The Catholic bishops who responded to the Commission were unable to convince the commissioners that the seal of confession should continue to be respected, at least in some circumstances.

As a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, now in a majority of Australian states and territories when a priest in administering the sacrament becomes aware that a child has been sexually abused, he must bring such an incident to the attention of the police.

This has placed the Catholic clergy in a difficult situation. On the one hand, they will incur automatic ex-communication if they breach the inviolability of the seal of confession, even in cases of child sexual abuse.

On the other hand, they will face judicial penalties and even imprisonment if they do not notify the police of any incidents of child sexual abuse, even if such incidents have only been revealed under the seal of confession.

To escape the horns of this dilemma, I have heard of some priests who have stated that they will no longer 'hear confessions' — administer the Sacrament of Penance.

In other cases, some priests have stated that they will not grant absolution — an integral part of the Sacrament — to a penitent involved either as a perpetrator or a victim in child sexual abuse unless such a penitent agrees to repeat the information to the priest outside the confessional context.

By this strategy, the seal of confession will not be violated when the priest refers the incident to the police.

But, of course, the penitent may refuse to cooperate with this strategy and the priest will then remain caught on the horns of the dilemma.

A further casualty of all these developments has been the Sacrament of Penance itself. As a result of the pandemic, like other religious observances, its availability has been drastically curtailed, and it is unlikely that recourse to the sacrament will be as frequent as previously even when the restrictions are lifted.

Further, the confidence of the laity in the inviolability of the seal has, understandably, been undermined, a consequence of which may again be that recourse to the sacrament will be in decline.

These are matters, I suggest, that should be addressed by the upcoming Plenary Council. It is a recent situation specific to the Australian Church and one to which a remedy should be sought.

The Plenary Council would seem to be an appropriate forum in which to address these matters — the inviolability of the seal, the more limited availability of confessors and the decline in the practice of the sacrament.

For a short period in the late 1980s and 1990s the so-called 'Third Rite of Reconciliation' was made available at specific times in the liturgical year, usually in Lent and Advent, in preparation for Easter and Christmas.

It was popular with Australian Catholics. Penitential liturgies incorporating the Third Rite were instituted in most parishes.

Instead of individual face-to-face encounters with a priest in the privacy of the confessional, penitents as a congregation were invited to recall their sins mentally, express their contrition communally and receive a common absolution and penance.

Many Catholics who had not 'confessed' for many years took advantage of the Third Rite.

Appeals to reinstate the practice have, apparently, been summarily dismissed

This widespread use of the Third Rite was brought to the attention of the Roman authorities.

When the Australian bishops made their ad limina visit to Rome in November, 1998, they were admonished that this widespread use 'not infrequently occasioned an illegitimate use of general absolution'.

They were instructed in effect to eliminate the practice and adhere strictly to the relevant canons in the Code of Canon Law (1983).

As a result, the practice of the Third Rite disappeared virtually overnight. Subsequent appeals to reinstate the practice have, apparently, been summarily dismissed.

The relevant canons in the Code are canons 961 and 962 and read as follows:

Canon 961:

General absolution, without prior individual confession, cannot be given to a number of penitents together unless:

• danger of death threatens and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;
• there exists a grave necessity, that is, given the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available properly to hear the individual confessions within an appropriate time, so that without fault of their own the penitents are deprived of the sacramental grace or of holy communion for a lengthy period of time. A sufficient necessity is not, however, considered to exist when confessors cannot be available merely because of a great gathering of penitents, such as can occur on some major feast day or pilgrimage.
• It is for the diocesan bishop to judge whether the conditions required in n 2 are present; mindful of the criteria agreed with the other members of the Episcopal Conference, he can determine the cases of such necessity.

Canon 962:

• For a member of Christ's faithful to benefit validly from a sacramental absolution given to a number of people simultaneously, it is required not only that he or she be properly disposed, but be also at the same time personally resolved to confess in due time each of the grave sins which cannot for the moment be thus confessed.
• Christ's faithful are to be instructed about the requirements set out in n1 as far as possible even on the occasion of general absolution being received. An exhortation that each person should make an act of contrition is to precede general absolution, even in the case of danger of death if there is time.
• This letter of the law is very restrictive, even more restrictive than its source: 'The Rite of Penance', authorized by the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship in 1973 and the 'Normae Pastorales' of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1972.

In both of these instructions the Third Rite, while extraordinary, is at least acknowledged as an alternative in certain circumstances. The Code subsequently defined these circumstances very strictly.

The principle behind the canons turns on the availability of priests to minister to the number of penitents within a circumscribed time.

The current situation in Australia where the seal of confession is under threat is not obviously a candidate for the standard exercise of the Third Rite.

Priests who in the current climate have decided not to make themselves available for face-to-face confession may create a temporary situation of non-availability, particularly in remote areas, but in virtually all instances another priest could be contacted in a short time to substitute and fill the vacancy.

It would be interesting to speculate, however, if all the priests in a particular diocese or region declared themselves 'non-available', whether this would constitute a legitimate instance in terms of the canons for the exercise of the Third Rite.

Take, for instance, an inner-city, or even some outer-suburban, parishes, where there are still a significant number of penitents and where, presumably, the probability of an incident of paedophilia being confessed is more likely — anonymity is a central consideration here.

Let us suppose for a moment that because of the threat to the seal of confession all the priests who minister the sacrament of Penance at one or other of these parishes declare themselves unavailable and no substitutes from the Melbourne archdiocese were willing for the same reason to step into the breach.

Would this justify the Archbishop in instituting the Third Rite?

A desire for forgiveness and reconciliation

It is an unlikely scenario, and, granted the intransigence of the Roman authorities in this matter, I doubt whether they would countenance such an exception as canonically legitimate.

Perhaps a more viable approach would be to seek an interpretation or an extension of, or an addition to, the notion of availability such that it encompasses situations where face-to-face confession is liable to expose the confessor to the dilemma of either ecclesial or secular penalties.

Although the threat to the seal of confession is confined to the Australian states currently, I suspect that it is only a matter of time before increasingly secularized jurisdictions are going to see the exemption as an anomaly and revoke it, at least in respect of certain abhorrent crimes like child sexual abuse.

So, there may be new reasons to revisit the relevant canons, and the Roman authorities may be more sympathetic to such revisions than heretofore.

Further, a relaxation of the canonical strictures to make the Third Rite more available might arrest the decline in recourse to the Sacrament of Penance.

When in the 1990s the Third Rite was instituted more widely, even though it was confined to Lent and Easter, it was remarkable how many penitents emerged 'out of the woodwork'. It was, I believe, evidence of a consciousness of sin and a desire for forgiveness and reconciliation.

I suspect/hope those sentiments are still alive in the Catholic community.

The prospect of face-to-face confession, however, is daunting, especially if there has been a long interval since the previous confession, and if the seal is suspected to be compromised by the recent legislation.

And there is some evidence that some women, in particular, find face-to-face confession to a male priest in the confines of a confessional especially daunting.

So, while it is understandable that proponents of face-to-face confession — the First Rite — should continue to insist that it should remain the preferred option, it cannot be denied that as a result of a number of circumstances — closure of churches during the pandemic, the threat to the seal of confession, the more limited availability of priests — the practice of the First Rite, 'auricular confession', is in virtually terminal decline.

Granted this situation, would not a more relaxed set of canonical conditions for the exercise of the Third Rite be a way in which the centrality of the Sacrament of Penance be restored to the Catholic consciousness?

Perhaps this is a recommendation which, in view of the specific current situation in Australia, the Plenary Council could bring to the attention of the Roman authorities and hope for a sympathetic response.

• Bill Uren SJ AO is a Jesuit Priest, Scholar in Residence at Newman College at the University of Melbourne and Former Rector of the College, Jesuit Theological College and former Provincial of the Australian Jesuits. He is a graduate of the Universities of Melbourne, Sydney, Oxford and the Melbourne College of Divinity. He has lectured in moral philosophy and bioethics at the Universities of Melbourne, Murdoch and Queensland, and has served on over a dozen clinical and research ethics committees in universities, hospitals and research institutes.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

In Matthew 18:15-20, he sets out the steps for reconciliation.

First, "if your brother does something wrong, go and have it out with him alone".

If that works, well and good.

If it doesn't, then call him to the table with a couple of others to help resolve the matter.

If that doesn't work, report the matter to the whole community.

If that doesn't work, show him the door. Expel him or excommunicate him.

In each of these steps, the Matthean community, recalling the words of Jesus, was following the traditional contours for conflict resolution in the Judaean world of their time.

Then comes the distinctive theological gloss from Jesus: "I tell you solemnly, whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven."

Let's recall that earlier in the gospel at Capernaum, after Peter had made his profession of faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Jesus had entrusted Peter with the keys of the kingdom: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven".

Now this power and commission is given to the whole community.

The scripture scholar Daniel Harrington says, "[T]hat power would seem to concern either the imposing (and lifting) of decrees of ex-communication or the forgiving (and not forgiving) of sins."

According to Harrington, this gospel passage "outlines a clear procedure designed to help the sinner recognise the sin and return to the community. It roots reconciliation and forgiveness of sins in God's mercy, and thus reveals the foolishness of those who try to set limits on their willingness to forgive others." (1)

In our Catholic tradition, the forgiveness of sins has been practised in recent times by the sacrament of confession whereby the penitent confesses their sins to a priest who is bound by the seal of confession.

Three years ago, I was called before the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse because I had published an article stating that in all my years as a priest, I had never heard the confession of a paedophile and never expected to.

I said that any information I gleaned in confession about child sexual abuse was unlikely to be of any forensic value to police, as a penitent behind a screen was unlikely to identify himself, his victim, or the time and place of any offence.

I said that any state abolition of the seal of confession would render it even more unlikely that a paedophile would ever present for confession, and would simply take away one very remote possibility that a paedophile might come seeking help which could result in the paedophile being convinced to turn himself in to the authorities.

I appeared at the Royal Commission alongside the respected canon lawyer Fr Ian Waters who explained that the seal of confession covered the sins of the penitent, but not other matters.

I agreed with Fr Waters.

I gave the example of a little girl Sally who comes to confession and tells me that she stole the jelly beans and that her stepfather did something nasty to her.

I said that I could never reveal or act upon Sally's confession of having stolen the jelly beans, but I could act on Sally's assertion about her stepfather in the same way as I could if the assertion were made outside confession.

It would be a matter of pastoral prudence and care for Sally and her family.

There was a difference of opinion on the panel, with the one bishop in attendance, Bishop Terence Curtin who was chair of the Bishops' Commission for Doctrine and Morals, varying his testimony to agree more with the position put by Fr Waters.

I put a suggestion:

Father Brennan: Could I suggest the appropriate course would be to have Bishop Terry's committee of the Bishops Conference put in a particular submission to you articulating what is the received theological view of the Catholic Church in Australia on the seal of the confessional?

Bishop Curtin: Yes.

The Chair: Will we get one view?

Bishop Curtin: Yes, you would.

Father Brennan: That's the advantage of a hierarchy, your Honour.

A panel of the most senior archbishops then appeared before the commission a fortnight later.

Like many, I expected that by then the bishops would have worked out a clear united position on the limits of the seal of confession.

They did not; they publicly disagreed.

The Royal Commission recommended new laws which would abolish the seal of confession.

Those laws have now been enacted.

The Royal Commission recommended that the Australian bishops consult with the Holy See to clarify whether "information received from a child during the sacrament of reconciliation that they have been sexually abused is covered by the seal of the confessional".

Awaiting this clarification, I have as far as possible avoided hearing individual confessions, unsuccessfully proposing to our bishops that we be permitted more often to practise the communal third rite of reconciliation.

On Friday the bishops finally published the Holy See's response that the seal includes "all the sins of both the penitent and others known from the penitent's confession, both mortal and venial, both occult and public, as manifested with regard to absolution and therefore known to the confessor by virtue of sacramental knowledge." (2)

They would say that the seal covers Sally's disclosure that she was abused by her stepfather.

Australian Catholic priests now need to consider three possible scenarios.

Scenario one

What happens if a penitent, now an adult, discloses in confession that he or she when a child was sexually abused by an adult?

In confession, I would simply urge the adult penitent to report the past offence to the relevant civil authorities.

I would not take any further action.

I would not foresee any problem with my complying with the state law while at the same time honouring the seal of confession.

Scenario two

What happens if a child penitent discloses in confession that he or she has been sexually abused by a named or identifiable adult? (3)

I would treat that information in the same way as if it were disclosed to me outside confession.

I would take appropriate action to set in train any mandatory reporting requirements of the state.

This would not be a breach of the seal of the confession as I understood the seal to be when I was ordained a priest 35 years ago.

It would not be a breach of the seal of confession as I have understood it to be, on receipt of competent canonical advice which I had sought a number of times in the lead up to the royal commission.

If my action were now deemed by the Holy See to be a breach of the seal, resulting in my ex-communication, I would take heart that Australia's one canonised saint Mary MacKillop was excommunicated for a time.

In good conscience, I could take no other path.

Scenario three

What happens if a penitent confesses child sexual abuse?

I would honour the seal of confession. I would not disclose the abuse to anyone.

I would be prepared conscientiously to refuse to comply with the new civil law on the basis that: it works an unwarranted interference with freedom of religion; it is a law which, if anything, will render children less safe; and it is a law which is unenforceable as a prosecution could occur only if the child abuser disclosed to authorities their confession.

As Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court would say, this law "seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects". (4)

In my 35 years as a priest when the civil law honoured the seal of the confession, I never had a paedophile confess his sin to me in confession.

Now that the legal privilege over the seal has been withdrawn, I think it all but inconceivable that any abuse will be confessed.

Criminal lawyers, family lawyers and investigative journalists, all of whom continue to enjoy a privilege of non-disclosure, are far more likely than a priest in the confessional to hear the details of such abuse.

The only detailed human rights assessment made of the withdrawal of the privilege from priests was by retired Justice Dodds-Streeton who conducted an inquiry for the ACT Government investigating compliance with the ACT Human Rights Act 2004 which is supposed to guarantee "the freedom to demonstrate (one's) religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community and whether in public or private".

She concluded, "In our opinion, the imposition of an obligation to report child sexual abuse based on information obtained in or in connection with a religious confession is unlikely to result in many detections of, or successful prosecutions for, either child sexual abuse or breaches of the reporting obligation itself.

Where sexual abusers of children are Roman Catholics who would otherwise attend confession, they will probably avoid confession altogether; or alternatively, they may exploit the potential under the rite of confession prevalent in Australia to confess anonymously and non-specifically, in order to avoid disclosures that will lead to their detection or oblige the priest to report." (5)

If she had any experience of the Catholic rite of confession, she could have added that any penitent is likely to confess in such generic terms as to leave the confessor completely ignorant of all key details of any offence.

In future, I will do all I can to avoid ex-communication or breach of the civil law. But I will not put children at risk.

I urge our bishops and the participants at the forthcoming plenary council to consider changes to church law in Australia so as to enhance the protection of children and to make the sacrament of reconciliation more fit for purpose in a society which decries the scourge of child sexual abuse and which denies the prospect of rehabilitation of child sex offenders.

The Catholic Catechism notes: "The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church." (6)

We need doctrinal judgements and disciplinary decisions which give the highest priority to the protection of innocent children.

Our bishops and the plenary council delegates should take as their starting point the Holy See's expressed desire to ‘spare no effort in collaborating with civil authorities to pursue every avenue to end the scourge of sexual abuse.'

Contrary to the received wisdom of our recent royal commission, I should add that I agree completely with the pastoral and prudential observation of the Holy See:

"It should be recalled also that the confessional provides an opportunity - perhaps the only one - for those who have committed sexual abuse to admit to the fact.

"In that moment the possibility is created for the confessor to counsel and indeed to admonish the penitent, urging him to contrition, amendment of life and the restoration of justice.

"Were it to become the practice, however, for confessors to denounce those who confessed to child sexual abuse, no such penitent would ever approach the sacrament and a precious opportunity for repentance and reform would be lost."

We all have a responsibility to confront and arrest the wickedness of child sexual abuse in our community and in our church.

We need to put children first.

We need to maintain the hope that every person is redeemable.

We must heed those words of Ezekiel:

If I tell the wicked, "O wicked one, you shall surely die",
and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked from his way,
the wicked shall die for his guilt,
but I will hold you responsible for his death.
But if you warn the wicked,
trying to turn him from his way,
and he refuses to turn from his way,
he shall die for his guilt,
but you shall save yourself.

• Fr Frank Brennan SJ is the Rector of Newman College, Melbourne, a professor of law and the former CEO of Catholic Social Services Australia.
• Extract from homily, 6 September 2020.
  [1] Harrington, D. J. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew. (D. J. Harrington, Ed.) (Vol. 1, p. 272). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.[2] See https://www.catholic.org.au/images/Observations_of_the_Holy_See_to_the_Recommendations_of_the_Royal_Commission.pdf[3] Justice Dodds Stretton, Analysis Report: Implementation Of Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse Recommendations Regarding The Reporting Of Child Sexual Abuse, With Implications For The Confessional Seal , 14 January 2019, notes at p. 79: ‘s 327(5) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and s 316A(2)(f) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provide for a defence if the victim of an alleged offence does not wish the information to be disclosed, provided that the alleged victim is over the age of 16 (under the Victorian offence) or 18 (under the New South Wales offence). The Victorian offence requires that the victim have capacity to make an informed decision about whether or not the information ought to be disclosed.'[4] Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) at 632[5] Justice Dodds Stretton, Analysis Report: Implementation Of Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse Recommendations Regarding The Reporting Of Child Sexual Abuse, With Implications For The Confessional Seal, 14 January 2019, page 24

  [6] Catechism of the Catholic Church, #553, at https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1L.HT

The legislation - called Vos Estis Lux Mundi - enacted what is known as the Metropolitan Model, in which archbishops would play a prominent role in policing those bishops in their ecclesiastical province.

This week, the first investigation into misconduct being carried out under the procedures set out in the new law was announced: Archbishop Bernard A. Hebda of St. Paul and Minneapolis (pictured) will look into allegations that Bishop Michael J. Hoeppner of Crookston "carried out acts or omissions intended to interfere with or avoid civil or canonical investigations of clerical sexual misconduct."

In a statement on Wednesday, the archdiocese said law enforcement had also been notified of the allegations.

Jeff Anderson, a St. Paul attorney who has represented hundreds of survivors of clerical sexual abuse, told The Associated Press that the allegations against Hoeppner likely stem from lawsuits against the Crookston diocese that have been settled, including one by Ron Vasek, who was aspiring to be a deacon when, he alleged, Hoeppner blackmailed him into signing a letter in 2015 that essentially retracted his allegation that a popular priest had abused him when he was 16-years-old.

The present case would probably be held up as an example of the new legislation working as it should, with Hebda being noted as the best person to put the new law to the test.

After all, before becoming a bishop, Hebda served for over 20 years at the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, rising to become the office's undersecretary.

When he arrived in St. Paul-Minneapolis as apostolic administrator in 2015, Hebda's first responsibility was to clean up the mess left behind by Archbishop John Nienstedt, who was not only accused of mishandling abuse cases, but was also accused of personal sexual misconduct.

In other words, Hebda would be near the top of anyone's list of bishops to take Vos Estis Lux Mundi for a test drive.

In fact, some cynical observers might also note that the Vatican would probably want the first few investigations to be conducted in a place like Minnesota, which is far from the intense media scrutiny likely in other parts of the United States. Like New York, for example.

However, events might make such a media intensive investigation inevitable.

Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo has been under fire for over a year, after his former secretary became a whistleblower, and leaked hundreds of pages of diocesan records alleging that Malone had allowed accused priests to stay on the job and that he has actively engaged in abuse cover-up.

This summer, the scandal took an almost farcical turn.

Two seminarians for the diocese quit, calling on Malone to quit over his handling of clergy misconduct.

One of them, Matthew Bojanowski, alleged that he was sexually harassed by Father Jeffrey Nowak, and that Malone failed to take action when it was reported.

Later, Malone's priest secretary — Father Ryszard Biernat - leaked secret recordings in which Malone voiced concerns that the Nowak scandal could force him to resign.

Biernat later accused the bishop of silencing him when he lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against yet another priest.

Then, in a soap opera twist, an incriminating 2016 letter began circulating. It was written by Biernat to Bojanowski, and by all appearances was romantic in nature.

Public records show the two men co-own a house.

The letter had been photographed by Nowak when he was in Bojanowski's room. Continue reading

Related

• Mandatory reporting of clerical sexual abuse
• Analysis: 'Vos estis' and 'vulnerability'
• Analysis: Is Pope Francis' new abuse plan the answer Catholics are looking for?

It also includes actions or omissions of bishops and religious superiors that in any way interfere with or fail to investigate abuse.

"The crimes of sexual abuse offend Our Lord, cause physical, psychological and spiritual damage to the victims and harm the community of the faithful.

"In order that these phenomena, in all their forms, never happen again, a continuous and profound conversion of hearts is needed, attested by concrete and effective actions that involve everyone in the Church," Francis said in the document — technically a motu proprio, meaning a change to Church law under the pope's authority.

Titled Vos estis lux mundi, "You are the light of the world," the document opens with that phrase and completes a quote from the Gospel of Matthew: "A town built on a hill cannot be hidden."

The motu proprio, which applies to the whole Catholic Church, will come into effect June 1, 2019.

"It is good that procedures be universally adopted to prevent and combat these crimes that betray the trust of the faithful.

"I desire that this commitment be implemented in a fully ecclesial manner, so that it may express the communion that keeps us united, in mutual listening and open to the contributions of those who care deeply about this process of conversion," Pope Francis said.

The new law regulates how Church representatives are to respond with crimes against the sixth Commandment: forcing someone through violence or abuse of authority to

• perform sexual acts,
• performing sexual acts with a minor or a vulnerable person, and
• the production, exhibition, possession or distribution of child pornography.

It establishes new procedural rules to combat sexual abuse and to ensure that bishops and religious superiors are held accountable for their actions.

Every diocese must have a system that allows the public to submit reports easily.

Here is an abridged version of the editorial director of the Dicastery for Communication Andrea Tornielli's synopsis of the pope's document:

An 'office' for reporting in every diocese

Among the new indications given is the obligation for every Diocese in the world to set up, by June 2020, "one or more public, stable and easily accessible systems for submission of reports" concerning sexual abuse committed by clerics and religious, the use of child pornography, and cover-ups of the same abuse.

The obligation to report

The obligation for all clerics, and all men and women religious, to "report promptly" all accusations of abuse of which they become aware, as well as any omissions and cover-ups in the management of cases of abuse, to ecclesiastical authorities.

Though this obligation was formerly left up to individual consciences, it now becomes a universally established legal precept.

Not only child abuse

The document covers not only violence and abuse against children and vulnerable adults, but also sexual abuse and violence resulting from an abuse of authority as well.

This includes cases of violence against religious by clerics, as well as abuse committed against adult seminarians or novices.

Dealing with cover-ups

One of the most important elements is the identification, as a specific category, of so-called cover-ups, defined as "actions or omissions intended to interfere with or avoid civil investigations or canonical investigations, whether administrative or penal, against a cleric or a religious regarding the delicts" of sexual abuse.

The protection of vulnerable people

Vos estis lux mundi stresses the importance of protecting minors (anyone under 18) and vulnerable people.

The definition of a "vulnerable person" is broadened to include "any person in a state of infirmity, physical or mental deficiency, or deprivation of personal liberty which, in fact, even occasionally, limits their ability to understand or to want to otherwise resist the offense."

Respecting the laws of states

The obligation to report to the local Ordinary or Religious Superior does not interfere with, or change, any other reporting obligation that may exist in respective countries' legislation.

The norms "apply without prejudice to the rights and obligations established in each place by state laws, particularly those concerning any reporting obligations to the competent civil authorities."

The protection of victims and those reporting abuse

The sections dedicated to protecting those who come forward to report abuse are also significant.

According to the provisions of the motu proprio, someone reporting abuse cannot be subjected to "prejudice, retaliation or discrimination" because of what they report.

The problem of victims who in the past have been told to keep silent is also addressed."

The seal of confession remains absolute and inviolable and is in no way affected by this legislation.

The investigation of bishops

The motu proprio regulates the investigation of Bishops, Cardinals, Religious Superiors and all those who lead a Diocese, or another particular Church, in various capacities and even temporarily.

The rules apply not only in the case of these persons being investigated for having committed sexual abuse themselves, but also if they are accused of having "covered up," or of failing to pursue abuses of which they were aware, and which it was their duty to address.

The role of the Metropolitan

There are new indications regarding the role of the Metropolitan Archbishop in preliminary investigations: if the accused individual is a Bishop, the Metropolitan receives a mandate from the Holy See to investigate.

Involvement of the laity

The Metropolitan, in conducting the investigations, can avail himself of the help of "qualified persons", according to "the needs of the individual case and, in particular, taking into account the cooperation that can be offered by the lay faithful".

Presumption of innocence

The principle of presumption of innocence of the person under investigation is reaffirmed.

The accused will be informed of the investigation when requested to do so by the competent Dicastery. The accusation must be notified only if formal proceedings are opened.

Conclusion of the investigation

The motu proprio does not modify the penalties for crimes committed, but it does establish the procedures for reporting and carrying out the preliminary investigation.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Metropolitan (or bishop) forwards the results to the competent Vatican dicastery. This completes his contribution.

The competent dicastery then proceeds "in accordance with the law provided for the specific case", acting on the basis of already existing canonical norms.

Based on the results of the preliminary investigation, the Holy See can immediately impose preventive and restrictive measures on the person under investigation.

Concrete commitment

With this new juridical instrument, the Catholic Church takes a further and incisive step in the prevention and fight against abuse, putting the emphasis on concrete actions.

• Image: ABSCBN News

Francis, who is both the Vatican head of state and the head of the Church new law, wants the new law to be a model for the church globally.

The legal changes reflect a desire to show the Church is finally acting against clerical child abuse after decades of scandals around the world.

They make it obligatory for superiors and co-workers to report abuse allegations; punish failure to report with dismissal, fines or jail; and offer assistance to victims and families.

The new law also provides protection to vulnerable adults.

The new laws define a vulnerable person very broadly. The definition includes anyone "in an infirm state, of physical or mental deficiency, or deprivation of personal freedom, that in fact, even occasionally, limits their capacity to intend or to want or in any way to resist the offence."

The new definition radically expands the definition currently being used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its handling of cases from dioceses around the world. That definition says a "vulnerable" person is one who "habitually lacks the use of reason."

This is the first time a unified, detailed policy for protecting children has been compiled for the Vatican, and its embassies and universities outside the city state.

The law sets up procedures for reporting suspected abuse, imposes more screening of prospective employees, and sets strict guidelines for adult interaction with children and the use of social media.

Any Vatican public official who learns of an allegation of abuse is obliged to report it to Vatican prosecutors "without delay."

Failure to do so can result in a fine of up to 5,000 euros ($5,615) or, in the case of a Vatican gendarme, up to six months in prison.

The mandatory reporting provision is significant. Until now, the Holy See has justified not having a binding reporting policy for the universal church saying the accused clergy could be unfairly persecuted in places where Catholics are a threatened minority.

Since that is not a risk in the Vatican, it is now law.

"With this document the Vatican wants to send a message that it takes these crimes seriously, wants to prosecute them, to avoid cover up, and also to create an atmosphere that prevents these crimes from happening in the first place," a canon law professor at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University says.

The legislation requires that victims be welcomed, listened to and provided with medical, psychological and legal assistance.

It sets the statute of limitations at 20 years past the victim's 18th birthday.

Source

• La Stampa
• Reuters
• DW.com
• The Boston Pilot
• Image: South China Morning Post