New Orleans kept accused priest in pulpit despite complaints: misconduct ‘involved adults’, archdiocese admits
Archdiocese of New Orleans allowed Father Anthony Odiong to continue ministry despite complaints of sexual assault. Odiong, who served in Austin and New Orleans, was reported to the archdiocese in 2019 but the allegations were not disclosed to parishioners, as the misconduct was deemed to involve adults. The priest was suspended in 2023 after an investigative exposé revealed a pattern of abusive behavior. The archdiocese admitted it handled the matter internally and did not inform the public, leading to criticism of its response. Odiong now faces a criminal trial on charges of serial sexual assault against multiple victims.
5 months ago
New Orleans’ Catholic archdiocese allowed a priest accused of serial sexual assault to remain in ministry for years despite receiving complaints from another diocese, only removing him after a media investigation prompted a suspension; the archdiocese later acknowledged it handled the allegations internally because they “involved adults.”1
Evaluate Catholic protocols for handling adult sexual misconduct
Catholic “protocols” for handling sexual misconduct aim at (1) protecting people (especially the vulnerable), (2) preserving the Church’s moral and canonical order, (3) ensuring due process and the good name of those involved, and (4) coordinating with civil law—but the concrete procedure depends heavily on whether the accused is a cleric and on whether the alleged misconduct involves minors or occurs in a context tied to the sacrament of Penance.
Where allegations are credible, ecclesiastical authority must act to protect the common good and limit ministry as needed until facts are clarified; the Church also emphasizes offering spiritual and psychological assistance to victims.
The Church requires investigations with respect for privacy and the reputation (good name) of those involved, including the accused, while still pursuing truth.
A major exception is the sacramental internal forum: norms historically developed for alleged sexual wrongdoing connected with confession (e.g., “solicitation” during confession) are deeply shaped by the inviolable seal of confession, and the procedural choices reflect the impossibility of interrogating the priest without risking the seal.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is careful to note that the classic procedure for confession-related cases (“Crimen sollecitationis”) was not intended to be the entire Church policy for all sexual improprieties; it was for the “singularly delicate situation” of sacramental confession, and only later extended analogously to some other cases.
For cases of sexual abuse of minors, the Church’s guidance explicitly states that civil law concerning reporting crimes to the proper authorities should always be followed (while also respecting the sacramental internal forum).
Multiple sources provided focus on the canonical framework for sexual abuse of minors committed by clerics—especially:
The sources do include general canonical penal norms for clerics regarding offenses against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (which can apply to adults, depending on facts like force/threats, public scandal, or authority abuse).
However, the sources provided do not give a fully worked, step-by-step “adult misconduct protocol” equivalent to the detailed framework for minors. So an evaluation of “adult sexual misconduct” must be more cautious and will be grounded in the general penal-law structures and in the procedural safeguards described for sexual abuse allegations generally (especially privacy, victim support, accused’s right to respond, precautionary measures, and civil cooperation where civil reporting is required).
Canon law’s penal categories (for clerics) hinge on qualifying circumstances.
A cleric who commits an offense against the sixth commandment “if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years” is to be punished with “just penalties,” including dismissal if warranted.
Canon law also treats certain non-minor cases as penal—e.g., a cleric living in concubinage or continuing in other external sins against the sixth commandment that cause scandal are to be punished with suspension, with other penalties potentially added progressively until dismissal if the person persists after warning.
And where force or abuse of authority is used to commit or force sexual acts, the penalty is likewise severe (the canon text equates the penalty categories).
Evaluation implication for “adult misconduct”: Catholic protocols (as far as these sources show) tend to treat adult sexual wrongdoing more sharply when it involves coercion, threats, abuse of authority, or public scandal—the kinds of facts that signal greater injustice and greater risk to others.
If the misconduct occurs “in confession, or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession” (solicitation), canon law provides for penalties ranging from suspension/prohibitions/deprivations to dismissal in serious cases.
This is a qualitatively different protocol environment due to the sacramental seal.
While this is often discussed under “sexual abuse,” the sources also specify that certain clerical offenses involving pornographic images of minors are reserved among the more grave delicts, with punishment “according to the gravity of his crime,” including dismissal/deposition.
This matters because many real-world allegations combine “adult conduct” with trafficking/pornography contexts, but the canonical reservation turns on the minor element.
The strongest procedural description in the provided sources concerns sexual abuse of minors by clerics, but its safeguards are instructive as a model.
Ecclesiastical guidelines to help episcopal conferences emphasize:
For “more grave delicts” reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (notably clerical abuse of minors under SST), if an accusation seems true, the bishop/major superior performs the preliminary investigation; if credible, the case must be referred to the CDF for further steps.
Evaluation implication for adult misconduct: For adult misconduct not fitting the “reserved” category (in particular, without the minor element), the protocol will generally be handled under the diocesan/bishop’s penal process structures rather than the reserved CDF pathway—though the provided sources don’t spell out the adult-specific referral rules in detail.
The provided guidance explicitly insists on civil cooperation:
Evaluation implication: Even where canonical norms emphasize internal church processes, Catholic protocol is not intended to operate as a parallel “wall” against civil accountability. Instead, canon law expects alignment with civil reporting duties—except where the sacramental seal/internal forum is implicated.
A later explanation of the canonical reforms states that legislation and procedures were modified after careful examination to make them simpler to apply, more effective, and more expeditious.
A historical introduction included in the sources notes that, after Vatican II, trends sometimes favored a “therapeutic model,” where a bishop was expected to “heal” rather than “punish,” and that an over-optimistic view of psychological therapy could have led to insufficient attention to recidivism.
Evaluation implication: When evaluating “adult sexual misconduct protocols,” it is reasonable—on the basis of this historical note—to view any process that delays accountability or relies mainly on “treatment” without robust protective measures and canonical consequences as potentially inadequate.
The same historical source warns against reading older canonical practice as if it were “comprehensive legislation” for all cases of sexual misconduct; it emphasizes an anachronism risk.
Evaluation implication: Any attempt to judge whether “adult misconduct protocols” were sufficient in earlier decades must consider that the Church’s frameworks changed significantly and were sometimes designed for different categories of cases.
Catholic protocols, as reflected in the sources you provided, support these core requirements for sexual misconduct allegations involving clerics:
The sources provided do not fully specify a complete, adult-specific canonical procedure (separate from the reserved minor-abuse framework) that covers every variety of adult sexual misconduct allegations. The evaluation therefore can only be partial: it can confirm the canonical penal triggers and the procedural safeguards model, but not a comprehensive adult-protocol playbook.
Final conclusion: Using only the provided Catholic sources, the Church’s approach to sexual misconduct—while extremely detailed for clerical abuse of minors—still clearly supports a principled framework applicable to adult clerical sexual misconduct: truth-seeking investigations, respect for privacy and reputation, defense rights, precautionary protection of the faithful, accountability under penal norms when the act involves coercion/scandal/abuse of authority, and (where applicable) strict cooperation with civil reporting duties.