C
Cathoholic
Guest
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...sues-new-definition-of-vulnerable-adult-74015Analysis: Pope Francis issues new definition of ‘vulnerable’ adult
By Ed Condon
Vatican City, Mar 29, 2019 / 04:00 pm (CNA).- Pope Francis issued a new set of canonical norms Friday strengthening existing laws on sexual abuse for the Vatican City State and the Roman Curia.
The new norms introduce a mandatory reporting requirement for curial officials and employees who become aware of – or even suspect – a case of sexual abuse. But the most eye-catching change made by the pope was a redefinition of who can be a victim of sexual abuse.
Canon and Vatican City law obviously focus on the sexual abuse of minors. But in that same legal category is the abuse of “vulnerable” adults. How “vulnerable” adults are defined in law has been hotly contested in recent discussions of scandal and reform in the Church.
The new laws define a vulnerable person very broadly, including anyone “in an infirm state, of physical or mental deficiency, or deprivation of personal freedom, that in fact, even occasionally, limits their capacity to intend or to want or in any way to resist the offense.”
This represents a radical expansion of the definition currently being used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as it handles cases from dioceses around the world, in which a “vulnerable” is one who “habitually lacks the use of reason.” . . .
. . . “One is a moral question involving breach of vows,” Collins said, “the other is an abuse issue where harm has been caused to the other.”
The new working definition approved by the pope Friday appears very broadly drawn, with vulnerability covering anyone who “even occasionally” has a limit on their ability to “intend or to want or in any way to resist” the sexual contact.
When this expanded definition is placed within the context of clericalism, often cited as a major contributing factor to clerical sexual abuse, many canonists privately note it would be hard to conceive of a sexual relationship involving a priest which couldn’t be argued to rise to the level of abusive. . . .