The bishops of the U.S. Catholic Church, confronting a sexual abuse scandal that has paralyzed the church for months, have approved a new national mandate they say will protect children in the future and mete out justice for victims of abuse in the past.
''This is zero tolerance for any abusive priest remaining in ministry,'' says Bishop Wilton Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
But critics say the new ''Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People'' lacks firepower on accountability for the bishops' own failures, and still leaves too much to the bishops' own discretion.
Here's a look at what the bishops did -- and did not -- approve during three days of emotional public and private meetings in Dallas last week.
Q: What have the bishops pledged to do?
A: The key points address the reporting and removal of abusive priests, but bishops also must reach out to victims with support, therapy and social services, and report ''any allegation'' of abuse to civil authorities if the victim is a minor now. They also must open diocesan records for investigation of allegations in the past, and provide a ''full, accurate and complete'' history for any cleric who moves to a new assignment.
The charter doesn't spell out what to do while the investigation is underway, but many bishops, including Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, say they will suspend a priest until his name is officially cleared.
With mandatory reporting, bishops have ''no wiggle room,'' Boston-area district attorney Daniel F. Conley of Suffolk County says. ''It means more work for us, but that's the responsibility we are charged with.''
Q: Who must be removed?
A: Bishops must remove any priest from ministry if abuse is admitted or established by civil authorities or by a dicocesan review board. This means he cannot celebrate Mass in public, wear clerical garb or call himself a priest. He must live and work in a supervised setting away from young people, such as a monastery.
Bishops must establish and consult with a local lay review board in determining what to do about suspended or removed priests and whether to seek further action, such as defrocking the priest. A new National Office of Child and Youth Protection will ''monitor and assist'' local boards. This office will write an annual report, to be audited yearly and published by an independent lay review board.
Q: What do bishops still have to do?
A: Show they intend to enforce the new mandate. First, they have to lobby the Vatican to approve a second document, a set of changes in canon law (laws that govern the church) that would apply only in the USA. If they don't get the requisite papal approval, they have no way to prove to the pope that a bishop has failed to live up to the new mandate. The USCCB passed many of these same guidelines in 1992, but ''we are in this mess now because 17 to 20 bishops didn't get in line. Now they will have to,'' Gregory says. Only the pope can discipline or fire a bishop.
They also must seek a parallel charter from the leadership of religious orders. Nearly a third of U.S. priests belong to orders such as the Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits and Benedictines. They are not subject to all diocesan bishops' policies.
Q: Why just remove abusers from ministry? Why not defrock them?
A: Defrocking, or laicization, is long, convoluted and not always successful, says Bishop Joseph Galante of Dallas, a canon lawyer. Removing a priest from ministry doesn't require Rome's approval.
While the new language is not as tough as the draft proposal ordering bishops to seek to defrock every abuser, Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore said Sunday, ''It does the job.''
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., pushed for the new approach so he would not be forced to seek ouster for old men in nursing homes, including one with Alzheimer's. It fits with church teachings on forgiveness, he says. But other bishops say they would seek to dismiss every abuser, no matter how old the allegations or what's happened since.
Cardinal Avery Dulles objected that the new policy breaks with the Catholic premise that sin is forgiven through true repentance, that punishment for past abusers who have since been faithful priests is unjust, and that defrocking elderly, sick priests is unmerciful because they are no longer a threat.
Q: What happens next?
A: Any new allegations get reported to civil authorities. In all of the nation's 189 dioceses, officials will plow through personnel records looking for past allegations. Any abuser found on the books must be removed from ministry. How fast that has to happen is unclear. Several bishops expressed reluctance.
Q: What about bishops' accountability?
A: Whether any bishops are disciplined depends entirely on the Vatican. Gregory expressed great confidence that the pope and his advisors were watching closely and will likely approve their actions. The independent review board will be led by Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, an outspoken Catholic and ex-prosecutor. ''That report will tell it like it is,''' said Gregory, who is counting on it to provide the accountability many demand.
Q: What do the critics say?
A: While the bishops fanned out across the nation's pulpits and Sunday morning TV talk shows, many observers were unhappy with the new policy.
Conservatives called it bad for the church. ''As an exercise in damage control, it may have been a modest success, but it was purchased at a price that the church will regret for years to come,'' said Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the religion journal First Things. He added that ''Cardinal Dulles is dead right. They were prepared to betray some of the fundamental teachings and practices of the church.''
Church reformers shot holes through every provision. Call to Action, the nation's largest lay Catholic reform group, called the charter ''watered down,'' labeled the lay boards as toothless, and pointed out that there was no built-in timetable for reporting or removing abusers. Worst of all, said spokesman Don Wedd, ''the bishops say absolutely nothing about sanctions or consequences for the bishops themselves who covered up sex abuse, or moved priest felons around to other parishes or even dioceses.''
Victims and their advocates said the Dallas meeting was a public relations extravaganza that make the bishops look good while leaving most victims with no justice in the courts (many case are beyond the statutes of limitations for prosecution) or in the church, so long as abusers are still priests.
''Get past Wilton Gregory, a very impressive man, and look hard at what they did,'' says Carmen Durso, a Boston attorney representing several victims of accused pedophile priest Paul Shanley. ''Where are they finding these medium-security monasteries to stash these priests? Who will enforce all this? Where will be the public statements naming names?''
Durso is not concerned about the damage to a priest's reputation if he's suspended during an investigation, then found innocent. ''Cardinal Mahony had a phony allegation against him, and I don't see him unable to function . . . He made it through fine. The victims don't. Mistakes may be inevitable, but you have to be slanted on the side of kids.''
''How can abusers be allowed to keep any honor or standing in the church?'' asks Peter Isely of Milwaukee, a member of the board of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
''The real review board is the American Catholic people,'' Isely says. ''They won't stand for this.''