Five years ago this week, Pope Francis convened an unprecedented summit of bishops from around the globe to impress on them that clergy sexual abuse was a worldwide problem and that they needed to do something about it.
Over 4 days, these bishops heard harrowing tales of trauma from victims, learned the best way to investigate and sanction pedophile priests, and were warned that they too would face punishment in the event that they continued to cover for abusers.
Yet five years later, despite recent church laws to carry bishops accountable and guarantees to do higher, the Catholic Church’s in-house legal system and pastoral response to victims has proven incapable of coping with the issue.
In fact, victims, outside investigators and even in-house canon lawyers increasingly say the church’s response, crafted and amended over twenty years of unrelenting scandal around the globe, is downright damaging to the very people already harmed — the victims. They are sometimes retraumatized after they summon the courage to report their abuse through the church’s silence, stonewalling and inaction.
“It’s a horrific experience. And it’s not something that I’d advise anyone to do unless they’re prepared to have not only their world, but their sense of being turned the wrong way up,” said Brian Devlin, a former Scottish priest whose internal, after which public accusations of sexual misconduct against the late Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien marked the cardinal’s downfall.
“You develop into the troublemaker. You develop into the whistleblower. And I can well understand that folks who undergo that process find yourself with greater problems than they’d before they began it.”
At the top of his 2019 summit, Francis vowed to confront abusive clergy with “the wrath of God.” Within months, he passed a recent law requiring all abuse to be reported in-house (but to not police) and mapped out procedures to research bishops who abuse or protect predator priests.
But five years later, the Vatican has offered no statistics on the variety of bishops investigated or sanctioned. Even the pope’s own child protection advisory commission says structural obstacles are harming victims and stopping basic justice.
“Recent publicly reported cases point to tragically harmful deficiencies within the norms intended to punish abusers and hold accountable those whose duty is to handle wrongdoing,” the commission said after its last assembly. “We are long overdue in fixing the issues in procedures that leave victims wounded and in the dead of night each during and after cases have been decided.”
At the 2019 summit, the norms enacted by the U.S. Catholic Church for sanctioning priests and protecting minors were held up because the gold standard. The U.S. bishops adopted a get tough policy after the U.S. abuse scandal exploded with the 2002 Boston Globe “Spotlight” series.
But even within the U.S., victims and canon lawyers say the system isn’t working, and that’s not even bearing in mind the brand new frontier of abuse cases involving adult victims. Some call it “charter fatigue,” or a desire to maneuver beyond the scandal that spawned the 2002 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.
The Rev. Tom Doyle, a U.S. canon lawyer who worked for the Vatican embassy in Washington but now provides legal consulting for victims, says he not even advises they pursue church justice and as an alternative work through secular courts.
Why? Because “the church will screw them every which way from Sunday,” he said.
Nearly every investigation into abuse in Catholic Church that has been published in recent times – church-commissioned reports in France and Germany, government inquests in Australia, a parliamentary one in Spain and law enforcement investigations within the U.S. — has identified the church’s in-house legal system as an enormous a part of the issue.
While some reforms have been made – Pope Francis lifted the official pontifical secret covering abuse cases in 2019 – core issues remain.
—The structural conflict of interest. According to church procedures, a bishop or religious superior conducts an investigation into allegations that one in every of his priests raped a toddler after which renders judgement. And yet the bishop or superior has a vested interest in his priest, because the priest is taken into account to be a spiritual son in whom the bishop has invested time, money and love.
It is difficult to consider some other legal system on this planet where someone with a private, paternal relationship with one party in a dispute might be expected to objectively and fairly render judgment in it.
The independent commission that investigated the abuse scandal within the French church said such a structural conflict of interest “appears, humanly speaking, untenable.”
Even the pope’s own Synod of Bishops got here to an identical conclusion. In its November synthesis document after a monthlong meeting, the world’s bishops identified the conflict between a bishop’s role as father and judge in abuse cases as an issue and called for the potential for assigning the duty of judgement to “other structures.”
—The lack of fundamental rights for victims. In canonical abuse investigations, victims are mere third-party witnesses to their cases. They cannot take part in any of the key proceedings, haven’t any access to case files and no right to even know if a canonical investigation has been began, much less its status.
Only in consequence of a Francis reform in 2019 are victims allowed to know the final word consequence of their case, but nothing else.
The Spanish ombudsman, tasked by the country’s congress of deputies to research abuse within the Spanish Catholic Church, said victims are sometimes retraumatized by such a process, which it said falls far in need of national or international standards.
The French experts went even further, arguing that the Holy See is basically in breach of its obligations as a U.N. observer state and member of the Council of Europe, which requires it to uphold the fundamental human rights of victims.
— No published case law. The Vatican’s sex abuse office doesn’t publish any of its decisions about how clergy sexual abuse cases have been adjudicated, even in redacted form.
That implies that a bishop investigating an accusation against one in every of his priests has no way of knowing how the law has been applied in an identical case. It means canon law students haven’t any case law to check or cite. It means academics, journalists and even victims haven’t any way of knowing what varieties of behaviour gets sanctioned and whether penalties are being imposed arbitrarily or not.
The legal experts who investigated abuse within the Munich, Germany church said the publication of canonical decisions would help eliminate uncertainties for victims in how church law was being applied; Australia’s Royal Commission, the very best type of inquest within the country, similarly called for the redacted publication of its decisions and to offer written reasons for his or her decisions “in a timely manner.”
In-house, canon lawyers for years have complained that the shortage of published cases was deepening doubts in regards to the credibility and effectiveness of the churches’ response to the church scandal.
“All we are able to conclude is that this lack of systematic publication of the jurisprudence of the very best courts within the church is unworthy of a real legal system,” canon lawyer Kurt Martens told a conference in Rome late last yr.
Monsignor John Kennedy, who heads the Vatican office that investigates abuse cases, said his staff was working diligently to process cases and had received praise from individual bishops, entire conferences who visit and non secular superiors.
“We don’t discuss what we do in public however the feedback we receive and the comments from our members who recently met for the plenary are very encouraging. The pope also expressed his gratitude for the good work that is finished in silence,” he said in a message to AP.
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely chargeable for this content.
