MONTREAL (CANADA)
La Croix International [Montrouge Cedex, France]
September 25, 2024
By François Gloutnay, Présence
A law firm claims religious archivists destroyed documents related to abuse to avoid lawsuits. Legal advice from a canon lawyer led to reducing sensitive records. Investigations later uncovered widespread document destruction, raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability within the Church.
There is no mention in the archives of the Archdiocese of Montreal “of any aggression towards women or any malicious act by once-renowned French Capuchin priest Abbé Pierre — accused of committing sexual assaults in his lifetime — during his visits to Montreal,” concluded retired judge André Denis this summer. There is also no such mention in the archives of the Archdiocese of Quebec, confirmed Auxiliary Bishop Marc Pelchat to Présence. Are documents missing or destroyed? Several observers are now asking this question.
In 1991, a specialist in canon law, now deceased, wrote an advisory to religious archivists in Quebec. This globally renowned expert recommended, among other things, “destroying certain documents” out of fear they might one day be seized by civil authorities or that they could “be harmful later on.” He advised keeping “fewer documents rather than more” in the archives and not making his recommendations “too public.”
The four-page legal opinion, signed by canon lawyer and Oblate Father Francis G. Morrisey, was one of the pieces of evidence submitted last week in a class action lawsuit against the Brothers of Christian Instruction (F.I.C.).
Further reading: Canada’s Catholic bishops resist publishing list of accused priest-pedophiles
It is alleged that successive archivists of this teaching community “knowingly moved or destroyed compromising and harmful archival documents related to sexual assaults committed by F.I.C. religious members to protect themselves from potential lawsuits by victims.” As evidence, the law firm Arsenault Dufresne Wee Avocats submitted a photocopy of a letter and a note signed by Oblate Father Morrisey, a doctor in canon law. This piece of evidence is marked as exhibit P-22.
Search at the bishop’s office
In 1990, police conducted a search at the bishop’s office in the Diocese of Saint-Jérôme. They found and seized a letter signed by three boys who had reported, in 1966, the abuse they suffered at the hands of a priest. The authorities thus obtained proof that the Bishop of Saint-Jérôme had been aware of these abuses for over two decades yet remained silent.
This search caused a stir among archivists of religious communities and Catholic dioceses in Quebec.
On April 22, 1991, Brother Robert Hémond, of the Clerics of Saint Viator, then president of the Association of Religious Archivists (Regroupement des archivistes religieux, or RAR), wrote that “the Canadian Church is shaken by lawsuits that the media are happy to amplify across the country.”
Further reading: Insurer sues Canadian diocese for covering up sex abuse
He reminded RAR members that “the Quebec Provincial Police recently obtained a search warrant to access the personal file of a former clergy member, including a highly confidential letter.” Worse, he wrote, “the local bishop was unable to oppose it.” All understood he was referring to the events in Saint-Jérôme.
The RAR president further revealed that both Quebec Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had recently “extracted files from community archives— the archives of religious orders, congregations, and institutes—in order to find documents that could be used as evidence against religious members.”
“Given these facts, we need to question the protection we provide to confidential documents stored in our archives,” estimated Brother Hémond, who consulted the recommendations recently formulated by Father Morrisey for an unidentified bishop. The Oblate canonist authorized Brother Hémond to “distribute his text” among archivists from dioceses and congregations who were members of the RAR on the condition of not “publicizing too much about this letter and its recommendations because, if lawyers for the victims learn that we have documents elsewhere, they may also be tempted to search for them via subpoena.” The canon lawyer’s opinion was attached to the letter intended for religious archivists.
What to destroy? What to keep?
Father Morrisey’s note explains that diocesan archives should retain “acts of the curia” as well as “all documents that concern the diocese and parishes.” However, he warned, “it is not necessary to keep everything [the word ‘everything’ is underlined] in the archives.” The responsibility of deciding what should be kept, if not already determined by law, lies with the bishop.
Further reading: Abuse crisis takes a toll on Canadian Catholics
Father Morrisey referenced the second part of Canon 489 (an article of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law), which states that “each year, documents of criminal cases concerning morals, where the guilty have died or the case concluded with a conviction over ten years old, will be destroyed; a brief summary of the case with the text of the final judgment will be retained.”
“In other words,” wrote the doctor of canon law, “the law provides that some documents may—or even must—be destroyed.” He added that “if documents are to be destroyed after a trial, then even more so when no trial has been deemed necessary.”
It should be noted that the first part of Canon 489, which the archivists of that time undoubtedly knew, reads as follows: “There should also be in the diocesan curia a secret archive, or at least in the ordinary archives, a perfectly closed and locked cabinet, in which documents to be kept secret are stored with the greatest care.”
The church has thus established specific standards for the accessibility of its documents. In a diocese, for example, ordinary archives are under the responsibility of the chancellor, and access to them can only be granted by the chancellor, the moderator of the curia, or the bishop. For secret archives, “only the bishop has the key” to the cabinet where they are stored. No one can access the secret archives without the bishop’s permission or his delegate, noted Father Morrisey’s legal opinion.
Further reading: Canadian bishops launch online platform to report clerical abuse
“This does not necessarily mean that civil authorities will respect these internal church laws,” he warned before issuing this strong recommendation: “Only keep in church archives what you would accept to see seized by civil authorities.”
His second piece of advice was even more direct. “Since we are not required to keep everything, it would be a good idea, before a civil case arises, to go through the archives and destroy any documents that could be harmful later on.”
“Obviously,” he quickly added, “if a trial is already underway, we do not have the right to destroy the evidence. But if there is no case, we can decide what to keep.”
Apostolic nunciature
In the 1991 letter, Father Morrisey revealed that some Canadian bishops had already “resorted to the apostolic nunciature” to deposit documents “that they do not want to destroy but also do not want to be made public.” A bishop could even place some documents “in a safety deposit box at the bank,” he suggested.
“Our church documents in Canada are not considered privileged,” argued the canonist, who anticipated that “one day, unfortunate events may occur.”
Five recommendations
In the letter sent in 1991 to a bishop, and shared with RAR members, Father Morrisey made five final recommendations.
“Given the current precarious situation, my first recommendation would be to go through priests’ files, etc., to destroy anything unnecessary to keep,” he wrote.
Further reading: The “wicked problem” of Canada’s residential schools
If certain documents were to be retained but kept away from public access, “they should be removed from the archives and stored elsewhere.”
The canonist added that “currently, it is better to have fewer documents than more in the archives.”
“If the police ever wanted to seize church documents,” religious authorities should not hesitate “to file a lawsuit based on the charters of rights to assert their privileged nature.” Father Morrisey expressed confidence that such a lawsuit would reach the Supreme Court of Canada. “If we won this lawsuit, we would establish an excellent precedent.” But “if we lost,” he warned, “then the situation would be dire.”
Finally, “in the long term,” bishops should take steps with authorities to “have church documents recognized as privileged,” argued the Oblate Father in his 33-year-old letter. “But the climate is not conducive at present,” he observed in 1991.
The Capriolo Report
It is unclear how many Quebec dioceses followed Father Morrisey’s recommendations, how many destroyed compromising documents from priests’ files, or how many sent them to Ottawa to the Apostolic Nunciature. Nor do we know how many religious congregations have decided since 1991 to “destroy everything unnecessary to keep.”
But in 2020, nearly 30 years after Father Morrisey’s advice, retired judge Pepita G. Capriolo conducted an investigation into how complaints of abuse were handled against one priest of the Archdiocese of Montreal, Father Brian Boucher. In her 283-page report, she dedicated several pages to diocesan archives. Today, her findings take on a new tone when compared to Morrisey’s recommendations.
Further reading: The Vatican will not open a canonical procedure against Cardinal Lacroix
From the first pages of what is now known as the Capriolo Report, the judge lamented that “many documents could no longer be found” in the diocesan archives.
“Several sources informed me that a great deal of ‘shredding’ had occurred after the departure, promotion, or death of many of the individuals who supervised or accompanied Father Boucher over the years.”
Later in the report, she wrote that “shredding documents was a well-known practice in Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte’s office,” who served as Archbishop of Montreal from 1990 to 2012.
In an interview with a former diocesan chancellor, he “openly discussed his perception of the need to hide sensitive documents, even from the new archbishop,” the one who succeeded Cardinal Turcotte, Archbishop Christian Lépine.
The same chancellor recounted that in the early 1990s, “the assembly of Quebec chancellors was traumatized because the personal files of the Bishop of Saint-Jérôme had been seized” in order to find evidence against a former priest. (It was this event that worried diocesan and religious community archivists.)
Further reading: Cardinal Gerald Lacroix of Quebec accused of sexual assault
“You understand that the chancellors were dismayed when the bailiff arrived and seized the bishop’s file.” The seized document became “evidence to convict the former priest,” the former chancellor explained.
He then told Judge Capriolo that the chancellors even sought legal advice from their association’s lawyer, who advised them to respond to “the bailiff [seeking to seize files] by placing the documents under seal and having the court decide on their use.” This lawyer also suggested that the chancellors send their secret files “to the nunciature, which is a territory protected by international law.” The Capriolo Report does not indicate whether the chancellors of each Quebec Catholic diocese followed this last piece of legal advice.
Additionally, on page 177 of her report, Judge Capriolo noted that “secrecy permeates this case: secret archives, secret hiding places for documents related to delicate subjects, and documents so secret that they were completely destroyed.”
The judge also found the suggestion to send compromising documents “to the Nuncio to take advantage of his diplomatic immunity astonishing.” She added that hiding such documents in secret locations “constitutes a blatant violation of the church authorities’ moral duty to assist the police in criminal investigations.”
Further reading: Papal trip resurfaces abuse by French missionary priest
In December 2022, Pepita G. Capriolo resigned from the Implementation Committee for the 31 recommendations included in her report.
“I cannot continue to participate in an entity subject to contradictory pressures, possibly coming from individuals and bodies not present during our discussions and who do not seem to share the same vision of an open, transparent church concerned for the welfare of the most vulnerable,” stated Pepita G. Capriolo, retired judge.
Father Morrisey, professor emeritus and former dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at Saint Paul University, passed away on May 23, 2020, at the Élisabeth Bruyère Centre in Ottawa. He was 84 years old. A co-founder of the Canadian Canon Law Society, he was behind the creation of the Studia Canonica journal.
Advisor to various Vatican offices and dicasteries, episcopal conferences, numerous religious communities, and Catholic organizations, Father Morrisey gave conferences in over 55 countries on matters concerning the church, its laws, and their interpretation, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate said upon his death.
This article was first published in Présence – information religieuse.