Vatican issues revised rules on sex abuse
The Vatican issued a revised set of in-house rules Thursday to respond to clerical sex abuse, targeting priests who molest the mentally disabled as well as children and priests who use child pornography, but making few substantive changes to existing practice, the Associated Press reports.
The new rules make no mention of the need for bishops to report clerical sex abuse to police, provide no canonical sanctions for bishops who cover up for abusers and do not include any "one-strike and you're out" policy for pedophile priests as demanded by some victims.
As a result, they failed to satisfy victims' advocates, who said the revised rules amounted to little more than "administrative housekeeping" of existing practice when what was needed were bold new rules threatening bishops who fail to report molester priests.
The rules cover the canonical penalties and procedures used for the most grave crimes in the church, both sacramental and moral, and double the statute of limitations applied to them. One new element included lists the attempted ordination of women as a "grave crime" subject to the same set of procedures and punishments meted out for sex abuse.
That drew immediate criticism from women's ordination groups, who said making a moral equivalent between women priests and child rapists was offensive.
The Vatican's sex crimes prosecutor acknowledged it was "only a document," and didn't solve the problem of clerical abuse. He defended the lack of any mention of the need to report abuse to police, saying all Christians were required to obey civil laws that would already demand sex crimes be reported.
"If civil law requires you report, you must obey civil law," Monsignor Charles Scicluna told reporters. But "it's not for canonical legislation to get itself involved with civil law."
Victims' groups have accused the church's internal justice system of failing to deal with abuse allegations and allowing bishops to ignore complaints in order to protect the church.
"The first thing the church should be doing is reporting crimes to civil authorities," said Andrew Madden, a former Dublin altar boy who took the first public lawsuit against the church in Ireland in 1995.
"That's far, far more important than deciding whether a criminal priest should be defrocked or not," he told the AP in Dublin. "The church's internal rules are no more important than the rules of your local golf club."
Barbara Dorris, of Survivors' Network for Those Abused by Priests, said the new guidelines "can be summed up in three words: missing the boat."
"They deal with one small procedure at the very tail end of the problem: defrocking pedophile priests," she said. "Hundreds of thousands of kids, however, have been sexually violated (by) many other more damaging and reckless moves by bishops and other church staff."
Earlier this year, the Vatican advised bishops to follow civil reporting laws and report abuse "crimes" — not allegations — to police. But that call was included in a nonbinding guideline posted on the Vatican website, not an official church document or piece of church legislation.
Sex crime allegations are handled by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from 1981 until he was elected pope in 2005. The congregation's procedures call for canonical trials or administrative punishments which can result in a priest being dismissed from the clerical state.
Recent efforts by civic authorities to investigate abuse allegations have again cast a spotlight on the church's efforts to deal in-house with a crime that is criminally prosecutable in most of the world: Just last month, police raided the residence of the Brussels archbishop and carted off boxes of documents as part of an investigation into clerical sex abuse amid concerns the Belgian church was protecting pedophiles.
The new rules extend the statue of limitations for the congregation's handling of alleged priestly abuse to 20 years, from 10 after the victim's 18th birthday, and can be extended beyond that on a case-by-case basis. Such extensions have been routine for years.
Defining the possession or distribution of child pornography as a canonical crime also simply makes current practice official.
The new rules represent the first major Vatican document since the clerical abuse scandal erupted earlier this year, with hundreds of new cases coming to light of priests who molested children, bishops who covered up for them and Vatican officials who turned a blind eye for decades.
But the bulk of the new document merely codifies existing norms for dealing canonically with pedophile priests, making previous guidelines set down in 2001 and updated in 2002 and 2003 to speed up defrocking of abusive priests permanent and legally binding. The document — a letter from the Congregation to bishops around the world — represents a permanent piece of church legislation, as opposed to the ad hoc guidelines used until now.
"That is a step forward, because the norm of law is binding and is certain," Scicluna said. But he acknowledged that the document was just an instrument, a set of norms, and that its application both in Rome and in diocese around the world was key.
"It does not solve all the problems," Scicluna said. "It is a very important instrument, but it is the way you use the instrument that is going to have the real effect."
With so few real changes, Scicluna said he didn't expect a new flood of cases to come forward, as happened in 2003-2004, after the abuse scandal exploded in the United States and some 80 percent of the 3,000 cases handled by the Congregation were opened.
"These new norms on sexual abuse really put into law the practice of the Congregation," he said, adding that it was important to publish them so everyone could know what the rules were.
New elements in the text, as first reported last week by The Associated Press, include treating priests who sexually abuse the mentally disabled — or an adult who "habitually lacks the use of reason" — with the same set of sanctions as those who abuse minors. Punishments can include being dismissed from the clerical state.
The rules also list the attempted ordination of a woman as a "grave crime" to be handled according to the same set of procedures as sex abuse — despite arguments that grouping the two in the same document would imply equating them.
"The idea that women seeking to spread the message of God somehow defiles the Eucharist reveals an antiquated, backwards church that still views women as unclean and unholy," said Erin Saiz Hanna, executive director of the Women's Ordination Conference, a U.S.-based organization that works to ordain women as priests, deacons and bishops.
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have said the question of ordaining women priests — often raised as an antidote to the priest shortage and to bring about more gender equality in the church — is not up for discussion.
The Vatican in 2007 issued a decree saying the attempted ordination of women would result in automatic excommunication for the woman and the priest who tries to ordain her. That is repeated in the new document, adding that the priest can also be punished by being defrocked.
At a briefing Thursday, Scicluna defended the inclusion of both sex abuse and ordination of women in the same document as a way of codifying two of the most serious canonical crimes against sacraments and morals that the congregation deals with.
"They are grave, but on different levels," he said, and noted that the document also lists crimes against the sacraments including apostasy, heresy and schism for the first time.
Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, the dean of Germany's bishops conference, welcomed the new guidelines as a clear signal stressing that cases of sexual abuse of children and youths have to be thoroughly investigated and punished.
"The injustice of the past is being cleared, and the conclusions for the present and the future are being drawn," he said in a statement.
Benedict's native Germany has seen a flood of abuse allegations surface, and even the pontiff's own tenure as archbishop of Munich has come under scrutiny since a pedophile priest in his archdiocese was allowed to resume pastoral work while being treated.
A spokesman for Germany's Justice Ministry cautioned that the guidelines were an internal matter of the Roman Catholic Church, but welcomed them as a move in the right direction.
German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger wants to push for an extension of the statute of limitations for victims of sexual abuse who are seeking damages in civil law suits from three to 30 years, the ministry said in a statement Wednesday.
Comments
A Catholic's take on why the new measures are inadequate.
Posted by: Michele Somerville | July 15, 2010 1:46 PM
Michele - I'd go with grossly inadequate and this time have to agree with SNAP they have missed the boat.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 15, 2010 6:17 PM
Anonymous asked: Why not work to publish what you think the church should be doing that it isn’t?
Below are 5 suggestions that will help Protect Children and restore Catholic Moral Authority. These are strictly mine and don’t officially represent any organizations which I belong.
1. This suggestion is to go back to the example Jesus gave. He had married priest. He may have had women priest for they are mentioned in the Gospel. The 10th century rational used to justified not following Jesus example of married clergy were money and heritage stuff. It demonstrates both a Lost of Trust in God and place Money and Power over the religious life example presented by Jesus.
From the Catholic Catechism: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.3
It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve."4
This Money and Power is the reasons of the World Wide Cover-up of the Child Sex Abuse Scandal. How many other sins against God did it lead the Church to commit? Church supports of the Crusades, Inquisitions, Wars, Slavery, etc. It is suppose to be “God and him only shall you serve.”
2. They should put Article 1 back in the Charter and follow it. I only know of one church I ever been in that seem to follow it as I understand it. It was the Cathedral in Savannah, Georgia. Later this Article was severally weaken or taken out.
• Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People
ARTICLE 1. Dioceses/eparchies will reach out to victims/survivors and their families and demonstrate a sincere commitment to their spiritual and emotional well-being. The first obligation of the Church with regard to the victims is for healing and reconciliation. Where such outreach is not already in place and operative, each diocese/eparchy is to develop an outreach to every person who has been the victim of sexual abuse1 as a minor by anyone acting in the name of the Church, whether the abuse was recent or occurred many years in the past. This outreach will include provision of counseling, spiritual assistance, support groups, and other social services agreed upon by the victim and the diocese/eparchy. In cooperation with social service agencies and other churches, support groups for victims/survivors and others affected by abuse should be fostered and encouraged in every diocese/eparchy and in local parish communities.
3. Vatican, each country, and diocese/eparchies maintain a web site with all who have abused and their last know location complete with photos. Young, middle age and elderly photos should be posted. US Catholic Church should also add this section to the US Catholic Directory. Which currently abusers are taken out after faculties has been revoked or defrocked. Some may stay in by mistake or other reasons like Father Ross LaPorta with a note that he is pastor emeritus while he is retired in another state.
4. Respect Life, this is the living survivors. Years ago Cardinal McCarrick’s spokesperson said: “the archdiocese is not naming the other 10 priests because they are deceased and it didn't seem appropriate to release names of people who could not speak for themselves and are no longer a risk to children.” Also, Cardinal Keeler protected 26 deceased
Jesus has judged the abusers. The lives of many they abused are not judged. The disclosure of the abusers could make a difference to their lives, healing and salvation. Their excuses make a real paradox out of the Catholic Respect Life teachings.
5. Support legislation to lift Civil Statutes of Limitations for it is Devine Justice as define by the Council of Trent, Thomas Aquinas, and Sacramental Tradition. Yes, it is costly, but it is the right thing to do. It will help regain the moral authority by taking actions that verifies Trust in God and Faithful by following Church Sacramental Tradition of Divine Justice and the first commandment.
Catholic Encyclopedia definition of penance is: "The Sacrament of Penance--Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest's absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same." Simple put it is: Confession, Contrition and Penance/Satisfaction.
In theological language, this penance is called satisfaction and is defined, in the words of St. Thomas: "The payment of the temporal punishment due on account of the offence committed against God by sin" (Suppl. to Summa, Q. xii, a. 3). . . .It is an act of justice whereby the injury done to the honor of God is required, so far at least as the sinner is able to make reparation (poena vindicativa) ; it is also a preventive remedy, inasmuch as it is meant to hinder the further commission of sin (poena medicinalis). . . . .The Council of Trent (1551) declared: As a means of regaining grace and justice, penance was at all times necessary . . . Divine justice, whereas after the reception of absolution in penance, there may and usually does remain some temporal debt to be discharged by works of satisfaction.”
Anonymous: Next I will answer: Why only be concerned with civil suits and not criminal prosecution?
Peace
Protect Kids, Not Predators!
snapmd@comcast.net
http://www.snapnetwork.org/
Posted by: Frank Dingle | July 17, 2010 3:02 PM
Anonymous: Previously you asked: Why only be concerned with civil suits and not criminal prosecution? Again, this is only mine opinion and doesn't officially represent any organizations which I belong.
The Criminal Statute of Limitations in Maryland is for life. That being said there are other reasons. One reason is it has been an area of diminishing returns for efforts put in by survivors.
Although, this is not a Maryland Case it is similar to previous Maryland cases with the addition of the Vatican being informed by the local bishop and still nothing happening.
103 days ago, Fr. Joseph Jeyapaul promised to come back to the US and face charges. He still hasn't: SNAP Press Release followed by current US Bishop, Vatican, India runaround.
http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_statements/2010_statements/040610_accused_indian_priest_says_he_will_return_to_u_s_sex_abuse_victims_respond.htm
These cases are on Maryland abuse pre-2002, when I justify my statistics and rationale on why the Bishop Charter is a FAILURE with names and information sources from 2002 on you will see recent examples..
Laurence Brett and Joseph Maskell each escape the Baltimore when we are told warrants were in hand for their arrest. Then the Hartford Courier reported thought the help of a survivor in the early 2000 Brett was located in the Caribbean, but Baltimore County refuse to expedite him for his crimes were misdemeanors in 1973. There are over 24 Brett survivors from Calvert Hall alone. That would be a 12 years term. Even with the 6 months. Maskell comeback and I believe essential walk free around Baltimore for years before his death.
February 28, 2003, this part of a letter my wife and I jointly wrote Cardinal Keeler. Like many other Catholic we know there was no response.
There is great sorrow in the hearts of many for the church we love. We are e-mailing a copy of this letter to Chancellor Jane Golden Belford, Esq. of the Archdiocese of Washington to share with His Eminence Theodore Cardinal McCarrick and Mr. Richard Dowling. We are asking you all to please advocate for Senate Bill 68 and other bills that will help to protect our children.
We are cradle Catholics, married 40 years and parents of 6, and grandparents of 10 with 6 of age in catholic schools. These schools are in parishes where nine or more known abusive priests resided. We had 12 years of Catholic Education. We are retired. We have been and currently are very involved in church and Christian Witness Work. Currently, we devote 4 to 8 hours a week helping the poor. This is mentioned, because your representatives seemed to think that this type of mission would end if the bills were enacted. We know many in this ministry to the poor who are embarrassed and bewildered by this stance. We feel this work and our church would grow if it would follow the teachings of Jesus, rather than worship of power and money.
We continue to be ashamed by Mr. Dowling's performance at Senate Bill 68 hearing which widens the credibility gap. If the Bishops intention was to make it clear that financial considerations were their main concern, Richard did the job. Money first, God second. Truth, Justice, Compassion and Trust were the casualties. Has our church lost trust in the Lord, too? We have compassion and forgiveness for the abuser. However, we are confused and bewildered by our church’s denial of responsibilities and reconciliation to the abused. Mistakes have been made. Everybody makes mistakes. Let the healing process begin. Stop divisive actions! Many pro Senate Bill 68 advocates spoke from personal experience contradicting Dowling’s testimony.
I am not a lawyer; therefore, I am not paid to make simple things complicated. My job was to make complicated things simple. Therefore, I recommend a simple solution to you. The church on its own, regardless of state law, can waive the statute of limitations for abused victims of Professional Catholic Representatives found guilty in the Courts of Maryland or who admit their abuse outside the sacrament of penance. If major libel cases would develop, I am confident the laity would support this type of accountability, openness, and honesty with financial support. This is just a simple lay Catholic’s opinion.
Cardinal Keeler, you have the influence to use your resources and lobbyists to work this out. Currently, we Catholics see the church as part of the problems. Please, work to be part of the solutions. In addition, I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to join our VOTF affiliate.
Anonymous: Housekeeping on your questions: I think this was answered, but it may not have been to your satisfaction. What I will do is dare you to post where I ever asked you to disclose a name of a victim. What I said was using comments from anonymous victims is meaningless since what they say can't be validated. Don't twist my posts like you do facts and evidence you post here. The only failure I see is SNAPs. Maybe you believe you are helping victims. I think we handle this in a previous post. If you are not satisfied. Please let me know specifically what to answer. There were confusions on my part on the anonymous victim identifications thing, which I believe has been clarified.
next I will answer: The truth is all you are doing is helping attorneys profit from the suffering of others. . . . Why have your bills for changes in statute of limitations drafted by the very attorneys making money on abuse lawsuits?
Peace,
Protect Kids, Not Predators!
snapmd@comcast.net
http://www.snapnetwork.org/
Posted by: Frank Dingle | July 18, 2010 3:02 PM
As the Archbishop of Washington, and the recently appointed prelate of the islands of Biscayne Bay, which were once wrapped by Chiristo, I have something to add to this discussion. Namely, the great wisdom of Michael Sean Winters. Michael is a good daughter of the Church. He has recently defended my actions against gay marriage. Now he is performing admirably by explaining the seemingly inexplicable, dealing with that evil woman Maureen Dowd's unwarranted and uncanonical attack on the Vatican Curia's recent pronouncement:
"She begins her little essay with this observation: “If the Vatican is trying to restore the impression that its moral sense is intact, issuing a document that equates pedophilia with the ordination of women doesn’t really do that.” Did she actually read the document? It is available on the Vatican website. Where does it “equate” pedophilia with the ordination of women? This morning, I gave biscuits to all three of my dogs, but that does not mean Bernie is Clementine or Ambrose is Bernie or Clementine is Ambrose. All three constitute a pack, yes, and each got biscuits, but that does not mean that I am suddenly unaware that one is a lab, another is a border collie and the third is a St. Bernard.
Mind you, I think it was a mistake for the Vatican to not deal with the new norms governing the crime of sexual abuse of minors by clergy separate from all other concerns. But, I do not see any attempt to “equate” the issue with that of the ordination of women. Nor do I concur in the argument that Mark Silk made, and which Dowd cites, that the women’s ordination issue was really the “main business” of the Vatican document. The other day, I cleaned my desk. While cleaning the desk I noticed that the floor needed to be swept. That is what happened at the CDF. They were dealing with one issue, and realized that they might as well deal with a bunch of issues. That was a mistake, as even many conservative Catholics such as The Anchoress have observed. But, there was no ulterior motive at work. I think it is often the case that outsiders assume intent when there is merely incompetence. And, in this event, the incompetence in question does not have to do with the merits so much as with the public relations. That is an important concern, and one the Vatican needs to pay attention to, but it is not the heart of the matter either."
I know that a famous art critic once said that if a painting is really going badly for an artist he should interpolate a dog into it. But that is not what Michael is doing. He is helping to explicate the logic of the Church. As I said recently on TV in an interview, "Celibacy is not the problem.'
The lives of many may have been destroyed, but my right think of myself any way I damn well please is inviolable.
Look at Bishop Martin Holley, he was ordained after such a marvelous exhibition of celibacy in the seminary training. And clearly there were not a lot of guys who had slept with him, or they would have spoken up, except for the fact that they would have been kicked out of the only career they had prepared for. Ah, canonical and political correctness! This is what celibacy is about. protecting ourselves. And not giving into the heresy of reality. Have you not heard? Pope Benedict will redefine the condemnation of Realism as a philosophy which was anathematized at the Council of Constance. Now the condemnation means, in our modern parlance, that it is a heresy to interject any aspect of real reality that contradicts with what the Pope has in mind. Thank God there are fa#%&tts, I mean well meaning Catholics , like Michael Sean Winters who can connect the dots. God Bless you all!
Archbishop D. Disney Wuerl,
(the D. stands for Donald, as in Donald Duck, not that gay Queer Duck.)
Posted by: +Archbishop D. Disney Wuerl | July 18, 2010 11:13 PM
Anonymous: Previously, you asked: The truth is all you are doing is helping attorneys profit from the suffering of others. Why have your bills for changes in statute of limitations drafted by the very attorneys making money on abuse lawsuits?
Honestly, in Maryland they have not been involved with SNAP at any time to my knowledge. Actually, we requested one to stop testifying because of church accusations, and she honored our request.
I believe the genesis of Maryland Civil SOL came from Maryland Highest Court. March 2003, Sun Editorial Shielded from Pain, stated. “The state's highest court has said that only the General Assembly can make it possible for many of these victims to have their day in court. They've waited a long time. The state should give it to them.” http://home.comcast.net/~snapmd/site/?/page/Sun_Editorials/
I ventured down to Annapolis as a member of our church’s Peace and Justice Committee to support Civil SOL because we thought it was obvious it was the right thing to do. We were shocked to find the Maryland Catholic Conference opposing the bill. Their arguments against the bill made us embarrassed to be Catholic. That bill was drafted by a Senator who saw a need for justice and was trying to do the right thing. MCC vilified her on radio and private press articles. Their actions were scandalous and unchristian.
2004, there was no SOL bill. But, there was a Clergy reporting bill. MCC arguments against the bill again made me embarrassed to be a Catholic and certainly took liberties with the truth. Again. The sponsor was vilified in the catholic press and talk radio. 2005 a survivor paid for a lobbyist out of his own pocket and the lobbyist with help from friendly members of the Judiciary Committee composed the bill. 2006, another survivor who was a lifetime friend of Delegate Pauline Menes talked to her friend and Pauline worked with us to compose the bill.
“Pay for abuse” another Sun Editorial supporting Civil SOL stated: But from the tearful acceptances by some of the victims, it's clear that money alone cannot ease the pain and suffering they have endured. The church must continue to confront this issue and come clean - not only with past victims, but with itself - in order to prevent more abuse. Second Editorial at: http://home.comcast.net/~snapmd/site/?/page/Sun_Editorials/
Again in 2007, a lobbyist was hired by out of pocket expenses of a non attorney friend of survivors who composed the bill with help of the Judiciary Committee. 2008, ditto, the same has 2007.
Baltimore Examiner 3/6/08 Editorial: Help children; don’t hide crimes. -- Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O’Brien told The Examiner he was “sorry” for the victims of sexual abuse by priests. “As a church we cannot say this is enough.”
We wonder then, because the church worked tirelessly to kill a brief window in the statute of limitations to allow abuse victims of all faiths to sue in civil court, what is enough? The archbishop said, “There is always an opportunity for justice in Maryland because we live in a state with no statute of limitations on felonies.” He’s right. So, has the Catholic Church shared with law enforcement — as all citizens are required to do — all knowledge of felonies? Or has it helped predators remain loose to destroy lives of even more victims? Forcing felons to leave the church does not make society safe. It just protects church wealth from lawsuits.
Victims of abuse past, present and future demand an answer to that question, as does the law of Maryland — and fundamental morality.
4 additional commentaries by Vickie Polin, head of the Jewish equivalent of SNAP: Church hurts victims of all faiths, Sister Maureen Paul Turlish: Abuse victims must not give up hope, Frank Dingle: Catholic Conference, bishop fail victims and Marci A. Hamilton, Killing abuse suit bill puts children at risk: http://home.comcast.net/~snapmd/site/?/page/Baltimore_Examiner/
2009, we had no bill because Senator Mike Miller has made defeating this bill one of his few pet priorities. Half jokingly we are told Cardinal McCarrick promised him the key to heaven since he voted for abortion and the death penalty bills. Still joking others say he doesn’t care about going to heaven just getting his kids good state jobs.
Anonymous: Next question answered: How can you honestly say that SNAP isn’t funded by lawyers as kickback for clients referred to them?
Peace,
Protect Kids, Not Predators!
snapmd@comcast.net
http://www.snapnetwork.org/
Posted by: Frank Dingle | July 19, 2010 1:09 PM
Frank Dingle - Thank you for taking the time to compose all of those responses. I don't want to get into a detailed review of all of them. Let's leave it at I agree with you on some and don't on others. In the end our efforts should focus on victims and working to prevent such things in the future. To that end you need not respond to any of my questions you have not already addressed. I think it's best we agree to disagree on some things and look at those things we might agree on rather than where we don't. I have no doubt your intent is to help victims even in areas we don't agree on. I'm still not convinced about your overall organization especially at the national level. That said I don't want you to waste time you could be putting to better use trying to convince me otherwise.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 19, 2010 1:51 PM