007 audit year, Bishop Aymond, Msgr. Jenkins, and Executive Director
Kettelkamp participated in the Eighth Anglophone Conference in Rome, Italy. This
conference provides a forum for English-speaking countries to discuss the issue of clergy
sexual abuse.
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 9. The Office for Child and Youth Protection, established by the
Conference of Catholic Bishops, is to staff the Committee for the Protection of
Children and Young People and be a resource for dioceses/eparchies for the
implementation of “safe environment” programs and for suggested training and
development of diocesan personnel responsible for child and youth protection
programs, taking into account the financial and other resources, as well as the
population, area, and demographics of the diocese/eparchy.
The Office is to produce an annual public report on the progress made in
implementing and maintaining the standards in this Charter. The report is to be
based on an annual audit process whose method, scope, and cost are to be approved
by the Administrative Committee on the recommendation of the Committee for the
Protection of Children and Young People. This public report is to include the names
of those dioceses/eparchies which the audit shows are not in compliance with the
provisions and expectations of the Charter.
As a member of the Conference staff, the Executive Director of the Office is
appointed by and reports to the General Secretary. The Executive Director is to
provide the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People and the
National Review Board with regular reports of the Office’s activities.
________________________________________________________________________
At the beginning of the audit period, the Office of Child and Youth Protection (OCYP)
consisted of the following four staff members: Executive Director Teresa Kettelkamp,
Associate Director Sheila Kelly, Executive Assistant Margaret Sienko, and Staff
Assistant Mary Ann McGuire. During the summer of 2007, Ms. Mary Ann McGuire
moved to the Office of Family, Laity, Women, and Youth; and Ms. Nija Hepburn-Nelson
was hired as the new Staff Assistant.
Monthly reports are provided to the members of the CPCYP and the National Review
Board (NRB) that reflect the administrative efforts of the OCYP within the USCCB,
external support by OCYP of the dioceses/eparchies with Charter-related matters, and
efforts in support of the work of the CPCYP and of the NRB.

________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 10. The whole Church, especially the laity, at both the diocesan and
national levels, needs to be engaged in maintaining safe environments in the Church
for children and young people.
The Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People is to be assisted by
the National Review Board, a consultative body established in 2002 by the USCCB.
The Board will review the annual report of the Office of Child and Youth Protection
on the implementation of this Charter in each diocese/eparchy and any
recommendations that emerge from it, and offer its own assessment regarding its
approval and publication to the Conference President.
The Board will also advise the Conference President on future members. The Board
members are appointed by the Conference President in consultation with the
Administrative Committee and are accountable to him and to the USCCB Executive
Committee. Before a candidate is contacted, the Conference President is to seek and
obtain, in writing, the endorsement of the candidate’s diocesan bishop. The Board is
to operate in accord with the statutes and bylaws of the USCCB and within
procedural guidelines to be developed by the Board in consultation with the
Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People and approved by the
USCCB Administrative Committee. These guidelines are to set forth such matters as
the Board’s purpose and responsibility, officers, terms of office, and frequency of
reports to the Conference President on its activities.
The Board will offer its advice as it collaborates with the Committee for the
Protection of Children and Young People on matters of child and youth protection,
specifically on policies and best practices. The Board and Committee for the
Protection of Children and Young People will meet jointly several times a year.
The Board will review the work of the Office of Child and Youth Protection and
make recommendations to the Director. It will assist the Director in the
development of resources for dioceses.
The Board is to oversee the completion of the study of the causes and context of the
recent crisis. The Board will offer its assessment of the data gathered and
preliminary results to the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young
People as the study moves forward.
________________________________________________________________________
In 2007, the terms of four original National Review Board members expired:
Dr. Michael Bland
Ms. Jane Chiles
Dr. Paul McHugh
Justice Petra Maes

The following individuals were appointed by Bishop William S. Skylstad, then-President
of the USCCB, to serve on the NRB:
Dr. Emmet M. Kenney, Jr.
Ms. Diane M. Knight, ACSW, CISW
Justice Robert C. Kohm
Dr. Susan Steibe-Pasalich
The current membership of the National Review Board comprises the following
individuals:
Judge Michael R. Merz, Chair
Mr. Thomas DeStefano, MSW, LittD
Dr. Patricia O’Donnell Ewers
Dr. Angelo P. Giardino
Dr. Emmet M. Kenney Jr.
Ms. Diane M. Knight, ACSW, CISW
Justice Robert C. Kohm
Mr. Ralph I. Lancaster Jr., Esq.
Mr. William McGarry
Dr. Joseph G. Rhode
Mr. Joseph Russoniello, Esq.
Dr. Susan Steibe-Pasalich

Term expires June 2009
Term expires June 2009
Term expires June 2008
Term expires June 2008
Term expires June 2010
Term expires June 2010
Term expires June 2010
Term expires June 2008
Term expires June 2009
Term expires June 2009
Term expires June 2008*
Term expires June 2010

*resigned January 4, 2008, to become United States Attorney in San Francisco

Per Article 10 of the Charter, the Board is to “oversee the completion of the study of the
causes and context of the recent crisis. The Board will offer its assessment of the data
gathered and preliminary results to the Committee for the Protection of Children and
Young People as the study moves forward.” This study is underway and is being headed
by a research team from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. The
NRB Research Committee has worked closely with the John Jay researchers, and the
CPCYP and the body of bishops were provided a progress report during the USCCB
General Meeting in November 2007. The Study is expected to be completed in 2009,
with a preliminary written report to be provided to the bishops in June 2008.
The National Review Board released the following Report of the National Review Board
to the Catholic Faithful of the United States in December 2007, on the fifth anniversary
of the establishment of the NRB, which occurred upon the adoption of the Charter for the
Protection of Children and Young People in June 2002.
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL REVIEW BOARD
December 2007
To the Catholic Faithful of the United States:
On the fifth anniversary of its establishment, the National Review Board for the Protection of Children and
Young People (NRB) sends this report on its work to the Catholic community. It is a record of
accomplishments, unfinished work, and challenges that lie ahead.

The members of the Board, representing the diversity of the Church in the United States, have worked
diligently with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) through its Committee for the
Protection of Children and Young People (CPCYP) to address the nature, causes, and consequences of the
sexual abuse crisis and the prevention of such action in the future. The Board concentrates on the
responsibilities assigned to it in the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (Charter).
They include:
•
•
•
•
•

advising on the audits of the dioceses and eparchies to assure compliance with the Charter
adopted in Dallas,
reviews the work of the Office of Child and Youth Protection (OCYP),
completing major research studies,
reviewing policies and practices for the protection of children and youth,
recommending ways to provide safer environments.

Though much has been accomplished, much remains to be done.

Accomplishments
The Audit Process
For the past four years, dioceses and eparchies have been audited to assure the implementation and
maintenance of the standards established in the Charter. Those audits provide substantial evidence of the
bishops’ efforts to protect children and respond to the abuses of the past and present. As of 2006, 98% of
the dioceses and eparchies are participating in the audits. Those audited are in full compliance with the
standards.
•

•

•

The standards require implementation of safe environment programs and background checks for
employees and volunteers. To this point over six million children have participated in educational
programs and over 1.6 million background investigations have taken place.
In addition dioceses have established procedures to respond promptly to allegations, including
reports of allegations to public authorities, diocesan review boards to evaluate allegations, and
programs to reach out to victims and their families.
In an effort to maintain transparency, the USCCB publishes the results of these audits in an annual
report that includes the numbers of new credible allegations and the financial costs of responding
to allegations.
Research Projects

The Charter called for two major research studies.
•

•

The John Jay College of Criminal Justice completed the first of these studies, The Nature and
Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002,
in 2004. That study provided an analysis of what happened: the number and nature of the
allegations, the characteristics of the abusers and victims, and the financial impact on the Church.
The second study, Causes and Contexts, will explore the why and how. It is discussed later under
work to be done.
Oversight Structures

Successful implementation of the Charter and Norms necessitated structures to oversee and deliver
programs at both the national and diocesan levels. These structures and programs are now in place and are
being accepted as part of the fabric of the Church for the future.
•

At the national level the CPCYP and NRB oversee the implementation of programs through their
review of the work of the Office for Child and Youth Protection, which has responsibility for
insuring Charter compliance on a day-to-day basis.

•
•

On the local level, the dioceses and eparchies have offices that offer safe environment programs
and respond to allegations and the needs of victims and their families.
Although the presence of such structures and programs cannot ensure that abuse will not take
place, each year the NRB has seen a strengthening of the processes that are needed to make such
abuse less likely to occur, appropriately handle allegations, and address the needs of victims and
their families.

Though these accomplishments are impressive, the Board believes that its work is only beginning.

Work to Be Done
The audits have provided assurance that the dioceses and eparchies are doing what is required to meet the
obligations of the Charter.
•

•

•

What the audits do not measure is the quality of the work that the dioceses and parishes are doing.
To gain that understanding, the Board is encouraging the USCCB to do random audits of the
parishes and to work toward establishing best practices in educational programs, victim care,
background checks, and investigation of allegations. During 2007, to provide a model to study for
the future, a number of dioceses volunteered to pilot audits at the parish level. The NRB fully
supports and encourages these parish audits.
As to the adoption of best practices, a Safe Environment Work Group, comprised of bishops,
board members, and consultants, completed a major report on safe environment training for
children that included studies on the appropriateness of training, its scope, sequence, age and
grade appropriateness, and the key elements of Church teaching as it applies to this training.
Dioceses and eparchies are encouraged to follow the recommendations made in the report. The
NRB made a similar set of recommendations for best practices for diocesan review boards that is
presently under consideration by a committee of the USCCB.
For the second research project, the Causes and Context Study, John Jay College is once again the
principal investigator. Fordham University is collaborating in the research. The USCCB selected
the College based on its excellent proposal, expertise in the area, and knowledgeable background,
including the completion of the Nature and Scope Study. The research will explore the historical
context of the abuse, the seminary training during the historical period, the psychological profiles
of the offenders, the responses of the Church, and the nature and consequences of victimization.
Fund raising is underway to meet the cost of the $2.6 million study. The final results should be
available in 2009 and provide the Church with insights to guide future actions.

Challenges That Lie Ahead
The most difficult challenges that still face the bishops and the Board are not easily resolved since they
involve extremely complex issues.
•

•

•
•

•

One of the most significant issues is the need for a greater understanding of victimization and its
consequences. Discussions with victims provide evidence of serious needs that still must be
addressed in order for the victims and their families to find the healing that they need. The Board
is hopeful the results of the Causes and Context Study will provide needed insights and
recommendations.
Another set of issues relates to the relationship of the Church to its priests, the vast majority of
whom are not involved in the scandal, but many of whom feel alienated from both the bishops and
the laity.
There is a particular need to provide appropriate protection and restoration for those accused but
later found innocent.
Other issues include the need for greater speed in the process of determining credibility of
allegations and consequent responses, as well as determination of an appropriate role for the
Church in the supervision of offenders.
During the past few years, it has become apparent to members of the NRB that parishes also
become victims of sexual abuse. Members of parishes experience both a sense of betrayal or

•

outrage over accusations that lead to the removal of a pastor or associate. Often parishioners do
not know how to respond to victims and their families and agonize over the lengthy process of
determining appropriate responses. This is an area that needs much more attention.
Finally, the Board is seeking ways to communicate more effectively to the laity so that members
of the Church are both better informed on the positive responses the Bishops have made and more
active observers of the programs and processes in their parishes and dioceses. Such
communication is vitally important since the work of the National Review Board is strengthened
by vigilant parents and parishioners who investigate the presence and quality of the programs in
their parishes and dioceses. The obligation to provide safe environments that prevent damage to
children, young people, families, parishes, dioceses, and the Church rests with all Catholics.

The laity can be assured of the Board’s continuing dedication. We ask in return for your prayers, support,
and vigilance.
______________________________________________________________________________________

ARTICLE 11. The President of the Conference is to inform the Holy See of this
revised Charter to indicate the manner in which we, the Catholic bishops, together
with the entire Church in the United States, intend to continue our commitment to
the protection of children and young people. The President is also to share with the
Holy See the annual reports on the implementation of the Charter.
________________________________________________________________________
A copy of this Annual Report has been presented to the Holy See as directed by this
Article.

To Protect the Faithful
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 12. Dioceses/eparchies are to maintain “safe environment” programs
which the diocesan/eparchial bishop deems to be in accord with Catholic moral
principles. They are to be conducted cooperatively with parents, civil authorities,
educators, and community organizations to provide education and training for
children, youth, parents, ministers, educators, volunteers, and others about ways to
make and maintain a safe environment for children and young people.
Dioceses/eparchies are to make clear to clergy and all members of the community
the standards of conduct for clergy and other persons in positions of trust with
regard to children.
Of the 190 dioceses/eparchies who participated in the 2007 compliance audit, ten
dioceses were found to be non-compliant with Article 12. Those dioceses are:
Archdiocese of Anchorage, Alaska

Children, Priests, and Volunteers

Diocese of Baker, Oregon

Children

Diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Children in Religious Education

Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts

Children in Religious Education

Eparchy of St. Nicolas, Chicago, Illinois

Children in Religious Education

Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico

Children

Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York

Volunteers

Archdiocese of San Francisco, California

All categories except Priests, Deacons, and
candidates for Ordination

Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma

Children in Religious Education and
Volunteers

Archdiocese of Military Services

Children in Religious Education

Article 12 is the most challenging of the articles for the dioceses and one in which the
audits identified the most non-compliance. This difficulty has to do with a number of
factors: the sheer number of individuals in each category to receive safe environment
training; the fluctuation of those numbers; the need to develop and maintain concise
record keeping, which, in many cases, is handled by personnel who have a number of
other responsibilities; and the time-consuming process of selecting safe environment
programs that are age-appropriate and in accord with Catholic moral principles. Also, it is
not uncommon for a diocese to use more than one program depending on the age group,
which, in turn, places increased demands on the trainers to be able to train to a number of
programs.
For compliance purposes, the auditors asked each diocese/eparchy to show evidence that
the respective individuals who should have received safe environment training had done
so.
Also, in 2006, the bishops’ Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People
heard the concerns of the bishops regarding the criteria for Article 12 compliance. The
Committee wished to help each diocese and eparchy to be effective and successful in its
efforts to provide safe environment training. Success benefits the children. At the same
time, the question at the heart of the discussion was how to judge compliance with the
bishops’ commitment to provide training to create and maintain a safe environment.
The Committee recognized that while achieving complete training for 100% of children
in their programs at any moment in time is the goal they all share and strive for, that
benchmark is unattainable due to the many factors beyond their control in their
dioceses/eparchies. Thus, the Committee proposed compliance criteria to the
Administrative Committee, all of which were accepted.
In addition to the diocese/eparchy’s providing the estimated number of personnel in each
category and, of that number, how many have received safe environment training, the
following questions were asked by the auditors to ascertain Article 12 compliance:
1. a. Does the diocese/eparchy have the curricula and materials to verify that safe
environment programs exist for each of the various groups set forth in Article 12?
b. Does that documentation include an official letter from the diocese/eparchy
promulgating the programs(s)?
2. Does the diocese/eparchy have verification that this training is ongoing by having the
number of times and places where safe environment training occurred during the
audit year?

3. Does the diocese/eparchy have a calendar of training scheduled through December
31, 2007?
4. Does the diocese/eparchy have documentation from each pastor that the parish has
received the required safe environment programs and has implemented them?
5. Does the diocese/eparchy have estimates of how many people are eligible in each
category and the approximate number who have received such training?
6. For those parents who choose not to have their child participate in the
diocesan/eparchial safe environment training
a. Does the diocese/eparchy have documentation of the signed parental declination?
b. Does the diocese/eparchy have documentation that the safe environment training
materials have been offered to parents?
c. If parents refuse to sign any form, has a record been maintained by the
parish/diocese/eparchy?
Overall, the dioceses/eparchies have done a tremendous job in providing safe
environment training to the respective categories enumerated in the Charter. The chart
below reflects the safe environment training for 2007:
Category
Priests
Deacons
Candidates for
Ordination
Educators
Employees
Volunteers
Parents
Children

Number to Be
Trained
37,327
14,406
4,986

Number Trained

Percentage

37,063
14,350
4,918

99.3
99.6
98.6

163,933
233,517
1,337,079
793,472
5,883,978

162,997
228,792
1,396,561

99.4
98.0
97.9

5,683,940

96.6

Safe environment training will continue to be a challenge for the dioceses/eparchies due
to the factors mentioned in the first paragraph. However, the challenges should never
outweigh the important need for the Church to create a safe environment for her children
and youth. The safe environment training that is being conducted by the Church will
hopefully filter into a wider society and serve as a benchmark for all those who have the
responsibility to protect those in their care.
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 13. Dioceses/eparchies are to evaluate the background of all incardinated
and non-incardinated priests and deacons who are engaged in ecclesiastical ministry
in the diocese/eparchy and of all diocesan/eparchial and parish/school or other paid
personnel and volunteers whose duties include ongoing, unsupervised contact with
minors. Specifically, they are to utilize the resources of law enforcement and other
community agencies. In addition, they are to employ adequate screening and
evaluative techniques in deciding the fitness of candidates for ordination (cf. United

States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Program of Priestly Formation [Fifth
Edition], 2006, no. 39).
Of the 190 dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 audit process, three
dioceses were found to be non-compliant with Article 13.
Additionally, an asterisk denotes that the diocese/eparchy achieved compliance with a
particular Article after July 1, 2007, but prior to the publication of this Report.
Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, Texas
Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico
Archdiocese of San Francisco, California

Volunteers*
Employees and Volunteers
Employees and Volunteers

Background evaluation methodologies vary from diocese/eparchy to diocese/eparchy due
to differences in state laws, the budget of the diocese/eparchy, and the number of
personnel for whom background evaluations are to be conducted. In the earlier years, the
determination of the background evaluation process, identifying all for whom
background evaluations should be conducted, the actual process of conducting the
evaluations, and the record keeping all experienced growing pains. Now, however, the
procedures in these areas seem to have been worked out, and though the task is still large
and expensive, overall compliance with this Article does not seem to be the huge
difficulty it was in the past.
The chart below reflects the background evaluation findings:
Category
Priests
Deacons
Candidates for
Ordination
Educators
Employees
Volunteers

Number to be
Checked
37,327
14,406
4,986
163,933
233,517
1,337,079

Number Checked

Percentage

37,181
14,371
4,955

99.6
99.8
99.4

163,705
231,260
1,307,973

99.9
99.0
97.8

The percentages show a tremendous effort by the dioceses/eparchies to comply with this
Article.
A question that now needs to be addressed is how to measure the effectiveness of
background evaluations along with the effectiveness of the other safe environment steps
the Church has taken. How can this be done? Should questions designed to measure
effectiveness be incorporated into the audit process, or should a separate study be
conducted for this purpose? OCYP and the NRB are in the process of exploring the best,
most useful method.
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 14. Transfers of clergy who have committed an act of sexual abuse

against a minor for residence, including retirement, shall be as in accord with Norm
12 of the Essential Norms. (Cf. Proposed Guidelines on the Transfer or Assignment of
Clergy and Religious, adopted by the USCCB, the Conference of Major Superiors of
Men, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, and the Council of Major
Superiors of Women Religious in 1993.)
All dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 audits were found to be
compliant with Article 14.
The audits reflect that the dioceses/eparchies are very careful to comply with this Article.
This is one of the issues in which the Church received a great deal of criticism in the past.
The bishops are aware of this criticism and the past wrongs that have been done, which
resulted in more tragedies caused by the transfers of clergy who had committed acts of
sexual abuse. The policies in the dioceses/eparchies are strong in this area and are
strongly monitored.
Priests who vacation for extended periods of time in other parts of the country, away
from the diocese/eparchy in which they are incardinated, still provide a challenge in this
regard. If they are retired, they can move without the knowledge of the bishop of the
diocese of their incardination. Many dioceses/eparchies frequented by vacationing priests
have established policies requiring parish leaders to verify that a visiting priest has the
authorization to perform ministerial services.
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 15. To ensure continuing collaboration and mutuality of effort in the
protection of children and young people on the part of the bishops and religious
ordinaries, two representatives of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men are to
serve as consultants to the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young
People. At the invitation of the Major Superiors, the Committee will designate two
of its members to consult with its counterpart at CMSM. Diocesan/eparchial bishops
and major superiors of clerical institutes or their delegates are to meet periodically
to coordinate their roles concerning the issue of allegations made against a cleric
member of a religious institute ministering in a diocese/eparchy.
All dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 audit were found to be
compliant with Article 15.
According to Article 15, bishops/eparchs and major superiors of religious institutes are
required to communicate with each other when one of their members is being transferred
to another diocese/eparchy for residence or for a ministerial assignment. No priest or
deacon who has committed an act of sexual abuse of a minor may be transferred for a
ministerial assignment to another diocese/eparchy or religious province.
Article 15 requires periodic communication between bishops/eparchs and major superiors
of religious institutes regarding their respective roles when allegations are brought
against a cleric member of a religious institute. Many bishops report that they participate
in an annual meeting with major superiors and the bishop at the state or province level.
Others host regular meetings of major superiors and also meet with major superiors who

do not reside in the diocese when the major superior is visiting the members of his
institute working in the diocese.
The president and executive director of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men serve
as permanent consultants to the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young
People. Two representatives of the CPCYP attended the winter meeting of the CMSM
executive board.
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 16. Given the extent of the problem of the sexual abuse of minors in our
society, we are willing to cooperate with other churches and ecclesial communities,
other religious bodies, institutions of learning, and other interested organizations in
conducting research in this area.
All dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 compliance audits were found to
be compliant with Article 16.
Article 16 asks that bishops/eparchs demonstrate a willingness to participate in research
in the area of sexual abuse of minors being conducted by other churches, religious bodies,
or educational institutes.
In 2006, 193 dioceses and eparchies participated in the annual CARA survey of
allegations and costs.
Three dioceses reported participating in research on the effectiveness of safe environment
training: one with a university and one with a doctoral student, and the third is initiating
its own research. The outcome of these studies will be helpful to the National Review
Board.
________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 17. We pledge our complete cooperation with the Apostolic Visitation of
our diocesan/eparchial seminaries and religious houses of formation recommended
in the Interdicasterial Meeting with the Cardinals of the United States and the
Conference Officers in April 2002.
We commit ourselves to work individually in our dioceses/eparchies and together as
a Conference, through the appropriate committees, to strengthen our programs
both for initial priestly formation and for the ongoing formation of priests. With
new urgency, we will promote programs of human formation for chastity and
celibacy for both seminarians and priests based upon the criteria found in Pastores
Dabo Vobis, the Program of Priestly Formation, and the Basic Plan for the Ongoing
Formation of Priests. We will continue to assist priests, deacons, and seminarians in
living out their vocation in faithful and integral ways.
We bishops and eparchs commit ourselves to work as one with our brother priests
and deacons to foster reconciliation among all people in our dioceses/eparchies,
especially with those individuals who were themselves abused and the communities
that have suffered because of the sexual abuse of minors that occurred in their
midst.

All dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2007 audit were found to be
compliant with Article 17.
The Apostolic Visitation of Seminaries and Houses of Religious Formation was
completed in 2005. Programs for human formation for chastity and celibacy are in place
in the dioceses and eparchies.
The audit results indicate that dioceses/eparchies continue to reach out to faith
communities that are directly impacted by allegations of clergy sexual abuse. This is
especially common when an allegation results in the removal of a clergyman currently
serving the community. This outreach includes listening sessions, healing Masses, and/or
a letter from the bishop/eparch to the affected community. When follow-up care is also
provided, it is based on the needs of the faith community.
In addition to reaching out to parishes and faith communities, many bishops reach out to
the lay faithful by holding public Masses/prayer services for the healing of victims of
clergy sexual abuse.

Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate
Georgetown University
Washington, DC

2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs:
A Summary Report for the Office of Child and Youth Protection
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

February 2008

Mary L. Gautier, Ph.D.
Mary E. Bendyna, RSM, Ph.D.

Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate
Georgetown University
Washington, DC
2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs:
A Summary Report for the Office of Child and Youth Protection
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Introduction
At their Fall General Assembly in November 2004, the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops (USCCB) commissioned the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate
(CARA) at Georgetown University to design and conduct an annual survey of all the dioceses
and eparchies whose bishops or eparchs are members of the USCCB. The purpose of this survey
is to collect information annually on new allegations of sexual abuse of minors and the clergy
against whom these allegations were made. The survey also gathers information on the amount
of money dioceses and eparchies have expended as a result of allegations as well as the amount
they have paid for child protection efforts. The national level aggregate results from this survey
for each calendar year are prepared for the USCCB and reported in its Annual Report of the
Implementation of the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.”
The questionnaire for the 2007 Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs was designed by
CARA in consultation with the Office of Child and Youth Protection and was only slightly
different from the versions used in 2004, 2005, and 2006. As in previous years, CARA prepared
an online version of the survey and hosted it on the CARA website. Bishops and eparchs
received information about the process for completing the survey in their December 1 packet
mailing and were asked to provide the name of a contact person who would complete the survey.
In collaboration with the Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM), major superiors of
clerical and mixed religious institutes were also invited to complete a similar survey for their
congregations, provinces, or monasteries.
CARA completed data collection for the 2007 annual survey on February 1, 2008. A
total of 194 of the 195 dioceses and eparchies of the USCCB completed the survey, for a
response rate of more than 99 percent. The Diocese of Lincoln was the only diocese that
declined to participate. A total of 159 of the 218 clerical and mixed religious institutes that
belong to CMSM responded to the survey, for a response rate of 73 percent. The overall
response rate for dioceses, eparchies, and religious institutes was 85 percent, the highest response
rate ever achieved for this survey. CARA then prepared the national level summary tables and
graphs of the findings for calendar year 2007, with tables comparing allegations and costs from
2004-2006, which are presented in this report.

Dioceses and Eparchies
The Data Collection Process
Dioceses and eparchies began submitting their data for the 2007 survey in mid-December
2007. CARA contacted every diocese or eparchy that had not sent in a contact name by January
1, 2008 to obtain the name of a contact person to complete the survey. CARA sent several email and fax reminders to encourage a high response rate.
By February 1, 2008, a total of 194 of the 195 dioceses and eparchies of the USCCB had
responded to the survey, for a response rate of more than 99 percent. The Diocese of Lincoln
was the only diocese that declined to participate. The participation rate among dioceses and
eparchies has increased each year of this survey, from 93 percent in 2004 to 94 percent in 2005,
99 percent in 2006, and nearly total participation in 2007 (194 of the 195 possible).
A copy of the survey instrument for dioceses and eparchies is included in this report at
Appendix I.

Credible Allegations Received by Dioceses and Eparchies in 2007
The responding dioceses and eparchies reported that between January 1 and December
31, 2007, they received 599 new credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor by a diocesan or
eparchial priest or deacon. These allegations were made by 598 individuals against 415 priests
or deacons. As Table 1 shows, each of these numbers (except the number of offenders)
represents a decline from the numbers reported in the previous three years, even though a slightly
larger number of dioceses and eparchies responded to the survey each year.

Table 1. New Credible Allegations Reported
by Dioceses and Eparchies

Victims
Allegations
Offenders

2004

2005

2006

2007

Change (+/-)
2006-2007

889
898
622

690
695
463

632
635
394

598
599
415

-34
-36
+21

Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

Percentage
Change

-5%
-6%
+5%

Compared to 2006, new reports of allegations declined by 6 percent (from 635 new
credible allegations in 2006 to 599 new credible allegations in 2007). The number of alleged
offenders increased by 5 percent, from 394 alleged offenders reported in 2006 to 415 alleged
offenders reported in 2007.
Of the 599 new allegations reported in 2007, four allegations (less than 1 percent),
involved children under the age of 18 in 2007. The remaining 595 allegations were made by
adults who are alleging abuse as minors in previous years. By comparison, 14 allegations in
2006 (2 percent of all new allegations received in 2006), nine allegations in 2005 (1 percent of
all new allegations received in 2005), and 22 allegations in 2004 (2 percent of new allegations
received in 2004) involved children under the age of 18 in each of those years.
Figure 1 illustrates the way in which allegations were reported to the dioceses or
eparchies in 2007. More than half of all new allegations (60 percent) were reported by the victim
and about a quarter (26 percent) were reported by an attorney.

Figure 1. Method of Reporting Allegations of Abuse:
Dioceses and Eparchies
Bishop of Another Diocese
Other
2%
2%

Law Enforcement
1%

Attorney
26%

Friend
1%
Victim
60%
Family
8%

Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

Compared to 2006, there are few differences in who reported the allegations:
•
•
•
•
•

The percentage of victim-reported allegations is higher in 2007 (60 percent compared to
55 percent in 2006).
Allegations reported by family members are the same in 2006 and 2007.
The percentage of allegations reported by attorneys was slightly higher in 2007 than in
2006 (26 percent, compared to 24 percent in 2006).
Law enforcement reported 1 percent of allegations in 2007 and 2 percent in 2006.
A friend of the victim reported 1 percent of allegations in 2007, just as in 2006.

•
•

A bishop of another diocese reported 3 percent of allegations in 2006 and 2 percent of
allegations in 2007.
Two percent of all allegations were reported by someone other than the victim, an
attorney, a family member, a friend, law enforcement, or a bishop from another diocese,
compared to 7 percent in 2006. Some of these other persons reporting allegations
included other priests, victim assistance coordinators, or private investigators.

Figure 2 presents the percentage of all new allegations of abuse that were cases involving
solely child pornography. Of the 599 total allegations, one allegation involved only child
pornography.

Figure 2. Percentage of Allegations Involving Only Child Pornography:
Dioceses and Eparchies

Allegations
99.8%

Child Pornography
0.2%

Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

Compared to 2006, dioceses and eparchies reported fewer new credible allegations that
involve only child pornography in 2007.

Victims, Offenses, and Offenders in 2007
Of the 598 alleged victims reported in 2007, 82 percent (484 victims) were male and 18
percent (108 victims) were female. This proportion is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Sex of Abuse Victim:
Dioceses and Eparchies
Female
18%

Male
82%
Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

The proportion of male and female victims is nearly identical to that reported in 2006 (80
percent males and 20 percent females).

A little more than half of the victims (53 percent) were between the ages of 10 and 14
when the alleged abuse began. About one in five (21 percent) were between the ages of 15 and
17, while 14 percent were younger than age 10. The age could not be determined for about 10
percent of victims. Figure 4 presents the distribution of victims by age at the time the alleged
abuse began.

Figure 4. Age of Victim When Abuse Began:
Dioceses and Eparchies
350
319

300

Number of Victims

250

200

150
126

100
86
50

60

0

Age 9 or Less
Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

Age 10-14

Age 15-17

Age Unknown

Figure 5 shows the years in which the abuse reported in 2007 was alleged to have
occurred or begun. For the majority of new allegations (59 percent), the abuse occurred or began
between 1960 and 1979. The most common time period for allegations reported in 2007 was
1970-1979. In 2006, dioceses and eparchies reported that 1965-1969 was the most common time
period for the alleged occurrences, while in both 2004 and 2005, 1970-1974 was the most
common time period reported. For 3 percent of new allegations reported in 2007, no time frame
for the alleged abuse could be determined by the allegation.
Figure 5. Year Alleged Offense Occurred or Began:
Dioceses and Eparchies
120

100

105
93

Reported Number

80

83
73

60

54
40

54

49
33

20

18

16
7

7

4

4

0

1954 or
Earlier

1955-1959 1960-1964 1965-1969 1970-1974 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2006

Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

2007

Year
Unknown

Of the 415 diocesan or eparchial priests or deacons that were identified in new allegations
in 2007, most (84 percent) had been ordained for the diocese or eparchy in which the abuse was
alleged to have occurred. Five percent were incardinated into that diocese or eparchy from
another diocese or eparchy, and 3 percent were extern priests, serving the diocese in a temporary
capacity. Four of the alleged perpetrators (1 percent) identified new allegations in 2007 were
permanent deacons. Figure 6 displays the ecclesial status of offenders at the time of the alleged
offense.

Figure 6. Ecclesial Status of Alleged Perpetrator:
Dioceses and Eparchies
Incardinated Priest
5%
U.S. Extern Priest
3%
Foreign Extern Priest
3%
Permanent Deacon
1%

Diocesan Priest
84%

Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

Other
4%

More than six in ten (257) of the 415 priests and deacons identified as alleged offenders
in 2007 had already been identified in prior allegations. In 2006, 57 percent of the alleged
offenders had been identified in previous allegations. Figure 7 depicts the percentage with prior
allegations in 2007, compared to 2006.

Figure 7. Percentage of Alleged Perpetrators with Prior Allegations:
Dioceses and Eparchies
100%

Percentage of Alleged Perpetrators

90%
80%

43%

38%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

57%

62%

20%
10%
0%
2006

Prior Allegation(s)
Sources: 2006 and 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

2007

No Prior Allegation

Nearly eight in ten alleged offenders (78 percent) identified in 2007 are deceased, already
removed from ministry, already laicized, or missing. Another 24 priests or deacons (6 percent)
were permanently removed from ministry in 2007. In addition to the 24 offenders identified in
2007 and permanently removed from ministry in 2007, another 51 priests or deacons who had
been identified in allegations of abuse before 2007 were permanently removed from ministry in
2007.
A total of 14 priests or deacons were returned to ministry in 2007 based on the resolution
of an allegation made during or prior to 2007 (three who were identified in 2007 and 11 who
were identified before 2007). In addition, 118 priests or deacons (27 who were identified in
2007 and 91 who were identified before 2007) have been temporarily removed from ministry
pending completion of an investigation. Notwithstanding the year in which the abuse was
reported, 29 diocesan and eparchial clergy remain in active ministry pending a preliminary
investigation of an allegation (nine who were identified in 2007 and 20 who were identified prior
to 2007). Figure 8 shows the current status of alleged offenders.

Figure 8. Current Status of Alleged Perpetrators:
Dioceses and Eparchies
350
300

Allegation prior to 2007
Allegation in 2007

322

Reported Number

250
200
150
100
91

50

51
24

0

11

27

20

Temporarily Removed
Pending Completion of
Investigation

Still Active Pending
Investigation

9

3

Deceased, Already
Removed, or Missing

Permanently Removed

Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

Returned to Minisry

Of the 599 new credible allegations reported in 2007, fewer than one in ten (43 new
allegations) was unsubstantiated or determined to be false by December 31, 2007. In addition,
33 allegations received prior to 2007 were unsubstantiated or determined to be false during 2007.
Figure 9 presents the percentage of all new credible allegations received in 2007 that were
unsubstantiated or determined to be false in 2007, compared to the same two groups in 2006.

Figure 9. New Allegations Unsubstantiated or Determined to be False:
Dioceses and Eparchies
100%
90%
80%

Percentage
of Allegations

70%
60%
89%

93%

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
11%

7%

0%
2006
Unsubstantiated or Determined to be False
Sources: 2006 and 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

2007
Remain Credible

Costs to Dioceses and Eparchies in 2007
Dioceses and eparchies that responded to the survey and reported costs related to
allegations paid out $498,678,858 in 2007. This includes payments in 2007 for allegations
reported in previous years. Thirty-two responding dioceses and eparchies reported no
expenditures in 2007 related to allegations of sexual abuse of a minor. Only two responding
dioceses declined to report expenditures. Table 3 compares payments by dioceses and eparchies
from 2004 through 2007 across several categories of allegation-related expenses. The total cost
reported by dioceses and eparchies in 2007 is $165,708,299 more than that reported in 2006.

Table 2. Costs Related to Allegations
by Dioceses and Eparchies
2004

2005

2006

2007

Change (+/-)
2006-2007

$93,364,172

$386,010,171

$220,099,188

$420,385,135

+$200,285,947

Therapy for Victims

$6,613,283

$7,648,226

$9,731,815

$7,243,663

-$2,488,152

Support for Offenders

$1,413,093

$11,831,028

$30,362,609

$13,347,981

-$17,014,628

$32,706,598

$36,467,516

$69,780,366

$53,394,074

-$16,386,292

$5,485,011

$3,729,607

$2,996,581

$4,308,005

+$1,311,424

$139,582,157

$445,686,548

$332,970,559

$498,678,858

+$165,708,299

Settlements

Attorneys' Fees
Other Costs

GRAND TOTAL

Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

Most of the payments by dioceses and eparchies in 2007 (84 percent) were for
settlements to victims. Attorneys’ fees contributed an additional 11 percent of the total cost
($53,394,074).1 Support for offenders (including therapy, living expenses, legal expenses, etc.)
amounted to another 3 percent of allegation-related costs ($13,347,981).2 An additional 1 percent
of the total cost was for payments for therapy for victims (if not included in the settlement).
Among the “other” costs reported by dioceses and eparchies ($4,308,005) are payments
for items such as investigations of allegations, medical costs and other support for victims or
survivors, costs for mediation, other payments related to settlements, travel expenses for victims,
costs for victims’ assistance offices and victim hotlines, clergy misconduct review boards,
canonical trials and case processing, and USCCB compliance audit costs.

1

Attorneys’ fees include all costs for attorneys paid by dioceses and eparchies in 2007 as the result of allegations of
sexual abuse of a minor.
2
This reported cost increased substantially after 2004, largely due to a change in question wording. In 2005, the
question was changed from “Payments for therapy for offenders” to “Payments for support for offenders
(including living expenses, legal expenses, therapy, etc.)” to more accurately capture the full costs to dioceses and
eparchies for support of alleged offenders.

Figure 10 displays the costs paid by dioceses and eparchies for settlements and for
attorneys’ fees from 2004 through 2007.

Figure 10. Payments for Settlements and Attorneys' Fees:
Dioceses and Eparchies
$450,000,000

2004
2005
2006

$420,385,135

$400,000,000
$386,010,171

2007

$350,000,000

Amount Paid

$300,000,000
$250,000,000
$220,099,188

$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$93,364,172

$69,780,366

$50,000,000

$53,394,074
$32,706,598

$36,467,516

$0

Settlements

Attorneys' Fees

Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

Compared to 2006, amounts paid for settlements in 2007 increased by 54 percent. By
contrast, the amount paid for support for offenders (not shown in the figure) decreased by 52
percent from 2006 and the amount paid in attorneys’ fees declined by 20 percent.

Figure 11. Proportion of Total Allegation-related Costs Paid by Insurance:
Dioceses and Eparchies
$600,000,000

Insurance payments covered approximately 34 percent of total
allegation-related costs to Dioceses and Eparchies in 2007.

$500,000,000
$498,678,858

2004
2005
2006
2007

$445,686,548

Total Paid

$400,000,000

$332,970,559

$300,000,000

$231,688,585

$200,000,000

$171,736,862

$100,000,000

$139,582,157
$90,178,740
$44,984,107

$0

Total Allegation-related Costs

Paid by Insurance

Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

Figure 11 illustrates the total allegation-related costs paid by dioceses and eparchies and
the approximate proportion of those costs that were covered by diocesan insurance. Just over a
third (34 percent) of the total allegation-related costs paid by dioceses and eparchies in 2007
were covered by diocesan insurance. By comparison, insurance paid for just over a quarter (27
percent) of the total allegation-related costs paid by dioceses and eparchies in 2006, nearly half
(49 percent) in 2005 and a third (32 percent) in 2004.

Figure 12. Costs for Settlements and Child Protection Efforts:
Dioceses and Eparchies

$600,000,000

2004
2005
2006
2007

$500,000,000

$498,678,858
$445,686,548
$400,000,000

$332,970,559

$300,000,000

$200,000,000

$100,000,000

$139,582,157

$19,785,325

$19,218,671

$25,573,162

$21,039,970

$0

Total Allegation-related Costs

Child Protection Efforts

Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

In addition to allegation-related expenditures, at least $21,039,970 was spent by dioceses
and eparchies for child protection efforts such as safe environment coordinators, training
programs, and background checks. Figure 12 compares the allegation-related costs to child
protection expenditures paid by dioceses and eparchies from 2004 through 2007.

Clerical and Mixed Religious Institutes
The Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM) also encouraged the major
superiors of clerical and mixed religious institutes to complete a survey for their congregations,
provinces, or monasteries. This survey was nearly identical to the survey for dioceses and
eparchies and was also available online at the same site as the survey for dioceses and eparchies.
CMSM sent a letter and a copy of the survey to all member major superiors on December 1,
2007 to ask them to participate. CARA and CMSM also sent several e-mail and fax reminders to
major superiors to encourage their participation. By February 1, 2007, CARA received
responses from 159 of the 218 clerical and mixed religious institutes that belong to CMSM, for a
response rate of 73 percent. This is a higher response rate than in the previous three years of the
survey (68 percent in 2006, 67 percent in 2005, and 71 percent in 2004).
A copy of the survey instrument for religious institutes is included at Appendix II.

Credible Allegations Received by Clerical and Mixed Religious Institutes in 2007
The responding clerical and mixed religious institutes reported that between January 1
and December 31, 2007, they received 92 new credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor
committed by a priest or deacon of the community. These allegations were made against 76
individuals who were priest or deacon members of the community at the time the offense was
alleged to have occurred. Table 3 presents these numbers and the comparable numbers reported
in 2004, 2005, and 2006. New reports of allegations have increased by 16 percent from 2006
and the number of alleged offenders also increased, by 41 percent.

Table 3. New Credible Allegations Reported
by Religious Institutes

Victims
Allegations
Offenders

2004

2005

2006

2007

Change
(+/-)
2006-2007

194
194
134

87
88
69

78
79
54

91
92
76

13
13
22

Percentage
Change

17%
16%
41%

Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

Of the total number of new allegations reported in 2007, one allegation involved a child
under the age of 18 in 2007. All other allegations were made by adults who are alleging abuse as
minors in previous years.

Figure 13 displays the way in which allegations were reported to the religious institutes in
2007. Close to two in five (38 percent) were reported by the victim and another 30 percent were
reported to the religious institute by a bishop or eparch, most typically from the diocese or
eparchy in which the accused offender was serving at the time the alleged abuse occurred.

Figure 13. Method of Reporting Allegations of Abuse:
Religious Institutes
Other
10%

Victim
38%

Bishop/Eparch
30%

Family
4%
Law Enforcement
0%

Attorney
16%

Friend
2%

Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

Compared to 2006, the proportion of all allegations that were reported by bishops or
eparchs increased and the proportion reported by attorneys decreased. These percentage
changes, however, are the result of small differences in the number of allegations within the
categories because the total number of allegations reported by religious institutes (92) is much
smaller than the total number reported by dioceses and eparchies (599). Some of the differences
in reporting between 2006 and 2007 include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

The percentage of allegations reported by victims is nearly identical in 2006 and 2007.
Attorneys reported 16 percent of allegations in 2007, compared to 39 percent of
allegations in 2006.
A bishop or eparch reported 30 percent of allegations in 2007, compared to 14 percent in
2006.
Family members reported an equal percentage of allegations in 2006 and 2007.
A friend of the victim reported 2 percent of allegations in 2007 and 1 percent in 2006.
None of the allegations in 2007 were reported by law enforcement.
Ten percent of new credible allegations were reported by “Other” in 2007, compared to 3
percent in 2006.

Figure 14 presents the percentage of all new allegations of abuse that were cases
involving solely child pornography. Of the 89 new allegations, one involved child pornography
only. Similarly, one allegation in 2006, one in 2005, and none in 2004 involved only child
pornography.

Figure 14. Percentage of Allegations Involving Only Child Pornography:
Religious Institutes

Allegations
98.9%

Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

Child Pornography
1.1%

Victims, Offenses, and Offenders in 2007
More than three in four victims reported in 2007 were male (69 victims) and about one in
four (20 victims) was female. This proportion is displayed in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Sex of Abuse Victim:
Religious Institutes

Female
22%

Male
78%

Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

By comparison, in 2006 religious institutes reported that 66 percent of the alleged victims
were male and 34 percent were female.

Four in ten victims (42 percent) were ages 10 to 14 when the alleged abuse began. A
third (34 percent) were between 15 and 17, while approximately one in seven (14 percent) was
under age 10. The age of the victim could not be determined for seven of the new allegations.
Figure 16 presents the distribution of victims by age at the time the alleged abuse began.

Figure 16. Age of Victim When Abuse Began:
Religious Institutes
40
38

35

Number of Victims

30

31

25

20

15
13

10
7

5

0

Age 9 or Less
Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

Age 10-14

Age 15-17

Age Unknown

The majority of the new allegations reported in 2007 (63 percent) are alleged to have
occurred or begun between 1965 and 1984. Religious institutes reported that 1970-1979 was the
most common time period for the alleged occurrences, just as they reported in 2006. In both
2005 and 2004, religious institutes reported that the most common time period for the alleged
offenses was 1965-1969. In 2007, nearly two in five newly reported allegations (38 percent)
were said to have occurred or begun between 1970 and 1979. Figure 17 illustrates the years
when the allegations reported in 2007 were said to have occurred or begun.
Figure 17. Year Alleged Offense Occurred or Began:
Religious Institutes
20
19

18
16

16

Reported Number

14
12
12
11

10

11

8
6
6
5

4
4

3

2
1

0

0

1

1

2000-2004

2005-2006

2007

Year
Unknown

0
1954 or
Earlier

1955-1959

1960-1964

Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

1965-1969

1970-1974

1975-1979

1980-1984

1985-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

Of the 76 religious priests and deacons against whom new allegations were made in
2007, most were priests of a U.S. province or community, serving in the United States at the time
the abuse was alleged to have occurred (81 percent). Figure 18 displays the ecclesial status of
offenders at the time of the alleged abuse.

Figure 18. Ecclesial Status of Alleged Perpetrator:
Religious Institutes

Priest of This Province Outside U.S.
3%

Religious Priest Formerly in This
Province
11%

Deacon of This Province
1%
Other
4%
Priest of Province Serving in U.S.
81%

Source: 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

One in ten alleged offenders (11 percent) were priests who were members of the province
at the time of the alleged abuse but who are no longer a member of the religious institute. Three
percent were priests of the province who were assigned outside of the United States at the time
of the alleged abuse. One percent of the alleged offenders were deacons at the time the alleged
abuse occurred.

A majority (61 percent) of the religious priests or deacons against whom new allegations
were made in 2007 had no prior allegations. About four in ten had already been the subject of
previous allegations in prior years. This is the reverse of the pattern in 2006, when the majority
(61 percent) of the alleged perpetrators had already been the subject of previous allegations
against them. Figure 19 presents the proportions for 2007. compared to 2006.

Figure 19. Percentage of Alleged Perpetrators with Prior Allegations:
Religious Institutes
100%
90%

Percentage of
Alleged Perpetrators

80%

39%

70%

61%

60%
50%
40%
30%

61%

20%

39%

10%
0%
2006

2007
Prior Allegations

Sources: 2006 and 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

No Prior Allegations

Nearly even in ten alleged offenders identified in 2007 (52 priests or deacons) were
deceased, had already been removed from ministry, or had already left the religious institute at
the time the allegation was reported. Another 7 percent of alleged offenders identified in 2007
(five priests or deacons) were permanently removed from ministry in 2007. Figure 20 displays
the current status of alleged offenders.

Figure 20. Current Status of Alleged Perpetrators:
Religious Institutes
60

Reported Number

50

Allegation prior to 2007
Allegation in 2007
52

40

30
21

20
12

10
2

7

3

Temporarily Removed Pending
Completion of Investigation

Still Active Pending
Investigation

5

0

1

1
Deceased, Already Removed,
or Missing

Permanently Removed

Returned to Minisry

Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

In addition to the five offenders identified in 2007 and permanently removed from
ministry in 2007, another 12 priests or deacons who had been identified in allegations of abuse
before 2007 were permanently removed from ministry in 2007.
Three priests or deacons were returned to ministry in 2007 based on the resolution of an
allegation made in 2007 or earlier. In addition, 28 religious priests or deacons (seven who were
identified in 2007 and 21 who were identified before 2007) were temporarily removed pending
completion of an investigation. Notwithstanding the year in which the abuse was reported, four
remain in active ministry pending a preliminary investigation of an allegation (three identified in
allegations made in 2007 and one identified in an allegation from a previous year).

Of the 92 new allegations reported to religious institutes in 2007, 15 percent (14 new
allegations) were determined to be unsubstantiated by December 31, 2007. In addition, 18
allegations received prior to 2007 were determined to be unsubstantiated during 2007. Figure 21
presents the percentage of all new allegations received in 2007 that were determined to be
unsubstantiated in 2007 and compares it with the same data for 2006.

Figure 21. New Allegations Unsubstantiated or Determined to be False:
Religious Institutes
100%
90%
80%

Percentage
of Allegations

70%
60%
90%

85%

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
10%

15%

0%
2006
Unsubstantiated or Determined to be False
Sources: 2006 and 2007 Survey of Allegations and Costs

2007
Remain Credible

Costs to Clerical and Mixed Religious Institutes in 2007
The responding clerical and mixed religious institutes reported $116,485,831 paid out in
2007 for costs related to allegations. This includes costs paid in 2007 for allegations reported in
previous years. Table 4 compares the payments by religious institutes from 2004 through 2007
across several categories of allegation-related expenses. The total reported allegation-related
costs to clerical and mixed religious institutes is over $50 million more in 2007 than in 2006.

Table 4. Costs Related to Allegations
by Religious Institutes
2004

2005

2006

2007

Change (+/-)
2006-2007

$12,877,637

$13,027,285

$57,114,232

$105,841,148

+$48,726,916

Therapy for Victims

$793,053

$755,971

$913,924

$691,775

-$222,149

Support for Offenders

$456,237

$1,838,110

$1,905,534

$2,097,993

+$192,459

$3,544,847

$4,784,124

$5,374,850

$7,073,540

+$1,698,690

$548,880

$841,434

$318,595

$781,375

+$462,780

$18,220,654

$21,246,924

$65,627,135

$116,485,831

+$50,858,696

Settlements

Attorneys' Fees
Other Costs

GRAND TOTAL

Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

Most of the payments by religious institutes in 2006 (91 percent) were for settlements to
victims. Attorneys’ fees were an additional $7,073,540 (6 percent of all costs related to
allegations reported by religious institutes). Support for offenders (including therapy, living
expenses, legal expenses, etc.) amounted to $2,097,993 (2 percent).3 An additional $691,775 (1
percent) was for payments for therapy for victims (if not included in the settlement).
Payments designated as “other costs” reported by religious institutes ($781,375) included
victim assistance programs, support for families of victims, consultants and investigators,
external review board, Praesidium expenses, and participation in the settlement for the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

3

The difference in cost here between 2004 and later years is largely attributable to a change in question wording in
2005. See the explanation in the previous footnote.

Figure 22 illustrates the settlement-related costs and attorneys’ fees paid by religious
institutes from 2004 through 2007. Four religious institutes with relatively large settlements in
2007 account for 70 percent of the settlement costs in that year.

Figure 22. Payments for Settlements and Attorneys' Fees:
Religious Institutes
$120,000,000

2004
2005
2006
2007

$105,841,148

$100,000,000

Amount Paid

$80,000,000

$60,000,000
$57,114,232

$40,000,000

$20,000,000
$12,877,637

$13,027,285
$3,544,847

$4,784,124

$5,374,850

$0

Settlements
Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

Attorneys' Fees

$7,073,540

Figure 23 displays the total allegation-related costs paid by religious institutes from 2004
through 2007 and the proportion of those costs that were covered by insurance. Approximately
34 percent of the total allegation-related costs paid by religious institutes in 2007 were covered
by insurance. By comparison, 23 percent of the total allegation-related costs in 2006, 13 percent
in 2005, and 12 percent in 2004 were covered by insurance.

Figure 23. Approximate Percentage of Total Paid by Insurance:
Religious Institutes
$140,000,000

Insurance payments covered approximately 34 percent of total
allegation-related costs to religious institutes in 2007.
$120,000,000

2004
2005
2006
2007

$116,485,831

Total Paid

$100,000,000

$80,000,000

$65,627,135

$60,000,000

$40,000,000

$39,491,760
$20,000,000

$18,220,654

$21,246,924
$2,225,118

$0

Total Allegation-related Costs
Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

$2,804,158

$14,939,817

In addition to allegation-related expenditures, religious institutes spent $1,113,175 for
child protection efforts, such as training programs and background checks. This is slightly less
than the amount paid by religious institutes in 2006, but substantially more than the amount paid
in previous years. Figure 24 compares the settlement-related costs and child protection
expenditures paid by religious institutes in 2004 through 2007.

Figure 24. Costs for Settlements and Child Protection Efforts:
Religious Institutes
$120,000,000

2004
2005
2006
2007

$116,485,831
$100,000,000

$80,000,000

$65,627,135

$60,000,000

$40,000,000

$20,000,000

$18,220,654

$21,246,924
$418,084

$836,313

$1,428,569

$0

Total Allegation-related Costs
Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

Child Protection Efforts

$1,113,175

Total Responses of Dioceses, Eparchies, and
Clerical and Mixed Religious Institutes
Tables 5, 6, and 7 present the combined total responses of dioceses, eparchies, and
clerical and mixed religious institutes. These tables depict the total number of allegations,
victims, offenders, and costs as reported by both groups. In addition, these tables also show the
same combined figures for 2004 through 2006 so that changes in the totals between 2004 and
2007 can be compared.

Table 5. New Credible Allegations Reported
Combined Totals

Victims
Allegations
Offenders

2004

2005

2006

2007

Change
(+/-)
2006-2007

1,083
1,092
756

777
783
532

710
714
448

689
691
491

-21
-23
+43

Percentage
Change

-3%
-3%
+10%

Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

As Table 5 shows, the total number of new allegations and victims decreased each year
from 2004 through 2007. The total number of alleged offenders decreased each year between
2004 and 2006, but increased by 43 between 2006 and 2007. Compared to 2006, the number of
new victims and new allegations are each down by 3 percent, while the total number of offenders
named in those new allegations is up by 10 percent.

Table 6. Costs Related to Allegations
Combined Totals
2004

2005

2006

2007

Change (+/-)
2006-2007

$106,241,809

$399,037,456

$277,213,420

$526,226,283

+$249,012,863

Therapy for Victims

$7,406,336

$8,404,197

$10,645,739

$7,935,438

-$2,710,301

Support for Offenders

$1,869,330

$13,669,138

$32,268,143

$15,445,974

-$16,822,169

$36,251,445

$41,251,640

$75,155,216

$60,467,614

-$14,687,602

$6,033,891

$4,571,041

$3,315,176

$5,089,380

+$1,774,204

$157,802,811

$466,933,472

$398,597,694

$615,164,689

+$216,566,995

Settlements

Attorneys' Fees
Other Costs

GRAND TOTAL

Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

Although the total number of new allegations declined from 2004 to 2007, Table 6 shows
that the total costs related to allegations has increased from 2004 through 2007, with a slight dip
in 2006. The total allegation-related expenditures by dioceses, eparchies, and clerical and mixed
religious institutes increased by 54 percent between 2006 and 2007. However, most of the
increase was the result of a near-doubling (90 percent increase) in the amount paid for
settlements in 2007. The cost for support for offenders declined by 52 percent between 2006 and
2007, the amount paid for therapy for victims declined by 25 percent, and the amount paid for
attorneys’ fees decreased by 20 percent. Other costs increased by 54 percent.

Table 7. Costs for Settlements and Child Protection
Combined Totals

Settlement-related
Child Protection Efforts

2004
$157,802,811
$20,199,409

2005
$466,933,472
$20,054,984

2006
$398,597,694
$27,001,731

2007
$615,164,689
$22,153,145

Change (+/-)
2006-2007
+$216,566,995
-$4,848,586

Sources: Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs, 2004-2007

Table 7 compares the total costs for allegation-related expenses and the amount expended
for child protection efforts from 2004 through 2007. While the total amount spent for allegationrelated expenses increased by 54 percent between 2006 and 2007, the total amount reported for
child protection efforts decreased by 18 percent between 2006 and 2007.

APPENDIX I:
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DIOCESES AND EPARCHIES

Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate
2007 Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs
This questionnaire is designed to survey dioceses and eparchies about credible accusations of abuse and the costs in
dealing with these allegations. The results will be used to demonstrate progress in implementing the Charter for the
Protection of Children and Young People and reducing the incidence of sexual abuse within the Church.
All data collected here are entirely confidential. Only national aggregate results will be reported.
ALL DATA REPORTED HERE REFER TO THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR –
JANUARY 1-DECEMBER 31, 2007.
ALLEGATIONS
NOTE: An allegation is defined as one victim alleging an act or acts of abuse by one alleged perpetrator. Only
credible allegations (those that bear the “semblance of truth”) are appropriate for inclusion in this survey.
599 1. Total number of new credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor reported against a priest or deacon in
the diocese between January 1 and December 31, 2007. (Do not include clergy that are members of
religious institutes as they will be reported by their religious institutes).
1 2. Of the total number in item 1, the number of allegations that involved only child pornography.
Of the total number in item 1, the number that were first reported to the diocese/eparchy by:
Choose only one category for each allegation. (The sum of items 3-9 should equal item 1).
365 3. Victim.
4 7. Law enforcement.
46 4. Family member of the victim.
13 8. Bishop or official from another diocese.
7 5. Friend of the victim.
10 9. Other:___________________________________.
154 6. Attorney.
Of the total number in item 1 (excluding the solely child pornography cases), the number of alleged victims that are:
484 10. Male.
108 11. Female.
Of the total number in item 1 (excluding the solely child pornography cases), the number of alleged victims in each
age category when the alleged abuse began: (Choose only one category for each allegation).
86 12. 0-9.
319 13. 0-14.
126 14. 15-17.
60 15. Age unknown.
Of the total number in item 1, the number that are alleged to have begun in:
Choose only one category for each allegation. (The sum of items 16-29 should equal item 1).
49 16. 1954 or earlier.
93 21. 1975-1979.
7 26. 2000-2004.
54 17. 1955-1959.
54 22. 1980-1984.
4 27. 2005-2006.
83 18. 1960-1964.
33 23. 1985-1989.
4 28. 2007.
73 19. 1965-1969.
16 24. 1990-1994.
18 29. Time period unknown.
105 20. 1970-1974.
7 25. 1995-1999.
43 30a.
33 30b.

Total number of new credible allegations received between January 1 and December 31, 2007 that
were unsubstantiated or determined to be false by December 31, 2007.
Total number of credible allegations received prior to January 1, 2007 that were unsubstantiated or
determined to be false between January 1 and December 31, 2007.

ALLEGED PERPETRATORS
NOTE: Include any perpetrators who are or were ordained members of the clergy legitimately serving in or assigned to
the diocese or eparchy at the time the credible allegation(s) was alleged to have occurred. Do not include clergy that are
members of religious institutes as they will be reported by their religious institutes.
415 31.

Total number of priests or deacons against whom new credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor
have been reported between January 1 and December 31, 2007.

Of the total number in item 31, how many were in each category below at the time of the alleged abuse?
Choose only one category for each alleged perpetrator. (The sum of items 32-37 should equal item 31).
348 32. Diocesan priests ordained for this diocese or eparchy.
22 33. Diocesan priests incardinated later in this diocese or eparchy.
12 34. Extern diocesan priests from another U.S. diocese serving in this diocese or eparchy.
13 35. Extern diocesan priests from a diocese outside the United States serving in this diocese or eparchy.
4 36. Permanent deacons.
16 37. Other:_______________________________.
Of the total number in item 31, the number that:
257 38. Have had one or more previous allegations reported against them prior to January 1, 2007.
322 39. Are deceased, already removed from ministry, already laicized, or missing.
24 40. Have been permanently removed or retired from ministry between January 1 and December 31, 2007
based on allegations of abuse.
3 41. Have been returned to ministry between January 1 and December 31, 2007 based on the resolution of
allegations of abuse.
27 42. Remain temporarily removed from ministry pending investigation of allegations (as of December 31, 2007).
9 43. Remain in active ministry pending investigation of allegations (as of December 31, 2007).
Indicate the total number of alleged perpetrators identified prior to January 1, 2007 that:
51 44. Were permanently removed or retired from ministry between January 1 and December 31, 2007 based
on allegations of abuse.
11 45. Were returned to ministry between January 1 and December 31, 2007 based on the resolution of
allegations of abuse.
91 46. Remain temporarily removed from ministry pending investigation of allegations (as of December 31, 2007).
20 47. Remain in active ministry pending investigation of allegations (as of December 31, 2007).
COSTS
Indicate the approximate total amount of funds expended by the diocese between January 1 and December 31, 2007
for payments as the result of allegations of sexual abuse of a minor (notwithstanding the year in which the allegation
was received):
$420,385,135 48. All settlements paid to victims.
$7,243,663 49. Payments for therapy for victims (if separate from settlements).
$13,347,981 50. Payments for support for offenders (including living expenses, legal expenses, therapy, etc.).
$53,394,074 51. Payments for attorneys’ fees.
$4,308,005 52. Other:_______________________________________________________________________.
34% 53. Approximate percentage of the amount in items 48-52 that was covered by diocesan insurance.
$21,039,970 54. Total amount paid for all child protection efforts (training programs, background checks, etc.).
In the event it is necessary for CARA to contact you for clarification about the data reported here, please supply the
following information. This contact information will not be recorded in the database.
Name and title of person completing this form:____________________________________________________________
Arch/Diocese:_____________________________________Phone:____________________________________________
Thank you for completing this survey.
Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057-1203
Phone: 202-687-8080 Fax: 202-687-8083 E-mail CARA@georgetown.edu
©CARA 2007, All rights reserved.

APPENDIX II:
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTES

Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate
2007 Annual Survey of Allegations and Costs
This questionnaire is designed to survey religious institutes, societies of apostolic life or the separate provinces
thereof and will be used to demonstrate progress in implementing the Charter for the Protection of Children and
Young People and reducing the incidence of sexual abuse within the Church.
All data collected here are entirely confidential. Only national aggregate results will be reported.
ALL DATA REPORTED HERE REFER TO THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR –
JANUARY 1-DECEMBER 31, 2007.
ALLEGATIONS
NOTE: An allegation is defined as one victim alleging an act or acts of abuse by one alleged perpetrator. Only
credible allegations (those that bear the “semblance of truth”) are appropriate for inclusion in this survey.
92 1.

Total number of new credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor reported against a priest or deacon in
the religious institute between January 1 and December 31, 2007. (Only include members of the
religious institute who are clergy. Allegations against religious brothers should NOT be reported).
1 2. Of the total number in item 1, the number of allegations that involved only child pornography.

Of the total number in item 1, the number that were first reported to the religious institute by:
Choose only one category for each allegation. (The sum of items 3-9 should equal item 1).
34 3. Victim.
0 7. Law enforcement.
4 4. Family member of the victim.
28 8. Bishop or other official from a diocese.
2 5. Friend of the victim.
9 9. Other:___________________________________.
15 6. Attorney.
Of the total number in item 1 (excluding the solely child pornography cases), the number of alleged victims that are:
69 10. Male.
20 11. Female.
Of the total number in item 1 (excluding the solely child pornography cases), the number of alleged victims in each
age category when the alleged abuse began: (Choose only one category for each allegation).
13 12. 0-9.
38 13. 10-14.
31 14. 15-17.
7 15. Age unknown.
Of the total number in item 1, the number that are alleged to have begun in:
Choose only one category for each allegation. (The sum of items 16-28 should equal item 1).
16 21. 1975-1979.
0 26. 2000-2004.
4 16. 1954 or earlier.
11 17. 1955-1959.
12 22. 1980-1984.
0 27. 2005-2006.
6 18. 1960-1964.
5 23. 1985-1989.
1 28. 2007.
11 19. 1965-1969.
1 24. 1990-1994.
1 29. Time period unknown.
19 20. 1970-1974.
3 25. 1995-1999.
14 30a.
18 30b.

Total number of new credible allegations received between January 1 and December 31, 2007 that
were unsubstantiated or determined to be false by December 31, 2007.
Total number of credible allegations received prior to January 1, 2007 that were unsubstantiated or
determined to be false between January 1 and December 31, 2007.
ALLEGED PERPETRATORS

NOTE: Include any perpetrators who are or were ordained members of the religious clergy legitimately serving in or
assigned to a diocese or eparchy or within the religious institute at the time the credible allegation(s) was alleged to
have occurred. Include only clergy (NOT RELIGIOUS BROTHERS) that are members of religious institutes.
76 31.

Total number of priests or deacons against whom new credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor
have been reported between January 1 and December 31, 2007.

Of the total number in item 31, how many were in each category below at the time of the alleged abuse?
Choose only one category for each alleged perpetrator. (The sum of items 32-37 should equal item 31).
62 32.
Religious priests of this province assigned within the United States.
Religious priests of this province assigned outside of the United States.
2 33.
8 34.
Religious priests formerly of this province but no longer a member of the religious institute.
Religious priests not of this province but serving in this province of the religious institute.
0 35.
1 36.
Deacon members of the religious institute.
3 37.
Other:_______________________________.
Of the total number in item 31, the number that:
30 38.
Have had one or more previous allegations reported against them prior to January 1, 2007.
Are deceased, already removed from ministry, already laicized, or missing.
52 39.
Have been permanently removed or retired from ministry between January 1 and December 31, 2007
5 40.
based on allegations of abuse.
1 41.
Have been returned to ministry between January 1 and December 31, 2007 based on the resolution of
allegations of abuse.
7 42.
Remain temporarily removed from ministry pending investigation of allegations (as of December 31, 2007).
1 43.
Remain in active ministry pending investigation of allegations (as of December 31, 2007).
Indicate the total number of alleged perpetrators identified prior to January 1, 2007 that:
12 44.
Were permanently removed or retired from ministry between January 1 and December 31, 2007 based on
allegations of abuse.
Were returned to ministry between January 1 and December 31, 2007 based on the resolution of
2 45.
allegations of abuse.
21 46.
Remain temporarily removed from ministry pending investigation of allegations (as of December 31, 2007).
3 47.
Remain in active ministry pending investigation of allegations (as of December 31, 2007).
COSTS
Indicate the approximate total amount of funds expended by the religious institute between January 1 and December
31, 2007 for payments as the result of allegations of sexual abuse of a minor (notwithstanding the year in which the
allegation was received):
$105,841,148 48. All settlements paid to victims.
$691,775 49. Payments for therapy for victims (if separate from settlements).
$2,097,993 50. Payments for support for offenders (including living expenses, legal expenses, therapy, etc.).
$7,073,540 51. Payments for attorneys’ fees.
$781,375 52. Other:_______________________________________________________________________.
34% 53. Approximate percentage of the amount in items 48-52 that was covered by insurance of the
religious institute.
$1,113,175 54. Total amount paid for all child protection efforts (training programs, background checks, etc.).
In the event it is necessary for CARA to contact you for clarification about the data reported here, please supply the
following information. This contact information will not be recorded in the database.
Name and title of person completing this form:____________________________________________________________
Institute:_____________________________________Phone:____________________________________________
Thank you for completing this survey.
Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057-1203
Phone: 202-687-8080 Fax: 202-687-8083 E-mail CARA@georgetown.edu
©CARA 2007, All rights reserved.

CHAPTER FIVE

Status of the 2006 Recommendations
STATEMENT OF ISSUE 1
Dioceses/eparchies are determined to be compliant with the standards set forth in the
Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People based on the accuracy and
completeness of the data that is provided to the Gavin Group, Inc. For the most part,
dioceses/eparchies depend on parishes and schools to provide this data. When a
diocese/eparchy participates in a full on-site audit, with the agreement of the local bishop
or eparch, the auditors contact or visit a few randomly selected parishes to determine that
Charter requirements are being met at the local level. This process varies from audit to
audit.
Recommendation: That a standardized approach to parish participation in the audit
process be developed and implemented.
Status: At the request of the National Review Board, the Gavin Group, Inc., developed
an instrument for use in auditing parishes as part of the Compliance Audit process. Nine
dioceses and one eparchy agreed to participate in a pilot project to test the use of this
instrument. Based on feedback from the participating dioceses and eparchy, this
instrument is being revised for use in the 2008-2010 audits.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE 2
Processes for data collection and record keeping vary from diocese to diocese. In some
places, data for audit compliance is collected and maintained at the diocesan central
office. In other places, this audit-related data is maintained at the local level—in the
parishes, schools, and other institutions. These local sites are responsible for reporting
numbers of those to be trained and those for whom background evaluations are required.
In addition, the local sites report on the actual numbers trained. When data and records
are maintained at the local level, the diocese/eparchy necessarily depends on the parishes,
schools, and institutions to provide accurate information.
Recommendation: That bishops/eparchs create or use existing structures to verify the
accuracy of the audit-related data at the parish, school, and institutional levels.
Status: Decisions regarding standardization of record keeping and
centralized/decentralized systems are made by the local bishop/eparch. A review of the
2007 Audit Instruments indicated that dioceses/eparchs are selecting electronic systems
to conduct background evaluations. These systems include a record keeping component
that assists the diocese in maintaining more accurate information about training and
background checks.

CHAPTER SIX

2007 Recommendations
1. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The structures and programs required by the Charter have been established, as the audits
confirm. We must now move to assessing the effectiveness of those structures and programs
while streamlining the audit process.
Recommendation: Audit documents should be reexamined with a view toward assessing the
Charter structures and programs as well as combining some of the concepts of the audit process.
This could result in a simplification of the process for both those audited and the auditors.

2. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Research suggests that one in five priests serving in the United States is an international priest. In
2003 the USCCB Committee on Migration issued Guidelines for Receiving Pastoral Ministers in
the United States, a document that was developed in response to this reality and that outlines
components of an orientation program for international priests. Providing sufficient orientation
for these priests is a challenge for dioceses and eparchies. Offering safe environment training,
conducting background evaluations, and educating international priests to legal standards
regarding sexual contact with minors are necessary components of any orientation program.
Additionally, during the 2007 audit period, six of the twelve credible allegations about persons
who were still minors were made against international priests.
Recommendation: That dioceses/eparchies take all actions possible to conduct background
evaluations of international priests, provide safe environment training in appropriate languages,
and review with these priests the legal standards that define sexual abuse of minors in the local
civic jurisdiction.

3. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The 2007 audit data show abuse rising and peaking between 1960 and 1980. These are the same
patterns shown by the Nature and Scope Study in 2004 and by every prior annual study by
CARA. This makes even more imperative the completion of the Causes and Context Study,
which is not yet fully funded.
Recommendation: The total budget for the Causes and Context Study is $2.6 million, less than
one half of 1% of the amount spent by the American dioceses on the abuse crisis in 2007. The

Conference, individual dioceses, and any Catholics interested in the Charter should consider a
contribution to close the funding gap, which is now slightly less than $1 million.

2005 Charter for the Protection of
Children and Young People
Preamble
Since 2002, the Church in the United States has experienced a crisis without precedent in our times. The
sexual abuse of children and young people by some
deacons, priests, and bishops, and the ways in which
these crimes and sins were addressed, have caused
enormous pain, anger, and confusion. As bishops, we
have acknowledged our mistakes and our roles in that
suffering, and we apologize and take responsibility
again for too often failing victims and the Catholic
people in the past. From the depths of our hearts, we
bishops express great sorrow and profound regret for
what the Catholic people have endured.
With this revision of the Charter for the Protection
of Children and Young People, we re-affirm our deep
commitment to creating a safe environment within
the Church for children and youth. We have listened
to the profound pain and suffering of those victimized
by sexual abuse and will continue to respond to their
cries. We have agonized over the sinfulness, the criminality, and the breach of trust perpetrated by some
members of the clergy. We have determined as best we
can the extent of the problem of this abuse of minors
by clergy in our country, and we await the results of a
study of the causes and context of this problem.
We continue to have a special care for and a commitment to reaching out to the victims of sexual abuse
and their families. The damage caused by sexual abuse
of minors is devastating and long—lasting. We apologize to them for the grave harm that has been inflicted
on them, and we offer our help for the future. The loss
of trust that is often the consequence of such abuse
becomes even more tragic when it leads to a loss of the
faith that we have a sacred duty to foster. We make
our own the words of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II:
that the sexual abuse of young people is “by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society;

it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God” (Address
to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference
Officers, April 23, 2002).
Along with the victims and their families, the
entire Catholic community in this country has suffered because of this scandal. In the last three years,
the intense public scrutiny of the minority of the
ordained who have betrayed their calling has caused
the vast majority of faithful priests and deacons to
experience enormous vulnerability to being misunderstood in their ministry and even to the possibility of
false accusations. We share with them a firm commitment to renewing the image of the vocation to Holy
Orders so that it will continue to be perceived as a
life of service to others after the example of Christ
our Lord.
We, who have been given the responsibility of shepherding God’s people, will, with his help and in full
collaboration with all the faithful, continue to work
to restore the bonds of trust that unite us. Words
alone cannot accomplish this goal. It will begin with
the actions we take in our General Assembly and at
home in our dioceses and eparchies.
We feel a particular responsibility for the “the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18) which God, who
reconciled us to himself through Christ, has given
us. The love of Christ impels us to ask forgiveness for
our own faults but also to appeal to all—to those who
have been victimized, to those who have offended,
and to all who have felt the wound of this scandal—
to be reconciled to God and one another.
Perhaps in a way never before experienced, we have
felt the power of sin touch our entire Church family
in this country; but as St. Paul boldly says, God made
Christ “to be sin who did not know sin, so that we
might become the righteousness of God in him”

(2 Cor 5:21). May we who have known sin experience as well, through a spirit of reconciliation, God’s
own righteousness.
We know that after such profound hurt, healing and
reconciliation are beyond human capacity alone. It is
God’s grace and mercy that will lead us forward, trusting Christ’s promise: “for God all things are possible”
(Mt 19:26).
In working toward fulfilling this responsibility, we have
relied first of all on Almighty God to sustain us in faith
and in the discernment of the right course to take.
We have received fraternal guidance and support
from the Holy See that has sustained us in this time
of trial.
We have relied on the Catholic faithful of the United
States. Nationally and in each diocese, the wisdom
and expertise of clergy, religious, and laity have contributed immensely to confronting the effects of the
crisis and taking steps to resolve it. We are filled with
gratitude for their great faith, for their generosity,
and for the spiritual and moral support that we have
received from them.
We acknowledge and affirm the faithful service of the
vast majority of our priests and deacons and the love
that their people have for them. They deservedly have
our esteem and that of the Catholic people for their
good work. It is regrettable that their committed ministerial witness has been overshadowed by this crisis.
In a special way, we acknowledge those victims of
clergy sexual abuse and their families who have
trusted us enough to share their stories and to help us
appreciate more fully the consequences of this reprehensible violation of sacred trust.
Let there now be no doubt or confusion on anyone’s
part: For us, your bishops, our obligation to protect
children and young people and to prevent sexual
abuse flows from the mission and example given to us
by Jesus Christ himself, in whose name we serve.
As we work to restore trust, we are reminded how
Jesus showed constant care for the vulnerable. He
inaugurated his ministry with these words of the

Prophet Isaiah:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
	
because he has anointed me
		 to bring glad tidings to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives
	
and recovery of sight to the blind,
		 to let the oppressed go free,
and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.
(Lk 4:18-19)
In Matthew 25, the Lord, in his commission to his
apostles and disciples, told them that whenever they
show mercy and compassion to the least ones, they
show it to him.
Jesus extended this care in a tender and urgent way
to children, rebuking his disciples for keeping them
away from him: “Let the children come to me” (Mt
19:14). And he uttered a grave warning that for anyone who would lead the little ones astray, it would
be better for such a person “to have a great millstone
hung around his neck and to be drowned in the
depths of the sea” (Mt 18:6).
We hear these words of the Lord as prophetic for this
moment. With a firm determination to restore the
bonds of trust, we bishops recommit ourselves to a
continual pastoral outreach to repair the breach with
those who have suffered sexual abuse and with all the
people of the Church.
In this spirit, over the last three years, the principles
and procedures of the Charter have been integrated
into church life.
•	 The Office for Child and Youth Protection provides the focus for a consistent, ongoing, and
comprehensive approach to creating a secure
environment for young people throughout the
Church in the United States.
•	 The Office also provides the means for us to be
accountable for achieving the goals of the Charter, as demonstrated by its two reports on the
implementation of the Charter based on independent compliance audits.
•	 The National Review Board is carrying on its
responsibility to assist in the assessment of diocesan compliance with the Charter and to com-

•	

•	

•	

•	

mission studies on the sexual abuse of minors,
and it has issued its own Report on the Crisis in the
Catholic Church in the United States.
The descriptive study of the nature and scope of
sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy in the
United States, commissioned by the National
Review Board, has been completed. The resulting
study, examining the historical period 1950-2002,
by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice provides us with a powerful tool not only to examine
our past but also to secure our future against
such misconduct.
Victims’ assistance coordinators are in place
throughout our nation to assist dioceses in
responding to the pastoral needs of those who
have been injured by abuse.
Diocesan/eparchial bishops in every diocese are
advised and greatly assisted by diocesan review
boards as the bishops make the decisions needed
to fulfill the Charter.
Safe environment programs are in place to assist
parents and children—and those who work with
children—in preventing harm to young people.

Through these steps and many others, we remain committed to the safety of our children and young people.
While it seems that the scope of this disturbing
problem of sexual abuse of minors by clergy has been
reduced over the last decade, the harmful effects of
this abuse continue to be experienced both by victims
and dioceses.
Thus it is with a vivid sense of the effort which is
still needed to confront the effects of this crisis fully
and with the wisdom gained by the experience of the
last three years that we have reviewed and revised the
Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.
We now re-affirm that we will assist in the healing
of those who have been injured, will do all in our
power to protect children and young people, and will
work with our clergy, religious, and laity to restore
trust and harmony in our faith communities, as we
pray for God’s kingdom to come, here on earth, as it
is in heaven.
To make effective our goals of a safe environment
within the Church for children and young people and
of preventing sexual abuse of minors by clergy in

the future, we, the members of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops, have outlined in this
Charter a series of practical and pastoral steps, and we
commit ourselves to taking them in our
dioceses and eparchies.

To Promote Healing and
Reconciliation with Victims/
Survivors of Sexual Abuse of
Minors
ARTICLE 1. Dioceses/eparchies are to reach out to
victims/survivors and their families and demonstrate a
sincere commitment to their spiritual and emotional
well-being. The first obligation of the Church with
regard to the victims is for healing and reconciliation. Each diocese/eparchy is to continue its outreach
to every person who has been the victim of sexual
abuse* as a minor by anyone in church service,
whether the abuse was recent or occurred many years
in the past. This outreach may include provision of
counseling, spiritual assistance, support groups, and
other social services agreed upon by the victim and
the diocese/eparchy.
Through pastoral outreach to victims and their
families, the diocesan/eparchial bishop or his representative is to offer to meet with them, to listen with
patience and compassion to their experiences and
concerns, and to share the “profound sense of solidarity and concern” expressed by His Holiness, Pope John
Paul II, in his Address to the Cardinals of the United
States and Conference Officers (April 23, 2002).
ARTICLE 2. Dioceses/eparchies are to have policies
and procedures in place to respond promptly to any
allegation where there is reason to believe that sexual
abuse of a minor has occurred. Dioceses/eparchies are
to have a competent person or persons to coordinate
assistance for the immediate pastoral care of persons
who report having been sexually abused as minors by
clergy or other church personnel. The procedures for
those making a complaint are to be readily available
in printed form in the principal languages in which
the liturgy is celebrated in the diocese/eparchy and be
the subject of public announcements at least annually.

Dioceses/eparchies are also to have a review
board that functions as a confidential consultative
body to the bishop/eparch. The majority of its members are to be lay persons not in the employ of the
diocese/eparchy (see Norm 5 in Essential Norms for
Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of
Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons, 2006).
This board is to advise the diocesan/eparchial bishop
in his assessment of allegations of sexual abuse of
minors and in his determination of a cleric’s suitability for ministry. It is regularly to review diocesan/
eparchial policies and procedures for dealing with
sexual abuse of minors. Also, the board can review
these matters both retrospectively and prospectively
and give advice on all aspects of responses in connection with these cases.
ARTICLE 3. Dioceses/eparchies are not to enter
into settlements which bind the parties to confidentiality unless the victim/survivor requests confidentiality and this request is noted in the text of
the agreement.

To Guarantee an Effective
Response to Allegations of
Sexual Abuse of Minors
ARTICLE 4. Dioceses/eparchies are to report an
allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor
to the public authorities. Dioceses/eparchies are to
comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to
the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to
civil authorities and cooperate in their investigation in
accord with the law of the jurisdiction in question.
Dioceses/eparchies are to cooperate with public
authorities about reporting cases even when the person is no longer a minor.
In every instance, dioceses/eparchies are to advise
victims of their right to make a report to public
authorities and support this right.
ARTICLE 5. We affirm the words of His Holiness,
Pope John Paul II, in his Address to the Cardinals of
the United States and Conference Officers: “There is
no place in the priesthood or religious life for those
who would harm the young.”
Sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric is a crime in
the universal law of the Church (CIC, c. 1395 §2;

CCEO, c. 1453 §1). Because of the seriousness of this
matter, jurisdiction has been reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Motu proprio
Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, AAS 93, 2001).
Sexual abuse of a minor is also a crime in all civil
jurisdictions in the United States.
Diocesan/eparchial policy is to provide that for
even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor*—whenever it occurred—which is admitted or established
after an appropriate process in accord with canon law,
the offending priest or deacon is to be permanently
removed from ministry and, if warranted, dismissed
from the clerical state. In keeping with the stated
purpose of this Charter, an offending priest or deacon
is to be offered therapeutic professional assistance
both for the purpose of prevention and also for his
own healing and well-being.
The diocesan/eparchial bishop is to exercise his
power of governance, within the parameters of the universal law of the Church, to ensure that any priest or
deacon subject to his governance who has committed
even one act of sexual abuse of a minor as described
below (see note) shall not continue in ministry.
A priest or deacon who is 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 not proven, every step possible is to be taken to
restore his good name, should it have been harmed.
In fulfilling this article, dioceses/eparchies are to
follow the requirements of the universal law of the
Church and of the Essential Norms approved for the
United States.
ARTICLE 6. There are to be clear and wellpublicized diocesan/eparchial standards of ministerial
behavior and appropriate boundaries for clergy and
for any other paid personnel and volunteers of the
Church in positions of trust who have regular contact
with children and young people.
ARTICLE 7. Dioceses/eparchies are to be open
and transparent in communicating with the public
about sexual abuse of minors by clergy within the
confines of respect for the privacy and the reputation
of the individuals involved. This is especially so with
regard to informing parish and other church com-

munities directly affected by ministerial misconduct
involving minors.

To Ensure the Accountability
of Our Procedures
ARTICLE 8. By the authority of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the mandate of the
Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse is renewed, and
it is now constituted the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People. It becomes a
standing committee of the Conference. Its membership is to include representation from all the episcopal regions of the country, with new appointments
staggered to maintain continuity in the effort to protect children and youth.
The Committee is to advise the USCCB on all
matters related to child and youth protection and is
to oversee the development of the plans, programs,
and budget of the Office of Child and Youth Protection. It is to provide the USCCB with comprehensive
planning and recommendations concerning child and
youth protection by coordinating the efforts of the
Office and the National Review Board.
ARTICLE 9. The Office for Child and Youth Protection, established by the Conference of Catholic
Bishops, is to staff the Committee for the Protection
of Children and Young People and be a resource for
dioceses/eparchies for the implementation of “safe
environment” programs and for suggested training
and development of diocesan personnel responsible
for child and youth protection programs, taking into
account the financial and other resources, as well
as the population, area, and demographics of the
diocese/eparchy.
The Office is to produce an annual public report
on the progress made in implementing and maintaining the standards in this Charter. The report is to
be based on an annual audit process whose method,
scope, and cost are to be approved by the Administrative Committee on the recommendation of the
Committee for the Protection of Children and Young
People. This public report is to include the names of
those dioceses/eparchies which the audit shows are
not in compliance with the provisions and expectations of the Charter.

As a member of the Conference staff, the Executive Director of the Office is appointed by and reports
to the General Secretary. The Executive Director
is to provide the Committee for the Protection of
Children and Young People and the National Review
Board with regular reports of the Office’s activities.
ARTICLE 10. The whole Church, especially the
laity, at both the diocesan and national levels, needs
to be engaged in maintaining safe environments in
the Church for children and young people.
The Committee for the Protection of Children
and Young People is to be assisted by the National
Review Board, a consultative body established in 2002
by the USCCB. The Board will review the annual
report of the Office of Child and Youth Protection on
the implementation of this Charter in each diocese/
eparchy and any recommendations that emerge from
it, and offer its own assessment regarding its approval
and publication to the Conference President.
The Board will also advise the Conference
President on future members. The Board members are
appointed by the Conference President in consultation
with the Administrative Committee and are accountable to him and to the USCCB Executive Committee.
Before a candidate is contacted, the Conference President is to seek and obtain, in writing, the endorsement
of the candidate’s diocesan bishop. The Board is to
operate in accord with the statutes and bylaws of the
USCCB and within procedural guidelines to be developed by the Board in consultation with the Committee
for the Protection of Children and Young People and
approved by the USCCB Administrative Committee. These guidelines are to set forth such matters as
the Board’s purpose and responsibility, officers, terms
of office, and frequency of reports to the Conference
President on its activities.
The Board will offer its advice as it collaborates
with the Committee for the Protection of Children
and Young People on matters of child and youth
protection, specifically on policies and best practices.
The Board and Committee for the Protection of
Children and Young People will meet jointly several
times a year.
The Board will review the work of the Office of
Child and Youth Protection and make recommendations to the Director. It will assist the Director in the
development of resources for dioceses.

The Board is to oversee the completion of the
study of the causes and context of the recent crisis.
The Board will offer its assessment of the data gathered and preliminary results to the Committee for the
Protection of Children and Young People as the study
moves forward.
ARTICLE 11. The President of the Conference is to
inform the Holy See of this revised Charter to indicate the manner in which we, the Catholic bishops,
together with the entire Church in the United States,
intend to continue our commitment to the protection
of children and young people. The President is also
to share with the Holy See the annual reports on the
implementation of the Charter.

To Protect the Faithful in
the Future
ARTICLE 12. Dioceses/eparchies are to maintain
“safe environment” programs which the diocesan/
eparchial bishop deems to be in accord with Catholic
moral principles. They are to be conducted cooperatively with parents, civil authorities, educators, and
community organizations to provide education and
training for children, youth, parents, ministers, educators, volunteers, and others about ways to make and
maintain a safe environment for children and young
people. Dioceses/eparchies are to make clear to clergy
and all members of the community the standards of
conduct for clergy and other persons in positions of
trust with regard to children.
ARTICLE 13. Dioceses/eparchies are to evaluate the
background of all incardinated and non-incardinated
priests and deacons who are engaged in ecclesiastical
ministry in the diocese/eparchy and of all diocesan/
eparchial and parish/school or other paid personnel and volunteers whose duties include ongoing,
unsuper-vised contact with minors. Specifically, they
are to utilize the resources of law enforcement and
other community agencies. In addition, they are to
employ adequate screening and evaluative techniques
in deciding the fitness of candidates for ordination
(cf. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
Program of Priestly Formation [Fifth Edition], 2006, no.
39).

ARTICLE 14. Transfers of clergy who have committed an act of sexual abuse against a minor for
residence, including retirement, shall be as in accord
with Norm 12 of the Essential Norms. (Cf. Proposed
Guidelines on the Transfer or Assignment of Clergy and
Religious, adopted by the USCCB, the Conference of
Major Superiors of Men, the Leadership Conference
of Women Religious, and the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious in 1993.)
ARTICLE 15. To ensure continuing collaboration
and mutuality of effort in the protection of children
and young people on the part of the bishops and religious ordinaries, two representatives of the Conference
of Major Superiors of Men are to serve as consultants
to the Committee for the Protection of Children and
Young People. At the invitation of the Major Superiors, the Committee will designate two of its members
to consult with its counterpart at CMSM. Diocesan/
eparchial bishops and major superiors of clerical
institutes or their delegates are to meet periodically
to coordinate their roles concerning the issue of allegations made against a cleric member of a religious
institute ministering in a diocese/eparchy.
ARTICLE 16. Given the extent of the problem of
the sexual abuse of minors in our society, we are willing to cooperate with other churches and ecclesial
communities, other religious bodies, institutions of
learning, and other interested organizations in conducting research in this area.
ARTICLE 17. We pledge our complete cooperation
with the Apostolic Visitation of our diocesan/
eparchial seminaries and religious houses of formation
recommended in the Interdicasterial Meeting with
the Cardinals of the United States and the Conference Officers in April 2002.
We commit ourselves to work individually in
our dioceses/eparchies and together as a Conference,
through the appropriate committees, to strengthen
our programs both for initial priestly formation and
for the ongoing formation of priests. With new
urgency, we will promote programs of human formation for chastity and celibacy for both seminarians
and priests based upon the criteria found in Pastores
Dabo Vobis, the Program of Priestly Formation, and the
Basic Plan for the Ongoing Formation of Priests. We will

continue to assist priests, deacons, and seminarians in
living out their vocation in faithful and integral ways.
We bishops and eparchs commit ourselves to
work as one with our brother priests and deacons to
foster reconciliation among all people in our dioceses/
eparchies, especially with those individuals who were
themselves abused and the communities that have
suffered because of the sexual abuse of minors that
occurred in their midst.

Conclusion
As we wrote three years ago, “It is within this context
of the essential soundness of the priesthood and of the
deep faith of our brothers and sisters in the Church
that we know that we can meet and resolve this crisis
for now and the future.”
We wish to reaffirm once again that the vast majority of priests and deacons serve their people faithfully
and that they have the esteem and affection of their
people. They also have our love and esteem and our
commitment to their good names and well-being.
An essential means of dealing with the crisis is prayer
for healing and reconciliation, and acts of reparation
for the grave offense to God and the deep wound
inflicted upon his holy people. Closely connected to
prayer and acts of reparation is the call to holiness of
life and the care of the diocesan/eparchial bishop to
ensure that he and his priests avail themselves of the
proven ways of avoiding sin and growing in holiness
of life.
It is with reliance on prayer and penance that we
renew the pledges which we made in the original
Charter:
We pledge most solemnly to one another and to
you, God’s people, that we will work to our utmost
for the protection of children and youth.
We pledge that we will devote to this goal the
resources and personnel necessary to
accomplish it.
We pledge that we will do our best to ordain to the
priesthood and put into positions of trust only those

who share this commitment to protecting children
and youth.
We pledge that we will work toward healing and
reconciliation for those sexually abused
by clerics.
Much has been done to honor these pledges. We
devoutly pray that God who has begun this good
work in us will bring it to fulfillment.
This Charter is published for the dioceses/eparchies
of the United States. It is to be reviewed again in
five years by the Committee for the Protection of
Children and Young People with the advice of the
National Review Board. The results of this review
are to be presented to the full Conference of Bishops
for confirmation.

NOTE
*	 In accord with Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (SST),
article 4 §1, sexual abuse, for purposes of this Charter,
shall include any offense by a cleric against the Sixth
Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor as
understood in the Code of Canon Law, c. 1395 §2 (“A
cleric who in another way has committed an offense
against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the
delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or
with a minor below the age of sixteen years [raised in
SST to eighteen years which has been the age of majority for the USA since 1994], is to be punished with
just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical
state if the case so warrants”) and the Code of Canons
of the Eastern Churches, c. 1453 §1 (“A cleric who lives
in concubinage or gives permanent scandal by publicly
sinning against chastity is to be punished with a suspension, to which, other penalties can be gradually added
up to deposition, if he persists in the offense”).
		
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 Involving Sexual
Misconduct and Dismissal from the Clerical State, 1995, 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.