Wot?
We need an expert in Vatican jargon, or Catholic doctrine, or Jesuitical Vaticanesque doctrinal legalistic jargon. Hamilton Jacobi alerted us in a comment on ‘The pope invited the bishops to explain’ to the possibility that the pope’s 2001 letter didn’t mean what The Observer reported it to mean. I took a look at the English version* and I’m not at all clear on what it’s saying. It’s not unmistakably saying ‘Bishops must hide clerical sex abuse of children from the police’ and it could well not be saying that at all – so I have to withdraw some of what I’ve said on that subject in the last few days about the coverage of the pope’s scolding the Irish bishops. At least provisionally, I have to withdraw it. The first part of the letter looks as if it at least could be saying that 1) sex abuse by priests is a ‘delict against the sanctity of the sacrament of penance’ and 2) as such it is a church matter, and that that part alone is what is church business and no one else’s. It looks as if it could be consistent with meaning it’s also a criminal matter…although it also looks as if it could be consistent with the church refusing to do anything about the criminal matter because to do so would violate the putative ‘sanctity of the sacrament of penance’ – which would pretty much leave the pope back where he was, and I would withdraw my withdrawal.
Farther down it gets even more ambiguous, and I’m just not at all clear what it’s saying.
The church might say we don’t have to be clear what it’s saying, it’s none of our business, it’s the church’s business – but of course that’s just what’s at the heart of this: it isn’t just the church’s business, obviously, and if the church thinks it is, the church needs to get its priorities straight.
So what do you think? Can you figure out what it’s saying?
It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription of 10 years.(11) The prescription
runs according to the universal and common law;(12) however, in the delict perpetrated
with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has
completed the 18th year of age.
What does that mean, for instance? I can’t make head or tail of it.
I don’t suppose any lawyer theologians read B&W regularly…but if any do…how about a little exegesis for us heathens?
*Catholicism is a global religion, so it seems fair to take translations as no less official than the Vatican’s Latin version, unless of course they’re just bad translations.
Well, the ambiguity is the point, surely? If you’re going to tell bishops to co-operate with the Garda and put child abusers behind bars, it’s easy to say that. It’s not easy to say the opposite (even to yourself) so you have to say it in a way that, while the bishops will know what you mean, should your letter come to light at some future date, it will be impossible to be sure that’s what it says. Ta da!
I suspect that the paragraph you quote is a statute of limitations (a/k/a “periods of prescription”) — the maximum time after an event that legal proceedings based on that event may be initiated.
Per the quotation, the enforcement power of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith normally expires if no action is taken within ten years following the prohibited act. However, if the “delict” involves a minor the 10-year statute of limitations begins to run on the victim’s 18th birthday and not from the date of the act. (In legalese, the statute of limitations would be “tolled” until the victim turned 18.)
If I’m right, this kind of statute of limitations language is similar to what’s common in secular law (which is one of the reasons I think this is what it means).
As for the rest, it looks to me like the letter is outlining the kinds of cases that the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith has jurisdiction over, within canon law. That is, what kinds of canon law cases go to that church tribunal rather than being dealt with using some other churchy legal procedures. I don’t see anything in the letter that says that canon law is the exclusive remedy for the “delicts” in question, nor that canon law trumps regular secular laws.
My uncle is about 60 years old now. When he was an adolescent, he was an altar boy and knew the infamous Father Geoghan personally. Even then, about 50 years ago, the altar boys called him “Father Shank.”
Even assuming that the pope WASN’T aware of any sexual abuse, that doesn’t exactly speak well of his institutional awareness. Especially since he’s supposed to be infallible. Since he’s evidently been blind-sided by an issue that’s been common knowledge among Catholics for decades, I would suggest that Benedict’s infallibility is suspect and that perhaps that Archbishops should reconsider their choice.
I agree with Jeff that much of the letter is about jurisdiction and statute of limitations. An interesting piece with respect to Pope Benedict being angry with the bishops is that the letter requires that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith be notified when there is “at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict.” It appears that the bishops were in violation of the letter.
As to the issue of secrecy, I would look at attorney-client privilege to provide appropriate guidance.
Who cares what pope Nazi Ratzi thinks is the statute of limitations. He doesn’t get to choose it. Screw him and all his pronouncements. His word means about as much as Blogovitch from Illinois.
“He doesn’t get to choose it.”
I suspect that he does with respect to church law (which is what this letter is about). When looking at church doctrine, his word means significantly more than that of Blogovitch. As to who cares, I do. Not being Catholic, I’m interested primarily from an academic perspective but also because his word influences the behavior of many of our elected officials.
Surely all Ratzi had to say was any priest caught messing around with children in an inappropriate manner must be reported to the authorities without delay, and that full co-operation must be given to those authorities in any subsequent investigation.
It is hardly an issue over which there can be much justified nuance.
Isn’t it just saying that they have their own statute of limitations for dealing with cases internally, which is 10 years and starts running when the child turns 18?
What it means about cooperating with the secular criminal law, where there is usually no statute of limitations, is anyone’s guess. The bit you quote doesn’t say anything about that. But the vibe I’m getting is that they think they have exclusive jurisdiction – which would be nonsense of course. However, Jeff is correct that it doesn’t expressly say that. But what does the document say about cooperation with the secular authorities? Anything?
I don’t think you have to take a thing back, Ophelia.
The letter refers explicitly to the document issued in 1962, marked CONFIDENTIAL in the copy I have. It suggests that this document having to do with “criminal solicitations” was under revision. However, it does not say that it has been revised or where that revision can be found. The Instruction, Crimen Sollicitationis refers explicitly to statutes of limitations, in each case, so far as I can understand, committing the victim to secrecy until a period of ten years – if the victim is a child – following the child’s 18th birthday. The express purpose of this, so far as I can understand, is to sneak under the common law provisions of statutory limitations pertaining to legal actions against the church.
Is there anything in this letter which qualifies this? I don’t think so, and this is, in fact, a reinforcement, if anything, of the earlier Instruction. (Canon lawyers may jump in here and tell me if I am mistaken.) All the conditions regarding notarisation, etc. are provided for in Crimen Sollicitationis, and the form for this is also provided in detail. And Crimen Sollicitationis is designed precisely to keep these things out of the hands of the public authorities. This is what they all did, and have been caught with their skirts down.
So far as I can tell, and it’s written in ecclesiatical lawyerese which is designed to hide intention as much as to reveal it, this letter changes nothing. You can go back to cursing the bastard.
To be fair Eric, if this is about a statute of limitations (and worded in language much more difficult than ordinary legalese), it doesn’t mean the underage victim has to shut up until she is 28. It means that the victim’s claim is extinguished when she turns 28. I.e., she has to pursue it before then, or, as far as the church is concerned, she should shut up thereafter.
I’m not trained as a canon lawyer, just as an ordinary lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that’s what it means.
A statute of limitations isn’t necessarily a bad thing (beyond a certain period, relying on people’s memories is very dodgy and there’s a great risk of injustice). But it would be very unusual in criminal cases under the secular law.
Russell: In the USA, almost all (secular) crimes have statutes of limitations attached to them.
Perhaps you are right, Russell, but this letter refers quite clearly to the conditions laid down in Crimen Sollicitationis, and in that document, as I understand it, the question of limitations has to do with the length of time the delict is a secret of the Holy Office (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Under pain of excommunication, the accusers(whether this can be the victim or not is not said) must sign an undertaking not to reveal anything of the matter under consideration until 10 years from the date he/she (the victim) turns 18. It is not altogether clear that they think in terms of perpetrator/victim. (A bishop in Nova Scotia said in defence of some of his clergy that these cases are seldom clear, and that many priests are seduced by children. Which is what the pope suggested, implicitly, when he blamed the church’s problems on the laxity of contemporary morals. He wasn’t only speaking about clergy here.)
As it says in Section 70 of Crimen: “All these offical communications shall always be made under the secret of the Holy Office; and, since they concern the common good of the church to the greatest degree, the precept of doing these things obliges under serious sin (sub gravi).” And it is in relation to these secrets that the statutory limitations are laid down, so far as I can tell.
(It even says, bless their black hearts that: “But the name of the worst crime is understood at this point a signification of any obscene external deed, gravely sinful, in any [act] perpetrated by a cleric or attempt with a person of his own sex.”)
And so far as I can make out, the whole purpose of the exercise is to preserve the good name and reputation of the church, for the good, no doubt of all. The basic idea seems to have been to deal with it all internally, by warning the offending cleric, but at the same time absolving him and providing for appropriate penance.
But is there anything in the Ratzinger letter which nullifies the effect of Crimen? Not that I can tell, anyway. It mentions the need for revision, but does not refer to a revision having been made. These are the secrets of the Holy Office, which can only be revealed with the permission of the Supreme Pontiff. These are the secrets, kept on file in every diocese, that the church has tried consistently to keep out of the hands of public authorities – one of the reasons Bernard Law is still skulking in the Vatican.
Thanks Eric. Clearly I’ll have to read Crimen Sollicitationis to make sense of Ratzinger’s letter. Your take makes me think the Observer reporter was probably au fait with this stuff and so understood what the letter meant but didn’t spell out, and was drawing on background knowledge as well as the letter itself. If that’s the case then I don’t have to withdraw anything.
I could see if they had said or meant ‘there is a special religious crime in using the confession to solicit children for sex and that crime is for the church to deal with, but molesting children is of course also a secular crime and that is a separate matter.’ But apparently that’s not what they said or meant – although they did manage to make it look as if they did, maybe, sort of.
Really, Jeff? Wow! That’s certainly not the case in Australia, and I don’t believe it was the case under the traditional common law in England. Not that it’s necessarily a bad idea. I do wonder sometimes about war crimes trials relating to WWII being held at this very late stage, when much of the evidence is missing and memories are unreliable.
Oops, I meant “not necessarily a bad idea”.
The various legal systems of the UK certainly do have statutes of limitations, though they largely apply to private plaintiffs, see e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_Act_1980
But as with the Republic of Ireland [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Limitations_in_Ireland], it appears that there is no limit on indictable criminal offences.
Amazing what you can learn on the internet.
Meanwhile, the original point of the thread merely shows us, once again, that the RC church really does regard itself as a power above the secular law; pathetic, of course, but coming as no surprise…
I honestly couldn’t read that deliberately obscure piece of rubbish,but that statute of limitations tells me all I need to know.So child abuse stops being a crime when the victim reaches adulthood,does it?So if you’re a priest into kiddy-fiddling,just make sure you keep your victim quiet for a few years?
I don’t think you need to apologise for calling the Pope a “sanctimonious buck-passing sack of shit.”
Sorry,I’ve just reread the bit about minors and have misinterpreted it .I stupidly assumed I knew what it meant-whereas I suspect it doesn’t actually mean anything.He’s still a sack of shit,though.
From my American-lawyer perspective, I thought that the 2001 directive from Cardinal Ratzinger’s office was replete with deliberate ambiguity and dissembling, with the primary purpose of avoiding disclosure to and the involvement of secular authorities, and I still think so.
If the letter was intended to confirm that clerical authorities either must or may cooperate fully with secular authorities, the letter could have simply said so.
As for statutes of limitation under secular criminal law . . . in a majority of U.S. states, there is no statute of limitation for many forms of homicide. For other crimes, the statute may be “tolled” (or the limitations period doesn’t start running) where there has been deliberate concealment of the crime. The other way that prosecutors get around an expired statute of limitations regarding the underlying offense is to charge the separate crime of “obstruction of justice.”
In my own home state (Indiana), prosecutions for the most serious felonies (Class A, with the longest permitted prison terms) can be prosecuted at any time, but prosecutions for child molesting, vicarious sexual gratification, child solicitation, child seduction, or incest must be commenced before the 31st birthday of the alleged victim.
Dave, the legal system of Australia has statutes of limitations on civil matters, too. Private suits involving civil claims in tort, property, and contract, etc., can become statute barred. Many statutory claims have quite short periods. My comment was about criminal matters. And to be honest, I spoke too broadly because I’m not sure about minor offences of various kinds, and it may depend on the jurisdiction.
Still it’s nice to know that I was right about the situation in England. Back when I studied criminal law, we were always comparing and contrasting the situation in England, since that’s where the Australian common law came from.
Interesting the detail we’re now getting from the US.
But anyway, all that was peripheral. :)
I’m pretty convinced of what the quoted words mean, now that I’ve adapted to the language, such as “delict” for “wrong”. But Eric may well be correct, for all I know, that there’s also a rule requiring clergy who are in the know to keep quiet while the limitation period is running.
The other way that prosecutors get around an expired statute of limitations regarding the underlying offense is to charge the separate crime of “obstruction of justice.”
And a group of Texas prosecutors have done exactly that – charged the Vatican with obstruction of justice. That’s considered a hell of a long shot, if not just plain doomed…
I think we can be confident that the
RC church regards its own law as
taking precedence over civil law.
The point would be, whether any
secular authorities take the
same view. That is, what we’d like
to know is whether there are jurisdictions in which RC canon law actually does take precedence.
In other jurisdictions, were those bishops acting illegally (obstructing justice)?
OB’s question sounds like one to which
there ought to be an easy and easily available answer. I wonder if some theologian, or any of those bishops who had to resign, could be persuaded to comment.
Well I’m not entirely confident at the moment that the RC church does exactly regard things that way. Nor am I confident that it doesn’t. I’m not sure it’s not engaged in an absorbing and long-lasting game of ‘the right hand doesn’t know what the hell the left hand is doing.’ Or a game of general self-deception, or a game of eating one’s cake and having it, or a game of saying things in such an obscurantist way that nobody, even the sayers, really knows exactly what is being said.
I really strongly doubt that there are any jurisdictions where canon law explicitly takes precedence over civil law…But I have much less doubt that there are many jurisdictions where canon law is just kind of allowed to get away with it.
I think there’s a lurking nest of rot here that hasn’t been properly exposed and raked out yet.