Any good journalist can see that the title you've typed here is misleading, since you've neglected to include the quotes from the original article which show that that the word 'obstructed' is an allegation by lawyers, thus the quoted word in the title; which, while a rather biased presentation in the Guardian, is still better than what you did here.
Let's clarify the Church document, since some people have such a hard time seeing through their bias-tinted spectacles:
ROME, JULY 21, 2007 (Zenit) - Here is the text of a pamphlet on "Pedophilia and the Priesthood" written by Monsignor Raffaello Martinelli, an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and member of the editorial commission of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.The Holy See has put out two documents that deal with the crimes of pedophilia:
1. The instruction of March 16, 1962, "Crimen Sollicitationis," approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII and published by the Holy Office which later became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was an important document to "instruct" canonical cases and laicize the presbyters involved in the vileness of pedophilia. In particular, it dealt with violations of the sacrament of confession.
2. The "Epistula de Delictis Gravioribus" (on most grave crimes), signed May 18, 2001, by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as prefect of the congregation. That letter's objective is to give practical execution of the norms ("Normae de Gravioribus Delictis") promulgated with the apostolic letter "Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela," published on April 30, 2001, and signed by Pope John Paul II.
These documents deal with the Church's internal judicial acts, at the canonical level. Therefore they do not deal with the accusations and the provisions of the civil courts of states, which must be carried out according to their own laws. Whoever has addressed or addresses the ecclesiastical court can also address the civil court, to denounce similar crimes. Therefore the action of the Church is not aimed at retracting these crimes from the jurisdiction of the state and keeping them hidden.
There exist two paths to ascertain and condemn priests responsible for acts of pedophilia: that of the Church, with canon law, and that of the state with penal law. Each of these two paths is autonomous and independent of the other: the civil forum and the canonical forum must not be confused. This means that, whether or not a civil trial has taken place, the Church must necessarily carry out the canonical process. At the moment of the application of canonical punishment, if it is deemed that the guilty priest has been sufficiently punished in the civil forum, in that case the canonical punishment can be withheld.
In Italian law, a private citizen (this includes the bishop and anyone invested with ecclesial authority) is required to accuse [before the state] only crimes for which the penalty is life in prison. Yet, in Church law established in 1962, it was obligatory, under penalty of excommunication, to accuse [before the state] crimes of pedophilia if they happened in conjunction with the sacrament of confession. Therefore, from this point of view, the Church's legislation was more severe than that of the Italian state in punishing the crimes of pedophilia. Q: What is the procedure followed by the Church to prosecute crimes of pedophilia committed by priests?
This is the prescribed procedure: Faced with the accusation of an act of pedophilia by a priest, the bishop (or ordinary) must first of all carry out an investigation to ascertain the certainty of the accusation. Having obtained proof, the bishop (or ordinary) must give the documentation of the case to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to follow the procedural path already contained in the Code of Canon Law. In the meantime, in some cases, the canonical judicial procedure to apply punishment can be followed -- as, for example, demission from the clerical state -- or, in other cases where, for example, the evidence is very clear, the administrative procedure can be carried out.
The seriousness with which the Church evaluates and judges acts of pedophilia is shown by the fact that with a new law passed in 2001, the Holy See (and not the local bishops) decided to reserve the right to judge those crimes. The new law says that judgments concerning "the crime against the sixth commandment committed by a cleric against a minor, under the age of 18, art. 4, are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which acts in these cases as the 'apostolic tribunal' -- as is prescribed in 'Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela.'" Q: Why does the Church reserve judgment to the Holy See? The fact that the Pope wanted to reserve to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- a dicastery of the Holy See -- with the apostolic letter "Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela" judgment of the acts of pedophilia committed by priests, shows that the Church considers those acts to be very serious, serious crimes on the same level of the other two serious crimes -- reserved to the Holy See -- that can be committed against two sacraments: the Eucharist and the holiness of confession. Therefore the Holy See's decision has nothing to do with wanting to hide potential scandals or to diminish the seriousness of these wicked deeds, but serves to help us understand that they are very serious crimes, to which they give the maximum attention, and for this reason they reserve judgment to one of the most important offices of the Holy See, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith and not "local" entities which could possibly be influenced.
Q: Why secrecy under penalty of excommunication?
In the first place, the two documents cited by the Holy See were not secret, given the fact that they were sent to all bishops -- some 5,000 -- to indicate what to do in cases of pedophilia.
The 1962 instruction calls for the excommunication of whoever reveals details about the canonical penal procedure. For this reason the Instruction dealt with the way in which to proceed in cases. Therefore we speak of the need for secrecy about the legal proceedings, equal to that called for, in civil proceedings, by the judge while an investigation is in progress. Nothing more, nothing less. As is the case with every legal procedure, even the canonical ones have steps that must be secret to allow the ascertainment of the truth and to protect the innocent.
The main reason why the instruction calls for secrecy in canonical procedures was to permit any future witnesses to come forth freely, with the guarantee that their statements would be confidential and not exposed to publicity. And as a consequence, the name of the accused was kept hidden before a sentence was given in the case.
Another reason the Holy See did not want to cover up these crimes is described in a paragraph of the 1962 document, that obligated anyone, victim or witness, that was aware of any sexual abuses occurring in the confessional to come forth with that information; if not, they would incur the penalty of excommunication.
In the new legislation of 2001, the secrecy of the legal proceedings was not only applicable to cases of sexual abuse, but also for crimes against the Eucharist and those against the sacrament of of penance. The letter establishes the pontifical secrecy without establishing any punishment for the violation of that secrecy, even though it is a secret that binds the conscience in a stronger way than that of a normal secret. In this case, the reason for the secret is to protect and safeguard:
-- the good name of the accused, who is considered innocent until proven otherwise
-- the right to privacy of the victims and witnesses
-- the freedom of the superior who must freely made judgments, without being under pressure
Despite "the right to the freedom of information, it must not allow moral evil to become an occasion for sensationalism" (John Paul II, Discourse to American Bishops).
We must not forget that secrecy is needed to safeguard the dignity of the people involved: Many times those who are accused are shown to be innocent in the preliminary investigation.
Thanks, Lorica
I’m indebted to you for this.
Pax Christi
ROE
Like I said.
Crimen Sollicitations was never abrogated. Ratzinger's letter was to alert all bishops that it was still operative and that victims who took their complaints to anyone but a priest would be excommunicated.
You can toss out all the verbage you want. Just like with Ratzinger's "global authority" encyclical which is filled with platitudes and pleasantries. But at the heart of it is socialism and tyranny. No surprise.