While abuse of power can take many forms, many abusers rely on the excessive and, let's say it, clericalist use of secrecy.

For decades many Church bodies, including the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, have repeatedly called for removing the pontifical secret.

On December 17, 2019, Pope Francis finally lifted it for cases of sexual violence and abuse of minors committed by members of the clergy.

Nevertheless, this is just one step.

A culture of secrecy still exists in the Church, for reasons not always justified and or even healthy.

This culture continues to contribute to authoritarianism, clericalism and patriarchalism - all attitudes deeply disrespectful of equality among the baptized.

We can cite three examples.

Crimen sollicitationis, a text that remained secret for more than a century

We know today, without yet knowing all the twists and turns, the journey of the text Crimen sollicitationis, aimed at setting up procedures to respond to the case where a cleric solicits sexual favours in the context of confession.

The issue was explosive. The Church first addressed it in 1741 and included it in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

But the text explaining the procedure to be followed in case of the "crime of solicitation", which gave its name to this document, was published for the first time in 1922.

Yet it remained secret. We only learned of its existence in 1962!

This document contained practical procedures to follow when dealing with an abusive cleric. But it was never officially published. It was sent only to a few episcopal conferences.

Which conferences and why?

Is it enough to invoke a certain idea of "harm done to the Church" to justify this secrecy?

Was it not, on the contrary, a question of doing "good" to the Church at a time when it had to face up to the evidence of reality?

Crimen sollicitationis remained in force until 2001.

The lack of transparency surrounding the condemnation of contraception

The second example has been investigated many times.

At the time of Vatican Council II, Pope Paul VI reserved the question of birth control for himself.

He appointed a "Papal Commission for the Study of Problems of the Family, Population, and Birth Rate". Its work was to remain secret.

But in June 1964 the pope revealed the commission's existence.

Catholic public opinion was overwhelmingly positive.

Successive leaks have revealed that experts known for their conservatism had rallied around the idea of new directives, and thus Paul VI felt compelled to enlarge the commission several times.

But in the end, the majority of the commission's members agreed that "contraceptive intervention", i.e. the pill, was permissible!

But the text was not published, nor were the negotiations that took place from October 1966 (when the commission submitted its report to Pope Paul) until the July 1968 publication of Humanae vitae.

That controversial encyclical, of course, did not endorse the commission's report. Instead, it condemned the use of artificial contraception.

As Martine Sevegrand reminds us, "the encyclical is the revenge of the men of the curia... disavowing practically all the experts and a strong majority of bishops".

Two conclusions can be drawn from this.

First, according to the words of Christ, "nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, nothing is secret that will not be known" (Luke 12,2), and at the moment of revelation, the scandal is twice as bad.

And then, was Humanae vitae never welcomed because the People of God (and even the fathers of the council) were not ultimately involved in this reflection that took place in the shadows?

Female diaconate, a report never published

A third example is both a protest and a demand for today.

It concerns the commission for the female diaconate set up by Pope Francis on April 9, 2020.

Following the 2003 work of the International Theological Commission, Francis appointed a commission in 2016 in response to numerous requests, including that of the International Union of Superiors General (UISG).

It finally submitted its report in May 2019.

But this document, which was supposed to provide arguments, was never published.

Why?

What were they afraid to disclose?

The pope himself was not satisfied and appointed a new commission.

But what will come of it? Will this commission finally make its arguments public?

The question of the diaconate, like that of birth control, and like many other issues, cannot be confined to the secret archives of the Roman Curia.

These texts are not secret, since they must be rooted in the Word of God and the practices of the early Church.

All their arguments must absolutely be published and made available to the People of God. If they are not, the people cannot accept them.

Wanting to maintain the secrecy of texts that should not be kept secret is to further contribute to the logic of collapse highlighted by the recently published report on the sexual abuse in the French Church.

• Marie-Jo Thiel is a physician who teaches ethics in the theology department at the University of Strasbourg (France). She is an award-winning author of numerous books and essays.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

Pushed by a royal commission report to implement reforms, they recently reverted to standard operating procedures of delay and secrecy in suppressing a major report on governance reform.

While hoping to delay and control discussion, the bishops were outmanoeuvred by the leaking of the highly significant report. It will now be available to and discussed by all Catholics - as it should be.

Titled The Light from the Southern Cross: Promoting Co-Responsible Governance in the Catholic Church in Australia, the report deserves serious consideration - but by refusing to release it until at least November, the bishops displayed their usual disposition to not trust their people, to keep them in the dark and assign to themselves the sole right to consider and comment on the contents.

The report is the outcome of a royal commission recommendation that called for a review of the governance, leadership and management structures of dioceses and parishes, including issues of transparency, accountability, consultation and the participation of lay men and women.

The report provides an important analysis of why current arrangements are not fit-for-purpose and outlines how the church can operate in ways that are faithful to its calling, respect the dignity of its members and are consistent with the reasonable expectations of modern society for inclusiveness, transparency and accountability.

Confronted with the overwhelming demand for reform it seems the bishops panicked and reverted to their old habits.

All Catholics and the wider Australian community have a legitimate interest here so that effective and appropriate mechanisms in which the community can have confidence can be implemented.

Culturally, the focus of the review is closely related to the issue of clericalism, which the royal commission and Pope Francis have been explicit in stating lies at the root of many of the failures of the church and the perversion of its mission.

The review panel took the initiative in having international experts review and offer perspectives on its likely findings and recommendations.

The report was keenly awaited by Catholics in Australia and globally.

It breaks new ground in articulating a way forward - an Australian model of church that has universal application.

Such issues challenge many in the church, none more so than the current crop of Australian bishops.

In many ways the report gets to the nub of the need for real reform, and addresses the cultural challenges in implementing a model church that is open, accountable, non-clerical and inclusive.

For some time now the bishops have promised it will no longer be "business as usual" in the administration of the church and their role in considering the need for change.

Catholics and others might want to believe such commitments, but unfortunately they can't.

This most recent episode simply underscores that sad fact. It is particularly perverse that on the topic of "co-responsible governance", which goes to the heart of transparency and accountability, the bishops chose to send a message that they don't much value or want the views of Australian Catholics, and sought to completely control any discussion.

On this occasion, their little scheme has been sprung, and rightly all Catholics will be able to read and comment on the report.

By defending their outdated instincts for secrecy, the bishops cling to an arrogant operating style.

If Catholics or other Australians doubt this, they only have to read Malcolm Turnbull's account in his recent memoir of how Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher, shamelessly and contrary to all public commitments, conceded that the bishops do allocate Commonwealth education funds in ways that suit their own agendas.

It is a revelation breathtaking in its duplicity.

Little wonder then that Canberra's Archbishop, Christopher Prowse, wrote recently that demands for transparency and accountability are part of "society's aggressive secularism".

It seems openness and accountability are things to be feared and best avoided.

The work and report of the royal commission have been pivotal in generating internal momentum on church reform.

There is ample scope for both people and bishops to walk this journey together.

It is a case of trust-building trust.

There is little doubt that the review of church governance would not have happened were it not a key recommendation of an inquiry that shone a searching light into the fetid darkness of church hierarchy, culture and the perverted loyalties that dishonoured its mission and people.

The legitimate pressure of the Australian community and governments has been critical in this process and properly needs to continue, to ensure all Australians can be confident that necessary reforms are implemented.

The governance review is part of a broader initiative, led by Brisbane's Archbishop and president of the Australian Bishops Conference, Mark Coleridge, for a Plenary Council to consider the overall position of the church in Australia.

To his credit, Coleridge prevailed in promoting this idea against the natural instincts of a sizeable number of his colleagues.

A major consultative process, held over the past 18 months involving more than 17,000 submissions from individuals and groups, demonstrated strong buy-in from ordinary Catholics. An official summary of the inputs reached an unavoidable conclusion that most want serious and significant change and have little confidence in their bishops.

It was also clear that Australian Catholics are fed up with secrecy and a lack of accountability.

The governance report is even more powerful because there is fertile ground among ordinary Catholics for such reforms.

In the final analysis, ordinary Catholics are the church - and they are demanding shared leadership and control. But many clerics, and particularly the bishops, are of a different mind.

Confronted with the overwhelming demand for reform it seems the bishops panicked and reverted to their old habits.

This is evident not just in the suppression of the governance report but also the brutal way they stacked the composition of six discernment groups, whose task was to prepare position papers that will frame the agenda for the formal Plenary sessions.

These documents have now been released, and there is tentative evidence that, perhaps despite the efforts of some, the reform issues raised by ordinary Catholics are still in the mix.

This highlights the fact that the bishops seem to be coming slowly to accepting that major change is irresistible.

Although the message from the people to the bishops in the first stage of the Plenary Council consultations was a very emphatic "we don't trust our bishops", that lack of trust can be bridged by the bishops recognising the richness and faith in the input their people have provided.

There is ample scope for both people and bishops to walk this journey together.

It is a case of trust-building trust.

In 2018, Pope Francis wrote a "Letter to the People of God" - in other words, ordinary Catholics.

In it he called for their help in ridding the church of sexual abuse and clericalism.

Francis asked Catholics to be "active and assertive" in helping him to reform the church.

The implication, and the none-too-subtle conclusion, to draw was that Francis doubted that many of his leadership team, and local bishops, were up to the task.

So, he asked ordinary Catholics to support his push for reform from the grassroots.

It is significant that the Australian hierarchy effectively ignored the Pope's letter - a surprising and damning outcome that only confirmed the Pope's assessment.

Rather than working openly with their people as Francis encourages, the Australian bishops still resort to secrecy and control, old habits they need to leave behind.

The quality of the governance report, the product of a highly qualified but mainly non-clerical panel, should make the bishops start to trust their own people. Otherwise they may find themselves offside with the Pope and abandoned by most Australian Catholics.

• Terry Fewtrell is involved with Concerned Catholics of Canberra-Goulburn. This article first appeared on johnmenadue.com

The 99-page McLellan Commission Report, published this week, described abuse as "the greatest challenge facing the whole Catholic Church in Scotland".

The commission was led by Dr Andrew McLellan, a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and former Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.

He was invited to chair the commission by the Catholic bishops' conference in Scotland

The commission's report set out the findings of a critical review of safeguarding policy and made eight key recommendations.

It concluded that support for survivors of abuse must be the Church's absolute priority, and said that it had not been so in the past.

It condemned a culture of secrecy and cover-up that allowed abuse to remain hidden, and said that in seeking to avoid scandal, the Church had caused "scandal in a theological sense" to victims and to the wider Catholic population.

"There is lost ground to be made up," it said, adding that Mass attendance had declined because of Scottish Catholics' shame about the Church's response to abuse.

It acknowledged the hard work of many within the Church to improve safeguarding.

The report noted the promises of change, particularly following the resignation of Cardinal Keith O'Brien after allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him by former seminarians.

But the commission said that the Church in Scotland "has not made significant structural changes" in terms of embedding safeguarding in ministry and theology.

It also criticised the "complications of church administration" that hampered the Church's efforts to deal consistently with abuse allegations, in particular the different authority structures that separated the bishops and religious congregations.

As the commission's report was delivered, Archbishop Philip Tartaglia offered a "profound" apology to victims of "criminal and sinful" abuse within the Catholic Church in Scotland.

The archbishop, who is the president of the Bishops' Conference for Scotland, also said the Church is "pained and shamed" by incidents of abuse that have taken place within it.

Bishop Joseph Toal of Motherwell, the bishop responsible for safeguarding, said the Church "fully accepted" the report's recommendations.

Sources

• The Tablet
• Catholic Herald
• Scottish Catholic Media Office
• Image: Daily Record

Though the pope may never have heard the line, he would know what Groucho meant. Groucho's humour had an instinctive suspicion of any establishment.

Perhaps because he is the son of Italian migrants in Argentina, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, felt what it was like to be outside the establishment of his native land.

The outsider Pope

Whether he did or didn't feel an outsider in Argentina, he brings all the marks of an outsider to his life in the Vatican - from being shocked by the papal apartments where he was expected but declined to live, to dispensing with the formality that goes with the papacy, conceived as a role and status in line with that of European monarchs.

Since arriving at the Vatican, Pope Francis has never missed an opportunity to emphasise that office in the Church is not designed for the enjoyment and enhancement of the office holder but so that better and more universal service may be offered to the people the office holder is to serve.

In doing away with a great deal of the Vatican's pomp and ceremony, Pope Francis also has abolished some titles in the Vatican such as monsignor. That title, of course, is the tip of the iceberg.

Pomp and circumstance

The ecclesiastical titles - Eminence, Excellency, My Lord, Your Grace and related aristocratic appellations - are an invention in the Italian states of the 17th century when the Church sought to match the self-aggrandising aristocracy, who used such terms to inflate their significance. Princes, dukes, counts and countesses all started referring to each other - and insisting everyone else referred to them - with ever more florid and self-enhancing references. The Church followed suit.

Pope Francis has sought to eliminate this culture of self-promotion and entitlement by attacking it at its source.

His denunciations of clericalism are frequent, heartfelt and blunt. He describes it as a disease that consumes and kills the Gospel. What is it? At one level it is the disease at work in any bureaucracy or organisation anywhere in the world.

Careerism and loyalty

Careerists set a target for themselves - some desired promotion or title and the associated privileges. They do anything to climb the ladder and get the prize. They remain silent in the face of hypocrisy, injustice, even crimes. And they do so to secure for themselves where they are with a view to where they might go.

They maintain relentless and unswerving loyalty to whomever they must to secure where they are. They pay obeisance to "makers" and "patrons" so that they can continue to enjoy preferment.

There is an even more sinister side to clericalism than these obviously odious features. What clericalism also is about is protecting priests, at any level of the hierarchy and at all costs. And too many priests presume it.

Protectionism

It is why some can be authoritarian and overbearing, exploitative of the good will of lay people and religious (especially nuns), prone to financial improprieties, be dismissive of criticism or engage in sexually inappropriate, sometimes criminal behaviour.

Why? Because they know there is very little accountability in the clerical system and bishops and religious superiors will ignore, cover up or contest legitimate complaints.

What is the motivation of Church authorities? It is an ingrained belief that investigating complaints and finding against a cleric will create scandal, disharmony and conflict.

Unfortunately, this attitude and behavioural pattern goes as high as the pope. In 1922, Pope Pius XI secretly decreed that any charges against a priest for molesting a child was to be handled internally in the Church and under a rule of secrecy, the breaking of which meant excommunication.

'Loyalty' at all costs

Before 1922, if a priest was discovered to be molesting children, he was defrocked and handed over to civil authorities for trial.

After 1922, and as required by all popes since then, all handling of clerics accused of child sexual abuse was to be handled in the Church's courts and as a Pontifical Secret - the strictest kind in the Church.

That secrecy was so strict that the existence of the decree itself was a pontifical secret, known only to bishops who literally had to keep the decree itself and any related cases in a separate safe to which only he and his vicar-general had the key. Any breech of the secrecy about the existence or associated procedures entailed excommunication, which only the pope could revoke.

The law - spelled out in the motu proprio Crimen Solicitationis - was promulgated in secret in 1922 and reconfirmed by St John XXIII in 1962.

The substance of the previous ordinances were issued under another form, with minor modifications but still subject to the absolute conditions punishable by excommunication of "Pontifical Secrecy", by St John Paul II in 1992.

Again in 2010, this directive was further slightly modified by Benedict XVI but with the same "secrecy" provisions that foster cover-ups applying.

Continuing clericalism

The law remains in force today and the whole sorry story of how the popes since 1922 have provided one of the strongest reinforcements of clericalism remains unchanged.

By not involving civil authorities, Church leadership at the highest level substituted a fig leaf of legal accountability for evildoers and reinforced the "special" character of the clergy as one that was beyond the law.

How clericalism worked in this way is spelled out in meticulous detail by Kieran Tapsel in his new book, Potiphar's Wife: The Vatican's Secret and Child Sexual Abuse published in late May.

Francis is the third pope in recent times to ask for help in reforming the office of the Bishop of Rome, following Paul VI and John Paul II.

He has a perfect opportunity in his own hands right now to start the process and take a significant step to demolishing the culture of clericalism he laments by cancelling the pontifical secret for child sexual abuse.

Michael Kelly is a Jesuit priest and the executive director of ucanews.com

Source: UCA News

Image: UCA News

Church leaders thought they had struck a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with police about what information would be handed over.

The unsigned draft memorandum said: "Church authorities shall make available the report of an assessment and any other matter relevant to the accused's account of events only if required to do so by court order."

But police deny there was any arrangement, saying such a deal would be been in breach of the Crimes Act.

Documents released under Freedom of Information laws show that the executive director of the Catholic Commission for Employment Relations, Michael McDonald, wrote to the NSW child protection squad in 2003 seeking confirmation that the memorandum of understanding was still in place.

In response, Kim McKay from the child protection squad advised no agreement ever existed.

"The arrangements proposed by the draft MOU appear to be in direct conflict with the explicit legislative requirement of section 316 of the Crime Act," he wrote back.

But Michael Salmon, who was the Catholic Church's point of contact for police at the time, confirming that the Church had operated under the unsigned agreement.

"The church assumed it was operational, we were practising the provisions of the MOU and dealing with the police under those provisions," he said.

"We had an understanding from police it was approved."

Mr Salmon, director of the Professional Standards Resource Group of the Catholic Church in NSW, said: "We had a line of communications with the police and all indications from the police were that the MOU was approved from their end."

However, a spokesperson for the NSW Police said: "The Church continued to co-operate with NSW Police but it did so without any protections assumed in an MOU, as such protections would not have been valid given the requirements of Section 316 of the Crimes Act."

Sources:

Radio Australia

ABC News

The Guardian

Image: Flickriver.com