It is almost three years since the Royal Commission inquiring into child sexual abuse recommended that the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC) request from the Holy See responses on 14 matters. The Holy See responded in February 2020 with ‘observations’. Seven months later the ACBC has forwarded them to the Commonwealth Attorney-General and made them public.
The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is widely regarded as the most thorough and most credible assessment of clerical sexual abuse of children within the Catholic Church. Its 17 volumes of evidence and recommendations, set out in 7,400+ pages, is the most detailed and comprehensive of any inquiry – church-sponsored or state-sponsored – anywhere in the world.
Among its many recommendations on the Catholic Church in its December 2017 Final Report were 14 specifically addressed to the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC), urging them to engage with the Holy See on a range of matters relating to the universal law and practice of the Catholic Church. The ACBC referred the recommendations to the Holy See in August 2018, but only now, two years later, has the ACBC made the Holy See’s response public.
In February 2020 the Holy See issued an undated, unsigned, sans letterhead document with a set of ‘observations’ on all matters in the 14 recommendations. In theological terms ‘observations’ would have to rank very low in the order of church teaching or papal magisterium. In fact, it could be argued that they lack the level of gravitas and authoritative response that the recommendations from a Royal Commission Report deserve and warrant.
But what should be made of these observations that the ACBC has been sitting on for the past 7 months and discussing in secret? Are they so astonishing or controversial that the ACBC has felt compelled to keep them secret from the Commonwealth Government who funded the Royal Commission to the tune of around $500 million, and from the Australian public whose taxes paid for the inquiry? Or has the ACBC just been engaging in yet another of its ‘delay and straight-bat’ plays?
Essentially, with these ‘observations’ the Holy See has rejected all but two of the Royal Commission’s proposals passed on to it by the ACBC. It is yet another example of a distressing and appalling exercise in clericalist intransigence and power entrenchment.
At no stage does the Holy See seriously engage with the weight of evidence meticulously set out in Volume 16 (Book Two) of the Royal Commission’s reports, and focussed specifically on the Catholic Church in Australia. Whilst there is the ritual generic condemnation of child abuse committed by priests and religious men and women, the Holy See’s observations show absolutely no empathy for the victims who have been suffering for decades, nor for their families who have suffered with them. It shows no awareness that many have even taken their own lives as a result of the abuse they suffered as innocent children.
While it is true the Catholic Church has made some changes to its regulatory and canonical processes, especially since Pope Francis haltingly then finally grasped the nettle in February 2019, the overriding truth is that the Holy See, and the Catholic Church generally, has not yet dealt with the underlying culture of ‘clericalism’ which assumes that clerics are, and meant to be, the active dominant elite in the Church, and the laity the passive subservient mass.
The Holy See’s response accepts just two of the fourteen recommendations. Both relate to technical canonical issues that child sexual abuse should be classified as a ‘canonical crime’, and not just taken as a ‘moral failing’, and that the acquisition, possession and distribution of child pornography be included as a delict (Rec. 16.9) – this occurred in May 2019. The second concerns the abrogation of the Pontifical Secret (Rec. 16.10) which concerns allegations and disciplinary processes – this occurred in December 2019.
Episcopal Appointments (Rec. 16.8)
On the recommendation for a transparent episcopal appointment process, the Holy See insists on maintaining the status quo. It claims that lay men and women are being consulted, but no one knows how many or who they are! It has rejected the solution contained in the agreement the Holy See made in 2018 with the mainland Chinese Communist Government wherein a diocesan body containing clergy and lay people openly discusses and jointly selects a priest candidate to be their next bishop, which must be approved by the Chinese Bishops Conference, and then by the Chinese Government, before the Holy See gives its final approval. The status quo is defended by the Holy See on the grounds that a “certain discretion out of respect for the candidate” has to be maintained.
Statute of Limitations, Imputability and Other Canonical Issues (Recs. 16.12,13, 55, 56, 17)
The Holy See rejects the time limit (or Statute of Limitations in common-law countries) recommendation – which had already been raised by the Holy See from 10 to 20 years in 2010 – on the grounds that “fallibility of memory, with the passage of time and the lack of proofs concerning events from the distant past, make it difficult to reach the level of maturity required in criminal proceedings”.
Also rejected is the Royal Commission’s imputability recommendation which proposed that a diagnosis of paedophilia be not relevant to or related to the prosecution or penalty. The Holy See’s diminished responsibility argument seems driven by the idea that paedophilia is a ‘sickness’ that uncontrollably drives the offending cleric to groom and abuse his young victim(s).
The Holy See also refuses to accept that diocesan and religious priests, who have been civilly convicted, or have been subject to a substantiated allegation, should be permanently removed from religious office, on the grounds that it would be a direct questioning of the need for moral certainty in a canonical trial, and that the Church “cannot be indifferent to the sinner’s conversion, since it has as a fundamental goal the salvation of souls”.
The recommendation to create local tribunals for canonical trials is still ‘under examination’ by the Holy See, but it is claimed that different conditions in countries across the world make this very difficult.
It also refuses to accept that documents be archived for 45 years, even though the clear evidence from across the world is that victims, on average, take about three decades to disclose their sexual abuse by clerics. While the Holy See cites Canon 489 – which states that document destruction must occur after ten years except for a very brief summary – there is no evidence that such brief summaries were given by diocesan offices to the Australian Royal Commission.
Mandatory Celibacy (Rec. 16.18)
The Holy See firmly rejects the recommendation to introduce voluntary celibacy for Latin-rite clergy. This is despite the fact that there are married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches, and that married Protestant clergy who convert to the Catholic Church can be ordained as Catholic priests and remain married. It defends mandatory celibacy on the grounds that its origins are based on the life choice of Jesus himself. It also refers to the right to religious freedom to allow this practice even though the State could rightfully not grant the present exemption under the Equal Opportunity Act. The right to religious freedom is a relative, not an absolute, freedom.
It also claims that there is no evidence of a direct link between celibacy and child abuse, pointing out that child sexual abuse exists across all sectors and all types of society. While this is true, it is not on the scale found by the Royal Commission: namely, one in thirteen diocesan priests and one in eighteen religious order priests were found to have sexually abused a child under eighteen between 1950 and 2012. It should be noted that since the departure of celibate religious brothers from their teaching roles in Australian Catholic schools, there have been virtually nil convictions of male lay teachers for child sexual abuse, though several have been charged with viewing child pornography. Catholic schools in Australia are now extremely safe places for children. Also to be noted is that the Holy See does not accept the evidence that there have been virtually no child sexual abuse cases amongst married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
The Confessional Seal (Rec.16.26)
While it was predictable that the Holy See would maintain its ultra-hard line on the total maintenance of the confessional ‘seal’, which it holds to be among the “most sacred treasures of the Church’s life”, surprisingly it makes no reference to the status of a child disclosing his or her abuse in the confessional setting. This was a significant issue of disagreement among the five Australian archbishops giving evidence before the Royal Commissioners at the February 2017 public hearing. While it refers to the recent document issued by the Apostolic Penitentiary on the inviolability of the seal, it does not address the central and ever contemporary theological question: how can the obligation of the seal be reconciled with the precept of charity, which mandates that we should shield our neighbour against physical and spiritual injury to the best of our ability?
Conclusion
Since the Holy See’s observations make no comment, positive or otherwise, on the breadth or depth of the Royal Commission’s analysis and conclusions, it has to be asked, therefore, whether there is any Australian bishop who has concerns with any of the Holy See’s ‘observations’? And if there is such a bishop, will he have the courage and leadership quality to speak publicly about his concern? Or are all the bishops simply engaging in a straight-bat play in the hope and expectation that, given time, the fallout from this Royal Commission will gradually fade away, and then, as a group, they can get back to ‘business as usual’
That the Holy See still doesn’t get it, is sad. But that the Catholic bishops of Australia don’t get it is inexcusable.
Emeritus Professor Des Cahill of RMIT University, a former priest trained in Rome, is a world leading authority on child sexual abuse in faith-based organizations. With Dr Peter Wilkinson, he was a senior consultant to the Australian Royal Commission. He has since given public evidence to the New Zealand Royal Commission into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions and advised the UK’s ongoing Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (Jimmy Savile Inquiry).
Dr Peter Wilkinson, DMiss.(PUG), BEd., is a missiologist and former Columban missionary priest. He has worked as Director of the Clearing House on Migration Issues (CHOMI) at the Ecumenical Migration Centre, Senior Research Fellow at the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, and Guest Lecturer in Missiology at Yarra Theological Union. Dr Peter Wilkinson is a missiologist and co-author with Professor Des Cahill of the RMIT report on child sexual abuse. He is married and now retired.
Comments
10 responses to “Holy See response to Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission: another example of clericalist obstinance”
Given that the Vatican refused to cooperate with the Royal Commission and refused to hand over any files under “diplomatic immunity”, one would ask how would you have expected them to respond? My observation was that it was totally expected.
Similarly given the performance of many/most Bishops who appeared at the Royal Commission which utterly pathetic and in some specific cases purely deceitful and understanding their obedience to Rome over and above anything else (including the protection of innocent children from sex predators) again I would ask the question what did you expect?
The Church is rotten to the core with criminality and corruption. Knowing what we know, continuing to associate with it effectively makes you complicit. Harsh but true, it is beyond time that people wake up to the reality.
I reject the continued use of the word ‘paedophile’ to describe the crime of rape or sexual assault of children. The word is a psychological term mmeaning ‘lover of children’. It was meant to deflect the notion of harm being done to the child and focus on the so-called ‘mental illness diagnosis of the rapist/offender. The confusion caused by this term and its continued use by society shows how little the understanding of the dynamics of sexual violence against children is. Even so called educated people can steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that priests rape because they can. They choose to do it and then their behaviour is pathologised. This is not justice. This is a continuation of the dominant culture that continues to deny the harsh reality of rape of children by adults who are entrusted to care for them. It indicates the ambivalence still in society and fear about the word RAPE of children by priests/nuns. The continual responses talking about the past responses and present failures are all based within an environment of denial by society and the church. We are in the 21st century and it is time that commentators refrained from using terms that are outdated and portray a false desscription of offenders. The deescriptors/words belong in the discourse of the criminal code – rape and sexual assault. My comments are made within the framework of ‘cultural editing’ which limits the imagination about how people think about, in this case, sexual offenders. maggie lawson victim/surivior advocate
I was a brothers’ novice in 1961-62. I was sixteen for most of the first year having entered the brothers aged fifteen. I was a small immature boy who had never had a conversation with a girl. Before we made first vows, I’d just turned seventeen the novice master told us that these were just annual vows but in our hearts to make them final vows. Like an obedient novice I tried to do exactly that. The main things we’d learnt that year were about obedience and perseverance. We were constantly told that ‘he who puts his hand to the plough and turns back is lost for all eternity’. A week or so after we made these first vows an ancient Jesuit came and gave us a talk on flowers (Pistils and stamens etc) and said …”and brothers it’s the same for you and I.”
I believe some good people live their vows of celibacy. I also believe that the system of formation and education when I was a novice and a young Brother was itself abusive. I don’t know if there is evidence of ‘a direct link between celibacy and child abuse but in my career in Catholic education, forty six years of it, I came across many men who have been named as sex abusers of boys, some of them people I trained with. I am convinced their education and formation had something to do with it. Some of them are victims too.
From Robert Browning’s poem Fra Lippo Lippi:
I’m grown a man no doubt, I’ve broken bounds
You should not take a fellow eight years old
And make him swear to never kiss the girls
I’m my own master, paint now as I please.
We were not eight years old as Lippi was when he was taken into a Carmelite monastery but Browning has a point,
‘It also claims that there is no evidence of a direct link between
celibacy and child abuse, pointing out that child sexual abuse exists
across all sectors and all types of society.’
Somewhere I read that celibacy is the greatest sexual abuse. Then again if a system which forms young adults during their adolescence and their coming to terms with their sexuality produces, according to the statistics in this article, a significant number of abusers it is likely that the system of formation and education was itself abusive. An examination of this or acknowledgment of it would be a step in the more honest direction.
The Royal Commission recommended that the Holy See should establish a ‘transparent’ process for appointing bishops which “includes the direct participation of lay people”. In its ‘response’ the Holy See claims that under existing canonical processes lay men and women are regularly consulted. But canon law (c. 377 §3) in fact provides only a discretionary authority for the papal legate in those processes, “(i)f he judges it expedient, . . . to seek individually, and in secret, the opinions of . . . lay persons of outstanding wisdom.”
The Holy See provides as a response the very process that the Royal Commission questioned. It should also be noted that the quaint requirement for any lay persons consulted to be “of outstanding wisdom” is not a requirement for the long list of clerics required to be consulted – it would seem that canon law either assumes that all clerics per se are of “of outstanding wisdom” or their clerical state makes such wisdom superfluous, either way a canonical example of the arrogance of clericalism.
Thanks, Des and Peter, for this careful analysis of the Holy See’s dismissive ‘response’ to the recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse – a response that bears no signature or letterhead, and in fact fails to respond simply providing “a set of ‘observations’”. It is a supreme irony that this document from the Holy See displays the very lack of accountability in the culture of the Catholic Church that was central to many of the findings of the Royal Commission, “the most detailed and comprehensive of any inquiry – church-sponsored or state-sponsored – anywhere in the world”.
In its failure to address the Commission’s concerns, this ‘response’ reinforces the local view that the Australian Plenary Council, now scheduled to commence in October 2021, will not meaningfully address the scandal of the Commission’s findings, despite the bishops using the Plenary Council as a response to that scandal.
Let’s hope and pray that some bishops heed your call to have “the courage and leadership quality to speak publicly”
In two cases in Dublin in the 1990s, dismissals from the priesthood of serial paedophiles were overturned in Rome, because they had been diagnosed as paedophiles: the Catch 22 defence: a priest cannot be convicted of paedophilia because he is a paedophile. Under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, imputability was assumed, and the onus was on the accused priest to prove with moral certainty (that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt) that he was not responsible for his actions at the time. That high standard of proof of imputability was watered down in Canon 1321 § 3 to “unless it is otherwise apparent”. The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law says at p1541: “…the current burden of proof is less stringent than in the former code… The present code states simply that the presumption of imputability is verified unless the contrary is otherwise evident. Hence any evidence posing reasonable questions about such imputability suffices to overturn the presumption….This legal change reflects the present code’s somewhat more pastoral thrust, since it enhances the penal rights of alleged offenders.” In other words, all a priest has to claim is that he couldn’t contain his sexual attraction to children, and any action to dismiss him will fail. The Holy See wasn’t even prepared to return to the position under the 1917 Code. Clericalism still reigns supreme in Rome.
I preached on the seal of confession last Sunday. See https://www.catholicoutlook.org/fr-franks-homily-6-september-2020/
Frank, a different view on mandatory reporting and the seal of confession (some aspects in common with your homily) was submitted 24 July 2020 to the Parliament of Western Australia by Catholics for Renewal Inc -https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/luInquiryPublicSubmissions/D410733D3F8D8A64482585B2002A3471/$file/00390_Redacted.pdf
I note that your homily is more liberal than the very narrow Vatican ‘Note of the Apostolic Penitentiary on the Importance of the Internal Forum and the Inviolability of the Sacramental Seal’ of 21 June 2019 which seems to have guided the Holy See ‘response’ to the Royal Commission – http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunals/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_pro_20190629_forointerno_en.html
Perhaps the prosecution of one or two bishops or senior clerics for taking part in a conspiracy to abuse children would help bring the matter to a head. So far, these folk seem to have been regarded as protected species.