WHAT MIGHT A PROTOCOL FOR INVESTIGATING BISHOPS LOOK LIKE?

In the wake of the McCarrick scandal, I (and others wiser than I ever will be) have insisted that the Pope Francis and the Holy See establish legal protocols which would govern how allegations against Bishops are investigated and adjudicated.  

But what would such a protocol look like?

I suggest the following.

Upon receipt of a allegation of criminal behavior against a Bishop, the Holy See should be immediately informed as well as police and civil authorities.  

The Holy See should dispatch emissaries to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine if there are reasons to suspect the allegation is credible and actionable.  

Archbishop Scicluna has done an excellent job investigating such allegations.  More of his character and skill are needed to conduct such inquiries for the Holy See, perhaps assisted by those with expertise in criminal investigations:  private detectives and retired police officers, for example.

If the preliminary investigation finds that an allegation is credible and actionable, the Bishop should be immediately suspended from Office and an Apostolic Administrator be appointed to govern the diocese in the interim.

From that moment on, two investigations would proceed:  one by the Holy See and the other by local government prosecutors.

For its part, the Vatican would conduct further investigation, employing independent forensic agencies whose findings, along with the testimony of victims and witnesses, would be submitted to an ecclesiastical tribunal for judgment.  

Of course, the accused Bishop would be given every opportunity to defend himself, including the cross-examination of accusers and witnesses as well as the presentation of evidence to refute the findings of any experts called to offer testimony.

The secular criminal prosecution would follow the protocols established by the courts.

The Vatican tribunal, weighing the probative value of the evidence presented to it, would then make conclusions to be presented to the Pope, who alone is competent to judge a Bishop.  

This tribunal would be a permanent Vatican agency and operate completely independent from interference or influence by Roman Curia.

Within 30 days of receipt of the tribunal's conclusions, the Pope would render judgment and issue a sentence either exhonorating the Bishop or finding him guilty of the charges made against him.

If exhonorated, the Bishop would be publicly declared to have been found not guilty of the alleged charges and be returned to ministry, pending the outcome of the civil proceedings.

If found guilty, the Bishop would be suspended a divinis (from the exercise of his Priestly ministry) and, if warranted, be removed from the Clerical state by way of laicization.

This is but a broad overview of what such an ecclesiastical judicial process would look like.  

Certainly, details would have to be added and tweeked to insure justice not only for victims but for the accused as well.

One thing is certain:  the Church needs to get its act together.  It must provide for a fair and rapid adjudication of allegations against a Bishop. 

It must rely on outside and independent investigators competent in the prosecution of such charges.  And it must be completely transparent throughout the entire process of adjudication.

Unless such a clear protocol is established and put into practice, the confidence of the faithful in the Holy See, the Bishops and the Church itself will continue to deteriorate.

The time to act is now!