First off, I would like to apologize in advance, because I speak American so please forgive me if my Canadian is not on par with what you’re used to.
There is some very sneaky language in this, which you should probably rap his knuckles for. eh
The instruction–according to the CBC–apparently ‘warns’ the Irish bishops not to report ALL cases to the police. eh
Not to report ALL cases. buddy
This is in light of a policy the Irish bishops agreed on adopting in the mid '90s, to report ALL SUSPICIONS of abuse.
theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/the-1997-letter-vatican-message-sent-to-irish-church/article1874546/ [The actual letter’s text, if you’re interested, can be found here.]
The text simply states that (1) canon law should be the guiding force in how the bishops of Ireland approach the Abuse Crisis, and (2) that the current policies of the bishops of Ireland rub up against the boundaries of canon law. (2A) The letter elaborates, that individual clerics
could possibly take the option of
‘hierarchical recourse’–that is, lodging a complaint alleging administrative mishandling–if, for instance, PARISH GOSSIP and malicious rumors somehow prompted his bishop to ‘report’ a case that never was and never will be.
Yeah, so its easy to just assume that the statement: ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to moral/canonical reservations is just our hierarchy of pedophiles protecting their own corrupt backsides, but any intelligent person who reads this letter in context, will understand that this simply isn’t the case. It voices a series of legitimate concerns that reflect the importance of canon law, and the difficulties that might arise when two different systems of law run up against each other.
This is not simply the case with canon law–but every regulatory code that provides internal structure for an organization–will have to find an acceptable middle ground with civil law. Now, finally, this push-pull process is being found in the Anglo-American world in the darkest of times.
Another peculiar feature of canon law is its concern with the priest’s ministry and good reputation. Secular law in America, at least–even with the presumption of innocence (which, though unintended, makes it so that every criminal is ‘tentatively innocent’, thus devaluing innocence)–has been unable to adequately cope with the fact that sometimes simply entering a court house can be tantamount to character assassination. Rumor and accusation can be enough to destroy a priest’s ministry and his ‘usefulness’ (i.e., full capacity to serve) to his flock and diocese. If a priest of 40 or 45, who has devoted 20 years of life to selfless service has his ministry wrecked by false accusations, he literally has nowhere to go: (1) his ‘career’ has been an eclectic mix of work, but he has not likely studied any single field (ex: social work, academic theology, Patristics) to make him a ‘professional’, (2) he is too old to find a wife of comparable age, and raise a proper family, (3) it would probably even be difficult to adopt a child, depending on the status of the false allegations–and that’s only to start!
There was a famous case in my region, of a priest who was accused of some indiscretion and immediately removed from active ministry by his bishop. He killed himself, and the accusation was denounced as false and subsequently retracted. This is just one of the ways that the Abuse Crisis hurts the Church: rather than vaguely damaging the Holy See’s moral authority, it casts a shadow over every innocent priest and gives automatic, undue credence to virtually any accusation.
The way that this article is written, is just downright sneaky. Read the following paragraph carefully:
“The letter’s message undermines persistent Vatican claims that the church never instructed bishops to withhold evidence or suspicion of crimes from police. Instead, the letter emphasizes the church’s right to handle all child-abuse allegations and determine punishments in house rather than hand that power to civil authorities.”
So, regarding the first sentence, it references the warning not to report ALL
suspicions. (1) Not ANY, but ALL; (2) not SUBSTANTIATED CASES, but SUSPICIONS.
The second sentence begins on a new train of thought (regarding the relationship between civil and ecclesiastical law): the letter emphasizes the church’s right to handle all child-abuse allegations in its own courts. That is extremely ambiguous: it COULD suggest a parallel investigation, among other things.
The most important point to emphasize here is that it focuses on the utility of ecclesiastical law, especially concerning the crisis. Telling the bishops to handle the claims ‘in-house’ does not rule out inter-court cooperation or the involvement of civil law.
[In fact, it could be argued that the findings of the ecclesiastical court would be MORE important than the civil findings–its been the CIVIL findings which, unhappily, have let many predatory clerics and ex-clerics back onto the streets after the statute of limitations expire, &c.
Whereas a ‘damning’ judgment against a cleric could lead to the cessation of ALL ministry everywhere, and has the potential to be far more compelling than a slap-on-the-wrist probation and counseling.]
And it’s quite a leap to make to say that he was involved in this. Then Cardinal Ratzinger wasn’t in the Congregation for the Clergy - he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. See this for more of his efforts to get the other Congregation to do more.