Die Antwort des Vatikan auf den Cloyne-Reoprt in Irland im Volltext
Communiqué On 14 July 2011, following the publication of the Report of the
Commission of Investigation into the Diocese of Cloyne (Cloyne Report), Mr
Eamon Gilmore, Deputy Prime Minister (Tánaiste) and Minister for Foreign Affairs and
Trade of Ireland, in the course of a meeting with the Apostolic Nuncio in Ireland,
Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza, requested him to convey to the Holy See a copy of the
Cloyne Report together with the Irish Government’s views on the matters raised,
to which the Minister requested a Response.
Recognising the seriousness of
the crimes detailed in the Report, which should never have happened within the Church
of Jesus Christ, and wishing to respond to the Irish Government’s request, the Holy
See, after carefully examining the Cloyne Report and considering the many issues
raised, has sought to respond comprehensively.
This morning, 3 September 2011,
Monsignor Ettore Balestrero, Under-Secretary for Relations with States, met with Ms.
Helena Keleher, Chargé d’Affaires, a.i. of the Embassy of Ireland to
the Holy See, and consigned to her the Holy See’s Response to the Irish Government.
Here
following the full text is published. Also published is an Executive Summary of it.
For a fuller appreciation and understanding of the comprehensive information supplied
by the Response, the reader is invited to read it in its entirety.
Response
to Mr Eamon Gilmore, Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs
and Trade of Ireland, concerning the Cloyne Report
BACKGROUND On
14 July 2011, following the publication on the previous day of the Report of the Commission
of Investigation into the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne (Cloyne Report), Mr Eamon
Gilmore, DeputyPrime Minister (Tánaiste) and Minister for Foreign Affairs
and Trade of Ireland, met with the Apostolic Nuncio in Ireland, Archbishop Giuseppe
Leanza.
In his speaking points, a copy of which he gave to the Nuncio, the
Minister stated: “among the most disturbing of the findings of the Cloyne report
is that the Vatican authorities undermined the Irish Church’s own efforts to deal
with clerical child sexual abuse by describing the framework document adopted by the
Bishops’ Conference as a mere ‘study document’. The Commission have described this
intervention by the Vatican as entirely unhelpful to any bishop which wanted to implement
the procedures adopted by the Bishop’s conference and as unsupportive, especially
in relation to report to the civil authorities. Frankly, it is unacceptable
to the Irish Government that the Vatican intervened to effectively have priests believe
they could in conscience evade their responsibilities under Irish law.” The Minister
then requested him to convey to the Holy See a copy of the Report together with the
Irish Government’s views on the matters raised, and asked for the Holy See’s response
in the following terms: “I would ask you to convey this report and my Governments
view’s to your authorities in the Vatican. I believe that a response is required and
I look forward to receiving it.”
On 20 July 2011, the Irish Prime Minister
(Taoiseach), Mr Enda Kenny, made a speech in Dáil Éireann in which he
asserted that “for the first time in Ireland, a report into child sexual abuse
exposes an attempt by the Holy See to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic
republic as little as three years ago, not three decades ago. And in doing so, the
Cloyne Report excavates the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism … the narcissism that
dominates the culture of the Vatican to this day.” Commenting on the meeting between
the Apostolic Nuncio and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Kenny stated: “The
Tánaiste left the Archbishop clear on two things: the gravity of the actions and attitude
of the Holy See. And Ireland’s complete rejection and abhorrence of same.”
Subsequently,
a motion on the Cloyne Report was passed in which, among other things, Dáil
Éireann “deplores the Vatican’s intervention which contributed to the undermining
of the child protection framework and guidelines of the Irish State and the Irish
Bishops”. The same motionwas passed by Seanad Éireann on 27 July
2011.
On 25 July 2011, the Press Office of the Holy See published the decision
taken by the Secretariat of State to recall the Apostolic Nuncio for consultations.
RESPONSE OF THE HOLY SEE The Holy See has received and carefully
examined the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the manner in which allegations
of child sexual abuse committed by clerics in the Diocese of Cloyne were handled by
the relevant authorities between 1996 and 2009 (henceforth referred to as the Cloyne
Report). This Report has brought to light very serious and disturbingfailings
in the handling of accusations of sexual abuse of children and young people by clerics
in the Diocese of Cloyne.
At the outset, the Holy See wishes to state its
abhorrence for the crimes of sexual abuse which took place in that Diocese, and indeed
in other Irish Dioceses. The Holy See is sorry and ashamedfor the terrible
sufferings which the victims of abuse and their families have had to endure within
the Church of Jesus Christ, a place where this should never happen. It appreciates
how difficult it must have been for them to approach the authorities and speak of
their appalling and traumatic experiences, which continue to blight their lives, and
hopes that the sharing of these experiences will go some way towards healing their
wounds and allowing them to know inner peace and serenity.
Furthermore, the
Holy See is close to the people of the Diocese of Cloyne, who are in an understandable
state of anger, confusion and sadness because of what has happened, and to its priests,
the majority of whom are irreproachable and continue to do much good in their communities
in these trying circumstances, as they labour in the Lord’s vineyard.
The
Holy See is deeply concerned at the findings of the Commission of Inquiry concerning
grave failures in the ecclesiastical governance of the Diocese of Cloyne and the mishandling
of allegations of abuse. It is particularly disturbing that these failures occurred
despite the undertaking given by the Bishopsand Religious Superiors to apply
the guidelines developed by the Church in Ireland to help ensure child protection
and despite the Holy See’s own norms and procedures relating to cases of sexual abuse.
The
approach taken in recent times by the Church in Ireland to the problem of child sexual
abuse has benefitted from ongoing experience, as was demonstrated by the publication
in December 2008 by the Diocese of Cloyne of the report of the Church’s National Board
for Safeguarding Children (known as the Elliott Report), which did not hesitate
to criticise severely the manner in which cases of sexual abuse had been handled by
that Diocese. The publication of this report appears to have played a significant
role in the Irish Government’s decision to refer the Diocese of Cloyne to the Dublin
Archdiocese Commission of Inquiry, a decision taken despite the Irish Health Service
Executive’s recommendation that “a referral to this Commission was not warranted”
(6.96). The Elliott Report also led to the Diocese implementing major changes
to the handling of child abuse allegations, as the Cloyne Report acknowledges
(6.99).
The Cloyne Report, while acknowledging “that the standards
which were adopted by the Church are high standards which, if fully implemented, would
afford proper protection to children” (1.15), challenges all involved to ensure
more effective implementation of the relevant norms and guidelines.
Since the
Cloyne Report is being examined by the relevant Irish civil authorities with
a view to determining whether there are grounds for criminal and civil prosecution,
the Holy See does not wish to encroach on matters which may currently be the object
of study and investigation by these instances.
This Response, therefore, refers
to issues directly relating to the Holy See which were raised in the Cloyne Report,
by the Tánaiste in the above-mentioned meeting with the Apostolic Nuncio, by
the Taoiseach in his Dáil speech of 20 July 2011 and in the motion passed
by Dáil Éireann on the same day and by Seanad Éireann a week later.
It also provides a more complete account of the Church’s legislation on child sexual
abuse than that described in the Cloyne Report, and states clearly the Holy
See’s view regarding cooperation between Church and civil authorities.
1.
Issues regarding the Holy See raised by the Cloyne Report
Having
carefully examined the content of the Cloyne Report, the Holy See concludes
that the criticisms and accusations made against it are based primarily on the Report’s
assessment of the letter addressed to the members of the Irish Bishops’ Conference
on 31 January 1997 by the then Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Luciano Storero, concerning
the response of the Congregation for the Clergy to the 1996 document entitled Child
Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response, generally known as the Framework
Document. This letter is quoted extensively in the earlier Dublin Report
(7.13-7.14) and was the object of considerable public attention in January 2011. The
Holy See acknowledges, moreover, that, taken out of context, the letter could be open
to misinterpretation, giving rise to understandable criticism. In what follows, an
explanation of that context is offered, including, crucially, explanation of the knowledge
that the letter presupposes of the workings of the Church and the relationship between
episcopal conferences and the Holy See.
The Cloyne Report quotes the
text of Archbishop Storero’s letter and offers an assessment. In chapter 1 the Report
quotes excerpts from the letter to the effect that the Congregation for the Clergy
informed the Bishops that the document in question was “not an official document
of the Episcopal Conference but merely a study document” and that it contained
“procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and
which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting
to put a stop to these problems. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops
and there were cases of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See, the
results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities.
In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations
of both a moral and canonical nature” (1.18).
The Commission states its
view that “This effectively gave individual Irish bishops the freedom to ignore
the procedures which they had agreed and gave comfort and support to those who, like
Monsignor O’Callaghan, dissented from the stated official Church policy” (1.18).
In the conclusion to the same chapter, the Cloyne Report states: “Those
who thought like Monsignor O’Callaghan had their positions greatly strengthened by
the Vatican’s response to the Framework Document. This response, discussed
in chapter 4, can only be described as unsupportive especially in relation to reporting
to the civil authorities. The effect was to strengthen the position of those who dissented
from the official stated Irish Church policy” (1.76).
In chapter 4, the
Cloyne Report states that “The Irish bishops sought recognition from Rome
for the Framework Document but it was not forthcoming” (4.21). It then quotes
in full Archbishop Storero’s letter to the Irish Bishops. The Cloyne Report
does not present a detailed discussion of this letter, or of the Holy See’s response,
but simply asserts that “There can be no doubt that this letter greatly strengthened
the position of those in the Church in Ireland who did not approve of the Framework
Document as it effectively cautioned them against its implementation.” (4.22).
The same assessment is repeated towards the end of the chapter: “The fact that
the Papal Nuncio wrote to the bishops expressing the Congregation for the Clergy’s
reservations about the Framework Document was significant. This gave comfort to those,
including Monsignor O’Callaghan, who fundamentally disagreed with the policies in
the document” (4.91).
The Cloyne Report, however, provides no evidence
in support of the Commission’s assessment and, in fact, never claims that such was
the Holy See’s intention. Its view, however, may be based on the explanation that
was published in the Dublin Report. (Cf. Dublin Report, 7.14). This
Response will offer clarifications to show that the Commission’s assessment is inaccurate.
Before addressing the issues raised in connection with Archbishop Storero’s
letter, it should also be noted that there is no suggestion in the Cloyne Report
that the Cloyne diocesan authorities invoked the content of that letter to justify
ignoring the Framework Document guidelines. In fact, according to Cloyne
Report, Bishop John Magee declares that he accepted and sought to implement the
guidelines (1.16, 1.19, 4.17-4.20), while Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan made no secret
of his disapproval of them (1.17, 1.20), preferring instead to implement what he described
as a “pastoral approach” (4.78-4.80). However, the Cloyne Report provides
no evidence that he invoked the Congregation’s response in support of his views.
On
the basis of the findings of the Cloyne Report, it would appear that Monsignor
O’Callaghan, failed to apply not only the Framework Document, but also the
existing norms of canon law (particularly canons 1717-1719), despite their universal
applicability and despite the Congregation’s observation that the procedures established
by the Code of Canon Law were to be observed. The Cloyne Report states that
the Diocese did not carry out proper canonical investigations; in the five cases where
an investigation was ordered under canon 1717, the investigation was commenced but
never completed (1.49-1.50).
The Cloyne Report notes that prior to
2005 the Diocese of Cloyne did not refer any case to the Holy See. Subsequently, on
1 December 2005, one case was referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith (21.40), which gave its decision on 17 April 2007 (21.62). Following risk assessment
of the priests involved, four additional cases were referred to the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith in 2009 (4.25).
The Framework Document
Some
clarifications about the Framework Document should help to dispel a number
of common misconceptions.
When a number of high-profile cases of child sexual
abuse perpetrated by clerics came to light in Ireland during the 1990s, the Irish
Bishops’ Conference established an Advisory Committee in 1994 to discuss how such
cases should be handled and to formulate guidelines in that regard. The Chairman of
the Advisory Committee, Bishop Laurence Forristal, explained the brief of that Committee
in the following way: “Our immediate brief is to provide co-ordinated, orderly
advice to bishops and religious superiors on how to deal with allegations of child
sexual abuse and also to provide ongoing advice. What many people perhaps don’t realise
is that each diocese is an independent unit, and forms its own policies. The idea
behind the committee was to avail of the advice of experts and to formulate guidelines
that would allow a more uniform approach” (The Irish Times, 15 October
1994, p. 3).
While these guidelines were being developed, the Conference engaged
in a process of consultation with the Congregation for the Clergy regarding the content
of the document so as to ensure its effective application. In the light of these consultations,
various amendments were made to the text. It was the Conference’s right to consult
and, given the Holy See’s responsibility for the laws of the Church which apply universally,
it was certainly appropriate for the Congregation to offer its advice and considered
opinion on the content of the document.
The definitive draft of the Framework
Document was communicated by fax to the Congregation on 23 December 1995 and this
was followed by a faxed letter addressed to the then Prefect of the Congregation,
Cardinal José T. Sánchez, which was dated 4 January 1996 and signed by Cardinal Cahal
Daly, then President of the Irish Episcopal Conference, and by Archbishop Desmond
Connell, then Vice-President of the Conference. According to that letter, “The
text is not an official publication either of the Episcopal Conference or of the Conference
of Religious. It is a framework, offered to the Bishops and Religious Superiors as
a code of recommended practice to facilitate them in dealing with cases which may
arise within their respective jurisdictions” and “The present text is by no
means a final word from the Bishops and Religious Superiors on this issue.”
The
letter also stated that since the publication date had been set for 16 January 1996,
further amendments could be incorporated only before 7 January; otherwise a complete
reprint would be necessary. Given that deadline, the Congregation was unable to examine
the document and communicate to the Bishops its considered assessment of the revised
text prior to the publication of the Framework Document.
(a) The
nature of the Framework Document
The text in question was published
as the Framework Document, the subtitle of which describes it as a “report”
of the Advisory Committee. In fact, it is, as Cardinal Daly and Archbishop Connell
had earlier explained, not an official document of the Irish Bishops’ Conference but
a document of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Committee on Child Sexual Abuse
by Priests and Religious, which holds the copyright. In the Foreword, signed by Cardinal
Daly and by the Reverend John Byrne OSA, then President of the Conference of Religious
of Ireland, the text is continuously referred to as a “report” and is recommended
“to individual dioceses and congregations as a framework for addressing the issue
of child sexual abuse” (p. [9]). The authors of the Foreword also state: “This
document is far from being the final word on how to address the issues which have
been raised. In common with others in society the Church must continuously seek ways
to improve its response to this grave wrong, the sexual abuse of children” (p.
[10]).
Subsequently, in a letter addressed to Archbishop Storero on 10 October
1996, the then Secretary of the Irish Bishops’ Conference, Bishop Michael Smith, in
reference to the Framework Document confirmed that “The document was not
promulgated by decree of the Episcopal Conference nor was it approved by the Conference.
It was accepted by the Conference and offered to each individual Bishop and religious
Superior as guidelines that could – and indeed should – be followed in dealing with
allegations of child sexual abuse against priests and religious”. As the Cloyne
Report acknowledges, “The understanding was that each diocese or religious
institute would enact its own particular protocol for dealing with complaints”
(4.16).
The Congregation for the Clergy wrote to Archbishop Storero on 21 January
1997 and pointed out the existence of various difficulties concerning the Framework
Document, which the Nuncio subsequently communicated to the Bishops. These are
commented on in the following sections.
The Congregation’s description of
the Framework Document as a “study document”, which was based on the
explanations of its nature as provided by the Irish Bishops and in the published text
itself, was not a dismissal of the serious efforts undertaken by the Irish Bishops
to address the grave problem of child sexual abuse. The Congregation, taking cognizance
of the Bishops’ intention not to make the document binding, while at the same time
aware that each individual Bishop intended to adopt it for his Diocese to deal with
cases as they arose, wished to ensure that nothing contained in it would give rise
to difficulties should appeals be lodged to the Holy See.
From these considerations,
the following conclusions may be drawn as to the nature of the Framework Document.
On the one hand, it was an advisory document designed to provide a uniform code of
practice for individual Bishops to improve child protection measures and procedures
in their Dioceses, and was recommended to them as such. On the other hand, from a
more strictly canonical viewpoint, it was not an official document of the Episcopal
Conference but a report of the above-mentioned Advisory Committee, deserving of serious
study and which could serve as a source for the development of a more formal legislative
project.
(b) Clarifications on the notion of “recognitio”
The
Cloyne Report is incorrect in stating that “The Irish bishops sought recognition
from Rome for the Framework Document but it was not forthcoming” (4.21). As will
be clear from what follows, the Irish Bishops never sought recognitio from
the Holy See for the Framework Document.
To dispel misunderstandings,
it may be helpful to clarify the canonical notion of recognitio. Conferences
of Bishops may propose canonical legislation for their territories that is complementary
with the universal law of the Church. For this to be binding, there are procedures
which must be followed in order to enact the proposed legislation. In the Church,
this procedure is called recognitio.
The relevant norm is canon 455
of the Code of Canon Law which states: “§ 1. The Bishops’ Conference can make general
decrees only in cases where the universal law has so prescribed, or by special mandate
of the Apostolic See, either on its own initiative or at the request of the Conference
itself. § 2. For the decrees mentioned in § 1 validly to be enacted at a plenary meeting,
they must receive at least two-thirds of the votes of those who belong to the Conference
with a deliberative vote. Those decrees do not oblige until they have been reviewed
by the Apostolic See (nisi ab Apostolica Sede recognita) and lawfully promulgated.
§ 3 The manner of promulgation and the time they come into force are determined by
the Bishops’ Conference. § 4. In cases where neither the universal law nor a special
mandate of the Apostolic See gives the Bishops’ Conference the power mentioned in
§ 1, the competence of each diocesan Bishop remains intact. In such cases, neither
the Conference nor its president can act in the name of all the Bishops unless each
and every Bishop has given his consent.”
As canon 455 makes clear, the
recognitio of the Holy See is required for any validly adopted decision of
an Episcopal Conference which is to have binding force on all its members but it is
not required for guidelines as such, nor is it required for the particular norms of
individual Dioceses. Within the framework of ordinary episcopal jurisdiction, a Bishop
is always free to enact laws or adopt guidelines for his own Diocese without any need
to refer to the Holy See.
While the Irish Bishops did engage in consultations
with the Congregation for the Clergy about the contents of the Framework Document,
the Irish Bishops’ Conference did not take the canonical vote required by canon 455
§ 2 and never sought the recognitio of the Holy See for it. While the Congregation
for the Clergy may contribute to the discussion leading to the formulation of complementary
legislation, it is the Congregation for Bishops which is the competent dicastery for
granting the recognitio to general decrees of the Episcopal Conferences in
its territory. Since the Irish Bishops did not choose to seek recognitio for
the Framework Document, the Holy See cannot be criticized for failing to grant
what was never requested in the first place.
However, the lack of recognitio
would not of itself prevent the application of the Framework Document in individual
Dioceses. Despite the fact that the Framework Document was not an official
publication of the Conference as such, each individual Bishop was free to adopt it
as particular law in his Diocese and apply its guidelines, provided these were not
contrary to canon law. In the above-mentioned letter, Bishop Smith states: “All
dioceses have accepted this document and set in place a framework for handling future
allegations of child sexual abuse by priests.” The firm and determined approach
adopted by the Irish Bishops was respected by the Holy See and made it unnecessary
for it to intervene further.
In the light of the findings of the Cloyne
Report, the basic difficulty with regard to child protection in that Diocese seems
to have arisen not from the lack of recognitio for the guidelines of the Framework
Document but from the fact that, while the Diocese claimed to follow the guidelines,
in reality it did not.
As the Cloyne Report notes, the child protection
guidelines of the Church in Ireland were revised and further improved in subsequent
years, leading to the publication of Our Children, Our Church in 2005 and Safeguarding
Children – Standards and Guidance Document for the Catholic Church in Ireland
in 2009 (4.42-4.62). Unfortunately, the introduction of new guidelines does not seem
to have led to significant improvements in the Diocese of Cloyne until 2009.
(c)
Canonical difficulties
The Framework Document correctly recognizes
the need to respect both civil and canon law.
With regard to canon law, it
states: “In responding to complaints of child sexual abuse, Church authorities
must also act in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Canon Law and must
respect the rights and uphold the safeguards afforded in that Code both to those who
complain of abuse and to those who are accused. The Church has its own inherent right
to constrain with penal sanctions its members, including priests and religious, who
commit offences. These penal sanctions are clearly indicated in the Code of Canon
Law (cf. c. 1311ff)” (pp. [14]-[15]).
Turning to the question of the canonical
difficulties alluded to by the Congregation for the Clergy, it should be pointed out
that since both canon and civil law hold to the principles that everyone has a right
to his or her good name and that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven
guilty, both ecclesiastical and civil authorities rightly insist on the necessity
of due process and respect for the basic rights of all the parties involved. In addition,
the Congregation itself is bound by canon law and has no power to modify it. Hence,
whatever observations the Congregation made in relation to the Framework Document
had to take into account the canonical norms then in force. As explained below, in
order to respond more effectively to the problem of child sexual abuse, important
changes were introduced to the relevant canonical legislation from 2001 onwards.
While
the Framework Document does recognize the need for compatibility with canon
law, the Congregation for the Clergy – as Archbishop Storero’s letter explains – noted
that the definitive text of the Framework Document contained procedures and
dispositions which appeared contrary to canonical discipline. In pointing this out,
the Congregation did not reject the FrameworkDocument.
Rather, it offered advice to the Bishops with a view to ensuring that
the measures which they intended to apply would prove effective and unproblematic
from a canonical perspective. For this reason, the Congregation drew attention to
the requirement that these measures should be in harmony with canonical procedures
in order to avoid conflicts that could give rise to successful appeals in Church tribunals.
The Holy See, in recognising the great difficulties and complexities faced by the
Bishops in confronting the disciplinary aspects of child sexual abuse, wanted to ensure
that the application of the measures contained in the Framework Document would
not undermine the Bishops’ efforts to discipline those guilty of child sexual abuse
in the Church. As has been explained above (part b), the question of recognitio
did not arise, nor was it necessary, given that all the Bishops and Religious Superiors
in Ireland had agreed to accept and apply the guidelines of the Framework Document.
The lack of recognitio did not in any way undermine the application of the
Framework Document, especially in the context of the Holy See’s decision in
1996 to extend to Ireland special provisions already granted to the Bishops of the
United States in 1994. (This matter will be presented in detail in Part Six of this
Response).
It is worth noting that these provisions, and other specific measures
introduced by the Holy See throughout the 1990s and up to the current time led to
the development of more comprehensive norms. They also resulted in the simplification
of procedures, based on the developing best practices and suggestions of Bishops in
various parts of the world.
Thus, the Congregation’s response of January 1997
to the Framework Document was intended as an invitation to the Bishops to re-examine
the document carefully, bearing in mind as well that certain difficulties might come
to light only in the course of its concrete application.
(d) Cooperation
with the civil authorities
With regard to civil law, the Framework
Document correctly states that “A Church response to child sexual abuse by
priests and religious must accord with the legal framework in society for the investigation
and prosecution of criminal offences and for ensuring the protection and welfare of
children. It is vital that Church authorities, and in particular those responsible
for implementing procedures in dioceses and institutes of consecrated life or societies
of apostolic life, act in a spirit of co-operation with the civil authorities in their
local area” (p. [14]).
In its response to the Framework Document,
the Congregation for the Clergy expressed reservations about mandatory reporting.
At the outset, it should be pointed out that this response should not be construed
as implying that the Congregation was forbidding reporting or in any way encouraging
individuals, including clerics, not to cooperate with the Irish civil authorities,
let alone disobey Irish civil law. It should be borne in mind that, without ever having
to consult the Holy See, every Bishop, is free to apply the penal measures of canon
law to offending priests, and has never been impeded under canon law from reporting
cases of abuse to the civil authorities.
The question of cooperation with
the civil authorities was clarified bythe then Prefect of the Congregation
for the Clergy, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos,in his meeting with the Irish
Bishops at Rosses Point, County Sligo (Ireland), on 12 November 1998, when he unequivocally
stated: “I also wish to say with great clarity that the Church, especially through
its Pastors (Bishops), should not in any way put an obstacle in the legitimate path
of civil justice, when such is initiated by those who have such rights, while at the
same time, she should move forward with her own canonical procedures, in truth, justice
and charity towards all.” In this way, the Cardinal drew attention to the fact
that canon law and civil law, while being two distinct systems, with distinct areas
of application and competence, are not in competition and can operate in parallel.
This basic principle has been repeated on several occasions in the Holy See’s subsequent
interventions on this matter, including the Pope’s Letter to the Catholics of Ireland
(No. 11) and the Circular Letter issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith on 3 May 2011, which, in addition, explicitly addresses the question of
reporting requirements (see below).
It should be noted that, at the time, not
only the Church in Ireland but also the State was engaged in efforts to improve its
response to the problem of child sexual abuse. In 1996, apart from cases relating
to misprision of felony, the reporting of incidents of child sexual abuse to either
the relevant health board or the Irish police was not mandatory. Furthermore, misprision
of felony was removed from the Irish Statute Book by the Criminal Justice Act of 1997.
The Holy See is aware that public consultations about placing a legal obligation
on designated professionals to report known or suspected abuse to the authorities
took place in Ireland in 1996 following the publication of the document Putting
Children First at the request of the then Minister of State at the Departments
of Health, Education and Justice, Mr Austin Currie. At that time, while some Church-related
bodies, such as the above-mentioned Advisory Committee, were broadly favourable to
the introduction of mandatory reporting, other Church-related bodies and professional
groups in civil society, including representatives of the medical, social service,
educational and legal areas, expressed reservations or in some cases were opposed
to the proposal. The complex issues relating to mandatory reporting were acknowledged
by Mr Currie in a detailed presentation in Seanad Éireann on 14 March 1996.
On
6 November 1996, Mr Currie stated in Dáil Éireann that over two hundred submissions
from groups and individuals had been received in response to Putting Children First,
that the submissions reflected a wide diversity of views on mandatory reporting and
that the majority expressed reservations or opposition to mandatory reporting. Following
these consultations, which, among other things, drew attention to various complex
issues relating to the advisability and feasibility of mandatory reporting (including
use of resources, professional judgment, the types of abuse that should be subject
to mandatory reporting and who should become mandated reporters), the Irish Government
decided not to introduce it in a formal way but instead to issue guidelines for the
reporting of suspected child abuse by professionals and non-professionals, postponing
any further consideration of mandatory reporting for three years. Given that the Irish
Government of the day decided not to legislate on the matter, it is difficult to see
how Archbishop Storero’s letter to the Irish Bishops, which was issued subsequently,
could possibly be construed as having somehow subverted Irish law or undermined the
Irish State in its efforts to deal with the problem in question.
The Holy See
notes that in a statement in Dáil Éireann on 25 March 1997, the then Minister
for Health, Mr Michael Noonan, explained why the Government of the day had decided
not to introduce mandatory reporting. He recognized that all who participated in the
relevant consultative process, including those who expressed reservations or were
opposed to mandatory reporting, had the “best interests of children” as their
“paramount concern”. Explaining the Government’s decision he stated: “However,
it was suggested in a number of submissions that sight should not be lost of a person’s
right to his or her good name in dealing with the reporting of child abuse and the
Minister of State was conscious of the need to maintain an appropriate balance in
developing the initiatives outlined.” Thus, the reservations expressed by the
Congregation for the Clergy about mandatory reporting were in line with those expressed
at the time by various professional groups and individuals in Ireland, including members
of the Irish Government.
It should also be noted that in reply to a question
posed by Deputy Liz O’Donnell, Mr Noonan added: “The Minister of State has proceeded
to strengthen the framework and he has also talked about establishing a body, such
as an ombudsman for children, to further strengthen the position, but he stopped short
of introducing mandatory reporting at this time. That was a consensus view of those
involved in the day to day care of children. That decision was not made in the interest
of the professions, it was made in the interest of the protection of children. The
Deputy is aware there is major potential downside to mandatory reporting, as experienced
in the United States. The Minister of State has brought the professionals with him.
He has introduced a series of initiatives, said they will be evaluated after an appropriate
time and if the mandatory route is deemed to be necessary we can reconsider the position
with a view to taking that route.”
Like the Irish Government of the time,
and like those who made submissions to the public consultation on mandatory reporting,
the Holy See too was and is deeply committed to ensuring the protection of children
and young people, while being well aware of the complexity of the issues surrounding
mandatory reporting. It notes that although mandatory reporting was not introduced
in Ireland in subsequent years, the Irish State did introduce various sets of guidelines,
including Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of
Children (1999), Child Protection – Guidelines and Procedures (2001) and
Child Protection Guidelines for Post-Primary Schools (2004).
The Holy
See has taken note of the present Irish Government’s intention “to introduce legislation
to making it a criminal offence to withhold information about serious offence against
a child” (Speaking points presented by Mr Gilmore to the Apostolic Nuncio). While
the Holy See obviously cannot comment on the proposed legislation without knowing
the details, it does welcome and support whatever will genuinely contribute to the
protection of children. With regard to the question of reporting to the civil authorities,
the Holy See’s position, while not new, is explicitly stated in the above-mentioned
Circular Letter of 3 May 2011, namely: “Specifically, without prejudice to the
sacramental internal forum, the prescriptions of civil law regarding the reporting
of such crimes to the designated authority should always be followed.”
2.
The Taoiseach’s speech on the Cloyne Report
The
Holy See understands and shares the depth of public anger and frustration at the findings
of the Cloyne Report, which found expression in the speech made by the Taoiseach,
Mr Enda Kenny, in Dáil Éireann on 20 July 2011. However, it has significant
reservations about some elements of the speech.
In particular, the accusation
that the Holy See attempted “to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic
republic as little as three years ago, not three decades ago”, which Mr Kenny
made no attempt to substantiate, is unfounded. Indeed, when asked, a Government spokesperson
clarified that Mr Kenny was not referring to any specific incident. In fact, accusations
of interference by the Holy See are belied by the many Reports cited as the basis
for such criticisms. Those Reports – lauded for their exhaustive investigation of
sexual abuse and the way it was managed – contain no evidence to suggest that the
Holy See meddled in the internal affairs of the Irish State or, for that matter, was
involved in the day-to-day management of Irish dioceses or religious congregations
with respect to sexual abuse issues. Indeed, what is impressive about these Reports,
and the vast information that they rely upon, is that there is no support for these
accusations.
The Cloyne Report itself contains no statement that would
lend support to Mr Kenny’s accusations. In fact, when the Apostolic Nuncio in Ireland
was asked by the Commission of Inquiry “to submit to it any information which you
have about the matters under investigation”, the Commission received a reply to
the effect that the Apostolic Nunciature “does not determine the handling of cases
of sexual abuse in Ireland and therefore is unable to assist you in this matter. In
fact, such cases are managed according to the responsibility of local ecclesiastical
authorities, in this instance, the Diocese of Cloyne. Like all ecclesiastical entities
in Ireland, the Diocese of Cloyne is bound to act in accordance with canon law and
with all civil laws and regulations of Ireland as may be applicable” (2.11).
In
this regard, the Holy See wishes to make it quite clear that it in no way hampered
or interfered in the Inquiry into child sexual abuse cases in the Diocese of Cloyne.
Furthermore, at no stage did it seek to interfere with Irish civil law or impede the
civil authority in the exercise of its duties. In point of fact, as the Apostolic
Nuncio’s response to the Commission indicates, the Holy See expected the Diocesan
authorities to act in conformity with Irish civil law. It should also be noted that
the Commission of Inquiry acknowledges “the full co-operation it received from
all parties involved in the investigation and their legal advisers” (1.79).
Mr
Kenny also cited the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the effect that “Standards
of conduct appropriate to civil society or the workings of a democracy cannot be purely
and simply applied to the Church” and goes on to state: “I am making it absolutely
clear that when it comes to the protection of the children of this State, the standards
of conduct which the Church deems appropriate to itself, cannot and will not, be applied
to the workings of democracy and civil society in this republic. Not purely, or simply
or otherwise.”
The quotation in question is taken from the Instruction
on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, otherwise known as Donum Veritatis
(The Gift of the Truth), published by the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith on 24 May 1990, and signed by the then Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation.
It is not a private text of the then Cardinal Ratzinger but an official document of
the Congregation. This document is concerned with the theologian’s service to the
Church community, a service which can also be of help to society at large, and not
with the manner in which the Church should behave within a democratic society nor
with issues of child protection, as Mr Kenny’s use of the quotation would seem to
imply.
As a basic methodological principle, a quotation extracted from a given
text can be correctly understood only when it is interpreted in the light of its context.
The quotation used by Mr Kenny is taken from paragraph 39 of the Instruction, which
reads: “The Church, which has her origin in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, is a mystery of communion. In accordance with the will of her founder, she
is organized around a hierarchy established for the service of the Gospel and the
People of God who live by it. After the pattern of the members of the first community,
all the baptized with their own proper charisms are to strive with sincere hearts
for a harmonious unity in doctrine, life, and worship (cf. Acts 2:42). This is a rule
which flows from the very being of the Church. For this reason, standards of conduct,
appropriate to civil society or the workings of a democracy, cannot be purely and
simply applied to the Church. Even less can relationships within the Church be inspired
by the mentality of the world around it (cf. Rom 12:2). Polling public opinion to
determine the proper thing to think or do, opposing the Magisterium by exerting the
pressure of public opinion, making the excuse of a “consensus” among theologians,
maintaining that the theologian is the prophetical spokesman of a “base” or autonomous
community which would be the source of all truth, all this indicates a grave loss
of the sense of truth and of the sense of the Church.”
This text rejects
a trend among some contemporary theologians to treat the Church’s teaching as though
it were the product of public debate, to dissent from “official teaching” and to impose
their opinions on the faithful by means of public statements, protests and other such
actions, which are legitimate in modern democracy but unsuited for handing on the
truth of divine revelation, which theologians in their research are called to investigate
and explain.
3. Response to the Tánaiste’s accusations
and to the Dáil and Seanad motions
In
his meeting with the Apostolic Nuncio, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign
Affairs and Trade, Mr Eamon Gilmore, stated that “among the most disturbing of
the findings of the Cloyne report is that the Vatican authorities undermined the Irish
Church’s own efforts to deal with clerical child sexual abuse by describing the framework
document adopted by the Bishops’ Conference as a mere ‘study document’. As has
been made clear above, this charge is not supported by an objective reading of the
Cloyne Report nor by the fact that the common practice of the Irish Bishops
was to apply the Framework Document. Furthermore, given that the Church has
always insisted on the duty of all citizens to obey the just laws of the State (cf.
Romans 13:1-2; Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1897-1904; 2238-2243),
the Holy See does not accept the charge that “the Vatican intervened to effectively
have priests believe they could in conscience evade their responsibilities under Irish
law.”
On 20 July 2011, the Dáil passed a motion on the Cloyne
Report which, among other things, deplored “the Vatican’s intervention which
contributed to the undermining of the child protection framework and guidelines of
the Irish State and the Irish Bishops”. The same motion was passed by Seanad
Éireann a week later. The Holy See wishes to clarify that at no stage in the past
did it make any comment about the Irish State’s child protection framework and guidelines,
let alone seek to undermine them. The Holy See further observes that there is no evidence
cited anywhere to support the claim that its “intervention” contributed to
their “undermining”. As for the child protection framework and guidelines of
the Irish Bishops, the observations made above should suffice to dispel the notion
that these were in any way undermined by any intervention of the Holy See.
4.
The nature of the Church and the responsibility of individual Bishops
For
a more adequate understanding of some of the points made in this Response, it should
be borne in mind that the social organization of the Catholic Church, a communion
of many particular Churches (i.e. Dioceses and their equivalents, such as Territorial
Prelatures, Apostolic Vicariates, Military Ordinariates, etc.) throughout the world,
is not like that of a modern State with a central government nor is it comparable
to that of a federal State.
In the Church, the Bishops are neither representatives
nor delegates of the Roman Pontiff but of Christ (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, No. 27), though, as Catholic Bishops,
they are to act in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the other Bishops throughout
the world; this is the principle of “episcopal collegiality”, as described by the
Second Vatican Council (cf. ibid, Nos. 21-25). Hence, while the diocesan Bishop
is to act in conformity with universal canonical legislation, it is he who is primarily
responsible for penal discipline in his Diocese, just as he is responsible for the
concrete actuation in his Diocese of the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church
in conformity with the universal law governing liturgy and the sacraments (cf. ibid.
No. 27).
In the Catholic Church, this particular relationship among the various
Dioceses within the one Church is expressed by the term “ecclesial communion” and
it has been particularly evident since the Second Vatican Council, which placed special
emphasis on the proper responsibility of each Bishop. In order to coordinate better
their activities at the national level, Episcopal Conferences were created to promote
initiatives consonant with the needs of each national territory, while respecting
the autonomy of individual Bishops in their Dioceses. Without having to refer either
to the Holy See or to the Episcopal Conference, and provided he respects the requirements
of the universal law of the Church and the just laws of the State, each individual
Bishop has the right and the obligation to take whatever initiative he deems necessary
in order to promote charity and justice in his Diocese.
In this context, with
due respect for the prerogatives and responsibilities of individual Bishops, the Holy
See has the responsibility of ensuring the unity of faith, sacraments and governance
in the Church, and the maintaining and strengthening of ecclesial communion. Where
this unity and ecclesial communion are compromised, the Roman Pontiff may act directly
or through the offices of the Roman Curia to rectify matters.
5. Civil
law and canon law
The sexual abuse of children is a crime. It is a crime
in civil law; it is a crime in canon law. Sexual abuse perpetrated by clerics has
two distinct aspects. The first is concerned with the civil and criminal responsibility
of individuals, and this, being a matter for the civil authorities, is regulated by
the laws of the State where the crime is committed. As has already been stated, all
citizens, including members of the Church, are subject and accountable to these laws.
It is the State’s responsibility to legislate in order to protect the common good
and adopt measures to deal effectively with those who infringe its laws. The State
has the duty to investigate allegations of crime, to ensure due process and the presumption
of innocence until guilt is proven and to punish wrongdoers, without favour or distinction,
in accordance with the principles of justice and equity.
The second aspect
is religious in nature and as such comes under the internal responsibility of the
Church, which, in this regard, applies her own legal or canonical system. Positive
ecclesiastical laws are binding on all those who “were baptized in the Catholic
Church or received into it, and who have a sufficient use of reason and, unless the
law expressly provides otherwise, who have completed their seventh year of age”
(Code of Canon Law, canon 11). It is evident that the Church, in accordance with her
own nature and internal organization, has the duty to punish wrongdoers for the grave
and grievous damage done to the community of the Church. With regard to those areas
of responsibility for which the Church has competence, her canonical system stipulates
the norms, procedures and penalties which the relevant Church authority is to apply,
without interference from any outside body. When cases arise of child sexual abuse
committed by clerics or by religious or lay people who function in ecclesiastical
structures, Church authorities are to cooperate with those of the State, and are not
to impede the legitimate path of civil justice.
6. Church legislation
on child protection
The Cloyne Report presents some of the more
important elements of the canonical legislation of the Church concerning the handling
of cases of child sexual abuse and notes how this legislation has evolved in recent
years. However, in his Dáil speech Mr Kenny did not acknowledge that, especially
from 2001 onwards, the Holy See, in consultation with Episcopal Conferences and individual
Bishops, and following careful examination of the various aspects of the problem,
has modified the relevant canonical legislation and procedures in order to make them
simpler to apply, more effective and more expeditious.
A brief overview of
this legislation may prove helpful. For centuries canonical discipline has provided
for dealing with the abuse of minors, even before most modern nation States introduced
legislation in this regard. Prior to the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John
Paul II in 1983, such cases were handled according to the norms of the previous edition
of the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917. In 1922, the Holy
Office issued the Instruction Crimen Sollicitationis which provided a framework
of procedures to guide diocesan bishops dealing with the canonical crime or “delict”
of solicitation in their application of canon law. The Instruction also included certain
provisions on the crime of sexual abuse of prepubescent children. In 1962, Pope John
XXIII authorized a reprint of the 1922 Instruction, with a section added regarding
the administrative or judicial procedures to be used in those cases in which religious
clerics were involved. The 1983 Code updated the previous discipline in canon
1395 § 2: “A cleric who in another way has committed an offence against the sixth
commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly
or with a minor below the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties,
not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.”
The
1983 Code provides that the diocesan Ordinary (the Bishop or equivalent) is responsible
for judging cases in the first instance. Prior to 2001, when the competence for cases
of child sexual abuse perpetrated by a cleric was transferred to the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, appeals against judicial sentences could be presented
to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, while administrative recourses (i.e. legal review
of administrative decisions) against penal decrees were to be presented to the Congregation
for the Clergy. As the Cloyne Report states, during the period 1996-2001, not
a single case of child sexual abuse perpetrated by a cleric in the Diocese of Cloyne
was referred to the competent authorities of the Roman Curia.
At the request
of Bishops in some countries, the Holy See introduced certain changes during the 1990s
because of its concern about incidents of child sexual abuse which, though often historical
cases, were coming to light more frequently than before in those countries. For this
reason, the Holy See granted an indult to the Bishops of the United States in 1994:
the age for the canonical crime of sexual abuse of minors was raised from 16 to 18
and prescription (canonical term for statute of limitations) was extended to a period
of 10 years from the 18th birthday of the victim (this was done to take
account of the fact that many incidents of abuse are reported only after the victim
reaches adulthood). Similarly, the Holy See extended that 1994 indult to Ireland in
1996.
In order to provide more comprehensive norms and simplify some of the
procedures, on 30 April 2001 Pope John Paul II promulgated the motu proprio
“Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela”, which included the sexual abuse of a minor
under 18 by a cleric among the new list of canonical delicts reserved to the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith. As was the case in the earlier indults granted to the
Bishops of the United States and Ireland, prescription for these cases was extended
to ten years from the 18th birthday of the victim. All Catholic Bishops
were informed of the new law and the new procedures. The acts that constitute the
most grave delicts reserved to the Congregation were specified in this letter, both
those against the moral law and those committed in the celebration of the Sacraments.
Also listed were special procedural norms to be followed in cases concerning these
grave delicts, including those norms regarding the determination and imposition of
canonical sanctions. The procedures applicable to cases of child sexual abuse are
noted by the Cloyne Report (4.23).
The new legislation proved notably
effective in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse perpetrated by clerics. During
the period 2001-2010, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith considered accusations
against about three thousand diocesan and religious priests, referring to crimes committed
over the previous fifty years. The Congregation provided for the respective Dioceses
or Religious Orders to conduct penal processes, whether judicial or administrative,
in a number of cases. In other cases, the penal process was not used, and instead
administrative and disciplinary provisions were issued against the accused priests,
including limitations on the celebration of Mass, prohibitions against the hearing
of confessions and mandatory withdrawal into a retired life of prayer, with no public
contact. In particularly serious cases, a decree of dismissal from the clerical state
was issued. In some cases, the accused priests themselves requested dispensation from
their clerical obligations.
In April 2010, with a view to providing information
to non-specialists on the canon law and procedures applicable to allegations of child
sexual abuse perpetrated by clerics, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
issued a Guide to Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations.
This Guide, which is quoted in the Cloyne Report (4.26), does not introduce
new legislation but does describe in a non-technical way how the Congregation deals
with cases of child sexual abuse according to the norms of Sacramentorum sanctitatis
tutela and how it responds to various other queries which frequently arise in
connection with such cases. With regard to cooperation with civil authorities, the
Guide explicitly states: “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the
appropriate authorities should always be followed.”
While Sacramentorum
Sanctitatis Tutela proved distinctly helpful in dealing with cases of child sexual
abuse, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith considered it necessary to introduce
certain modifications to improve its application. Following examination of the proposals,
on 21 May 2010 Pope Benedict XVI promulgated Normae de gravioribus delictis
(“Norms concerning more grave delicts”), a text which contains, among other
things, the current substantive and procedural norms applicable to cases of sexual
abuse of minors committed by members of the clergy.
With regard to delicts
against the moral law, article 6 of these Norms stipulates: Ҥ 1. The more
grave delicts against morals which are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith are: 1° the delict against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue committed
by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years; in this case, a person who
habitually lacks the use of reason is to be considered equivalent to a minor. 2° the
acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors
under the age of fourteen, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means
or using whatever technology; § 2. A cleric who commits the delicts mentioned above
in § 1 is to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal
or deposition.” Furthermore, the preliminary investigation may be, but need not
be, undertaken directly by the Congregation (art. 17) and, with due regard for the
rights of the local Ordinary, the Congregation itself may take the precautionary measures
provided for in canon 1722 of the Code of Canon Law during the preliminary investigation.
7.
Circular Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (3 May 2011) As
the Cloyne Report was submitted to the Minister for Justice and Law Reform
on 23 December 2010, it was not possible for it to include reference to the Circular
Letter issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 3 May 2011. This
document is intended as a practical help to Episcopal Conferences worldwide in developing
guidelines for dealing with cases of sexual abuse of minors perpetrated by clerics.
The full text of the Circular Letter is available on the Holy See’s website ().
The
Circular Letter was issued following the promulgation of Normae de delictis gravioribus.
With a view to facilitating the correct application of these norms and other issues
relating to the abuse of minors, the Congregation considered it opportune for each
Episcopal Conference to prepare guidelines to ensure clear and coordinated procedures
in dealing with instances of abuse. The Circular Letter contains specific elements
to assist each Episcopal Conference in the preparation of such guidelines or in reviewing
those which already exist.
The Circular Letter covers various issues, including
some that lie outside of the remit of canon law. In particular, it refers to cooperation
with the civil authorities in three places and explicitly addresses the question of
reporting:
In the introductory paragraph the basic principles
are stated: “Among the important responsibilities of the Diocesan Bishop in his
task of assuring the common good of the faithful and, especially, the protection of
children and of the young, is the duty he has to give an appropriate response to the
cases of sexual abuse of minors by clerics in his diocese. Such a response entails
the development of procedures suitable for assisting the victims of such abuse, and
also for educating the ecclesial community concerning the protection of minors. A
response will also make provision for the implementation of the appropriate canon
law, and, at the same time, allow for the requirements of civil law.”
In Part I (General Considerations), section e) is devoted to “Cooperation
with Civil Authority”. It states: “Sexual abuse of minors is not just a canonical
delict but also a crime prosecuted by civil law. Although relations with civil authority
will differ in various countries, nevertheless it is important to cooperate with such
authority within their responsibilities. Specifically, without prejudice to the sacramental
internal forum, the prescriptions of civil law regarding the reporting of such crimes
to the designated authority should always be followed. This collaboration, moreover,
not only concerns cases of abuse committed by clerics, but also those cases which
involve religious or lay persons who function in ecclesiastical structures.”
Finally, in Part III (Suggestions for Ordinaries on Procedures), it is
stated that the guidelines “are to make allowance for the legislation of the country
where the Conference is located, in particular regarding what pertains to the obligation
of notifying civil authorities.”
8. Specific attention
to the situation in Ireland: the Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Catholics of Ireland
(2010)
The Holy See does not accept that it was somehow indifferent to
the plight of those who suffered abuse in Ireland, as Mr Kenny implied in his speech
in Dáil Éireann. Besides the above-mentioned legislative initiatives, aimed
at improving norms and procedures, the Holy See has devoted considerable attention
to the Irish situation, through such initiatives as the meetings with the Irish Bishops,
and in particular with Cardinal Seán Brady and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, in the
aftermath of the Ryan Report and the Dublin Report, the Letter which
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI addressed to the Catholics of Ireland on 19 March 2010
and the subsequent Apostolic Visitation.
The Holy See’s position with regard
to many of the issues raised in the Cloyne Report is clearly expressed in the
Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, a document which is nowhere mentioned in
the Cloyne Report. Pope Benedict XVI wrote this Letter because he was deeply
disturbed at what had come to light in earlier Reports and he desired to express his
closeness to the Irish people, especially to the victims of the various forms of abuse
documented, and to propose a path of healing, renewal and reparation.
In his
Letter the Pope, while acknowledging the grave failures of the past in dealing with
child protection issues, expressed appreciation for the efforts being made to remedy
past mistakes and to ensure that these do not happen again. Addressing the Bishops
directly, he stated: “It cannot be denied that some of you and your predecessors
failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the
crime of child abuse. Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations. I recognize
how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain
reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert
advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made
and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility
and effectiveness. I appreciate the efforts you have made to remedy past mistakes
and to guarantee that they do not happen again” (No. 11).
In the same
Letter, His Holiness also called Bishops and religious superiors to implement the
Church’s law regarding these crimes, to cooperate with the civil authorities and to
update and apply child safety norms fully and in conformity with canon law: “Besides
fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue
to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence. Clearly, religious
superiors should do likewise. They too have taken part in recent discussions here
in Rome with a view to establishing a clear and consistent approach to these matters.
It is imperative that the child safety norms of the Church in Ireland be continually
revised and updated and that they be applied fully and impartially in conformity with
canon law” (No. 11).
From the foregoing considerations, it should be clear
that the Holy See expects the Irish Bishops to cooperate with the civil authorities,
to implement fully the norms of canon law and to ensure the full and impartial application
of the child safety norms of the Church in Ireland.
9. Concluding remarks
When
he met with the Irish Bishops on the occasion of their ad limina visit on 28
October 2006, Pope Benedict XVI expressed his concern about child sexual abuse: “In
the exercise of your pastoral ministry, you have had to respond in recent years to
many heart-rending cases of sexual abuse of minors. These are all the more tragic
when the abuser is a cleric. The wounds caused by such acts run deep, and it is an
urgent task to rebuild confidence and trust where these have been damaged. In your
continuing efforts to deal effectively with this problem, it is important to establish
the truth of what happened in the past, to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent
it from occurring again, to ensure that the principles of justice are fully respected
and, above all, to bring healing to the victims and to all those affected by these
egregious crimes.”
The publication of the Cloyne Report marks a
further stage in the long and difficult path of ascertaining the truth, of penance
and purification, and of healing and renewal of the Church in Ireland. The Holy See
does not consider itself extraneous to this process but shares in it in a spirit of
solidarity and commitment.
In a spirit of humility, the Holy See, while rejecting
unfounded accusations, welcomes all objective and helpful observations and suggestions
to combat with determination the appalling crime of sexual abuse of minors. The Holy
See wishes to state once again that it shares the deep concern and anxiety expressed
by the Irish authorities, by Irish citizens in general and by the Bishops, priests,
religious and lay faithful of Ireland with regard to the criminal and sinful acts
of sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy and religious. It also recognizes the understandable
anger, disappointment and sense of betrayal of those affected – particularly the victims
and their families – by these vile and deplorable acts and by the way in which they
were sometimes handled by Church authorities, and for all of this it wishes to reiterate
its sorrow for what happened. It is confident that the measures which the Church has
introduced in recent years at a universal level, as well as in Ireland, will prove
more effective in preventing the recurrence of these acts and will contribute to the
healing of those who suffered abuse and to the restoration of mutual confidence and
collaboration between Church and State authorities, which is essential for the effective
combating of the scourge of abuse. Naturally, the Holy See is well aware that the
painful situation to which the episodes of abuse have given rise cannot be resolved
swiftly or easily, and that although much progress has been made, much remains to
be done.
Since the early days of the Irish State and especially since the
establishment of diplomatic relations in 1929, the Holy See has always respected Ireland’s
sovereignty, has maintained cordial and friendly relations with the country and its
authorities, has frequently expressed its admiration for the exceptional contribution
of Irish men and women to the Church’s mission and to the betterment of peoples throughout
the world, and has been unfailing in its support of all efforts to promote peace on
the island during the recent troubled decades. Consistent with this attitude, the
Holy See wishes to reaffirm its commitment to constructive dialogue and cooperation
with the Irish Government, naturally on the basis of mutual respect, so that all institutions,
whether public or private, religious or secular, may work together to ensure that
the Church and, indeed, society in general will always be safe for children and young
people.