Vatican revises canon law on sexual abuse (and other grave crimes).
John Thavis reports:
The norms on sexual abuse of minors by priests now stipulate:
– The church law’s statute of limitations on accusations of sexual abuse has been extended, from 10 years after the alleged victim’s 18th birthday to 20 years. For several years, Vatican officials have been routinely granting exceptions to the 10-year statute of limitations. Exceptions to the 20-year limit will be possible, too, but the Vatican rejected a suggestion to do away with the statute of limitations altogether, sources said.
– Use of child pornography now falls under the category of clerical sexual abuse of minors, and offenders can be dismissed from the priesthood. This norm applies to “the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of 14, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using whatever technology.”
– Sexual abuse of mentally disabled adults will be considered equivalent to abuse of minors. The norms define such a person as someone “who habitually lacks the use of reason.”
(…)
– In the most serious and clear cases of sexual abuse of minors by priests, the doctrinal congregation may proceed directly to laicize a priest without going through an ecclesiastical trial. In these instances, the final decision for dismissal from the clerical state and dispensation from the obligations of celibacy is made by the pope.
– The doctrinal congregation can dispense with using the formal judicial process in church law in favor of the “extrajudicial process.” In effect, this allows a bishop to remove an accused priest from ministry without going through a formal trial.
– The doctrinal congregation can dispense from church rules requiring only priests with doctorates in canon law to serve on church tribunals in trials of priests accused of abusing minors. This means qualified lay experts, including those without a canon law doctorate, can be on the tribunal staff, or act as lawyers or prosecutors.
– The doctrinal congregation’s competency in such cases means it has the right to judge cardinals, patriarchs and bishops as well as priests. Vatican sources said this norm, which originates from a decision by Pope John Paul II in 2004, indicates that if the pope authorizes a trial or penal process against such persons for sex abuse or another of the “more grave crimes,” the doctrinal congregation would be the tribunal and could also make preliminary investigations.
And, yes, as Thavis previously reported, attempted women’s ordination is now called a grave canonical crime. Vatican officials stress that simply because sexual abuse and women’s ordination are treated in the same document doesn’t mean Rome views them as equivalent.
“There are two types of ‘delicta graviora’: those concerning the celebration of the sacraments, and those concerning morals. The two types are essentially different and their gravity is on different levels,” said Msgr. Charles Scicluna, an official of the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation.
The new norms also cover the violation of confession, “simulated” celebration of the Eucharist, heresy, apostasy, and, of course, schism.
Read the rest right here.
My limited understanding is that the philosophical root of the rationale to deny ordination of women has to do with the notion of complementarity. I would love to hear a more substantive unpacking of a) that position or b) any other purported rationale.
What will not be helpful is comments of the “Well, it can’t be done because the hierarchy says it can’t be done,” variety.
“The doctrinal congregation’s competency in such cases means it has the right to judge cardinals, patriarchs and bishops as well as priests”
Pursuing a line of thought I shared in another conversation: we’ve seen that bishops have erred in several different ways. I’m wondering for what specific crimes a bishop can be judged under these norms. Presumably, for committing sexual abuse against a minor. What about such things as sweeping reports of abuse under the rug, or transferring known abusers to another parish – any call to accountability in these new norms for that sort of thing?
Excellent question, Jim.
Mr. Jacobs – in all of my reading, discussions, etc. it depends upon how you interpret and define “compelentarity”….if you follow the JPII Theology of the Body thinking, it all fits nicely. If you are looking for scriptural, critical-historical documentation, etc., noted theologians have already stated that this church explanation can not be defended on scriptural or even historical rootss.
What are people’s thoughts on the hierarchy of delicta graviora?
In his article for NCR, John Allen writes: “An illicit ordination, Scicluna said, is a ‘sacramental’ crime, while abuse is a ‘moral’ crime.”
I have a difficult time following the argument that abuse of minors by clergy is not a sacramental crime, that the sacramental and moral can be divorced so easily.
To say that there are differing levels of gravity implies that one of these things (attempted ordination or abuse) is more acceptable than the other. Or am I missing a nuance?
The yoking of the issue of “sacramental” with ” moral” acts has been seen by many as unfortunate and then we have the Roman speak explanation thereof.
The problem lies in Romanita governance and the linguisrics and semantics that are concomitant with it.
Leaving aisde the woman’s ordination question – worthy of a thread of its own, the revised norms moves the Church forward on sex abuse but still with defenders (of system) on one side and victim advocates on those who see their needs unmet on the other.
I think it’s a lurch foward as under the rubric of protecting “dignity” (provacy?) secrecy reigns in the canonical sphere.
The civil authorities can do what they do, but we do what we do seems to be the message.
Personally, i think any sexual abuse crime against a person of any age/sex.sexual orientation should be dealt with if the Church insists on its own internal operations and judicial proceedings.
But I guess that covers too big a multitude of sins…
For those interested – the new norms are up on the Vatican website in English.
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_norme_en.html
The character of the document is legal – it reads like a set of amendments/addenda to existing law. It’s reasonable to conclude that adverse publicity triggered these revisions, or at least hastened them to completion. But the reader shouldn’t expect a rejoinder to the NY Times – that’s not the nature of the document.
I believe this explains why the document conjoins such seemingly disparate topics as sexual abuse, abuse of the sacraments and heresy: because the canons and norms that undergird it apply to all of these categories.
The church can deal with what it wishes in the way(s) it wishes. Civil authorities, on the other hand, will enforce the laws of the lands in the manners that they deem fit.
Belgium, anyone?
I personally look for an uptick in the ordination of women by bishops validly but illicitly ordained, or (as has been hinted recently) by bishop(s) fully in communion with Rome but with a conscience that impels him/them to right what he and so many see as a wrong.
There was a headline in The Daily Beast that read “No More Kiddie Porn for Priests.” Apparently that is not strictly true. In the United States, at least, pornography depicting anyone younger than 18 is child pornography under federal law. But the new Vatican document forbids “the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using whatever technology” (emphasis added). Given that about 40% of the abuse victims were ages 14 to 17, those sexually attracted to young people of that age can still view child pornography of minors in that age range without it being a “grave delict.”
Googling the topic, I found a fact that may explain why the Vatican used age 14 instead of age 18. Wikipedia tells us, “The age of consent in Italy is 14 years, with a close-in-age exception that allows those aged 13 to engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 3 years older. The age of consent rises to 16 if one of the participants has some kind of influence on the other (e.g. teacher, tutor, adoptive parent).” However, pornography depicting people under 18 is legally classified as child pornography in Italy, so it still seems strange that the Vatican used age 14 instead of age 18.
Jimmy Mac, “validly but illicitly ordained” — actually I’m pretty sure that the ordinations are seen as invalid, not just illicit.
You might say the Vatican are wrong to make that judgment. But would you be confident that Sinead O’Connor is a validly ordained priest?
There are impediments to marriage that make it invalid (not merely illicit) and there are similar impediments to valid ordination. Sometimes the list of these impediments may change, so that what is an invalid marriage in one era may be a valid marriage in another. The possibility that in the future the Church may validly ordain women does not entail that such ordination is valid in the present.
The NYT article this morning points out that the new rules do not require reporting abuse to civil authorities. I’m not sure why they don’t. Does Rome still hope to handle abuse cases as in-house matters? or is there some better reason?
“The NYT article this morning points out that the new rules do not require reporting abuse to civil authorities. I’m not sure why they don’t.” (Nicholas Clifford)
The Church has operations ongoing in a lot of countries in which the authorities are not, by any stretch of the imagination, good guys. For example, a bishop in southern Sudan who suspects a priest of paedophilia, would have good reason to hesitate before reporting it to the (northern) authorities.
“…pornography depicting people under 18 is legally classified as child pornography in Italy, so it still seems strange that the Vatican used age 14 instead of age 18.” (David Nickol)
The CDF has a very small staff, I hear, and a lot of Marian apparitions to evaluate.
It’s helpful to think of church law as a complement, rather than a substitute, for civil law. Priests (or anyone else) who violates a just civil law should be subject to the civil legal consequences. In a sense, canon law cares as little whether not the priest is in jail as civil cares whether or not the priest has been dismissed from the clerical state.
The biggest issue here is that it suggests that the Vatican sees the major problem in clergy sexual abuse is that it violates the purity of the priesthood–not a violation of an innocent third party
Jim P. mentioned earlier that this document gives the Vatican the right to judge bishops. I wondered if the case of Bishop Lahey of Antigonish (first arrested for possession of child pornography, now also accused of child abuse) might be in the background here.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Former+Catholic+bishop+Lahey+faces+abuse+charge/2779592/story.html
Readers here may recall that Bishop Lahey is (was?) a member of ICEL, the body that produced the new and controversial translation of the Roman Missal. His arrest doesn’t appear to have impleded the project, however.
oops — impeded
Let me step back -civil law (in the US) describes crimes (and sex abuse crime covers all ages and genders and orientations) and the elements and seriousness of such crimes and justice procedures to deal with adjudicating them.
The Vatican “advance” seem impoverished to me in that its view of the crimes of sex abuse is quite truncated, granted the “advance.” and its secretive procedures internally, coupled with no clarion call to work with civil authorities, seems hardly to be a proclamation of good procedural goveranance.
(I would note that the chair of the UN Conference on the rights of children has scored the vatican for being 13 years(!) overdue in an expected report on child protection -too busy working on canonical update I guess.
Thus I thought the usually thoughtful Bishop Cupsich’s remarks welcoming the Vatican action made him seem like the Bishop as branch bank manageer.
The yoking with woman’s ordinations (despite “eqivalency” speak) has had loud criticism from all over.
The NPR report this morning see this as a continuing identity push(back) by Rome and I think that’s right.
I also think for the reasons above this approach was terribly flawed as to credibility.
Priests (or anyone else) who violates a just civil law should be subject to the civil legal consequences.
How times have changed. I remember that one of Thomas Becket’s beefs with Henry II: that clergy (“criminous clerks”) who commit crimes should be tried in church courts, and not in the civil courts.
“The biggest issue here is that it suggests that the Vatican sees the major problem in clergy sexual abuse is that it violates the purity of the priesthood–not a violation of an innocent third party”
Cathleen – My opinion is that both aspects – the welfare of the victims,and the integrity and reputation of the priesthood – are legitimate issues/concerns. Istm that these new norms address both aspects.
The most important of these new norms – the extension of the statute of limitations – seems to be a major gain for victims.
The other important developments – further streamlining the process to try and laicize offenders; the permission for qualified lay experts to serve on tribunals; and the inclusion of bishops in the norms – are also, arguably, in the interest of victims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/europe/16vatican.html?_r=1&hpw
Notice the Coat of Arms above the two Vatican officials as they explaing the new rules. Symbolic? Isn’t Coat of Arms a contradiction in terms when applied to disciples of Jesus? Etc.
I think those crossed keys are to illustrate that whatever those officials bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven.
(Why should the Church have a statute of limitations on anything?)
JOL – I guess I wasn’t clear. ““validly but illicitly ordained” was referring to the bishops doing the ordaining, not the women.
That being said –
I find it quite interesting that a bishop who “attempts” to ordain a woman suffers automatic excommunication and may be defrocked.
OTOH, a bishop who covers up egregious, sinful and illegal abuse of children, transfers the miscreant to other opportunities of abuse, settles financially with the abused under the condition of secrecy and generally deceives the members of the church at large – well, he is subject to voluntary “fraternal correction” and, in the most heinous cases, is shipped off to a Roman sinecure to consider his sins.
Yes, I guess that is the good Catholic way alright.
RP Burke @ 11:16.
Yes, a lot of our beliefs and legal proceedings have changed since the colonies separated from the Mother Country.
Gerelyn said: “I think those crossed keys are to illustrate that whatever those officials bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven.”
Actually (assuming one believe this) the power to bind and loose was given to the successors of the Apostles, not monsignori and Vatican mouthpieces.
Yes, you’re right. Sorry for the stupid mistake. The officials who positioned themselves beneath the crossed keys for the press conference did not issue the revisions.
“The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the Supreme Apostolic Tribunal for the Latin Church as well as the Eastern Catholic Churches, for the judgment of the delicts defined in the preceding articles.”
“a bishop who covers up egregious, sinful and illegal abuse of children, transfers the miscreant to other opportunities of abuse, settles financially with the abused under the condition of secrecy and generally deceives the members of the church at large – well, he is subject to voluntary “fraternal correction” and, in the most heinous cases, is shipped off to a Roman sinecure to consider his sins.”
Jimmy Mac – there are any number of crimes that don’t incur excommunication or any other ecclesiastical penalty, yet which are still grave sins. (Hope I can note that without being accused of defending all the bad things you list).
From the point of view of civil law – if those things are crimes, then the perpetrators should be prosecuted.
From the point of view of the church – those are sins –and as heinous as they seem, they can be forgiven.
To complete my previous thought: attempting to ordain a woman is a non-event from the point of view of civil law – the state doesn’t particularly care one way or the other. But in the church, it’s a crime. Church law isn’t a substitute for civil law.
By way of analogy – gambling on baseball games is a misdemeanor of some sort in most civil jurisdictions, and offenders get a slap on the wrist. But from the point of view of Major League Baseball, it’s the most serious crime there is, and earns players a lifetime ban from the game.
Jim P @ 4:00: — and therein we find the underlying clericalism that permeates canon law.
These laws are written, interpreted, enforced and adjudicated by those who stand to benefit the most from them.
That smacks of hypocrisy to me and, I suspect, more than a few other.
The way the Church “sees” (as per John Allen today: we want the canonical way, not the ‘American way.”
How about the just way???????
If all the Church does is look at this as a sin that can be forgiven, we are truly in a bad way!
“Actually (assuming one believe this) the power to bind and loose was given to the successors of the Apostles, not monsignori and Vatican mouthpieces.”
Catholicism 101: the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles.
As Vatican II asserts (Lumen Gentium 20) “And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.”
You do support Vatican II, right?
Felapton raises an excellent point that hardly anyone has noted: “The Church has operations ongoing in a lot of countries in which the authorities are not, by any stretch of the imagination, good guys. For example, a bishop in southern Sudan who suspects a priest of paedophilia, would have good reason to hesitate before reporting it to the (northern) authorities.”
Which suggests that there are limits (not just ecclesiologically) to what Rome can legislate on this topic, or others. It also suggests that at the end of the day, there is no substitute for good bishops willing to do the right thing. Whatever the popes or the CDF or the Signatura did do or didn’t do, at the end of the day most of this crisis is to be laid at the feet of Western bishops, who were charged with recruitment, formation, oversight, and discipline of priests, and too often failed at every level.
What remains now is to see whether there will be increased discipline of these bishops. If Rome has a key role to play, it’s probably here.
“These laws are written, interpreted, enforced and adjudicated by those who stand to benefit the most from them.”
Sorry, but if I take your statement literally, it doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
How many priests have been suspended, permanently removed from ministry, and/or laicized, according to canonical procedure, since 1992? I’d think there are several thousand. I doubt if many of them see that as a benefit.
Take a look at the new norms, up at the top of the thread. Ask yourself, objectively: Who wrote them ? (“The bishops” would be the wrong answer). Who benefits from them?
“If all the Church does is look at this as a sin that can be forgiven, we are truly in a bad way!”
Bob – re-read the original post.
“What remains now is to see whether there will be increased discipline of these bishops. If Rome has a key role to play, it’s probably here.”
I agree. Justice demands it.
Jim – just some other thoughts:
- excommunication if you attend a woman’s ordination – but, then excommunication can be undone if the violator confesses and does restitution.
- defrocking (not really an appropriate or even comprehensive way of dealing with a civil crime and a serious church offense) but is seen as serious because it can not be undone….it is not a sin that can be undone. Defrocking just is and as you say, removes the priest/man from the active clerical state (ontologically, he is always a priest). Not sure most of us we see this as a “significant” consequence for violating children. So, now what, they are not active priests but are turned loose in society? They are still members of the church.
- compare that to someone who attends or attempts an ordination of a woman
- it doesn’t really make much sense….repeat Prof. Kaveny’s comment…seems to just support the all male priesthood and puts vicitms way down on the priority list
It is amazing how revealing this Vatican notice is about the hierarchy’s fear and dread of women. and gtheir lack of concern for the victims of their high-handedness. I am sure that in time this will be understood and the records purged. It never could have happened, because they never make mistakes. And so it goes.
“It is amazing how revealing this Vatican notice is about the hierarchy’s fear and dread of woman.”
It appears that you have not considered the fact that “The Sacraments are efficacious signs of Grace, INSTITUTED BY CHRIST and entrusted to The Church, by which Divine Life is dispensed to us.”
For once I agree with Nancy. No Christian church, as far as I know, will countenance illegal ordination — rendered particularly toxic by the doubt it leaves about the validity of the sacraments conferred by the minister. If women priests come it must be in accordance with church order. The illegal ordinations have put back the cause of women priests by, I’d say, three decades.
I think that defrocking CAN be undone, just as excommunication can. Suspensio a divinis (the same thing as defrocking?) can be undone and I believe priests who have been reduced at their own request to the lay state have asked to have this reversed and have returned to ministry.
Fr Lombardi, put on the defensive, answered questions about why this new document does not urge civil penalties for abusing clerics by saying it is in-house canon law, and not connected with issues of civil law.
The NYT this morning gleefully takes the Vatican to task for its new (?) procedures and more particularly for its gratuitous commingling of pederasty and women’s ordination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/opinion/17sat4.html?ref=todayspaper
Whatever one things of the Gray Lady’s triumphalist posture, it’s hard to disagree with she says, and particularly her charge of tone-deafness on Rome’s part. Once again, the members of a small cabal of aging men, well insulated from the world, appear to have talked to each other, shutting out any other voices, and have decided that since they agree with one another, all is well. O Tempora, O Mores (as another Roman once said).
Jim – Tom Doyle has answered your original question about bishop’s who violate these canons: http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vaticans-new-norms
Note: “The norms list several canonical crimes that are subject to the CDF. There is a serious gap in this list: failure to properly and responsibly respond to report of sex abuse by clerics. This would obviously nail the majority of U.S. bishops, both retired and active. This crime is just as devastating as the sex abuse itself because it obviously enables continued rape and molestation of innocent children and adults. The bishops’ systemic practice of cover-up and dishonesty, which should be a crime, is also a gross insult to all lay persons and not just victims and their families. Why? Because it reveals a clear disdain for the non-ordained and a concept of justice that is clearly subjective and therefore self-destructive.”
On the other had, Nicholas Cafardi states: http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/something-missing
Note: “Canon 1389, §2, says that “A person who through culpable negligence illegitimately places or omits an act of ecclesiastical power, ministry, or function with harm to another is to be punished with a just penalty.” Certainly bishops who have knowingly or negligently re-assigned a known priest child-abuser to yet another parish have performed an act of ecclesiastical power that has caused harm to another, i.e., the additional child victims.
In his announcement, Cardinal Levada re-affirms that “the right, as mandated by the Roman Pontiff to judge…bishops” belongs to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is time for some of those canonical trials of bishops who have re-assigned priests with a known history of child sexual abuse to start. Only then will we laity know that the church has a legal system that really works. It’s up to you, Cardinal Levada, to fill in this missing part of the church’s law.” (but that canon has been there all along, again)
JOL – technically, don’t agree about laicization. But, then, bishops who are desperate for priests can do anything – change, revise, re-interpret canon law….ane they do. I have seen religious communities accept laicized priests back but usually in old age for humanitarian reasons and not for any ministerial work.
Here is a case of a laicized priest returning to active ministry after a very long time.
Bill D – thanks for the links to implications about bishops. I haven’t time to read the links right now, but based on the excerpts you’ve provided, it seems that there ARE legal tools to call bishops to accountability. The great question, then, is … is there will, within the college of bishops and within the Holy See, to call bishops to justice?
Have those Irish episcopal resignations been accepted, btw?
In addition to bank manager, er bishop Cupsich “welcoming” the additions on sex abuse canons, we have another “welcome” from Bishop Wuerl on the woman’s ordination matter (see the “in All Things” America blog) saying how much the church treasures its women.
Susan Gannon is right and maybe the good Washington Bishop can have a conversation with cardinal Rode. et al.
How the church handles the issue of women has been argued here before
but as the world becomes more divided across denominational lines, issues of credibility matter immensely.
When my wife read the news release on the new caonical entries, she said it was just another power attempt to reign in critics – I think that’s probably right.
It’s pretty clear that the hierarchy has been losing ground on the question of the ordination of women across the board. The poll numbers of those in favor of women’s ordination are way up in the United States, and a recent poll of Austrian clergy showed something like 51% in favor. The Anglicans are now going to move into ordaining women as bishops (never mind what the American Episcopal Church does, when it happens in England, Rome pays attention). Even Barbie has gone liturgical, with extensive priestly garb (Episcopalian) and many fans on Facebook. There are over 100 Catholic women in the womenpriest movement already claiming to be ordained, or so I’ve read, and I’ve recently heard stories of several Catholic women in the U.S. getting themselves ordained by interreligious or non-denominational agencies for professional reasons. They do it so they can get to serve as hospital chaplains, and to perform wedding ceremonies; there’s a niche for this, evidently.
Now, whatever one thinks of these phenomena, it’s crystal clear that making the ordination of women a more serious sin is going to have absolutely no effect on any of it. None. It might even accelerate the process, as Rome loses more credibility in the eyes of the faithful. I am left wondering, are there more bishops and priests ready to ordain women than we know?
Nicholas, I’d think that pretty much every charge that the NY Times trots out has alrready been raised and answered here.
Rita – all of those trends and instances that you cite would actually seem to support the notion that maybe it is timely for Rome to speak on the topic of women’s ordination. (Naturally, what was spoken displeases the NY Times and most of its readers.)
I didn’t want to get into sacramental canon law -which should be a thread all in itself.
We’ve already talked ablout divorce/remarriage annulments and the canonical philosophical thinking that posits a “sacramental bond” between two baprtoized enterring marriage (Do we tell catholics who marry a non-baptized that they aren’;t receiving the sacrament?)
Over the years, pastoral considerations conjointly with our changing knowledge of reality in psychology produced a broad annulment basis in(lack of) mature discretion.
Ordination theology, at least for some, posits an “ontological”( -metaphysical) change in the person. If such a person lacks mature discretion, say an affectively immature individual who abuses others sexually, does that render their ordination invalid? How do we know?
Yet we continue to cast canons and canon law as “sacred” as buttressing the current practice on sacraments.
My own view is that canonists should stick to doing good organizational work and trtying to inculcate real justice into Church procedures, but I guess that won’t fly in JCD classes.
So, pursuing the notion that bishops who knowingly shuffle abusers to another parish are in violation of canon law, and these new norms provide a venue to try them: suppose I were a victim who was abused by a perpetrator whom a bishop knowingly put within reach of me. Would I have standing to start a church legal action? Does anyone know the process?
Jim, as per your comment about the timeliness of Rome “speaking out” — this doesn’t qualify as speaking out. Really. Come now.
Jim, also, the issue isn’t whether the readers of the NYT are displeased. Excommunication is a bit more serious than this!
So OK ‘they’ list what is serious offenses. So what keeps a bishop from ordaining one or two of the 17000 married deacons so he won’t have to close more to the already closed 1000 inner-city/rural churches? no ‘serious sin’ there!!! !Not a sin at all … It’s just a go-along with the ‘big guys’. Imagine looking at 3000 bishops all afraid simultaniously. the fear makes me shudder too.
” If such a person lacks mature discretion, say an affectively immature individual who abuses others sexually, does that render their ordination invalid?”
Hmm. What a Pandora’s box this would open, given that about 11 American bishops have been abusers, and they have “ordained” dozens of priests, some of whom will probably themselves later become bishops(?). It boggles the mind.
Adding the ordination of women as a grave canonical crime in a Vatican statement devoted otherwise to the issue of clerical abuse is, I believe, an attempt to yoke women’s ordination, which many Catholics support, to pedophilia, which is universally condemned.
This reminds me of late 1968, when many Catholics were disagreeing with Humanae Vitae. Cardinals and Bishops issued letters read from the pulpits speaking of the twin evils of birth control and abortion attempting to gain adherence to Church teaching on birth control by some sort of equivalence to abortion which was opposed by the vast majority of Catholics.
It is a techique that often backfires.
Jim, I suspect there is a statute of limitation or some loophole somewhere that will make it near impossible to pursue charges against any bishop under canon law who has enabled or covered up abuse.
So the matter of standing is probably moot. Blazes, Levada himself has a stellar record of hiding abusers, and he would judge other bishops?
Our 2003 canon case against NH’s two bishops seeking their resignations, filed as members of the People of God, ended in a waste basket and DOA, even though a member of the papal household to whom it was hand delivered, called it a “professional document.” There are plenty of provisions in canon law already that we referenced appropriately and are applicable.
One of the members of our group (NH Catholics for Moral Leadership – NHCML) is a survivor, and the bishops knew it, but we honored the survivor’s desire to keep knowledge of his abuse out of the public domain, since his name was public.
Cynic that I am, the new canon revisions makes good reading, and offer a figleaf to those pushing for bishop accountability. But when B16 refuses even to accept the resignation of two Irish bishops who have offered to resign, let’s not hold our breath about meaningful action here.
I read, if memory serves, that about 2/3 of US bishops involved in covering up are now out of office, retired or dead. Suspect it may be the same elsewhere, though the developing world may pertain. Still, the mentality of hierarchy, clergy, laity and civil law enforcement there is appalling, even nightmarish.
The revisions are a good PR move at this point, but well beyond the deadline for action. Rome will *never* IMHO censure a bishop it chose for elevation who is not an abuser himself, or some other equally direct offender. And even then, history shows very little of consequence. Imagine the contrast with Law sitting on powerful dicastery boards.
Quickly accept a resignation, and poof. Besides, aren’t all such proceedings secret anyway, so no one outside would ever know. Perfect. All that sub secreto pontifico in the 2001 SST is still in effect, I believe. And it’s all well past SOL in civil and criminal law.
Now, it would be an interesting exercise for NHCML to refile a case, but to paraphrase in sincere good humor, “frankly, my dear, we can’t find the energy to give a damn anymore.” And would not any covering up have to be as of this date forward anyhow?
Snap.
We are incredibly proud of what we did – the first! – but it’s all slightly amusing now. And in our hearts we really knew it was only for the record.
Our website is gone, so we await a chance for ba.org to post it all some year. The related correspondence back and forth with Roman and US officialdom is a genuine howler, a witness to the lowest form the bureaucratic mind can assume. (I am partial to that phrase, and must credit Barry and Ann Ulanov.)
What would be electrifying is if B16 actually fired current bishops in significant, meaningful proportion to get the point across: that means George, Levada and Mahony included. And if you’re retired, an open judgment of guilt, not some mealy-mouthed inside baseball about prayer and penance. Wow! I hallucinate.
“(Do we tell catholics who marry a non-baptized that they aren’;t receiving the sacrament?)”
Correct.
“Jim, also, the issue isn’t whether the readers of the NYT are displeased. ”
There is nothing intrinsic about women’s ordination that makes mention of it in conjunction with the sex abuse crisis more tone-deaf than mention of, say, heresy. It’s all apples-and-oranges.
Had the document addressed the sex abuse crisis, heresy and the confessional, and said nothing about women’s ordination, it wouldn’t have merited a NYT editorial.
Robert Corcoran is right.
“This reminds me of late 1968, when many Catholics were disagreeing with Humanae Vitae. Cardinals and Bishops issued letters read from the pulpits speaking of the twin evils of birth control and abortion attempting to gain adherence to Church teaching on birth control by some sort of equivalence to abortion which was opposed by the vast majority of Catholics.
“It is a techique that often backfires.”
John Paul II ccondemned “the abominable crime of abortion. Birth control” in the same breath in his sermon in Limerick in 1979. Benedict XVI conjoined abortion and samesex marriage in one sentence in Fatima this year. The chief effect if such gambits is to undermine the church teaching on abortion.
Rita E Ferrone, most Catholics may be in favor of ordaining women, but very few would favor ordaining them illegally. The Anglican churches acccepted female ordination by a regular process respecting church order. Had maverick bishops jumped the gun and ordained women unilaterally, it would have set back female ordination for a long time.
Actually a maverick Episcopalian bishop in Philadelphia jumped the gun in 1976 and ordained a group
of women. There was a storm of controversy but it didn’t set female ordination back for a “long time” in the Anglican communion.
Joseph S.O Leary, it is clear that you do not recognize the complementary essence of Love (Filioque), and God’s intention for making us in His Image.
Joseph O’Leary, I’m not in favor of illegal ordinations either. But, I ask you, if someone was all set to ordain women prior to this pronouncement (it’s already a move clearly and completely forbidden) or planning to receive such an illicit ordination, will this document slow them down one iota? No, it will not. Therefore, no matter how determined the fellows in Rome are about this issue, they are only going to lose more prestige and squander more moral authority by issuing public pronouncements that do no good. (Yes, in that way it’s a lot like the contraception question.)
Personally, I think we are closer to a schism than any time in my lifetime. I say this because of the convergence of unresolved tensions in the mainstream concerning these three areas: the role of women, the handling of the sex abuse crisis, and the new translation of the Roman Missal. Any one of these alone would not be enough. But all of them together? Plus the notion that Rome links these three? (Which it does.) Well… For the record, I am not advocating a split. But if I were advising anybody in Rome, I’d remind them that the bonds of unity can only stand so much pressure.
Rita – would add one more – equal rights for gays vs. homophobia – excuse me; “intrinsically disordered?.
For years a number of Catholic women have quietly and without fanfare become priests — in the Episcopal church. One I know wanted to be a priest from young on. Instead of doctor or teacher or nurse or nun, she played priest. When she grew up and the church had not changed its stance on women priests, she joined another church. She KNEW she was called to be a priest. She followed the call. We lost a good one.
Posted by Nancy Danielson
on July 18th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Joseph S.O Leary, it is clear that you do not recognize the complementary essence of Love (Filioque), and God’s intention for making us in His Image.
Nancy – I do try but sometimes I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say in the context to which you are alluding.
What is THIS about???
Rita: won’t the lawyers get absolutely filthy rich if a schism happens? The property fights alone will go on until the Parousia.
Jim L: we have lost a LOT of good priests (males already ordained and females to be ordained) to the ECUSA. And the UCC. I have read (can’t find the source) that about a third of the female UCC ministers come from an RCC background).
Loss of good people is always bad. In this church to lose good priest candidates/ordinands is becoming more disastrous by the year.
Jimmy, you raise a good question about property. Perhaps the lawyers among us can respond. It seems possible to me that some of the moves now being made to protect property from being seized as part of settlement for abuse claims and bankruptcy filing may actually be shaking them loose. I think, for instance, that parishes now incorporate and own their buildings in some dioceses? Otherwise, wouldn’t the dioceses that went bankrupt have to sell them all?
Rita – complicated legal history. Most dioceses are set up as “corporate sole” – so all property, etc. is owned in the name of the bishop. That is why some of the attempted bankruptcy have been thrown out of court – e.g. San Diego. Declared one amount when, in fact, the diocese was worth tens of millions more.
In the Rudy Kos affair in Dallas in 1996-97, a group of pastors tried to end run the bishop and set up separate parish accounts, school accounts, etc. to protect specific parish assests from any final settlement. Other than angering the bishop and the diocesan insurance companies, it never really became an issue because the settlement was eventually negotiated down to est. $30 million of which insurance covered about 80% and the bishop sold off old or unused property (delayed the construction of a high school) so it did not become a court issue.
Carolyn can correct me but most courts are not allowing dioceses to split their assets this way – see any of the recent court decisions in Delaware.
Rita, you cite the new translation of the liturgy as a schismogenic factor. So far most Catholics are blissfully unaware of this new translation; only 21,000 signed Fr Ryan’s petition. In Germany the new translation of the funeral rites was withdrawn in response to widespread discontent and the Vatican reinstated the 1973 translation. The new English translation of the Roman Missal is in trouble, because of the “errors and inconsistencies” discovered by the Vatican after it had given its official recognitio. So maybe this disaster will be averted.
Joesph O, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the latest word is that Vox Clara has addressed the “errors and inconsistencies” of the new ICEL translation by making the text infinitely worse (approx. 10,000 changes; I have not seen the text), and publication is going ahead on schedule. Pope Benedict just had a meeting to congratulate Vox Clara on their “collegiality.”
Heckuva job, Brownie.
Bill D, thanks for the explanation about property ownership.
The discussion here lacks a certain Catholic Church “realpolitic” based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations – considerations that are not lost on the hierarchs.
The hierarchs who effectively exercise complete political hegemony over the affairs of the worldwide Catholic community are, if anything, deeply committed radical reactionaries.
That is why the hierarchs appear to be so intransigent in protecting their ideology (i.e., equating raping and sodomizing children with ordaining women – the hierarchs understand all too well that the first one is morally degenerate, but the latter one will cost them their political control).
Remember, Tip O’Neill’s maxim: “All politics is local.”
The hierarchs have been dominant in the church for centuries because they have been very attentive to the political demands of maintaining an all-male feudal oligarchy.
Such a political regime has required fostering a culture that systematically suppresses women and where clerics are encased and insulated within a narcissistic privileged caste.
Thus, the so-called “culture of silence” within the clerical state is essential to protecting the political prerogatives of the dominant, ruling cadre.
The key to unlocking this stranglehold of the hierarchs is separating them from their absolute control over the finances and property of the church.
I know this is a long-term political objective that will take decades of effort. It is not as “sexy” or convenient as abstract theological and intellectual discourse, or extended Catholic punditry.
We need to adopt the church’s sense of time and start planning and strategizing for the next several centuries – that’s what the hierarchal politicians do.
You will be surprised at the theological and ecclesiological epiphany the hierarchs will experience on a whole range of issues when their salaries, housing, medical care, retirement, education, vacations, parish properties, diocesan bank accounts are solely in the hands of the people.
You don’t bite the hands that feed you.
The Golden Rule of Politics is: He or She Who Has the Gold Rules! If you want to change the church, we have to take the reigns of power into our own hands.
FWIW, my view of reality is that the two most surefire ways of causing a schism in the Catholic Church would be for the Church to begin ordaining women and officiating at homosexual weddings.
“the latest word is that Vox Clara has addressed the “errors and inconsistencies” of the new ICEL translation by making the text infinitely worse (approx. 10,000 changes; I have not seen the text), and publication is going ahead on schedule. ”
So the text that has been posted for many months at the USCCB website is already out of date?
Jim writes: “So the text that has been posted for many months at the USCCB website is already out of date?”
Yes, that’s correct. The Tablet reported on it, and there have been a number of posts on the PrayTell blog from people in the know. This rewriting happened after bishops’ vote, and after the recognitio was given, and yes, there are changes to the Order of Mass that has been on the web since 2008.
Rita, will we (the People of God) be allowed to see the revised text prior to its rollout?
On the conjoining of sex-abuse norms with norms concerning the ordination of women: here is a blog post by RR Reno that gives what I take to be a reasonable perspective.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/07/19/hammering-on-rome/
“the Church to begin ordaining women and officiating at homosexual weddings.”
Lo antes posible! Gracias a Dios.
Jim writes: “Rita, will we (the People of God) be allowed to see the revised text prior to its rollout?”
I was going to reply “I don’t see why…” but then I stopped myself, because irony doesn’t travel well on a blog! :) A lot of us have been wondering about this, to tell the truth. How can publications be made ready and catechesis be offered in a timely manner, without the final text? But there is no plan to push back the start date. That’s all I can say. Preparations based on an earlier version of the text will just have to do, I guess. The publishers have to get it in time to revise their publications, but the People of God? When I read your comment, I must admit, I laughed out loud.
Rita, had you really responded, “I don’t see why …” I wouldn’t have known how to take it EXCEPT as irony :-)
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/why-is-ordination-of-women-a-crime-against-faith-2263327.html
Re: translations: it seems we have a couple of examples now of the autonomy of bishops’ conferences being eroded: this matter of Vox Clara “corrections”; and Rome’s appropriation of the translation of the antiphons, which was raised (and ignored) at the US bishops’ meeting last year when the new translations were approved.
The principle that national conferences are responsible for liturgical translations is an important one, enshrined in the Vatican II documents, and reiterated as recently as the latest GIRM revision. It’s one of the best concrete expressions of subsidiarity in the church governance that I know of. It’s worth making of oneself a nuisance to defend.
These are bad precedents.
Except to loyalists, the reaction to the new CDF outtput has been pretty terrible -see Harry Byrne at Archangel, Tom Beaudoin at America Blog, Beliefnet and yes Time magazine – not to mention Ms. Dowd who so many love here etc.. (Someone evb said,”slow motion implosion.”
In listening to NPR today about the Russian police tightening the screws and the anguish of nonloyalists there, I thought once more of how this attempted tightening of the screws is so counterproductive except to loyalists, many of whom have loyalty oaths or charge through a Catholic institution not to speak out.
Some have trumpeted that the union here is good order bound up with sacramental theology.
I’d argue the awful reaction shows good order is not the fruit and in a world of nondiscussion or criticism of the above, the theology is tainted as I tried to show above.
Everyone knows the church has a right to make its laws and decrees – the issue is are they doing the right thing or just destroying their own credibility in screw tightening?
Footnote to Jim P.
whether ordaining women or marrying gays would cause schism does not seem a certainty but more a projection on your part – sounds like some of the uptight Anglicans thinking of splitting off because of (gasp) in their congegtation a woman might be bishop.
10, 000 changes! And no consultation with the bishops (already reduced to pulp by Vatican bullying and their own spinelessness). And the Pope congratulates Vox Clara on their… COLLEGIALITY???
Who would want to be a bishop in such a church? An unanswered question of contemporary church history is this: how many men have turned down the position of bishop?
Interesting letters on this here: http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224275072504
Among the graviora delicta is concelebration of the Eucharist in an Anglican Church… At this rate, who will ‘scape excommunication??
- I wish the text came with an accompanying commentary explaining the reasons behind each of the new norms. For example, regarding child porn, does that include artificially created images made without enlisting any real children? Not clear. It depends on the reason why child porn is now classified as “delicta graviora”…
- I wish the age of 14 had been replaced by “prepubescent” — that is, relying on the interpretation of the courts rather than imposing an arbitrary age. 14 may be the age for Italy, but those norms are meant to be universal, not national; in other cases we are quickly reminded that laws cannot be too specific when they are designed to be applied in every country.
- I note no concern for the rights of priests to defend themselves. Are those new norms just? It’s not clear.
- As others have noted, the first thing that jumped at me was the absence of any mention of sanctions for bishops who render the law ineffective by failing to apply it.
- That renewed insistence on secrecy: ew… I am reminded once again of Pope Benedict’s paragraph to bishops in his letter to the Irish: “Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people towards the Church to which we have consecrated our lives“. The judiciary aspect has little relevance if the executive branch does not follow. Without it, it has no backbone. How will this be implemented in a convincing manner if all happens in secret? Until we know more about that, it’s just words.
-I note that it was said that the new norms could also be applied to cardinals etc., but apparently not to popes, conspicuously absent from that list. What if some future pope is culpable of one of those acts? Popes are not perfect and should not be exempted from canon law, should they?
Progress: the extended statute of limitations, and the new protection of mentally handicapped. But overall, that’s another unimpressive text. Like the Irish people perceptively described by Pope Benedict, I am awaiting decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency, but this new text does not make any progress in that direction.
I’ve lost hope that the Vatican might change its ways. Am reading a biography of the Maritains,(Jacques and Raissa Maraitain: Beggars for Heaven) a fascinating picture of French Catholicism in the 20th century. After WWII when Maritain was in process of becoming ambassador to the Vatican Fr. Henri deLubac prepared a secret report for him about the malfeasance of many bishops and some priests under the Vichy regime. Maritain discovered that things were worse than he had imagined. Pres. deGaulle asked the Vatican to purge 23 bishops because of their bad behavior, including even the bishop of Paris. The Vatican refused. Its only concession was to replace the Apostolic Nuncio by a low-grade diplomat, Msgr. Angelo Roncalli. The report stayed secret. When Maritain became ambassador he urged both Pius XI and his friend Paul VI to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism after the fact of the Holocaust. Both refused.
If the Vatican could choose to remain silent and take no action *after* the Holocaust, I can’t have any hope it will change its behavior after the sex scandal.
Ann Ollvier
I have given away many books in recent years. I used to have a fair number that dealt with French Catholic history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I knew that the Vatican did remove some of the bishops who had supported the Petain regime, though a far smaller number than DeGaulle had asked for. I was able to find an article, “The lesson of July 27, 1945,” by Michael Sean Winters. It appeared in The National Catholic Reporter on April 16, 2010. It states that on July 27, 1945 Pope Pius XII did remove seven French bishops.
The nuncio to France, Valerio Valeri, was, as you point out, no longer acceptable. He returned to Rome, and was eventually named a cardinal and prefect of the Congregation for Religious. Archbishop Angelo Roncalli was a surprise choice as Valeri’s replacement, but he had the critical support of one of the two Vatican under-secretaries of State, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini. After the death of Cardinal Luigi Maglione in 1943 Pius XII rather strangely did not appoint a Secretary of State. This situation continued till the Pope’s death in 1958. The direction of the Secretariat of State was left to two monsignors, neither of them bishops, Monsignor Montini (named [exiled to?] archbishop of Milan in 1954) and Monsignor Domenico Tardini. Tardini was named a cardinal and Secretary of State by Cardinal Roncalli after his election as John XXIII on 27 October, 1958. Archbishop Montini was finally named a cardinal at the same time.
Jim P @ 5:47 said: “These are bad precedents.”
I think that this is simply reverting to old authoritarian habits now that there are enough JPII priests, bishops and cardinals in place who are willing to bow and scrape at will — and expect the same behavior from The Little People.
At times like these (and there are so many of them these days) I turn for succor to one of my favorite theologians:
“What you need is sustained outrage…there’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority.” (Molly Ivins)
Btw, at First Things, RR Reno ties together many of the things we’re discussing, although in a fresh and interesting way.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/07/after-the-scandals
John Page –
Thank you for the information about the 7 bishops. The Maritain biog. got that wrong. I should add that I just checked out some of the footnoting and it’s quite haphazard — some things are clearly noted, some are not, and though there are many direct quotations, there are no citations for some of them. Hmmm. But the book got some major awards, so I suppose I should mostly trust it.
What is surprising to me is how downright anti-clerical Maritain was. Maybe he got it from his mother. She ended up sort of a (Hindu) Communist. I knew that he himself was under suspicion before Vatican II, but I didn’t know that Montini/Paul VI, a friend of his, had also been. Maybe there is hope after all that the Vatican can change its culture.
Well, obviously the Vatican does not equate ordained women with pedophiles. They don’t excommunicate pedophiles.