Cardinal Brady's role - How does the role of 'note-taker' work, legally? (Main Forum)

by James, Australia, Wednesday, May 02, 2012, 22:58 (388 days ago) @ desi

Monsignor Scicluna, once before, tried to get around the plain words of Crimen Sollicitacionis by saying that it had been misunderstood because of a "bad English translation", and that people thought that it stopped reporting clergy crimes to the police. Well, the translation was, and still is, the one on the Vatican website. And it is pretty clear. "Pontifical secrecy" had no exceptions, other than other people involved in the investigation. And it applied to people who simply found out about the evidence.

http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=95789

Now, Monsignor Scicluna says, referring to the then Fr. Brady,

"His duty, and I think that what I would expect of a notary or an interviewer's duty, is to pass the information to the people who are in authority," Monsignor Scicluna said.

Yes, that part is true, because Clause 22 of Crimen Sollicitationis says,

22. Whenever it happens that a confessor or another churchman is deputed to receive some denunciation, together with instructions about the proceedings to be carried out in judicial form, he is to be expressly admonished that he is thereafter to forward everything immediately to the Ordinary or to the person who deputed him, keeping no copy or record of it himself.

Then, Scicluna says:

"The people who are in authority would have the duty not only to put the people away from danger and so, if they are minors, to inform their parents, but also to make sure that the priest who is offending doesn't offend and that he is put under supervision. Father Brady referred all this information to the people who had authority and a duty to act."

Once again, Monsignor Scicluna avoids the plain words of Clause 11 of Crimen Sollicitatonis. The bishop to whom Fr. Brady sent the report could not tell the parents because to do so would involve him in "automatic excommunication."

Clause 11 says,

"...all those persons in any way associated with the tribunal, or knowledgeable of these matters by reason of their office, are bound to observe inviolably the strictest confidentiality, commonly known as the secret of the Holy Office, in all things and with all persons, under pain of incurring automatic excommunication, ipso facto and undeclared, reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, excluding even the Sacred Penitentiary. Ordinaries are bound by this same law , that is, in virtue of their own office; other personnel are bound in virtue of the oath which they are always to swear before assuming their duties; and, finally, those delegated, questioned or informed [outside the tribunal], are bound in virtue of the precept to be imposed on them in the letters of delegation, inquiry or information, with express mention of the secret of the Holy Office and of the aforementioned censure."

The "strictest confidentiality" is to be "in all things and with all persons". There is no exception for parents. It is not then surprising that the parents were not told in this case. This was not the inaction of some negligent bishop. It was the inaction of a bishop in following Canon Law to the letter.

Monsinor Scicluna then says, again, referring to Brady.

"He was doing his duty to investigate something that had come to the knowledge of the church and I think he fulfilled his duty well," he said.

And here, Scicluna is absolutely right. Fr. Brady administered the oath of secrecy, as required by Clause 13 of Crimen Sollicitationis, and then sent his information on to his superiors, and presumably destroyed his own copy, in accordance with Clause 22.

Yes, Brady performed his duties precisely as required by Canon Law. The parents were not told, either by him or the bishop, and nor were the police notified, despite the fact that both of them were committing the crime of misprision of felony under Irish law.

But that, for them, was part of the cross of being a priest, and bound by Canon Law. Because the Code of Canon Law Clause 22 provided

Can. 22 Civil laws to which the law of the Church yields are to be observed in canon law with the same effects, insofar as they are not contrary to divine law and unless canon law provides otherwise.

And in this case, Canon Law did provide otherwise, because the "strictest confidentiality" had to be observed "with all persons", and that included not only the parents of the minor, but the police too.

Yes, Fr. Brady did do the right thing by the Church. He followed Canon Law to the letter. So did his bishop.