Washington D.C., Apr 11, 2019 / 04:45 pm (CNA).- After the April 11 publication of a new essay by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, commentators are mostly discussing their perception of the politics surrounding the release, or Benedict’s assessment of the sexual revolution and its relationship to the crisis.
But lost in that discussion is the immediate practical application of the document, which articulates a theology of law that seems to support the ‘zero tolerance’ approach to addressing sexual abusers in the Church, which Pope Francis has long endorsed, even while he has not yet arrived at a practical way of delivering it.
At the heart of his new argument, the former pontiff insists that the purpose of punishing the perpetrators of sexual abuse is the salvation of souls, which is the highest law of the Church.
Recalling that, in the 1980s, the crisis of abuse began to reach Rome after decades of building at the diocesan level, Benedict’s essay explained that there was in Rome a double failure of law and theology, which left both victims of abuse and the faith itself unprotected.
While the previous Code of Canon Law contained a long list of specific crimes a cleric could commit – including a litany of sexual delicts – “the deliberately loosely constructed criminal law of the new Code” of 1983 offered a much pared down set of penal norms, Benedict argued.
He added that in accord with a prevailing ecclesiology at the time there also emerged among many canonists and bishops a false dichotomy between justice and mercy, in which mercy was seen to pre-empt and exclude the former, rather than following and tempering it.
Benedict highlighted the emergence of a kind of legal “guarantorism,” in which the rights of the accused seemed to be afforded the central concern of the canonical process, often at the expense of victims, restorative justice, and the public good.
Temporary suspensions and stints in therapy for abusive clerics were treated as adequate punishment, and local bishops were left with abusive priests they were expected to rehabilitate.
Under Pope St. John Paul II, reforms to the process began, starting with Rome’s decision to raise the canonical age of majority for these cases to 18, and to extend the canonical statute of limitations. The reforms under Pope St. John Paul II culminated in 2001, when Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela established new legal norms for the handling of “major crimes” against faith and morals in canon law.
Among the most crucial of St. John Paul’s reforms was, Benedict noted, the transfer of competence of sexual abuse cases from the Congregation for Clergy to the Congregation for the Doctrine if the Faith. This change was not, the pope emeritus explained, a merely bureaucratic move, but one rooted in a proper understanding of the nature and gravity of the crime of sexual abuse.
Benedict said the decision was a recognition that sexual abuse of minors is a crime against the immediate victim, and against the faith itself.
Certainly, the experience of recent decades appears to bear out the effect of the sexual abuse scandals on the faith all of Catholics, at least some of whom have lapsed in the practice of the faith following the sexual abuse crises.
This does not suggest that Benedict’s essay ignored concern for the right of defense. Instead, Benedict argued that “a properly formed canon law must contain a double guarantee — legal protection of the accused, legal protection of the good at stake.”
The idea that there is a legal necessity to defending the “good of the faith” in sex abuse cases will likely prove the most important contribution Benedict will makes to the ongoing progress of reform.
Benedict’s essay articulated its own version of “zero tolerance” in that framework, noting that “Jesus protects the deposit of the faith with an emphatic threat of punishment to those who do it harm.”
Presenting sexual abuse as a crime against the soul, not just the body, and recognizing that it can have cascading tiers of victims, refocuses the legal process through the lens of its most quoted maxim: “salus animarum suprema lex est.”
Benedict seems to argue that if the salvation of souls is the Church’s highest law, the protection of the faith should be understood as a legal good at least as important as protecting the rights of accused abusers.
From that vantage point, Benedict observed that there is much legal reform still to be done, and that Pope Francis is rightly carrying it forward.
Much of the ongoing discussion has centered around what other kinds of sexual misconduct, in addition to the abuse of children, should be canonically criminalized.
Some prominent bishops have insisted on distinguishing between the sexual abuse of minors and sexual misconduct between adults, arguing that potentially consensual sexual misconduct by clerics should not be accorded the status of a major crime. In light of Benedict’s essay, some are likely to see in that approach the juridic framework that Benedict described as guarantorism.
But other bishops, including Cardinal Séan O’Malley of Boston, have emphasized the importance of seeing sexual abuse of clerical power treated with the same gravity as abuse of a minor.
The pope seems to thinking along the same lines as O’Malley, demonstrated by his recent expansion of the definition of a “vulnerable adult” in the canonical norms of the Roman Curia and the Vatican City State.
Benedict’s theology of penal law, which holds at its center the crimes against the faith of the Church — and of the victims of abuse — offers a powerful rationale for Pope Francis’ action.
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea,” Benedict quotes from the gospel.
These little ones, the Pope emeritus wrote, are not only those who physically suffer abuse but also the “common believers who can be confounded in their faith,” be they children or adults.
‘It is important to see,” Benedict says, “that such misconduct by clerics ultimately damages the Faith.”
Set against this understanding of the depth of sexual abuse as a crime both physical and spiritual, Pope Francis’ ongoing efforts to articulate legally the policy of “zero tolerance” may find a renewed impetus.
Such a policy, Benedict has now argued, is essential to the salvation of souls.
[…]
If true, this is very bad news.
The writing was not only on the wall it was emblazoned across the media by his being rendered impotent by the Pontiff. Beginning with the Pontiff’s dismissal of Cdl Mueller’s trusted, orthodox Staff, muzzling him. The idea that AL must be read in continuity with tradition is counter to the Pontiff’s purpose in AL and ongoing implementation by a nod and wink to the German and other Bishops Conferences. He’s a good man. I regret he didn’t stand up directly to the Pontiff and get fired with not only honor. But with the courage to set an example for the Church.
Apparently, he doesn’t…
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/07/02/cardinal-mller-theres-no-problem-between-me-pope-francis/
Well, well..,all of you die-hard Francis defenders have what to say???
The Holy Spirit and the Deposit of Faith…we will soon see if the Catholic Church is the true Church.
The Deposit of the Faith has not been abrogated and never will be. Our Catholic Faith is assured by Christ’s words. The Pontiff has not officially touched or changed one word. Devious covert implementation of any policy contrary to that Deposit is manifest error, non binding, absolutely necessary to reject. Which it will be by the Faithful. With Christ we may suffer awhile. With him steadfast in the Catholic Faith we will rise to eternal life.
….that the pope is exercising his rightful prerogative??
Bruno Forte would be bad as the head of the CDF; I don’t know anything about Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, SJ. O’Malley didn’t impress me as the Archbishop of Boston and I have no reason to think that he will act as the voice that Pope Francis needs.
Pope Francis and any further perversions of pastoral teaching (for example, anything that may result from the rumored commission on Humanae Vitae) are a problem for Latin Catholics only if they hold to a strong ultramontanist view of the papacy.
Francis-Kirk is fake Catholicism.
Francis hires people like James Martin to teach immorality to our children, while F confection the facade of “orthodoxy.”
Double-talking and dog-whistling all day, every day.
An unworthy shepherd.
I wouldn’t leave my children alone in a room with him or any man who he appoints – they are not trustworthy.
Cardinal Mueller is a great man, who stood by the faith when the Pope undermined him at every turn. He tried to correct Amoris Laetitia, but the Pope rejected his counsel. He tried to save AL from itself, but the Pope rejected him. His job was not to stand up and oppose the Pope publicly, as some contend. His job was to try and steer a dangerous Pope in the right direction, without undermining the Papacy itself. Now Mueller will be free to speak out more clearly.
Two very troubling items – Many have said that the Pope was out to undermine the legacy and magisterium of JP II. Now we hear that he is removing JP II’s name from the John Paul II Institute for the Family. If true, this is a heinous act of a very tiny man. It is perhaps conclusive evidence of an irrational dislike for JP II and his thought. It shows a pettiness and arrogance that many have seen in this man.
Second, Archbishop Paglia recently told the parents of a severely disabled and dying baby to essentially forget about it and let their baby die. They had raised 1.4 million dollars to take their baby to America to try one last treatment as a last ditch attempt to save his life. Not only would the vaunted British healthcare system not pay for it, they refused to let the parents take their baby to America to even try to treat the baby. This is heartlessness in spades. Paglia cynically quoted JP II out of context, and claimed that the parents should let their baby die rather than try one last treatment. This is evidence of extreme sickness in the Vatican. The whole Vatican seems to be rejecting Catholicism.
The Vatican is embarrassed by and therefore rejects many things Catholic.
The Vatican under this pontiff is not a defender of the Faith.
Muller should not be surprised at his removal. No thinking Catholic should be surprised, al all.
All things pertaining to John Paul II are inimical to His Holiness and moreover Poland is being reminded that their resistance to his new pastoral teaching has caused him great offence
“Now Mueller will be free to speak out more clearly.”
Yep. And here’s what he has to say… (Warning: Content is HIGHLY disappointing to ideologues.)
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/07/02/cardinal-mller-theres-no-problem-between-me-pope-francis/