Quantcast
Connect with us

Pope ends a secrecy rule for Catholic sexual abuse cases, but for victims many barriers to justice remain

Published

on

Pope Francis recently removed one of the barriers facing sex abuse victims looking for justice – the “Rule of Pontifical Secrecy.”

The rule is an obligation under the church’s laws to keep sensitive information regarding the Catholic Church’s governance strictly confidential. This rule allowed church officials to withhold information in sexual abuse cases, even where there was an alleged cover-up or a failure to report allegations. The clergy could claim secrecy even from victims or legal authorities.

ADVERTISEMENT

Pope Francis stated on Dec. 17, 2019, in a press release “On the Topic of Confidentiality in Legal Proceedings,” that his intention in ending papal secrecy was to increase transparency in child abuse cases.

As a legal scholar, I have extensively analyzed the use of evidence rules that shield confidential communications with clergy. I argue that even with the removal of the papal secrecy rule, transparency might remain illusive for abuse victims.

The Catholic Church has other practices it can rely on to conceal information.

Papal secrecy rule

The Rule of Pontifical Secrecy is part of the church’s canon laws – ordinances that regulate the church and its members. It traces its roots to the twelfth century, when the church set up the institution of Inquisition for punishing heresy. This quest was rooted in secrecy and led to the torture and execution of thousands of people throughout Europe and the Americas.

The rule is the church’s highest level of secrecy. Historically, it applied primarily to issues of church governance. This includes drafts of canon law, papal conclaves and also internal church investigations of misconduct by clergy.

ADVERTISEMENT

The rule is intended, in part, to protect the names of accusers and the accused in church-related disputes until there had been some clear finding of wrongdoing. The penalty for disclosing information can include excommunication.

Rule hindered justice

In application, though, the rule of secrecy has hindered efforts by child abuse victims to seek justice against the church.

It became a way for church officials to avoid reporting allegations of abuse to law officials. Officials also relied on the rule to refuse to cooperate with legal authorities investigating allegations of wrongdoing.

ADVERTISEMENT

Critics also feared the rule hindered victims from coming forward. For those who did come forward, the rule made it more difficult to obtain information pertinent to any subsequent litigation.

When the pope issued the instruction to remove the rule from the canon law in December, his decision lifted only the veil of pontifical secrecy from three categories of cases: sexual abuse of minors or vulnerable persons; failure to report or efforts to cover up such abuse; and possession of pornography by a cleric.

ADVERTISEMENT

All other matters previously covered by this rule, such as diplomatic correspondences and personal issues, remain subject to papal secrecy.

Other confidential communication

However, Catholic sexual abuse victims face other barriers to seeking justice.

Victims often seek information regarding what church officials knew about particular instances of abuse, including whether other victims made similar accusations against a particular cleric or details of any internal church investigation. Lifting the rule of pontifical secrecy does not clarify church official’s obligations to comply with such requests.

ADVERTISEMENT

Further, as my research shows, the pontifical secret is only one avenue for shielding information about wrongdoing in the church.

The seal of confession prevents priests from sharing information received during confession at risk of excommunication. This has included information that victims of abuse have sought to build their cases.

The privilege has also been asserted as a workaround to mandatory reporting obligations for clergy.

Additionally, every state in the United States recognizes clergy privilege – a legal rule that shields clergy from forced disclosure of confidential spiritual communication. This protection applies not only to confessions but also to conversations in which clergy provide solace, comfort or aid.

ADVERTISEMENT

In practice, clergy privilege means priests can refuse to testify, at any stage of litigation, regarding protected conversations. Yet in these conversations, abusers may well admit to harming children.

Inconsistent privilege assertions

Religious institutions have been inconsistent in their assertion of the clergy privilege.

In some instances, clerics willingly forgo the privilege. For example, in the 2014 Tennessee state case, State v. Cartmell, a chaplain testified about a conversation in which the defendant disclosed details about a murder. The defendant asserted the communication was privileged, but the chaplain maintained he could testify.

The chaplain acknowledged he was with the defendant in his religious capacity but framed the conversations not as being spiritual. He claimed it was a means to assist the defendant “make peace” with what happened.

ADVERTISEMENT

In other cases, clergy have asserted the privilege to shield confidential communications in alleged child abuse cases. In Commonwealth v. Cane, a 1983 decision from the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, a Roman Catholic priest withheld evidence in a murder and child abuse case. The defendant waived any privilege over his conversation with the priest. Nonetheless, the priest refused to testify.

Despite the pope’s efforts, the transparency the Catholic Church seeks will take far more chipping away at the remaining obstacles to justice.

[ Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter. ]The Conversation

Christine P. Bartholomew, Associate Professor of Law, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

GOP officials admit 2020 platform is basically whatever’s on Trump’s Twitter account

Published

on

President Donald Trump has shaped the Republican Party into his own image in less than four years on the job, and that doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon.

Nearly half of the House Republicans on the job when Trump took office in 2017 have either retired, resigned, been defeated or are retiring in 2020, and many of the GOP newcomers are devoted Trump loyalists, reported Politico.

“Whether the president wins or loses, his policy views and style have firmly taken over the Republican Party — nationalism and white grievance, those kinds of things,” said Matt Moore, former chairman of South Carolina's GOP. “I don’t think that Trumpy politics will be leaving the stage anytime soon.”

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Coronavirus data disappears from CDC dashboard after Trump hijacks info

Published

on

The Trump administration on Tuesday forced all hospitals and states to make a significant and immediate change in how they report coronavirus patient data, hijacking the information to be funneled into the Dept. of Health and Human Services.

Experts warned the move could allow the administration to politicize the data, hide it, be less transparent, all of which interferes in the real-time usage of information to fight the coronavirus pandemic.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Driver hits 63-year-old man with his car after he asked him to wear a mask in a store: police

Published

on

A Rhode Island driver is being accused of hitting a 63-year-old man with his car after the man had confronted him about not wearing a face mask into a local convenience store.

Local news station WJAR 10 reports that 63-year-old William Beauchene got into an argument this week with a 30-year-old man named Ralph Buontempo, who had gone into the convenience store in the town of Lincoln, Rhode Island without wearing a mask.

Witnesses told police that the two men began yelling obscenities at one another, and that at one point Buontempo slapped a cup of coffee out of Beauchene's hand, which then splashed all over the store manager who had come outside to try to deescalate the confrontation.

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image