Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) commissioned the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2002 to conduct a comprehensive study based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The product of the study, titled the John Jay Report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the priests who had served during the period covered by the survey (1950–2002).[46] Of the abused, 81% were male, and 19% were female, 22% were younger than age 11, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages of 15 and 17 years when first abused. Within the youngest age group, 64% of abused children were male, while within the older age groups, 85% were male.[46] 2,411 of the priests had a single allegation made against them, while 149 priests had 10 or more allegations made against them.

The John Jay report identified that the reported sexual abuse cases had a sharp increase in the 1960s and continued to do so until the decrease of reported sexual abuse cases in the 1980s.[5] The decrease in allegations has continued until today.[5] There does not appear to be a single primary cause of the abuse patterns within the Catholic clergy; however, the John Jay report suggests that many of the abusing priests were inclined to abuse victims because they themselves have experienced childhood sexual abuse first hand.[5]

A further analysis by the John Jay College found that, among clerics with a single accusation of abuse, the victims were more evenly divided between male and female and were more likely to be older. Abusers with greater numbers of victims abused a higher proportion of boys.[47] The report also identified some subsets of abusive behaviour: pedophilia (96 priests) and homosexual ephebophilia (474 priests).

In spite of the importance of this study, the John Jay studies have been heavily criticized.[5] Some critics deemed the studies as inaccurate and consider the researchers ignorant on the subject.[5]

In 2018, a grand jury in Pennsylvania issued a report of 884 pages,[48] stating that there were over 1,000 identifiable child victims of sexual abuse by over 300 priests in six of the eight Roman Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania,[49] while advising "that there were likely to be thousands more."[50] Only two criminal charges were brought, as either the priests involved had died or the statute of limitations had run out, a situation the grand jury stated made them "sick".[48]^:2 The grand jury recommended to the Pennsylvania Legislature that:

• the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse in Pennsylvania be completely eliminated[48]^:7
• the window for filing civil suits be expanded[48]^:8
• the laws requiring reporting of abuse be strengthened[48]^:8
• a requirement be put into law mandating that any non-disclosure agreement include the statement that a non-disclosure agreement does not (and legally can not) prohibit victims from talking to law enforcement[48]^:8–9

The grand jury found that Church officials followed a "playbook for concealing the truth," minimizing the abuse by using words like "inappropriate contact" instead of "rape".[49] State Attorney General Josh Shapiro, whose office initiated the investigation, said in a news conference, “They protected their institution at all costs. As the grand jury found, the church showed a complete disdain for victims.”[49]

The Vatican has declined to respond to the grand jury report detailing decades of sexual abuse and cover-ups by priests and bishops in Pennsylvania, refusing even to say whether church officials in Rome have read the damaging documents.[51]

The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about the crimes committed, but reassigned the accused instead of seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood.[6][53] In defense of this practice, some have pointed out that public school administrators acted in a similar manner when dealing with teachers accused of sexual misconduct,[54] as did the Boy Scouts of America.[55]

Some bishops have been heavily criticized for moving offending priests from parish to parish, where they still had personal contact with children, rather than seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood. Instead of reporting the incidents to police, many dioceses directed the offending priests to seek psychological treatment and assessment.

In response to these allegations, defenders of the Church's actions have suggested that in reassigning priests after treatment, bishops were acting on the best medical advice then available, a policy also followed by the US public school system when dealing with accused teachers. Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[53][56] Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned.[57][58] Critics have questioned whether bishops are necessarily able to form accurate judgments on a priest's recovery. The priests were allowed to resume their previous duties with children only when the bishop was advised by the treating psychologists or psychiatrists that it was safe for them to resume their duties.

On March 6, 2020, a joint investigation conducted by Propublica and the Houston Chronicle was published which revealed that the Catholic Church transferred more than 50 credibly accused U.S. Catholic clergy to other countries after sex abuse accusations surfaced against them.[59][60]

Sexual abuse has been institutionalized, routinized and tolerated by the church hierarchy for decades; some claim that in these actions the church acted as a criminal syndicate,[61] and many believe that the Catholic Church is guilty of a grave moral failure for allowing massive sexual abuse of children.[62] In response to the failure to report abuse to the police, lawmakers have changed the law to make reporting of abuse to police compulsory. An example of this can be found in Massachusetts, USA.[63]

William McMurry, a Louisville, Kentucky lawyer, filed suit against the Vatican[64] in June 2004 on behalf of three men allegedly abusing as far back as 1928, accusing Church leaders of organizing a cover-up of cases of sexual abuse of children. In November 2008, the United States Court of Appeals in Cincinnati denied the Vatican's claim of sovereign immunity and allowed the case to proceed. The Vatican initially stated that it did not plan to appeal the ruling.

The response to allegations of sexual abuse in a diocese was largely left to the bishop or archbishop. Many of the accused priests were forced to resign or were laicized. In addition, several bishops who had participated in the cover-up were also forced to resign or retire.[74]

The dioceses in which abuse was committed or in which abuse allegations were settled out of court found it necessary to make financial settlements with the victims totaling over $1.5 billion as of March 2006.[75] The number and size of these settlements made it necessary for the dioceses to reduce their ordinary operating expenses by closing churches and schools. In many instances, dioceses were forced to declare bankruptcy as a result of the settlements.

On April 30, 2001, John Paul II issued a letter stating that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or 'delictum gravius.'"[76]

John F. Allen Jr., Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, has commented that many American Catholics saw the Vatican's initial silence on The Boston Globe stories as showing a lack of concern or awareness about the issue. However, Allen said that he doesn't know anyone in the Roman Curia who was not horrified "by the revelations that came out of the Globe and elsewhere" or that "would defend Cardinal Law’s handling of the cases in Boston" or "would defend the rather shocking lack of oversight that revealed itself [although] they might have different analyses of what should have happened to him".[73] Allen described the Vatican's perspective as being somewhat skeptical of the media handling of the scandal. In addition, he asserted that the Vatican viewed American cultural attitudes toward sexuality as being somewhat hysterical as well as exhibiting a lack of understanding of the Catholic Church.

No one [in the Vatican] thinks the sexual abuse of kids is unique to the States, but they do think that the reporting on it is uniquely American, fueled by anti-Catholicism and shyster lawyers hustling to tap the deep pockets of the church. And that thinking is tied to the larger perception about American culture, which is that there is a hysteria when it comes to anything sexual, and an incomprehension of the Catholic Church. What that means is that Vatican officials are slower to make the kinds of public statements that most American Catholics want, and when they do make them they are tentative and halfhearted. It's not that they don't feel bad for the victims, but they think the clamor for them to apologize is fed by other factors that they don't want to capitulate to.[73]

In April 2002, Pope John Paul II called to Rome the U.S. cardinals, plus the president and vice president of the USCCB. The pope asserted that "there is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young." The meeting's participants drew up a final statement, which called for a set of national standards for dealing with sexual abuse of minors by priests and new procedures for dismissing from the clerical state those found guilty of that crime.

According to John Allen Jr., Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, cultural differences between the Vatican and American Catholics complicated the process of formulating a comprehensive response to the sexual abuse scandal. Allen asserted that the sexual abuse crisis illustrated that "there is a lot about the American culture and the American Church that puzzles people in the Vatican, and there is much about the Vatican that puzzles Americans and English speakers generally."[73]

As the breadth and depth of the scandals became apparent in dioceses across the United States, it became apparent to the American bishops that a joint response was warranted at the episcopal conference level. John F. Allen Jr. characterized the reaction of the USCCB as calling for “swift, sure and final punishment for priests who are guilty of this kind of misconduct.” In contrast to this, Allen characterized the Vatican's primary concern as wanting to make sure “that everyone’s rights are respected, including the rights of accused clergy" and wanting to affirm that it is not acceptable to "remedy the injustice of sexual abuse with the injustice of railroading priests who may or may not be guilty.”[73]

According to Bishop Blase J. Cupich, then Bishop of Rapid City, by 2008 the U.S. church had trained 5.8 million children to recognize and report abuse. It had run criminal checks on 1.53 million volunteers and employees, 162,700 educators, 51,000 clerics and 4,955 candidates for ordination. It had trained 1.8 million clergy, employees and volunteers in creating a safe environment for children.[77]

In 2019, more than 2.6 million background checks were conducted on clergy, employees and volunteers, and more than 2.6 million adults and 3.6 million youths were trained on identifying warning signs of abuse and how to report them. Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which advocates for survivors of clergy sex abuse, expressed concern about a section of the report indicating that only 60% of parishes nationwide were performing safety audits on their own.[78]

In June 2002, the USCCB unanimously promulgated a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, sometimes referred to as the Dallas Charter.[79] The charter committed the Catholic Church in the U.S. to the goal of providing a "safe environment" for all children and youth participating in activities sponsored by the Church. To accomplish this, the U.S. bishops pledged to establish uniform procedures for handling sex-abuse allegations against lay teachers in Catholic schools, parish staff members, coaches and other people who represent the Church to young people.[80][81]

The thrust of the charter was the adoption of a "zero tolerance" policy for sexual abuse.[82][83] The USCCB instituted reforms to prevent future abuse by requiring background checks for Church employees.[80] They now require dioceses faced with an allegation to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation and remove the accused from duty.[80][81]

An audit of the Charter was completed in 2010.[84] In June 2014, the chairman of the USCCB's National Review Board reported that Conley's diocese and three eparchies had yet to comply with the USCCB's charter requiring every diocese to submit its procedures for the protection of children to the Review Board for an audit.[85]

In June 2002, to ensure that each diocese/eparchy in the United States had "procedures in place to respond promptly to allegations of sexual abuse of minors", the USCCB also issued "Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priest or Deacons". In October, the USCCB and the Holy See established a commission of four bishops from the Holy See and four bishops from the United States to review the norms.[86] In November, the U.S. bishops were invited to accept the commission's work, but not to propose amendments.[87] Following the document's approval, the USCCB issued the revised version of the norms.[88] According to the USCCB, the Essential Norms constitute "'particular' canon law", that is, canon law for the Catholic bishops in the United States.[89]

The National Review Board engaged the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York to conduct a study analyzing allegations of sexual abuse in Catholic dioceses in United States. The time period covered by the John Jay study began in 1950 and ended in 2002. The product of the study was a report to the National Review Board titled "The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States" and commonly referred to as the "John Jay Report".

The John Jay report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the 110,000 priests who had served during the period covered by the survey (1950–2002).[46] The report found that, over the 52-year period covered by the study, "the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95 percent of the dioceses and approximately 60 percent of religious communities."[90]

In 2008, the Church asserted that the scandal was a very serious problem but, at the same time, estimated that it was "probably caused by 'no more than 1 per cent' (or 5,000) of the over 500,000 Roman Catholic priests worldwide.

The John Jay report has been updated through 2010.[91]

A study conducted by CARA in 2007 found that, although many Catholics are unaware of the specific steps that the church has taken, when informed of them, large majorities approve these actions. 78 percent strongly approved of reporting allegations of sexual abuse by clergy to civil authorities and cooperating in civil investigations. 76 percent strongly approved of removing from ministry people credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor.

Although allegations of clergy sexual abuse have surfaced in several countries around the world, there have been no comprehensive studies which compare the relative incidence of sexual abuse in different areas. However, there is a general perception that the issue has been most prominent in the United States, and then in Australia, Canada and Ireland.[92]

The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[75]

Of the 11,000 allegations reported by bishops in the John Jay study, 3300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. 6700 allegations were substantiated, leaving 1000 which could not be substantiated.

According to the John Jay report, one-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002-2003. Another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001.[75]

In consideration to the victims who reported their abuse, there are still many victims that have not reported their perpetrators and continue to survive with their experiences. In terms of children, data illustrates that the number of child-victims are “significantly underreported”.[5] According to academic journal Deviant Behavior, “Approximately 78% of the victims (male and females) were between the age of 11 and 17, 16% were between 8 and 10, and 6% were younger than 7”.[5]

The John Jay study found that, "Like in the general population, child sex abuse in the Catholic Church appears to be committed by men close to the children they allegedly abuse." According to the study, "many (abusers) appear to use grooming tactics to entice children into complying with the abuse, and the abuse occurs in the home of the alleged abuser or victim." The study characterized these enticements as actions such as buying the minor gifts, letting the victim drive a car and taking youths to sporting events. The most frequent context for abuse was a social event and many priests socialized with the families of victims. Abuses occurred in a variety of places with the most common being the residence of the priest.[90]

The John Jay report catalogued more than twenty types of sexual abuse ranging from verbal harassment to penile penetration. It said that most of the abusers engaged in multiple types of abuses. According to the report, only 9 percent of the accused performed acts limited to improper touching over the victim's clothes. Slightly more than 27 percent of the allegations involved a cleric performing oral sex and 25 percent involved penile penetration or attempted penile penetration, reported the study.

The study said sexual abuse "includes contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used as an object of sexual gratification for the adult." The report categorized allegations of sexual abuse even if the allegation did not involve force or genital or physical contact.[90]

The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male. 22% of victims were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages 15 and 17 years.[75][90]

Half the priests were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse. Fewer than 7 percent of the priests were reported to have experienced physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19 percent of the accused priests had alcohol or substance abuse problems, only 9 percent used drugs or alcohol during the alleged instances of abuse.[75]

Over the period from 1890 to 2002, the majority of priests accused of sexual abuse were ordained in the mid-20th century, with 68% of all alleged abusers ordained between 1950 and 1979. The share of all accused priests by decade of ordination tripled from just 2% in the 1920s to 6% in the 1930s, doubling to 12% in the 1940s, and again to 23% in the 1950s. The number of alleged abusers peaked in the 1960s as over 25% of all accused priests were ordained between 1960 and 1969; another 20% of all accused clerics were ordained during the 1970s. But the number of accused tumbled precipitously to only 8% of priests ordained in the 1980s, and a mere 2% of all alleged abusers were ordained after 1990.[93]

Of the priests who were accused of sexual abuse, 59% were accused of a single allegation. 41% of the priests were the subject of more than one allegation. Just under 3% of the priests were the subject of ten or more allegations. The 149 priests who had more than 10 allegations against them accounted for 2,960 of the total number of allegations.[75]

In April 2003, the Pontifical Academy for Life organized a three-day conference, entitled "Abuse of Children and Young People by Catholic Priests and Religious", where eight non-Catholic psychiatric experts were invited to speak to near all Vatican dicasteries' representatives. The panel of experts identified the following factors contributing to the sexual abuse problem:[94]

• Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem.
• Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal.
• Use of unqualified treatment centers.
• Misguided willingness to forgive.
• Insufficient accountability.

In response to criticism that the Catholic hierarchy should have acted more quickly and decisively to remove priests accused of sexual misconduct, contemporary bishops have responded that the hierarchy was unaware until recent years of the danger in shuffling priests from one parish to another and in concealing the priests' problems from those they served. For example, Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, said: "We have said repeatedly that ... our understanding of this problem and the way it's dealt with today evolved, and that in those years ago, decades ago, people didn't realize how serious this was, and so, rather than pulling people out of ministry directly and fully, they were moved."[95]

Some bishops have been heavily criticized for moving offending priests from parish to parish, where they still had personal contact with children, rather than seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood by defrocking. The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about some of the alleged crimes committed, but reassigned the accused instead of seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood.[6][53]

In defense of this practice, some have pointed out that public school administrators engaged in a similar manner when dealing with accused teachers,[54] as did the Boy Scouts of America.[55]

Instead of reporting the incidents to police, many dioceses directed the offending priests to seek psychological treatment and assessment. According to the John Jay report, nearly 40 percent of priests alleged to have committed sexual abuse participated in treatment programs. The more allegations a priest had, the more likely he was to participate in treatment.[75] From a legal perspective, the most serious criticism aside from the incidents of child sexual abuse themselves was by the bishops, who failed to report accusations to the police. In response to the failure to report abuse to the police, lawmakers have changed the law to make reporting of abuse to police compulsory. In 2002, Massachusetts passed a law requiring religious officials to report the abuse of children.[96]

In response to these allegations, defenders of the Church's actions have suggested that in reassigning priests after treatment, bishops were acting on the best medical advice then available, a policy also followed by the US public school system when dealing with accused teachers. Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[53][56] Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned.[57][58] Critics have questioned whether bishops are necessarily able to form accurate judgments on a priest's recovery. The priests were allowed to resume their previous duties with children only when the bishop was advised by the treating psychologists or psychiatrists that it was safe for them to resume their duties.

According to the John Jay study, 3 percent of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2 percent received prison sentences."[90]

In 2002, The Boston Globe publicized their research of sex abusers within the Catholic church, being primarily priests within the Boston Archdioceses. Through the research and interviews conducted, the Boston Globe uncovered upwards of 130 victims of sexual abuse by a single priest.[3] This information caused a public uproar as many accused priests were still practicing. The results of the Boston Globes’ research indicate that “more than 800 individuals accused 248 Boston Archdioceses priests of abusing them as children”.[3]

The Boston Globe spoke with several victims about their perpetrators and gathered significant details which were then published. Following the first publications, The Boston Globe continued to publish new articles on a daily basis and exposed hundreds of cases where priests were involved in sexual abuse scandals.[3]

The Boston Globe found that accused priests were put on a temporary “sick leave” and were then transferred to another parish where the priest could have a fresh start.[3] This was done without the knowledge of the parish. The victims often were offered a financial settlement in order to keep their experience out of the public eye.[3]

Differing perspectives and misconceptions contributed to negative public opinion in the U.S. towards what was perceived as the failure of the Catholic hierarchy to respond adequately to allegations of sexual abuse and the seemingly sluggish response of the Vatican to the unfolding scandal. Some sources argue that the negative public opinion was fueled in part by statements made to the media by various parties with differing agendas including lawyers for those suing the Church for damages resulting the alleged sexual abuse. As the public furor over the scandal grew, some members of the Catholic Church began to see an anti-Catholic agenda behind some of these pronouncements.

Criticism of media coverage by Catholics and others centered on an excessive focus being placed on Catholic incidences of abuse. Such voices argue that equal or greater levels of child sexual abuse in other religious groups or in secular contexts such as the US public school system have been either ignored or given minimal coverage by mainstream media.[97] Commentator Tom Hoopes wrote that:

during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools.[98]

Anglican writer Philip Jenkins supported many of these arguments stating that media coverage of the abuse story had become "..a gross efflorescence of anti-catholic rhetoric."[99]

In 1993, Pope John Paul II addressed the sexual abuse issues via a letter. This letter was sent to American Bishops. This is said to be the first time the Vatican addressed the sexual abuse cases that were occurring.[100] Pope John Paul II stated, “Woe to the world because of scandals!”[100] The letter continues with a somber tone of sorrow for those who are victims.

In 2003, Pope John Paul II stated that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".[101]

Pope Benedict XVI apologized for the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy and pledged that abusers would not be allowed to become priests in the Catholic Church.[102] A document obtained by The Associated Press shows Pope Benedict XVI laicized nearly 400 priests over just two years for sexually molesting children.[103]

The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (Italian: Pontificia Commissione per la Tutela dei Minori) was instituted by Pope Francis on 22 March 2014 for the safeguarding of minors.[104] It is headed by Boston's Cardinal Archbishop, Sean P. O'Malley, O.F.M. Cap..

In October 2018, the Holy See announced that it would conduct an investigation into how allegations against Theodore McCarrick, a former cardinal and Catholic Archbishop of Washington, D.C. from 2001 to 2006, who was laicized[105] in February 2019, following credible allegations of repeated sexual misconduct towards children and seminarians, were handled. The Report was published on Tuesday, Nov. 10, at 2p.m. local time in Rome, under the title "Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017)."[106] Summarizing the key findings of the Report, Andrea Tornielli said:

At the time of Theodore McCarrick’s appointment as Archbishop of Washington in 2000, the Holy See acted on the basis of partial and incomplete information. What has now come to light are omissions, underestimations, and choices that later proved to be wrong, due in part to the fact that, during the assessment process requested by Rome at the time, those questioned did not always disclose all they knew. Until 2017, there had never been any precise accusation regarding sexual abuse or harassment or harm done to a minor. As soon as the first report was received from a victim who was a minor at the time the abuse was committed, Pope Francis reacted promptly regarding the elderly cardinal, who had already retired as head of the archdiocese in 2006, first taking away his red hat and then dismissing him from the clerical state. This is what emerges from the Report on the Holy See’s Institutional Knowledge and Decision-Making Related to Former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (1930 to 2017) published by the Secretariat of State.[107]

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were both blamed in the Vatican report for allowing McCarrick to rise in power despite the fact that they both knew of sex abuse allegations against him.[108][109]

According to Donald Cozzens, "by the end of the mid 1990s, it was estimated that ...more than half a billion dollars had been paid in jury awards, settlements and legal fees." This figure grew to about one billion dollars by 2002.[110] Roman Catholics spent $615 million on sex abuse cases in 2007.[111]

In 2002, one attorney reported total earnings of $60 million from suing the church.[112]

For some of the payments loans of up to $500 million were extended to four American dioceses in 2005–07 by Allied Irish Banks (AIB), based in the Republic of Ireland. Peter Sutherland had been chairman of AIB in 1989–93, and was the Consulter of the Extraordinary Section of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See from December 2006. AIB had to be nationalized during the Irish financial crisis.

• Citing monetary concerns arising from impending trials on sex abuse claims, the Archdiocese of Portland (Oregon) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2004, hours before two abuse trials were set to begin, becoming the first Roman Catholic diocese to file for bankruptcy. If granted, bankruptcy would mean pending and future lawsuits would be settled in federal bankruptcy court. The archdiocese had settled more than one hundred previous claims for a sum of over $53 million. The filing seeks to protect parish assets, school money and trust funds from abuse victims; the archdiocese's contention is that parish assets are not the archdiocese's assets. Plaintiffs in the cases against the archdiocese have argued that the Catholic Church is a single entity, and that the Vatican should be liable for any damages awarded in judgment of pending sexual abuse cases.
• In December 2004, the Diocese of Spokane, Washington agreed to pay at least $48 million as compensation to those abused by priests as part of its bankruptcy filing. This payout has to be agreed upon by victims and another judge.[116]
• The Diocese of Tucson filed for bankruptcy in September 2004. The diocese reached an agreement with its victims, which the bankruptcy judge approved June 11, 2005, specifying terms that included allowing the diocese reorganization to continue in return for a $22.2 million settlement.[123]
• On October 10, 2006, the Diocese of Davenport filed for Chapter 11 protection.[124] The decision to file for bankruptcy was driven by many claims which focused on Bishop Lawrence Soens, who had been accused of fondling as many as 15 students during his tenure as priest and principal at Regina Catholic High School in Iowa City during the 1960s. Soens denies the allegations. A judge discharged one suit in October 2006.[125]
• On February 27, 2007, the Diocese of San Diego filed for Chapter 11 protection, hours before the first of about 150 lawsuits was due to be heard. San Diego became the largest diocese to postpone its legal problems in this way.[126] The bankruptcy was dismissed November 16, 2007, on a motion by the Diocese after a settlement of $198 million was reached with 144 claimants.
• On March 7, 2008, the Diocese of Fairbanks filed for bankruptcy after the failure of negotiations to settle 130 civil suits filed by Alaska natives who claimed to be abused by priests, and other church employees, beginning in the 1950s.[127]
• On October 18, 2008, the Diocese of Wilmington filed for bankruptcy as the first of some eight lawsuits (of more than 100 potential) was scheduled to go to trial the next day.[128][129][130]
• On January 4, 2011, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee announced that it would be filing for bankruptcy. The church was facing more than 23 lawsuits, and attempts to reach a mediated settlement with victims failed in December 2010. This came two days before the Bishop was scheduled to be deposed about these cases, and after the church had refused to release the names or personnel records of the accused priests. The opposing attorney said that the bankruptcy filing was an attempt to delay turning over church records on the cases. The Milwaukee archdiocese has already paid out over $29 million to settle 200 cases over the last 20 years. They said that these additional cases would cause hefty legal fees that the dioceses could not afford. The diocese has assets of about $98.4 million, but $90 million of that is restricted for specific uses.[131] Prior to the bankruptcy Cardinal Timothy Dolan then an Archbishop, with Vatican approval transferred $57 million from diocesan funds to prevent victims awarded compensation accessing the money.[52][132]
• On January 17, 2015, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization.[133][134][135][136]
• On December 7, 2015, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Duluth filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. The bankruptcy follows a $8.1 million verdict against the diocese.[137][138][139][140]
• On February 19, 2020, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Harrisburg filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after disclosing to federal bankruptcy court it has more than 200 creditors and estimated liabilities between $50 million and $100 million, with assets of less than $10 million. The Harrisburg Diocese was the first Catholic diocese in Pennsylvania to seek bankruptcy protection.[141]
• On May 1, 2020, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.[142]

One issue that is often raised by legislators and law enforcement is the confidentiality which is enjoyed between priest and penitent in the Sacrament of Penance. In the Catholic Church, the penitent's confession of sins is absolutely secret and can be revealed to no one.[143] Western democracies, and in particular, the US government, have historically recognized and upheld this confidentiality,[144] but as of 2021, some challenges have been brought against this secrecy. In North Dakota, a bill was introduced which will compel Catholic priests to divulge the confessions they have heard to law enforcement, abolishing the priest-penitent privilege.[145]

In 2002, the Diocese of Manchester signed an agreement with the state's attorney general, acknowledging that past diocesan failures to protect minors from abusive priests were possible grounds for the diocese as an institution to be convicted under the state's child endangerment statute. On February 10, 2003, a special grand jury was conducted by the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office under the leadership of District Attorney Thomas Spota. The grand jury concludes that the history of the Diocese of Rockville Centre demonstrates that as an institution they are incapable of properly handling issues relating to the sexual abuse of children by priests, the special grand jury said in a 180-page report based on a nine-month inquiry. [146] [147][148]

Bernard Francis Law, Cardinal and Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts, United States resigned after Church documents were revealed which suggested he had covered up sexual abuse committed by priests in his archdiocese.[149] For example, John Geoghan was shifted from one parish to another although Cardinal Law had often been informed of his abuse. In December 1984 auxiliary Bishop John M. D’Arcy wrote to Cardinal Law complaining about the reassignment of Geoghan to another Boston-area parish because of his “history of homosexual involvement with young boys."[150]

On December 7, 2018, a measure was signed into law which requires private schools throughout the state of New York to report allegations of sex abuse.[155] On December 21, 2018 another measure was signed into law requiring the New York Department of Health to notify victims of their legal rights as they navigate the medical and criminal justice systems.[156] This measure also extends a victim's right to consult with a rape crisis organization and receive updates on the status of their case as well.[156] On January 28, 2019, members of the New York state Assembly and Senate passed a bill allowing prosecutors to bring criminal charges until a victim turned 28, and permitting victims to sue until age 55.[157] The bill was sent to Cuomo's desk on February 7. Cuomo signed the bill into law on February 14, 2019.[158] On May 8, 2020, Cuomo extended the statewide statute of limitations deadline to file sex abuse lawsuits, which was originally set for August 14, 2020, to January 14, 2021.[159] On May 13, 2020, a challenge to law's constitutional legality which was filed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre was tossed after a Nassau County Supreme Court justice ruled that the law does not violate due process.[160][161]

On June 13, 2019, during a meeting in Baltimore,[162] the General Assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a measure to authorize the design of a "third-party system" for receiving confidentially, by phone or online, reports of possible violations by bishop.[162] The "third party system," which was approved by a vote of 205 to 16 with 3 abstentions,[162] complies with Pope Francis' Vos estis lux mund.[162] By a vote of 200 to 21 with 2 abstentions, the bishops also voted to authorize the Executive Committee to develop a more detailed proposal for a third-party reporting system, including financial, structural, and other necessary adjustments to account for Vos estis lux mundi, for review and approval by the Conference's Administrative Committee at its September and November 2019 meetings.[162] Additionally, the bishops voted in favor of committing to activate the third-party reporting system by no later than May 31, 2020 by a 220 to 4 vote with 1 abstention.[162]

On December 29, 2019, it was revealed that numerous bishops across the United States withheld the names of hundreds of Catholic clergy who were accused of committing acts of sex abuse while serving in their Dioceses.[7][8][9]