Posted on 08/07/2003 9:54:10 AM PDT by polemikos
Boston, Aug. 07 (CWNews.com) - A CBS network news report, claiming that the Holy See orchestrated a cover-up of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, is based on a gross misinterpretation of a 1962 Vatican document.
In a sensationalist report aired on August 6, CBS Evening News claimed to have discovered a secret document proving that the Vatican had approved-- and even demanded-- a longstanding policy of covering up clerics' sexual misdeeds.
The document cited by CBS does nothing of the sort.
In fact the network's story misrepresented the Vatican document so thoroughly that it is difficult to attribute the inaccuracy to honest error.
The CBS story is based on a secret Instruction issued to bishops in March 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then the prefect of the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). That document sets forth the canonical procedures to be followed when a priest is charged with the ecclesiastical crime of "solicitation"-- that is, using the confessional to tempt penitents to engage in sexual activity.
[The Vatican document, in an awkward English translation, can be downloaded from the CBS News site. CBS also offers the Latin original.]
The Vatican document deals exclusively with solicitation: an offense which, by definition, occurs within the context of the Sacrament of Penance. And since that sacrament is protected by a shroud of absolute secrecy, the procedures for dealing with this ecclesiastical crime also invoke secrecy.
In short, by demanding secrecy in the treatment of these crimes, the Vatican was protecting the secrecy of the confessional. The policy outlined in that 1962 document is clearly not intended to protect predatory priests; on the contrary, the Vatican makes it clear that guilty priests should be severely punished and promptly removed from ministry.
It is important to keep in mind that the 1962 Vatican Instruction dealt exclusively with "solicitation" as that term is understood in ecclesiastical usage, under the terms of the Code of Canon Law. The policies set forth by Cardinal Ottaviani do not pertain to the sexual misdeeds of clerics, but to the efforts by priest to obtain sexual favors though the misuse of their confessional role.
It is also important to note that because solicitation takes place inside the confessional, only the accused priest and the penitent could possibly have direct evidence as to whether or not the crime took place. If the solicitation led to actual sexual activity, that misconduct could be the subject of an entirely separate investigation, not bound by the same rules of secrecy.
The crime of "solicitation" has always been viewed by the Catholic Church as an extremely serious offense, calling for the strongest available penalties. Cardinal Ottaviani stresses that any confessor who solicits sexual favors from his penitents should be suspended from ministry and stripped of all priestly privileges. These penalties apply to all cases of solicitation, whether they involve minor children or adults of either sex. The 1962 document is not concerned with all instances of solicitation; it does not concentrate on the solicitation of children.
The CBS report claimed:
The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests-- anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.That is inaccurate.
I'm no canon lawyer, but the way I understand it priests are subject to the laws of whatever state they are in. Understanding that they need not (in some circumstances may not) heed any laws that are contrary to the natural law or canon law.
But that does not remove them from jurisdiction.
SD
It could only be construed that way if you assume every document had to specifically spell out the civil procedures to be followed, not only the religious ones. And if you also assume children need to be spelled out distinctly from adults in every case. Both are silly assumptions.
This document did not protect bishops, priests, or anyone else from punishment if they covered up civil crimes. More to the point, it certainly did not instruct the bishops to undertake such a coverup. The fact that these topics were not covered in this single document does not imply anything.
One would also have to keep in mind that different countries have VERY DIFFERENT civil procedures and concepts of law. In the 1961-62 period, for instance, priests had been imprisoned in totalitarian countries for trumped up charges of various kinds. In the current media cycle people have gotten used to the idea of automatically viewing the priests as guilty and of the Church as having covered up actual terrible crimes. This was not always the case in past history. In the Communist countries dominated by the Soviet Union, innocent priests were often jailed. Whether a homosexual subculture as vast as that which has existed since the 1970s was present in the Church of the past is highly debatable. Solicitation of sex by priests would probably have been directed at women with a frequency greater than that of the homosexual sodomy/rape cases of recent headlines. That false charges of sexual misconduct have been directed at priests would have been something to be concerned about as well. This doesn't excuse cover-ups, of course.
Likewise, we wouldn't expect to find staff memos at CBS emphasizing that it is always wrong for a journalist or editor to lie deliberatelty in a news story. That CBS does not regularly warn its staff NOT to lie or not to slant things to suit the peculiar agenda of the secret society they happen to be a member of would not necessarily be evidence of a lack of enthusiasm for accuracy in reporting. Silence on a point in any document does not indicate that the writer holds an ethically wrong opinion on the matter.
Obviously, any Bishop who knows or suspects one of his priests is a pedophile he should call the police, as should the PARENTS of the boy who has been harmed.
This being the case, any honest journalist would ask the source what it all means, before telling the world it means something else. The fact the CBS did not ask anyone from the Congregation of the Faith (which is what the Holy Office is now called) for comment shows bias.
The fact the CBS did not asked for any help reading a Latin canonical document 40 years old shows their arrogance.
I don't expect it to spell out civil procedures, but when a SERIOUS CRIME has been committed by a clergyman and there is NO MENTION of civil authorities, it makes it seem that the church is above any laws but their own. Furthermore, the victim is NOT bound by the seal of confession and could easily be intimidated by the church proceedings, as many undoubtedly were, to defer from reporting the crime to the civil authorities.
This document did not protect bishops, priests, or anyone else from punishment if they covered up civil crimes. More to the point, it certainly did not instruct the bishops to undertake such a coverup. The fact that these topics were not covered in this single document does not imply anything.
Yes, it did to the extent that the church took the law into its own hands and meted out a punishment or not, as it deemed appropriate, bypassing civil law.
To my knowledge, as of this point in time, there has been NO mention that serious criminals should be turned over to civil authorities, where the knowledge of the crime was gained outside the boundaries of confession. If you know of such a document or instructions, I would like to know about it.
I don't like the idea that any crime committed by clergy is exempt from scrutiny in the light of just secular laws. It doesn't work that way for penitents who have committed serious crimes who *may* be instructed by their confessor to turn themselves over to civil authorities.
Also the issue of threatening the victim with excommunication if he fails to come forward after learning of the requirements to do so (most victims would be ignorant of this canon) within 30 or whatever number of days seems stacked against the victim and in favor of the clergy which comes across to me as unjust. If a person goes to a clergyman (apart from confession) and reports an abuse, the clergyman is not threatened with excommunication if he fails to report it to anyone.
I can't determine what the INTENTION of the excommunication threat is meant to accomplish on the poor victim.
The fact the CBS did not asked for any help reading a Latin canonical document 40 years old shows their arrogance.
Excellent point. How many actual Catholic experts on canon law and Vatican documentation did CBS consult with? I have noticed the secular media frequently relies on the disinformation of liberal dissenters among "Catholic scholars" for many stories.
Can't you? What is the intention of most law, civil or canonical? It is to direct behavior.
The Church is making the point that a person who experiences this type of harrassment from a priest has a duty to report it. This is the exact opposite of covering up. This is the Church saying that someone who suffers abuse must report it.
Why? To prevent further abuse of others. We do have a Christian responsibility to protect others from harm, and if we know of a priest who is abusing the sacrament, we do nto have the option to bury our heads and pretend it never happened.
Rather we have a canonical as well as ethical duty to report the abuse.
SD
Are you saying that perpetrators of crimes such as have been reported in our country should be shielded because of the risk that the charges could be trumped up? There is that risk always, but it is pretty clear that most of the cases that are finally seeing their day in court in our country are not trumped up.
I do see your point about laws being different from country to country and in some countries, the death penalty could be administered for abusing a minor or even homosexual activity between consenting adults.
I can only say going in, that if I were in any of those countries, I would be subject to the whims of their particular legal systems and there is no protection for me (a layperson) against injustice. Why should it be any different for a clergyman?
As to people suffering under trumped up charges, I would certainly defend them, as might the church (depending on who it is), which is certainly the right thing to do, providing I was reasonably certain they were innocent.
I just can't go so far as to say that just because there is a risk of trumped up charges that a criminal should be shielded from the civil authorities. That would be an individual call on a case-by-case basis.
Now we're down to guilty priests who walk or have fled to evade criminal prosecution versus some clergymen who are right now doing real jail time for real crimes they have committed.
Sending a clergyman to a monastery as a punishment does not seem to fit the crime imo. Any other person would have to do hard time in jail.
No. I specifically mentioned that there is no excuse for covering up crimes. My guess would be that prior to the 1960s or 1970s, the sex issue was largely about priests involved with women. In the document in question, it has to do with solicitation of sex in the context of Sacramental Confession, entirely another matter altogether. The issue specifically involves a sacrilegous profanation of a sacrament by a priest.
The best remedy for preventing sodomy molestation cases is to follow Vatican directives and not ordain those with an orientation toward sodomy. Obviously, once crimes have been committed, such individuals must be removed from clerical life and submitted to the appropriate legal penalties.
If the issue is what did the Vatican have to say back in 1962, one would have to be alert to the fact that false charges brought against priests had indeed taken place in totalitarian countries. There was not an openly pro-homosexual movement in the Church in 1962. There is now.
Why
This is the exact opposite of covering up
That depends. It *could* be interpreted as an early warning system for the church to go into damage control mode.
Why? To prevent further abuse of others.
That was my assumption and hope, but when the threat of excommunication is added and applies only to the victim, it just muddies the waters more, not less.
If you find yourself in a situation such as this, such as I did (it is not up to the penitent to determine whether it was an innocent misunderstanding or what; you MUST report certain things even if you don't really think it was real solicitation), I can tell you that it scares the living daylights out of you when you find out *you* are threatened with excommunication until you do what you are supposed to do and hope that the thing doesn't escalate into something really out of control.
If CBS is interested in reporting the actual facts of the sex abuse "crisis" they should investigate how the sodomy problem in the Church got started to begin with. Conservative Catholics have been complaining about this FOR YEARS. Somehow CBS missed this story. How could that be possible? How did CBS miss the fact that conservative Catholics have complained about the sodomy problem in AmChurch for years?
Yes, the Church is the judge and jury in its own ecclesial proceedings. Duh. Do you want the state deciding how to run your church.
OK, care to tell me just WHERE in these "ecclesial proceedings" it says it's OK to take a KNOWN pedophile, and just move him somewhere new to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?! NO accountability...NO WARNING to the Community?!?!
And, Duh...I'm not intertested in the State running any Church...I'm interested when Bishops, Cardinals and who KNOWS else CONSPIRE to thwart Justice in Secular Court by their own damned PERVERTS!!!
As for duh...when will ALL of you get it straight...I am attacking the PERVERTS in YOUR CHURCH, and their enablers!
Will ANY of you RCC-Uber-Alles CHEERLEADERS separate the Church from the priviledged PERVERTS that allow this to happen?!?!
Would any of you take that same attitude if it were a teacher...a Boy Scout Leader...a sports coach...that was as Mafia-protected as these Lavender PERVERTS are?!?!
And as for RobbyS's incessant comments on how "Everybody ELSE is doing it"...
What about the same in the cases not involving Catholic priests, which were far more numerous. Do you think that SNAP is pursung the Public schools, for instance.
I believe SNAP is doing this for the VICTIMS of these Cassoc'd PERVERTS with Immunity!!!
It's not SNAP's job for these others...maybe folks like you could get these pervs out of the PUBLIC sector, since it's too tough to demand that your Church do it to those it has HARBORED!!!
YEESH!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.