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.

[jackbill]

(What you say was SOP for many bishops is true. But it is not a result of them acting under orders from the Vatican via this document, which is what CBS alleged.)

CBS didn't allege it, they stated it as fact. From the CBS piece:

For decades, priests in this country abused children in parish after parish while their superiors covered it all up. Now it turns out the orders for this cover up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican.

[Petronski]

CBS Smearjob Discredited, read how here.

Thanks, polemikos

[Olde School]

Of course some common sense is needed here but all too often the Bishop or whomever could not be trusted to conduct an honest evaluation. The initial instinct was to cover up, circle the wagons, ship the priest out.—to another unsuspecting parish.

I love how you say: “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.”

If that had been the norm we wouldn’t be discussing this today!

[Olde School]

Of course some common sense is needed here but all too often the Bishop or whomever could not be trusted to conduct an honest evaluation. The initial instinct was to cover up, circle the wagons, ship the priest out.—to another unsuspecting parish.

I love how you say: “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.”

If that had been the norm we wouldn’t be discussing this today!

[Aliska]

#57. I think we are mostly on the same page about that, although the cynic in me tells me that things must have been covered up in the past when we didn't have the checks and balances in society such as we have in the US. Part of me thinks the media did a good thing by exposing the crimes, but part of me thinks the motive of the media was destructive in intent.

As to the 1962? document clearly prohibiting known homosexuals from being ordained, that thing could have been so obscure that few bishops were aware of it, but I sure don't give them a pass for what they obviously had to be aware of, nor do I give their superiors a pass for not running a tighter ship. Bishops resign in disgrace whereas their superiors remain unaccountable which is not how it is supposed to work in most scenarios. The superiors should have stepped in before it would become necessary for a bishop to resign in some of the cases, especially when it was in the headlines of all the daily papers. What were they cringing because the cat was out of the bag and didn't want any more scandal or do they really want to do the right thing? I can't know that, of course.

Priests involved with women do seem to be treated more harshly than the priests who abused children. With women, it was probably consenting adults more or less, but that won't fly when children are involved which is far more serious to my way of thinking. I'm not sure that it is true that priests who got involved with women were always kicked out either, some were probably transferred to remove them from the temptation until they reflected, etc., nor am I sure they should have been unless they get married, and then there isn't much else that can be done unless the rules are changed which I don't care to get into.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Can you put me on your traditionalist pinglist.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Can you use any of your clout to get CBS to retract this, or at least make it clear what the document was about?

[Itzlzha]

I thought I said that the bishops run their own churches autonomously? Every time the diocese writes a check they don't need to get approval from the Vatican. The Vatican, by and large, assesses individual dioceses so much per year for support of the Vatican. But individual items in the budget are not generally open for review.

So, the Vatican is not notified if someone SUES the diocese? If a Multi_Million dollar Tort is filed, and it crosses diceses following a Lavender Pervert that was HIDDEN and moved from place to place by these Bishops and Cardinals...yet the Vatican is unaware of ANY of this?

And when it all became public...did this same Vatican that was unaware of any of it, do something like, say, expose the guilty...throw the BUMS out...apologize to the laiety and victims...offer restitution?

Nope.

So, how can the Vatican have it BOTH WAYS? If they didn't know, why didn't they cat to DUMP the problem PERVS?

If they DID know...how do you reconcile this with faith?

[RobbyS]

You don't seem to want to accept a comparison between how the secular courts handle offenses and how the Church does. What has happened is that the Church has not applied its own standards correctly. This is often true, more often true probably, of the civil courts, whose standards, on paper, are equally strict bit which are, in the interest of expediency, often applied leniently. The Church, in other words, has followd the example of the worldly rather than serving as a light unto the world. At bottom I am telling you if you don't like the kind of justice that the Church has dealt out, you really won't like the justice that the secular courts usually hand out
on the same issues. There are priests being sentenced to hard time for offenses that are normally treated as matters of probation.

[Aliska]

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

It is clear to me, but I think CBS should have been a little more careful to make the distinction and clarify it for readers who can't make the distinction because they aren't familiar with church practices and laws. In other words, CBS wanted to lay it out there and hope some more s*** hits the fan. I was interested in the document and was glad it got on the net in translated form. Somebody obviously leaked it imo.

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

That's the real no no and I'm not completely satisfied with most of the explanations I've read. It may have other explanations which haven't been explored fully enough yet. It is most likely that the church needs so many priests now that they have just cut corners in order to fill the slots and a few got in and encouraged others to join the club because it's a good life for some.

There are other measures without giving up celibacy that the church might take to ease the supposed manpower shortage. Daily masses could be a lot larger in a central location in all but the small towns to ease the workload, but there is probably something wrong with that idea. Lots of priests seem to be shuffling papers which could be handled by laity.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

At certain times in the past there was certainly a greater disinclination to talk about such things publicly in many institutions not just the Catholic Church. School teachers, scout leaders, and other individuals involved with such unsavory sexual problems might have been dismissed or moved elsewhere without legal penalties. There is a still a reluctance among liberals to confront the NAMBLA matter.
What seems to be at issue is not whether it is wrong to sodomize minors, but the Catholic priest identity of the alleged offenders and the possible complicity of the hierarchy in covering it up. If the liberal media were interested in protecting children, etc., they would investigate ALL CASES of sodomy molestation of minors. They do not seem to be interested in cases which do not involve the Catholic Church.

[Aliska]

They do not seem to be interested in cases which do not involve the Catholic Church.

That is probably true. It didn't have to happen this way, you know, shouldn't have happened this way if the church had acted more responsibly.

[saradippity]

I've been noticing a few cases where foster children,often very young,12,have been taken for abortions without notifying the police or County Attorney.

This means that someone is raping or having relationships with children resulting in pregnancies.How many cases have been brought against foster parents,state placement agencies and abortion clinics?If it wasn't so sickening and really harmful to children who are already twice vulnerable I wouldn't even comment because in truth I am so mad at those 20 to 30 "covering" bishops and want them to be punished.They have,by design,tried and in some cases been able to extinguish the voice of moral authority in many areas across the country.

I am back to my old dream;identify the ones of ill intent,expose them,strip them of their Office,strip them naked,put them on an open cattle car and send them by train to every town and village in America so people could go down and jeer and spit.I bet we wouldn't see that kind of problem surface again for a long time.

Please note that I do limit the bishops to blame to only about 12 to 15% of the bishops. We have many fine,holy and intelligent men serving as bishops. That is why I despair of these one size fits all allegations. That is just simply not true.

[saradippity]

Great question.

[Snuffington]

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.

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue your entire complaint against the abuses that clearly did take place within the structure of the CBS "uncovered" document. They're simply not the same thing. The one has to do with a priest misusing the confessional to seduce someone (largely adult women). The other is about priests actually engaging in sexual contact with minors (largely boys).

Can't you at least consider that the Church may need to deal with the first issue as well as the second?

And if so, can't you concede that it might be perfectly ok for this document to remain silent on the latter subject?

If you find the latter issue inadequately addressed, why must you blame it on a document which seems to be entirely unrelated?

[Aliska]

Can't you at least consider that the Church may need to deal with the first issue as well as the second?

I thought this document covered all instances of solicitation.

And if so, can't you concede that it might be perfectly ok for this document to remain silent on the latter subject?

Yes, if the latter subject wasn't intended for inclusion.

If you find the latter issue inadequately addressed, why must you blame it on a document which seems to be entirely unrelated?

Because I didn't understand it to be unrelated and I'm not sure that it is unrelated.. I believed it to cover all cases of solicitation within or related to the confessional.

If it only applies to people of the age of consent, it is an entirely different matter and would rightly be handled within church channels.

If the document is the same as being used the attorneys in civil litigation, "the document given to authorities by Carmen Durso of Boston and Daniel J. Shea of Houston.", it would be logical to assume that it applies to minors as well as adults.

What isn't clear is the relationship to the document and the particular case the attorneys handed it over for and if it is the exact same document unearthed by those attorneys.

[Snuffington]

I believed it to cover all cases of solicitation within or related to the confessional.

Not related to. Only within. Solicitation refers exclusively to the behavior of a priest within the confessional. It doesn't cover any behavior which results from that solicitation. However such external behavior is covered by lots of other statutes within canon law, and any guilty priest would have to answer for those crimes in addition to the crime of solicitation.

I'm not sure, but you seem to be under the belief that a priest accused of solicitation would not be charged with the crimes which resulted from it. That's simply not true. Much like a bank robber who kills someone during his robbery is charged with both robbery and murder, an abusing priest who solicited illegal sexual encounters from his confessional would have to answer for the crime of solicitation as well as any sexual crimes which followed.

The problem with the current scandal is that bishops shielded their priests from all charges. They didn't charge them with solicitation and protect them from the rest.

...it would be logical to assume that it applies to minors as well as adults.

Regardless of what the Vatican thought was the most likely victim at the time, the document applies to the behavior of the priest alone. The identity of the victim does not change the seriousness or consequence to a priest for committing the crime of solicitation. It is always a grave matter.

[Aliska]

Solicitation refers exclusively to the behavior of a priest within the confessional

OK, I see where you are coming from.

I'm not sure, but you seem to be under the belief that a priest accused of solicitation would not be charged with the crimes which resulted from it.

That is because few of those priests were ever charged with anything because most of the cases were handled with what appears to be no intention to hand them over for civil prosecution where crime was involved.

The problem with the current scandal is that bishops shielded their priests from all charges. They didn't charge them with solicitation and protect them from the rest

In most cases, yes. They couldn't charge them with solicitation if the victim was persuaded in a way that didn't relate to confession except perhaps where the abuser happened to also be the regular confessor. The solicitation/seduction happened in the rectory, on a weekend outing, in the victim's home, etc., and wouldn't necessarily all fall under the canonical definition of solicitation.

Regardless of what the Vatican thought was the most likely victim at the time, the document applies to the behavior of the priest alone. The identity of the victim does not change the seriousness or consequence to a priest for committing the crime of solicitation. It is always a grave matter.

The consequences apply to the priest, but it was the victim who was threatened with the excommunication. No priest was threatened with excommunication if he came to know what had happened nor was the perpetrator threatened with excommunication.

In any case, it appears the document came to light and was handed over to the US attorney by Shea, and not for a civil suit, who is quoted as saying, among other things, "It's an instruction manual for a rigged trial for a priest accused of sexual crimes, including crimes against children". That's where I got the notion that the document applied to children as well as adults, but I don't go along with the rigged part necessarily and this is the Boston Herald doing the quoting.

My take on all this started here and that was how I connected it to the article on the CBS site.

I may dig through it again and I may not, because, if you want to know the truth, I do not believe that that document is the reason these things were covered up. There may have been a general consensus among the bishops to cover things up, and it seemed standard operating procedure and fell into a pattern with some exceptions, but I doubt it had much to do with that particular instruction, unless other similar secret documents set that tone. It remains to be seen and probably won't be seen because it is guarded information.

It was probably just covered up to prevent an embarassment for the church or scandal however you may choose to define it.

[RobbyS]

People should remember that prosecutors and cops are the hirelings of the people who really run the country. These people look on cops just as they do the military as servants. Unsurprisingly when the elite rings the bell, the law enforcement people jump but only then. The only reason they are going after the bishops npw is because the bishops have fallen from their positions among the power elite, but they are too dumb to know that. Patherically they are trying to hang on. That's why they won't touch the twelve senators who show such contempt for the Catholic faith they profess. Some day, when the timing is right, one of these guys is going formally to apostacize on the front page of the New York Times and declare that he wil;l no longer have anything to do with such a "backward" and "irreformable" organization. The bishops are afraid of this. Message to bishops: Let them go!

[SoothingDave]

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?!?!

Duh. It doesn't. You really need to listen to what is being said. Really.

Yes, bishops did awful things. No, it wasn't under orders from the Vatican. This document does not order a "cover up." That is my point. Try to follow along, it might help.

SD