“The Scandal of Secrecy”
Earlier this month, when the New York Times published a story about the CDF and its jurisdiction over clergy sex-abuse cases, Grant Gallicho asked Nicholas Cafardi, a canon lawyer quoted in the article, to comment on the “news.” Cafardi’s very helpful explanation was posted on our blog.
Now we have published a longer article by Cafardi, “The Scandal of Secrecy: Canon Law & the Sexual-Abuse Crisis.” It explains how “secret” laws complicated and exacerbated the crisis in the church, and dispels some misconceptions about the nature of the secrecy required by Crimen sollicitationis.
The Guardian‘s Andrew Brown has linked to our article on his blog. His take sounds about right to me:
The conclusion [Cafardi] comes to is that the policy on secrecy really was so secret that the bishops did not realise it applied. Of course, the secrecy enjoined covered…the church’s internal tribunals, not the crimes themselves. Where those were not reported, as usually they weren’t, this was down to misguided and wicked institutional loyalty rather than formal policy.
…this is an account of the matter which makes a lot of sense. It requires no more than normal vanity, bureaucratic ass-covering, and indifference to other people’s suffering. That’s all that needed for evil to have a very good run. You don’t need the superhuman malevolence which some people attribute to the Vatican—even though we’ll hear a lot about that in the run up to the visit of the Pope.
Read Nicholas Cafardi’s article here.
Thanks, Mollie. I so admire the Guardian. Even left-wing as it is, it still manages to avoid both anti-Catholic hysteria and the snobby over-simplifications of you-can-guess-what. The Pope’s visit to England could be very, very interesting. Who knows. He does seem to do very well one-on-one, so perhaps the English, with their long history of dealing with Vatican intrigue, will help to open his eyes to the realities of the Vatican subterranean culture.
Just don’t read the comments.
Would you claim as yours all the comments written here?
Ann, I don’t think Grant was trying to discredit the Guardian (or reply to your comment).
“Don’t read the comments” is a very good policy for any high-traffic news site, especially when the topic is a troll magnet like this one.
I didn’t ascribe ownership, Ann. I made the mistake of reading the first few comments on Brown’s post and wished I hadn’t.
I can imagine the nastiness. Prejudices die so hard. Then again, not all the English negativity against Rome *is* a matter of prejudice. Some is justified. .
I found the comments amusing.
Actually, thought the comment about incompetence and the Peter Principle to be very creative and probably hit the head of the nail.
Not sure what to make of Cafardi’s analysis. He seems to reinforce some of J. Allen’s dribble about B16 being the “hero” in these events. What is not highlighted:
a) not sure how a victim would respond or feel about this analysis;
b) bottom line (sort of like the current release of war information about Afghanistan), there is way too much missing in terms of documentation, etc. to really draw any substantial conclusions….this has the feel of a broad brush explanation that covers up a lot;
c) it does continue to throw JPII under the bus (25 years of ignoring internal politics; ignoring victims of sexual abuse; ignoring bishops who did not meet his level of loyalty; it underlines the shallowness of his episcopal appointments (loyalty vs. competence, gospel and pastoral values, protecting the institution at all costs)
d) it does reinforce the notion that the institution cares more about itself than the people of God;
e) it does reinforce the notion that clericalism rules the roost;
f) seems to underline B16′s approach which is to work within the system for years even if victims continue to be victimized and put in jeopardy – can we call that complicity? can we call that sins of omission?
Final conclusion – this is embarrassing for any catholic who believes in the gospel message of truth, justice, and mercy.
I finally read some of the comments. My prejudice — most are not far off the mark, if off the mark at all.
Here is a much better response to this analysis:
Link to Thomas Doyle: http://www.richardsipe.com/Doyle/2010/2010-07-25.htm
Highlights: “The speculation about a power struggle between Castrillon-Hoyos and Ratzinger over competence is not worth the effort because it’s meaningless as a potential excuse for negligent bishops. The Congregation for the Clergy, run at one time by Castrillon-Hoyos, had authority to handle recourse from diocesan clergy who were taking issue with decrees or actions of their bishops by way of the administrative recourse process. There appears to have been involvement of both congregations with the case of the notorious Msgr. Trupia from Tucson, with Castrillon-Hoyos voicing positions that seemed at odds with the approach of Ratzinger at the CDF. That was more evidence of the cardinal’s twisted views on handling abusive priests than it was an inter-congregation power struggle. In any event the entire question is irrelevant as a realistic excuse for the bishops’ collective inaction. The apologists for the papacy, the Vatican and the bishops continue to look for inconsistencies in the church’s law or problems with the church’s structures as a possible excuse for the consistently irresponsible and destructive way the hierarchy from top to bottom has handled the plague of clergy sex abuse. They apparently find it difficult to face the option that the bishops covered up and lied because they wanted to cover up and lie.”
” The latest set of responses, more properly excuses, from the official church includes the assertion that the CDF only assumed control over cases of clergy abuse in 2001 and that there was some sort of power struggle between the Congregation for the Clergy and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith over who would control abuse cases. Unfortunately for those who expound this theory, history is not on their side. The Holy Office, as the CDF was known from 1908 to 1965, has had competence or control over abuse cases for decades. From the sixteenth century cases of the sexual misdeeds of the clergy were subject to the Holy Inquisition as the Holy Office was known until 1908. The 1922 and 1962 official decrees both clearly state that cases were subject to the Holy Office. This control was specified again in 2001 but the difference was that by 2001 the ordinary process for voluntary laicization had been transferred to the Congregation for the Sacraments (in February 1989). The idea that the CDF under Ratzinger did not know it had the power to process clergy abuse cases is preposterous.”
Ms. Frawley has a truly interesting piece/proposal on priest abusers at NCR today.
Of course, secrecy is still a big problem anyhow!