Pope abolishes the pontifical secret on sexual abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
Two documents are destined to make a lasting mark: Pope Francis has abolished the pontifical secret in the case of sexual violence and the abuse of minors committed by members of the clergy. He has also decided to change the norm regarding the crime of child pornography by making the possession and dissemination of pornographic images of children under the age of 18 which fall under the category of *delicta graviora* – the most grave delicts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So basically Francis makes it possible for cases of sexual abuse and child pornography to be available to authorities? I say good, there must be discipline and a firm hand on this issue. Clergy that scandalize the young are evil and should be exposed
 
“Francis also lifted restrictions allowing only priests to represent accused parties, opening the role of advocate to any “member of the faithful possessing a doctorate in canon law … approved by the presiding judge of the college.””
Click to expand...
This is really interesting. And will possibly create a higher demand for lay canonists. Exciting!
 
Last edited:
What I’ve read sounds like the way information was shared varied from country to country. In one country, churches willingly cooperated with law enforcement, whereas in another country they may have claimed that it was a church secret, whether that was truly the case or not. Sounds like PF centralized it so no one can claim “secrecy” if a case of abuse arises. Kudos to him!
 
I think rhe civil government of some countries are more corrupt and less trustworthy?
 
I think this is the direction the bishops are also seeing they need to go.

Even law enforcement is seeing they need to go in this direction, because the abuse of the use of “discretion” of a few in order to shield wrong-doers from justice has eroded trust that the populace needs to have for those in authority.
 
In the history of the Church, I think we can say that there has been a tendency to use a “need to know” basis for many, many things. Generally, the laity don’t really need to know much of anything about the decision-making of clerics. Generally, clerics in one diocese don’t need to know anything about the decision-making of clerics in another diocese. That sort of perspective. There is some value to this, certainly.

For trials in general and criminal trials in particular, benefits that come to mind are:

–Parties and witnesses are more free to speak the truth since they are assured that their statements are not going to be divulged outside of the “courtroom.”

—The reputation and good name of the accused will not be illegitimately harmed by testimony that may not be true (yet is made known).

–Judges will have more freedom to weigh the evidence without feeling public pressure to give more credence to this or that piece of evidence.

–The division between civil and ecclesiastical courts is, in my view, worth maintaining at least in principle: the two do different things and have different standards. The Church keeping her judicial procedures “secret” from the civil judiciary is proper (again, in principle and in my opinion).

–The faithful will not be “scandalized” by the testimony.

The latter point is one that was probably misunderstood, misapplied, abused, etc.

Dan
 
Well I didn’t know keeping secrets for abusive priests was even a thing, and I can’t imagine why it would be. That seems like a purely evil policy regardless of how you try to justify it. So good on Francis if he’s done away with it.
 
nfinke said:
I didn’t know keeping secrets for abusive priests was even a thing
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t consider that to be a fair characterization of what this is about. We are talking about keeping courtroom testimony and discussion within the courtroom.

That being said, your comment is more evidence that the policy may have outlived its usefulness. People didn’t really understand “the pontifical secret”, its purpose, its limits, and, when push came to shove, civil law didn’t have to care about it.

Dan
 
Last edited:
What’s the point of keeping it in the courtroom though? It’s not like we’re talking about a confessional here. Don’t people have a right to know when someone has committed a crime, especially if it involves children they may remain in contact with?
 
nfinke said:
Don’t people have a right to know when someone has committed a crime, especially if it involves children they may remain in contact with?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would certainly say that they (we) do.

“Pontifical secrecy” did not mean that if a trial concluded with a guilty verdict, the penalty had to be secret. But, I think that was still the basic mode of operation: people in the pew didn’t “need to know” why Fr. So-and-so left or was sent to a monastery in Siberia or whatever. That kind of secrecy, in the end, is not healthy nor helpful…nor just.

Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top