Justice is not served by the media refusing to acknowledge positive steps taken by Catholic Church leaders to deal with sexual abuse, argues Séamus Murphy SJ.
The impression has become widespread recently that the Catholic Church holds that canon law takes precedence over civil law. This is inaccurate.
Civil and canon law have different zones of competence. The Catholic Church's view is that it is the State's role to make and enforce the criminal law, and that everybody, priest or lay person, is equally subject to the law of the land.
The civil law has nothing to say as regards the circumstances under which a priest should be stripped of his priesthood. That is a matter for church law. As regards areas of possible conflict, it is not easy to generalise. A few things are clear, however.
For instance, canons 983-4 forbid any violation of the seal of confession, and Irish law respects that. This is a case not of canon law taking precedence over civil law but of the State recognising the general right of associations (e.g. of lawyers or doctors) to run their own affairs, making rules for and disciplining their members.
There is nothing in canon law which protects criminals, and its provisions can be seen as a valuable complement to those of civil law with respect to dealing with clerical abusers. Canon law should be used more.
Some newspaper articles on canon law have confused commentary on canon law with the actual law itself, The Code of Canon Law. These articles assumed that remarks in a certain commentary (Canon Law: Letter and Spirit: A Practical Guide to the Code of Canon Law, edited by Mgr Gerard Sheehy with an imprimatur by Cardinal Connell in 1995) about mitigating factors were actually part of the law.
But a commentary is not law, and the relevant law or canon is direct and unambiguous: "A cleric who has offended against the sixth commandment, if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state" (Canon 1395).
The inclusion of dismissal from priesthood as a possible penalty indicates the gravity with which the offence is regarded. Further, there is no suggestion here that such an offence is a matter for canon law only and not for the civil law, or that it is not a matter for canon law if the priest has been punished by the civil law. It is a matter for both civil and canon law.
A recent radio interview (by Mgr Maurice Dooley) gave the odd impression that the relationship between a bishop and his priest is like that of father to child, and since no loving parent would report his child to the police, no bishop is obliged to report allegations or admissions of clerical sexual assault to the police.
Morally, this is unacceptable. First, the "child" is an adult and accountable as such. Second, parents who are weak or partisan towards their law-breaking children are unjust to their victims, are not genuinely loving to their children, and corrode their own moral character. The Christian message is not just about love, mercy, forgiveness, reconciliation and healing; it is also about justice and the law.
Third, such clericalism would amount to a betrayal by the bishop of his flock. Canon law states (Can. 208-231) that the faithful have rights, and canon 212 stipulates their right to be heard by church authorities. Right now, they are expressing strongly a clear sensus fidelium or consensus that repeat sexual abusers are unfit to be priests.
Allegations of sexual abuse made to church authorities are now given to the police. At the same time, it is important that bishops and heads of religious orders be vigorously proactive in following up allegations or rumours about a priest, no matter how vague. The victims and their families have rights under canon law, and the bishop must, as well as provide pastoral care for them, pursue inquiries, confront the accused, and where, necessary, initiate proceedings. This applies particularly in cases where the bishop has grounds for thinking the priest is guilty but the DPP has decided not to prosecute or the accused priest was acquitted in the civil trial.
The importance of law, canon or civil, is that it alone provides the necessary formal framework which can correct bias and emotionalism, guarantee fairness and the rights of both plaintiff and accused, and promote the ends of justice.
The ends of justice cannot be promoted by hysteria or by what sociologists call "moral panic", where talk of the rights of the accused priest is liable to get one accused of "collusion". Objectivity has also been subverted by various groups using the issue for their own ends.
In the US, liberal Catholics have inflated it to push for married clergy and women priests, ultra-conservative Catholics have used it to attack the post-Vatican II church leadership, and some journalists have spun it to push an anti-Catholic agenda.
The tenor of current reporting tends to ignore what has been accomplished. Since 1996, Irish dioceses and religious orders have had mandatory guidelines for dealing with allegations of sexual abuse, and the setting up of Judge Hussey's commission into how they handled allegations of abuse is a huge step. Back in 1995, Cardinal Connell gave the gardaí the names of every priest against whom allegations were made in the previous 50 years, and recently stated that "all information in my possession will be made available to the commission".
The ends of justice are not served by refusing to acknowledge positive steps. Such refusal may generate an atmosphere in which public opinion is massaged into deeming the Hussey commission irrelevant before it is properly under way. Public outrage has been awoken. It is now time for dispassionate objectivity in judging how the process of sorting out the mess is to be carried forward.
Séamus Murphy SJ is senior lecturer in philosophy at Milltown Institute