Fr. Tom Doyle on 'Crimen Sollicitationis'
Print Friendly VersionNOTE: Last week, I discussed a recent BBC documentary, "Sex Crimes in the Vatican," which among other things made reference to a 1962 Vatican document called "Crimen Sollicitationis." I made three points about the document: 1) it was extremely obscure, 2) it went out of force in 1983, and 3) it had nothing to do with the question of cooperation with police or civil authorities. Fr. Tom Doyle, a widely noted expert on the sexual abuse crisis, offered the following response.
By FR. TOM DOYLE
Although you state that the document was no longer in force after the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law in 1983, this is not the case. Contrary to what would have happened under ordinary circumstances, the 1962 Instruction remained in force until May, 2001, when Pope John Paul II promulgated Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela. The new procedures themselves, which were the subject of the papal letter cited above, were issued on may 18, 2001 under Cardinal Ratzinger's signature. This document itself states that the 1962 instruction, Crimen Sollicitationis, was in force until 2001 (The English translation below was taken from the USCCB translation:
At approximately the same time the Congregation for the Faith, through an
ad hoc Commission established, devoted itself to a diligent study of the
canons on delicts, both of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons
of the Eastern Churches, in order to determine "more grave delicts both
against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments" and in order to
make special procedural norms "to declare or impose canonical sanctions,"
because the Instruction Crimen sollicitationis, issued by the Supreme Sacred
Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16,1962,(3) in force until now,
was to be reviewed when the new canonical Codes were promulgated.
Although I was a consultant to the producers of the documentary I am afraid that some of the distinctions I have made about the 1962 document have been lost. I do not believe now nor have I ever believed it to be proof of an explicit conspiracy, in the conventional sense, engineered by top Vatican officials, to cover up cases of clergy sexual abuse. I do not believe that the Vatican or any group of bishops needed a conspiracy.
The secrecy an cover-up was very much a part of the Catholic institutional culture and was, in fact, a policy. I have studied the files of hundreds of clergy sex abuse cases throughout the U.S., in Canada, Ireland and the British Isles....files produced by dioceses and religious orders.....and I can assure you that the common thread was an intentional cover-up enshrouded in secrecy. That is the way it was. But to admit that it was part of the culture and "the way we did it then" is no consolation to the hundreds of thousands of victims and their families who deserved a compassionate, caring response from their Church and received instead a stone wall.
The Church leadership has kept its distance from the victims throughout history. In this era especially they would do well to meet them face to face and spend hours listening and learning, instead of remaining aloof and allowing their public relations firms to craft their responses.
The excuses of those who claim they didn't understand remain hollow. What normal person doesn't comprehend that sexually assaulting a child or a young minor is exceedingly harmful. More important, what kind of Catholic, cleric or lay, cannot understand the unspeakable damage hat sexual abuse of a devout Catholic child by a priest or bishop will not have profoundly disastrous effects. If clerics, from deacons to the pope, do not grasp this, then there is something drastically wrong with the culture that formed them and sustains them.
The clergy sexual abuse nightmare is far from simple and certainly far from ended. The bishops repeat the same empty mantra: they have norms in place from Dallas, 2002 and these have taken care of the problem. Perhaps from their limited bureaucratic viewpoint that particular blank on the page has been filled, but it has had a minimal effect on their awareness of the depth of harm done or pain caused not simply by the actual sexual abuse but by the often cold, distant and seemingly uncaring attitude of the hierarchy. True, many bishops and many more priests have responded heroically and compassionately, but the majority are frozen in a block of clericalist denial.
The John Paul II Millstone
The John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com
Fr. Doyle,
I mention a lot about you a great deal in my weblog the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com You are the John the Baptist prophet that JPII never heeded.
Look at the World trade Center Sept. 11 attacks headed by Osama ben Laden = 5,000 American victims
Look at the priest-pedophilia headed by Pope John Paul II and his cohorts of Bishops and Cardinals = 12,000 American victims.
For more information, see the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com
I do not want to, in any
I do not want to, in any way, appear not to be utterly appaled by the abuse of minors. However, I an at least as equally appaled, perhaps more so, by the cover up by bishops, their utter failure to take definitive action to prevent continued abuse, and the refusal to bend over backwards to heal those injured.
On one level, I can understand attempting to lessen the damage law suits are doing to the Church, but that is not a level Christ would expect his shepherds to operate on.
The sin of the abusers is the sin of weak, sick people -- an observation, not an excuse.
The sin of the bishops was cold, calculated and cruel.
I think every bishop who knew of cases of child abuse by clergy and did not take immediate definitive action to put an end to it should be arrested, tried, and, if found guilty, sent to jail for a long, long time.
Perhaps, that would be a message they would understand.
I have two questions. 1: I
I have two questions. 1: I thought I heard William Donahue of the Catholic League state on tv that crimen provided that if the victim discussed this solicitation with another priest in confession the VICTIM had 30 days to inform the bishop or be excommunicated. Is this possible? 2: A general question. When Bishops are elevated do they make a solemn promise never to reveal anything that could bring scandal to the church? Thanks.
I agree with Father Tom
I agree with Father Tom Doyle's comments that the clergy sexual abuse scandal is far from over and that the bishops' excuse that they didn't really appreciate what was going on in years past rings hollow.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
Thanks, Tom Doyle, for this
Thanks, Tom Doyle, for this explanation. You are a very brave person!
It boils down to the secrecy issue, which remains as it always was. So be it!
The loss of credibility on the part of the bishops is extremely serious. Wounded and damaged survivors, (and there were many victims who could did not survive their abuse), simply cannot trust anyone. They do not heal, but many learn to cope.
Empty promises, the USCCB Protection of Children Act, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes blaming the American church and the media, the hiring of spin doctors to improve their image, the hiring of law firms to fight the victims they themselves 'created', the constant lecturing on how we should live our lives while they live a lifestyle contrary to what them themselves preach, has done great damage not only to the survivors, but to Catholics everywhere. This silence and the lack of capacity by leaders in the church hurts all.
No one at the top 'sees' or 'gets' this. Unfortunately, they neither 'see' nor 'get' the message brought by Christ.
"We are the ones we have been waiting for." -- Hopi Nation, Oraibi, AZ
Kudos, Fr. Doyle. I agree
Kudos, Fr. Doyle. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that, "In this era especially they [i.e., the bishops] would do well to meet them [i.e, survivors of clerical sexual abuse] face to face and spend hours listening and learning, instead of remaining aloof and allowing their public relations firms to craft their responses."
I don't see how a bishop can fulfill his fundamental calling to be a good shepherd without such face to face listening.
William D. Lindsey
Well said, Fr. Doyle. There
Well said, Fr. Doyle. There are two scandals here masquerading as one: There's the clergy abuse scandal itself and the betrayal and cover-up scandal by the bishops. Action has been taken on the first but not on the second. The bishops have taken no action against the most grevious offenders. There have been no resignations, demotions, public penances, or early retirements to a life of prayer and penance. I fear the bishops may tough this out but they will have won the battle and lost the war. The laity just are not listening to the bishops on the major issues facing us today - because the trust is gone. Surely someone at the top must see this?
I'm incredibly curious.
I'm incredibly curious. Here is a link to a transcript of the program - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5402928.stm
I find it difficult to reconcile the comment above - "I do not believe now nor have I ever believed it [Crimen Sollicitationis] to be proof of an explicit conspiracy, in the conventional sense, engineered by top Vatican officials, to cover up cases of clergy sexual abuse." -
- with his statement on the program: - : "But what you really have here [Crimen Sollicitationis] is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy, to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by churchmen."
Both of these statements refer to Crimen Sollicitationis. Both of them directly contradict each other. I do not think this is a matter of the producers failing to communicate any distinctions that Fr. Doyle made. I do not think that he made any distinctions at all.
These kinds of misrepresentations fuel the hatred of anti-Catholic bigots. I experience this kind of thing first hand, and I'm not even presently a practising Catholic, just someone sympathetic to the Church. Fr. Doyle needs to become a lot more media savvy (if it's his naivety that is causing him to be continually misrepresented by the press) or more precise if he is deliberately being ambiguous in his statements on the document to further an agenda.