“In September 1991, Bishop Jerome Hanus of St. Cloud, Minnesota, established a sexual misconduct policy for all personnel of the diocese.\u201d Unlike the policies of Salt Lake City and Davenport, it was not focused solely on child victims, but dealt with \u201cvulnerable persons,\u201d which could include vulnerable adults.”<\/p>\n
“Also unlike its predecessors, it did not establish any kind of a review board. lt mandated that all diocesan personnel report to the diocese any \u201cincident of sexual misconduct by any personnel of the diocese.” These allegations would be investigated \u201cby the bishop or his designate.\u201d Accused priests are to be informed of their civil and canonical rights, and if the claim is \u201csubstantiated or appears to be substantiable (sic),” they are to be removed from their assignment and placed on administrative leave. When guilt is established, the priest will be suspended and \u201cfurther penal sanctions, including, but not limited to, dismissal from the clerical state, may be imposed pending the outcome of any civil\/criminal actions, if any.”<\/p>\n
Before Dallas: the U.S. Bishops’ response to clergy sexual abuse of children “In September 1991, Bishop Jerome Hanus of St. Cloud, Minnesota, established a sexual misconduct policy for all personnel of the diocese.\u201d Unlike the policies of Salt Lake City and Davenport, it was not focused solely on child victims, but dealt … Continue reading
\nBy Nicholas P. Cafardi
\nAvailable at Amazon.com [ Go<\/a> ]\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"