
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.
[…]
TO THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE VATICAN: This is what happens when you open your borders and allow free-access to “migrants.” Pope Leo ought to just consider this miscreant a “migrant.”
Why drag migrants into this?
Simply because this person illegally trespassed upon sacred ground. Please note that the Vatican police FORCIBLY removed him from the premises. However, according to Leonine Doctrine, this intruder should have been welcomed as Christ and permitted to do whatever he wanted to do since he “migrated” to that area of the sanctuary. Why didnt Leo treat him as a guest like he counsels our government to do? Please, dear Br. Jaques, let us know what the Vatican authorities did with this individual. Did they throw him in jail? Will they prosecute him? Maybe just give him a cupful of leftover ice and send him on his way? He’s a migrant simply because he went where he was not supposed to be (that is, unless Leo tells us otherwise).
It would seem the far greater desecration made than these mindless crazies was the Jubilee Celebration parade into St Peter’s Basilica homosexuals flaunting their ‘life choices’ [Pope Leo’s terminology] insulting Catholic doctrine with an expletive, and receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Leo XIV had to be informed beforehand to permit Fr James Martin SJ to arrange this depravity spectacle. Since his elevation to the papacy Leo XIV has made it consistently clear where he stands. Who would have conceived this occurring during Benedict’s or John Paul’s pontificates? This is a time for reparation and strengthening of faith in Christ.
I was thinking the same thing, Fr. Morello. It seems as if something very evil is at work over there and this last episode is just one more outward or blatant instance of it. It makes one cry. Francis of Assisi, pray for the Church that once you rebuilt; Anthony of Padua, pray for the Church that you so well helped once.
Oscar, you allude to what may well be the marker for “something very evil is at work over there”. I’ve referred to it elsewhere as the cultic Pachamama idolatry ceremonies that occurred at the Vatican under Francis I. Since that time there’ve been a chain of controversial events, allegedly contrary to Apostolic tradition.
In remarks regarding these altar desecrations Bishop Athanasius Schneider believes they are not as serious as those Pachamama worship ceremonies, which were violations of the first commandment. Sins of idolatry are more egregious than what followed. My opinion is that the Pachamama idolatry was the source of what has followed.
It doesn’t appear that there was a exorcism ritual [the formal blessing of a house is an exorcism ritual] to correct that idolatry due to the involvement and respect given to Pope Francis.
Fr Peter you are right that from a point of view of dates – Pachamama Ceremony was October 4 2019 – all the evil flows from that date onwards. The subsequent dessecrations are all also post Traditionis Custodes 16.07.2021. So, two major dates.
The sanctification of daily TLM on the side altars of “the panting heart of Rome” – as the priests loudly beat their chests – was axed by application of Traditionis Custodes brutally ending those daily masses which were calling down graces to the heart of the Church’s tresury.
Dessecration is the consequence of the dessacrilisation of St Peter’s: the application of Traditionis Custodes by Churchmen. It is an unprecedented punishment. The message is clearly a call back to faith of the fathers, as the Church continues to persecute thriving faithful parishes for the crime of TLM.
Holy father, hear the cry from the formerly panting heart of Rome: Bergoglioism is not the Faith of our Fathers.
Just when you think humans can’t possibly do anything more disgusting, along comes a story like this.
I am hopeful this guy will do a VERY long stint in jail. And personally, I am tired of hearing “by reason of insanity” used as a way to get people exempted from the punishment they so richly deserve. Jail for a bunch of years, and then throw him into a mental hospital when the prison term expires.
The steward who was forgiven?
As all catholics know, forgiveness does not mean you are exempt from punishment for your sins when you are judged. Why should you be exempt in this world? Further, is there a point in offering forgiveness when there has been no sign of repentance?
I am a little more than tired of what I call the “tyranny of nice”. That is, the way in which too much of secular society views sin, violence and and immorality. Which means everything is all ok, no matter what heinous crime you commit. Because no one wants anyone to “feel bad” by speaking the truth about what someone has done. Apparently, thats worse than the crime itself in some circles. Sorry, but I think the fact that we do not hold people accountable for bad behavior is part of the reason civil society is on the brink of dissolving.
Mill stone around the neck?? Jesus advised forgiveness. He never said the sins didnt matter.
LJ, you get my nomination for Pope. You get it!
“This is what happens when you open your borders and allow free-access to “migrants.”
No, this is what happens when the Church fails to repent for abuse. It also happens when the Church herself allows/invites “the abomination of desolation” into her buildings and her heart, and becomes a whore instead of a bride. One needs only to refer to the Old Testament to see that.
In a sense, a man urinated on the altar of St Peter’s gave a physical expression of a rapidly escalating spiritual abuse which has been dealt to Our Lord and to His Bride, the Church, by the hands of her hierarchy. Recently we saw “f*ck the rules” and other phenomena (invited in by the Vatican) exactly in the same place; St Peter’s was desecrated already.
Attention not deserved. As much as possible, do not broadcast. Do the purification without broadcast.
Clergy, abandon the adolescent mentality fixation with media.
One could also argue that loving and accepting ALL of God’s children as Pope Leo is doing is in line with reparation and strengthening faith in Christ.
It was reported elsewhere that a penitential rite was performed. My question: Was a penitential rite done after Bergoglio desecrated the Basilica with the worship of the Pachamama demon within its sacred walls?
The man is clearly not well. What happened is awful, but if he’s mentally ill he’s not responsible for his actions. He should get help, we should pray for that man, the altar should be cleaned and re-consecrated and we should move on. We shouldn’t make more out of this than needed.
Unless these people are crazy enough to think a person is a tree, they know what they are doing. This “mentally ill” plea is just a convenient way for those on the left to excuse uncivil behavior. Its said that many of those who are jailed have some level of emotional problem. That doesnt make them innocent. That does nothing to negate the crime they have committed or help heal their victims. “Mentally ill” gets the criminal off the hook and free to commit violence again. I am doubtful you or anyone else would think its ok to “move on” if your spouse were killed by a DWI driver, or some other violent crime was committed against a loved one. People like this seldom commit one crime. As long as they are not incarcerated, the record shows they commit crimes over and over again. Often violent crimes. Much like the young Ukrainian woman who was stabbed to death on the train recently in an unprovoked attack. She could have been any one of us. Being a Christian does not require you to cheerfully be a victim.
Psychosis is a whole different thing from an emotional trouble.
I have no idea what the man in this situation suffers from but I agree that the seriously mentally ill need better care and that can include commitment in psychiatric facilities.
Years ago an unbalanced man tried to burn down our cathedral. It wasn’t his first attempt at destroying a church.
Psychiatric hospitals have a place.
💯 percent. I say this as a therapist. Mental illness is an overused excuse for criminal behavior. It’s a ploy used to excuse even the most heinous crimes and puts repeat offenders back on the streets. If the insanity plea is used the criminal should be committed to a mental institution indefinitely and held there until they no longer pose a threat to the public according to stringent standards.
As to the Gospel of Nice? It has not saved one single soul.