First of all, thanks for the journalism. It’s great.
Ed claims that bishops and chancery priests chose not initiate canonical procedures against abusers because they thought the code to be outdated. Canonical criminal proceedings, then, ought to have been common throughout the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. Was this the case?
It’s my understanding that we mishandled abuse cases even when the code was new and relevant. Our fear of scandal was the real motivator (as it was with every organization). The “spirit of vatican II” and enlightened psychology were just convenient excuses for us to continue doing what we were doing: avoiding scandal.
It's generally accepted that while at the CDF and while at Pontiff he handled cases of sexual abuse pretty well and was a much firmer hand. I wonder if part of that was perhaps a recognition that the more permissive hand he exercised earlier in his career, was in fact (as it was) a detriment to the Church.
You write "a problem which was a creation of its own culture and attitudes".
I wonder to what extent that is true and it was not a problem that was existed in society at large rather than just in the Church.
Here in the UK buggery was a criminal offence until 1967. This was self-evidently wrong and persons accused of it were regarded with sympathy leading to the repeal of the legislation. However the effect of this was such that any such behaviour was tolerated and this included paedophilia which got under the radar and was indeed promoted by civil rights enthusiasts calling for the age of consent to be reduced etc. This culture seeped into the Church from society at large. Often as not police and magistrates were just not interested and many cases were wrongfully tolerated. I can remember a particularly bad case where we as his lawyers told the offender that he would certainly be sent to prison. However having told the magistrates that he would receive treatment he escaped prison. It was that kind of thing which led to cases not being reported to the police as it seemed a waste of time. Whether this same culture existed in other jurisdictions I do not know.
First of all, thanks for the journalism. It’s great.
Ed claims that bishops and chancery priests chose not initiate canonical procedures against abusers because they thought the code to be outdated. Canonical criminal proceedings, then, ought to have been common throughout the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. Was this the case?
It’s my understanding that we mishandled abuse cases even when the code was new and relevant. Our fear of scandal was the real motivator (as it was with every organization). The “spirit of vatican II” and enlightened psychology were just convenient excuses for us to continue doing what we were doing: avoiding scandal.
It's generally accepted that while at the CDF and while at Pontiff he handled cases of sexual abuse pretty well and was a much firmer hand. I wonder if part of that was perhaps a recognition that the more permissive hand he exercised earlier in his career, was in fact (as it was) a detriment to the Church.
You write "a problem which was a creation of its own culture and attitudes".
I wonder to what extent that is true and it was not a problem that was existed in society at large rather than just in the Church.
Here in the UK buggery was a criminal offence until 1967. This was self-evidently wrong and persons accused of it were regarded with sympathy leading to the repeal of the legislation. However the effect of this was such that any such behaviour was tolerated and this included paedophilia which got under the radar and was indeed promoted by civil rights enthusiasts calling for the age of consent to be reduced etc. This culture seeped into the Church from society at large. Often as not police and magistrates were just not interested and many cases were wrongfully tolerated. I can remember a particularly bad case where we as his lawyers told the offender that he would certainly be sent to prison. However having told the magistrates that he would receive treatment he escaped prison. It was that kind of thing which led to cases not being reported to the police as it seemed a waste of time. Whether this same culture existed in other jurisdictions I do not know.