John L. Allen Jr. has a really interesting article on Crux about the Vatican's "lingering ambivalence on 'zero tolerance'"
As some of you know, I've written a lot about legal aspects of the abuse crisis. See, e.g., Enhanced Accountability: The Catholic Church's Unfinished Business, 53 U.S.F. L. Rev. 165 (2019); The Bishop's Alter Ego: Enterprise Liability and the Catholic Priest Sex Abuse Scandal, 46 J. Cath. Leg. Stud. 65 (2007). But my work hasn't focused on zero tolerance policies, so that article triggered some new ideas that I'll be working on.
At first blush, it strikes me that the only persuasive argument against zero tolerance in this context is Sister Anna Deodato's argument that the work towards justice and peace in the context of the abuse scandal includes ensuring that the abusers are "accompanied in the journey of becoming more responsible, their request for forgiveness and reconciliation, and their psychological care and spiritual support.”
But it also seems to me that there is a version of zero tolerance that balances that concern with the overriding need to ensure that victims are protected and that abusers be removed from positions in which they could continue to commit abusive acts.
One might, for example, provide that, at the end of whatever secular punishment is imposed on the abuser, the abuser be sent to a remote monastery where they could receive psychological and spiritual counseling but be isolated from opportunities to abuse anyone ever again.
