Posted on 05/18/2002 6:30:13 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod
In this section of CHRISTIFIDELIS we present questions which have been asked of the Foundation, summaries of actual cases or explanations of current issues which have to do with some aspect of ecclesiastical law. The answers or opinions given have only the force of the author's scholarship and are intended for the purpose of informing our readers. Ed.
THE QUESTION:
Do you think that bishops who "cover" for sexually abusive priests ought to resign? Also, why do we never hear of sexually abusive priests being brought before Church tribunals?
THE ANSWER:
My personal opinion is that the bishops who "cover" surely ought to submit their resignations. If they don't, they ought to be fired.
According to canon 401, ¤2:
A diocesan bishop who has become less able to fulfill his office because of ill health or some other grave cause is earnestly requested to present his resignation from office.
The canon does not suggest to us what a "grave cause" might be. Canon 1741 provides for the removal of the pastor of a parish but not a diocesan bishop when his ministry "becomes harmful or at least ineffective." Canon 1741 then lists five possible causes for removal, including "loss of good reputation among upright and responsible parishioners or an aversion to the pastor, which it appears will not cease in a brief time." If a bishop's ability to exercise his office was diminished by this cause, then it might be argued that the earnest request of canon 401 ought to be heeded. The fact remains that only the Holy See can request that a bishop resign and, if he declines, can remove him from office. The latter has happened only once that I know of during the pontificate of John Paul II.
As to sanctions against sexually abusive clerics, there are some broader canonical issues that first need to be taken into account. Unlike secular criminal law, ecclesiastical penal law views penalties as a last resort (c. 1341) and insists on a strict interpretation of laws that establish a penalty or restrict the free exercise of rights (c. 18). Moreover, canon law stipulates a number of factors that reduce or entirely eliminate accountability for violations of law (cc. 1323-1324) and provides that an appeal or recourse suspends the effects of a penalty (c. 1353) until the appeal is decided.
Penalties can be incurred automatically (latae sententiae) or inflicted by administrative or judicial process (ferendae sententiae) We are not concerned here with automatic penalties. Because the rights of the accused are not as well protected when penalties are imposed by administrative decree. The law (c. 1342, ¤1) expresses a preference for the judicial process and indeed in the case of perpetual penalties, which includes dismissal from the clerical state, requires it. (c. 1342, ¤2). With all these conditions, it is not difficult to understand why the infliction of penalties by canonical process (ferendae sententiae) is uncommon.
It remains that the sexual abuse of minors is a serious violation of the Code of Canon Law. Canon 1395 states:
¤1. A cleric who lives in concubinage, other than the case mentioned in can. 1394, and a cleric who persists with scandal in another external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is to be punished by a suspension. If he persists in the delict after a warning, other penalties can gradually be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.
¤2. A cleric who in another way has committed an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.
Pope John Paul II has temporarily raised the age limit in the United States from sixteen to eighteen years. This provision expires on April 25, 2009. On May 18, 2001 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a Letter (Graviora delicta) sent by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff reserved to itself certain serious offenses (grave delicts). Included were delicts against the Sixth Commandment with a minor below the age of eighteen years. Ordinarily, criminal action arising from this delict is extinguished after a period of ten years after the day when the minor has completed his or her eighteenth year.
Whenever a diocesan bishop has probable knowledge of an offense, after conducting a preliminary investigation of the facts (c. 1717) he is to notify the Congregation, which may then call the case to itself or order the bishop to proceed through his own tribunal.
Two cases that appear to fall within the statutory time limit have been reported in the news media. The first involves Rev. Paul R. Shanley, a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston who was shown in good standing in the 2001 Official Catholic Directory. Gregory Ford, 24, has filed a lawsuit against Shanley, who he alleges repeatedly raped him in the 1980Õs. (Boston Globe, April 9, 2002). The second involves Rev. Bryan Kuchar, a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, who was charged on April 11 with six counts of second-degree sodomy with a male minor seven years ago (Reuters, April 11, 2002).
I assume that Cardinal Law and Archbishop Rigali have conscientiously adhered to Graviora delicta and have duly informed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
My personal opinion is that the bishops who "cover" surely ought to submit their resignations. If they don't, they ought to be fired.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Siobhan, could you please ping your ping list? I don't have one. Thanks!!!
Evil men use attorneys, privilege, and technicalities to hold on to power.
Bishops who covered up abusive priests should resign, and Cardinals, archbishops, and bishops who have also committed sexual abuse or homosexual acts should also resign forthwith.
A man who covers for a child molester is not an honorable man, why would you expect them to act honorably after the crime?
Becky
This post and #3 caused me to lol. Why are you guys even hinting with the idea that these guys are honorable or decent. Honorable or decent men would be appalled when they found out the crime in the first place and not cover it up. There is nothing decent or honorable about the way any of this is being handled by the RCC.
Becky
Becky
No.
Becky
Becky
Becky
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.