Wiping the slate clean

by Editor · June 5, 2002

Last week we reported that the US Church and the Vatican may be on collision course over how to deal with allegations of sex abuse by consecrated Church personnel.

Many US bishops propose that all allegations of sexual abuse of minors should be reported to the civil authorities, and priests who have abused minors should be barred from active ministry.

Vatican judge Fr Gianfranco Ghirlanda SJ, on the other hand, argues that the civil authorities should not be notified of all such allegations, and that past abusers may be reassigned to parishes. Incredibly, Fr Ghirlanda finds no obligation to notify parishioners of past abuses by such priests.

The battle lines�in as far as these may be drawn�are yet unclear. The views expressed by the Vatican�s leading lawyers do not bear the official seal (though their publication would require some sort of curial approval).

This month, the US bishops� conference will meet in Dallas to set up a national policy, which will likely include some form of mandatory reporting. Such a conference-wide directive will require ratification from the Vatican.

What the bishops of the United States�the epicentre of the scandal�decide, and how the Vatican reacts, will reverberate throughout the Church. This includes the Southern African Church, which is still in the process of defining its own response to South African legislation which stipulates mandatory reporting of all abuse allegations involving minors.

Some people have been perplexed at what is perceived as a lack of clarity on the issue by some local Church leaders. It is self-evident that if a crime appears to have been committed, it must be reported to the police for investigation (unless, of course, this would break the inviolable seal of the confessional).

The Church�s acquiescence in the law, however, will not suffice. Allegations of sexual abuse are notoriously difficult to prove in court. Church authorities, the US Catholic magazine Commonweal warns, “cannot escape the responsibility of making their own decision about suspension, treatment, reassignment, or retirement, which may�be complicated because the accused [may have] been �let off� by the law.”

A dual process is therefore necessary: allegations of abuses must be dealt with by the law and within the Church (in a process that must include the laity). The Southern African bishops� Protocol already provides a sound framework for the latter.

The Church is faced with the challenge of restoring confidence in their leadership and protecting the faithful from potential sexual predators within its consecrated ranks.

For this, the slate must be wiped clean. All past and present abuse cases must be identified and dealt with in a spirit of transparency and accountability. At the same time every care must be taken to curtail the chance of future violations. And when these do occur, they must be dealt with swiftly and openly.

It must be noted that these processes should also include allegations of non-consensual sex involving Church personnel and adults.

The Church in Southern Africa has had a good track record of consulting and even empowering the laity. It is to be hoped that the revision of the local policy on sex abuse will include input by lay people�not just in a consultative capacity, but fully involved in the decision-making process.

Nothing less will restore trust.