Vatican official urges reconsidering ‘pontifical secret’ in abuse cases

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Catholic Church should re-examine how “pontifical secret” is applied in clerical sex abuse cases so there is greater transparency in the cases and it is not invoked “to hide problems,” said a canon lawyer and Vatican official.

Linda Ghisoni is a canon lawyer who serves as a consultant for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is undersecretary for laity at the Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life. She was the first woman to give a major presentation at the Vatican summit on child protection and the clerical abuse crisis.

Addressing the summit Feb. 22, Ghisoni described bishops’ accountability, regular audits and lay review boards as essential to demonstrating with facts a profession of faith in the church as a communion of the baptized, each of whom are given gifts by the Holy Spirit and are called to share those gifts for the good of the church and the world.

At the end of her speech, Ghisoni suggested reviewing “the current norm on the pontifical secret.”

Already in September 2017, members of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors asked Pope Francis to reconsider Vatican norms maintaining the imposition of “pontifical secret” in the church’s judicial handling of clerical sex abuse and other grave crimes.

The secret ensures cases are dealt with in strict confidentiality. Vatican experts have said it was designed to protect the dignity of everyone involved, including the victim, the accused, their families and their communities.

Ghisoni said there are values to protect, including the good name of the accused, unless and until he is proven guilty, but a revision could lead to “the development of a climate of greater transparency and trust, avoiding the idea that the secret is used to hide problems rather than protect the values at stake.”

The second day of the summit was dedicated to accountability, and Ghisoni focused her remarks on how accountability is not simply a good practice from a public relations and organizational point of view, but that it is a necessary part of a church living its reality as a community.

“A bishop cannot think that questions regarding the church can be resolved by him acting alone” or only with other bishops, she said. Every member of the church is called to work together to ensure that children are safe.

After Ghisoni spoke, Pope Francis said inviting a woman to address the conference was not about “ecclesiastical feminism.” Rather, he said, “inviting a woman to speak about the wounds of the church is to invite the church to speak about itself and the wounds it has.”

The church, he said, is not an “organization,” but is “a family born of mother church,” which the bishops should keep in mind as they continue their deliberations.

---

Harming a child must be ‘line in the sand’ for removal, cardinal says

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — For the Catholic Church, there is a “line in the sand,” which can never be crossed, and that is to not allow anyone who harms or would harm a child to exercise public ministry, said Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston.

In fact, removing someone from public ministry for abuse should be seen not so much as a punitive act as much as it is an urgent pastoral and “prudential” measure to keep young people safe, added Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta.

The cardinal and archbishop spoke with reporters Feb. 22 at a news conference during the second day of a Vatican summit on child protection in the church.

They were responding to questions as to why there seemed to be resistance or reluctance to adopting “zero tolerance” policies and why, in some cases, leaders are hesitant to even use the term.

One reporter noted that, to the dismay of survivors gathered in Rome, “zero tolerance” was not mentioned on a list of 21 points Pope Francis distributed Feb. 21 for reflection — points that had been compiled from ideas bishops had provided beforehand.

Cardinal O’Malley, who is a papal adviser on the Council of Cardinals and president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, said, “I know there is a lot of resistance to using that terminology,” perhaps it sounds too “secular, I don’t know.”

But he said zero tolerance reflects a principle that was “so clearly articulated” by St. John Paul II in 2002 when he said that there is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young.

That principle, Cardinal O’Malley said, “has to be a line in the sand.”

Responding to a related question, he said he would advocate the removal of a person from ministry for all cases of abuse against minors everywhere and clarified that additional penalties — such as dismissal from the clerical state or a life of prayer and penance — would vary, following the principle of proportionality of punishment.

Archbishop Scicluna said another way to look at the situation would be to see removal from ministry as an action that “has nothing to do with punishment, but (is) a prudential and urgent” measure that is taken to guarantee the safety of minors.

The issue of proportionality applies to the variety and severity of penalties that an ordained minister could receive if found guilty, said the archbishop, who also serves as president of the doctrinal congregation board that reviews appeals filed by priests laicized or otherwise disciplined in sexual abuse or other serious cases.

But when looking at what should be done across the board with a person who has harmed a minor, there is no question that the person cannot remain in public ministry, he said.

“I think even those people who do not like the concept of zero tolerance because they do not exactly know what it is, they would never dare say, ‘Well, there’s someone who could do harm to young people’ and they leave him in ministry,” he said.

Removal reflects the person’s unsuitability for ministry and is not primarily a question about punishment, which can vary case by case, he said.

“I don’t remove a person from ministry to punish him, but to protect the flock,” the archbishop said.

---

Cardinal Cupich asks for new structure to ensure bishops’ accountability

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Catholic Church needs “new legal structures of accountability” for bishops accused of sexual abuse or of negligence in handling abuse allegations, Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago told the Vatican summit on safeguarding.

Addressing Pope Francis and some 190 presidents of bishops’ conferences, heads of Eastern Catholic churches, religious superiors and officials of the Roman Curia Feb. 22, Cardinal Cupich provided details of what some people have described as a “metropolitan model” of accountability, although he insisted the model would involve laypeople.

Church territories are grouped into provinces with an archdiocese, which is the metropolitan see, and neighboring dioceses. Under the current law governing the Latin-rite church, the archbishop or cardinal leading the metropolitan see has very little responsibility for the province; that would change under Cardinal Cupich’s proposal.

The guidelines also would name an alternate — perhaps the neighboring metropolitan or the senior diocesan bishop — in cases where the accused is the metropolitan archbishop.

The proposal made by Cardinal Cupich at the Vatican summit on child protection and the clerical abuse scandal was similar to one he made in November to the full U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The cardinal also included elements of proposals the U.S. bishops had planned to vote on in November, but the Vatican had asked them to hold off until after the Feb. 21-24 Vatican summit. The common elements included setting up a toll-free number or website for reporting bishops and establishing a fund to pay for investigations of bishops accused of abuse or negligence.

The Chicago prelate told reporters later that his presentation had two main differences from what the U.S. bishops initially proposed: using metropolitans gives the process a regional character that is especially important for ensuring outreach to and follow up with the victim; and the U.S. bishops’ proposal was voluntary, whereas his would be obligatory.

Responding to questions about trusting bishops to investigate brother bishops, Cardinal Cupich said that is another reason why he insisted laypeople be involved in receiving and investigating allegations; it is essential for the transparency of the system.

Cardinal Cupich’s presentation at the summit focused on increasing accountability but doing so in a “synodal” fashion by including laypeople “in a discernment and reform that penetrates throughout the church” and by formulating laws and procedures that flow from the church’s reality as a spiritual institution.

“We must move to establish robust laws and structures regarding the accountability of bishops precisely to supply with a new soul the institutional reality of the church’s discipline on sexual abuse,” the cardinal told the summit.

Cardinal Cupich said the need for a system where bishops, aided by lay experts, hold other bishops accountable could be seen in the events of “this past year,” presumably referring to the Pennsylvania grand jury report on abuse and the case of former Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, who, in 2018, was found to be credibly accused of the sexual abuse of a minor and was dismissed from the clerical state in February after being found guilty.

“This past year has taught us that the systematic failures in holding clerics of all rank responsible are due in large measure to flaws in the way we interact and communicate with each other in the College of Bishops in union with the successor of Peter,” Cardinal Cupich said.

Before the summit began, each participant was asked to meet with and listen to a survivor or survivors of abuse. The meeting included testimony from survivors, and the main speakers and the survivors gathered outside the meeting all insisted that listening to the victims is the first step.

The listening is not a courtesy and must not include conditions being placed on the survivors, the cardinal said. “Our listening must be willing to accept challenge and confrontation and even condemnation for the church’s past and present failures to keep safe the most precious of the Lord’s flock.”

In general, Cardinal Cupich suggested each bishops’ conference “establish standards for conducting the investigations of bishops,” which, he said, “should involve and consult lay experts.”

The Catholic faithful should know how to report allegations of abuse or negligence involving a bishop, he said, and should involve “independent reporting mechanisms in the form of a dedicated telephone line and-or web portal service to receive and transmit the allegations directly to the apostolic nuncio,” who is the pope’s representative in the country, and to the metropolitan or to a panel of lay experts, depending on the system designed by the local bishops.

Cardinal Cupich’s model mirrored in many ways the procedure used for investigating an allegation against a priest. He would have a metropolitan archbishop and lay review board, or at least lay experts, conduct an initial review of the allegations. If the allegation seemed credible — or as the cardinal said, “has even the semblance of truth” — the metropolitan would request from the Vatican the authority to begin a full investigation; the Vatican approval is necessary because, according to church law, only the pope investigate and discipline a bishop.

The results of the full investigation would be forwarded to the Vatican, which determines whether a trial is warranted and how it should be conducted.

Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta, who handles abuse cases as adjunct secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told reporters later, “the supreme pontiff — the pope — has a special jurisdiction over the bishops that has to be respected.”

At the same time, he said, “it is within the context of communion that we have to live accountability,” which means other bishops and laypeople always must be involved.