Ratzinger, canon law & the sexual-abuse crisis.
Just posted to the homepage: Nicholas P. Cafardi’s “Loose Canons: Ratzinger, Church Law & the Sexual-abuse Crisis.”
In 1988, the CDF was fielding lots of laicization requests—many from accused American priests—and being pressured by U.S. bishops to grant them quickly. But Ratzinger found that objectionable. In his L’Osservatore article, Arrieta explains that Ratzinger’s problem was the “natural repugnance of a justice system to grant as a matter of grace (dispensation from the obligations of priesthood) something that should, instead be imposed as a punishment (dismissal, as a penalty, from the priesthood).” Ratzinger wanted to make it clear that offending priests were receiving canonical punishment, not mercy.
So Ratzinger asked the church’s chief canon lawyer, “Can’t we streamline the penal process to deal with these men?” Castillo Lara’s response was lawyerly: The law will work if the bishops use it, but they are not using it. “The involved bishops have not first exercised their judicial authority to properly punish such crimes, even for the protection of the common good. The problem is not so much one of juridic procedure but of responsible exercise of a bishop’s governing authority.” Castillo Lara, too, had been hearing bishops complain that they could not use the canonical criminal system because it was too unwieldy. The fact that he mentions “the involved bishops” in his letter indicates that he thought bishops should have held abusive priests responsible in the canonical criminal trials provided for in the Code. Ratzinger replied courteously, and that was the end of the exchange.
Was Castillo Lara right? Were U.S. bishops not doing their jobs? Yes and no. While it’s true that many U.S. bishops had come to the conclusion that administrative laicization was the best way to handle sexually abusive priests, it’s not as though they didn’t have their reasons.
Read the rest right here.
Another piece of the puzzle of how and why this problem persists.
I’ll just add that (along with Fr. Doyle) the problem is not only (Romanita) secrecy but defensiveness and lack of real appreciative knowledge of victims and the parents of victms.
This is an outstanding article. Thank you, Nicholas Cafardi, for researching and writing it, and thank you, Commonweal editors for publishing it. Especially helpful is the highlighting of provisions in the 1983 code that worked against an expeditious resolution of abusive-clergy cases.
One thing that is not clear to me: do diocesan tribunals still have the authority to try and discipline clergy via a canonical trial? Or did Pastor Bonus and its successor document take that matter completely out of diocesan hands and sweep that authority into the hands of the CDF?
Jim–yes, tribunals can still try and discipline clergy. That’s what happened to Charles Kavanagh last month.
Grant, thanks. Then I think that both Ratzinger (priests should be punished, not granted a favor) and Castillo Lara (bishops need to make better use of the tools at their disposal) were right.
The “right” outcome seems to be that a cleric tried and convicted of sex abuse at the diocesan level may appeal, but at the bishop’s discretion he should remain suspended until the case is resolved. Whether that is possible under current law, I’m not sure.
So long as canon law doesn’t think that it trumps civil law, have a go at whatever remedies/punishments are available. But civil law needs to have its day no matter what.
Jimmy Mac is right on.
Defenders of the canonical approach to this are exersing another form of defense that used to blame the media and greedy lawyers.
Thanks, Grant…interesting opinion. Like JimmyMac, this seems to focus primarily with canon law and the omission of Crimen Sollicitationis is glaring. On the other hand, Mr. Cafardi does shed some light in terms of the Vatican and a timeline…..allow me to insert testimony from a San Antonio abuse case and a sworn affadavitt from Rev. Thomas Doyle:
After the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law in 1917, the Vatican issued special
legislation in 1922 on procedures to be followed in solicitation cases. This document was
sent to the world’s bishops but otherwise retained in total secrecy. Unlike previous
special legislation aimed at curbing solicitation for sex in the confessional which was
public, this document was never publicly promulgated. It contained procedures to be
followed in the prosecution of cases of solicitation for sex by a cleric. In issuing the
document, the Vatican stipulated that it was to remain strictly confidential. It was not to
be openly published or commented upon. No explicit reason was given for this unusual
secrecy nor is any justification given for the document or some of the surprising changes
contained therein.
38. The 1922 procedural norms, sent by the Vatican to every bishop in the world, introduced several significant elements, including an exceptional degree of confidentiality imposed on the document itself and the persons involved in processing cases. Compared to previous papal documentation confronting clergy sexual abuse, this document contains
several significant changes which reveal the church’s policy on clergy sexual crimes.
Though circulated to all bishops in the world, the document has been retained with a high
degree of secrecy since its promulgation.
a. Jurisdiction: Local ordinaries (bishops and heads of religious orders) have the
right to process cases included in this document. However, they retain the option
of sending such cases to the Vatican’s Congregation of the Holy Office for
prosecution.
b. Secrecy-officials: Tribunal and other church personnel who are involved in
processing cases are obliged to maintain total and perpetual secrecy and are bound
by the church’s highest degree of confidentiality, known as the Secret of the Holy
Office. Those who violate this secrecy are automatically excommunicated and
the absolution or lifting of this excommunication is reserved to the pope himself.
c. Secrecy-parties and witnesses: Even the accuser and witnesses are obliged to take
the oath of secrecy. The penalty of automatic excommunication is not attached to
the violation of the oath. However the official conducting the prosecution can, in
individual cases, threaten accusers and witnesses with automatic excommunication for breaking the secret.
d. Anonymous denunciations. Anonymous accusations are not automatically ruled
out though they are generally to be rejected. They are to be considered and acted
upon if circumstances require and if there appears to be some semblance of
veracity to the accusation.
e. Other sex crimes. Title V of the document specifically included homosexual acts
between clerics and members of their own sex, bestiality and sexual acts of any
kind with children. The document uses the Latin word “impuberibus,” which
means “before the age of reason.” This is defined in canon 88 as one who is seven
or under. The Code also contains a canon prohibiting sex with minors which is
defined in canon law as one sixteen or under. A careful reading of the relevant
paragraphs of the 1962 document (par. 71-73) leads to some confusion as to
whom the crimes apply to. It is clear that sex with children is included and sex
with males of any age, as well as sex with animals. The only category of possible
victims that is unclear is sex with young girls.
39. In 1962 Pope John XXIII approved the publication of renewed special procedural norms for processing solicitation cases. Like the 1922 document, this document was buried in the deepest secrecy. Although it was promulgated in the ordinary manner and then printed and distributed by the Vatican press, it was never publicized in the official
Vatican legal bulletin, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.22 The document was sent to all bishops and religious order heads.
Cont……
The other sex crimes included under Title V are not crimes connected with solicitation
but the actual sexual abuse itself. These are to be processed in the same manner as
crimes of solicitation. Thus, the three classes of clergy sexual abuse were cloaked in the
highest degree of secrecy. Little was known about either the 1922 or 1962 documents
until reference to the 1962 document, commonly known by its Latin name Crimen
sollicitationis, was included in a 2001 Letter sent to all bishops from the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith on more grave crimes reserved for consideration to that same
Vatican office.
NOTE…..my highlight per Cafardi’s statements:
41. The 1962 document was issued prior to the promulgation of the revised Code of Canon
law in 1983 and therefore would, under ordinary circumstances, have lost its legal force.
The recent letter however clearly indicates that it had been in force until May of 2001.
42. The 1922 and 1962 documents are significant because they reflect the institutional
church’s urgent desire to maintain the highest degree of secrecy and strictest degree of
security about sexual crimes perpetrated by clerics.
43. The public exposure of clergy sexual abuse of youth which began in the mid-eighties was misrepresented by some and mistakenly believed by many to be a new phenomenon
which of course it is not. In spite of a series of high profile cases from around the world,
the Vatican issued no disciplinary documents until 2001. Although the Pope John Paul II
had made eleven public statements about clergy sexual abuse between 1993 and 2004,
this was the first attempt by the Vatican to take concrete steps to contain the problem.
The document, which is a set of special procedural norms, is not exclusively about sex
abuse although that is the predominant theme. It is about the processing of certain crimes
considered by the Vatican authorities to be so serious that prosecution of them is reserved
to the Vatican itself.
44. The 2001 document reflects much that is found in the 1962 procedural norms. There are significant developments however:
a. The bishop or other superior is obliged to send the results of the preliminary
investigation of an allegation of sexual abuse to the Vatican congregation. The
officials there decide if the case will be processed in the Vatican or returned to the
local diocese for prosecution.
b. The canonical age of a minor was raised from 16 to 18.
c. The statute of limitations was extended to 10 years. In the case of sexual abuse of
a minor, this time begins to run from the victim’s 18th birthday.
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS P. DOYLE, O.P., J.C.D., C.A.D.C.
So, Cafardi now suggests why there was confusion or delays in the 1990′s but there is still the issue with:
- total secrecy in the process; thus, no civil reporting or recourse (despite the frequent denials of this)
- Jim’s point that a local bishop could start a trial and suspend the priest…yet, there are many examples of exactly this; the local bishop was overruled and the priest was put back to work until his Rome appeals were exhausted – this could be 20 years or more (e.g. Grant’s reference to Kavanaugh)
So, it sheds some light on internal debates but just adding the personal opinion of whether laicization was meant as a penalty or a blessing…..either that indicates a total unawareness of the damage being done to victims or it places undue importance on a law over the suffering of the people of God (in this case, children and their families)
“- Jim’s point that a local bishop could start a trial and suspend the priest…yet, there are many examples of exactly this; the local bishop was overruled and the priest was put back to work until his Rome appeals were exhausted – this could be 20 years or more (e.g. Grant’s reference to Kavanaugh)”
Yes. My very-imperfect understanding of secular criminal law is that a person convicted of a criminal charge by a lower court serves his punishment while the appeal is pending. Istm that something parallel needs to happen here.
Many bishops in English speaking countries found themselves between a rock and a hard place in dealing with the civil law of their country and in dealing with canon law. The mandates of civil law were very clear. Report the criminal action to the police immediately.
But the mandates coming from the Vatican were confusing to most arch/bishops. They were told by the Vatican (and this is in simple language). Yes, report the crime of the priest to the civil authorities. But, if this incident will cause scandal—report it to the Vatican eg. Crimen sollicitationis—came into play here.
Or if the canonical rights of the priest are violated, and he appeals to Rome (as Bill deHaas has so clearly explicated), then the priest is to be allowed to continue his ministy until the Vatican could get around to dealing with the appeal.
The Vatican threw a double-whammy at the bishops. And American bishops were not the only ones confused. In reading Catholic websites in Ireland and Australia—the same problem seems to shared by the bishops of these respective nations.
My conclusion—the Vatican engages in ‘double-speak’.
Lex – Legis
It has always been a sure bet that the Vatican and the institutionalized church would harbor and protect its own.
Remember also that a Sacrament cannot be undone – you may remove a priest’s licet performance of priestly functions, but you cannot ‘un-make’ his ordination. “Thou Art A Priest Forever in the Order of Melchisadek”.
My understanding is that, under Canon Law, a priest still has rights, and for the Vatican to deny those rights tugs at the very fabric of the insitutional priesthood – that which is the most sacrosanct, and to be preserved at all costs.
After all, I have been told, ‘if there are No priests there is No church’.
It is this self-preserving, self-perpetuating ethos which is the real problem, and from which all of our consternation regarding the whole abuse issue arises.
To put it in a more secular manner, ‘God NEEDS the Roman Catholic Church with all of its secrecy, with all of its haughty self-image, with all of its special class of officially sanctioned and ordained clergy to explain HIMSELF to humankind, and to draw humankind closer to HIM. Even with the life and sacrifice of HIS SON, JESUS, humankind will never find their way to salvation without the Roman Catholic Church.
This is the sum and substance of what a lot of us were taught in Parochial Schools in the 50′s and 60′s, and reflected, albeit imperfectly, the governing motivation behind the institutional Roman Catholic Church.
Reading the documents above (and indeed, Crimen Solicitationis itself), I guess that John XXIII’s Aggournamento (letting US see out and letting THEM see in) was a good idea whose time has not yet come.
Cafardi writes: “Ratzinger’s reluctance to use administrative laicization instead of the penal process might also explain the CDF’s response to a few U.S. cases that made headlines last year. Why, it was asked, didn’t Ratzinger act more quickly to grant certain abusive priests’ requests for laicization? Now we know: Ratzinger thought that would be a misuse of the system. “
How then to explain that in canon law itself, the loss of the clerical state (“laicization” is never mentioned) is effected both by the “judgment of a court OR an administrative decree.” Canon 290.1 Take your pick right there. There is no indication that an administrative decree cannot mean punishment. You can lose the clerical state for benign or penal reasons, so let the rescript indicate which — or is that too straightforward?
(The Vatican’s website for canon law is in error, by repeating the text for 290.1 for 290.2 instead of the actual text for 290.2. You have to go elsewhere to get the right wording.)
Moreover, when Levada was handling an abuser’s case in Portland, he referred to laicization as “the maximum penalty”. A maximum penalty is hardly a “matter of grace.”
The system accommodated both positive and negative reasons, so how could it be abuse of the system to implement either purpose. But, canonical trials, in the words of Bertone and Levada in different documents meant the risk of — you guessed it — SCANDAL, so caution naturally had to prevail.
With Vaticanese, Romanita and dietrismo in play, the bottom line is that Ratzinger, Sodano, JPII, Castillo Lara and Arrieta from Legislative Texts, and countless others were preoccupied for decades with the delicacies of canon law and power plays of curial administration, while our children were suffering immeasurably.
The lack of urgency and outrage is itself outrageous. I believe it has everything to do with a clericalism that, sorry, just cannot understand the responses of a biological parent. The lay vice chancellor under Wilton Gregory, Donald Spotanski, wrote a blistering letter to Gregory in 2002 that demonstrates the difference powerfully:
“I have agonized over a way to help you comprehend the rage these atrocities have inspired in so many Catholic parents, including a graphic account of what’s alleged to have happened to some of the young people who have had the misfortune of meeting up with Law’s Geoghan and those like him.
But then I realized that without being able to imagine the teary-eyed, terrified, confused, misled, trusting, submissive face of your own cherished child in that rectory, automobile, or bedroom, you could no more grasp my anger at having three children who might be harmed by a repeatedly relocated alleged minister of the Gospel than I can understand the excruciating pain of those parents whose children actually have been.
And how dare any of us try to fully appreciate the lifelong emotional and physical agony of those of any age whom, when they were young, actual1y felt the pasty, horrible flesh of one or more of those wretched sons-of-bitches next to theirs.”
Bravo, Carolyn -I’d love to see the Spolanski letter appended to the Cafardi article as an important frame of refernce.
Grant – thought it might be helpful to link to Cafardi’s earlier Commonweal article on this same subject – http://commonwealmagazine.org/scandal-secrecy
In this earlier article he raises some questions specifically about the tension within the dicasteries. Now, this recent article sheds more light on those tensions.
Here is another analysis of Cafardi’s article (like Rev. Thomas Doyle, this author has trouble with the curia statement that anyone could report to civil authorities)
“The first article by Nicholas Cafardi is an interesting comment on the labyrinthine and Macchiavellian nature of the Vatican bureaucracy dealing with defrocking trials. To put it mildly, the whole disciplinary system was an inefficient mess.
And there are many inconsistencies about Josef Ratzinger’s role in all this too.
The Ratzinger who in 1988 sought a speedier canonical process for handling abusive priests delayed decisions to remove them later. The same man who as a cardinal refused financial gifts from the Legion of Christ as pope allowed the order’s abusive founder Fr. Marcial Maciel to fade into a life of prayer and penance. By all accounts, Ratzinger’s awareness of the sexual-abuse crisis evolved over time, not always in a straight line, and often in conflict with other curial officials.
But Cafardi makes no mention of mandatory reporting of criminal behaviour of priests to the civil authorities for investigation. That to me, is the crux of the issue. And that is the central issue of the RTE documentary – the Vatican told the Irish bishops that they could not have mandatory reporting because it was contrary to Canon Law – and we get back to the Ottaviani 1962 directive of “pontifical secrecy”, continued by Ratzinger in 2001.
This is a very informative article about how the Vatican disciplinary process wasn’t working, but there is one thing with which I have to quibble,
Obviously, there’s no shortage of blame to go around. The Catholic community deserves a fuller explanation of Rome’s reticence in laicizing known abusers. (In turn, church critics ought to acknowledge that cutting a molester loose doesn’t necessarily protect kids.)
Professor Cafardi repeats one of the things that Ratzinger defenders raise about the limitations of defrocking priests in protecting kids. A valid point. But at least it stops them having access to altar boys and Catholic school kids. On the other hand, putting the rapists in jail where they deserve to be certainly does protect kids. The Ratzinger defenders seem to overlook that.
I have to disagree with parts of the second article by Cafardi in dealing with Crimen Sollicitudinis. He says,
But that’s all the secrecy requirement covers: the internal church legal process, not the crime itself. It does not prevent victims, their families, or even church officials from reporting a civil crime to the civil authorities or to the media (as guidelines posted on the Vatican Web site now recommend doing).
The part I have put in bold is again the Vatican line, but it just does not add up as a matter of construction, legal or logical. Of course, the victims or their families are not prevented from reporting the crime because they did not come to know about it as a result of any canonical investigation. The victim knew about it because he was there. The family knew about it because the victim told them. But what about Church officials?
The relevant secrecy provision of Crimen Sollicitudinis is in these terms,
“..each and every person, who in any way belongs to the tribunal or is given knowledge of the matter because of their office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called “the secrecy of the Holy Office”) in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication”
Now, when a bishop receives a complaint from a priest’s victim, he is receiving “knowledge of the matter because of their office”. The complaint is going to the bishop because he is the bishop. The bishop would then conduct an investigation and no doubt get statements from witnesses etc. That information he also has because of his office. On the other hand, if the bishop caught the priest in flagrante delicto with an altar boy, that knowledge does not come from his being a bishop. It comes from his own eyes. Crimen Sollicitudines would not prevent him from taking that to the police. But if he receives the information in his role as bishop, then he is prevented from revealing it to “all persons” and that must include the police.
In my view, it is just not true to say that the bishop is free to go to either the civil authorities or the media without falling foul of Crimen Sollicitudinis, unless he saw the crime with his own eyes. The Irish Professor of Canon Law, Mgr. Dooley agrees with my view. So does the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Storero in his 1997 letter, and so did Cardinal Castrillon as we note from both the 1997 letter, and the statements by Bishop Michael Smith in the RTE program. And so did the Irish bishops believe that they could not go to the civil authorities. So, I might add, it would seem, did Bishop Bede Heather in Australia in 1994. And, if conduct is any indication of how people understood a document, Josef Ratzinger himself was of the same belief too if he never once after 2001 told a bishop to take the matter to the local police – because that would have breached John Paul II’s directive which Ratzinger and Bertone signed.
The rest of the article contains more information on the extraordinary bureacratic mess within the Vatican’s own disciplinary system and is not relevant to the central issue.
The central issue of reporting crimes by priests to the civil authorities is still the same. Despite the Vatican’s announcement that it will introduce some form of mandatory reporting, nothing has yet been done.
Bob,
I have a pdf and made a Word copy from that; it is not online that I can find. I will email to Cafardi as a point of information, but it is 10 pages. Outstanding response to bishops’ culpability.
Best to contact http://www.BishopAccountability.org and ask them to post it. My senior brain cannot even remember how I acquired a copy; perhaps from survivor sources.
Bill,
Once again, you nail it.
Those ‘guidelines” on the Vatican website only say: ” Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.” What sort of legal advice is that? What if there is no specific local law concerning such reporting? Who are “the appropriate authorities”? Who is responsible for doing the reporting? What are the ecclesiastical penalties if any for not following local “civil law” in this matter? (And yes, there are no doubt civil authorities who might represent predatory, corrupt, unjust regimes. Does the statement both not say enough and go too far?) Perhaps adding such informal “guidelines” as an update to a website full of detailed and somewhat ill-thought out procedures was a bad idea in the first place. Talk about not trying to patch an old wineskin. . . . Hopeless mess.
I just want to note that Crimen Solicitationis, which seems to be invoked frequently here, pertained to a subset of sexual abuse: those in which the victim was solicited during the sacrament of reconciliation (or before or after the actual sacrament – cf paragraph 1). To be sure, that is an important subset of abuse cases.
This point is important for a couple of reasons:
* The invocation of strict secrecy would then pertain only to tribunal members and others involved in proceedings against accused priests who fall into this category (i.e. solicitation before/during/after confession);
* Whom is the invocation of strict secrecy supposed to protect? The document doesn’t seem to say why strict secrecy is invoked (or perhaps it does say so and I haven’t stumbled across it; it is a rather lengthy and detailed document, and I don’t claim expertise in its contents). The conclusion we’re invited to draw from commenters here, that it is in intended to protect the identity and confidentiality of the perpetrator, might be true; and it might be equally true that it is intended to protect the victim, as a sort of extension of the seal of the confessional. From what might the victim need to be protected? Well, if the case is referred to civil authorities, or is made public in some other way (e.g. if details end up with the media) then perhaps the Holy See feared that the victim might be asked questions about matters he/she would rather not discuss – matters that should be bound by the confessional seal.
At any rate, if the document has been interpreted to keep knowledge of the perpetrator and his crimes out of the hands of civil authorities, then that seems to be an injustice that needs correction (if it hasn’t already been corrected). I’m offering these thoughts as an attempt to get an accurate assessment on what the document does and doesn’t do.
Jim, Crimen is NOT limited to solicitation in the confessional, a common misconception because of its title perhaps.
Bill de Haas notes @ 1/25/11 6:12pm above by Tom Doyle:
“e. Other sex crimes. Title V of the document specifically included homosexual acts
between clerics and members of their own sex, bestiality and sexual acts of any
kind with children. The document uses the Latin word “impuberibus,” which
means “before the age of reason.” This is defined in canon 88 as one who is seven
or under. The Code also contains a canon prohibiting sex with minors which is
defined in canon law as one sixteen or under. A careful reading of the relevant
paragraphs of the 1962 document (par. 71-73) leads to some confusion as to
whom the crimes apply to. It is clear that sex with children is included and sex
with males of any age, as well as sex with animals. The only category of possible
victims that is unclear is sex with young girls…
The other sex crimes included under Title V are not crimes connected with solicitation but the actual sexual abuse itself. These are to be processed in the same manner as crimes of solicitation. Thus, the three classes of clergy sexual abuse were cloaked in the highest degree of secrecy.”
Media I am aware of do not reveal the names of victims.
This is an important article that should be a road map for the journalists covering the story.
Bill de Haas, the chapter 5 that you quote is so ludicrous that no self-respecting legal body would act upon it. The body of the text is about confessional solicitation and that is the only effective part of the text. Chapter 5 sounds like some opportunistic homophobic rant pinned on by a drunkard.
Mandatory reporting can be interpreted in transcendentally silly ways, as in the case of Fr Horatio in the Murphy Report — he touched a 15 yo indiscreetly at a party in his presbytery (a boy he knew from the Hirschfeld Centre gay disco, a site of great liberation and self-discovery for Irish gays at that time) — this is reported to the DPP 15 years later as a sign of willing cooperation with authorities by Archbishop Connell (the priest having already suffered ostracization from fellow clerics due to the original incident); the DPP say it should not have been reported to them at all — then the Murphy Report exhume the incident 30 years later. The pound of flesh mentality is part of the problem.
Carolyn, thanks for that explanation of Title 5. It makes sense.
So long as the Church focuses this much effort on rationalizing what did or didn’t happen, nothing will ever move forward. If you think mandatory reporting is “silly” when done without “judgment” then you shouldn’t go into professions that involve significant contact with minors. When my husband took my daughter to an orthopedic surgeon after she injured her elbow he was grilled about the circumstances — ditto for when my other daughter broke her wrist. This is what society expects and it would not have surprised me if that doctor had reported us (he didn’t).
The bottom line is that if nothing truly happened then it will most likely be the reasoned conclusions of authorities as well as others that nothing truly happened. When you witness or get a report of reasonably suspected abuse, you contact CPS. The “mandatory” part of it is in place only to make sure that certain types of people can’t rely on their “judgment” or “knowledge” about the family to avoid reporting — because when that was the case, there was significant underreporting of abuse perpetrated by “nice” people, you know, people like popular priests in middle class parishes.
So even if reporting isn’t “mandatory” under civil law it is still possible, just as it always possible to report any crime — it’s not like you are under a legal compulsion to report a robbery that occurred in your house. And we should never try to define this subject by the innocent outliers when we know that in a lot of cases bishops had not one or even two reports, but multiple reports about the same person, sometimes from different parishes (i.e., not as the result of a conspiracy between adolescents out to get the priest) leading any reasonable person to conclude that some of those allegations were credible. If hierarchs had reported credible cases of abuse, their judgment would not be second guessed so automatically when they declined to report cases they deemed to be not credible. There are so many ways in which the innocent are harmed when you protect the guilty.
Barbara – I completely agree.
FWIW – my daughter broke her wrist, too, and I was called out of work to pick her up from school and take her to the emergency room. A week or so later, I was back in the emergency room, this time with a son who had somehow managed to cut himself badly. It happened that the same ER nurse that helped my daughter also stitched up my son. She didn’t recognize me – I’m sure they see a lot of people come and go – but I mentioned that she had helped another of my children just the previous week. She gave me a *very* sharp look, and I could just see the wheels turning behind her eyes: ‘is this guy part of a pattern?’ I was a little offended – nobody wants to be suspected of being abusive – but I understood. I doubt anyone sees what ER people see.
I’d like to add that Marci Hamilton ( the lawyer author who argues strongly for protectin gchildren by extending SOL – to the consternation of the heirarchy and their supporters in that) has a piece criticizin gFox the (beloved by some here) WSJ, and conservative media for their coverage of the continuing news about clergy sex abuse.My experience in talking to my conservative friemds is that they are shaped by the media coverage that agrees with their philosophy and that in general they blame gays for the sex abuse mess.
If simple honesty prevailed, we wouldn’t need this thread.
“The bottom line is that if nothing truly happened then it will most likely be the reasoned conclusions of authorities as well as others that nothing truly happened.”
This may be so in cases of alleged parental neglect of children’s physical health, but it would be very optimistic to think the same equity prevails in an over-heated climate of obsession with sexuality.
At one time the British police had to declare about a hundred pedophile convictions unsound. In Ireland there is at least one proven case of the most glaring miscarriage of justice, one not possible in a saner climate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_Wall
Moreover, in the vast majority of cases accusations of abuse do not result in criminal convictions. They are sufficient, however, to ruin the life of the accused.
Also, society revvs up a special hatred for pedophiles — the slashing of Fr Tony Walsh in prison, or the murder of another priest in a Boston prison (Geoghegan?) — are prompted and in many cases approved by popular opinion.
Wake up and smell the witch-hunt!
“they blame gays for the sex abuse mess.”
Yet in point of fact many if not most of the scandals involve priests carrying on with older male teenagers, something that was quite within the spectrum of permissive gay culture a few decades ago (notably in jurisdiction where homosexuality was equally or even more criminalized than offenses with minors). The clerics in questions are usually, probably, not pedophiles or even ephebophiles at all but just common or garden gay men.
Joseph, I understand the witch hunt mentality and I find it deplorable but it is still not a justification for failing to report credible cases of abuse, and certainly not for doing nothing, much less enabling continuing abuse.
Genuine pedophiles should be hunted–and imprisoned, and protected while incarcerated. While I often find Joseph O’Leary’s interventions on this issue worrying, he raises an important point, one I’m not sure enough of us have come to grips with: when we convict a pedophile, are we imposing a de facto death sentence?
Grant, and I would say, in turn, that the real and larger issue pertains to the level of violence that is tolerated in prisons, and the failure to provide a minimum level of safety to at risk inmates, who include not only pedophiles but young, non-violent offenders. I just can’t see this issue as being part and parcel of the debate over whether such offenders should be protected by the Church in the first instance.
Ignored here, but not by SNAP, is that there is also sexual violence against adults (even 15 year olds of whatever Fr. O”Leary wants to put up as OK or minimize) and how the misuse of power relations by clergy is a major issue of clerical sex abuse – not just (as horific as it is) the abuse of children!
Barbara, we don’t disagree.
If I’m not mistaken, a huge portion of people in jail, male and female, were sexually abused as children — so not only is such perversion bad in itself, it also seems to be a factor in anti-social behavior by victims later in their lives. Further, abusers are the target of violence in prisons because so many of the inmates harbor rage against abusers generally.
Ann, maybe a large percentage of offenders were abused as children, but I don’t know about sexually abused. Actually, though, many are non-violent offenders convicted of drug offenses. Maybe violent offenders are who you are thinking of. It’s certainly true that many sexual abusers were themselves abused.
Barbara,
Yes, I think you’re right — I”m thinking of the violent offenders having being sexually abused then becoming abusive themselves..
I previously noted that the issue of sex abuse by clergy of adults is frequently overloked/miminized: “it was consensual”, “he/she seduced the good priest,” “Father slipped in his chastity”, etc.
This came to mind strongly today after the admission (sort of) by a Florida priest exorcist (prominent in right to life there, so he has many intereste ddefenders/minimizers) that he had abused a woman he had had some sort of relationship with.
My thought is that the big problem for the Church is that canon law trumps civil law, but, in lieu of that, that canon law does not match civil law in its understanding of sexual abuse crimes!