Michael KellyThe Vatican’s Promoter of Justice explains the Church’s drive for child safeguarding
What exactly is the role of Promoter of Justice in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
The title itself in Canon Law refers to a much broader set of responsibilities than in civil law. In the civil law sense, I am the chief prosecutor of cases. Our system is somewhat similar to civil jurisdictions in terms of a trial: we have a judge, we have the prosecutor and we have the defence.
In Canon Law, however, the Promoter of Justice has broader responsibility. There is a responsibility to protect the rights of everyone, and it’s to ensure that justice is done in the entire process. At the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) I would be the one who oversees the process for the cases. The cases come in from the local Churches and the role of the Holy See is to make sure that everything has been done in a proper way and to direct where the process should go from there.
We work together as a team – there are about 12 of us. We assist local dioceses and religious orders who send their cases to us. These cases are reserved to the Holy See, so in the Holy Father’s name we work with them to decide how best to proceed.
What is the Canon Law process when a priest or religious is accused of abuse?
An allegation of abuse can come to us in many ways. In each country there are norms and guidelines in place that set out how an allegation is to be handled. However the allegation comes in, it goes to a designated person. That person is then in contact with everyone involved. In many countries, the first thing to do is to ensure that the civil authorities have been alerted. Secondly, one must ensure that the alleged victim of the abuse being cared for: are they interested in care and who is reaching out to them from the Church? Then, one must find out the substance of what is being said. If it is a present danger, then things go in to effect very quickly. Most of our cases come from the 1970s and 1980s.
At a point determined by law and the guidelines, the priest who has been accused is alerted. Often, as in Ireland, the priest is asked to step aside. Obviously, as you can imagine, this is a very difficult time for someone who has been accused. But, in such cases it’s important to explain to the priest that it’s for the good of the Church and for his own good that he step aside.
Then the bishop starts what is known as a ‘preliminary investigation’. This is the initial gathering of the information, then.it comes to the CDF in Rome. Sometimes what comes to us is that an accusation has been made, the civil authorities have undertaken their role – which is to protect society – and they have asked the Church to wait until the civil process has been completed. When a civil process is complete, we are in a position to move very quickly, especially if we have a civil judgement, for example, and this allows us to move quickly.
If the civil authorities decide they won’t proceed, the Church can move ahead with the case. It’s very important to understand that our investigation and our process is only to decide whether or not the priest should be in ministry. The civil authorities deal with all of the other questions, and the Church in most countries is able to co-operate very closely with them.
Our process deals with the ministerial status of a priest. When we receive all of the information from a diocese or religious congregation we determine whether or not there should be a trial. A trial is usually the just way to proceed because itis the place where we find out the truth of what happened. The CDF authorises three judges and, a Promoter of Justice and the accused freely chooses a defence lawyer , and we hold the trial.
A canonical trial is different than it is in a civil court. The interviews are not conducted in an adversarial context. The alleged victim is a witness, but usually does not testify in the presence of the priest who has been accused. As in a civil court, there are rules of evidence etc., you look at the balance of what you have. The Church has a fairly high standard to convict, which we call moral certainty. It’s not absolute certainty, but if the judges are morally certain that this crime happened then they convict. If they can’t reach moral certitude or if there is not enough evidence they have two options. They can declare the priest innocent when it’s quite clear from the evidence that the alleged action didn’t happen, or it couldn’t have happened. For example, if the dates are 20 years apart. Or, they can declare that it is unsubstantiated, that we don’t have enough evidence and the priest is not convicted. In such instances we can be in a difficult position where victims feel the tribunal has chosen the priest over the victim.
When there is no conviction, sometimes a priest can feel that he is entirely innocent and should be able to return to ministry. But, if other things came up in the course of the process, the bishop has to address these matters after the trial. The bishop has responsibilities to the priest and to the faithful after the trial. The thing that is hard for some priests to understand is that no priest has a right to ministry. Regardless of the outcome of a process, a bishop may still be in the position where he has to say to a priest “I cannot give you an assignment because of these things”. It’s essential that the Church make that clear to people.
There are other processes which are more expedient than a judicial trial when, for example, cases are very clear cut. In these instances, the bishop can be authorised to make a judgment after hearing two advisers. In serious cases, the bishop can then request that the Holy Father authorise the dismissal of the priest
Allegations of abuse are the hardest cases to prove. There are, by nature, no witnesses and often people are so profoundly hurt and affected by these things that it takes, on average, 10 to 15 years to come forward. And when alleged victims do come forward one can expect that there will be memory difficulties: there is a difficulty in even trying to remember these things, one doesn’t want to remember these things.
More than a year in to the job, how do you assess the Church’s efforts to deal decisively with abuse?
Trust in the Church has been deeply wounded and the loss of credibility in many places is enormous. But, so too, the progress that has been made is remarkable. Since the CDF assumed competency with these matters in 2001 much has been achieved.
What we’re finding is that the local Churches are coming to an understanding of the reality of child abuse in their country in waves. It began in Ireland 20 years ago, it began in the United States around the same time, there was another wave in 2002, then things started happening in Germany, in Poland. What we’re finding is, around the world, the response that is needed is becoming clearer, so our work becomes even more complex as we try to help Africa, Asia and Latin America.
One of the great new signs is the Holy Father setting up the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. In 2011 the CDF wrote to all the bishops’ conferences encouraging them to write guidelines. We’ve heard back from nearly every conference, and around 93% of countries have finished the guidelines. But, in some places, we see that the local Church needs a lot of assistance in moving from the writing of the guidelines to the implementation process.
I think the Commission is a marvellous place to be able to work with the different cultures who come to the Vatican and say “the reality of child abuse amongst us is a very different reality”. The relationship with the civil authorities is very different in many countries. We’re hearing that the principles that are closest in Europe and the United States are not where others will begin.
What is especially significant about what the Pope had done with this new commission is that rather than lay out what the commission should do, he asked the commission itself to make recommendations on its membership and to draw up the kind of work it should do. A key question now is what size the commission should be. One sense is that it should be small and , as I understand it, make use of the model of engaging “working groups.” Each working group might devise a project to bring a language group or culture group together and work on specific issues.
How is Ireland doing on this issue in relation to other countries?
The purpose of my visit is not to make specific judgements on how Ireland is doing with cases of child abuse. My visit is to support those working in child safeguarding. I’ve had an opportunity to meet with child protection authorities, bishops, priests and laypeople, and it’s been very fruitful.
It’s very encouraging for me to come to Ireland and see the very effective work that has been and is being done in child safeguarding. What I’m taking away with me is the fact that the good work here can be shared with the rest of the world. I could encourage the new Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors to work with the safeguarding authorities in the Church in Ireland. The phrase everyone is using is ‘best practices’ and Ireland has a lot of best practice in this field.
The guidelines and the norms that have been established in Ireland are really quite fine. In fact, I’ve asked if they’d be interested in sharing these with countries who are not quite as far along. The missionary spirit of Ireland could be very helpful to us in bringing other parts of the world to where Ireland is.
We can look outside of the Church too. I was involved in campus ministry for 20 years, and the numbers of our young people who have been harmed by abuse is staggering. Something like one in four of our boys and one in three of our girls in the United States have been harmed by sexual abuse of some form.
Our mission is not just to Catholic children, but all children. And after the very difficult experiences of the past 20 years, we might even begin to take a role of leadership, certainly without any pride: we have to do so humbly, we have to do so in a way which recognises the real hurt that we’ve caused. But over the past 20 years in places like Ireland the Church has done a remarkable work to bring people together to see what is needed to respond effectively to this crime in our midst. We’ve learnt quite a bit now that we can share with others. We can partner with others. Sexual abuse of children is an area that most people would prefer not to hear about, but we’ve been forced to look at it. We can help others to see where abuse really happens, especially in families. We have a role, you might even call it leadership, where we can assist society as a partner to face this issue.
In a sense, the notoriety that we have received in the Church is something that we can use for the good of all children. I was quoted last year when I first arrived in Rome thanking the media in this regard, because the notoriety is helping us keep the energy up. More and more, the Church can be a mirror to the wider society, helping people to face the issue of abuse.
Do you ever come across those in the Church who see the abuse of children by priests or religious as an Irish problem or an English-speaking problem?
Unfortunately, yes. But, I don’t think people who are seriously in the business of safeguarding children think that. But, we do have people from different parts of the world saying abuse is not a problem in our country. But almost everyone I’ve met responds the same way the first time they hear of child abuse, especially abuse in their own family or their own school. Our first reaction is “that couldn’t possibly be, people couldn’t hurt a child”. The first reaction is absolute shock, and the response to shock – especially if it is in one’s own family – is most often disbelief. This is what victims have said to us over and over again: I was not believed.
Frustration has been expressed about delays in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith handling cases. Is this criticism fair?
The best way to judge whether a system is working is to judge us by present-day cases. If a case has been reported to the diocese and they bring it to us now, the question to ask is whether it is being processed in a way that is just? At the moment, we are doing much better with these cases. Our continuing difficulty is with the 30- and 40-year-old cases. But, I’m not saying that we should be excused for taking too long, we must do better.
Do we have a backlog of cases? Yes, we do. We have plans in process for what we’re going to do better to move these things forward.
What would you say to those who say Canon Law should have no part in the Church’s response to abuse?
In terms of protecting our life and society, in terms of public safety, child abuse is an issue for the civil authorities and civil law. In terms of the ministry of a priest who has been accused of abuse, the Church deals with that using Canon Law. Church law does not stand against civil law, it is our system for how we deal with those who minister in the Church.
When the difference is explained, people generally understand the importance of canon law in the Church context. But, what they don’t want is that the Church says to the civil authorities when you bring an accusation to us we will handle it, we will decide what you can do. That was done in some places in the past, but now there are very clear norms in many countries: in those places, allegations must be reported to the civil authorities and we help people to do that.
The issue of the Church reporting to the civil authorities is generating a fascinating discussion in countries that do not require mandatory reporting. In some places, for example, bishops are saying is that victims come to them and say they will decide themselves whether to go to the civil authorities. They say they’re not coming to the Church for that, they’re coming to the Church for spiritual counselling and for healing. The Church’s moral duty in this situation, when dealing with an adult who has been abused as a child, is however to ensure that the person knows they can go to the civil authorities . That will be and interesting discussion when the different voices on this topic come to the same table.
The real question must always be: are we putting children first? Will the decisions we make safeguard children?
Some reports indicate a dramatic drop in allegations of abuse. Is this the case?
There is evidence in the places that have done studies that the incidents of priests abusing minors is dropping in a way that is quite dramatic. In the 1970s or 1980s around 4% of priests had been accused of abuse. In the past decade that number has dropped to less that 1% of priests . I’m not quoting these statistics because I think we should be lauded, but rather to determine whether the guidelines we have had in place for ten or 20 years are effective or not. And, according to the statistics, the guidelines are apparently very effective.
What experts say to us is that these guidelines are not only effective when it comes to priests, but more widely. You can share these guidelines and principles with other institutions where children are involved.
It is difficult to assess our progress, because truthfully one case of sexual abuse is one too many. But, for example, if we see that a priest-abuser’s modal number of victims is four, if we are able to stop an abuser after one act of abuse, our actions have saved three other children who will not be abused.
How is the Church’s response to abuse having an impact on priestly formation?
Absolutely. The first part is the pre-entry screening. We’re working with professionals who will say to us that they are much better at this than they were 20 years ago. Interestingly, they tell us that there are certain things they can’t screen for. You would think that you can screen for true paedophilia, the abuse of very young children. But, the experts tell us they do not have a test.
The second part is that there needs to be careful formation in the seminary. There needs to be attentive supervision and candidates needs to be scrutinised very closely.
The experts also tell us that many abusers can operate as if they were two different persons. In public, they can have very open approach to ministry, but there is another part of their private life that they can put aside. They can live with these two things. Fr Steve Rossetti [a well-known priest-psychologist] said that the biggest mistake that psychologists made in the past is that they were conned and manipulated by abusers. Now, for example, psychologists never interview an accused priest without a team. It’s much harder to manipulate a team. Learnings like that can be used immediately and our system. If there’s a canonical interview there’s going to be several people there.
What is the average number of cases your office receives on a monthly basis?
On average our congregation receives over 400 new cases each year, roughly 35 new cases each month.
What impact is Pope Francis having on the issue of child safeguarding?
Pope Francis has been very clear. On strategically placed and clear occasions he has said safeguarding children is a priority. This is one of the reasons why he has appointed the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. In terms of how Pope Francis personally interacts with this, we’re going to see over the coming months that the commission will make recommendations to him for things he can do to continue along these lines.
Pope Francis is the kind of leader who makes it possible for those who assist him to bring forward ideas. Then he takes hold of these ideas. The new commission is not yet in the position of bringing forward specific things to him. But, I think that once they do the Catholic faithful, and indeed all people, will see that he will act quickly.
When you see Pope Francis with little children, you can see he has a bond and a connection with them.
What about the issue of accountability for bishops who fail in their duty to protect children?
We do have procedures to deal with bishops who are negligent in supervision. It is a crime.
If it’s a bishop the case goes to the Holy Father and he works with Vatican congregations which have responsibility for bishops, such as the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, and the Congregation for Bishops. If the case goes to the Prefect of one of those congregations, they can do the investigation and then bring it to the Holy Father.
We need to move forward on this. The law itself is there, the process itself needs to be developed. It is clear that it is a crime, but how we deal with this crime needs to be developed.
The Vatican has been before the United Nations (UN) recently answering questions about clerical sexual abuse. Do you think the UN was fair to the Church?
I think our co-operation with the UN is very important. The discussion can be very fruitful.
Unfortunately, in terms of the protection of children, some technical questions at the hearings may have obscured remarkable things that the Church is doing. The committee spent much time questioning whether the Vatican City state has jurisdiction* over the entire Church. Nonetheless, some of the criticisms they made truly concerned our failures in the past. And these were deserved. But, when the focus is on what the Church is doing now, I would suggest that more attention could have been placed on how the guidelines are protecting children today.
*Editor’s Note: Diplomatically, the Holy See acts and speaks for the whole Church. It is a sovereign entity, headed by the Pope. The Holy See is not the same entity as Vatican City, which came into existence only in 1929 because of the Lateran Treaty.