A LINK to the actual letter written by Archbishop Storero.
Read it.
See if you think it measures up to Laurie Goodstein's "smoking gun" description.
Here is the key quote in the last paragraph.........."that in the sad cases of accusations of abuse by clerics, the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be followed meticulously......"
So, The Congregation for Clergy has concerns that provisions in the document prepared for the Irish bishops did not conform to Canon Law as it was in 1997. As a result, bishops acting on those parts of the proposal might take canonical actions against priests that are legally invalid. In other words, there could be miscarriages of justice. So what happens if miscarriages of justice occur? Well, the priests might appeal their case to Rome, and Rome might agree that there was a miscarriage of justice because the law was not applied correctly. In that case the bishop would be put in an embarrassing position.
So what about the issue of reporting predators to the police?
How did Laurie Goodstein frame this in her article for the Times? She wrote: “It [the letter] said that for both ‘moral and canonical’ reasons, the bishops must handle all accusations through internal church channels. Bishops who disobeyed, the letter said, may face repercussions when their abuse cases were heard in Rome.”
Utterly incorrect and a major (surpise) media distortion.
The only “repercussions” mentioned in the letter is the embarrassing situation a bishop would find himself in if he failed to follow the law and a miscarriage of justice resulted and Rome overturns it on appeal. Yet Goodstein makes it sound as if the letter is threatening bishops with some kind of retaliation if they don’t “obey” the letter. This is wrong on several levels. First, the letter is not an ultimatum. It is not a set of orders. It is an advisory statement cautioning the Irish bishops that they need to make sure they follow canon law so that miscarriages of justice don’t happen and then get overturned on appeal. There is no threat of retaliation here.
Worse, Goodstein makes it appear that the Vatican is threatening bishops with retaliation if they report predators to the police. The subject of reporting pedophiles hasn’t even come up yet. And she is wrong when she says that the letter states that “the bishops must handle all accusations through internal church channels,” as opposed (presumably) to reporting predators to the police. But the document says nothing of the kind.
There is nothing in the document saying that a bishop must keep information about predators secret. What the Congregation objected to was mandatory reporting. One can think what one likes about the wisdom of mandatory reporting, but there is a big difference between saying, “You must keep all cases of this from the eyes of the police on pain of Vatican retaliation” and saying, “Hey, maybe there needs to be some discretion exercised and it shouldn’t be automatic reporting.”
Goodstein thus implies that the letter suggests something it doesn’t. The letter doesn’t state that the Congregation for Clergy is opposed to reporting predators to the authorities. Instead, it says . . .
In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature”.
This is the end of the quotation from the Congregation for Clergy. Note the closing quotation marks.
So the Congregation for Clergy is saying, “We’ve got reservations about the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ on moral and canonical grounds.” It’s telling the Irish bishops about an issue that could come up down the road. It is easy to see how such a policy could fall afoul of canon law, which contains provisions protecting an individual’s right to his good reputation. An overzealous application of a mandatory reporting policy could unjustly deprive innocent people of their reputation—and more.
The draft policy of the Irish bishops would have meant that just on suspicion that abuse may have been taking place (suspicion being a subjective state that is very easy to come by) one would have to report the priest or religious to the police. No provision was made for distinguishing between suspicions that were credible or well-founded and those that weren't. Similarly, no provision was made for doing a preliminary investigation. Instead, Church workers were to make the mandatory report “without delay.”
I hope this is helpful to the silent lurkers and those who read this thread in an honest and open frame of mind. Most minds are already made up on this issue and articles such as this in the New York Times, are clutched at with unrestrained glee. So be it.
Wow. So our reaction to pederasty among priests is the "pure evil" around here? Stunning.
The letter reaffirms Crimen Solicitationis which orders RCC officials NOT to go to the police if sexual abuse by a priest has been reported to them.
Is that how you want public schools to handle the possible sexual abuse of your children? A child goes to his teacher and says his gym teacher has molested him and you don't think that teacher should go to the police with that information?
The RCC is pathetic. It has been caught red-handed covering up the despicable sins of its priestcraft, yet deluded RC apologists STILL declare Rome is correct to keep this sexual abuse hidden.
Like mold, what you simply cover up, you get more of. No wonder people are leaving the Roman Catholic church in droves.
Wake up and protect your children.
I totally agree that the report about bishops facing repurcussions was a distortion of the letter. It does seem likely the media is adding more to the letter than what is there. The only part of the letter that warrants careful examination, IMO, is the instruction against mandatory reporting to civil authorities. I agree that the letter does not say to never report to civil authorities or to remain silent. However, I still can’t quite grasp what was so wrong about the Irish bishops policy of mandatory reporting.
It seems like the local Irish position was too be very cautious and involve the police in every potential case. What is so bad about that? To me, that seems like a prudent position. Let the civil authorities, who are trained detectives, determine if anyone wrongdoing actually occurred. By notifying the police, it wouldn’t automatically mean that priests would be arrested and tried in a court of law. Instead, it would just open an official investigation. If the police determine there was no crime, then noone would be arrested, so embarassment would be minimal.
It does seem like the Church is too concerned about appearances and avoiding bad publicity. While, this certainly isn’t a smoking gun, it does give the impression to skeptics that the Church wasn’t as serious as it should have been in protecting victims.
Why not post it as a thread, and add your own commentary to it?
(((GASP)))
"Report the priest to the police."
We can't have that, can we? Better to ignore our "subjective" suspicions, deny the victim's accusations, protect the priest at all cost, gather the wagons around the dissolute church and continue to trash those who dare to object.
Just what constitutes "suspicion" to Rome?
If and when a child comes to his parents with a complaint of sexual abuse who then go to a church official and say "Our child was molested by a priest," that "suspicion" should trigger a police investigation.
But not in Rome. Rome "handles" the accusation with secrecy and cover-ups and years of hiding and destroying evidence and shuffling guilty priests from one unsuspecting parish to the next.
The more RC apologists defend this criminal behavior, the more Rome is revealed to be a "den of dragons."
"Behold, the noise of the bruit is come..."