[Alex Murphy]

I guess I’m still puzzled as the claim of secrecy in the thread article and how it is claimed that it was hidden from clergy and the people.

The article makes reference to four documents. The first is mentioned in the opening sentences:

In 1922, the Vatican promulgated an instruction to do with what it called crimen solicitationis (the crime of solicitation within the confessional) and what it called the ‘‘worst crime’’ - the sexual abuse of children. The document was issued in Latin. No authoritative version was produced in English. The document was circulated only to bishops and under terms of strict secrecy.

The second comes next in the article It is this document that is apparently cited in the Murphy Report:

A new version of the guidelines was produced in 1962, but this, according to the Murphy Commission, was unknown within the Dublin diocese until some time in the 1990s....The Murphy Commission commented on how ‘‘unusual’’ it was, ‘‘whereby a document setting out the procedure for dealing with clerical child sexual abuse was in existence but virtually no one knew about it or used it’’.

The third is one drafted by the Irish bishops themselves:

In 1996, victims of clerical abuse hounded the bishops into devising a ‘framework document’, setting out guidelines for dealing with allegations of abuse. John Dolan said: ‘‘They [the authors of the framework document] did not feel Rome was supporting them in dealing with this issue ... they were meeting an onslaught of complaints, and Rome was pulling any particular solid ground that they had from under them’’.

It's at this juncture that the fourth document - the previously debated Canon 1341 comes in - and the article gives no introduction to it, unlike the prior three. The article makes two sudden changes, first talking about the bishops' "framework document", then the 1922/1962 document, and then the Canon, without indicating why the latter is being raised.

The 1922 and 1962 Vatican instructions on dealing with allegations of clerical child sex abuse demanded absolute secrecy in the conduct of investigations. T he secrecy was so pervasive that, to some, it seemed to demand that the complaint also be kept secret from the state authorities.

Cannon 1341 states that the bishop is to ‘‘start a judicial administrative procedure, for the imposition or the declaration of penalties, only when he perceives that neither by fraternal correction nor reproof, nor by any methods of pastoral care, can the scandal be sufficiently repaired, justice restored, and the offender reformed’’.

It would be easy for the reader to confuse the Canon with the 1922/1962 documents are as being a single work, from the way the article treats them. Presumably Canon 1341 is raised because it was either cited in the 1922/1962 document(s), or in the Murphy Report as being connected to the 1922/1962 document, or in the bishop's framework document.

[MarkBsnr]

I didn't find any good references to 1922, but I was able to find: Crimen sollicitationis (Latin for "the crime of soliciting") was a letter sent in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, to "all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries, including those of Eastern Rite". In the document, the Holy Office laid down procedures to be followed in dealing with cases of clerics (priests or bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents; its rules were more specific than the generic ones in the Code of Canon Law.[2] In addition, it instructed that the same procedures be used when dealing with denunciations of homosexual, paedophile or zoophile behaviour by clerics. It repeated the rule that any Catholic who failed for over a month to denounce a priest who had made such advances in connection with confession was automatically excommunicated and could be absolved only after actually denouncing the priest or at least promising seriously to do so.[3] A revision of the document, in line with the 1983 Code of Canon Law (which had replaced the 1917 Code that was in force in 1962) and the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, was issued in 2001 in the form of the Instruction De delictis gravioribus. An English translation of this 2001 Instruction appeared on Origins, 31:32 (24 January 2001).

All Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries, including those of Eastern Rite. Somebody's falsifying something here. Either the author of the article or the Dublin diocese.

Purpose of the secrecy

The document dealt exclusively with the procedure to be followed in connection with a denunciation to the ecclesiastical authority of a priest guilty of solicitation in Confession or of similar acts. It imposed secrecy about the conduct of the ecclesiastical trial, not allowing, for instance, statements made during the trial by witnesses or by the accused to be published. But it did not in any way impose silence on those who were victims of the priest's conduct or who had learned of it in ways unconnected with the ecclesiastical trial.

"These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities."[5]

Some interpret the secrecy about the procedure as a cover-up of scandalous conduct. This view was presented in a BBC documentary film Sex Crimes and the Vatican.[6] of 1 October 2006.

Others see it as aimed rather at the protection of all involved, the accused, the victim/denouncer and the witnesses, before the verdict was passed: "It allows witnesses to speak freely, accused priests to protect their good name until guilt is established, and victims to come forward who don’t want publicity. Such secrecy is also not unique to sex abuse. It applies, for example, to the appointment of bishops."[7]

A presentation of the question can be read in a study [8] of 1 November 2006 by Thomas Doyle, OP, JCD.

Notice here, that there is no order of secrecy on the victims and that there was an established method for reporting to the secular authorities. I guess that I am still puzzled by the 1922 report, and the air of secrecy from all. The diocese was given the 1962 report, of that I have no doubt. Somebody is lying and if it is the bishop, then hell would be too good for him.