CBS news story distorts 1962 Vatican document (Analysis)

Catholic World News ^ | Aug 7, 2003 | staff

[polemikos]

Boston, Aug. 07 (CWNews.com) - A CBS network news report, claiming that the Holy See orchestrated a cover-up of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, is based on a gross misinterpretation of a 1962 Vatican document.

In a sensationalist report aired on August 6, CBS Evening News claimed to have discovered a secret document proving that the Vatican had approved-- and even demanded-- a longstanding policy of covering up clerics' sexual misdeeds.

The document cited by CBS does nothing of the sort.

In fact the network's story misrepresented the Vatican document so thoroughly that it is difficult to attribute the inaccuracy to honest error.

The CBS story is based on a secret Instruction issued to bishops in March 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then the prefect of the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). That document sets forth the canonical procedures to be followed when a priest is charged with the ecclesiastical crime of "solicitation"-- that is, using the confessional to tempt penitents to engage in sexual activity.

[The Vatican document, in an awkward English translation, can be downloaded from the CBS News site. CBS also offers the Latin original.]

The Vatican document deals exclusively with solicitation: an offense which, by definition, occurs within the context of the Sacrament of Penance. And since that sacrament is protected by a shroud of absolute secrecy, the procedures for dealing with this ecclesiastical crime also invoke secrecy.

In short, by demanding secrecy in the treatment of these crimes, the Vatican was protecting the secrecy of the confessional. The policy outlined in that 1962 document is clearly not intended to protect predatory priests; on the contrary, the Vatican makes it clear that guilty priests should be severely punished and promptly removed from ministry.

It is important to keep in mind that the 1962 Vatican Instruction dealt exclusively with "solicitation" as that term is understood in ecclesiastical usage, under the terms of the Code of Canon Law. The policies set forth by Cardinal Ottaviani do not pertain to the sexual misdeeds of clerics, but to the efforts by priest to obtain sexual favors though the misuse of their confessional role.

It is also important to note that because solicitation takes place inside the confessional, only the accused priest and the penitent could possibly have direct evidence as to whether or not the crime took place. If the solicitation led to actual sexual activity, that misconduct could be the subject of an entirely separate investigation, not bound by the same rules of secrecy.

The crime of "solicitation" has always been viewed by the Catholic Church as an extremely serious offense, calling for the strongest available penalties. Cardinal Ottaviani stresses that any confessor who solicits sexual favors from his penitents should be suspended from ministry and stripped of all priestly privileges. These penalties apply to all cases of solicitation, whether they involve minor children or adults of either sex. The 1962 document is not concerned with all instances of solicitation; it does not concentrate on the solicitation of children.

The CBS report claimed:

The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests-- anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.

That is inaccurate.

While it is true that the Vatican document threatens excommunication for anyone who discloses the proceedings of an ecclesiastical trial for "solicitation," it does not bar the priest's accuser from making separate charges about the priest's sexual misconduct. In fact the document makes it clear that during the canonical trial, the accuser should not be questioned about any sexual activity that he may have undertaken with the priest; the accuser is to be questioned solely about what occurred within the confessional.

Thus, someone who was sexually abused by a priest would be free, under the 1962 Vatican policy, to bring criminal charges against that priest for his sexual conduct, while simultaneously charging the priest with "solicitation" in an ecclesiastical court.

In fact, the Instruction from Cardinal Ottaviani stresses (in section 18) that every Catholic has a solemn duty to bring canon-law charges against a priest who attempts to solicit sex through the confessional. The importance of that obligation is underlined by the fact that a Catholic who fails to report solicitation is subject to excommunication. Moreover, the penitent remains under this solemn obligation to report solicitation even if the priest has already confessed his crime.

The document on which CBS based its distorted story is a densely worded 24-page document, couched in the technical idiom of canon law, and accompanied by a 36-page Appendix that provides the formulas to be used in an ecclesiastical trial. No careful reader could fail to recognize that this was a specialized document, providing a set of procedures for a particular ecclesiastical offense. Why, then, did CBS News draw a broad general conclusion from a tightly focused legal document? Why did the network fail to distinguish between the ecclesiastical crime of solicitation and the public offense of pedophilia? The questions are worth pondering.

[SoothingDave]

I was asking how much jurisdiction the Church claims over its priest.

I'm no canon lawyer, but the way I understand it priests are subject to the laws of whatever state they are in. Understanding that they need not (in some circumstances may not) heed any laws that are contrary to the natural law or canon law.

But that does not remove them from jurisdiction.

SD

[Snuffington]

... unless someone can point me to where it says that when a crime against a minor has been committed it must be turned over to civil authorities, the document could rightly be construed as protecting criminals.

It could only be construed that way if you assume every document had to specifically spell out the civil procedures to be followed, not only the religious ones. And if you also assume children need to be spelled out distinctly from adults in every case. Both are silly assumptions.

This document did not protect bishops, priests, or anyone else from punishment if they covered up civil crimes. More to the point, it certainly did not instruct the bishops to undertake such a coverup. The fact that these topics were not covered in this single document does not imply anything.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Snuffington wrote: It could only be construed that way if you assume every document had to specifically spell out the civil procedures to be followed, not only the religious ones.

One would also have to keep in mind that different countries have VERY DIFFERENT civil procedures and concepts of law. In the 1961-62 period, for instance, priests had been imprisoned in totalitarian countries for trumped up charges of various kinds. In the current media cycle people have gotten used to the idea of automatically viewing the priests as guilty and of the Church as having covered up actual terrible crimes. This was not always the case in past history. In the Communist countries dominated by the Soviet Union, innocent priests were often jailed. Whether a homosexual subculture as vast as that which has existed since the 1970s was present in the Church of the past is highly debatable. Solicitation of sex by priests would probably have been directed at women with a frequency greater than that of the homosexual sodomy/rape cases of recent headlines. That false charges of sexual misconduct have been directed at priests would have been something to be concerned about as well. This doesn't excuse cover-ups, of course.

[HapaxLegamenon]

Not to mention that a Priest is Excommunicate reserved to the Pope for the crime of solicitation. That being the case, even if they "honestly" mistook the document, they must have also "overlooked" the penalty of excommunication for the priest involved.

[HapaxLegamenon]

The probllem is not with the Roman Catholic Church which teaches that this crime "crys to heaven". The problem is with the liberal, politically correct, bishops who are so "open" to the world and to new ideas, that they "reinvented" the priesthhod. Whereas in the odd days, the priest was occupied with saving souls, these new priest (noticed almost every case happen since 1960), must be sensitive, worried about peoples feelings, and other mush.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

When dealing with a highly technical, internal document of the Church (in Latin) there would be points of canon law and moral theology which would be assumed as understood by the parties intended to read it and those which required clarification. One would not expect such a document to emphasize that it is always wrong for a priest to solicit sex during sacramental Confession because that would already be understood.

Likewise, we wouldn't expect to find staff memos at CBS emphasizing that it is always wrong for a journalist or editor to lie deliberatelty in a news story. That CBS does not regularly warn its staff NOT to lie or not to slant things to suit the peculiar agenda of the secret society they happen to be a member of would not necessarily be evidence of a lack of enthusiasm for accuracy in reporting. Silence on a point in any document does not indicate that the writer holds an ethically wrong opinion on the matter.

[HapaxLegamenon]

The Vatican only intervenes these days when it excommunicates traditional bishops, and suspends pro-Fatima priests.

[HapaxLegamenon]

As a matter of fact, too many priest are handing out condoms and helping the abortion industry.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

For CBS, the problem may be deeper than their news staff have realized. If it is always criminally wrong for an adult man to initiate undesired sexual contact with teenage boy, then it is wrong even when the offender is NOT a priest in the Catholic Church. Viewers would expect then that CBS would investigate NAMBLA and all offenders who are not affiliated as clergymen in the Catholic Church. One would expect that CBS would pursue aggresively the organizations, institutions, and celebrity individuals who promote sodomy between adult men and minors. We would expect that their religious denomination and fraternal memberships would be identified in coverage of non-Catholic cases of sodomite molestation.

[HapaxLegamenon]

Should a school principal call the police everytime one kid makes an allegation against another kid? Or should he look into it? Do you call the police against all your co-workers you know, or suspect use drugs? We need a little common sense here.

Obviously, any Bishop who knows or suspects one of his priests is a pedophile he should call the police, as should the PARENTS of the boy who has been harmed.

[HapaxLegamenon]

When dealing with a highly technical, internal document of the Church (in Latin) there would be points of canon law and moral theology which would be assumed as understood by the parties intended to read it and those which required clarification. One would not expect such a document to emphasize that it is always wrong for a priest to solicit sex during sacramental Confession because that would already be understood.

This being the case, any honest journalist would ask the source what it all means, before telling the world it means something else. The fact the CBS did not ask anyone from the Congregation of the Faith (which is what the Holy Office is now called) for comment shows bias.

The fact the CBS did not asked for any help reading a Latin canonical document 40 years old shows their arrogance.

[Aliska]

It could only be construed that way if you assume every document had to specifically spell out the civil procedures to be followed, not only the religious ones. And if you also assume children need to be spelled out distinctly from adults in every case. Both are silly assumptions.

I don't expect it to spell out civil procedures, but when a SERIOUS CRIME has been committed by a clergyman and there is NO MENTION of civil authorities, it makes it seem that the church is above any laws but their own. Furthermore, the victim is NOT bound by the seal of confession and could easily be intimidated by the church proceedings, as many undoubtedly were, to defer from reporting the crime to the civil authorities.

This document did not protect bishops, priests, or anyone else from punishment if they covered up civil crimes. More to the point, it certainly did not instruct the bishops to undertake such a coverup. The fact that these topics were not covered in this single document does not imply anything.

Yes, it did to the extent that the church took the law into its own hands and meted out a punishment or not, as it deemed appropriate, bypassing civil law.

To my knowledge, as of this point in time, there has been NO mention that serious criminals should be turned over to civil authorities, where the knowledge of the crime was gained outside the boundaries of confession. If you know of such a document or instructions, I would like to know about it.

I don't like the idea that any crime committed by clergy is exempt from scrutiny in the light of just secular laws. It doesn't work that way for penitents who have committed serious crimes who *may* be instructed by their confessor to turn themselves over to civil authorities.

Also the issue of threatening the victim with excommunication if he fails to come forward after learning of the requirements to do so (most victims would be ignorant of this canon) within 30 or whatever number of days seems stacked against the victim and in favor of the clergy which comes across to me as unjust. If a person goes to a clergyman (apart from confession) and reports an abuse, the clergyman is not threatened with excommunication if he fails to report it to anyone.

I can't determine what the INTENTION of the excommunication threat is meant to accomplish on the poor victim.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

This being the case, any honest journalist would ask the source what it all means, before telling the world it means something else. The fact the CBS did not ask anyone from the Congregation of the Faith (which is what the Holy Office is now called) for comment shows bias.

The fact the CBS did not asked for any help reading a Latin canonical document 40 years old shows their arrogance.

Excellent point. How many actual Catholic experts on canon law and Vatican documentation did CBS consult with? I have noticed the secular media frequently relies on the disinformation of liberal dissenters among "Catholic scholars" for many stories.

[SoothingDave]

I can't determine what the INTENTION of the excommunication threat is meant to accomplish on the poor victim.

Can't you? What is the intention of most law, civil or canonical? It is to direct behavior.

The Church is making the point that a person who experiences this type of harrassment from a priest has a duty to report it. This is the exact opposite of covering up. This is the Church saying that someone who suffers abuse must report it.

Why? To prevent further abuse of others. We do have a Christian responsibility to protect others from harm, and if we know of a priest who is abusing the sacrament, we do nto have the option to bury our heads and pretend it never happened.

Rather we have a canonical as well as ethical duty to report the abuse.

SD

[Aliska]

One would also have to keep in mind that different countries have VERY DIFFERENT civil procedures and concepts of law. In the 1961-62 period, for instance, priests had been imprisoned in totalitarian countries for trumped up charges of various kinds. In the current media cycle people have gotten used to the idea of automatically viewing the priests as guilty and of the Church as having covered up actual terrible crimes. This was not always the case in past history. In the Communist countries dominated by the Soviet Union, innocent priests were often jailed. Whether a homosexual subculture as vast as that which has existed since the 1970s was present in the Church of the past is highly debatable. Solicitation of sex by priests would probably have been directed at women with a frequency greater than that of the homosexual sodomy/rape cases of recent headlines. That false charges of sexual misconduct have been directed at priests would have been something to be concerned about as well. This doesn't excuse cover-ups, of course.

Are you saying that perpetrators of crimes such as have been reported in our country should be shielded because of the risk that the charges could be trumped up? There is that risk always, but it is pretty clear that most of the cases that are finally seeing their day in court in our country are not trumped up.

I do see your point about laws being different from country to country and in some countries, the death penalty could be administered for abusing a minor or even homosexual activity between consenting adults.

I can only say going in, that if I were in any of those countries, I would be subject to the whims of their particular legal systems and there is no protection for me (a layperson) against injustice. Why should it be any different for a clergyman?

As to people suffering under trumped up charges, I would certainly defend them, as might the church (depending on who it is), which is certainly the right thing to do, providing I was reasonably certain they were innocent.

I just can't go so far as to say that just because there is a risk of trumped up charges that a criminal should be shielded from the civil authorities. That would be an individual call on a case-by-case basis.

Now we're down to guilty priests who walk or have fled to evade criminal prosecution versus some clergymen who are right now doing real jail time for real crimes they have committed.

Sending a clergyman to a monastery as a punishment does not seem to fit the crime imo. Any other person would have to do hard time in jail.

[Aliska]

I agree with you completely on #49.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Are you saying that perpetrators of crimes such as have been reported in our country should be shielded because of the risk that the charges could be trumped up?

No. I specifically mentioned that there is no excuse for covering up crimes. My guess would be that prior to the 1960s or 1970s, the sex issue was largely about priests involved with women. In the document in question, it has to do with solicitation of sex in the context of Sacramental Confession, entirely another matter altogether. The issue specifically involves a sacrilegous profanation of a sacrament by a priest.

The best remedy for preventing sodomy molestation cases is to follow Vatican directives and not ordain those with an orientation toward sodomy. Obviously, once crimes have been committed, such individuals must be removed from clerical life and submitted to the appropriate legal penalties.

If the issue is what did the Vatican have to say back in 1962, one would have to be alert to the fact that false charges brought against priests had indeed taken place in totalitarian countries. There was not an openly pro-homosexual movement in the Church in 1962. There is now.

[Aliska]

The Church is making the point that a person who experiences this type of harrassment from a priest has a duty to report it.

Why

This is the exact opposite of covering up

That depends. It *could* be interpreted as an early warning system for the church to go into damage control mode.

Why? To prevent further abuse of others.

That was my assumption and hope, but when the threat of excommunication is added and applies only to the victim, it just muddies the waters more, not less.

If you find yourself in a situation such as this, such as I did (it is not up to the penitent to determine whether it was an innocent misunderstanding or what; you MUST report certain things even if you don't really think it was real solicitation), I can tell you that it scares the living daylights out of you when you find out *you* are threatened with excommunication until you do what you are supposed to do and hope that the thing doesn't escalate into something really out of control.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

There is a difference though between "secrecy" regarding an investigation of a crime alleged to have been committed by a priest during a Sacramental Confession or of the "secrecy" required for an ecclesiastical trial and a cover up. One would have to keep in mind that at those points in an investigation, the facts are not known. In the more recent cases in the American Church, only an idiot would have thought the charges were groundless when (in some cases) nearly a hundred allegations had been reported. The serial sodomy molesters who were shuffled from parish to parish should have been removed from priestly ministry and subjected to legal penalties. Why Church officials did not have more aggressive policies and procedures in place to discipline and remove molesters from the priesthood SHOULD be investigated and discussed. One of the disturbing current trends in AmChurch is a continuing refusal to acknowledge that an orientation toward sodomy is a grave impediment to ordination. One would guess that CBS did not bother to interview Michael Rose or Paul Likoudis nor did they bother to report on the fact that many Catholics would like the Church to bar sodomites from the ranks of the clergy.

If CBS is interested in reporting the actual facts of the sex abuse "crisis" they should investigate how the sodomy problem in the Church got started to begin with. Conservative Catholics have been complaining about this FOR YEARS. Somehow CBS missed this story. How could that be possible? How did CBS miss the fact that conservative Catholics have complained about the sodomy problem in AmChurch for years?

[Itzlzha]

Perhaps you missed where I explained earlier that this has to do with Church proceedings in church law. Civil, secular law is a completely different thing.

Yes, the Church is the judge and jury in its own ecclesial proceedings. Duh. Do you want the state deciding how to run your church.

OK, care to tell me just WHERE in these "ecclesial proceedings" it says it's OK to take a KNOWN pedophile, and just move him somewhere new to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?! NO accountability...NO WARNING to the Community?!?!

And, Duh...I'm not intertested in the State running any Church...I'm interested when Bishops, Cardinals and who KNOWS else CONSPIRE to thwart Justice in Secular Court by their own damned PERVERTS!!!

As for duh...when will ALL of you get it straight...I am attacking the PERVERTS in YOUR CHURCH, and their enablers!

Will ANY of you RCC-Uber-Alles CHEERLEADERS separate the Church from the priviledged PERVERTS that allow this to happen?!?!

Would any of you take that same attitude if it were a teacher...a Boy Scout Leader...a sports coach...that was as Mafia-protected as these Lavender PERVERTS are?!?!

And as for RobbyS's incessant comments on how "Everybody ELSE is doing it"...

What about the same in the cases not involving Catholic priests, which were far more numerous. Do you think that SNAP is pursung the Public schools, for instance.

I believe SNAP is doing this for the VICTIMS of these Cassoc'd PERVERTS with Immunity!!!

It's not SNAP's job for these others...maybe folks like you could get these pervs out of the PUBLIC sector, since it's too tough to demand that your Church do it to those it has HARBORED!!!

YEESH!