A recently published decision by the Roman Rota upheld a complaint of defamation against a religious order, brought by a former member over his inclusion on a list of “credibly accused” clergy.
The rotal judges branded the lists, and the process by which clerics could be placed on them, a kind of continuous act of libel if the accusations were otherwise not investigated, prosecuted or judicially resolved — be it by civil or canonical authorities.
The decision is only the latest in a years-long series of Roman denunciations of so-called credibly accused lists, which have been branded as unjust by both the Dicastery for Legislative Texts and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Nevertheless, dioceses and religious orders have continued the practice of maintaining the lists, despite the repeated Roman injunctions. Defenders of the practice cite various justifications.
Survivors’ advocates argue that they function as an important institutional acknowledgement of the grave harm done by the clerical sexual abuse crisis, and in many cases these lists have helped bring the beginnings of healing for those who have been locked out of seeking a full measure of justice, either by statutes of limitations or by the deaths of their abusers.
Practically, supporters of the practice say, such lists have also served as a prompt for helping other survivors to come forward, both when a new allegation is made of recent abuse or often after years or even decades of suffering in silence and isolation.
Practically, too, many dioceses and religious orders maintain the lists as part of legal settlements with survivors, and not grudgingly, either. For many chancery officials, any move away from the public listing of accused clerics would amount to a betrayal of survivors and a walking back on decades of hard won progress towards transparency.
But the thinking behind the various Vatican condemnations of the practice has its defenders, too.