By Stacy Meichtry
The Wall Street Journal
April 9, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304703104575174193363961052.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 |
| Pope Benedict XVI greets the faithful during the weekly general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican. |
ROME—Pope Benedict XVI is under pressure to find a quick and effective way to impose church law concerning sexual abuse across Roman Catholic dioceses around the world, where he will have to face local bishops who hold sway over how abusive priests are reported, investigated and prosecuted.
Some canon lawyers say the pope has all of the formal power he needs, partly thanks to tougher laws he helped to create in 2001 when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Still, the Vatican faces numerous challenges in enforcing canon law. In addition to the semiautonomous dioceses, there are also debates over jurisdiction inside the church, confusing divisions of authority, and widely varying civil codes dealing with requirements for reporting suspected abuse.
On Friday, Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi in an address over Vatican Radio, also told church officials to cooperate with civil authorities "keeping in mind the specific norms and situations of different countries." Canon law, he said, had to be applied with "decisiveness and veracity."
The Vatican is expected to publish a streamlined "lay guide" to canon norms on sexual-abuse cases on its Web site Monday, said Jeffrey Lena, a lawyer for the Holy See.
One problem the Catholic Church has had in responding to abuse cases is the determination of who has jurisdiction: the Holy See in Rome or local bishops. As hundreds of sexual-abuse allegations have emerged across Europe this year, critics have noted the glacial pace of church trials and interpreted it as a sign of the Vatican's unwillingness to crack down on sexual abuse.
Further confusion is the church hierarchy of authority. The pope has the power to hand down directives on church law, but bishops from Idaho to India have a lot of say in whether Vatican orders are carried out.
"People see the pope as a monolith; he gives an order and everyone falls in line. But practically, that doesn't happen," said Nicholas Cafardi, a professor of canon law at Duquesne University, who advised U.S. bishops on implementing national norms on sexual abuse following the explosion of U.S. cases in 2002. "There are tons of examples of bishops ignoring the Holy See."
Those examples include administrative matters, such as selling property or managing personnel. Although bishops continue to have "enormous power," the 2001 law has clarified the Holy See's authority to reach down into a diocese in cases of sexual abuse, said Monica-Elena Herghelegiu, a canon lawyer and senior lecturer at Germany's University of Tubingen, where Pope Benedict once taught theology. "The supreme pontiff and its representatives have the power to intervene in the dioceses whenever necessary."
Before the current law, any number of departments in the Holy See could stake claims to sexual-abuse cases. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for example, had clearcut jurisdiction only over priests who used their roles as confessors to solicit sexual acts from their victims. Other forms of sexual abuse by priests were often handled by other Vatican bodies, such as the Congregation for the Clergy. That also caused months of delay, as local bishops reported the cases to the wrong office, according to internal church documents disclosed by lawyers of alleged victims.
Controversy over who is ultimately responsible disciplining priests bubbled up again on Friday when the Associated Press reported that a 1985 letter by then-Cardinal Ratzinger to the Oakland, Calif., diocese showed the future pope resisting defrocking an Oakland priest who had a record of sexually molesting children. In the letter, written in Latin, the cardinal cites concerns over "the good of the universal church," the AP quotes the letter as stating.
Mr. Lena, couldn't confirm the authenticity of the 1985 letter, but said it appeared to be a form letter typically sent out in cases involving "laicization," or defrocking. He denied the letter reflected then-Cardinal Ratzinger resisting pleas from the bishop to defrock the priest. "There may be some overstep and rush to judgment going on here," he said. Mr. Lena said no further allegations were reported against the priest between 1981 and 1987, when the Holy See defrocked him.
"During the entire course of the proceeding the priest remained under the control, authority and care of the local bishop who was responsible to make sure he did no harm," Mr. Lena said, adding: "Competence was in the hands of the local bishop."
In the late 1990s, Cardinal Ratzinger began to push for an overhaul of rules on sexual abuse, said Father Lombardi. The effort actually led to further delays in disciplining abusive priests. Cases that were pending before the Congregation were suspended for years while Cardinal Ratzinger retooled the norms, the spokesman said.
Cardinal Ratzinger issued a letter to bishops, giving them instructions on how to apply the new rules. Those rules dictate that bishops are required to report swiftly any allegations of sexual abuse that have "a semblance of truth" to the Congregation. The office can then instruct a local diocese to conduct a canonical trial against the cleric. Under "particular circumstances," the Congregation can take over a case and conduct its own trial.
The Congregation also was given full jurisdiction over appeals. It can dispense with a canonical trial and refer cases directly to the pope, when abuse cases are deemed "grave and clear."
Despite the overhaul, however, the Vatican still struggles to impose its authority.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.