What Are the Failures of Diocesan Review Boards, and How Can They Be Addressed?

Brief Overview

• Diocesan review boards, established under the 2002 Dallas Charter, are intended to assist bishops in addressing allegations of clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
• These boards, composed primarily of lay members, review allegations, assess credibility, and advise on policies to protect minors and vulnerable adults.
• Despite their purpose, some boards have faced criticism for failing to prioritize victim-survivors, lacking independence, or mishandling cases.
• Case studies reveal instances where boards dismissed credible allegations, only for secular authorities to later validate them.
• Issues like inadequate training, lack of transparency, and conflicts of interest have undermined the effectiveness of some boards.
• Recent efforts aim to address these failures through better training, clearer guidelines, and increased accountability.

Detailed Response

Background of Diocesan Review Boards

Diocesan review boards were created in response to the clergy sexual abuse crisis that shook the Catholic Church in the early 2000s. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) adopted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, commonly known as the Dallas Charter, in 2002 to establish protocols for handling abuse allegations (CCC 2284-2287). These boards are meant to be independent, confidential bodies that assist bishops in evaluating allegations of sexual abuse of minors by clergy. They typically include lay professionals, such as lawyers, psychologists, and educators, alongside some clergy, to ensure a broad perspective. The boards review allegations, advise on their credibility, and recommend actions, such as removing a priest from ministry. Their role also extends to reviewing diocesan policies to prevent future abuse. The Dallas Charter mandates that these boards operate with transparency and fairness to restore trust in the Church. However, their effectiveness has varied widely across dioceses. Reports indicate that while some boards function well, others have faced significant challenges. These challenges have led to distrust among victim-survivors and calls for reform.

The Role and Structure of Review Boards

The Dallas Charter outlines specific requirements for diocesan review boards, emphasizing their advisory role to bishops. Boards must consist primarily of lay members who are not employed by the diocese to ensure impartiality. These members should bring expertise in fields like law, psychology, or social work to assess allegations thoroughly. The boards are tasked with reviewing allegations of abuse, both current and historical, and determining whether they are credible. They also evaluate diocesan safe environment policies to ensure compliance with the Charter. Meetings should occur regularly, at least annually or whenever an allegation arises, to maintain vigilance. The USCCB recommends that boards follow clear bylaws, rotate members periodically, and maintain confidentiality while being sensitive to victims. However, the Charter allows bishops significant discretion, including the ability to appoint board members and accept or reject their recommendations. This flexibility has led to inconsistencies in how boards operate across dioceses. For example, some dioceses have robust boards with frequent meetings, while others struggle with infrequent gatherings or inadequate membership.

Case Study: Altoona-Johnstown Diocese

The Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, Pennsylvania, provides a stark example of review board failure. A 2016 grand jury investigation revealed that the board’s work was described as a cover-up disguised as advocacy. The board often focused on protecting the diocese from litigation rather than supporting victims or ensuring justice. Allegations were frequently dismissed without thorough investigation, and some board members were more concerned with fact-finding for legal defense than addressing the harm caused. This approach led to credible allegations being ignored, allowing accused clergy to remain in ministry. The grand jury report highlighted a lack of transparency and inadequate training for board members, who were unprepared to handle the complexity of abuse cases. The diocese’s failure to maintain a functioning review board during certain periods further exacerbated the problem, as noted in the 2024 USCCB annual report. This case underscores the need for boards to prioritize victim-survivors and operate independently from diocesan legal interests. The fallout damaged trust in the Church and highlighted systemic issues in board composition and oversight. Reforms in Altoona-Johnstown have since been implemented, but the case remains a cautionary tale.

Case Study: Diocese of Davenport, Iowa

Another notable failure occurred in the Diocese of Davenport, Iowa, as illustrated by the case of Katie Bowman. Bowman reported being abused by clergy starting at age four, but the diocesan review board ruled against her in 2019. Despite a court-appointed arbitrator finding a preponderance of evidence supporting her claims, the board dismissed her allegations, leaving her feeling humiliated and unheard. This discrepancy between the board’s ruling and secular validation reveals a critical flaw in the board’s process. The board’s decision-making appeared to prioritize the diocese’s interests over the victim’s testimony. Reports suggest that some board members lacked training in trauma-informed care, which hindered their ability to assess allegations sensitively. The Davenport case also raised concerns about the board’s composition, as members were often closely tied to the diocese, creating potential conflicts of interest. The diocese later faced scrutiny for its handling of the case, prompting calls for greater transparency. This case highlights the importance of boards adopting trauma-informed practices and ensuring independence from diocesan influence. It also shows the harm caused when boards fail to validate credible claims.

Case Study: Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida

David Lasher’s experience with the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida, further illustrates review board shortcomings. In 2019, Lasher reported sexual abuse by a priest to the diocesan review board, only to face a grueling interrogation that left him in tears. The board, which included the diocese’s defense attorney, ruled against him, and the diocese subsequently stopped funding his counseling. Lasher described the process as a sham designed to protect the Church rather than support victims. The presence of the diocesan attorney on the board raised serious questions about impartiality, as it suggested a conflict of interest. The board’s dismissive attitude and lack of empathy compounded Lasher’s trauma, undermining the Church’s stated commitment to healing. This case reflects a broader issue where some boards prioritize institutional protection over justice for survivors. The St. Petersburg diocese faced criticism for its handling of the case, with advocates calling for reforms to ensure boards remain independent. The case also highlights the need for clear criteria in assessing allegations to avoid subjective or biased decisions. Such failures erode trust in the Church’s ability to address abuse effectively.

Case Study: Diocese of Toledo, Ohio

Riley Kinn’s experience in the Diocese of Toledo, Ohio, exposes another layer of dysfunction in review boards. In 2019, Kinn reported abuse by a priest at his high school and was assured he could share his story with the review board. However, he was never given the opportunity to testify, and the board deemed his allegations unsubstantiated based on a letter sent to him. A retired police detective interviewed Kinn and gathered corroborating evidence, but the board’s decision appeared to ignore this information. This case suggests a lack of due process and transparency in how allegations were handled. The board’s failure to engage directly with Kinn points to a broader issue of inconsistent procedures across dioceses. Some boards do not guarantee victims the chance to present their cases in person, which can lead to feelings of dismissal. The Toledo case also raises questions about the board’s access to evidence, as bishops control what information is shared. This lack of transparency can result in boards making uninformed decisions, further harming survivors. Advocates have since called for standardized protocols to ensure victims are heard and evidence is fully considered.

Common Failures Across Diocesan Review Boards

Several recurring issues contribute to the failures of diocesan review boards. First, many boards lack independence, as bishops appoint members and control the flow of information. This can lead to conflicts of interest, especially when diocesan attorneys or close allies serve on the board. Second, inadequate training in trauma-informed care leaves members ill-equipped to handle sensitive allegations, often resulting in dismissive or hostile interactions with survivors. Third, inconsistent meeting schedules, as seen in dioceses like Altoona-Johnstown and Fort Worth, prevent boards from addressing allegations promptly. Fourth, some boards fail to follow their own bylaws, leading to dysfunction in membership rotation or policy reviews. Fifth, a lack of transparency, such as not publishing board member names or criteria for decisions, fuels distrust among survivors. Sixth, some boards prioritize protecting the Church’s reputation or finances over supporting victims, as seen in cases like Davenport and St. Petersburg. These issues have been documented in multiple reports, including the 2024 USCCB annual audit and investigations by secular authorities. Addressing these failures requires systemic changes to ensure fairness and accountability.

Lack of Independence and Conflicts of Interest

One of the most significant criticisms of diocesan review boards is their lack of independence from bishops. The Dallas Charter allows bishops to appoint board members, which can lead to the selection of individuals loyal to the diocese. In some cases, as in St. Petersburg, diocesan attorneys have served on boards, creating a clear conflict of interest. Similarly, boards with members who are long-time Catholics or diocesan employees may struggle to remain impartial when evaluating allegations against clergy they know personally. This lack of independence can result in boards dismissing credible claims to protect the Church’s reputation or finances. For example, the Associated Press found dozens of cases where boards rejected allegations later validated by secular authorities, suggesting bias in the review process. Survivors like David Lasher and Katie Bowman reported feeling that boards were more focused on defending the diocese than seeking justice. The presence of clergy accused of misconduct on some boards, though rare, further undermines trust. To address this, boards must include more diverse, independent members with no ties to the diocese. Greater oversight from external bodies could also ensure impartiality.

Inadequate Training and Trauma-Informed Care

Many review board members lack the training needed to handle abuse allegations sensitively. Understanding the psychological and emotional impact of abuse is critical for assessing claims fairly. However, reports indicate that some boards, like those in Davenport and Toledo, failed to adopt trauma-informed practices, leading to hostile or dismissive interactions with survivors. For instance, a board member knitting during a survivor’s testimony or another falling asleep, as reported in Iowa, shows a lack of empathy and professionalism. Training in trauma-informed care helps members recognize the signs of abuse and approach survivors with compassion. Without it, boards risk re-traumatizing victims, as seen in Lasher’s case, where he was interrogated until he wept. The USCCB has acknowledged this issue and is developing resources, such as the Child Abuse Prevention Empowerment (CAPE) program, to improve training. However, implementation varies across dioceses, with some lagging behind. Regular, mandatory training for all board members is essential to ensure they are equipped to handle cases appropriately. This training should include guidance on listening to survivors and evaluating evidence without bias.

Inconsistent Procedures and Transparency

Inconsistent procedures across dioceses have also contributed to review board failures. The Dallas Charter mandates that boards meet regularly and follow clear bylaws, but some dioceses, like Altoona-Johnstown, have gone periods without functioning boards. Others, like Toledo, have failed to provide survivors the opportunity to testify, undermining due process. The lack of standardized criteria for determining the credibility of allegations leads to subjective decisions, as seen in cases where boards dismissed claims later upheld by courts. Transparency is another issue, with many dioceses not publishing board member names or decision-making processes. This secrecy fuels distrust among survivors, who may feel their cases are not being taken seriously. The 2024 USCCB report noted that some boards do not follow their bylaws, leading to irregular meetings or inadequate membership. To address this, the USCCB is revising a resource booklet to guide boards, with approval expected by the end of 2025. Standardizing procedures and increasing transparency, such as publishing anonymized case outcomes, could improve trust. Dioceses must also ensure boards meet regularly and adhere to clear guidelines.

Impact on Victim-Survivors

The failures of diocesan review boards have a profound impact on victim-survivors. When boards dismiss credible allegations, as in the cases of Katie Bowman and David Lasher, survivors often feel re-traumatized and betrayed by the Church. The lack of empathy or hostile questioning, as reported in St. Petersburg, can deepen emotional wounds and discourage others from coming forward. Survivors like Riley Kinn, who were denied the chance to testify, feel silenced and dismissed, further eroding trust in the Church’s processes. These experiences highlight the need for boards to prioritize survivor support over institutional protection. The Dallas Charter emphasizes healing and reconciliation, yet some boards fall short of this goal (CCC 2284-2287). The financial and emotional toll of dismissed claims, such as the loss of counseling support for Lasher, adds to survivors’ suffering. The Church’s credibility is also damaged when secular authorities validate claims rejected by boards, as seen in dozens of cases nationwide. Improving board processes could help restore trust and provide survivors with the validation they seek. Listening to survivors’ voices is critical to fulfilling the Church’s mission of compassion.

Financial and Institutional Priorities

Some review boards have been criticized for prioritizing the Church’s financial and institutional interests over justice for survivors. In Altoona-Johnstown, the 2016 grand jury found that the board focused on fact-finding for litigation rather than addressing victims’ needs. This approach led to allegations being dismissed to avoid costly settlements or public scandal. The Associated Press reported that clergy sexual abuse has cost the Church over $5 billion since 2002, creating pressure to minimize payouts. Boards in dioceses like Davenport and St. Petersburg have been accused of protecting the Church’s reputation by ruling against survivors, even when evidence was strong. This focus on institutional preservation undermines the Dallas Charter’s goal of accountability and transparency. Survivors like Joey Piscitelli in San Francisco, whose allegations were dismissed by the board but later validated by a $600,000 court award, highlight the consequences of this approach. Bishops’ ability to reject board recommendations further complicates the issue, as it allows for decisions that prioritize finances over justice. Reforms must ensure boards focus on truth and healing rather than protecting diocesan assets. This shift is essential to restoring the Church’s moral authority.

Recent Efforts to Address Failures

The USCCB has acknowledged the shortcomings of diocesan review boards and is taking steps to address them. The 2024 annual report highlighted ongoing issues, such as dysfunctional boards and inadequate training, but also noted progress in some areas. For example, the Child Abuse Prevention Empowerment (CAPE) program aims to provide online training to improve board members’ skills in handling allegations. The USCCB is also revising a resource booklet to clarify board roles and responsibilities, with approval expected by late 2025. Some dioceses, like Fort Worth and Helena, have addressed noncompliance by resuming regular board meetings. The National Review Board, a lay-led group advising the USCCB, has called for enhanced audits to ensure compliance with the Dallas Charter. These audits aim to be more independent and thorough, covering parishes as well as diocesan offices. Additionally, there is a push to incorporate principles of high-reliability organizations, which focus on identifying and addressing potential failures before they occur. These efforts show a commitment to reform, but their success depends on consistent implementation. Continued vigilance is needed to ensure boards meet their obligations.

Recommendations for Reform

To address the failures of diocesan review boards, several reforms are necessary. First, boards must be truly independent, with members selected by an external body rather than the bishop to avoid conflicts of interest. Second, mandatory, ongoing training in trauma-informed care should be required for all board members to ensure sensitive handling of allegations. Third, standardized procedures, including clear criteria for assessing credibility and guaranteeing survivors the right to testify, must be implemented across dioceses. Fourth, transparency should be increased by publishing board member qualifications and anonymized case outcomes. Fifth, boards should meet at least annually and whenever an allegation arises, as recommended by the National Review Board. Sixth, dioceses must prioritize survivor support, including counseling and pastoral care, over financial or institutional concerns. Seventh, external oversight, such as independent audits, could ensure compliance with the Dallas Charter. Eighth, boards should include diverse members, including survivors and non-Catholics, to broaden perspectives. These changes align with the Church’s mission to protect the vulnerable and seek justice (CCC 2284-2287).

The Role of Survivors in Reform

Incorporating the voices of victim-survivors is critical to reforming diocesan review boards. Survivors like Dr. Jim Richter, who serves on the review board in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, have praised boards that operate with empathy and fairness. Including survivors on boards can provide valuable insights into the impact of abuse and the needs of those affected. Their presence can also ensure that boards remain focused on healing rather than institutional protection. The USCCB has encouraged listening to survivors in a synodal way, recognizing their experiences as a guide for reform. However, survivors must be treated with respect and given meaningful roles, not tokenized. Cases like those of Katie Bowman and David Lasher show the harm caused when survivors feel dismissed or interrogated. Boards should create safe spaces for survivors to share their stories without fear of judgment. Training in trauma-informed care can help members understand the courage it takes to come forward. By prioritizing survivors’ voices, boards can rebuild trust and fulfill the Church’s commitment to compassion.

The Importance of Transparency

Transparency is essential for restoring trust in diocesan review boards. Many dioceses do not publish the names or qualifications of board members, leaving survivors uncertain about who is reviewing their cases. The USCCB’s 2024 report noted that some boards fail to follow their bylaws, contributing to secrecy and distrust. Publishing anonymized case outcomes and clear criteria for decisions could help survivors understand the process. The Diocese of Fresno, for example, has been praised for disclosing some information about its board members, though concerns remain about their impartiality due to their strong ties to the Church. Transparency also involves reporting all allegations to civil authorities, as required by the Dallas Charter. Some dioceses have been criticized for failing to do so promptly, which undermines accountability. Independent audits, as recommended by the National Review Board, could ensure that boards operate openly and fairly. Greater transparency aligns with the Church’s call for truth and justice (CCC 2464-2470). It also demonstrates a commitment to addressing past failures and preventing future ones.

The Need for Ongoing Vigilance

The 2024 USCCB report emphasized that complacency is a threat to progress in addressing clergy abuse. Diocesan review boards must remain vigilant to prevent the recurrence of past failures. The decline in new allegations, with only eight involving minors since 2005, shows that safe environment protocols are working. However, historical allegations, totaling 902 in the 2023-2024 audit period, indicate that the pain of past abuse persists. Boards must continue to review both current and historical cases with diligence. The National Review Board has warned that dysfunction in some boards, such as irregular meetings or inadequate membership, risks undermining these efforts. Ongoing training, clear guidelines, and independent oversight are critical to maintaining vigilance. The Church must also address the trend of parents opting out of safe environment training, which could weaken protections for children. Archbishop Timothy Broglio, in the 2024 report, stressed that abuse remains a relentless adversary requiring constant effort. Dioceses must commit to sustained action to ensure boards fulfill their purpose.

The Broader Context of Church Reform

The failures of diocesan review boards are part of a broader challenge within the Catholic Church to address the clergy abuse crisis. The Dallas Charter, while a significant step, has not been uniformly implemented, leading to variations in how dioceses handle allegations. The 2024 report noted a cultural shift toward transparency and accountability, but more work is needed. Review boards play a critical role in this shift by ensuring allegations are taken seriously and policies are effective. The Church’s commitment to protecting the vulnerable is rooted in its teachings on human dignity (CCC 2258). Failures in board processes undermine this mission and damage the Church’s credibility. Reforms to boards must be accompanied by broader efforts, such as publishing lists of credibly accused clergy and supporting survivors through pastoral care. The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, established in 2022, provides a global framework that could guide U.S. dioceses. By learning from past mistakes, the Church can strengthen its response to abuse. Review boards are a key part of this effort, but they must operate with integrity and compassion.

The Path Forward

Reforming diocesan review boards requires a multifaceted approach that addresses independence, training, transparency, and survivor support. The USCCB’s ongoing efforts, such as the CAPE program and the revised resource booklet, are steps in the right direction. However, dioceses must implement these resources consistently and prioritize the needs of victim-survivors. Bishops should relinquish some control over board appointments and evidence-sharing to ensure impartiality. Including diverse members, such as survivors and non-Catholics, can broaden perspectives and reduce bias. Regular audits, both internal and external, can hold boards accountable for following the Dallas Charter. Survivors must be given a voice, whether through testimony or board membership, to ensure their experiences shape reforms. The Church’s mission to protect the vulnerable and seek justice demands that these changes be prioritized (CCC 2284-2287). By addressing past failures, diocesan review boards can become effective tools for healing and accountability. The Church must act decisively to restore trust and prevent further harm.

Conclusion

Diocesan review boards are a cornerstone of the Catholic Church’s response to the clergy abuse crisis, but their failures have caused significant harm to survivors and eroded trust. Cases like those in Altoona-Johnstown, Davenport, St. Petersburg, and Toledo reveal issues of independence, inadequate training, and lack of transparency. These failures have led to dismissed allegations, re-traumatized survivors, and validated criticisms of the Church’s processes. Reforms, including standardized procedures, trauma-informed training, and greater transparency, are essential to address these shortcomings. The USCCB’s ongoing efforts show promise, but consistent implementation is critical. Survivors must be at the heart of these reforms, with their voices guiding the Church’s response. The Church’s teachings on justice and compassion call for a renewed commitment to protecting the vulnerable (CCC 2258). By learning from past mistakes, diocesan review boards can fulfill their purpose of ensuring accountability and healing. The path forward requires vigilance, humility, and a dedication to truth. Only through these efforts can the Church rebuild trust and prevent future failures.