The Ratzinger Letter 18 May 2001 (Main Forum)

by James, Australia, Friday, February 19, 2010, 13:23 (1217 days ago)
edited by James, Friday, February 19, 2010, 14:14

I'm sorry to put this into a new thread, but it is a document of critical important which some people have asked to see and I had some difficulty tracking it down from a previous post when it was put in a tangent on another subject.

The Ratzinger letter 18 May 2001 regarding child abuse and clergy can be found in its original Latin form at the Vatican website:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/
rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010518_epistula_graviora%20delicta_lt.html

I managed to pick up a translation in earlier post from http://www.opusbonosacerdotii.org/ad_exsequendam_ecclesiasticam_legem.htm

But for some reason that page is no longer available. I also managed to find reference to a copy copied from some American diocesan pages, but they too seem to have disappeared. I’m not suggesting anything sinister in that, simply that this is what I could no loger find it here.Nevertheless with my limited knowledge of Latin, it seems to be a reasonably accurate translation.

There have been a number of defenses of Benedict XVI, raised on Catholic websites, claiming that this letter was only dealing with the Church’s internal disciplinary processes. And the provision of secrecy applying to them only applied to those processes. It did not constitute a direction from Ratzinger that sexual crimes from minors by clergy should be kept from the police. It is true that the letter does not say explicitly, "don't go to the police".

I have not heard the Pope himself, the writer of the letter give the explanation that it was only meant to apply to the internal tribunals of the Church, and was never meant to be a direction not to go to the police. Nor have I read anything where his spokesman has said that. But I could be wrong, and would appreciate someone correcting me.

However, when you read the letter and the three separate headings referred to below, you can understand why members of the hierarchy, Ireland included, would come to the quite reasonable conclusion that the obligation of “pontifical secrecy” applied not only to the Church’s internal disciplinary processes, but to any allegation that was made to the Church by a member of the faithful.

The letter deals with three types of “delicts”, and the original Latin letter provides headings for these. I have put them in bold in the English translation.

The first deals with “delicts” against the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the second with the Sacrament of Penance and the third with:

“the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.”

None of the activities mentioned in the first two headings could be regarded as offences of the criminal law of any country, and so the requirement of "pontifical secrecy" is neither here nor there.

This third category is a serious criminal offence in practically every country, requiring reporting according to most systems of criminal law. Yet no exception to the requirement of "pontifical secrecy"is provided.

This is the English translation. You will have to put up with some Vaticanese (and I thought civil lawyers were bad enough)

Ad exsequendam ecclesiasticam legem
In order to fulfill the ecclesiastical law, which states in Article 52 of the apostolic constitution on the Roman Curia, "[The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] examines delicts against faith and more grave delicts both against morals and committed in the celebration of the sacraments which have been reported to it and, if necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law,"(1) it was necessary first to define the method of proceeding in delicts against the faith: This was accomplished through the norms titled Agendi Ratio in Doctrinarum Examine, ratified and confirmed by the supreme pontiff, Pope John Paul II, together with Articles 28-29 approved in forma specifica.(2)
At approximately the same time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, through an ad hoc commission established, devoted itself to a diligent study of the canons on delicts both of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in order to determine "more grave delicts both against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments" and in order to make special procedural norms "to declare or impose canonical sanctions," because the instruction Crimen Sollicitationis, issued by the supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962,(3) in force until now, was to be reviewed when the new canonical codes were promulgated.
Having carefully considered opinions and having made the appropriate consultations, the work of the commission finally was completed. The fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith examined the commission's work carefully and submitted to the supreme pontiff conclusions on the determination of more grave delicts and the manner of proceeding to declare or impose sanctions, with the exclusive competence in this of the apostolic tribunal of this congregation remaining firm. All these things, approved by the supreme pontiff himself, were confirmed and promulgated by the apostolic letter given motu proprio beginning with the words Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.
The more grave delicts both in the celebration of the sacraments and against morals reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:
-Delicts against the sanctity of the most august eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments, namely:(my emphasis)
1. Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or throwing them away.(4)
2. Attempting the liturgical action of the eucharistic sacrifice or simulating the same.(5)
3. Forbidden concelebration of the eucharistic sacrifice with ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.(6)
4. Consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose one matter without the other in the eucharistic celebration or even both outside a eucharistic celebration.(7)
-Delicts against the sanctity of the sacrament of penance, namely: (my emphasis)
1. Absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue.(8)
2. Solicitation in the act, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, to sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, if it is directed to sin with the confessor himself.(9)
3. Direct violation of the sacramental seal.(10)
-A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.
Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal. The right of appealing against a sentence of the first instance, whether on the part of the party or the party's legal representative, or on the part of the promoter of justice, solely remains valid only to the supreme tribunal of this congregation.
It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription of 10 years.(11) The prescription runs according to the universal and common law;(12) however, in the delict perpetrated with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age.
In tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. When the trial in the tribunal is finished in any fashion, all the acts of the case are to be transmitted ex officio as soon as possible to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely.
Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret. (my emphasis)
Through this letter, sent by mandate of the supreme pontiff to all the bishops of the Catholic Church, to superiors general of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, and to other interested ordinaries and hierarchs, it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful even through necessary sanctions.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, SDB
Secretary

It would follow from this that not only are the allegations of victims, but also the admissions by priests of having sexually abused children were subject to “the pontifical secret”.

It seems fairly clear from what Fr. Sean McDonagh said in his letter to the Irish Times that this was understod by the clergy that it precluded those to whom such allegations were reported from going to the police with the evidence. That is an understandable inference from the letter.

Now in fairness to the Pope, one could say that this was all just a misunderstanding, but it is very difficult for him to say that.

Firstly it seems to have been the very widespread, if not universal practice not to bring these matters to the attention of the police. Even in Australia, one bishop refused to hand over his files to the police on particular allegations of sex abuse and only did so once a search warrant was issued against him. He resigned soon afterwards. I should add that this happened before the May 2001 letter, not subsequently.

Second, since all such matters had to be reported to Ratzinger since 2001, where are the letters back from Ratzinger to the respective bishops ordering them to give the information to the police?

I stand to be corrected again, but has anyone seen any evidence of such directions from the Vatican?

The Irish Bishops statement that there was no responsibility in the Holy See just looks like an attempt to cover up the cover up.