Feature Article

Too little, too late?

Clerical-abuse scandal

As allegations of clerical abuse continue to surface around the world, a curial official has for the first time given facts and figures about the cases that have been reported in the last 10 years. Mgr Charles Scicluna answered questions put to him by the journalist Gianni Cardinale

As the prosecutor of the tribunal of the former Holy Office, Mgr Scicluna, who is Promoter of Justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has the task of investigating the most serious crimes, known as delicta graviora. These include the sexual abuse by priests of young people under the age of 18.

Gianni Cardinale: Monsignor, you have the reputation of being tough, and yet the Catholic Church is systematically accused of being accommodating towards paedophile priests.

Charles Scicluna: It is possible that in the past – perhaps out of a misunderstood sense of protecting the good name of the institution – some bishops were, in practice, too indulgent towards these very sad cases. I say this was in practice because, in principle, the condemnation of this kind of crime has always been firm and unequivocal. Limiting ourselves to the last century, it is enough to recall the famous instruction Crimen Sollicitationis of 1922.

GC: Wasn’t that from 1962?

CS: No, the first edition dates back to the pontificate of Pius XI. Then, with Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Office prepared a new edition for the Council Fathers, but only 2,000 copies were printed, which were not enough, and so distribution was postponed sine die [indefinitely]. In any case, these were procedural norms to be followed in cases of solicitation during confession, and of other more serious sexually motivated crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors.

GC: Norms which, however, recommended secrecy …

CS: A poor English translation of that text has led people to think that the Holy See imposed secrecy in order to hide the facts. But it was not like that. Secrecy during the preliminary phase of the investigation served to protect the good name of all the people involved; first and foremost, the victims themselves, then the accused priests who have the right – as everyone does – to the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. The Church does not like showcase justice. The norms on sexual abuse were never understood as a ban on denouncing [the crimes] to the civil authorities.

GC: That document, however, is periodically invoked to accuse the current pontiff of having been – in his capacity as prefect of the former Holy Office – objectively responsible for a Holy See policy of covering up the facts on the part of the Holy See.

CS: That is a false and calumnious accusation. In this regard, allow me to point out some facts. Between 1975 and 1985 I cannot see that any cases of paedophilia committed by priests were brought to the attention of our Congregation. Moreover, following the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there was a period of uncertainty as to which of the  delicta graviora were reserved to the competency of this dicastery. Only with the 2001 motu proprio did the crime of paedophilia again become our exclusive remit. From that moment Cardinal Ratzinger displayed wisdom and firmness in handling those cases. But even more, he also displayed great courage in facing some very difficult and thorny cases, sine acceptione personarum. Therefore, to accuse the current Pontiff of a cover-up is, I repeat, false and calumnious.

GC: When a priest is accused of a delictum gravius, what happens?

CS: If the accusation is plausible the bishop has the obligation to investigate both the reliabilty of the accusation and the person being accused. And if the outcome of this initial investigation shows merit, he no longer has any power to act in the matter and must refer the case to our Congregation where it is dealt with by the disciplinary office.

GC: Who is part of this office?

CS: Apart from myself who, being one of the superiors of the dicastery, also concern myself with other matters, there are the bureau chief Fr Pedro Miguel Funes Diaz, seven priests and a lay lawyer who follow these cases. Other officials of the Congregation offer their precious contribution depending upon the language and competency requirements.

GC: This office has been accused of not doing much and doing it slowly.

CS: These are unjust observations. In 2003 and 2004 an avalanche of cases hit our desks. Many of them came from the United States and concerned the past. In recent years, thank God, the phenomenon has greatly reduced. So now we try to deal with new cases in real time.

GC: How many have you dealt with so far?

CS: Overall in the last nine years (2001-10) we have considered accusations concerning around 3,000 cases of diocesan and Religious priests, which refer to crimes committed over the last 50 years.

GC: That is, then, 3,000 cases of paedophile priests?

CS: It is not correct to put it like that. We can say that, in general, about 60 per cent of these cases chiefly deal with, more than anything else, acts of efebophilia; that is, sexual attraction towards adolescents of the same sex. In another 30 per cent, they are heterosexual acts. And in 10 per cent they are acts of true and proper paedophilia; that is, based on sexual attraction towards prepubescent children. The cases of priests accused of true and proper paedophilia have been about 300 in nine years. These are too many – for goodness sake! – but it must be recognised that the phenomenon is not as widespread as some would have us believe.

GC: The accused, then, are 3,000. How many have been tried and condemned?

CS: First of all, one can say that a full trial, whether penal or administrative, has taken place in 20 per cent of the cases and usually it was held in the diocese of origin – always under our supervision – and only very rarely here in Rome. We do this also in order to speed up the process. In 60 per cent of the cases there has been no trial, above all because of the advanced age of the accused, but administrative and disciplinary provisions have been issued against them, such as bans on celebrating Mass with the faithful and hearing confession, and an obligation to live a secluded life of prayer. It should be stressed that in these cases, some of which are particularly sensational and have caught the attention of the media, there has been no absolution. It’s true that there has not been a formal condemnation, but if a person is obliged to a life of silence and prayer, there must be a reason.

GC: That still leaves 20 per cent of cases.

CS: Let’s say that in 10 per cent of cases, those that are particularly serious ones and with overwhelming proof, the Holy Father has assumed the painful responsibility of authorising a decree of dismissal from the clerical state. This is a very serious but inevitable provision, taken through administrative channels. In the remaining 10 per cent of cases, it was the accused priests themselves who requested dispensation from the obligations deriving from the priesthood, requests which were promptly accepted. Involved in these latter cases there were priests found in possession of paedophile pornographic material and, for this reason, condemned by the civil authorities.

GC: Where do these 3,000 cases come from?

CS: Above all from the United States which, in the years 2003-2004, accounted for about 80 per cent of total cases. In 2009 the US share dropped to around 25 per cent of the 223 cases reported from all over the world. In recent years (2007-09), in fact, the annual average of cases reported to the Congregation from around the world has been 250. Many countries report only one or two cases. There is, then, a growing diversity and number of countries of origin of cases, but the phenomenon itself is much reduced. It must, in fact, be borne in mind that the overall number of diocesan and religious priests in the world is 400,000. This statistic does not correspond to the perception that is created when these sad cases take up the front pages of newspapers.

GC: And in Italy?

CS: Thus far the phenomenon does not seem to have dramatic proportions, although what worries me is a certain culture of silence which I feel is still too widespread in the country. The Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) offers an excellent consultation service on technical and juridical matters for bishops who have to deal with these cases. I note with great satisfaction that there is an ever-increasing commitment on the part of the Italian bishops to bring clarity to the cases reported to them.

GC: You said that a full trial has taken place in around 20 per cent of the 3,000 cases you have examined over the last nine years. Did they all end with the condemnation of the accused?

CS: Many of the past trials did end with the condemnation of the accused. But there have also been those where the priest was declared innocent or where the accusations were not considered to have been sufficiently proven. In all cases, however, not only is there an examination of the guilt or innocence of the accused priest, but also a discernment as to his suitability for public ministry.

GC: A recurring accusation made against the ecclesiastical hierarchy is that of not reporting to the civil authorities when crimes of paedophilia come to their attention.

CS: In some countries with an Anglo-Saxon legal culture, but also in France, the bishops – if they become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of Confession – are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities. We’re dealing with an onerous duty because these bishops are forced to make a gesture comparable to that of a parent who denounces his or her own son. Nonetheless, our instruction in these cases is to respect the law.

GC: And what about countries where bishops do not have this legal obligation?

CS: In these cases we do not force bishops to denounce their own priests, but encourage them to contact the victims and invite them to denounce the priests by whom they became victims. Furthermore, we invite the bishops to give all spiritual – and not only spiritual – assistance to these victims. In a recent case concerning a priest condemned by a civil tribunal in Italy, it was precisely this Congregation that suggested to the accusers, who had turned to us for a canonical trial, that they also go to the civil authorities, in the interest of the victims and in order to avoid other crimes.

GC: A final question: is there any prescription [statute of limitation] for delicta graviora?

CS: Here you touch upon what, in my view, is a sensitive point. In the past, that is before 1898, the statue of limitations was extraneous to canon law. For the most serious crimes, it was only with the 2001 motu proprio that a statute of limitations of 10 years was introduced. In accordance with these norms, in cases of sexual abuse the 10 years begin from the day on which the minor reaches the age of 18.

GC: Is that enough?

CS: Experience indicates that the limit of 10 years is not enough in these kinds of cases, and one would hope to return to the earlier system of delicta graviora not being subject to the statue of limitations. On 7 November 2002, Venerable Servant of God John Paul II granted this dicastery the power to revoke the statute of limitations, case by case, following a reasoned request from individual bishops. And the derogation is normally granted.