Critics of 1962 document on child sex abuse are said to lack understanding, writes Patsy McGarry
Irish church sources indicated yesterday that the Vatican's controversial 1962 Crimine Solicitationes document was about protecting the seal of the confessional and had nothing to do with the clergy's attempts to conceal criminal activity from civil authorities, as alleged.
Descriptions of the document as "explosive", or "the smoking gun", illustrating essential Vatican corruption, have been dismissed by such sources in varying terms.
It was said that such claims indicated an inherent lack of understanding that the Vatican's documents dealing with the sex abuse issue - whether in the 1962 document, the 1983 revised Code of Canon Law, or the 2001 document - were about internal church discipline and that alone. Nowhere do the documents prohibit the reporting of criminal behaviour to civil authorities, it was pointed out.
One priest suggested that the Vatican resisted making such recommendations as the lack of a proper justice system in some countries did not always make that desirable. It was the Vatican's view that it was best left to the local church to decide how the matter might be addressed as a civil matter, he said.
There has still been no formal response from Irish church authorities to media queries about the document and it is not clear if there will be one.
There were indications that the document was initially greeted with bemusement and confusion by some senior clergy. Others dismissed it as having been superseded by the 1983 revised Code of Canon Law, the Irish Bishops 1996 guidelines here, and the Vatican's 2001 letter to all bishops on dealing with clerical child sex abuse.
The 1962 document was sent to a Texan lawyer Mr Daniel Shea, who represents victims of clerical child sex abuse, by a German priest. Mr Shea sent it to media in the US, including CBS News and the Boston Herald. The 69-page document was signed by Pope John XXIII on March 16th, 1962.
What critics found so alarming about this document, and the one in 2001, was the overwhelming emphasis on secrecy and the severity of sanctions for breaching secrecy. In the 1962 document that penalty is excommunication.
Beginning with the subheading "On the manner of dealing with the crime of solicitation" the 1962 document describes that crime as taking place "when a priest tempts a penitent, whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or (in a place) other than that (usually) designated for the hearing of confessions or (in a place) chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession.
"(The object of this temptation) is to solicit or provoke (the penitent) towards impure and obscene matters, whether by words or signs or nods of the head, whether by touch or by writing whether then or after (the note has been read) or whether he has had with (that penitent) prohibited and improper speech or activity with reckless daring."
Long-winded, and thorough it may be, but it is clear that the confessional is central to what is described as "the unspeakable crime" concerned (i.e. a priest soliciting sex through the confessional).
Later in the document it is emphasised that such cases must be "pursued in a most secretive way" and "are to be restrained by a perpetual silence" or face excommunication. This is because "what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance". It is not clear why this must be so. Defenders insist it is because the seal of the confessional must be protected. Critics insist it is about protecting the institution.
This secrecy applies not just to bishops and religious superiors, but also to accusers. There is also "an obligation of denunciation on the part of the solicited penitent" which "does not cease" even where the offending priest confesses to his crime.
The document goes into great detail on how the "inquisitorial process" following such denunciation is to take place. On conviction a priest should be removed from ministry and in the more serious cases he must be "subject to reduction (to the lay state)".
Paragraph 70 will add grist to the critics' mill. It states that all official communication where such cases are concerned "shall be made under the secret of the Holy Office; and, since they concern the common good of the church to the greatest degree, the precept of doing these things obliges under serious sin."
Its concluding paragraphs described "the worst crime" as "any external obscene deed . . . perpetrated by a cleric or attempt with a person of his own sex" and "any obscene or external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)".