Madam, - As a canon law adviser to the Ferns Inquiry, I wish to categorically dispel some of the myths and correct the erroneous misinformation regarding the relationship between canon law and civil law with respect to paedophilia.
Firstly, no priest, religious or bishop as a citizen of the State is exempt from civil law, much less the civil law that pertains to the crime of paedophilia.
Those clerics who commit such crimes must face the penalties imposed by the State for such offences.
Since these clerics also betray the sacred ministry that is entrusted to them by the church, they are also subject to severe penalties arising from an internal process in canon law.
So as not to undermine or prejudice a civil investigation or trial, the church's internal disciplinary action takes place subsequent to any investigation or prosecution taken by the statutory authorities. Canon law does not claim precedence over civil law in this matter, nor does it prohibit reporting sexual abuse where the civil law requires it.
On Wednesday of last week, during a radio interview on RTÉ, Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell TD, echoed concerns he expressed already in 2002 about the interpretation of "paedophilia" in a commentary, The Canon Law: Letter and Spirit (1995).
The commentary referred to by the Minister is only the opinion of one single individual and does not reflect the "common and constant opinion of learned authors" required by canon 19. No other commentary adopts such a lenient approach and it requires a qualified person to discern the weight or authority to be given to it.
One author's opinion cannot be used to arrive at an informed and accurate judgment of canon law.
The Minister's comments are similar to someone like myself, lacking the required legal formation or experience in civil law, taking a commentator of the Irish Constitution and presenting that commentator's view as the definitive interpretation of any specific aspect of the Constitution.
The Minister's comments have, unfortunately, contributed to the confusion about canon law's abhorrence of the crime of paedophilia.
The seriousness of the present situation requires more informed research and respect for each other's professional competence.
The concerns the Minister raised in 2002 were specifically addressed in an article written in the Irish Theological Quarterly 68 (2003), by Dr Aidan McGrath, an internationally recognised canon lawyer.
Here, Dr McGrath offers a robust critique of the lenient interpretation of paedophilia offered by the commentary referred to by Mr McDowell.
This position taken by this commentary was and is unsustainable in the light of a more developed understanding of the nature of paedophilia and of recent canonical legislation from the Holy See which reaffirms that the sexual abuse of minors is a crime in canon law and that there is no room in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young.
In conclusion, the fact that any ecclesiastical authority gives an Imprimatur declares that a book is free from doctrinal and moral error; it does not imply that they agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed in it. Unfortunately, within the confines of a letter to the Editor, it is not possible to address the many other misrepresentations of canon law in circulation. - Yours etc,
Dr MICHAEL MULLANEY, Lecturer in Canon Law,
St Patrick's College,
Maynooth.