33. The Apostolic Nuncio has diplomatic status and so cannot be compelled to provide a statement or to give evidence. This was therefore a voluntary request for the Apostolic Nuncio to provide information. The Apostolic Nuncio indicated that he needed to consult with the Holy See before replying. The Inquiry also sent the request of the Nuncio to the Holy See and liaised with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to ensure that the request was made through established diplomatic channels.
34. Despite efforts by the Inquiry, no information was provided by the Apostolic Nuncio or the Holy See prior to the Inquiry’s public hearing in relation to Ealing Abbey in February 2019.
35. In preparation for the wider hearing in October and November 2019, the Inquiry asked the Holy See for information about a number of other matters and repeated the requests made of the Nuncio. The Inquiry continued to press the Holy See, via the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, for confirmation as to whether it intended to respond to any or all of the Inquiry’s requests. In due course, the Holy See confirmed that it would not be providing a witness statement. It did provide a response which included information about the 2011 Apostolic Visitation of Ealing Abbey and the disappearance and subsequent dismissal of Laurence Soper from the priesthood.
38. The Holy See provided limited information in respect of the Ealing Abbey case study. In respect of the final public hearing, it did little more than confirm the bishops’ authority within their own dioceses and provide documents already within the public domain. As recently as May 2019, the Pope made his position on child sexual abuse clear – there needed to be action not just words. This pronouncement stands in direct contrast to the limited information the Holy See provided to the Inquiry. In responding in this way, the Holy See’s stance was contrary to the spirit of its public statements and it missed the opportunity to demonstrate its engagement and leadership on the issue of child sexual abuse.
The problems persist.In summary, the Holy See has used its status as a sovereign state to avoid providing evidence to a public inquiry in a country in which it has diplomatic representation. It has refused to provide a witness statement, and the evidence that it has submitted has mostly comprised material that was already available to the public.
Yup. And will continue to persist until the hard questions keep being asked. Anything less will never be more than a bandaid on the problem.The problems persist.
The problem will continue until those in the hierarchy lose their contempt for investigators and all who suffer molestation, as the refusal of the Holy See to assist in this investigation clearly illustrates.Yup. And will continue to persist until the hard questions keep being asked. Anything less will never be more than a bandaid on the problem.
I think you’re confusing the natural order with what exists in nature–that is, in the fallen world. Concupiscence is real and its pull can be strong. But it needs to be striven against. The crimes at issue are the result of surrendering to this “tide”, not of fighting against it.Personally I think Aquinas has a very big role in this. The Natural Law, as it pertains to sexuality, is nowhere near “natural”. When you swim against the tide, don’t be surprised if you drown!
Am I reading the situation correctly - the hierarchy is not only not supporting the sex abuse victims, but also hindering an investigation into their accusers?The problem will continue until those in the hierarchy lose their contempt for investigators and all who suffer molestation, as the refusal of the Holy See to assist in this investigation clearly illustrates.
I’m not. I’m quite clear on the differences. But I think they work against each other, instead of complimenting each other.I think you’re confusing the natural order with what exists in nature–that is, in the fallen world.
That is certainly how I read it. For most people, giving evidence to a public inquiry is not optional. It is basically the same as being asked to give evidence in court. The one exception that I am aware of is people who have diplomatic immunity. This includes the apostolic nuncio. Of course, there is absolutely nothing preventing a foreign diplomat from giving evidence voluntarily. In this case, however, the nuncio declined to cooperate. Therefore, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office attempted to apply its powers of persuasion to the Holy See. In response, the Holy See refused to provide a witness statement. It did send some documents, most of which were already freely available to members of the public and could, for example, have been downloaded from the Vatican website. It is very hard to understand how the Holy See could possibly justify hiding behind the cloak of diplomatic immunity to withhold information from a public inquiry into child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church being conducted under the auspices of a foreign government.Am I reading the situation correctly - the hierarchy is not only not supporting the sex abuse victims, but also hindering an investigation into their accusers?